Said this from the beginning of Randy's crusade: does he even know what is required to prove fraud generally or, more particularly, fraud on the USPTO? I am curious how the statements he alleges are incorrect (even assuming he is right) are material and would have affected the decision on the application? Also curious how he thinks anyone would go about proving the fraudulent intent required.
Just for reference, in case anyone is interested:
"A third party may petition to cancel a registered trademark on the ground that the registration was obtained fraudulently. Fraud in procuring a trademark registration or renewal occurs when an applicant knowingly makes false, material representations of fact in connection with his application. A party seeking cancellation of a trademark registration for fraudulent procurement bears a heavy burden of proof. Indeed, the very nature of the charge of fraud requires that it be proven 'to the hilt' with clear and convincing evidence. There is no room for speculation, inference or surmise and, obviously, any doubt must be resolved against the charging party.
Mandated by the statute and caselaw, the Board had consistently and correctly acknowledged that there is a material legal distinction between a 'false' representation and a 'fraudulent' one, the latter involving an intent to deceive, whereas the former may be occasioned by a misunderstanding, an inadvertence, a mere negligent omission, or the like. In other words, deception must be willful to constitute fraud."
In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
So what's the materiality in the mark being attributed to E. King Gill or not in the '30s and '40s? Is It Duke's contention that this fact was important to the decision to grant the TM? Also, how does his "evidence" demonstrate a fraudulent intent on the filing? Even if you grant a mistake was made, the intent to deceive on this (non-material) fact sure would be an uphill climb.