Super Kings International, Inc. v. Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: June 5, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
Super Kings International, Inc.
v.
Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd.
_____
Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358
(Consolidated)
_____
Y. Jae Kim of Kim IP Law Group LLC for Super Kings International, Inc.
Jonathan G. Morton for Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd.
_____
Before Lykos, Larkin, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd. (“Respondent” or “Registrant”) owns
two registrations of the standard-character mark SUPERKING: (1) Registration No.
6164150 for “All-purpose carrying bags; Alpenstocks; Backpacks; Clothing for
animals; Clothing for pets; Collars of animals; Handbags; Harness fittings; Leather
leads; Pouch baby carriers; Reins for guiding children; Semi-worked fur; Travelling
trunks; Umbrellas; Wallets; Business card holders in the nature of card cases; Cases

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 2 -
of imitation leather” in International Class 18,1 and (2) Registration No. 6211119 for
“Baby buntings; Bath linen; Bath towels; Bed covers; Bed linen; Bed spreads;
Blankets for household pets; Cloths for removing make-up; Eiderdowns; Fabrics for
textile use; Golf towels; Mattress covers; Mosquito nets; Pillowcases; Quilts; Sleeping
bags; Sleeping bags for babies; Textile fabrics for use in making clothing and
household furnishings; Towelling coverlets; Towels; Unfitted fabric furniture covers;
Cotton fabrics; Textile fabrics for home and commercial interiors; Woven fabrics” in
International Class 24.2
Super Kings International, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has petitioned to cancel both
registrations, seeking cancellation of Registration No. 6164150 in Cancellation No.
92085356 and cancellation of Registration No. 6211119 in Cancellation No. 92085358.
Petitioner ultimately asserted the same three claims for relief in both cases:3 (1) a
claim under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground
that Respondent’s SUPERKING mark so resembles Petitioner’s alleged SUPER
KINGS and TEXAS SUPER KINGS-formative marks as to be likely to cause
confusion; (2) a claim that Respondent has never used the SUPERKING mark in
commerce for any of the goods identified in the registrations; and (3) a claim that
1 Registration No. 6164150 issued on September 29, 2020 from a use-based application filed
on April 8, 2002 that claimed first use of the mark and first use of the mark in commerce at
least as early as March 25, 2020.
2 Registration No. 6211119 issued on December 1, 2020 from a use-based application filed on
May 27, 2020 that claimed first use of the mark and first use of the mark in commerce at
least as early as March 10, 2020.
3 As discussed below, we have read Petitioner’s allegations liberally and together in deciding
which non-use claim Petitioner pleaded and then pursued at trial.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 3 -
Respondent procured its registrations by fraud based on the submission of fabricated
specimens and knowingly false statements regarding use in commerce.
Because the two cases involve similar questions of law and fact, and the records
are very similar,4 we consolidate the cases sua sponte, Mountain Gateway Ord., Inc.
v. Va. Cmty. Coll. Sys., No. 91283412, 2024 WL 2863444, at *1 (TTAB 2024) (citations
omitted), and will decide them in this single opinion.5 We grant both Petitions for
Cancellation based on Petitioner’s non-use claims, and do not reach its other claims.
I. Records
The records include the pleadings,6 the file histories of Respondent’s two
registrations, by operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(1), and
the following materials submitted by Petitioner during its trial period in the two
cases:
• Petitioner’s Notices of Reliance on various official records, Internet
materials, and discovery requests, 10 TTABVUE 1-571 (Cancellation No.
4 Citations in this opinion to Petitioner’s briefs and other materials in the two case dockets
refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. The number preceding TTABVUE
corresponds to the docket entry number, and any numbers following TTABVUE refer to the
page(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear. Petitioner’s brief appears at 16
TTABVUE in Cancellation No. 92085356 and at 21 TTABVUE in Cancellation No. 92085358.
5 “Despite being consolidated, each proceeding retains its separate character and requires
entry of a separate judgment. The decision on the consolidated cases will take into account
any differences in the issues raised by the respective pleadings [and] a copy of the decision
will be placed in each proceeding file.” Mountain Gateway Ord., 2024 WL 2863444, at *1.
6 Respondent’s Answers to the Petitions for Cancellation denied the salient allegations of the
Petitions for Cancellation, and interposed several self-styled “Affirmative Defenses,”
including equitable defenses of unclean hands and estoppel. Respondent forfeited its
affirmative defenses by not pursuing them at trial. Flame & Wax, Inc. v. Laguna Candles,
LLC, No. 92072343, 2022 WL 3083070, at *2 (TTAB 2022) (citations omitted).

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 4 -
92085356); 15 TTABVUE 1-486, 16 TTABVUE 1-230 (Cancellation No.
92085358);7
• Declarations of Y. Jae Kim, Petitioner’s counsel in both proceedings, and
Exhibits A-G thereto, 11 TTABVUE 1-42 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18
TTABVUE 1-42 (Cancellation No. 92085358);8
• Declarations of K. S. Viswanathan, a Director of Petitioner, and Exhibits 1-
7 thereto, 12 TTABVUE 1-320 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 17 TTABVUE
1-320 (Cancellation No. 92085358);9 and
• Declarations of Venkat Rama Rao Gundamaraju, a paralegal and Director
of Trademark Operations for Petitioner’s counsel, and Exhibits 1-3 thereto.
14 TTABVUE 1-218 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 19 TTABVUE 1-256; 20
TTABVUE 1-99 (Cancellation No. 92085358).10
7 In Cancellation No. 92085358, Petitioner filed what it called an “incorrect version” of its
Notice of Reliance, 15 TTABVUE 2, at 10 TTABVUE and 14 TTABVUE, and filed a corrected
version at 15 TTABVUE and 16 TTABVUE.
In Cancellation No. 92085356, Petitioner made of record what it described as “Registrant’s
U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6164150,” 10 TTABVUE 4, 271-73, and “Specimens
submitted by the Registrant on April 8, 2020, for Application No. 88/863,524.” Id. at 6, 540-
47. Petitioner also filed corresponding materials for Registration No. 6211119 in Cancellation
No. 92085358. 15 TTABVUE 4, 6, 271-73; 16 TTABVUE 199-206. As noted above, the file
histories of Respondent’s registrations are automatically of record, and it was unnecessary
for Petitioner to separately submit portions.
8 In Cancellation No. 92085358, Petitioner filed what it called an “incorrect version” of the
Kim Declaration, 15 TTABVUE 2, at 12 TTABVUE, and filed a corrected version at 18
TTABVUE. The Kim Declarations also unnecessarily contain materials from the file histories
of the two registrations. Kim Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. D (11 TTABVUE 27-29 (Cancellation No.
92085356); 18 TTABVUE 27-29 (Cancellation No. 92085358)).
9 In Cancellation No. 92085358, Petitioner filed what it called an “incorrect version” of the
Viswanathan Declaration, 15 TTABVUE 2, at 11 TTABVUE, and filed a corrected version at
17 TTABVUE. The Viswanathan Declarations contain United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) electronic records regarding Petitioner’s pending applications that are also
exhibits to the Kim Declarations and to Petitioner’s Notices of Reliance. Viswanathan Decl.
¶ 11; Exs. 4-6 (12 TTABVUE 4, 59-79 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 17 TTABVUE 4, 59-79
(Cancellation No. 92085359)). It is unnecessary for parties to submit the same evidence more
than once.
10 In Cancellation No. 92085356, Petitioner submitted two versions of the Gundamaraju
Declaration, the first of which Petitioner subsequently described as an “incorrect version” of
the Declaration at 12 TTABVUE, which Petitioner requested “be stricken from the record or
otherwise disregarded.” 14 TTABVUE 2. Petitioner then filed the corrected version twice. 14
TTABVUE; 15 TTABVUE.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 5 -
II. The Parties and Their Marks, and the History of These Proceedings
Petitioner, a Delaware corporation doing business in Dallas, Texas, was formed in
May 2023. Viswanathan Decl. ¶¶ 1-2 (12 TTABVUE 2 (Cancellation No. 92085356);
17 TTABVUE 2 (Cancellation No. 92085358)). Petitioner is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Chennai Super Kings, a professional cricket franchise based in
Chennai, India and founded in 2008. Viswanathan Decl. ¶ 5 (12 TTABVUE 3
(Cancellation No. 92085356); 17 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085358)). The
team’s ownership joined Major League Cricket in the United States with its team the
Texas Super Kings in 2023. Viswanathan Decl. ¶ 10 (12 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation
No. 92085356); 17 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085358)).
