## Facts

- Person’s Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, used the “PERSON’S” mark on apparel in Japan starting in 1977 and marketed the goods in Japan after forming the company in 1979.
- In 1981, Larry Christman, a U.S. citizen, saw and bought “PERSON’S” apparel in Japan and returned with it to the United States.
- After consulting counsel and being advised no U.S. claim existed, Christman arranged in 1982 for U.S. manufacture and began selling “PERSON’S” apparel in the northwestern United States.
- In 1983, Christman formed Team Concepts, Ltd. to continue sales; its goods bore “PERSON’S” and used a globe logo similar to Person’s Co.’s, and some styles were copied from Person’s Co.’s designs.
- Christman applied to register “PERSON’S” in the United States in 1983 and obtained a registration in 1984.
- Person’s Co., planning U.S. expansion, later obtained its own U.S. registration in 1985.
- Person’s Co. petitioned the TTAB to cancel Christman’s registration, alleging likelihood of confusion based on its prior foreign use, abandonment, and Paris Convention-based unfair competition; Christman counterclaimed to cancel Person’s Co.’s registration based on U.S. priority, likelihood of confusion, and fraud.
- The TTAB granted summary judgment for Christman, upheld his registration, and cancelled Person’s Co.’s registration; Person’s Co. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether prior use of a mark in a foreign country can confer priority over the first user in U.S. commerce for purposes of U.S. trademark rights and registration.
2. Whether a U.S. adopter who knew of a foreign user and copied the foreign mark and designs can still be a good-faith adopter in the United States.
3. Whether intermittent or modest sales by the U.S. user constituted abandonment under the Lanham Act.
4. Whether the Paris Convention supplied an independent basis in TTAB cancellation proceedings to override territorial priority or obtain unfair-competition relief.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Christman and the cancellation of Person’s Co.’s U.S. registration.
- Christman had priority because he was the first to use “PERSON’S” in U.S. commerce; Person’s Co.’s prior Japanese use did not establish U.S. priority.
- Christman’s adoption was not in bad faith merely because he knew of foreign use; the record did not show the mark was well known in the United States or that he intended to block Person’s Co.’s U.S. entry.
- Person’s Co. failed to raise a genuine dispute on abandonment because the evidence did not show both nonuse and intent not to resume use.
- Paris Convention theories did not change the result in this registration dispute; the TTAB’s role was limited to registrability/validity issues and did not extend to broader unfair-competition relief.

## Legal Principles

- U.S. trademark priority is territorial and generally turns on first use in U.S. commerce; prior foreign use alone does not create superior U.S. rights.
- Knowledge of a mark’s foreign use does not, by itself, defeat good-faith adoption in the United States absent proof the mark was well known in the United States or the adopter intended to interfere with the foreign user’s U.S. expansion.
- Abandonment requires nonuse plus intent not to resume use; modest or intermittent sales do not necessarily establish abandonment.
- In TTAB cancellation proceedings, treaty-based unfair-competition theories do not displace Lanham Act territorial priority rules or expand the TTAB’s remedial jurisdiction beyond registration validity.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld Christman’s U.S. priority and registration because Person’s Co.’s earlier Japanese use did not confer U.S. rights, Christman’s adoption was treated as good faith on the record presented, abandonment was not shown, and Paris Convention arguments did not provide a basis to alter the TTAB’s registration-focused disposition.


Person’s Co. v. Christman, 900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990)