`ESTTA789916
`12/16/2016
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`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
`91210158
`
`Plaintiff
`Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C.
`
`JACQUELINE M LESSER
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`2929 ARCH STREET, CIRA CENTRE 12TH FLOOR
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891
`UNITED STATES
`jlesser@bakerlaw.com, jdale@bakerlaw.com, trademarksphi@bakerlaw.com,
`kblumer@bakerlaw.com
`Plaintiff's Notice of Reliance
`
`Jacqueline M. Lesser
`
`jlesser@bakerlaw.com, jdale@bakerlaw.com, trademarksphi@bakerlaw.com,
`kblumer@bakerlaw.com
`
`/Jacqueline M. Lesser/
`
`12/16/2016
`
`Opposers Notice of Reliance.pdf(20702 bytes )
`Exhibit A.pdf(452368 bytes )
`Exhibit B.pdf(422015 bytes )
`Exhibit C.pdf(373218 bytes )
`Exhibit D.pdf(118878 bytes )
`Exhibit E.pdf(204548 bytes )
`Exhibit F - FILED UNDER SEAL.pdf(6314 bytes )
`Exhibit G.pdf(1177322 bytes )
`Exhibit H.pdf(113182 bytes )
`Exhibit I.pdf(597789 bytes )
`Exhibit J.pdf(673713 bytes )
`Exhibit K .pdf(757837 bytes )
`Exhibit L.pdf(424662 bytes )
`Exhibit M.pdf(513578 bytes )
`Exhibit N.pdf(519210 bytes )
`Exhibit O.pdf(810872 bytes )
`Exhibit P.pdf(316441 bytes )
`Exhibit Q.pdf(361261 bytes )
`Exhibit S .pdf(565574 bytes )
`Exhibit T - FILED UNDER SEAL.pdf(6310 bytes )
`Exhibit U - FILED UNDER SEAL.pdf(6312 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`
`
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP
`
`
`Applicant
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF RELIANCE
`
`Opposer, Larry Pitt & Associates hereby offers into evidence by Notice of Reliance the
`
`following:
`
`1. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Applicant's Responses to
`
`Opposer's First Set of Interrogatories, dated September 10, 2013.
`
`2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Applicant's Responses to
`
`Opposer's First Set of Requests for Admissions to Opposer, (Nos. 1-33), dated September
`
`10, 2013.
`
`3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Applicant's Responses and
`
`Objections to Opposer's Request for Production of Documents and Things, dated
`
`September 10, 2013.
`
`4. Attached here to as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Applicant’s Supplemental
`
`Responses and Objections to Opposer's Request for Production of Documents and
`
`Things, Nos. 3, 8, 11, 14, 18 and 19, dated April 14, 2014.
`
`5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Case Study: Lundy Law of
`
`Expert Technology Associates.
`
`
`
`6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F, are true and correct copies of confidential documents,
`
`pursuant to the Protective Order mandated by the Board of Applicant’s Production
`
`Documents Nos. LUNDY01631
`
`and LUNDY01615. MARKED
`
`TRADE
`
`SECRET/COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE/ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.
`
`7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are printouts of articles advising businesses to choose
`
`names
`
`that
`
`are memorable,
`
`that
`
`is
`
`downloaded
`
`content
`
`from
`
`http:smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/sbc/2012/02/09/choosing-best-name-for-your-
`
`business.
`
`8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are downloads from HEALTH ALERT advertising for
`
`REMEMBER THIS NUMBER.
`
`9. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is U.S. Application Serial No. 85/767,757.
`
`10. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name”
`
`located at http://meangreenblog.dentonrc.com/2015/12/remember-this-name-
`
`when-it-comes-to-littrell-assistants-brad-davis.html/ and printed by the undersigned on
`
`December 15, 2016. Applicant will rely on this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous
`
`nature of the phrase remember this name, and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`11. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name” located at http://www.ocregister.com/articles/america-668296-talent-baril.html
`
`and printed by the undersigned on December 15, 2016. Applicant will rely on this
`
`material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this name, and
`
`how it does not function as a trademark.to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember
`
`this name, and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`12. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name” located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro554OY52dA and printed by the
`
`undersigned on December 16, 2016. Applicant will rely on this material as it is relevant
`
`to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this name, and how it does not function
`
`as a trademark.to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this name, and how it
`
`does not function as a trademark.
