Angel World, Inc.v.Treasures and Trinkets Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2004

No. 91151171 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2004)

ejs Mailed: 1/12/04
Opposition No. 91151171
Angel World, Inc.
v.
Treasures and
Trinkets Inc.
Before Seeherman, Bottorff and Drost, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Opposer has filed a request for reconsideration of the
Board's July 11, 2003 decision granting summary judgment to
applicant on the issue of res judicata, and dismissing the
opposition with prejudice. In addition, opposer has filed a
supplemental memorandum, with accompanying exhibits.1
Applicant has opposed the request.
1 These exhibits are documents relating to the civil action in
the Federal District Court of South Carolina, including the
transcript of the jury trial. These documents are the type of
evidence that should have been submitted by opposer with its
opposition to the motion for summary judgment, rather than with
its request for reconsideration. Despite this, we have
considered the documents. However, because, as explained herein,
our role is not to substitute our judgment for that of the
Federal Appeals Court in terms of reviewing the fairness of the
civil action, these documents have no effect on our finding of
res judicata.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
2900 Crystal Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3514
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Opposition No. 91151171
2
The Board, in its earlier decision, found that the
finding in favor of applicant herein by the District Court
for the District of South Carolina2 has a preclusive effect
on opposer's ability to relitigate the issue of ownership of
the mark GUARDIAN ANGEL in the present opposition. Opposer
essentially argues that the prior proceeding should not have
a preclusive effect because opposer contends that the issues
of ownership and infringement were not fairly litigated, and
that opposer "has not yet had a full and fair opportunity to
litigate the issue." Brief, p. 8.
As the Board previously noted, on April 18, 1996, after
a jury trial, a verdict was rendered in the Federal District
Court action finding that applicant herein is entitled to
the trademark GUARDIAN ANGEL as it relates to jewelry
products, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 11, 1997.3 As also
noted by the Board in the prior decision, opposer had raised
before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals its complaints
regarding its counsel and the manner in which the civil
action was tried, and the appellate court rejected these
arguments in affirming the District Court decision. As a
result, opposer's complaints about the District Court
proceeding have no effect on our finding of res judicata.
2 Angel World, Inc. and Martha M. Powers v. Treasures and
Trinkets, Inc., No. C/A 6P95-1349-3 (D.S.C. April 18, 1996).
3 Civ. No. 96-1776.
Opposition No. 91151171
3
We do not have the authority, nor do we presume, to review a
decision by the Court of Appeals.
Opposer also argues that the Federal District Court
action involved Angel World, Inc., but not Martha Powers
personally. Opposer appears to be making this argument with
respect to her personal liability for attorneys fees and
costs in the civil action. In any event, the present
opposition is brought by Angel World, Inc., and there is no
question that the corporation was a named party in the civil
action.
Opposer also asserts that its notice of opposition
states a claim of unfair business practices and "continuance
of infringement on [its] mark." Brief, p. 2. These are not
grounds for opposition. As noted in the Board's July 11,
2003 decision, not all claims which may be brought in a
federal district court action are cognizable claims in an
opposition proceeding before the Board.4
Decision: Opposer's request for reconsideration is
denied.
4 To the extent that opposer's infringement claim can be
considered analogous to a claim of likelihood of confusion, the
finding by the Federal District Court that applicant herein is
entitled to the trademark GUARDIAN ANGEL as it relates to jewelry
products has a preclusive effect on opposer's likelihood of
confusion ground.