Petitioner has filed Application Serial Nos. 98090541, 98090553, and 98092459 to
register the marks SUPER KINGS, TEXAS SUPER KINGS, and TEXAS SUPER
KINGS and design, respectively, for various goods in Classes 25 and 28 and various
services in Class 41. Viswanathan Decl. ¶ 11; Exs. 4-6 (12 TTABVUE 4, 59-79
(Cancellation No. 92085356); 17 TTABVUE 4, 59-79 (Cancellation No. 92085358)). At
the time of trial,11 Petitioner’s applications were in suspension, Viswanathan Decl.
¶ 11; Exs. 4-6 (12 TTABVUE 4, 59-79 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 17 TTABVUE 4,
59-79 (Cancellation No. 92085358)), and Mr. Kim, Petitioner’s counsel on the
applications, testified that three of Respondent’s registrations were cited as a bar to
In Cancellation No. 92085358, Petitioner filed what it called an “incorrect version” of the
Gundamaraju Declaration, 15 TTABVUE 2, at 13 TTABVUE, and filed a corrected version
at 19-20 TTABVUE.
11 As discussed below, Petitioner alleged its ownership of these pending applications in its
Petitions for Cancellation.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 6 -
registration under Section 2(d) of the marks shown in Petitioner’s applications. Kim
Decl. ¶ 5 (11 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation
No. 92085358)).
In response to the USPTO’s citation of Respondent’s registrations against
Petitioner’s applications, Petitioner commenced separate cancellation proceedings
against Respondent’s three registrations, including these two proceedings as well as
Cancellation No. 92085362 against Respondent’s Registration No. 6163564. Kim
Decl. ¶ 5 (11 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 2-3
(Cancellation No. 92085358)). Cancellation No. 92085362 has been terminated in
Petitioner’s favor and Registration No. 6163564 was cancelled on May 12, 2025. Kim
Decl. ¶ 5 (11 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085358); 18 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation
No. 92085358)).12
According to the information in Respondent’s two registrations, Respondent is a
Chinese limited liability company with an address in Shenzhen, China. Respondent
filed the applications that matured into the registrations that are at issue in these
two proceedings on April 8, 2020 through its then-counsel Nyall Engfield.13
12 “The Board may take notice of filings in other TTAB proceedings.” Urock Network, LLC v.
Sulpasso, No. 92058974, 2015 WL 4658976, at *6 n.10 (TTAB 2015) (citing Kraft, Inc. v.
Balin, No. 73075089, 1981 WL 48124, at *4 n. 8 (TTAB 1981) (“We may take judicial notice
of our own proceedings.”)). We take judicial notice of a fourth cancellation proceeding
involving the parties, Cancellation No. 92083864 against Respondent’s Registration No.
5855234 of SUPERKING for various goods in Class 25, in which Petitioner also asserted the
same claims as in the two consolidated proceedings at issue here. A default judgment was
entered against Respondent, and Registration No. 5855234 was cancelled on March 11, 2024.
13 In March, 2025, while these proceedings were pending, Mr. Engfield was publicly
reprimanded and put on probation for six months by the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and
Discipline (“OED”) for misconduct in the representation of numerous Chinese applicants

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 7 -
On June 6, 2024, Petitioner filed these two cancellation proceedings. Respondent
was essentially a bystander in both cases. After answering Petitioner’s Petitions for
Cancellation through its counsel Jonathan G. Morton, Respondent did not take or
respond to any discovery, did not submit any evidence at trial, and did not file a brief,
in either case. In both cases, Petitioner introduced at trial an email from Mr. Morton
to Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Kim, in response to Mr. Kim’s summary of a meet-and-
confer session regarding Respondent’s failure to respond to Petitioner’s written
discovery requests, in which Mr. Morton stated that Respondent “has been
unresponsive to my communication attempts since the time that I sent them your
discovery requests” and that he did “not anticipate that they will respond to said
requests or further defend these Cancellations.” Kim Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. G (12 TTABVUE
4, 41-42) (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 4, 41-42 (Cancellation No.
92085358)).
Although Petitioner argues that “Respondent has abandoned its defense of this
cancellation action,” 16 TTABVUE 13 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 21 TTABVUE 13
(Cancellation No. 92085358), we do not view Mr. Morton’s statements as a concession
of the cases because in an inter partes proceeding, only the plaintiff is required to
submit evidence and file a brief. Trademark Rule 2.128(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(a)(1).
The plaintiff always bears the burden of proving that the defendant is not entitled to
obtain or maintain a registration “even in the absence of contrary evidence or
before the USPTO. 10 TTABVUE 558-71 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 16 TTABVUE 216-30
(Cancellation No. 90285358).

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 8 -
argument.” DC Comics v. Cellular Nerd LLC, No. 91246950, 2022 WL 17832492, at
*9 (TTAB 2022) (citation omitted). Defendants thus are not required to “defend” a
case by submitting evidence or a brief, and there are no adverse consequences flowing
simply from a defendant’s failure to do either.
But “[e]ach party and its attorney has a duty to make a good faith effort to satisfy
the discovery needs of its adversary,” Hewlett Packard Enter. Dev. LP v. Arroware
Indus., Inc., No. 92067494, 2019 WL 1970877, at *13 (TTAB 2019) (citing TRADEMARK
TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) § 408), and in some cases
there may be adverse consequences from a party’s failure to respond to discovery
requests. As discussed below, these are two such cases.
III. Petitioner’s Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action
“Entitlement to a statutory cause of action is an element of the plaintiff’s case in
every inter partes proceeding.” El Roblar Inv. Prop. LLC v. Roe, No. 91272200, 2025
WL 2718983, at *18 (TTAB 2025) (quoting Mystery Ranch, Ltd. v. Terminal Moraine
Inc., No. 91250565, 2022 WL 17369425, at *6 (TTAB 2022) (cleaned up)). “To
establish entitlement to bring a statutory cause of action, a plaintiff must
demonstrate: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the
statute and (ii) a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by the registration
or continued registration of the mark.” Iron Balls Int’l Inc. v. Bull Creek Brewing,
LLC, No. 92079099, 2024 WL 2844425, at *1 (TTAB 2024) (citing Corcamore, LLC v.
SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 1303-05 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Menaxi Enter., Inc. v. Coca-Cola

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 9 -
Co., 38 F.4th 1067, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Advance Mag. Publishers, Inc. v. Fashion
Elecs., Inc., No. 91247034, 2023 WL 4261426, at *2 (TTAB 2023)).
As discussed above, Petitioner’s three applications to register its marks have been
refused under Section 2(d) based on Respondent’s two registrations at issue in these
proceedings. Petitioner’s evidence that its pending trademark applications have been
refused registration based on Respondent’s registrations demonstrates that
Petitioner has a real interest in these proceedings and a reasonable belief that it
would be damaged by the continued registration of Respondent’s marks, thus
establishing its entitlement to petition to cancel the blocking registrations on the
grounds asserted. See, e.g., Rapid Inc. v. Hungry Marketplace, Inc., No. 91236033,
2022 WL 2965804, at *6 (TTAB 2022) (prospective likelihood of confusion refusal of
the opposer’s application based on the applicant’s application entitled the opposer to
oppose based on Section 2(d)); Vans, Inc. v. Branded, LLC, No. 92066859, 2022 WL
3369641, at *9 (TTAB 2022) (likelihood of confusion refusal of the petitioner’s
application based on the respondent’s registration entitled the petitioner to petition
to cancel the registration based on abandonment); Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC,
No. 92066957, 2020 WL 7888976, at *7 (TTAB 2020) (same). As the Board recently
reiterated, once Petitioner establishes its entitlement to petition to cancel on one
ground, such as Section 2(d) or abandonment, “it can rely on any of the statutory
grounds for [cancellation] set forth in . . . [the Trademark Act],” including non-use.
Tequila Cuadra S. de RL de CV v. Manufacturera de Botas Cuadra, S.A. de C.V., No.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 10 -
91282327, 2025 WL 1431504, at *5 (TTAB 2025) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v.
Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
IV. Petitioner’s Non-Use Claims
A. The Nature of Petitioner’s Non-Use Claim(s)
Count II of Petitioner’s two Petitions for Cancellation is captioned “Non-Use or
Abandonment.” 1 TTABVUE 12-14 (Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358). The
“Non-Use” portions of Count II are not models of clarity, and we must determine the
nature of Petitioner’s non-use claim(s) from Petitioner’s ESTTA cover sheets,14 the
allegations in the Petitions for Cancellation, and the arguments in Petitioner’s briefs.
