In this matter, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed an opposition without prejudice in this precedential opinion because the party that filed the opposition was different from the party that sought and obtained an extension of time to file the opposition. Less than a month after the application published, an employee of Opposer filed and was granted a 30-day extension of time to oppose Applicant’s application. The employee listed herself, an individual, as the potential opposer making no mention of Opposer. Within the extension period, Opposer filed an opposition. Applicant moved to dismiss the opposition arguing that the individual that secured the extension of time to oppose was not the same entity as Opposer. In determining Applicant’s motion, the Board considered Trademark Rule 2.102(b), which provides that an opposition filed by a party different than the party that obtained the extension of time will not be automatically rejected if it…
↧