Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. httos://esttauspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`ESTTA1148492
`Filing date:
`07/22/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91242213
`
`Defendant
`Haas Outdoors, Inc.
`W WHITAKER RAYNER
`JONES WALKER LLP
`190 EAST CAPITOL STREET, SUITE 800
`JACKSON, MS 39201
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: jwtrademarks@joneswalker.com
`Secondary Email(s): wrayner@joneswalker.com, aharris@joneswalker.com
`601-949-4724
`
`resptopetition.pdi(710601 bytes )
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`W. Whitaker Rayner
`wrayner@joneswalker.com, jwtrademarks@joneswalker.com
`JW. Whitaker Rayner/
`07/22/2021
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`AUDEMARSPIGUET HOLDING, SA
`
`OPPOSER
`
`V.
`
`RE: OPPOSITION NO. 91242213;
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91242238
`
`HAAS OUTDOORS,INC.
`
`APPLICANT
`
`RESPONSE OF APPLICANT HAAS OUTDOORS,INC.
`TO PETITION TO DIRECTOR
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 2.146, the applicant Haas Outdoors, Inc. (“Haas” or “Applicant”)
`
`responds to the Petition to Director filed by Audermars Piguet Holding, SA (“Opposer”) as
`
`follows:
`
`L INTRODUCTION
`
`Whenthe motionsthe subjectofthis petition were originally filed in August and September
`
`of 2020, this proceeding already had languished for over two years. The delay in bringing this
`
`matter to a resolution was identified by the Board as a result of a pattern and a course of conduct
`
`of Opposer’s doing. This pattern and course of conduct waslaid out by the Board in painstaking
`
`detail in the Board’s THIRTY-ONEpageOrder, including an eight-page timeline (57 TTABVUE
`
`10-18), as well as a three-page itemization of the manner in which Opposer’s counsel has unduly
`
`burdened Haas and misused the Board’s resources. 57 TTABVUE19-21.
`
`Now,the third anniversary of the filing of this case has passed and Opposer’s counsel
`
`would have this matter returned to the discovery phase of the case with no prospect for ever
`
`resolving this Opposition. Opposer has filed unsupportable claims that its mark is famous, which
`
`is contradicted by the evidence and claims of infringement between Applicant’s thirty-five year
`
`{1X484623.1}
`
`

`

`old house mark, MOSSY OAK, and Opposer’s ROYAL OAK mark, despite the fact that neither
`
`Opposer nor Applicant can identify a single instance of confusion between the marks in over
`
`twenty years of overlapping use.
`
`As more fully described in Haas’ initial motion, 51 TTABVUE2-6,this pattern of conduct
`
`is not unique to the instant opposition. Since 2013, the Opposer hasfiled no less than eighteen
`
`opposition proceedings against applicants of marks containing the word “OAK” for jewelry,
`
`including OAK+FORT, OAK & RUSH, FRANK & OAK, HAWK & OAK, ELLA & OAK and
`
`OAKING to name but a few. See 51 TTABVUE2-4. In all but three of the eighteen cases, the
`
`applicants withdrew their applications, amended their applications, or failed to answer the
`
`Opposition and received a default judgment. The reason is obvious!
`
`In the face the specter of an
`
`expensive opposition proceeding with Audermars Piguet, a company boasting of over one billion
`
`dollars in revenue the Applicants would rather surrender.!
`
`In the three remaining Oppositions, Opposer has embarked on a pattern of delay and
`
`harassment.
`
`In the OAKCOINSOpposition (91/245,118) discussed in Haas’ subject motion (31
`
`TIABVUE 4), the Board chastised Opposer’s successive submission of seven motionsto strike as
`
`greatly delaying the Board’s consideration of the matter. Id. Similarly in the OAK & LUNA
`
`Opposition, (91/244,316) fully discussed in Haas’ initial motion (51 TTABVUE5, 6) the Board
`
`reminded the parties “the purpose of discovery is to advance the case so that it may proceed in an
`
`orderly manner within reasonable time constraints.” The same day that Board Order was issued,
`
`Opposerfiled a Motion for Summary Judgment, furthering staying the Opposition. The Board
`
` |
`
`Interview with Audemars Piguet CEO, Frangois-Henry Bennahmias, available at
`(See Reuters
`https://www.reuters.com/article/us-watches-retail/swiss-watchmaker-audemarspiguet-to-boost-revenue-by-taking-
`sales-inhouse-idUSKCNILM2ML.)
`
`{JX484623.1}
`
`

