Firm Update No. 2026-20本所动态 2026-20 号
In re Opposition No. XXXX6839 (BREYLEE): Default Judgment Clears the Way for the Client's Own Application异议案第XXXX6839号（BREYLEE）：缺席判决为客户自身申请扫清障碍
- Practice领域
- Intellectual Property知识产权法
- Jurisdiction管辖
- Trademark Trial and Appeal Board美国商标审判与上诉委员会
- Our role本所角色
- Counsel to the opposer异议人律师
- Status进展
- Opposition sustained Sept. 3, 20262026年9月3日异议成立
IFacts事实
The client, a Shenzhen consumer-products company, applied to register BREYLEE. Its application was suspended because an unrelated individual had filed an earlier application, Serial No. XXXX5603, for the identical mark. When the earlier application was published, the firm filed a notice of opposition on April 23, 2026. The Board instituted the proceeding the same day and set the applicant's answer deadline for June 22, 2026. The applicant, who was represented, filed nothing.客户是一家深圳消费品公司，申请注册BREYLEE商标。由于一名无关个人此前已就相同商标提交申请（申请号XXXX5603），客户的申请被暂停审查。该在先申请公告后，本所于2026年4月23日提起异议。委员会当日立案，并将申请人的答辩期限定为2026年6月22日。申请人虽有代理人，却未提交任何文件。
IIQuestions Presented争议问题
(1) Does a party whose own application is blocked by an earlier-filed application for the same mark have a statutory cause of action to oppose it? (2) What must the opposer establish before the Board will enter judgment by default?（一）自身申请被相同商标的在先申请阻挡的一方，是否享有提起异议的法定诉权？（二）异议人须具备哪些条件，委员会才会作出缺席判决？
IIIRelevant Law相关法律
15 U.S.C. § 1063: opposition to registration; entitlement to a statutory cause of action; belief in damage15 U.S.C. § 1063：注册异议；法定诉因资格；损害之确信
37 C.F.R. §§ 2.83, 2.106(a), 2.116(a): conflicting marks; earlier-filed application; suspension; answer deadline; gap-filling application of the Federal Rules37 C.F.R. §§ 2.83, 2.106(a), 2.116(a)：冲突商标；在先申请；中止审查；答辩期限；联邦规则补充适用
37 C.F.R. § 2.114(a): petition to cancel; answer; duty to plead37 C.F.R. § 2.114(a)：撤销申请；答辩；答辩义务
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55: entry of default; default judgment; failure to plead or otherwise defendFed. R. Civ. P. 55：缺席登记；缺席判决；未答辩或未抗辩
TBMP § 312: notice of default; order to show cause; good causeTBMP § 312：缺席通知；说明理由令；正当理由
Fred Hayman Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Jacques Bernier, Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1556 (TTAB 1991): good cause standard; willful conduct or gross neglect; prejudice; meritorious defenseFred Hayman Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Jacques Bernier, Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1556 (TTAB 1991)：正当理由标准；故意行为或重大过失；不利影响；有理抗辩
Paolo's Associates Ltd. P'ship v. Bodo, 21 USPQ2d 1899 (Comm'r 1990): preference for adjudication on the merits; doubt resolved in favor of defendant; setting aside defaultPaolo's Associates Ltd. P'ship v. Bodo, 21 USPQ2d 1899 (Comm'r 1990)：实体审理优先；疑义作有利于被告解释；撤销缺席
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014): zone of interests; proximate causation; statutory standingLexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014)：利益范围；近因；法定起诉资格
Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020): entitlement to a statutory cause of action; Lexmark framework; Board proceedingsCorcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020)：法定诉因资格；Lexmark标准；商标审判与上诉委员会程序
IVDisposition结果
On September 3, 2026, the Board sustained the opposition. Application Serial No. XXXX5603 is abandoned after inter partes decision, removing the bar to the client's application.2026年9月3日，委员会裁定异议成立。申请号XXXX5603已因当事人间程序裁决而放弃，客户申请的障碍随之消除。
Client details are withheld to protect confidentiality. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.为保护客户隐私，相关信息已隐去。过往结果不保证类似案件的结果。