`ESTTA734083
`03/17/2016
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91223943
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Genomma Lab Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V.
`
`DANIEL C NEUSTADT
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`800 17TH STREET NW, SUITE 1100
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006
`UNITED STATES
`dan.neustadt@hklaw.com
`
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`Daniel C. Neustadt
`
`dan.neustadt@hklaw.com, paul.kilmer@hklaw.com, laurie.milton@hklaw.com,
`ptdocketing@hklaw.com
`
`/Daniel C. Neustadt/
`
`03/17/2016
`
`Opposer's Motion to Compel - Opp. No. 91223943.pdf(139982 bytes )
`Exhibits A-G -- Motion to Compel -- Opp. No. 91223943.pdf(4245313 bytes )
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`GENOMMA LAB INTERNACIONAL, :
` S.A.B. DE C.V.,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`ALXIGNA INC.,
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`:
`____________________________________:
`
`Opposition No. 91223943
`
`Application Serial No. 86591564
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`AND
`MOTION TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY
`OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
`AND
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
`
`Genomma Lab Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V. (“Opposer”) hereby moves the
`
`
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to compel Alxigna Inc. (“Applicant”), via its
`
`counsel, Matthew Swyers, to respond in full and without objection to Opposer’s
`
`discovery requests in accordance with Trademark Rule 2.120(e). Opposer also
`
`moves the Board to test the sufficiency of Applicant’s objections to requests for
`
`admissions propounded by Opposer, in accordance with Trademark Rule 2.120(h).
`
`Finally, Opposer requests that the Board suspend action in this proceeding with
`
`respect to all matters not germane to this motion, and thereafter reset the trial
`
`dates as appropriate, in accordance with Trademark Rule 2.120(e)(2) and
`
`2.120(h)(2).
`
`
`
`Counsel for Opposer has made a good faith effort, by correspondence that has
`
`been sent to and received by Applicant’s counsel, Matthew Swyers, to resolve with
`
`Applicant the issues presented in these motions and has been unable to reach
`
`agreement with Applicant.
`
`
`
`The following facts are relevant to these motions:
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`On December 15, 2015, Opposer’s counsel served on Applicant “Opposer’s
`
`First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests
`
`for Admission” (the “Discovery Requests”), a copy of which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`II. Applicant’s served its objections and responses to the Discovery Requests on
`
`January 19, 2016 (the “Objections and Responses”), promising that it would
`
`supplement its responses and produce discovery subject to the stated objections. A
`
`copy of the Objections and Responses is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`III. On January 20, 2016, Opposer’s counsel informed Matthew Swyers, counsel
`
`for Applicant, that Opposer expected Applicant to fully supplement its discovery by
`
`February 2, 2016, i.e., two weeks from the date the Objections and Responses had
`
`been due. In that same correspondence, Opposer also requested that Applicant’s
`
`counsel advise regarding the availability of Carlos Casas – signatory of the
`
`Application – to sit for deposition. A copy of the January 20, 2016 correspondence is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`IV. Applicant’s counsel failed to respond to the January 20, 2016 correspondence.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`On February 9, 2016, Opposer’s counsel wrote counsel for Applicant, again
`
`requesting that Applicant supplement its discovery responses, and asking when
`
`Opposer might expect Applicant’s production. Opposer’s counsel also advised
`
`counsel for Applicant that if Applicant continued to be unresponsive with respect to
`
`its discovery obligations, Opposer would be forced to move the Board to compel
`
`production. A copy of the February 9, 2016 correspondence is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`
`
`VI. Applicant’s counsel failed to respond to the February 9, 2016 correspondence.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`VII. On February 18, 2016, Opposer’s counsel wrote counsel for Applicant, again
`
`seeking the promised supplemental production and again warning that, in the
`
`absence of a response, Opposer would be forced to move the Board to compel
`
`production. A copy of the February 18, 2016 correspondence is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit E.
`
`
`
`VIII. Applicant’s counsel
`
`failed
`
`to respond
`
`to
`
`the February 18, 2016
`
`correspondence.
