throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1269249
`03/01/2023
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Notice of Opposition
`
`Notice is hereby given that the following parties oppose registration of the indicated application.
`
`Opposers information
`
`Name
`
`Ideal Living, LLC
`
`Granted to date
`of previous ex-
`tension
`
`Address
`
`Name
`
`Entity
`
`Address
`
`Attorney informa-
`tion
`
`03/01/2023
`
`14724 VENTURE BLVD.
`SUITE 200
`SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
`UNITED STATES
`
`Air Doctor, LLC
`
`Limited Liability Company
`
`Citizenship
`
`Delaware
`
`14724 VENTURE BLVD.
`SUITE 200
`SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403
`UNITED STATES
`
`JEREMY D. SPIER
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`999 PEACHTREE SUITE NE
`SUITE 2300
`ATLANTA, GA 30309
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: jeremyspier@eversheds-sutherland.com
`Secondary email(s): patentdocket@eversheds-sutherland.com, jennifersand-
`lin@eversheds-sutherland.com, kheonhendricks@eversheds-sutherland.com,
`alyssamsmith@eversheds-sutherland.com
`4048538926
`
`Docket no.
`
`31686-1255
`
`Applicant information
`
`Application no.
`
`90522454
`
`03/01/2023
`
`Opposition filing
`date
`
`Applicant
`
`Publication date
`
`11/01/2022
`
`Opposition period
`ends
`
`03/01/2023
`
`Kiyou Jochugiku Co., Ltd.
`1135, KAMI, SHIMOTSU-CHO
`KAINAN-SHI, WAKAYAMA, 649-0164
`JAPAN
`
`Goods/services affected by opposition
`
`Class 010. First Use: None First Use In Commerce: None
`All goods and services in the class are opposed, namely: Masks for use by medical personnel; Sanit-
`
`

`

`ary masks for medical purposes; Surgical masks
`
`Grounds for opposition
`
`Priority and likelihood of confusion
`
`False suggestion of a connection with persons,
`living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national
`symbols
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d)
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(a)
`
`Mark cited by opposer as basis for opposition
`
`U.S. registration
`no.
`
`5177385
`
`Register
`
`Principal
`
`Registration date
`
`04/04/2017
`
`Application date
`
`10/30/2015
`
`Foreign priority
`date
`
`NONE
`
`Word mark
`
`Design mark
`
`Description of
`mark
`
`Goods/services
`
`AIRDOCTOR
`
`NONE
`
`Class 011. First use: First Use: Dec 12, 2015 First Use In Commerce: Dec 12,
`2015
`Household appliances, namely, portable air cleaners and filters for household
`and consumer use
`
`Attachments
`
`Notice of Opposition - AIR DR.pdf(724604 bytes )
`
`Signature
`
`/Jennifer R. Sandlin/
`
`Name
`
`Date
`
`Jennifer R. Sandlin
`
`03/01/2023
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ideal Living, LLC
`Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`&
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Air Doctor, LLC
`Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kiyou Jochugiku Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Serial No. 90/522,454
`
`Opposition No.
`
`
`
`
`Notice of Opposition
`
`
`
`Ideal Living, LLC (“Ideal Living”), organized and existing under the laws of the state of
`
`Delaware with a principal place of business at 14724 Venture Boulevard, Suite 200, Sherman
`
`Oaks, California, and its wholly owned subsidiary Air Doctor, LLC, organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the state of Delaware with a principal place of business at 14724 Venture Boulevard,
`
`Suite 200, Sherman Oaks, California, (collectively, “Opposer”) owner of the registered trademark
`
`AIRDOCTOR® (Reg. No. 5,177,385) which has been in use in commerce in connection with air
`
`cleaners and filters since at least as early as December 12, 2015, and the common law trademark
`
`AIRDOCTOR™, which has been in use in commerce in connection with facemasks since at least
`
`as early as April 15, 2020, believes that it will be damaged by the issuance of a registration for the
`
`alleged mark shown in Application Serial No. 90/522,454 in Class 010 (the “Application”), owned
`
`by Kiyou Jochugiku Co., Ltd. (“Applicant”) and filed on February 10, 2021. Opposer hereby
`
`1
`
`

`

`opposes the same pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 (“Lanham
`
`Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1063(a).
`
`
`
`As grounds for opposition, Opposer alleges as follows:
`
`Opposer Background
`
`1.
`
`Opposer manufactures, sells, and offers for sale a wide variety of consumer
`
`household and personal products, including portable air cleaners, air filters, and facemasks.
`
`Opposer’s products are highly sought after in the United States and around the globe.
`
`2.
`
`Opposer, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Air Doctor, LLC, owns United
`
`States Trademark Registration No. 5,177,385 (the “’385 Registration”) for the mark
`
`AIRDOCTOR®, filed on October 30, 2015, covering “[h]ousehold appliances, namely, portable
`
`air cleaners and filters for household and consumer use” in International Class 011. The
`
`AIRDOCTOR® mark has been in use in commerce since at least as early as December 12, 2015.
`
`Opposer acquired all right, title, and interest in and to the ’385 Registration, including all
`
`associated goodwill, on December 31, 2018, and duly recorded the assignment of this interest with
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 14, 2020. As such, Opposer is entitled
`
`to enforce any and all rights in the ’385 Registration, including claims of infringement and
`
`opposition of applications likely to result in a likelihood of confusion with the AIRDOCTOR®
`
`mark.
`
`3.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office has accepted and acknowledged
`
`the Section 15 Declaration of Incontestability for the ’385 Registration, and thus the
`
`AIRDOCTOR® mark is immune to challenges to its validity or ownership, among other grounds.
`
`4.
`
`Since at least October 30, 2017, Opposer (and its predecessor-in-interest) has
`
`operated the website www.airdoctorpro.com (the “AirDoctor Website”), which uses the
`
`2
`
`

`

`AIRDOCTOR™ mark in association with Opposer’s goods. A screenshot from www.archive.org
`
`of the AirDoctor Website as of October 30, 2017 is provided:
`
`
`
`5.
`
`On January 13, 2017, Opposer registered a Facebook account under the name
`
`AIRDOCTOR™. Opposer uses its Facebook profile to advertise its products and post content
`
`that features the AIRDOCTOR™ mark. As of March 1, 2023, Opposer’s Facebook page had
`
`nearly 19,000 followers.
`
` A screenshot of Opposer’s Facebook page, accessible at
`
`www.facebook.com/airdoctorpro/, as of March 1, 2023, is provided:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`6.
`
`In January 2019, Opposer created an Instagram page with the handle
`
`“@airdoctorpro.” Opposer uses its Instagram profile to advertise its products and post content that
`
`features the AIRDOCTOR™ mark. As of March 1, 2023, Opposer’s Instagram page had over
`
`80,600
`
`followers. A
`
`screenshot
`
`of Opposer’s
`
`Instagram
`
`page,
`
`accessible
`
`at
`
`www.instagram.com/airdoctorpro/, as of March 1, 2023, is provided:
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR® branded air cleaners and filters are available via direct
`
`purchase from Opposer and are sold through major retailers and affiliates across the United States,
`
`including Walmart and Lowe’s, and international distributors in at least seven other countries.
`
`Opposer also operates an AIRDOCTOR® store on Amazon to advertise and sell Opposer’s
`
`AIRDOCTOR® branded air cleaning and
`
`filtering products. A screenshot
`
`from
`
`www.amazon.com of the AIRDOCTOR® Amazon store as of March 1, 2023 is provided:
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`Opposer and its AIRDOCTOR™ mark enjoy an impeccable reputation in the
`
`consumer products and air filtering industry. Opposer has completed thousands of orders of
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ branded products. Opposer and its AIRDOCTOR® air cleaners and filters
`
`have been featured in major national news outlets, including ABC, the Chicago Tribune, CNN,
`
`and Money, and garnered thousands of 5-star reviews on online retail platforms.
`
`9.
`
`Inspired by the pressing need for personal protective equipment spurred by the
`
`global outbreak of COVID-19, and in light of Opposer’s expertise and reputation in the air filtering
`
`industry, Opposer began offering facemasks branded under the AIRDOCTOR™ mark at least as
`
`early as April 15, 2020. Opposer offers FDA approved N95 masks, disposable facemasks, and
`
`surgical masks under the AIRDOCTOR™ brand. Photographs of a facemask and associated
`
`product packaging bearing the AIRDOCTOR™ mark are shown below:
`
`5
`
`

