US Trade marks: Cautions on related party uses of marks
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Trade marks: Cautions on related party uses of marks

In April 2016, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision in Noble House Home Furnishings, LLC v Floorco Enterprises, LLC. This decision is a good reminder about the advisability of memorialising a grant of rights in situations where a company registers a mark in the name of one entity and then exploits the mark through a related entity.

In Noble House, Noble House Home Furnishings, LLC had filed a petition to cancel Floorco Enterprises LLC's trade mark registration for the mark Noble House on the grounds of abandonment (among other things). Under US trade mark law, non-use of a mark for three consecutive years constitutes a prima facie showing of abandonment and Noble House Home alleged that Floorco had abandoned the mark because Floorco's parent entity, Furnco International Corporation was the party actually using the Noble House mark (rather than Floorco).

In its defence, Floorco pointed to Section 5 of the Trademark Act which provides "that a mark may be used legitimately by related companies, and, if such companies are controlled as to the nature and quality of the goods on which the mark is used by the related companies, such use inures to the benefit of the applicant-owner". The term "related company" is defined as any person whose use of a mark is controlled by the owner of the mark with respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services on or in connection with the mark is used. Accordingly, Floorco argued that because Furnco exercised control over the nature and quality of the goods and services sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Floorco, the use by Furnco inured to the benefit of Floorco such that the mark could not be deemed to be abandoned.

The TTAB, however, held that because Furnco controls Floorco, rather than the other way around, Furnco does not meet the definition of a "related party" (absent other criteria) and the use of the Noble House mark by Furnco does not inure to the benefit of Floorco. This finding resulted in a decision that the mark had not been used by Floorco for three consecutive years and was, therefore, abandoned.

The TTAB confirmed that "in most situations, the inherent nature of the parent's overall control over the affairs of a subsidiary will be sufficient to presume that the parent is adequately exercising control over the nature and quality of goods and services sold by the subsidiary under a mark owned by the parent". However, in the case at hand, the opposite relationship was present since the controlling parent was not the registered owner of the trade mark.

The TTAB's decision indicates that a different outcome would have been likely had Floorco and Furnco had in place a licence agreement memorialising Floorco's grant of rights to Furnco to use the Noble House trade mark. Indeed, the TTAB stated that if there is any doubt on the issue of quality control, it "can be made clear by a proper trademark license agreement between parent and subsidiaries". Accordingly, the decision serves to underscore the importance of documenting licensing arrangements, even between parties under common control.

ash.jpg
Danow_Bret

Karen Artz Ash

Bret J Danow


Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 575 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10022-2585United StatesTel: +1 212 940 8554Fax: +1 212 940 8671karen.ash@kattenlaw.comwww.kattenlaw.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A 36-member team from Zhong Lun Law Firm, including six partners, will join the newly formed East IP Group
The Delhi High Court sided with Ericsson against Indian smartphone maker Lava, bringing the companies' nine-year dispute to a close
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Gift this article