throbber
BULKY DOCUMENTS
`(exceeds 300 pages)
`
`Proceeding] Serial No: 920402878
`
`Filed: 07-3 1-2006
`
`Title: Petitioner’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment.
`
`Part 1 of 1
`
`

`
`§ *2
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TTAB
`
`NIRVANA, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIRVANA FOR HEALTH INC.
`
`Registrant.
`
`\/\./\/sixes/‘-’\J§
`
`Cancellation No.: 92042878
`
`Attorney Ref.: 2779-6
`
`PET|T|ONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`07-31-2006
`
`U.S. Patent & TMOfc/TM Mail Rcpt Dt. #22
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MATERIAL FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE ................................ ..
`
`II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ......................................... ..
`
`III. NHI HAS ABANDONED REGISTRATION NO. 2,731,312 THROUGH
`NONUSE ............................................................................................... ..
`
`A. The Standard for Abandonment ................................................. ..
`
`B. There is Prima Facie Evidence that NHI Abandoned the NIRVANA
`
`Mark ......................................................................................... ..
`
`IV. NHI HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED REGISTRATION NO.
`
`2,731,312 ........................................................................................... ..
`
`A. The Standard for Fraudulent Procurement of Registration ........ ..
`
`B. There is Undisputed Evidence that NHI Fraudulently Obtained
`Registration No. 2,731 ,312 ....................................................... ..
`
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... ..
`
`10
`
`11
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`13
`
`14
`
`18
`
`1065085
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................... ..
`
`Auburn Farms Inc. v. McKee Foods Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1439 (TTAB 1999)..
`
`Bakaen‘ Steel Wire Corp. v. S.p.A. Officine Maccaferri Gia' Raffaele
`Maccaferri & Fagli, 196 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1977) ...................................... ..
`
`Ce/otex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986) ................ ..
`
`Cerveceria Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 892 F.2d 1021
`(Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................................... ..
`
`First lnt’l Serv. Corp. v. Chuckles Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1628 (TTAB 1988). ........ ..
`
`General Car and Truck Leasing Systems, Inc. v. General Rent-A-Car Inc.,
`17 USPQ2d 1398 (S.D. Fla. 1990) ................................................................ ..
`
`General Rent-A-Car Inc. v. General Leaseways, Inc., Canc. No. 14,870
`('|‘|'AB May 2, 1998) ...................................................................................... ..
`
`Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 899 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ..
`
`Martahus v. Video Duplication Serv., Inc., 3 F.3d 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ..... ..
`
`10
`
`16
`
`14
`
`10
`
`11
`
`13
`
`13
`
`13
`
`11
`
`11
`
`Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1205, 1208 (TTAB 2003) ....... ..
`
`13, 14
`
`Mister Leonard Inc. v. Jacques Leonard Couture Inc., 23 USPQ2d (‘HA8
`1 992) ......................................................................................................... ..
`
`Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc., 689 F.2d 666, 216 USPQ 11
`(7th Cir. 1989); .............................................................................................. ..
`
`On-line Care/ine Inc. v. America On/ine Inc., 229 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Parfums Nautee Ltd. v. American International Industries, 22 USPQ2d
`1306 (TTAB 1992) ...................................................................................... ..
`
`Rivard v. Linville, 133 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................... ..
`
`Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r./., 808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................. ..
`
`1 3
`
`16
`
`11
`
`16
`
`11
`
`13
`
`iii
`
`1065085
`
`

`
`Woodstock's Enterprises Inc. (California) v. Woodstock's Enterprises Inc.
`(Oregon), 43 USPQ2d 1440 (TTAB 1997). ................................................ ..
`
`STATUTES AND ACTS
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (c) ......................................................................... ..
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) (2000) ........................................................................ ..
`
`14
`
`10
`
`11
`
`15 U.S.C. §1127 (2000) ............................................................................. ..
`
`11,12
`
`TMEP §901.05 ........................................................................................... ..
`
`TMEP §1201.03 ......................................................................................... ..
