In support of this argument, Defendant relies on a similar case, Sream, Inc. v. Superior Disc., LLC, No. CV 17-8177, 2019 WL 2124887 (E.D. La. May 15, 2019), wherein the court declined to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for cancellation of the Roor trademark due to Plaintiffs' alleged fraud in obtaining the registration. Defendant also cites Kratom Lab, Inc. v. Mancini, No. 11-80987-CIV, 2013 WL 3927838 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2013) (J. Marra), where the court found that the plaintiff did not have a valid trademark for its synthetic marijuana because the plaintiff misrepresented its intended use in its application to the USPTO. Id. at *5.

See, e.g., CreAgri, Inc. v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc., 474 F.3d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 2007); United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Midland Fumigant, Inc., 205 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000); Gray v. Daffy Dan's Bargaintown, 823 F.2d 522, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See, e.g., Davidoff Extension S.A. v. Davidoff Intern., Inc., 612 F. Supp. 4, 7 (S.D. Fla. 1984) (holding that defendants failed to meet their burden of showing plaintiff unlawfully used the Davidoff mark in the sale of cigars by illegally selling cigars containing Cuban tobacco in the US); see also Kratom Lab, Inc. v. Mancini, No. 11-80987-CIV, 2013 WL 3927838, at *3-5 (S.D. Fla. July 29, 2013) (finding plaintiff had no valid trademark in "Mr. Nice Guy" mark used on incense because plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented that the incense was not for human consumption but plaintiff's principals pled guilty to violating the Analogue Act, 21 U.S.C. § 813, and admitted that they intended the product to be used for human consumption).