`
`
`
`IX. On February 25, 2016, via email and by first class mail, Opposer’s counsel
`
`wrote to Applicant, again requesting that counsel advise when Opposer might
`
`expect Applicant’s supplemental responses and production, and again inquiring
`
`regarding the availability of Carlos Casas to sit for deposition, and again advising
`
`that in the absence of a reply, Opposer would be forced to move the Board to compel
`
`production. Opposer’s counsel warned that the correspondence would be his last
`
`with respect to this matter. A copy of the February 25, 2016 correspondence is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`
`
`X.
`
`Applicant’s counsel
`
`failed
`
`to respond
`
`to
`
`the February 25, 2016
`
`correspondence.
`
`
`
`XI. The discovery period in this proceeding is scheduled to close on May 29, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Motion to Compel.
`In this opposition proceeding, the mark at issue is LAKESIA, which both
`
`Applicant and Opposer have applied to register. Opposer’s application to register
`
`the identical LAKESIA mark in connection with goods identical to those claimed by
`
`Applicant was refused registration on the basis of an alleged likelihood of confusion
`
`with Applicant’s earlier-filed use-based application. Opposer alleges, on information
`
`on belief derived from thorough investigation, that Applicant had not made use of
`
`the mark in U.S. commerce at the time of its Application. Opposer has formally
`
`opposed registration on the following grounds: (1) the incorrect party is identified as
`
`the Applicant; (2) lack of commercially bona fide use by the Applicant; (3) Applicant
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`does not offer the claimed goods; (4) the specimen relied upon the Applicant is not in
`
`use; and (5) fraud on the USPTO in connection with each of the foregoing.
`
`
`
`Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Opposer is
`
`entitled to obtain discovery “regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
`
`any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Applicant
`
`has a duty to cooperate with Opposer and “to make a good faith effort to satisfy the
`
`discovery needs of its adversary.” TBMP Section 408.01. Moreover, the Board
`
`“looks with extreme disfavor on those who do not [cooperate in the discovery
`
`process].” Id. Under Trademark Rule 2.120(e), “If a party… fails to answer… any
`
`interrogatory, or fails to produce and permit the inspection and copying of any
`
`document or thing, the party entitled to disclosure or seeking discovery may file a
`
`motion to compel disclosure, … or an answer, or production and an opportunity to
`
`inspect and copy.” 37 C.F.R. Section 2.120(e).
`
`
`
`Opposer respectfully submits that its discovery requests are warranted and
`
`appropriate under the Federal Rules and the rules of the Board, and thus, it is
`
`entitled to the supplemental responses herein requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Interrogatories
`
`Opposer served less than 20 interrogatories upon Applicant. Applicant
`
`refused to provide a substantive response to a single one.
`
`
`
`Counsel for Opposer has made a good faith effort, by correspondence that has
`
`been sent to and received by Applicant’s counsel, Matthew Swyers, to resolve with
`
`Applicant the issues presented with regard to Applicant’s responses to the
`
`interrogatories and has been unable to reach agreement with Applicant.
`
`
`
`Applicant objected to two-thirds of the interrogatories as “overly broad and
`
`burdensome.” (Applicant also objected to some on the additional grounds that they
`
`were “compound.”) On these grounds, Opposer refused to provide, for example, the
`
`mere date upon which Applicant first used Applicant’s Mark in the U.S.
`
`(Interrogatory No. 2), the identity of a single product with which Applicant’s Mark
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`has been used (Interrogatory No. 3), the identity of a single officer or director of
`
`Applicant (Interrogatory No. 17) – although Applicant insists they exist (Responses
`
`to Requests for Admission Nos. 39-40, 44-45) – or even the individual or individuals
`
`who answered the interrogatories (Interrogatory No. 18).
`
`
`
`Applicant did not lodge any objections to the remaining six interrogatories;
`
`nonetheless, Applicant still refused to provide any answers. By way of example,
`
`without any grounds for objection, Applicant refused to identify “Carlos Casas,” the
`
`signatory of the Application (on which he identifies himself as “Secretary of Board”)
`
`(Interrogatory No. 12), even though, in response to Opposer’s Requests for
`
`Admission, Applicant insists that Mr. Casas exists, holds the title Secretary of
`
`Board, and was authorized to sign the Application on behalf of Applicant
`
`(Responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 37-43).
