309.03(b)    Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action

Any person who believes it is or will be damaged by registration of a mark has an entitlement to a statutory cause of action (previously referred to as "standing") to file a complaint. [ Note 1.] See TBMP § 303 In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the framework set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 109 USPQ2d 2061 (2014). Lexmark established two requirements for determining whether a party is entitled to bring or maintain a statutory cause of action: a party must demonstrate (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the statute, and (ii) proximate causation. Despite the change in nomenclature, prior Federal Circuit and Board decisions interpreting Sections 13 and 14 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1063 and 15 U.S.C § 1064, remain equally applicable. [ Note 2.] There is no meaningful, substantive difference between the analytical frameworks in the Board’s prior "standing" case law, under which a plaintiff must show a real interest in the proceeding and a reasonable basis for its belief in damage [ Note 3.], and the current "entitlement" case law, under which a plaintiff must show an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by statute and damage proximately caused by registration. [ Note 4.] In other words, demonstrating a real interest in opposing or cancelling a registration of a mark satisfies the zone-of-interests requirement, and demonstrating a reasonable belief in damage by the registration of a mark demonstrates damage proximately caused by registration of the mark. [ Note 5.].

Please Note:: Although there has been a change in nomenclature, use of the term "standing" may appear interchangeably with the wording "an entitlement to a statutory cause of action" in parentheticals to case citations throughout the manual. Notwithstanding, parties should refer to the issue in submissions filed in Board proceedings as "entitlement to a statutory cause of action."

At the pleading stage, all that is required is that a plaintiff allege facts sufficient to show it has an interest within the zone of interests protected by statute, i.e., a "real interest" and damage proximately caused by registration, i.e., a "reasonable basis" for its belief that it would suffer some kind of damage if the mark is registered. [ Note 6.] See also TBMP § 303.06 regarding pleading of an entitlement to a statutory cause of action by joint plaintiffs. To plead a zone of interest protected by statute, referred to in prior case law as a "real interest," plaintiff must allege a "direct and personal stake" in the outcome of the proceeding. [ Note 7.] The allegations in support of plaintiff’s belief of damage proximately caused by registration must have a reasonable basis "in fact." [ Note 8.]

Allegations in support of an entitlement to a statutory cause of action which may be sufficient for pleading purposes must later be affirmatively proved by the plaintiff at trial (or on summary judgment). [ Note 9.] However, there is no requirement that actual damage be pleaded or proved, or that plaintiff show a personal interest in the proceeding different or "beyond that of the general public" [ Note 10.], in order to establish an entitlement to a statutory cause of action or to prevail in an opposition or cancellation proceeding. See TBMP § 303.03.

An interest falling within the zone of interests protected by statute and damage proximately caused by the registration of a mark may be found, for example, where plaintiff pleads (and later proves):

A claim of likelihood of confusion that is not wholly without merit [ Note 11.], including claims based upon current ownership of a valid and subsisting registration [ Note 12.] or prior use of a confusingly similar mark. [ Note 13.] A registration on the Supplemental Register may be sufficient to establish an entitlement to a statutory cause of action [ Note 14.];

Plaintiff has been refused registration of its mark because of defendant’s registration, or has been advised that it will be refused registration when defendant’s application matures into a registration, or has a reasonable belief that registration of its application will be refused because of defendant’s registration [ Note 15.];

Plaintiff has a bona fide intent to use the same mark for related goods, and is about to file an intent-to-use application to register the mark, and believes registration of the mark will be refused in view of defendant’s registration [ Note 16.];

Defendant has relied on its ownership of its application or registration in another proceeding between the parties, or defendant has asserted a likelihood of confusion in another proceeding between the parties involving the same marks. [ Note 17.]

A counterclaimant’s entitlement to a statutory cause of action to cancel a pleaded registration is inherent in its position as defendant in the original proceeding. [ Note 18.] See also TBMP § 313.03.

A plaintiff need not assert proprietary rights in a term in order to have an entitlement to a statutory cause of action. [ Note 19.] For example, when descriptiveness or genericness of the mark is in issue, plaintiff may plead (and later prove) its entitlement to a statutory cause of action by alleging that it is engaged in the sale of the same or related products or services (or that the product or service in question is within the normal expansion of plaintiff’s business) and that the plaintiff has an interest in using the term descriptively in its business. (That is, plaintiff may plead that it is a competitor.) [ Note 20.] Allegations that plaintiff is a competitor may be made in connection with other claims as well. [ Note 21.]

If a plaintiff can show an entitlement to a statutory cause of action on one ground, it has the right to assert any other grounds in an opposition or cancellation proceeding. [ Note 22.]

NOTES:

 1.   See Trademark Act § 13 and Trademark Act § 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1063  and 15 U.S.C. § 1064.

 2.   See, e.g., Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, at *4-8 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2671(2021); Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 2020 USPQ2d 10837, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2020), reh’g en banc denied, 981 F.3d 1083, 2020 USPQ2d 11438 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 82 (2021); Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 11526, at *5 n.34 (TTAB 2020); Major League Soccer, LLC v. F.C. International Milano S.p.A., 2020 USPQ2d 11488, at *5 n.18 (TTAB 2020); Spanishtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Transcend Resources, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 11388, at *1-2 (TTAB 2020). But see Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, 17 F.4th 129, 2021 USPQ2d 1069, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (when a decision of an administrative agency is appealed in federal court, the appellant also must satisfy the requirements of Article III standing).

 3.   Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

 4.   Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, at *4-8 (Fed. Cir. 2020)., cert denied, 141 S. Ct. 2671 (2021).

 5.   Spanishtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Transcend Resources, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 11388, at *2 (TTAB 2020) (citing Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, at *7 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

 6.   Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("we discern no meaningful, substantive difference between the analytical frameworks expressed in Lexmark and Empresa Cubana."), cert denied, 141 S. Ct. 2671 (2021). See also Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982); Herbko International Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d 490, 2 USPQ2d 2021, 2024 (Fed. Cir. 1987) on remand, 5 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 1987), rev’d, 853 F.2d 888, 7 USPQ2d 1628 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (trade association has standing to maintain opposition); International Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg and Co., 727 F.2d 1087, 220 USPQ 1017, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Shael Norris v. PAVE: Promoting Awareness, Victim Empowerment, 2019 USPQ2d 370880, at *3-4 (TTAB 2019) (plaintiff’s endeavors and the relationship between the parties establish plaintiff’s reals interest and reasonable basis for belief of damage); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriquez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1876 (TTAB 2011) (allegations that term is an appellation of origin for Cuban cigars owned by plaintiff and that plaintiff will be damaged by continued registration of designation is sufficient to allege plaintiff’s real interest in the case for standing); Spirits International B.V. v. S. S. Taris Zeytin Ve Zeytinyagi Tarim Satis Kooperatifleri Birligi, 99 USPQ2d 1545, 1548 (TTAB 2011) (in view of arguable similarities in the marks and relatedness of the goods, opposer has shown a reasonable belief of damage and that it has a real interest in the case); Enbridge, Inc. v. Excelerate Energy L.P., 92 USPQ2d 1537, 1543 n.10 (TTAB 2009) (plaintiff does not have to prove claims or actual damage to establish standing); Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1118 n.8 (TTAB 2009) (licensees have standing to oppose); Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (standing based on parties’ agreement); Kellogg Co. v. General Mills Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1766, 1767 (TTAB 2007) (standing based on showing of commercial interest in the mark); Association pour la Defense et la Promotion de L’Oeuvre de Marc Chagall dite Comite Marc Chagall v. Bondarchuk, 82 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (TTAB 2007) (standing established where (1) individual named in the mark died in 1985, (2) representative is the granddaughter of the named individual and one of the heirs, (3) representative is a member of the petitioner committee and the purpose of the committee is to defend the rights and the work of the named individual, and (4) petitioners claim that the mark at issue falsely suggests a connection with the named individual).

