The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a trademark opposition case, clarifying the stringent requirements for standing under Section 13 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1063). The ruling in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2025), underscores the limited scope of who may challenge trademark registrations and the nature of injuries sufficient to establish standing.
The case arose when Rebecca Curtin, a law professor, doll collector, and mother, opposed the registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures. Curtin argued that "Rapunzel" is a generic or descriptive term and that its registration would harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices for fairytale-themed dolls. However, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board dismissed her opposition, finding that Curtin lacked standing to challenge the registration under Section 13 of the Lanham Act.
The Federal Circuit’s Decision
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Lexmark framework applies to administrative trademark proceedings. Under this framework, an opposer must demonstrate two elements: (1) their interests fall within the "zone of interests" protected by the statute, and (2) their alleged injury is proximately caused by the registration.
In Curtin, the court found that Curtin’s claims did not satisfy these requirements. As a consumer, her interest in avoiding what she perceived as a generic or descriptively weak mark did not fall within the zone of interests intended to protect trademark owners and competitors from harm. While consumers may benefit indirectly from competition, the Lanham Act empowers only those with direct commercial stakes - such as current or potential market participants - to challenge trademarks on grounds like genericity or descriptiveness.
Curtin’s Alleged Injuries
The Federal Circuit also rejected Curtin’s arguments that her alleged injuries - including reduced marketplace competition, increased prices, and diminished access to diverse interpretations of the Rapunzel character - are direct enough to establish proximate cause. The court emphasized that these harms are too speculative and derivative, noting that they were too remote and indirect to satisfy the requirements for standing under the Lanham Act.
Practice Note: Implications for Businesses
The decision in Curtin serves as a critical reminder for businesses navigating the trademark registration process. It reinforces that only parties with direct commercial stakes - such as competitors or potential market entrants - have standing to oppose trademark registrations on grounds like genericness, descriptiveness, or fraudulence.
For companies seeking to register trademarks, this ruling provides clarity on the limitations of who can challenge their registrations and the types of injuries that are sufficient to establish standing. It also serves as a cautionary tale for those who may be tempted to rely on consumer sentiment or public opposition rather than direct commercial concerns when engaging in trademark disputes.
In summary, Curtin highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of trademark law and ensuring that registrations are robust and defensible. By taking a proactive approach to trademark monitoring and enforcement, companies can minimize the risk of costly legal challenges and maintain their intellectual property rights effectively.