`

`10.
`
`Opposer offers AIRDOCTOR™ brand facemasks through Opposer’s website and
`
`through direct sales and donation inquiries. A screenshot from the AirDoctor Website showing
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ brand facemasks available for purchase as of March 1, 2023 is provided:
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Over the last three years, Opposer has donated over 100,000 packages of
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ brand facemasks to support healthcare facilities, community organizations, first
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`responders, and essential businesses across the country. Further, Opposer has offered
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ brand facemasks with at-cost pricing to help address the COVID-19 public
`
`health crisis and to increase access to government-mandated personal protective equipment.
`
`12.
`
`Since at least as early as December 12, 2015, the AIRDOCTOR® mark has been
`
`used as a source identifier by Opposer, and its predecessor-in-interest, in association with portable
`
`air cleaners and filters.
`
`13.
`
`The AIRDOCTOR® mark has been used consistently in interstate commerce in
`
`the United States since at least as early as 2015 in connection with the promotion and sale of
`
`AIRDOCTOR® branded portable air cleaners and filters.
`
`14.
`
`Since at least as early as April 15, 2020, the AIRDOCTOR™ mark has been used
`
`as a source identifier by Opposer in association with facemasks.
`
`15.
`
`The AIRDOCTOR™ mark has been used consistently in interstate commerce in
`
`the United States since at least as early as 2020 in connection with the promotion and sale of
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ branded facemasks.
`
`16.
`
`The AIRDOCTOR™ mark is suggestive when used in connection with Opposer’s
`
`air cleaners, filters, and facemasks that are branded under the AIRDOCTOR™ mark. Put another
`
`way, AIRDOCTOR™ does not directly describe a characteristic or quality of these products.
`
`Accordingly, AIRDOCTOR™ is an inherently distinctive mark and is presumed to have
`
`secondary meaning when used with Opposer’s goods.
`
`17.
`
`Opposer has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ mark in connection with Opposer’s portable air cleaning and filtering products,
`
`including facemasks, through online, print, and social media advertising. These activities promote
`
`7
`
`

`

`a direct connection between Opposer’s air purifying products, including facemasks, and the
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ mark.
`
`18.
`
`Because of Opposer’s widespread, continuous, and substantially exclusive use of
`
`the AIRDOCTOR™ mark for air filtering products generally, and for facemasks specifically,
`
`consumers associate AIRDOCTOR™ with Opposer, and Opposer has acquired substantial
`
`goodwill and secondary meaning in connection with AIRDOCTOR™—in addition to the already
`
`inherently distinctive nature of the mark. Thus, Opposer owns common law rights to the
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ mark, and Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™ mark is distinctive to both the
`
`consuming public and in Opposer’s trade.
`
`Applicant Background
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Applicant, organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Japan with an address at 1135, Kami, Shimotsu-cho, Kainan-shi, Wakayama, Japan 649-0164,
`
`owns U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90/522,454, filed on February 10, 2021, to register
`
`“Air Dr.” in International Class 010 (the “Applied-for Mark”) for the same types of goods that
`
`Opposer has offered to U.S. consumers under its AIRDOCTOR™ mark since at least as early as
`
`April 15, 2020.
`
`20.
`
`According to the Application, Applicant claims priority to Japanese Registration
`
`No. 6317724, with a registration date of November 17, 2020—approximately 5 years after
`
`Opposer first began use of AIRDOCTOR® in the air filtering industry and approximately 7
`
`months after Opposer began to use the AIRDOCTOR™ mark specifically in connection with
`
`facemasks.
`
`21.
`
`Opposer’s inherently distinctive AIRDOCTOR™ mark has priority over the
`
`Applied-for Mark because all relevant dates predate the Applicant’s filing date or, upon
`
`8
`
`

