Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA667499
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`04/20/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91216316
`Defendant
`Marco PIETRONI
`JOHN ALUMIT
`ALUMIT IP
`135 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 200
`GLENDALE, CA 91205
`UNITED STATES
`john@alumitip.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`John Alumit
`john@alumitip.com
`/john alumit/
`04/20/2015
`TTAB_Stoneglass_ResponseToOpposerMotionforProtective.pdf(3756547 bytes
`)
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`
`ESTTA667499
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`04/20/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91216316
`Defendant
`Marco PIETRONI
`JOHN ALUMIT
`ALUMIT IP
`135 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 200
`GLENDALE, CA 91205
`UNITED STATES
`john@alumitip.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`John Alumit
`john@alumitip.com
`/john alumit/
`04/20/2015
`TTAB_Stoneglass_ResponseToOpposerMotionforProtective.pdf(3756547 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
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`StonCor Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`Marco PIETRONI,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`____________________________________)
`
`Opposition No. 91216316
`Serial No. 79/120,511
`Applicant’s Mark: STONEGLASS
`(stylized)
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
`ORDER AND EXTENSION OF DEADLINES, AND MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY AND SANCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`Applicant responds in opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Protective Order and
`
`for Extension of Deadlines filed on April 10, 2015. Opposer has filed such motion in
`
`Bad Faith in an attempt to escape discovery obligations. Opposer has also made factually
`
`incorrect and misleading statements in its Motion. Applicant further requests sanctions
`
`for failure to provide discovery.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`On July 23, 2014, Applicant and Opposer held a discovery conference, in which
`
`both parties agreed to service of documents by email in lieu of mail.
`
`
`
`On October 10, 2014, the Board entered an Order granting the Consent Motion
`
`and stating that, upon conclusion of the suspension period, “proceedings shall resume
`
`without further notice or order from the Board, using the schedule set forth in opposer’s
`
`
`
`September 17, 2014 motion,” which provided that discovery would close on March 15,
`
`2015. March 15, 2015 fell on a Sunday.
`
`
`
`On March 4, 2015, just eleven days before the close of discovery, Opposer served
`
`its first set of discovery requests, namely, Interrogatories, Request for Production of
`
`Documents, and Requests for Admissions. Opposer’s Discovery Requests consisted of
`
`162 Requests for Production of Documents, 195 Requests for Admission, and 39
`
`Interrogatories. Despite the excessive number of requests, applicant timely filed its
`
`responses on April 1, 2015.
`
`
`
`On March 16, 2015, Applicant served its Discovery Requests via email,
`
`consisting of only 17 Requests for Admissions and 60 Requests for Production of
`
`Documents.
`
`
`
`On April 6, 2015, Opposer requested an extension of time to respond to discovery
`
`requests without providing a reason for such extension. Opposer said it needed additional
`
`time to “to adequately respond to the discovery requests and to collect responsive
`
`documents.” However, this is what the 30 day response deadline is intended for. On
`
`April 9, 2015, Applicant denied the request.
`
`
`
`On April 10, 2015, Opposer served its responses to Applicant’s Requests for
`
`Admission only. In lieu of a response to Applicant’s Request for Production of
`
`Documents, Opposer served a Motion for Protective Order and a Request for an
`
`Extension of Deadlines and Resetting of Deadlines.
`
`
`
`II. ARGUMENTS
`
`A. No Valid Basis for Motion for Protective Order
`
`
`
`
`
`According 37 CFR § 2.196, whenever any deadline set by the USPTO falls on a
`
`holiday or weekend, the deadline is the next Business Day. In the Board’s Order of
`
`September 17, 2014, the Board set the close of discovery date on March 15, 2015. March
`
`15, 2015 is a Sunday, thereby making the close of discovery, Monday, March 16, 2015.
`
`
`
`Opposer’s experienced attorneys know this basic rule. Exhibit I. Nevertheless,
`
`Opposer files a Motion for Protective Order knowing that Applicant’s discovery requests
`
`were timely.
