Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA783755
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/17/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91226605
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Plaintiff
`Duke University
`
`SUSAN FREYA OLIVE
`OLIVE & OLIVE PA
`PO BOX 2049
`DURHAM, NC 27702
`UNITED STATES
`emailboxTTAB@oliveandolive.com, solive@oliveandolive.com, shernan-
`dez@oliveandolive.com
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`David Loar Mckenzie
`
`dmckenzie@oliveandolive.com, david@mckenzielaw.net
`
`/David McKenzie/
`
`11/17/2016
`
`Attachments
`
`AA Duke.pdf(3065735 bytes )
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Duke University,
`Plaintiff-Opposer
`
`vs
`Duke’s Brewhouse, Inc.,
`Defendant-Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91226605
`
`DUKE’S BREWHOUSE
`Sr. No. 86/590,454
`
`DUKE’S BREWHOUSE WINGS SPORTS
`SPIRITS
`Ser. No. 86/590,453
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUKE UNIVERSITY’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
`
`I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
`
`
`
`The marks at issue in this proceeding were published for opposition on September 1 and 8,
`
`2015. After early attempts at resolution failed, Duke University (“Duke”) initiated this opposition
`
`proceeding on February 29, 2016. The parties then undertook more efforts to reach a resolution and
`
`this matter was then suspended on April 5, 2016. After these further efforts failed, Applicant Duke’s
`
`Brewhouse (“Applicant”) filed its answer on June 8, 2016, and then instituted its Motion to Compel
`
`on November 2, 2016. Duke now timely responds to Applicant’s motion.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Duke University is known to the public at large by its famous mark DUKE. Under this
`
`mark, Duke offers highly respected undergraduate, graduate, and professional degree programs;
`
`world-class hospitals; and a nationally known athletic program, which includes its famous men’s
`
`basketball team. Duke University has been in the business of restaurant services since its inception
`
`in 1927 and bar services at least as early as 1972. In connection with its famous DUKE mark, Duke
`
`

`

`University presently provides bar and/or restaurant services at its athletic venues, academic
`
`campuses, hospitals and medical facilities. It also sells a number of alcohol and restaurant goods
`
`under the DUKE mark. Additionally, Duke has valid and subsisting registrations for its DUKE
`
`mark and variants of the same.
`
`
`
`As one would anticipate with an entity that is one of the largest private employers in the
`
`State of North Carolina [Ex. 1], Duke University receives applications from over 10,000 persons
`
`seeking jobs every month. Ex.1. Duke University educates over 14,000 full-time students annually,,
`
`treats over 1 million medical patients/yea, and has an operating budget of $2.3 billion annually, and
`
`further has been in existence since 1924 under the Duke name Duke has accumulated millions if
`
`not billions of documents. Its libraries alone have over 6.9 million volumes [Ex. 1 at 17]. Its
`
`archives and other files are even larger. The undersigned, in connection with a lawsuit of some
`
`considerable magnitude, was required to evaluate millions of documents arising from but a single
`
`unit within the university. Thus, requests seeking production of “any and all” documents on broad
`
`topics in the context of such an enterprise are frequently virtually impossible to accomplish and
`
`seldom justified.
`
`As one would anticipate with an entity that is one of the largest private employers in the
`
`State of North Carolina and has been in existence since 1927, Duke has accumulated millions if not
`
`billions of documents. Ex. 1. Its libraries alone have millions of volumes; its archives and other
`
`files are even larger.
`
`
`
`On July 29, 2016, Applicant served Duke with its written discovery. Duke contends that this
`
`written discovery is ill-defined in certain respects, oppressive and, most importantly, not
`
`proportional to the needs of this proceeding given the relatively small issues before this tribunal.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Duke University should not be compelled to offer additional responses to form
`discovery that is neither tailored nor proportional to the case.
`
`Last year, the United States Supreme Court amended Rule 26(b)(1) to require that discovery
`
`be “proportional” to the needs of a case. Congress declined to intervene on this rule change, and
`
`proportionality consequently became the norm on December 1, 2015. Applicant, instead, served
`
`Duke with what appears to be form discovery that is not tailored or proportional at all. Mot to
`
`Compel, Exs. 1-2. The issues in this case will be fame and likelihood of confusion, and to this end
`
`priority. Applicant has not offered written discovery that is proportional to these issues. Here, courts
`
`around the country are interpreting the amended rule to require exactly this.
