`ESTTA81652
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`05/20/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91170256
`Plaintiff
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC.)
`LEO STOLLER
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (INC.)
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`Oak Park, IL 60707-0189
`UNITED STATES
`ldms4@hotmail.com
`Motion to Strike
`Leo Stoller
`ldms4@hotmail.com
`/Leo Stoller/
`05/20/2006
`googlemotiontostrike.pdf ( 3 pages )(9203 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
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO. (Inc)
`
`(Delaware Corporation)
`Opposer,
`
`Vs.
`
`Opposition No: 91170256
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE REPLY BRIEF AND/OR DECLARATION OF
`
`ROSE HAGAN WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY MADE OF RECORD
`
`AND UNTIMELY SUBMITTED IN THE SAID REPLY AND
`
`CANNOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE OPPOSERE AT THIS
`
`STAGE
`
`NOW COMES the Opposer and moves the Board to Strike Applicant’s reply in
`
`further support of its combined motion for protective order re opposer’s service and
`
`preliminary response to opposer’s motion to consolidate. Opposer states as follows:
`
`Reply briefs may be considered by this Board pursuant to the discretion of the Board
`
`under trademark Rule 2. l27(a). Opposer states that it would be an abuse of the Board
`
`discretion to consider Applicant’s under the circumstances at bar for the following
`
`reasons:
`
`Opposer asserts that Applicant’s reference to the newly submitted affidavit is untimely.
`
`See generally Rule 2. l42(d) for the proposition that “the board will ordinarily not
`
`consider additional evidence filed with the Board. . .after the appeal is filed.” Likewise,
`
`the Board should not in this case consider the alleged new evidence consisting of an
`
`
`
`affidavit of Rose Hagan in applicant’s reply brief. There is no reference made in
`
`Applicant’s said reply brief, that the Rose Hagan was unable to supply her affidavit with
`
`the Applicant’s initial Motion. The newly provided affidavit of Rose Hagan prejudices
`
`the Opposer. The Rose Hagan affidavit should be considered untimely and was not
`
`properly made of record, having been submitted in a reply brief. A party cannot introduce
`
`previously undisclosed evidence in a reply. Applicant is attempting to introduce evidence
`
`that cannot be controverted by the opposer at this stage. Applicant presented no valid
`
`valid evidence in support of Applicant’s combined motion for protective order Re:
`
`opposer’s service and preliminary response to opposer’s motion to consolidate.
`
`Applicant presented only an ineffectual affidavit of Michael Zeller an attorney, who
`
`entered the case on May 3, 2006 and had no direct knowledge of the alleged mailing
`
`incident that the Applicant was complaining of. The Opposer responded to the said
`
`motion accordingly. Now, after the fact the Applicant is attempting to introduce in”reply”
`
`new evidence, the affidavit of Rose Hagan, which cannot be controverted by the opposer
`
`at this stage, which is prejudicial to the Opposer.
`
`WHEREFORE, the opposer prays that the Board strike Applicant’s said Reply in its
`
`entirety and/or strike the untirnely—filed affidavit of Rose Hagan.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`/Leo Stoller/
`
`Leo Stoller, President
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO., Opposer/Respondent
`71 15 W. North Avenue #272
`
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`
`(773) 589-0340
`
`
`
`Date May 20, 2006
`
`Certificate of On-Line Filing
`
`I hereby certify that on May 20, 2006, this paper is being
`filed online in this case with the Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeal Board.
`
`/Leo Sto1ler/
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that on May 20, 2006 a copy of the foregoing
`was sent by First Class mail with the U.S. Postal Service in an
`envelope addressed to:
`
`Michael Zeller
`
`Quinn Emanuel
`865 South Aifueroa Street, 10m Floor
`
`Los Angeles Ca 90017
`
`Leo Stoller
`
`Date: May 20, 2006
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
