WPCdW L%~w ZQ٣Xãi2wz%#`seE.MGVOwѠ7I0d((ٲ3Y6l # 7Ew3; Z<@?җwIVEX0RWBLrےյtǎ@.D4i^vFF[…#I+G-#C%>XX6iЈf| -|"¦U|gX@K!lX~AIࠗw&(\:L#<YY`o9Zl[-9j]6P~}: ZUdBn. %1 7 0 0| 0x 0N 0f 0Q 0(Y 0x 0c 0! 06 0 0} 0= D+; AQfp 0C'jg$  &*UB/7/24 7:A 5ENO 0ST 0fT#U(VNW^ WwW4W.W m0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W BGW\  `*Times New RomanTT\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP/   *Times New RomanTTXX^  0 X h X'  4 2 0Anne Arundel County0thomast .   `8T :Body Text I1Body Text Indent 3   S:#        >4X` hp x (#>  P8page numberpage number        <;T .footerfooter   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  `YT :Body Text InBody Text Indent 2  8.` hp x (#8        >4X` hp x (#>  HDT 4Body TextBody Text  #S x (##        >4X` hp x (#>  PYT 8Body Text 2Body Text 2  8.` hp x (#8        >4X` hp x (#>  `:footnote reffootnote reference        V :footnote texfootnote text  W\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW  h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph Font        Hkc 4heading 1heading 1&    ;1Z` hp x (#;        >4X` hp x (#>'      G)X$XX$XXX$  _QA=x h x p @XEddd (#(#$ (#X$ (#(#H.` hp x (# (#H(Y2G$ )L!X$XX$XXX$  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(Y2G$ )L!X$XX$XXX$  (Y2G$ )L!X$XX$XXX$  ($    'dxdC<< c f G"X$XX$XXX$  _  $ (#X$            @    1  A        ($      )L!X$XX$XXX$  _E1` hp x (#XE   EXX$EE             K.` hp x (#` XK  1   .)      ݀X$XEThisOpinionalsomayreferto_Pringle_Ԁ& _MCS_Ԁcollectivelyas _Pringle_.EXX$ ] )L!X$XX$XXX$  _E1` hp x (#XE   EXX$EE               2   .)      ݀X$XE_Aramark_Ԁformerlywasknownas CoryFoodService,Inc.EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  _E1` hp x (#XE   EXX$EE               3   .)      ݀X$XEExhibitAtoDefendantsSurreplyastoPlaintiffssummaryjudgmentmotionisacopyofthe  1993proposedcontractofsalebetween_Pringle_ԀanddefendantHale,withcoverletterdated x September9,1993.ThecontractpreliminarilyidentifiesonlytheMarylandservicemarktobe @ sold,butthebalanceofthecontractalsoreferstoEXX$ԀX$XE trademarksandservicemarks.However,the X  affidavitsanddepositionsof_Pringle_,whichhavebeenprovidedtotheCourt,makenodistinction  astohisintenttosellbothtrademarksandservicemarks. x EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB   EXX$EE               4   )      ݀X$XEAtthehearingonthesemotions,Defendantscounselobjectedtotheadmissibilityofthe  Pringledeposition.Plaintiffscounselrespondedthatthedepositionshouldbeadmissibleunder x Rule2419(c)asitproperlywastakeninconnectionwithaVirginia courtproceeding,before @ theVirginiaStateCorporationCommission.Cf.,NationalHomeIns.Co.v.StateCorp.Commis., X 838F.Supp.1104(E.D.Va.1993).Afterthehearing,however,Defendantscounselwithdrew   thisobjectioninhisletterofFebruary6,2004.Therefore,thisCourtconsidersthedeposition.EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  E1Z` hp x (#XE       H.` hp x (#ZXH  5   )      ݀Defendantsalsohavefiled,aspartsofexhibits4and7totheirMotionforSummary  K1Z` hp x (#` XKJudgment,twoinvoicesdatedinMay2002,indicatingtheshippingofgoodstoMarylandfrom  Canada.However,thesehavenorelevancetotheallegedtrademarkabandonmentand  registrationrenewalissuesastheydonotprecedetheassignmentofrightsbetweenMCSand      EXX$EE      H.` hp x (#ZXHX$XEXXXX$Defendants.=XXE=/   *Times New RomanTT - )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB   EXX$EE               6   )      ݀X$XEThisCourthasreorderedandconsolidatedDefendantsissues.EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB   EXX$EE               7   )      ݀X$XEPlaintiffsdonotseeksummaryjudgmentoncount4,astofraud,apparentlyrecognizingthatthe  defendantsintentwouldbeafactfindersquestion.EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB   EXX$EE               8   !)      ݀X$XEWhilebothtradeandservicemarksareatissuehere,unlessstatedotherwise,thisCourt  generallywillrefertobothcollectivelyas trademarksfordiscussionpurposes,asthesame x rulesapplyforthepurposesofthisOpinionEXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB   EXX$EE               9   )      ݀X$XESherwoodactuallywasconsideredpreviouslybytheCourtat173Md.173(1937)inanearlier  phaseoflitigation.Unlessotherwiseindicated,thisCourtforsimplicityrefersonlytothesecond x appeal,whichrecappedthefirstholdingwithinitstext.EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XBH.(` hp x (#` XH           10   )      ݀TheearlyMarylandcasestosousetheterm indispositiondonotexplicitlydefineit.  However,examplescitedsuggestthatitmayindicatethenowuncommonconnotationofillness,  ratherthananexcusablewhim.See,e.g.,Landavv.ZoningAppealsBoard,173Md.460,470   (1938),followingCorkransupra.andcitingBarnettv.Dickinson.93Md.258(1901)inwhich  the indispositionwasevidencedbythepartys beingindelicatehealth,undermedical  K1Z` hp x (#(` XKadvice...compelledtobeabsentfromthecityfromtimetotime,butneverforanyprolonged     EXX$EE      H.` hp x (#ZXHX$XEXXXX$period,orwiththeintentionofabandoninginanywaytheoccupationofthehouseaforesaidas  herresidence.Barnett.Supra.=XXE=  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB   EXX$EE               11   )      ݀X$XEDefendantsprovidedapartialtranscript,whichtheCourthaspermitted,pursuantto  DefendantsMotiontoSupplement,filedFebruary23,2004.Similarly,PlaintiffinitsOpposition x toDefendantsMotiontoSupplement,filedMarch1,2004,hasofferedadditionalportionsofthe @ sametranscript,whichtheCourtalsohaspermittedandincludedhere.EXX$  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB       H.` hp x (#` XH    12   )      ݀AtonepointinPringlesdeposition,askedaboutabandonment,hesaid:IguessifI  K1Z` hp x (#` XKdrovemycarouttothedumpandleftit,thatwouldbeabandoningacar....But,jfIleftthecarin  thegarage,Idontthinkthatwouldbecalledabandoningit.ItwouldjustmeanIwasnt  drivingitanymore.[Question:...Soasfarasthetrademarksareconcerned,usingyouranalogy,  didyouintendtotakethemtothedumpandthrowthemaway...?]...No,Iintendedtokeepthem u inthegarage.Pringledeposition,atT100. j  H.` hp x (#ZXH  ThisCourtfindthissubjectivesenseofownershipinsufficienttocountertheobjective _  factsofabandonment.Followingtheanalogy,evenacarlockedinagarageformanyyearswill O  sufferlossofitsmarketvalue,despiteitsownersfondness. ?    Unliketheexpressionofanintenttoaccept,reject,ordisregardacontractforwhicha /   subjectiveintentmaybedispositive,adeterminationofabandonmentisalegalconclusionfor o  K1Z` hp x (#` XKwhichPringleslayopinioncannotbedispositive.Thelegaldeterminationofabandonmentmust _  restbothonfindingsoftheobjectivefactsofdisuseandfindingsoftheintentwhichmotivated O     EXX$EE      H.` hp x (#ZXHX$XEXXXX$thedisuse.Corkran,supra.Whentheseareundisputed,adisclaimeroftheirlegaleffectmustbe ?  ineffective.=XXE=  )L!X$XX$XXX$  B.` hp x (#XB       H.` hp x (#` XH0    13   )      ݀WhileDefendantsintheirAnswerandmemorandahaveclaimedinsufficient(#(# K1Z` hp x (#` XKknowledgetoadmittheusewhichPlaintiffshaveallegedandsupportedwithaffidavits,this  failuretooffercontradictoryevidenceleavestheCourttoconsiderPlaintiffsuseasan     EXX$EE      H.` hp x (#ZXHX$XEXXXX$undisputedfact.=XXE=(2$ )L!X$XX$XXX$  $XXX$  0  3|x (>L$X$XX$XXX$HP LaserJet 5M,,,,0!o:2 n1yweb0U d )L!X$XX$XXX$  _XE1)` hp x (#XE )   SUNBEAMPRODUCTS,INC.    <" + 9p x (#)X< +  9 *  _INTHE_ x   N.` hp x (#+ 9pXN0  Plaintiff Z(#(#   <" + 9p x (#` X< +  9 *  CIRCUITCOURT "  + vs. 9 *  FOR     Q1Z` hp x (#+ 9pXQ  -!(#ZX-  148977CANADA , INC.and  *003! ANNE _ARUNDEL_ԀCOUNTY . ~   ROBERTHALE   !!F!  H     *``3! CASENO.C0285666       K.` hp x (#!(#K0  Defendants V  (#(#   ******~*************** n    * (#` X*      H.` hp x (# (#H)    *` X` X*    OPINIONASTOMOTIONSFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT v    K1g` hp x (#` XK0 g  g(#g(# 0 g ThismatterwascalledonFebruary3,2004,forahearingonbothpartiesmotionsfor.~ g(#g(# summaryjudgment.Presentwere:BrianMcNamara,Esq.,Geoffrey_McNutt_,Esq.,andJames n Nolan,Esq.,forPlaintiffandWilliam_Breneman_,Esq.andSteven_Resnick_,Esq.ForDefendants. ^ N1` hp x (#g` XNFacts >   Thepartiesdisputerelatestoconflictingclaimsastothetrademarksandservice . marks Mr.Coffeeandthehomonym MisterCoffee.  0  Plaintiffisamanufacturerofcoffeebrewersandrelatedfilters,usingthemark Mr.(#(# Coffee.ItsearliestU.S.trademarkwasregisteredintheU.S.patentofficein1974.  0  Defendant148977Canada,Inc.,byitspresidentDefendantRobertHale(hence,(#(# collectively,( Defendants)in2002completedanagreementtopurchasecertainrightsofMister  CoffeeServices,Inc.( _MCS_),aVirginiacorporationownedbyMr.Glen_Pringle_Ԁ( _Pringle_).       _   1     _ ~ _Pringle_Ԁbeganuseofthemark MisterCoffeein1972,sellingcoffee,cocoa,tea,soup,soft n drinks,waterandjuices,aswellasrelatedequipmentandsuppliestoofficesofvarious ^ businessesinthemetropolitanareaofWashingtonD.C.anditsVirginiasuburbs.By1976,this N usereachedintothestateofMaryland. >   0  In1992,_Pringle_Ԁonbehalfof_MCS_Ԁregistered MisterCoffeeasaMarylandtrademark.!~!(#(# andservicemarkwithMarylandsSecretaryofStateunderMarylandtrademarkregistration "n" number19927442andMarylandservicemarkregistrationnumber1992S2956.Thenextyear, #^# _Pringle_Ԁnegotiatedthesaleofmost_MCS_Ԁassetstoanunrelatedthirdparty_Aramark_ԀCorp. #N$ ( _Aramark_).       _Z   2     _However,thetrademarkandservicemarkwerenotamongtheassetssold. $> % 0  Instead,_Pringle_Ԁin1993communicatedwithDefendantHale,aCanadianbusinessman,as%.!&(#(# topossiblesaleofthetrademarkandservicemark.Inprinciple,theyagreedonthissaleand &"' _Pringle_ԀsentacontracttoHale.       _"   3     _ԀHowever,theagreementwasnotconsummatedthenandthese '#( _partieshadnofurthercommunicationuntil2001.    K.` hp x (#` XK  DespiteanaffidavitprocuredbyDefendantsfromPringleonSeptember5,2003,thatMCS   fromFebruary,1972,untilaboutJuly,2001,[MCS]operatedunderandusedthetrademarks,  servicemarksandtradenamesofMISTERCOFFEE,Pringleinasubsequent,October7,2003  deposition          4     ׀statedthatthisaffidavitwasmisleading: p 0  [Referringtotheaffidavit,thissays]from1972untilJuly2001,IusedthenameMister P  Coffee,butthisis"thismightleadyoutobelievethatweweredoingbusiness,selling @  productsasMisterCoffeeupuntilJuly,2001,andthatwascertainlynottrue...(Transcript 0  pg.85;hence T85.) p (#(# 0  Thisdocument[i.e.,theaffidavit]wasmadeby[Defendantscounsel]supposedlyforthe P  reasonofhavingme...saythatIwasnotdoingbusinessinAnneArundelCounty[as @  indicatedinalaterparagraphoftheaffidavit.]8IthinkIwastrickedintosigningthis 0  document....Idontreadthemascarefullyasalawyerdoes.(T86)8Ididntcontinueto   advertise.AssoonasIsoldtoCory,Imovedoutofthewarehouse,andIsoldmythree  vans...