`
`15
`
`15
`
`iv
`
`1065085
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NIRVANA, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIRVANA FOR HEALTH INC.
`
`Registrant.
`
`\y§/\/\/\./\./"\./\/
`
`Cancellation No.: 92042878
`
`Attorney Ref.: 2779-6
`
`PET|TIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., petitioner Nirvana, Inc. ("Nirvana") hereby
`
`moves for summary judgment that Nirvana for Health Inc. ("NH|") has abandoned its rights
`
`in the mark of Registration No. 2,731,312, or alternatively, has fraudulently obtained
`
`trademark Registration No. 2,731,312. As a consequence, this motion seeks the
`
`cancellation of the NIRVANA registration.
`
`As demonstrated below, NHI has not used the mark NIRVANA for “bottled natural
`
`spring mineral water” in well over three years and has provided no evidence that it intends
`
`to resume use of the mark. Thus, it should be deemed to have abandoned the mark for
`
`“bottled natural spring mineral water.” In addition, there is no material fact in dispute that
`
`at the time NHI filed an application for the mark NIRVANA for “bottled natural spring
`
`mineral water,” NHI knew that it was not the owner of the NIRVANA trademark for such
`
`goods and yet persuaded the USPTO to issue the ‘312 Registration for such goods.
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`I.
`
`MATERIAL FACTS THAT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE
`
`The following material facts are not in dispute:
`
`1. Nirvana Restaurant Inc. of 30 Central Park South New York, New York 10019
`
`filed Application Serial No. 75/565,188 for the mark NIRVANA for “bottled water’ on
`
`October 5, 1998. This application claimed a first date of use of October 30, 1996 and a
`
`first date of use in commerce of October 30, 1996. This application was abandoned on
`
`August 17, 1999 because of the Applicant's failure to completely respond to an Office
`
`Action. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Dec|., Tab A.
`
`2. Nirvana for Health Inc. of 40 Central Park South, 2A New York, New York
`
`100191633, filed Application Serial No. 76/319,172 for the mark NIRVANA for “bottled
`
`natural spring mineral water’ on October 1, 2001. This application issued as Registration
`
`No. 2,731,312. See Exhibit 2.
`
`3. Registration No. 2,731,312 claims a first date of use anywhere of August 14,
`
`1970 and a first date of use in commerce of August 14, 1990. See Exhibit 2.
`
`4.
`
`in Application Serial No. 76/319,172, NHI listed its mailing address as “Nirvana
`
`for Health |nc., 40 Central Park South, 2A, New York, New York 10019-1633, Nirva [sic]
`
`founded in 1970 by Shamsher Wadud.” (emphasis added). See Exhibit 3.
`
`5. The cover letter to Application Serial No. 76/319,172 was signed by Shamsher
`
`Wadud, as “Chairman & President — Nirvana for Health lnc.” and “President — Nirvana
`
`Restaurant lnc.” See Exhibit 4, cover letter to application from file history of the ‘172
`
`Application.
`
`6. One attachment submitted with the application in Application Serial No.
`
`76/319,172 is a certificate that indicates that “Nirvana Himalayas Water Corporation" was
`
`
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`a member of the Water Quality Association. The certificate is dated 1990. See Exhibit 5,
`
`from the file history of the ‘172 Application.
`
`7. Another attachment submitted with the application in Application Serial No.
`
`76/319,172 indicates that Nirvana restaurant included “Nirvana Spring Water’ on its menu.
`
`The menu indicates that the restaurant was founded “in 1970 by Shamsher Wadud.” The
`
`menu is not dated and does not include the restaurant's location. See Exhibit 6, from the
`
`file history of the ‘172 Application.
`
`8. A specimen of use submitted in Application Serial No. 76/319,172 shows water
`
`bottles with a label including the term NIRVANA that according to the label were being
`
`offered by “Nirvana Penthouse, 30 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019.” The label
`
`indicates that the restaurant was “celebrating its 25"‘ Anniversary.” See Exhibit 7, from
`
`the file history of the ‘172 Application.
`
`9.
`
`If Nirvana Penthouse is the restaurant owned by Nirvana Restaurant Inc., which
`
`was alleged to have been in business since 1970, then the restaurant's 25th anniversary
`
`date was in 1995. Thus, the specimens of use submitted with the application in
`
`September 2001 were not specimens of current use as of 2001.
`
`10. No specimens of use submitted in Application Serial No. 76/319,172 indicate
`
`use by Registrant, Nirvana for Health Inc.
`
`11. NHI is the record owner of United States Trademark Registration No.
`
`2,731,312. See Exhibit 8, a copy of the ‘312 Registration and its record from TESS.
`
`12. Petitioner, Nirvana is the owner of the trade name and trademark NIRVANA in
`
`connection with spring water, having incorporated in New York as Nirvana, Inc. on June 1,
`
`1995 (See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Decl., Tab A) and thereafter continuously used and is
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`using the trade name and trademark NIRVANA in commerce in connection with the
`
`marketing and sale of spring water. See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Dec|., Para. 2 and Tab B.
`
`13. The mark shown in Registration No. 2,731,312 and Petitioner's name and mark
`
`NIRVANA are identical.
`
`14. Petitioner's spring water and NH|’s bottled natural spring mineral water
`
`identified in Registration No. 2,731,312 are virtually identical products which are or are
`
`likely to be offered through the same or overlapping channels of trade to the same or
`
`overlapping classes of purchasers.
`
`15. There is no evidence of record showing that the entity NHI made bona fide use
`
`of the mark NIRVANA as a trademark for the goods covered by Registration No.
`
`2,731,312.
`
`16. There is no evidence that NHI was the owner of the mark NIRVANA when the
`
`application for registration was filed on October 1, 2001.
`
`17. At the time that the application for registration was executed by Shamsher
`
`Wadud, President of NHI (hereafter "Wadud") on September 24, 2001, Wadud knew that
`
`the mark NIRVANA had not been used by NHI and that NHI was not the owner of the
`
`mark NIRVANA.
`
`18.
`
`In Application Serial No. 76/319,172 for registration filed by NHI under notice of
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1001, Wadud falsely stated that "he/she believes the applicant to be the
`
`owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered. . .." See Exhibit 3, from the
`
`file history of the ‘172 Application.
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`19. At the time he signed the application oath in Application Serial No. 76/319,172
`
`on September 24, 2001, Wadud knew that NHI did not own the mark NIRVANA for bottled
`
`water and that the allegation of ownership made in the oath was false.
`
`20.
`
`In Application Serial No. 76/319,172 for registration filed by NHI under notice of
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1001, Wadud falsely stated that:
`
`to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person,
`firm, corporation or association has the right to use the above
`identified mark in commerce, either in the identical form
`thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely,
`when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such
`other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
`deceive.... See Exhibit 3, from the file history of the ‘172
`Application.
`
`21. Petitioner at no time assigned to NHI any rights in the trade name or trademark
`
`NIRVANA.
`
`22. NHl's false statements were made with the intent to induce authorized agents
`
`of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant Registration No. 2,731,312 and,
`
`reasonably relying upon the truth of said false statements, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office did, in fact, grant said registration to NHI.
`
`23. NHI claims that its predecessors insofar as NHl’s use of rights in the mark
`
`NIRVANA are concerned are Nirvana Bengal Cabaret, Inc. and Nirvana Himalayas Water
`
`Corporation. See Exhibit 10, NHl’s Response to lnterrogatory No. 4.
`
`24. NHI claims that its first commercial use of the mark NIRVANA on bottled
`
`natural spring mineral water was on August 14, 1970, when Mr. Wadud made labels that
`
`he placed on bottles which he sold from his restaurant, then located at 1193 Lexington
`
`Ave., New York, New York 10028. See Exhibit 11, NHl’s Response to lnterrogatory No.
`
`6.
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`25. NHI claims that its bottles of water under the NIRVANA mark are “sold from a
`
`restaurant and distributed to other restaurants in boxes of 12 or 24, in either plastic or
`
`glass, and that the type of customers that ultimately purchase the bottled water are mainly
`
`sophisticated customers who learn of the bottled water when the [sic] frequent the
`
`restaurant(s). See Exhibit 12, NHl’s Response to lnterrogatory No. 13.
`
`26. NHI claims that the public becomes aware of NHl’s bottled natural spring
`
`mineral water and the mark NIRVANA by hearing it primarily by word of mouth, or when
`
`displayed for sale in restaurants, or when mentioned in news feature articles. See Exhibit
`
`13, NHl’s Response to lnterrogatory No. 19.
`
`27. NHl’s cover letter for its Application Serial No. 76/319,172 stated that “[a]t this
`
`time .
`
`.
`
`. NHI is now planning to engage in a mass marketing campaign of ‘Nirvanam’
`
`water and increase global sales. .
`
`See Exhibit 4.
`
`28. NHI has not placed advertisements with newspapers or on the internet for
`
`bottled water under the mark NIRVANA. See Exhibit 13, NHl’s Response to lnterrogatory
`
`No. 20.
`
`29. NHI was not listed as a member of the International Bottled Water Association
`
`in the 2003 Membership Roster. See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Dec|., Tab C.
`
`30. NHI is not a current member of the international Bottled Water Association.
`
`See Exhibit 14, NHl’s Response to lnterrogatory No. 23.
`
`31. The Nirvana Himalayas Water Corporation was issued a license by the
`
`Nepalese government to establish a spring water bottling plant in the Remechap district of
`
`Nepal on May 8, 1991. See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Dec|., Tab D. A condition of the license
`
`is that “the license will be cancelled and the deposit will be confiscated if the industry is not
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`established according to the work plan and not operated within 12 months.
`
`If the industry
`
`could not be established according to the schedule, approval from the department for the
`
`extension of the license is required." See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Decl., Tab D at p. 2.
`
`32. A business plan for Nirvana Himalayas Water Corporation of 40 Central Park
`
`South, New York, New York 10019 of September 19, 1990, indicates that as of September
`
`1990, the company was only a start up and sales were still only projected versus actual.
`
`See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Decl., Tab E.
`
`33. A New York Post article of June 28, 1991 reports that Shamsher Wadud
`
`“intends [his bottled water] Q a Perrier, Asian-sty|e." See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh Decl.,
`
`Tab F.
`
`34. A New York Newsday article from June 21, 1991 indicates that Nirvana bottled
`
`spring water “fl_b_e priced, and w come in vase-like bottles.” See Exhibit 9, Rafizadeh
`
`Decl., Tab G.
`
`35. On or about July 23, 2002, a wall of the restaurant Nirvana located at 30
`
`Central Park South collapsed. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab B, paras. 4-5, excerpt
`
`from document in In re Nirvana Restaurant, Inc., Bankruptcy Case. As a result of the
`
`damage, a vacate order was issued by the city of New York. The restaurant immediately
`
`ceased operations. Articles from the intemet indicate that the restaurant never reopened.
`
`See Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab C.
`
`36. Certain of the Nirvana restaurant assets were abandoned. (Exhibit 1, De Luca
`
`Decl., Tab D). The restaurant property was sold in the Bankruptcy Court.
`
`In particular, an
`
`auction of the restaurant property was conducted at the Courthouse on February 9, 2004
`
`(Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab E) and a hearing to approve the auction was held on
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`February 10, 2004 (Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab F). Wadud did not bid at the auction
`
`and the Court entered an Order on February 11, 2004 authorizing and approving the terms
`
`and conditions of the sale by the Trustee to Dr. Dipak Nandi, the highest bidder. See
`
`Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tabs F and G, paras. 11, 12.
`
`37. Nirvana for Health Inc. was incorporated in New York on June 14, 2001. See
`
`Nirvana for Health Inc. was not incorporated at the time of the alleged date of
`
`first use anywhere (August 14, 1970) and the date of first use in commerce in Application
`
`Serial No. 76/319,172 (August 14, 1990). Thus, the only way that Nirvana for Health Inc.
`
`could have used the mark as early as the first use dates claimed in the ‘172 application
`
`was through its predecessor companies.
`
`38. The company Nirvana Restaurant Inc. of 40 Central Park South, New York, NY
`
`10019 was incorporated in New York on May 3, 1995, well after the alleged first date of
`
`use and first date of use in commerce of the mark of the ‘172 application. The Nirvana
`
`Restaurant Inc. filed for Chapter Eleven bankruptcy on November 6, 2001, about a month
`
`after the '1 72 application was filed. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab H. The Chapter 11
`
`Bankruptcy (reorganization) was converted to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy (liquidation) on July
`
`17, 2003. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab I.
`
`39. The Bengal Cabaret lnc., a New York corporation of 1193 Lexington Avenue,
`
`New York, NY 11028, filed an application on December 9, 1970 for the mark NIRVANA for
`
`“restaurant services," which issued as Registration No. 947,368. See Exhibit 16, copy of
`
`the ‘368 Registration and its record from TESS. The ‘368 Registration expired under
`
`Section 9 on August 23, 1993. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab J, record from TESS.
`
`Registration 947,368 claims a first date of use of August 14, 1970. The Bengal Cabaret
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`Inc. allegedly assigned the entire interest and the goodwill of the ‘368 registration, effective
`
`Jan. 15, 1980 to Moti-Mahal Inc. Moti-Mahal lnc. allegedly assigned the entire interest and
`
`the goodwill, effective August 29, 1983 to Bhuyan, Farida Kamal. Bhuyan, Farida Kamal
`
`allegedly assigned the entire interest and the good will effective May 15, 1986 to Global
`
`Dynamics, Inc. Global Dynamics, Inc. allegedly assigned the entire interest and the good
`
`will as of March 25, 1988 to Nirvana Global Corporation. Nirvana Global Corporation
`
`allegedly assigned the entire interest to Rooftop Restaurant Inc. (executed August 14,
`
`1995). Rooftop Restaurant Inc. allegedly assigned an undivided part of assignors interest
`
`(executed December 15, 1997) to Nirvana Restaurant Inc. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Dec.,
`
`Tab K, printouts from the USPTO trademark assignment database.
`
`40. The Bengal Cabaret Inc. has been inactive since 1987. See Exhibit 1, De
`
`Luca Decl., Tab L, Dun & Bradstreet company report of Bengal Cabaret Inc. Any
`
`assignments from the Bengal Cabaret Inc. of the mark NIRVANA after that date for bottled
`
`water from the Bengal Cabaret Inc. are invalid, since the goodwill of the business
`
`associated with the mark could not possibly have been assigned.
`
`41. Since Registration No. 947,368 expired on August 23, $3, the recorded
`
`assignments of Registration No. 947,368 to Rooftop Restaurant in 1_99§) and
`
`subsequently to Nirvana Restaurant Inc. in $1 were also invalid since the goodwill of the
`
`business associated with the mark could not possibly have been assigned.
`
`42. The NYS Department of State Division of Corporations records indicate that
`
`Nirvana Himalayas Water Corporation was incorporated on April 9, 1990. See Exhibit 17.
`
`The NYS Department of State records indicate that the Nirvana Himalayas Water
`
`Corporation was dissolved by proclamation on September 28, 1994. See Exhibit 1, De
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`Luca Decl. Para. 14. There is no evidence that the Nirvana Himalayas Water Corporation
`
`assigned the mark NIRVANA for bottled water and its goodwill to NHI before it dissolved.
