Under a recently established USPTO pilot program "to explore procedures for expediting certain cancellation proceedings to further the goal of maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the U.S. Trademark Register," the Board initiated an "expedited cancellation" proceeding involving Jeffrey E. Martin's registration for the mark MYST, in the stylized form shown below, for "entertainment services, namely live performances by a musical group." The Board dismissed the petition for cancellation because Petitioner TV Azteca failed to establish a prima facie case of abandonment based on its pleaded claim of nonuse during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition to cancel. TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Jeffrey E. Martin, Cancellation No. 92068042 (December 7, 2018) (Opinion by Judge Frances Wolfson) [precedential].
Procedure: This new expedited cancellation procedure is initiated by the Board. [It is not to be confused with the "streamlined" cancellation procedure that the Board has been considering. See comment below]. Under this program, the Board identifies cancellation cases that have not resulted in disposition by default and in which the only claims are abandonment or nonuse (or both). Cases with counterclaims are ineligible for the program. [What if the respondent wants to challenge petitioner's standing? What about affirmative defenses? - ed.]. Once a case is identified as a candidate for the expedited cancellation program, the Board participates in the parties' discovery conference to discuss voluntary stipulation to one or more of the Board's several Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) options, including pretrial final disposition on the merits, or abbreviated trial on the merits. See TBMP §§ 528.05(a)(2) and 702.04.
The Board participated in the parties' discovery conference and the parties agreed to litigate this case as an expedited cancellation proceeding. The parties agreed to exchange initial disclosures but dispense with formal discovery. Both parties filed testimony and documentary evidence together with their main briefs, and petitioner filed a rebuttal brief.
Abandonment: As the sole ground for cancellation, Petitioner TV Azteca alleged that Respondent Martin abandoned his MYST mark by discontinuing its use "for at least three years [March 2015 to March 2018] preceding the filing of this Petition to Cancel, with no intent to resume use."
Under Section 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, a mark is deemed abandoned "When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment."
Respondent Martin, appearing pro se, submitted several documents bearing the word MYST, but many were undated and none were dated during the March 2015 to March 2018 time period at issue. He also submitted an unsworn and therefore nonprobative statement regarding those documents. Thus Martin did not establish use of the mark MYST during the relevant period - but TV Azteca had the initial burden to show that Martin did not use his mark during that period.
In short, TV Azteca faced the unenviable task of trying to prove a negative. It focused on one particular document that had a partial date, namely, a flyer promoting a "MYST" concert on "March 25th" [no year specified] at the Pennant East in Bellmawr, New Jersey, and attempted to prove that the Pennant East had closed in 2011. Petitioner relied on several newspaper articles reporting the closing and on local certain records indicating that Pennant East had lost its liquor license, and thus any performance by Martin could not have occurred during the relevant three-year time period.
TV Azteca submitted six newspaper articles and a blog post
discussing the closing of Pennant East, but Martin objected to
these items as inadmissible hearsay. TV Azteca pointed to the
"residual hearsay" exception of Fed. R. Evid. 807(a) for
statements that have "equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness" analogous to those of a public
record and are "more probative on the point for which it is
offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain
through reasonable efforts" The Board noted that the residual
hearsay exception is intended to "be used only rarely, in
truly exceptional cases." Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm.
Inc., 696 F.3d 1151, 104 USPQ2d 1969, 1976 n.6 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (applying Fifth Circuit law and citing United States v.
Walker, 410 F.3d 754, 757 (5th Cir. 2005)). The Board was
unmoved: "Even assuming no reasonable effort could have
discovered more probative evidence, the articles and blog post do
not possess 'circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness' equivalent to official records or witness
testimony. We therefore sustain Respondent's objection to the
news and blog articles."
TV Azteca also pointed to certain official records in an attempt to show that Pennant East closed its doors in 2011. Again, the Board was unimpressed:
The Board ruled that TV Azteca had failed to establish a prima facie case of nonuse.
And so the Board dismissed the petition for cancellation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.