`

`then denied the Motion for Summary Judgement and once again, that same day the Order was
`issued, Opposer filed yet another Motion to Compel Discovery. See 51 TTABVUE5, 6.
`
`Against this backdrop and the course of conduct laid out in the Board’s thirty-one page
`
`Order, the Board, exercising the inherent authority to control its docket and proceedings beforeit,
`
`terminated discovery and denied the Opposer’s Motion to Compel. Now,
`
`these other two
`
`oppositionsare likewise approachingtheir third anniversary, with discovery not nearly as far along
`
`as wasthe case in this matter when Haas’ motion wasfiled. Indeed in the OAKCOINSopposition,
`
`Opposer’s counsel has filed yet another Motion to Compel Discovery one month after that
`
`proceeding opened again. Such motion wasrecently denied by the Board, despite the fact that the
`
`
`Applicantfailed to even respond to the motion, holding that “insofar as the Board has previously
`
`determined that Applicant has tried to respond to Opposer’s discovery as required...there was no
`
`reason for Opposer to submit yet another Motion to Compel, other than for harassment.”
`
`91,245,118: 44 TTABVUE 2 (copy attached as Exhibit A).
`
`The Board was well within its power to stop the course of conduct exhibited by Audermars
`
`Piguet in the instant opposition and the other oppositions mentioned above. Since entry of the
`
`orders being appealed from dated February 9, 2021, and June 30, 2021, more resources of Haas
`
`Outdoors have been strained and more importantly, more resources ofthe Board have been strained
`
`in prolonging this senseless case. The Director should recognize that justice requires a finality to
`
`proceedings andthatthe efforts of Opposerat dilatory, non-proportional discovery, are abusive of
`
`the TTAB’s processes and resources. For these reasons, the Petition should be denied.
`
`Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`The standard for review of interlocutory Board orders by the Director is necessarily very
`
`narrow. According to TBMP 906.02,
`
`{1X484623.1)
`
`

`

`the director will
`In reviewing non-final rulings of the Board,
`exercise supervisory authority under 37 C.F.R. § 2.146 (a)(3) and
`reverse the Board’s ruling only where thereis clear error or abuse
`of discretion. [emphasis added]
`
`Technically, although the substance of the Board’s order wasoriginally set forth in the
`
`Board’s order of February 9, 2021, (57 TTABVUE) the only order appealable by the Opposeris
`
`the Board’s June 30, 2021, order (65 TTABVUE) denying Opposer’s Motion to Reconsider. Any
`
`attempt to petition the Director to review the earlier order is not timely under TBMP 905 (appeal
`
`of decision concerning matter of procedure in inter partes proceeding mustbefiled no later than
`
`30 daysafter issue date of the order or decision).
`
`The standard ofreview ofa motionfor reconsideration, whichis actually the order appealed
`
`from, is as follows:
`
`Generally, the premise underlying a motion for reconsideration,
`modification or clarification...is that, based on the facts before it
`and the prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching the order
`or decision it issued. Such a motion may not be used to introduce
`additional evidence, nor should it be devoted simply to a re-
`argument of the points presented in the brief of the original
`motion...
`
`TBMP518.
`
`The import of the standard set forth for the Director under TBMP 906.02 and the standard
`
`for the Board under TBMP518 is that the Director should only determine whetherthe decision in
`
`denying the motion for reconsideration was “clear error” or “abuse of discretion.” Though
`
`nuanced, and premised on the same factual evidence and assertions, in order to prevail in this
`
`instance the requirement of a finding of error in both orders is an even more difficult hurdle.
`
`However, under any standard, the Board’s decision should be upheld.
`
`{1X484623.1}
`
`

