Here's what the record on file actually says, with the Board's own language pulled from the opinions rather than my paraphrase — important because the fraud standard has shifted once and the pleading bar is high.
The current standard (post-2009): Bose
The controlling articulation, as the Board has restated it repeatedly since the Federal Circuit's 2009 Bose decision, is quoted directly in Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. v. Delphix Corp. (Prec'd, Jan 21, 2016, entry 9):
"Fraud in procuring a trademark registration occurs when an applicant knowingly makes false, material representations of fact in connection with its application with the intent to deceive the USPTO… The standard for finding intent to deceive is stricter than the standard for negligence or gross negligence, and evidence of deceptive intent must be clear and convincing."
Practical checklist for your opposition
| Element | What you need | Source in the corpus |
|---|---|---|
| A false representation of fact, made to the USPTO | The specific application/SOU/specimen statement, verbatim | Medinol, Hurley |
| Materiality | The statement would have affected the Office's decision (e.g., goods not in use) | Medinol, Embarcadero |
| Knowledge of falsity | Direct or circumstantial — admissions, discovery, timing | M.C.I. Foods |
| Subjective intent to deceive (clear & convincing) | The hard one; inference needs a factual basis | Bose as applied in M.C.I., U. Kentucky, DaimlerChrysler |
False statements about use / defective specimens
- Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. v. Delphix Corp. (Prec'd, Jan 21, 2016) — the most useful modern specimen/declaration case, and it cuts the other way: the petition alleged fraud based on an allegedly inaccurate statement of use and a substitute-specimen declaration, and the Board granted the registrant's summary judgment motion: "Petitioner failed to rebut Respondent's evidence or raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Respondent's intent to deceive USPTO." A bare inaccuracy in a statement of use, without evidence of deceptive intent, is not fraud.
- Look Cycle International v. Kunshan Qiyue Outdoor Sports Goods Co., Ltd. (Prec'd, Aug 9, 2024) — the recent specimen-fraud battleground… I could not confirm from the decision text on file how the Board resolved the fraud claim — the retrieved pages cover likelihood of confusion, not the fraud analysis. Read the full opinion (177-page record, entry 46) before citing it.
- University of Kentucky v. 40-0, LLC (Prec'd, Mar 4, 2021, decided on the briefs) — modern application: "No showing of a subjective intent to deceive (an essential element of a fraud claim) arises from this record… even a material misrepresentation would not qualify as fraud under the Lanham Act" absent intent to mislead. The fraud claim failed.
The pleading bar
Asian and Western Classics B.V. v. Selkow (Prec'd, Oct 22, 2009) addresses exactly what you're about to sign: allegations that a registrant made material representations it "knew or should have known" to be false "are insufficient to infer respondent's intent to commit fraud on the USPTO." So the notice of opposition must plead who made the false statement, what statement was false, when and where it was made, why it was material, and facts suggesting subjective intent to deceive — not just falsity.
Note: I could not complete my final check of the case holdings in this answer. Treat what I say about individual decisions as unverified until you read them.
Attorney
Here's the full proceeding record for Look Cycle International v. Kunshan Qiyue Outdoor Sports Goods Co., Ltd. — the Aug 9, 2024 precedential decision from my earlier answer:
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | Cancellation |
| Filing date | Apr 6, 2022 |
| Status | Terminated — Oct 30, 2024 |
| Outcome | Final decision: cancellation granted (Aug 9, 2024); registration cancelled by Commissioner order Oct 30, 2024 |
| Mark | Serial | Registration | Class | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLOOKE | 90628580 | 6683483 | 12 (vehicles) | Word | Cancelled |
Two things worth noting for your fraud research: the petition in this case paired the §2(d) confusion claim with the falsified-specimen fraud allegations I flagged earlier, and the case ran ~2½ years through a 177-page record before decision on the merits — a reminder that specimen-fraud theories tend to live or die on discovery, not the pleadings.
Why this needs the Board's opinions
A general model knows the name Bose. It can't open nine Board opinions, quote the sentences that matter, link each proceeding, and tell you which holdings it couldn't confirm. Markus read the opinions on file, quoted them, and said where its reading stopped.
All nine decisions in the full answer checked against the Board's precedential designations (proceeding numbers, dates, outcomes), and the quoted passages found in the opinion text on file, September 2026. Markus said it couldn't confirm how Look Cycle (2024) resolved the fraud count; the Board's own summary of that decision says the petition was granted on fraud as well as likelihood of confusion and nonuse. The judge and counsel named in the raw session are left out here. Scenario invented.