Zuffa, LLC v. Byron Belin

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Oral Hearing: November 25, 2025 Mailed: March 10, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
Zuffa, LLC
v.
Byron Belin
_____
Cancellation No. 92077633
_____
John L. Krieger and Michael N. Feder of Dickinson Wright PLLC for:
Zuffa, LLC
Jeremy T. Katz of Hall Griffin LLP for:
Byron Belin
_____
Before Wellington, Allard, and Casagrande,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Respondent, Byron Belin, owns a registration on the Principal Register for the
standard character mark BMF in connection with the following services in Class 41:
Entertainment media production services for motion pictures, television
and Internet; entertainment services in the nature of a non-fiction
television programming series on topics relating to family stories told by
family members to preserve their heritage; entertainment services in the
nature of organizing social entertainment events; entertainment services
in the nature of presenting live musical performances; entertainment
services in the nature of live musical performances and musical
performances featuring prerecorded vocal and instrumental performances
viewed on a big screen; entertainment services in the nature of fiction and

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 2 -
non-fiction television programming series on topics relating to family
stories, drug empires, gangs, organizing social entertainment, multimedia
content, and day to day activities of self, friends, and family; entertainment
services, namely, displaying a series of films; entertainment services,
namely, multimedia production services; entertainment, namely, live
performances by musical bands; multimedia entertainment services in the
nature of recording, production and post-production services in the fields
of music, video, and films; providing entertainment information via a
website; providing a website featuring information in the field of music and
entertainment.1
Petitioner, Zuffa, LLC, seeks cancellation of Respondent’s registration, asserting
claims of non-use in commerce as of the statement of use filing date, abandonment, a
lack of a bona fide intent to use the mark as of the application filing date, and fraud
upon the USPTO.2
Petitioner alleges that it “has been damaged and will continue to be damaged by
the [Respondent’s] continued registration” because it filed an application to register
the mark BMF for “entertainment services, namely, live stage shows and
performances featuring sports and mixed martial arts; entertainment services,
namely, providing online computer games, video games and electronic games;
1 Registration No. 6002970, issued March 3, 2020 and maturing from an application
originally filed base on an intent to use the mark in commerce. In order to maintain the
registration, a Section 8 declaration of use and/or excusable nonuse was due on March 3,
2026; Office records currently do not reflect that such a declaration has been filed. However,
and for an additional fee, the owner can file within a 6-month grace period that ends on
September 3, 2026.
We further note, and relevant to this proceeding, that Respondent, as an applicant at the
time, received three extensions of time to file a Statement of Use (SOU), ultimately extending
the expiration date for filing an SOU to January 30, 2020. Respondent filed its SOU on
January 15, 2020, asserting first use of the mark anywhere on October 24, 2017 and first use
in commerce on January 10, 2017. Respondent filed an SOU on January 15, 2020, claiming
first use in commerce on January 10, 2020.
2 1 TTABVUE (Petition for Cancellation).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 3 -
providing information, news and commentary in the field of sports and mixed martial
arts,” in Class 41, and the application has been refused by the Office based on a
likelihood of confusion with Respondent’s registered mark.3
Respondent, in his answer, denies the salient allegations of the Petition to
Cancel.4
The proceeding has been fully briefed. On November 25, 2025, an oral hearing was
held and attending by the parties.
I. The Record and Evidentiary Issues
The record comprises the pleadings and the file of Respondent’s registration under
Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b). The parties submitted evidence
during their assigned trial periods.
The Board has carefully reviewed all evidentiary submissions, and presumes the
parties’ familiarity therewith. Relevant evidence is discussed only where necessary
throughout this opinion. See QuikTrip W., Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc., 984 F.3d 1031,
1036 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Board not obliged to expressly discuss every piece of evidence);
In re Miracle Tuesday LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he mere fact
that the Board did not recite all of the evidence it considered does not mean the
3 1 TTABVUE 3 (Pet. to Cancel ¶¶ 2-3), referencing its application Serial No. 88613032, filed
on September 11, 2019.
4 4 TTABVUE (Answer). Respondent also asserted ten “affirmative defenses,” but numbers
1-7 and 10 were stricken pursuant to a Board order. 13 TTABVUE. Respondent’s affirmative
defense number 8 merely asserts there is no likelihood of confusion between the parties’
marks and number 9 alleges Petitioner will not be damaged by Respondent’s continued
registration of its mark. Respondent did not pursue these putative affirmative defenses at
trial and, accordingly, they are forfeited.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 4 -
evidence was not, in fact, reviewed.”); see also Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb
Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“We presume that a fact finder
reviews all the evidence presented unless he explicitly expresses otherwise.”).
Petitioner has objected to certain exhibits submitted with Respondent’s
testimonial declaration and to the entirety of the testimonial declaration of Laquita
Dedmon.5 Respondent, in turn, raised objections to various certain paragraphs of the
testimonial declaration of Petitioner’s witness, Dmetri Culkar, as well as exhibits
submitted with that declaration.6
We take the following approach in this case to the parties’ objections:
Because a cancellation proceeding is akin to a bench trial, the Board is
capable of assessing the proper evidentiary weight to be accorded the
testimony and evidence, taking into account the imperfections surrounding
the admissibility of such testimony and evidence. As necessary and
appropriate, we will point out any limitations in the evidence or otherwise
note that we cannot rely on the evidence in the manner sought. We have
considered all of the testimony and evidence introduced into the record. In
doing so, we have kept in mind the various objections the parties have
raised and we have accorded whatever probative value the subject
testimony and evidence merit.
Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC, No. 92066957, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 520, at *11-12
(citations omitted). For example, hearsay objections like those raised by Respondent
are generally unnecessary in cases before the Board because, as distinguished from
jury trials, there is no risk of a juror being unduly swayed by hearsay statements.
Petitioner has also raised objections based on the poor image quality of certain
5 53 TTABVUE 50-63 (Petitioner’s objections), objecting to Belin Declaration Exs. 3-5, 7-8,
12, 19-20, 22 (48 TTABVUE) and Dedmon Declaration (49 TTABVUE).
6 63 TTABVUE 35-42 (Respondent’s objections), objecting to Culkar Declaration ¶¶ 5 7-9, 11-
14,16-20, 22-23, and 26, and Exs. 4-9, 11-12.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 5 -
exhibits. We will address those objections below if, in our analysis of the case, we
deem those documents potentially pertinent.
In sum, the parties’ evidentiary objections are discussed only when necessary,
including what weight, if any, is accorded to the objected-to evidence.
II. Petitioner Is Entitled to Bring This Cancellation
In every inter partes case, the plaintiff must establish its entitlement to have
invoked the statutory proceeding it filed. In a cancellation proceeding, a party in the
position of petitioner may petition to cancel the respondent’s registered mark where
such action is within the zone of interests protected by the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1064,
and the petitioner’s reasonable belief in damage is proximately caused by continued
registration of the respondent’s mark. Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.,
137 F.4th 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2025); see also Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978
F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Thus, to satisfy its entitlement to a cause of action, the plaintiff must demonstrate:
(i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the statute; and (ii)
proximate causation. Corcamore, 978 F.3d 1303 (citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static
Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 120-37 (2014)); id. at 1305 (applying Lexmark
to inter partes TTAB cases). Demonstrating a real interest in cancelling the
registration of a mark satisfies the zone-of-interests requirement, and demonstrating
a reasonable belief in damage by the continued registration of a mark demonstrates
damage proximately caused by registration of the mark. Id. at 1305-06.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 6 -
Here, there is no dispute and the record confirms Petitioner’s allegation that it
filed an application to register the mark BMF on September 11, 2019, and that a
USPTO Office Action was issued refusing registration of the mark under Section 2(d)
(likelihood of confusion) based on the registration that Petitioner seeks to cancel
through this proceeding.7 Petitioner’s application was suspended as a result of this
proceeding. The fact that Petitioner’s application is effectively blocked by the
challenged registration is a sufficient basis to bring the claims presented in this
proceeding. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1377
(Fed. Cir. 2012); Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 945 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
We note that Respondent argues that “Petitioner has otherwise failed to submit
any other admissible evidence demonstrating post-2019 use or intent to use the
mark,” since filing its application and that “any three-year period of non-use would
implicate Petitioner’s intent to abandon and thus a failure by Petitioner to maintain
its interest throughout the proceeding.”8 This argument is not persuasive as we note
that Petitioner’s application has been in “suspension” status since July 24, 2021 based
on the outcome of this proceeding. Thus, no further prosecution action with regard to
Petitioner’s application has been necessary or possible since that date.