`

`HL. ARGUMENT
`
`In its Petition, the Opposer identifies four separate points to be reviewed. In the interest of
`
`clarity and ease for the Director, Haas will respond to each of Opposer’s points of review in the
`
`sameorderas set forth in the Petition.
`
`1, AUDERMARS PIGUET’S MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY DENIED
`
`In Haas’ response to Opposer’s Motion to Compel, Haasset forth in excruciating detail the
`
`manner in which Haas had fully complied with Opposer’s Discovery Requests the subject matter
`
`of Opposer’s Motion to Compel. 52 TTABVUE 2-8. The Board painstakingly reviewed the
`
`subject matter of the Motion to Compel along with the pattern of alleged abuses by Opposer with
`
`the discovery process in general, and motions to compelin particular, finding that,
`
`Opposer has failed to make a sufficient showing that it sought to
`resolve the identified issues in good faith before filing the Motion to
`Compel. Opposer has also failed to demonstrate that any ofits
`Motions to Compel should be granted on the merits. 57 TTABVUE
`at 30,
`
`In its Petition to Director, the Opposer fails to even address the Board’s finding that
`
`Opposer failed to attempt to resolve the identified issues in good faith before filing the motion.
`
`Furthermore, it mischaracterizes responses of Haas to discovery, the testimony of witnesses, and
`
`the numeroustrail of emails between the parties, all in an effort to manufacture some remaining
`
`issue as to the substance of the motion which has been analyzed in detail and resolved with
`
`specifics through the Board’s orders denying the Motion to Compel (57 TTABVUE)andthe order
`
`denying reconsideration of the Board’s previous order (65 TTABVUE).
`
`The upshot of the Board’s findingis that after an analyses of no less than eight pieces of
`
`correspondence between the parties, Haas “had responded fully to Opposer’s document requests
`
`numbers 34, 36, 37 and 41 and to the inquiry regarding AVT leather...In fact, in this instance, the
`
`(1X484623.1}
`
`

`

`Board finds that Applicant has substantially complied with Opposer’s Discovery Requests.” 57
`
`TTABVUE28.
`
`Furthermore, in the order addressing Opposer’s Motion to Reconsider, the Board found
`
`that Opposer’s arguments concerning the motion to compel “simply repeat Opposer’s arguments
`
`in its second Motion to Compel, which were addressed in the Board’s order and wastherefore,
`
`simply re-argument”. 65 TTABVUEat 3-4.
`
`Haas has counted the pages of space spent arguing the substance of the Motions to Compel
`
`and reconsideration thereof (32), and the number of pages spent by the Board in analyzing and
`
`disposing of the subject matter of these motions (8). The Board’s review of the motions was
`
`thorough, cogent, well-supported and well-written. For the Director to become a reviewer of
`
`discovery disputes by lightly reversing the decisions of Board, would set a dangerous precedent
`
`and would threaten to turn the Office of the Director into a bogged-down discovery and pre-trial
`
`factory. Such shouldnot be the case. Accordingly, the Director should find that the Board did not
`
`abuse its discretion or commit clear error in denying the instant Motions to Compel.
`
`2. HAAS’ MOTION WAS PROPERLY FILED
`
`Opposernextraises two technical issues from whichit seeks to escape consequencesofits
`
`actions and the entry of sanctions against Opposer. First, it argues that Haas did not confer with
`
`Opposer’s Counsel about the Motion for Protective Order priorto its filing and that Haas failed to
`
`demonstrate its ability to litigate will be prejudiced unless the order is granted. Petition at 9-11,
`
`Next, Opposer argues that the motion was filed while proceedings were suspended and Haas’
`
`motion was not germaneto the issues in Opposer’s Motion to Compel. Petition at 11.
`
`Opposer intertwines the argument of a lack of certification and a failure of Haas to
`
`demonstrate that its ability to litigate would be prejudiced unless the order were granted. These
`
`{1X484623.1}
`
`

