MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino 1 15-717-cv MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
1
15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2
3
September Term 2015 4
5
(Submitted: January 11, 2016 Decided: June 27, 2016) 6
7
No. 15‐717‐cv 8
9
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 10
11
MPC F RANCHISE, LLC; MP CLEARY , INC., 12
Plaintiffs‐Appellees, 13
14
‐v.‐ 15
16
B RENT TARNTINO , 17
Defendant‐Appellant.1 18
19
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 20
21
Before: S TRAUB, L IVINGSTON, and C HIN, Circuit Judges. 22
23
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 24
Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.), granting summary judgment to 25
Plaintiffs‐Appellees, companies that own pizza restaurants in Elmira, New York, 26
by the general name of “Pudgie’s,” on their Lanham Act claim seeking 27
cancellation of Defendant‐Appellant Brent Tarntino’s (“Tarntino”) federal 28
trademark registration for the PUDGIE’S mark in connection with pizza 29
restaurants, on the ground that Tarntino obtained the mark by fraud. Because 30
we find no genuine issue of material fact that Tarntino fraudulently procured his 31
1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as above.

-- 1 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
2
mark, we conclude that summary judgment to Plaintiffs‐Appellees was 1
appropriate, and therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court cancelling 2
Tarntino’s mark. 3
4
JEFFREY Z UCKER , Fischer Zucker, LLC; Philadelphia, 5
P.A., for Plaintiffs‐Appellees. 6
7
MICHAEL H. Z HU, Michael H. Zhu, Esq. PC; New York, 8
N.Y., for Defendant‐Appellant. 9
10
D EBRA A NN L IVINGSTON, Circuit Judge: 11
12
This case involves a dispute over the mark for a chain of pizza restaurants 13
by the general name of “Pudgie’s,” which started out as a small family business, 14
but waxed and waned over the decades as the original founders passed their 15
interests on to subsequent generations and once‐convivial family relationships 16
soured. Defendant Brent Tarntino (“Tarntino”) appeals from a judgment of the 17
United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.), 18
granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs‐Appellees MPC Franchise, LLC (“MPC 19
Franchise”) and MP Cleary, Inc. (“MP Cleary”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) — 20
entities owned principally by Tarntino’s cousins, David Cleary and Robert 21
Cleary — on Plaintiffs’ claim that Tarntino fraudulently obtained his federal 22
trademark registration for the PUDGIE’S mark in connection with restaurants 23
that principally serve pizza, pasta, and submarine sandwiches. 24

-- 2 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
3
I. Background 1
A. Facts 2
The dispute over the PUDGIE’S mark traces back more than fifty years to 3
the town of Elmira, New York, just north of the Pennsylvania border. In 1963, 4
three brothers — Charles “Pudgie” Cleary, Francis Cleary, and Michael Cleary, 5
Sr. — opened up a pizza parlor on the north side of Elmira and named it 6
Pudgie’s, after one of the three brothers. The following year, the three brothers 7
opened a second Pudgie’s location, this time on the south side of Elmira. The 8
two locations came to be known as “Pudgie’s Northside” and “Pudgie’s 9
Southside,” respectively. Pudgie’s Northside and Pudgie’s Southside 10
experienced continued success, prompting the three brothers in 1972 to form the 11
Pudgie’s Pizza Franchising Corporation (“PPFC”) for the purpose of offering and 12
selling franchises for additional Pudgie’s pizza parlor locations. PPFC then 13
registered the PUDGIE’S mark with the United States Patent and Trademark 14
Office (“PTO”). See PUDGIE’S, Registration No. 1,102,421 (Sept. 12, 1978). 15
The three brothers had a sister, Bernadette Tarntino, who, in 1973, 16
purchased a franchise from PPFC and opened a Pudgie’s location in Horseheads, 17
New York, located several miles north of Elmira. The location came to be known 18