7 44 TTABVUE; Culkar Dec. Exs. 1-2 (copies of Petitioner’s application and USPTO Office
Action refusing registration of the BMF mark).
8 63 TTABVUE 14.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 7 -
III. Respondent’s Nonuse of Mark
Under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, a mark may not be registered unless it
is “used in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a). Section 45 of the Trademark Act defines
“use in commerce” with respect to services as follows:
The term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use of a mark in the
ordinary course of trade ... (2) on services when it is used or displayed in
the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in
commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the
United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services
is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.
15 U.S.C. § 1127. In addition, “[t]he word ‘commerce’ means all commerce which may
lawfully be regulated by Congress.” Id.
Thus, as a prerequisite to registration, a service mark “must be actually used in
conjunction with the services described in the application for the mark,” and, more
specifically, “advertisement and actual use of the mark in commerce are required.”
Aycock Eng’g Inc. v. Airflite Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also
Intermed Commc’ns, Inc. v. Chaney, 1977 TTAB LEXIS 171, at *23-24 (“The statute
requires not only the display of the mark in the sale or advertising of services but also
the rendition of those services in order to constitute use of the service mark in
commerce.”).
In order to prevail on its nonuse claim in this cancellation proceeding, Petitioner
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent made no use of his
registered mark within the deadline for filing the statement of use as extended, i.e.,

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 8 -
no later than until January 30, 2020.9 See Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. Delphix Corp.,
No. 91197762, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 11, at *23. In order to meet this burden, Petitioner
may rely on indirect evidence from which reasonable and appropriate inferences can
be drawn. See Cerveceria Centroamericana v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 892 F.2d 1021,
1024-25 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Especially when a party must prove a negative, as in
proving abandonment through nonuse, without resort to proper inferences the
burdened party could be faced with an insurmountable task.”).
A. Petitioner’s Argument and Evidence
Petitioner maintains that “the evidence of record shows [Respondent] did not use
the BMF Mark in commerce in connection with rendering [any of the services listed
in Respondent’s registration] as of the final Statement of Use deadline.” In making
this claim, Petitioner breaks out each the services as they are listed in the
registration and separated by semicolons, as follows:10
1. Entertainment media production services for motion pictures, television and
Internet;
2. Entertainment services in the nature of a non-fiction television programming
series on topics relating to family stories told by family members to preserve
their heritage;
9 See supra, fn.1. We note that, in the Petition to Cancel, Petitioner “alleges [that Respondent]
has never used [Respondent’s mark] in interstate commerce.” 1 TTABVUE; Pet. to Cancel ¶
38. Prior to trial, the Board clarified the appropriate timing for a nonuse claim in this case
was “as of the expiration of its time to file a statement of use.” 37 TTABVUE 20. Accordingly,
“we deem Petitioner’s allegation of nonuse to pertain to [the deadline for filing the SOU,”
and, here, that is January 30, 2020. Ruifei (Shenzhen) Smart Tech. Co. v. Shenzhen Chengyan
Sci. & Tech. Co., No. 92077931, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 3, at *4 n.2.
10 Semicolons are generally be used by the USPTO to separate distinct categories of goods or
services within a single class. See TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”)
Section 1402.01(a) (Nov. 2025).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 9 -
3. Entertainment services in the nature of organizing social entertainment
events;
4. Entertainment services in the nature of presenting live musical performances;
5. Entertainment services in the nature of live musical performances and musical
performances featuring prerecorded vocal and instrumental performances
viewed on a big screen;
6. Entertainment services in the nature of fiction and non-fiction television
programming series on topics relating to family stories, drug empires, gangs,
organizing social entertainment, multimedia content, and day to day activities
of self, friends, and family;
7. Entertainment services, namely, displaying a series of films;
8. Entertainment services, namely, multimedia production services;
9. Entertainment, namely, live performances by musical bands;
10. Multimedia entertainment services in the nature of recording, production and
post-production services in the fields of music, video, and films;
11. Providing entertainment information via a website;
12. Providing a website featuring information in the field of music and
entertainment.
Petitioner contends that Respondent’s “own responses to documents requests and
deposition testimony reveal that: … [Respondent] had no use in commerce of the BMF
Mark with all the services listed … as of the final deadline to file Statement of Use
(January 30, 2020).”11 In terms of testimony, Petitioner notes that Respondent
“identified himself as the person most knowledgeable about the facts and
circumstances related to his use of the BMF Mark in commerce,”12 but in the
11 53 TTABVUE 15.
12 53 TTABVUE 18 (citing to 45 TTABVUE 14, Response to Interrog. No. 3).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 10 -
discovery deposition taken of Respondent, in March of 2024, Respondent also testified
had no recollection of his use of the BMF mark for the relevant time:13
Q. Mr. Belin, my question to you is, were you using the BMF mark with
regard to all 12 services listed in the paragraph above when you signed
this declaration on January of 2020?
A. I don’t recall.
During the same deposition, when Petitioner’s counsel delved into Respondent’s
advertising and first use of the mark in connection with each of the above twelve
services listed in the registration, Respondent deflected and testified that he “could
not recall” or that related materials were in the hands of his attorney. For example:14
Q. Printed materials to advertise BMF services. What kinds of printed
materials do you have?
A. When you’re referring to print materials, what are you referring to print
materials? That’s vague.
Q. You said you had printed materials. I’m asking you what they were?
A. My attorney has copies of everything that we printed for advertising.
Q. So you don’t recall what kinds of things they were?
A. My attorney has a copy of all that.
Q. Okay. So did you have any kind of flyers that you printed?
A. My attorney has all that. And I’m pretty sure they provided you all with
some of it -- all of it.
The following testimony is also indicative of Respondent’s testimony regarding
first use of his mark:15
Q. All right. My next line of questions is going to be about when you first
sold your services under the BMF mark. Do you recall when you first
sold services under the BMF mark for production of motion pictures,
television, and internet?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. I’m sorry, what was your answer?
13 45 TTABVUE 496 (Belin Disc. Dep. 103:7-11).
14 45 TTABVUE 469 (Belin Disc. Dep. 76:8-24).
15 45 TTABVUE 471-73 (Belin Disc. Dep. 78:11-80:11).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 11 -
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Okay. Do you recall if any of those services -- I’m sorry, strike that. Do
you recall if all of those services were rendered by you or if you hired
someone else to do it?
A. Some of it was hired by me. Okay, now which services are we referring
to?
Q. We’re talking about production services for motion pictures, television,
and internet.
A. I don’t -- I can’t recall.
Q. Okay. Do you recall if you provided services for nonfiction television
programming series on the topics of family stories told by family
members to preserve their heritage or if you hired that out?
A. My attorney has all that information.
Q. Okay. So your answer is you’re relying on the documents produced in the
case; is that right?
A. What was your question?
Q. Okay. My first question was, in providing the services in the nature of
nonfiction television programming series related to family stories told
by family members, did you provide those services under the BMF mark
or did you hire it out?
A. My attorney have [sic] all that information.
Q. Okay. And if we go through each one of these services, is your answer
going to be the same, that your attorney has the information?
A. I can’t say what my answer is going to be until we go through them.
Q. All right. So entertainment services in the nature of organizing social
entertainment events, were you providing these services or were you
hiring it out?
A. The attorney has it.
Q. And do you recall when you first sold those 2 services under the BMF
mark?
A. I don’t recall. The attorney has it.
Q. All right. Would your answer be the same for those two questions, for the
next, services for live musical performances?
A. What is your question for live musical?
Q. Okay. So my first question is, do you recall when you first sold services
under the BMF mark for live musical performances?