`

`are arguments which were not raised by Opposerin its initial response to Hass’ motion. And as
`
`correctly noted by the Board, an issue not addressed for thefirst time in the initial response, may
`
`not be used to argue points in a motion to reconsider. See 65 TTABVUE2.
`
`The motion of Haas Outdoors for a protective order (51 TTABVUE) exhaustively
`
`demonstrated that Opposer’s course of conduct was preventing the Opposition from moving
`
`forward and was adding untold costs expense and time to the Opposition. See 51 TTABVUE6-
`
`10. Futhermore, as to the “meet and confer” alleged requirement, even if this were allowed to be
`
`addressed for the first time “on appeal”, the Board treated the motion as a motion for sanctions,
`
`meet and confer is not necessary under Trademark Rule 2.120(H)(1) (65 TTABVUE 5). Finally,
`
`even if a goodfaith conference were required, as the Board pointed out, Haas’ Counsel, on multiple
`
`occasions had requested that Opposer’s Counsel stop the incessant correspondence and related
`
`conduct, to no avail.
`
`(65 TTABVUE 5) (Citing 51 TTABVUE 118, 144). The Board thus
`
`recognized that Haas had approached Opposerand further negotiations would have beenfutile. 65
`
`TTABVUE5, n.3.
`
`In summary, Opposer’s technical argument as to the requirement of a “Meet
`
`and Confer” and proof of damageto the ability to litigate, are unfounded.
`
`Asto the issue of whether the motion was improperly filed due to the pendency of an
`
`existing Motion to Compel, it is precisely the Opposer’s history of conduct, and filing incessant
`
`motions to compel, that was to the impetusto the filing of Haas’ motion. The Board recognized
`
`this fact and found that,
`
`[as] Applicant’s combined Motion to Strike and For
`“Insofar
`Protective Order
`relates to Opposer’s conduct
`related to its
`discovery requests that are the subject of the motion to compel, the
`Board finds that the Applicant’s motion is germane to Opposer’s
`combined Motions to Compel.”
`
`{JX484623.1}
`
`

`

`In view of this fact, the Board found that the motion was germane and cited Nestle
`
`Company vs. Joyva Corp, 227 USPQ 477, 478 n. 4 (TTAB 1985) whichheld that the filing of a
`
`Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is a proper filing even after proceeding is suspended. 57
`
`
`TTABVUE2. As pointed out by Haas, Webster defines germane as “being at once relevant and
`
`appropriate.” 56 TTABVUE4. The Board found that the Opposer’s practice of repetitive filing of
`
`motions to compel, thus “freezing” the Opposition was a major bad faith practice warranting the
`
`Board’s sanctions. See 57 TTABVUE 223. Thus, the filing of Haas’ subject motion was in
`
`essence, part and parcel of its response to Opposer’s Motion to Compel which demonstrated
`
`conduct displayed in the repetitive filing of such motions and other harassmentset forth in Haas’
`
`subject motion. Haas’ motion could not be any more “relevant and appropriate” to Opposer’s
`
`motion. As such, Opposer’s alleged procedural barriers to the Board’s consideration of Haas’
`
`motion, is both unfounded and unwarranted.
`
`3. OPPOSER CAN NOT JUSTIFY ITS CONDUCTIN THIS MATTER
`
`Opposer spendsthe bulk of its brief attempting to rationalize the basisforits entire pattern
`
`of conduct. Nonetheless, the Board recognized the pattern and course of conduct throughout the
`
`Opposition whichit lay at the feet of Opposer and Opposer’s Counsel, and explained why not only
`
`this Opposition, but two other oppositions, were languishing before the Board and wasting
`
`significant time and expense of the Applicant and Board alike. Relying uponits inherent authority
`
`to close discovery and move this matter forward, the Board’s Order was well-supported and did
`
`not amountto a clear error or an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Board’s action was proper
`
`in all respects.
`
`The scope of discovery in Board proceedings is generally narrower than in Court
`
`proceedings and therefore the parties’ discovery should be tailored accordingly. 57 TTABVUE9
`
`{FX484623.1}
`
`

