On April 7, 2015 Scott Slavick's article, "Halting A Mother’s Progress, TTAB Stretches Laches in Precedential Ruling on Delayed Opposition (Pt. 2)" was published on InsideCounsel.com.
It’s tough to side against Mother’s, you might say. And the TTAB didn’t. In Ava Ruha Corp. d/b/a Mother’s Market & Kitchen v. Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., Cancellation Nos. 92056067 and 92056080 (January 29, 2015), Ava Ruha petitioned to have the trademark of Mother’s Nutritional Center cancelled on the grounds of likelihood of confusion, fraud, and dilution. Mother’s countered that Ava Ruha had waited too long to assert its claim; the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on that laches defense.
Scott Slavick discussed this laches defense in the first of two articles on InsideCounsel.com two weeks ago. His second article on this interesting case, “Halting A Mother’s Progress: TTAB Stretches Laches in Precedential Ruling on Delayed Opposition (Pt. 2),” examines the legal concept of progressive encroachment, which was Ava Ruha’s defense of its own delay in bringing action, arguing that Mother’s had only gradually come into competition with it over time.