`
`
`
`Opposer’s motion is therefore nothing more than a bad faith attempt to escape
`
`discovery obligations.
`
`
`
`B. Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`
`
`Applicant attaches a copy of Applicant’s Request for Production of Documents.
`
`Exhibit II.
`
`
`
`Opposer’s request for an Extension of Time to respond to Discovery Requests is
`
`baseless and without merit. Opposer contends that it requires time to review and collect
`
`responsive documents to Opposer’s 60 Document Request. However, experienced
`
`attorneys know that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) and TBMP section 406.04, “[f]or
`
`each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities
`
`will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the
`
`reasons.” Whether or not more time is needed to review and collect responsive
`
`documents is therefore irrelevant.
`
`
`
`Moreover, Opposer has already reviewed its documents and knows what it has in
`
`its possession. According to TTAB records, Opposer has filed 25 oppositions dating back
`
`
`
`to 2006, all relating to its “STONCOR” marks. Exhibit III. At least 9 of these
`
`oppositions had completed the discovery period. Exhibit IV.
`
`
`
`Opposer, like Applicant, could have objected to the requests or state that
`
`responsive documents, if any, would be produced. Instead, Opposer dedicated its 30 days
`
`to filing a Response to Applicant’s 17 Request for Admissions and a Motion for
`
`Protective Order.
`
`
`
`In sum, Opposer cannot establish good cause for failing to timely respond to
`
`Opposer’s Request for Production of Documents, and has no grounds for an extension.
`
`
`
`E. Opposer has forfeited its right to object to the discovery request on its merits
`
`
`
`A party which fails to respond to a request for discovery (except for a request for
`
`admission) during the time allowed therefor, and which is unable to show that its failure
`
`was the result of excusable neglect, may be found, upon motion to compel filed by the
`
`propounding party, to have forfeited its right to object to the discovery request on its
`
`merits. TBMP section 527.01(c); See No Fear Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1554
`
`(TTAB 2000) (stating that the Board has great discretion in determining whether such
`
`forfeiture should be found).
`
`
`
`Opposer’s failure to provide responses to applicant’s Request for Production of
`
`Documents should result in a waiver of right to object to the discovery requests on its
`
`merits.
`
`F. Board’s Inherent Authority to Sanction
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, in light of Opposer’s Bad Faith Motion for a Protective Order and
`
`Request for Extension of Deadlines, Applicant requests any other remedy the Board may
`
`impose that is within it inherent authority to sanction. TBMP section 527.03.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 19, 2015
`
`By
`_____/john alumit/________
`John Alumit
`ALUMIT IP
`135 S. Jackson Street, Suite 200
`Glendale, CA 91205
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Marco PIETRONI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S
`RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
`EXTENSION OF DEADLINES, AND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
`SANCTIONS has been served on counsel for Opposer, CHARLES N. QUINN, on April
`20, 2015 via electronic mail, as agreed to by the parties in the discovery conference, at
`the following email addresses:
`
`Charles Quinn:
`cquinn@foxrothschild.com;33
`dmcgregor@foxrothschild.com;33
`ipdocket@foxrothschild.com;33
`cesch@foxrothschild.com;33
`dwilliams@foxrothschild.com3
`mscott@foxrothschild.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/john alumit/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
` Search
`
`MENU
`
`Charles N. Quinn
`
`Partner
`
`Exton, PA
`
`610.458.4984
`
`
`Charlie has practiced intellectual property law in Philadelphia for more than 40 years. His experience includes:
`
`Preparing, filing and prosecuting patent and trademark applications in the United States and abroad
`
`Registering claims for copyright
`
`Litigating patent, trademark and copyright infringement actions, on both the prosecution and defense sides, domestically and
`
`abroad
`
`Technology licensing
`
`Advising and counseling domestic and offshore clients on a wide range of intellectual property and electronic commerce issues
`
`Being the attorney of record on nearly 1,000 trademark registrations in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is the
`
`attorney of record on well over 1000 international trademark registrations
`
`Prosecuting to issuance nearly 500 U.S. patents and more than 350 international patents
`
`Serving as an expert witness at the trial of four patent cases
`
`1 of 3
`
`Before Fox Rothschild
`
`4/19/15, 10:41 PM
`
`
`
`Before that, Charlie was a name partner and served as the managing partner of a local intellectual property firm as
`well as serving of counsel to another local intellectual property firm.
