TTAB’s Application Of “Excusable Neglect” Test Withstands Challenge
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.01.07
In FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc. v. CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., (No, 06-1148); February 27, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of FirstHealth’s counterclaims to cancel trademarks registered by CareFirst, finding that the TTAB did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion by FirstHealth to reopen its testimony period to submit evidence in support of the counterclaims.
FirstHealth asserted that the TTAB abused its discretion in applying the test for “excusable neglect” to the facts surrounding FirstHealth’s delay in filing its motion to reopen the testimony period. The Court initially finds that the four-factor test adopted by the TTAB for determining “excusable neglect” is reasonable, and defers to that interpretation. The Court then agrees with the TTAB’s determination that FirstHealth’s reasons given for the delay “were wholly within FirstHealth’s reasonable control,” and that the TTAB’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
FirstHealth also asserted that the undisputed facts of record prove the cancellation counterclaims even without the excluded evidence. The Court disagrees, stating that “without the properly excluded testimony evidence, the Board’s finding that FirstHealth failed to prove uncontrolled licensing or failure to use by a preponderance of the evidence is supported by substantial evidence.”
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