`
`Courts are requiring issue proportionality. In Moore v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., 2016 WL
`
`687111 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 19, 2016), a plaintiff brought an action for unlawful employment
`
`practices, including discrimination, harassment, and termination related to her gender. The plaintiff
`
`made a broad requests and sought to compel the production of “personnel records” not only for
`
`those “who allegedly harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against” her, but also for “store
`
`managers, HR representatives, and investigators” and for comparable employees without protected
`
`status like hers. The court allowed the motion to compel as to the personnel file for the specific
`
`person named in the complaint but denied it for all other employees, stating that the “relevance [of
`
`the discovery sought ] is tangential and not proportional to the Plaintiff’s claims.” In this same case,
`
`the plaintiff wanted additional email searches but failed to state why it needed the searches with
`
`proportionality (i.e., tailored or specific to the issues). The court found the plaintiff’s request for
`
`additional searches “overly broad and not proportional to the case,” stating that, although the
`
`searches might yield some relevant emails, the plaintiff had not provided specifics for what she
`
`expected to find and had not shown that the information “could not be found through other means,”
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`such as through questioning at depositions. Having found the request not proportional, the court
`
`denied plaintiff’s motion as the discovery was not proportional to the legal issues. Id at *2.
`
`In Wilmington Trust v. AEP Generating, 2016 WL 860693 (March 7, 2016), there was
`
`one legal issue at stake: breach of contract. The plaintiff requested emails during the relevant
`
`time period during which the breach occurred, which was proportional, but later requested emails
`
`during the time after the breach. That second request required a search of “many as a million”
`
`pages and could have yielded over 200,000 pages. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to
`
`compel because the documents would not go to the relevant issue – i.e., was there a breach – and
`
`declared that the additional search outside the relevant time period would “violate the rule of
`
`proportionality.” Id at *2.
`
`In Robertson v. People Magazine, a federal district court concluded that the amended rule
`
`“serves to exhort judges to exercise their preexisting control over discovery more exactingly.”
`
`Robertson v. People Magazine, 2015 WL 9077111 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2015). The court then
`
`considered the legal issues at stake – employment discrimination – verses the discovery in
`
`dispute – documents concerning editorial decisions on what to publish. The court found that the
`
`requests “extend far beyond the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims and would significantly burden
`
`Defendants” and denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel. Id at *3.
`
`Here, a similar result should follow given the issues of fame and likelihood of confusion,
`
`and to this end priority. The same is alleged with particularity in the Opposition to Registration.
`
`Requests should be proportional to these issues. Applicant repeatedly uses “any and all” and “all
`
`documents,” and Applicant additionally also offers broad written discovery that appear to be
`
`derived from forms. Furthermore, Applicant fails to define key terms, leaving Duke to divine for
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Applicant exactly what is being sought. Duke has offered specific objections regarding the same.
`
`Applicant should be required to resubmit its written discovery so that the requests are
`
`unambiguous and are proportional to the issues before this tribunal.
`
`1. Proportionality and the Requests for Production of Documents and Things.
`
`
`
`RPD No. 1: Interrogatory Documents. This is not proportional to the issues of this case. It
`
`casts as wide of a net as possible and asks Duke to divine for Applicant what it is seeking. (And,
`
`due to the numerosity of the interrogatories, as elsewhere addressed, there are not yet responses
`
`to which the request applies.)
`
`
`
`RPD No. 2.: Business Documents. This is not proportional. Scope aside, it has little to do
`
`with restaurant and bar services and the fundamental issues regarding the same: fame and
`
`likelihood of confusion, and then priority as to the latter.