Cf. NSM Resources Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 113 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (TTAB 2013) ("The fact that the word ‘Huck’ may be used in respondent’s written materials that happen also to bear respondent’s registered mark [XBOX 360], a mark not remotely similar to the word ‘Huck,’ does not establish a basis upon which to allege standing to cancel the registration of the subject mark."); Doyle v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (TTAB 2010) (even assuming petitioner has a "real interest" and "personal stake" in taking photographs of goats on a roof, there is no allegation that respondent’s mark prevents petitioner from doing so or how his interest in taking such photographs relates to respondent’s services).

 7.   Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982); Schiedmayer Celesta GmbH v. Piano Factory Group, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 341894, at *5-6 (TTAB 2019) (personal stake where plaintiff is named after family and owned by a family member using the mark for keyboard instruments), aff'd 11 F.4th 1363. 2021 USPQ2d 913 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriquez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1875-76 (TTAB 2011) (Cuban entity has sufficiently alleged standing where claims do not require assertion of a property interest, a specific license to cancel the registration was issued by the U.S. State Department to plaintiff, and standing may be rooted in enforceable rights despite the existence of an embargo); Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785, 1790 (TTAB 2008) (Cuban entity has standing although it does not and cannot engage in any business in the United States due to the embargo on Cuban goods).

 8.   Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that the belief of damage alleged by plaintiff must be more than a subjective belief) (citing Universal Oil Products v. Rexall Drug & Chemical Co., 463 F.2d 1122, 174 USPQ 458, 459-60 (CCPA 1972)). See also Doyle v. Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (TTAB 2010) (petitioner’s alleged belief that he would be damaged by respondent’s registrations is not reasonable).

 9.   See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982)). See also, e.g., Philanthropist.com, Inc. v. General Conference Corp. of Seventh-day Adventists, 2021 USPQ2d 643, at *16 (TTAB 2021) (petitioner did not maintain a reasonable belief in damage following conclusion of proceeding brought by respondent under the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Procedure (UDRP)), appeal docketed, No. 21-2208 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2021); Spanishtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Transcend Resources, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 11388 (TTAB 2020) (summary judgment denied because of the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact as to plaintiff’s entitlement to a statutory cause of action); Stephen Slesinger Inc. v. Disney Enterprises Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1890, 1895 n.15 (TTAB 2011) (no standing in Board proceeding where district court decided plaintiff lacked an ownership interest in the marks), aff’d, 702 F.3d 640, 105 USPQ2d 1472 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert den. 134 S. Ct. 125 (2013); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032, 1037 (TTAB 2007) (opposer established valid ground for grant of summary judgment in its favor; opposer allowed time to prove its standing); Demon International LC v. Lynch, 86 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (TTAB 2008) (failure to prove standing); and Boswell v. Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1600, 1605 (TTAB 1999) (at final decision, inquiry is not whether pleading of standing is sufficient but whether allegations have been proven).

 10.   See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("The crux of the matter is not how many others share one’s belief that one will be damaged by the registration, but whether that belief is reasonable and reflects a real interest in the issue."). See also Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982); Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1638 (TTAB 2011) (no requirement that actual damage be pleaded and proved in order to establish standing or to prevail in the proceeding); Jansen Enterprises Inc. v. Rind, 85 USPQ2d 1104, 1107 (TTAB 2007) (plaintiff has shown that it is not a mere intermeddler).

