Mango Republic keeps ZOCY registered for jump ropes after challenger offers no evidence of its interest

Decision Desk · September 3, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential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 The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

Shanghai Y&A Garment Co., Ltd. filed a petition to cancel, a request to remove Mango Republic LLC’s ZOCY registration for jump ropes from the federal register. The Board denied the request because Shanghai Y&A provided no evidence establishing its own interest in the case. Opinion, pp. 1, 7.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 92086279, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Mango Republic filed its application, a request to register ZOCY, on December 21, 2022. Shanghai Y&A alleged that Mango Republic was not using ZOCY for jump ropes when it applied and had falsely claimed that it was. Mango Republic denied almost all of Shanghai Y&A’s allegations. Opinion, p. 2.

Shanghai Y&A said it sells jump ropes online, uses ZOCY for those goods and plans to apply to register the mark. It claimed Mango Republic’s registration interfered with its business. Mango Republic denied Shanghai Y&A’s claim that it had the required interest to bring the challenge. Opinion, pp. 6–7.

Neither party submitted evidence or witness statements during the time the Board had set for doing so. Shanghai Y&A later attached material to its final written argument, but the Board did not consider it because the material had not been submitted during the assigned time for evidence. Opinion, pp. 3–4.

Shanghai Y&A also argued that Mango Republic had failed to respond on time and asked the Board to treat its allegations as admitted. The Board rejected that request because Mango Republic filed its written response on October 21, 2024, within the allowed 40 days. Opinion, p. 4.

The Board said Shanghai Y&A had to prove its entitlement to bring the case: a personal interest in the outcome and a reasonable belief that the registration caused it harm. The Board found that Shanghai Y&A’s assertions were not evidence and that Mango Republic’s response contained no admission establishing that required interest. Opinion, pp. 5, 7.

The Board did not decide whether Mango Republic had falsely claimed to use ZOCY or had not used it when it applied. The Board said the examples submitted to show use could not establish that ZOCY was unused or that Mango Republic had committed fraud “without evidence in support of Petitioner’s allegations”. Opinion, p. 8.

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

Sources

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