`
`Beyond Fox Rothschild
`
`Charlie has published numerous articles and spoken on intellectual property issues in the U.S., Europe and Japan.
`He has served two terms on the Board of Governors of the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Association and
`before that was a two-term Treasurer of that Association. Charlie is currently serving as Editor-in-Chief for the
`Intellectual Property Section of the Dunlap-Hanna Treatise and Form Book on Pennsylvania law.
`
`Honors and Awards
`
`U.S. Delegate, 1981 World Conference, Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle, Edinburgh, Scotland
`
`Martindale-Hubbell “AV” rated
`
`Included in a list of "Super Lawyers" by Philadelphia Magazine and Law & Politics Magazine (2004, 2006, 2007)
`
`Biography
`
`Publications
`
`Speaking Engagements/Events
`
`
`
`Practice Areas
`
`Corporate
`Entertainment
`Franchising, Licensing & Distribution
`Intellectual Property
`International
`IP Litigation
`Life Sciences
`Patent Prosecution & Transactions
`Post-Grant Proceedings
`Trade Secrets
`Trademarks
`
`Bar Admissions
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`Education
`
`J.D., Villanova University School of Law, 1973
`
`M.S.E.Sc., Pennsylvania State University, Engineering Science 1970
`
`B.S.M.E., Purdue University, Mechanical Engineering 1965
`2 of 3
`
`4/19/15, 10:41 PM
`
`
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`
`Memberships
`
`American Bar Association
`
`American Intellectual Property Law Association
`
`Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle
`
`Licensing Executives Society
`
`Benjamin Franklin Inn of Court
`
`Copyright Society of the United States
`
`Philadelphia Bar Association
`
`Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association, Treasurer (two terms); Board of Governors (two terms)
`
`©2015 All content of this web site is the property and copyright of Fox Rothschild LLP and may not be reproduced in any format without prior express
`
`permission.
`
`Contact marketing@foxrothschild.com for more information or to seek permission to reproduce content.
`
`Attorney Advertising
`
`3 of 3
`
`4/19/15, 10:41 PM
`
`
`
` Search
`
`MENU
`
`Melissa E. Scott
`
`Associate
`
`Exton, PA
`
`610.458.1413
`
`
`An experienced litigation attorney, Melissa regularly counsels clients on a wide array of complex commercial litigation matters,
`
`including, but not limited to, claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contractual
`
`relations and civil conspiracy. Her experience also extends to the areas of products liability and mass torts, intellectual property
`
`(patent and trademark infringement and trade secrets), unfair trade practices, consumer protection, fraud, the Fair Credit Reporting
`
`Act (FCRA), insurance defense and construction litigation.
`
`Additionally, Melissa has prosecuted multiple trademark applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and regularly
`
`counsels clients on protecting their intellectual property.
`
`Representative Matters
`
`Defended a major consumer lending company against unfair trade practices and consumer protections claims brought by the
`
`Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office in connection with a line of credit product.
`
`1 of 3
`
`Defended the world’s largest Internet domain name registrar against allegations of infringing upon a patent purportedly claiming a
`4/19/15, 11:30 PM
`device and method for communicating client due date reminders and receiving replies to the reminders over the Internet.
`
`
`
`patent covering multiple aspects of a folding children’s stroller.
