Chen Jinxing v. Putian Licheng District Pure Gold Trading Co. Ltd.

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: May 21, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
Chen Jinxing
v.
Putian Licheng District Pure Gold Trading Co. Ltd.
_____
Cancellation No. 92085852
_____
Adam E. Urbanczyk of AU LLC, for Chen Jinxing.
Adriano Pacifici of Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC,
for Putian Licheng District Pure Gold Trading Co. Ltd.
_____
Before Wellington, Goodman and Lebow,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Respondent, Putian Licheng District Pure Gold Trading Co. Ltd., a Chinese
limited company, owns a registration for the mark shown beow, which “consists of a
duck wearing a hockey uniform and holding a hockey stick with the stylized wording
‘D-5’ on the center of the jersey,” for use in connection with “Athletic apparel, namely,
shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms; Hats; Hosiery;
Infant wear; Leather belts; Rain coats; Scarves; Shoes; Sports shoes; Children’s and
infant’s apparel, namely, jumpers, overall sleepwear, pajamas, rompers and one-piece

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 2 -
garments,” in International Class 25:1
Petitioner, Chen Jinxing, a Chinese individual, has petitioned to cancel
Respondent’s Registration on two grounds: (1) “Fraudulently identifying . . . certain
goods which Registrant had not in-fact [sic] used the Design in interstate commerce”
and/or “Fraudulently representing the scope of its federally-registered rights”; and
that (2) Respondent was not the owner of the [mark] when the application therefor
was filed, nor any time thereafter.” 2
Respondent has denied the salient allegations in the petition for cancellation.3
1 Registration No. 6088196, issued June 30, 2020.
2 1 TTABVUE (Petition for Cancellation). Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other
materials in the case file refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. The
number preceding TTABVUE corresponds to the docket entry number, and any numbers
following TTABVUE refer to the page(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear.
3 5 TTABVUE (Answer). Respondent also asserted (a) “failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted” as an affirmative defense, which “is not a true affirmative defense
because it relates to an assertion of the insufficiency of the pleading rather than a statement
of a defense to a properly pleaded claim; (b) “the doctrines and equitable defenses of laches,
waiver, acquiescence, unclean hands, and estoppel”; and (c) a reservation of defenses or
counterclaims at law or in equity that may now exist or in the future be available based on
discovery and further factual investigation,” which is a nullity. See Integrated Embedded, No.
86140341, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 70, at *22. Because Respondent did not file a brief, any validly
asserted affirmative defense has been waived or forfeited. See Harry Winston, Inc. v. Bruce
Winston Gem Corp., 2014 TTAB LEXIS 284, at *4-5 (“As applicant did not pursue the
affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim and unclean hands, either in its brief or by
motion, those defenses are waived.”). TPI Holdings, Inc. v. TrailerTrader.com LLC, 2018
TTAB LEXIS 121, at *13 n.28 (TTAB 2018); (“Respondent also asserted ‘estoppel,
acquiescence and waiver,’ but does not argue any of these in its brief. They are therefore
waived.”).

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 3 -
Petitioner filed a brief;4 Respondent did not.5 For the reasons set forth below, we
deny the petition to cancel based on Petitioner’s failure to establish its entitlement to
bring this cause of action and do not reach the merits of the petition.
I. The Record
The record includes the pleadings, the file of Respondent’s Registration by
operation of Trademark Rule 2.122(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)(1), and the following
additional evidence submitted by the parties:
Petitioner made of record a notice of reliance on Respondent’s responses to
Petitioner’s discovery requests, including its responses to Petitioner’s interrogatories
and requests for admissions;6 webpage printouts from various third-party websites;7
and Petitioner’s testimony declaration, with exhibits.8
Respondent submitted a notice of reliance on Petitioner’s responses to
Respondent’s interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of
documents.9 Respondent also made of record the testimony declaration of its
4 11 TTABVUE.
5 Respondent, as defendant in this case, is not required to file a brief on the case. See Yazhong
Investing Ltd. v. Multi-Media Tech. Ventures, Ltd., No. 92056548, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 168, at
*12 n.13 (TTAB 2018).
6 Id. at 31-66 (Notice of Reliance, Exhibit 2, redacted).
7 6 TTABVUE 66-100 (Exhibits 3-11).
8 8 TTABVUE (Exhibits 3-11).
9 9 TTABVUE 5-29 (Exhibit A). Respondent also submitted copies of its own responses to
discovery, id. at 30-89, which was improper. See, e.g., DowntownDC Bus. Improvement Dist.
v. Clarke, No. 91275100, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *7 n.10. Nevertheless, they are record
because Petitioner introduced them. In addition, Respondent submitted a copy of its own
initial disclosures, which is not permissible. Generally, a party may not its own written
disclosures (or discovery responses) of record, except to the extent necessary to make not

