throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA725350
`02/05/2016
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91216597
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Monster Energy Company
`
`JONATHAN MENKES
`KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
`2040 MAIN STREET, 14TH FLOOR
`IRVINE, CA 92614
`UNITED STATES
`efiling@knobbe.com, francie.leonguerrero@knobbe.com,
`doreen.buluran@knobbe.com
`
`Motion to Consolidate
`
`Nicole R. Townes
`
`efiling@knobbe.com, francie.leonguerrero@knobbe.com,
`doreen.buluran@knobbe.com
`
`/Nicole R. Townes/
`
`02/05/2016
`
`2016-02-05 CONSENTED MTN TO CONSOLIDATE OPPOSITION PROCEED-
`INGS-HANBEV.2445M, 3828M.pdf(101922 bytes )
`
`

`
`HANBEV.2445M/3828M/3829M
`
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Opposition No.: 91216597
`Serial No.: 86/020321
`Mark: MONSTER MOTO
`
`Opposition No.: 91225827
`Serial No.: 86/394129
`Mark:
`
`Serial No.: 86/394130
`Mark: MONSTER MOTO
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`
`MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY,
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MONSTER MOTO, LLC,
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S CONSENTED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`
`OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and T.B.M.P. § 511, Monster Energy
`
`Company (“Opposer”) hereby moves to consolidate Opposition No. 91225827 (the “Second
`
`Filed Opposition”) with Opposition No. 91216597 (the “First Filed Opposition”) and reset the
`
`remaining trial dates in the First Filed Opposition to the dates presently set for the Second Filed
`
`Opposition. The Oppositions before the Board involve common questions of law and fact and
`
`the same parties. Applicant Monster Moto, LLC (“Applicant”) has stated that it consents to
`
`consolidating the oppositions.
`
`Although an answer has not yet been submitted in the Second Filed Opposition, the
`
`Board may in its discretion order cases consolidated prior to the filing of an Answer. See
`
`T.B.M.P. § 511. T.B.M.P. § 511 permits a party to petition the Board to have proceedings
`
`

`
`consolidated where the cases involve common questions of law or fact. When determining
`
`whether to consolidate proceedings, the Board weighs the savings in time, effort, and expense,
`
`which may be gained from consolidation, against any prejudice or inconvenience that may be
`
`caused thereby. Id. The Board also considers the identity of the parties. Id.
`
`The current Oppositions involve common questions of law and fact, identical and similar
`
`marks for essentially identical goods, and the same parties. Accordingly, the Oppositions should
`
`be consolidated.
`
`For example, the same marks asserted by Opposer in the First Filed Opposition have also
`
`been asserted by Opposer in the Second Filed Opposition, in addition to a few other MONSTER-
`
`inclusive marks within Opposer’s family of MONSTER marks.
`
`Further, one of the two opposed marks in the Second Filed Opposition is the MONSTER
`
`MOTO word mark, which is identical to the opposed mark in the First Filed Opposition. The
`
`other opposed mark in the Second Filed Opposition is the
`
` design mark,
`
`which includes the phrase MONSTER MOTO.
`
`The goods identified in connection with Applicant’s opposed mark in the First Filed
`
`Opposition are “mini-bikes; go carts.” The goods identified in connection with both of
`
`Applicant’s opposed marks in the Second Filed Opposition are “Mini bikes, go-carts; structural
`
`parts for mini bikes and go-carts; replacement and customizing structural parts for mini bikes and
`
`go-carts; fitted and semi-fitted protective covers for mini bikes and go-carts; wheels and tires for
`
`mini bikes and go-carts.” Thus, Applicant’s goods identified in connection with its opposed
`
`mark in the First Filed Opposition are encompassed by the identification of goods for
`
`Applicant’s opposed marks in the Second Filed Opposition.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Finally, the parties in both the First Filed Opposition and the Second Filed Opposition are
`
`identical. Monster Energy Company and Monster Moto, LLC are the only parties involved in
`
`both of the Oppositions.
`
`Consolidation will save the Board and the parties the time, effort, and expense that would
`
`be required in maintaining the Oppositions on separate schedules. This motion is sought for
`
`purposes of judicial economy and not for reasons of delay. To avoid duplicative litigation and
`
`promote judicial economy, while preserving the interest of the parties in the Oppositions, the
`
`above Oppositions should be consolidated into one proceeding.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Opposer requests consolidation of Opposition No.
`
`91225827 with Opposition No. 91216597 while retaining the separate character of the
`
`Oppositions and requiring separate judgments for each of the Oppositions pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 42(a) and T.B.M.P. § 511. Opposer further requests that the Board reset the remaining
`
`trial dates in Opposition No. 91216597 (the First Filed Opposition) to the dates presently set for
`
`Opposition No. 91225827 (the Second Filed Opposition). See T.B.M.P. § 511 (“Upon
`
`consolidation, the Board will reset dates for the consolidated proceeding, usually by adopting the
`
`dates as set in the most recently instituted of the cases being consolidated.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`By: /Nicole Rossi Townes/
`
`Steven J. Nataupsky
` Diane M. Reed
` Nicole Rossi Townes
`
`Jonathan A. Menkes
`
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`(949) 760-0404
`
`efiling@knobbe.com
`Attorneys for Opposer,
`MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`tbergert@williamsmullen.com, ip@williamsmullen.com , prenie@williamsmullen.com ,
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Monster Energy Company v. Three Notch'd Brewing Company, LLC
`I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S CONSENTED
`Opposition No. 91217273
`
`=:... Three Noteh'd
`
`........... BR£WlNG COMPANY
`ｍ｡ｲｫＺｾＮＥ＠
`
`Our Ref: HANBEV.2514M
`
`MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS upon Applicant’s counsel
`
`by depositing one copy thereof in the United States Mail, First Class mail postage prepaid, on
`
`February 5, 2016, addressed as follows:
`
`
`
`Please find enclosed one hard drive containing documents bearing production numbers MEC00000001 -
`MEC00060699. These documents are produced on behalf of Opposer Monster Energy Company. Pursuant to
`Molly Buck Richard
`the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's Standard Protective Order, select documents have been designated as
`RICHARD LAW GROUP
`"Confidential" and ''Trade Secret/Commercially Sensitive" and should be treated as such.
`8411 Preston Road, Suite 890
`Dallas, Texas 75225
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Signature:
`
`Doreen P. Buluran
`Name: Doreen P. Buluran
`Paralegal
`
`Date: February 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`22592136/dpb/020116
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason A. Champion, Esq.
`Jonathan A. Menkes, Esq.
`
`Sen Francisco
`
`Va!!ey
`
`Los Angeles
`
`Seattls
`
`Washington DC
`
`
`
`- 4 -

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