 11.   See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc., 705 F.2d 1316, 217 USPQ 641, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Lipton Industries Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982); Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Foods Corp., 640 F.2d 1317, 209 USPQ 40, 44 (CCPA 1981) (plaintiff may show standing based on common law rights in mark that is distinctive, inherently or otherwise); Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co KG, 87 USPQ2d 1526, 1530 (TTAB 2008) (standing established by introduction of parties’ agreement); L.C. Licensing Inc. v. Berman, 86 USPQ2d 1883, 1887 (TTAB 2008) (standing established by properly making pleaded registrations of record); Herbaceuticals Inc. v. Xel Herbaceuticals Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1572, 1576 (TTAB 2008) (standing based on ownership of prior registration not voided by allegation, even if true, that mark is generic); Grand Canyon West Ranch LLC v. Hualapai Tribe, 88 USPQ2d 1501, 1502 (TTAB 2008) (standing established by testimony as to prior use); Schering-Plough HealthCare Products Inc. v. Ing-Jing Huang, 84 USPQ2d 1323, 1324 (TTAB 2007) (standing based on ownership of pleaded registrations); Chicago Bears Football Club Inc. v. 12TH Man/Tennessee LLC, 83 USPQ2d 1073, 1075 (TTAB 2007) (exclusive licensee has standing); Wet Seal Inc. v. FD Management Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1634 (TTAB 2007) (standing based on common law use of mark); Barbara’s Bakery Inc. v. Landesman, 82 USPQ2d 1283, 1285 (TTAB 2007) (standing established by properly making pleaded registration of record and asserting non-frivolous likelihood of confusion claim); L. & J.G. Stickley Inc. v. Cosser, 81 USPQ2d 1956, 1964 (TTAB 2007) (cancellation petitioner’s standing based on prior common law use of elements contained in defendant’s registered marks); Baseball America Inc. v. Powerplay Sports Ltd., 71 USPQ2d 1844, 1848 (TTAB 2004); Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650, 1657 (TTAB 2002); Metromedia Steakhouses, Inc. v. Pondco II Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1205, 1209 (TTAB 1993); The Nestle Co. Inc. v. Nash-Finch Co., 4 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 1987); Liberty Trouser Co. v. Liberty & Co., 222 USPQ 357, 358 (TTAB 1983) (allegation of likelihood of confusion accepted as proper allegation of petitioner’s standing with respect to pleaded grounds of fraud and abandonment).

 12.   See Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1844 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982); King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974) (prior registration but not priority in use); Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Development, 2019 USPQ2d 377409, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (pleaded registration made of record); Primrose Retirement Communities, LLC v. Edward Rose Senior Living, LLC, 122 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (TTAB 2016) (same); Research in Motion Limited v. Defining Presence Marketing Group Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187, 1190 (TTAB 2012) (same); Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Kronholm, 99 USPQ2d 1708, 1712 (TTAB 2011) (standing established because pleaded registrations are of record on a motion for involuntary dismissal); Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., 98 USPQ2d 1066, 1072 (TTAB 2011) (pleaded registrations of record); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Omnisource DDS LLS, 97 USPQ2d 1300, 1301 (TTAB 2010) (same); Brown Shoe Co. v. Robbins, 90 USPQ2d 1752, 1754 (TTAB 2009) (same); Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1849 (TTAB 2008) (same); Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785, 1790 (TTAB 2008) (same); Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2008) (standing established by making of record copies of its pleaded registrations showing the current status of the registrations and their ownership in opposer); H.D. Lee Co. v. Maidenform Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1715, 1721 (TTAB 2008) (opposer alleged ownership of application that issued during proceeding and introduced a certified copy of subsequent registration at trial showing current status and title in opposer’s name); Apple Computer v. TVNET.net Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1393, 1396 (TTAB 2007) (pleaded registrations made of record); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032, 1037 n.10 (TTAB 2007) (opposer’s allegations of ownership of pleaded registrations insufficient to prove standing); Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Electric Co., 84 USPQ2d 1482, 1490 (TTAB 2007) (pleaded registrations made of record; cancelled registration has no probative value); Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. ABS-CBN International, 84 USPQ2d 1560, 1565 (TTAB 2007) (pleaded registrations made of record); Otto International Inc. v. Otto Kern GmbH, 83 USPQ2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2007) (pleaded registrations made of record); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Rodriguez, 83 USPQ2d 1500, 1505 (TTAB 2007) (pleaded registrations made of record); Truescents LLC v. Ride Skin Care LLC, 81 USPQ2d 1334, 1337 (TTAB 2006) (parties stipulated to status and title of opposer’s pleaded registrations and applications); Tea Board of India v. Republic of Tea Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1881, 1897 (TTAB 2006) (pleaded registration of record by virtue of the counterclaim brought by applicant); DC Comics v. Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., 77 USPQ2d 1220, 1225 (TTAB 2005); Knight Textile Corp. v. Jones Investment Co., 75 USPQ2d 1313, 1315 (TTAB 2005) (status and title copies of pleaded registrations made of record).