(T87)[In1993,PringlediscussedsellingthemarktoMr.Halebutbetween1993and  2001,thetwohadnocontact8.Pringle]neverpromisedMr.Haleoranyoneelse..that[he]    wouldusethetrademarksduringthetimefrom1993and2001...Ididnthearfromhimagain  until2001.SoIdidnthaveanyagreementwithhimin2001whenhecalledmeonthephone  andsaidhewantedtobuytheagreement....[T]herewasnounderstandingaboutanymarks, p keepinganythingalivewithMr.Hale.(T9798)`(#(#    AtHalesrequest, inJuly2001,Pringledidgotoaretailstore,acquiresomecoffeeandtea, @ thensellthesetotwofriendssoastogeneratetwo MisterCoffeereceiptsinthesuburbanVirginia 0 $ :#` X$0 @ * x (#*K1Z` hp x (# XKarea.(T3639)       v   5     ׀But,Pringlehad nointenttogobackintothebusiness(Ti9)ofsellingcoffeeand H! similarproducts.Rather,heintendedtocontinueowningtherightstothetradeandservicemarks  (T89)andtoselltheselastcorporateassetssoaspossiblyto breakevenfromhiscostofregistering  them.(T94)  H.` hp x (#ZXH  AlthoughMCSagreementtosellmostofitscorporateassetsinMay1993includeda  covenantnottocompetefor5yearswiththepurchase,thiscovenantwaslimitedonlytothe p geographicareasof WashingtonD.C.andNorthernVirginia.Thus,PringleandMCSvoluntarily `  chosenottocontinuethisbusinessinMaryland.Jointexhibit1ofcurrenthearing. P    Inasecond,postdepositionaffidavit,Pringleemphasized: 0  0  AfterSeptember1993,IdidnotattempttoselltheMISTERCOFFEEmarktoanyother `  personorentity....Ihadnointentionofresumingthebusinessbetween1993and2001and P  duringthattimeIconductednobusiness,conductednoadvertising,andprovidednogoods @  ЄorservicesundertheMISTERCOFFEEmark.0 (#(# K1Z` hp x (#` XKDepositionofGlennPringle,datedOctober11,2003ExhibitBtoPlaintiffsReplytoDefendants  Oppositionto[Plaintiffs]MotionforSummaryJudgment.  H.` hp x (#ZXH0  Finally,itshouldbenotedthatDefendantspointtotheuseofaninternetdomainname,(#(# K1Z` hp x (#` XKMisterCoffee.com, pursuanttoMisterCoffee&Services,Inc.andthe[partiesCanadianlitigation]  SettlementAgreement....SeeDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgment,exhibitBaffidavitof p RobertHale,paragraphs3&5. ` H.` hp x (#ZXH  Basedonthe2001assignmentofrightsfromMCS,defendant148977Canada,Inc.onMay P 30,2002,filedtorenewMarylandtrademarkandservicemarkregistrationfor MISTERCOFFEE. @ Thisrenewalwasgrantedtodefendant148977Canada,Inc.viarenewalregistrations20020098and 0 20020099. ` Thislitigation,challengingtheregistrationrenewals,wasfiledshortlyafterwardsby  p Plaintiff. ` K1Z` hp x (#` XK&    K1Z` hp x (#ZXK         Issues  s. @ -toa    *ZXZX*'H!-    H.` hp x (#ZXH  DefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentasksthisCourttodismisstheComplaintherein 0 because       X   6     :   K1Z` hp x (#` XKa)declaratoryjudgmentjurisdictionisdiscretionaryand,here,shouldbedeniedasDefendantsnever ! usedthedisputedtradeorservicemarksinAnneArundelCounty; "  b)declaratoryjudgmentwouldnot terminatethecontroversy,duetothepartiesdisputesoutside #! AnneArundelCounty; $" c)thisCourtshoulddefertotheU.S.PatentandTrademarkOfficeasanappropriateadministrative % # forum; p&!$ d)thereisno actualorjusticiablecontroversy,particularlyintheabsenceofactualdamages;and, `'"% e)theComplaintfailstojointheSecretaryofStateofMarylandasa necessaryparty. P(#& H.` hp x (#ZXH  PlaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgmentaskstheCourttograntitsComplaintsfirstthree 0*%( counts           7     ,findingthatDefendantslegitimatelycouldnotrenewthedisputedtradeandservicemarks  duetotheirpreviousabandonment.ItalsoaskstheCourttodismisstheCounterclaimonthegrounds  ofabandonmentandlaches.  K1Z` hp x (#` XKDiscussion p H.` hp x (#ZXH  1.Defendantsmotionforsummaryjudgment P    a.Declaratoryjudgmentandlocalvenue 0    DefendantsinitiallysuggestthatthisCourtshoulddeclinetoprovidedeclaratoryjudgment  p  reliefbecausethedisputedtrademarkshavenotbeenusedbytheminAnneArundelCounty. `    TheCourtfindsthisargumentingenuousbecausethisisnotatrademarkinfringementaction P  perse.Venueandjurisdictioninthecountyareproperbecausethecomplaintfocusesonatrademark @  registrationwhichDefendantsundisputedlyfiledwiththeMarylandSecretaryofStatesOfficein 0  AnnapolisinAnneArundelCounty,Maryland.     b.Declaratorvjudgmentwouldnot terminatethecontroversy    Similarly,theCourtfindsnomeritinthecontentionthatdeclaratoryjudgmentshouldnot  begrantedbecauseitwouldnot terminatethecontroversyifthepartiesmighthavefurther  litigationinotherjurisdictions.Thisargumentwillfullymisconstruestheconceptof terminating  thecontroversy.Whatissoughtisnotcompletionofallthepartiesconflictsanywhereintheworld; p itissufficienttoresolvetheirconflictsonthisparticularcontroversyinMaryland.ThisCourthas ` thesufficientpowertoaccomplishthisendand,therefore,willnotpreventPlaintifffromaccessing P   c.IsexhaustionofadministrativeremediesviatheUSPOrequired? 0   Next,DefendantscontendthatthisCourtshoulddefertotheU.S.PatentOffice,asifthat  p federalagencyshouldresolveadisputeofMarylandlawastothisstatestrademarkregistration ` statute. P   Precedenthasmadeclear thatthemerefact...thatastatecauseofactionimplicatesconduct @ thatoccurredinconnectionwithfederalpatentproceedingsisnotsufficientforpatentpreemption 0 toapply.MethodeElectronics.Inc.v.HewlettPackardCo..Inc.,2000U.S.Dist.LEXIS12701,   at7(D.Ca.2000),referencingDowChemicalCo.V.ExxonCorp..139F.3d1470(Fed.Cir.1998) ! wherethecourtfocusedonthesitusoftheconductthatformedtheheartofthestatelawclaim.Thus, "  inthepresentcase,theCourtdoesnotfindthatitshoulddefertotheU.S.PatentOffice. #! K1Z` hp x (#` XKH.` hp x (#ZXH  d.Isthereaiusticiablecontroversy? % #   Defendantscontendthatthereisno justiciablecontroversyastherecurrentlyisnoactual p&!$ conflictinguseofthedisputedtrademarks. `'"%   However,thisCourtfindsthattheMarylandtrademarkregistrationstatuteitselfrecognizes P(#& acauseofactionforresolutionofdisputesastotrademarkregistrationandnotsimplytrademark @)$' Єinfringement.MarylandCode,BusinessRegulationArt.,sec.1412. 0*%( Ї  e.IstheMarylandSecretaryofStateanecessaryparty?    DefendantsassertthatapersonmaynotbringaCircuitCourtactiontochallengeatrademark  registrationwithoutjoiningtheMarylandSecretaryofStateintheactionasanecessaryparty.    ThisCourtalsofindsnomerittothisargument.TheMarylandtrademarkregistrationstatute  atonetimeprovidedforadministrativeappealstoCircuitCourtastodisputeddecisionsbythe p MarylandSecretaryofState.Idatsec1408.Therepealofthisdirectformofjudicialreviewstill `  leftintactotherstatutoryprovisions,contemplatingthatpartiescouldobtainCircuitCourtordersto P  invalidatetrademarkregistrations.Clearly,itappearsthatthelegislativeintentwastheoppositeof @  whatDefendantssuggest:thelegislaturesoughttosavetheSecretaryfromtheinconvenienceof 0  participationinCourtreviewsoftrademarkregistrations.  p    Byanalogy,DefendantspositionmightrequirethattheAdministratoroftheMaryland `  MotorVehicleAdministrationbefoundanecessarypartyforanydisputedtransactionastoamotor P  vehiclestitlebecausetheMVAissuedthevehiclestitleandregistration.Clearly,thisargumentis @  untenable. 0    Forallthesereasons,theCourtwilldenyDefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentasa  matterofalaw.    2.Plaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgment    a.Marylandsstandardfor abandonmentoftrademarks       !   8      p   MarylandsCourtofAppealsconsideredtheissueoftrademarkabandonmentintwomain ` casesmanyyearsago:Corkran.Hill&Co.v.A.H.KuhlemannCo.,136Md.525(1920)and P SherwoodCo..Inc.v.SherwoodDistillingCo.,177Md.455(1939).       "   9     Corkransummarizesthelaw @ onthepointasfollows: 0     H.` hp x (#` XH0  Anabandonmentisthevoluntaryandintentionaldisuseornonuserofthetrademark.`(#(# ЀSuchintentionmaybeinferredfromcircumstancesnecessarilypointingtoanintentionto P abandon,butanactualintentiontopermanentlygiveuptheuseofthetrademarkisnecessaryto @ constituteanabandonment....Meredisuse,thoughforaconsiderableperiodintheabsenceofan 0 intentionalabandonmentwillnotamounttoanabandonment,norwillitdestroytrademark   rights,unlessthemarkhasceasedtobedistinctive,andthegoodwillassociatedwithithas ! passedaway,orthemarkhasbecomeidentifiedwithothergoods.[Citationsomitted.]...The "  suspension[ofuseofthetrademark]mustbepresumptivelyatleastattributedtoindisposition       #@   10      #! orinability,ratherthantoanintentiontoabandonvaluablerights8and]itisincumbentupon  thoseallegingthedefenseofabandonmenttoshowthatthetighthadbeenrelinquishedtothe  publicbyclearandconvincingevidence.[Citationsomitted.]  H.` hp x (#` XH  PlaintiffcriticizesDefendantsforaskingtheCourttorelyonthiscaselaw,callingit an p antiquatedlegalstandardthathasbeenwidelyphasedoutPlaintiffsReplytoDefendants `  Oppositionto[Plaintiffs]MotionforSummaryJudgment,note5.Instead,Plaintiffsuggeststhat P  theCourtshouldadopttheRestatement(Third)ofUnfairCompetition,recognizingthat @   trademarkabandonmentoccurswhenapartyceasesusingthetrademarkwithanintentnotto 0  resumeuseofthemark.Plaintiffpointsoutthat29statesbystatutehaveadoptedasimilar  p  definitionoftrademarkabandonment. `  H.$` hp x (#` XH $ WhilethisCourtagreesthatthemodernrestatementmightbemoreclearand business P  friendlythantheMarylandappellateholdingsof65yeatsago,thejobofupdatinglegal @  standardsgenerallyshouldbelefttothelegislature.Therefore,thisCourtwilladheretothe 0  principlesofstaredecisisandapplytheexistingrule.However,thisCourtmaynotshare   DefendantsviewoftheMarylandrule.  H.S` hp x (#$` XH S InreviewingtheMarylandrule,thisCourtnotesthatthefactsofCorkranandSherwood  differfromthoseinthepresentcase.BothCorkranandSherwoodinvolvedasituation  K1Z` hp x (#S` XKinwhichtheoriginatorofatrademarkinterrupteditsuseofthemark;ineachcase,acompetitor  beganuseofthedisputedmarkandtheoriginatorthenreasserteditstightstothemark. b H.(` hp x (#ZXH ( InSherwood,Mr.Hahntheputativeownerofthedisputedtrademarktestifiedasfollows W abouthisdesirein1924tosellhisbusiness: L  ( Prohibitionbythattimelookedlikeitwasheretostay.Thefuturelookedextremelydark 6   ' S:#(` X'      Ӏanddoubtful.8Ithen...turnedmyaccountandeverythingoverandmybooks[toanattorneyfor +{ sale]...andIforgotmymistakeingettingintothewhiskeybusiness. C _    '(` XS'    H.` hp x (#(` XHK1Z` hp x (#` XKSherwood(II).177Md.455,460(1939).Originally,inconsideringthissituation,thehighcourt  stated itisagreedthatabandonmentundercompulsionmaynotforeclosearighttoresumewhen  thecompulsionislifted.Sherwood(I),173Md.173,178(1937).Nofurtherdiscussionofthe  abandonmentwasoffered,asthecasewasremanded.However,aftertheremand,theCourtof {  Appealsinrevisitingthequestionstatedthat k! H.` hp x (#ZXH0  theevidencebeforeusshowsthatMr.Haimandhisassociatesintendedtoabandon,and K#! didabandon,theuseoftheSherwoodtradenameandtrademarksatthetimeofthe ;$" saleofthebusinessinventoryin1924.Theyrelinquishedtheirinterestinthewhiskey +%{ # business,andacquiescedin[anotherbusiness]useofthenameandmarksnotonly &k!