IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Cancellation of KINETIC SPORTS trademark registration denied, (Jan 27, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to prove abandonment or fraud.

In a nonprecedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied the petition for cancellation of Muhammed Tanveer Memon’s registration of the mark KINETIC SPORTS on the grounds of abandonment and fraud. The TTAB found that The Perfect Arm, LLC failed its pleaded claims by a preponderance of the evidence (The Perfect Arm, LLC v. Memon, No. 92083488 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2026)).

Background. The Perfect Arm, LLC (petitioner) filed an application to register the mark KINETIC ARM on November 9, 2022. On August 24, 2023, the application was refused under Section 2(d) (likelihood of confusion) based on the KINETIC SPORTS registration. The petitioner sought cancellation of the registration of the mark KINETIC SPORTS, in standard characters, with “SPORTS” disclaimed, on the 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). The KINETIC SPORTS registration is owned by Muhammed Tanveer Memon (respondent), who denied the salient allegations of the petition.

Entitlement to a statutory cause of action. The petitioner’s application was suspended as a result of the KINETIC SPORTS registration. The TTAB noted that the fact that the petitioner’s application was effectively blocked by the challenged registration is a sufficient basis to bring the instant cancellation proceeding.

Abandonment. To prevail on its abandonment claim, the petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent (1) discontinued use of its mark; and (2) had an intent not to resume such use. The TTAB noted that the petitioner has the burden of proving nonuse of the mark, and yet, the evidence the petitioner submitted proved the opposite.

The petitioner identified a three-year period of nonuse of the KINETIC SPORTS mark from October 2020 through October 2023. However, rather than proving a cessation of sales, the evidence that the petitioner submitted showed thousands of sales of goods under the KINETIC SPORTS mark. Additionally, the respondent presented more amazon.com sales reports from 2024 and 2025. The TTAB found that the evidence showed fewer sales of the KINETIC SPORTS goods than during the 2018-2020 period, but there were sales of these goods in 2022 and 2023, further refuting the petitioner’s allegation of no use of the mark during those years. The respondent also explained in his declaration that the COVID pandemic made it difficult to source the goods, which were made in China. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s evidence must not be trusted, and that his declaration is self-serving. However, the TTAB found the respondent’s testimony credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. The TTAB noted that the petitioner did not exercise its right to cross-examine the respondent and that the petitioner’s own evidence showed ongoing sales of the KINETIC SPORTS goods during the alleged period of nonuse. Therefore, the petitioner failed to show any cessation of use of the mark by the respondent.

The petitioner also argued that the respondent used a second mark MOARKA with some of the same goods. The respondent explained that the MOARKA mark was adopted primarily for use outside the United States, and submitted documents relating to his efforts to register the MOARKA mark in the United Arab Emirates. Further, he 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. The TTAB found that the respondent’s testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence and showed that the respondent continued to sell goods under the KINETIC SPORTS mark from 2018 to the present.

The TTAB concluded that the petitioner failed to prove three years of nonuse of the KINETIC SPORTS mark, which would have raised a presumption of abandonment, shifting the burden to the respondent to prove that it maintained an intent to resume use of the mark during the period of nonuse. Further, the records showing ongoing sales and the current listings of KINETIC SPORTS goods on amazon.com confirmed that the respondent never intended to discontinue use. Accordingly, the petitioner failed to prove its abandonment claim.

Fraud. To prove fraud on the USPTO, the petitioner must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent (1) made a material misrepresentation to the USPTO, (2) with the intent to deceive the USPTO. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s identification of goods, filed with the application, included items that the respondent was not selling at the time the application was filed.

The TTAB found that the respondent knew it was not selling all the goods listed in the identification of goods. Such a misrepresentation is material because the identification of goods plays a key role in defining the rights obtained through a federal trademark registration. Thus, the first element of petitioner’s fraud claim was satisfied.

The second element of the fraud claim requires proof of an intent to deceive the USPTO. However, the petitioner did not identify any evidence of an intent to deceive. The petitioner never obtained testimony from the respondent concerning the reason for the overly broad list of goods in the application. The TTAB noted that proving a misstatement, without more, is not proof of fraud. Since there was no evidence of an intent to deceive in the record, the petitioner’s fraud claim failed.

Accordingly, the petition to cancel registration of the mark KINETIC SPORTS was denied.

The Case is Cancellation No. 92083488.

Judge: Thurmon, M.

Attorneys: F. Richard Rimer (Initiating Protection Law Group LLC) for The Perfect Arm, LLC. Muhammed Tanveer Memon, pro se.

Companies: The Perfect Arm, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO