throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA385231
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/22/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91196375
`Plaintiff
`OMS Investments, Inc.
`JOHN GARY MAYNARD III
`HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
`951 E BYRD ST
`RICHMOND, VA 23219
`UNITED STATES
`hwritm@hunton.com
`Motion to Strike
`John Gary Maynard
`hwritm@hunton.com
`/John Gary Maynard/
`12/22/2010
`Motion to Strike - Opp No. 91196375 John Parella - executed.pdf ( 4 pages
`)(120725 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
`
`In the matter of Trademark Application Serial No. 77/844,382
`
`Opposition No. 91196375
`
`) ) ) )
`
`) ) ) )
`
`) )
`
`OMS Investments, Inc.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`John Parella,
`
`Applicant.
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICANT’S ANSWER
`
`Opposer OMS Investments, Inc. (“Opposer”), through its undersigned attorneys, requests
`
`that the Board strike Applicant John Parel1a’s (“Applicant”) Answer dated November 26, 2010
`
`(“Amended Answer”).
`
`FACTS
`
`On September 3, 2010, Opposer filed a Notice of Opposition against Applicant’s GRO-
`
`LIKE-A—PRO application, the subject of Application‘ Serial No. 77/844,382. As grounds for its
`
`opposition, Opposer asserted priority of use and likelihood of consumer confusion under
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d), as well as trademark dilution under Trademark Act Section 43(0).
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052 (d), 15 U.S.C. 1125 (c).
`
`On September 25, 2010, Applicant’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of
`
`record. Thereafter, on October 12, 2010, Applicant requested an extension of time to respond to
`
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition. On October 25 , 2010--prior to a decision from the Board
`
`regarding his extension request, Applicant filed his Answer (“previous Answer”). The Board
`
`informed Applicant on November 8, 2010, that his previous Answer did not comply with
`
`77730040004 EMF_US 3379l030vl
`
`

`
`applicable rules, including the Board’s rules as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Consequently, the Board disregarded Applicant’s previous Answer and directed him to provide
`
`an Answer that complied with applicable rules by November 29, 2010. On November 26, 2010,
`
`Applicant submitted his Amended Answer.
`
`ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
`
`Applicant’s Answer must contain admissions to, or denials of, the allegations in
`
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition and may include any defenses to those allegations. TBMP §
`
`31 l.0l(a). If Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of an allegation, Applicant must state so accordingly, and this will have the effect of a
`
`denial. Id. at § 31 l.02(a).
`
`Applicant’s Amended Answer falls far short of a responsive pleading that comports with
`
`applicable rules as it suffers from two fatal flaws: 1.) Applicant’s Amended Answer, like his
`
`previous Answer, does not confirm or deny Opposer’s allegations; and 2.) Applicant’s Amended
`
`Answer merely argues the merits of his position. Taken together, these deficiencies amount to a
`
`purported Answer filed by Applicant that is nothing more than a non-responsive and
`
`argumentative document that runs afoul of the Board’s rules.
`
`Other than Applicant’s admission of his name and address in paragraph 1 of his Amended
`
`Answer, Applicant neither admits nor denies Opposer’s allegations. Furthermore, Applicant uses
`
`his numbered responses to argue the merits of his position—-which is forbidden by the Board’s
`
`rules. See TBMP § 31 l.02(a) (“The defendant should not argue the merits of the allegations in a
`
`complaint but rather should state, as to each of the allegations contained in the complaint, that
`
`the allegation is either admitted or denied.”) As just one example of Applicant’s repeated
`
`argumentative statements, in paragraph 6 of Opposer’s Notice of Opposition, Opposer asserts
`
`

`
`that its Marks have been prominently featured in online advertising campaigns, and have been
`
`the subject of a significant amount of unsolicited press.
`
`In response, Applicant asserts Opposer
`
`“provides no proof of any unsolicited press or association. . .Other GRO marks in the
`
`marketplace have been in use for decades alongside MIRACLE—GRO without confusing the
`
`consumer.” Thus, as in his previous Answer which was not considered by the Board, Applicant
`
`has used his Amended Answer to argue his position, as opposed to confirming or denying
`
`Opposer’s allegations. For this reason, Applicant’s Amended Answer should be stricken and
`
`given no consideration by the Board.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Opposer respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion
`
`to Strike Applicant’s Answer.
`
`This 22nd day of December, 2010.
`
`OMS INVESTMENTS, INC.
`
`
` John
`
`Ed
`
`ary Maynard,
`rd T. White
`
`II
`
`Janet W. Cho
`
`Hunton & Williams LLP
`
`951 East Byrd Street
`Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
`
`Richmond, VA 23219-4074
`
`Telephone (804)788-8200
`
`Attorneys for Opposer OMS Investments, Inc.
`
`

`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Motion to Strike
`Applicant’s Answer has been served on Mr. John Parella by mailing said copy on
`December 22, 2010, via First Class Mail, postage prepaid to:
`
`Mr. John Parella
`
`1625 Lockridge Dr.
`
`Cumming GA 30041
`
`
`
`Janet W. Cho

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