Petitioner’s two ESTTA cover sheets list claims captioned “[m]ark never used in
commerce,” citing Trademark Act Section 14(6), and “[n]o use of mark in commerce
before application, amendment to allege use, or statement of use was due,” citing
Trademark Act Sections 14(1) and 1(a), 1(c), and 1(d). 1 TTABVUE 1-2 (Cancellation
Nos. 92085356 and 92085358). These two referenced non-use claims have different
elements.
The Section 1(a) non-use claim is well-established under the Trademark Act. “An
application based on use of the mark in commerce under Section 1(a) . . . is void ab
initio if the mark was not in use in commerce in connection with the goods identified
14 “The ESTTA generated filing form . . . is considered part of the plaintiff’s initial pleading.”
Flame & Wax, 2022 WL 3083070, at *1 n.4 (quoting Schott AG v. Scott, No. 91184239, 2008
WL 4922488, at *2 n.3 (TTAB 2008)). “The Board views the ESTTA filing form and the
attached pleading as comprising a single document or paper being filed with the Board.”
Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, No. 91240180, 2023 WL 2986321, at *11
(TTAB 2023), aff’d, 2026 WL 60319 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (citing TBMP § 309.02).

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 11 -
in the application at the time the application was filed.” Look Cycle Int’l v. Kunshan
Qiyue Outdoor Sporting Goods Co., No. 92079409, 2024 WL 3739358, at *11 (TTAB
2024) (granting petition for cancellation on ground of non-use in commerce prior to
the filing of the underlying use-based application) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a);
Trademark Rule 2.34(a)(1)(i), 37 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1)(i); Aycock Eng’g Inc. v. Airflite,
Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (registration of a mark that does not meet
the use requirement is void ab initio); Toys, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 585 F.2d 1067,
1068 (CCPA 1978); Clorox Co. v. Salazar, No. 91198922, 2013 WL 5498171, at *4-5
(TTAB 2013)).15 In a cancellation proceeding where the underlying application was
filed under Section (1)(a), the issue is whether the registrant used the registered
mark in commerce in connection with the involved goods or services on or before the
filing date of the use-based application that matured into the registration.
The claim under Section 14(6) is of more recent vintage. Section 14(6) was added
to the Trademark Act by the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020. Pub. Law No.
116-260, Div. Q, Tit. II, Subtit. B, §§ 221-228. It creates a statutory ground for
expungement of an existing registration in an inter partes proceeding by providing
that a petition to cancel the registration may be filed “at any time after the 3-year
period following the date of registration, if the registered mark has never been used
in commerce on or in connection with some or all of the goods or services recited in
the registration.” 15 U.S.C. § 1064(6). There are thus two wrinkles to a non-use claim
15 “Under Section 45 of the Trademark Act, ‘use in commerce’ for goods is defined as ‘the bona
fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in
a mark.’” Look Cycle, 2024 WL 3739358, at *11 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127).

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 12 -
under Section 14(6) that differentiate it from a claim of non-use under Section 1(a):
(1) The Section 14(6) claim may only be filed after the challenged registration is at
least three years old, and (2) the mark must never have been used in commerce in
connection with all or some of the involved goods or services, not just on or before the
filing date of any underlying use-based application. See generally CHANGES TO
IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE TRADEMARK MODERNIZATION ACT OF
2020, 86 Fed. Reg. 64300 (Nov. 17, 2021); 37 C.F.R. § 2.111(b); see also TBMP §
307.03.
“Although the content of the ESTTA cover sheet is read in conjunction with the
notice of opposition [or petition for cancellation] as an integral component,”
Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. Rstudio, Inc., No. 91193335, 2013 WL 2365029, at *1 n.2
(TTAB 2013) (citing PPG Indus. Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., No. 91162329, 2005
WL 608209, at *3 (TTAB 2005)), “the mere mention of a ground therein is
insufficient.” Id. (citation omitted). We thus must determine whether Petitioner’s
Petitions for Cancellation allege one or both of the non-use claims listed on the
ESTTA cover sheets.
Petitioner’s Petitions for Cancellation allege in pertinent part as follows:
25. “Respondent filed U.S. Reg. No. [6164150/6211119] [sic]
under the Trademark Act Section 1(a) representing they
[sic] were currently utilizing the mark in commerce with
the following category of goods designations . . . .,” 1
TTABVUE 12 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 25
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358));16
16 Paragraph 25 lists the goods in the registration at issue in each proceeding.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 13 -
26. “Petitioner has searched Amazon.com for evidence of
the use of the mark SUPERKING and has found no
evidence of any use of the mark by Registrants [sic]. (See
Exhibit 1).” 1 TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 26
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358));17
27. “Petitioner has searched Target.com for evidence of the
use of the mark SUPERKING and has found no evidence
of any use of the mark by Registrants [sic]. (See Exhibit 2).”
1 TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 27
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358));
28. “Petitioner has utilized the Wayback Machine at
https://web.archive.org/ and found no evidence of the usage
of the mark SUPERKING by Registrants [sic]. (See Exhibit
3).” 1 TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 28
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358));
29. “Petitioner has found no evidence of any usage of the
mark SUPERKING by Registrant in connection with ANY
use in commerce in the United States for any time period
from initial registration through the [sic] April 22, 2024.” 1
TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 29
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358));
30. “A declaration is attached attesting to the accuracy of
the search results. (Exhibit __ [sic]).” 1 TTABVUE 13
(Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 30 (Cancellation Nos.
92085356 and 92085358));
31. “Registrant has failed to utilize the mark contained in
Reg. No. [6164150/6211119] in commerce in the United
States in ANY of the categories of goods since registration
and therefore should be cancelled for non-use.” 1
TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 31
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358));
33. “Petitioner hereby seeks cancellation of U.S. Reg. No[s.
6164150/6211119].” 1 TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for
17 “With the exception of a registration or registrations owned by the plaintiff on which it
relies for its claims (an exception not applicable here), exhibits to pleadings are not evidence
and will not be considered unless they are properly introduced in evidence.” Flame & Wax,
2022 WL 3083070, at *1 n.3 (citing Trademark Rule 2.122(c), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(c)).
Accordingly, “[w]e have not considered the exhibits submitted with the Petition[s] [for
Cancellation].” Id.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 14 -
Cancellation ¶ 33 (Cancellation. Nos. 92085356 and
92085358)).18
Respondent denied all of these allegations with the exception of the allegations in
Paragraph 25 regarding Respondent’s filing of the use-based applications that
matured into the two registrations. 4 TTABVUE 5 (Answs. ¶¶ 25-31 (Cancellation
Nos. 92085356 and 92085358)).
We must construe the allegations in the Petitions for Cancellation liberally under
Rule 8(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. v.
Unova Indus. Automation Sys., Inc., No. 150173, 2003 WL 880554, at *3 (TTAB 2003)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f)). Read liberally and together, Paragraphs 25-28 assert a
Section 1(a) non-use claim, albeit rather inartfully, because they allege that
Respondent filed the underlying use-based applications “representing they [sic] were
currently utilizing the mark in commerce with the following category of goods
designations,” 1 TTABVUE 12 (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 25 (Cancellation Nos.
92085356 and 92085358)), and that Petitioner’s investigation yielded “no evidence of
any use of the mark by Registrant[ ],” 1 TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for Cancellation
¶¶ 26-27 (Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358)), and “no evidence of the usage
of the mark SUPERKING by Registrant[ ].” 1 TTABVUE 13 (Petitions for
Cancellation ¶ 28 (Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358)). Although the
18 The Petitions for Cancellation also contain the following allegation of abandonment in
Count II: “Even if Registrant has some di [sic] minimis usage (that remains undiscovered)
prior to or immediately after registration, there is no evidence of use in commerce within the
last three (3) years and therefore Registrant has abandoned any trademark rights that it
may have once possessed in the SUPERKING mark.” (Petitions for Cancellation ¶ 32
(Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358)).

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 15 -
allegations regarding the lack of evidence of use are not specifically directed to the
period before the filing of the use-based applications that matured into the involved
registrations, or to use “in commerce” per se, Petitioner’s allegation that Respondent
has made no use of the registered marks necessarily alleges that Respondent made
no pre-filing use of the marks in commerce.19 We conclude that Petitioner pleaded
claims for non-use under Section 1(a) as listed on Petitioner’s ESTTA cover sheets.20
Petitioner’s briefs argue Section 1(a) non-use claims. Petitioner’s “Statement of
the Issues” in its briefs describes the non-use issue as follows: “Whether Respondent’s
SUPERKING registration should be cancelled and deemed void ab initio because
Respondent never used the mark in commerce in the United States on any of the
goods identified in [Registration Nos. 6164150/6211119].” 16 TTABVUE 10
(Cancellation No. 92085356); 21 TTABVUE 10 (Cancellation No. 92085358). The
arguments in Petitioner’s briefs are directed to Respondent’s failure to use the
SUPERKING mark in commerce on or before the filing dates of the use-based
applications that matured into the two involved registrations. 16 TTABVUE 16-17
(Cancellation No. 92085836)l 21 TTABVUE 16-17 (Cancellation No. 92085358).
