Zhang keeps MEN WITH THE POT registration because both cases rested on the same facts

Decision Desk · October 13, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential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 The Board marked this order nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.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 Menwiththepot Ltd.’s petition to cancel, a request to remove an existing registration, which is an official record of a mark for listed products. Long Zhang therefore kept his registration for MEN WITH THE POT, a mark listed for bread knives, butcher knives and other knife products. The Board found that Menwiththepot’s new claims rested on the same underlying facts as its earlier case against Zhang. Opinion, pp. 2, 16–17.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 92088301, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Menwiththepot had challenged Zhang’s application, a request to register MEN WITH THE POT for named knife products, in 2022. The Board dismissed that opposition, a challenge to an application before registration, on February 15, 2024, after Menwiththepot again submitted no evidence during its additional time to present evidence. Zhang’s application became Registration No. 7734699 on March 25, 2025. Opinion, pp. 2, 4.

Menwiththepot filed the new request on May 7, 2025. Its earlier challenge cited its MENWITHTHEPOT application for knives and knife retailing. In the new request, Menwiththepot claimed buyer confusion, disputed Zhang’s ownership of the mark and alleged that he misrepresented where his products came from. Menwiththepot also alleged that Zhang supplied a false physical address in the application. Opinion, pp. 3–4, 14.

Zhang sought summary judgment, a decision without trial when no important fact is genuinely disputed, arguing that the parties, earlier final result and underlying facts were the same in both cases. Menwiththepot agreed that the parties were the same and the earlier case had ended in a final decision. Menwiththepot said Zhang later changed the appearance of his products. It said it learned of the allegedly false address when it unsuccessfully tried to deliver papers in a later lawsuit. Opinion, pp. 6–8.

The Board applied a rule that an earlier final judgment on the merits, a decision that counts as resolving a claim, prevents another case between the same parties based on the same underlying facts. It found no dispute that the parties were identical. It also found no dispute that the earlier decision was a final judgment on the merits. The Board found that Menwiththepot’s buyer confusion and ownership claims rested on the same underlying facts as their counterparts in the earlier case. Opinion, pp. 9–10, 12.

The Board found that the claim about misleading buyers on product source also rested on the same underlying facts. It found that later examples of Zhang’s use of the mark did not change that conclusion. The Board found that the address allegation concerned a statement in the original application. It said Menwiththepot had an opportunity to gather evidence about the address during the earlier case. Opinion, pp. 13–15.

The Board granted Zhang’s request on the repeated facts issue and denied Menwiththepot’s request to cancel the registration. The Board did not decide whether Menwiththepot had adequately presented its address allegation in this case. Opinion, pp. 16–17.

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

Sources

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