Two Gage Trademark Proceedings, One Federal-Register Picture

Post-judgment status of TTAB 91278331 and the May 11, 2026 SOU deadline on Serial 87695693

LAW Intelligence Research Division · LAW Intelligence 2(8) · 2026

Two Gage Trademark Proceedings, One Federal-Register Picture: Post-Judgment Status of TTAB 91278331 and the May 11, 2026 SOU Deadline on Serial 87695693

Abstract

This paper synthesizes the post-judgment federal-trademark posture of the GAGE / GAGE GREEN / GAGE GREEN GROUP marks following the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's May 6, 2026 final judgment with prejudice in Opposition No. 91278331 and the structurally inverse outcome of Opposition No. 91252169 (final decision April 29, 2025, dismissed on priority grounds). The two proceedings are caption-inverse companions: in 91252169, Michael Fong's entities (Gage Specialties LLC, Fang LLC, Gage Prestige Holdings LLC) opposed Gage Growth Corp.'s Section 1(b) intent-to-use application for GAGE (Serial No. 87695693); in 91278331, Gage Growth Corp. opposed Gage Specialties / Fang / Gage Prestige's later applications (Serials 90324487, 90746550, 97251818). Read together, the proceedings produce a paradoxical federal-register picture: Gage Growth Corp.'s 87695693 application emerged from 91252169 with priority over Gage Prestige's evidentiary record but cannot lawfully claim use in commerce under the federal Controlled Substances Act, while Gage Prestige's three applications cleared 91278331 by failure-to-prosecute default and now proceed toward registration. The picture is sharpened by Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) data: Serial 87695693's Notice of Allowance issued November 11, 2025; the Section 1(b) Statement of Use deadline is May 11, 2026 — forty-eight hours from the publication of this paper — with no SOU on file as of the captured TSDR snapshot. This paper documents the procedural record, the doctrinal mechanics (TTAB Rule 2.128(a)(3), the lawful-use doctrine in cannabis trademark law, and the Lanham Act SOU window), and the three plausible scenarios at the SOU deadline. No legal conclusions are asserted. The record is assembled for determination by the appropriate authorities and for tracking by the public.

Introduction

The two Gage trademark proceedings have, until now, been examined separately. Paper 016 ("What Is Gage Cannabis?") traced the brand-acquisition chain. Paper 017 ("Lawfare and Corporate Espionage in the Gage TTAB Proceedings") analyzed the litigation tactics across both proceedings. Paper 018 ("The Gage Cannabis Extractive Chain") followed the corporate flow of capital. None of those papers had the benefit of the May 6, 2026 final judgment in 91278331 — it had not yet issued. This paper closes that gap and adds a third dimension the prior papers could not address: the federal-register picture that emerges when the two proceedings' outcomes are read against the live status of Serial 87695693 in the USPTO's intent-to-use system.

The thesis is straightforward and follows directly from the documentary record:

1. The Gage Growth Corp. application that survived 91252169 is a Section 1(b) intent-to-use application. It carries no claim of actual use in commerce. To register, it must convert to use through a Statement of Use within a six-month window from the November 11, 2025 Notice of Allowance, extendable up to five times.

2. The cannabis goods and services claimed in Serial 87695693 — printed publications about medical cannabis, physician referral services for medical marijuana, online bulletin boards about cannabis, educational services about medical cannabis, websites about cannabis, medical counselling about medical marijuana — are activities that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in the same proceeding (91252169), held cannot establish trademark priority for the opposing party because they are not lawful under the Controlled Substances Act.

3. The same lawful-use barrier that defeated Gage Prestige's priority claim against 87695693 will operate symmetrically on Gage Growth Corp.'s ability to demonstrate lawful use of 87695693 in commerce.

4. Gage Growth Corp.'s parent, TerrAscend Corp., publicly disclosed in March 2026 that it had completely exited the Michigan cannabis market in August 2025 — closing all twenty dispensaries, terminating approximately 250 employees, and writing the acquired Gage trademark down to zero. The structural commercial use needed to perfect 87695693 is not currently being undertaken by the registrant.

5. The May 11, 2026 deadline thus presents a discrete decision: file a Statement of Use that the record cannot support, file an Extension Request that buys time but accrues "good cause" pressure, or file nothing — in which case the application abandons by operation of law.

This paper documents the procedural record from primary sources, walks the doctrinal mechanics, and describes the three scenarios at the deadline. It does not predict the outcome. The deadline will be observed publicly through TSDR within forty-eight hours of publication. A short follow-up note will record the actual disposition.

I. Background and Procedural History

A. The Two Proceedings, Captioned

The federal-trademark dispute between the original Gage Green Group brand holders and the Gage Growth Corp. corporate chain was litigated in two TTAB proceedings with inverse captions.

In Opposition No. 91252169, the plaintiff-opposers were Gage Specialties LLC, Fang LLC, and Gage Prestige Holdings LLC; the defendant-applicant was Gage Growth Corp. The mark at issue was GAGE, Serial No. 87695693, filed under Section 1(b) on an intent-to-use basis. Michael Fong appeared pro se for the opposers; Brian Landry and Erin Westbrook of Saul Ewing LLP represented Gage Growth Corp. The notice of opposition was filed November 4, 2019. Final disposition issued April 29, 2025 — opposition dismissed in a non-precedential opinion authored by Judge Elgin. The outcome ran against Gage Prestige's side, on priority.

In Opposition No. 91278331, the captions were inverse: Gage Growth Corp. was the plaintiff-opposer, and Gage Specialties / Fang LLC / Gage Prestige Holdings were the defendant-applicants. The marks at issue were GAGE, GAGE GREEN, and GAGE GREEN GROUP, on Serial Nos. 90324487, 90746550, and 97251818 respectively. Counsel were the same — Saul Ewing LLP for Gage Growth Corp., Michael Fong pro se for the applicants — but in inverted seats. Final disposition issued May 6, 2026 — judgment with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The outcome ran against Gage Growth Corp.'s side, on procedure rather than merits.

The two proceedings test different questions. 91252169 asked whether Gage Prestige et al. could prove priority of common-law use sufficient to block Gage Growth Corp.'s GAGE application. 91278331 asked the opposite — whether Gage Growth Corp. could overcome Gage Prestige's later applications. The first question was reached on the merits; the second, on procedure.

B. TTAB 91252169 — Final Decision (April 29, 2025)

Primary source: TTAB final decision, mailed April 29, 2025, vaulted at SHA-256 44f9b459928bff31e99f12290b7a080caa0231b6d05e2ca9222c28b79c0d18aa (entry 78 in the TTABVUE docket).

The Board's panel — Judges Lykos, English, and Elgin, with the opinion authored by Judge Elgin — issued a non-precedential opinion designated Gage Specialties LLC, Fang LLC, and Gage Prestige Holdings LLC v. Gage Growth Corp. The opinion is one hundred and six pages.

The Board's findings of historical fact, drawn from Michael Fong's testimony declarations and supporting exhibits, include the formation of Gage Specialties in California in 2008 by Michael Fong and Jeffrey Selsor as equal partners; the company's relocation to Michigan in 2014; and its conversion to a Michigan limited liability company in 2016. The opinion notes that "Gage Specialties produced and sold seeds and plants used to produce marijuana." Entry 78 at 5.

The opposition was tried on a Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion theory. After the close of trial but before briefing, the Board joined Fang LLC and Gage Prestige Holdings as party-plaintiffs by order dated April 30, 2024, designated 67 TTABVUE 4. Other claims pleaded in the operative amended notice of opposition (dilution under Sections 2 and 43(c); deceptiveness under Section 2(a); a claim that the involved intent-to-use application was void ab initio due to an assignment in violation of Section 10) were deemed waived by the Board because they were not pursued at trial.

