Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1009546
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/17/2019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91245771
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Plaintiff
`Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.
`
`JORDAN LAVINE
`FLASTER GREENBERG PC
`1835 MARKET STREET , SUITE 1050
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
`UNITED STATES
`jordan.lavine@flastergreenberg.com, alexis.arena@flastergreenberg.com,
`Eric.clendening@flastergreenberg.com
`215-279-9389
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Extend
`
`Jordan A. LaVine
`
`jordan.lavine@flastergreenberg.com, eric.clendening@flastergreenberg.com
`
`/Jordan A. LaVine/
`
`10/17/2019
`
`Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Extension - 10.17.19.pdf(217986 bytes )
`Exhibit B - 10.17.19.pdf(119730 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Anna Goncharova,
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91245771
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`Opposer’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Extension of Discovery Period and to
`Reset Trial Dates
`
`
`
`
`Opposer Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (“Opposer”) respectfully moves to extend
`
`the expert disclosure and discovery deadline by 60 days, and reset all remaining trial dates
`
`accordingly. This is Opposer’s first request for an extension of time, there is no evidence of
`
`negligence or bad faith, and the Board grants these extensions liberally. See Nat'l Football
`
`League, NFL Properties LLC v. LLC, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1852 (T.T.A.B. 2008). Applicant objects
`
`and argues that good cause does not exist, but her response demonstrates a misunderstanding of
`
`both federal law and customary practice in TTAB proceedings.
`
`
`
`For example, Applicant alleges that Opposer represented that settlement discussions are
`
`not appropriate during discovery and cited her Exhibit D. That is inaccurate. Applicant served
`
`requests for admissions on Opposer in which she asked Opposer to admit positions that were
`
`taken during settlement discussions. See Applicant’s Exhibit D. Such a request violates Federal
`
`Rule of Evidence 408 and is an improper attempt to admit a statement made during negotiations
`
`as evidence. Opposer tried to explain that this request was improper (“settlement discussions are
`
`not an appropriate area of inquiry during discovery”), but Opposer never said that settlement
`
`negotiations, themselves, were inappropriate while discovery was ongoing. In fact, Opposer
`
`tried to restart settlement negotiations this past week when Applicant unilaterally ended
`
`
`7453512 v1
`
`

`

`
`
`discussions. See Opposer’s Exhibit A, attached to Opposer’s Motion for an Extension.
`
`Applicant, a pro se litigant, was simply unaware of Fed. R. Evid. 408 and misunderstood the
`
`explanation. In addition, Applicant is also seemingly unaware that she is not entitled to attorney-
`
`client communications, as most of her outlined discovery deficiencies involve communications
`
`that are privileged, as has been explained to her numerous times.
`
`
`
`Applicant also sent an e-mail to Opposer on October 16th, at 6:10 p.m. EST (attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B), mere hours after Opposer moved for an extension, in which she demands
`
`that Opposer furnish a new settlement offer within six hours by midnight, or she would oppose
`
`the request for an extension of time. Attorneys in TTAB proceedings do not impose such
`
`unreasonable demands that require responses within extremely tight windows of time outside of
`
`regular business hours.
`
`While Opposer understands that Applicant is not as familiar with customary practice in
`
`TTAB proceedings, the two instances above are examples of why this matter has involved some
`
`delay due to miscommunications and misunderstandings. Now, Opposer respectfully requests its
`
`first extension of the discovery and expert disclosure deadlines, by sixty (60) days, so that
`
`Opposer has time to prepare its expert report, now that Applicant has indicated she has no
`
`interest in resolving the matter. As set forth in the LaVine Declaration, Opposer’s expert had a
`
`great deal of unavailability in the past month, and Opposer’s expert has also been preparing for
`
`trials in other matters. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`For these reasons, Opposer respectfully requests that the Board extend the expert
`
`disclosure and discovery deadline by 60 days from the date of this order, and reset all pretrial and
`
`trial dates accordingly.
`
`The proposed schedule is as follows:
`
`
`7453512 v1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert Disclosures Due
`
`
`Discovery Closes
`
`Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures Due
`Plaintiff's 30-day Trial Period Ends
`Defendant's Pretrial Disclosures Due
`Defendant's 30-day Trial Period Ends
`Plaintiff's Rebuttal Disclosures Due
`Plaintiff's 15-day Rebuttal Period Ends
`Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due
`
`Defendant's Brief Due
`
`
`Plaintiff's Reply Brief Due
`
`
`Request for Oral Hearing (optional) Due
`
`12/15/2019
`1/15/2020
`2/29/2020
`4/14/2020
`4/29/2020
`6/13/2020
`6/28/2020
`7/28/2020
`9/26/2020
`10/26/2020
`11/10/2020
`11/20/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 17, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Jordan LaVine/
`Jordan LaVine
`
`FLASTER/GREENBERG P.C.
`1835 Market Street, Suite 1050
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel 215.279.9389
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`
`7453512 v1
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that Opposer’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Extension of the
`
`Discovery Period and to Reset Trial Dates is being served by electronic mail this 17th day of
`October 2019 on Applicant, at the following e-mail address:
`
`Anna Goncharova
`agoncharova@wired.fit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 17, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Jordan LaVine/
`Jordan A. Lavine, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7453512 v1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Clendening, Eric
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Anna Goncharova <agoncharova@wired.fit>
`Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:10 PM
`Clendening, Eric
`Andrey Sokolov
`Opposer`s settlement offer
`
`M(cid:396). Cle(cid:374)de(cid:374)i(cid:374)g, 
` 
`As it is a(cid:374)(cid:374)ou(cid:374)(cid:272)ed i(cid:374) Oppose(cid:396)`s (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to e(cid:454)te(cid:374)d (cid:455)ou ha(cid:448)e offe(cid:396)ed a settle(cid:373)e(cid:374)t (cid:271)ut the (cid:374)egotiatio(cid:374)s (cid:449)e(cid:396)e 
`i(cid:374)te(cid:396)(cid:396)upted o(cid:374) the side of Appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t. Despite of the fa(cid:272)t that i(cid:374) his e(cid:373)ail dated (cid:1004)9/(cid:1006)(cid:1004)/(cid:1005)9 Oppose(cid:396)`s atto(cid:396)(cid:374)e(cid:455) 
`M(cid:396).LaVi(cid:374)e stated that (cid:455)ou(cid:396) side (cid:272)o(cid:374)side(cid:396)ed  settle(cid:373)e(cid:374)t dis(cid:272)ussio(cid:374)s to (cid:271)e i(cid:374)app(cid:396)op(cid:396)iate a(cid:396)ea of i(cid:374)(cid:395)ui(cid:396)(cid:455) du(cid:396)i(cid:374)g 
`dis(cid:272)o(cid:448)e(cid:396)(cid:455), (cid:449)e (cid:449)a(cid:374)t to i(cid:374)fo(cid:396)(cid:373) (cid:455)ou that (cid:449)e a(cid:396)e ope(cid:374) to (cid:396)e(cid:448)ie(cid:449) (cid:455)ou(cid:396) te(cid:396)(cid:373)s of settle(cid:373)e(cid:374)t if the(cid:455) a(cid:396)e (cid:373)ade toda(cid:455) 
`(cid:271)(cid:455) (cid:373)id(cid:374)ight EST (cid:449)hile Appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t is (cid:272)o(cid:374)side(cid:396)i(cid:374)g (cid:449)hethe(cid:396) to o(cid:271)je(cid:272)t (cid:455)ou(cid:396) (cid:373)otio(cid:374) o(cid:396) (cid:374)ot.  We assu(cid:373)e that se(cid:448)e(cid:396)al 
`(cid:373)o(cid:374)ths of stud(cid:455)i(cid:374)g the (cid:272)ase a(cid:374)d t(cid:449)o (cid:373)o(cid:374)ths afte(cid:396) Appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t has se(cid:396)(cid:448)ed (cid:455)ou all (cid:396)espo(cid:374)ses a(cid:374)d do(cid:272)u(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts 
`(cid:396)e(cid:395)uested a(cid:396)e (cid:373)o(cid:396)e tha(cid:374) e(cid:374)ough fo(cid:396) su(cid:272)h e(cid:454)pe(cid:396)ie(cid:374)(cid:272)ed a(cid:374)d highl(cid:455) (cid:396)espe(cid:272)ted atto(cid:396)(cid:374)e(cid:455)s to (cid:449)o(cid:396)k out the te(cid:396)(cid:373)s 
`of a settle(cid:373)e(cid:374)t. As (cid:449)e i(cid:374)fo(cid:396)(cid:373)ed Oppose(cid:396) i(cid:374) Ap(cid:396)il, settle(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts (cid:271)ased o(cid:374) (cid:449)ithd(cid:396)a(cid:449)al of the appli(cid:272)atio(cid:374) a(cid:396)e (cid:374)ot 
`a(cid:272)(cid:272)epta(cid:271)le fo(cid:396) Appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t. Although (cid:449)e a(cid:396)e ope(cid:374) to dis(cid:272)uss a(cid:374)(cid:455) te(cid:396)(cid:373)s of ou(cid:396) usi(cid:374)g the t(cid:396)ade(cid:373)a(cid:396)k (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h (cid:449)ill 
`eli(cid:373)i(cid:374)ate the delusio(cid:374) (cid:455)ou allege. 
` 
`Rega(cid:396)ds, 
`A(cid:374)(cid:374)a Go(cid:374)(cid:272)ha(cid:396)o(cid:448)a 
`
`1
`
`