-- 3 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
4
as “Pudgie’s Horseheads.” To manage Pudgie’s Horseheads, Bernadette 1
Tarntino formed a corporation named Pudgie’s Pizza Corporation — 2
Horseheads (“PPCH”). 3
In 1985, the PTO cancelled PPFC’s federal trademark registration of the 4
PUDGIE’S mark after PPFC failed to file a required declaration. For several 5
years, however, PPFC continued to operate its franchises as before. 6
In 1990, Michael Cleary, Sr. died owning 50% of the stock in PPFC, as well 7
as all of MP Cleary, which in turn owned Pudgie’s Southside and another 8
Pudgie’s location in Pennsylvania. These interests passed on to his sons, David 9
and Robert Cleary, as well as his wife, Rosa Cleary. PPFC began to deteriorate, 10
however, sometime in the early 1990s. On September 29, 1993, PPFC officially 11
dissolved, and another franchisor did not immediately take its place. As a result, 12
the restaurants that were operating as franchisees of PPFC just prior to PPFC’s 13
dissolution became independently run operations. 14
The chain of Pudgie’s pizza restaurants that got their start in Elmira, New 15
York, was not the only chain of restaurants in the nation to use the name 16
“Pudgie’s” in connection with restaurants and food services. In the New York 17
City metropolitan area, there was a chain of restaurants principally serving fried 18

-- 4 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
5
chicken that also went by the name of “Pudgie’s” (or, more specifically, 1
“Pudgie’s Famous Chicken”). In 2002, Arthur Treacher’s, Inc. (“Arthur 2
Treacher’s”), the entity that operated the Pudgie’s Famous Chicken restaurants at 3
the time, obtained a federal trademark registration for the “PUDGIE’S” mark in 4
connection with “[r]estaurant[s] and carry[‐]out restaurant services.” PUDGIE’S, 5
Registration No. 2,565,298 (April 30, 2002). Arthur Treacher’s later assigned its 6
interest in the PUDGIE’S mark to PAT Franchise Systems, Inc. (“PAT”). MP 7
Cleary learned of PAT’s mark in 2004, when it looked into obtaining a new 8
federal trademark registration for the PUDGIE’S mark. Shortly thereafter, MP 9
Cleary and PAT reached an agreement regarding the mark, pursuant to which 10
PAT granted MP Cleary a “non‐exclusive, perpetual and transferable license to 11
use and display the PUDGIE’S mark . . . in connection with MP Cleary’s existing 12
and future restaurants,” while PAT “retain[ed] the right to use the [PUDGIE’S 13
mark] solely in connection with its ‘Pudgie’s Famous Chicken’ business.” J.A. 14
196. PAT then assigned its interest in the PUDGIE’S mark to TruFoods, LLC 15
(“TruFoods”) in 2008. In 2009, David and Robert Cleary formed MPC Franchise 16
to begin franchising Pudgie’s pizza restaurants. 17

-- 5 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
6
Meanwhile, Bernadette Tarntino died in 2007, leaving a one‐third stake in 1
PPCH to each of her three children, one of whom is Defendant‐Appellant 2
Tarntino. On July 12, 2010, Tarntino filed an application with the PTO seeking a 3
federal trademark registration for a mark “consist[ing] of the word ‘Pudgie’s’ 4
displayed in a custom font,” for use in connection with “[p]izza parlors” and 5
“[r]estaurant services featuring pizza, pasta, and subs.” J.A. 526–27 (emphasis 6
omitted). Tarntino certified in his application that “[t]o the best of his[] 7
knowledge and belief[,] no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the 8
right to use the [PUDGIE’S] mark,” either in “identical form” or “in such near 9
resemblance . . . as to be likely . . . to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to 10
deceive.”2 J.A. 531. Because applicants for federal trademark registrations 11
generally must include a “specimen” representative of the mark’s actual use in 12
the marketplace, see 37 C.F.R. § 2.56, Tarntino also submitted with his application 13
a photograph of a Pudgie’s pizza box that he obtained from Pudgie’s 14
2 Specifically, Tarntino attested that “[t]o the best of his[] knowledge and
belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the
mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near
resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive.” J.A. 531; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(3) (listing the general verification
requirements for a trademark application based on use in commerce); 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.33(b)(1) (setting forth the oath enshrining the statutory requirements).