19 The allegations in Paragraphs 29 and 31 do not add anything because they do not allege
that Respondent did not use the registered mark in commerce on or before the filing dates of
the underlying use-based applications, for purposes of a Section 1(a) claim, and they do not
state a claim under Section 14(6) because while they allege that Respondent did not use the
marks at any time after the issuance of the involved registrations, Section 14(6) requires that
the marks have “never been used in commerce on or in connection with some or all of the
goods or services recited in the registration[s].” 15 U.S.C. § 1064(6) (emphasis added).
20 As discussed immediately below, the Section 1(a) non-use claim is the one pursued in
Petitioner’s briefs.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 16 -
B. Petitioner’s Proof of No Pre-Filing Use in Commerce
As discussed above, in a cancellation proceeding, a non-use claim under Section
1(a) requires the petitioner to prove that the registered mark “was not in use in
commerce in connection with the goods identified in the application at the time the
[underlying use-based] application was filed.” Look Cycle, 2024 WL 3739358, at *11.21
Petitioner relies in both cases on Respondent’s deemed admissions of non-use
resulting from its failure to respond to requests for admission served by Petitioner
under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16 TTABVUE 12-13, 16-17
(Cancellation No. 92085836); 21 TTABVUE 12-13, 16-17 (Cancellation No.
92085358). Petitioner argues that “Respondent admitted that it never used the
SUPERKING mark in U.S. commerce and that it never sold or offered for sale any
goods under the mark.” 16 TTABVUE 16 (Cancellation No. 92085836); 21 TTABVUE
16 (Cancellation No. 92085358).
Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Kim testified in both cases that
[o]n November 19, 2024, Petitioner served its First
Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) on Registrant. The RFAs
sought admissions on key facts material to this
cancellation proceeding, including non-use and fraud
related to Registrant’s Mark. Registrant’s responses were
due on December 19, 2024. Registrant failed to respond to
the RFAs by the deadline and Registrant still has not
responded as of the date of this filing.
21 Petitioner must prove non-use by a preponderance of the evidence, U.S. Shoe Corp. v. J.
Riggs W., Inc., No. 91066132, 1984 WL 63103221, at *2 (TTAB 1984), but here the only record
evidence in both cases was provided by Petitioner.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 17 -
Kim Decl. ¶ 10 (11 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 3
(Cancellation No. 92085358)). He authenticated a copy of the requests. Kim Decl.
¶ 10; Ex. E (11 TTABVUE 3, 30-34 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 3, 30-
34 (Cancellation No. 92085358)). The requests sought the following admissions
relevant to Petitioner’s non-use claim:
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST NO. 1
Admit Registrant’s Mark has never been used in commerce
in the United States.
REQUEST NO. 2
Admit that none of the goods or services listed under
Registrant’s Mark have ever been sold, offered for sale, or
distributed under Registrant’s Mark in the United States.
REQUEST NO. 3
Admit that Registrant obtained Registrant’s Mark through
the submission of fraudulent specimens of use to the
USPTO in connection with trademark serial no.
88835299[/serial no. 88934297].
REQUEST NO. 4
Admit that the specimens of use submitted in registering
Registrant’s Mark were not of products in commerce in the
United States at the time of registration or at any time
before or after registration, but instead fraudulent
fabricated specimens.
REQUEST NO. 5
Admit that trademark serial no. 88835299[/serial no.
88934297] was submitted to the USPTO without
conducting a pre-filing inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances to determine whether the specimens
submitted properly depicted the mark as used in
commerce.

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 18 -
REQUEST NO. 6
Admit that during preparation and prosecution of
trademark serial no. 88835299[/serial no. 88934297], the
attorney who submitted specimens of use to the USPTO
never personally verified the availability of products
utilized as the specimens of use to confirm their use in
commerce.
Kim Decl. Ex. E (11 TTABVUE 30-34 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 30-
34 (Cancellation No. 92085358)). Respondent never responded to these requests. Kim
Decl. ¶ 10 (11 TTABVUE 3 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 3
(Cancellation No. 92085358)).
Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “provides that ‘[a] matter is
admitted, unless within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is
directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to
the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.’” Learning Journey Int’l, L.L.C. v.
Yongfu, No. 92082654, 2024 WL 4117143, at *3 (TTAB 2024) (granting summary
judgment on abandonment claim based on deemed admissions) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 36(a)(3)). Here, as in Learning Journey, Respondent “did not respond to Petitioner’s
requests for admission in any manner and does not dispute that it failed to timely do
so. Consequently, the requests are deemed admitted by operation of law.” Id. (citing
Giersch v. Scripps Networks, Inc., No. 92045576, 2007 WL 1653585, at *2 (TTAB
2007)). “The effect of such admissions is that the subject matter of the requests is
‘conclusively established unless the [Board], on motion, permits the admission[s] to
be withdrawn or amended’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b), or reopens the time to respond

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 19 -
to the admission requests ‘so that the admissions would not be deemed admitted as
put.’” Id. (quoting Giersch, 2007 WL 1653585, at *2).
As in Learning Journey, Respondent “had ‘two separate avenues for relief: . . .
either (1) move to reopen its time to respond to the admission requests because of its
failure to timely respond was the result of excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6((b)[(1)(B)], or (2) move to withdraw its admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b),’”
id. at *4 (quoting Giersch, 2007 WL 1653585, at *1), but Respondent “failed to avail
itself of either avenue for relief.” Id. The result is that “Petitioner’s requests for
admission stand admitted, and the matters admitted under the requests are
conclusively established.” Id. “Deemed admissions are competent to demonstrate that
there is no genuine dispute of material fact on a motion for summary judgment,” id.
at *5, and, a fortiori, they are competent to establish a plaintiff’s case at trial.
By its deemed admissions, Respondent has conclusively admitted that it marks
have “never been used in commerce in the United States,” Kim Decl. Ex. E (Req. for
Adm. No. 1) (11 TTABVUE 32 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 32
(Cancellation No. 92085358)), that “none of the goods or services listed under
Registrant’s Mark[s] have ever been sold, offered for sale, or distributed under
Registrant’s Mark[s] in the United States,” Kim Decl. Ex. E (Req. for Adm. No. 2) (11
TTABVUE 32 (Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 32 (Cancellation No.
92085358)), and that “the specimens of use submitted in registering Registrant’s
Mark[s] were not of products in commerce in the United States at the time of
registration or at any time before or after registration, but instead fraudulent

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 20 -
fabricated specimens.” Kim Decl. Ex. E (Req. for Adm. No. 4) (11 TTABVUE 32
(Cancellation No. 92085356); 18 TTABVUE 32 (Cancellation No. 92085358)).22 These
admissions are sufficient to establish that Respondent had not used either of its
registered marks in commerce in connection with any of the goods identified in its
two registrations as of the filing dates of the use-based applications that matured into
the registrations. As a result, the two use-based applications that matured into
Respondent’s registrations were void ab initio, Look Cycle, 2024 WL 3739358, at *11,
and Respondent’s resulting registrations are also void ab initio. Aycock Eng’g, 560
F.3d at 1357. We find that Petitioner proved its non-use claims under Section 1(a) in
each proceeding.
V. Summary
Petitioner proved its entitlement to a statutory cause of action and its Section 1(a)
non-use claim in each proceeding. Because the two Petitions for Cancellation are
granted based on Petitioner’s non-use claims, we need not and do not reach
Petitioner’s fraud and likelihood of confusion claims. Learning Journey, 2024 WL
4117143, at *7 n.21 (citations omitted).
Decision: The Petition for Cancellation in Cancellation No. 92085356 is granted
based on Petitioner’s non-use claim under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, and
Registration No. 6164150 will be cancelled in due course.
22 The specimens in the file histories of the two registration do not show Respondent’s use in
commerce because they are “not evidence on behalf of [Respondent] unless identified and
introduced in evidence as exhibits during the period for the taking of testimony.” Trademark
Rule 2.122(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(2).

Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (Consolidated)
- 21 -
The Petition for Cancellation in Cancellation No. 92085358 is granted based on
Petitioner’s non-use claim under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, and Registration
No. 6211119 will be cancelled in due course.