`

`information and belief, any other date on which the Applicant may rely for purposes of priority.
`
`Opposer also has priority in AIRDOCTOR™ based on the goodwill and secondary meaning it
`
`has acquired in the mark prior to Opposer’s Application date and foreign registration date claimed
`
`therein.
`
`22.
`
`Because Opposer has superior rights in AIRDOCTOR™ over the Applied-for
`
`Mark, Opposer has the right to exclude Applicant from the use and registration of the Applied-for
`
`Mark.
`
`23.
`
`Applicant’s Applied-for Mark
`
`is
`
`confusingly
`
`similar
`
`to Opposer’s
`
`AIRDOCTOR® registered mark and AIRDOCTOR™ common law mark because the marks are
`
`substantially similar in terms of appearance, sound, and connotation and used in connection with
`
`identical and substantially related goods, resulting in an identical commercial impression.
`
`24.
`
`Applicant’s identified services are “[m]asks for use by medical personnel;
`
`[s]anitary masks for medical purposes; [s]urgical masks,” which are substantially commercially
`
`related to Opposer’s goods identified in the ’385 Registration of “[h]ousehold appliances, namely,
`
`portable air cleaners and filters for household and consumer use” and identical to Opposer’s
`
`facemasks branded under the AIRDOCTOR™ common law mark.
`
`25.
`
`The identical goods coincide with an overlap in customer bases between the
`
`Opposer and the Applicant. Applicant’s facemasks are clearly targeted at consumers who are
`
`interested or in need of air filtering products, particularly personal protective facemasks, which are
`
`subsumed by Opposer’s customer base.
`
`26.
`
`Opposer’s long-standing use of AIRDOCTOR™ is associated with Opposer’s air
`
`filtering products, including specifically facemasks. Thus, the use of the substantially similar
`
`Applied-for Mark by Applicant for identical goods that are offered through identical channels is
`
`9
`
`

`

`likely to result in consumer confusion as to the source of Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™ brand
`
`products, a mistaken assumption that Opposer is affiliated with the Applicant, or a mistaken
`
`assumption that Opposer endorses the Applicant’s products.
`
`27.
`
`Registration of Applicant’s Applied-for Mark represents a real threat to the
`
`goodwill of the AIRDOCTOR™ brand built by Opposer over years of continuous use, advertising
`
`expenditures, and sales.
`
`28.
`
`That the Applied-for Mark is highly likely to cause consumer confusion with
`
`Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™ mark means that Opposer will be damaged by registration of the
`
`Application.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Likelihood of Confusion (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d))
`
`Opposer repeats and realleges each allegation set forth above.
`
`Opposer has priority in the inherently distinctive AIRDOCTOR™ mark based
`
`upon its registration and its prior use in commerce of the incontestable AIRDOCTOR® mark in
`
`connection with its air cleaners and filters and its prior use in commerce of the AIRDOCTOR™
`
`mark in commerce with facemasks. Opposer began use in commerce of its inherently distinctive
`
`AIRDOCTOR® mark in the United States for its air filtering products in at least as early as
`
`December 2015, approximately five years before Applicant’s filing date for the Applied-for Mark
`
`and the foreign registration date in Japan that it claims in its application. Further, Opposer has
`
`used the AIRDOCTOR™ mark specifically in connection with facemasks since at least as early
`
`as April 15, 2020, nearly 1 year prior to the filing date for the Applied-for Mark. Opposer’s use
`
`has generated significant goodwill in its AIRDOCTOR™ mark in connection with its air cleaners,
`
`filters, and facemasks such that consumers recognize the mark as a source identifier for Opposer’s
`
`products. Such source identifying properties were acquired well in advance of the filing date of
`
`10
`
`