`
`43. Nirvana Restaurant Inc. of 30 Central Park South New York NEW YORK
`
`10019 was the record owner of Registration No. 2,205,868 for the mark Nirvana for
`
`restaurant and nightclub services. See Exhibit 18, copy of ‘868 Registration and its
`
`record from TESS. Registration No. 2,205,868 was cancelled under section 8 on August
`
`27, 2005. See Exhibit 1, De Luca Decl., Tab M, TESS record.
`
`ll.
`
`STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,
`
`answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
`
`show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
`
`entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, lnc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2513 (1996).
`
`Once the movant establishes prima facie evidence that it is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law, the non-movant may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively
`
`demonstrate, by specific, verified facts, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that
`
`requires trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986).
`
`There is no issue for trial "unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving
`
`party for a [court] to return a verdict for that party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106
`
`S.Ct. at 2511.
`
`-10-
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`|"-
`
`A. The Standard for Abandonment
`
`Under the Lanham Act, “[a] registered trademark may be canceled if it has been
`
`abandoned. See 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) (2000). A registered trademark is considered
`
`abandoned if its “use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use." 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1127 (2000). Since trademark registrations are presumed valid, the party
`
`seeking cancellation of such registration must rebut this presumption by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence. See Martahus v. Video Duplication Serv., /nc., 3 F.3d 417, 421 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993); On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
`
`Cerveceria Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 892 F.2d 1021, 1023 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1989). “The party seeking cancellation establishes a prima facie case of
`
`abandonment by showing proof of nonuse for three consecutive years. See 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1127. Establishing a prima facie case ‘eliminates the cha||enger's burden to establish the
`
`intent element of abandonment as an initial part of [his] case,’ creating a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the trademark owner has abandoned the mark without intent to resume
`
`use. The burden then shifts to the trademark owner to produce evidence that he either
`
`used the mark during the statutory period or intended to resume use.” America Online
`
`lnc., 229 F.3d at 1087 (citations omitted). Abandonment is a question of fact.
`
`Id.
`
`“A registrant's proclamations of his intent to resume or commence use in United
`
`States commerce during the period of nonuse are awarded little, if any, weight. Rivard v.
`
`Linvi/le, 133 F.3d 1446, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1998) citing Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris,
`
`lnc., 899 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (''In every contested abandonment case, the
`
`-11-
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`respondent denies an intention to abandon its mark; othewvise there would be no
`
`contest.")."
`
`The pertinent portion of 15 U.S.C. §1127, provides:
`
`A mark shall be deemed to be “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 three
`consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment.
`“Use” of a mark means the bona fide use of that mark made in the
`
`ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a
`mark.
`
`B. There is Prima Facie Evidence that NHI Abandoned the NIRVANA Mark
`
`lnthis case, NHI was incorporated in June 14, 2001. Fact 37. Respondent
`
`indicates that it has sold water through its restaurant. Fact 25. The restaurant implicated
`
`is the Nirvana Restaurant referred to in NH|’s cover letterto the USPTO in its Application
`
`Serial No. 76/319,172. Fact 5. See also Fact 7. However, as of July 2002, the Nirvana
`
`restaurant was closed because of the collapse of a wall. Fact 35. The Nirvana
`
`Restaurant, Inc. is now in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Fact 38.
`
`In 2004, the restaurant
`
`property was sold to a third party. Fact 36. The restaurant has not reopened. Fact 35.
`
`The Nirvana Restaurant's registration for restaurant services was not maintained. Fact 43.
`
`NHI was not a member of the lntemational Bottled Water Association in 2003 and is not a
`
`current member. Facts 29 and 30. There is no evidence that NHI has sold bottled natural
`
`spring mineral water from any other restaurant entity.
`
`Assuming arguendo that the Nirvana Restaurant |nc.'s use of the mark NIRVANA
`
`bottled natural spring mineral water can be attributable to NHI‘, NHI has not used the mark
`
`“Nirvana" in connection with bottled natural spring mineral water in the U.S. for more than
`
`1 There is no evidence to show that NHI ever controlled the use of the mark NIRVANA for bottled
`water by the Nirvana Restaurant.
`
`-12-
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`three years,” referring to the time period beginning July 2002 through the present date.
`
`This nonuse of the mark during this period establishes a prima facie showing of
`
`abandonment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1127. There is no genuine issue that NHI did not
`
`use the mark in commerce between those dates, and this three-plus-year period of nonuse
`
`constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment.
`
`IV.
`
`NHI HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED REGISTRATION NO. 2,731,312
`
`A. The Standard for Fraudulent Procurement of Registration
`
`“lf fraud can be shown in the procurement of a registration, the entire resulting
`
`registration is void.” Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx lnc., 67 USPQ2d 1205, 1208 ('lTAB
`
`2003). “A trademark applicant commits fraud in procuring a registration when it makes
`
`material representations of fact in its declaration which it knows or should know to be false
`
`or misleading." Id. at 1209 (citing Torres v. Cantine Torrese/Ia S.r.I., 808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986)). See also Mister Leonard Inc. v. Jacques Leonard Couture Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1064,
`
`1065 ('l‘|'AB 1992) ("[A]ccording to Torres, to constitute fraud on the PTO, the statement
`
`must be (1) false, (2) a material representation and (3) made knowingly.").
`
`The correct inquiry into fraud is not into the registrant’s subjective intent, but instead
`
`into the objective manifestations of that intent. Medinol Ltd., 67 USPQ2d at 1209. The
`
`Board has recognized that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove what occurs in a
`
`person’s mind, and thus, it has found that intent must often be inferred from the
`
`circumstances and any related statements made by that person. See First lnt’I Serv.
`
`Corp. v. Chuckles lnc., 5 USPQ2d 1628, 1636 (T|'AB 1988). See also General Car and
`
`Truck Leasing Systems, Inc. v. General Rent-A-Car Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1398, 1400 (S.D.
`
`Fla. 1990), aff’g General Rent—A-Carlnc. v. General Leaseways, Inc., Canc. No. 14,870
`
`-
`
`-
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`(TTAB May 2, 1998) (“proof of specific intent to commit fraud is not required, rather, fraud
`
`occurs when an applicant or registrant makes a false material representation that the
`
`applicant or registrant knew or should have known was false”); Medinol Ltd., 67 USPQ2d
`
`at 1209 (“Respondent’s knowledge that its mark was not in use on stents — or its reckless
`
`disregard for the truth — is all that is required to establish intent to commit fraud in the
`
`procurement of a registration.").
`
`“Fraud implies some intentional deceitful practice or act designed to obtain
`
`something to which the person practicing such deceit would not otherwise be entitled.
`
`Specifically, it involves a willful withholding from the Patent and Trademark Office by an
`
`applicant or registrant of material information which, if disclosed to the Office, would have
`
`resulted in disallowance of the registration sought or to be maintained.” Woodstock’s
`
`Enterprises Inc. (California) v. Woodstock’s Enterprises Inc. (Oregon), 43 USPQ2d 1440
`
`(TTAB 1997).
`
`“To prove fraud opposer would have to show that applicant intentionally
`
`misrepresented a material fact with the intention of inducing the Office to grant a
`
`registration to which applicant knew he was not entitled.” Bakaert Steel Wire Corp. v.
`
`S.p.A. Officine Maccaferri Gia' Raffae/e Maccaferri & Fagli, 196 USPQ 558 (TTAB 1977).
`
`B.
`
`There is Undisputed Evidence that NHI Fraudulently Obtained
`Registration No. 2,731,312
`
`Based on the undisputed facts and the case law, Nirvana is entitled to summary
`
`judgment that NHI has fraudulently obtained the NIRVANA trademark. As a consequence,
`
`the NIRVANA trademark registration should be cancelled.