`
`Defended a major stock exchange against allegations of infringing upon a patent purportedly claiming a method for valuing
`
`“expiration-less” stock options.
`
`Defended a major pharmaceutical company in a private product liability arbitration involving more than 600 personal injury claims
`
`related to a pharmaceutical product.
`
`Defended two transplant surgeons in a week-long trial alleging defamation/false light claims against a major Pennsylvania medical
`
`center.
`
`Represented a small, domestic spring water company in a Lanham Act action against a large, international bottled water company
`
`alleging false advertising of the international company’s spring water product.
`
`Defended a general contractor against Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), contract, personal injury and class
`
`action claims arising from a parking garage collapse.
`
`Before Fox Rothschild
`
`Prior to joining Fox Rothschild, Melissa was an associate at two national law firms as well as an international law firm.
`
`While in law school, Melissa served as executive editor for the Temple Law Review as well as a teaching assistant for the Director of
`
`Legal Research and Writing Program.
`
`Biography
`
`Publications
`
`
`
`Practice Areas
`
`Construction
`Insurance
`Intellectual Property
`Litigation
`
`Bar Admissions
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`New Jersey
`
`Education
`
`J.D., cum laude, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2004
`
`B.A., George Washington University, 2001
`
`Court Admissions
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`2 of 3
`
`ey
`
`4/19/15, 11:30 PM
`
`
`
`©2015 All content of this web site is the property and copyright of Fox Rothschild LLP and may not be reproduced in any format without prior express
`
`permission.
`
`Contact marketing@foxrothschild.com for more information or to seek permission to reproduce content.
`
`Attorney Advertising
`
`3 of 3
`
`4/19/15, 11:30 PM
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`StonCor Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`Marco PIETRONI,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`____________________________________)
`
`Opposition No. 91216316
`Serial No. 79/120,511
`Applicant’s Mark: STONEGLASS
`(stylized)
`
`APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO OPPOSER
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 2.120 of the Trademark Rules of Practice and Rule 34 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure Marco PIETRONI ("Applicant"), hereby requests that
`
`StonCor Group, Inc. ("Opposer") produce, within thirty (30) days of service hereof, the
`
`documents and things identified below for inspection and copying at ALUMIT IP, 135 S.
`
`Jackson Street, Suite 200, Glendale, CA 91205
`
`
`
`Definitions and Instructions
`
`A. For the convenience of counsel, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and as
`
`suggested by TBMP Section 407.02, it is requested that each numbered discovery request
`
`be answered by repeating the request in its entirety and then providing the corresponding
`
`response.
`
`
`
`B. These document requests shall be deemed continuing in nature and, to the extent that
`
`your response may be enlarged, diminished, or otherwise modified by information
`
`acquired subsequent to the production of your initial responses hereto, you are required,
`
`to the extent set forth in Rule 26( e) of the Federal Rules, to produce supplemental
`
`responses reflecting such changes promptly.
`
`C. The terms "you," "your," and “Opposer” refer to StonCor Group, Inc., and include
`
`any agents, officers, employees, representatives, subsidiaries, parent companies, and
`
`affiliated companies.
`
`D. The term "document" means a writing, recording, photograph, or document as
`
`defined by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, and includes any document, originals and copies, in the possession,
`
`custody or control of Applicant or counsel, or known to Applicant or counsel.
