“‘Standing is the more liberal of the two elements and requires only that a party believe that it is likely to be damaged by the registration,'” which “can be shown by a pecuniary interest.” Law v. Harvey, No. C 07-00134 WHA, 2007 WL 2990426, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2007) (quoting Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 945 (Fed Cir. 2000)). “[S]tanding does not require that the petitioner have ownership or exclusive control of the mark, but only that he show that the petitioner would be damaged by the registration.”

They contend Real Action has not and cannot "show a real and rational basis for his belief that he will suffer damage." Id. (quoting Law v. Harvey, 2007 WL 2990426, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2007)). Among other things, Real Action responds that it can and has alleged damage by asserting that it is harmed by any injunction prohibiting it "from using the term PEPPERBALL, and ¶ 34 of Real Action's Third Amended Counterclaim alleges that ' an injunction would damage its business in California.'"