Ifit Inc. v. KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Com- merce for Intellectual Property

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IFIT INC.,
Appellant
v.
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, Under Secretary of Com-
merce for Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Intervenor
______________________
2024-1041
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
91264855.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before CHEN, L INN, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
L INN, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
iFIT Inc. has filed its opening brief challenging the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of its oppo-
sition to registration of ERB Industries, Inc.’s (“ERB”)
Case: 24-1041 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 05/03/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IFIT INC. v. VIDAL 2
trademark.* The Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office now moves to waive Federal Circuit Rule
27(f) and remand for further proceedings. iFIT opposes.
An agency may properly request a remand to recon-
sider its previous position. SKF USA Inc. v. United States,
254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In such cases, re-
mand is usually appropriate if the agency expresses a “sub-
stantial and legitimate” concern about its earlier decision
or it wishes to reconsider its decision in light of a new legal
decision. Id. Here, the Director raises legitimate concerns
about the Board’s findings on the relatedness between
ERB’s goods and iFIT’s services and also wishes to recon-
sider the decision in light of Naterra International, Inc. v.
Bensalem, 92 F.4th 1113, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Direc-
tor further notes that on remand the Board will “address
all of Appellant’s alleged deficiencies.” Reply at 3. We
agree with the Director that remanding now is the better
course of action, as it will preserve judicial resources and
may simplify the issues for any future appeal.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The Director’s motion is granted. The case is re-
manded to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with the motion and this order.
* In light of ERB’s non-participation in this appeal,
the court granted the Director of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office’s leave to intervene.
Case: 24-1041 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 05/03/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IFIT INC. v. VIDAL 3
(2) Each side to bear its own costs.
May 3, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1041 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 05/03/2024

-- 3 of 3 --