In Adaptive Energy LLC v. Central Coast Agriculture, Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissed two oppositions for failure to prosecute. Oppositions Nos. 91275644 and 91280840 (April 11, 2025). The Board granted Central Coast Agriculture Inc.’s (“Central”) motion to dismiss because Adaptive Energy LLC (“Adaptive”) failed to timely introduce evidence or testimony during the necessary period. The lesson here is procedural: to advance your company’s trademark interests, you must know the rules.
The Case: A Concentrated Dispute
Central provides cannabis goods under its RAW GARDEN REFINED LIVE RESIN mark. It filed two applications to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for CBD containing herbs for smoking. Adaptive opposed the applications alleging that consumers would likely confuse Central’s mark with Adaptive’s LIVE RESIN mark for supplements.
Central filed a motion to dismiss because Adaptive did not introduce evidence or testimony during its trial period. Moreover, Adaptive did not properly introduce its pleaded prior registration. This can be accomplished by attaching any registrations to a Notice of Opposition.
Adaptive argued that it was clear from the beginning of the proceedings that it would submit evidence and testimony along with its opening brief. But this argument perhaps got the Board fumed. Here’s why:
Trademark Rule 2.132(a), provides, in relevant part, “if the time for taking testimony by any party in the position of plaintiff has expired and it is clear to the Board from the proceeding record that such party has not taken testimony or offered any other evidence, the Board may grant judgment for the defendant … [t]he party in the position of plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date of service of the motion to show cause why judgment should not be rendered dismissing the case. In the absence of a showing of excusable neglect, judgment may be rendered against the party in the position of plaintiff.”
In its decision on Central’s motion to dismiss, the Board cited Rule 2.132(a) and noted that a “brief may not be used as a vehicle for the introduction of evidence.” Further, Adaptive made no showing of excusable neglect regarding its failure to introduce evidence and testimony. Accordingly, the Board dismissed both oppositions with prejudice.
This case is a wake-up call for cannabis brands and legal professionals alike: you have to know the process and procedures for Board proceedings. If you don’t follow them, your case can fail before it even begins.
Final Hit: Legal Strategy Is Half the Battle
The Board’s dismissal of these oppositions isn’t just a win for one brand. It’s a reminder that in trademark law, strategy and substance must go hand in hand. Whether you’re blazing a trail in the cannabis industry or defending an established brand, knowing the rules isn’t optional – it’s essential.
So before you file that opposition or respond to one, take a moment to ask some simple questions. Do we have appropriate evidence? Do we understand the burden? Do we know the rules? Because in Board proceedings, failure to adhere to the rules can get you burned.
