Proceeding
`Party
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA79906
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`05/08/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91170256
`Defendant
`GOOGLE INC.
`GOOGLE INC.
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Building 41
`Mountain View, CA 94043
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`MICHAEL T. ZELLER
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES
`865 SOUTH FIGUEROA ST., 10TH FL
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`Michael T. Zeller
`michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
`/Michael T. Zeller/
`05/08/2006
`Motion for Protective Order.pdf ( 61 pages )(1803445 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Appiication Serial NO.
`For the Mark:
`Pubiication Date:
`
`7631481 I
`GOOGLE
`November 1, 2005
`
`Opposition No" 91170256
`
`APPLICANTS COMBINED {1}
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
`
`ORDER RE OPPOSER'S SERVICE,‘
`AND (2) PRELIMINARY RESPONSE _
`TO OPP()SER'S MOTION TO
`CONSOLIDATE
`
`CENTRAL MFG. co. (INC),
`
`0 am
`PP
`
`'
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLE INC,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`Commissioner of Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Arlington, Virginia 22313-145 1_
`
`

`
`Applicant Google inc. (“Applicant”) respectfully moves the Board for a protective order
`
`requiring Opposer to file papers via ESTTA and to serve all further papers in this proceeding
`
`either by (a) obtaining a postmark from the U.S. Postal Service, or (b) using U.S. Postal Service
`
`Express Mail.
`
`In addition, Applicant seeks an order from the Board setting an appropriate
`
`response date to Opposer's Motion to Consolidate this proceeding with a cancellation proceeding
`
`which was instituted only just today. In support thereof, Applicant states as follows.
`
`I.
`
`The Board Should Issue A Protective Order To Avoid Further Improprieties By
`
`Oggoser In The Service And Filing Of Papers In These Proceedings.
`
`A. The Board I-Ias Warned Opposer Against Improper Service And Filing Tactics.
`
`Opposer is on ample notice that its backdating of certificates of service and its omission
`
`of the mailing date from its postage meter stamps are unlawful and constitute bad faith conduct
`
`in Board proceedings.
`
`In S. Indus. Inc. v. Larnb—Weston Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1295
`
`(T.T.A.B. 1997), the Board found that the principal of Opposer here, Leo Stoller, had used
`
`“fraudulent and incorrect" dates on certificates of service and mailing. That misconduct was
`
`revealed by the discrepancy between the certificates‘ date and the metered date~starnp on Stoller's
`
`mailing, as well as from Board's receipt of the papers some two weeks after they were
`
`purportedly mailed. The purpose of the false certificates was to backdate the alleged service of
`
`papers that Mr. Stoller had sent through first class mail.‘ As a sanction, the Board "prohibited"
`
`Stoller from using the certificate of mailing procedure under Trademark Rule 1.8 and required
`
`him instead to serve papers by the "Express Mail" procedure specified by Trademark Rule 1.10.
`
`In the aftermath of that decision, Stoller and Opposer then "found a new way to
`
`circumvent" the Board's ability to verify the date on which papers were mailed. Central Mfg.
`
`2005611372349
`
`-
`
`.
`
`_
`
`.
`
`2
`
`'
`
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`
`PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`