`
`13. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name”
`
`located
`
`at
`
`http://i0.wp.com/sebewaingbrewingcompany.com/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2015/11/Brewers-Best-Ad-3.jpg and printed by the undersigned on
`
`December 16, 2016. Applicant will rely on this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous
`
`nature of the phrase remember this name, and how it does not function as a trademark.to
`
`the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this name, and how it does not function as a
`
`trademark.
`
`14. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name” for Stetson Hats, from an issue of The Saturday Evening Post located at
`
`https://books.google.com/books?id=B5RJAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA69&lpg=RA2-
`
`PA69&dq=stetson+hats+you+young+men+who+are+making+america+the+best+dressed
`
`+philadelphia&source=bl&ots=uxPIMeybn8&sig=W1He4vo7D1YcetUu2bZ_oX9qCQI
`
`&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy45DC4PfQAhULjlQKHeu2CBAQ6AEINjAA#v=onep
`
`age&q&f=true and printed by the undersigned on December 15, 2016. Applicant will
`
`rely on this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this
`
`name, and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`15. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name” located at http://www.runnersworld.com/college/ and printed by the undersigned
`
`on December 15, 2016. Applicant will rely on this material as it is relevant to the to the
`
`ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this name, and how it does not function as a
`
`trademark.
`
`16. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a printout from the publicly available ad “remember this
`
`name”
`
`located
`
`at
`
`https://books.google.com/books?id=Qk4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=you
`
`r+dog,+too+miller's+kibbles&source=bl&ots=jV6rDlbuxF&sig=2xkREInZDqNdEY033
`
`ckLZjmaWWU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7xaqS6_fQAhVijVQKHcYeDtAQ6AEI
`
`GjAA#v=twopage&q&f=false and printed by the undersigned on December 15, 2016.
`
`Applicant will rely on this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase
`
`remember this name, and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`17. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a printout from the publicly available ad for LESTOIL ®
`
`cleaner, the advertising campaign is entitled “remember this name” The printout of this
`
`exhibit is located at https://books.google.com/books?id=qD0hAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-
`
`%C2%AD%E2%80%90PA92&lpg=RA1-
`
`%C2%AD%E2%80%90PA92&dq=advertising+%22remember+this+name%22&source=
`
`bl&ots=CaEp8Bwb#v=onepage&q=advertising%20%22remember%20this%20name%22
`
`&f=false and printed by the undersigned on December 15, 2016. Applicant will rely on
`
`this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this name,
`
`and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`18. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a printout from the publicly available book on building
`
`construction, which discusses the marketing of a business, and the usefulness of
`
`advertising to for exposure of a business in order for clients to “remember this name”
`
`located
`
`at
`
`https://books.google.com/books?id=BUUwgXxJFr8C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=ma#v
`
`=onepage&q&f=false and printed by the undersigned on December 16, 2016. Applicant
`
`will rely on this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember
`
`this name, and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`19. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a printout of a newspaper advertisement from October
`
`1921 available from the internet as digitized by Google Ads with reference made to
`
`“remember
`
`this
`
`name”
`
`located
`
`at
`
`https://books.google.com/books?id=rc4yAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA486-
`
`IA4&ots=JnOT8DjWtH&dq=%22mastin's%20vitamon%22%20AND%20%22watch%20
`
`your%20stock%22&pg=PA486-
`
`IA4#v=onepage&q=%22mastin's%20vitamon%22%20AND%20%22watch%20your%20
`
`stock%22&f=false and printed by the undersigned on December 16, 2016. Applicant will
`
`rely on this material as it is relevant to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase remember this
`
`name, and how it does not function as a trademark.
`
`20. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is the deposition of the August 25, 2015 deposition of Tami
`
`Sortman.
`
`21. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is excerpts from the August 26, 2015 deposition of L.
`
`Leonard Lundy.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: December 16, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By: BAKER HOSTETLER
`
`/s/ Jacqueline M. Lesser
`Jacqueline M. Lesser, Esq.
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104
`Tel: 215-568-3100
`Fax: 215-568-3439
`
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that this 16th day of December, 2016, a copy of the foregoing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF RELIANCE was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon:
`
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`Caesar Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow Ltd.
`1635 Market Street
`11th Floor – Seven Penn Center
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
`mpokotilow@crbcp.com
`
`/s/ Jacqueline M. Lesser
`Jacqueline M. Lesser
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`
`Serial No. 85767757
`
`APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO OPPOSER'S FIRST
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 37 C.F.R. §2.120(d),
`
`Applicant, Lundy Law, LLP. hereby serves upon Opposer, Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. their
`
`objections and responses to Opposer's First Set oflnterrogatories to Applicant.
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Each of the following general responses and objections are incorporated in the response
`
`to each and every interrogatory:
`
`1.
`
`By responding to any interrogatory, Applicant does not concede the materiality of
`
`the subject to which it refers. Applicant's responses are made expressly subject to, and without
`
`waiving or intending to waive, any questions or objections as to the competency, relevancy,
`
`materiality, privilege, or admissibility as evidence or for any other purpose of any of the
`
`infornrntion or res:Ponse produced, or the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding, including the
`
`trial of this action or any subsequent proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Interrogatories to the extent that they call for
`
`information subject to the attorney-client, attorney work-product, and/or other privilege.
`
`In
`
`1
`
`Exhibit A
`Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. v. Lundy Law,LLP
`Opposition No. 91/210158
`
`
`
`responding to these interrogatories, Applicant does not waive, but rather preserves, all such
`
`privileges.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's interrogatories to the extent that they are unduly
`
`broad and burdensome. Unless otherwise indicated, Applicant will provide relevant responses.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant objects generally to Opposer's interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`seek information beyond the scope of this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant objects generally to those interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`information beyond the scope of Rule 26(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant objects, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`to any interrogatory that asks it to identify documents, that it produces in this action.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant objects to those inte1Togatories that seek infonnation which Applicant
`
`considers to be confidential or proprietary, including trade secrets or other confidential research,
`
`development or commercial information. Responses to such interrogatories only will be
`
`provided on an attorneys' eyes only basis and as warranted under the tenns of the Protective
`
`Order in this proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`Inadvertent production of any information which is privileged, was prepared in
`
`anticipation of litigation, or is otherwise immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of
`
`any privilege or of any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to that document or
`
`any other document, or the subject matter thereof, or the information contained therein, or of
`
`Applicant's right to object to the use of any such document or the infonnation contained therein
`
`during any proceeding in this action or otherwise.
`
`9.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Interrogatories that request the identification of all
`
`persons having knowledge, or who participated in a particular event, or requesting the production
`
`2
`
`
`
`(
`
`or identification of all documents or things as burdensome and oppressive, especially where the
`
`degree of knowledge or participation of lesser and lmowledgeable or contributing persons or the
`
`degree of relevance of ce1iain documents is significantly less than the others, and where a
`
`complete response can thus even be misleading. However, Applicant will identify those persons
`
`believed to be most knowledgeable or who have participated most in the subject matter of the
`
`specific requests and will identify and/or produce those documents believed to be most
`
`responsive to the subject matter of the specific request, if not otherwise objectionable.
`
`10.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Interrogatories, including but not limited to the
`
`definitions and instructions, to the extent that they call upon Applicant to determine or produce
`
`information and documents wherein such information and documents are not in the possession,
`
`custody or control of Applicant.
`
`11.
`
`Applicant objects to the production of any infonnation that would require
`
`Applicant to violate any applicable contractual obligation to third parties.
