To oppose a trademark application, one needs to establish “standing” or “statutory entitlement” to file an opposition under Section 13 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1063, with the TTAB. See, e.g., Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. v. Naked TM, LLC, 965 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that “standing” for the TTAB is now is referred to as “statutory entitlement”); see also Spanishtown Enters., Inc. v. Transcend Resources, Inc., No. 92070340, 2020 WL 6938378, at *1 (TTAB 2020) (noting that  the substance of Federal Circuit precedents regarding “standing” are still valid, where they apply, because only the name has changed). The burden of establishing “standing” or “statutory entitlement” rests on the opposer. See, e.g., Lipton Indus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 1028 (CCPA 1982) (“The facts regarding standing, we hold, are part of a petitioners case and must be affirmatively proved.”). To discharge this burden, an opposition plaintiff must prove: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the opposition statute; and (ii) proximate causation. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 120-37 (2014)); id. at 1305 (applying Lexmark to inter partes TTAB cases). Demonstrating a real interest in opposing registration of a mark satisfies the zone-of-interests requirement, and demonstrating a reasonable belief in damage by the registration of a mark establishes damage proximately caused by registration of the mark. Id. at 1305-06.

Standing may be based on prior common law rights, an existing trademark registration, or a pending application to register the trademark. See, e.g., Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 WL 2188890, at *9 (TTAB 2022) (registrations); Toufigh v. Persona Parfum, Inc., No. 92048305, 2010 WL 2783900, at *2-3 (TTAB 2010) (pending applications); Giersch v. Scripps Networks, Inc., No. 92045576, 2009 WL 706673, at *2 (TTAB 2009) (prior common law rights).

If there is no proof in the record of such common law rights, registration, or application, then there is no standing. See Dongguan Mibang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ontek Solutions, Opposition No. 91283885 (TTAB Dec. 9, 2024). The pleadings are also part of the record, and if the Answer admits one of these facts, then that can obviate the need for further proof of the alleged fact. In Dongguan, in addition to standard admissions and denials, the pro se Answer also included the following: “Applicant gets information in Paragraph [1 or 2].” The TTAB found that this was "not a clear denial" but "in the context of Applicant's Answer, it is clear that this response is not an admission" either. 

In view of Opposer's failure to submit proof of its alleged common law rights or its registration or applications, together with Applicant's denials in its Answer of such allegations, we find that Opposer has failed to prove that it is statutorily entitled to bring this opposition proceeding.

The TTAB held that Opposer's failure to demonstrate statutory entitlement required dismissal of the opposition.