IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Video game mark ‘EDGE GAMES’ canceled based on nonuse, (Nov 10, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The CEO’s testimony that he used ‘EDGE GAMES’ as a trademark prior to filing the use-based application was seen as wholly unreliable.

Concluding that no credible evidence exists that Edge Games, Inc. used the mark “EDGE GAMES’ prior to filing its application used EDGE GAMES as a trademark, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board granted the petition to cancel the mark sought by French video game company Mobigame. In cancelling the registration based on nonuse, the Board found that the CEO’s testimony is “wholly unreliable.” In a case where credibility of the CEO was pivotal, the Board found that the CEO’s testimony was unreliable where he acted evasive, nonresponsive, and argumentative during his two depositions and lied to the USPTO in filing a declaration for the very registration at issue in this case (Mobigame v. Edge Games, Inc., No. 92075393 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2025)).

A video game company based in Paris, France, Mobigame, sought cancellation of the registered trademark of “EDGE GAMES” for computer games registered to Edge Games, Inc. (“Edge Games”). Edge Games filed the application in 2010. Mobigame asserts several claims: priority, likelihood of confusion, fraud in procuring the challenged registration, nonuse prior to filing the use-based application, and abandonment. The CEO of Edge Games, acting pro se, filed an answer. The Board issued its decision following oral arguments.

Nonuse. The Board examined whether Edge Games used the mark prior to filing it use-based application for a trademark whether to grant the petition based on nonuse. The Board concluded that the fraud, priority, likelihood of confusion, and nonuse claims all depend on nonuse. The goods identified in a use-based trademark application must have been sold or transported in commerce before the filing of the application. If, at the time an applicant files a used-based application, the applicant has not made bona fide use of its mark in commerce in connection with any of the identified goods or services, the application, and any resulting registration, is void ab initio.

Circumstantial evidence. Mobigame relied on circumstantial evidence to show that Edge Games did not use the mark before filing the application. The circumstance evidence included tentative findings in a published order in related litigation denying a preliminary injunction request where the court found the registrations were “infected by evidence of deceit.” The first assertion of EDGE GAMES as a mark appears in the application underlying the registration at issue in this case, which was filed the day after Edge Games signed a stipulated judgment giving up earlier EDGE registrations.

Credibility. The Board found that the case turned on the credibility of the testimony of the CEO and whether the video game company used the mark EDGE GAMES before filing the use-based application. The Board found “no confidence whatsoever” in the CEO’s testimony about using EDGE GAMES as a mark before filing the application. The Board observed that the CEO’s testimony of his memory of events prior to 2010 is weak or nonexistent. His testimony about whether, as CEO of the current company or its predecessor, he worked with any other corporate officers is both contradictory and simultaneously vague. The CEO was evasive, nonresponsive, and argumentative during his two depositions in this case. While this case was pending and in the trial period, the CEO submitted a declaration to the USPTO that there is no proceeding involving the video game company’s right to keep EDGE GAMES on the register pending before the USPTO. The Board concluded that this statement to the USPTO was obviously false because this very case was, at the time, “pending and not finally disposed of.” The Board found an astoundingly abysmal record of disregard and contempt for the solemnity and integrity of government adjudicatory proceedings involving the respondent’s trademarks, and repeated instances of untruthfulness on the part of the CEO.

Finding no credible evidence in the record that the company used the ‘EDGE GAMES’ mark prior to filing its application, the Board granted the petition to cancel the mark.

The Case is Cancellation No. 92075393.

Judge: Casagrande, T.

Attorneys: Patrick J. Concannon (McClennen & Fish, LLP) for Mobigame.

Companies: Mobigame; Edge Games, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO GCNNews