311.02(b)(2)    Specific Affirmative Defenses

Additional cases are provided as a reference addressing the following affirmative defenses: estoppel, [ Note 1.]; "Morehouse" defense, [ Note 2.]; prior judgment, [ Note 3.]; and laches, [ Note 4.]. Cases referencing select other defenses are also provided. [ Note 5.]

NOTES:

 1.   Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (contractual and equitable estoppel); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 n.6 (TTAB 2006) (licensee estoppel); Freeman v. National Associaton of Realtors, 64 USPQ2d 1700, 1703-04 (TTAB 2002) (licensee estoppel); Leatherwood Scopes International Inc. v. Leatherwood, 63 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2002) (licensee estoppel); M-5 Steel Mfg. Inc. v. O’Hagin’s Inc., 61 USPQ2d 1086 (TTAB 2001) (contractual estoppel). Cf. Textron, Inc. v. Gillette Co., 180 USPQ 152, 154 (TTAB 1973) (defense of file wrapper estoppel not available in trademark cases, but since statement in ex parte proceeding may be admitted as possible admission against interest, statement not stricken from answer).

 2.   Morehouse Manufacturing Corp. v. J. Strickland and Co., 407 F.2d 881, 160 USPQ 715, 717 (CCPA 1969) (that defendant already owns a substantially similar registered mark for substantially similar goods and/or services such that the second registration (or second registration sought) causes no added injury to the plaintiff). See also O-M Bread Inc. v. U. S. Olympic Committee, 65 F.3d 933, 36 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Morehouse defense). Cf. Performance Open Wheel Racing, Inc. v. United States Auto Club Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 208901, at *11 (TTAB 2019) (Morehouse defense does not apply where the issue is whether the mark is generic); Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Hugunin, 88 USPQ2d 1957, 1958 (TTAB 2008) (cannot rely upon expired registration for Morehouse defense); Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1283, 1286 (TTAB 2008) (Morehouse defense unavailable where mark is transliteration of foreign term); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1884 n.6 (TTAB 2006) (Morehouse defense does not apply where marks in the two registrations being compared are not the same); Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Western Skyways Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1203, 1209 (TTAB 2006) (Morehouse defense fails where goods in the involved registration are clearly different from those in prior registrations), aff’d, 208 F. App’x 886, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 3.   Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp., 522 F.3d 1320, 86 USPQ2d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (claim of trademark invalidity, made before Board in cancellation proceeding, amounted to collateral attack on court’s judgment rendered in first action); Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. ThinkSharp Inc., 448 F.3d 1368, 79 USPQ2d 1376, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (res judicata, claim preclusion); International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research Ltd., 220 F.3d 1325, 55 USPQ2d 1492, 1493 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (res judicata); Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Systems, 223 F.3d 1360, 55 USPQ2d 1854, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2000), (res judicata, claim preclusion); Freki Corp. v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (TTAB 2018) (claim preclusion); NH Beach Pizza LLC v. Cristy's Pizza Inc., 119 USPQ2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2016) (issue preclusion may bar re-litigation of a standing determination made in a prior Board proceeding, summary judgment granted); Urock Network, LLC v. Sulpasso, 115 USPQ2d 1409, 1412 (TTAB 2015) (analyzing the defense doctrine of bar in claim preclusion); Stephen Slesinger Inc., v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1890 (TTAB 2011) (ownership of the marks at issue established in court proceeding; defendant entitled to summary judgment based on issue preclusion), aff’d, 702 F.3d 640, 105 USPQ2d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. den., 134 S. Ct. 125 (2013); Zoba International Corp. v. DVD Format/LOGO Licensing Corp., 98 USQP2d 1106 (TTAB 2011) (claim preclusion barred petitions to cancel against two registrations but not a third registration; "defendant preclusion" does not apply to facts of case and further discussed in contrast to "plaintiff preclusion"); Boston Chicken Inc. v. Boston Pizza, Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1053, 1055 (TTAB 1999) (judicial estoppel); Treadwell’s Drifters Inc. v. Marshak, 18 USPQ2d 1318, 1321 (TTAB 1990) (claim preclusion, issue preclusion). Cf. Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1063-65 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (neither issue nor claim preclusion barred Board cancellation action); Mayer/Berkshire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions Inc., 424 F.3d 1229, 76 USPQ2d 1310, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Board erred in dismissing opposition on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds where issues and transactional facts arising from prior district court infringement litigation differed from those in opposition proceeding); Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1467-68 (TTAB 2016) (no claim or issue preclusion; judicial estoppel inapplicable); Be Sport, Inc. v. Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, 115 USPQ2d 1765, 1769 (TTAB 2015) (proposed defense of claim preclusion futile); Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (res judicata argument fails because marks at issue in prior proceedings were different); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, 83 USPQ2d 1500, 1504 (TTAB 2007) (neither claim nor issue preclusion apply where parties are not the same).

