The dispute arose over the “WAVE” trademark registration for radios, clock radios, audio tape recorders and players, portable radio and cassette recording combinations, compact stereo systems and portable compact disc players. Bose opposed the registration of “HEXAWAVE” in connection with compound semi-conductor devices consisting of an integrated circuit; microwave monolithic integrated circuit; modules, namely power modules for wireless communication; transistor; tuner; mixer; amplifier; downconverter; transceiver; transmitter; receiver; detectors, namely radio frequency detectors; radio frequency switch; [and] antenna by Hexawave, Inc. Hexawave, Inc. filed a counterclaim and asked for cancellation of Bose registrations.
The fraud alleged by Hexawave, Inc. was due to the fact that Bose had filed a combined section 8 & 9 Renewal that stated that the mark was still in use with audio tape recorders and players when Bose had stopped manufacturing audio tape recorders and players and the general counsel knew that when he signed the renewal. The general counsel testified that he thought the mark was still in use because the audio tape recorders and players were still being repaired by Bose and transported to customers.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) held that repairing and shipping to customers was not sufficient use to maintain the registration and that the general counsel’s belief was unreasonable. The TTAB also found that the statement in the Renewal was material and therefore Bose committed Fraud on the Trademark Office and ordered cancellation of the Bose WAVE registration.
The TTAB held, “[a] trademark applicant commits fraud in procuring a registration when it makes material representations of fact in its declaration which it knows or should know to be false or misleading.”
By equating “should have known” of the falsity with a subjective intent, the Board erroneously lowered the fraud standard to a simple negligence standard. See Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1155 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Knowing conduct thus stands in contrast to negligent conduct, which typically requires only that the defendant knew or should have known each of the facts that made his act or omission unlawful. . . .”); see also Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 642 (1999) (explaining that in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), the Court “declined the invitation to impose liability under what amounted to a negligence standard—holding the district liable for its failure to react to teacher-student harassment of which it knew or should have known. Rather, [the Court] concluded that the district could be liable for damages only where the district itself intentionally acted in clear violation of Title IX by remaining deliberately indifferent to acts of teacher-student harassment of which it had actual knowledge.”).
We have previously stated that “[m]ere negligence is not sufficient to infer fraud or dishonesty.” Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We even held that “a finding that particular conduct amounts to ‘gross negligence’ does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive.” Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The principle that the standard for finding intent to deceive is stricter than the standard for negligence or gross negligence, even though announced in patent inequitable conduct cases, applies with equal force to trademark fraud cases. After all, an allegation of fraud in a trademark case, as in any other case, should not be taken lightly. San Juan Prods., 849 F.2d at 474 (quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Bavarian Brewing Co., 264 F.2d 88, 92 (6th Cir. 1959)). Thus, we hold that a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO.
Subjective intent to deceive, however difficult it may be to prove, is an indispensable element in the analysis. Of course, “because direct evidence of deceptive intent is rarely available, such intent can be inferred from indirect and circumstantial evidence. But such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement.” Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When drawing an inference of intent, “the involved conduct, viewed in light of all the evidence . . . must indicate sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to deceive.” Kingsdown, 863 F.2d at 876.
By equating “should have known” of the falsity with a subjective intent, the Board erroneously lowered the fraud standard to a simple negligence standard. See Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 565 F.3d 1126, 1155 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Knowing conduct thus stands in contrast to negligent conduct, which typically requires only that the defendant knew or should have known each of the facts that made his act or omission unlawful. . . .”); see also Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 642 (1999) (explaining that in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998), the Court “declined the invitation to impose liability under what amounted to a negligence standard—holding the district liable for its failure to react to teacher-student harassment of which it knew or should have known. Rather, [the Court] concluded that the district could be liable for damages only where the district itself intentionally acted in clear violation of Title IX by remaining deliberately indifferent to acts of teacher-student harassment of which it had actual knowledge.”).
We have previously stated that “[m]ere negligence is not sufficient to infer fraud or dishonesty.” Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We even held that “a finding that particular conduct amounts to ‘gross negligence’ does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive.” Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The principle that the standard for finding intent to deceive is stricter than the standard for negligence or gross negligence, even though announced in patent inequitable conduct cases, applies with equal force to trademark fraud cases. After all, an allegation of fraud in a trademark case, as in any other case, should not be taken lightly. San Juan Prods., 849 F.2d at 474 (quoting Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Bavarian Brewing Co., 264 F.2d 88, 92 (6th Cir. 1959)). Thus, we hold that a trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive the PTO.
Subjective intent to deceive, however difficult it may be to prove, is an indispensable element in the analysis. Of course, “because direct evidence of deceptive intent is rarely available, such intent can be inferred from indirect and circumstantial evidence. But such evidence must still be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement.” Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When drawing an inference of intent, “the involved conduct, viewed in light of all the evidence . . . must indicate sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to deceive.” Kingsdown, 863 F.2d at 876.
This decision raises the bar for Fraud on the Trademark Office to where it was before the TTAB started lowering it.
- John C. Thomas III
A California company and a Nevada limited liability company filed suit in the Western District Court against Pittsburgh company QuestMark LLC for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition.
Franchise arrangements often involve a variety of intellectual property rights. Disputes can arise when a franchisee’s license ends, but the franchisee continues to sell a product associated with the franchise or the franchisee continues to display the franchise’s signage.
Ride The Ducks is an amphibious tour operator with duck boat tours in Branson, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Stone Mountain Park, GA and Newport, KY. On May 19, 2009, Ride The Ducks filed suit against Bay Quackers in federal court in the Northern District of California alleging infringement of a sound mark.
In numerous recent cases the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has seemed to be lowering the standard for what it considered Fraud against the Trademark Office. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed that trend with its August 31, 2009 decision in Bose Corp. v. Hexawave, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 2008-1448, 8/31/009.
