Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri v. Yogi Bhajan Administrative Trust

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BIBIJI INDERJIT KAUR PURI,
Appellant
v.
YOGI BHAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST,
Appellee
______________________
2020-2152
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
91217913.
______________________
Decided: May 10, 2021
______________________
SURJIT SONI, The Soni Law Firm, Pasadena, CA, for ap-
pellant. Also represented by M ICHAEL A. L ONG .
AARON JOSEPH M OSS , Greenberg Glusker Fields
Claman & Machtinger, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee. Also
represented by ELIZABETH M ARIE SBARDELLATI.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, M OORE and C HEN , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 20-2152 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2021

-- 1 of 4 --

PURI v. YOGI BHAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST 2
CHEN , Circuit Judge.
Bibiji Inderjit Kaur Puri appeals from a decision of the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) sustaining an
opposition to her intent-to-use application under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(b) to register the character mark YOGI for various
bath and beauty products. See Yogi Bhajan Administrative
Trust v. Inderjit Kaur Puri, Opp. No. 91217913 (T.T.A.B.
July 29, 2020) (Board Decision) (J.A. 1–20). The Board
found that Ms. Puri had a pre-existing interest in the YOGI
mark shared with the opposer, Yogi Bhajan Administrative
Trust (YBAT), and therefore she “did not have a bona fide
intent to use the mark in commerce solely in her individual
capacity at the time she filed her [application] because, at
such time, [Ms. Puri] was aware that both Opposer and
[herself] each had an undivided and equal interest in the
applied-for mark for the identified goods.” Id. at *20. Be-
cause the Board’s legal conclusions are without error and
its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence,
we affirm.
Unrebutted evidence supports the Board’s determina-
tion that YBAT and Ms. Puri share an interest in the YOGI
mark for the applied-for goods. Both obtained a fifty per-
cent, undivided interest in the YOGI mark and associated
license agreements from Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji
(Yogi Bhajan) after his death. Yogi Bhajan licensed the
YOGI mark for various health and wellness products, in-
cluding bath and beauty products similar to those at issue
here. See, e.g., J.A. 286, 288 (written testimony of Ek Ong
Kar Kaur Khalsa, a trustee of YBAT, stating that Yogi
Bhajan had licensed the YOGI mark for “bath and body
care products,” including “perfumes, body oils, body scrubs
and body butters”); J.A. 336, 349–50 (agreement licensing
the YOGI mark for perfume oils, body oils, salt scrubs,
sugar scrubs, and body butters). In light of this evidence,
the Board reasonably concluded that Ms. Puri “cannot, as
a matter of law, assert that no other persons have the right
to use the applied-for-mark in commerce” as part of her
Case: 20-2152 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2021

-- 2 of 4 --

PURI v. YOGI BHAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST 3
intent-to-use application because “the evidence clearly
demonstrates that Opposer also has an undivided 50% in-
terest in the involved mark.” Board Decision at *17.
The Board also found that Ms. Puri’s previous reliance
on her shared interest in the YOGI mark to oppose regis-
tration of YOGI-formative marks for goods similar to those
at issue here underscored why Ms. Puri may not register
the YOGI mark in the applied-for goods solely in her own
name without her co-owner’s consent. Relying upon the co-
owned YOGI mark, Ms. Puri opposed the registration of
YOGI FAIR for personal care and bath and body products
and YOGI VITALITY for health and wellness products,
and asserted the scope of her pre-existing rights extend so
far as to warrant precluding registration of YOGI-related
marks for non-health and wellness products as well (e.g.,
clothing). The Board’s finding that the positions taken by
Ms. Puri in these opposition proceedings further demon-
strate that “her rights in the mark YOGI generally” “are
derived from her 50% undivided interest in the Yogi Bha-
jan Intellectual Property” are therefore supported by sub-
stantial evidence.
Given the Board’s well-supported factual findings, we
find no error in its conclusion that Ms. Puri’s application
was void ab initio for failing to include or obtain the consent
of all interested parties. See 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b); Sanders
v. Am. Forests, 232 F.3d 907 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (unpublished).
On appeal, Ms. Puri challenges numerous aspects of
the Board’s decision, including that insufficient evidence of
use of the YOGI mark for bath and beauty products was
submitted during the opposition proceeding to support the
Board’s conclusion. See generally Appellant’s Br.; id. at 15–
17. During the opposition proceeding, however, Ms. Puri
did not file a trial brief, submit any witness statements, or
otherwise timely raise these disputes. Board Decision at
*5. Such arguments are therefore forfeited. See In re
Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir.
Case: 20-2152 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2021

-- 3 of 4 --

PURI v. YOGI BHAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST 4
2020). And while we have discretion to consider “posi-
tion[s] not presented in the tribunal under review” under
“exceptional circumstances,” id., such circumstances are
not present here. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 14 (arguing
only that “there has been no waiver” because Ms. Puri
“timely appealed [] and was not required to seek reconsid-
eration before doing so.”). We therefore decline to consider
Ms. Puri’s arguments in the first instance.
We have considered Ms. Puri’s remaining, timely argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons set
forth above, we affirm the Board’s decision sustaining
YBAT’s opposition to Ms. Puri’s application to register the
YOGI mark for the applied-for goods.
AFFIRMED
Case: 20-2152 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2021

-- 4 of 4 --