MENU Close
Close
  • Home
  • Services
  • Attorneys
  • Resources
  • News & Events
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Join our Team
Search
Back
    Quick Links:
    Join Webinar
    Read News
    Our Location
    A
    Alternative Dispute ResolutionAntitrust & Trade RegulationAppellate Practice
    B
    Banking & Financial ServicesBankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights, and Financial RestructuringBeer LawBusiness Law
    C
    Cannabis LawConstruction LawCriminal Defense
    E
    Economic Development LawElder Care & Special Needs LawElectronic Discovery ("E-Discovery")Environmental LawEstate Planning and Administration & Wealth PreservationExecutive Compensation, Employment, ERISA, and Employee Benefits
    F
    Food, Beverage & HospitalityFranchise Law
    H
    Health Care & Life SciencesHealth Care ProvidersHigher EducationHospitals and Health Networks
    I
    ImmigrationInsurance CoverageIntellectual PropertyIntellectual Property Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute ResolutionIntellectual Property Portfolio Strategy, Management & LicensingInternational BusinessInternet Law
    L
    Labor & EmploymentLiquor Law, Licensing, Manufacturing, and DistributionLitigation
    M
    Media LawMergers & AcquisitionsMunicipal Law
    N
    Non-Profit Law
    P
    Patent Preparation and ProsecutionPharmaceutical / Medical Devices / Pharma ServicesProducts and Consumer Liability DefenseProfessional LiabilityPublic Utilities
    R
    Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use
    S
    SecuritiesSolar Energy
    T
    TaxationTelecommunicationsTrademark & Copyright Protection & Enforcement
    V
    Venture Tech & Emerging Growth Companies
    W
    White Collar Investigations & DefenseWorkers’ Compensation
    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • Pennsylvania
    • Blogs
    • Articles
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Resources
    • News
    • Events
    • Webinars
    • About Us
    • Delivering Value
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Meritas

    New Jersey

    400 Crossing Boulevard
    8th Floor
    Bridgewater, NJ 08807
    Phone:(908) 722-0700
    Fax:(908) 722-0755

    28 Valley Road
    Suite 1
    Montclair, NJ 07042

    New York

    7 Times Square
    21st Floor
    New York City, NY 10036
    Phone:(212) 808-0700
    Fax:(212) 808-0844

    Pennsylvania

    515 West Hamilton Street
    Suite 502
    Allentown, PA 18101
    Phone:(610) 391-1800
    Fax:(610) 391-1805

    • What sets us apart
    • Attorneys
    • Other Professionals
    • Professional Development
    • Non-Discrimination Policy

    Categories

    Copyright Copyright Infringement Copyright Licensing Copyright Office Court Decisions Double Patenting>Same Invention Double Patenting>Terminal Disclaimers Drafting Patents Drafting Patents>Claims Drafting Patents>Claims>Written Description False Advertising Federal Circuit Food & Beverage General In The News Intellectual Property Labeling Lanham Act Legislation Licensing Navigating the Patent Office Navigating the Patent Office>Examiner Interviews Obviousness/Inventive Step>Prima Facie Obviousness Patent Patent Eligibility Privacy Right of Publicity Social Media Supreme Court Trade Dress Trademark Infringement Trademark Infringement|Trademark Registration|Trademarks Trademark Infringement|Trademarks Trademark Office Trademark Registration Trademark Registration|Trademarks Trademarks TTAB Uncategorized Unfair Competition
    Blogs > More Than Your Mark® > SEYIDOGLU: Even “Incontestable” Trademark Registrations...
    Member
    Danielle M. DeFilippis
    Visit Profile

    SEYIDOGLU: Even “Incontestable” Trademark Registrations Are Vulnerable to Cancellation

    SEYIDOGLU: Even “Incontestable” Trademark Registrations Are Vulnerable to Cancellation

    Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti. (“Petitioner”), a major manufacturer of food products in Turkey, filed a cancellation proceeding with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) to cancel Nema Food Distribution Inc.’s (“Respondent”) trademark SEYIDOGLU for various food products, which the TTAB granted. See Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti. v. Nema Food Distribution Inc., Cancellation No. 92070059 (July 26, 2021) [not precedential]. Although the trademark at issue had achieved incontestable status, the TTAB found that Nema Food Distribution’s SEYIDOGLU word mark falsely suggests a connection with Petitioner. However, the TTAB found that Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate Nema Food Distribution’s intent to deceive the trademark office in procuring the SEYIDOGLU registration and dismissed Petitioner’s claim for fraud.

    In this case, Petitioner previously exported its Turkish food products bearing the mark SEYIDOGLU to the U.S. through a subsidiary of Respondent Nema Food Distribution. Respondent, a distributor of Petitioner’s food products, filed an application for SEYIDOGLU at the USPTO. Petitioner eventually terminated its distribution agreement with Respondent. The distribution agreement between the parties did not give Respondent the right to register or to an ownership interest in the SEYIDOGLU mark.

    Fraud

    A party alleging fraud in the procurement of a trademark registration faces a heavy burden to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

    The TTAB found that Petitioner was clearly the owner of the mark at the time Respondent applied for the SEYIDOGLU mark and noted that “[m]erely being a distributor does not cover ownership of a mark for the goods being distributed.” So, Respondent’s statement in the application that it was the owner of the mark was material and false. However, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent intended to deceive the USPTO when it filed the SEYIDOGLU application. Consequently, Petitioner’s claim for fraud failed.

    Section 2(a) False Suggestion of Connection

    The TTAB found that the term SEYIDOGLU, in the context of Respondent’s food items, unmistakably and uniquely points to Petitioner (who is no longer related to Respondent). SEYIDOGLU is a close approximation of Petitioner’s name and identity, and Petitioner’s products are well known within the Turkish-American community. Respondent did not dispute Petitioner’s fame or reputation.

    Therefore, the TTAB determined that SEYIDOGLU is unmistakably associated with and falsely suggests a connection with Petitioner sufficient to prove its Section 2(a) claim for cancellation of Respondent’s SEYIDOGLU registration.

    Incontestable Trademark Registrations Are Not Bulletproof

    The most valuable aspect of an incontestable trademark registration is that it can no longer be challenged on the two most common grounds to invalidate trademark rights: likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) and descriptiveness under Section 2(e). However, the term “incontestable” is somewhat a misnomer because registrations that achieve incontestable status are by no means bulletproof and may still be challenged.

    The grounds for which an incontestable registration may be challenged are set forth in Section 14 and include:

    • The mark has become generic
    • The mark is functional
    • The mark has been abandoned
    • The registration was obtained fraudulently
    • The mark violates the provisions of Section 2(a)

    Here, Petitioner was able to invalidate Respondent’s rights in the SEYIDOGLU incontestable registration on the basis that there existed a false suggestion of a connection among Respondent and Petitioner.

    For further guidance on coverage for your trademark or copyright disputes, or any other intellectual property matter, please don’t hesitate to contact us at ddefilippis@norris-law.com or bschwartz@norris-law.com.

     

    Our guest author, Ben Schwartz, is an attorney admitted in New York, California, and the USPTO, focusing his practice on advising brands and businesses on their intellectual property strategy. He advises clients in trademark prosecution, maintenance, enforcement, and protection. Ben also represents clients in litigation and transactional matters relating to trademarks, trade secrets, patents, and copyrights.

    Member
    Danielle M. DeFilippis
    Visit Profile

    Related Posts

    Lawsuit claims TEXAS PETE is deceptive Future of Fitness Apps in Question as Adidas files lawsuit against Nike Fair Use or Foul Play?

    Share

    Tags

    #incontestable #invalidity #litigation

    Similar Posts

    April 21, 2023
    Chipotle’s Trademark Challenge Leads to Sweetgreen Renaming New Menu Item
    Chipotle’s Trademark Challenge Leads to Sweetgreen Renaming New Menu Item
    March 10, 2023
    US Patent and Trademark Office Suspends Action on Trademarks Critical of Public Figures
    US Patent and Trademark Office Suspends Action on Trademarks Critical of Public Figures
    February 24, 2023
    Hermés Wins on Metabirkins Cryptobags
    Hermés Wins on Metabirkins Cryptobags

    Helpful links

    • About Us
    • News
    • Services
    • Blogs
    • Attorneys
    • Articles
    • (COVID-19)
    • Events
    • Join our Team
    Connect

    Connect with Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    • Youtube

    Join our growing team

    We are looking for quality attorneys to help us do more for our clients. At Norris McLaughlin, each attorney has the same opportunity to succeed whether you’re at the beginning of a career or pinnacle of the profession.

    Learn More

    Subscribe to our content

    Receive timely legal information delivered to your inbox

    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    © , Norris McLaughlin, P.A., All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
    VIEW OUR DISCLAIMER,  TERMS OF USE,  AND PRIVACY POLICY

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more