`
`
`
`RPD No. 11.: “All documents” for any assignment, license, or other transfer for Duke’s
`
`marks. This is not proportional. This request would generate thousands of documents. An
`
`exemplar has been offered in lieu of, and Duke will seasonably supplement this Request with
`
`exemplars as indicated in the response on an Attorneys’ Eyes Only basis.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 With respect to production of documents, as opposed to the responses themselves, Duke notes
`that Applicant’s objections as to the speed of production are disingenuous. Duke served
`Applicant with discovery requests on July 11, 2016. While discussing the scope of its own
`requests (served two weeks after Duke’s requests) with Duke, Applicant repeatedly failed,
`despite requests, to produce any documents of its own. Only after the Duke warned of the
`possibility of a motion to compel filed by Duke did Applicant begin to produce documents,
`providing a small number on October 13, 2016. Then, rather than discussing its deficiencies
`with Duke as requested, Applicant rushed to put together its own motion to compel, perhaps
`knowing that doing so would result in suspension and preclude the filing by Duke of Duke’s own
`motion. This is not the type of “cooperation” envisioned by the Rules.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Settlement Agreements and/or Litigation; Policing Documents; Application for
`
`Registration; Third-Party Use (RPDs 18-21). As for settlement agreements with third parties,
`
`policing documents, and restrictions on third party use, all are no different from the disgruntled
`
`employee suing her boss for discrimination yet demanding the production of documents of the
`
`employee files of employees having nothing to do with the case. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., 2016 WL
`
`687111 (2016). Questions of relevancy aside, here Applicant’s complaint that it is “entitled to any
`
`documents in Plaintiff’s possession regarding third party uses of DUKE or DUKE’S” is particularly
`
`hollow in light of new proportionality requirements. Likewise, this also is no different from
`
`requesting email communication outside the relevant time period of a contractual breach.
`
`Wilmington Trust v. AEP Generating, 2016 WL 860693 (2016). Or requests seeking
`
`documentation on what editors decide to publish in a discrimination case. Robertson v. People
`
`Magazine, 2015 WL 9077111 (2015). These requests are simply not proportional. As for
`
`litigation and registrations, Duke was correct to point Applicant to publicly available materials
`
`that reveal such litigation as that is where “the documents are stored, and as they are kept in the
`
`ordinary course of business.” Fed R Civ P 34; TTAB Manual of Procedure § 406.04. Applicant
`
`may complain that Duke has brought this opposition, but Duke complains that Applicant is using
`
`its DUKE’S mark. Simply bringing an opposition proceeding is not grounds to shift burdens or
`
`the scale of proportionality.
`
`
`
`Policing Efforts (RPD No. 19). Duke first notes that Applicant has been the recipient of
`
`letters regarding Duke’s policing efforts. Policing efforts as to any other person or party is
`
`simply not proportional for the reasons stated above. Nor has Applicant explained the presumed
`
`relevance of such a request. Applicant has not sought to cancel any of Duke’s registrations, and
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`the pleadings do not raise failure to police Duke’s marks as any defense.
`
`2. Duke has offered valid responses and produced appropriate documentation.
`
`
`
`Duke believes it has answered a number of requests regardless of proportionality. It has
`
`preliminarily given Applicant over 1500 pages of responsive documents.2 Additionally, a
`
`number of the requests point Applicant to Duke’s numerous websites, which contain scores of
`
`documentation, including documentation about how Duke uses its marks in restaurant and bar
`
`services. This includes responses 1-7, 10, 14, and 21.
`
`
`
`As for Applicant’s complaint regarding third party uses of DUKE and/or DUKE’S bar
`
`and restaurant services, Duke disagrees that there are numerous third party uses of DUKE and/or
`
`DUKE’S for bars and restaurant services. (To the extent there are such uses, Duke has priority as
`
`it has been performing one service or another since 1927.) Moreover, Applicant has not
`
`identified any such use other than its own, nor shown that such uses—even if they exist—are
`
`known (if at all) other than purely locally by a minuscule subset of essentially irrelevant
`
`consumers, insufficient to offset Duke’s fame. Conclusory assertions cannot be taken as true.3
`
`Regardless, Duke has provided an exemplar of an agreement restricting use of the DUKE and/or
`
`DUKE’S mark at RPD No. 21.
`
`B. Duke is allowed to produce exemplars.
`
`
`
`Applicant bitterly complains that about use of “exemplars” or “examples.” There is no such
`
`
`2 Duke disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the materials produced. Actual pictures were provided of
`Duke University’s use of DUKE and/or DUKE’s in bar and restaurant services as examples of evidence of priority.
`And, given the extraordinary volume of documents possessed by Duke, it is unrealistic to expect that all such
`documents conceivably could be examined and every relevant document produced immediately. Certainly, even
`Applicant—a relatively small restaurant business—did not do so, taking 3 months to produce a very small volume of
`documents.
`3 Duke notes that Applicant served it with Requests for Admissions concerning third party use of DUKE or
`DUKE’S mark. Some did not relate to use of DUKE or DUKE’S and some were tangentially related to DUKE or
`DUKE’S. In any event, Duke has answered these admissions with appropriate denials or admissions, thereby
`mooting the complaint about licensing all together.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`basis for this grievance.
`
`
`
`If a party requests identification and/or production of “all” documents relating to a particular
`
`matter, such as “all documents evidencing promotion of the goods under the mark,” and the number
`
`of documents requested is unusually large or otherwise burdensome, the responding party may
`
`identify and/or produce a representative sample of documents in response to the discovery request.
`
`J. B. Williams Company, Inc. v. Pepsodent., 188 U.S.P.Q. 577, 1975 WL 20870 (T.T.A.B. 1975);
`
`Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Company, 181 U.S.P.Q. 286, 1974 WL 19881
`
`(T.T.A.B. 1974). Duke has done this at Bates Nos. 000040-000611.
`
`C. More “effort” was needed on behalf of Applicant to make the discovery proportional to the
`needs of this proceeding and to bring its Motion to Compel.
`
`
`
`The parties did in fact meet and confer regarding the written discovery propounded by
`
`Applicant. But to say that the parties met in good faith is a stretch. Duke asked Applicant to pare
`
`down its written discovery so that it was more proportional to the case. During the meet and confer,
`
`Applicant refused to even consider the scope of its written discovery or Duke’s objections and
`
`merely asserted that “all of it” needed to be answered. The call lasted no more than four to five
`
`minutes. Then, there were a few email correspondences but nothing substantive and no changes to
`
`Applicant’s written discovery were offered.
`
`
`
`A motion to compel discovery must be supported by a written statement from the moving
`
`party that it has made a good faith effort to confer in an attempt to resolve the issues raised by the
`
`motion but has been unable to reach agreement. The Board has held that going through the motions
`
`just so one can declare good faith is not enough. Hot Tamale Mama ... and more, LLC v. SF
`
`Investments, Inc., 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080, 2014 WL 1390527 (T.T.A.B. 2014) (email exchange
`
`required more effort). The same result should apply here.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`D. Numerosity.
`
`
`
`TTAB Rules require that where more than 75 interrogatories are posed, the responding party
`
`must object on that basis rather than responding to a subset of them. Duke identified more than 75
`
`interrogatories and objected on that basis. For Applicant’s guidance, although the TTAB Rules do
`
`not so require, Duke also provided additional specific objections to specific interrogatories, in hopes
`
`that redefined and non-numerous interrogatories would be served to replace the original set.
`
`A large part of the reason for the numerosity objection is the definitions and instructions
`
`provided by Applicant. For purpose of clarity, Duke discussed with Applicant the Board’s usual
`
`position that such definitions and instructions should not be mandatory, but Applicant insisted that
`
`they must be adhered to in all respects, and refused to withdraw any part of them or allow them to
`
`be considered as guidance rather than mandatory.
`
`As the Board can immediately see, those definitions include questions that are, either
`
`specifically or in effect, sub-questions and that multiply the number for each interrogatory in which
`
`a defined term is used. Definition “J” is an example, which when applied to Interrogatory #22
`
`multiplies the number of questions posed by Interrogatory 22. With the definitions, which Duke
`
`objected to and requested that were not revised, Applicant has more than 75 interrogatories. Duke
`
`offered to withdraw its numerosity objection if Applicant agreed that the definitions are not
`
`mandatory. At the meet and confer, Applicant would not alter a single item regarding its written
`
`discovery and simply declared that “all of it” must be answered.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Applicant’s motion should be denied. The written discovery is not proportional to the needs
`
`of this case. There was little effort expended in order to declare good faith. Duke also produced
`
`much of the relevant and proportional material, and continues reasonably to search its documents
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing RESPONSE has been served
`
`upon Counsel for the Applicant, Mindy M. Richter, by transmitting a copy via email pursuant to
`
`the parties’ agreement on this the 17th day of November 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David McKenzie
`David Loar McKenzie
`NC State Bar No. 36376
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Duke University,
`Plaintiff-Opposer
`
`vs
`Duke’s Brewhouse, Inc.,
