Sazerac Brands, LLCv.Bison Union LLC and Bison Union IP Holdings LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 21, 2020

91241904 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2020)

mbm
January 21, 2020

Opposition No. 91241904

Sazerac Brands, LLC

v.
Bison Union LLC and Bison Union IP
Holdings LLC

Before Zervas, Pologeorgis, and Coggins,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

By the Board:

On April 10, 2019, Opposer filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the
claim that Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark in commerce for
“whiskey” as of the filing date of its involved application.1 By order dated August 15,
2019, the Board found that Opposer had established that there was no genuine
dispute of material fact as to its claim of lack of bona fide intent. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, the Board also found that summary judgment could not be granted at
that time because Opposer had failed to establish its standing to oppose Applicant’s
involved application. Accordingly, the Board allowed Opposer time in which to

1 Concurrently with its motion for partial summary judgment, Opposer filed a motion for
leave to amend its pleading to assert the claim of lack of bona fide intent, which the Board
granted.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
General Contact Number: 571-272-8500
General Email: TTABInfo@uspto.gov
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Opposition No. 91241904

2
supplement its motion for partial summary judgment demonstrating the absence of
a genuine dispute of material fact regarding its standing. In turn, Applicant was
provided time in which to file a response to Opposer’s supplemental filing.
On August 27, 2019, Opposer submitted a supplemental filing attaching copies of
Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) records for each of its seven
pleaded registrations showing the status and title thereof. Applicant did not file a
response. Evidence of pleaded registrations showing current status and title is
sufficient to establish standing. See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943,
55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute of
material fact with regard to Opposer’s standing. See Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v.
General Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Lipton
Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982);
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. VigiLanz Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1399, 1408 (TTAB 2010).
In view thereof, and having already established that no genuine dispute of
material fact remains as to Opposer’s claim of no bona fide intent, Opposer’s motion
for partial summary judgment is granted as to Opposer’s standing and as to the
ground of no bona fide intent. Judgment is hereby entered against Applicant, the
opposition is sustained on the ground of no bona fide intent, and registration to
Applicant is refused as to International Class 33, the only class remaining in the
opposed application.2

2 Applicant’s request to divide out all but opposed Class 33 from the application was
completed September 9, 2019, when divisional “child” Application Serial No. 87981859 was
created.