 13.   See First Niagara Insurance Brokers Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group Inc., 476 F.3d 867, 81 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (intrastate use by foreign opposer); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Mark Thomann, 2020 USPQ2d 53785, at *11 (TTAB 2020) (opposer’s standing confirmed by proof of its corporate relationship to entity using the mark as part of its trade name); Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Development, 2019 USPQ2d 377409, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (standing also established by testimony with exhibits of earlier use of confusingly similar mark); Ayoub, Inc. v. ACS Ayoub Carpet Service, 118 USPQ2d 1392, 1395 (TTAB 2016) (opposer’s trade name use; admissions by applicant that opposer is direct competitor); Hunt Control Systems Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 98 USPQ2d 1558, 1565 (TTAB 2011) (prior use established by testimony and conceded by applicant); Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1118 n.8 (TTAB 2009) (use of mark established by testimony sufficient to show reasonable belief of damage even though use "purportedly based on a license which has not been clearly established in evidence"); Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1022 (TTAB 2009) (standing established by showing of common law rights); Green Spot (Thailand) Ltd. v. Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd., 86 USPQ2d 1283, 1285 (TTAB 2008) (prior use); General Motors Corp. v. Aristide & Co., Antiquaire de Marques, 87 USPQ2d 1179, 1181 (TTAB 2008) (past use and present licensing); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1106 (TTAB 2007) (prior use).

 14.   See Otter Products LLC v. BaseOneLabs LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1252, 1254 (TTAB 2012) (opposer’s Supplemental Registration sufficient to establish opposer’s real interest in proceeding).

 15.   See Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (plaintiff’s application refused based on defendant’s registrations); Hole In 1 Drinks, Inc. v. Lajtay, 2020 USPQ2d 10020, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (evidence of record showing petitioner’s pending application refused registration based on respondent’s registration); Performance Products Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1034, 1039-40 (TTAB 2018) (opposer’s standing established through applicant’s concessions and admissions that opposer’s pending application would be refused registration should applicant’s application register); Saddlesprings Inc. v Mad Croc Brands Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1948, 1950 (TTAB 2012) (same); ShutEmDown Sports Inc. v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036, 1041 (TTAB 2012) (evidence of record showing petitioner’s pending application refused registration based on respondent’s registration); Kallamni v. Khan, 101 USPQ2d 1864, 1865 (TTAB 2012) (evidence of record showing petitioner’s pending application refused registration based on respondent’s registration); Mattel Inc. v. Brainy Baby Co., 101 USPQ2d 1140, 1142 (TTAB 2011) (Office action refusing registration to plaintiff based on defendant’s registration made of record); Weatherford/Lamb Inc. v. C&J Energy Services Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (TTAB 2010) (Office action suspending plaintiff’s pending application pending possible refusal based on alleged likelihood of confusion with defendant’s registration made of record); Nextel Communications Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1393, 1400 (TTAB 2009); Hiraga v. Arena, 90 USPQ2d 1102, 1106-7 (TTAB 2009); IdeasOne Inc. v. Nationwide Better Health Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1952, 1953 (TTAB 2009); Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Guantanamera Cigars, Co., 86 USPQ2d 1473, 1475 (TTAB 2008) (opposer’s application was suspended, and opposer, a Cuban entity, submitted a letter confirming permission from the U.S. Dept. of Treasury to file an opposition); Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Group Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1953, 1959 (TTAB 2008); Great Seats Ltd. v. Great Seats Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1235, 1237 (TTAB 2007); Tri-Star Marketing LLC v. Nino Franco Spumanti S.R.L., 84 USPQ2d 1912, 1914 (TTAB 2007); Cerveceria Modelo S.A. de C.V. v. R.B. Marco & Sons, Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1298, 1300 (TTAB 2000); Hartwell Co. v. Shane, 17 USPQ2d 1569, 1570 (TTAB 1990). Cf. Giersch v. Scripps Networks, 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1022 (TTAB 2009) (pending application must be properly introduced, and the fact that it was refused pending outcome of proceeding must be documented, before Board will rely upon application in determining plaintiff’s standing).