 4.   Bridgestone/Firestone Research Inc. v. Automobile Club de l’Ouest de la France, 245 F.3d 1359, 58 USPQ2d 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also National Cable Television Association, Inc. v. American Cinema Editors, Inc., 937 F.2d 1572, 19 USPQ2d 1424, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (laches runs from the time action could be taken against the acquisition of trademark rights which flow from registration of mark); Coca-Cola Co. v. Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 709, at *6-7 (TTAB 2021) (claim not barred by laches because respondent did not show prejudice from 3.5-year delay), appeal docketed, No. 21-2209 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2021); Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Development, 2019 USPQ2d 377409, *9-12 (TTAB 2019) (eight-month delay not unreasonable, material prejudice not shown); Schiedmayer Celesta GmbH v. Piano Factory Group, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 341894, at *9-11 (TTAB 2019) (although delay of over seven years unreasonable, petition to cancel not barred by laches because defendant unable to show material prejudice), aff’d, 11 F.4th 1363, 2021 USPQ2d 913 (Fed. Cir. 2021); TPI Holdings, Inc. v. TrailerTrader.com, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (TTAB 2018) (where laches defense involves a Supplemental registration, period of delay begins on the date when the petitioner first had knowledge that the registration issued); Kemi Organics, LLC v. Gupta, 126 USPQ2d 1601, 1609-13 (TTAB 2018) (addressing merits of laches defense in cancellation); Ava Ruha Corp. v. Mother’s Nutritional Center, Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1575, 1579-83 (TTAB 2015) (laches available for dilution claim in opposition and cancellation; laches applied to dilution claim); Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Hugunin, 88 USPQ2d 1957, 1959 (TTAB 2008) (where laches defense based on failure to object to an expired registration, asserted period of delay begins on issue date of prior registration and ends with its expiration); Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (no evidence that opposer knew of applicant’s use of its mark in the U.S.); Herbaceuticals Inc. v. Xel Herbaceuticals Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1572, 1575 n.3 (TTAB 2008) (laches is unavailable as an affirmative defense against a claim of fraud); Hornby v. TJX Companies, Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1411, 1419 (TTAB 2008) (defense of laches is available when the rights asserted by a petitioner are personal in nature; laches available against claims of false suggestion of a connection, likelihood of confusion, and dilution); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1116 (TTAB 2007) (respondent’s expansion into new product lines excused petitioner’s delay in filing cancellation; laches defense unavailable); Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1572 (TTAB 2007) (laches requires showing of undue delay and prejudice, and will not lie if confusion is inevitable); Barbara’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 USPQ2d 1283, 1292 n.14 (TTAB 2007) (defenses of laches, acquiescence or estoppel generally not available in opposition proceeding); Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Western Skyways Inc., 78 USPQ2d 1203, 1210 n.10 (TTAB 2006) (publication of mark does not provide constructive notice of resultant registration; "in the absence of actual knowledge prior to the close of the opposition period, the date of registration is the operative date for calculating laches"; economic damage may be a direct function of the delay involved; confusion is not inevitable), aff’d, 208 F. App’x 886, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Krause v. Krause Publications, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1904, 1914 (TTAB 2005) (same); Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1306 (TTAB 2004).

 5.   Spanishtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Transcend Resources, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 11388, at *4 (TTAB 2020) (lack of capacity to sue); Hu v. TJ Food Services, LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1777, 1779 (TTAB 2017) (lack of Board jurisdiction due to contractual agreement containing arbitration clause); Diaz v. Servicios De Franquicia Pardo’s S.A.C., 83 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (TTAB 2007) (Board has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain affirmative defense of priority pursuant to Article 7 of the Pan American Convention); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1887 (TTAB 2006) (holding that certification mark has lost its significance as an indication of geographic source). Cf., Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334, 1338 (TTAB 2006) (applicant’s "fair use" defense given no consideration); Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1283, 1285 n.4 (TTAB 2008) (unclean hands defense unavailable); Great Seats Ltd. v. Great Seats Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1235, 1244 n.10 (TTAB 2007) (defense of unclean hands, even if established, does not deprive petitioner of standing); Hornblower & Weeks Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1733, 1737 (TTAB 2001) (defendant not entitled to rely on asserted ownership of "family" of marks as defense to Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) claim).