Hanako design SA

This opinion is not a
precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: June 5, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Hanako design SA
_____
Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
_____
Victoria Walker, of LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.,
for Hanako design SA.
Jordan A. Baker, Attorney Advisor, USPTO Register Protection Office,
Montia Givens Pressey, Managing Attorney, Law Office 800.
_____
Before Pologeorgis, Casagrande, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Casagrande, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Hanako design SA (Registrant) owns Registration No. 7220244 (the ’244
Registration), for the mark for goods identified as “Boats; Ships; Yachts”
in International Class 12.1 Registrant appeals a decision, on petition for
1 Registration No. 7220244 issued on November 14, 2023, and claims a date of first use
anywhere of August 7, 2008, and first use in commerce of September 22, 2008. We spell
Registrant’s corporate name as it appears on the registration, though we note that
Registrant’s brief to us spells “Design” with a capital “D.”

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 2 -
reexamination, ordering cancellation of the registration under Section 16B of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1066b(g).
I. BACKGROUND
In July 2024, a third party filed a petition for reexamination of the ’244
Registration.2 The petition alleged and provided evidence that:
• An Italian company named Cantieri Di Baia S.P.A. Mericraft was the owner
of Reg. No. 2481930 for the mark for goods in several identified
classes, including “Boats and ships” in International Class 12 (the “Prior
BAIA Registration”);3
• The Prior BAIA Registration issued in 2001 but was cancelled in 2012 for
failure to file a declaration of continued use under Section 8 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1058;4
• The owner of the Prior BAIA Registration declared bankruptcy in 2016 and
ceased doing business in 2020;5
• Registrant filed an intent-to-use application for the mark in
2022 for goods identified as “Boats; ships; yachts,” which matured into the
’244 Registration;6
• Registrant filed a Statement of Use on September 12, 2023, claiming a date
of first use in commerce of September 22, 2008;7 and
2 See July 3, 2024, Petition for Reexamination. Citations to the record of this reexamination
proceeding are to the version of the documents in the USPTO’s Trademark Status and
Document Retrieval (TSDR) database corresponding to the registration, as downloaded in
.pdf format.
3 See id. at 133-34 (attaching the TSDR status and title copy of the Prior BAIA
Registration).
4 See id.
5 See id. at 18, 54-59.
6 See id. at 21, 179-81.
7 See id. at 21, 183-94.

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 3 -
• Registrant had not used the mark of the ’244 Registration as of the time
Registrant filed its Statement of Use nor as of the expiration of the period
of time within which Registrant could have filed a Statement of Use
(February 8, 2024) (the “Relevant Date”).8
On the basis of the third-party petition, the Office issued a Combined Notice of
Institution and Nonfinal Office Action finding that the petition established a prima
facie case that Registrant had not used the mark in commerce before the Relevant
Date.9 See 15 U.S.C. § 1066b(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.92(a), (f)(2). The Nonfinal Office
Action required Registrant to provide evidence of use of the mark in commerce as of
the Relevant Date.10
Registrant offered argument and evidence in rebuttal.11 Unpersuaded, the
Examiner issued a Final Office Action, making final the requirement to provide
evidence of use of the mark in commerce as of the Relevant Date.12 Registrant
appealed to the Board pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 107013 and simultaneously requested
that the Examiner reconsider the Final Office Action.14 We suspended the appeal
pending resolution of the reconsideration request.15 After the Examiner denied
8 See id. at 21-34 and exhibits referenced therein.
9 See October 9, 2024, Combined Notice of Institution and Nonfinal Office Action.
10 See id. at 2.
11 See February 10, 2025, Response to Nonfinal Office Action.
12 See March 20, 2025, Final Office Action.
13 See 1 TTABVUE. References to the briefs and appeal record cite to the Board’s TTABVUE
electronic docket system. The number preceding “TTABVUE” represents the docket number
assigned to the cited filing in TTABVUE, and any number immediately following
“TTABVUE” identifies the specifically-cited page(s), if any.
14 See June 20, 2025, Request for Reconsideration.
15 See 2 TTABVUE.

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 4 -
reconsideration,16 the appeal resumed.17 Registrant and the Examiner filed briefs.18
The appeal is now ready for decision. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the
Examiner’s finding that Registrant failed to demonstrate use in commerce of its
mark as of the Relevant Date and, as a consequence, the subject
registration will be cancelled.
II. ANALYSIS
The Director’s decision to institute a reexamination is “final and non-reviewable.”
15 U.S.C. § 1066b(d)(3). Thus, the only question before us is whether Registrant, in
response to the Examiner’s findings, has submitted information and evidence
sufficient to establish use in commerce of the mark with the goods listed
in the ’244 Registration as of the Relevant Date.
A. Applicable legal standards
For registrations issuing from intent-to-use applications under Section 1(b), a
reexamination proceeding determines whether the evidence shows that the
registered mark was in use in commerce as of the deadline for filing a statement of
use, including any approved extensions. See In re Everwise Credit Union, No. 2023-
100533R, 2026 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *4; Common Sense Press Inc. v. Van Sciver, No.
16 See 4 TTABVUE.
17 See 5 TTABVUE.
18 See 7 TTABVUE (Registrant brief); 9 TTABVUE (Examiner brief).

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 5 -
92075375, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 173, at *5. Once a reexamination proceeding is
instituted and an initial Office action issued, a registrant who does not wish to delete
the affected goods or services is required “to provide such evidence of use,
information, exhibits, affidavits, or declarations as may be reasonably necessary to
rebut the prima facie case of nonuse by establishing that the required use in
commerce has been made on or in connection with the goods and/or services at issue
as of the date relevant to the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. 2.93(a). Further, Trademark Rule
2.93(b)(7), 37 C.F.R. § 2.93(b)(7), provides that:
Any evidence of use must be accompanied by a verified
statement signed by someone with firsthand knowledge of the
facts to be proved, setting forth in numbered paragraphs
factual information about the use of the mark in commerce,
including a description of the supporting evidence and how the
evidence demonstrates use of the mark in commerce as of any
relevant date for the goods and/or services at issue.
“A registrant’s documentary evidence of use shall be consistent with when a mark
shall be deemed to be in use in commerce under the definition of ‘use in commerce’ in
section 1127 ... .” 15 U.S.C. § 1066b(f); see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.93(b)(7). Under the
definitional provision of the Trademark Act, “[t]he term ‘use in commerce’ means the
bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to
reserve a right in a mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
B. Does the evidence demonstrate that Registrant used the
mark by the Relevant Date?
At the threshold, we do not see in the record a “verified statement signed by
someone with firsthand knowledge of the facts to be proved, setting forth … factual
information … about the use of the mark in commerce … and how the evidence

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 6 -
demonstrates use of the mark in commerce as of any relevant date” as required by 37
C.F.R. § 2.93(b)(7). All that Registrant submitted in its Office action responses is
attorney argument—which is not the same thing as a “verified statement signed by
someone with firsthand knowledge”—and several documents, none of which are even
authenticated by a declaration or verified statement. Registrant’s failure to provide
what Trademark Rule 2.93(b)(7) requires by itself requires affirmance. In the interest
of completeness, however, we will address the arguments that Registrant makes.
Registrant does not contend that it has ever sold anything under the mark.
Rather, it argues that, by chain of title, it succeeded to rights in the mark tracing
back to the owner of the Prior BAIA Registration. Registrant says it obtained rights
in the mark owned by “Italproperties LLC in June 2020.”19 It contends that
Italproperties came to own the mark “through … corporate transactions after 2007”
with “Baia of America,” whom Registrant says is a distributor affiliated with Cantieri
di Baia.20 As noted earlier, Cantieri Di Baia S.P.A. Mericraft was the owner of the
Prior BAIA Registration.21 Our review of the evidence Registrant has submitted,
however, reveals several missing links in the chain.
First, under Trademark Rule 3.73(a), 37 C.F.R § 3.73(a), “[t]he original applicant
is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there
is an assignment.” But neither the file for the Prior BAIA Registration submitted by
19 See 7 TTABVUE 5-6.
20 See id. at 3-4, 7.
21 Registrant acknowledges that Cantieri Di Baia was “the original Italian manufacturer.”
See id. at 3.

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 7 -
the third-party petitioner nor our current review of the file reveals any assignment
or other transfer of rights in the registration from Cantieri Di Baia S.P.A. Mericraft
to “Baia of America.”22 That’s missing link number one in the purported chain of title.
Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that “Baia of America”
obtained some sort of interest in a “BAIA” mark at issue at some point in time, there’s
a second missing link. Registrant points to a purported 2007 promissory note
pursuant to which “Baia of America” promised to pay Italproperties LLC $136,456,
in monthly installments, which the document recites that Baia of America owes to
Italproperties for office remodeling work.23 The document has a provision that offers
the following as security in case Baia of America doesn’t comply with the repayment
provisions:
Not only is there no accompanying declaration of someone with personal knowledge
authenticating this document, but we do not know what “Trademark Baia logo and
name registretion [sic] with USPTO on 04-01-1996” refers to. The prior registration
issued in August 2001 from an application filed in March 2000. So the second missing
22 See July 3, 2024, Petition for Reexamination, at TSDR 133-34. We can take judicial notice
whether any assignments of or security interests in a registration that is properly of record
have been recorded at the USPTO. See, e.g., Jim Dandy Co. v. Siler City Mills, Inc., No.
91060588, 1981 TTAB LEXIS 43, at *2 n.2.
23 See February 10, 2025, Response to Office Action, at TSDR 14-17.

