ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1392542
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/29/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91293215
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`Journey Ahead LLC
`
`DERRICK MORGAN JR.
`332 S MICHIGAN AVE
`SUITE 121 # 5343
`CHICAGO, IL 60604
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: dmorgan@morganbusinesssolutions.com
`Secondary email(s): admin@morganbusinesssolutions.com
`317-270-8882
`
`Motion for Relief from entry of Default Judgment
`
`Derrick Morgan Jr.
`
`dmorgan@morganbusinesssolutions.com, ad-
`min@morganbusinesssolutions.com
`
`/Derrick Morgan Jr./
`
`10/29/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Aside Default 1.pdf(118641 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.
`
`91293215
`
`)
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`Genesco Brands, LLC
`
`Opposer
`
`v.
`
`Journey Ahead LLC
`
`Applicant.
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE NOTICE OF DEFAULT
`
`
`
`Applicant Journey Ahead LLC (“Applicant”), hereby requests that the Board set aside the Notice
`
`of Default dated October 2, 2024. For good cause, Applicant requests that default judgment not be entered
`
`against it. Applicant requests that the Board accept its Answer, filed concurrently with this response.
`
`
`
`The Board may set aside a notice of default for good cause in accordance with Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 55(c). See TBMP §§ 312.02-312.03. Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`55(c), an entry of default may be set aside for good cause. Default judgment should not be entered against
`
`a defendant for failure to file a timely answer to the complaint when good cause is shown; good cause is
`
`typically found when the defendant shows that (1) the delay in filing an answer was not the result of
`
`willful conduct or gross neglect on the part of the defendant, (2) the plaintiff will not be substantially
`
`prejudiced by the delay, and (3) the defendant has a meritorious defense to the action. TBMP §312.02.
`
`See Djerefjian v. Kashi Co., 21 USPQ 2d 1615 (TTAB 1991) (where absence of neglect and substantial
`
`prejudice were established, applicant allowed time to demonstrate a meritorious defense); see also Fred
`
`

`

`Hayman Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Jacques Bernier, Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1556, 1557 (TTAB 1991) (failure to
`
`answer due to inadvertence on part of applicant’s counsel; answer had been prepared and reviewed by
`
`applicant but counsel inadvertently failed to file it; nine-day delay would cause minimal prejudice; by
`
`submission of answer which was not frivolous meritorious defense was shown).
`
`
`
`In the present case, good cause can established because counsel for both parties were negotiating
`
`settlement. At the time negotiation commenced, counsel for Applicant believed the parties were close and
`
`forgot to calendar the deadline. The parties were (and still are) actively engaged in negotiating a
`
`settlement agreement. For these reasons the delay in filing was not the result of willful conduct or gross
`
`neglect. Second, there is no substantial prejudice to Opposer caused by the delay. In the meantime, the
`
`parties have discussed continuing the conversation to engage in settlement negotiations and hope to be
`
`close to finalizing a settlement agreement. The delay in filing an Answer has not hindered the parties’
`
`progress toward settlement. Applicant’s counsel has conferred with Opposer’s counsel regarding this
`
`filing. Opposer’s counsel confirmed that they are still interested in settling the matter. Third, Applicant
`
`has a meritorious defense to the opposition. Applicant has filed its affirmative defenses with its Answer
`
`(concurrently filed with this response).
`
`
`
`While the determination of whether default judgment should be entered against a party lies within
`
`the sound discretion of the Board, it is well settled that default judgments for failure to timely answer the
`
`complaint are not favored by the law. See TBMP §312.02 ([i]n exercising that discretion, the Board must
`
`be mindful of the fact that it is the policy of the law to decide cases on their merits. Accordingly, the
`
`Board is very reluctant to enter a default judgment for failure to file a timely answer, and tends to resolve
`
`any doubt on the matter in favor of the defendant. As a result, in this case, any doubt should be resolved in
`
`Applicant’s favor.
`
`
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board set aside the notice of
`
`default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) and allow the parties to continue to resolve the dispute through
`
`settlement and/or the merits of the case. See TBMP §312.02 (“[if a defendant who has failed to file a
`
`

`

`timely answer to the complaint responds to a notice of default by filing a satisfactory showing of good
`
`cause why default judgment should be set aside, the Board will set aside the notice of default.”).
`
`October 29, 2024
`
`/Derrick Morgan Jr./
`
`
`Derrick Morgan Jr.
`Morgan Business Solutions, LLC
`332 S Michigan Ave Suite 121
`Chicago, IL 60604
`Tel: (317) 270-8882
`Derrickmorganlaw@gmail.com
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is hereby certified that a true copy of the foregoing Response to Notice of Default was served
`
`upon Opposer by email, on this 29th day of October 2024, at the following address:
`
`Erica Chanin
`Counsel for Plaintiff EChanin@ktslaw.com
`
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
`STOCKTON LLP
`1100 PEACHTREE STREET, NE,
`SUITE 2800
`ATLANTA, GA 30309
`UNITED STATES
`echanin@ktslaw.com,
`
`/Derrick Morgan Jr./
`
`Derrick Morgan Jr.,
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`