Aktieselskabet Af 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc.
70 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 554, 525 F.3d 8, 381 U.S. App. D.C. 76 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 21(b) of the Lanham Act, a party challenging a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision in a district court civil action may raise new claims and issues not presented during the administrative proceeding. Furthermore, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly did not establish a heightened pleading standard; a complaint is sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) if it gives the defendant fair notice of the claims.
Facts:
- Bestseller, a Danish corporation, has sold clothing under the 'Jack & Jones' brand internationally since 1990, registering the mark in 46 countries.
- In 2003, Bestseller began planning its expansion into the North American market, starting with Canada.
- On January 9, 2004, Fame Jeans, Inc., a competitor, filed an intent-to-use application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to register the 'Jack & Jones' trademark.
- On December 6, 2004, Bestseller filed its own application with the PTO to register the 'Jack & Jones' mark in the United States, citing its 1990 Danish registration.
- At the time of their respective U.S. trademark application filings, neither Bestseller nor Fame had sold any products under the 'Jack & Jones' mark in the United States.
- Bestseller alleged that Fame filed its application to thwart Bestseller's planned expansion into the U.S. market.
- Bestseller alleged it had conducted marketing and research for the use of the mark within the United States prior to Fame's filing date.
Procedural Posture:
- Fame Jeans filed an intent-to-use trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
- Bestseller filed an opposition to Fame's application before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
- The TTAB granted summary judgment in favor of Fame, holding Bestseller had no priority rights to the mark in the United States.
- Bestseller filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking review of the TTAB decision and adding new claims, including lack of bona fide intent to use.
- The district court granted Fame's motion to dismiss, holding that Bestseller had waived its new claims by not raising them before the TTAB and that the complaint failed to meet the pleading standard set by Twombly.
- Bestseller (Appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Lanham Act permit a party challenging a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision in a district court civil action to raise new claims and issues that were not presented during the administrative proceeding before the TTAB?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Lanham Act permits a party to raise new issues in a district court action reviewing a TTAB decision. A civil action under § 21(b) of the Lanham Act is a de novo proceeding, distinct from a direct appeal to the Federal Circuit, which is confined to the administrative record. The statutory language directing the district court to decide 'as the issues in the proceeding require' refers to the district court action itself, not the prior TTAB proceeding. Unlike typical administrative review, the TTAB record is not automatically transmitted to the district court, further indicating the court is not confined to it. The court also held that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly did not create a heightened fact-pleading standard but merely reaffirmed the longstanding requirement under Rule 8 that a complaint must provide fair notice of the claim and allege enough facts to move the claim from 'conceivable to plausible.'
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the nature of a Lanham Act § 21(b) proceeding as a true de novo review, rather than a limited appeal of an agency decision. It provides litigants dissatisfied with a TTAB outcome a significant strategic advantage, allowing them a 'second bite at the apple' where they can introduce new evidence and, critically, new legal theories not exhausted at the administrative level. The court's interpretation also contributed to the post-Twombly dialogue on pleading standards, aligning the D.C. Circuit with those courts holding that Twombly did not abolish notice pleading but simply required sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim, thereby resisting a shift toward more stringent fact-pleading requirements in civil litigation.
