Intellectual Property Law

Seattle Racing Helmet Manufacturer Loses at TTAB

By Michael Atkins

In 2005, Lloyd Lifestyle Limited and Lloyd IP Limited filed an opposition proceeding with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board opposing Tukwila, Wash.-based Soaring Helmet Corp.’s intent-to-use application to register NITRO as a word mark for “motorcycle helmets and protective clothing.” Lloyd IP Limited and VSJ Limited separately petitioned to cancel Soaring Helmet’s registration for NITRO RACING, also a word mark used in connection with “motorcycle helmets and protective clothing.”

On Dec. 11, the TTAB ruled in favor of Lloyd in both proceedings.

TTABlogger John Welch describes the decision as follows:

“In a battle over the marks NITRO and NITRO RACING for motorcycle helmets and protective clothing, the Board ruled in favor of Opposer/ Petitioner Lloyd Lifestyle in finding that Applicant/Registrant Soaring Helmet was not the owner of the marks at the time it applied for registration. Consequently, the Board sustained Lloyd’s opposition and granted its petition for cancellation.

“Plaintiffs and Defendant were using the same Chinese factory to make their respective helmets, which led to the original contacts between the parties. Plaintiffs claimed that it developed the NITRO products for sale in Europe and, when Defendant expressed an interested in selling the products in the USA, Plaintiffs agreed that they could sell NITRO brand products made by approved manufacturers. Plaintiffs also claimed that it directed Defendants to register the mark in the USA on Plaintiffs’ behalf. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs expressed no interest in the USA, and that Defendant, by using and registering the marks in the USA, became the owner.

“Because there was no written agreement between the parties, the Board had to decide which version of the story was supported by the evidence. It found Plaintiff’s account to be ‘more reliable and more credible’ and Defendant’s testimony to be ‘argumentative, internally contradictory and otherwise less than clear.’”

The case cite is Lloyd Lifestyle Ltd. v. Soaring Helmet Corp. (Opp’n No. 91164265 and Cancellation No. 92045075) (TTAB 2007).

Full post as published by Seattle Trademark Lawyer on December 27, 2007 (boomark / email).