The Board’s Decision

In a significant precedential ruling, Plumrose Holding Ltd. v. USA Ham LLC, No. 91272970, 2025 WL 248763, at *1 (Jan. 17, 2025), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) has expanded protection for foreign trademark owners, ruling that a company can successfully oppose a U.S. trademark application based solely on reputational harm, even without any U.S. sales or trademark registrations.

In Plumrose, USA Ham LLC (“USA Ham”) applied to register the mark LA MONTSERRATINA for “Ham; Meat; Pork; Cold cuts; Cold cuts, namely, mortadella, pork loin, ham, bologna, salami, chorizo; Pork tenderloin; Processed meat; Sausage meat; Smoked sausages; Snack food dips” in Class 29.[1]  Plumrose Holding Ltd. (“Plumrose”), the owner of Venezuelan company La Montserratina, C.A., which sells pre-packaged meat products in Venezuela, opposed the application based on misrepresentation of source under Section 14(3) of the Lanham Act.[2]  While Plumrose does not use its mark in the U.S., it alleged that it has been using the mark in Venezuela since 1949, and the mark is “well-known, famous, and ha[s] a reputation for superior quality in Venezuela and among Venezuelans living in the United States.”[3] 

In support of its misrepresentation of source claim, Plumrose argued that USA Ham deliberately copied its trademark to capitalize on Plumrose’s reputation in the U.S. among Venezuelan-Americans, and that U.S. consumers had actually been confused as to the source of USA Ham’s products.[4]  USA Ham argued that Plumrose lacked statutory standing to oppose its application because it does not use the mark in the U.S.[5]

In determining the issue of Plumrose’s standing to oppose USA Ham’s application, the Board discussed the Federal Circuit’s 2022 decision in Meenaxi Enterprise, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 38 F.4th 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2022), which rejected similar claims from Coca-Cola regarding its trademarks registered in India.[6]  In Meenaxi, Coca-Cola argued reputational injury in the U.S. stemming from Meenaxi’s use of its THUMBS UP and LIMICA marks, which were only registered in India and not used by Coca-Cola in the United States.[7]  Coca-Cola argued that the reputation of these marks extended to Indian-Americans living in the U.S.[8]  The Federal Circuit found that Coca-Cola’s claim of reputational injury lacked sufficient evidence.[9]  For instance, Coca-Cola had not provided any evidence regarding the number of Indian-Americans that visited or lived in India.[10]  Further, it found that Coca-Cola’s evidence of “a few limited re-sales by third parties of [Coca-Cola’s] Indian products in the U.S. was insufficient to establish the reputation of [Coca-Cola’s] brand in the U.S.”[11]  Finally, one customer’s comment that it had seen one of Coca-Cola’s two marks in India was “insufficient to establish that [Coca-Cola’s] reputational interest in the two marks extended into the U.S.”[12]  Based on this lack of evidence regarding reputation in the U.S., the Meenaxi court found that evidence of Meenaxi’s copying of the marks could not establish “evidence of awareness of the marks by U.S. consumers.”[13]

Turning to Plumrose’s evidence of reputation in the U.S., the Board distinguished Meenaxi as “materially different.”[14]  Unlike in Meenaxi, Plumrose provided concrete evidence of U.S. consumer recognition of its mark, including over twenty inquiries about product availability and five instances of actual confusion in Florida, where USA Ham sells its products.[15]  This evidence, the Board found, demonstrates “quite clearly that [Plumrose’s] reputation for products under its mark extends to the U.S.”[16]  The Board also found that taking into consideration Plumrose’s evidence of reputational injury in the U.S., evidence of USA Ham’s intentional copying of Plumrose’s trademark “take[s] on a culpable hue.”[17]  The evidence showed, for example, that USA Ham’s directors had knowledge of the LA MONTSERRATINA brand by virtue of having lived in Venezuela, targeted stores in Florida that have Venezuelan-American customers or carry other Venezuelan products, and that, over time, USA Ham modified its presentation of the LA MONTSERRATINA mark to exactly replicate Plumrose’s logo.[18]  “In this case,” the Board noted, “the pieces of the puzzle reveal that [Plumrose’s] brand reputation extends into the U.S., and that [USA Ham’s] copying capitalizes on that reputation.”[19]

The Board found that Plumrose had satisfied all three elements required for a Section 14(3) misrepresentation claim: USA Ham’s use of the mark, deliberate copying aimed at passing off its goods as Plumrose’s, and potential injury to Plumrose’s reputation.[20]  The Board emphasized that the Lanham Act protects a trademark owner’s ability to control its reputation, regardless of whether the owner currently uses the mark in U.S. commerce.[21] 

Notably, the Board rejected USA Ham’s argument that reputational injury requires evidence of negative consumer experiences.[22]  The Board also clarified that Section 14(3)’s misrepresentation of source provisions can apply to oppositions against trademark applications where an opposer alleges that the applicant has made use of the mark, not just petitions to cancel existing registrations.[23] 

Implications for Trademark Owners

This decision significantly expands protection for foreign trademark owners.  It establishes that commercial reputation of a foreign mark can extend to U.S. consumers even without use of the mark in the U.S., and provides a pathway for foreign companies to oppose U.S. trademark applications based on reputational harm alone when supported by evidence of consumer recognition and confusion.  The decision also suggests that even a relatively small number of documented confusion can carry significant weight when coupled with evidence of deliberate copying and established reputation.

For trademark owners, this decision underscores the importance of monitoring potential trademark misuse in the U.S., even without sales or registrations there.  Trademark owners should consider implementing monitoring programs, and actively document evidence of their reputation among U.S. consumers, including social media interactions, consumer inquiries, and instances of confusion.  They should also maintain comprehensive records of their brand’s history, marketing materials, and reputation in their home markets, as these may prove crucial in establishing deliberate copying by U.S. entities.


[1] Id.

[2] Plumrose’s opposition asserted three claims, but at trial it only advanced the Section 14(3) misrepresentation of source claim.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at *2.

[6] Id. at *4.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at *7 (internal citation and quotes omitted).

[14] Id. at *5.

[15] Id. at *6.

[16] Id. at *7.

[17] Id.

[18] Id. at *8-9.

[19] Id. at *7.

[20] Id. at *13.

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at *10.

[23] Id. at *13 n. 73.