`
`
`
`To each interrogatory, Applicant responded that it would supplement its
`
`response “at a reasonable time prior to trial.” Applicant’s abject refusal to even
`
`communicate with Opposer strongly suggests that it will not voluntarily do so.
`
`Opposer therefore respectfully requests that the Board compel immediate and full
`
`responses to its reasonable and proportionally drawn interrogatories.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Production of Documents
`
`More than three months have passed since Opposer served its requests for
`
`production of documents upon Applicant, of which there were less than 30. To date,
`
`Applicant has not produced a single document.
`
`
`
`Counsel for Opposer has made a good faith effort, by correspondence that has
`
`been sent to and received by Applicant’s counsel, Matthew Swyers, to resolve with
`
`Applicant the issues presented with regard to Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s
`
`requests for production of documents and has been unable to reach agreement with
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`Applicant objected to every single request, except for the very first, on the
`
`grounds that it was “overly broad and burdensome.” Applicant often justified such
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`responses on the thin basis that the relevant request contained the word “all,” even
`
`where the request did not actually contain the word “all”. See Request No. 27 and
`
`response thereto. For example, Applicant deemed Request No. 27 – which sought
`
`documents identifying price information for products sold and intended to be sold
`
`under Applicant’s Mark – to be overly broad and burdensome, even though,
`
`according to Applicant, use of the Mark commenced less than a year ago.
`
`
`
`Applicant’s baseless objections to Opposer’s reasonable and proportionally
`
`drawn requests and its absolute unwillingness to so much as communicate with
`
`Opposer regarding production reflects a complete abdication of its duty to cooperate
`
`in the discovery process. Opposer therefore respectfully requests that the Board
`
`compel immediate and full responses to its requests for production of documents.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Motion To Determine the Sufficiency of Applicant’s Responses to
`Opposer’s Requests For Admission.
`
`Opposer served 48 requests for admission on Applicant. Save for an
`
`admission that Applicant had submitted a specimen in support of its use-based
`
`application, Applicant issued one-word denials to every request.
`
`
`
`Counsel for Opposer has made a good faith effort, by correspondence that has
`
`been sent to and received by Applicant’s counsel, Matthew Swyers, to resolve with
`
`Applicant the issues presented with regard to Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s
`
`requests for admission and has been unable to reach agreement with Applicant.
`
`
`
`Opposer’s notice of opposition in this proceeding contains four counts of
`
`fraud. Allegations of misrepresentation are at the core of this action.
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant’s cursory responses to Opposer’s requests for admission strongly
`
`suggest that neither Applicant nor its counsel, Matthew Swyers, have fulfilled its
`
`obligation to conduct a thorough and thoughtful investigation of the facts at issue.
`
`For example, Opposer requested that Applicant admit that, at the time Applicant
`
`filed its Application, Applicant did not have production facilities located at 249 W.
`
`Jackson Suite, Suite 314, Hayward, California, i.e., the address provided for
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant on the Application. (Request for Admission No. 32.) Opposer’s
`
`investigation revealed the address to be that of a PostalAnnex. (Printouts of the
`
`PostalAnnex website and the Google Maps Street View of the address at issue are
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit G.) Nonetheless, Applicant, in its responses, maintained
`
`that it has production facilities there.
`
`
`
`With respect to responses to requests for admission, the Federal Rules
`
`require as follows:
`
`If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or
`state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or
`deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter;
`and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny
`only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and
`qualify or deny the rest.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).
`
`
`
`Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s requests for admission do not comply with
`
`the requirements of Rule 36(a)(4). They do not specifically deny the requests and
`
`they do not fairly respond to the substance of the matter.
`
`
`
`In response to this motion, the Federal Rules permit the Board to order that
`
`the matters set forth in the requests be deemed admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).
`
`Alternatively, the Board may order that Applicant serve responses to the requests.
`
`Accordingly, Opposer requests that the Board order that the matters set forth in
`
`Opposer’s requests for admission be deemed admitted. In the alternative, Opposer
`
`requests that the Board order Applicant to fulfill its duty to investigate the factual
`
`matters at issue in this proceeding and respond in full to the requests for admission,
`
`without objection.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`C. Suspension of Proceeding.
