Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialtrademark

Related Cases

Rivard v. Linville, 133 F.3d 1446, 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1374

Facts

Meril Rivard, the owner of the ULTRACUTS trademark, filed for registration in the U.S. based on a Canadian counterpart. However, he did not use the mark in the U.S. before Mark Linville filed a petition for cancellation, claiming abandonment. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that Rivard's activities in the U.S. were insufficient to demonstrate an intent to use the mark, leading to the cancellation of his registration.

In June 1991, Mark Linville filed a petition requesting cancellation of Rivard's registration based on his apparent abandonment of the ULTRACUTS mark. Rivard admittedly did not offer hair dressing and beauty salon services in the United States before Linville filed the petition, but has operated many hair salons successfully in Canada since 1982.

Issue

Did Rivard abandon the ULTRACUTS trademark due to nonuse in the United States?

Rule

Under the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, a trademark can be canceled if it has been abandoned, which is defined as discontinued use with an intent not to resume. A prima facie case of abandonment is established by proving nonuse for two consecutive years, creating a rebuttable presumption of abandonment that shifts the burden to the registrant to prove intent to resume use.

Analysis

The court analyzed Rivard's evidence of intent to use the ULTRACUTS mark against the presumption of abandonment. Despite Rivard's claims of intent, the board found that his sporadic trips and investigations did not constitute sufficient evidence of a bona fide intent to use the mark in the U.S. The board concluded that Rivard's actions were not those of a reasonable businessman intending to use the mark.

Weighing Rivard's evidence against the evidence establishing abandonment, the board found that he did not have 'an intent to commence use of the ULTRACUTS mark in connection with the rendering of hair dressing and beauty salon services in the United States during the period between issuance of the registration in August 1986 and the filing of the petition for cancellation in June 1991.' 41 USPQ2d at 1739.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the cancellation of Rivard's ULTRACUTS trademark registration due to abandonment, as he failed to demonstrate an intent to commence use in the United States.

Accordingly, the decision of the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Rivard's registration is affirmed.

Who won?

Mark Linville prevailed in the cancellation of Rivard's ULTRACUTS trademark. The court found that Rivard's lack of use in the U.S. for over two years, combined with insufficient evidence of intent to use the mark, established a prima facie case of abandonment. The board's findings indicated that Rivard's activities did not meet the standard of a reasonable businessman intending to use the mark, leading to the conclusion that the trademark was properly canceled.

Linville established a prima facie case that Rivard abandoned the ULTRACUTS mark because he did not use it in connection with hair dressing and beauty salon services in the United States during the relevant time period.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Excelled Sheepskin & Leather Coat Corp. v. Oregon Brewing Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 4468083

First Bank (N.A.) St. Cloud v. Community State Bank of Princeton, 385 N.W.2d 873

Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc., 726 F.3d 1136, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 2095, 92 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 136

Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125, 67 S.Ct. 1136, 91 L.Ed. 1386, 73 U.S.P.Q. 133

Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. New Line Cinema, 200 F.3d 593, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1858, 28 Media L. Rep. 1504, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 248, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1403