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 4 -
President, Xu Jianshan, with exhibits, as well as a copy of Petitioner’s Initial
Disclosures.10
II. Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action
Establishing an entitlement to a statutory cause of action is a threshold
requirement in every inter partes case. See Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d
1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM,
LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Petitioner, as plaintiff in this cancellation
proceeding, must prove his entitlement to a statutory cause of action under
Trademark Act Section 14, 15 U.S.C. § 1064. See, e.g., Meenaxi Enter., Inc. v. Coca-
Cola Co., 38 F.4th 1067, 1071-72 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
To establish an entitlement to a statutory cause of action, Petitioner must
demonstrate that he has: (1) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected
misleading the discovery responses submitted by the inquiring party, see Trademark Rule
2.120(k)(5), 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(k)(5), a situation not applicable here.
Separately, we note that Respondent filed the entirety of its notice of reliance, as well as the
testimony declaration of its witness, under seal. However, most of it is not commercially
sensitive material. Improper designation of materials as confidential in Board proceedings
thwarts the intention of allowing the public the right to inspect judicial records and
documents and is “an improper casual approach” to a party's good faith requirement to
designate only material that is truly confidential as “confidential.” In re Violation of Rule
28(d), 635 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, at final decision, improper
designation makes it more difficult to make findings of fact, apply the facts to the law, discuss
evidence, and write decisions that make sense when the facts may not be discussed. See Noble
House Home Furnishings, LLC v. Floorco Enters., LLC, No. 91255786, 2016 TTAB LXIS 100,
at *11 n.21; Azalea Health Innovations, Inc. v. Rural Health Care, Inc., No. 91222695, 2017
TTAB LEXIS 451, at *4 (“A rule of reasonableness dictates what information should be
[designated confidential and] redacted, and only in very rare instances should an entire
submission be deemed confidential.”). See also Pure & Simple Concepts, Inc. v. I H W Mgmt.,
No. 91234659, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 438, at * 9 (“The Board may treat as not confidential
material which cannot reasonably be considered confidential, notwithstanding a designation
as such by a party.”).
10 9 TTABUE 86-88 (Exhibit C).

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 5 -
by the statute, and (2) a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by the
registration of the mark. Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., 137 F.4th 1359,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
572 U.S. 118, 129-134 (2014)), cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (Apr. 20, 2026) (No. 25-435);
Corcamore, 978 F.3d at 1304-07. For the reasons set forth below, we find Petitioner
has failed to establish his entitlement to bring a cause of action based on either fraud
or non-ownership and therefore dismiss the petition for cancellation without reaching
the merits.
III. Discussion
Petitioner asserts that he “is entitled to a statutory cause of action” in this case
“by properly pleading and making of record [his] injury suffered through
[Respondent’s] attempt to enforce its purported rights in the Registered Mark against
[him] on the Amazon.com marketplace.”11 Specifically, as Petitioner explains: “On
July 4, 2024, Petitioner’s Amazon.com account received Complaint ID 15559166711,
issued by Registrant or someone acting on behalf of Registrant, which was successful
in de-listing Petitioner’s product identified by ASIN B0BQRL59R2.”12 Petitioner
argues that, as a result, “[he] has been damaged by the registration of the
[Respondent’s] Mark and reasonably believes [he] will be damaged by the registration
of the Registrant Mark in the future.”13 Petitioner attached a copy of the Amazon
11 11 TTABVUE 12 (Petitioner’s Brief).
12 Id.
13 Id. at 13.

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 6 -
complaint as an exhibit to the Petition, as proof.14
But exhibits attached to pleadings are not evidence of record on behalf of the party
to whose pleading the exhibit is attached unless identified and introduced in evidence
as an exhibit during the period for the taking of testimony, which Petitioner did not
do here. See Trademark Rule 2.122(c), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(c); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND
APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) § 317 (2025) and authorities cited
therein. Accordingly, the exhibits attached to the petition to cancel, including the
Amazon complaint noted above, are not part of the record and will not be considered.15
Petitioner also references the Amazon complaint in his trial brief, citing to his own
responses to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 6-9 that were made of
record by Respondent, wherein Petitioner, in response to each inquiry, again
mentions the Amazon complaint, but does not provide an admissible copy of it into
the record. Rather, in response to each of those interrogatories, which directed him
to, respectively, “Describe in detail how You are entitled to file a statutory cause of
action to file the Petition for Cancellation in this proceeding,” “Describe in detail how
You have been or will be damaged by continued registration of [Respondent’s] Mark”;
“Describe in detail how You have a real interest in the outcome of the proceeding”
and “Describe in detail how You have a direct and personal stake in the outcome of
this proceeding,” he provided the following answer:
Petitioner is the manager of the Amazon.com e-commerce storefront
14 1 TTABVUE 30-36 (Exhibit F).
15 Petitioner also attached to the petition t-shirt listings from Redbubble.com and Disney
(Exhibits A-D), as well as purported substitute specimens submitted by Respondent in
support of Respondent’s Registration (Exhibit E).

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 7 -
that received Complaint ID 15559166711 on Amazon which alleged that
Petitioner’s Amazon listing under ASIN B0BQRL59R2 infringed the
Registrant Mark. As a result of Complaint, Amazon caused Petitioner’s
Amazon listing under ASIN B0BQRL59R2 to be delisted and has
prevented Petitioner from selling the product under ASIN
B0BQRL59R2. Petitioner has been and will continue to be harmed by
the issued Registrant Mark because Registrant could rely and has relied
on the Registration for the Registrant Mark to assert alleged rights
against Petitioner either administratively on Amazon.com or through
judicial action. If the Registrant Mark is cancelled, then Petitioner will
be able to continue selling their product listing under ASIN
B0BQRL59R2, since there would be no valid infringement complaint
against it.16
But as we look closer at the allegation forming the basis of Petitioner’s claim to
entitlement, we find that it is missing critical details. For example:
Petitioner asserts in his interrogatory response(s) that he is “the manager of the
Amazon.com e-commerce storefront that received Complaint ID 15559166711 on
Amazon.” This statement suggests that he does not own the storefront, but instead is
the manager for that storefront. It thus is not clear that Petitioner, himself, is the
entity that was purportedly damaged by the Amazon complaint, rather than the
company he works for as a manager.
Petitioner next alleges that “[a]s a result of Complaint, Amazon caused
Petitioner’s Amazon listing under ASIN B0BQRL59R2 to be delisted and has
prevented.” The problem, as discussed above, is that Petitioner failed to submit the
Amazon complaint into evidence. Petitioner also failed to introduce a copy of the
Amazon listing that was allegedly removed. We therefore don’t know what the
Amazon complaint alleges, or what trademark was even alleged to be violated, and
16 9 TTABVUE 7-9.

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 8 -
for which goods or services.
Even if Petitioner had made of record an actual copy of the Amazon complaint that
he received, as he attempted to do when he attached it as a copy to the petition for
cancellation, the document is in Chinese. And apart from the Google Machine
translation that Petitioner attached to the petition, which did not make it of record,
Petitioner never provided an English translation of the Amazon complaint. So, the
Amazon complaint, itself, would have little, if any, probative value if made of record.
See Int’l Dairy Foods Ass’n v. Interprofession du Gruyère, No. 91232427, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 268, at *22 (“Material in foreign languages which has not been translated into
English has limited probative value.”). A translation, however, would not have cured
the problem because, regardless of language, Respondent’s Registration covers the
following design, not a word mark,
which is not shown in either the Amazon complaint or the Google Machine translation
that was improperly attached to the petition for cancellation.
As noted above, Petitioner also asserts that “[a]s a result of Complaint, Amazon
caused Petitioner’s Amazon listing under ASIN B0BQRL59R2 to be delisted and has
prevented Petitioner from selling the product under ASIN B0BQRL59R2.” But
Petitioner never submitted a copy of the actual complaint that shows what listing
was “delisted,” so we have no idea of its contents, including any mark or goods

Cancellation No. 92085852
- 9 -
promoted therein.
In sum, Petitioner introduced no admissible evidence of any actual or threatened
harm caused by Respondent’s Registration. He thus has failed to demonstrate a
reasonable basis in fact for his belief that he was or will be damaged by Respondent’s
Registration, and has not established his entitlement to a statutory cause of action.
Decision: The petition for cancellation is denied.