ARTICLE
7 July 2025

Know The Rules Or Get Burned: TTAB Smolders Oppositions For Failure To Prosecute

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
In Adaptive Energy LLC v. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") dismissed two oppositions for failure to prosecute.
United States Cannabis & Hemp

In Adaptive Energy LLC v. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") dismissed two oppositions for failure to prosecute. Oppositions Nos. 91275644 and 91280840 (April 11, 2025). The Board granted Central Coast Agriculture Inc.'s ("Central") motion to dismiss because Adaptive Energy LLC ("Adaptive") failed to timely introduce evidence or testimony during the necessary period. The lesson here is procedural: to advance your company's trademark interests, you must know the rules.

The Case: A Concentrated Dispute

Central provides cannabis goods under its RAW GARDEN REFINED LIVE RESIN mark. It filed two applications to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for CBD containing herbs for smoking. Adaptive opposed the applications alleging that consumers would likely confuse Central's mark with Adaptive's LIVE RESIN mark for supplements.

Central filed a motion to dismiss because Adaptive did not introduce evidence or testimony during its trial period. Moreover, Adaptive did not properly introduce its pleaded prior registration. This can be accomplished by attaching any registrations to a Notice of Opposition.

Adaptive argued that it was clear from the beginning of the proceedings that it would submit evidence and testimony along with its opening brief. But this argument perhaps got the Board fumed. Here's why:

Trademark Rule 2.132(a), provides, in relevant part, "if the time for taking testimony by any party in the position of plaintiff has expired and it is clear to the Board from the proceeding record that such party has not taken testimony or offered any other evidence, the Board may grant judgment for the defendant ... [t]he party in the position of plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date of service of the motion to show cause why judgment should not be rendered dismissing the case. In the absence of a showing of excusable neglect, judgment may be rendered against the party in the position of plaintiff."

In its decision on Central's motion to dismiss, the Board cited Rule 2.132(a) and noted that a "brief may not be used as a vehicle for the introduction of evidence." Further, Adaptive made no showing of excusable neglect regarding its failure to introduce evidence and testimony. Accordingly, the Board dismissed both oppositions with prejudice.

This case is a wake-up call for cannabis brands and legal professionals alike: you have to know the process and procedures for Board proceedings. If you don't follow them, your case can fail before it even begins.

Final Hit: Legal Strategy Is Half the Battle

The Board's dismissal of these oppositions isn't just a win for one brand. It's a reminder that in trademark law, strategy and substance must go hand in hand. Whether you're blazing a trail in the cannabis industry or defending an established brand, knowing the rules isn't optional – it's essential.

So before you file that opposition or respond to one, take a moment to ask some simple questions. Do we have appropriate evidence? Do we understand the burden? Do we know the rules? Because in Board proceedings, failure to adhere to the rules can get you burned.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More