A March 2026 TTAB decision offers a clear and somewhat painful illustration of what happens when a trademark registration cannot be supported by credible evidence of actual use. The petitioner was Zuffa, LLC, the parent company of the UFC. The respondent was Byron Belin, the owner of a registration for the mark BMF covering a range of entertainment services. Zuffa wanted the mark for its own BMF-branded events and had been blocked from registering it. So it filed to cancel Belin's registration.
The Board cancelled it on the ground that it didn't satisfy the use in commerce requirement.
The Registration and the Services
Belin's registration covered twelve categories of services in Class 41, including entertainment media production, television programming series, live musical performances, multimedia production, and related entertainment services. The registration had matured from an intent-to-use application, meaning Belin filed before he was using the mark and then filed a Statement of Use representing that he had begun using the mark in commerce by January 30, 2020.
That Statement of Use is a sworn declaration and necessary for registration. It is not a formality.
What "Use in Commerce" Actually Requires
For service marks, use in commerce has a specific legal meaning. The mark must be used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services, and the services must actually be rendered. Both elements are required. Advertising a service you have not yet rendered does not constitute use in commerce. Preparing to render a service does not constitute use in commerce. The service must actually be provided to someone.
This is a higher bar than many applicants realize when they file a Statement of Use. Signing that declaration means you are representing to the USPTO that you are genuinely providing the services listed in your application, in commerce, under the mark. If you are not, the registration is vulnerable from the moment it issues.
The Deposition
Zuffa took Belin's deposition in March 2024. The questioning was straightforward: when did you first use the BMF mark in connection with each of the twelve services listed in your registration?
The answers were not straightforward. For service after service, Belin either said he could not recall or deflected to his attorney. A representative exchange from the transcript:
Q: Do you recall when you first sold services under the BMF mark for production of motion pictures, television, and internet?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall if you provided services for nonfiction television programming series on the topics of family stories told by family members?
A: My attorney has all that information.
Q: And if we go through each one of these services, is your answer going to be the same, that your attorney has the information?
A: I can't say what my answer is going to be until we go through them.
It continued in essentially the same vein through all twelve service categories.
The Board was direct about its reaction. It found Respondent's testimony to have no credibility, noting that a person in his position would normally be expected to know basic facts about his own prior use of a mark for a period only a few years in the past. The evasiveness, combined with the absence of corroborating records, left the Board with no basis to believe the services had been rendered.
The Documentary Evidence
Belin's only documentary evidence of pre-deadline use was a sales receipt and a payment receipt for a transaction dated December 18, 2019. The items sold: "$250,000" in television-grade prop money and six prop guns, totaling $600. The buyer was a videographer named HeataHD Visuals.
There were problems with these documents beyond the face value of the transaction. Belin admitted the documents were prepared by the buyer, not by him. The sales receipt had BMF on the letterhead but was addressed to the buyer. The payment receipt was signed by the buyer, with Belin having handwritten the notation "For BMF Prop Money" at the bottom after the fact.
Even setting those issues aside, the Board declined to accept that selling prop money to a videographer constituted use of the BMF mark in connection with entertainment media production services or multimedia production services. The leap from one prop sale to a functioning entertainment production business was not one the Board was willing to make.
Preparations Are Not Use
Belin also argued that his pre-deadline activities, hiring a script writer, signing NDAs with actors, publishing a promotional video in December 2019, and uploading a first episode to YouTube in early January 2020, demonstrated use of the mark.
The Board was unpersuaded. On the script and actors: there was no evidence that any production actually materialized or that any of those individuals ever performed services under the mark in connection with the listed services. Hiring people to prepare for a production is not the same as providing the production as a service.
On the YouTube content: Belin provided only URLs to the videos rather than copies of the actual content. Under TTAB rules, a hyperlink does not make internet content part of the record. The Board could not consider evidence that was never properly submitted.
The governing principle, drawn from the Federal Circuit, is clear: preparations to use a mark in commerce are insufficient to constitute use in commerce. The mark must be actually used in conjunction with the services described in the application.
Adverse Inferences
The Board also drew adverse inferences from the gaps in Belin's document production. When a party has the ability to produce records that would support its position and fails to do so, the Board is permitted to infer that those records do not exist or do not support the claimed facts. Belin had been specifically asked to produce all documents sufficient to show sales of the listed services. He produced the prop receipt and essentially nothing else.
The combination of evasive deposition testimony and thin document production painted a picture the Board found difficult to read any other way.
The Outcome
The petition to cancel was granted on the nonuse ground. Because nonuse alone was sufficient to cancel the registration, the Board did not reach Zuffa's other claims, which included abandonment, lack of bona fide intent to use as of the application filing date, and fraud on the USPTO.
Zuffa's own BMF application, which had been suspended pending the outcome of this TTAB proceeding, can now move forward without the blocking registration in its way.
What This Means for Your Registration
A trademark registration is only as strong as the use that supports it. The Statement of Use filed at the end of an intent-to-use application is a sworn declaration that real use has occurred. If the underlying use is thin, inconsistent with the listed services, or primarily preparatory in nature, the registration can be challenged and cancelled years down the line.
The practical lessons from this case are straightforward. Keep records of your actual use: invoices, contracts, screenshots of your services being delivered, evidence that clients are paying you for the things your registration covers. Make sure the services you list in your application reflect what you are actually doing, not what you plan to do eventually. And if you file on an intent-to-use basis, do not file a Statement of Use until you are genuinely rendering the listed services in commerce.
Staying current on your maintenance and renewal obligations is equally important: a registration that lapses for missed filings is just as vulnerable as one built on thin use.
A registration that cannot withstand scrutiny is not an asset. It is a liability waiting to be discovered by someone with enough at stake to go looking.
If you have questions about whether your trademark is properly supported or want to make sure a new application reflects your actual use, book a free consultation with Five Dogs Law.
.svg)