-- 6 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
7
Horseheads, where he worked at the time. Displayed beneath the PUDGIE’S 1
mark on the pizza box were the words “® Pudgie’s Pizza Franchising 2
Corporation 1972.” J.A. 378; J.A. 602, ¶ 54. 3
On February 22, 2011, the PTO issued Tarntino a federal trademark 4
registration for the PUDGIE’S mark. See PUDGIE’S, Registration No. 3,922,745 5
(Feb. 22, 2011). By letters dated March 30, 2011, Tarntino informed all owners of 6
Pudgie’s pizza establishments, including MPC Franchise, that, among other 7
things: he was the registered owner of the PUDGIE’S mark, as “used in the 8
operation of food establishments”; the mark entitled him to “nationwide priority 9
with respect to use of the ‘Pudgie’s’ logo in the operation of pizza parlors and the 10
provision of restaurant services featuring pizza, pasta, and submarine 11
sandwiches”; and Pudgie’s pizza establishments could not use the mark beyond 12
the geographic regions they currently served without first obtaining Tarntino’s 13
written permission. J.A. 549. Failure to obtain such permission, Tarntino 14
warned, could prompt him to file a trademark‐infringement lawsuit. Following 15
this letter, Tarntino also called at least one Pudgie’s pizza establishment 16
reiterating his rights in the PUDGIE’S mark, and touted his sole ownership of the 17
PUDGIE’S mark on Facebook. 18

-- 7 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
8
B. Procedural History 1
On June 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed suit against Tarntino in the United States 2
District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging various violations 3
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. Relevant here is Plaintiffs’ second 4
cause of action, seeking cancellation of Tarntino’s mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 5
§ 1064(3), principally on the grounds that Tarntino fraudulently obtained the 6
mark. In response, Tarntino, along with PPCH, counterclaimed, alleging, inter 7
alia, federal trademark infringement, common‐law trademark infringement, and 8
federal unfair competition. 9
After Tarntino moved for summary judgment, Plaintiffs cross‐moved for 10
partial summary judgment, including with regard to their claim seeking 11
cancellation of Tarntino’s mark due to fraudulent procurement. In a ruling dated 12
May 13, 2014, the district court (Siragusa, J.) granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial 13
summary judgment insofar as it relied on fraud as a basis for cancellation of 14
Tarntino’s mark, finding that the record clearly demonstrated, inter alia, that 15
Tarntino “knew that Plaintiffs were already franchising pizzerias, using the very 16
same mark that he was attempting to register for that same purpose.” MPC 17
Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino, 19 F. Supp. 3d 456, 480–81 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). The 18

-- 8 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
9
district court canceled Tarntino’s registration, dismissed Tarntino and PPCH’s 1
counterclaim for federal trademark infringement, granted Tarntino and PPCH’s 2
motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ federal unfair‐competition claim, 3
and denied Tarntino and PPCH’s motion for summary judgment on several 4
other counterclaims. See id. at 484–86. Tarntino and PPCH thereafter voluntarily 5
dismissed their remaining counterclaims. This appeal followed. 6
II. Discussion 7
“We . . . review de novo a district court’s grant of summary 8
judgment, . . . drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non‐moving party.” 9
Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm’n, 768 F.3d 10
183, 192 (2d Cir. 2014). We affirm when “we are able to conclude . . . that there is 11
no genuine issue of dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 12
judgment as a matter of law.” Ne. Research, LLC v. One Shipwrecked Vessel, 729 13
F.3d 197, 207 (2d Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Costello v. City of 14
Burlington, 632 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 2011)). 15
* * * 16
On appeal, Tarntino principally contests the district court’s grant of 17
summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their claim seeking cancellation of Tarntino’s 18

-- 9 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
10
PUDGIE’S mark on the grounds that Tarntino procured the mark by fraud. 1
Under the Lanham Act, “any person who believes that he is or will be damaged” 2
may file a “petition to cancel a registration of a mark,” for which “registration 3
was obtained fraudulently.” 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1119. “Fraud 4
in procuring a trademark registration . . . occurs when an applicant knowingly 5
makes false, material representations of fact in connection with his application.” 6
In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Torres v. Cantine 7
Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46, 48 (Fed Cir. 1986)); see also Orient Express Trading Co. 8
v. Federated Dep’t. Stores, Inc., 842 F.2d 650, 653 (2d Cir. 1988) (specifying that a 9
plaintiff seeking cancellation of a trademark on the basis of fraudulent 10
procurement must point to a “knowing misstatement . . . with respect to a 11
material fact” (emphasis omitted)). “A party seeking cancellation of a registered 12
trademark on grounds of fraud must demonstrate the alleged fraud by ‘clear and 13
convincing evidence.’” Orient Express, 842 F.2d at 653 (quoting Beer Nuts, Inc. v. 14
Clover Club Foods Co., 711 F.2d 934, 942 (10th Cir. 1983)). 15
Here, Tarntino applied for the PUDGIE’S mark in his individual capacity 16
and signed an oath attesting, inter alia, that: (1) he believed himself to be “the 17
owner of the . . . mark”; and (2) “[t]o the best of his[] knowledge and belief[,] no 18

-- 10 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
11
other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the [Pudgie’s] 1
mark,” either in “identical form” or “in such near resemblance . . . as to be 2
likely . . . to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” J.A. 531. 3
Tarntino does not dispute the materiality of these representations, but argues 4
that he lacked fraudulent intent with respect to them. Specifically, Tarntino 5
argues that the Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision in Bose makes clear that the 6
scienter standard for fraud on the PTO is met only when an applicant actually 7
knew that material statements in the trademark application were false, and that it 8
is not enough that the applicant should have known about such falsity. Under that 9
heightened standard, Tarntino urges, Plaintiffs failed to show by clear and 10
convincing evidence that he had sufficient scienter with respect to the above 11
statements. According to Tarntino, the district court, in concluding otherwise, 12
misapplied the scienter standard and effectively held Tarntino liable for 13
misstatements in his trademark application simply because he should have known 14
that they were false. We agree with Tarntino about the degree of scienter 15
required for a plaintiff successfully to allege fraudulent trademark procurement, 16
but nevertheless find no genuine issue of material fact that Tarntino fraudulently 17
obtained his mark.3 18
3 Tarntino also disputes Plaintiffs’ contention that his statement in his

-- 11 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
12
In Bose, the Federal Circuit rejected the federal Trademark Trial and 1
Appeals Board’s (“TTAB”) scienter standard for claims alleging fraudulent 2
trademark procurement, under which “[a] trademark applicant commits fraud in 3
procuring a registration when it makes material representations of fact in its 4
[trademark application] which it knows or should know to be false or misleading.” 5
580 F.3d at 1244 (first alteration in original) (quoting Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, 6
Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1205, 1209 (T.T.A.B. 2003)). As the Federal Circuit clarified, “a 7
trademark is obtained fraudulently under the Lanham Act only if the applicant 8
or registrant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to 9
deceive the PTO.” Bose, 580 F.3d at 1245 (emphasis added). We agree with the 10
Federal Circuit in Bose that “[m]ere negligence is not sufficient to infer fraud” on 11
the PTO. See id. at 1244 (alteration in original) (quoting Symbol Techs., Inc. v. 12
Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). That is, to succeed on a claim 13
that a trademark holder procured the mark by fraud, a plaintiff cannot merely 14
application that the date of the mark’s first use was in 1980 was fraudulent.
Notwithstanding the fact that in 1980, Tarntino was, by his own admission, seven
years old and “not directly using the mark,” J.A. 104, Tarntino argues that his
statement of first use was not material. We need not address Tarntino’s
statement of first use here, as we conclude on other grounds that Plaintiffs
established by clear and convincing evidence that Tarntino fraudulently obtained
his mark.

-- 12 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
13
show that the trademark holder “should have known” that the application 1
contained false statements of material fact. See id. 2
Tarntino asserts that Bose reflects a paradigm shift as to the scienter 3
required to show fraudulent trademark procurement, which raises the question 4
whether this Circuit’s case law is consistent with Bose. We conclude that it is. To 5
be sure, we stated in Patsy’s Italian Rest., Inc. v. Banas, 658 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2011) 6
— in the routine course of reciting the general elements of a claim alleging 7
fraudulent trademark procurement — that one of the requirements of such a 8
claim was that “[t]he person making the representation knew or should have 9
known that the representation was false (‘scienter’).” Id. at 270 (emphasis added) 10
(quoting 6 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY , MCC ARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND U NFAIR 11
C OMPETITION § 31:61 (4th ed.), Westlaw (database updated Dec. 2009)).4 But any 12
suggestion in Patsy’s that the scienter element is satisfied when a plaintiff shows 13
4 At the time we heard argument in Patsy’s, McCarthy’s treatise still
reflected the pre‐Bose TTAB standard, and had not yet been updated to take into
account the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bose. See 6 J. THOMAS MCC ARTHY,
MCC ARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND U NFAIR C OMPETITION § 31:61 (4th ed.), Westlaw
(database updated Dec. 2009) (“The person making the representation knew or
should have known that the representation was false (‘scienter’)[.]”). McCarthy’s
treatise now states that scienter requires that “[t]he person making the
representation knew that the representation was false.” 6 J. THOMAS MCC ARTHY ,
MCC ARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND U NFAIR C OMPETITION § 31:61 (4th ed.), Westlaw
(database updated Mar. 2016).

-- 13 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
14
merely that an applicant “should have known” the falsity of a representation is 1
dicta. After the district court in Patsy’s canceled a mark held by one of the 2
parties, the issue on appeal, as framed by the parties, was whether there was 3
sufficient evidence that the mark holder “knew that [a certain statement about the 4
duration and continuity of its use of the mark] was a misrepresentation” at the 5
time the mark holder submitted its allegedly fraudulent application. Id. at 271 6
(emphasis added). We concluded that there was ample evidence to support the 7
jury’s conclusion that the mark holder “had to have known” that the statement 8
was false, id., not simply that it “should have known.” 9
Patsy’s thus did not alter the law of this Court, stated in prior cases such as 10
Orient Express, that for a plaintiff to show that a trademark holder fraudulently 11
obtained her trademark, the “allegedly fraudulent statements [in the application] 12
may not be the product of mere error or inadvertence.” Orient Express, 842 F.2d 13
at 653. Rather, they must be “knowing misstatement[s]” of material fact that 14
“indicate a ‘deliberate attempt to mislead the [PTO].’” Id. (second alteration in 15
original) (quoting Money Store v. Harriscorp Fin., Inc., 689 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 16
1982)). This standard is consistent with Bose, and with all other Circuits to have 17
considered the question post‐Bose. See Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc., 738 18

-- 14 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
15
F.3d 1085, 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluding that a counterclaim defendant seeking 1
cancellation of plaintiff’s mark did not satisfy the scienter standard because the 2
defendant “put forth no evidence suggesting that the false statement [in the 3
plaintiff’s application] was anything other than the result of a simple mistake,” 4
and “adduced no evidence that [the plaintiff] knew of the 5
misstatement . . . or intended to defraud the [PTO]” (emphasis added)); Sovereign 6
Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes & of Malta v. Fla. Priory 7
of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of 8
Malta, the Ecumenical Order, 702 F.3d 1279, 1289 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that “[a]n 9
applicant commits fraud when he ‘knowingly makes false, material 10
representations of fact in connection with an application for a registered mark’” 11
and requiring a “purpose or intent to deceive the PTO in the application for the 12
mark” (emphasis added) (quoting Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 13
522 F.3d 1200, 1209 (11th Cir. 2008)); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Info. Solutions, 650 14
F.3d 1139, 1148 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Fraud in procuring a trademark registration or 15
renewal occurs when an applicant knowingly makes false, material 16
representations of fact in connection with his application.” (emphasis added) 17
(quoting Bose, 580 F.3d at 1243)).5 18
5 Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to

-- 15 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
16
Nevertheless, while we agree with Tarntino that it is insufficient for a 1
claim of fraudulent procurement of a mark that the applicant “should have 2
known” about the falsity of a representation in the application, Tarntino’s 3
arguments about the requisite degree of scienter do not aid him. As an initial 4
matter, it is plain that the district court did not rely on an incorrect scienter 5
standard in determining that Tarntino fraudulently obtained his mark. To be 6
sure, the district court quoted Patsy’s for the general elements of a claim for mark 7
cancellation based on fraudulent procurement, and thus included the language 8
from Patsy’s that the applicant “should have known” the falsity of alleged 9
misrepresentations. MPC Franchise, 19 F. Supp. 3d at 478 (quoting Patsy’s, 658 10
F.3d at 270). But the district court unequivocally found that no material issue of 11
fact existed as to Tarntino’s actual knowledge of falsity with respect to the 12
whether Tarntino possessed actual knowledge with respect to false
representations of material fact in his application, we need not address whether a
somewhat less stringent standard than actual knowledge — such as “reckless
disregard,” see Bose, 580 F.3d at 1246 n.2, or the “willful blindness” standard that
applies to claims of induced patent infringement, see Glob.‐Tech Appliances, Inc. v.
SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766–68 (2011) — may satisfy the scienter requirement for
fraudulent procurement of a mark, cf. Bose, 580 F.3d at 1246 n.2 (“The PTO argues
that . . . making a submission to the PTO with reckless disregard of its truth or
falsity satisfies the intent to deceive requirement. We need not resolve this issue
here . . . . [because] even if we were to assume that reckless disregard qualifies,
there is no basis for finding [the applicant’s] conduct reckless.”).