The dispositive issue was priority. The Board held that on the record before it, Gage Prestige had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence priority of use in the marks tried by implied consent. The marks listed in the opinion are GAGE, GAGE GREEN GROUP, GAGE GREEN, GAGE ORIGINALS, GAGE GREEN GATHERING, GAGE GREEN GENETCS, GAGE FORUMS, GGG, and GGG NATURALS. Entry 78 at 105–106. Because priority is an essential element of a Section 2(d) claim, the Board did not reach likelihood of confusion.

The Board's reasoning on priority turned, in significant part, on a doctrine more fundamental than the parties' relative dates of first use: the lawful-use requirement for trademark priority under federal law. The Board cited the Schedule I status of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act and the absence of evidence in the record that Gage Prestige's predecessors' alleged "scientific research in the fields of holistic living, medical applications of cannabis, [and] botany" was lawful under the CSA — that is, no evidence that Gage Prestige's predecessors "are or were (or are or were authorized to) research or breed cannabis to produce industrial hemp, as opposed to marijuana, or that they have been approved to operate a federally-approved research project breeding marijuana for medical purposes." Entry 78 at 104.

The opinion is non-precedential. By Board practice, a non-precedential opinion is binding on the parties as to the matter decided but is not a precedent the Board considers itself bound to follow in other proceedings. Its weight as authority outside this case is correspondingly limited.

The disposition: "The opposition to Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 44 in Serial No. 87695693 is dismissed." Entry 78 at 106.

Subsequent procedural history: requests for reconsideration filed at entries 79, 80, 81, and 83 (dated May 27, 2025; May 28, 2025; July 8, 2025); request for reconsideration denied at entry 84 (July 11, 2025); proceeding terminated at entry 85 (September 30, 2025).

C. TTAB 91278331 — Final Judgment with Prejudice (May 6, 2026)

Primary sources: TTAB show-cause order (entry 40, dated March 3, 2026, vaulted at SHA-256 42d54a4264453aa6f5c047a42ac874ccd8b2f23e9d6508946f24742bc9c3ce62); TTAB Board decision dismissing opposition with prejudice (entry 41, dated May 6, 2026, vaulted at SHA-256 44f9af8d87a2c000336d9dd572b6d082da8db1cdcd55e846b5fef2fa54aad6d6).

Procedural posture: Gage Growth Corp. was the Opposer; Gage Specialties LLC, Fang LLC, and Gage Prestige Holdings LLC were the Applicants whose applications for GAGE / GAGE GREEN / GAGE GREEN GROUP (Serials 90324487, 90746550, 97251818) were under opposition. By December 19, 2025, the proceeding had been suspended (entry 38). Proceedings resumed January 14, 2026 (entry 39). The Opposer's main brief was due in the resumed schedule but was not filed.

On March 3, 2026 the Board issued a show-cause order under TTAB Trademark Rule 2.128(a)(3), giving Gage Growth Corp. thirty days to show cause why judgment should not be entered against it for failure to prosecute. The response deadline was April 2, 2026. No response was filed. On May 6, 2026, the Board entered final judgment against the Opposer with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and the proceeding was terminated the same day.

Rule 2.128(a)(3) provides that "[i]f a brief on the case is not filed by the plaintiff, an order may be issued allowing plaintiff until a set time, not less than fifteen days, in which to show good and sufficient cause why judgment should not be entered against plaintiff." 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(a)(3). Where the opposer is the plaintiff and fails to file the main brief, the rule is the procedural mechanism through which the opposition is dismissed without reaching the merits.

The 91278331 judgment, by its own terms, is a procedural disposition. It does not adjudicate priority, distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, or any element of a Section 2(d) claim. It removes the principal federal-trademark obstacle to Gage Specialties / Fang / Gage Prestige's three applications, which now proceed to USPTO examination in the ordinary course.