`
`
`Co. v. Premium Prods.
`Inc., No. 91 l59950, Order of Sept. 29, 2004, at 6 (T.T.A.B.) (Exhibit 6
`
`to Declaration of Michael T. Zeller, dated May 8, 2006 ("Zel1er Dec.")). This was through their
`
`expedient of "simply omitting the postage meter stamp date and avoiding the postage
`
`cancellation date."
`
`I_d. The Board advised Opposer that omitting the mailing date from its
`
`postage meter stamp constituted "bad faith" conduct, both because it violated US. Postal Service
`
`regulations and prejudiced the judicial process by making “it impossible to verify" the date of
`
`mailing. Li. at 6-7. Under its authority to grant protective orders and to control the conduct of
`
`parties, the Board ordered Opposer "to obtain a postmark from a postal official at a US. Post
`
`Office for all f|.1I'lLl16I‘ correspondence to applicant and to the Board in this proceeding." l_d_. at 7.]
`
`B.
`
`Opposer‘s Certificates Of Service And Mailing For The Motion To
`
`Consolidate In This Proceeding Are Not Consistent With The Facts.
`
`Regrettably, it appears that Opposer is resorting to the same improper service tactics in
`
`this proceeding, despite being previously sanctioned by the Board for it. Opposer has sought to
`
`‘ Other Board and Court decisions have likewise found instances of fraud and irregularities in
`the service and filing of papers by Stoller or his companies, including Opposer here. E_.g,,
`Central Mfg. Co. V. Pure Fishing, Inc., No. 05 C 725, Order of November 16, 2005, at 1, 3, 4
`(N.D. 111.) (entering judgment against Opposer as a sanction for its" abuse of the legal process that
`included “gross misconduct” such as forging attorney signatures to court papers) (copy attached
`as Exh. 7 to Zeller Dec.); S Indus., Inc. V. Stone Age Eguip., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 796, 798-99,
`819 (N .D. 111. 1998) (awarding fees against a Stoller entity for its "continuing pattern of bad faith
`litigation" and noting that Stoller's documents were “highly questionable” and “perhaps
`fabricated”); Central Mfg. Co. v. Dreamworks L.L.C., No. 91156858, Order of April 6, 2005
`(T.'l‘.A.B.) (noting dubious nature of Opp0ser's claims about service and ordering Opposer to file
`all papers through ESTTA); Stoller v. Northern Telepresence Corp, No. 91162195, Order of
`
`Feb. 11, 2005 (stating that it will consider only papers filed by Stoller via ESTTA); S Indus. Inc.
`and Central Mfg. Co. v. Casablanca Indus, Inc., Cancellation No. 92024330, Order of Oct. 3,
`2002 (T.T.A.B.) (Opposefs "litigation strategy of delay, harassment, and falsifying documents in
`other cases is well documented"); Central Mfg. Inc. V. Third Millenium Tech. Inc., 61
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1210, 1214-15 (T.T.A.B. 2001) (finding Opposer had "engaged in a pattern" of "bad
`faith" conduct by submitting papers based on "false statements," including in requests for
`extensions of time which relied on fabricated claims of ongoing settlement negotiations).
`3
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`
`2O056/l872349
`
`‘
`
`p
`
`' PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`

`
`consolidate this Opposition with a cancellation proceeding involving Applicant's Registration
`
`No. 2,806,075. Opposer's certificate of mailing with the Motion to Consolidate claims that the
`
`Motion to Consolidate in this proceeding was served by first class U.S. mail on April 18, 2006.
`The facts, however, contradict that claim.
`
`Applicant received the Motion to Consolidate by mail on or about May 2, 2006.2 Not
`
`only did Applicant receive the papers some two weeks after they were supposedly mailed, but
`
`even then Applicant received only an incomplete copy. Opposer's terse Motion to Consolidate
`relies entirely on a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. 2,806,075 and purports to attach
`
`the Petition as an exhibit to the Motion. Yet, all Applicant received in the mail from Opposer
`
`was the face page of the Petition for Cancellation; none of the remaining pages of the Petition
`
`was included.3 Further, the envelope containing the service copy from Opposer ‘core no US.
`
`Postal Service postmark, but only a preprinted -- and undated -— postage meter stamp.4
`
`On May 3, 2006, Applicant faxed Opposer a letter requesting a complete copy of the
`
`Motion to Consolidate and all of its attachmentss As the letter also pointed out, TTABVUE did
`
`not, as of that time, reflect that any Motion to Consolidate had been filed with the Board.
`
`Opposer never responded to Applicant's request or provided a complete copy.6
`
`Subsequent to Applicant's May 3 letter, Opp0ser's Motion to Consolidate appeared on
`
`TTABVUE. The filing with the Board indicates that the Board did not receive the Motion until
`
`2 Zeller Dec., 11 2 and Exh. 1.
`3 Id.
`'4 fi,Exh.2.
`'5 _1_q,,<n3 andExh.3.
`6
`ii
`
`20056/1372349
`
`'
`
`'
`
`.
`
`PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`4
`
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`
`

`
`May 1, 2006 -— almost two weeks after the Motion was allegedly mailed on April 18. The
`
`Board's bar code tracking sticker attached to Opposer‘s filing is dated "05-OI-2006.“
`
`Although the Board ordinarily accepts a certificate of service as prima facie evidence of
`
`the date of mailing, the Board may consider that presumption rebutted by other evidence and
`
`require the person signing the certificate to provide proof showing when the papers were actually
`
`mailed.
`
`§e_e_ S. Indus. Inc. v. Lamb-Weston Inc., 4.5 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1295. Here, the dates of
`
`receipt by Applicant and apparently by the Board as well -- some two weeks after Opposer
`
`supposedlynmailed the papers -- cast significant doubt on the truth of Opposer's certificate of
`
`service and certificate of mailing.
`
`__S__ee_ id, (fact that Board did not receive St0l1er's papers until
`
`some two weeks after the date on the certificates was indicia under the circumstances that the
`
`date on the certificates was "fraudulent."). Moreover, as noted above,
`
`the envelope from
`
`Opposer containing the service copy of the papers bore no U.S. Postal Service postmark or any
`
`other Postal Service indicia of the actual date when Opposer mailed the Motion to Consolidate.
`
`Opposer's postage meter stamp on the envelope also bore no date whatsoeveng
`
`As discussed in the next section, such conduct warrants the grant of a protective order.
`
`C.
`
`Issuance Of A Protective Order Is Warranted Here.
`
`The Board has authority to issue protective orders regulating the conduct of proceedings
`
`before it as well as to sanction bad faith behavior. Trademark Rule 2.120(t); Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(c). As one incident of those powers, the Board may order that a party serve and file papers in
`
`a particular manner. fig” S. Indus. Inc. v. Lamb-Weston Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1295 (barring
`
`7 A copy of the Motion to Consolidate as it appears on TTABVUE is attached as Exhibit 5 to
`the Zeller Dec.
`3 sg Zeller Dec, Exh, 2.
`
`20056/1872349
`
`_
`
`5
`,
`
`.
`
`_ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`

`
`Stoller from relying on the certificate of mailing procedure under Trademark Rule 1.8 and
`
`requiring him to serve papers by the "Express Mail" procedure set forth in Trademark Rule 1.10
`
`instead); Central Mfg. Inc. v. Third Millenium Tech. Inc., 61 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1215 (requiring
`
`Stoller to obtain written confirmation from any adversary when seeking an extension of time
`
`based on alleged consent or alleged settlement discussions).
`
`Opposer here has engaged in improper behavior in these proceedings in connection with
`
`the service and filing of its Motion to Consolidate. First, 0pposer's postage meter stamp on the
`
`envelope containing the service copy of the papers is undated. Opposer's omission of the
`
`mailing date on its postage meter stamp, standing alone, violates U.S. Postal Service
`
`regulations.
`
`9 That unlawful omission, in conjunction with Applicant's and the Board's belated
`
`receipt of Opposer's papers, also strongly indicates that Opposer's certificates of service and
`
`mailing bearing an April 18 date were not correct as a factual matter as well.
`
`That Opposer has acted in bad faithflon this score is undeniable, particularly since it
`
`repeats conduct that the Board has told Opposer to cease. The Board specifically warned
`
`Opposer against employing the tactic of ornittiug the mailing date from its postage meter stamps
`
`in Central Mfg. Co. v.lPrernium Prods., Inc. Order of Sept. 29, 2004 Order, at 6 ("The Board is
`
`hard pressed to think of a more egregious act of bad faith than flouting the United States Postal
`
`Service regulations.").1°
`
`Indeed, as the Board similarly concluded in Central Mfg. Co. v.
`
`
`Premium Prods Inc., one can only presume that Opposer has continued to omit postage meter
`
`9 U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual, Chapter 604, Regulation 4.5.1 governing the use
`of postage meters requires that '"[t]he mailing date in meter indicia must meet the format
`standards in this section. .
`.
`. a. Complete Date. Mailers must use a complete date for the
`following: 1. All First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Express Mail pieces." (Emphasis added)
`(available at http://pe.usps.co1n/text/drnrn3 00/604._htm#wpl 080496).
`'.° Zeller Dec., Exh.
`
`6
`
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`PRELIM. RESPONSE RE_CONS()L1DA'1‘ION
`
`_
`
`520056/1372349
`
`_
`
`p
`
`'
`
`