-- 16 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
17
misrepresentations alleged by Plaintiffs. See, e.g., id. at 480–81 (“Tarntino . . . 1
knew that Plaintiffs were already franchising pizzerias, using the very same mark 2
that he was attempting to register for that same purpose.” (emphasis added)); see 3
also id. at 480 (“Tarntino was well aware that he was merely a one‐third owner of 4
the [corporation that in turn owned Pudgie’s Horseheads]. Tarntino’s 5
misstatement of ownership was not a mistake. . . . Tarntino was not attempting to 6
register the mark on behalf of the corporation in which he was a part owner; he 7
registered it for himself.” (emphasis added)). 8
Indeed, it is beyond question that Tarntino possessed the requisite degree 9
of scienter, even under the more stringent standard for which Tarntino 10
advocates. Even though Tarntino applied individually and personally for the 11
mark, Tarntino admits — as he must — “that [he] did not individually or 12
personally use the [PUDGIE’S m]ark” at any point in time. Appellant’s Br. 42. 13
Further, there is abundant evidence that Tarntino knew that others had 14
rights to use the mark that were at least equal, if not clearly superior, to his own. 15
Most importantly, Tarntino was well aware of multiple other Pudgie’s locations 16
that were using the mark in the precise same capacity in which he applied for the 17
mark, including the very first Pudgie’s locations, Pudgie’s Northside and 18

-- 17 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
18
Pudgie’s Southside, located mere miles away from Pudgie’s Horseheads. 1
Unsurprisingly, Tarntino was familiar with the beginnings of the original 2
Pudgie’s locations, which his uncles (one of whom Tarntino described as “the 3
godfather . . . of the family”) started, and which grew into a family business 4
involving many of Tarntino’s close relatives. J.A. 384. In a deposition, Tarntino 5
admitted that he knew that when his mother opened Pudgie’s Horseheads, she 6
operated the restaurant as a franchisee. He even had a copy of a franchise 7
agreement between his mother and PPFC defining, inter alia, the scope of his 8
mother’s rights to use the PUDGIE’S mark. 9
The district court correctly concluded that no material issue of fact existed 10
as to whether Tarntino knowingly made false, material representations in his 11
application. Indeed, the specimen that he included with his application 12
exhibited that the PUDGIE’S mark originally came from PPFC, as it was an 13
image of a pizza box displaying the words “® Pudgie’s Pizza Franchising 14
Corporation 1972” beneath the PUDGIE’S mark. J.A. 378. And when asked in a 15
deposition whether these words “signif[ied] to [Tarntino] that someone other 16
than [him] owned [the PUDGIE’S mark],” Tarntino conceded that the words 17

-- 18 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
19
indicated to him that someone else “ha[d] the rights to” the mark “[a]long with 1
[him].” See id. 2
Given these facts, it cannot be gainsaid that Tarntino knew fully well that 3
other Pudgie’s locations used the PUDGIE’S mark even before Pudgie’s 4
Horseheads existed, in the same general area as Pudgie’s Horseheads and for use 5
in connection with pizza restaurants. Thus, even setting aside the fact that 6
Tarntino applied for the PUDGIE’S mark in his individual capacity despite only 7
having acquired in 2007 a one‐third share in the corporation that owned Pudgie’s 8
Horseheads, Tarntino could not have believed earnestly that “no other person, 9
firm, corporation, or association ha[d] the right to use the [PUDGIE’S] mark,” 10
either in “identical form” or “in such near resemblance . . . as to be likely . . . to 11
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” J.A. 531. No genuine issue 12
of material fact exists as to whether Tarntino knew that other entities had rights 13
to use the mark in the very manner in which he sought to use the mark, and 14
whether he intended to mislead the PTO by attesting otherwise in his trademark 15
application. 6 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary 16
judgment to Plaintiffs on their claim seeking cancellation of Tarntino’s mark. 17
6 Given that Tarntino unquestionably knew of other Pudgie’s pizza
restaurants that were using the PUDGIE’S mark in the same capacity as Pudgie’s

-- 19 of 20 --

15‐717‐cv
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
20
Horseheads, we need not consider whether Tarntino’s knowledge of TruFoods’s
mark, which Tarntino alleges could be used only in connection with restaurants
serving chicken, might also satisfy the scienter element of Plaintiffs’ claim.

-- 20 of 20 --