throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1164622
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/07/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91253765
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`Greenwood Opportunities, LLC
`
`REXFORD BRABSON
`T-REX LAW PC
`5580 LA JOLLA BLVD #393
`LA JOLLA, CA 92037
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: rex@t-rexlaw.com
`858-220-1166
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`Rexford Brabson
`
`rex@t-rexlaw.com
`
`/Rexford Brabson/
`
`10/07/2021
`
`Attachments
`
`2021.10.07-Response to Motion to Extend Final.pdf(310723 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of Trademark Application Ser. No. 88323913
`Applicant: Greenwood Opportunities, LLC
`Mark:
`WÜBER
`
`
`
`
`Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`Greenwood Opportunities, LLC
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Opposition No. 91253765
`)
`)
`)
`)
` )
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO EXTEND
`
`In response to Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Opposer”) Motion for 60-Day Extension of
`
`Time (“Opposer’s Motion to Extend”), Applicant Greenwood Opportunities, LLC (“Applicant”)
`
`responds as follows:
`
`A motion to extend must set forth with particularity the facts said to constitute good
`
`cause for the requested extension; mere conclusory allegations lacking in factual detail are not
`
`sufficient. T.B.M.P. 509.01(a). Moreover, a party moving to extend time must demonstrate that
`
`the requested extension of time is not necessitated by the party’s own lack of diligence or
`
`unreasonable delay in taking the required action during the time previously allotted therefor. Id.
`
`The Board will "scrutinize carefully" any motion to extend time, to determine whether the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`requisite good cause has been shown. Id. The moving party retains the burden of persuading the
`
`Board that it was diligent in meeting its responsibilities and should therefore be awarded
`
`additional time. See Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Benjamin Ansehl Company, 229 USPQ 147 (TTAB
`
`1985); National Football League v. DNH Management LLC, 85 USPQ2d 1852, 1854 (TTAB
`
`2008).
`
`Here, it is clear that Opposer has engaged in a pattern of delay since the institution of this
`
`Opposition proceeding in January of 2020. First and foremost, the parties have already prepared
`
`and filed four (4) sixty (60) day Extensions during the Discovery Period. 10 TTABVUE; 13
`
`TTABVUE; 15 TTABVUE; 17 TTABVUE. Indeed, the Discovery Period has already been open
`
`since June 01, 2020 – more than sixteen (16) months ago. 7 TTABVUE. Applicant has been
`
`more than generous in consenting to these Extensions – but enough is enough. Second, Applicant
`
`noticed Opposer’s Deposition on June 19, 2021, with the Deposition to be held on July 13, 2021.
`
`Brabson Decl. ¶ 2, submitted herewith as Exhibit A. Counsel for Opposer informed counsel for
`
`Applicant that Opposer would be unavailable on July 13, 2021, but did not provide alternative
`
`dates. Brabson Decl. ¶ 3. Opposer didn’t confirm a date for Opposer’s Deposition until
`
`September 13, 2021 – almost four (4) months after the Notice of Deposition was served – after
`
`numerous followups from counsel for Applicant. Brabson Decl. ¶¶ 4-10. The first Deposition
`
`date offered was November 05, 2021 – the second being December 01, 2021 – almost two (2)
`
`months after counsel for Opposer finally even offered a date (on September 13). Brabson Decl. ¶
`
`10. Third, Applicant sent a Discovery Deficiency Letter on May 29, 2021. Brabson Decl. ¶ 11.
`
`Counsel for Opposer didn’t correct those deficiencies (some remain uncorrected) until
`
`September 14, 2021. Brabson Decl. ¶ 12. This is a period of almost four (4) months. Fourth,
`
`Opposer didn’t notice Applicant’s Deposition until September 21, 2021 – a mere nine (9) days
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`before the close of Discovery. Brabson Decl. ¶ 13. The Deposition date chosen was September
`
`30, 2021 – even after Opposer couldn’t produce its witness until November, based on a Notice of
`
`Deposition served on June 19, 2021. Clearly Opposer has no intent on prosecuting this
`
`proceeding at this time and is unnecessarily and intentionally delaying the proceeding.
`
`Moreover, Opposer’s reasoning for requesting its Motion to Extend is extremely vague
`
`and unclear. Opposer therefore has not set forth particular facts to support its request. Fairline
`
`Boats plc v. New Howmar Boats Corp., 59 USPQ2d 1479, 1480 (TTAB 2000) (motion denied
`
`where party failed to provide detailed information regarding apparent difficulty in identifying
`
`and scheduling its witnesses for testimony and where sparse motion, containing vague reference
`
`to possibility of settlement, demonstrated no expectation that proceedings would not move
`
`forward during any such negotiations).
`
`Although Applicant certainly understands and empathizes with counsel for Opposer, as
`
`deaths in the family are no small matter and can make work exceedingly difficult, there is no
`
`cited reason why another attorney at counsel’s firm couldn’t take the lead in counsel’s absence
`
`(if any absence was taken). There are no specific facts as to what discovery issues remain yet to
`
`be addressed, and Applicant is unaware of what those issues might be – Applicant last responded
`
`to Discovery Requests in June of 2021.
`
`Finally, Opposer’s Motion to Extend cites reasons for extending the deadline for
`
`Opposer’s Pretrial Disclosures – yet the updated schedule reflects that the Discovery Period is
`
`pushed out as well. It is unclear what is being requested by Opposer, and Opposer’s vague
`
`allegations cannot suffice to support Opposer’s Motion to Extend.
`
`Pursuant to the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that Opposer’s Motion to
`
`Extend be denied, and that the Opposition proceed as laid forth in the Board’s most recent Order,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`20 TTABVUE.
`
`
`
`
`October 07, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Rexford Brabson, Esq.
`
`Rexford Brabson
`T-Rex Law, P.C.
`Attorneys for Applicant
`5580 La Jolla Blvd. #393
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S
`MOTION TO EXTEND is being electronically mailed to the following address:
`
`
`ERIC BALL
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 CALIFORNIA STREET, SILICON VALLEY CENTER
`MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
`UNITED STATES
`eball@fenwick.com, iaguirre@fenwick.com, trademarks@fenwick.com,
`nsantos@fenwick.com, bwalrod@fenwick.com, DocketCalendarRequests@fenwick.com
`
`
`/s/ Rexford Brabson, Esq.
`Rexford Brabson
`
`
`October 07, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of Trademark Application Ser. No. 88323913
`Applicant: Greenwood Opportunities, LLC
`Mark:
`WÜBER
`
`
`
`
`Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`Greenwood Opportunities, LLC
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Opposition No. 91253765
`)
`)
`)
`)
` )
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`DECLARATION OF REXFORD BRABSON, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO EXTEND
`
`
`1) I am over the age of eighteen (18) and am otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration. My name is Rexford Brabson, and I am the Attorney of Record for
`
`Applicant Afrebay, Inc. (“Applicant”). I am licensed to practice law in the state of
`
`California. I have intimate knowledge of the facts set forth below. If called upon and
`
`sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify as set forth below.
`
`2) Applicant noticed Opposer’s Deposition on June 19, 2021, with the Deposition to
`
`be held on July 13, 2021.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3) Counsel for Opposer on June 29, 2021, informed counsel for Applicant that
`
`Opposer would be unavailable on July 13, 2021, but did not provide alternative
`
`dates.
`
`4) Counsel for Applicant wrote counsel for Opposer on July 01, 2021, and asked for
`
`alternative dates in July or August.
`
`5) Counsel for Applicant followed up on July 19, 2021, asking again for dates for the
`
`Deposition.
`
`6) Counsel for Opposer wrote counsel for Applicant on July 21, 2021, noting the
`
`Deposition may need to be pushed into September.
`
`7) Counsel for Applicant wrote counsel for Opposer on July 24, 2021, noting
`
`“September will be fine”.
`
`8) Counsel for Applicant followed up again on Deposition dates on August 09, 2021.
`
`Counsel for Opposer responded on August 16, 2021, but did not provide
`
`alternative dates.
`
`9) Counsel for Applicant followed up again on dates for the Deposition on
`
`September 09, 2021.
`
`10) Opposer didn’t confirm a date for Opposer’s Deposition until September 13,
`
`2021.The dates offered were November 05, 2021, or December 01, 2021.
`
`11) Applicant sent a Discovery Deficiency Letter on May 29, 2021.
`
`12) Counsel for Applicant did not receive updated Discovery Responses until
`
`September 14, 2021.
`
`13) Opposer didn’t notice Applicant’s Deposition until September 21, 2021.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`14) The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable
`
`by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false
`
`statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission
`
`or any registration resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her
`
`own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 07, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Rexford Brabson, Esq.
`
`Rexford Brabson
`T-Rex Law, P.C.
`Attorneys for Applicant
`5580 La Jolla Blvd. #393
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF REXFORD BRABSON,
`ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO EXTEND
`is being electronically mailed to the following address:
`
`
`ERIC BALL
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 CALIFORNIA STREET, SILICON VALLEY CENTER
`MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
`UNITED STATES
`eball@fenwick.com, iaguirre@fenwick.com, trademarks@fenwick.com,
`nsantos@fenwick.com, bwalrod@fenwick.com, DocketCalendarRequests@fenwick.com
`
`
`/s/ Rexford Brabson, Esq.
`Rexford Brabson
`
`
`October 07, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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