`
`date information because of the prior instances where the Board had observed the discrepancies
`
`between the meter date on Opposer's mailings and the dates proclaimed in its certificates of
`
`mailing and service. g S. Indus. Inc. v. Lamb-Weston Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1295 (noting
`
`Stoller had "failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the July 9, 1997 postage meter date-
`
`starnp or the significant discrepancy and delay between the July 3, 1997 date asserted in the
`
`certificate of service and the July 9, 1997 postage meter date-starnpf‘). Opposer's continuing
`
`attempts to evade the Board's ability to police its own proceedings cannot be countenanced.
`
`Second, Opposer's tactic undermines the integrity of these proceedings in additional ways
`
`and prejudices Applicant. Applicant did not receive the Motion to Consolidate until just before
`
`the date when its response would be due as calculated from the supposed April 18, 2006 service
`
`date. Even then, Applicant did not receive a complete copy of the Motion papers. Depriving
`
`another party of most of its time to respond to a motion is unfair, disrupts the orderliness of the
`
`proceedings and imposes needless expense on Applicant and needless burden on the Board.
`
`That Opposer's tactics have deliberately sought to undermine these proceedings and reap
`
`unfair advantage is equally undeniable. Tellingly, Opposer declined to provide a complete copy
`
`of the Motion to Consolidate, despite Applicant's May 3 letter requesting it and even though
`
`Opposer otherwise sends Applicant multiple emails and faxes on an almost daily basis.“
`
`Moreover, the Board has warned Opposer that its failure to abide by the rules in service and
`
`filing constitute bad faith conduct. S. Indus. Inc. v. Lamb-Weston Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1295
`
`(finding Sto1lcr's backdating of certificates of service and mailing was "fraudulent" conduct);
`
`“ For example, on Saturday and Sunday, May 7-8, 2006 alone, Oppose: sent emails to almost
`every one of the more than 80 partners in the law firm representing Applicant here in order to
`threaten each of them with frivolous disciplinary proceedings. Zelier Dec, ‘H 4 and Exh. 4.
`7
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`
`20056/1872349
`
`'
`
`p
`
`' PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`

`
`Central Mfg. Co. v. Premium Prods, Inc., Sept. 29, 2004 Order, at 6-7 (rejecting as "not correct"
`
`0pposer's argument that omission of date onpostage meter stamp does not cause prejudice and
`
`advising Opposer that it "harm[s]" both "Applicant and the judicial process" alike).
`
`To avoid a repetition of this behavior, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board issue
`
`a protective order. Opposer should be required to file all fiirther papers in this proceeding
`
`through BSTTA. Opposer also should be ordered to serve all further papers here either by
`
`obtaining a postmark from the U.S. Postal Service or, alternatively, by using Express Mail in
`
`accordance with Trademark Rule 1.10.
`
`II.
`
`A Full Response To The Motion To Consolidate Would Be Premature.
`
`As a further result of the irregularities in 0pposer's service and filing of the Motion to
`
`Consolidate, Applicant has not had a fair opportunity to consider whether consolidation is
`appropriate. As noted, 0pposer's tardylmailing of an incomplete copy of the Motion effectively
`
`deprived Applicant of its time to respond and has denied Applicant much of the time normally
`
`permitted to consider the matter. Even more critically, 0pposer's Motion to Consolidate relies
`
`entirely on a Petition for Cancellation, which Opposer had alleged was attached as an exhibit to
`
`the Motion to Consolidate. The Petition for Canceilation in turn discusses in often obscure
`
`terrns, and purports to incorporate by reference, a variety of exhibits to the Petition for
`
`Cancellation. Yet, even the copy of the Petition for Cancellation that Opposer belatedly filed
`
`the Board in support of the Motion to Consolidate in this proceeding included none of the
`
`attachments that are referenced in the Petition for Cancellation. Because Opposer also failed to
`
`provide Applicant with a complete copy of the relevant Petition with its exhibits, Applicant was
`
`not able to obtain a complete copy of the Petition for Cancellation with its exhibits until today
`
`20056/1872349
`
`. PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`-
`
`8
`
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`
`

`
`when it became available through the recently instituted cancellation proceeding via
`
`TTABVUE. 12 Obviously, without having had a fair opportunity to see the multiple attachments
`
`discussed in the Petition for Cancellation, Applicant cannot yet reach an intelligent conclusion
`
`about consolidation and should be permitted time to decide upon its response.
`
`Applicant therefore requests that the Board set an appropriate date for Applicant's full
`
`response to the Motion to Consolidate. Applicant respectfully submits that one solution could be
`
`to allow Applicant to provide a response 15 days from now, since it was today that Applicant
`
`was finally able to obtain a full copy of the Petition for Cancellation with its attachments from
`
`TTABVUE.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that
`
`the Board grant
`
`its motion for
`
`protective order and set a response schedule on the ‘Motion to Consolidate.
`
`Dated: May 8,2006
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: gram 7 Ea»-=-
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP
`Michael T. Zeller
`
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Google Inc.
`
`'
`
`12 Ze1lerDec.,1l5.
`
`20055/1372349
`
`'
`
`PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`9
`
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`
`

`
`Proof of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Applicant Google Inc.’s
`
`Combined (1) Motion for Protective Order re Opposer’s Service; and (2) Preliminary Response
`
`to Opposer’s Motion to Consolidate by mailing said copy on May 8, 2006, via First Class Mail,
`
`postage prepaid to:
`
`Leo Stoller
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO., (INC)
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`
`
`
`20056/1872349
`
`10 I
`
`MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`PRELIM. RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Application Serial No.
`For the Mark:
`Publication Date:
`
`76314811
`GOOGLE
`November 1, 2005
`
`.
`.
`Opposition No. 91170256
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC),
`0 mar
`Pp
`
`’
`
`DECLARATION MICHAEL T.
`“ ZELLER IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLI'CANT’_S COMBINED 1
`MOTION FOR-'_PRO.,Ij._ECTIVE
`ORDERRE OPPO'SER‘S SERVICE;
`AND (2) PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`T0 0PPOSER'S MOTION TO
`'
`CONSOLIDATE
`'
`
`V
`
`'
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`'
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`Commissioner of Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Arlington, Virginia 22313-1451
`
`20D56l1 8305551
`
`

`
`1, Michael T. Zeller, do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am amernber of the State Bar of California and am counsel for Google Inc.
`
`("Applicant") in these proceedings.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if
`
`sworn as a witness, could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Although Opposer's certificate of service and certificate of mailing for its Motion
`
`to Consolidate claim that Opposer mailed the Motion on April l8, 2006, Applicant received it by
`
`mail on or about May 2, 2006.
`true and correct _copy of the Motion to Consolidate as
`Applicant received it from Opposer is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`In addition to receiving the
`
`papers two weeks after they were allegedly mailed, Applicant received only an incomplete copy
`
`of the Motion to Consolidate papers from Opposer. Opp'oser's Motion to Consolidate in this
`
`proceeding relies on a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. 2,806,075 and states that a
`
`copy of that Petition was attached as an exhibit to the Motion to Consolidate. Yet, all Applicant
`
`received in the mail from Opposer with the Motion to Consolidate was the face page of the
`
`purportedly attached Petition for Cancellation None of the remaining pages of the Petition for
`
`Cancellation was included. Furthermore, Oppolserls envelope "containing the service copy to
`
`_ Applicant bore no U.S. Postal Service postrnark, but only an uncl_ate_d_ postage ‘meter stamp. A
`
`true and correct copy of the envelope Applicant received containing Opposer's Motion to
`
`Consolidate that shows the postage meter stamp is attached hereto as_Exhibi_t 2.
`
`3.
`
`As of that time, TTABVUE did not reflect that the Motion to Consolidate had
`
`been filed with the Board. Accordingly, on May 3, 2006, Applicant faxed Opposer a letter
`
`requesting a complete copy of the Motion to Consolidate and all of its attachments. A true and
`
`20055/1ssoss5.1
`
`_
`
`'
`
`'
`
`.
`
`'2
`
`*
`
`DECLARATION ISO. MOTION FOR
`PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PRELIM.
`RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`

