Zuffa, LLC v. Byron Belin

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: July 15, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
Zuffa, LLC
v.
Byron Belin
_____
Cancellation No. 92077633
_____
On Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration of Board’s Final Decision
_____
John L. Krieger and Cindy Villanueva of Dickinson Wright PLLC for:
Zuffa, LLC
Jeremy T. Katz and Eric V. Anderson of Hall Griffin LLP for:
Byron Belin
_____
Before Wellington, Allard, and Casagrande,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Respondent, Byron Belin, requested reconsideration of the Board’s March 10,
2026, final decision granting Petitioner, Zuffa, LLC, the cancellation of Respondent’s

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 2 -
Reg. No. 6002970 based on nonuse of the mark in commerce.1 Petitioner filed its
opposition to Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration.2
I. Argument
In the Request for Reconsideration, Respondent contends that the Board erred
because the final decision “was based on the Board’s factual conclusion that there is
no evidence of use prior to the January 2020 Statement of Use deadline.”3 Specifically,
Respondent contends that the Board erred by not considering Respondent’s
submission of evidence regarding purported YouTube promotional videos.
Respondent acknowledges that it did not introduce actual copies of the videos and
thus the actual content was not placed in the record, but argues that “as a factual
matter,” Petitioner’s trial brief “conceded that Belin had posted the two ‘BMF’ videos
to Youtube, which means that the existence of those BMF videos prior to the
Statement of Use deadline is an undisputed fact.”4
Respondent also argues that, “as a legal matter, the code of federal regulations
allows internet materials to be submitted into evidence ‘so long as the date the
internet materials were access (sic) and their source (e.g., URL) are provided,’” citing
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)(2).5 Respondent argues that because he provided this
1 73 TTABVUE; see also 72 TTABVUE (Board Final Decision).
2 74 TTABVUE.
3 73 TTABVUE 3. Emphasis in italics on the word “no” from Respondent.
4 73 TTABVUE 3, reference Petitioner’s brief at 53 TTAVUE 26.
5 73 TTABVUE 3.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 3 -
information, the video content that can be ascertained at that website address should
be considered.
Petitioner, in response, asserts that Respondent “ignores the difference between
acknowledging the existence of the videos and having the content of the videos in
evidence.”6 (emphasis in original). Petitioner also disagrees with Respondent’s claim
that it was “legal error” for the Board not to have considered the content of the
YouTube videos, asserting that Respondent “provides no legal support for the
assertion” and that merely supplying the URL (website address) for the videos is not
sufficient for placing the content of the videos in the record.7
II. Applicable Law and Analysis
Reconsideration is a procedural tool with a narrow purpose. A party may request
reconsideration when it believes that “based on the evidence of record and the
prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching the decision it issued.” In re
Berkeley Lights, Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *2 (citation omitted).
It thus “should be limited to a demonstration that based on the evidence properly of
record and the applicable law, the Board’s ruling is in error and requires appropriate
change.” Nkanginieme v. Appleton, No. 91256464, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 64, at *3-4
(citation omitted). It may not “be devoted simply to a reargument of the points
presented in the requesting party’s brief on the case.” Id.; see also TRADEMARK TRIAL
6 74 TTABVUE 3.
7 74 TTABVUE 4.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 4 -
AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) §§ 543 and 1219.01 (2026) and
cases cited therein.
At the threshold, we note that Respondent incorrectly asserts that the Board
found “there is no evidence of use prior to the January 2020 Statement of Use
deadline.”8 The Board actually determined in the final decision that there was “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.”9
Respondent has not shown this to have been error.
In terms of the Board’s refusal to consider the content of the YouTube videos even
though Petitioner acknowledged their existence, we are not persuaded by
Respondent’s arguments that the Board was in error, either in fact or in law. As the
Board clearly pointed out in the final decision, Petitioner acknowledged only that
Respondent’s “activities” included a short film video and “a 44 second promotional
video for the short film.” Actual copies of the videos were not introduced. As Petitioner
correctly points out, there is substantial difference between conceding the existence
of these videos and admitting the content or any import of the content. Indeed, and
to put a fine point on it, Petitioner did not admit or acknowledge any substance or
content of the YouTube videos that would support Respondent’s assertion of use of
his mark in commerce in connection with any of the services identified in his
registration.
8 73 TTABVUE 3 (emphasis in original).
9 72 TTABVUE 23 (emphasis added).

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 5 -
Respondent also misconstrues the legal authority regarding the Board’s
acceptance of Internet materials into evidence based on a party merely providing the
URL Internet address. That is, the rule to which Respondent relies upon, Trademark
Rule 2.122(e)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)(2), involves submitting copies of Internet
materials under a notice of reliance. This rule, as explained in TBMP § 704.08(b)
(“Internet Materials”) clarifies that “[p]roviding only a web address or a hyperlink
without the material attached is not sufficient to introduce it into the record,” citing,
inter alia, Chutter, Inc. v. Great Mgmt. Grp., LLC, No. 91223018, 2021 TTAB LEXIS
365, at *41 n.67 (video referenced by hyperlink inadmissible), rev’d on other grounds
sub nom. Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., 84 F.4th 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also
In re Powermat Inc., No. 77715011, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 5, at *5-6 (links to YouTube
videos insufficient to make the content of the videos of record).
Respondent also takes issue with the Board’s rationale for not considering the
content of the video evidence and that “in this context, the exclusionary rule’s very
purpose is nonsensical.”10 Respondent asserts that it is irrelevant in this case that
the content of the material to which the link pertains may be altered on the website
and the “factual question at issue is not the content as it appears on the date accessed,
but the content available on the publication date.”11 Even if we are to give credence
to this argument, and we do not, it misses the point entirely in that Respondent did
not provide the content, namely, copies of the videos, leaving us with no means of
10 73 TTABVUE 4.
11 73 TTABVUE 4.

Cancellation No. 92077633
- 6 -
determining the probative value of the content of the videos in connection with our
determination as to use of Respondent’s mark in connection with any of the services
listed in the registration.
Finally, we note that in admitting that he did not place the videos in question in
the record, Respondent states “it is true that Respondent did not clutter the record
with video files, which could just as easily be accessed by following the link
provided.”12 We would be remiss if we did not point out that Respondent twice
submitted over 400 pages of exhibits with his testimonial declaration.13 In other
words, given the number and amount of exhibit materials already submitted, the
submission of a couple of videos would not have increased the size of the record
appreciably.14
In sum, we have carefully considered Respondent’s arguments in the Request for
Reconsideration and are not persuaded there was error in reaching the final decision.
Accordingly, Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
12 73 TTABVUE 5.
13 48 TTABVUE 12-430 and 50 TTABVUE (second copy submitted).
14 TBMP § 703.01(i) explains the proper procedure for introducing such material (“Exhibits
consisting of video or audio recordings of commercials, demonstrations, etc., may be
transferred to an appropriate electronic format such as a DVD or CD for submission to the
Board.”).