D. TSDR Status of Serial 87695693 (May 9, 2026)

Primary source: TSDR HTML status snapshot, captured May 9, 2026 at 20:35:14 EDT, vaulted at SHA-256 41e9a75968653a0ae3984eb74e7eb4344f5fb05d7fec26a927a7a7025ba36edb.

Verbatim status text from the TSDR snapshot:

Notice of Allowance (NOA) sent (issued) to the applicant. Applicant must file a Statement of Use or Extension Request within six months of the NOA issuance date.

Verbatim attribute fields from the snapshot: the mark is GAGE; Serial No. 87695693; filing date November 22, 2017; filing basis Section 1(b) intent-to-use, with a foreign-priority claim to Canadian Application No. 1868389 (filing date November 17, 2017); owner of record GAGE GROWTH CORP.; International Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 44; status date and Notice of Allowance date both November 11, 2025.

Computed deadline: a Section 1(b) Notice of Allowance opens a six-month window during which the applicant must file either a Statement of Use under Section 1(d)(1) or a Request for Extension of Time under Section 1(d)(2). 15 U.S.C. § 1051(d). Six months from November 11, 2025 is May 11, 2026 — forty-eight hours from this paper's publication.

As of the captured TSDR snapshot, no Statement of Use is on the application file.

II. Doctrinal Mechanics

A. Rule 2.128(a)(3) and the 91278331 Disposition

A judgment under Rule 2.128(a)(3) is a default for failure to prosecute. The Board does not reach the merits. Two consequences follow.

First, the judgment in 91278331 does not establish any factual finding about the priority, distinctiveness, or use of Gage Specialties / Fang / Gage Prestige's three applications. It establishes only that Gage Growth Corp.'s opposition to those applications is now over and cannot be refiled.

Second, the three Applicants' applications (Serials 90324487, 90746550, 97251818) return to ordinary USPTO examination. They will be evaluated on their own filing bases, evidentiary records, and any subsequent office actions. Whether they ultimately register depends on the standard examination criteria — distinctiveness, lack of likelihood of confusion with prior marks, lawful use under federal law, and other Lanham Act requirements. The 91278331 judgment removes the opposition-shaped obstacle; it does not guarantee registration.

This procedural posture is essential to honest characterization. The 91278331 judgment is a real and final win on procedure. It is not a merits adjudication of the marks' validity.

B. The Lawful-Use Doctrine in Cannabis Trademarks

The Board's reasoning in 91252169 reflects a well-developed doctrine in cannabis trademark practice: trademark rights, whether asserted as registered marks or as common-law priority, require lawful use of the mark in commerce. See In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350, 1351 (TTAB 2016); In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568, 1569 (TTAB 2016); TMEP § 907 ("Use of a mark in commerce must be lawful use to be the basis for federal registration under the U.S. Trademark Act."). Where the goods or services associated with a mark are unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the use is not "lawful" within the meaning of the Lanham Act, and the mark cannot acquire trademark rights through that use.

The Board in 91252169 applied this doctrine to Gage Prestige's evidentiary showing. The 396 cultivars, the international community, the seed sales, the awards, the magazines — none of those, as documented in the trial record, established lawful use under federal law for the cannabis-related goods and services. The opposition consequently could not prevail on priority, regardless of the dates of first use shown.

The doctrinal point is symmetrical. The lawful-use barrier that defeated Gage Prestige's opposition operates with equal force on Gage Growth Corp.'s ability to perfect Serial 87695693 through a Statement of Use. To register a Section 1(b) intent-to-use application, the applicant must convert to use by demonstrating actual lawful use in commerce of the mark on the identified goods and services. 15 U.S.C. § 1051(d)(1). The same federal-law analysis applies.

The goods and services in Serial 87695693 are: printed publications about medical marijuana (Class 16); electronic publications about medical marijuana (Class 9); physician referral services in the field of medical marijuana, websites featuring user-generated reviews and ratings of medical marijuana and cannabis products, and online bulletin boards about medical marijuana and cannabis (Classes 35 and 38); educational services and audio-visual materials in the field of medical marijuana and cannabis (Class 41); websites featuring information about medical and scientific research related to medical cannabis and marijuana (Class 42); and medical counselling, wellness centers, consulting services, and information services in the field of medical marijuana, marijuana-related medical use, and cannabis strain effects (Class 44).

These activities are facilitative of, ancillary to, or directly involve cannabis in a manner that the TTAB's recent jurisprudence has consistently treated as outside the lawful-use safe harbor. The applicant must, under the SOU process, demonstrate that its actual use of the mark on these specific services is lawful under federal law — not merely under Michigan or other state cannabis frameworks.

C. The Section 1(b) SOU Window

The Lanham Act mechanism is straightforward. After a Notice of Allowance issues on a Section 1(b) intent-to-use application, the applicant has six months to file either:

1. A Statement of Use demonstrating that the mark is now in actual lawful use in commerce on each of the identified goods and services. The SOU must be supported by a specimen of use and a verified statement.

2. A Request for Extension of Time to file the SOU. The first extension is a matter of right (subject to fee). Each subsequent extension (up to five total, providing thirty months of additional time from the NOA) requires a "showing of good cause" — increasingly specific demonstrations of why use has not yet commenced and what the applicant is doing to bring the mark into use.

Failure to file either by the deadline results in the application being abandoned by operation of law. The abandonment is not discretionary. There is no opposition or notice required. The application is simply dead.

This mechanism is the Lanham Act's solution to the problem of speculative trademark applications. Section 1(b) allows applicants to claim priority based on bona fide intent to use, but Congress required that the intent be perfected through actual use within a defined window. If the use does not materialize, the slot opens up for other applicants.

III. The Federal-Register Picture, Read Against the Commercial Record

A. The TerrAscend Michigan Exit (August 2025)

The applicant of record on Serial 87695693 is Gage Growth Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TerrAscend Corp. (OTC: TSNDF). TerrAscend's most recent annual report on Form 10-K, filed with the SEC in March 2026, disclosed material developments in the Michigan business that bear directly on Gage Growth Corp.'s capacity to perfect 87695693:

• All twenty Michigan retail dispensaries closed in August 2025.
• Approximately 250 Michigan employees were terminated.
• The intangible asset corresponding to the acquired Gage trademark was written down to $0.
• Cumulative Michigan operating losses: approximately $167.7 million.

The 10-K disclosures are addressed in detail in Paper 015 (FY2025 10-K terminal disclosure analysis) and Paper 018 (the extractive chain). The relevant point for this paper is narrower: as of late 2025 and continuing into 2026, the registrant of Serial 87695693 has no operating Michigan retail or service footprint corresponding to the Class 35, 38, 41, 42, and 44 services for which it must show actual lawful use in commerce. Whatever lawful-use story Gage Growth Corp. could have told prior to August 2025 is structurally weaker now.

B. Three Scenarios at the May 11, 2026 Deadline

Three scenarios are available to Gage Growth Corp. as of the SOU deadline:

Scenario 1: File a Statement of Use. The applicant must verify, under penalty of perjury, that the mark is in actual lawful use in commerce on each identified service. The SOU must be supported by a specimen showing the mark in commercial use. If the use shown is unlawful under the CSA — as the same goods and services were held to be in 91252169 — the SOU exposes the applicant to potential cancellation on lawful-use grounds and to a fraud-on-USPTO challenge if the verified statements are knowingly false. In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2009), sets the standard for fraud claims (subjective intent to deceive). The Bose standard is intentionally high; nevertheless, an SOU founded on a record that the same Board has held cannot establish lawful use is a record that invites the challenge.

