Susie Mordohv.Kelly C. Krzemien

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2018

No. 92064842 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2018)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: August 3, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Susie Mordoh
v.
Kelly C. Krzemien
_____

Cancellation No. 92064842

_____

Stephanie Furgang Adwar of Furgang & Adwar LLP,
for Susie Mordoh.
John V. Robinson of John V. Robinson PC,
for Kelly C. Krzemien
_____

Before Shaw, Kuczma and Greenbaum,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Susie Mordoh (“Petitioner”) seeks to cancel two registrations on the Principal for
the mark FEEL THE LOVE (in standard characters) owned by Kelly C. Krzemien
(“Respondent”) for
greeting cards; stickers, in International Class 16;1 and

1 Registration No. 3884228 issued on November 30, 2010 from an application that was filed
based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 2 -

caps; children’s and infants’ cloth bibs; hats; infant and
toddler one piece clothing; short-sleeved or long sleeved t-
shirts; shorts; sleepwear; sweat pants; sweat shirts; sweat
shorts; sweat suits; tops; women’s underwear; coats;
jackets, in International Class 25.2
I. Issues Before the Board
The allegations in the Amended Petition for Cancellation3 are not entirely clear,
and the parties, in their briefs, dispute what grounds have been tried and thus are
now before us. The relevant allegations in the Amended Petition for Cancellation are
as follows:
6. Petitioner seeks cancellation [of] Registration No.
3884228 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) for two reasons:
(1) Defendant has not sold greeting cards for at least three
years and not since January 24, 2013 and therefore, the
mark has been abandoned as to those goods; and (2) the
application is void ab initio as she has never sold stickers
and affirmatively represented that, in fact, the mark was
used on stickers sold in commerce. Therefore such filing in

U.S.C. § 1051(b). Respondent filed her Statement of Use on September 26, 2010, and her
Section 8 Declaration of Use on November 29, 2016, which was accepted on February 7, 2017.
The registration also identifies goods in International Classes 18 and 19 that are not the
subject of this proceeding.
2 Registration No. 3755548 issued on March 2, 2010 from an application that was filed based
on an intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act.
Respondent filed her Statement of Use on December 15, 2009, and her Section 8 Affidavit of
Continued Use on April 12, 2015, which has been accepted.
3 Petitioner filed her original Petition for Cancellation on November 15, 2016 (1 TTABVUE),
two weeks before Respondent filed her Section 8 Declaration in Registration No. 3884228,
and Petitioner filed her Amended Petition for Cancellation (5 TTABVUE) on November 30,
2016, one day after Respondent filed said Section 8 Declaration. By order dated December 1,
2016 (7 TTABVUE), the Board accepted the Amended Petition for Cancellation as a matter
of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), and noted that “The amended petition
appears to clarify that Petitioner seeks to cancel Registration No. 3755548 (a single-class
registration) and only Class 16 from Registration No. 3884228 (a multiple-class
registration).” Id. at 1, n.1. However, the Amended Petition for Cancellation does not include
allegations pertaining to Respondent’s filing of her Section 8 Declaration in Registration No.
3884228.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 3 -

Class 16 was fraudulent and the registration must be
cancelled as to Class 16.
7. Petitioner seeks cancellation of Registration No.
3755548 [pursuant to] 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3) for two reasons:
(1) Defendant has not sold caps for at least three years and
not since January 24, 2013, is not currently selling t-shirts,
and has never sold any of the other goods listed in the
identification of goods and therefore, Defendant has
abandoned the use of the mark for these goods; and (2) the
application is void ab initio in that Defendant affirmatively
represented in her application that all of the goods were in
use in commerce when all but two of the goods listed were
sold in commerce, and Defendant filed a Declaration of Use
under Section 8 pm [sic] April 12, 2015, fraudulently
representing continued use of the mark on all of the goods
in the registration when, in fact, the mark was not used on
any of the goods but t-shirts and t-shirts had not been in
continuous use. Therefore such filing was fraudulent and
the registration must be cancelled in its entirety.
Respondent filed an answer in which she denied the allegations in the foregoing
paragraphs. She also “affirmatively states that a Declaration of Use under Section 8
was timely filed for Registration No. 3884228 on November 30, 2016.” 9 TTABVUE
4, ¶ 8.
In the “SUMMARY OF ISSUES” in her brief, 16 TTABVUE 5, Petitioner asserts
that the issues are:
1. whether Defendant has abandoned the Challenged
Mark for the goods identified in her two registrations by
her failure to make use in commerce of the Challenged
Mark in connection with those goods for three years or
more; and
2. whether Defendant’s original applications for
registration and the subsequent filing of Declarations of
Use Under Section 8 [for each mark] were fraudulently
filed because there was no bona fide first use in
commerce, no use of the Challenged Mark in the
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 4 -

ordinary course of trade, and no continued use to
support the Declarations of Use under Section 8.
Petitioner devoted much of her brief to arguing that Respondent never made bona
fide use of her mark in commerce for any of the goods identified in either registration,
rendering both registrations void ab initio and abandoned based on at least three
years of nonuse, and that, contrary to her Section 8 Declarations of Use, Respondent
had not made continuous use of her mark for any of the identified goods in either
registration.
In the “STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES” in her brief, Respondent specifically
objects to any attempt by Plaintiff to broaden the issues
beyond those raised in her Amended Petition to Cancel (5
TTABVUE 1-4). Any response in this brief to issues outside
those raised in the Amended Petition to Cancel does not
waive such objection. Fundamental concerns of due process
require that Plaintiff be limited to the issues raised in the
Amended Petition to Cancel. Similarly, the Defendant’s
case is circumscribed by her Answers to Interrogatories (14
TTABVUE 131-137). 17 TTABVUE 6.
Respondent then restates the issues as they are raised in paragraphs 6 and 7 in
the Amended Petition to Cancel, reproduced above.
In the “SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT IN REPLY” section of her reply brief, 18
TTABVUE 5-6, Petitioner states that the Amended Petition to Cancel “specifically
asserted” that:
1. Defendant’s [sic] abandoned the Challenged Mark as
used on greeting cards due to non-use of more than
three years;
2. Defendant’s original application is void ab initio as the
Challenged Mark was never used on stickers and
therefore, such claim of use in the original application
for registration was fraudulently made;
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 5 -

3. Defendant abandoned the Challenged Mark for use on
caps due to non-use for more than three years;
4. Defendant abandoned the Challenged Mark for use on
t-shirts due to non-use;
5. Defendant abandoned the Challenged Mark as
allegedly used on all other goods listed in the Clothing
Registration due to no sales of any of the goods listed;
6. Defendant’s filing of the application for the Clothing
Registration is void ab initio due to the fact that
Defendant never used the Challenged Mark on any of
the goods, except t-shirts and caps; and
7. Defendant’s Section 8 filing for the Clothing
Registration was fraudulent in that the Challenged
Mark was not continuously used in commerce.
Petitioner contends that after discovery had closed and she had reviewed
Respondent’s evidence, she realized that Respondent
could not even support the assumption made in the
Petition to Cancel that she had ever made any bona fide
usage in commerce of the Challenged Mark as to any of the
goods, had never sold any of the goods listed in [either
registration], and had not, as sworn in her Section 8 filings,
made continuous use of the Challenged Mark for any of the
goods listed in both registrations. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Trial Brief asserted that all of the facts established by
[testimony and evidence] prove beyond all question that
Defendant has abandoned use of the Challenged mark, if
such use was ever made in the first place. 18 TTABVUE 6.
Petitioner had ample time before trial opened to file a motion for leave to file a
second Amended Petition for Cancellation to add claims of nonuse and abandonment
with respect to all, rather than only some, of the goods identified in each of the
registrations, and to add a claim of fraud as to the Class 16 goods identified in the
Section 8 Declaration that Respondent filed in Registration No. 3884228. However,
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 6 -

Petitioner failed to do so. Respondent’s objection in her brief makes clear that she
does not consent to the trial of any unpleaded issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b).
Accordingly, we will consider only those claims that were properly pleaded and tried.
Those claims are limited to (1) nonuse only as to stickers (Registration No.
3884228),4 and (2) abandonment only as to greeting cards (Registration No. 3884228),
and caps and all clothing except t-shirts (Registration No. 3755548).5

4 Petitioner’s use of the word “fraud” in connection with Respondent’s asserted nonuse does
not transform a nonuse claim into a fraud claim. In order to properly plead a claim of fraud,
a plaintiff must allege that an applicant for registration knowingly made a false, material
misrepresentation of fact in connection with the application with the intent to deceive the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, in order to obtain a registration to which it
otherwise is not entitled. In re Bose, 580 F.3d 1240, 1245, 91 USPQ2d 1938, 1941 (Fed. Cir.
2009); Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46, 1 USPQ2d 1483, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Petitioner’s pleading does none of these things. Moreover, fraud based on nonuse of a mark
occurs when a party knowingly, and with intent to deceive the USPTO, represents that it is
using the mark in connection with goods or services, when in fact it is not. See, e.g., Harry
Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1432 (TTAB 2014);
ShutEmDown Sports Inc. v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036, 1044 (TTAB 2012).
Petitioner’s nonuse claim for the Class 25 goods identified in Registration No. 3755548 is
based on an allegation that “Defendant affirmatively represented in her application that all
of the goods were in use in commerce when all but two of the goods listed were sold in
commerce,” thus asserting that two of the identified goods were not sold in commerce and the
others were sold in commerce. The allegation does not identify which goods were sold and
which two were not, and we do not speculate as to Petitioner’s meaning, or whether Petitioner
erroneously used the wording “all but two” rather than “only two” in making her nonuse
claim. We merely note that the abandonment claim for the Class 25 goods specifically
identifies caps as not having been sold since January 24, 2013, and that Respondent “is not
currently selling t-shirts” (5 TTABVUE 3-4, ¶ 7), which implies that Respondent made some
sales of caps and t-shirts. Thus, the nonuse allegation appears to be at odds with the
abandonment allegation.
5 To set forth a cause of action to cancel the registration of a mark which assertedly has been
abandoned, a plaintiff must allege ultimate facts pertaining to the alleged abandonment that,
if proved, would establish a prima facie case. Otto Int’l, Inc. v. Otto Kern GMBH, 83 USPQ2d
1861, 1863 (TTAB 2007). To provide fair notice to a defendant, such a pleading must allege
at least three consecutive years of non-use, or must set forth facts that show a period of
nonuse less than three years, together with an intent not to resume use. See Trademark Act
§ 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Petitioner’s pleading does neither with respect to t-shirts, and it
specifically limits the abandonment claim in Reg. No. 3884228 to greeting cards (thus
excluding stickers).
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 7 -

To be clear, Petitioner did not plead abandonment as to stickers or t-shirts, nor
did she plead nonuse as to greeting cards, or any specific goods identified in Class 25.
Further, the fraud claim based on Petitioner’s Section 8 Declaration of Use, which is
limited in the Amended Petition to Cancel to Reg. No. 3755548, is improperly pleaded
and will be given no further consideration. See Bose, 91 USPQ2d 1938.
II. Record
The record consists of the pleadings and, without any action by the parties, the
files of the involved registrations. Trademark Rule 2.122(b)(1), 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.122(b)(1).
A. Petitioner’s Evidence
Petitioner filed a Notice of Reliance on:
1. Respondent’s answers to Petitioner’s interrogatories and document
requests;
2. Petitioner’s Pretrial Disclosures;
3. notarized letters of Marilyn Guthrie and Robin Aarnio;
4. deposition subpoena and document requests served upon Marilyn
Guthrie and her notarized statement (with exhibits) in response;
5. the Testimony Affidavit of Petitioner; and
6. printouts from the Wayback Machine of Respondent’s website from
2010-11 and 2013-14.6

6 It appears that the search covered the time period January 25, 1999 through October 20,
2016. 14 TTABVUE 87. For the Board’s convenience, citations in this decision to the
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 8 -

B. Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent filed a Notice of Reliance on:
1. the entirety of Petitioner’s Notice of Reliance;
2. the Testimony Affidavit of Respondent (with exhibits); and
3. Petitioner’s answers to Respondent’s interrogatories.7
C. Evidentiary Issues
The notarized letters of Marilyn Guthrie and Robin Aarnio and the notarized
statement of Marilyn Guthrie made in response to a subpoena were not signed under
penalty of perjury and therefore are not proper testimony in a Board proceeding.8 See
TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE
(“TBMP”) § 703.01(h) (June 2018) (“Testimony by affidavit or declaration pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 2.20 must be made in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The testimony affidavit is a sworn statement, while the declaration permits a
comparable alternative unsworn statement. Both options are under penalty of
perjury, and statements in Board proceedings are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.”).
Nonetheless, because both parties offered the same notarized letters under Notice of

evidentiary record pertain to Respondent’s Notice of Reliance, 14 TTABVUE, as it
encompasses Petitioner’s Notice of Reliance.
7 Respondent also submitted, again, the notarized statement of Marilyn Guthrie with
exhibits, differing only (as best we can tell) by the inclusion of a cover email from Ms. Guthrie
to Respondent’s attorney dated July 19, 2017, identifying the “Pictures to be attached to
schedule A for Marilyn Guthrie’s answers in the above case” and the date in 2016 and 2017
on which each picture was taken. 14 TTABVUE 153. In addition, Respondent submitted an
email exchange that has been withdrawn. 15 TTABVUE.
8 In each instance, the notary simply verified the identity of the individual who signed “and
not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of the document.” 14 TTABVUE 49, 51, and 59.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 9 -

