The Perfect Arm, LLC v. Muhammed Tanveer Memon

This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: January 23, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
The Perfect Arm, LLC
v.
Muhammed Tanveer Memon
_____
Cancellation No. 92083488
_____
F. Richard Rimer, Jr., of Initiating Protection Law Group LLC, for The Perfect Arm,
LLC.
Muhammed Tanveer Memon, pro se.
_____
Before Thurmon, Cohen, and Casagrande, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Thurmon, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Perfect Arm, LLC (“Petitioner”) seeks cancellation of a registration of the
mark KINETIC SPORTS, in standard characters, with “SPORTS” disclaimed,1 on the
1 Registration No. 6177436, issued October 20, 2020, and identifies the following goods in
International Class 10: “Athletic ankle braces for medical use; Braces for limbs and joints,
for medical use; Contrast compression therapy units for reducing pain, swelling and
inflammation; Elastic bandages; Elbow guard for epicondylitis; Medical braces for elbow,
knee, ankle, calf, shin, wrist, thumb, shoulder, groin; Orthopedic braces; Posture correction
device, namely, an adjustable harness to correct one’s posture for medical purposes;
Supportive bandages; Therapeutic compression wraps; Therapeutic hot and cold compression

Cancellation No. 92083488
2
basis of alleged abandonment of the mark and alleged fraud on the USPTO, both
under Section 14(3) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3).2 The challenged
Registration is owned by Muhammed Tanveer Memon (“Respondent”), who denied
the salient allegations of the petition. The proceeding has been fully briefed and is
ready for final decision. We deny the petition to cancel because Petitioner has failed
to prove either of its pleaded claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
I. The Record
The record consists of the pleadings and the prosecution file for the challenged
registration. Trademark Rule 2.122(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(1). In addition, each
party submitted a Notice of Reliance with evidence.
The entire record has been considered and relevant evidence is discussed in this
opinion, although we do not list its contents. See Quiktrip W., Inc. v. Weigel Stores,
Inc., 984 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have held ‘on multiple occasions that
failure to explicitly discuss every issue or every piece of evidence does not alone
establish that the tribunal did not consider it.’”) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); In re Miracle Tuesday LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“[T]he mere fact that the Board did not recite all of the evidence it considered does
not mean the evidence was not, in fact, reviewed.”) (citation omitted).
wraps; Viscous gel polymer sold as a component of finished custom cushioned medical and
therapeutic devices and equipment, namely, therapeutic braces, neo-natal care pouches.”
2 Petitioner refers in its Notices of Reliance to a nonuse claim. See, e.g., 9 TTABVUE 6, 10.
No such claim was presented in the Petition and no such claim is argued in Petitioner’s briefs.
We limit our decision to the abandonment and fraud claims.

Cancellation No. 92083488
3
II. Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action
Entitlement to a statutory cause of action must be established in every inter
partes case. Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d
1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,
Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 125-26 n.4 (2014)). A party in the position of plaintiff may petition
to cancel a registration of a mark when such proceedings are within the zone of
interests protected by the statute and the plaintiff has a reasonable belief in damage
that is proximately caused by ongoing registration of the mark. Corcamore, LLC v.
SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The facts regarding [statutory
entitlement], we hold, are part of a petitioner’s case and must be affirmatively
proved.” Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 1028 (CCPA 1982).
While neither party addressed Petitioner’s entitlement in their briefs, the record
shows that Petitioner is entitled to bring this action. Petitioner filed an application
to register the mark KINETIC ARM on November 9, 2022. On August 24, 2023, an
Office Action was issued refusing registration of the KINETIC ARM mark under
Section 2(d) (likelihood of confusion) based on the KINETIC SPORTS Registration
that Petitioner seeks to cancel through this action.3 Petitioner’s application was
suspended as a result of this proceeding.4 The fact that Petitioner’s application is
effectively blocked by the challenged Registration is a sufficient basis to bring the
claims presented in this proceeding. See Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
3 Office Action dated August 24, 2023, in Serial No. 97670795.
4 Suspension Letter dated December 4, 2023, in Serial No. 97670795.

Cancellation No. 92083488
4
668 F.3d 1356, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943,
945 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
III. Petitioner’s Abandonment Claim
To prevail on its abandonment claim, Petitioner must prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that Respondent (1) discontinued use of its mark; and (2) had an
intent not to resume such use. 15 U.S.C. § 1127; Lewis Silkin LLP v. Firebrand LLC,
No. 92067378, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 436, at *11. Petitioner has failed to prove this
claim.
Petitioner makes no arguments about Respondent’s intent to resume use of the
KINETIC SPORTS mark, and instead relies upon a statutory presumption triggered
by proof of at least three years of no use. 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Petitioner argues,
“[Respondent] keeps business records and proof of sales in a haphazard and cursory
manner and is unable to show proof of sales in the three-year period starting October
20, 2020 and ending October 20, 2023.”5 Respondent “is the sole owner of his
business,” as Petitioner notes,6 but it is not Respondent’s burden to prove use of its
mark. Petitioner has the burden of proving nonuse of the mark, and yet, the evidence
Petitioner submitted proves the opposite.
Petitioner submitted records it obtained from Respondent during discovery. These
apparently are the records that Petitioner asserts “are obviously handmade” by
Respondent. We see no basis for this assertion. Instead, we see hundreds of pages of
5 14 TTABVUE 10.
6 Id.