A. I can’t recall that.16
16 We note that Mr. Belin continued to provide essentially the same responses to questions
regarding the remaining listed services in the registration, such as “I don’t recall” or “the
attorney has that information there.” See 45 TTABVUE 473-478; Belin Disc. Dep. 80:12-85:7.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 12 -
Petitioner characterizes Respondent’s testimony regarding use of his mark before
January 30, 2020 as “unsubstantiated general statements” and “should be given no
weight as it is vague and uncorroborated.”17 Specifically, Respondent’s “self-serving
statement that he marketed events and sold services using the BMF Mark since at
least 2017 … by promoting music and live stage performances” is belied by the fact
that his “only specific reference to a musical performance … occurred in December
2023 where ‘BMF sponsored live events at a cigar lounge.’”18
Petitioner also relies on Respondent’s lack of production of documents in response
to its discovery requests, arguing that Respondent “has not admitted into evidence
any records showing sales of these services, even though [Petitioner] specifically
sought all documents sufficient to show sales information for the [services listed in
the registration], because there are none.”19 Respondent also testified that he has no
monthly financial reports for sales involving the BMF mark in connection with the
involved services.20 Petitioner further notes that “the sole documentary evidence of
any ‘invoices’ produced by Belin are the ‘Sales Receipt’ and ‘Payment Receipt’ … that
17 53 TTABVUE 20.
18 53 TTABVUE 20; Petitioner refers to Respondent’s testimony at 48 TTABVUE, Belin Decl.
¶¶ 2, 10, and 38 and Ex. 19).
19 53 TTABVUE 19-20. Petitioner refers, in particular, to its Respondent’s supplemental
response to a Petitioner’s request for production No. 5 (at 45 TTABVUE 725-726).
20 45 TTABVUE 544-546 (Belin Disc. Dep. 151:18-153:7).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 13 -
Belin admits were created by the buyer of the goods Belin allegedly sold.”21 The “sales
receipt” and “payment receipt” appear as follows:22
-and-
21 53 TTABVUE 19. Petitioner refers to Respondent’s testimony and (objected-to) materials
located at 48 TTABVUE 6, 69-70 (Belin Dec. ¶ 15 and Ex. 8). We note that the registration
identifies no goods, only services.
22 48 TTABVUE 69-70 (Belin Dec. Ex. 8). Respondent testified that Exhibit 8 is a “true and
correct copy of an invoice (Sales Receipt) dated December 18, 2019, and a Payment Receipt
for same … . The buyer, HeataHD Visuals (principal, Trevon Jamison) is a videographer who
rents video and recording equipment and props — including the prop money referenced in
[Exhibit 8].” 48 TTABVUE 6 (Belin Dec. ¶ 15).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 14 -
.23
Here, again, Petitioner points out that Respondent identified himself as the
person most knowledgeable about his prior use in commerce including the facts and
circumstances regarding “sales, license, or subscription of each of Respondent’s
Services as detailed in the federal registration in connection with” Respondent’s BMF
mark.24
23 48 TTABVUE 70.
24 45 TTABVUE 14 (Respondent’s responses to Interrog. Nos. 3-4).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 15 -
B. Respondent’s Argument and Evidence
In contending that he used his BMF mark prior to January 30, 2020 in connection
with the services listed in his registration, Respondent also points to his testimony
and materials that are of record.25 We address some of Respondent’s key contentions
and the relied-upon evidentiary materials.
We first address Respondent contention that “[a]s an example of early use, on or
about October 24, 2017, [Respondent] hired John D. Muller to provide photographer
and videographer services for filming BMF The Series.”26 Respondent cites to his own
testimony claiming that an exhibit submitted is “a copy of the executed
Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement I had Mr. Muller sign in connection
with his retention.”27 However, here, we sustain Petitioner’s objection to this
document inasmuch as the exhibit contains illegible wording. Simply put, it is
impossible way to read the provisions within the putative agreement. Moreover, it
appears to be signed by a single party.
Respondent also argues that “[i]n late 2017 to early 2018, [Respondent] hired
Laquita Dedmon to assist in writing the script for BMF The Series” and that “[i]n
Summer of 2018, [Respondent] started hiring actors and other service providers, who
signed nondisclosure agreements, and took part in the creation and publication” of
25 63 TTABVUE 19-25.