`Trademark Rules require that proceedings herein should be suspended
`
`
`
`pending the disposition of Opposer’s motion to compel:
`
`When a party files a motion for an order to compel discovery, the case
`will be suspended by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board with
`respect to all matters not germane to the motion, and no party should
`file any paper which is not germane to the motion….
`
`Trademark Rule 2.120(e)(2), 37 C.F.R. Section 2.120(e)(2). A similar mandatory
`
`suspension applies to a motion to test the sufficiency of objections to a request for
`
`admission. Trademark Rule 2.120(h)(2), 37 C.F.R. Section 2.120(h)(2).
`
`
`
`Upon resumption of proceedings, Opposer requests that the Board grant a
`
`reasonable period of time for the parties to review materials to be produced in
`
`response to the Board’s order, and reset the close of discovery date as well as all
`
`subsequent dates accordingly.
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Conclusion.
`
`Opposer respectfully requests that the Board grant these motions and take
`
`the following actions:
`a. order Applicant to provide complete written responses, without objection,
`
`to Opposer’s Interrogatories within 30 days;
`b. order Applicant to produce the materials responsive to Opposer’s Requests
`
`for Production of Documents, within 30 days, at the offices of Opposer’s
`
`counsel, Holland & Knight LLP, 800 17th St., N.W., Suite 1100,
`
`Washington, DC 20006;
`c. order that the matters set forth in Opposer’s Requests for Admission be
`
`deemed admitted, or alternatively order Applicant to provide responses to
`
`such requests for admission that fully respond to the substance of the
`
`matters, without objection;
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`d. suspend action in this proceeding pending the disposition of the present
`
`motions; and reset the trial dates in this proceeding, as appropriate.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GENOMMA LAB INTERNACIONAL,
`S.A.B. DE C.V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Daniel C. Neustadt/
`Paul F. Kilmer
`Daniel C. Neustadt
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`202.469.5163
`dan.neustadt@hklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 17, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S
`
`
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO DETERMINE THE
`
`SUFFICIENCY OF APPLICANT’S OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR
`
`ADMISSIONS AND MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS was sent by UPS
`
`to counsel for Applicant, Matthew H. Swyers, The Trademark Company PLLC, 344
`
`Maple Avenue West, Suite 151, Vienna, VA 22180, on this 17th day of March, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Daniel C. Neustadt/
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel C. Neustadt
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`GENOMMA LAB INTERNACIONAL,
`S.A.B. DE C.V.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`ALXIGNA INC.
`
`Applicant
`
`Opposition No. 91223943
`
`Application Serial No. 86591564
`
`:
`
`‘
`
`OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES,
`
`REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION AND
`
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
`
`Pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
`
`2.10 of the Trademark Rules of Practice, Genomma Lab lnternacional, S.A.B. de
`
`C.V. (“Opposer”) through undersigned counsel, hereby propounds upon Alxigna Inc.
`
`(“Applicant”) the following interrogatories, requests for production of documents
`
`and things and requests for admission. Applicant shall provide its written reply to
`
`these discovery requests within 35 days of the date of service hereof, and produce
`
`the documents requested at 10:00 a.m. on January 21, 2016 Where the documents
`
`are normally kept or at the offices of counsel for Applicant, Holland & Knight LLP,
`
`Suite 1100, 800 17th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
`
`1.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
`
`A.
`
`These discovery requests require responses which are complete and
`
`accurate as of the date when such responses are made.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`These discovery requests are continuing in character so as to require
`
`Applicant to supplement its responses as to:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`the identity of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters;
`
`the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness
`
`at trial, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and the
`
`substance of the expert’s testimony. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1).
`
`C.
`
`Applicant has a duty to amend a response if Applicant obtains
`
`information indicating that the response was incorrect when made, or that the
`
`response, though correct when made,
`
`is in some material respect incomplete or
`
`incorrect. Fed.R.CiV.P. 26(e)(2).
`
`D.
`
`As used herein, the following definitions apply:
`
`1.