`
`12.
`
`The responses provided herein are submitted while Applicant is continuing its
`
`investigation of facts and discovery of information and documents relating to the claims and
`
`defenses in this Opposition Proceeding. These responses are based only upon Applicant's
`
`current knowledge and reasonable belief.
`
`13.
`
`Applicant reserves its right to supplement its responses and objections to
`
`Applicant's discovery requests.
`
`14.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's instructions to the extent not permitted under or
`
`beyond the scope of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Practice governing Opposition
`
`Proceedings.
`
`3
`
`
`
`(
`
`These General Objections are incorporated by this reference into each and every response
`
`to the Interrogatories herein.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`Interrogatory No 1.
`
`Identify by name, and contact information the persons at Applicant chiefly responsible
`
`for: a) the operation of the company; b) the marketing of the company's services; and c) financial
`
`records for the company.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant objects to this
`
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infomiation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of
`
`admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and the foregoing General Objections, and
`
`without waiving the same, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`(a) L. Leonard Lundy, Managing Partner, (b) Tami S01iman, Marketing Director, and (c)
`
`Kelly Carson, Fim1 Administrator.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2.
`
`Identify by name, address and principle contact each advertising, marketing, promotional
`
`and/or production agency used by Applicant to produce adve1iising for Applicant from 2009 to
`
`the present.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant objects to this
`
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infomiation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`4
`
`
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Inte1TOgatory to the extent that it is
`
`seeking confidential business information, attorney-client privilege info1mation, that constitutes
`
`attorney work product, or that is protected by any other applicable privilege or protection.
`
`Subject to these objections and the foregoing General Objections, and without waiving the same,
`
`Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`CJ Advertising has done legal adve1iising for Lundy Law since 2003, Whitehardt
`
`Advertising made commercials for Marvin Lundy from 2006-2010, Bozeken Productions makes
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME ads for Lundy Law from 2011 to date, Ningio Adveiiising makes
`
`Soul Football ads for Lundy Law since 2011. Lundy Law advertises on most TV stations in the
`
`Philadelphia Designated Market Area (DMA) through CJ Advertising or the individual stations
`
`themselves, on KYW radio through the station, on Comcast Cable through Comcast, at the Wells
`
`Fargo Center through Comcast Spectacor, on Public Transportation in Pennsylvania, New Jersey
`
`and Delaware through Titan Advertising and Gateway Outdoor Advertising and Direct Media,
`
`All Web services are through CJ Advertising or Ningio Advertising , all print and graphic
`
`advertising and give-aways are done in house.
`
`Interrogatory No. 3.
`
`Identify and describe all types of advertising, marketing _and promotional activities that
`
`Applicant conducts to market, promote and sell its services under REMEMBER THIS NAME;
`
`list the type(s) of advertising, the medium for any ad placement; the geographic location of
`
`advertising; and identify all individuals or entities involved in the creation, selection and
`
`placement of all such advertising, marketing and promotional materials for Applicant since the
`
`first use of the slogan REMEMBER THIS NAME to the present.
`
`5
`
`
`
`(
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that "all types of advertising, marketing and promotional
`
`activities" is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Applicant futiher objects to this
`
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential information which is irrelevant to the
`
`current proceeding. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant
`
`incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 2. Applicant will respond further to
`
`this Interrogatory after the entry of a Protective Order.
`
`Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`Identify all persons with personal knowledge of Applicant's use and claim of iights in the
`
`phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME from date of adoption to the present.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that "all persons with personal knowledge" is overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome and requires a search for information that far exceeds the scope of
`
`infommtion relative to the claims or defenses in this proceeding. Subject to and without waiver
`
`of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Leonard Lundy and Tami Sortman.
`
`Interrogatory No. 5.
`
`Identify Applicant's first use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME in interstate
`
`commerce, and identify: 1) the date of first use; 2) the manner of first use; 3) the type of first use;
`
`4) the location of the first use, and 5) all persons with personal knowledge of Applicant's first
`
`use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME in interstate commerce.
