throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1151883
`
`Filing date:
`
`08/09/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92076717
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Corrocoat Limited
`
`JOHN L. STRAND
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
`FEDERAL RESERVE PLAZA
`BOSTON, MA 02210
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: tmclients@wolfgreenfield.com
`Secondary Email(s): jlstrademarks@wolfgreenfield.com, cxltrade-
`marks@wolfgreenfield.com
`617-646-8000
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Response to Board Order/Inquiry
`
`John L. Strand
`
`jlstrademarks@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`/John L. Strand/
`
`08/09/2021
`
`Attachments
`
`92076717- Response to Show Cause Order.pdf(920129 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DOCKET NO.: C1472.50000US00
`
`
`
`
`
`Polyglass S.p.A.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Corrocoat Limited,
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark: POLYGLASS
`
`Registration No. 6198001
`Cancellation No. 92076717
`
`
`REGISTRANT’S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER
`
`Pursuant to Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, registrant Corrocoat
`
`Limited (“Registrant”), respectfully moves the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`
`to set aside the Notice of Default entered against Registrant and re-open this proceeding.
`
`Registrant’s default is attributable to a technical error that caused Registrant not to receive either
`
`the Petition to Cancel (the “Petition”) or Notice of Default, or notification of either, when those
`
`papers issued on March 18 and May 8, 2021, respectively. (Dkt. 1, 4.) Notice of those papers had
`
`been sent to an email account that Registrant’s counsel, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. (the
`
`“Firm”), had set up to receive notices, but which the Firm’s Information Technology (“IT”)
`
`department had inadvertently left on a default setting that blocked receipt of email from external
`
`addresses. Because of this technical error, Registrant had no knowledge of this proceeding until
`
`after the Firm discovered the error and informed Registrant on June 9, 2021.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On February 15, 2020, the USPTO implemented a mandatory electronic filing rule that
`
`required the inclusion of owner email addresses in trademark filings. See Declaration of April J.
`
`Fitzpatrick in Support of Registrant’s Preliminary Response to Show Cause Order (“Fitzpatrick
`
`Decl.”) (filed as Exhibit A), at ¶ 3. On February 14, 2020, the USPTO announced that attorneys
`
`could create an email address specifically for this purpose. Id.
`
`In light of the new rule, the Firm’s Trademark Practice Group chose to create the
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account, which the group considered preferable to listing
`
`clients’ email addresses for several reasons: (a) having an email listed associated with the Firm for
`
`the life of each registration furthered risk management objectives; (b) a Firm email address offered
`
`more permanence given that client contacts frequently change; (c) USPTO emails may be marked
`
`as spam if clients receive USPTO communications infrequently; (d) clients may have ignored
`
`USPTO emails assuming that the Firm had already received the emails; and (e) to improve
`
`administrative efficiency at both the client and Firm level. Id., at ¶¶ 4-5.
`
`The Trademark Practice Group contacted the Firm’s IT department on February 17, 2020,
`
`to request creation of the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account. Id., at ¶ 6. The Firm’s
`
`IT department set up the account so that emails would be saved to a public folder in Microsoft
`
`Outlook that multiple people can access. See Declaration of Kevin A. Henry in Support of
`
`Registrant’s Preliminary Response to Show Cause Order (“Henry Decl.”) (filed as Exhibit B), at
`
`¶ 5. The default settings for Firm email accounts associated with public folders do not permit
`
`external emails to be sent to those accounts. Id., at ¶ 6. Inadvertently, the permissions for
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com were not changed from the default settings, thereby preventing
`
`incoming external emails from reaching the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com inbox. Id., at ¶ 7.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`When the set-up process for TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com was complete, a member of
`
`the IT department confirmed whether the email account was functioning by sending a test email
`
`from an internal email address ending in @wolfgreenfield.com, which allowed the email to reach
`
`the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com inbox. Id., at ¶¶ 8-9. As a result, the email account appeared
`
`to be working properly. Id., at ¶ 9.
`
`Because the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account was linked to new trademark
`
`filings only, the Firm did not anticipate a high volume of emails to be sent to the account initially.
`
`Fitzpatrick Decl., at ¶ 9. In January 2021, the IT department tested whether the account was
`
`functioning, but again used an internal email address that was able to reach the account’s inbox,
`
`so the account appeared to be working properly. Henry Decl., at ¶ 10. By June 2021, the Firm
`
`suspected that the account was not receiving incoming messages and asked the IT department to
`
`run another test. Fitzpatrick Decl., at ¶ 10. During the June 2021 test, the IT department sent emails
`
`from both internal and external email accounts, and after only the internal email was able to reach
`
`the inbox, the IT department realized that incorrect permissions were set up for the account, which
`
`blocked incoming external emails. Henry Decl., at ¶ 11.
`
`On June 9, 2021, the Firm reviewed the recovered external emails sent to the
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account and saw the email notice from the USPTO of the
`
`Notice of Default (issued on May 8, 2021) for the subject cancellation proceeding. Fitzpatrick
`
`Decl., at ¶ 12. Upon discovering the Notice of Default, the Firm took swift action by filing a
`
`Preliminary Response to Show Cause Order and Request for Additional Time that same day. Id.,
`
`at ¶ 13.
`
`The Firm reviewed the individual email accounts and mail reception for Firm personnel
`
`involved with Registrant’s subject registration and confirmed that no one at the Firm received any
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`email communications or physical mail from either the USPTO or Petitioner’s counsel about the
`
`subject proceeding. Id., at ¶ 14.
`
`Due to the mandatory electronic filing rule, all communications with the USPTO became
`
`electronic on February 15, 2020. Id., at ¶ 15. Because the address TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`was listed as Respondent’s email address in USPTO records for the subject registration,
`
`Respondent would not have received either an electronic or hard copy of the relevant papers for
`
`this cancellation proceeding. Id.
`
`Following this incident, the Firm implemented procedures to prevent similar errors from
`
`occurring in the future. Id., at ¶ 16; Henry Decl., at ¶ 16. The IT department now tests all email
`
`accounts using both internal and external emails to ensure that the appropriate permissions are in
`
`place and the accounts are functioning properly. Id.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Rule 55(c) allows an entry of default to be set aside for “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c).
`
`To determine if good cause exists to permit the late filing of an answer in a cancellation proceeding,
`
`the Board considers whether: (i) the registrant acted willfully in failing to file an Answer; (ii) delay
`
`in the proceeding substantially prejudices the petitioner; and (iii) the registrant has a meritorious
`
`defense to the petitioner’s claims. See Paolo's Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Bodo, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1899, 1902 (T.T.A.B. 1990). Based on these factors, good cause exists to set aside the Notice of
`
`Default against Registrant in this proceeding.
`
`In this case, Registrant’s failure to answer the Petition was clearly not the result of “an act
`
`that is willful, in bad faith, or in gross neglect.” Paolo’s Associates, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1903 n.2. As
`
`noted above, Registrant was without any knowledge of the Petition or its duty to answer until
`
`receiving the Notice of Default after the Firm discovered the technical error that blocked notice of
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`the filing from being received by the email address listed for Registrant in the USPTO’s records
`
`for the subject registration.
`
`Petitioner also will not suffer substantial prejudice if the Board allows Registrant to defend
`
`against cancellation of its registration. Other than a delay of a few months in receiving Registrant’s
`
`Answer, Petitioner has not suffered any conceivable prejudice, and the Board has stated that “delay
`
`alone is not a sufficient basis for establishing prejudice.” Regatta Sport Ltd. v. Telux-Pioneer Inc.,
`
`20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1154, 1156 (T.T.A.B. 1991).
`
`Finally, Registrant has a meritorious defense to the Petitioner’s claims. See Fred Hayman
`
`Beverly Hills Inc. v. Jacques Bernier Inc., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1556, 1557 (T.T.A.B. 1991). Petitioner’s
`
`basis for challenging registration is based on an alleged likelihood of confusion between the
`
`Petitioner’s POLYGLASS mark and Registrant’s POLYGLASS mark. Both parties own
`
`registrations for their respective marks in connection with different goods, which evidences that
`
`the marks are distinguished enough to avoid marketplace confusion. Moreover, the fact that the
`
`parties’ marks have coexisted for over 13 years weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`Registrant has more than enough grounds to submit an Answer that is not frivolous, which favors
`
`allowing Registrant to defend this action. Id. Moreover, setting aside the Notice of Default would
`
`serve the Board’s policy that cases should generally be decided on their merits. See, e.g., Thrifty
`
`Corp. v. Bomax Enterprises, 228 U.S.P.Q. 62, 63 (T.T.A.B. 1985).