26 63 TTABUVE 19.
27 50 TTABVUE 5, 36 (Belin Dec. ¶ 11, and Ex. 5).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 16 -
the same series.28 The document Respondent attached to support his “hiring” of Ms.
Dedmon merely consists of an email cover page from her followed by five pages of
dialogue or script29 As to the non-disclosure agreements and actor release forms,
these only help show, at best, that Respondent was possibly preparing a production
involving actors. The problem, however, is that there is no indication from this
evidence that any production or project involving services listed in the registration
actually materialized. There is no testimony from any of these actors that they ever
participated or were engaged in any of the services listed in the registration. See, e.g.,
Aycock Eng’g, 560 F.3d at 1360 (“[P]reparations to use a mark in commerce are
insufficient to constitute use in commerce. Rather, the mark must be actually used
in conjunction with the services described in the application for the mark.”).
Respondent further claims that he “caused to be published a promotional video
for the BMF The Series on December 16, 2019 on the BMF The Series YouTube
Channel” and that a “first episode was published on Jan 9, 2020.”30 Respondent
28 63 TTABUVE 21. Respondent cites to his testimony (at 50 TTABVUE 5, Belin Dec. ¶¶ 12-
13, Exs. 6-7).
29 Respondent also submitted an undated testimonial declaration from “Laquita Dedom”
(sic) who averred that she “was employed by [Respondent] to write a script for a project called
BMF The Series from 2017 through 2018.” 49 TTABVUE. It is curious that a person would
execute a declaration, with the declarant’s surname so obviously misspelled, including in the
title of the declaration and at the signature line. In any event, because the declaration is not
dated, we have not considered it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (requiring date of execution of
declaration); see also Flovac, Inc. v. Airvac, Inc., 817 F.3d 849, 854 (1st Cir. 2016) (“an
undated declaration … does not comport with statutory requirements”) (citations omitted).
Also, and in view thereof, Petitioner’s objection to the declaration on the basis that “Laquita
Dedmon was never disclosed as a potential witness in Belin’s initial disclosures,
supplemental disclosures, responses to written discovery, or during the discovery period” and
was only identified as “a potential witness … for the first time in [the] notice of reliance filed
on July 28, 2024” (53 TTABVUE 61) is moot.
30 63 TTABVUE 24; citing to Belin Dec. ¶ 14 (at 50 TTABVUE 4-5).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 17 -
provided website addresses for the putative promotional video and first episode, and
Petitioner acknowledges that Respondent’s “activities” include “one short film video
(entitled ‘Bmf The Series (Part 1)’), and a 44 second promotional video for the short
film (entitled ‘BMF The Series (Short Film)’) comprised of a montage of still images.”31
However, a copy of the actual promotional video and “first episode” were not
introduced.32
Fourth, Respondent relies on screenshots from his Facebook pages as evidence of
his use of the BMF mark before January 30, 2020. Specifically, he contends that
“[s]ince December 2019, [Respondent] has used the BMF Mark in commerce through
the webpage https://www.facebook.com/BMFTheSeries” and submitted copies of
“posts from that page from December 2019 (first promoting The BMF Series) through
March 2023.”33 Respondent also asserts that he “has used the BMF Mark in
commerce through the webpage https://www.facebook.com/BMFSeries … [including]
posts from that page from January 10, 2019 (first promoting The BMF Series)
31 53 TTABVUE 26.
32 Providing only a website address or hyperlink to video or any other Internet content is
insufficient to make such content of record. Trademark Rule 2.122(e)(2), 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.122(e)(2). TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Martin, No. 92068042, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 417, at
*11 n.15 (“The Board does not accept Internet links as a substitute for submission of a copy
of the resulting page.”) (citing In re Olin Corp., No. 86651083, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 337, at *15
n.15 (“Because the information displayed at a link’s Internet address can be changed or
deleted, merely providing a link to a website is insufficient to make information from that
site of record.”)). Therefore, the information in the referenced videos is not of record.
