Ryback and WWE Involved In Legal Battle Over Name, WWE Responds

Former Intercontinental Champion Ryback Reeves is currently battling WWE over ownership of the Ryback name.

Following his departure from WWE, he legally changed his name from Ryan Reeves to Ryback Reeves. He is now battling the company for ownership of the trademark.

WWE initially applied for the Ryback trademark in 2011, renewing the filing in 2019, three years after Reeves left the company.

Reeves filed a petition with The United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel WWE’s registration, indicating WWE is falsely connecting his persona with the company. We also says he did not provide WWE written consent to utilize the name.

On May 15, 2019, Reeves filed an application to gain ownership of the name, the trademark office has yet to grant him ownership due to ongoing legal proceedings between him and WWE.

Ryback has been open about the battle on Twitter, stating “I want everyone to see how petty @wwe is. A trademark that they renewed the last day so I couldn’t get it for a minimal fee and one they don’t use anymore and haven’t used in games, MERCH etc. I am the trademark and created prior to working there. Let it go and let’s move on!”

HeelByNature.com has obtained legal documents pertaining to the case, which can be read below. Ryback’s filing was made on 7/27, and WWE responded on 9/4.

We have transcribed the document to include Ryback’s claim, with WWE’s response below.

RYBACK’S ANSWER TO PETITION TO CANCEL EXISTING WWE TRADEMARK REGISTRATION

Ryback

• Reeves applied for the mark RYBACK (“Reeves Mark”) in the United States, Application Serial No. 88431776 in Class 41 for “Conducting entertainment exhibitions in the nature of performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer; Education services, namely, providing live and on-line classes and workshops in the fields of exercise, fitness, and personal improvement; Entertainment information; Entertainment services, namely, personal appearances by a sports celebrity; Physical fitness training services; Providing fitness instruction services in the field of sports training; Educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational and educational speakers; Entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring photographic, video and prose presentations featuring inspirational and motivational Petition to Cancel
  Page 1 of 6 information, personal improvement information, fitness training and nutrition information, entertainment information, and sports information; Providing a website featuring information on exercise and fitness” (“Reeves Application”).

WWE Response

• Registrant admits that the online records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) show that Petitioner filed an application to register the mark Ryback and that the application was assigned Serial No. 88431776. Registrant further responds that the file history for Application No. 88431776 speaks for itself as to the services covered by the application.

Ryback

• Petitioner is informed and believes that World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Registrant” or “WWE”) is the owner of record of Registration No. 4,262,738 for the mark RYBACK (“RYBACK Mark” or “Registration”) in Class 41 for, “Entertainment services, namely, wrestling exhibitions and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer; providing wrestling news and information via a global computer network.”

WWE Response

• Registrant admits that it is the owner of U.S. Registration No. 4,262,738 for the mark Ryback in Class 41 for “Entertainment services, namely, wrestling exhibitions and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer; providing wrestling new and information via a global computer network.”

Ryback 

• To the best of Petitioner’s knowledge, the name and address of the current owner of the Registration is: World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc, 1241 East Main Street Stamford, Connecticut 06902. No email address is known for the Registrant.

WWE Response

• Registrant admits that it is the current owner of U.S. Registration No. 4,262,738 and that its business address is 1241 East Main Street, Stamford, Connecticut 06902.

Ryback 

• The Examining Attorney for the Reeves Application cited the Registration as likely to be confused with the Reeves Application pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(d) and issued a refusal to register the Reeves Application on that basis.

WWE Response

• Registrant admits that the online records of the USPTO show that Petitioner’s application for Ryback was refused by the USPTO under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. Registrant further responds that the file history for Application No. 88431776 speaks for itself and Registrant respectfully refers the Board to the complete file history of the referenced application for the full content thereof.

Ryback

• The Registration is likely to cause injury to Petitioner and Petitioner’s rights in the Reeves Mark and the Reeves Application.
  SECTION 2(C): NAME IDENTIFYING A PARTICULAR LIVING INDIVIDUAL

WWE Response

• Denied.

NAME IDENTIFYING A PARTICULAR LIVING INDIVIDUAL

Ryback

• Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every paragraph of this Petition to Cancel as if set forth here in full.

WWE Response

• WWE incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Petition as if set forth fully herein.

Ryback

•  Reeves has been using the name RYBACK as a professional wrestler since at least as early as October 2008 while wrestling for Ohio Valley Wrestling.

WWE Response

• WWE is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Petition and, for that reason, denies them.

Ryback

• When WWE filed the application for the RYBACK Mark on October 12, 2011, the name RYBACK unquestionably referred to Petitioner Ryback Reeves. Petition to Cancel Page 2 of 6

WWE Response

• Denied.

Ryback

• In fact, on November 12, 2012 WWE submitted screen shots of a webpage featuring videos of Reeves wresting under the name Ryback as Registrant’s Specimen of use for the Registration.

WWE Response

• WWE admits that it submitted a specimen of use for U.S. Registration No. 4,262,738 on November 12, 2012. WWE denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Petition insofar as they refer to and purport to characterize the specimen of use which is publicly available through the USPTO website. Registrant respectfully refers the Board to the complete file history of the referenced registration for the full content thereof. WWE further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Petition to the extent Petitioner’s allegation is that WWE’s Ryback mark refers to a particular living individual.

Ryback

• Trademark Act Section 2(c) bars registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register of an applied-for mark that consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular individual without that individual’s written consent.

WWE Response

• The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, WWE denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition as an incomplete description of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c).

Ryback

• Section 2(c) applies not only to the full name of an individual, but also to any first name, surname, shortened name, pseudonym, stage name, title, or nickname that identifies a particular living individual.

WWE Response

• The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, WWE denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition.