 16.   See American Vitamin Products Inc. v. Dow Brands Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1313, 1314 (TTAB 1992).

 17.   See Tonka Corp. v. Tonka Tools, Inc., 229 USPQ 857, 859 (TTAB 1986) (petitioner has standing to cancel registration that has been asserted, even defensively, in a civil action); and M. Aron Corp. v. Remington Products, Inc., 222 USPQ 93, 96 (TTAB 1984).

 18.   See Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1428 (TTAB 2014) ("Applicant has standing based on opposers’ assertion of their marks and registrations against applicant in their notice of opposition."); Delaware Quarries, Inc. v. PlayCore IP Sub, Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (TTAB 2013) (standing assessed at time the counterclaim is filed and Board’s dismissal of the main claim does not render counterclaim moot); Finanz St. Honore B.V. v. Johnson & Johnson, 85 USPQ2d 1478, 1479 (TTAB 2007); Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. FirstHealth of the Carolinas Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1492, 1502 (TTAB 2005); Ohio State University v. Ohio University, 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1293 (TTAB 1999); Ceccato v. Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli S.p.A., 32 USPQ2d 1192, 1195 n.7 (TTAB 1994); Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. v. E.R. Squibb & Sons Inc., 14 USPQ2d 1879, 1881 (TTAB 1990); Bankamerica Corp. v. Invest America, 5 USPQ2d 1076, 1078 (TTAB 1987); General Mills, Inc. v. Nature’s Way Products, 202 USPQ 840, 841 (TTAB 1979) (counterclaimant’s position as defendant in the opposition gives him a personal stake in the controversy). Cf. Great Seats Ltd. v. Great Seats Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1235, 1236 n.3 (TTAB 2007) (respondent in a cancellation proceeding has standing by virtue of its ownership of involved registration).

 19.   See Piano Factory Group, Inc. v. Schiedmayer Celesta GmbH, 11 F.4th 1363, 2021 USPQ2d 913, at *10 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("A party asserting a false association bar to registration under section 2(a) need not have proprietary rights to a name as long as the party has a reasonable belief that it will be or is being damaged by the false suggestion of a connection between a person and the challenged mark."); Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 2020 USPQ2d 10837, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir.) 2020), reh’g en banc denied, 981 F.3d 1083, 2020 USPQ2d 11438 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 82 (2021); International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research Ltd., 220 F.3d 1325, 55 USPQ2d 1492, 1496 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Books on Tape Inc. v. Booktape Corp., 836 F.2d 519, 5 USPQ2d 1301, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 823 F.2d 490, 2 USPQ2d 2021, 2024 (Fed. Cir. 1987),on remand, 5 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 1987), rev’d, 853 F.2d 888, 7 USPQ2d 1628 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("This is true irrespective of the grounds upon which the opposer relies in asserting the nonregistrability of applicant’s mark").

 20.   See Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp.,823 F.2d 490, 2 USPQ2d 2021, 2024 (Fed. Cir. 1987), on remand, 5 USPQ2d 1622 (TTAB 1987), rev’d, 853 F.2d 888, 7 USPQ2d 1628 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Corp., 640 F.2d 1317, 209 USPQ 40, 43 (CCPA 1981); Golomb v. Wadsworth, 592 F.2d 1184, 201 USPQ 200, 201 (CCPA 1979).

