On April 20, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Rebecca Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., upholding the Federal Circuit’s decision that consumers lack the statutory entitlement to oppose a trademark application under the Lanham Act.
The case arose from United Trademark Holdings’ (UTH) application to register the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toys on November 20, 2017. On May 9, 2018, Rebecca Curtin filed an opposition to the RAPUNZEL trademark application, followed by an amended notice of opposition, alleging that the mark was descriptive, generic, fraudulent, and failed to function as a trademark because it referred to a well-known fairytale character. Curtin claimed that, as a doll collector and consumer, she would no longer have access to similar products, within a reasonable price range, that represent Rapunzel if private companies could trademark the name of a famous character in the public domain.
In its analysis, the Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (TTAB) relied on the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC which cited to the Supreme Court’s “zone-of-interests test” stated in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. This test provides that “[a] plaintiff may oppose registration of a mark when doing so is within the zone of interests protected by the statute and she has a reasonable belief in damage that would be proximately caused by registration of the mark.” Based on this test, the TTAB concluded that Curtin was not entitled to oppose the RAPUNZEL application because she was a mere consumer. Curtin timely appealed.
Upon review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision and held that the TTAB correctly applied the Lexmark framework to determine that Curtin did not have statutory standing under § 1063 of the Lanham Act. In particular, the Federal Circuit agreed that Curtin did not fall within the zone of interests to bring an opposition and that her injury was too remote to be proximately caused by registration of the RAPUNZEL mark. On October 3, 2025, Curtin subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings underscores that trademark opposition proceedings are designed to protect commercial interests, not generalized consumer concerns. The decision limits the field of potential challengers in oppositions and cancellations before the TTAB and further solidifies the requirements for standing in such cases.
For more information on this decision, please contact Fitch Even attorney Kerianne A. Strachan, author of this alert.
Fitch Even IP Alert®
Kerianne A. Strachan
Kerianne A. Strachan focuses her practice on domestic and foreign trademark prosecution, clearance, enforcement, and brand protection, as well as contract drafting and negotiation. She counsels clients that include Fortune 500 corporations, multinational manufacturers, middle-market ventures, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and startups.