Trademark

Intent-to-Use: Making sure its bona fide and that you can prove it

The recent SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS, LLC, 97 USPQ2d 1300 (TTAB 2010), case reminds us that applicants who file trademark applications based on a bona fide intent to use a mark in commerce need to have supporting documentation and/or objective evidence in the form of real life facts and actions to demonstrate that they possessed the requisite bona fide intention to use the mark at the time the application was filed.  Without such evidence, a third party may ultimately be able to prevent the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) from registering the applied for mark.

While the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 introduced a system that allows for trademark applications to be filed in the United States prior to the time that a mark is actually in use by the applicant, provided that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the applied for trademark in commerce with the associated goods and/or services, it did not provide a definition that specifies the types of actions or activities that are sufficient to demonstrate the existence of this good faith bona fide intention.  As such, applicants and legal practitioners are reliant upon case law to clarify what type of evidence would, or, more often, would not be sufficient to prove that an applicant had the requisite bona fide intent at the time the application was filed.

In the SmithKline case, not only did the Applicant fail to produce documents relating to the selection of the mark, but it also failed to provide any evidence regarding manufacturing efforts, licensing efforts, test marketing, preparation of marketing plans or business plans and/or other actions to develop the product to be marketed under the applied for mark.  While the principal of the applicant entity did own patents for the goods described in the application and while there were minutes from annual meetings that mentioned development and research of products and/or protection of trademarks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) did not find such evidence sufficient.  With respect to the patents, the TTAB stated that the patents indicate only that the named inventors sought to protect the device described by the patents, not that the applicant possessed a bona fide intent to use the applied for mark on the specified goods.  As for the content of the minutes, those were seen as vague and speculative since they did not specifically mention the type of goods being developed or the exact mark.

Repeatedly, we are reminded that Applicants must have clear evidence relating to the intent to use the applied for mark in association with the goods/services identified in the application.   While the USPTO is not going to challenge or investigate the veracity of an applicant’s claimed bona fide intent to use a mark on specified goods/services on its own accord, more and more often, third parties are seeking to challenge an Applicant’s right to register a mark based on its lack of a bona fide intention at the time the application was filed.

As such, it is important for clients to not only keep records regarding the selection and development of a mark, including searches and investigations conducted prior to the time the application was filed, but also to keep records regarding knowledge of the industry and development of the particular product(s)/ services(s) associated with their trademark applications.  This is particularly true if the client/applicant is entering into an industry for the first time or expanding its current business into new, arguably unrelated, arenas.

Keep in mind, these requirements are not just for US applicants.  The TTAB has made it clear that foreign applicants also need facts that establish the existence, at the time the application was filed, of an ability and willingness to use the applied for mark to identify the goods/services in the US.  Registration and use of the mark in one or more foreign countries and filing of applications in other countries as well as the US will not be enough to show that the foreign applicant had the requisite bona fide intent to use the mark in the US.

Ellen Rubel

About Ellen Rubel

Ellen Rubel is a former United States Patent and Trademark Office attorney once honored as Trademark Examiner of the Year, Ellen Rubel brings particular experience in trademark issues to her intellectual property practice. She focuses her practice in the areas of domestic and international trademark development, maintenance, prosecution, and protection. She also regularly conducts intellectual property due diligence in the context of mergers, acquisitions, and credit facilities. In addition, Ms. Rubel assists and advises in a variety of intellectual property contentious matters and with intellectual property licensing and transactional work.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the MVA IP Law Blog!

Moore & Van Allen’s IP Law Blog covers hot topics in U.S. and international intellectual property law and provides insight into critical litigation, legislative, regulatory and policy developments. In today’s highly competitive and rapidly developing business climate, technological advancements and the protection of intellectual property rights are paramount concerns common to companies, universities, and individuals operating in nearly every industry.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Matt Witsil:  View Matt Witsil's Bio View Matt Witsil's LinkedIn profile
  • Emmett Weindruch: View Emmett Weindruch's Bio View Emmett Weindruch's LinkedIn profile
  • Todd Taylor:  View Todd Taylor's Bio View Todd Taylor's LinkedIn profile
  • John Slaughter:  View John Slaughter's Bio View John Slaughter's LinkedIn profile
  • Nick Russell:  View Nick Russell's Bio
  • Ellen Rubel:  View Ellen Rubel's Bio View Ellen Rubel's LinkedIn profile
  • Esther Queen:  View Esther Queen's Bio View Esther Queen's LinkedIn profile
  • Steve Phillips:  View Steve Phillip's Bio View Steve Phillip's LinkedIn profile
  • Chuck Moore:  View Chuck Moore's Bio View Chuck Moore's LinkedIn profile
  • Mark Wilson:  View Mark Wilson's Bio View Mark Wilson's LinkedIn profile
  • Chris Knors:  View Chris Knors' Bio View Chris Knors' LinkedIn profile
  • Jeff Gray:  View Jeff Gray's Bio View Jeff Gray's LinkedIn profile
  • Andy Gerschutz:  View Andy Gerschutz's Bio View Andy Gerschutz's LinkedIn profile
  • Jim Edwards:  View Jim Edwards' Bio View Jim Edwards' LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog via Email

    Follow MVA

    Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

    Blog Topics

    Archives


    Our IP Practice

    Moore & Van Allen is located in the Research Triangle and Charlotte, North Carolina – two emerging hubs in the areas of biotech and energy. Moore & Van Allen’s intellectual property lawyers are highly-skilled and innovative in their approach to assisting clients in using patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and technology to achieve their business objectives.

    Our “business focused” team combines legal know-how with the technical proficiency and industry experience necessary to navigate our clients through matters in areas as diverse as nuclear power, navigation systems, microprocessor design, pollution control, pharmaceuticals, semi-conductor manufacturing, food processing, telecommunications, internet applications, computer software, business methods and consumer products.

    We offer a full range of patent, trademark, and copyright services, and our team is equipped with IP litigators with substantial state, federal, and international experience. To benefit and best serve our clients, we leverage our ongoing working relationships with highly qualified intellectual property practitioners and agents in virtually every country in the world. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA IP Team.

    Disclaimer

    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.


    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)