Reliance, we deem the evidence stipulated into the record, and accept the letters and
statement for whatever probative value they might have. Cf., Exec. Coach Builders,
Inc. v. SPV Coach Co., 123 USPQ2d 1175, 1176 n.9 (TTAB 2017) (“because both
parties introduced responses to document requests by notice alone and neither party
objected, we will treat the responses as being stipulated into the record”).
With regard to the Testimony Affidavits, the parties should have filed them under
separate cover rather than under Notice of Reliance, as the Notice of Reliance
procedure is reserved for “official documents” and certain “printed publications.”
Testimony Affidavits are neither. Compare Trademark Rule 2.125(a), 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.125(a) and Trademark Rule 2.122(e), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e). See WeaponX
Performance Prods. Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1037-38
& n.12 (TTAB 2018).
Respondent’s resubmission of the entirety of Petitioner’s Notice of Reliance was
unnecessary. When evidence has been made of record by one party in accordance with
the Trademark Rules, it may be referred to by any party for any purpose permitted
by the Federal Rules of Evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(a). See, e.g., Nazon v. Ghiorse,
119 USPQ2d 1178, 1181 n.6 (TTAB 2016) (“Once evidence is properly of record, it
may be relied on by any party for any purpose.”).
Finally, when a witness has testified concerning the use of Respondent’s mark in
a particular year without providing a specific date, we consider the date to be
December 31 of that particular year, absent documentary evidence or corroborating
testimony of an earlier date. Cf. Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 10 -

(“TMEP”) § 903.06 (October 2017) (“When a month and year are given without a
specified day, the date presumed for purposes of examination is the last day of the
month. When only a year is given, the date presumed for purposes of examination is
the last day of the year.”).
III. Standing
Respondent has not challenged Petitioner’s standing to bring this case.
Nonetheless, standing is a threshold issue that must be proven by the plaintiff in
every inter partes proceeding. Any person who believes he, she, or it is or will be
damaged by registration of a mark has standing to file a petition to cancel. Trademark
Act § 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064. To establish her standing, Petitioner must prove that she
has a “real interest,” i.e., a “reasonable” basis for her belief of damage. See Empresa
Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed.
Cir. 2014); Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Because Petitioner has not pleaded and introduced a United States trademark
registration, Petitioner must prove her standing through other evidence. In this case,
Petitioner testified that she owns a registration for the mark FEEL THE LOVE for a
card game,9 and that she has “engaged in research and discussion with greeting card
manufacturers related to their interest in producing FEEL THE LOVE greeting
cards, notebooks, and journals, and discussed the possibility of a line of FEEL THE

9 Respondent also testified that Petitioner owns said registration (14 TTABVUE 106, ¶ 2.),
but we do not treat this acknowledgement as a basis to find standing by concession, as the
goods identified in that registration are different from those identified in Respondent’s
registrations, and Respondent does not acknowledge that Petitioner is, or is interested in
becoming, a competitor.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 11 -

LOVE clothing.” 14 TTABVUE 77, ¶¶ 2-3. This testimony is sufficient to show that
Petitioner is a potential competitor of Respondent and, as such, Petitioner has a real
interest in this proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage. Petitioner therefore has
standing. Int’l Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 727 F.2d 1087, 220 USPQ
1017, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding sufficient the petitioner’s production and sale of
merchandise bearing the registered mark).
IV. Nonuse Claim - Stickers
Under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1151(a), a mark may not be
registered unless it is “used in commerce.” Section 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1127, provides that “[t]he term ‘use in commerce’ means the bona fide use of a mark
in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.”
See also Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG, 841 F.3d 986, 120 USPQ2d
1640, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (providing an overview of the statutory use in commerce
requirement); Paramount Pictures Corp. v. White, 31 USPQ2d 1768, 1773-75 (TTAB
1994) (reviewing the legislative history), aff’d without published opinion, White v.
Paramount Pictures Corp., 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (opinion available at 1997
WL 76957). The Trademark Act further specifies that a trademark shall be deemed
to be in use in commerce when the goods bearing the mark “are sold or transported
in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
As noted above, Respondent filed her Statement of Use concerning stickers on
September 26, 2010, and the registration issued on November 30, 2010. November
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 12 -

30, 2010, therefore, is the relevant date in our inquiry concerning Respondent’s pre-
registration use of the mark on stickers.
The only evidence of pre-registration use of the mark FEEL THE LOVE on
stickers10 consists of (1) the notarized letter of Marilyn Guthrie, which states that
“We have carried Ms. Krzemien’s ‘Feel the Love’ products in our store from 2010 to
present” and includes “stickers” among the listed products. 14 TTABVUE 48; and (2)
the notarized statement of Marilyn Guthrie, which refers to an August 7, 2013
shipment of “feel the love items” as “my second shipment,” and states “I no longer
have the first box so am unable to give a date, although it was some time in 2010.” 14
TTABVUE 56, ¶ 7. Because Ms. Guthrie did not provide a specific date in 2010 on
which she received the first shipment from Respondent, we consider the date to be
December 31, 2010, as explained above. Ms. Guthrie’s statements in her notarized
letter and notarized statement therefore do not support a finding that Respondent
used the mark FEEL THE LOVE on stickers prior to November 30, 2010.
Respondent’s testimony, which essentially repeats, verbatim, her answers to
Petitioner’s Interrogatories, does not establish that she used the mark FEEL THE
LOVE on stickers prior to registration. Respondent lists “June 5, 2010” as the date of
first use of FEEL THE LOVE on stickers, and “June 5, 2010 through Present” as the
“Date Range of Actual Use” on stickers in response to Interrogatory No. 2 (14
TTABVUE 9-10) and in her testimony (14 TTABVUE 107-108, ¶ 6). She also

10 The notarized letter of Robin Aarnio is not relevant to this inquiry because it pertains only
to clothing and covers 2006-2009. 14 TTABVUE 51.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 13 -

maintains, in her interrogatory responses and paragraph 6 of her testimony (14
TTABVUE 109-113), that she “has consistently offered, sold, or provided the goods
claimed in the two registrations from 2006 to the present” (id. at 14-15, Interrogatory
No. 11), that she “has sold stickers as claimed in the … application for registration”
(id. at 15, Interrogatory No. 12), and that she “used the marks on the goods claimed
in the manner represented on her application[] for Registration No. 3884228 … and
reaffirms such representation[] under oath,” pointing specifically to the notarized
letters from Ms. Aarnio and Ms. Guthrie, and to Ms. Guthrie’s notarized statement
(id. at 20, Interrogatory No. 24).
While the testimony of a single witness can, in certain circumstances, support a
claim of use, see Powermatics Inc. v. Glebe Roofing Prods. Co., 341 F.2d 127, 144
USPQ 430, 432 (CCPA 1965), evidence of use is required in this case, where
Respondent’s testimony is the equivalent of her interrogatory responses. See
ShutEmDown Sports, 102 USPQ2d at 1043 (“[Respondent’s] uncorroborated
interrogatory responses that he used the mark or that he intends to use it on these
items are insufficient to rebut the presumption of abandonment resulting from the
lack of any advertising, sales, or customers for the five years prior to respondent’s
responses to petitioner’s discovery requests, for any items listed in respondent’s
registration. A party’s response to an interrogatory is not without evidentiary value,
but generally is viewed as ‘self-serving.’” (Internal citations omitted)). However, other
than the documents from Ms. Aarnio and Ms. Guthrie, which, as we just explained,
do not support a date of use on stickers prior to November 30, 2010, Respondent
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 14 -

submitted no documentary evidence to corroborate her testimony. Instead,
Respondent states that she has “not retained records of sales volumes from … 2010,
the year[] in which she first used the Challenged mark[],” (id. at 19-20, Interrogatory
No. 22).
As for her pre-registration marketing efforts, Respondent states that she launched
her website in 2010, through which she advertised “selected items.” Id. at 11,
Interrogatory No. 4; id. at 108, Testimony ¶ 6. Again, we consider December 31, 2010
as the launch date of Respondent’s website, and this date is subsequent to the
November 30, 2010 date of registration. In any event, there is no evidence of any sales
from the website, and no indication that “stickers” were among the “selected items”
advertised on the website. Next, in answer to interrogatory No. 4, which asked
Respondent to describe the nature of any advertisements and promotional and
marketing materials, Respondent represented that she has “consistently maintained
point-of-sale displays” at Ms. Guthrie’s “brick and mortar” store in California “from
2010 through the present” (id. at 11) but she identified no other advertisements or
promotional or marketing materials for stickers predating November 30, 2010.11 And

11 We reiterate that we consider the period “from 2010 through the present” to begin on
December 31, 2010, which postdates November 30, 2010. In addition, although Respondent
also identified Ms. Aarnio’s retail store as the other “brick and mortar” location for her “point-
of-sale display[]” (Interrogatory No. 4, and Testimony ¶ 6, 14 TTABVUE 108), Ms. Aarnio did
not state, in her notarized letter, that she carried stickers. Respondent’s assertions, in
response to Interrogatory Nos. 5-7 and 9 (and Testimony ¶ 6, 14 TTABVUE 108-110),
concerning use on the commercial websites zazzle.com and redbubble.com, specify that such
use began in 2017, and thus are not relevant to our inquiry concerning nonuse of the mark
on stickers prior to November 30, 2010. And Respondent’s assertions in response to
Interrogatory No. 10 (and Testimony ¶ 6, 14 TTABVUE 110) concerning cease and desist
letters to third parties are not evidence of use of the mark in commerce on stickers. Id. at
116-126.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 15 -

in response to multiple document requests for evidence of use, including the manner
of use and the volume of sales, as well as evidence of advertising, marketing, and
promotion of any of the identified goods under or in connection with the mark FEEL
THE LOVE, Respondent states, in each instance, that she has none. See Respondent’s
Responses to Petitioner’s Document Request Nos. 9-13, 15, 19-21, 24, 30-32, 14
TTABVUE 28-30, 32-33, 36-37. In addition, in response to Interrogatory No. 23,
Respondent states that “other than the maintenance of her website,” she “does not
engage in paid advertising.” Id. at 33.
On this record, we find that Respondent did not make bona fide use of the mark
FEEL THE LOVE on stickers prior to November 30, 2010, the date on which
Registration No. 3884228 issued. Registration No. 3884228 therefore is void ab initio
only as to stickers.
V. Abandonment
Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to make bona fide use of the FEEL
THE LOVE mark for at least three years before November 15, 2016, the date on which
Petitioner filed the instant proceeding. As discussed above, this claim is limited to
the greeting cards identified in Reg. No. 3884228, and all goods, except t-shirts,
identified in Reg. No. 3755548 (the “Disputed Clothing,” and collectively with
greeting cards, the “Challenged Goods”).
A. Statement of the Law
Section 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, provides in pertinent part that
a mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned”:
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 16 -

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. “Use”
of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary
course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.

There are two elements to a nonuse abandonment claim: nonuse of a mark and intent
not to resume use. Exec. Coach Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Co., 123 USPQ2d at 1180;
see also Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New
Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Because registrations are presumed valid under Section 7 of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1057, the party seeking cancellation based on abandonment bears the
burden of proving its case by a preponderance of evidence. See On-Line Careline Inc.
v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Imperial
Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 14 USPQ2d 1390, 1393 (Fed. Cir.
1990); Cerveceria Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 892 F.2d 1021, 13
USPQ2d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Introduction of evidence of nonuse of a mark for three consecutive years
constitutes a prima facie showing of abandonment, and creates a rebuttable
presumption that the registrant has abandoned the mark without intent to resume
use. Rivard v. Linville, 133 F.3d 1446, 45 USPQ2d 1374, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The
burden of production, i.e., going forward, then shifts to the respondent to produce
evidence sufficient to show use of the mark during the relevant period, or an intent
to resume use. Id. The burden of persuasion, however, always remains with the party
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 17 -

asserting abandonment to prove it, by a preponderance of evidence. Cerveceria
Centroamericana, 13 USPQ2d at 1309-12.
The registrant may rebut the presumption of abandonment arising from its
nonuse of the mark for three consecutive years by presenting evidence showing that
its nonuse during that period was excusable, or evidence showing that, during the
period of nonuse, it maintained an intent to resume use of the mark. See Imperial
Tobacco, 14 USPQ2d at 1394-95. “To prove excusable nonuse, the registrant must
produce evidence showing that, under his particular circumstances, his activities are
those that a reasonable businessman, who had a bona fide intent to use the mark in
United States commerce, would have undertaken.” Rivard, 47 USPQ2d at 1376. To
establish that it had or has maintained an intent to resume use of the mark during
the period of nonuse, the registrant must come forward with evidence beyond mere
conclusory statements or denials that it lacks such intent to resume use. See Imperial
Tobacco, 14 USPQ2d at 1394.
B. Testimony and Evidence
There is no evidence of use of the mark FEEL THE LOVE on the Challenged Goods
for the three years preceding November 15, 2016 (the “Relevant Period”).12 While Ms.
Guthrie states that she “carried” the Challenged Goods from 2010 to 2016, she does
not claim to have sold any of them during the Relevant Period, and there is no
evidence that she did so. Indeed, Ms. Guthrie’s notarized letter and subsequent

12 Ms. Aarnio’s notarized letter only covers the years 2006-2009, and thus is not relevant to
this inquiry.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 18 -

statement, and the photographs attached thereto, demonstrate that Respondent
shipped FEEL THE LOVE merchandise to Ms. Guthrie on August 7, 2013, which
predates the Relevant Period. Ms. Guthrie stated that “This was my second
shipment,” the first having been “some time in 2010,” as discussed above. 14
TTABVUE 58, ¶ 7. Ms. Guthrie’s notarized statement (id. at 58, ¶¶ 1, 2 and 7) and
the associated photographs demonstrate that the August 7, 2013 shipment remained
in its original packaging until Ms. Guthrie took the photographs on December 20,
2016 (id. at 68-71), and that the merchandise was on display in her store on that date.
Id. at 61-66.
Ms. Guthrie attached to her notarized statement two invoices evidencing the sale
on December 20, 2016 of one jacket, and separately, one coffee mug, one t-shirt and
one sticker, all bearing the FEEL THE LOVE mark. Id. at 74-75.13 Ms. Guthrie stated
that “Sales prior to that date are itemized only as gifts” (14 TTABVUE 58, ¶ 4), and
that she is “Unable to show volume of as [sic] Feel The Love Products because until
December 2016 all items other than plants or flowers were categorized as gifts in our
system.” Id. at 58, ¶ 6. She also stated that
There are no formal documents showing business
arrangements. Kelly is like family. In 2010 the informal
arrangement was for me to stock her items. We agreed that
when the volume of business became significant we would
sit down and work out a formal written agreement. So far
it has not become necessary to do this. Id. at 58, ¶ 9.

13 Ms. Guthrie also provided a third invoice dated March 27, 2017 for undefined “Feel The
Love Merchandise.” Id. at 75. Evidence of subsequent use or intent to resume use after the
three-year period of nonuse does not rebut the presumption of abandonment. See Cerveceria
India, 13 USPQ2d at 1313.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 19 -

Neither Respondent’s answers to Petitioner’s Interrogatories nor her testimony
establish that Respondent made any bona fide use of her mark in commerce on the
Challenged Goods during the Relevant Period. Respondent lists “June 5, 2010
through Present” as the “Date Range of Actual Use” on greeting cards and “July 1,
2006 through Present” as the “Date Range of Actual Use” on the Disputed Clothing
in response to Interrogatory No. 2 (14 TTABVUE 9-10) and in her testimony (14
TTABVUE 107-108, ¶ 6). She also maintains, in her interrogatory responses and
paragraph 6 of her testimony (14 TTABVUE 109-113), that she “consistently offered,
sold, or provided the goods claimed in the two registrations from 2006 to the present”
(id. at 14-15, Interrogatory No. 11); that she “sold greeting cards during the three
years following January 24, 2013 at the Mt. Vernon Florist” (id. at 15, Interrogatory
No. 12); that she “sold caps during the three years following January 24, 2013” and
“the other goods listed in the identification of goods … claimed in Registration No.
3755548,” and that “[d]uring the period following January 23, 2013, Respondent
supplied her products to the Mt. Vernon Florist where the products were displayed,
offered for sale, and sold” (id. at 16, Interrogatory No. 13); and that she “used the
marks on the goods claimed in the manner represented on her applications for
Registration No. 3884228 and Registration No. 3755548, and reaffirms such
representations under oath,” pointing specifically to the notarized letters from Ms.
Aarnio and Ms. Guthrie, and to Ms. Guthrie’s notarized statement (id. at 20,
Interrogatory No. 24).
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 20 -

However, other than the documents from Ms. Aarnio and Ms. Guthrie, which, as
we just explained, do not support bona fide use of the mark in commerce on any of
the Challenged Goods during the Relevant Period, Respondent submitted no
documentary evidence to corroborate her testimony. Again, corroborating evidence is
necessary in this case because Respondent’s testimony is simply a restatement of her
interrogatory responses. See ShutEmDown Sports, 102 USPQ2d at 1043. Instead, as
noted above, Respondent states that she has “not retained records of sales volumes
from … 2010, the year[] in which she first used the Challenged mark[],” (id. at 19-20,
Interrogatory No. 22). Further, when asked for documents concerning the prices for
each of the Challenged Goods,14 Respondent stated that she had no responsive
documents in her possession (id. at 30-31, Document Request No. 15), and Ms.
Guthrie responded “Not available.” Id. at 58, ¶ 5.
As for her marketing efforts during the Relevant Period, Respondent states that
she stopped using her website in 2013 and “resumed use of that website, along with
advertising her products on www.zazzle.com and www.redbubble.com in 2017.” Id. at
11, Interrogatory No. 4; id. at 108, Testimony ¶ 6). However, there is no evidence of
any sales from the website, and any advertising in 2017 on the zazzle.com and
redbubble.com websites (no examples of which are of record) are not probative of use
of the mark during the Relevant Period.

14 In response to Interrogatory No. 3, Respondent provided a list of suggested retail prices for
each of the Challenged Goods. Id. at 10-11.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 21 -

Next, in answer to interrogatory No. 4, which requested a description of
advertisements and promotional and marketing materials, Respondent represented
that she has “consistently maintained point-of-sale displays” at Ms. Guthrie’s “brick
and mortar” store in California “from 2010 through the present” (id. at 11) but she
identified no other advertisements or promotional or marketing materials for the
Challenged Goods during the Relevant Period.15 And as discussed above, Respondent
has no evidence of use, including the manner of use and the volume of sales, and no
evidence of advertising, marketing, and promotion of the Challenged Goods during
the Relevant Period. See Respondent’s Responses to Petitioner’s Document Request
Nos. 9-13, 15, 19-21, 24, 30-32, 14 TTABVUE 28-30, 32-33, 36-37. In addition, in
response to Interrogatory No. 23, Respondent states that “other than the
maintenance of her website,” she “does not engage in paid advertising.” Id. at 33.
Respondent testified (14 TTABVUE 113-14) that in a phone call with Petitioner
in May 2017, she explained that “while I may not have had the level and continuity
of online presence which Ms. Mordoh expected and clearly expects is necessary to
keep my trademark, I have always sold the products covered by the registrations
under the ‘FEEL THE LOVE MARK’ at the brick and mortar retail locations
described in this Affidavit.” She also “explained that in 2006 I gave birth to my son
who is autistic and who, of necessity has been the focus of most of my energies,

15 As previously noted in connection with the nonuse claim, Respondent’s assertions in
response to Interrogatory No. 10 (and Testimony ¶ 6, 14 TTABVUE 110) concerning cease
and desist letters to third parties are not evidence of use of the mark in commerce on the
Challenged Goods during the Relevant Period. Id. at 116-126.
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 22 -

limiting my ability to spend the time I would like on developing and exploiting the
‘FEEL THE LOVE’ Mark concerning the products for which I have the registrations
at issue.” In addition, Respondent testified that she “clearly explained to Ms. Mordoh
that I have never abandoned the Mark and my many actions to continue selling the
many products bearing the Mark evidenced by the representative photographs, my
cease and desist letters, etc., bear this out.” She also testified that “When my son’s
needs decrease, I will be able and intend to spend much more energy and time
concerning my business.”
The conclusory statements of Respondent in her testimony and interrogatory
responses concerning the use of her mark are without evidentiary support, and are
entitled to little weight. See ShutEmDown Sports, 102 USPQ2d at 1043. And we
cannot infer from this record that Respondent’s extenuating family circumstances,
which arose in 2006, constitute excusable nonuse of the mark on the Challenged
Goods during the Relevant Period. Imperial Tobacco, 14 USPQ2d at 1394-95 (“The
registrant must put forth evidence with respect to what activities it engaged in during
the nonuse period or what outside events occurred from which an intent to resume
use during the nonuse period may reasonably be inferred. Intent to resume use in
abandonment cases has been equated with a showing of special circumstances which
excused a registrant’s nonuse.”); Cf. Am. Lava Corp. v. Multronics, Inc., 461 F.2d 836
(CCPA 1972) (excusable nonuse found where shipments of MULTICAP capacitor
units for use with NORD antenna systems for the U.S. Navy delayed due to Vietnam
War).
Cancellation No. 92062543
- 23 -

Taking into consideration the entire record, we find that Petitioner has
established, by a preponderance of evidence, a prima facie case of abandonment of
the mark FEEL THE LOVE on the Challenged Goods, and Respondent has not
rebutted this prima facie case.
Decision: The petition to cancel Respondent’s Registration No. 3884228 is
granted as to stickers on the ground of nonuse, and granted as to greeting cards on
the ground of abandonment.16 The petition to cancel Respondent’s Registration No.
3755548 is granted as to all identified goods, except t-shirts, on the ground of
abandonment.17

16 Registration No. 3884228 will therefore be limited to the goods identified in Classes 18 and
19, neither of which are the subject of this proceeding.
17 Registration No. 3755548 will therefore be limited solely to t-shirts.