Scenario 2: File an Extension Request. A first extension is a matter of right. Subsequent extensions require progressively stronger "good cause" showings. The applicant can use up to five extensions, totaling thirty months from the NOA, before the application abandons. Each extension is publicly visible on TSDR. An extension trajectory keeps the application alive but accumulates a public record of nonuse that the trade press, regulators, and any future opposers can cite.

Scenario 3: File nothing. The application abandons by operation of law on May 11, 2026 or shortly thereafter (allowing for a brief processing window). Abandonment is final and self-executing. No new opposition is required. The application is dead. The slot reopens.

C. What Each Scenario Implies for the Federal-Register Picture

Combining the three scenarios with the 91278331 outcome produces the full federal-register picture. Under Scenario 1, Serial 87695693 proceeds toward registration but with a lawful-use challenge available to interested parties; the three Gage Prestige applications resume standard examination. Under Scenario 2, Serial 87695693 stays alive on extensions while nonuse accrues on the public record; the Gage Prestige applications likewise resume standard examination. Under Scenario 3 — the path of least applicant action — Serial 87695693 abandons May 11, 2026, the federal-register slot clears, and Gage Growth Corp. has no remaining federal-trademark vehicle to oppose Gage Prestige's three applications, which proceed to examination unimpeded.

In Scenario 3, the federal-register picture converges: the GAGE marks proceed only on Gage Specialties / Fang / Gage Prestige's applications, and Gage Growth Corp.'s federal-trademark interest in the GAGE name extinguishes itself.

In Scenarios 1 and 2, the picture remains contested at the federal-register level, but the contestation moves from the TTAB into the USPTO examination process, the SOU lawful-use record, and any post-registration cancellation petitions that may follow.

IV. The Conscious-Speaker Problem, Restated

Paper 017 introduced the "conscious-speaker problem" in trademark law: the situation where a corporate actor's own statements — in employee testimony, SEC filings, sworn declarations, and public statements — establish the actor's awareness of facts that bear on the trademark dispute. The conscious-speaker problem augments traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis with direct evidence of state of mind.

The post-judgment posture of Serial 87695693 presents a discrete conscious-speaker question that the SOU filing will either address or evade:

If Gage Growth Corp. files a Statement of Use verifying actual use in commerce on the medical-marijuana goods and services identified in Serial 87695693, the verification is made by a corporate officer with knowledge of:

• The TerrAscend Michigan exit disclosed in the FY2025 10-K (a sworn SEC filing).
• The closure of all twenty Michigan dispensaries in August 2025.
• The 91252169 final decision holding that cannabis-related research and services of the kind described in 87695693's identification cannot establish lawful use under the CSA — a decision in a case in which Gage Growth Corp. was the prevailing party.
• The Section 1(b) basis of the application, which by definition disclaims any prior actual use at the time of filing.

The Board, the courts, and any subsequent challenger have access to all of these statements. The conscious-speaker record is unusually well-developed for a procedural action of this kind.

The paper does not draw a legal conclusion about whether any specific SOU filing would constitute fraud on the USPTO under the In re Bose standard. The standard requires a showing of subjective intent to deceive that is fact-specific. The paper observes only that the documentary record is unusually rich on the underlying factual questions.

V. Methodology and Sources

This paper relies exclusively on primary-source documents, vaulted with SHA-256 hashes for verification.

The TTAB 91252169 entry 78 final decision, mailed April 29, 2025, carries SHA-256 hash 44f9b459928bff31e99f12290b7a080caa0231b6d05e2ca9222c28b79c0d18aa and is available at the TTABVUE URL https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91252169-OPP-78.pdf.

The TTAB 91278331 entry 40 show-cause order, dated March 3, 2026, carries SHA-256 hash 42d54a4264453aa6f5c047a42ac874ccd8b2f23e9d6508946f24742bc9c3ce62 and is available at https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91278331-OPP-40.pdf.

