⚖️ Files federal trademark or copyright suits

SCOTT PAPER COMPANY

Trademark enforcement profile · on record 1970–2003

SCOTT PAPER COMPANY has filed federal trademark or copyright enforcement actions. On record (1970–2003): 7 federal trademark or copyright lawsuits; 78 oppositions and cancellation petitions at the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (prevailed in 77% of merits decisions).

Data summary based on public records (USPTO TTAB proceedings and PACER/CourtListener federal court dockets). Figures reflect filings on record, not a characterization of the merits or good faith of any individual action. Not legal advice.

Before you list

Selling anything that might resemble their marks?

Check your design against SCOTT PAPER COMPANY's registered marks — and 13M+ others — before you list.

Check your design free

Free trial · no card · 3 checks that never expire

Federal court filings

0
Schedule-A cases
naming online sellers as defendants
7
Federal trademark cases
nature-of-suit 840
0
Federal copyright cases
nature-of-suit 820

At the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

61
Oppositions
under 15 U.S.C. §1063
17
Cancellation petitions
under 15 U.S.C. §1064
36
Prevailed
on the merits, by default, or by abandonment
11
Did not prevail
adverse ruling on the merits
30
Settled / withdrawn
ended without a Board ruling on the merits

Prevailed in 77% of proceedings the Board actually decided on the merits (settled and withdrawn proceedings excluded from this calculation).

Designs SCOTT PAPER COMPANY has opposed

Real trademark applications SCOTT PAPER COMPANY challenged at the USPTO — the kind of design that draws an opposition. If your artwork looks like one of these, expect pushback. Each links to its USPTO docket.

Source: USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board records. “Prevailed” means SCOTT PAPER COMPANY got the outcome it sought; settled/withdrawn cases ended without a Board ruling on the merits. Images from public USPTO records.

Marks SCOTT PAPER COMPANY has asserted in proceedings

WYPALL
WYPALL
asserted in 4 proceedings
THIRSTY FIBRE
THIRSTY FIBRE
asserted in 2 proceedings
DURA-WEVE
DURA-WEVE
asserted in 1 proceedings
trademark
asserted in 1 proceedings
SCOTKINS
SCOTKINS
asserted in 1 proceedings
SANI-FRESH
SANI-FRESH
asserted in 1 proceedings
trademark
asserted in 1 proceedings
SANI-FRESH
SANI-FRESH
asserted in 1 proceedings
MarkSerialProceedings
BABY FRESHtext724584668
COTTONELLEtext724254237
SCOTTtext722498795
VIVAtext737203474
WYPALL730699294
TRANSKOTEtext723932243
AMERICANtext721739993
CONFIDETStext720588793
ACCENTStext732784463
EUROBATHtext736463032
THIRSTY FIBRE716551662
MEALMATEStext732604751
COMMODOREtext734998171
WASHKINStext737019671
RALLYtext722687701
FIESTAtext740747331
DURA-WEVE717005321
ARTS N' FLOWERStext724574801
SOFT TOUCHtext734358311
(design-only mark)731917661
SCOTKINS716147271
SCOTTtext731187071
PETALOtext735960931
(design-only mark)text730326811
PRESTIGEtext733428351
SANI-PREPtext733120071
SANI-FRESH734102501
ALCO-SANtext734043991
THE PROTECTORtext740493261
PROCAREtext734640271
TUFF WIPEStext746140511
(design-only mark)740688041
ADVANCEtext736165501
SANI-FRESH737699911

From public USPTO records. A mark is listed when it appears as a senior asserted mark in TTAB or federal-court proceedings on file. Serial links open the USPTO TSDR record.

Selling a design that may resemble SCOTT PAPER COMPANY’s registered marks?

Run a visual similarity check against SCOTT PAPER COMPANY’s registered marks — and 13M+ other USPTO trademark images — before you list. Takes about 10 seconds.

Run a free visual check

FAQ

Data sources: publicly published USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings (1951–2026, with possible gaps before electronic filing) and U.S. federal court dockets (PACER/CourtListener, nature-of-suit codes 840 and 820). Figures reflect filings on record and do not characterize the merits, validity, or legitimacy of any individual action by SCOTT PAPER COMPANY. Trademark holders have legal rights — and in some doctrines, an obligation — to enforce registered marks. This page does not provide legal advice; consult licensed counsel for case-specific questions. See the full leaderboard.