• Are These Registrations Valid? The Answer

    by  • December 19, 2018 • trademark • 0 Comments

    In my last post I posed questions about the validity of two registrations. If you guessed that both registrations were valid, you were right.

    The first application was filed and assigned at a time when the entity had been administratively dissolved. DC Bocce claimed that the non-profit still had the capacity to sue and be sued after it was dissolved, and therefore had the capacity to register. The petitioner claimed that an administratively dissolved entity may only wind up its affairs. The Board concluded:

    Petitioner has the burden of proof, and has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the nonprofit was not the proper applicant and owner of the application. As to the assignment of this application, Respondent has presented a reasonable timeline by which Respondent LLC was formed on April 8, 2010; the nonprofit assigned all of its assets, including this application to Respondent on May 11, 2010; and the nonprofit filed its articles of dissolution on November 4, 2010, while Respondent continued forward with operations using the mark in the 136 Registration.

    As for the second registration, filed by “DC League Bocce” when the actual entity at the time was Major League Bocce:

    Here too [as in Great Seats, Ltd., v. Great Seats, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1235, 1240 (TTAB 2007)], there was only one entity in existence at the time of the filing of the application that matured into the 456 Registration. That entity is Respondent, Major League Bocce, LLC. There is no dispute that DC Bocce League, nonprofit, was no longer in existence as of the filing date in 2012. Respondent’s witness, Ms. DeLucas, testified that as part of the process of its dissolution the nonprofit “transferred all of its assets” to Respondent. She also testified that the application that matured into the 456 Registration was filed “on [Respondent’s] behalf.” ¶ We find that while the name and entity were listed incorrectly, Respondent is the correct owner of the 456 Registration. Respondent’s motion to amend is granted.

    The fraud-based claim based on improper ownership also therefore failed.

    United Social Sports, Inc. v. Major League Bocce LLC, Cancellation No. 92060936 (TTAB Nov. 6, 2018).

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Share Button

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.