In the hopes of obtaining a KNOCKOUT trademark registration, last April, Topps petitioned to cancel heath Mark Gertridge's KNOCKOUTS AND TAPOUTS registration. Topps' basis, basically, was that it believed Gertridge no longer used his mark in commerce. If true, this would allow the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board to quickly cancel Gertridge's mark, and clear the way for Topps' KNOCKOUT mark.
Legal translation: "We think he's not using it, so he should lose it. And because we're using it, we should get it."
Unfortunately for Topps, Gertridge answered Topps' cancellation and claims he still uses his trademark in commerce.
The response bars an easy win for Topps. Now instead of showing "abandonment," Topps would have to show there is no "likelihood of confusion" between KNOCKOUTS AND TAPOUTS and a KNOCKOUT mark even though both marks appear on trading cards.
A likelihood of confusion analysis is a lot more complicated, requires experts and surveys, and would cost Topps a lot more time and money than simply filing documents showing "he no longer sells KNOCKOUTS AND TAPOUTS products."
Fortunately for Topps, later in his answer Gertridge capitulates to coexistence of both marks:
I add that in my opinion the trademarking of the word KNOCKOUT on its own is not an infringement of my mark of KNOCKOUTS AND TAPOUTS, nor would the trademarking of the word TAPOUT by an infringement on my mark of KNOCKOUTS AND TAPOUTS. My trademark is KNOCKOUTS AND TAPOUTS. It is not KNOCKOUT, and it is not TAPOUT. Those singular words on their own are not an infringement on my mark. They are common use words in the English language and my trademark is not intended to stop anyone from the use of those words individually on any product even if it happened to be a product in the same categories as my own. I believe that the Petitioner's Application to register KNOCKOUT was refused in a laudable act in attempt to protect my intellectual property rights. However, I have no issue with Petitioner being granted registration of the mark KNOCKOUT. I further have no issue with them using it for any category of goods.
Legal translation: There's room enough in the world for both of our marks!
Given Gertridge's "tapout," Topps' cancellation should end quickly, likely with a co-existence agreement between Gertridge and Topps.
Don't lose the irony here. Both trademarks cover professional fighting. Topps started a battle to cancel Gertridge's marks with its own brand of professional fighters (lawyers). Yet despite this, this dispute looks to end with peaceful coexistence.
Maybe these fighters then can show the rest of the trading card world how to get along with each other.
The information provided in Paul Lesko's "Law of Cards" column is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues commonly encountered in the sports industry. This information is not intended to create any legal relationship between Paul Lesko, the Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC or any attorney and the user. Neither the transmission nor receipt of these website materials will create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the readers.
The views expressed in the "Law of Cards" column are solely those of the author and are not affiliated with the Simmons Law Firm. You should not act or rely on any information in the "Law of Cards" column without seeking the advice of an attorney. The determination of whether you need legal services and your choice of a lawyer are very important matters that should not be based on websites or advertisements.