IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—N.D. Tex.: Geotechnical engineering company competitor’s motion to cancel plastic mesh covering material trademarks dismissed, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Genericness and abandonment theories failed because TX5 and TX7 identified specific products rather than a product class, and the company, Tensar, continued using the marks in ordinary commerce.

Ruling on a dismissal motion in a trademark infringement lawsuit between competing geotechnical engineering companies, a federal district court in Texas dismissed without prejudice Industrial Fabrics, Inc.’s (IFI) counterclaim seeking cancellation of Tensar International Corporation’s TX5 and TX7 trademark registrations. The court held that IFI failed to plausibly allege that the marks were generic, that Tensar had never used them as trademarks, or that Tensar had abandoned them. Although the dismissal was without prejudice, the court denied leave to amend because IFI did not identify additional facts consistent with its existing allegations that could cure the deficiencies in its cancellation theories (Tensar International Corp. v. Industrial Fabrics Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03012-B (N.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2026)).

Geotechnical engineering. Tensar and IFI are competing providers of geotechnical engineering solutions used to prepare land for construction projects. Tensar sued IFI, alleging that it sold plastic mesh materials, or “geogrids,” using Tensar’s TX5 and TX7 trademarks. IFI counterclaimed to cancel both registrations, and Tensar moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Tensar owns federal trademark registrations for TX5 and TX7, covering plastic mesh materials for construction or civil engineering applications. Tensar markets a broader line as “Tensar TriAX® (TX) Geogrids,” with TX5 and TX7 identifying two products within that line. IFI maintained that “Tensar” and “TriAX” identified the source, while TX5 and TX7 functioned only as product or model designations.

IFI sought cancellation on three grounds. It alleged that TX5 and TX7 were generic, that Tensar had never used them as source-identifying trademarks, and alternatively, that Tensar had abandoned any trademark use. IFI relied on Tensar’s occasional omission of ® or ™ symbols, its failure to list TX5 and TX7 in certain intellectual-property disclosures, and what IFI characterized as isolated or token uses intended only to preserve trademark rights.

Genericness. The court found that IFI’s own allegations undermined its genericness theory. Citing Nola Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc., 783 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 2015), the court explained that a generic term identifies the genus or class to which particular goods belong and describes their basic nature rather than individualized characteristics. Familiar examples include terms such as “aspirin” or “cellophane,” which identify types of products rather than their commercial source.

TX5 and TX7 did not fit that definition under IFI’s allegations. IFI expressly alleged that the designations referred to two specific products within Tensar’s broader TriAX geogrid line. For the terms to be generic, they would instead have to identify the general type of goods—such as “geogrid” or “plastic mesh material.” Because IFI characterized TX5 and TX7 as names for particular Tensar products rather than the relevant product class, the court found its genericness theory legally unworkable.

Trademark use. The court also rejected IFI’s contention that Tensar had never made bona fide trademark use of TX5 and TX7. IFI’s own exhibits showed that Tensar conspicuously displayed TX5 and TX7 on advertisements and packaging for the corresponding products. IFI nevertheless argued that the designations functioned only as product or model identifiers because Tensar sometimes omitted the ® or ™ symbol and did not identify TX5 and TX7 alongside other marks in certain intellectual-property disclosures.

Neither circumstance plausibly demonstrated lack of trademark use, the court held. The relevant question was whether Tensar genuinely used the marks in the ordinary course of trade, not whether it consistently displayed registration symbols or separately listed the marks as intellectual property. IFI’s allegations showed public-facing use of TX5 and TX7 to sell the corresponding products rather than merely internal use of model codes.

Abandonment. IFI’s alternative abandonment theory also failed. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, abandonment requires discontinued trademark use coupled with intent not to resume it, while qualifying use must be bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade. The court distinguished Exxon Corp. v. Humble Exploration Co., 695 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1983), where only isolated uses of a former mark remained after a corporate name change, including minimal sales and selected invoices. Those arranged uses did not allow the mark to perform its source-identifying function.

Here, Tensar consistently advertised and labeled its TX5 and TX7 products with the corresponding marks, and nothing plausibly suggested that those uses merely preserved dormant trademark rights. The court also declined to treat IFI’s characterization of TX5 and TX7 as mere “product designations” as a factual allegation. IFI itself alleged that Tensar publicly used the designations to market and sell the products.

Dismissal. Finally, the court dismissed the cancellation counterclaim without prejudice because 15 U.S.C. § 1119 independently gives federal courts authority to order cancellation of trademark registrations where appropriate. It nevertheless denied IFI leave to amend because the company did not explain how additional allegations that did not contradict its existing pleadings could cure the defects in its three theories. Tensar’s underlying trademark infringement claims against IFI remain pending.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-03012-B.

Judge: Boyle, J.

Attorneys: Christian Cowart (Bell Nunnally Martin LLP) for Tensar International Corp. Matthew C. Acosta (Platt Richmond PLLC) for Industrial Fabrics Inc.

Companies: Tensar International Corp.; Industrial Fabrics Inc.

Cases: Trademark TexasNews