## Facts

- Central Manufacturing, controlled by Leo Stoller, claimed trademark rights in “Stealth,” including asserted rights for baseball bats based on registrations and alleged prior use.
- Brett Brothers, associated with George Brett, began using “Stealth” on baseball bats in 1999 and sold more than 25,000 bats bearing the mark.
- After Brett Brothers’ commercial success, Central demanded that Brett Brothers take a license and stop using the mark without payment; Brett Brothers refused.
- Central filed a federal application in 2001 to register “Stealth” for baseball bats; the registration issued in 2004.
- Central sued under the Lanham Act for infringement and related claims based on “Stealth” as used on bats.
- Brett Brothers challenged Central’s claimed ownership and the validity of the bat-specific registration, arguing Central had not made bona fide commercial use of “Stealth” on baseball bats.
- The district court found Central lacked objective evidence of bona fide use or intent to use on baseball bats (e.g., purchase orders, invoices, or similar business records), and that Central’s assertions and promotional materials were insufficient.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Brett Brothers, ordered cancellation of the bat registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1119, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs based on the weakness of the claims and litigation conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Central owned valid trademark rights in “Stealth” for baseball bats sufficient to maintain a Lanham Act infringement action.
2. Whether the district court properly cancelled Central’s federal registration for “Stealth” on baseball bats under 15 U.S.C. § 1119.
3. Whether the award of attorney’s fees and costs to Brett Brothers was proper under the Lanham Act’s “exceptional case” standard.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for Brett Brothers because Central failed to establish ownership through bona fide use in commerce of “Stealth” on baseball bats.
- Affirmed cancellation of Central’s baseball-bat registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1119, finding no abuse of discretion.
- Affirmed the attorney’s fees and costs award to Brett Brothers, based on the lack of merit in Central’s claims and the nature of the litigation conduct.

## Legal Principles

- A trademark infringement plaintiff must prove ownership of the asserted mark for the relevant goods; without ownership, infringement claims fail as a matter of law.
- Federal registration provides prima facie evidence of ownership, but the presumption is rebuttable by competent evidence showing lack of bona fide use in commerce.
- Unsupported assertions, advertising, and claimed sales without objective business records may be inadequate to establish “use in commerce” for trademark rights.
- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1119, a court adjudicating trademark claims may order cancellation of a registration to reflect the mark’s actual legal status and reduce future confusion; a separate administrative cancellation proceeding is not required.
- Attorney’s fees may be awarded in “exceptional” Lanham Act cases, including where claims are objectively weak and the plaintiff’s conduct reflects misuse of trademark litigation.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Central could not enforce “Stealth” for baseball bats because it lacked bona fide use establishing ownership, and it upheld cancellation of the bat registration and a fee award to the prevailing defendant.


Central Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brett, 492 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2007)