Proceeding
`Party
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA77698
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`04/24/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91169835
`Defendant
`Moolah Place, L.P.
`Moolah Place, L.P.
`3701 Lindell Blvd
`St. Louis, MO 63108
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`MARTIN L. DAESCH
`SANDBERG, PHOENIX AND VON GONTARD
`1 CITY CTR FL 15
`SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101-1883
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Answer
`Bhavik R. Patel
`bpatel@spvg.com
`/s/ Bhavik R. Patel
`04/24/2006
`Moolah Oppos_moolah.pdf ( 6 pages )(187103 bytes )
`
`
`Party
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA77698
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`04/24/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91169835
`Defendant
`Moolah Place, L.P.
`Moolah Place, L.P.
`3701 Lindell Blvd
`St. Louis, MO 63108
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`MARTIN L. DAESCH
`SANDBERG, PHOENIX AND VON GONTARD
`1 CITY CTR FL 15
`SAINT LOUIS, MO 63101-1883
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Answer
`Bhavik R. Patel
`bpatel@spvg.com
`/s/ Bhavik R. Patel
`04/24/2006
`Moolah Oppos_moolah.pdf ( 6 pages )(187103 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Application Serial Nos. 78/539,292
`
`MOOLAH SHRINE CENTER — A.A.O.N.M.S
`
`a.k.a. MOOLAH TEMPLE ASSOCIATION
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Moolah Place, L.P.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Box TTAB FEE
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`%%\§\./\/\./Q/€%%/\.J
`
`Opposition No. 91169835
`
`ESTTA Tracking No. ESTTA7 1 477
`
`ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`COMES NOW Applicant Moolah Place, L.P. (“Moolah”) by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, and for its Answer to Opposer’s Consolidated Opposition, states:
`
`1.
`
`Moolah admits it applied for registration of MOOLAH in International Class 36
`
`in connection with leasing space for commercial and residential uses on December 28, 2004 and
`
`that such application (Application Ser. No. 78/539,292) was based on an allegation of use in
`
`commerce of MOOLAH by applicant since February 13, 2002.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Moolah admits paragraph 2 of said Opposition.
`
`Paragraph 3 is a statement of intention and/or conclusion of law that does not
`
`require applicant to admit or deny. To the extent that an answer is required, Moolah denies the
`
`allegations as are contained in paragraph 3.
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPVGDOCS\1235925\1
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Moolah admits that its Mark have been published. The remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 4 are legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
`
`5.
`
`Moolah denies that Opposer owns the service mark MOOLAH. Moolah is
`
`without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5, and
`
`therefore denies the same.
`
`6.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`Moolah denies that Opposer owns the service mark MOOLAH. Moolah is
`
`without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7, and
`
`therefore denies the same.
`
`8.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 8, and therefore denies the same.
`
`9.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same.
`
`10.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same.
`
`11.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph ll, and therefore denies the same.
`
`12.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 12, and therefore denies the same.
`
`13.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 13, and therefore denies the same.
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPVGDOC S\l 235925\l
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Moolah denies that Opposer owns the service mark MOOLAH. Moolah further
`
`denies that Opposer’s use of the word Moolah has become “distinct” in association with
`
`Opposer. Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 14, and therefore denies the same.
`
`15.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 15, and therefore denies the same.
`
`16.
`
`Moolah denies that Opposer owns the mark MOOLAH. Moolah admits that
`
`according to the records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an entity known as “Moolah
`
`Shrine Center — A.A.O.N.M.S.,” further identified as a Missouri Corporation, filed an application
`
`on April 5, 2005, subsequent to Applicant’s filing for MOOLAH which was assigned serial
`
`number 78/601,705. Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 16, and therefore denies the same.
`
`17.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 17, and therefore denies the same.
`
`18.
`
`Moolah denies that Opposer owns the mark MOOLAH. Moolah is without
`
`sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore
`
`denies the same.
`
`19.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 19, and therefore denies the same.
`
`20.
`
`Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 20, and therefore denies the same.
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPVGDOCS\1235925\l
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Moolah admits that the building that sits on the Property has been designated a
`
`Historic Landmark. For further answer, Moolah is without sufficient information to admit or
`
`deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 21, and therefore denies the same.
`
`22.
`
`Moolah admits that it purchased the Property and has redeveloped the building for
`
`use as apartments, a movie theater, and bowling alley. For further answer, Applicant denies that
`
`Opposer owns the Moolah Mark. For filrther answer, Moolah is without sufficient information
`
`to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the same.
`
`23.
`
`Paragraph 23 constitutes an admission to which no response is necessary.
`
`24.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 24. For further answer, Moolah states
`
`that it has not “seized” anything.
`
`25.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 26, Subparagraphs a through d.
`
`27.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 29. For further answer, Moolah
`
`denies that Opposer has any ownership rights in or to the word/Mark Moolah.
`
`30.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 30. For further answer, Moolah
`
`denies that Opposer has any ownership rights in or to the word/Mark Moolah.
`
`31.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 31. For further answer, Moolah
`
`denies that Opposer has any ownership rights in or to the word/Mark Moolah.
`
`32.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 32. For further answer, Moolah
`
`denies that Opposer has any ownership rights in or to the word/Mark Moolah.
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPVGDOCS\l 235925\l
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 33. For further answer, Moolah
`
`denies that Opposer has any ownership rights in or to the word/Mark Moolah.
`
`34.
`
`Moolah denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1. Opposer has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`2. Opposer lacks standing to assert an opposition based on the rights asserted herein.
`
`3. Opposer’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
`
`4. Opposer’s claims are barred by acquiescence.
`
`5. Opposer’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`6. Opposer’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of waiver.
`
`7. One or more of opposer’s claims are barred under 16 U.S.C. SS 470a(A)(l)(A).
`
`8. Moolah reserves the right to amend its Answer to add affirrnative defenses, as they
`
`become known through discovery.
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant Moolah Place, L.P., having fully answered Opposer’s
`
`Consolidated Opposition, prays this Board dismiss Opposer’s Opposition with costs to Opposer
`
`and for such other relief as just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`SANDBERG, PHOENIX & Von GONTARD, P.C.
`
`Bhavik R. Patel, #56103
`One City Centre, 1 5th Floor
`St. Louis, MO 63101-1880
`314-231-3332
`
`314-241-7604 (Fax)
`E-mail: bpate1@spvg.com
`
`And
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPVGDOCS\1235925\1
`
`
`
`Andrew B. Mayfield
`Armstrong Teasdale LLP
`One Metropolitan Square
`Suite 2600
`
`St. Louis, MO 63102
`
`(314)621-5070
`(314) 612-2270 (fax)
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was sent by United States mail,
`postage pre-paid, this 24th day of February 2006, to the following counsel of record:
`
`Ralph W. Kalish, Jr.
`Gary A. Pierson II
`BLACKWELL SANDERS PEPER MARTIN, LLP
`720 Olive Street, 24”‘ Floor
`St. Louis, MO 63101
`
`Bhavik R. P3521
`
`::ODMA\PCDOCS\SPVGDOCS\l 235925\l
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
