In an order issued by the Board on December 31, 2011, Opposer’s actions led to two interesting results:
- In an earlier Order, the Board gave Opposer fifteen days to file an amended fraud claim. Opposer filed its Second Amended Notice of Opposition 74 days later,without a motion for leave to amend and without any consent from Applicant. The Board barred Opposer’s attempt to amend its pleading after so much time. (“[O]pposer filed its second amended pleading containing the amended fraud claim well after the time allowed for such filing by the Board in its order mailed on March 31, 2011. As such, opposer’s submission is untimely.”)
- Due to its conduct and filings, Opposer was sanctioned such that it must contact the Board’s Interlocutory Attorney in order to arrange an inter partes conference with applicant’s counsel prior to filing any new motion in this proceeding.
The Board’s order covers several other issues as well, and serves as a good warning for TTAB litigants regarding the many complexities and procedural pitfalls involved in a trademark Opposition case.
Case: Montres Charmex S.A. v. Montague Corporation
Opposition No. 91191784
Applicant’s Mark: SWISS MILITARY for use with ‘bicycles’
Link to TTAB Order: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91191784-OPP-37.pdf