`Defendant-Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91226605
`
`DUKE’S BREWHOUSE
`Sr. No. 86/590,454
`
`DUKE’S BREWHOUSE WINGS SPORTS
`SPIRITS
`Ser. No. 86/590,453
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUKE UNIVERSITY’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Exhibit No. 1
`
`NORTH CAROLINA'S LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS
`RANKED IN ORDER ACCORDING TO FIRST QUARTER 2016 EMPLOYMENT SIZE
`(UPDATED ANNUALLY)
`
`Rank
`
`Legal Name
`
`Industry
`
`Employment Range
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`46
`47
`48
`49
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`
`Wal-Mart Associates Inc
`Food Lion
`Duke University
`Wells Fargo Bank Na (A Corp)
`Lowes Home Centers Inc
`Bank of America Na
`Harris Teeter Llc
`Branch Banking & Trust Company
`Wake Forest University Baptist Medical
`American Airlines Inc
`Ingles Markets, Inc
`United Parcel Service Inc
`Wakemed Health & Hospitals
`Twc Administration Llc
`Cone Health
`Memorial Mission Hospital Inc
`Target Corporation
`Compass Group Usa Inc
`At&T Services Inc
`Belk Inc
`Laboratory Corporation of America
`Lowes Foods Llc
`Walgreen Co
`Home Depot Usa Inc
`Duke Energy Carolinas Llc
`Lowe'S Companies Inc
`Sas Institute Inc
`State Employees Credit Union Inc
`Rex Hospital Inc
`Novant Health Corp Finance
`Dolgencorp Llc
`Aerotek Inc
`Bojangles Restaurants Inc
`North Carolina Cvs Pharmacy Llc
`United Healthcare Services Inc
`General Mills Restaurants Inc
`Bayada Home Health Care Inc
`Aramark Food And Support Services
`Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Nc
`Principle Long Term Care Inc
`First Health of The Carolinas Inc
`Progress Energy Carolinas
`Novant Health Corp
`Presbyterian Hospital
`Duke Energy Business Services Llc
`Cracker Barrel Old Country Store
`Os Restaurant Services Llc
`Insperity Peo Services Lp
`Teachers Insurance And Annuity Asso
`Carrols Llc
`Caromont Health (A Corp)
`Boddie Noell Enterprises Inc
`Circle K General Inc T/A
`Adecco Usa Inc
`Nc Advance Stores Co Inc
`
`Retail Trade
`Retail Trade
`Educational Services
`Finance & Insurance
`Retail Trade
`Finance & Insurance
`Retail Trade
`Finance & Insurance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Transportation & Warehousing
`Retail Trade
`Transportation & Warehousing
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Information
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Retail Trade
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Information
`Retail Trade
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Retail Trade
`Retail Trade
`Retail Trade
`Utilities
`Management of Companies & Enterprises
`Information
`Finance & Insurance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Retail Trade
`Finance & Insurance
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Finance & Insurance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Utilities
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Finance & Insurance
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Retail Trade
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`From the North Carolina Deptartment of Commerce
`
`Available at https://www.nccommerce.com/Portals/47/Data/Non%20Manufacturing%20Employers%20Only_2016.pdf
`
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91226605
`
`

`

`NORTH CAROLINA'S LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS
`RANKED IN ORDER ACCORDING TO FIRST QUARTER 2016 EMPLOYMENT SIZE
`(UPDATED ANNUALLY)
`
`Rank
`
`Legal Name
`
`Industry
`
`Employment Range
`
`56
`57
`58
`59
`60
`61
`62
`63
`64
`65
`66
`67
`68
`69
`70
`71
`72
`73
`74
`75
`76
`77
`78
`79
`80
`81
`82
`83
`84
`85
`86
`87
`88
`89
`90
`91
`92
`93
`94
`95
`96
`97
`98
`99
`100
`101
`102
`103
`104
`105
`106
`107
`108
`109
`110
`
`Rha Health Services Llc
`Mcdonald'S Restaurants of Nc Inc
`Cook Out Inc T/A
`Fidelity Workplace Investing Llc
`Xerox Commercial Solutions Llc
`First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company
`Novant Health Inc
`Cellco Management Inc Et Al T/A
`Speedway Llc
`Randstad North America Lp
`Congruity Hr Llc
`Manpower Us Inc T/A
`Waffle House Inc
`Metlife Group Inc
`Ccbcc Inc
`Ppd Development Llc
`Dollar Tree Stores Inc
`Ymca of Greater Charlotte
`Best Buy Stores Lp
`Express Services, Inc
`Duke University Health Systems Inc
`Convergys Customer Management Group
`Fedex Ground Package System Inc
`Starbucks Corporation
`Liberty Healthcare Group Llc
`Debbies Staffing Services
`Universal Protection Service Llc
`Y M C A
`Tri-Arc Food Systems, Inc.
`Autozoners Inc
`Enterprise Leasing Company
`Healthcare Services Group Inc.
