Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

In MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino, 2016 WL 3512500 (2d Cir. June 27, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a ruling cancelling a federal trademark registration on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud in violation of the Lanham Act. MPC, a franchisor of Pudgie’s pizza restaurants in upstate New York, brought suit against a nephew of the original Pudgie’s founder after the nephew, Brent Tarntino, applied for and received registration of the mark PUDGIE’S for use with restaurant services. MPC alleged that Tarntino procured the mark fraudulently when he certified in his application that he was the sole owner of the mark, despite knowing that MPC was already franchising pizzerias using the same mark.

The court’s ruling centered on whether Tarntino actually knew that the statements in his trademark application were false, or whether he merely should have known about those falsehoods. Relying largely on the precedent set by In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Tarntino argued that the standard for fraud on the PTO is actual knowledge. The court agreed, but found that even under this more stringent standard, Tarntino still committed fraud because there was abundant evidence that he knew at the time of his application that other Pudgie’s restaurants were using the same mark.