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 8 -
link is that there’s nothing connecting whatever is referenced in this “Security”
provision to the Prior BAIA Registration.
The third missing link is that there’s nothing in the record indicating that Baia of
America defaulted on this promissory note or that Italproperties, as a result, took
possession of the alleged trademark that served as collateral.
This takes us to missing link number four: What, exactly, did Registrant acquire
from Italproperties? There is a document dated 2020, which indicates that Danilo
Cacace, the purported owner of Italproperties, sold the company to Registrant for
$100,000.24 The document does not mention the BAIA trademark. The closest it comes
is the “Description of Business” to be sold, which states: “The Business includes the
following properties: All the furniture, fixtures, equipment, and other tangible assets
[;] All the trade, goodwill, and other intangible assets.”25 It does not mention any
BAIA trademarks, or any trademarks at all. Nor does it mention anything about
Italproperties being, or having been, in the business of making or selling ships, boats,
or yachts. This is significant because the Prior BAIA Registration was cancelled in
2012 for failure to file a declaration of continued use under Section 8 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1058. That means that whatever rights Italproperties
24 See February 10, 2025, Response to Office Action, at TSDR 22-34. Like the document in
which Italproperties purportedly received a security interest in “Trademark Baia logo and
name registretion [sic],” this document is not authenticated by any accompanying
declaration. Interestingly, Mr. Cacace also appears as Registrant’s signatory representative
for the September 12, 2023, Statement of Use (“Danilo Cacace, Director”) and June 20, 2025,
Request for Reconsideration (“Danilo Cacace, Director”). Cf. November 2, 2022, Application
(“David Cortez, CEO”); February 10, 2025, Response to Office Action (“Juan Galindo,
Shareholder”).
25 See id. at 22-23.

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 9 -
had in any “Baia” mark in 2020 would have to have been based on its own common
law use, and there is nothing showing that Italproperties had been using any Baia
mark in the intervening eight years in connection with the sale of yachts, boats, or
ships.
In fact, the only evidence of use of the BAIA mark in the record by anyone with a
potential ownership interest in it is an invoice from 1998 from Baia of America for
the sale of a boat to an individual.26 But this document is unaccompanied by any
declaration attesting to personal knowledge of the transaction. Further, even if we
were to assume—as Registrant alleges without evidence—that Baia of America was
Cantieri Di Baia S.P.A. Mericraft’s U.S. distributor at the time, the general rule is
that, as between a manufacturer (Cantieri Di Baia S.P.A. Mericraft) and a purported
distributor (Baia of America), the distributor’s sales do not result in the acquisition
by the distributor of rights in the mark. Unless there is an agreement providing
otherwise, any use of the mark by the distributor in connection with the
manufactured goods inures to the manufacturer’s benefit. 2 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY,
MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 16:48 (5th ed. March 2026
update) (endnote citations omitted).
Registrant argues that it does not matter that there is no evidence that it or its
purported predecessors-in-interest used the registered mark because there are
“multiple active U.S. listings for BAIA yachts” that “advertise the yachts for
26 See June 20, 2025, Request for Reconsideration, at TSDR 9.

Reexamination No. 2024-101552R for Registration No. 7220244
- 10 -
purchase.”27 According to Registrant, this “secondary market” acts to preserve
“trademark significance” and “demonstrates that the … Mark remains visible to
consumers and retains its goodwill.”28
We reject Registrant’s argument. While evidence of residual goodwill can serve to
negate a charge of abandonment based on a mark having become the generic name
for the goods, see Adamson Sys. Eng’g, Inc. v. Peavey Elecs. Corp., No. 92076586, 2023
TTAB LEXIS 454, at *18, the problem here is different: Registrant’s nonuse (and the
lack of evidence that Registrant’s alleged predecessor-in-interest, Italproperties, ever
used the mark). Alleged residual goodwill does not defeat nonuse. See, e.g., id. at *43-
44; see also Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, No. 91218679, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 123, at *29-
32; Gen. Motors Corp. v. Aristide & Co., No. 91167007, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 18, at *14-
15 (TTAB 2008). Nonuse remains nonuse.
Decision: We affirm the Examiner’s finding, on petition for reexamination, that
Registrant failed to demonstrate use of the mark in commerce by the Relevant Date.
The ’244 Registration will be cancelled in due course under Section 16B(g) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1066b(g).
27 See 7 TTABVUE 7-8.
28 See id. at 8.