Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti.v.Nema Food Distribution Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2021

92070059 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2021)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: July 26, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic.
Ltd. Sti.
v.
Nema Food Distribution Inc.
_____

Cancellation No. 92070059
_____

Howard Natter of Natter & Natter,
for Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic.
Ltd. Sti.
Bradley S. Rothschild of Rothschild & Associates LLC,
for Nema Food Distribution Inc.
_____

Before Cataldo, Coggins, and English,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Coggins, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Nema Food Distribution Inc. (“Respondent”) owns a registration on the Principal
Register for the mark SEYIDOGLU, in standard characters, for:
Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved,
frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams,
and marmalade; compotes; eggs, milk and milk products
excluding ice cream, ice milk and frozen yogurt; edible oils
and fats; condiments, namely, pepper oil; tahini in the
nature of a mix made of ground sesame seed and sesame
oil, in International Class 29; and
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 2 -
Coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee;
flour, bread, pastry; pastries, namely, baklava, kadaifi,
namely, a dessert made of shredded phyllo dough, nuts and
sugar or honey, cheese pastry, tulumba, namely, a kind of
fried-dough pastry made of deep fried dough soaked in
sugar syrup or honey; confectionery, namely, Turkish
delight, namely, a kind of candy made of sugar, nuts and
flavor, halva, namely, candy prepared with sesame seeds,
nuts and sugar; honey, treacle; yeast, baking powder; salt,
mustard; vinegar, condiments, namely, pepper sauce;
spices; ice, phyllo dough, cream filled cakes, molasses; and
milk products, namely, ice cream, ice milk, and frozen
yogurt, in International Class 30.1
In the Amended Petition for Cancellation, Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu
Baklavalari Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti. (“Petitioner”) seeks
cancellation of Respondent’s registration on the grounds of false suggestion of a
connection under Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a); and fraud under
Trademark Act Section 14(3), 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3), based on Respondent’s claim of
ownership of the mark in the underlying application declaration.2

1 Registration No. 3878739, issued November 23, 2010, from an application filed October 21,
2009, claiming March 1, 2008, as the date of first use anywhere and the date of first use in
commerce. According to the registration certificate, “The wording ‘Seyidoglu’ has no meaning
in a foreign language.”
2 Petitioner also pleaded fraud based on Respondent’s claim of use of the mark on all of the
goods in subsequent maintenance declarations, 9 TTABVUE 9-10; however, this theory of
fraud was not pursued at trail and we consider it waived. Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake
Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1753 n.6 (TTAB 2013). Similarly, Petitioner pleaded
the ground of misrepresentation of source, 9 TTABVUE 10, but that was stricken by the
Board upon consideration of Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 15 TTABVUE 9.
Citations to the record and briefs reference TTABVUE, the Board’s online docket system.
See, e.g., New Era Cap Co., Inc. v. Pro Era, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 10596, *2 n.1 (TTAB 2020).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 3 -
Because the original Petition for Cancellation was filed more than five years after
the date the registration issued, the grounds for cancellation are limited.3 E.g.,
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 14 USPQ2d 1390, 1392
(Fed. Cir. 1990). False suggestion of a connection and fraud are two bases for
cancellation that continue after the five-year period and may be brought “[a]t any
time.” 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). See TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF
PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 307.02(a) (2021).
In its Answer, Respondent denied most of the salient allegations of the Amended
Petition for Cancellation, but admitted that (1) Petitioner is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of food products including desserts, baked goods,
pastries, baklava, Turkish delight, and jams; (2) On October 5, 2008, Petitioner
granted an exclusive distributorship agreement for North and South America to
Nema Kimya Dis Tacaret San. Ve Paz. A.S., a corporation of the Republic of Turkey
(“Nema Kimya”); (3) Respondent’s President Beyhan Nakiboglu, was also the
President of Nema Kimya; (4) between 2008 and 2013, Nema Kimya shipped
Petitioner’s food products bearing the SEYIDOGLU mark to Respondent in the
United States; (5) Nema Kimya is no longer in business; (6) Subsequent to 2013,
Petitioner exported food products bearing the SEYIDOGLU mark to Respondent in
the United States; (7) On October 21, 2009, Respondent filed in its own name
application Serial No. 77853876 to register the mark SEYIDOGLU in connection with

3 The original Petition was filed November 19, 2018, almost eight years after the registration
issued. Because dilution is not a basis permitted after five years, Petitioner’s claim of
dilution, 9 TTABVUE 13-14, was sua sponte stricken by the Board. 15 TTABVUE 4.
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 4 -
various food products; (8) Petitioner’s own application, Serial No. 79087624 based on
an extension of protection of International Registration 1051887, was provisionally
refused registration in view of Respondent’s earlier-filed application and was
abandoned by Petitioner; and (9) Respondent’s application matured into Registration
No. 3878739 in connection with the same and similar food products sold by
Petitioner.4 In addition, Respondent pleaded various equitable affirmative defenses,
purported affirmative defenses, and that Petitioner consented to Respondent’s
registration of the mark.5
I. Accelerated Case Resolution
After the Board denied Petitioner’s fully briefed motion for summary judgment,
the parties agreed to try this case via the Board’s Accelerated Case Resolution
(“ACR”) procedure. Specifically, they agreed to forego a traditional trial, and to
proceed on the ACR conversion model based on the prior briefing of the motion for
summary judgment along with some supplemental evidence.6 The parties also
stipulated “that the Board may resolve any genuine disputes of material fact in the

