IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Cancellation granted in dispute over “White Fuzzy Bloodbath”, (Jun 24, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Registration of the mark was void ab initio because it was filed by a band member who was not the sole owner of the mark at the time of filing.

A former member of the band White Fuzzy Bloodbath was entitled to cancellation of the registration for that name, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. The registration had been obtained by a band member who was not the sole owner of the mark at the time of filing, (Hottenstine v. Tarens, No. 92081419 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2025)).

Elise Tarens was the owner of a registration on the Principal Register for the standard character mark WHITE FUZZY BLOODBATH for use with various services related to the operation of a rock and roll band in International Class 41. David Hottenstine, a former bandmate, petitioned to cancel on the grounds of non-ownership and fraud. The board found Hottenstine was entitled to a statutory cause of action because the mark in question was first used in connection with activities he and Tarens engaged in together and that those activities were still being monetized by the sale of albums recorded while Hottenstine was a member of the band.

Ownership. Hottenstine argued that he was the rightful owner of the mark because he created it to brand his signature style and original works, while Tarens’s involvement was merely as a member of personnel who provide musical accompaniment, booking, management, and promotional services. Tarens argued that she had controlled the mark since 2015 and that Hottenstine had abandoned it by leaving the band in 2017 and not making use of the mark in commerce since. The board explained that the only question before it was whether the registration was void ab initio due to being filed by a person who was not an owner at the time it was filed. Any later activities, such as Tarens’s continued use of the mark after Hottenstine left the band, were not relevant.

Reviewing the Lyons factors and comparing the credibility of the witnesses, the board found that Hottenstine had shown that Tarens did not act alone in creating, funding, or managing the band, and that there was no showing that the public would associate Tarens in her individual capacity with the band or would look to her to stand behind the quality of goods or services offered under the mark. Without deciding who the true owner of the mark actually was (Hottenstine alone, Hottenstine and Tarens together, or the band as a whole), the board held that Tarens alone was not the owner and therefore her registration was void ab initio. The petition to cancel was granted.

Because it granted the petition to cancel on the ground of non-ownership, the board declined to address the issue of fraud.

The Case Cancellation No. 92081419.

Judge: English, C.

Attorneys: David A. Hottenstine, pro se. Padmini Cheruvu (Donahue Fitzgerald LLP) for Elise M. Tarens.

Cases: Trademark USPTO