Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.

 
APPEAL NO.
23-2140
OP. BELOW
SUBJECT
Trademark
AUTHOR
Hughes

Issue(s) Presented

“Whether the Board erred in dismissing Curtin’s opposition by misinterpreting the Lanham Act, misconstruing governing precedent, and disregarding this Court’s case law.”

Holding

“[T]he Board correctly applied the Lexmark framework to find that Ms. Curtin did not have statutory standing to oppose UTH’s registration of the RAPUNZEL mark under § 1063.”