Cancellation No. 92083488
5
records of sales on amazon.com, with each page typically showing six to eight
individual sales. The majority of these sales are for elbow braces, and every entry
takes essentially the same form. We provide one, randomly-selected sample of these
entries below:
.7
This evidence does not look like a handmade entry. The entries appear to be in date
order, with the above sample from October 29, 2018. The item appears to be a Tennis
Elbow Brace with Compression Pad (a 2-pack of such braces). There is an entry
KSElbowBrace01, which Respondent explained was a Kinetic Sports Elbow Brace,
the first version he sold.8 The evidence submitted by Petitioner shows over thirty
pages of reports from 2017, for a total of over 200 item sales. There are over 600 pages
of these reports from 2018, showing thousands of individual item sales. There are
over 900 pages of these reports from 2019, again showing thousands of individual
sales. We see nothing suspect in these records, and there is no evidence to refute or
undermine Respondent’s explanation that the letters KS in the product code refers to
a KINETIC SPORTS marked product. Rather than proving a cessation of sales, the
7 9 TTABVUE 578.
8 13 TTABVUE 197-98 (Declaration of Respondent explaining that he used KS with SKUs for
his KINETIC SPORTS marked goods.).

Cancellation No. 92083488
6
evidence that Petitioner submitted shows thousands of sales of goods under the
KINETIC SPORTS mark.
The sales reports have a gap from January through July, 2020, but resume in
August 2020 at a rate similar to that in late 2019. Rather than showing an actual
break in sales (one that would last at most seven months), it is more likely the pro se
Respondent either lost the earlier 2020 records or failed to provide them to Petitioner.
But even if there was a break in sales, the evidence indicates a break of seven months,
not the three years required for prima face abandonment. In any event, there are
ample records of sales via amazon.com well into 2021.9 Petitioner also submitted
records showing that Respondent has advertised via amazon.com from 2017 through
2021.10
This evidence does not show that Respondent ever had a three-year period of
nonuse of its KINETIC SPORTS mark. Indeed, the evidence shows thousands of item
sales over the period in question. The three-year period identified by Petitioner runs
from October 2020 through the October 2023 initiation of this proceeding. While these
amazon.com reports do not go past the summer of 2021, there is ample evidence of
sales that continued well into this three-year period.
Petitioner also submitted records of eBay sales produced by Respondent. These
records, with about ten to twelve individual sale entries per page, run over eighty
9 9 TTABVUE 124-56 (2017 records), 157-760 (2018 records), 761-1691 (2019 records), 1697-
1970 (2020 records from August through December, 2020), 1971-2162 (2021 records).
10 Id. at 2164-2329.

Cancellation No. 92083488
7
pages from 2018 to 2022, showing hundreds of individual sales.11 We find the
amazon.com and eBay sales evidence shows that Respondent continued to use its
KINETIC SPORTS mark on goods at least into 2022.
There is also evidence that Respondent currently sells goods under its mark,
including the following excerpt from a amazon.com listing on January 25, 2025,
submitted by Petitioner:
.12
Respondent presented more amazon.com sales reports from 2024 and 2025,
though these show a broader range of goods, including some that are not of the type
11 11 TTABVUE 27-113.
12 Id. at 114. It is difficult to read, but the word SPORTS is in green below KINETIC on the
brace. There is similar evidence of a KINETIC SPORTS posture corrector available on
amazon.com on the same date. Id. at 126.

Cancellation No. 92083488
8
at issue in this proceeding.13 This evidence shows fewer sales of the KINETIC
SPORTS goods than during the 2018-2020 period, but there are sales of these goods
in 2022 and 2023, further refuting Petitioner’s allegation of no use of the mark during
those years. Respondent explained in his declaration that the COVID pandemic made
it difficult to source the goods, which were made in China.14
Petitioner argues that Respondent’s evidence should not be trusted, and that his
declaration is self-serving.15 We find Respondent’s testimony credible and consistent
with the documentary evidence. See, e.g., Powermatics, Inc. v. Globe Roofing Prods.
Co., 341 F.2d 127, 130 (CCPA 1965) (“[O]ral testimony, if sufficiently probative, is
normally satisfactory to establish priority of use in a trademark proceeding . . . .”) ;
Elder Mfg. Co. v. Int’l Shoe Co., 194 F.2d 114, 118 (CCPA 1952) (“Oral testimony is
obviously strengthened by corroborative documentary evidence.”); We further note
that Petitioner did not exercise its right to cross-examine Respondent and that
Petitioner’s own evidence shows ongoing sales of the KINETIC SPORTS goods during
the alleged period of nonuse. Petitioner has failed to show any cessation of use of the
mark by Respondent. Because a break in use is an element of Petitioner’s
abandonment claim, this failure of proof is fatal to the claim.
13 13 TTABVUE 8-191. Respondent apparently also sells some gun cleaning and maintenance
goods under a different mark.
14 Id. at 198.
15 14 TTABVUE 10.

