Skip to content
Trademark Valet

Decisions · Opposition No. 91272200

PrecedentialLandmarkNo later change on its docket

El Roblar Investment Property LLC v. Bianca Roe

Opposition No. 91272200 · Decided 2025-09-22 · Opposition

What happened

Opposition sustained — the Board blocked Bianca Roe’s registration of THE HOTEL EL ROBLAR for hotel services because she had no real intention to use the name when she filed, having offered to sell all her Hotel El Roblar web domains and social media accounts to the Ojai hotel’s new owner weeks earlier.

The marks

Applicant

THE HOTEL EL ROBLAR

Hotel services

Opposer's mark

Hotel El Roblar (opposer's planned hotel name; no registration)

Planned luxury hotel services at the historic Hotel El Roblar property in Ojai, California

Why this decision is significant

First precedential application of Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings (Fed. Cir. 2025) holding that a prospective competitor without proprietary rights is statutorily entitled to bring a Section 1(b) no-bona-fide-intent claim, plus a strong template for proving an ITU application was filed merely to reserve a right using the applicant’s own written admissions.

Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.

Related decisions

PrecedentialNotableNo later change on its docket

Procedural ruling

Instagram, LLC v. Instagoods Pty Ltd

The Board combined Instagram’s challenge to the INSTAGOODS application with Instagoods' counter-challenge involving INSTA, and let Instagram question two Australian Instagoods executives…

Opposition No. 91266266 · 2023-10-11 · INSTAGOODS

PrecedentialNotableNo later change on its docket

Procedural ruling

Instagoods Pty Ltd v. Instagram, LLC

Instagoods' counter-challenge involving Instagram’s INSTA mark was combined with Instagram’s challenge to INSTAGOODS for shared handling; the schedule was reset and no winner was decided on…

Opposition No. 91285552 · 2023-10-11 · INSTA

PrecedentialNotableNo later change on its docket

Major League Baseball Players Association v. Michael P. Chisena

The Board sustained the MLBPA’s opposition and refused registration of Michael Chisena’s HERE COMES THE JUDGE mark for t-shirts and other clothing, finding that MLBPA licensees sold apparel…

Opposition No. 91240180 · 2023-04-12 · HERE COMES THE JUDGE (standard characters, Serial No. 87528440) v. HERE COMES THE JUDGE and related common-law 'Judge Marks' (pleaded as JUDGE, alone and with other terms) used on licensed Aaron Judge apparel

PrecedentialNotableNo later change on its docket

Major League Baseball Players Association v. Michael P. Chisena

The Board sustained the MLBPA’s opposition and refused registration of Michael Chisena’s ALL RISE mark for t-shirts and other clothing, finding that MLBPA licensees sold ALL RISE apparel…

Opposition No. 91242556 · 2023-04-12 · ALL RISE (standard characters, Serial No. 87528414) v. ALL RISE and related common-law 'Judge Marks' (pleaded as ALL RISE, alone and with other terms) used on licensed Aaron Judge apparel

The original record

Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.

Open this case on TTABVUE, the Board's docket ↗


Who checked this

Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.

Provenance — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.

General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.

← Back to the library