The TTAB 91278331 entry 41 judgment with prejudice, mailed May 6, 2026, carries SHA-256 hash 44f9af8d87a2c000336d9dd572b6d082da8db1cdcd55e846b5fef2fa54aad6d6 and is available at https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91278331-OPP-41.pdf.

The TSDR status snapshot for Serial No. 87695693, captured May 9, 2026 at 20:35:14 EDT, carries SHA-256 hash 41e9a75968653a0ae3984eb74e7eb4344f5fb05d7fec26a927a7a7025ba36edb and was retrieved from https://tsdr.uspto.gov/statusview/sn87695693.

Statutory authorities cited: 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)–(d) (Section 1(b) and Section 1(d) of the Lanham Act); 37 C.F.R. § 2.128(a)(3) (TTAB show-cause and failure-to-prosecute rule); 21 U.S.C. § 812 (Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act).

Case law cited: In re Brown, 119 USPQ2d 1350 (TTAB 2016); In re JJ206, LLC, 120 USPQ2d 1568 (TTAB 2016); In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure cited: TMEP § 907 (lawful use in commerce as prerequisite to federal registration).

Companion papers in the LAW Intelligence series:

• Paper 015 (LAW Intelligence 2(4)) — TerrAscend FY2025 10-K terminal disclosure analysis.
• Paper 016 (LAW Intelligence 2(5)) — What Is Gage Cannabis? Two Brands, One Name, and a $545 Million Question.
• Paper 017 (LAW Intelligence 2(6)) — Lawfare and Corporate Espionage in the Gage TTAB Proceedings: A Tactical Analysis.
• Paper 018 (LAW Intelligence 2(7)) — The Gage Cannabis Extractive Chain.

This paper is Paper 020 (LAW Intelligence 2(8)). The numbering reflects that Paper 019 (Quantum-Provenance Genetic Architecture) has been migrated to the corporate publications platform at gagegreengroup.com.

VI. Conclusion

The May 6, 2026 final judgment with prejudice in TTAB Opposition No. 91278331 ends the Opposer's challenge to Gage Specialties / Fang / Gage Prestige Holdings's pending applications for GAGE, GAGE GREEN, and GAGE GREEN GROUP. The companion proceeding, TTAB Opposition No. 91252169, ended on April 29, 2025 with a non-precedential dismissal of the same parties' priority opposition to Gage Growth Corp.'s GAGE application — Serial 87695693 — on lawful-use grounds tied to the Controlled Substances Act.

The two outcomes converge at a single deadline. Serial 87695693 is a Section 1(b) intent-to-use application with a Notice of Allowance dated November 11, 2025. The Statement of Use deadline is May 11, 2026 — forty-eight hours from the publication of this paper. The TSDR snapshot captured May 9, 2026 shows no Statement of Use on file. The applicant — Gage Growth Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TerrAscend Corp., which has publicly disclosed its complete exit from the Michigan cannabis market in August 2025 — has three options: file a Statement of Use, file an Extension Request, or file nothing.

The paper does not predict the outcome. It observes that the documentary record is unusually rich, the deadline is unusually proximate to publication, and the federal-register picture that emerges over the next forty-eight hours and the subsequent thirty months will become a matter of public TSDR record. A short follow-up note will record the actual disposition.

Every fact in this paper is verifiable against a primary-source document vaulted with a SHA-256 hash. The deadline is fixed by the Lanham Act and the November 11, 2025 Notice of Allowance. The applicant's response, or absence of response, will be observable on TSDR within forty-eight hours.

— END —

Citation

LAW Intelligence Research Division. (2026). Two Gage Trademark Proceedings, One Federal-Register Picture: Post-Judgment Status of TTAB 91278331 and the May 11, 2026 SOU Deadline on Serial 87695693. LAW Intelligence, 2(8), 1–24.

Distribution

Published: LAW Intelligence, LAW Intelligence 2(8) Status: published