33 63 TTABVUE 24; referencing testimony at 50 TTABVUE 60, 71-214 (Belin Dec. ¶17, and
Ex. 9).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 18 -
through March 2023.”34 The following is one excerpted screenshot (that appears to
have a January 10, 2020 date):35
34 63 TTABVUE 24; referencing testimony at 50 TTABVUE (Belin Dec. ¶18, and Ex. 9).
35 50 TTABVUE 271.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 19 -
Finally, Respondent points to the same “sales receipt” and “invoice” (discussed
and reproduced above) for the sale of “prop money” to HeataHD Visuals. Respondent
argues that these help evidence Respondent’s services and that “[s]elling a product
under the auspices of BMF Promotions is undeniably use of the mark in commerce.”36
C. Nonuse Analysis and Conclusion
In our analysis as to whether Petitioner has met its burden of proving the nonuse
ground for cancellation by a preponderance of the evidence, we keep in mind that we
need not have direct evidence to “prove a negative,” but may rely upon properly drawn
inferences that are based the evidence before us. See Cerveceria Centroamericana,
892 F.2d 1024-25 (“Especially when a party must prove a negative, as in proving
abandonment through nonuse, without resort to proper inferences the burdened
party could be faced with an insurmountable task.”). If an inference is drawn from
the record, it must “have an adequate foundation in proven fact” and not be based on
“pure speculation.” Id.
Here, we find it reasonable and proper to drawn inferences from Respondent’s
evasive and vague testimony regarding his use of the BMF mark in commerce prior
to January 30, 2020 in connection with any of the services listed in his registration.
This proceeding was instituted in July of 2021, and Petitioner’s deposition of
Respondent was taken in March of 2024. As recounted above and despite this
relatively short time period, when Respondent was asked if he was “using the BMF
mark with regard to all 12 services listed … on January of 2020,” he replied “I don’t
36 63 TTABVUE 25.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 20 -
recall.” Similarly, when questioned about any advertisement or use of the mark at
that time in connection with each of the twelve listed services, he deflected by either
saying “I don’t recall” or stating that his attorney has all of the necessary information.
When presented with testimony like that provided by Respondent regarding his
prior purported use of a mark in connection with the services listed in the
registration, the Board has “express[ed] our grave concerns” about the offering party’s
credibility. Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Ahmad, No. 91177036, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 350,
*28. In Nationstar, the Board was “particularly struck by [the party’s] evasiveness
and his failure to respond directly to straightforward questions by” the opposing
counsel. Id. We, too, upon reading the transcript for the discovery deposition of
Respondent, particularly the portions identified above, are left with an “extreme
skepticism regarding the credibility” of Respondent because he, like the applicant in
Nationstar, professed not to know basic information that a person in his position
would normally be expected to know. Id. at *37. Thus, we ultimately find
Respondent’s testimony to be “not at all credible.” Id. at 38; see also, e.g., Araujo v.
Framboise Holdings Inc., 99 F.4th 1377, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (party’s failure to
offer clear and believable testimony necessary to establish a party’s prior use of
mark); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., No. 92041434, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 3,
at *23 (testimony should not be “characterized by contradictions, inconsistencies and
indefiniteness,” but rather should carry with it “conviction of its accuracy and
applicability”) (citing B.R. Baker Co. v. Lebow Bros., 150 F.2d 580, 583 (CCPA 1945)
(further citation omitted).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 21 -
Adverse inferences may also be drawn from Respondent’s responses to
Petitioner’s discovery requests, and the lack thereof, in connection with use of the
BMF mark in commerce by Respondent prior to January 30, 2020. Again, as
Petitioner points out, the only sales documents produced by Respondent that precede
this date are copies of a “sales receipt” and a “payment receipt” (reproduced above)
that purport to show a single sale or rental of prop money and a prop gun. These
documents, however, have serious flaws and ultimately do not persuade us that
Respondent was actually rendering any of the listed services on or before January 30,
2020. In particular, Respondent testified that these documents were actually
prepared by the purported purchaser, HeataHD Visuals;37 however, the “sales
receipt” has “BMF” on the letterhead and says “To: Heata HD Films…” in the body of
the receipt. Similarly, as to the “Payment receipt,” this states at the top “for HeataHD
Visuals” and begins “Hi HeataHD Visuals”; however, it is signed “Thanks, HeataHD
Visuals.”38 Respondent also admitted that he handwrote the wording “For BMF Prop
Money” at the bottom of the “Payment receipt”.39 Indeed these documents raise more
questions than they answer and do not corroborate Respondent’s contention that he
was providing any of the services recited in the registration at that time.
