Galvan kept his registration after Mathis failed to submit evidence to prove his claim

Decision Desk · September 1, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this order nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

The Board denied Christopher D. Mathis's cancellation request, an attempt to remove Rafael V. Galvan's registration, a federal listing for a trademark. It found that Mathis had not properly submitted evidence during his testimony period, his scheduled window to present evidence, and that Galvan's evidence did not prove Mathis's claim. The opinion is marked as mailed September 1, 2026. Opinion, pp. 1, 6.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 92082911, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Mathis filed his request on July 31, 2023, seeking to remove Galvan's registration for various clothing items. Galvan's mark was HU$LANAIRE APPAREL. Mathis claimed a YOUNG HUSTLLIONAIRE registration for musical recordings and rights in HUSTLLIONAIRE APPAREL COMPANY for clothing based on use without registration. Opinion, pp. 1, 6.

Mathis missed the February 20, 2026 deadline for his main brief, his written argument about the case. He filed it late and asked the Board to accept it. The Board found that his filing showed he had not lost interest and withdrew its order asking him to explain the missed deadline. Opinion, pp. 2–3.

Separately, the Board found that Mathis had not presented testimony or properly submitted other evidence during his assigned period. It had warned Mathis that documents attached to an earlier filing did not count as evidence unless properly submitted during that period. The Board also found that a copy of his registration certificate, issued in 2013, did not establish his current ownership or whether the registration remained active when he filed in 2023. Opinion, p. 4.

Galvan submitted Mathis's admission that the parties' marks were distributed and sold through similar sales channels. The Board found that the available evidence still did not establish Mathis's ownership of the registration he cited or his earlier use of the marks he cited. It found the evidence insufficient to support Mathis's claim that buyers might confuse the marks, rather than deciding whether buyers would actually confuse them. Opinion, pp. 5–6.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.