throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1283808
`
`Filing date:
`
`05/09/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91284264
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Henry, Douglas A
`
`ADRIANO PACIFICI
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTING, LLC
`400 POYDRAS STREET
`SUITE 400
`NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: apacifici@iplawconsulting.com
`Secondary email(s): uspto.tms@gmail.com, creid@iplawconsulting.com
`504-323-6600
`
`Answer
`
`Adriano Pacifici
`
`apacifici@iplawconsulting.com
`
`/APacifici/
`
`05/09/2023
`
`Applicant Answer to Notice of Opposition NOTHING MASTERS.pdf(212664
`bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Augusta National, Inc.,
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Opposition No.: 91284264
`
`
`Serial No.: 97/146,920
`Mark: NOTHING MASTERS
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Douglas A. Henry,
`)
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`APPLICANT’S ANSWER TO THE NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`Applicant Douglas A. Henry (cid:507)(cid:515)“pplicant(cid:516)(cid:508), owner of the Federal Trademark
`
`
`
`Application No. 97/146,920 for the mark NOTHING MASTERS (cid:507)(cid:515)“pplicant’s Mark(cid:516)(cid:508)
`
`hereby answers the Notice of Opposition (cid:507)the (cid:515)Opposition(cid:516)(cid:508) filed by Augusta National,
`
`Inc. (cid:507)(cid:515)Opposer(cid:516)(cid:508) as follows:
`
`Applicant denies the allegations in all unnumbered paragraphs in the Opposition.
`
`1.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 1 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 2 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`
`
`[1]
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 3 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 4 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 5 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 6 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 7 of the Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations
`
`therein.
`
`8.
`
`“pplicant’s application serial no. 97/146,920 speaks for itself. As such,
`
`Applicant does not believe that an answer is necessary to ¶ 8 of the Opposition. However,
`
`out of an abundance of caution, if an answer is necessary, Applicant admits that the
`
`information contained within application serial no. 97/146,920 is accurate. Applicant
`
`denies the remaining allegations in ¶ 8 of the Opposition.
`
`
`
`[2]
`
`

`

`9.
`
`Applicant does not believe that an answer is necessary to ¶ 9 of the
`
`Opposition, as the allegations in ¶ 9 call for a legal conclusion. However, out of an
`
`abundance of caution, if an answer is necessary, Applicant denies the allegations in ¶ 9
`
`of the Opposition.
`
`10. Applicant does not believe that an answer is necessary to ¶ 10 of the
`
`Opposition, as the allegations in ¶ 10 call for a legal conclusion. However, out of an
`
`abundance of caution, if an answer is necessary, Applicant is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 10 of the
`
`Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations therein.
`
`11. Applicant does not believe that an answer is necessary to ¶ 11 of the
`
`Opposition, as the allegations in ¶ 11 call for a legal conclusion. However, out of an
`
`abundance of caution, if an answer is necessary, Applicant denies the allegations in ¶ 11
`
`of the Opposition.
`
`12. Applicant does not believe that an answer is necessary to ¶ 12 of the
`
`Opposition, as the allegations in ¶ 12 call for a legal conclusion. However, out of an
`
`abundance of caution, if an answer is necessary, Applicant is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of allegations in ¶ 12 of the
`
`Opposition, and therefore denies all allegations therein.
`
`13. Applicant denies the allegations in ¶ 13 of the Opposition.
`
`
`
`[3]
`
`

`

`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FURTHERMORE, Applicant sets forth the following affirmative defenses in
`
`support of its position. Applicant reserves the right to assert additional defenses if and
`
`when appropriate, including without limitation based upon information disclosed in
`
`discovery. In asserting these defenses, Applicant does not assume the burden of proof for
`
`any issues with respect to which the relevant law places the burden of proof on opposer:
`
`1.
`
`The Notice of Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
`
`granted.
`
`2.
`
`Given the differences between the parties’ respective marks, products and
`
`services, trade channels, sophistication of customers, among other factors, there is no
`
`likelihood of confusion between Opposer’s M“STERS marks and “pplicant’s Mark.
`
`3.
`
`The term (cid:515)Master(cid:507)s(cid:508)(cid:516) is a highly diluted and weakened term, which renders
`
`Opposer’s M“STERS mark weak and incapable and broad trademark protection.
`
`4.
`
`Opposer’s claims are barred by the doctrines and equitable defenses of
`
`laches, waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. Specifically, “pplicant’s long-use of
`
`“pplicant’s Mark bars Opposer’s claims.
`
`5.
`
`The above defenses and affirmative defenses are based on the facts and
`
`information currently known to Applicant. Applicant reserves all affirmative defenses
`
`under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Lanham Act, and any other
`
`defenses or counterclaims at law or in equity that may now exist or in the future be
`
`
`
`[4]
`
`

`

`available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this case, and hereby
`
`reserves its right to amend this Answer to assert such defense(s).
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant prays that the Notice of Opposition be dismissed with
`
`prejudice because Opposer is not entitled to any relief requested in the Opposition.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 09, 2023
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/APacifici/
`
`Adriano Pacifici
`Intellectual Property Consulting, L.L.C.
`400 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
`New Orleans, LA 70130
`T: (504) 323-6600
`E-mail: apacifici@iplawconsulting.com
`
` creid@iplawconsulting.com
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of this pleading has been served upon Opposer’s
`
`Counsel via the email addresses of record on this 9th day of May 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Adriano Pacifici
`Adriano Pacifici
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[5]
`
`

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