`
`6
`
`I
`
`
`
`(
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Subject to and without waiver
`
`of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminaiy response is as follows:
`
`(1) The date of first use is May 16, 2011;
`
`(2) The manner first used was on banners used at a Philadelphia SOUL game and at
`
`motorcycle events;
`
`(3) The type of first use: See (2) above;
`
`(4) The location of the first use: See (2) above.
`
`Interrogatory No. 6.
`
`Identify all channels of trade in which Applicant promotes and provides services under the
`
`slogan REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogato1y on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome. Subject
`
`to and without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminaiy response is as
`
`follows:
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME is used on all fom1s of advertising, television, radio, print,
`
`outdoor, stadium, website advertising in pai1s of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. All
`
`advertising that uses REMEMBER THIS NAME says REMEMBER THIS NAME LUNDY
`
`LAW, or on occasion, the adve1tising says REMEMBER THIS NAME, 1-800-Lundy-Law on
`
`some radio announcements due to time constraints.
`
`7
`
`
`
`(
`
`Interrogatory No. 7.
`
`Identify and describe the circumstances sunounding Applicant's decision to file any
`
`applications to register REMEMBER THIS NAME and I'M GLAD I REMEMBERED THE
`
`NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infom1ation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. Applicant further objects to this Inte1mgatory as seeking information that is protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product or that is protected by any
`
`other applicable p1ivilege or protection. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general
`
`objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Applicant tries to register all of the marks it uses. It is routine. Applicant does it to
`
`protect its marks.
`
`Interrogatory No. 8.
`
`Identify and describe the decision-making process behind Applicant's creation, conception,
`
`clearance and adoption of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant fu11her objects to
`
`this Inte1TOgatory on the grounds that it seeks infom1ation that is protected by the attorney-client
`
`p1ivilege, that it constitutes attorney work product, or that is protected by any other applicable
`
`privilege or protection. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general objections,
`
`Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`8
`
`
`
`(
`
`(
`
`The creation, conception, clearance and adoption was a result of a meeting between
`
`Leonard Lundy, Tami Sorkin and Mike Fanelle ofBozekin Productions.
`
`Interrogatory No. 9.
`
`Identify all slogans or phrases that Applicant has contemplated for use with Applicant's
`
`services as an alternative to the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks inforn1ation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking infonnation that
`
`is protected by the attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is
`
`protected by any other applicable privilege or protection. Applicant objects to this Inten-ogatory
`
`on the basis that the Inten-ogatory is unclear and confusing and not understandable. Subject to
`
`and without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminmy response is as
`
`follows:
`
`To the extent that it is understandable, Applicant has not used a phrase or trademark as an
`
`alternative to REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Interrogatory No. 10.
`
`Identify all slogans used in connection with the name Lundy Law.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Inten-ogatory on the grounds that it seeks inforniation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`9
`
`
`
`(
`\
`
`admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general objections,
`
`Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Applicant has used the following trademarks in association with the name Lundy Law:
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME, I'M GLAD I REMEMBERED THIS NAME, I AM GLAD I
`
`REMEMBERED THE NAME.
`
`Interrogatory No. 11.
`
`Identify all standalone usages of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME by Applicant,
`
`including the media, the manner and date or dates of such use.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent that "all standalone usages of the phrase REMEMBER THIS
`
`NAME" is not understandable to Applicant, and accordingly, Applicant is unable to respond
`
`because the Interrogatory is vague and indefinite. The use of REMEMBER THIS NAME by
`
`Applicant is shown in the documents produced by Applicant.
`
`Interrogatory No. 12.
`
`Describe Applicant's areas of legal practice.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Subject to and without waiver
`
`of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Applicant's practice areas are listed on its website at www.lundylaw.com and a copy of
`
`the website is being produced.
`
`10
`
`
`
`(
`
`Interrogatory No. 13.