`
`Accordingly, as Registrant had no notice of this cancellation proceeding until receiving the
`
`Notice of Default, and as Registrant has shown that good cause exists for the Board to act pursuant
`
`to Rule 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Registrant respectfully requests that the
`
`Board set aside the default and allow Registrant to answer the Petition. Registrant additionally
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`requests that the Board establish a new schedule for the filing of Registrant’s Answer and for the
`
`discovery and testimony periods in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`_/John L. Strand/_________________
`John L. Strand
`Christina M. Licursi
`Jessica Vosgerchian
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Federal Reserve Plaza
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-646-8000
`jlstrademarks@wolfgreenfield.com
`cxltrademarks@wolfgreenfield.com
`jevtrademarks@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Attorneys for Registrant, Corrocoat Limited
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 9, 2021, I served a copy of the REGISTRANT’S
`RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER on Petitioner’s Counsel via electronic service:
`
`JESS M. COLLEN
`COLLEN IP
`80 S. HIGHLAND AVE
`OSSINING, NY 10562
`UNITED STATES
`jcollen@collenip.com, docket@collenip.com, mnesheiwat@collenip.com
`Phone: 914-941-5668
`
`
`
`
`/John L. Strand/___________
`
` John L. Strand
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. C1472.50000US00
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`DOCKET NO.: C1472.50000US00
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark: POLYGLASS
`Reg. No. 6198001
`
`Cancellation No. 92076717
`
`
`
`
`
`Polyglass S.p.A.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Corrocoat Limited,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF APRIL J. FITZPATRICK IN SUPPORT OF
`
`REGISTRANT’S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER
`
`I, April J. Fitzpatrick, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and make this declaration based on my own personal
`
`knowledge. I am familiar with the facts set forth in this Declaration and could testify competently
`
`to the truth thereof if called as a witness.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the Senior Manager of the Trademark Practice Group at Wolf,
`
`Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. (“Wolf Greenfield”) where I have worked since 2007.
`
`3.
`
`On February 15, 2020, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`implemented a mandatory electronic filing rule that required the inclusion of owner email
`
`addresses in trademark filings. On February 14, 2020, the USPTO announced that attorneys could
`
`create an email address specifically for this purpose.
`
`4.
`
`In light of the new rule, the Trademark Practice Group chose to create the
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account.
`
`9337672.1
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Wolf Greenfield decided that using the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email
`
`account was preferable to listing clients’ email addresses for several reasons: (a) having an email
`
`listed associated with Wolf Greenfield for the life of each registration furthered risk management
`
`objectives; (b) a Wolf Greenfield email address offered more permanence given that client contacts
`
`frequently change; (c) USPTO emails may be marked as spam if clients receive USPTO
`
`communications infrequently; (d) clients may have ignored USPTO emails assuming that Wolf
`
`Greenfield had already received the emails; and (e) to improve administrative efficiency at both
`
`the client and firm level.
`
`6.
`
`On February 17, 2020, I contacted Wolf Greenfield’s Information Technology
`
`(“IT”) department about creating the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account.
`
`7.
`
`Once the account was created, I was informed that the account had been tested and
`
`was fully functional.
`
`8.
`
`Because the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com email account was linked to new
`
`trademark filings only, we did not anticipate a high volume of emails (particularly external emails)
`
`to be sent to the account initially.
`
`9.
`
`In the course of a January 2021 audit, I asked the IT department to confirm whether
`
`the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com account was functioning. A member of the IT department
`
`reassured me that the account was working. I now understand that the account appeared to be
`
`working because the test email was sent from an internal as opposed to external email.
`
`10.
`
`In June 2021, I began to suspect that the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com account
`
`was not receiving all incoming messages. I then contacted the IT department to conduct a more
`
`thorough investigation to ensure the account was functioning properly.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`11.
`
`A member of
`
`the
`
`IT department proceeded
`
`to send
`
`test emails
`
`to
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com from both internal and external email accounts. When the test
`
`email from the external email account did not reach the account inbox, we realized that there was
`
`a problem with the account. The issue was confirmed once the IT department compiled email logs
`
`for the account on June 8, 2021. I then learned that the correct permissions were not set up for the
`
`account,
`
`thereby
`
`preventing
`
`incoming
`
`external
`
`emails
`
`from
`
`reaching
`
`the
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com inbox.
`
`12.
`
`On June 9, 2021, I reviewed the recovered messages for the account. In doing so, I
`
`came across the email notice from the USPTO of the Notice of Default (issued on May 8, 2021)
`
`for the subject cancellation proceeding. I immediately contacted Respondent’s counsel, Christina
`
`M. Licursi (a Shareholder in the Trademark Practice Group and counsel in this proceeding) to
`
`bring the Notice of Default to her attention.
`
`13. We then took swift action to prevent a default judgment. I assisted John L. Strand
`
`(also a Shareholder in the Trademark Practice Group and counsel in this proceeding) and Ms.
`
`Licursi with filing a Preliminary Response to Show Cause Order and Request for Additional Time
`
`that same day (June 9, 2021).
`
`14.
