Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA93888
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`08/09/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91161747
`Defendant
`SnoWizard Holdings, Inc.
`SnoWizard Holdings, Inc.
`101 River Road
`Jefferson, LA 70121
`
`Seth M. Nehrbass
`Garvey, Smith, Nehrbass & Doody, LLC
`3838 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 3290
`Metairie, LA 70002
`UNITED STATES
`nehrbass@gsnd.us, nehrbass@aol.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Seth M. Nehrbass
`nehrbass@gsnn.us, nehrbass@aol.com
`/smn/
`08/09/2006
`98876.16.ResponsetoMotions.pdf ( 3 pages )(39515 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp
`V
`
`SnoWizard Holdings, Inc.
`
`Opposition No. 91161747
`Serial No. 78/279177
`
`Opposition No. 91163495
`Serial No. 78279192
`
`Atty. Docket No. 1041 13US (98876.16)
`
`>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<>l<
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE to OPPOSER’S
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL and MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`Applicant, SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., through its attorneys, hereby makes its response to
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION TO COMPEL and MOTION TO SUSPEND filed 25 July 2006 as
`
`follows:
`
`SnoWizard moves to strike the 33-page memo filed 25 July 2006 as it does not comply
`
`with 37 CFR Section 2.127(a), which limits such a memo to 25 pages. See Ron Cauldwell
`
`Jewelg Inc. V. Clothestime Clothes Inc., 63 USPQ2d 2009, 2010 (TTAB 2002). This opposition
`
`proceeding is already burdensome on Applicant without Applicant being required to respond to
`
`lengthy memos which do not comply with TTAB rules.
`
`SnoWizard respectfully requests that OPPOSER’S MOTION TO COMPEL and
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND filed 25 July 2006 both be denied.
`
`In the event that SnoWizard's motion to strike is not granted, and SnoWizard is not
`
`otherwise granted time to respond to the Motions filed 25 July 2006, SnoWizard makes a
`
`preliminary response as follows.
`
`SnoWizard properly answered the interrogatories and document requests which were
`
`properly propounded. SnoWizard properly objected to many interrogatories as being unduly
`
`burdensome and not likely to lead to relevant discoverable matter. Also, SnoWizard properly
`
`objected to many interrogatories as calling for information protected by the attomey/client
`
`privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. SnoWizard properly objected to many
`
`

`
`requests as being unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to relevant discoverable matter.
`
`Also, SnoWizard properly objected to many requests as calling for information protected by the
`
`attomey/client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
`
`Applicant is in the business of selling snowball-related machines and supplies. It is
`
`believed that Opposer sells consumer electronics online. There is no likelihood of confusion by
`
`Applicant's use of the mark sought to be registered with its goods and services.
`
`It is believed
`
`that Opposer still had a few home electronics stores in New York and New Jersey at the
`
`beginning of this opposition proceeding, but Opposer's answer to an interrogatory indicates that
`
`it only operates online now (see below:
`
`"lnterrogatory N0. 6:
`
`Identify the cities and states of Opposer ’s current places of business at which it uses the
`
`designation “Nobody Beats the Wiz”.
`
`PCRICHARD promotes its goods/services in all 50 states, and has sold goods/services in
`
`most, if not all 50 states."). Applicant and Opposer are not competitors, and the information and
`
`things sought by Opposer but not provided by Applicant are not relevant to this proceeding,
`
`would be unduly burdensome to provide, and are not likely to lead to relevant discoverable
`
`matter. Also, some of the information and things sought by Opposer but not provided by
`
`Applicant are protected by the attomey/client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
`
`It appears that Opposer is trying to wear down Applicant with excessive discovery and
`
`unreasonable demands for additional discovery. Opposer's mark is simply not famous, and
`
`through this proceeding Opposer is simply trying to garner more protection for its mark than the
`
`law provides. Applicant would like for the proceedings not to be suspended. Rather, Applicant
`
`would like for the proceedings to conclude as soon as possible.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that OPPOSER’S MOTION TO COMPEL and
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND filed 25 July 2006 be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/smn/
`
`Seth M. Nehrbass, Reg. No. 31,281,
`Nehrbass@aol.com, SethNehrbass@gsnn.us
`Charles C. Garvey, Jr., Reg. No. 27,889
`
`

`
`Gregory C. Smith, Reg. No. 29,441
`Brett A. North, Reg. No. 42,040
`GARVEY, SMITH, NEHRBASS & NORTH, L.L.C.
`Lakeway Three Building
`3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 3290
`Metairie, LA 70002
`
`Phone: (504) 835-2000; Fax: (504) 835-2070
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being served electronically and is being
`deposited with the United States Postal Service as First Class Mail in an envelope addressed to:
`Celeste Butera and Ed Mangano
`Rivkin Radler LLP
`
`EAB Plaza - l0th Flr West Twr
`
`Uniondale, NY ll556-0l ll
`
`(516) 357-3356
`celestebuterafirivkincom, edx~'ai'd.mangano@,rivltincom. on August 9, 2006.
`
`/smn/
`
`Seth M. Nehrbass
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being filed electronically and/or is being
`deposited with the United States Postal Service as First Class Mail in an envelope addressed to:
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 13-1451, on August 9, 2006.
`
`/smn/
`
`Seth M. Nehrbass
`
`P:\Seth2006\98876. l6.ResponsetoMotions.wpd (WP)
`.pdf (Adobe)