-3‘)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1mmmumuunmmmnnnmummm
`
`08-21-2002
`
`U.S. PIflM& TMOfcITM Mill ROD‘ Dt. #70
`
`C:
`
`gr‘,
`‘Y
`0’
`
`(y?
`5'
`
`‘’
`
`I “
`
`3 i
`*7:
`—-.;
`7’
`
`tr‘
`
`In the matter of trademark application Serial No. 78106237
`For the mark HIGH STRUNG
`
`Published in the Official Game on My 23’ 2002
`
`Opposition No.
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs
`
`GRAHAM WEBB INTERNATIOAL,
`INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`NOTICE or OPPOSITION
`
`CROME, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “Opposer”), a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the States of California, having its principal place of
`
`business at PO. Box 2905, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, believes that it will be damaged by
`
`the registration of the mark HIGH STRUNG sought in Application Serial No. 78106237,
`
`filed on Februaryl , 2002, and published in the United States Official Gazette on July 23,
`
`2002, as it relates to goods in International Class 003, namely, “Elastic Stylig Gel.”
`
`Opposer hereby opposes the application for registration of said mark for such goods.
`
`As grounds therefor, it is alleged that:
`
`Likelihood of Confusion
`
`1.
`
`Opposer is the owner of the common law trademark HIGH STRUNG and
`
`has used said mark to identify its designer hair putty throughout the United States
`
`continuously since January 1, 2001. Opposer has filed an application for federal
`registration of its mark HIGH STRUNG in International Class 003, in connection with its
`
`designer hair putty. Said application bears Serial Number 78125393.
`03/Q?/2693 K3Ifi:Q
`CCIJGCAE ?€l0£E3?
`
`GI;
`
`I
`
`3£DJQ@ CI
`
`

`
`2.
`
`By reason of Opposer’s continuous use of its mark, Opposer has created
`
`valuable goodwill in said mark and has thereby impressed upon consumers, users of
`
`Opposer’s goods and others in the business community that said mark belongs to and
`
`indicates Opposer as the source of such goods.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer has expended considerable effort and expense in promoting its
`
`aforementioned trademark and the goods offered thereunder and has derived significant
`
`revenue therefrom, with the result that the purchasing public, the business community,
`
`and others have come to know, rely on, and recognize Opposer’s mark HIGH STRUNG
`
`as identifying the goods of Opposer.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant filed an application on February 1, 2002, to register the mark
`
`HIGH STRUNG as it relates to elastic styling hair gel in International Class 003. Said
`
`application is based applicant’s intention to use said mark in commerce under §1(b).
`
`5.
`
`Opposer, therefore, has priority through its earlier use of the mark HIGH
`
`STRUNG.
`
`6.
`
`The goods specified in Applicant’s opposed application, as set forth
`
`above, namely, “Elastic Styling Gel,” and Opposer’s goods, namely, “Designer Hair
`
`Putty”, are competitive, related and Complementary.
`
`7.
`
`Opposer is informed and believes, and based upon that information and
`
`belief alleges, that the circumstances surrounding the parties’ marketing of their
`
`respective products to consumers are such that the goods would likely be encountered by
`
`the same persons under identical marks, leading to the false suggestion or mistaken belief
`
`that Applicant’s goods originate from or are in some way associated or connected with
`
`Opposer.
`
`8.
`
`Based upon the fact that Applicant has chosen a mark identical to
`
`Opposer’s mark and the competitive nature of Applicant’s and Opposer’s respective
`
`goods, as set forth herein, Applicant’s intended mark is likely to cause confusion, to
`
`cause mistake and to deceive.
`
`9.
`
`If Applicant is granted the registration herein opposed, it would thereby
`
`obtain a ;gii11a_f'e£ie exclusive right to use its mark in commerce as of the registration
`
`date, in connection with the goods specified in the application. Such registration would
`
`be a source of damage and injury to Opposer.
`
`

`
`10.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Opposer will be damaged by registration of the
`
`mark sought in the application at issue.
`
`Fraud
`
`11.
`
`At the time Applicant signed the application at issue, Opposer had been
`
`continuously using the mark HIGH STRUNG throughout the United States for more than
`
`one year.
`
`12.
`
`A.t the time Applicant signed the application at issue, Opposer had
`
`superior legal rights in the mark HIGH STRUNG.
`
`13.
`
`Opposer is informed and believes, and based upon that information and
`
`belief alleges, that at the time Applicant signed the application at issue, Applicant had
`
`actual knowledge that Opposer had superior legal rights in said mark and that confusion
`
`was likely.
`
`14.
`
`As evidence of Applicant’s actual knowledge, in 2001, Opposer hired a
`
`consultant to develop brand recognition and marketing charmels for its designer hair
`
`products bearing the mark HIGH STRUNG. At all times relevant hereto, the
`
`aforementioned consultant hired by Opposer was married to App1icant’s national sales
`
`manager.
`
`15.
`
`As further evidence of Applicant’s actual knowledge, throughout 2001,
`
`Opposer advertised its designer hair products bearing the mark HIGH STRUNG in
`
`various popular trade magazines.
`
`16.
`
`Prior to the publication of Applicant’s mark in the Official Gazette,
`
`Opposer notified Applicant that its intended use of the mark HIGH STRUNG would
`
`infringe upon Opposer’s trademark rights and demanded that Applicant withdraw the
`
`application at issue and select a different name for its new product. Applicant failed to
`
`comply.
`
`17.
`
`By failing to disclose paragraphs 11 through 16 herein to the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, applicant intended to obtain a registration to which it was
`
`not entitled.
`
`18.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Opposer will be damaged by registration of the
`
`mark sought in the application at issue.
`
`

`
`WHEREFORE, Opposer prays that said application bearing Serial No. 78106237
`
`be denied registration and that this opposition be sustained in favor of Opposer.
`
`A duplicate Notice of Opposition is being filed herewith, along with the required
`
`filing fee for this opposition.
`
`Respectfully submitted on August 10, 2002, by:
`
`$74”
`
`Patrick W. Fletcher
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`Crome, Inc.
`
`FLETCHER LAW OFFICES
`2600 Michelson Drive
`17”‘ Floor
`
`Irvine, California 92612
`
`Telephone: (949) 723-0111
`Facsimile: (949) 723-0182
`pfletcher@internetdisputes.org
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Opposition in re HIGH STRUNG is
`
`being deposited in duplicate along with a check for the filing fee with Federal Express via
`
`Two Day Air, in an envelope addressed to:
`
`BOX TTAB - FEE
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`on August 19, 2002.
`
`&4«L..---
`
`Patrick W. Fletcher