Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
51 F.3d 1078 (1995)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (Checkers) (plaintiff) owned a registered trademark for use in connection with marketing its restaurant services. The Lanham Act required Checkers to file a renewal affidavit detailing its continued use of the mark between five and six years after its initial registration. The Lanham Act also required the commissioner of the Patents and Trademarks Office (commissioner) (defendant) to cancel a trademark’s registration if the registrant failed to submit a renewal affidavit on time. When Checkers’ affidavit came due in October 1990, Checkers was embroiled in a dispute with another restaurant called Checkers Restaurant Group (CRG), which had petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Checkers’ registration. Before that claim could be resolved, CRG filed for bankruptcy. Doing so initiated an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code, halting Checkers’ pending litigation. CRG and Checkers ultimately settled their dispute, which the bankruptcy court approved, and Checkers filed its Lanham Act affidavit in December 1990. The commissioner rejected Checkers’ affidavit as untimely and canceled Checkers’ trademark, stating that the automatic stay did not apply to Checkers’ independent duty to submit an affidavit under the Lanham Act. Checkers sought review of the commissioner’s decision by filing suit in federal court, claiming that as a creditor of CRG, it could not file its Lanham Act renewal affidavit while the stay was in place. The lower court granted summary judgment for the commissioner, and Checkers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.