`

`Applicant’s Application and the November 17, 2020 registration date of the Japanese registration
`
`claimed in the Applicant’s Application.
`
`31.
`
`Opposer has used the AIRDOCTOR™ mark in commerce for an extended period
`
`of time before any date of first use that Applicant may establish in connection with the Applied-
`
`for Mark, assuming that Applicant has even commenced use of the Applied-for Mark in the United
`
`States.
`
`32.
`
`The Applied-for Mark is substantially similar to the AIRDOCTOR™ registered
`
`and common law marks as it consists of an exact reproduction of the first portion of Opposer’s
`
`Mark, namely, “Air,” and an established abbreviation for the second portion of Opposer’s Mark,
`
`namely, “Dr.,” separated by a space.
`
`33.
`
`The letters “Dr.” are the recognized abbreviation for the word “Doctor.” See “What
`
`Is
`
`the
`
`Abbreviation
`
`for
`
`Doctor?,”
`
`STANDS4
`
`LLC,
`
`https://www.abbreviations.com/abbreviation/Doctor (last visited Mar. 1, 2023).
`
`34.
`
`The mere addition of a space and the abbreviation of a word element are insufficient
`
`to create a distinct commercial impression. As such, the Applied-for Mark is substantially similar
`
`in terms of visual appearance and literally identical in terms of sound and meaning to Opposer’s
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ mark. Thus, the Applied-for Mark creates the same commercial impression as
`
`AIRDOCTOR™.
`
`35.
`
`The Applied-for Mark is confusingly similar in appearance, connotation, sound,
`
`and overall commercial impression to Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™ mark. As such, consumers
`
`would ascribe “Air Dr.” as the sole source-identifying feature of the Applied-for Mark, thus
`
`rendering the Applied-for Mark legally identical to AIRDOCTOR™.
`
`11
`
`

`

`36.
`
`Applicant seeks registration for the Applied-for Mark for facemasks, which are
`
`identical to the facemasks Opposer offers under its AIRDOCTOR™ mark and substantially
`
`commercially related to the air cleaners and filters that Opposer offers under its registered and
`
`incontestable AIRDOCTOR® mark.
`
`37.
`
`Applicant’s and Opposer’s goods are marketed and sold through the same trade
`
`channels and targeted to the same class of consumers, namely, consumers of air filtering products
`
`and facemasks. Further, because the goods here are legally identical, Applicant’s and Opposer’s
`
`goods are deemed to travel in the same trade channels and to the same purchasers.
`
`38.
`
`The extent of potential confusion between Applicant’s Applied-for Mark and
`
`Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™ mark is thus substantial in light of the high degree of visual similarity
`
`and identical pronunciation, associated goods, trade channels, and customers.
`
`39.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant’s Applied-for Mark so resembles Opposer’s prior used
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ mark as to be likely, when used in connection with Applicant’s claimed goods,
`
`to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, as
`
`amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).
`
`40.
`
`Given Opposer’s superior rights in AIRDOCTOR™ for the same goods that
`
`Applicant claims in the Application, Opposer believes that Applicant was aware of Opposer’s
`
`mark and is intentionally attempting to trade upon the goodwill associated with Opposer’s
`
`AIRDOCTOR™ mark.
`
`False Suggestion of a Connection (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a))
`
`Opposer repeats and realleges each allegation set forth above.
`
`“Air Dr.” is the sole source-identifying feature of the Applied-for Mark, thus
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`rendering the Applied-for Mark legally identical to Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™.
`
`12
`
`

`

`43.
`
`Applicant’s Applied-for Mark would likely be recognized by consumers as being
`
`owned by Opposer, due to its commercially identical nature and use in association with identical
`
`goods as those offered by Opposer under AIRDOCTOR™, namely, Opposer’s facemasks, and/or
`
`substantially related to the air cleaners and filters offered by Opposer under AIRDOCTOR®.
`
`44.
`
`Applicant’s identical goods provided under the nearly identical Applied-for Mark
`
`are not in any way associated with or connected to Opposer’s goods.
`
`45.
`
`Opposer’s AIRDOCTOR™ mark has achieved a level of recognition in the trade
`
`and the general public such that Applicant’s use of the Applied-for Mark would cause consumers
`
`to presume there is a connection between Applicant and Opposer, when none exists.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), Applicant’s Applied-For Mark is not entitled
`
`to registration.
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`March 1, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Jeremy D. Spier/
`
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2300
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Tel: (404) 853-8926
`Fax: (404) 853-8806
`Jeremy D. Spier
`JeremySpier@eversheds-sutherland.us
`Jennifer R. Sandlin
`JenniferSandlin@eversheds-sutherland.us
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF OPPOSITION was
`
`served by e-mail on March 1, 2023, upon Applicant at the following email address of record:
`
`trademarks@alprinlaw.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jeremy D. Spier/
`
`Jeremy D. Spier
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2300
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Tel: (404) 853-8926
`Fax: (404) 853-8806
`JeremySpier@eversheds-sutherland.us
`
`14
`
`

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