$ duringprohibition,butalsofortwoyearsthereafter. '["%(#(# ЇK1Z` hp x (#` XKSherwood(II).177Md.455,at463(1939).WhiletheultimatedecisioninSherwood(II)relies  notonabandonmentpersebutontheabsenceofpublicconfusionaboutthemarks,theCourt  hereseemstohaverecognizedthatanownerspronouncementof nointentionofresumingthe  businesscouldsufficeforafindingofabandonment.  H.` hp x (#ZXH  TheCorkranholdingstates [a]nabandonmentisthevoluntaryandintentionaldisuseor p nonuserofthetrademark.Suchintentionmaybeinferredfromcircumstances...;emphasis `  added.But,thisreferencetocircumstantialevidencecertainlydoesnotprecludetheCourts P  considerationofadirectstatementasevidenceofanintenttoabandon.Cf.,GreyhoundCorp.v. @  Rothman,84F.Supp.233,at240(D.C.Md.1949),holding abandonmentdependsupon 0  intention,eitherexpressorimpliedasevidencebywordsorconduct.  p    ThisCourtagreeswithPlaintiffthatanintenttoabandondoesnotrequireanaffirmative `  publicrenunciationofthetrademark,notdoesitrequiretheexplicituseofthewords Iabandon P  thistrademark.Allthatisneededis thevoluntaryandintentionaldisuse...ofthetrademark @  forasufficientperiodoftime.Howmuchtimeisrequiredforsuchdisuse?WhileMarylandcase 0  lawdoesnotspecifyalengthoftime,thisCourtfindsthatthe8yearsallegedherein"if clear   evidenceofintentisfound" wouldbemorethansufficient.    Indicta,theSherwoodcourtsuggestedthatanunexcusedperiodofdisusepossiblycould  sufficetoindicateabandonmentafteraslittleastwoandonehalfyears.Sherwood,supraat462,  citingTygertAllenFertilizerv.J.F.TygertCo.,191Pa.336,43A.224.Marylandsstatuteon  trademarkabandonment,firstenactedin1954,confirmsthat,despiteregistration,atrademark  maybeabandonedinlessthanthe10yearallowableregistrationperiod,althoughitdoesnot p specifyhowmuchlesstime.SeeChapter63,LawsofMaryland(1954),enactingMarylandCode, ` Art.41,sec.87H(4)(a),nowrecodifledasBusinessRegulationArt.,sec.1412(a)(4). P   Byanalogy,atrademarkoriginatorwhoknewofacompetitorsuseofadisputedmark, @ butfailedtotakeaction,maybebarredfromreliefbylimitationsafter3years.SeeMaryland 0 Code,CourtsandJud.ProceedingsArt.,sec.5101.Amorestrainedanalogymightlooktothe  p commonlawprinciplethatamissingpersonmaybepresumeddeadafter7yearsandhisestate ` disbursed.SeeKrellv.MarylandDrvdockCo.,184Md.428(1945).Bysuchreasoning,this P Courtfindsthatnoreasonablefactfindercouldinferamerelytemporarysuspensionof @ trademarkuse,intheabsenceofcircumstancespreventingorexcusingtheuse,suchasthose 0 discussedinSheridan,supra.     Thuswhittleddown,theremainingmorespecificissuesarethese:Doestheevidence ! offeredforsummaryjudgment1)astoPringlesintenttosellthetrademark,and2)astothe "  allegedpendencyofthattransaction,permitafindingof clearandconvincingintenttoabandon #! thetrademarkorofanexcusefordisuse,asrequiredbyCorkran? $"   Inconsideringthesepoints,theCourtrecognizesthatthesummaryjudgmentstandardof % #  nomaterialdisputeoffactsrequirestheCourttoconsidertheevidenceinthelightmost p&!$ favorabletothenonmovingparty"here,theDefendants.Additionally,thisCourttakesnotethat `'"%   [A]disputeoveranonmaterialfactwillnotprecludesummaryjudgment....[But], @)$' [c]redibilityisnotanissuetobedeterminedonsummaryjudgment.Ingrantingordenyinga 0*%( motionforsummaryjudgment,ajudgemakesnofindingsoffact[butonlyrulingsof  +p&) law]8[T]heproceduremerelydetermineswhetherthereisatriableissueoffact. ,`'* Kingv.Bankerd,303Md.98,at111(1985). -P(+ H.` hp x (#` XH -@), H.` hp x (#` XH  IsamaterialdisputeoffactscreatedbyPringlesfirstaffidavit,whichheclaimshewas   trickedintosigning?Again,thisaffidavitstatedthatMCS fromFebruary,1972,untilabout  July,2001,...operatedunderandusedthetrademarks,servicemarksandtradenamesofMISTER  COFFEE.ThisCourtfindsthisaffidavitambiguousandconclusoryinthenatureofapleading.  Therefore,itcannotsufficetoprovidespecificfactsneededtodefeatthePlaintiffssummary p judgmentmotion.Thefactswhichmustbeexaminedforsummaryjudgmentpurposesarethe `  specificdetailswhichsupportorfailtosupportsuchconclusoryallegations. P    Pringlesaffidavitanddepositionclearlyconfirmtheintentnevertoresumethecoffee @  servicebusinesshimself.(Seefacts,discussedatpp.23ofthisOpinion.) 0    ButwhataboutPringlesintenttosellthemarktoanotherbusinesswhichmightsouse  p  it?PringleandMCSin1993madeoneefforttosellthetrademarktodefendantHale.But,then, `  Pringle didnotattempttoselltheMISTERCOFFEEmarktoanyotherpersonorentityfor P  eightyears.HemadenofollowupwithHaleortheotherdefendantsandtheyhad no @  understanding. 0    PlaintiffsuggeststhattheunexecutedagreementitselftoselltheMISTERCOFFEEmark   didnotconstitute useinthesenseofpubliclyshowingthemarkinserviceorongoods.  However,DefendantscounterthatthesaleagreementunderMarylandlawcouldbeconsidered  completewhenitwasagreedorally.    MarylandsCourtofAppealslongagoruledthat  0  Thequestionwhetherthepartiesnegotiatingacontractintendedtobeboundbytheiroral p agreementbutcontemplatedawritteninstrumentmerelyasevidenceoftheiragreement, ` orwhethertheydidnotintendtobindthemselvesuntilacontractwaspreparedand P signedbythem,mustbedecidedfromthefactsandcircumstancesofeachparticularcase. @ ...Acontract,tobefinal,mustextendtoallthetermswhichthepartiesintendedto 0 introduce,andmaterialtermscannotbeleftforfuturesettlement. p(#(# K1Z` hp x (#` XKPeoplesDrugStoresv.Fenton,191Md.489,at493494(1948);citationsomitted.Whena P contractisunambiguous,itsinterpretationproperlyisamatteroflawforthecourtandnota  questionoffactforajury.E.g.,Sperlingv.Terry214Md.367(1957).Withtheseprinciplesin  mind,thisCourtproceedstoconsiderundisputedevidenceastothetermsoftheallegedcontract X  forssaleofthetrademarks.  !p   H.` hp x (#ZXH  InPringlestestimonyduringtheVirginiaproceeding       $   11     ,healsotestifiedasfollows: "(!    H.` hp x (#` XH      0  Q:...Doyourecallmakingthestatement... WhenIsoldthebusiness,Icalled[defendant $ # Hale]onthetelephoneandIsaid...1hadthetrademarkforsale,andthatswhenhesaid % $ Fine,Illbuyit?&!%(#(#  I)    *` X` X*    0   (#(# 0  A:Yes.x(#'(#(# H.` hp x (#` XHH.` hp x (#` XH  Q:WouldntfromthatyouconcludethatyoudidhaveanagreementwithMr.Hale...? x B.` hp x (#XBH.` hp x (#` XH  A:Yes. X 0  Q:Andthatyoudidhaveandyoudiddowhateverwasnecessarytomaintainthose 8 particularmarks? ((#(# 0  A:Well,therewasnothingnecessarytodotomaintainthosemarksexcepttonotsellthem   Єtosomebodyelse.  (#(# 0  Q:Andsoasaresult,youputthosetrademarksinyourgarage,andyoudidntsellthemto   somebodyelse?x (#(#   A:Thatsright,thatswhatIdid. X  K1Z` hp x (#` XKDefendantsMotionToSupplement,ExhibitB,T196197.ThistestimonybyPringle,offeredby 8 Defendants,showsPringlesintenttocontractin1993.But,itissilentastohissubsequentintent. (x H.` hp x (#ZXH  Plaintiffhasofferedadditionaltestimonyastohislaterintentfromthesametranscript,as X follows: H   Q:...So,from1993until2001,youandMr.Halehadnocontact.Isthatcorrect? (   A:Idontrecallanycontact.      Q:Andin1993,Mr.Haledidnotbuythetrademarksfromyou?...  3  x (#` X3N1` hp x (#  XN0  A: ` Thatsright.P(#(# 0  Q: ` Didyoueverinthatperiod8haveanycontactwithanyoneelseatMr.Hales 0  company? !p(#(# 0  A: ` ...No,Ididnt.#P!(#(# 0  Q: ` Okay,afterMr.Haledidnotbuythetrademarksin1993,didyoutrytosellthe $0 # trademarkstoanybodyelse?% !$(#(# 0  A: ` No.Icouldhavetried,butIdidnt.'#&(#(# K.` hp x (#` XK  Q:AtanytimedidyoutellMr.Halethatyouwantedtoworkforhimoroneofhis )$( companies? *%)   A:Nottomyknowledge. `,'+  P-(,   Q:...DidyoueveroffertosellgoodsandservicestoaclosenetworkoffiendsforMr.Hale?    A....No,Ididnt.Wedidnttalkaboutthat[in1993]....    Q:WereyoueveremployedbyMr.Haleatanytime? p   A:No,Iwasnt. P  K1` hp x (#` XK0  Q: ` ...Duringthisperiodfrom1993toJuly2001,didyoueverreporttoMr.Haleabout 0  youractivities? p (#(# 0  A: ` No,Ididnt8P (#(# 0  A: ` They(AramarktowhomPringlesoldotherbusinessassets)didnthavetoputtheno 0  competeagreementinthereasfarasIwasconcerned,becauseIwasntgoingbackinto   business.(#(# K.` hp x (#` XK0  Q:Why?(#(# K1` hp x (#` XK0  A: ` BecauseImretired.0(#(# 0  Q: ` Peoplewhentheyretiresometimesliketocontinuedoingbusiness.`(#(# 0  A: ` Well,Imnot"Thatstrue,sir,butImnot somepeople.@(#(#   3 x (#` X3K1` hp x (# XK0  Q: ` Sowhenyoudecidedtoretire,youreallydidntwanttocontinuedoinganywork  atall?(#(# K.` hp x (#` XK0  A:Right....x(#(# K1` hp x (#` XK0  A: ` AsfarasIwasconcerned,it[thetrademark]wastheretogo,itwastheretosellif  X I H(#(# K.` hp x (#` XK  wantedtosellit,IdidntwanttoholditforMr.Hale. !8  K1` hp x (#` XK0  Q: ` Okay,soyouwerent...#"(#(# 0  A: ` Mr.Haledidntstopmefromsellingittoanybodyelse.% $(#(# N1Z` hp x (#` XNPlaintiffsOppositiontoDefendantsMotiontoSupplement,T106108,172,and200201 '"& H.` hp x (#ZXH  ThisCourtfindsthatthevariousexpressionsofPringlesintent,eveninthelightmost )h$( favorabletoDefendants,permitonlyonefindingasamatteroflawastothestatusofthe *X%) Pringle/Halecontractdiscussionin1993:Thesepartiesapparently didnotintendtobind *H&* themselvesuntilacontractwaspreparedandsignedbythem,ascontemplatedinPeoplesDrug +8'+ Stores,supra.Thisisdemonstratedbythefacts:1)thatparties1993phonecontractconcluded ,((, withtheplanofsendingawrittenagreement;2)thattheytooknootheractiontoimplementthe -)- allegedcontractwithinareasonableperiodotherthanpreparingthewrittenagreement;3)that  whenthiswasnotcompletedwithinareasonabletime,Pringleavowedlydecidedhehad no  agreementwithMr.Hale;4)thathe didntwanttoholdthetrademarksforMr.Hale;and,5)  that Mr.Haledidntstopmefromsellingittoanyoneelse.Marylandshighcourthas  recognized, Itishornbooklawthatanofferofnospecifieddurationmustbeacceptedwithina p timereasonableunderthecircumstancesortheofferwilllapseandasubsequentattemptto `  acceptwillbeofnoeffect.Barnesv.Euster,240Md.603,606(1965);citationsomitted. P    H.` hp x (#` XH        ElsewhereintheVirginiahearingtranscript,Pringlewasledintoagreeingthatthe @  eventual2001agreementwas sortofthecontinuationof1993and feltlikethe[1993]deal 0  wasbeingfinallyconsummatedafterallthattime.DefendantsMotiontoSupplement,T198  p  199.ThisCourt,however,doesnotfindthatthe sortof...continuationand feltliketestimony `  satisfiesanobjectivebasisforfindingacompletecontract,effectivein1993,inlightofPringles P  statementsthattherewas noagreementcompletedatthattimeandthathewasnotprevented @  fromsellingthetrademarkstoanythirdparty. 0  by    *` X` X*      Didthepossiblependencyofthe1993contractitselfrepresentacontinuationofPringles    useofthetrademarksinbusinesswiththepublic?Eveninthelightofinferencesmost  favorabletoDefendants,thisCourtdoesnotfindthis.Pringleadmittedlyinthistimemadeno  sales,offerednoservices,didnoadvertisingand"astomarketingthetrademarksthemselves  after1993"hehasstated, Icouldhavetried,butIdidnt.Hisdecision,thathe wasntgoing  backintobusinessand wasntgoingtodoanyworkatall,thus,extendedtothenon  marketingofthetrademarksaswell.       %   12      p   ThisCourtholdsthatthefactthatHale,8yearslater,eventuallycontactedPringleand ` thatthisreportedly feltlikethesamecontract"couldnotsufficeliterallytomakeitthesame P contract,muchlesstomakeitretroactivelyeffectiveinrelationtothirdpartiesorthepublic. @ Thereareatleastfour(4)independentreasonsforthisfinding:1)Asdiscussedabove,Pringle 0 hastestifiedclearlyandreasonablythatheconsideredthe1993contracttohavelapsedandnotto  p havebeenbindingonhim,regardlessofhislater feeling.Barnes.supra.2)The2001contract, ` whenmade,wasbasedontermswhichappearmateriallydifferentfromthatdiscussedin1993. P ThenewcontractapparentlywasconditioneduponPringlesagreementtogoandcompletesome  additionalsalesintheyear2001.3)ThenewcontractincludedassignmentofMCStrademark,  whiletheoriginalofferrelatedonlytotheservicemark.4)And,significantly,thepartiesdifferin  thattheoriginalcontractwouldhavebeenwith MisterCoffeeAndServices,Inc.(MCSI),  whilethenewcontractwaswithdefendant148977Canada,Inc. p   Onthislatterpoint,Marylandshighcourthasheld: `  0  Itis...clearthatoneofthenecessarytermstoanyproposedcontractisthepersonwith @  whomthecontractistobemade;consequently,anoffermadetoonepersoncannotbe 0  acceptedbyanother.[Citationsomitted.]And,asapartyhasarighttocontractwith  p  whomhepleases,itmakesnodifferencewhetheritwasimportantfortheofferorto `  contractwithonepersonratherthananother.[Citationomitted.]...[Therefore,whena P  newpartyisofferedtoacontract...]aftersuchsubstitution[it]merelyconstitutedanew @  offer8Routzahnv.Cromer,220Md.65,69(1959).0 (#(#   Defendantsargued,astothislatterpoint,thatparties standingwasnotproperlyraised  byPlaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgment.But,thisCourtfindsthattheissueproperlywas  raisedbyPlaintiffscontentionthatthe2001contractwasanewone.    DefendantsalsoargueanddefendantHalestatesinhisaffidavitthatMCSIanddefendant  K1Z` hp x (#` XK148977Canada,Inc.are relatedcompanies,implyingthatthisissufficienttoconnectthe1993  and2001contracts.ThisCourtisawareoftheconceptof relatedcompaniesforpurposesofthe p federalLanhamAct,Section1055andrelatedsections. Relatedcompany,underthatstatut ` means anypersonwhoseuseofamarkiscontrolledbytheownerofthemarkwithrespectto P thenatureandqualityofthegoodsandservices...inconnectionwithwhichthemarkisused Id @ sec.1127.Sucharelatedcompanyalsomaybereferredtoasa licensee.Reddv 0 Communicationsv.EnvironmentalAction,477F.Supp.936,at944(D.D.C.1979).  p H.` hp x (#ZXH  However,thisCourtrecognizesthattrademarklicenseestatusdoesnotequatetoan ` agencyrelationshipforeverycontractualpurpose.E.g.,Statev.CottmanTransmissions,81 P Md.App.714,at734734,incl.note16(1991).ThisCourthasfoundtheevidenceclearand @ convincingthatadifferentpartyandotherdifferenttermswerepresentedtoPringlein2001in 0 effect,amateriallydifferentcontractoffer.Therefore,toavoidsummaryjudgmentonthispoint,   Defendantsarerequiredtorespondwithcontraryevidence.Havingfailedinthisburden, ! summaryjudgmentisappropriate.Cf.FareDeals.Ltd.v.WorldChoiceTravel.Com.Inc.,180F. "  Supp.2d678,685(D.Md.2001). #!   Forthesereasons,thisCourtwillgrantPlaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgmentonthe % # issueofabandonmentastocounts13oftheComplaint. p&!$   b.Thesignificanceofthe MisterCoffee.comdomainname P(#&   Defendantsalsobaseaclaimfor useofthetrademarkontheexistenceoftheinternet @)$' domainname, MISTERCOFFEE.COM,whichreportedlyhasbeenonlinesinceSeptember 0*%( 1999andwhichisprotectedbythepartiessettlementagreementastopreviousCanadian  +p&) litigation.ThislegalquestionappearstobeoneoffirstimpressioninMaryland. ,`'*   ThisCourtdoesnotfindthedomainnametobeuseofthedisputedMarylandtrademark -P(+ sufficienttoavoidtheabandonmentfindingfortworeasons: -@),   1)ThisdomainnameneverwasusedbyPringleandMCSinconnectionwiththe  Marylandtrademarkand,therefore,Defendantsuseofthedomainnamecouldnotbetackedon  tosavethetrademarksabandonedbyPringleandMCS.    2)However,theevidenceprovidedonsummaryjudgmentdoesnotevensufficetoprove  useinconnectionwithtradeorservicesinMarylandofthedomainnamebythenamed p defendants.Themereexistenceofsuchaninternetsitedoesnotsufficetoshowactualusefor `  anybusiness,asamatterofcommonsenseandasdiscoveredtothechagrinofhordesof P   dot.buststockinvestors. @    CompareAmericanInformationCorporationv.AmericanInfometrics.Inc.,139F.Supp. 0  2d696,699700(D.Md.2001),holdingthat [a]nentirelypassiveWebsitecannotcreate  p  jurisdictioninMarylandsimplybecauseitistheoreticallyavailabletoWebusersinMaryland `  andeverywhereelse.[Citationsomitted.]...EvenapassiveWebsitethatusessomeoneelses P  trademarkasanaddressdoesnotnecessarilygeneratejurisdiction..[Citationsomitted.]...[Thisis @  particularlytrue]intheabsenceofanyshowingthatanyoneinMarylandhasever[usedtheWeb 0  site].     c.PlaintiffsmotionforsummaryjudgmentastotheCounterclaim    PlaintiffcontendsthatDefendantscounterclaimsofunfaircompetition,falsedesignation  oforigin,andreverseconfusionundertheLanhamActarebarred,insofarastheyarisefrom  assignmentfromPringleandMCS,duetotheabandonmentofthemarkin1993andlaches.    DefendantsclaimthatPringleandMCSbeganusingtheMisterCoffeenamein1972, p beforePlaintiffs.AccordingtoDefendants,PringleandMCSmaintainedachainoftitletothe ` markanddidnotabandonit,asevidencedbytheregistrationrenewalin2002andthe P mistercoffee.comwebsite.DefendantscontendthatPlaintiffsregistrationofthemarkin1974 @ postdatedDefendantsuseandPlaintiffhasbeenunfairlycompetingwithDefendantand 0 violatingtheLanhamActforthepastthirtyyears.  p   Theequitabledoctrineoflachesmaybaranotherwisevalidclaimofinfringementifthe ` claimantsubstantiallydelaysprosecutionoftheclaimwithoutexcuse.LyonsPartnership.L.P.v. P MorrisCostumes.Inc.,243F.3d789(4thCir.2001);seealsoBriggsv.WixCorp.,308F.Supp. @ 162(D.C.Ill.1969).Intheinstantcase,Defendantshaveprovidednoevidencethatthey 0 attemptedtohaltPlaintiffsuseofthemarkforthirtyyears       &   13     orthattheywerepreventedfrom   doingso,despiteknowingaboutitsuse.ToallowDefendantscounterclaimnowwouldunduly ! prejudicePlaintiffs.UnderMarylandlaw,theinferencethatPringleandMCSabandonedthe "  marksonlyisstrengthenedbyDefendantsavermentthatPlaintiffsmadeconflictinguseof #! essentiallysimilarmarksinthesameperiod;manyyearsago,theSherwoodcourtstated: $" 0  theacquiescenceofanoriginalproprietorofatrademarkintheuseofitbyanotheris p&!$ evidenceofanabandonment.Iftheownerofatrademarkstandsbyandallowsothersto `'"% useitundersuchcircumstancesthathiscontinuedattitudeofnoninterferencemay P(#& reasonablybeinferredhecannotcauseothers,whohaveacteduponthestrengthofhis  silenceandinaction,tolosetheresultsoftheirworkandthemoneytheyhaveexpended.  [Citationomitted.]Nonuserofatrademarkbytheoriginalowner,togetherwithan  extensiveuseofitbyanyoneelse,constitutesabandonmentandconfersuponthe  appropriatortheexclusiverighttoit.p(#(# K1Z` hp x (#` XKSherwood.supraat462.Wheretheappropriatoreffectivelyhasreliedonthisacquiescencefarin P  excessofthethree(3)yearperiodoflimitations,lacheswillberecognizedasadefense.E.g.,Ver @  Bryckev.VerBrycke150Md.App.623(2003). 0   Z   Additionally,whetherornotDefendantsortheirassignorsmadesomeattempttoprevent `  Plaintiffsuseofthemarkforthirtyyears,abandonmentdestroysprioruseofatrademark. P  EmergencyOne.Inc.v.AmericanEagleFireApparatusCo.,332F.3d264(4thCir.2003)citing @  J.ThomasMcCarthy,McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition,~16:1,16.18(4thed. 0  2003).Consistentwiththefindingssupratheexistenceofthemistercoffee.comdomainname   doesnotsufficetopreventabandonmentofthemark.Further,theregistrationrenewalin2002  doesnotevidenceanunbrokenchainoftitletothemarkbecauseDefendantspredecessors  PringleandMCSabandonedthemarkin1993whentheyfailedtoreachacompletesale  agreement,chosenolongertoattemptanysaleofthemark,andchosenevertoresumeuseofthe  marksinbusiness.Thus,asthisCourthasfoundabove,themarkswereabandonedbyPringle  andMCS,whosevestigialrightswerenotacquiredbyDefendantsuntil2001. p   3 x (#ZX3K1` hp x (#XK0  AnOrderconsistentwiththeforegoingOpinionisattached.(x(#(# 9 Zp x (#X90 Z _________________________HZ(#Z(# 0 Z PHILIPCAROOM,JUDGE`Z(#Z(#  K1Z` hp x (#ZXKcc:allcounsel   -(- Ї3  x (#ZX3  N1)` hp x (#  XN0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 )  )(#)(# 0 ) SUNBEAMPRODUCTS,INC.)(#)(#   <" fKp x (#)X<   f * K INTHE x   N.` hp x (#fKpXN0  Plaintiff Z(#(#   <" fKp x (#` X<0  0f(#(#* K CIRCUITCOURT"f(#f(# 0  0f(#(#*f(#f(# B" }\Yp x (#fKpXB } vs.  \ * Y FOR b B" fKp x (#}\YpXB  148977CANADA,INC.and f * K  ,|    f  K ANNEARUNDEL COUNTY F < x (#fKpX<  ROBERTHALE      ?" fKp x (#X?   f * K CASENO.C0285666  !   N.` hp x (#fKpXN0  DefendantsR!"(#(#   ORDERASTOMOTIONSFORSUMMARYJUDGMENTAND #% PROVIDINGDECLARATORYRELIEF r$&   H.` hp x (#` XH  ForthereasonsstatedintheforegoingOpinion,itisonthis8thofMarch,2004,bythe &R!( CircuitCourtforAnneArundelCounty,Maryland,ORDERED: &B")   1.ThatDefendantsMotiontoSupplementtherecordhereinisgranted,asisPlaintiffs ("$+ counterrequesttosupplementcontainedinPlaintiffsOppositiontothatmotion; )%,   2.ThatDefendantsMotionforSummaryJudgmentherebyisdenied; +&.   3.ThatPlaintiffsMotionforSummaryJudgment,seekingdismissaloftheCounterclaim, -(0 herebyisgranted;    4.ThatPlaintiffsMotionforSummaryJudgmentastoCounts1,11andIllofits  Complaintisgranted,asfollows:    a.ThattheCourtherebydeclaresthatthereisnomaterialdisputeoffactthatMister `  CoffeeServices,Inc.[MCS]abandoneduseofthetrademarkandservicemark Mister P  CoffeeintheStateofMarylandpriorto2001,despiteMCSownershipofMarylandtrademark @  registrationnumber19927442andMarylandservicemarkregistrationnumber1992S2956;and 0    b.That,duetothisCourtsfindingofabandonmentofMarylandtrademarkregistration `  number19927442andMarylandservicemarkregistrationnumber1992S2956,thisCourt P  herebygivesnoticetotheSecretaryofStateofMarylandpursuanttoMarylandCode,Business @  RegulationArticle,sec.1412(a)thatsaidmarkswereabandonedpriorto2001and,therefore, 0  thatrenewalregistrations20020098and20020099weregrantedimproperlytodefendant   148977Canada.Inc.    3  x (#` X3K.` hp x (#  XK  5.That,astotheremainingcountIVoftheComplaintherein,thepartiesshallproceedas x previouslydirectedbypretrialorderherein,unlessthematterpreviouslyissettled. h    `     h      p __________________________ X    `     h      p PHILIPCAROOM,JUDGE  H   H. hp x (#` XH  cc: allcounsel (x K.` hp x (# XK   ` SecretaryofStateoftheStateofMaryland