`
`correct copy of the May 3, 2006 letter from Michael T. Zeller to Opposer is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 3. Opposer never responded to Applicant's request or provided a complete copy.
`
`4.
`
`This lack of response by Opposer is despite the fact that Opposer sends Applicant
`
`multiple emails and faxes on an almost daily basis. On Saturday and Sunday, May 6-7, 2006
`
`alone, Opposer sent emails to a large number of the more than 80 partners in the law firm
`
`representing Applicant that threatened each of them with groundless disciplinary proceedings.
`
`Opposer sent the emails to partners in multiple offices of the law firm for Applicant, including
`
`offices in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley and San Diego. A true and
`
`correct copy of an example of such an email sent from Leo Stoller on May 7, 2006 is attached
`
`here as Exhibit 4, along with the entry from Sto11er's blog at www.rentmark.blogspot.c0In
`
`referred to in the emails. Applicant will not burden the Board at this juncture with a recitation of
`
`the numerous inaccuracies of fact and law contained in Opposer's allegations. Suffice it say at
`
`this point that although Opposer alleges that Applicant is somehow‘ barred from referencing
`
`certain letters that Opposer wrote, Opposer itself attached those letters to the Opposition that it
`
`filed with the Board.
`
`5.
`
`Opposer's Motion to Consolidate in this Opposition proceeding first appeared on
`
`TTABVUE after May 3, 2006. However, Opposer's copy of those papers filed with the Board in
`
`this proceeding was still not complete.
`
`In particular, even though the Motion to Consolidate
`
`relies on the Petition for Cancellation, the copy of the Petition attached to the Motion as it was
`
`'
`
`"filed with the Board (and is available on TTABVUE) still did not include the Petition's various
`
`exhibits. A true and correct copy of the Motion to Consolidate as it appears on TTABVUE is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Because of Opposer's failure to timely serve or file a copy of the
`
`20056/1ss055s._1
`
`_.
`
`-
`
`_ 3
`
`'
`
`_
`
`'
`
`- DECLARATION IS_0_M0’_1‘ION FOR
`-
`PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PRELIM.
`RESPONSE-RE CONSOLIDATION _
`
`

`
`Motion to Consolidate with a complete set of its attachments, Applicant was not able to obtain a
`
`complete copy of the relevant papers until today, May 8, 2006. Applicant was finally able to
`
`obtain a complete copy only when the cancellation proceeding was instituted and the various
`
`attachments to the relevant Petition for Cancellation became available through TTABVUE in
`
`connection with the cancellation proceeding. Even as of today, Opposer never served a complete
`
`copy of the exhibits on Applicant.
`
`6.
`
`A true and correct copy of the Order of September 29, 2004 in Central Mfg. Co.
`
`v. Prerniurn Prods. Co., No. 91159950 (T.T.A.B.) is attached hereto as Ex11ibit6.
`
`7.
`
`A true and correct copy of the November l6, 2005 Order in Central Mfg. Co. v.
`
`Pure Fishing, lnc., No. 05 C 725 (N .D. 111.) is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
`
`Executed this 8th day of May, 2006, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`K"
`
`
`
`20056/1880555.!
`
`4
`
`_
`
`DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR
`PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PRELIM.
`.RESl_’ONSE RE CONSOLIDATION .
`
`.
`
`-
`
`'
`
`"
`
`-
`
`

`
`Proof of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Declaration of Michael T.
`
`Zeller in Support of Applicant Googie Inc."s Combined (1) Motion for Protective Order re
`
`Opposer’s Service; and (2) Preliminary Response to Opposer’s Motion to Consolidate by mailing
`
`said copy on May 8, 2006, via First Class Mail, postage prepaid to:
`
`Leo Stoiler
`
`CENTRAL MFG. C0,, (INC.)
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`
`g new
`
`20056.’1830555.1
`
`RESPONSE RE CONSOLIDATION
`
`5
`
`DECLARATION ISO MOTION FOR
`PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PRELIM.
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC),
`(a Delaware Corporation)
`P.O. Box 35189
`Chicago, Illinois 60707-0189
`
`Opposer,
`
`Opposition No:
`
`91170256
`
`Trademark:
`
`GOOGLE
`
`Application SN:
`
`76-314,811
`
`v.
`
`Int. Class No:
`
`28
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`(a Delaware corporation)
`1600 Amphitheatre ?arkway
`Building 41
`Mountain View, CA 94043
`
`‘_
`
`V‘
`
`_
`
`Applicant.
`
`TTAB / NO FEE
`
`Filed:
`
`September 18, 2001
`
`Published:
`
`November 1, 2005
`
`MOTION TO CONSOLLDATE
`
`NOW COMES the Opposer, and moves to consolidate the attached Petition for Cancel~
`
`lation with this pending opposition. The Petition for Canceliation involves the same mark and
`
`the same parties, and it would be in the interest of judicial economy to combine both matters
`
`together. The opposition proceeding was initiated on April 8, 2006. The opposition discovery
`
`period opens on April 28, 2006.
`
`WHEREFORE, the Opposer prays that the opposition be consoiidated with the attached
`
`petition to canoe} proceeding.
`
`
`
`.
`
`2"
`
`'
`J
` ya.) M H’: x .
`
`A
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Dated: April 18, 2006
`
`Respectfuli
`
`submitted,
`
`.75
`
`a
`
`Leo toller.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`CENTRAL FG. CO., Petitioner
`Trademark & Licensing Dept.
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`(773) 589-0340 FAX:
`(773) 5890915
`
`

`
`Certificate of Mailing
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Consolidate
`is being sent with the U.S. Postal Service as first class mail
`in an envelope addressed to:
`
`TTAB I BOX NO FEE
`Commissioner of Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`N , Virginia 22313-1 51
`
`Leo Stoller
`Date: April 18, 2006
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that this Motion to Consolidate
`is being deposited with the U.S. Postal Service as
`First Class Mail in an envelope addressed to:
`
`Rose Hagen, Esq.
`Google, Inc.
`Building 14
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
`Mountain View, Califoria _94 43
`"
`D:\MARKs4i\GooGLE.Morr
`_ Q
`//MM
`
`.
`
`-
`
`.
`
`_
`
`I
`
`_
`
`.
`
`y
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC),
`(21 Delaware Corporation)
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Trademark:
`
`GOOGLE
`
`Registration No:
`
`2,806,075
`
`v.
`
`Int. Class No:
`
`42
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`(a Delaware corporation)
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
`Building 41
`Mountain View, CA 94043
`
`Respondent.
`
`I
`
`TTAB I FEE
`
`(IN TRIPLICATE)
`
`Filed:
`
`September 16, 1999
`
`Published:
`
`December 4, 2001
`
`PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`1.
`
`This is a proceeding for cancellation of the United States Trademark
`
`Registration No. 2,806,075 brought by CENTRAL MFG. CO, ("Petitioner"). The subject
`
`registration is for the purported trademark "Google" (the mark) owned by Respondent,
`
`GOOGLE, INC. ("Respondent").
`
`2.
`
`In the matter of Registration No. 2,806,075, for the mark GOOGLE, in
`
`International Class 42 for computer services, namely, providing software interfaces
`
`available over a network in order to create a personalized on—line information service;
`
`extraction and retrieval of information and data mining means of global computer
`
`networks; creating indexes of information, indexes of web sites and indexes of other
`
`information sources in connection with global computer networks; providing information
`
`from searchable indexes and databases of information, including test, electronic
`
`documents, databases, graphics and audio visual information, by means of global
`
`computer information networks, the Petitioner states as follows;
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`
`
`G5wzmoow
`
`
`
`Emu.:mm.mI«mom
`
`>m.sx._m.n_o..§.£_._nE<SE.3m:_u__=m,
`
`
`
`.M33..3.§m_>=_5._=o_a.
`
`
`
`/
`
`2.3
`
`Q.§:..=_
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT _3
`
`

