The Board sustained an opposition to registration of the mark BONNIE CASHIN for backpacks, handbags, and clothing, finding that applicant Stephanie Lake lacked the necessary bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce when she filed her Section 1(b) application. Applicant Lake's lack of documentary evidence regarding her alleged bona fide intent was sufficient to support the Board's granting of opposer's motion for summary judgment, under Commodore Electronics Ltd. v. CBM Kaubshiki Kaisha, 26 USPQ2d 1503 (TTAB 1993). The Trustees of the Bonnie Cashin Foundation, Lucia Keller and David Baum v. Stephanie Day Lake, Opposition No. 91213081 (October 12, 2016) [not precedential].
Click here to view the image.
The Board has held that when there is no evidence of an applicant's bona fide intent to use the applied-for mark in commerce when it filed its application to register, entry of summary judgment is appropriate. See Honda Motor Co. v. Winkelmann, 90 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 2009). [TTABlogged here]. Applicant pointed only to the declaration that her counsel signed when filing her application, but she admitted that she had not taken any steps to use the mark. Her business strategy was not finalized, she hadn't commenced advertising, and hadn't determined specific channels of trade or volume of goods to be distributed.
The Board concluded that applicant had taken no actual steps toward preparing to use the BONNIE CASHIN mark on the identified goods, and had only a subjective intent to use mark when she filed the involved application.
Prior to January 2012, when she filed her application, applicant Lake was employed by opposer, and she represented to consumers that the BONNIE CASHIN mark identified opposer as the source of the goods and services offered at its website. She testified on deposition that her first step toward launching the brand was the filing of the involved application.
In sum, the Board found no evidence that applicant has a bona fide intent to use the mark BONNIE CASHIN on the identified goods when she filed her application.
Therefore the Board sustained the opposition.