`
`“Communication”.
`
`The
`
`term “communication(s)” means
`
`the
`
`information that has been transmitted (in the form of facts,
`
`ideas, inquiries, or
`
`otherwise), regardless of means utilized.
`
`2.
`
`“Document”. The term “document(s)” has the meaning ascribed to it in
`
`Fed.R.CiV.P. 34(a), and includes, but is not limited to, every writing or record of
`
`every type and description that is or has been in the possession, control, or custody
`
`of Applicant or which Applicant has knowledge,
`
`including without
`
`limitation:
`
`originals, masters and every copy of writings, including handwritings, and printed,
`
`typed or other graphic or photographic matter including film or microfilm, video
`
`tape, recordings (tape, disc or other), correspondence, communications, contracts,
`
`2
`
`
`
`agreements,
`
`assignments,
`
`licenses,
`
`purchase
`
`orders,
`
`invoices,
`
`statements,
`
`memoranda, notes (in pencil,
`
`ink, or
`
`typewritten),
`
`letters, notebooks,
`
`reports,
`
`photographs,
`
`drawings,
`
`tracings,
`
`sketches,
`
`charts,
`
`catalogs,
`
`brochures,
`
`advertisements,
`
`records of communications oral and otherwise,
`
`instructions,
`
`telegrams,
`
`studies,
`
`surveys, minutes,
`
`reports
`
`calendars,
`
`inter-office
`
`communications, price lists, bulletins, circulars, statements, manuals, summaries,
`
`maps, charts, graphs,
`
`invoices, canceled or voided checks, bills or statistical
`
`material. A document bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be
`
`considered a separate document. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate
`
`document within the meaning of this term.
`
`3.
`
`“Data”.
`
`The term “data” shall mean any facts, documents or
`
`communications, oral or otherwise, of which Applicant has knowledge, information
`
`or belief.
`
`4.
`
`“ dentify” or “Specifig”.
`
`As used herein, “identify” or “specify” when
`
`used in reference to:
`
`(a)
`
`a person who is an individual shall mean to state his or her full
`
`name, present or last known residence address (designating which), and present or
`
`last known position or business
`
`affiliation (designating which),
`
`job title,
`
`employment address, and business and residence telephone numbers;
`
`(b)
`
`a person who is a firm, partnership, corporation, proprietorship,
`
`association, or other organization or entity shall mean to state its full name, present
`
`or last known (designating which) address, telephone number, legal form of such
`
`entity or organization, (including state and country of incorporation or organization)
`
`and the identity of
`
`its present and former officers, directors, controlling
`
`
`
`shareholder(s)
`
`and all
`
`employees,
`
`agents,
`
`and staff members who have
`
`responsibilities relating to use of trademarks;
`
`(c)
`
`data, shall mean to state:
`
`in the case of a document, the title (if
`
`any), the date, author(s), sender(s), recipient(s), the identity of the persons signing
`
`it, type of document (i.e., a letter, memorandum, book, telegram, chart, etc.) or some
`
`other means of identifying it,
`
`its present
`
`location or custodian and whether
`
`Applicant is in the possession of the original, master, or a copy of the document, and
`
`if not in possession of the original, master or copy to furnish the name and last
`
`known address of the custodian of the original, master or copy; in the case of an oral
`
`communication,
`
`the date, subject matter, communicator,
`
`the recipient of the
`
`communication, nature of communication, whether it was recorded, and the identity
`
`of any Witness thereto; and in the case of a fact, the source thereof.
`
`5.
`
`The words/phrases “identity”, “circumstances”, “detail(s)”, and “all
`
`information”, whether used alone or in connection with any other words, shall
`
`include, but are not limited to, identifying all facts, persons, places, dates, events,
`
`documents, physical items of any kind, time periods, geographical locations, data,
`
`communications of any kind, or any other information in any way related to,
`
`pertaining to, connected with or otherwise responsive to the interrogatory or
`
`document request such that all information shall be brought within the scope of the
`
`interrogatory or document request which may otherwise be deemed not
`
`to be
`
`covered by the interrogatory or document request.
`
`6.