University of Kentucky v. 40-0, LLC, 2021 USPQ2d 253, at *13, *15 (TTAB 2021) (opposer demonstrated entitlement to a statutory cause of action by establishing that it has a present or prospective interest in using the term 40-0); Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Freud America, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 460354, at *4-5 (TTAB 2019) (standing established because parties are competitors in the power saw blade industry), civil action filed, No. 1:20-CV-00902 (D. Del. July 2, 2020) (transferred from M.D.N.C.); Performance Open Wheel Racing, Inc. v. United States Auto Club Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 208901, at *2 (TTAB 2019) (standing established because parties are competitors in arranging automobile racing events); Grote Industries, Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1197, 1201 (TTAB 2018) (standing established because parties are competitors in the light truck industry), judgment rev’d and vacated by consent decree, No. 1:18-cv-00599 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2022); Poly-America, L.P. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 124 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (TTAB 2017) (standing established by plaintiff showing that it is engaged in the manufacture or sale of the same or related goods and that the product in question is one which could be produced in the normal expansion of plaintiff’s business); Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo K.K., 125 USPQ2d 1468, 1487 (TTAB 2017) (opposer’s status as competitor establishes standing to oppose registration of product configuration); Apollo Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc. v. Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1848 (TTAB 2017) (opposer established that it is a competitor of Applicant and that it received a cease and desist letter from applicant); Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1949, 1951-52 (TTAB 2014) (opposer established it is a manufacturer of the same or related goods as applicant and applicant did not contest opposer’s standing), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1760-61 (TTAB 2013) (petitioner established and respondent admitted that petitioner is a competitor using the term at issue as part of its domain name), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014), (mem.); Miller v. Miller, 105 USPQ2d 1615, 1618-19 (TTAB 2013) (opposer established it has a commercial interest in using MILLER LAW GROUP as a competitor and based on cease and desist letter showing business interests affected); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriquez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1876 (TTAB 2011) (promoter or manufacturer of goods labeled with the same indication of geographic origin where plaintiff does not have a pending application, is not using the term in the United States, and is not required to being using the term at all); Kistner Concrete Products Inc. v. Contech Arch Technologies, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1912, 1918 (TTAB 2011) (competitor in industry has a real interest in cancelling registration for product configuration); Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1549, 1553 (TTAB 2009) (competitors and retailer of the goods in the applications have demonstrated a real interest in preventing registration of the proposed marks); Corporacion Habanos S.A. v. Anncas Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (TTAB 2008) (primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive and deceptive claims); Saint-Gobain Corp. v. 3M Co., 90 USPQ2d 1425, 1428 (TTAB 2007) (standing to oppose registration of mark for single color for coated abrasives established by opposer’s evidence of use of various colors on coated abrasives); Target Brands Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1679 (TTAB 2007) (standing based on opposer’s privity relationship with company that has competitive right to use mark descriptively); Kellogg Co. v. General Mills Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1766, 1767 (TTAB 2007) (commercial interest in allegedly descriptive term); Plyboo America Inc. v. Smith & Fong Co., 51 USPQ2d 1633, 1634 (TTAB 1999) (standing where opposer a competitor in the industry, a direct competitor of applicant, and one who used the mark at issue on or in connection with its product); Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker Industries, Inc., 222 USPQ 1003, 1010 (TTAB 1984).

Cf. 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).

 21.   See, e.g., M/S R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) 100% EOU v. Zarda King Ltd., 2019 U.S.P.Q.2d 149090, at *4 (TTAB 2019) (standing to assert a § 2(c) claim may be established by facts that plaintiff is a competitor and has a present or prospective right to use the name).

 22.   See Hole In 1 Drinks, Inc. v. Lajtay, 2020 USPQ2d 10020, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (once standing shown on one ground, plaintiff has right to assert any other ground in proceeding); Poly-America, L.P. v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., 124 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (TTAB 2017) (if petitioner can show standing on the ground of functionality, it can assert any other grounds, including abandonment); Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, 122 USPQ2d 1477, 1479 (TTAB 2017) (standing established based on surname claim sufficient to establish standing for any other ground); Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (TTAB 2017) (opposer established its standing as to genericness ground of certification mark and was entitled to assert any other ground); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriquez, 99 USPQ2d 1873, 1877 (TTAB 2011) (because petitioners alleged standing as to at least one ground, primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, they may assert any other legally sufficient claims including those under Section 2(a), the Pan American Convention and fraud); Enbridge, Inc. v. Excelerate Energy LP, 92 USPQ2d 1537, 1543 n.10 (TTAB 2009), (citing Liberty Trouser Co. v. Liberty & Co., Ltd., 222 USPQ 357, 358 (TTAB 1983)).