直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Threat of TTAB Cancellation Proceeding Insufficient To Establish Case or Controversy

November 16, 2017

Authored and Edited by Jonathan D. Uffelman; Naresh Kilaru; Julia Anne Matheson

The District of Maryland ruled that the mere threat of a TTAB cancellation proceeding is not sufficient to create a case or controversy to allow the trademark owner to bring a declaratory judgment action for trademark validity.

TEKsystems, Inc. offers information and technology staffing services.  It owns a trademark registration for TEKSAVVY in connection with a blog it has maintained since 2012.  TekSavvy Solutions is a Canadian company in the telecommunications and web development industry.  It uses “TekSavvy” as its company name, as well as for a blog it claims to have operated since 2011.  TekSavvy sought to register the mark TEKSAVVY in the United States for telecommunications and technology services, but its registration was refused on the basis of TEKsystem’s registration for blogs.  TekSavvy sought a consent letter from TEKsystems, asserting that TekSavvy had superior rights to the TEKSAVVY mark based on its prior use, which gave it the “option” of seeking cancellation of TEKsystem’s registration.  In response, TEKsystems filed suit asserting trademark infringement, and also sought a declaratory judgment that its trademark was valid.

TekSavvy moved to dismiss both claims.  With respect to the request for declaratory judgment, TekSavvy asserted that no case or controversy existed because it never threatened litigation.  At most, it had threatened a cancellation proceeding at the TTAB, which it argued was insufficient to support a declaratory judgment action.  The Court agreed.  Though TEKsystems cited several cases holding that a controversy can exist without an explicit threat of litigation, in each case the declaratory judgment plaintiff had sued because it feared an impending infringement suit.  Here, by contrast, TEKsystems faced only a cancellation action. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed TEKsystem’s declaratory judgment action, but allowed the infringement claim to proceed.

The case is TEKsystems, Inc. v. TekSavvy Solutions, Inc., Case No. ELH-16-4125 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2017).

Tags

declaratory judgment action, Lanham Act, motion to dismiss, subject matter jurisdiction

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Contacts

Jonathan D. Uffelman
Domain Name Specialist / Attorney
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4328
Email
Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

U.S. Patent Case Law Update 2026

July 23, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP