United States: Proving Trademark Fraud: Intent Is The Question

Last Updated: September 2 2013
Article by Scott J. Slavick

Law360, New York (August 21, 2013, 12:58 PM ET) -- Is fraud dead? Not likely. Is proving fraud before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office dead? Now that's a question.

Before 2002, proving fraud committed against the USPTO was considered incredibly difficult. From 2003 through 2009, it became all the rage - due to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ruling in Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc. In 2009, all changed again with the Federal Circuit's reversal of the decision in Bose Corp. v. Hexawave Inc.

And just this year, two further decisions point to the fineness of a distinction in proving fraud committed against the USPTO - showing that if claims of fraud are not entirely dead, they're at least on a respirator.

In Medinol, 67 USPQ2d 1205 (TTAB 2003), Neuro Vasx had registered the NEUROVASX mark for "medical devices, namely, neurological stents and catheters." Medinol petitioned to cancel that registration on the ground that at the time Neuro Vasx had obtained it, the NEUROVASX mark was not in use on stents.

Thus, contended Medinol, Neuro Vasx had knowingly made false or fraudulent statements to the USPTO in obtaining its registration. In response, Neuro Vasx requested that the reference to stents be deleted from its registration, but Medinol argued that Neuro Vasx's requested amendment after the fact of filing could not undo the fraud it had already perpetrated on the USPTO.

The TTAB agreed with Medinol that merely deleting the unused goods did not remedy the fraud that had already occurred and held that if fraud is shown as to some of the registered goods, then the entire registration is void.

The TTAB further observed that in almost all cases, a party caught making a false statement will argue that there was no intent to defraud. Therefore, to cover those situations, the board explained that: "[t]he appropriate inquiry is not into the registrant's subjective intent, but rather into the objective manifestations of that intent." Id. at 1209.

The board went on to hold that "[a] trademark applicant commits fraud in procuring a registration when it makes material representation of fact in its declaration, which it knows or should know to be false or misleading." Id.

In the case, the board suggested, Neuro Vasx had signed a sworn statement, under penalty of fine or imprisonment or both, that the trademark was in use on both stents and catheters when it was not. As a result of the fraud, the board ordered the NEUROVASX registration canceled.

Medinol and its progeny caused widespread concern among trademark owners. Many trademark registrations list numerous goods; it is possible and perhaps even likely that some of these goods will have been dropped from a product line prior to the time when the registration is granted or renewed.

For example, whether through inattentiveness or simple error, a product may not have been deleted when a filing is made to renew a subject registration. Because of that failure, the TTAB's Medinol decision meant that the registration of the mark for all products listed was in jeopardy. Somewhat predictably, a number of eager challengers took the TTAB's cue. From 2003 through early 2009, litigants brought successful cancelation actions against a myriad of trademark registrations - triumphantly arguing fraud committed against the USPTO. Not until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB's decision in Bose Corp. v. Hexawave Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 2007), could trademark owners breathe a slight sigh of relief.

In the original Bose decision, the TTAB had canceled Bose's WAVE trademark, finding that Bose had committed fraud in its 2001 renewal of its WAVE registration in failing to delete a reference to "audio tape recorders and players" from the registration, even though Bose had stopped using its WAVE mark for those goods.

In In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the CAFC disagreed, ruling that the TTAB's standard for determining whether fraud existed was too low. The CAFC explained that "by equating 'should have known' with a subjective intent," the TTAB had "erroneously lowered the fraud standard to a simple negligence standard." Id. at 1244.

The CAFC found no substantial evidence that Bose intended to deceive the USPTO in the renewal process and reversed the TTAB's decision to cancel Bose's WAVE trademark registration.

The CAFC then emphatically stated that proof of intent to deceive is required to establish fraud against the USPTO: "Thus, we hold that a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the [US]PTO." Id. at 1245.

In re Bose Corp. established that to establish fraud, the petitioner had to prove:

1. The applicant/registrant made a false representation to the USPTO;

2. The false representation is material to the registrability of the mark;

3. The applicant/registrant had knowledge of the falsity of the representation; and

4. The applicant/registrant made the representation with intent to deceive the USPTO.

With this as background, we get to the fascinating case of Nisa Santiago. On April 11, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided Melodrama Publishing LLC v. Santiago, Civil Action No. 12-Civ. 7830 (S.D.N.Y. April 11, 2013). In its decision, the court granted a book publisher's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ordering cancelation of a registration of Nisa Santiago for the mark NISA SANTIAGO for a series of novels, on the grounds that the registrant had obtained her trademark registration fraudulently.

It is hard to be confused about the CAFC's fraud standard, since the court was so deliberate in its In re Bose Corp. ruling. And if said ruling is seen correctly, it bears asking, "How did Ms. Santiago accomplish such a difficult task, namely, allowing a court post-Bose to find fraud against her?"

Santiago made it helpfully easy. First, she admitted that she never used the mark NISA SANTIAGO in commerce - a good start. Second, she admitted that she used the plaintiff's books as specimens of use to support her own NISA SANTIAGO trademark application - another good one.

Third, she argued that she used the NISA SANTIAGO mark in two ways:

(1) in her negotiations and on contracts with the plaintiff; and

(2) in some draft chapters and plot synopses that she sent to the plaintiff for consideration to be published.

Unfortunately for her, her negotiations, contracts, draft chapters and synopses were not sent to anyone but the plaintiff, and thus never reached the public.

The court then detailed how hard it is to find fraud against the USPTO, reiterating that the plaintiff must establish that the defendant made misstatements that "indicate a deliberate attempt to mislead the [USPTO]" and was with respect to a material fact "one that would have affected the [US]PTO's action on the application."

The court then went on to cite In re Bose Corp. directly in agreeing with the defendant that a claim for cancelation cannot rest on mere negligence or even gross negligence, but rather requires a deliberate intent to deceive.

Not a low bar by any means. But Santiago managed to hurdle it with flying colors. She argued that she believed in good faith that she had used the NISA SANTIAGO marks in commerce in her negotiations and on contracts with the plaintiff, and in draft chapters and plot synopses she sent to the plaintiff for consideration to be published.

The court disagreed, pointing to a fatal flaw in her argument. In her trademark application to USPTO, Santiago never referred to the negotiations, contracts and writing samples. Instead, she sought registration based on use of the mark in commerce for a series of books and articles.

In addition, the court went on to hold, "most damningly," that she submitted images of the covers of three of the plaintiff's books to the USPTO as supposed examples of her own use of the mark, without ever mentioning that she had not written the books and had no connection to them beyond her then-terminated publishing contracts with the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the district court held that Santiago had perpetrated a fraud against the USPTO. It ordered her registration canceled and the case returned to the magistrate for an inquest into damages. The court went even further to hold that because she had perpetrated fraud against the USPTO, her conduct necessitated a finding of exceptional circumstances, entitling the plaintiff to attorney's fees.

Contrast poor Santiago's fumble with the court's pass in C. & J. Clark International Ltd. v. Unity Clothing Inc. Cancelation No. 92049418 (April 24, 2013). In this case, Clark moved to cancel Unity Clothing's registration, alleging solely that the latter had committed fraud against the USPTO. It should be noted that prior to commencement of the case, Unity Clothing amended its registration to delete five clothing items from its identification of goods. After commencement of the case, and without opposition from Clark, Unity Clothing deleted a sixth. During discovery, Unity Clothing admitted that it falsely stated that it was using its mark on the deleted goods when it filed its underlying application, and that it knew at that time that it was not using its mark on those goods. Thus, the first and third elements for proving fraud from the CAFC's Bose reversal were satisfied.

Furthermore, there was no dispute that this was a material representation because the USPTO relied upon that statement in issuing the challenged registration. Consequently, the second element from Bose was also satisfied.

The question, then, was whether Unity Clothing had an intent to deceive the USPTO when it made the false statement. In response, Unity Clothing asserted that it "acted under a mistaken belief that it was proper to list related goods that were as yet unused together with related goods that were already in use."

It pointed to the fact that it deleted the "unused goods" as soon as it learned that inclusion of those goods was improper. In its own argument, plaintiff C. & J. Clark had nothing to offer other than Unity Clothing's own testimony.

The TTAB found Unity Clothing's explanation "plausible in that it mistakenly believed that it could list goods for which it was not using its mark already so long as it was making use of its mark on other goods identified in the application at the time."

The board felt that it lacked clear and convincing evidence to suggest the false statements were the result of a fraudulent intent rather than Unity' Clothing's simple misunderstanding of the requirement that all identified goods, and not just some of them, must be used in commerce at the time of filing a use-based application.

While Unity's admissions were certainly relevant, the board noted, it also felt that Unity had not admitted that its false statement entitled it to a registration that it did not otherwise deserve.

The TTAB saw "some probative value in Unity's actions in promptly amending its registration upon learning of its error." It recognized that principals of companies, and even counsel, sometimes overlook or misinterpret averments made in documents submitted to the USPTO.

"Without more, we do not find a fraudulent intent simply based on mistakes or oversights." The board dismissed the petition for cancelation.

How to reconcile these two cases? Is it simply a matter of different courts, different outcomes? It's not that easy.

Both decisions center on the registrant's intent. In Santiago's case, the court felt that she intended to deceive the USPTO because she submitted images of the covers of three of the plaintiff's books to the USPTO as supposed examples of her own use of the mark, without ever mentioning that she had not written the books and had no connection to them beyond the defendant's then-terminated publishing agreement.

That goes directly to her intent. If she had submitted the negotiations, contracts and writing samples as specimens of her use, she might have been able to rely on her mistaken understanding of what a specimen is to avoid a finding of fraud.

But when she intentionally submitted specimens that were not hers without explaining their context to the USPTO, she had no way back. Her actions only served to confirm her intent to deceive because they were inconsistent with her explanations.

In Unity Clothing's case, the defendant's actions supported and confirmed its intent, even if the reasoning behind it was flawed. Unity's actions were consistent with its explanations and thereby solidified its argument that it had no intent to deceive.

What to take away from these two cases? Is fraud against the USPTO dead? Not necessarily, but it is most likely on life support. Arguably, even if a company is 180 degrees wrong in its understanding of trademark law, as long as it acts consistently with that misunderstanding it may be able to avoid a finding of fraud.

However, if an organization or individual gets a little sneaky or its actions and its explanation differ, it could find itself standing with Santiago, holding nothing but a canceled trademark registration.

Best practice? Evaluate sua sponte all existing registrations and delete any goods that are not currently in use in connection with the registered mark. If one does find an error in fact or in intent, consider in light of Santiago and C. & J. Clark how to act consistently with one's historical misrepresentations - a statement near absurd on its face and one only the eternal subtleties of the law could invite.

Previously published by Law360 on August.21, 2013.

This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione lawyer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Scott J. Slavick
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions