`ESTTA481036
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/29/2012
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91205235
`Defendant
`Ronald C. Love
`JOHN P. O'BANION
`O'BANION & RITCHEY LLP
`400 CAPITOL MALL SUITE 1550
`SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`docketing@intellectual.com
`Answer
`Steven L. Smith
`docketing@intellectual.com, sls@intellectual.com
`/sls/
`06/29/2012
`Answer to Notice of Opposition.pdf ( 5 pages )(774485 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Application No.:
`
`85/183,915
`
`Published:
`
`April 24, 2012
`
`Owner:
`
`Mark:
`
`Ronald C. Love dba Herbal Innovations
`
`ECLIPSE VAPE H20
`
`Opposition No.: 91205235
`
`REYNOLDS INNOVATIONS, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RONALD C. LOVE dba
`
`HERBAL INNOVATIONS
`
`Applicant.
`
`\./&/\/\/\/\/\/\/\./\y\/\./
`
`APPLICANT’S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`Applicant, RONALD C. LOVE dba Herbal Innovations (hereinafter "Applicant or
`
`“Love”) hereby responds to the Notice of Opposition to Serial No. 85/183,915 for the
`
`mark ECLIPSE VAPE H20 filed by REYNOLDS INNOVATIONS, INC. (hereinafter
`
`“Opposer”) as follows:
`
`1.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 1 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant is without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation
`
`contained in said paragraph.
`
`2.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant is without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation
`
`contained in said paragraph.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 3 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits
`
`that Opposer owns U.S. Registration No. 2,030,475 and is without sufficient knowledge
`
`or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the rest of
`
`said paragraph, and on that basis denies the rest of the allegations contained in said
`
`paragraph. The TARR database does not contain the full prosecution history of the
`
`subject registration.
`
`4.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant is without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`contained in said paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation
`
`contained in said paragraph. The Applicant has never seen the product of the Opposer
`
`and has no knowledge concerning use or lack of use of the ECLIPSE mark by the
`
`Opposer.
`
`5.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 5 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`6.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`7.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 7 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`8.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`9.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`10.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`11.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`12.
`
`In answer to Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies
`
`each and every allegation in said paragraph.
`
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Answering Applicant, as separate affirmative defenses to the Notice of
`
`Opposition on file herein, alleges as follows:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Notice of Opposition and each fact alleged therein fails to state proper
`
`factual grounds for a claim of relief through Opposition. Petitioner has not and will not
`
`be damaged by the registration of the mark ECLIPSE VAPE H20. The Applicant does
`
`not sell cigarettes and the goods of the Applicant are not be used with tobacco.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Notice of Opposition and each fact alleged therein fails to state proper
`
`factual grounds for a claim of relief through Opposition because the Registrant has
`
`failed to properly use the mark in commerce and has abandoned the mark within the
`
`meaning of 15 USC 1064(3).
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the Opposer in the Opposition are barred by the equitable doctrine
`
`of Estoppel.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the Opposer in the Opposition are barred by the equitable doctrine
`
`of Waiver.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the Opposer in the Opposition are barred by the equitable doctrine
`
`of Latches.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant RONALD C. LOVE prays that this Notice of Opposition
`
`be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Dated: ifvnv. O11 ,_ Q0 l 2 .
`
`O’BAN|ON & RITCHEY LLP
`
` \431%
`
`Steven L. Smith, Reg. No. 44,343
`O’BAN|ON & RITCHEY LLP
`
`400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1550
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`(916) 498-1010
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is hereby certified that a copy of this ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage pre-paid, on June 29, 2012 by
`
`mailing it to:
`
`William M. Bryner
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`Winston—Sa|em, NC 27101
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`
`By:
`
`€i7m%
`
`Steven L. Smith, Reg. No. 44,343
`O’BANlON & RITCHEY LLP
`
`Wells Fargo Center
`400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1550
`Sacramento, CA 95814
`(916) 498-1010
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner



