WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Just some deductive reasoning as I'm not a bared attorney but I've been following this trademark issue in the larger NATO trademark tread on the affordables forum.

According to the website, the trademark was abandoned about 3 weeks (since May 21, 2015). However, it was noticed by other WUS members that other strap companies have begun citing International Watchman's trademark on their website.
https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/inte...nato-under-threat-938934-18.html#post16771370
Had his trademark been abandoned three weeks ago, then why would a website change its page to cite his trademark after the date of abandonment.

It also seems like there are a few WUS members who also happen to be lawyers following the case on the other thread. They've been able to uncover many filings related t this case, and none of them have mentioned the trademark being abandoned.

I hope it's true but I have a feeling this isn't the end of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,344 Posts
That's correct, DeBeer filed for cancellation back in October 2013 (as noted early in this thread: https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/inte...emark-case-term-nato-under-threat-938934.html, though I don't think DeBeer was specifically discussed). The grounds were genericness and dilution: USPTO TSDR Case Viewer

It appears that the case was stayed (i.e. put on hold) while the ongoing civil litigation was pending, but then the parties failed to come back to the USPTO after a year to give an update despite being ordered to do so (USPTO TSDR Case Viewer). When parties fail to respond, a default judgment can be entered (i.e. you lose for failing to show up at all). The basis of the order entering cancellation appears to be simply failure to respond as ordered: USPTO TSDR Case Viewer

Though the cancellation has been entered, I question whether it will hold. As you can see from a consent motion filed on May 20, 2015 (USPTO TSDR Case Viewer), it appears that DeBeer has already settled with IWI and, according to that pleading, "attested to the validity of the trademarks at issue in said Stipulated Final Order." DeBeer apparently agreed to withdraw the cancellation proceedings but failed to do so before default was entered. As such, IWI moved to have the default judgment reversed and the case closed. Oddly, the next day the case was terminated but the cancellation was still ordered. I would expect some effort by IWI to reverse that cancellation and, if DeBeer really has settled on the terms described, I would suspect IWI has a reasonable chance of success, though I'm not a patent lawyer.

I don't have access at home to the court docket for the civil litigation ongoing in Ohio, but it's possible IWI might seek a remedy for reversing the cancellation in the district court itself. Again, though, not being a patent lawyer I'm not sure if that is a viable option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,344 Posts
Quick update on the above. As expected, it appears the cancellation of the trademarks was a procedural error by USPTO. That has been confirmed by the latest filing (USPTO TSDR Case Viewer) in which USPTO states:

On May 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a stipulation to set aside default judgment and to dismiss the cancellation proceeding, which has now come to the Board’s attention. The Board finds good cause to set aside default judgment for the reasons provided in Petitioner’s stipulation. Accordingly, the motion to set aside judgment is granted, judgment by default is set aside, and Registration Nos. 3907646 and 4093914 will be forwarded to the Commissioner for Trademarks for reinstatement.
As such, you can expect IWI's trademarks to be active again in the near future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
That's correct, DeBeer filed for cancellation back in October 2013 (as noted early in this thread: https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/inte...emark-case-term-nato-under-threat-938934.html, though I don't think DeBeer was specifically discussed). The grounds were genericness and dilution: USPTO TSDR Case Viewer

It appears that the case was stayed (i.e. put on hold) while the ongoing civil litigation was pending, but then the parties failed to come back to the USPTO after a year to give an update despite being ordered to do so (USPTO TSDR Case Viewer). When parties fail to respond, a default judgment can be entered (i.e. you lose for failing to show up at all). The basis of the order entering cancellation appears to be simply failure to respond as ordered: USPTO TSDR Case Viewer

Though the cancellation has been entered, I question whether it will hold. As you can see from a consent motion filed on May 20, 2015 (USPTO TSDR Case Viewer), it appears that DeBeer has already settled with IWI and, according to that pleading, "attested to the validity of the trademarks at issue in said Stipulated Final Order." DeBeer apparently agreed to withdraw the cancellation proceedings but failed to do so before default was entered. As such, IWI moved to have the default judgment reversed and the case closed. Oddly, the next day the case was terminated but the cancellation was still ordered. I would expect some effort by IWI to reverse that cancellation and, if DeBeer really has settled on the terms described, I would suspect IWI has a reasonable chance of success, though I'm not a patent lawyer.

I don't have access at home to the court docket for the civil litigation ongoing in Ohio, but it's possible IWI might seek a remedy for reversing the cancellation in the district court itself. Again, though, not being a patent lawyer I'm not sure if that is a viable option.
wait, what? is that saying what i think it's saying? accepting a settlement is evidence for the trademark's validity?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,344 Posts
Yes, the company that originally brought the cancellation action (deBeer), settled the lawsuit brought against it by IWI, and in that settlement, admitted the validity of IWI's trademarks. As such, they couldn't proceed on their cancellation action and the trademarks will be reinstated.

It's not so much the settlement itself that is evidence of validity, but the specific admissions deBeer agreed to make.

EDIT: I've attached the deBeer stipulation. You can see the admissions in paragraph 2 and its subparts.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,016 Posts
Yes, the company that originally brought the cancellation action (deBeer), settled the lawsuit brought against it by IWI, and in that settlement, admitted the validity of IWI's trademarks. As such, they couldn't proceed on their cancellation action and the trademarks will be reinstated.

It's not so much the settlement itself that is evidence of validity, but the specific admissions deBeer agreed to make.

EDIT: I've attached the deBeer stipulation. You can see the admissions in paragraph 2 and its subparts.
I hadn't heard about this issue before but thanks for taking the time time to clarify things for everyone. |>
 
  • Like
Reactions: uvalaw2005
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top