`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA73498
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`03/29/2006
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91121284
`Plaintiff
`HARDCORE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD.
`JEFFREY L. VAN HOOSEAR
`KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 MAIN STREET, 14TH FL
`IRVINE, CA 92614
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Stacey R. Halpern
`efiling@kmob.com, shalpern@kmob.com, hrdcore.032m.kmob@iwcs.kmob.com
`/Stacey R. Halpern/
`03/29/2006
`2006-03-29 Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf ( 4 pages )
`2006-03-29 Memo in Support of MSJ.pdf ( 25 pages )
`2006-03-29 Declaration of SRH in Support of MSJ.pdf ( 3 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 1.pdf ( 30 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 2.PDF ( 31 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 3.pdf ( 22 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 4.pdf ( 14 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 5.pdf ( 6 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 6.pdf ( 3 pages )
`SRH Exhibit 7.pdf ( 13 pages )
`2006-03-29 Declaration of Audrey in Support of MSJ.pdf ( 5 pages )
`Audrey Exhibit 1.pdf ( 10 pages )
`Audrey Exhibit 2.pdf ( 7 pages )
`Audrey Exhibit 3.pdf ( 24 pages )
`
`
`
`HRDCORE.032M
`
`TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Hardcore Enterprises Pty Ltd. and
`Globe International Nominees Pty Ltd,
`
`‘
`
`Opposers’
`
`V
`
`Helmut E. Lubbers,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No.: 91,121,284
`Mark: ECOGLOBE
`
`Serial No.: 75/424,871
`I hereby certify that
`this correspondence and all marked
`attachments are being deposited with the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board via electronic filing to at http://estta.uspto.gov/
`OTIZ
`
`
`March 29 2006
`(Date)
`
`MM
`
`Stacey R. Halpem
`
`MQ/\&\/\2\)\./Q/\/\)%
`
`HARDCORE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD.’S AND GLOBE INTERNATIONAL
`
`NOMINEES PTY LTD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO
`
`SUSPEND THE OPENING OF THE TESTIMONY PERIOD
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 145 1
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Hardcore Enterprises Pty Ltd. and Globe International Nominees Pty Ltd (hereinafter
`
`collectively referred to as “G1obe”), respectfully move the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`“Board”) pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment in
`
`the above—referenced opposition proceeding. A Memorandum in Support of Opposer’s Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment and the Declaration of Audrey Lee-Jike (“Lee-Jike Declaration”) and the
`
`Declaration of Stacey R. Halpem (“Halpem Declaration”) are being filed concurrently herewith. In
`
`addition, pursuant
`
`to Trademark Rule 2.127(d), Globe requests that
`
`the Board suspend the
`
`commencement of the testimony periods pending a decision on this motion.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`There are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute which would preclude the Board
`
`from granting summary judgment in this proceeding. The only dispute in this proceeding is to the
`
`legal conclusion to be drawn from the facts. Globe will establish that the legal conclusion must be
`that there is a likelihood of confixsion between the marks in issue and that Applicant has no bona-
`
`fide intent to use the mark at issue.
`
`First, Helmut E. Lubbers, (“Applicant”) has admitted that Applicant’s goods in Class 25 are
`
`similar to Globe’s goods in Class 25. Second, Applicant has admitted that Applicant’s goods in
`
`Class 25 will be offered through the same channels of trade. Third, Applicant has admitted that
`
`Applicant’s goods in Class 25 will be offered to the same types of consumers as Globe’s goods in
`
`Class 25. Fourth, Applicant has admitted that Globe is the senior and prior user of the GLOBE
`
`mark.
`
`In fact, Applicant has admitted that Globe is the owner of U.S. Registrations containing or
`
`consisting of the term GLOBE in connection with clothing items, headwear and footwear and that
`
`Globe’s dates of first use of the mark GLOBE are prior to Applicant’s date of first use of the mark
`
`ECOGLOBE.
`
`Additionally, as is discussed in the attached Lee-Jike Declaration, Globe has used and
`
`continues to use the GLOBE mark since at least as early as 1996 in connection with goods in Class
`
`25. Furthermore, the Lee-Jike Declaration discusses Globe’s involvement in various organizations
`
`whose activities are directed at supporting and preserving the environment and ecology.
`
`Therefore, Globe respectfiilly submits that a grant of summary judgment for Globe in this
`
`proceeding is appropriate on the ground of a likelihood of confusion and requests that the Board
`
`enter such judgment in favor of Globe and thereby deny registration of U.S. Trademark Application
`
`Serial No. 75/424,871.
`
`
`
`Moreover, as set forth in more detail in Opposer’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment, there is no dispute and the record clearly established that Applicant does not
`
`have a bona-fide intention to use the mark in connection with the goods identified in International
`
`Class 25. Accordingly, Globe, requests that the Board deny registration of Applicant’s registration.
