Nelwood Corp. v. Kevin Morgan

ajl
June 5, 2026
Opposition No. 91296358
Nelwood Corp.
v.
Kevin Morgan
Before Goodman, Lebow, and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
By the Board:
Kevin Morgan (“Applicant”) seeks registration of the standard character mark
CORRU on the Principal Register for goods and services in International Classes 9,
25, and 42.1
Nelwood Corp. (“Opposer”) opposed registration of Applicant’s proposed mark on
the ground of nonuse under Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), for the goods in Class
1 Application Serial No. 98470171 was filed on March 27, 2024, under Trademark Act Section
1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42. The application
alleges February 11, 2024 as the date of first use, and March 22, 2024 as the date of first use
in commerce, for the goods in Class 25, and July 13, 2022 as the date of first use and first use
in commerce for the services in Class 42. The filing basis for the goods in Class 9
is Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). By request to divide, the unopposed Class
9 was transferred to a child application. July 10, 2025 order (6 TTABVUE). See July 22, 2025
action by the examining attorney.
Citations to the record or briefs in this order are to the publicly available documents in the
Board’s online docketing system, TTABVUE.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
General Contact Number: 571-272-8500
General Email: TTABInfo@uspto.gov
THIS ORDER IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Opposition No. 91296358
2
25,2 and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(d), and
dilution by blurring under Section 43(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), for the goods and
services in Classes 25 and 42.3 Opposer pleads ownership of Registrations Nos.
5894570 and 6768773 for the mark KURU (in standard characters) for goods in
International Classes 1 and 25, and claims common law rights in those marks.4
Applicant denied the salient allegations of the notice of opposition.
Thereafter, on April 16, 2025, Applicant “move[d] to amend the subject application
to delete class 025 without consent.”5 In accordance with Trademark Rule 2.135, 37
C.F.R. § 2.135, the Board’s July 10, 2025 order entered partial judgment against
Applicant as to abandoned International Class 25.6
2 1 TTABVUE 6-7, ¶¶ 9-19 (notice of opposition, Count I).
3 1 TTABVUE 7-10, ¶¶ 20-39 (notice of opposition, Counts II and III). Opposer refers to the
claims of lack of bona fide intent to use and failure to function on the ESTTA coversheet to
the notice of opposition. 1 TTABVUE. We note that Opposer titles its nonuse claim as “no
prior bona fide use” and alleges within this claim that Applicant’s use “does not function as
a trademark for goods.” Although the content of the ESTTA cover sheet is read in conjunction
with the notice of opposition as an integral component, Mymeta Software, Inc. v. Meta
Platforms, Inc., No. 91286055, 2024 WL 1794373, at *2 (TTAB 2024), Opposer’s mere mention
of the grounds in the ESTTA coversheet is insufficient to properly assert these as separate
claims, and we do not consider them as such. See Trademark Act Section 1(a); Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(e) and 12(f); see also Embarcadero Techs. Inc. v. RStudio Inc., No. 91193335, 2013 WL
2365029, at *1 n.2 (TTAB 2013); TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”)
§ 1202 (Nov. 2025) (and authorities cited therein).
4 1 TTABVUE 4-5, ¶¶ 1-6.
5 5 TTABVUE 2.
6 6 TTABVUE. In an opposition to an application having multiple classes, if the applicant
files a request to amend the application to delete an opposed class in its entirety, as he did
here, the request for amendment is, in effect, an abandonment of the application with respect
to that class, and is governed by 37 C.F.R. § 2.135; TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) §§ 602.01 and 605.03(b) (2025).

Opposition No. 91296358
3
This proceeding now comes up on Applicant’s motion for summary judgment, filed
November 10, 2025, in which Applicant seeks dismissal of the opposition “in its
entirety.”7 The motion is fully briefed.8
Applicant presents arguments and attaches several exhibits in support of his
motion for summary judgment on Opposer’s likelihood of confusion claim as to Class
42, and argues that Opposer cannot show dilution fame. With respect to Class 25,
Applicant argues that the nonuse claim is now “moot”9 due to abandonment, and with
regard to the likelihood of confusion ground, that “Applicant no longer pursues
registration in Class 025.”10
Opposer denies that its opposition to Class 25 is moot, and maintains that it “has
prevailed in Class 25 and the TTAB’s final ruling should provide as such.”11
In reply, Applicant acknowledges the Board’s order regarding Class 25, but
maintains that “adjudication of that issue is unnecessary.”12
We disagree. Applicant’s mootness argument, which is directed to the non-use
claim only, is unavailing. Trademark Rule 2.135 provides that if, in an inter partes
proceeding, “the applicant files a written abandonment of the application . . . without
the written consent of every adverse party to the proceeding, judgment shall be
7 8 TTABVUE 16.
8 We have considered the parties’ arguments on the contested motion, but do not repeat or
discuss all of their arguments, except as necessary to explain our order. Guess? IP Holder LP
v. Knowluxe LLC, No. 92060707, 2015 WL 9702438, at *1 (TTAB 2015).
9 8 TTABVUE 6.
10 Id. Applicant does not mention Class 25 in arguing the dilution claim.
11 10 TTABVUE 3.
12 11 TTABVUE 2.

Opposition No. 91296358
4
entered against the applicant.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.135. The purpose of Trademark Rule
2.135 is to preclude an applicant from attempting to moot the opposer’s pleaded claim
(and thereby avoid entry of judgment thereon) by unilaterally abandoning the
application after commencement of the opposition proceeding. See Grinnell Corp. v.
Grinnell Concrete Pavingstones, Inc., No. 91080482, 1990 WL 354503, at *2 (TTAB
1990) (consent required for abandonment without prejudice regardless of motivation
for abandonment); cf. Orange Bang, Inc. v. Olé Mexican Foods, Inc., No. 91189001,
2015 WL 5675641, at *7 (TTAB 2015) (“the purpose of … [Trademark Rule 2.134(b),
37 C.F.R. § 2.134(b)] . . . is to prevent a cancellation proceeding respondent . . . from
being able to moot the proceeding, and avoid judgment, by deliberately failing to file
the required [maintenance] affidavits.”).
Therefore, Opposer’s nonuse claim has not been rendered moot by Applicant’s
abandonment, and judgment has been entered against Applicant, sustaining the
opposition as to this claim.13 Accordingly, Applicant’s motion that the nonuse claim
directed to International Class 25 be deemed moot is denied. See Trademark Rule
2.135.
International Class 42
Opposer does “not oppos[e] the [summary judgment m]otion regarding the claims
asserted against Applicant’s registration of his trademark in Class 42.”14 In view
13 Moreover, that Applicant parses the ramifications of his abandonment of Class 25 between
Opposer’s different claims is of no moment. Judgment has been entered against Applicant in
Class 25.
14 10 TTABVUE 3.

Opposition No. 91296358
5
thereof, Applicant’s motion for summary judgment on Opposer’s likelihood of
confusion and dilution claims against International Class 42 of the involved
application is granted as conceded. See Trademark Rules 2.127(e)(1) and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56.
Decision
Judgment previously has been entered against Applicant as to International Class
25, and Opposition No. 91296358 is sustained as to International Class 25 only.
Judgment is entered against Opposer as to International Class 42 on the grounds
of likelihood of confusion and dilution, and Opposition No. 91296358 is dismissed as
to this class.
Application Serial No. 98470171 will proceed solely with respect to the
International Class 42 services, and the International Class 25 goods will be deleted
therefrom.