`Wake Forest University
`Quintiles Inc
`Family Dollar Stores
`Brookdale Employee Services Llc
`Autumn Corporation
`Eckerd Corporation
`Brinker International Pyrll Corp
`Papa Johns Pizza
`Kohls Department Stores
`The Tjx Companies Inc
`Southeastern Regional Medical Ctr
`Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc
`High Point Regional Health System
`Tands Inc
`Panera Llc
`Ruby Tuesday Inc T/A
`Rti International
`Whole Foods Market Group Inc
`O'Reilly Automotive Inc
`Solutions Corporation
`Bio-Medical Applications of Nc
`Paychex North America Inc
`Pnc Bank Na
`
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Finance & Insurance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Finance & Insurance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Information
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Finance & Insurance
`Wholesale Trade
`Professional & Technical Services
`Retail Trade
`Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Transportation & Warehousing
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Retail Trade
`Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Educational Services
`Professional & Technical Services
`Retail Trade
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Retail Trade
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Retail Trade
`Retail Trade
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Professional & Technical Services
`Retail Trade
`Retail Trade
`Professional & Technical Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Finance & Insurance
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`1000 & OVER
`
`From the North Carolina Deptartment of Commerce
`
`Available at https://www.nccommerce.com/Portals/47/Data/Non%20Manufacturing%20Employers%20Only_2016.pdf
`
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91226605
`
`

`

`NORTH CAROLINA'S LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS
`RANKED IN ORDER ACCORDING TO FIRST QUARTER 2016 EMPLOYMENT SIZE
`(UPDATED ANNUALLY)
`
`Rank
`
`Legal Name
`
`Industry
`
`Employment Range
`
`111
`112
`113
`114
`115
`116
`117
`118
`119
`120
`121
`122
`123
`124
`125
`126
`127
`128
`129
`130
`131
`132
`133
`134
`135
`136
`137
`138
`139
`140
`141
`142
`143
`144
`145
`146
`147
`148
`149
`150
`151
`152
`153
`154
`155
`156
`157
`158
`159
`160
`161
`162
`163
`164
`165
`
`Sears Roebuck And Co Inc
`The Mega Force Staffing Group Inc
`Federal Express Corp
`Sheetz of North Carolina Llc
`Alliedbarton Security Services Llc
`K Mart Corporation Intl Hdq
`Old Dominion Freight Line Inc
`The Budd Group Inc
`J C Penney Corporation Inc
`The Lash Group Inc
`Century Employer Organization Llc
`Easter Seals Ucp North Carolina Inc
`Pepsi Bottling Ventures Llc
`Allstate Insurance Company
`G4S Secure Solutions (Usa) Inc
`Wayne Memorial Hospital Inc
`Texas Roadhouse Management Corp
`South East Employee Leasing Service
`American National Red Cross Hqtrs
`Variety Stores Inc
`Carolina Restaurant Group Inc.
`Case Farms Processing Inc
`Bi Lo Llc
`Mebtel Inc
`Petsmart Inc
`Shoe Show Inc
`Carolina Employer Concepts Llc
`H R B Professional Resources Llc
`Atlantic Group Inc
`Alamance Regional Medical Center
`Biltmore Workforce Management Inc
`Krgp Inc Et Al T/A
`K & W Cafeterias Inc
`Costco Wholesale Corporation
`Davidson College
`Kelly Services Inc
`Dicks Sporting Goods Inc
`Aon Service Corporation
`Dlp Wilson Rutherford Llc
`Key Resources Inc
`Arevo Group Inc
`The Fresh Market Inc
`Ralph Lauren Corporation
`Labor Ready Mid Atlantic Inc
`Monarch
`The Lincoln National Life Ins Co
`Elon University
`Red Hat, Inc
`Piedmont Airlines Inc
`Piedmont Natural Gas Co Inc
`Ross Dress For Less Inc
`Wells Fargo Advisors Llc
`Npc Quality Burgers Inc
`The Wood Company (A Corp)
`Securitas Critical Infrastructure S
`
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Transportation & Warehousing
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Retail Trade
`Transportation & Warehousing
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Retail Trade
`Professional & Technical Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Retail Trade
`Finance & Insurance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Retail Trade
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
`Retail Trade
`Information
`Retail Trade
`Retail Trade
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Professional & Technical Services
`Administrative & Waste Services
`Health Care & Social Assistance
`Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
`Retail Trade
`Accommodation & Food Services
`Retail Trade
`Educational Services
`Administrative & Waste Services