`
`The specimens of use Respondent submitted in Application Serial No. 76/319,172
`
`do not show use by NHI. There is no statement in the application that NHI claimed use
`
`- 14 -
`
`1068232
`
`—
`
`

`
`through a related company. The labels enclosed as specimens indicate use by Nirvana
`
`Penthouse, celebrating it's 25"‘ anniversary, which was 6 years before the application for
`
`the ‘312 Registration was filed. Facts 8 and 9. The application does not claim that the
`
`mark is being used by one or more related companies as required under TMEP Section
`
`901.05, which indicates that:
`
`If the applicant is not itself using the mark in commerce but the mark
`is being used by one or more related companies whose use inures to the
`applicant's benefit (15 U.S.C. §§1055 and 1127), this must be stated in the
`application or allegation of use. 37 C.F.R. §2.38(b); TMEP §1201.03(a).
`
`Further, TMEP Section 1201 .03(a) provides that:
`
`If the mark is not being used by the applicant but is being used by
`one or more related companies whose use inures to the benefit of the
`applicant under §5 of the Act, then these facts must be disclosed in the
`application. 37 C.F.R. §2.38(b). See Pease Woodwork Co., Inc. v. Ready
`Hung Door Co., |nc., 103 USPQ 240 (Comm'r Pats. 1954); Industrial
`Abrasives, Inc. v. Strong, 101 USPQ 420 (Comm'r Pats. 1954).
`.
`.
`.
`.
`In an application under §1(a) of the Trademark Act, the applicant
`should -state in the body of the application that the applicant has adopted
`and is using the mark through its related company (or equivalent explanatory
`wording). .
`.
`
`Application Serial No. 76/319,172 claimed that NHI was the entity using the mark.
`
`In its application, NHI made no claim in the application that use was being made through a
`
`related company. At best, the coversheet to its application indicated that use was being
`
`made by an alleged “sister corporation,” Nirvana Restaurant, |nc." However, there is no
`
`evidence that NHI owned the Nirvana Restaurant or controlled the nature and quality of
`
`the Nirvana Restaurant, |nc.’s alleged use of the mark NIRVANA for bottled water. There
`
`is evidence that the Nirvana Restaurant Inc. itself claimed ownership of the trademark
`
`NIRVANA for “bottled water’ in 1998. Fact 1.
`
`-15-
`
`1068232
`
`

`
`Respondent’s alleged predecessor company, the Bengal Cafe at 1193 Lexington
`
`Avenue (Facts 23 and 24) was inactive as of 1987. Fact 40. Any assignment of the mark
`
`NIRVANA for bottled water after that date was ineffective. See Auburn Farms Inc. v.
`
`McKee Foods Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1439 (TTAB 1999) (“Campbe|l's abandonment of the
`
`mark JAMMERS a number of years prior to the assignment resulted in an invalid
`
`assignment (that is, an assignment in gross) since "[a]n abandoned trademark is not
`
`capable of assignment." Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, lnc., 689 F.2d 666, 216
`
`USPQ 11, 19 (7th Cir. 1989); and Parfums Nautee Ltd. v. American International
`
`Industries, 22 USPQ2d 1306, 1309 (TTAB 1992).”). There is no evidence of any
`
`assignment of the mark NIRVANA and its goodwill for bottled water from the Bengal Café
`
`prior to that date.
`
`Respondent’s subsequent predecessor company, the Nirvana Himalayas Water
`
`Corporation (Fact 23) was incorporated on April 9, 1990, (Fact 42), which is years after the
`
`Bengal Café because inactive. A business plan dated September 19, 1990 indicates that
`
`the corporation had not yet started operating as of that date. Fact 32. Newspaper reports
`
`on a Nirvana entity reports that in 1991 Nirvana's bottled water operations were still not a
`
`reality. Facts 33 and 34. The records of the New York State Department of State Division
`
`of Corporations show that by September 28, 1994 the Nirvana Himalayas Water
`
`Corporation was dissolved. Fact 42. The Nirvana Himalayas Water Corporation's
`
`Nepalese license to bottle water in Nepal appears to be compromised by the corporation's
`
`i

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket