`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA889046
`
`Filing date:
`
`04/10/2018
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91239181
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Hawk House LLC
`
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`15260 Ventura Boulevard, 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Email: uspto@stubbsalderton.com
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Answer
`
`James Sedivy
`
`jsedivy@stubbsalderton.com
`
`/James Sedivy/
`
`04/10/2018
`
`Attachments
`
`Hawk House Answer.pdf(163992 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE T]NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91 2391 81
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`In the matter of Serial Nos. 87040508 and
`87040522
`
`SPACE EXPLORATION
`TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`HAWK HOUSE, LLC
`
`Applicant.
`
`APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Applicant, Hawk House, LLC ("Applicant"), for its answer to the Consolidated Notice of
`
`Opposition filed by Space Exploration Technologies Corp., ("Opposer") against application f'or
`
`registration of Applicant's trademark LOOP, Serial Nos. 87040508 and 87040522 (the "Mark"),
`
`pleads and avers as follows:
`
`L
`
`Applicant has neither sufficient information nor belief on which to base a
`
`response and on that ground denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant has neither sufficient information nor belief on which to base a
`
`response and on that ground denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant admits the existence of Registration No. 5,176,643 and Serial No.
`
`861617,512. Notwithstanding, Applicant has neither sufficient information nor belief on which to
`
`base a response to the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 and on that ground denies those
`
`remaining allegations contained inparagraph 3 of the Consolidated Notice of Opposition.
`
`1,
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Applicant has neither sufficient information nor belief on which to base a
`
`response and on that ground denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition,
`
`5.
`
`Applicant has neither sufficient information nor belief on which to base a
`
`response and on that ground denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant admits the allegations contained in paragraphT of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`8,
`
`Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`g.
`
`Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`10. Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`11. Applicant repeats its responses to paragtaphs 1-10 of the Consolidated Notice of
`
`Opposition, as set forth above.
`
`12. Applicant has neither sufficient information nor belief on which to base a
`
`response and on that ground denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`I 3. Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 3 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`14. Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`15. Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`16. Applicant admits the allegations contained in paragraph l6 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`17. Applicant admits the allegations contained in paragraph l7 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`18. Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Consolidated
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`
`Opposer fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`
`There is no likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception because, inter alia, the Mark
`
`and the alleged trademark of Opposer are not confusingly similar.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`
`Opposer's alleged trademark is generic or, in the alternative, merely descriptive of the
`
`goods or seryices offered under the mark. Opposer's alleged trademark is therefore inherently
`
`unprotectable absent acquired distinctiveness, which the Opposer's alleged mark lacks.
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense
`
`Applicant is informed and believes that Opposer has unclean hands, by virtue of
`
`improperly and/or fraudulently alleging use of Opposer's alleged mark.
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant prays as follows:
`
`(a) This opposition be dismissed;
`
`(b) Registrations for the mark LOOP be issued to Applicant for Serial Nos. 87040508
`
`and 87040522; and
`
`(c) For such other orders and relief as may be determined by the Trademark Trials
`
`and Appeals Board.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: April 10,2018
`
`ERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`By
`Jeffrey F
`James A.
`Blvd,, 20th Floor
`1s260
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`(8r8) 444-e200
`Attomey for Applicant 678 CORPORATION
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFI
`
`OF'SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of Applicant's
`Answer to Consolidated Notice of Opposition and Affirmative Defenses was sent via email,
`upon agreement to:
`
`Judd Lauter
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`j lauter@cooley, com, bhughes@cooley. com, traclemarks(g)coole)¡. conr
`
`Dated: April 10,2018
`
`J
`
`for Appli
`
`HAWK HOUSE, LLC
`
`5
`
`