Ryback

• Reeves never consented to the registration of the mark RYBACK by WWE.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• There is no written consent signed by Reeves of record in the file-wrapper of the Registration.

WWE Response

• WWE admits that it did not submit a written consent by Petitioner in connection with Registration No. 4,262,738. WWE denies that it was required to submit any such consent.

Ryback

• RYBACK is in Petitioner’s own application for the mark RYBACK, in Application Serial No. 88431776.

WWE Response

• Denied.

Ryback

Registration No. 4,262,738 is therefore barred under Section 2(c) and should be cancelled. SECTION 2(A): FALSE SUGGESTION OF A CONNECTION

WWE Response

The allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Petition set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, WWE denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Petition.

FALSE SUGGESTION OF A CONNECTION

Ryback

• Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every paragraph of this Petition to Cancel as if set forth here in full.

WWE Response

• WWE incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Petition as if set forth fully herein.

Ryback

• When WWE filed the application for the RYBACK Mark on October 12, 2011, the name RYBACK unquestionably referred to Petitioner Ryback Reeves. The only written consent signed by Reeves consenting to the registration of Petition to Cancel Page 3 of 6

WWE Response

• Denied.

Ryback.

• At the time WWE filed file the application for the RYBACK Mark, the mark would have been recognized as pointing uniquely and unmistakably to Reeves.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• Reeves is no longer connected with the services of WWE and has not been for nearly four (4) years.

WWE Response

• WWE admits that Petitioner has not been under contract with WWE since in or around August 2016. WWE denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Petition

Ryback

• Reeves’s connection would be presumed when WWE uses the RYBACK mark.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• Trademark Act Section 2(a) bars registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register of a designation that consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.

WWE Response

• The allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Petition set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, WWE denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Petition as an incomplete description of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).

Ryback

• Registration No. 4,262,738 is therefore barred under Section 2(a) and should be cancelled.

WWE Response

• The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Petition set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, WWE denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Petition.

ABANDONMENT

Ryback

Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every paragraph of this Petition to Cancel as if set forth here in full.

WWE Response

WWE incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 22 of the Petition as

Ryback

• On information and belief, the mark in the Registration has been discontinued by Registrant in the United States for the services set out in the Registration with no intent to resume such use.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• By virtue of the Registrant’s abandonment of the RYBACK Mark, the Registration should be cancelled.

WWE Response

• Denied

FRAUD

Ryback

• Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every paragraph of this Petition to Cancel as if set forth here in full.

WWE Response

• WWE incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Petition as if set forth fully herein.

Ryback

• On June 18, 2019, WWE filed a Section 8 declaration of continued use of the RYBACK Mark (“Section 8 Declaration”) for the following services, “Entertainment services, namely, wrestling exhibitions and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer; providing wrestling news and information via a global computer network” (“Section 8 Services”).

WWE Response

• Admitted

Ryback

• As examples of use, WWE submitted a screen shot of its website with a photograph of Reeves next to the name Ryback. Registrant also submitted screens shots from a video of Reeves wrestling.

WWE Response

• WWE admits that it submitted a specimen of use for U.S. Registration No. 4,262,738 on June 18, 2019. WWE denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Petition insofar as they refer to and purport to characterize the specimen of use which is publicly available through the USPTO website. Registrant respectfully refers the Board to the complete file history of the referenced registration for the full content thereof. WWE further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Petition to the extent Petitioner’s allegation is that WWE’s Ryback mark refers to a particular living individual.

Ryback

• On June 18, 2019, when the Section 8 Declaration was filed, Reeves had not been
  working with WWE for nearly three (3) years.

WWE Response

• WWE admits that Petitioner has not been under contract with WWE since in or around August 2016. WWE denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Petition.

Ryback

• On June 18, 2019, when the Section 8 Declaration was filed, the examples of use
  provided by WWE were more than three (3) years old.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• The Section 8 declaration contained several false representations to the USPTO, including the false claim that WWE was using the mark Ryback in U.S. Commerce for the Section 8 Services on June 18, 2019.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• On June 18, 2019, WWE knew that Reeves had not worked with WWE for nearly three (3) years.

WWE Response

• WWE admits that Petitioner has not been under contract with WWE since in or around August 2016. WWE denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Petition.

Ryback

• On June 18, 2019, WWE knew that it was not using the name RYBACK, for, “wrestling exhibitions and performances by a professional wrestler and entertainer” or for, “providing wrestling news and information via a global computer network.”

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• In the Section 8 Declaration, WWE made the false representations to the USPTO with the intent to deceive the USPTO.

WWE Response

• Denied

Ryback

• By virtue of the WWE’s fraud in filing the Section 8 Declaration, the Registration should be cancelled.

WWE Response

• The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Petition set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, WWE denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Petition.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

WWE Response

In further answer to the Cancellation, Registrant asserts that:
1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon which relief may be granted.
2. Petitioner does not own any rights in the Ryback mark.
3. The Petition is barred by the doctrine of wavier.
4. The Petition is barred by the doctrine of consent.
5. The Petition is barred by unclean hands, namely Petitioner’s breach of his written
agreements with WWE.
6. Petitioner has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish priority of use.
7. Petitioner has failed to allege facts sufficient to suggest a false connection
between WWE and the Ryback mark.
8. Petitioner has failed to alleged sufficient facts to establish fraud on the USPTO.
9. Registrant has not committed fraud on the USPTO.
10. Petitioner has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the Ryback mark
identifies Petitioner.

Ryback recently held a Twitter Q&A, expressing harsh words towards Vince McMahon and Triple H. He states McMahon created a “human circus”, and believes the “world would be a better place when he passes.”

---

If you plan to aggregate this report, please credit HeelByNature.com for the transcription with a link back to this article.