US trade marks: Threats of TTAB Cancellations
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: Threats of TTAB Cancellations

In Teksystems v Teksavvy Solutions, the US District Court for the District of Maryland addressed the issue of whether a party's threat to initiate a cancellation action against a trade mark registration before the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) was sufficient to create a case or controversy which provides a basis upon which a party may seek a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of a mark.

Defendant, Teksavvy, had filed a trade mark application for the mark TEKSAVVY which was refused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office based on a likelihood of confusion with a US trade mark registration for the TEKSAVVY mark owned by plaintiff, Teksystems. Following the issuance of the refusal, Teksavvy's attorney sent Teksystems a letter which sought a consent to registration from Teksystems, noting that Teksavvy had superior rights in the TEKSAVVY mark based on its prior use of the mark which would provide a basis to seek cancellation of Teksavvy's registration if the parties could not reach an amicable resolution. Teksystems responded by filing a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment of the validity of its mark and asserting a claim for trade mark infringement under the Lanham Act. Teksavvy, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss the claims, asserting that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the declaratory judgment claim because no case or controversy existed.

Under US law, a party who has been threatened with a trade mark infringement claim has the basis upon which to initiate a declaratory judgment action to determine its rights rather than wait for the threatening party to take action. As the court in Teksystems noted, in order to bring a declaratory judgment action, a plaintiff must satisfy the case or controversy requirement which requires that it establish the existence of a dispute that is "definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests; and that is real and substantial." In its motion to dismiss, Teksavvy argued that no controversy existed because it never threatened litigation but, rather, threatened only to file a cancellation action with the TTAB.

Citing prior precedent, the court held that the threat of a cancellation action, alone, was not sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction or a standalone cause of action. The court distinguished this case from cases where a plaintiff sought declaratory action based on a fear of an impending infringement suit, indicating that since the plaintiff owned the trade mark registration, it was "not decidedly faced with the position of either pursuing arguably infringing behaviour or abandoning it use of the mark." As such, the court found that there was no "conclusive evidence of the existence of a live infringement suit" and granted Teksavvy's motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim. The court did, however, indicate that Teksystems could bring an infringement action against Teksavvy if it so desired and denied the motion to dismiss that claim.

This case is instructional as it provides guidance to parties involved in a trade mark dispute as to which threats may serve as the basis for filing a declaratory judgment action (and which threats may not provide such a basis).



Karen Artz Ash

Bret J Danow

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 

575 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10022-2585

United States

Tel: +1 212 940 8554

Fax: +1 212 940 8671

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

CMS, which was told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later, has rowed back on claims about an IT error
The deal could help Rouse gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand for the first time
With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
Gift this article