`
`llilillil Blllflllllfll trial lawyers I Ins anueles
`
`llG5Soutl1Figucro:zSrrccr, lG[l'l liloor, Los Angclcs. Cgiliforniu 90017 i
`
`'I'1=.1. 213-6z4—77o7 FAX 213-624-0643
`
`May 3, 2006
`
`BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
`
`Mr. Leo Stoller
`
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`
`Oak Park, IL 60302
`
`Re:
`
`Google Inc.
`
`Dear Mr. Stoller:
`
`Attached please find a courtesy copy of Google Inc.'s Power of Attorney filed and served on you
`in Opposition No. 91170256. Accordingly, please direct all future correspondence relating to the
`matter to me, and not to Google.
`
`In addition, I understand that you contacted Google about a Motion to Consolidate the
`Opposition proceeding with an alleged Cancellation proceeding involving Google‘s Registration
`No. 2,806,075. What you sent to Google, however, was incomplete, included only the first page
`of what purported to be an attached Petition for Cancellation and lacked any proof of service.
`Moreover, TTABVUE reflects neither any Motion to Consolidate in the Opposition proceeding
`‘nor any Cancellation proceeding involving Google that was instituted by you or Central Mfg. Co.
`(Inc.). I therefore would appreciate it if you would send us a complete copy ofthe Motion to
`Consolidate, as well as the Petition for Cancellation and any other attachments to the Motion.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`.
`
`a-*"
`
`%‘Mk I . fa-—
`
`Michael T. Zell r
`
`20056lE878483.l
`
`Bncl.
`
`llllillll emanuel Ill'iIlllIflI1 NW8!’ 8‘ IIEUQBS, "[3
`
`2:;-;\t* mu:< l 335 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York room I Tut. 212-702,-Sioo FAX 212-702-8200
`SAN .fi.'Lr.Nc:1sc0
`50 California Street, 1:-,nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94104 I TEL 415-875-66'c-=3 FAX 415-87.96700
`s1L1coN VALLEY I 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, California 94065 | TEL 650-620-4500 FAX 650-620-4555
`PALM SPRINGS § 45-025 Manitou Drive. Suite 8, Indian Wells, California 92,210 { TEL 760-345-4757 rnx 760-345.-2414
`saw Draco | 4445 Eastgatc Mall, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92121 1 TEL 858-812-3107 FAX 858-812-3336
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91 170256
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Application Seriai No.
`For the Mark:
`
`7631481 1
`GOOGLE
`
`Publication Date:
`
`November 1, 2005
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC.),
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`Commissioner of Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Arlington, Virginia 22313-1451 _
`
`

`
`Google Inc., Applicant herein, hereby appoints the following person as its
`
`legal
`
`representative in this Opposition proceeding:
`
`Michael T. Zeller
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
`Please address all future communications regarding this Opposition proceeding to the above
`
`address.
`
`Dated: May_1,2006
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`ifig %
`
`Rose Hagan
`Senior Trademark Counsel
`
`Google Inc.
`
`zeesetmaasss
`
`.2
`
`r
`
`.
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`

`
`Proof of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Power of Attorney has
`
`been served on Centra! Mfg. Co. (Inc.) by mailing said copy on May 3, 2006, via First Class
`
`Mail, postage prepaid to:
`
`Leo Stoller
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC)
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`
`Oak Park, Iliinois 60302
`
`4 A./A/L
`
`‘
`
`2005611868559 T
`
`-3
`
`-
`
`-
`
`- ~--Rowe-RoeAiwcml-eafy‘
`
`

`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP
`
`NEW YORK
`335 Madison Avenue. 17th Fioor
`New York. NY 10017
`(212) 049-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`SAN DIEGO
`4445 Eastgaie Mall. Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92121
`(858) 812-310?‘
`Facsimile: (853) 312-3336
`
`‘
`
`LOS ANGELES
`we
`365 South Hguema Street’ mm Hoof
`‘-09 Angeiesa CA 90017
`_(2_13) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
`LOS ANGELES OFFICE
`
`SAN FRANC1SCO
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco. CA 94111
`(415) 375-5000
`Facsimile: (415) 575-6700
`
`SILICON VALLEY
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suile 560
`Redwood Shores. CA 94065
`(650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 301-5100
`
`DATE:
`
`May 3, 2006
`
`.
`
`NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER:
`
`Leo Stoller
`
`773-589-0340
`
`773—589—0915
`
`FROM:
`
`Michaei T. Zeller
`
`RE:
`
`Google Inc.
`
`M
`
`A X E’
`
`MESSAGE‘
`
`MAY
`
`3 2005
`
`
`
`20056r:§za§§s.I
`