United States Olympic Committee Vs.

Kayser-Roth Corporation 1

United States Olympic Committee Vs. Kayser-Roth Corporation

Robert Brown

Texas A & M University Kingsville

11/30/14

EDKN 3355

Dr. Daniel J. Burt

United States Olympic Committee Vs. Kayser-Roth Corporation 2
United States Olympic Committee Vs. Kayser-Roth Corporation 3

1. Trial or Appellate Court?

This was a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

2. Plaintiff and Defendant?

The plaintiff was the United States Olympic Committee and the defendant was Kayser-
Roth Corporation

3. Original Complaint?
The United States Olympic Committee filed a petition to terminate the registration of
Kayser Roth Corporation for the OLYMPIC CHAMPION mark on the polo shirts,
sweat pants, and sweat shirts, athletic shirts and pants for both genders.

4. Facts that led to a complaint?

The petitioner filed that the registration renewal application on July 21,1991, the plaintiff
has not used the mark in registration No.287, 322, OLYMPIC CHAMPION or even in
relation with the manufacture or sale of the goods known such as, polo shirts, sweats,
sweat shirts and athletic gear for men and women.

5. Type of Case? (Sexual Harassment, Property Liability, etc..)

This was a Liability Case.

6. Original Courts Decision?

. The Court granted to cancel the petition, for the Olympic Champion mark.

7. If Appeal, what are the questions being raised?

The question being raised is whether or not if the respondent's mark OLYMPIC
CHAMPION has been abandoned in connection with the goods identified in the subject
registration.

8. What was their decision if an appeal is being made (affirmed, reversed, or remanded)?

The court felt that the respondent has not disproven the prima facie case of
abandonment based on nonuse of the mark on the known apparel
since 1993.
United States Olympic Committee Vs. Kayser-Roth Corporation 4

9. What rule or test was used to make a decision?

They used section 45 of the Trademark Act, Section 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1127,
states, "nonuse [of a mark] for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of
abandonment." Section 45 of the Trademark Act was amended, effective January 1, 1996, to
extend the minimum period of nonuse required to establish a prima facie case of abandonment
from two to three consecutive years of nonuse.

10. Reason the court gives for this ruling?

The court had felt that the defendant has not met its burden of establishing its continuing intent
to resume use of the mark on the identified apparel. The Defendant has shown no specific actions
taken to plan for resumption of use at the conclusion of the proceeding.

11. Future ramifications due to this ruling?

Companies need to form stronger contracts on trademarks, not leaving them in the air for other
companies to use on any items. Knowing what is allowed and what isnt can save many lawsuit
which also saves money for a lot of companies.