`
`E. The term "thing" shall mean, without limitation, any tangible thing containing or
`
`exhibiting any information or communication or having the ability to convey or exhibit
`
`the same through any medium whatsoever and shall be construed in the most
`
`comprehensive sense permitted under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`F. The term "Opposer's Marks" shall mean those trademarks identified by Opposer to
`
`serve as the basis for the opposition, namely, the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i) STONGLAZE (U.S. Reg. No. 3775547);
`
`ii) STONHARD (U.S. Reg. No. 1487280);
`
`iii) STONCLAD-PT (U.S. Reg. No. 1306662);
`
`iv) STONCRETE (U.S. Reg. No. 1645258);
`
`v) STONLUX (U.S. Reg. No. 1687420);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi) STONLINER (U.S. Reg. No. 1688593);
`
`v) STONSHIELD (U.S. Reg. No. 1689713);
`
`vi) STONSET (U.S. Reg. 1691045);
`
`vii) STONKOTE (U.S. Reg. No. 1697228);
`
`viii) STONPROOF (U.S. Reg. No. 1697229);
`
`ix) STONSEAL (U.S. Reg. No. 1697230);
`
`x) STONFIL (U.S. Reg. No. 1703299);
`
`xi) STONCLAD (U.S. Reg. No. 1706070);
`
`xii) STONBLEND (U.S. Reg. No. 1712857);
`
`xiii) STONCREST (U.S. Reg. NO. 1740723); and
`
`xiv) STONCHEM (U.S. Reg. No. 29878818).
`
`G. The term "Opposer's Goods" or “Opposer’s Services” shall mean the goods or
`
`services set forth in the pleaded registrations (i) through (xiv) in paragraph H.
`
`H. The term "Applicant's Mark" shall mean STONEGLASS (stylized) as identified in
`
`serial no. 79120511.
`
`I. The term "Applicant's Goods" shall mean the goods set forth in the opposed
`
`Application Serial No. 79120511, in particular, “Glass element for building; glass slabs
`
`for use in building; plate glass for building; sheet glass for use in building; glass panels
`
`for building construction purposes; glass tiles not for roofing; glass for building,” in class
`
`019, and “Sheet glass not for building; sheet glazing materials other than for use in
`
`building, namely, colored sheet glass and common sheet glass; semi-worked glass
`
`panels,” in class 021.
`
`J. The terms "disclosing" or "referring to" or' "relating to" shall mean pertaining to,
`
`
`
`mentioning, commenting on, connected with, discussing, describing, analyzing,
`
`explaining, showing, reflecting, evidencing, dealing with, comprising of, consisting of,
`
`containing, constituting, resulting from, or recording a particular subject in whole or in
`
`part and either directly or indirectly.
`
`K. The term "and" means "or" and vice versa, as necessary to bring within the scope
`
`of the discovery request any document, thing, or other information that might otherwise
`
`be construed to be outside the scope of such request.
`
`L. The term “person” means any natural person, or any legal or fictitious entity including
`
`without limitation any corporation, partnership, or association.
`
`M. The term “Communication(s)” shall include the transmittal of information and
`
`includes original and all non-identical copies of all documents, as defined herein, sent or
`
`received by any person, as well as any documents reflecting or recording the content of
`
`any oral, written or other communications in any form (including, without limitation,
`
`interoffice and intraoffice memoranda and other communications).
`
`N. The singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular, as necessary
`
`to bring within the scope of the discovery request any document, thing or other
`
`information that might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope of such request.
`
`O. Unless otherwise stated or implicit in the discovery request (such as a request for the
`
`"first" date), each discovery request shall be interpreted as calling for information
`
`covering the period up to and including the date of service of your discovery responses
`
`herein.
`
`P. Where a discovery request seeks the identification or production of documents, things,
`
`or other information that are not within your actual or constructive possession, custody,
`
`
`
`control, or knowledge, you shall so state and shall answer the discovery request to the
`
`extent of your knowledge or belief based on the best information presently available.
`
`Where you have knowledge or a belief as to other persons having such possession,
`
`custody, control, or knowledge, you shall identify, to the extent known and based on the
`
`best information presently available, all such persons, together with a brief summary of
`
`the nature of the document, things, or other information believed to be known to such
`
`persons.
`
`Q. When producing documents, all documents that are physically attached to each other
`
`in files shall be made available in that form regardless of whether the attached documents
`
`are otherwise requested herein. Documents that are segregated or separated from other
`
`documents whether by inclusion in binders, files, sub-files, or by use of dividers, tabs, or
`
`any other method, shall be made available in that form.
`
`R. These requests require you to produce all documents and electronically stored
`
`information in your "possession, custody, or control" within the broadest meaning of that
`
`phrase permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including documents and
`
`electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other
`
`person acting or purporting to act on behalf of you or under your direction or control. If
`
`documents and electronically stored information called for in any request cannot be
`
`produced in full after exercising due diligence to secure them, you should so state and
`
`specify why the requested documents or information cannot be produced.
`
`S. Unless otherwise stated, each paragraph and subparagraph herein shall be construed
`
`independently and not with reference to any other paragraph or subparagraph for the
`
`purpose of limitation.
`
`
`
`T. If, in answering any of these requests, any ambiguity in construing either the request
`
`or a definition or instruction relevant to the inquiry contained within the request is
`
`encountered, identify the matter deemed ambiguous and set forth the construction chosen
`
`or used in responding to the request.
`
`U. Each request that seeks documents and electronically stored information concerning
`
`communications to, from, or within a business or a corporate entity, is hereby designed to
`
`demand, and should be construed to include, all communications by and between
`
`representatives, employees, agents, brokers, and servants of the business or corporate
`
`entity.
`
`V. Except as otherwise specified, each and every non-identical copy of a document
`
`(whether different from the original because of stamps, indications of receipt,
`
`handwritten notes, marks, attachment to different documents, or any other reason) is a
`
`separate document to be produced.
`
`W. If the response to any request is believed by Opposer to constitute confidential
`
`information or trade secrets, it should be so designated and access thereto will be in
`
`accordance with the Protective Order agreed to by the parties for this proceeding. If any
`
`document or thing is withheld from production in this proceeding on the basis of any
`
`privilege or exemption from discovery, Opposer should produce a privilege list that
`
`identifies all withheld documents and things. The privilege list shall include, at a
`
`minimum, the date, addressee, author, title, subject matter, and the specific ground upon
`
`which each withheld document or thing is claimed to be privileged or otherwise not
`
`subject to discovery in this case. Notwithstanding the assertion of your claim of
`
`privilege, any requested document which you object to producing but which also contains
`
`
`
`non-privileged matter which is responsive to this request must be produced, but that
`
`portion of the document for which privilege is asserted must be redacted, provided that
`
`the above-requested information is furnished.
`
`X. If you object to or otherwise decline to answer any portion or aspect of a request for
`
`production, provide all information requested by the remainder of the request and state
`
`with particularity the nature of and complete factual basis for such objection. If you
`
`object to a request for production for the reason that it is too broad, provide all
`
`information that you concede is relevant. If you object to a request for production on the
`
`ground that to provide an answer would constitute undue burden, provide all requested
`
`information that can be supplied without undertaking the alleged undue burden. If you are
`
`providing less than a complete response to any request, your written response should
`
`clearly indicate any limitation on your production.
`
`Y. The responses requested herein should be produced at the office of ALUMIT IP at 135
`
`S. Jackson Street, Suite 200, Glendale, CA 91205.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:
`
`Representative samples of documents evidencing any instance of actual confusion
`
`between any of Opposer’s Marks and Applicant’s Mark.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2:
`
`Representative samples of documents evidencing Opposer’s intended consumers and
`
`channels of trade, including, but not limited to, advertising materials, presentations,
`
`marketing materials, client agreements, standard marketing contracts, distribution
`
`agreement, and sales agreements.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to the first use of each of
`
`Opposer’s Marks, including, but not limited to, all invoices, advertisements, brochures,
`
`promotional materials, packaging, user manuals, and containers.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to any variations of Opposer’s
`
`Marks and/or the goods or services upon which such variations were used, including but
`
`not limited to, invoices, advertisements, promotional materials, brochures, trademark
`
`searches, surveys, or studies.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Representative samples of documents and things referring or relating to Opposer’s
`
`current use of Opposer’s Marks.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things concerning Opposer’s past use, present
`
`use, or plans for future use of Opposer’s Marks or any marks similar to Opposer’s Marks.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO 7:
`
`Representative samples of documents relating or referring to, or tending to show annual
`
`sales of Opposer’s goods and services on which Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof
`
`has been used in both units and dollars from the date of first use of Opposer’s Marks to
`
`the present.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:
`
`Representative samples of documents relating or referring to any discontinuation of any
`
`of Opposer’s Marks since its initial adoption.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9:
`
`Representative samples of document and things referring or relating to, or tending to
`
`show how Opposer’s Marks have been and is being used, advertised or promoted in the
`
`U.S. since the date of its initial adoption to the present, including brochures, newspaper
`
`and magazine articles, advertisements, trade journal articles, internal company
`
`memorandums, radio ads and television ads.
