So he is basically saying (as far as I understand) that since bitcoin is so much anonymous and encrypted it would be impossible to prove in court that bitcoin was used in commerce prior to his letter submitted with trademark application. Only proof he thinks that could exist due to all the encryption and anonymity is hearsay evidence which will not be enough.
At the same time I have written contacts concluded and fulfilled with US customers which were done way before his silly trademark application. Surely other people too conducted commerce in bitcoin and block chain will actually serve as a to beyond reasonable doubt standard proof of that.
I actually think that anyone downloading the Bitcoin application, which was named Bitcoin, could count as commerce. It's a licensed product, after all. Just because something is open-source doesn't mean there's no rights attached to the intellectual property, which is why the GPL can actually require that distributors distribute source code in the first place.