Cancellation No. 92083488
9
Petitioner makes much of the fact that Respondent used a second mark MOARKA
with some of the same goods.16 Respondent explains that the MOARKA mark was
adopted primarily for use outside the United States, and he submitted documents
relating to his efforts to register the MOARKA mark in the United Arab Emirates.17
Respondent further testified that during the COVID pandemic, he sold some
MOARKA marked braces in the United States because he was unable to obtain the
KINETIC SPORTS-marked goods during that time period.18
Despite not having cross-examined Respondent on this testimony, Petitioner
argues that it is impossible to determine whether the elbow braces and posture
correctors Respondent sold in the United States were sold under the KINETIC
SPORTS or the MOARKA mark.19 But as we noted above, there is a KS code with
almost all the elbow braces and posture correctors identified in the amazon.com
listings, a point addressed in Respondent’s testimony. Moreover, there are MOARKA
codes with many of the other goods, including gun cleaning goods, shown in the
amazon.com evidence Respondent supplied.20 Respondent’s testimony is consistent
with the documentary evidence and both show that Respondent continued to sell
goods under the KINETIC SPORTS mark from 2018 to the present.
16 Id. at 10-11.
17 Id. at 197-98 (testimony), 252-56 (UAE trademark materials).
18 Id. at 197-98.
19 14 TTABVUE 10-11.
20 See, e.g., 13 TTABVUE 9-10 (showing several MOARKA-coded items, none of which are
elbow braces).

Cancellation No. 92083488
10
As we noted at the start of our discussion of Petitioner’s abandonment claim,
Petitioner made no arguments concerning Respondent’s intent to resume use of its
mark. Petitioner relied entirely on its effort to prove nonuse of the KINETIC SPORTS
mark for a three-year period, which would have raised a presumption of
abandonment, shifting the burden to Respondent to prove that it maintained an
intent to resume use of the mark during the period of nonuse. Petitioner, however,
has failed to prove three years of nonuse, so the statutory presumption does not arise
here. Petitioner, therefore, has failed to prove the second element of its abandonment
claim.
There is, however, ample evidence of Respondent’s intent to continue use of the
KINETIC SPORTS mark. The records showing amazon.com advertising expenses
through 2022 are evidence of an intent to continue using the mark, as few, if any,
businesses would spend money on advertising goods they did not intend to sell . The
records showing ongoing sales and the current listings of KINETIC SPORTS goods
on amazon.com confirm that Respondent never intended to discontinue use.
Respondent’s testimony is still more evidence of his intentions. Petitioner has failed
to prove the second element of its abandonment claim.
IV. Fraud
To prove fraud on the USPTO, Petitioner must prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Respondent (1) made a material misrepresentation to the USPTO, (2)
with the intent to deceive the USPTO. In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 1243 (Fed.
Cir. 2009). Petitioner argues that Respondent’s identification of goods, filed with the

Cancellation No. 92083488
11
Application, included items Respondent was not selling at the time the Application
was filed.21 Because Respondent filed a use-based application under Section 1(a) of
the Act, it was representing to the USPTO that it was using all the identified goods
in commerce in the United States. That representation was false, a fact admitted by
Respondent.22
According to Respondent, the goods included in the identification “reflect[ed]
genuine growth plans within the same family of orthopedic products.”23 Respondent
filed the Application without counsel, but obtained counsel during the prosecution of
the Application.24 It is clear that Applicant knew it was not selling all the goods listed
in the identification. Such a misrepresentation is material because the identification
of goods plays a key role in defining the rights obtained through a federal trademark
registration. 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) (a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence
of, among other things, “the owner’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in
commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate
….”). The first element of Petitioner’s fraud claim is satisfied.
The second element of the fraud claim requires proof of an intent to deceive the
USPTO. Petitioner has not identified any evidence of an intent to deceive. Indeed,
Petitioner never obtained testimony from Respondent concerning the reason for the
21 14 TTABVUE 11-12.
22 15 TTABVUE 19-20 (acknowledging that only an elbow brace and a posture corrector were
being sold when the Application was filed in 2018).
23 Id.
24 13 TTABVUE 197.

Cancellation No. 92083488
12
overly broad list of goods in the Application. Proving a misstate ment, without more,
is not proof of fraud. Because there is no evidence of an intent to deceive in the record,
Petitioner’s fraud claim fails. See Bose Corp., 580 F.3d at 1243 (“[A]bsent the requisite
intent to mislead the PTO, even a material misrepresentation would not qualify as
fraud under the Lanham Act warranting cancellation.”) (citing King Auto., Inc. v.
Speedy Muffler King, Inc., 667 F.2d 1008, 1011 n.4 (CCPA 1981)); Flame & Wax, Inc.
v. Laguna Candles, LLC, No. 92072343, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 272, at *59 (same).
Decision: Petitioner has failed to prove its claims. The Petition to Cancel is
denied.