`
`Identify and describe each means utilized by Applicant to promote its services to clients
`
`and/or potential clients.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and uses language that requires a search
`
`for infomiation that far exceeds the scope of information relative to the claims or defenses raised
`
`in this proceeding. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome. Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it not
`
`only seeks infom1ation protected by the attorney-client privilege, it also seeks infonnation that is
`
`highly confidential and in-elevant to this proceeding. To the extent such infonnation is not
`
`confidential or privileged, Applicant states that it has previously answered above how it publicly
`
`promotes its services to clients.
`
`Interrogatory No. 14.
`
`Does Applicant refer any retained clients to third party law finns?
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infomiation that is neither relevant .to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking info1mation that
`
`is protected by the attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is
`
`protected by any other applicable privilege or protection. Still further, Applicant further objects
`
`11
`
`
`
`to this Interrogatory insofar as it seeks highly confidential business infonnation and there is no
`
`Protective Order in place.
`
`Interrogatory No. 15.
`
`If the answer to the preceding question is yes, describe the process and reasons for referring
`
`such clients to third party law firms.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its objections with respect to Interrogatory No. 14
`
`and accordingly, will not produce the information requested by Inte1Togatory No. 15.
`
`Interrogatory No. 16.
`
`Identify and describe Applicant's awareness of the use of the word "remember" in law
`
`finn advertising.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Interrogatory is vague and indefinite insofar as it
`
`requests "Applicant's awareness of the use of the word 'remember' in law firm advertising." It is
`
`not clear what meaning this expression has with respect to any claim or defense raised in this
`
`proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Applicant
`
`fu1ther objects on the basis it is vague and indefinite because it does not specify what time frame
`
`Opposer requests as to Applicant's awareness. Subject to and without waiver of these and its
`
`general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`To the extent that Applicant has become aware of searches performed, after the filing of
`
`this proceeding, Applicant states that it is aware that the term "REMEMBER" is part of
`
`trademarks of the applications and registrations produced by Applicant.
`
`12
`
`
`
`(
`
`Interrogatory No. 17.
`
`Describe Applicant's purpose in marketing its services through advertising via billboards;
`
`public transportation placement; public arenas; and via television.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infom1ation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory insofar as it seeks highly
`
`confidential business information without there being a Protective Order in place. Subject to and
`
`without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as
`
`follows:
`
`Applicant's purpose in marketing in all of the areas set forth in Interrogatory No. 17 is to
`
`market its services.
`
`Interrogatory No. 18.
`
`Identify and describe any searches, surveys, investigations, analyses, or studies by or on
`
`behalf of Applicant relating to Applicant's use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME and the
`
`dates of such searches, surveys, investigations, analyses, or studies and the names of the persons
`
`who commissioned the same.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks infonnation that is protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is protected by <my other
`
`13
`
`
`
`(
`
`applicable privilege or protection. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general
`
`objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`None.
`
`Interrogatory No. 19.
`
`State with specificity where, when and how Applicant first became aware of Opposer's
`
`use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NUMBER in Opposer's advertising.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant fu1ther objects to
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infonnation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence, because this proceeding does not relate to infringement, but rather to the
`registerability of Applicant's mark REMEMBER THIS NAME. Accordingly, this Interrogatory
`is completely in-elevant. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Applicant states that on
`January 24, 2013 an employee reported to Applicant that she saw someone else using the mark
`REMEMBER THIS NAME. The employee did not remember who. Applicant requested that
`she return to the place where she saw the advertisement and find the name of the law firm using
`the mark. The employee took a picture of the advertisement located on the inside of a SEPTA
`bus with her cell phone. The advertisement was that of Opposer. The advertisement did not use
`the Applicant's mark REMEMBER THIS NAME, rather, it used the mark REMEMBER THIS
`NUMBER.
`
`Interrogatory No. 20.
`
`Identify all persons who participated in any way in the preparation of the answers or
`
`responses to any of these interrogatories and reques