IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Cancellation of SUPER KINGS trademark registration for clothing and household goods granted, (Jun 9, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The failure to respond by the owner of the registered SUPER KING mark to requests for admission served by the Petitioner were deemed admissions of non-use.

The failure of a Chinese trademark holding company to timely respond to requests for admission by the petitioner in a cancellation proceeding were deemed admissions that its marks were never used in commerce in the U.S. and none of the goods or services listed under the registrations were ever sold, offered for sale, or distributed under the registered marks in the U.S., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has determined in a nonprecedential opinion. The evidence was sufficient to prove the petitioner’s non-use claims. Thus, the petition for cancellation of the registrations of the mark was granted (Super Kings International, Inc. v. Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd., Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2026)).

Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd. (“Respondent”), a Chinese trademark holding entity, owns two registrations on the Principal Register of the standard character mark “SUPERKING:” (1) Registration No. 6164150 for “All-purpose carrying bags; Alpenstocks; Backpacks; Clothing for animals; Clothing for pets; Collars of animals; Handbags; Harness fitting; Leather leads; Pouch baby carriers; Reins for guiding children; Semi-worked fur; Travelling trunks; Umbrellas; Wallets; Business card holders in the nature of card cases; Cases of imitation leather” in International Class 18 and (2) Registration No. 6211119 for “Baby buntings; Bath linen; Bath towels; Bed covers; Bed linen; Bed spreads; Blankets for household pets; Cloth for removing make-up; Eiderdowns; Fabrics for textile use; Golf towels; Mattress covers; Mosquito nets; Pillowcases; Quilts; Sleeping bags; Sleeping bags for babies; Textile fabrics for use in making clothing and household furnishings; Towelling coverlets; Towels; Unfitted fabric furniture covers; Cotton fabrics; Textile fabrics for home and commercial interiors; Woven fabrics” in International Class 24.

Super Kings International, Inc., a Dallas, Texas-based subsidiary of the Chennai Super Kings that manages a professional cricket franchise and cricket academy, filed three applications to register the marks SUPER KINGS, TEXAS SUPER KINGS, and TEXAS SUPER KINGS and design for sports apparel and entertainment goods in International Classes 25 and 28 and sport training services in International Class 41. Super Kings petitioned to cancel both registrations and asserted three claims for relief: (1) the Respondent’s SUPERKING mark so resembled Super King’s SUPER KINGS and TEXAS SUPER KINGS marks as to being likely to cause confusion; (2) the Respondent never used the SUPERKING mark in commerce on any of the registration’s identified goods; and (3) the Respondent procured the registrations by fraud based on the submission of fabricated specimens and knowingly false statements regarding its use in commerce.

Entitlement. Super Kings International established its entitlement to petition to cancel the Shenzhen BMX registrations, according to the Board. Super Kings’ three applications to register its marks were refused based on Shenzhen BMX’s two registrations. This evidence demonstrated that Super Kings International had a real interest in these proceedings and a reasonable belief that it would be damaged by the continued registration of the Shenzhen BMX marks.

Non-use of the mark. Shenzhen BMX’s failure to respond to requests for admission served by Super Kings International under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were deemed admissions of non-use, the Board found. Super King International provided evidence that: (1) it served Requests for Admissions on Shenzhen BMX to admit that its mark has never been used in commerce in the U.S. and to admit that none of the goods or services listed under the registration for Shenzhen BMX’s mark have ever been sold, offered for sale, or distributed under Shenzhen BMX’s mark in the U.S.; (2) Shenzhen BMX failed to respond to the Requests for Admissions by the deadline; and (3) Shenzhen BMX still has not responded as of the date of the filing of its cancellation petition. Since Shenzhen BMX did not respond to the Petitioner’s requests for admissions in any manner and did not dispute that it failed to timely do so, the requests were deemed admitted by operation of law.

Shenzhen BMX had two separate avenues for relief: either to move to reopen its time to respond to the admission requests because its failure to timely respond was a result of excusable neglect or to move to withdraw its admissions. Shenzhen BMX failed to avail itself of either avenue so Super King’s requests for admission stand. By its deemed admissions, Shenzhen BMX has conclusively admitted that its marks never have been used in commerce in the U.S. and none of the goods or services listed under the registrations were ever sold, offered for sale, or distributed under the registered marks in the U.S., the Board concluded.

The Case is Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358.

Judge: Larkin, C.

Attorneys: Y. Jae Kim (Kim IP Law Group LLC) for Super Kings International, Inc. Jonathan Morton (K&L Gates LLP) for Shenzhen BXT Network Technology Ltd.

Companies: Super Kings International, Inc.; Shenzhen BXT Network Technology Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO