TTAB Default Judgment Has No Collateral Estoppel Effect, Says E.D. California District Court

In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed (in part) the district court's dismissal of a civil action for unfair competition, trademark dilution, and trademark infringement involving Defendant Meenakshi's three IDHAYAM marks registered for sesame seed oil. The district court had dismissed the claims as to one of the marks (the "'654 mark") on the ground of claim preclusion, based upon the TTAB's entry of judgment by default on Plaintiff VVV's petition for cancellation of the registration for that one mark. The court of appeals, however, ruled that claim preclusion did not apply because VVV was entitled to seek remedies in the district court that were not available at the TTAB. [TTABlogged here]. Now back at the district court, Defendant Meenakshi dubiously moved to dismiss VVV's claims on the ground of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). The district court denied the motion because no issue was "actually litigated" before the TTAB.