`
`The words/phrases
`
`“respecting”,
`
`“relating”,
`
`“referring
`
`to”,
`
`or
`
`“regarding”, whether used alone or in connection with any other words, shall mean
`
`making a statement about,
`
`referring to, mentioning, discussing, describing,
`
`reflecting, dealing with, consisting of, comprising, recording or in any other way
`
`pertaining to the subject either in whole or in part directly or indirectly.
`4
`
`
`
`7.
`
`“Applicant”. The term “Applicant” shall mean Alxigna, Inc. and its
`
`employees, agents, representatives and all others acting with it or for it.
`
`8.
`
`“Opposer”.
`
`The
`
`term “Opposer”
`
`shall mean Genomma Lab
`
`Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V.
`
`and, where applicable,
`
`its officers, directors,
`
`employees, agents and representatives.
`
`9.
`
`“Person”. The term “person” shall include without limitation, any
`
`natural person or any business, business association, business entity, partnership,
`
`corporation,
`
`legal, or governmental entity. Whenever an interrogatory requests
`
`identification of persons, as to those individuals named in response to the
`
`interrogatory now in the employ of or associated with Applicant, state the title or
`
`position, duties and present
`
`residence and business addresses of each such
`
`individual. As to those “persons” who have previously been but are not now in the
`
`employ of or associated with Applicant, state the periods of employment or
`
`association with Applicant, the person’s title or positions during that period, and
`
`the last known residences and business address of such persons. As to all “persons”
`
`state their residence and business addresses.
`
`10.
`
`“And” and “Or”. The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed
`
`broadly, both conjunctively and disjunctively,
`
`to bring within the scope of the
`
`discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of
`
`its scope.
`
`11.
`
`“Date”. The term “date” shall mean the exact day, month and year, if
`
`ascertainable, or if not, the best approximation, including the temporal relationship
`
`to other events.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`“Number”. The use of the singular form of any word includes the
`
`plural and vice Versa.
`
`13.
`
`“ pplicant’s Mark”.
`
`Unless
`
`otherwise
`
`specified,
`
`the phrase
`
`“Applicant’s Mark” refers to the trademark LAKESIA which is the subject of
`
`Applicant’s federal trademark application, Serial No. 86591564.
`
`14.
`
`“ pplicant’s Goods”.
`
`Unless otherwise
`
`specified,
`
`the phrase
`
`“Applicant’s Goods” refers to any and all products claimed in Applicant’s federal
`
`trademark application Serial No. 86591564 for the mark LAKESIA.
`
`15.
`
`“ pposer’s Marks”. Unless otherwise specified, the phrase “Opposer’s
`
`Mark” refers to the trademark LAKESIA as claimed by Opposer
`
`in federal
`
`trademark application Serial No. 86692758.
`
`16.
`
`“ pplication”. Unless otherwise specified, the term “Application” shall
`
`mean the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark application for LAKESIA
`
`which is the subject of Applicant’s federal
`
`trademark application, Serial No.
`
`86591564, here opposed.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`Describe in detail App1icant’s selection of Applicant’s Mark,
`
`including,
`
`without limitation, the date of selection, the reasons for selecting App1icant’s Mark,
`
`and the meaning or impression intended to be conveyed by App1icant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`State the date upon which Applicant first used Applicant’s Mark in the
`
`United States, and describe the circumstances of such first use.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`Identify each product which Applicant has marketed or intends to market
`
`under or by reference to App1icant’s Mark and, where applicable, provide the dates
`
`indicating the periods of time during which such products have been offered under
`
`or by reference to App1icant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4
`
`For each product in relation to which Applicant intends to use Applicant’s
`
`Mark in the future, describe in detail the status of Applicant’s plans to commence
`
`production and distribution of each such product.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5
`
`Identify the channels of trade through which Applicant has marketed or
`
`intends to market each of the products identified in Applicant’s responses to
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4, above, under or by reference to Applicant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6
`
`Describe in detail the classes or types of purchasers to whom Applicant has
`
`marketed or intends to market each of the products identified in Applicant’s
`
`responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4, above, under or by reference to Applicant’s
`
`Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7
`
`Identify all types of media through which Applicant has advertised or intends
`
`to advertise each of the products identified in Applicant’s responses to Interrogatory
`
`Nos. 3 and 4, above, under or by reference to Applicant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8
`
`For each of the products that Applicant has identified in Applicant’s
`
`responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4, above, and which Applicant has offered or
`
`intends to offer under or by reference to Applicant’s Mark:
`
`(a)
`
`State the price at which the product is offered;
`
`(b)
`
`Identify the states and territories Where such products have been sold.
