Most recent court case proves CFFC v. Adidas isn’t applicable – it was about what could get regulated by Congress, not trademarks.
*CFFC v. Adidas was not about trademarks, just what could get regulated by Congress*
USPTO 23 – United States Patent and Trademark Office, 11-1-2023, " Adamson Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Peavey Electronics Corporation", Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92076586-CAN-51.pdf /$antiP/
Respondent tries to liken its de minimis domestic sales from 2016-2021 to Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas, where a church’s pre-registration sale of two hats bearing its mark sufficed to support registration of the mark.83 As Petitioner correctly observes, however, that case did not concern abandonment, but the scope of commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress.84 Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG, 841 F.3d 986, 120 USPQ2d 1640 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ahal Al-Sara Group for Trading v. American Flash, Inc., 2023 USPQ2d 79, *7-8 (TTAB 2023). Respondent’s sales to dealers in the United States and Puerto Rico fall within that scope, but from 2016-2021, fell to de minimis or zero, year to year.