The NAKED condom case returned to the TTAB after a CAFC reversal [TTABlogged here] and the Supreme Court's denial of the registrant's petition for writ of certiorari (September 2021).
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has refused to cancel a Florida company's registered trademark on the word "naked" for condoms, unmoved by arguments by an Australian rival that the mark would likely be confused with its own Naked condom brand.
The Federal Circuit’s finding that an Australian contraceptive wholesaler can challenge a rival’s US registration stands after the US Supreme Court declined a request for a review. Julia Anne Matheson of Potomac Law unpacks the decision.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
In a case markedly similar to the
#MAGICNUMBER108 case of two years ago [which Cub fans may
remember], the Board sustained the University of Kentucky s
opposition to registration of the proposed
mark
40-0 for t-shirts, finding that the
term is a widely used, common expression that fails to function as
a trademark. The University did not go undefeated, however. The
Board dismissed UK s fraud claim and granted the
applicant s motion to amend its use-based application to delete
certain goods for which the mark had not been used.
In
Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, the Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for rehearing
en banc of a panel decision finding that a petitioner who contracted away its rights to unregistered marks still had standing to seek cancellation of those marks because it had a “real interest” in cancellation and a “reasonable belief of damage.” Judge Wallach dissented from the denial, expressing disagreement with the majority’s broadening of the “zone of interests” available to a party petitioning for cancellation. He also warned of the potential confusion the denial of rehearing will cause and questioned the majority’s apparent silent expansion of Supreme Court precedent on the conferral of standing.