`
`After conferring with the relevant individuals at Wolf Greenfield, I subsequently
`
`confirmed that no one at Wolf Greenfield received any email communications or physical mail
`
`from either the USPTO or Petitioner’s counsel about the subject cancellation proceeding aside
`
`from
`
`emails
`
`sent
`
`to
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com.
`
`The
`
`inbox
`
`for
`
`cxltrademarks@wolfgreenfield.com (used by Ms. Licursi for USPTO filings) shows no evidence
`
`of receiving the relevant papers.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`15.
`
`Due to the mandatory electronic filing rule, all communications with the USPTO
`
`became
`
`electronic
`
`on
`
`February
`
`15,
`
`2020.
`
`Accordingly
`
`and
`
`because
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com was listed as Respondent’s email, Respondent would not have
`
`received either an electronic or hard copy of the relevant papers for the cancellation proceeding.
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed on August 6, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`April J. Fitzpatrick
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DOCKET NO.: C1472.S0000USOO
`
`Polyglass S.p.A.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Corrocoat Limited,
`
`Mark: POL YGLASS
`Reg. No. 6198001
`
`Cancellation No. 92076717
`
`Respondent. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. HENRY IN SUPPORT OF
`REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER
`
`I, Kevin A. Henry, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and make this declaration based on my own personal
`
`knowledge. I am familiar with the facts set forth in this Declaration and could testify competently
`
`to the truth thereof if called as a witness.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the Manager of Network Systems in the Informational Technology
`
`
`
`("IT") department at Wolf, Greenfield zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA& Sacks, P.C. ("Wolf Greenfield") where I have worked
`
`
`
`since 2001.
`
`3.
`
`On February 17,2020, April Fitzpatrick (Senior Manager of the Trademark Practice
`
`Group
`
`at Wolf Greenfield)
`
`contacted
`
`the
`
`IT
`
`department
`
`about
`
`creating
`
`a
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`email account.
`
`4.
`
`The IT department designed the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`email account to
`
`serve as an email repository.
`
`9337680.1
`
`

`

`5.
`
`We intended for messages sent to TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`to go into a
`
`public folder within Microsoft Outlook such that multiple people would have access to the
`
`mailbox.
`
`6.
`
`The default settings for Wolf Greenfield emails associated with public folders do
`
`not permit external emails to be sent to those accounts.
`
`7.
`
`Inadvertently,
`
`the permissions
`
`for TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`were not
`
`changed from the default settings, thereby preventing incoming external emails from reaching the
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`inbox.
`
`8.
`
`When the set-up process for TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`was complete, a
`
`member of the IT department confirmed whether the email account was functioning by sending a
`
`test email.
`
`9.
`
`The
`
`test
`
`email was
`
`sent
`
`from
`
`an
`
`internal
`
`email
`
`address
`
`ending
`
`in
`
`@wolfgreenfield.com, allowing the email toreachtheTMClients@wolfgreenfield.cominbox.As
`
`a result, the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`account appeared to be working properly.
`
`10.
`
`In January 2021, April Fitzpatrick asked the IT department to confirm whether the
`
`TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`account was functioning. Again, a test email was sent from an
`
`internal email account, indicating that the TMClients(a)wolfgreenfield.com
`
`account was working
`
`properly.
`
`11.
`
`In June 2021, April Fitzpatrick asked the IT department a second time to confirm
`
`whether
`
`the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`account was functioning. A member of the IT
`
`department proceeded
`
`to send test emails from both internal and external email accounts. We
`
`realized that the TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`account was not working properly when the test
`
`email from the external email account did not reach the account inbox. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
`
`2
`
`

`

`12.
`
`On June 8, 2021, we compiled email 10gsforTMClients@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`which confirmed
`
`that there was a problem with the account. We deduced
`
`that the correct
`
`permissions were not set up for the account.
`
`13.
`
`We immediately rectified the error and successfully recovered emails that were sent
`
`to the account within the past 90 days. Email logs from the past 180 days were recovered as well.
`
`14.
`
`The email notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
`
`of the Notice of Default (issued on May 8, 2021) for the subject cancellation proceeding was
`
`among the recovered messages.
`
`15.
`
`The IT department's delay in discovering the error is in part because the majority
`
`of external messages sent to TMClients@wolfgreenfield.com were sent by automated USPTO
`
`email accounts. Any bounce back messages informing the sender that their email was not delivered
`
`would not have reached a person or monitored email account.
`
`16.
`
`Following this incident, we implemented procedures to prevent similar errors from
`
`occurring in the future.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`'t, 2021
`Executed on August zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
`Kevin A. Henry
`
`3
`
`

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