4 Answer, ¶¶ 3, 8, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 30, and 31; 16 TTABVUE 3-5.
5 16 TTABVUE 10-11. Respondent was previously informed that equitable defenses are not
available against the ground of fraud. 15 TTABVUE 2 n.3. In its brief, Applicant appears to
argue only consent to register, and acquiescence or laches. See 22 TTABVUE 4. To the extent
Applicant did not argue any of the other defenses in its brief, they are waived. See TPI
Holdings, Inc. v. TrailerTrader.com LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1409, 1413 n.28 (TTAB 2018)
(“Respondent also asserted ‘estoppel, acquiescence and waiver,’ but does not argue any of
these in its brief. They are therefore waived.”); Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce Winston Gem
Corp., 111 USPQ2d 1419, 1422 (TTAB 2014) (“As applicant did not pursue the affirmative
defenses of failure to state a claim and unclean hands, either in its brief or by motion, those
defenses are waived.”).
6 See 24 TTABVUE (denial of summary judgment); 25 TTABVUE (stipulation to ACR); 26
TTABVUE (ACR approval).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 5 -
context of something less than a full trial.”7 See generally Kemi Organics, LLC v.
Gupta, 126 USPQ2d 1601, 1602 (TTAB 2018) (describing summary judgment ACR
model); TBMP § 702.04(c).
The case is fully briefed. As in a traditional Board proceeding, the burden of proof
remains with Petitioner, which must establish its case by a preponderance of the
evidence. TBMP § 702.04(a). As noted above, under the terms of the stipulation the
Board may resolve any and all issues of material fact in the course of issuing a final
ruling. See TPI Holdings v. TrailerTrader.com, 126 USPQ2d at 1411; Bond v. Taylor,
119 USPQ2d 1049, 1051 (TTAB 2016) (“In order to take advantage of any form of
ACR, the parties must stipulate that the Board may resolve any genuine disputes of
material fact in the context of something less than a full trial.”). See generally TBMP
§§ 528.05(a)(2), 702.04, 705.
II. The Evidentiary Record
The record consists of the pleadings and, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b),
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b), the file of Respondent’s involved registration. In addition, under
the ACR stipulation, the parties induced the following testimony and evidence.
A. Petitioner’s evidence
 Declaration of Bilal Seyitoglu, Petitioner’s Deputy General Manager (20
TTABVUE 28-30) with accompanying exhibits I-VII (20 TTABVUE 33-81).

 Declaration of Karin Cao, law clerk (20 TTABVUE 31-32) with
accompanying exhibits VIII-XII (20 TTABVUE 82-141).

7 25 TTABVUE 2.
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 6 -
 Declaration of Serdar Seyidoglu, Petitioner’s General Manager (27
TTABVUE 2-5) with accompanying exhibits XIII-XV (27 TTABVUE 7-21).

 Declaration of Levent Demirgil, President of Vintage Food Corporation (27
TTABVUE 22-24).

 Declaration of Ali Kemal Dincer, a dual citizen of the United States and
Turkey, and a consumer and purchaser of Petitioner’s food products (27
TTABVUE 26-27).

 Rebuttal Declaration of Serdar Seyidoglu (29 TTABVUE 2-4).

B. Respondent’s evidence
 Declaration of Galip Kiyakli, Respondent’s Chief Operating Officer (28
TTABVUE 2-4) with accompanying exhibits A-B (28 TTABVUE 6-13).8

 Declaration of Mehmet Gurakar, President of MRG Food LLC, a distributor
of Respondent’s food products (28 TTABVUE 14-15).

 Declaration of Ahmet Ipecki, Chief Executive Officer of Anatolia Foods
Global LLC, a former distributor of Respondent’s food products (28
TTABVUE 17-18).

III. Background of the Parties
Petitioner is a major manufacturer of food products, including Turkish desserts
and jams, founded in 1952 by Habes Seyidoglu, in Istanbul, Turkey, and is owned
and managed by the Seyidoglu family.9 Petitioner is the owner of multiple Turkish
registrations for marks that include the term SEYIDOGLU, the oldest of which dates

8 The Kiyakli declaration is effectively a replacement declaration including exhibits
referenced but not attached to the original Kiyakli declaration submitted with Respondent’s
brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. See 22 TTABVUE 10-12 (original
declaration) and 24 TTABVUE 4 n.3 (noting exhibits not included with original declaration).
9 Answer ¶ 3 (16 TTABVUE 3); Seyitoglu Dec. ¶¶ 2, 5, 7, Ex. I (20 TTABVUE 28, 29, 34);
Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 3 (27 TTABVUE 2); Seyidoglu Rebuttal Dec. ¶ 10 (29 TTABVUE 3).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 7 -
back to at least 1996.10 In 2005, Petitioner was granted a Turkish trademark
registration for the composite word-and-tulip-design mark (comprised of
SEYIDOGLU and a tulip design of stylized letters GHS), and based upon which
Petitioner obtained an International Registration.11 In 2007, Petitioner began
exporting its food products bearing the mark SEYIDOGLU to the United States
through Nema Kimya, an Istanbul subsidiary of Respondent.12 In October 2008,
Petitioner entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement with Nema Kimya to
export Petitioner’s food products to North and South America, and one year later, in
October 2009, Respondent filed in the United States the application underlying the
involved registration for the mark SEYIDOGLU.13 In 2010, Petitioner requested an
extension of protection to the United States, among several other countries, of its
International Registration for the composite word-and-tulip-design mark , but
Petitioner’s resulting U.S. application was provisionally refused registration based
on Respondent’s then-pending application underlying the involved registration.14
Nema Kimya eventually became defunct, and in 2014 Petitioner began exporting
its food products bearing the mark SEYIDOGLU to the United States directly to

10 Seyidoglu Rebuttal Dec. ¶ 9 (29 TTABVUE 3); Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 15, Ex. XV (27 TTABVUE
5, 16-21).
11 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 6, 12, Ex. V (20 TTABVUE 29-30, 66-76).
12 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 9, Ex. II (20 TTABVUE 29, 20-47); Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 7 (27 TTABVUE 3).
13 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 10, Ex. III (20 TTABVUE 29, 57-60).
14 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 13-14, Ex. VI-VII (20 TTABVUE 30, 77-89).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 8 -
Respondent.15 Petitioner terminated its business relationship with Respondent in
2018, due in part to slowing U.S. sales; and later that same year Respondent sent a
cease-and-desist letter to Petitioner’s new U.S.-based business partner after
Petitioner “inadvertently” placed its name on private-label food goods manufactured
for the new partner.16 Following receipt of the cease-and-desist letter, Petitioner
brought this cancellation proceeding.
IV. Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action
A plaintiff’s entitlement to bring a statutory cause of action, formerly referred to
as “standing,” must be established in every inter partes case before the Board. See
Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 2020 USPQ2d 11277 (Fed. Cir. 2020),
cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2021); Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked
TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 2020 USPQ2d 10837 (Fed. Cir. 2020), reh’g en banc denied
981 F.3d 1083 (Dec. 4, 2020), petition for cert. filed; Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v.
Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Spanishtown
Enters., Inc. v. Transcend Res., Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 11388 (TTAB 2020). A party in
the position of plaintiff may petition for cancellation of a registered mark where such
cancellation is within the zone of interests protected by the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1064,
and the party has a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by continued
registration of the mark. See Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC, 2020 USPQ2d 11526, *6

15 Answer ¶¶ 17, 20 (16 TTABVUE 4, 5).
16 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 15 (20 TTABVUE 30); Seyidoglu Dec. ¶¶ 11, 12, Ex. XIII (27 TTABVUE
4, 7-12).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 9 -
(TTAB 2020) (citing Corcamore, 2020 USPQ2d 11277, at *6-7); Spanishtown Enters.,
2020 USPQ2d 11388, at *1. See also 15 U.S.C. § 1064.
There is no dispute that Petitioner is a manufacturer of Turkish desserts and
jams; that the parties had a long-standing business relationship dating back to at
least 2007 when Nema Kimya, an Istanbul subsidiary of Respondent, began exporting
Petitioner’s food products to the United States;17 and that from approximately 2014
until Petitioner discontinued its business relationship with Respondent in 2018,
Petitioner exported food products bearing the mark SEYIDOGLU directly to
Respondent.18 These facts are sufficient to establish Petitioner’s entitlement to bring
a statutory cause of action, because the question of ownership of the mark
SEYIDOGLU forms part of the fraud claim.19 Cf. UVeritech, Inc. v. Amax Lighting,
Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1242, 1244 (TTAB 2015) (a dispute over ownership of a mark
establishes entitlement to bring a statutory cause of action).
V. Fraud
Fraud in procuring a trademark registration occurs when an applicant for
registration knowingly makes a false, material representation of fact in connection
with an application to register, with the intent of obtaining a registration to which it

17 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶¶ 7, 9 (20 TTABVUE 29); Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 7 (27 TTABVUE 3); Answer
¶¶ 3, 14, 19 (16 TTABVUE 3-5); Kiyakli Dec. ¶ 8 (28 TTABVUE 3).
18 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 15 (20 TTABVUE 29); Answer ¶ 20 (16 TTABVUE 5).
19 Once a plaintiff has established its entitlement to a statutory cause of action for one ground,
it is entitled to assert any other available statutory grounds. Poly-America, L.P. v. Ill. Tool
Works, Inc., 124 USPQ2d 1508, 1512 (TTAB 2017); Corporacion Habanos SA v. Rodriquez,
99 USPQ2d 1873, 1877 (TTAB 2011).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 10 -
is otherwise not entitled. In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938, 1939-40
(Fed. Cir. 2009); Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46, 1 USPQ2d 1483,
1484 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. Delphix Corp., 117 USPQ2d 1518,
1521 (TTAB 2016); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Ahmad, 112 USPQ2d 1361, 1365 (TTAB
2014). A party alleging fraud in the procurement of a registration bears the heavy
burden of proving fraud with clear and convincing evidence. Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1939
(quoting Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 209 USPQ 1033, 1044 (TTAB 1981)). See also
W.D. Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co., 377 F.2d 1001, 153 USPQ 749, 750
(CCPA 1967) (heavy burden of proof required of one alleging fraud). Indeed, “the very
nature of the charge of fraud requires that it be proven ‘to the hilt’ with clear and
convincing evidence. There is no room for speculation, inference or surmise and,
obviously, any doubt must be resolved against the charging party.” Smith Int’l v. Olin
Corp., 209 USPQ at 1044.
The Board will not find fraud if the evidence shows that a false representation
was made with a reasonable and honest belief that it was true, rather than an intent
to mislead the USPTO into issuing a registration to which the applicant was not
otherwise entitled. See id.; see also Woodstock’s Enters. Inc. (Cal.)_ v. Woodstock’s
Enters. Inc. (Or.), 43 USPQ2d 1440, 1443 (TTAB 1997). The Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit has held that intent to deceive is an indispensable element of the
analysis in a fraud case. See Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1941.
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 11 -
A. False material representation of ownership
We first look to see whether false and material representations were made in
Respondent’s underlying application to register the SEYIDOGLU mark. Bose, 91
USPQ2d at 1942. The crux of the issue is whether Respondent owned the
SEYIDOGLU mark in the U.S. at the time it filed the application on October 21, 2009,
in its own name. An application based on use in commerce under Section 1(a), 15
U.S.C. § 1051(a), must be filed by the party who owns the mark. Thus, we must
determine who owned the mark and whether Respondent made any false material
representations regarding ownership on the filing date of the application.
In 2007, Petitioner starting selling in the U.S. various food products bearing the
mark SEYIDOGLU through the Nema Kimya subsidiary of Respondent.20 In October
2008, Nema Kimya executed an exclusive distributorship agreement with Petitioner,
in which Petitioner is defined as “the Manufacturer” and Nema Kimya is defined as
“the Distributor.”21 The agreement contains the following terms:
1. REGION AND PRODUCTS
1.1. The Distributor, is the only seller of all products
produced by the Manufacturer (hereinafter “the Products”)
in the continent of North and South America (hereinafter
“the Region”).
***
7. SALES PRICES AND DELIVERY OF THE
PRODUCTS

20 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 9, Ex. II (20 TTABVUE 29, 20-47); Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 7 (27 TTABVUE 3).
21 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 10, Ex. III (20 TTABVUE 29, 57-60).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 12 -
7.5 The Manufacturer is responsible for the all mistaken
info/label/package that can occur because of the
Manufacturer’s fault and for the damages that can arise
from the Manufacturer’s negligence[.]
***
12. MANUFACTURERS’ AND DISTRIBUTORS’
TRADEMARKS AND SYMBOLS
12.1. The Distributor may use the Manufacturer’s
trademarks, trade names, and other symbols. However, the
Distributor may use them for the purpose of identifying
and advertising the Products in accordance with the
contractual practice and the interests of the Manufacturer.
12.2. The Distributor shall warn the Manufacturer in case
it is informed of any violation attempt to the trademarks,
trade names, symbols or industrial property rights of the
Manufacturer. The Manufacturer shall take necessary
measures to prevent such violations.
12.3. The designs and packages made for the Distributor
can’t be used outside of the Distributor’s Region by the
Manufacturer or a third party.22
These terms appear to be the only provisions in the agreement relating to trademarks
in the United States. In October 2009, one year after its subsidiary Nema Kimya
executed the exclusive distributorship agreement, Respondent filed the application
underlying the involved registration in its own name.
Respondent argues that it had an “understanding” with Petitioner that it –
Respondent – would own, exclusively control, and maintain all rights related to the
registration of SEYIDOGLU in the United States.23 Respondent provided no
explanation or documentary evidence to support its claim of such an “understanding,”

22 20 TTABVUE 57, 58-59.
23 Brief, p. 2 (22 TTABVUE 3); Kiyakli Dec. ¶ 8 (28 TTABVUE 3).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 13 -
nor evidence of consent from Petitioner to register the mark. For example,
Respondent did not point to the distributorship agreement, an email, or even allege
a conversation with Petitioner which led Respondent to its vague and self-serving
“understanding.” While the agreement allows Respondent (or its subsidiary) to use
Petitioner’s trademarks in the U.S. (as part of North America), it does not give
Respondent (or its subsidiary) the right to register or an ownership interest in the
SEYIDOGLU mark. Indeed, paragraph 12.1 appears to reserve Petitioner’s interest
in the mark, providing that Respondent may use Petitioner’s marks “for the purpose
of identifying and advertising” the goods, but such use will inure to Petitioner’s
benefit “in accordance with the contractual practice and the interests of the
Manufacturer.”
Merely being a distributor does not confer ownership of a mark for the goods being
distributed. On the contrary, as between a manufacturer and distributor, the
manufacturer is presumed to own a trademark applied to the goods:
In the absence of an agreement determining ownership
[between a foreign manufacturer and an exclusive United
States distributor], both the courts and the Trademark
Board will presume that the manufacturer of goods is the
owner of the trademark of those goods.
* * *
An exclusive U.S. distributor does not acquire ownership of
a foreign manufacturer’s mark any more than a wholesaler
can acquire ownership of an American manufacturer’s
mark, merely through the sale and distribution of goods
bearing the manufacturer’s trademark.
5 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION,
§ 29:8, (5th ed. 2021). See also Nahshin v. Prod. Source Int’l, LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1257,
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 14 -
1263 (TTAB 2013) (“[T]he mere fact that a U.S. distributor distributes a foreign
manufacturer’s branded product does not, without more, give the U.S. distributor an
ownership interest in the mark.”). Respondent, therefore, cannot rely solely on its
status as Petitioner’s exclusive U.S. distributor for its ownership of the SEYIDOGLU
mark.
“It is settled law that between a foreign manufacturer and its exclusive United
States distributor, the foreign manufacturer is presumed to be the owner of the mark
unless an agreement between them provides otherwise.” See Global Maschinen
GmbH Banking Sys., Inc., 227 USPQ 862, 866 (TTAB 1985). This presumption is
rebuttable, and the following factors are relevant when considering if the
presumption has been rebutted:
(1) which party created and first affixed the mark to the
product;
(2) which party’s name appeared with the trademark on
packaging and promotional materials;
(3) which party maintained the quality and uniformity of
the product, including technical changes;
(4) which party does the consuming public believe stands
behind the product, e.g., to whom customers direct
complaints and turn to for correction of defective products;
(5) which party paid for advertising; and
(6) what a party represents to others about the source or
origin of the product.
UVeritech, 115 USPQ2d at 1249.
In its brief, Respondent does not discuss any of these factors; instead, it simply
states that it held a vague “understanding” that it was the owner of the mark.
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 15 -
Nonetheless, using the above framework to decide the present dispute, we find that
Petitioner was the owner of the SEYIDOGLU mark at the time Respondent filed the
application to register the SEYIDOGLU mark. Petitioner created the SEYIDOGLU
mark and registered variations of it in Turkey, its country of origin, beginning more
than a decade prior to any relationship with Respondent or its subsidiary. Petitioner
manufactured the goods, participated in trade shows in the United States to promote
the brand,24 and held itself out to the public via its website as the source and implied
quality guarantor of SEYIDOGLU food products in “America.”25 Under the terms of
the agreement, Petitioner remained responsible for any mistakes in the
“info/label/package . . . and for the damages that can arise from [its] negligence,”26
and Petitioner’s general manager testified that Petitioner maintained control of the
nature and quality of the goods bearing the SEYIDOGLU mark for the duration of
the distributorship agreement with Respondent.27
Further, many of Respondent’s examples of the goods bearing the SEYIDOGLU
mark reference Petitioner’s founding date of 1952, which can only point to Petitioner
in this context.28 Although the Gurakar and Ipecki declarants state identically that
Respondent is “known by myself, and amongst consumers as the exclusive source of

24 Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 14, Ex. XIV (27 TTABVUE 5, 13-15).
25 Seyitoglu Dec. Ex. I (20 TTABVUE 33-39).
26 20 TTABVUE 58.
27 Seyidoglu Rebuttal Dec. ¶ 8 (29 TTABVUE 3).
28 See, e.g., Kiyakli Dec. Ex. A (28 TTABVUE 10). Indeed, Respondent was not founded until
2002. Id., ¶ 3 (28 TTABVUE 2).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 16 -
SEYIDOGLU goods in the United States of America,”29 they offer no basis for their
statements other than their own business relationships as distributors for
Respondent.30
Weighing the foregoing factors, in the absence of an agreement or any evidence
supporting Respondent’s vague “understating” determining ownership of the
SEYIDOGLU mark as of October 2009, we find that Petitioner clearly was the owner
of the mark at the time Respondent filed the application to register the mark.
Accordingly, Respondent’s statement in the application that it was the owner of the
mark was false.
“[I]nformation is material when a reasonable examiner would consider it
important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue[.]” Symantec Corp. v.
Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 86 USPQ2d 1449, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Only the owner of a mark may apply for registration. Lyons v. Am. Coll. of Veterinary
Sports Med. & Rehab., 859 F.3d 1023, 123 USPQ2d 1024, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Great
Seats, Ltd. v. Great Seats, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1235, 1239 (TTAB 2007) (“In a use-based
application under Trademark Act Section 1(a), only the owner of the mark may file
the application for registration of the mark[.]”). Had the examining attorney of
Respondent’s application known Respondent was not the owner of the mark, the

29 Gurakar Dec. ¶ 6, and Ipecki Dec. ¶ 7 (28 TTABVUE 15, 18).
30 Gurakar Dec. ¶ 4, and Ipecki Dec. ¶ 4 (28 TTABVUE 15, 17); See also Seyidoglu Rebuttal
Dec. ¶ 13 (29 TTABVUE 4) (contending Gurakar and Ipecki are not ordinary consumers, but
instead have or had business relationships as wholesale distributors for Respondent).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 17 -
application to register the SEYIDOGLU mark would have been refused.31 In light of
the fact that Respondent did not own the SEYIDOGLU mark at the time the
application was filed, Respondent’s declaration that it owned the mark was both false
and material. 15 U.S.C. § 1051.
B. Respondent’s intent
“To succeed on a claim of fraudulent registration, the challenging party must
prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant made false statements with
the intent to deceive [the USPTO].” Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1940 (quoting Meineke
Discount Muffler v. Jaynes, 999 F.2d 120, 126 (5th Cir. 1993)). The standard for
finding intent to deceive is stricter than the standard for negligence or gross
negligence, and evidence of deceptive intent must be clear and convincing. Id. As
emphasized in Bose:
Subjective intent to deceive, however difficult it may be to
prove, is an indispensable element in the analysis. Of
course, “because direct evidence of deceptive intent is
rarely available, such intent can be inferred from indirect
and circumstantial evidence. But such evidence must still
be clear and convincing, and inferences drawn from lesser
evidence cannot satisfy the deceptive intent requirement.”
Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d