Even if we were to accept the “sales” documents as evidence of a single sale of
“prop money” from Respondent to a third-party before January of 2020, we do not
37 45 TTABVUE 600 (Belin Disc. Dep. 207:23-24).
38 48 TTABVUE 69-70 (Belin Dec. Ex. 8).
39 45 TTABVUE 602 (Belin Disc. Dep. 209:16-17).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 22 -
agree with Respondent’s contention that this shows use in commerce of the BMF
mark in connection with “entertainment media production services for motion
pictures, television and internet; entertainment services, namely, multimedia
production services.”40 Put simply, we are not convinced that the single sale of “prop
money” is tantamount to multimedia production services.
With respect to Respondent’s testimony that he hired Laquita Dedmon to assist
in writing a script and that he also began hiring actors before January 2020,41 there
is no testimony from any of the actors. Again, we do not see in the record before us
evidence that convinces us that an actual production materialized or that these actors
actually ever performed on Respondent’s behalf in connection with any of the services
listed in the registration. Simply hiring others does not mean any of the services listed
in the registration were actually being offered or provided at that time. See, e.g.,
Aycock Eng’g, 560 F.3d at 1360 (“[P]reparations to use a mark in commerce are
insufficient to constitute use in commerce. Rather, the mark must be actually used
in conjunction with the services described in the application for the mark.”).
Ultimately, based on the evidentiary record, and drawing all reasonable and
proper inferences therefrom, we find that Respondent had not used the BMF mark in
commerce as of January 30, 2020, in connection with any of the twelve separately-
listed services set forth in his registration. This finding is based in significant part on
the fact that Respondent chose to avoid or deflect when directly questioned in a
40 63 TTABVUE 25.
41 Testimony at 50 TTABVUE 5, Belin Dec. ¶¶ 12-13.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 23 -
deposition about any prior use of the mark for a time period that should not have
been too difficult for him to recall. His testimony lacks the necessary credibility such
that we are not persuaded by his general statements of prior use of his mark in
connection with the services listed in the registration. See, e.g., Kohler Co., 2007
TTAB LEXIS 3, at *23 (testimony should not be “characterized by contradictions,
inconsistencies and indefiniteness,” but rather should carry with it “conviction of its
accuracy and applicability”). Respondent was also directly requested to provide
documents and information that could evidence any prior use of the mark and he had
ample opportunity to furnish such information. “[W]hen it is within a party’s power
to produce a certain kind of persuasive testimony or documentary evidence on an
urged factual finding, and it fails to do so, a tribunal is at least permitted—perhaps
even compelled—to draw the inference that that fact is unsupported and/or untrue.”
In re US Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., No. 86489116, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 143,
at *14, quoted in Stawski v. Lawson, No. 94002621, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 438, at *31;
see also Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., No. 92057132, 2017 TTAB
LEXIS 437, at *30 (“The presence of business records would strengthen the case that
these transactions occurred in the ordinary course of trade, and the absence of such
records does the opposite.”). In this case, we are left with no credible evidence in the
record that Respondent, prior to January 30, 2020, used BMF as a mark in connection
with the services listed in his registration. We find the nonuse claim has been
established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 24 -
Accordingly, the petition to cancel Respondent’s registration for BMF for all of
the listed services is granted on the ground of nonuse. Because that alone means that
Respondent’s registration must be cancelled, we do not reach any of Petitioner’s other
claims. See, e.g., CBC Mortg. Agency v. TMRR, LLC, No. 92076723, 2022 TTAB
LEXIS 295, at *40 n.22; Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo K.K., No. 91200146, 2017
TTAB LEXIS 450, at *4 n.4.
Decision: The Petition to Cancel is granted on the ground of nonuse.