explaining that while “the legitimacy of the petitioner’s activity from which its interest arises will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the con- trary,” a party may “of course, seek to attack the legitimacy of [an] application or in some other way negate appellee’s interest”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that while “the legitimacy of the petitioner’s activity from which its interest arises will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the con- trary,” a party may “of course, seek to attack the legitimacy of [an] application or in some other way negate appellee’s interest”
- entertaining a cancellation petition premised on the registrant’s abandonment of his mark under Section 14(3
- holding that admission contained in an answer was binding, despite the fact that it was made “on information and belief’
- “Standing having been established, petitioner is entitled to rely on any statutory ground which negates appellant’s right to the subject registration and may invoke the general public interest in support of its claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARKEY, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I agree that standing is a threshold consideration. If the facts pleaded show standing, the pleader is in court. Those facts must thereafter be proved, but at the pleading stage they need only be “capable of proof at trial.” United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669, 689 , 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416 , 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). The facts establishing standing were proved here. That to me ends our consideration of the standing issue. Because I am not aware of an instance in which the board has sustained standing on the basis of unproven *1032 allegations, or in which it has canceled a registration on the basis of mere allegations, I see no reason to discuss its past decisions. Nor, for the same reason, do I view the board’s approach as shifting the burden.