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.