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:
`
`Representative samples of labels, tags, packaging, containers, catalogs, or printed
`
`materials showing use of Opposer’s Marks since its initial adoption.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to, or tending to show
`
`advertising expenditures incurred by Opposer in connection with Opposer’s Marks since
`
`inception.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
`
`Representative samples of documents evidencing, relating or referring to, authorizations
`
`or agreements with third parties involving Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof,
`
`including but not limited to, all licenses, franchise agreements, or manufacturing
`
`agreements.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to advertising conducted by
`
`authorized users of Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:
`
`
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to, or tending to show, the
`
`amount of money spent by any authorized users on promotional activities or
`
`advertisements for Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to Opposer’s channels of
`
`distribution to ultimate consumers.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to plans for steps toward
`
`expansion by Opposer of the number of products and services under which Opposer’s
`
`Marks is used, or to alter the present channels of distribution, or to sell to persons other
`
`than Opposer’s present purchasers.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:
`
`All documents and things referring or relating to any search or investigation of the
`
`records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or any other records of publications in
`
`connection with the adoption, use or application for registration of Opposer’s Marks or
`
`any variation thereof.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:
`
`Representative samples of documents referring or relating to any reports of the results of
`
`any search or investigation in connection with Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof.
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:
`
`All documents and things relating or referring to, or showing ownership of, any claimed
`
`predecessor-in-title to Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things referring or relating to any attempt by
`
`Opposer to register Opposer’s Marks (other than the case in issue) or any variation
`
`thereof under the laws of any state or before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things referring or relating to Opposer’s first
`
`knowledge of Applicant’s Mark.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things referring or relating to Opposer’s first
`
`knowledge of Applicant.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23:
`
`All documents and things referring or relating to any communication received by
`
`Opposer which was intended for Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24:
`
`All documents and things referring or relating to, or tending to show a disclaimer made
`
`by Opposer as to an association with Applicant.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25:
`
`All documents and things referring or relating to any adversarial proceeding involving
`
`Opposer’s Marks or any variation thereof before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,
`
`Bureau of Customs, Federal Trade Commission, any court, tribunal, agency, or any
`
`foreign trademark office or court.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:
`
`All documents and things referring or relating to any objection raised by Opposer’s use or
`
`registration of Opposer’s Marks, by any third party apart from the present proceeding.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27:
`
`All documents and things referring or relating to any objections made by Opposer to the
`
`use by others, of marks believed by Opposer to be confusingly similar to Opposer’s
`
`Marks.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things concerning Opposer’s efforts to enforce
`
`its rights in Opposer’s Mark against any third persons other than the Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things concerning dates of continuous use of
`
`Opposer’s Marks which identify each of Opposer’s goods and services.
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things concerning the commercial impression
`
`Opposer intends Opposer’s Marks to have.
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31:
`
`Representative samples of documents and things concerning Opposer’s attendance at
`
`trade shows and Opposer’s use of Opposer’s Marks at trade shows, including but not
`
`limited, trade show displays and advertising in c
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
