throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA90671
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`07/19/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91170957
`Plaintiff
`CENTRAL MFG. CO.
`LEO STOLLER
`CENTRAL MFG. CO.
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`Oak Park, IL 60302
`UNITED STATES
`ldms4@hotmail.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Leo Stoller
`ldms4@hotmail.com
`/Leo Stoller/
`07/19/2006
`heparesponsemsj.pdf ( 3 pages )(10786 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.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`Opposition No: 91170957
`
`V.
`
`Mark: STEALTH
`
`HEPA CORPORATION,
`
`Application SN: 75—718,440
`
`Applicant.
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO APPL|CANT’S
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`and FOR INSTRUCTIONS
`
`NOW COMES the Opposer in response to Applicant’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment, and states follows:
`
`The Applicant filed a Motion to Strike Certain Portions of the Notice of
`
`Opposition and Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12 FRCP, and Applicant’s Motion
`
`For a More Definite Statement on June 19, 2006. The Board normally considers
`
`the proceedings suspended once a motion to dismiss has been filed.
`
`Consequently, the Opposer considers the proceeding suspended once the two
`
`motions of June 19”‘ were filed. Thus, the Opposer should not be required to
`
`respond to a motion for summary judgment filed on July 13, 2006.
`
`Furthermore, the filing of Applicant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`clearly vitiates Applicant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement.
`
`It appears that
`
`

`
`the Applicant ‘s Motion for a More Definite Statement is frivolous on its face, in
`
`that the Applicant’s filing of its Motion for Summary Judgment tells the Board that
`
`the Applicant does not need a more definite statement of anything.
`
`WHEREFORE, the Opposer prays that the Board grant the Opposer thirty
`
`days from the decision on Applicant’s Motion to Strike Strike Certain Portions of
`
`the Notice of Opposition and Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12 FRCP, and
`
`Applicant’s Motion For a More Definite Statement to fully respond to Applicant’s
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`/Leo Stoller/
`
`Leo Stoller, President
`
`CENTRAL MFG. CO., Opposer
`7115 W. North Avenue #272
`
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`
`(773) 589-0340
`
`Date:
`
`July 19, 2006
`
`

`
`Certificate of On-Line Filing
`
`I hereby certify that on July 19, 2006 this paper is being
`filed online in this case with the Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeal Board.
`
`/Leo Stoller/President
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that on July 19, 2006 a copy of the foregoing
`was sent by First Class mail with the U.S. Postal Service in an
`envelope addressed to:
`
`Louis J. Bachand
`
`Attorney at Law
`P.O. Box 1508
`
`La Canada, CA 91012-5508
`
`Leo Stoller, President
`
`Date: July 19, 2006

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket