Bearhawk Aircraft seeks district review of a TTAB default judgment on four BEARHAWK-formative applications

What was filed

Bearhawk Aircraft, Inc. v. Robert Barrows, No. 7:26-cv-00884 (W.D. Va., Roanoke Division), is an Original Complaint filed November 3, 2026, ECF No. 1 (18 pages). The plaintiff is Bearhawk Aircraft, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Fairview, Oklahoma. The defendant is named as Robert Barrows, an individual domiciled in Fincastle, Virginia, who does business under the assumed name R&B Aircraft Co. The complaint invokes jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). It says the TTAB entered its final decision on September 2, 2026, and that the suit was commenced within the period 37 C.F.R. § 2.145(d)(3) requires, without an appeal to the Federal Circuit under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a). It says Bearhawk Aircraft moved the Board under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to set aside the default judgment, that the motion was still pending when the complaint was filed, and that it brought this action to preserve its right to de novo review. The docket record lists the case as assigned to District Judge Robert S. Ballou.

The applications and Board opposition

The complaint says Bearhawk Aircraft filed four Subject Applications on July 30, 2025: Serial No. 99310499 for BEARHAWK AIRCRAFT and Design (bear's head with wings above the word BEARHAWK); Serial No. 99310517 for BEARHAWK OUTFITTER; Serial No. 99311130 for BEARHAWK PATROL; and Serial No. 99311141 for BEARHAWK COMPANION, each for airplanes and structural parts therefor in International Class 12 (the prayer describes the BEARHAWK PATROL goods as airplanes not for military use and structural parts for airplanes). It alleges the applications published for opposition on January 13 and 20, 2026, that the defendant filed Notice of Opposition No. 91307326 on May 13, 2026, asserting priority, likelihood of confusion, and fraud, that Bearhawk Aircraft's then counsel received notice but Bearhawk Aircraft was never told an answer was due, that the Board issued a notice of default on July 23, 2026, and that the TTAB entered a Default Judgment on September 2, 2026, after which the applications were abandoned. USPTO TSDR lists Serial Nos. 99310499, 99310517, and 99311141 as abandoned after an inter partes decision, with an abandonment date of September 2, 2026, and lists Bearhawk Aircraft Inc. as owner; the TTABVUE record for the opposition lists all four applications, including Serial No. 99311130, as abandoned after inter partes decision. The complaint also cites U.S. Registration No. 7,711,440 for BEARHAWK AIRCRAFT; TSDR shows that registration live, registered March 4, 2025, owned by Bearhawk Aircraft Inc., for airplanes and structural parts therefor in Class 12. It further says the defendant previously abandoned U.S. Registration No. 2,040,322 for BEARHAWK in Class 12; TSDR shows that registration cancelled November 29, 2003, because the registrant did not file an acceptable Section 8 declaration, and lists the defendant as its owner.

The TTABVUE prosecution history for Opposition No. 91307326 shows the opposition filed and instituted on May 13, 2026, a notice of default on July 23, 2026, a Board decision sustaining the opposition and termination of the proceeding on September 2, 2026, an appearance and a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 filed by Bearhawk Aircraft on October 12, 2026, the opposer's response to that motion on October 31, 2026, and an entry noting the appeal to district court on November 4, 2026. TTABVUE lists the proceeding's status as pending court appeal.

What the complaint alleges

Bearhawk Aircraft alleges that a prior aircraft-kit maker used the BEARHAWK name under licenses with the defendant beginning in 2000, that Bearhawk Aircraft acquired that business on or about February 2, 2024, and that a 2020 license lacked quality-control provisions. It alleges, among other things, that the defendant later authorized operation under BEARHAWK AIRCRAFT KITS without quality control, then demanded that use stop, and that any trademark rights in BEARHAWK for airplanes and structural parts were abandoned. It further alleges that even if rights remained, there is no likelihood of confusion between its Class 12 kits and the defendant's aircraft design plans, and that it committed no fraud on the USPTO. It alleges, on information and belief, that kit buyers carefully evaluate the kit and its manufacturer before buying and that none of the defendant's customers has reported confusion, and it says Bearhawk Aircraft has received no reports of actual confusion.

The count and relief

Count I seeks a declaratory judgment under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 that each Subject Application is registrable and that Bearhawk Aircraft is entitled to registration. The prayer asks the court to declare registrable Serial Nos. 99310499, 99310517, 99311130, and 99311141 for the identified Class 12 goods, and for such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The docket shows electronic summons issued as to the defendant, a negative corporate disclosure statement, and a clerk's patent/trademark report, through November 4, 2026.