`

`(citing Frito-Lay North America, Inc vs. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 100 USPQ 2d. 1904, 1907
`
`
`(TTAB 2011); Pioneer vs. Hitachi, 74 USPQ 2d. 1674, Leuhrmann vs. Kwik Kopy Corp, 2 USPQ
`
`2d. 1303, 1305 (TTAB 1987); Centrol Inc. vs. Sentex Systems, Inc., 231 USPQ 666, 667 (TTAB
`
`1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) provides that the scope of discovery shall be
`
`“proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`
`resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden of expense
`
`of the proposed discovery outweighsthe likely benefit.” Haas, due to the extremely broad nature
`
`of the discovery propounded, already has produced over 11,000 pages of documents, has appeared
`
`for two depositions and has responded to countless inquires and self-proclaimed “deficiency
`
`letters” from Opposer’s Counsel. While Opposer attempts to argue that
`
`the number of
`
`interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded by Opposeris narrow (See
`
`Petition to Director) it is the broad nature of Opposer’s discovery which has led to countless
`
`objections, demands for additional documents, voluminous document productions, and efforts by
`
`Haas to sufficiently narrow the scope of discovery. This has become Opposer’s battleground,
`
`using the discovery process to engage “in a willful pattern of harassment of Applicant during
`
`discovery which has consumed necessarily Applicant’s resources and negatively impacted those
`
`of the Board.” SeeBoard Order, 57 TTABVUE10.
`
`In Haas’ subject motion,it laid out a series of incidents of Opposer and Opposer’s Counsel
`
`which were not unique to this proceeding, but were likewise present in the OAK & LUNA and
`
`OAKCOINS matters. Those oppositions included the filing of multiple motions to compel or
`
`motions to strike often the same day or next day after a previous motion to compel had been
`
`addressed, thus preventing the proceeding from moving forward.
`
`{JX484623.1}
`
`

`

`Opposer’s conduct in this action included repeated demands for production of documents
`
`even though Haas’ Counsel previously had addressed the demands. The conduct included
`
`attempting to require in-person depositions of third parties which would require out ofstate travel
`
`during the height of the pandemic.”
`
`Opposer’s conductalso included sending six individualletters seriatim regarding discovery which
`
`could have been included in a single letter, attempting to force Haas to travel to Switzerland to
`
`review Opposer’s documentsusing a self-proclaimed, complicated inspection process which might
`
`require multiple trips overseas, thus requiring Haas to obtain, and the Board to issue, an Order
`
`directing that the production be made electronically to Haas (this was after Haas had already
`
`produced its documents electronically to Opposer).
`
`Importantly, Opposer’s conduct included
`
`making ex parte contact with Applicant’s expert witness and the expert’s survey provider, without
`
`even advising Haas’ Counsel of such contact. These events all were recognized by the Board (57
`
`TTABVUE19-21), along with a painstaking litany of events between October, 2018 and August
`
`2020 (57 TTABVUE10-18) which demonstrated the course of conduct leading to the filing of
`
`Haas’ subject motion. And such litany does not even address the fact that in other Board
`
`proceedings, the Board has admonished Opposer for its repetitive, premature, burdensome or
`
`unnecessary submissions to the Board. (57 TTABVUE23) referring to 51 TTABVUE20, 33-35,
`
`45. See also Ex. A (Board Orderin 91/245,118):
`
`As set forth above, Opposer attempts to rationalize its entire pattern of behavior by
`
`addressing some, but not all of the incidents referenced by the Board in its Orders. But Haas
`
`2 (51 TTABVUE 149) While Opposer’s Counsel points out that one Federal District Court, in response to
`Haas’ Motion for a Protective order required an in-person deposition during the pandemic (neither the third party
`witness nor the Applicant’s Counsel was required to travel out of state), Opposer conveniently fails to discuss the
`Protective Order that was entered by the Western District of Texas in a similar motion concerning a deposition which
`required out of state travel of both the deponent and the Applicant’s Counsel. 51 USPQ2d 149-52.
`
`{1X484623.1}
`
`10
`
`

`

`Outdoors will not waste the Director’s time in rehashing its previous responses to each of these
`
`points. They have been previously addressed by the Board in its Orders and by Haasinits briets.
`
`See 56 TTABVUE5-6, 61 TTABVUE5-9, 9 TTABVUE.
`
`The Board has well set out its authority to grant the relief that it ordered. 57 TTABVUE
`
`6-8. This includes regulatory authority set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, authority
`
`under the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, and, importantly, inherent authority to control
`
`the
`
`disposition of its cases in its docket.
`
`Id at 8; citing Optimal Chemical Inc. vs. Srills LLC, 2019
`
`USPQ 2d 338409 19 (TTAB 2019); NSM Res Corp vs. Microsoft Corp 113 USPQ 2d. 1029, 1038
`
`(TTAB 2014); Carrini Inc. vs. Carla Carini SRL 57, USPQ 2d 1067, 1071 (TTAB 2000).
`
`Opposerseeks to ignore this inherent authority and seek procedural and technical basesto allow it
`
`to continue to delay this Opposition and other oppositions before the Board. If allowed to continue
`
`to make a mockery of the system, under the guise of “aggressive advocacy,” precious Board
`
`resources will continue to be wasted, more staff will be required, and inter partes, proceedings will
`
`proceed interminably. Thus the Board was well within its authority to bring discovery to a
`
`conclusion and require this case to move forward.
`
`£9X484623.1}
`
`11
`
`

`

`4. RESETTING OF TRIAL DATES IS NOT NECESSARY
`
`As of the date of this filing, the Board has not acted on Opposer’s Motion to Stay the
`
`Opposition pending the Director’s ruling. Resetting ofthe trial dates is not necessary and will, in
`
`all likelihood be moot (one way or the other) by the time the Director rules on the Petition. Haas’
`
`Counsel of Counsel will cooperate with Opposer’s Counsel and the Board as the Directorseesfit.
`
`For these reasons, the Director should deny the Petition and direct the Board to proceed
`
`immediately with trial of this Opposition.
`
`THISZZday of L 2021,
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`HAAS OUTDOORS,INC,
`BY: JONES WALKER LLP
`
`
`
`
`W. WHITAKER RAYNER (MSBNo. 4666)
`190 East Capitol Street, Suite 800
`Jackson, MS 39205-0427
`Telephone: (601) 949-4724
`Facsimile: (601) 949-4804
`wrayner@joneswalker.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Lhereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing document has been served
`
`on John A. Galbreath via e-mail
`
`to John A. Galbreath, Galbreath Law Offices, P.C.;
`
`jgalbreath@galbreath-law.com; jgalbreath@verizon.net.
`SO CERTIFIEDthis the 22dayof uh , 2021.
`pe
`
`
`
`
`
`AKER RAYNER (MSB No. 4666)
`
`{JX484623.1}
`
`

`

`EJW
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`General Contact Number: 571-272-8500
`General Email: TTABInfo@uspto.gov
`
`July 14, 2021
`
`Opposition No. 91245118
`
`Audemars Piguet Holding SA
`
`v.
`
`Oakcoins
`
`ELIZABETH J. WINTER, INTERLOCUTORY ATTORNEY:
`
`On January 28, 2021, Opposer filed a combined motion to compel responses to
`
`interrogatories and requests for production and to reset the discovery period. 42
`
`TTABVUE. Applicantdid not file a brief in response thereto within the time provided
`
`under Trademark Rule 2.127(a). The Board declines to exercise its discretion to grant
`
`Opposer’s motion as conceded. See id.
`
`The Board notes that Opposer’s has previously filed a motion to compel discovery
`
`in which it sought an order compelling responses to Opposer’s requests for production
`
`of documents. 84 TTABVUE 4. The Board granted the order as uncontested and
`
`ordered Applicant to serve responses without objection to Opposer’s requests. 37
`
`TTABVUE 2. After Applicant failed to respond to the Board's order, Opposer sought
`
`a default
`
`judgment
`
`for Applicant’s
`
`failure to respond to either Opposer’s
`
`interrogatories orits requests for production of documents, 38 TTABVUE2; however,
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Opposition No. 91245118
`
`the Board denied Opposer’s motion, stating, “it is clear that Applicant hastried to
`
`respond to Opposer as required.” 41 TTABVUE4. In particular, the Board concluded
`
`that Applicant had responded in full to Opposer’s overly broad request for production
`
`no. 20, namely, “all documents and things concerning Applicant’s Mark.” 41
`
`TTABVUE5. The Board also advised Applicant that should it determine that it has
`
`additional responsive documents, it has a duty to supplement its production of
`
`documents. Id.
`
`As the Board has discussed previously, Applicant is required to comply with the
`
`Board’s rules. See id. Nonetheless, insofar as the Board has previously determined
`
`that Applicant has tried to respond to Opposer’s discovery as required, and denied
`
`Opposer’s motion for sanctions with respect to both Opposer’s interrogatories andits
`
`requests for production of documents, there was no reason for Opposer to submit yet
`
`another motion to compel, other than for harassment. Accordingly, Opposer’s motion
`
`to compel is DENIED with prejudice.
`
`This proceeding is RESUMEDand shall move forward toward trial. Trial dates
`
`are reset as shown in the following schedule:
`
`9/14/2021
`Expert Disclosures Due
`Discovery Closes [Lo/4/2021
`
`Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures Due
`11/28/2021]
`Plaintiffs 30-day Trial Period Ends
`1/12/2022
`
`__—-—_-}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant's Pretrial Disclosures Due
`
`V/27/2022
`
`anne
`
`
`
`Defendant's 30-day Trial Period Ends 3/13/2022
`
`

`

`Opposition No, 91245118
`
`
` Plaintiff's Rebuttal Disclosures Due
`Plaintiffs 15-day Rebuttal Period Ends |s27/2022
`
`3/28/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due
`
`Defendant's Brief Due
`Plaintiff's Reply Brief Due
`
`6/26/2022
`|
`
`7/26/2022
`|s/10/2022
`
`Request for Oral Hearing (optional) Due/|8/20/2022
`crerertrrrnmmnsmsnvatrniced
`
`Generally, the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to Boardtrials. Trial testimony is
`
`taken and introduced out of the presence of the Board during the assigned testimony
`
`periods, The parties may stipulate to a wide variety of matters, and many
`
`requirements relevant to the trial phase of Board proceedings are set forth in
`
`Trademark Rules 2.121 through 2.125. These include pretrial disclosures, matters in
`
`evidence,
`
`the manner and timing of taking testimony, and the procedures for
`
`submitting and serving testimony and other evidence,
`
`including affidavits,
`
`declarations, deposition transcripts and stipulated evidence. Trial briefs shall be
`
`submitted in accordance with Trademark Rules 2.128(a) and (b), Oral argument at
`
`final hearing will be scheduled only upon the timely submission of a separate notice
`
`as allowed by Trademark Rule 2.129(a).
`
`