throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1092577
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/02/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91265609
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Vaitkunas, Mindaugas
`
`JEFFREY STURMAN
`STURMAN LAW LLC
`PO BOX 371706
`STURMAN LAW LLC
`DENVER, CO 80237
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: tm-docket@sturmanlaw.com
`720-772-1724
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Answer
`
`Richard S. Finkelstein
`
`rick@rctrademark.com
`
`/Richard S Finkelstein/
`
`11/02/2020
`
`Attachments
`
`Grand_Duke_Answer_To_Opposition.pdf(109504 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the matter of:
`
`
`
`
`
`91265609
`Opposition No.:
`Mark: GRAND DUKE and design, Serial No. 88766513
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Duke University,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Mindaugas Vaitkunas,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Arlington, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ANSWER TO OPPOSITION
`Applicant Mr. Mindaugas Vaitkunas (“Applicant”), through counsel, hereby responds to
`the Notice of Opposition brought by Opposer Duke University (“DUKE” or “Opposer”)
`to prevent registration of Applicant’s mark, GRAND DUKE and design, by first
`
`interposing the following affirmative defenses:
`
`
`
`DUKE fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`
`
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`Applicant denies there is any likelihood of confusion of DUKE’s marks with respect to
`
`its mark and goods as set forth in its application.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`Some or all of DUKE’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches,
`
`acquiescence, estoppel or unclean hands. Applicant is harmed by Opposer's litigation
`
`tactics wherein Opposer attempts to enforce its alleged trademark rights beyond a
`
`reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights legitimately granted to the trademark
`
`owner.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, by reason of one or more of the defenses set forth hereinabove,
`Applicant requests judgment against DUKE, requests Applicant’s application for
`registration be granted, and requests Applicant’s mark be allowed and eventually
`
`registered on the Principle Register.
`
`
`
`Answer
`Applicant states as follows in answer to the numbered paragraphs of DUKE’s Opposition:
`
`
`
`1. Applicant admits that DUKE is a university but has insufficient information to admit
`or deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of DUKE’s Opposition and
`
`therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`2. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 2 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`3. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 3 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`4. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 4 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`5. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 5 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`6. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 6 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`7. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 7 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`8. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 8 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`9. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 9 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`10. Denied
`
`
`
`11. Denied
`
`
`
`12. Denied
`
`
`
`13. Applicant admits that its filing date for the present intent to use application is January
`
`20, 2020.
`
`
`
`14. Applicant admits that it filed an intent to use application for “Bath bombs; Bath oils
`
`for cosmetic purposes; Body oil; Cosmetic bath salts; Essential oils; Hair shampoos and
`
`conditioners; Herbal extracts sold as components of cosmetics; Non-medicated herbal
`
`body care products, namely, body oils, salves, and lip balms; Non-medicated herbal body
`
`care products, namely, essential oils and tinctures; Shampoos; Skin and body topical
`lotions, creams and oils for cosmetic use; Topical herbal extracts for cosmetic purposes”
`but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of DUKE’s Opposition.
`
`
`
`15. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 15 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`
`
`16. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 16 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`17. Denied
`
`
`
`18. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 18 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`19. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 19 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`20. Denied
`
`
`
`21. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 21 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`22. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 22 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`23. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 23 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`24. Denied
`
`
`
`25. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 25 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`26. Applicant admits it is not affiliated with Duke University.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`27. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 27 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`
`
`28. Denied.
`
`
`
`29. Denied.
`
`
`
`30. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 30 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`31. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 31 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`32. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 32 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`33. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 33 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same
`
`
`
`34. Denied
`
`
`
`35. Denied
`
`
`
`36. Applicant has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in
`Paragraph 36 of DUKE’s Opposition and therefore denies same
`
`
`
`37. Denied
`
`
`
`38. Applicant admits that is not affiliated with DUKE but has insufficient information to
`admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of DUKE’s Opposition and
`
`therefore denies same.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`
`
`39. Denied
`
`
`
`40. Denied
`
`
`
`41. Denied
`
`
`
`42. Denied
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant requests judgment as follows:
`Applicant, requests that DUKE’s Opposition be dismissed,
`Applicant requests that Applicant’s Application be allowed, and
`Applicant requests that Applicant’s mark be allowed to register on the Principal
`
`Register, together with its costs and all other relief available at law.
`
`
`
`Date: November 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_/Richard S. Finkelstein/______
`
`Richard S. Finkelstein
`Attorney for Applicant
`RC Trademark Company, LLC
`P.O. Box 940
`Brookfield, CT 06804
`(860)-368-0040
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Opposition No.: 91265609
`
`
` I, Richard S. Finkelstein, hereby certify that on November 2, 2020 a true copy of the
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`foregoing AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ANSWER TO OPPOSITION
`was served on the Applicant of Record by email to Applicant’s Attorney of Record,
`
`addressed as follows: emailboxttab@oliveandolive.com
`
`
`Date: November 2, 2020
`
` /Richard S Finkelstein/
`Richard S. Finkelstein
`
`
`
`7
`
`

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