31 Moreover, a U.S. distributor for a foreign manufacturer may only register a mark if the
applicant submits one of the following: (a) written consent from the owner of the mark to
registration in the applicant’s name, or (b) written agreement or acknowledgment between
the parties that the importer or distributor is the owner of the mark in the United States, or
(c) an assignment (or true copy) to the applicant of the owner’s rights in the mark as to the
United States together with the business and good will appurtenant thereto. TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1201.06(a) (July 2021); In re Pharmacia Inc.,
2 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 1987). Respondent submitted none of the documents listed above.
Thus, under these specific circumstances, had the trademark examining attorney known that
Respondent was only a distributor, without permission or consent from Petitioner to register,
the application would have been refused registration. See TMEP § 1201.06(a).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 18 -
1357, 1366 [88 USPQ2d 1001] (Fed. Cir. 2008). When
drawing an inference of intent, “the involved conduct,
viewed in light of all the evidence . . . must indicate
sufficient culpability to require a finding of intent to
deceive.” [Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister
Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc)].
Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1941.
Petitioner did not cross-examine Mr. Kiyakli, Respondent’s Chief Operating
Officer, nor did Petitioner depose Beyhan Nakiboglu, Respondent’s President and the
signatory of the underlying application. Instead, Petitioner relies on indirect and
circumstantial evidence to demonstrate intent. In addition to the evidence and
circumstances discussed above, Serdar Seyidoglu, the grandson of Petitioner’s
founder, declares that Mr. Nakiboglu is a distant family relative who knew about
Petitioner’s history and its “famous SEYIDOGLU mark in Turkey;”32 and that when
Mr. Seyidoglu confronted Mr. Nakiboglu in 2010 about Respondent’s application
being cited as a potential bar to Petitioner’s request for extension of protection to the
U.S., Mr. Nakiboglu responded “that sales of [Petitioner’s] products were doing well
in the United States, and [he] registered SEYIDOGLU to protect the Seyidoglu brand
and our business, since it would be easier with a trademark registration to prevent
name violations in the United States by other companies.”33 Whatever may have been
Respondent’s motivation to register the SEYIDOGLU mark, Petitioner’s “lesser”
evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom fail to clearly and convincingly

32 Seyidoglu Dec. ¶¶ 5-6 (27 TTABVUE 3).
33 Id. ¶ 10 (27 TTABVUE 3-4).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 19 -
demonstrate, to the high standard required, Respondent’s subjective intent to deceive
the Office. See Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1940, 1941.
C. Summary as to fraud
Although Respondent’s claim of ownership in the application underlying the
application was false and material, Petitioner has not demonstrated to the requisite
high degree that Respondent’s subjective intent was to mislead the Office into issuing
a registration to which Respondent was not entitled. As indicated above, the Federal
Circuit has stated that subjective intent to deceive, however difficult it may be to
prove, is an indispensable element in the fraud analysis. Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1941.
Because Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated Respondent’s intent to deceive,
the fraud claim must fail.
VI. False Suggestion of a Connection
To prevail on its false suggestion claim, Petitioner bears the burden of proving
that SEYIDOGLU is “unmistakably associated with a particular personality or
‘persona.’” Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d
1372, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983). To make this showing, Petitioner must
establish that:
(1) the mark is the same as, or a close approximation of,
Petitioner’s previously used name or identity;
(2) the mark would be recognized as such, in that it points
uniquely and unmistakably to Petitioner;
(3) Petitioner is not connected with the activities performed
by Respondent under the mark; and
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 20 -
(4) the fame or reputation of Petitioner is such that, when
the mark is used with Respondent’s goods, a connection
with Petitioner would be presumed.
Id. (providing the foundational principles for the current four-part test used to
determine the existence of a false suggestion of connection); In re ADCO Indus. –
Techs., L.P., 2020 USPQ2d 53786, *3 (TTAB. 2020); Pierce-Arrow Soc’y v. Spintek
Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774, *4 (TTAB 2019); Schiedmayer Celesta GmbH
v. Piano Factory Grp., Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 341894, *6 (TTAB 2019). If Petitioner fails
to satisfy any of the four required elements, the claim of false suggestion of a
connection will fail. See Pierce-Arrow Soc’y, 2019 USPQ2d 471774 at *8 (section 2(a)
claim dismissed “because Opposer has not satisfied all of the four elements of the
Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac test”).
In determining whether Respondent’s mark falsely suggests a connection with
Petitioner, we keep in mind that the rationale behind the Section 2(a) prohibition
differs significantly from the Section 2(d) ground of likelihood of confusion. As
Professor McCarthy points out, “[t]he issue in a § 2(a) case is not whether consumers
would believe that the defendant’s goods emanate from the plaintiff [but] whether
consumers would falsely assume the goods had some connection with plaintiff.” 3
MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 19:76. While Congress
designed likelihood of confusion to protect the public from confusion as to the source
of goods or services, the Federal Circuit has noted that the Section 2(a) false
suggestion of a connection ground protects different interests:
[T]he rights protected under the § 2(a) false suggestion
provision are not designed primarily to protect the public,
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 21 -
but to protect persons and institutions from exploitation of
their persona.
Bridgestone/Firestone Research Inc. v. Auto. Club de l’Ouest de la France, 245 F.3d
1359, 58 USPQ2d 1460, 1463-64 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Univ. of Notre Dame de Lac,
217 USPQ at 508-509 (“[I]t appears that the drafters sought by § 2(a) to embrace
concepts of the right to privacy,” even in the absence of likelihood of confusion)); See
also In re MC MC S.r.l., 88 USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (TTAB 2008).
A. Whether SEYIDOGLU is, or is a close approximation of, Petitioner’s
previously used name or identity?
“[Petitioner’s] Section 2(a) claim requires proof . . . that consumers view
[SEYIDOGLU] so closely with [Petitioner] that they recognize it as [Petitioner’s]
name (or nickname), identity or persona,” Bos. Athletic Ass’n v. Velocity, LLC, 117
USPQ2d 1492, 1497 (TTAB 2015), and Petitioner must have publicly used or
promoted the name as a means of identifying itself. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v.
Pitts, 107 USPQ2d 2001, 2026 (TTAB 2013) (vacated pursuant to settlement on
appeal). Here, the record reflects that Petitioner has previously used the name
“Seyidoglu,”34 and there is no dispute that the registered mark SEYIDOGLU is a close

34 Respondent’s argument that it has priority of use in the term SEYIDOGLU as a trademark
over Petitioner in the United States (while conceding Petitioner’s trademark rights “in other
parts of the world,” Brief, p. 4; 22 TTABVUE 5) is inapposite. Petitioner need not have
priority of use in the term “Seyidoglu” as a trademark. See, e.g., Hornby v. TJX Cos., 87
USPQ2d 1411 (TTAB 2008) (Celebrity model “Twiggy” of sufficient fame that purchasers
would presume association with her even though she abandoned use of her name as a
trademark from 1970 to the 1997 date of respondent’s application for registration); Cf. Estate
of Biro v. Bic Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1382, 1385 (TTAB 1991) (“[P]roprietary rights in a name are
not necessary in the context of false suggestion of a connection under Section 2(a) either as a
matter of pleading or of proof.”). Notwithstanding this framework, we find that the record, as
analyzed above in the fraud discussion relating to ownership of the mark, demonstrates that
Petitioner does, in fact, have priority of use of SEYIDOGLU as a trademark in the United
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 22 -
approximation of Petitioner’s name. In addition, we note that “Seyidoglu” appears in
Petitioner’s full name (Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu Baklavalari Uluslararasi
Nakliyat ve San. Tic. Ltd. Sti.),35 Petitioner is a major manufacturer of Turkish
desserts with 36 franchise retail stores spread throughout six countries,36 Petitioner’s
dessert products are well-known within the Turkish-American community in the U.S.
apparently because “Seyidoglu” is one of the three oldest and most established brands
identified with Turkish baklava,37 Petitioner’s website refers to Petitioner simply as
“Seyidoglu,”38 the largest literal feature on Petitioner’s invoices is the bold red term
“Seyidoglu,”39 and the largest feature on Petitioner’s business letterhead is the bold
red term “Seyidoglu.”40 This evidence is sufficient to establish that the mark
SEYIDOGLU is a close approximation of Petitioner’s name and identity.

States. The earlier use of the SEYIDOGLU mark argued by Respondent, the then-exclusive
U.S. distributor of Petitioner’s goods, clearly inured to the benefit of Petitioner, the foreign
manufacturer of the food items and owner of the mark. See Nahshin v. Prod. Source Int’l, 107
USPQ2d at 1263; Global Maschinen GmbH Banking Sys., 227 USPQ at 866; cf. Quality
Candy Shoppes/Buddy Squirrel of Wis., Inc. v. Grande Foods, 90 USPQ2d 1389, 1392 (TTAB
2007) (“[Y]ears of precedent make it very clear that proper use of a mark by a trademark
owner’s licensee or related company constitutes ‘use’ of that mark attributable to the
trademark owner.”).
35 The fact that SEYIDOGLU is not Petitioner’s official, full name is not dispositive. “[T]he
protection afforded by the relevant portion of § 2(a) is not strictly limited to the unauthorized
use of a ‘name or likeness.”’ Buffett v. Chi-Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428, 429 n.4 (TTAB 1985)
(MARGARITAVILLE falsely suggested connection with the public persona of singer-
songwriter Jimmy Buffett); In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1649-50 (TTAB
2015) (ROYAL KATE falsely suggests a connection with Catherine Duchess of Cambridge,
also known as Kate Middleton).
36 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 7 (20 TTABVUE 29).
37 Dincer Dec. ¶ 5 (27 TTABVUE 27).
38 E.g., Seyitoglu Dec. Ex. I, IV (20 TTABVUE 34, 61).
39 E.g., Seyitoglu Dec. Ex. II (20 TTABVUE 41).
40 E.g., Seyitoglu Dec. Ex. III (20 TTABVUE 49).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 23 -
B. Whether SEYIDOGLU would be recognized as a close approximation of
Petitioner’s name or identity by purchasers in that it points uniquely
and unmistakably to Petitioner?
The identification of goods in Respondent’s registration include food products such
as Turkish delight and baklava, Petitioner’s signature pastry dessert.41 Because the
question of whether SEYIDOGLU points unmistakably to Petitioner is considered “in
the context of the respondent’s goods,” Hornby, 87 USPQ2d at 1424, the goods
“themselves serve, if anything, to reinforce that [SEYIDOGLU] uniquely and
unmistakably points to [Petitioner.]” In re Nieves & Nieves, 113 USPQ2d at 1647. In
addition, the packaging of some of Respondent’s goods mentions the year 1952, which
references Petitioner’s founding, and Respondent frequently includes next to the term
SEYIDOGLU the tulip design element from Petitioner’s Turkish and International
Registrations, which is comprised mainly of the stylized initialism GHS, referencing
Gaziantepli Habes Seyidoglu, Petitioner’s founder.42 This is not surprising, as
Respondent was distributing goods manufactured by Petitioner. We find that in the
context of Respondent’s food items SEYIDOGLU points to Petitioner uniquely, and
unmistakably.

41 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 7 (Petitioner “is a major manufacturer of Turkish local desserts and
pastries – predominately baklava and other food items.”) and Ex. I (Petitioner was founded
on baklava production, at one point operating the largest baklava factory), 20 TTABVUE 29,
34.
42 E.g., Cao Dec. Ex. VIII (20 TTABVUE 121 (“The Finest Baklava the world has ever known.
Seyidoglu Since 1952”) and 117, 119 (tulip design)); Kiyakli Dec. Ex. A (28 TTABVUE 8, 10)
(same). Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 6 (20 TTABVUE 29).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 24 -
C. Whether Petitioner is connected with the goods sold by Respondent
under the mark?
Although Petitioner ended its business relationship with Respondent in February
2018,”43 Respondent continues to sell food products under the SEYIDOGLU mark.44
Inasmuch as Petitioner is no longer connected with the goods sold by Respondent
under the SEYIDOGLU mark, the third element of the Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac
test is satisfied.
D. Whether Petitioner’s name or identity is of sufficient fame or reputation
that when used by Respondent as a mark for its goods, a connection
with Petitioner would be presumed?
Under the fourth element of the Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac inquiry, we do not
focus on whether the “Seyidoglu” name and identity would qualify as famous under
a likelihood of confusion or dilution analysis. Indeed, the Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac
case does not explicitly state that a name must be famous to be protected under
Section 2(a). As noted in Notre Dame, the fame of the name of a person or institution
is not sufficient in and of itself to provide the basis for protection of the name under
Section 2(a) false suggestion analysis. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, 217 USPQ at 509.
Instead, “the key is whether the name per se is unmistakably associated with a
particular person or institution and, as used would point uniquely to the person or
institution.” In re White, 73 USPQ2d 1713, 1720 (TTAB 2004) (emphasis in original);
In re Urbano, 51 USPQ2d 1776, 1780 (TTAB 1999). Thus, it is the combination of (1)

43 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 15 (20 TTABVUE 30).
44 Kiyakli Dec. ¶ 4 (28 TTABVUE 3).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 25 -
the name of sufficient reputation and (2) its use on or in connection with particular
goods, that would point consumers of the goods uniquely to a particular person or
institution. Accordingly, we must consider whether Respondent’s use of SEYIDOGLU
on the identified food products would point consumers of the goods uniquely to
Petitioner. In re White, 73 USPQ2d at 1720.
Considering the extent of Petitioner’s fame or reputation as of the time
Respondent’s registration issued, see Hornby v. TJX Cos., 87 USPQ2d at 1416, the
record reveals that by November 23, 2010 (i.e., the date of issuance), Petitioner had
participated three times in the annual Summer International Fancy Food &
Confection Show, held at the Jacob Javits Convention Center in New York, for the
purpose of “promot[ing] the Seyidoglu brand and products.”45 Additionally, Levent
Demirgil, who has been in the international food import and distribution business in
the United States for approximately 29 years, testified that he personally knew about
Petitioner and the Seyidoglu brand since 2009, having first learned about Petitioner
through its advertisements and commercials in the media, and having received
requests from his customers for “highly sought after” Seyidoglu products “like their
baklava.”46 Because he “knew that [Petitioner] was a leading manufacturer and
exporter of Turkish food products, [he] initiated discussions in or around 2009 with

45 Seyidoglu Dec. ¶ 14, Ex. XIV (27 TTABVUE 5, 15).
46 Demirgil Dec. ¶¶ 3, 5, 6 (27 TTABVUE 22, 23).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 26 -
[Petitioner] about importing their baklava and similar products to the United States.
. . . [and] using their brand Seyidoglu.”47
Petitioner submitted copies of exemplary invoices for goods it sold to Respondent
from June 2007 and through May 2010.48 Although the invoices use Arabic numerals,
we cannot determine the quantity of goods sold and consequently distributed in the
U.S. because the invoice column headings are not translated into English. See
Johnson & Johnson v. Obschestvo s Ogranitchennoy; Otvetstvennostiu “WDS”, 95
USPQ2d 1567, 1570 n.3 (TTAB 2010) (translation required if a party intends to rely
at trial on business records in a foreign language); TBMP § 104. Similarly,
Petitioner’s multi-million dollar export trade volume between 2015 and 2018 does not
demonstrate Petitioner’s fame and reputation as of November 2010, the time the
involved registration issued. Cf. Hornby v. TJX Cos., 87 USPQ2d at 1416 (while
Board considers plaintiff’s fame or reputation under Section 2(a) as of the time
defendant’s registration issued, subsequent activities may impact determination as
of that date).
Petitioner leans on its purported fame within Turkey, its international reputation,
and the significant growth of its business from 1952 into the 1970s, 1990s, and
beyond.49 We are concerned with Petitioner’s fame and reputation to U.S. consumers
as of November 2010, and there is evidence of record that the Turkish-American

47 Id. ¶ 6 (27 TTABVUE 23).
48 Seyitoglu Dec. ¶¶ 9, 11, Ex. II, IV (20 TTABVUE 29, 40-47, 60-65).
49 See Brief, p. 12; Seyitoglu Dec. ¶ 3, Ex. I (20 TTABVUE 13, 28, 33-39).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 27 -
community recognizes Petitioner as an iconic maker of baklava. Ali Kemal Dincer, a
Turkish-American living in the United States since 1972, declares that Petitioner’s
dessert products are so well-known within the Turkish-American community in the
U.S. because “Seyidoglu” is one of the three oldest and most established brands
identified with Turkish baklava.50 He analogizes “Seyidoglu” to baklava in Turkey as
what “Kentucky Fried Chicken” is to fried chicken in the United States.51 Similarly,
Mr. Demirgil declares that Petitioner is well-known among his Turkish customers
because Petitioner is “very old and well-established, dating back to the 1950s.”52
While we have focused on the evidence of Petitioner’s fame and reputation in the
United States, we have also measuredly considered the degree to which Petitioner is
famous abroad. See Schiedmayer Celesta v. Piano Factory Grp., 2019 USPQ2d 341894
at *9 n.16 (considering effect of international fame on reputation in the U.S.); Hornby
v. TJX Cos., 87 USPQ2d at 1416 (“Because evidence of fame or reputation in other
countries may have relevance to the extent that consumers in the United States
would be aware of [the petitioner] as a result of these activities, we will not exclude
this evidence, but will give it only the probative weight to which it is entitled.”).
Respondent does not dispute Petitioner’s fame or reputation, either as of the
registration date or at the time of trial; Respondent is silent on this element of the
Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac test. Based on the unchallenged evidence of record, we

50 Dincer Dec. ¶ 5 (27 TTABVUE 27).
51 Id. ¶ 6 (27 TTABVUE 27).
52 Demirgil Dec. ¶ 9 (27 TTABVUE 24).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 28 -
find that as of November 2010 Petitioner enjoyed sufficient fame and reputation in
the United States that SEYIDOGLU, as used on Registrant’s goods, would have
pointed consumers of the goods (including baklava) uniquely to Petitioner. See In re
White, 73 USPQ2d at 1720.
In light of the evidence that SEYIDOGLU is famous in the United States in
connection with Turkish food products, including baklava, and given Respondent’s
use of SEYIDOGLU for Turkish food products, including baklava, “we may draw an
inference that [Respondent] inten[ded] to create a connection with” Petitioner, and
that the public would make the false association. In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., 91
USPQ2d 1505, 1509 (TTAB 2009) (citing In re N. Am. Free Trade Ass’n, 43 USPQ2d
1282, 1285 (TTAB 1997) (quoting Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, 217 USPQ at 509)).
E. Summary as to false suggestion of a connection
Petitioner has satisfied all four elements of the Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac test.
We have found that SEYIDOGLU is the same as, or a close approximation of,
Petitioner’s previously used name or identity; SEYIDOGLU would be recognized as
such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to Petitioner, who is no longer
connected to Respondent’s goods; and the fame or reputation of Petitioner is such
that, when SEYIDOGLU was used with Respondent’s goods, as of the time the
involved registration issued, a connection with Petitioner would be presumed.
Accordingly, use of Respondent’s mark would falsely suggestion a connection between
the parties.