`8
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9
`
`To the extent of Applicant’s knowledge, describe in detail each event in which
`
`a person was confused, mistaken or deceived as to the source of any products offered
`
`or to be offered under or by reference to Applicant’s Mark or Opposer’s Marks.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10
`
`Identify the person or persons most knowledgeable about:
`
`(a) App1icant’s
`
`selection of Applicant’s Mark; (b) the marketing and advertising of goods offered or
`
`to be offered in the future under or by reference to Applicant’s Mark, and (c) the sale
`
`or intended future sale of products under or by reference to Applicant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11
`
`Identify each person Whom Applicant has consulted, retained or intends to
`
`call as an expert Witness in the captioned proceeding, and describe the nature of
`
`each such person’s opinions and expected testimony, including the identification of
`
`all documents about which each such expert was consulted or is expected to testify.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12
`
`Identify Carlos Casas,
`
`the signatory of the Application, and describe the
`
`nature of his relationship with Applicant and his role with respect
`
`to the
`
`Application and Applicant’s Mark and Applicant’s Goods.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13
`
`Identify each person associated with the email address tint lexinteror , the
`
`
`email address submitted by Applicant
`
`for correspondence with respect
`
`to the
`
`Application, and describe the nature of their relationship with Applicant and their
`
`role with respect to the Application and the Applicant’s Mark and Applicant’s
`
`Goods.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14
`
`Identify Ricardo Garces, the attorney whose biography was formerly posted
`
`on the LeXinter.org Website, and describe the nature of his relationship with
`
`Applicant and his role with respect to the Application and Applicant’s Mark and
`
`Applicant’s Goods.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15
`
`Identify Ricardo Garces’s brother(s) and describe the nature of his/their
`
`relationship with Applicant and his/their role with respect to the Application and
`
`App1icant’s Mark and Applicant’s Goods.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 16
`
`Identify Ricardo Garces’s father and describe the nature of his relationship
`
`with Applicant and his role with respect to the Application and Applicant’s Mark
`
`and Applicant’s Goods.
`
`10
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 17
`
`Identify each officer and director associated with Applicant and/or Applicant’s
`
`Mark and describe the nature of their relationship with Applicant and their role
`
`with respect to the Application and Applicant’s Mark and App1icant’s Goods.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 18
`
`For each and every Interrogatory above, identify the individual or individuals
`
`answering the Interrogatory, and each person who provided any information,
`
`including opinions, advice, reports, studies, or facts, on which your answer to any of
`
`the foregoing Interrogatories was based, specifying each Interrogatory to which he
`
`or she contributed information.
`
`11
`
`
`
`III. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`Opposer hereby requests that Applicant admit the truth of the matters set
`
`forth below.
`
`In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a), each answer must admit the
`
`matter, or specifically deny the matter, or set forth in detail the reasons why
`
`Applicant cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. Applicant may not give lack
`
`of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless
`
`Applicant states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information
`
`known or readily obtainable by Applicant is insufficient to enable it to admit or
`
`deny.
`
`1.
`
`On and prior to March 27, 2015, Applicant had not made trademark
`
`use of Applicant’s Mark in commerce in or with the United States in the sale of
`
`Applicant’s Goods.
`
`2.
`
`On and prior to March 27, 2015, Applicant had not made trademark
`
`use of Applicant’s Mark in commerce in or with the United States in the offering for
`
`sale of Applicant’s Goods.
`
`3.
`
`On and prior to March 27, 2015, Applicant had not made trademark
`
`use of Applicant’s Mark in commerce in or with the United States in the
`
`distribution of Applicant’s Goods.
`
`4.
`
`On and prior to March 27, 2015, Applicant had not made