Cancellation No. 92070059
- 29 -
VII. Acquiescence
Respondent asserts acquiescence as an affirmative defense,53 which is available
against a Section 2(a) claim. See, e.g., Schiedmayer Celesta v. Piano Factory Grp.,
2019 USPQ2d 341894 at *9; Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC,
2020 USPQ2d 10914, *11 (TTAB 2020). Acquiescence requires Respondent to prove
three elements: (1) that Petitioner actively represented that it would not assert a
right or a claim; (2) the delay between the active representation and assertion of the
right or claim was not excusable; and (3) the delay caused Respondent undue
prejudice. Brooklyn Brewery, 2020 USPQ2d 10914 at *12.
In support of the defense, Respondent argues that it “has been continuously,
exclusively, openly and notoriously providing and selling food products in interstate
commerce under the SEYIDOGLU mark . . . with Petitioner’s knowledge and consent,
since at least March 1, 2008,” and that “Petitioner consented and/or acquiesced to
[Respondent’s r]egistration, and engaged in a mutually beneficial business
relationship with [Respondent] for at least a decade.”54 These arguments are
supported by the declaration of Respondent’s chief operating officer who states that
“[b]ased on my personal interactions with Petitioner, as well as the record in this
matter, I know that Petitioner has been on notice of [Respondent’s]
application/[r]egistration since at least November of 2010. Petitioner consented

53 As the Board previously noted, Petitioner included arguments in its briefs regarding
Respondent’s affirmative defense of acquiescence, but neither party sought summary
judgment on that defense or a determination of whether the defense was sufficiently pleaded.
24 TTABVUE 2 n.2.
54 Brief, pp. 2, 3 (22 TTABVUE 3, 4).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 30 -
and/or acquiesced to [the r]egistration, and engaged in a mutually beneficial business
relationship with [Respondent] for at least a decade.”55
To meet its burden of demonstrating acquiescence, Respondent must establish
that it suffered harm as a result of the delay. Schiedmayer Celesta v. Piano Factory
Grp., 2019 USPQ2d 341894 at *10-11 (citing, inter alia, Ralston Purina Co. v.
Midwest Cottage Co., 373 F.2d 1015, 153 USPQ 73, 76 (CCPA 1967) (respondent
“bears the burden of showing the injustice”) and Charette Corp. v. Bowater Comm’n
Papers Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2040, 2043 (TTAB 1989) (“There can be no question that
mere delay in asserting one’s trademark rights is insufficient to give rise to an
estoppel. More is needed.”)). Assuming, without actual determination, that
Respondent has met the first two elements of acquiescence, we find that Respondent
has not demonstrated the third element (i.e., that it has suffered undue prejudice
attributable to Petitioner’s assumed delay), as mere delay is not enough to establish
Respondent’s defense.
Respondent makes no argument about prejudice in its brief, and even the most
generous reading of the Kiyakli declaration reveals Respondent’s sole representation
as to prejudice is that the “Petition to Cancel is merely intended to harass
[Respondent], and [Respondent] would be severely and irreparably damaged by the
cancellation of [the involved r]egistration.”56 Respondent submitted no evidence to
support this vague and generic argument. This failure calls to mind both Schiedmayer

55 Kiyakli Dec. ¶ 13 (28 TTABVUE 4).
56 Id. ¶ 7 (28 TTABVUE 3).
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 31 -
Celesta and Ralston Purina in which the defendants, although providing some
evidence of their economic histories and business expenditures, “did not make a
‘serious effort to show prejudice to itself.’” Schiedmayer Celesta v. Piano Factory Grp.,
2019 USPQ2d 341894 at 11 (quoting Ralston Purina, 153 USPQ at 76). As in those
cases, we have no evidence of promotional expenditure by Respondent. Moreover, in
the instant case Respondent failed to provide any sales data, let alone allege any
growth of its trade in the period between Petitioner’s alleged acquiescence and first
assertion of its claim of a false connection.
Similarly, in Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1301, 1307 (TTAB
2004), the Board found evidence of prejudice insufficiently specific, because “it is
difficult to gauge, in the absence of dollar amounts or other specific information
relative to its promotional efforts, the degree to which there has been any detriment.”
Alfacell, 71 USPQ2d at 1308. See also Hornby v. TJX Cos., 87 USPQ2d at 1419
(unsupported claim that investment was made in a mark not credited); Charrette
Corp. v. Bowater Commc’n Papers Inc., 13 USPQ2d 2040, 2043 (TTAB 1989) (no
prejudice demonstrated where “registrant has submitted no evidence to show that it
acted to its detriment in reliance on petitioner’s failure to act more promptly”). Cf.
Bridgestone/Firestone Research v. Auto. Club de l’Ouest de la France, 58 USPQ2d at
1463 (economic prejudice asserted along with evidence of longstanding investment in
and promotion of the mark, as well as testimony on the advertising of the brand and
the role of the brand in company’s marketing structure); Ava Ruha Corp. v. Mother’s
Nutritional Ctr., Inc., 113 USPQ2d 1575, 1583 (TTAB 2015) (material prejudice based
Cancellation No. 92070059
- 32 -
on showing of tens of millions of dollars spent growing the business, adding at least
15 stores, and spending over $7 million promoting its marks); Turner v. Hops Grill &
Bar Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1310, 1313 (TTAB 1999) (evidence of additional restaurants and
growth of sales from $7 million to $58 million over the period of delay).
Here, there is no evidence of Respondent’s advertising or other expenditures, nor
evidence of Respondent’s sales or growth. “Economic prejudice arises when a
defendant suffers the loss of monetary investments or incurs damage that likely
would have been prevented by an earlier suit. . . . A nexus must be shown between
the delay in filing suit and the expenditures; the alleged infringer must change his
position because of and as a result of the plaintiff’s delay.” Schiedmayer Celesta v.
Piano Factory Grp., 2019 USPQ2d 341894 at 12 (quoting Alfacell v. Anticancer, 71
USPQ2d at 1307). Respondent provided no economic information, and has not shown
any economic or other damage resulting from Petitioner’s assumed delay in seeking
to cancel the registration, nor any change of position as a result of Petitioner’s
assumed delay. Because material prejudice is a necessary element of acquiescence,
Respondent has not met its burden of establishing that the petition is barred by
acquiescence.
VIII. Decision
The amended petition to cancel is granted on the ground of false suggestion of a
connection, and the registration will be cancelled in due course.