`
`Finally, Globe also requests that
`
`the Board suspend the commencement of Globe’s
`
`testimony period pending the Board’s decision on this motion.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`Dated: March 29 2006
`
`
`
`By: fl/X
`
`Stacey R. Halpern
`Jonathan A. Hyman
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`(949) 760-0404
`Attorneys for Opposer,
`Hardcore Enterprises Pty Ltd. and
`Globe Intl. Nominees Pty Ltd.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing HARDCORE ENTERPRISES
`
`PTY LTD.’S AND GLOBE INTERNATIONAL NOMINEES PTY LTD’S MOTION FOR
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO SUSPEND THE OPENING OF THE
`
`TESTIMONY PERIOD upon App1icant’s domestic representative by depositing one copy
`
`thereof in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on March 29, 2006, addressed as
`
`follows:
`
`1915058
`032706:sh
`
`Arnold Eilers
`
`927 W. Willow Street
`
`Stockton, CA 95203
`
`_._/_/._f___
`
`Stacey R. Halpem
`
`
`
`HRDCORE.O32M
`
`TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Hardcore Enterprises Pty Ltd. and
`Globe International Nominees Pty Ltd,
`
`Opposers’
`
`V.
`
`Helmut E. Lubbers,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No.: 91,121,284
`Mark: ECOGLOBE
`Serial No.: 75/424,871
`I hereby certify that
`this correspondence and all marked
`attachments are being submitted via electronic filing to at
`http://estta.uspto.gov/ on
`
`March 29 2006
`(Date)
`
`Z2
`
`Stacey R. 1-lalpem
`
`\&\/€\&\./\J%%/\2\J%/
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO
`
`SUSPEND THE OPENING OF THE TESTIMONY PERIOD
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 145 1
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is an Opposition proceeding brought by Opposers, Hardcore Enterprises Pty Ltd. and Globe
`
`International Nominees Pty Ltd (collectively “Globe”) against Helmut E. Lubbers’ (“Applicant”) U.S.
`
`Trademark Application Serial No. 75/424,871 (“Applicant’s Application”) for the mark ECOGLOBE
`
`(“Applicant’s Mark”) in connection with “sweatshirts, namely T-shirts, sweaters, neckties, scarves, socks,
`
`underwear, sports jumpers and trousers, coats, jackets, sports shoes, sandals, sneakers, hats and caps,” in
`
`International Class 25 (“Applicant’s Goods”).
`
`In Globe’s Notice of Opposition and Amended Notice of Opposition, Globe asserted that
`
`Applicant’s Mark ECOGLOBE, when used on or in connection with Applicant’s Goods is likely to cause
`
`confiision or mistake as to source with Globe’s Various names and marks consisting of or containing the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`term GLOBE, including but not limited the marks GLOBE, GLOBE AUSTRLIA, GLOBE and Design and
`
`GLOBE AUSTRALIA and Design, as well as the names Globe Shoes, Globe International Nominees Pty
`
`Ltd. and Globe International Ltd. (these names and marks collectively hereinafter referred to as the
`
`“GLOBE Marks”) in connection with various products, including, but not limited to, apparel, as well as
`
`related goods and accessories (all of the foregoing goods and services collectively referred to hereinafter as
`
`“Globe’s Goods”).
`
`In addition to alleging .a likelihood of confusion, Globe’s Amended Notice of Opposition also
`
`alleges that Applicant does not have a bonafide intention to use the mark in commerce.
`
`Accordingly, Globe requests the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to deny
`
`registration of App1ication’s Application. Pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.l27(d), Globe also requests the
`
`Board to Epid the commencement of Globe’s testimony period pending a decision on this motion.
`
`The dispositive issues in this case are:
`
`(1) whether a likelihood of confusion exists between the
`
`mark shown in Applicant’s Application and the GLOBE Marks; and/or (2) whether Applicant has a bona
`
`fide intention to use the mark in Applicant’s Application in U.S. commerce.
`
`Globe’s assertion of a likelihood of confusion is well founded. As is discussed below in detail,
`
`Applicant seeks registration for the mark ECOGLOBE. Similarly, the GLOBE Marks contain the term
`
`GLOBE either alone or in conjunction with another term and/or design element. Globe is also the owner of
`
`U.S. registrations for the GLOBE Marks for goods in Class 25 (the “GLOBE Registrations”). Globe and its
`
`related entities (collectively “the Globe Companies”) also sponsor various events in connection with the
`
`GLOBE Marks. Furthermore, the Globe Companies are involved in various organizations whose actives are
`
`directed at supporting ecology and the environment. Thus, the term “ecology” and the pre-fix “eco” when
`
`used in conjunction with the term GLOBE is likely to be associated by consumers and potential consumers
`
`with Globe and/or Globe’s Goods.
`
`As is discussed in detail below, Applicant admitted that Globe is the senior and prior user of the
`
`GLOBE Marks, that he seeks registration for goods substantially identical to Globe’s Goods, and that
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Globe’s Goods and Applicant’s Goods will be offered through the same channels of trade to the same types
`
`of consumers. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with regard to a likelihood of
`
`confusion between the marks. As such, Globe is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`
`Similarly, Globe’s assertion that Applicant does not have a bona fide intention to use the mark in
`
`Applicant’s Application in U.S. commerce is also well founded. Applicant has admitted that he has not
`
`used the ECOGLOBE mark in connection with Applicant’s Goods. Applicant has also admitted that he
`
`has not spent any money advertising or promoting the ECOGLOBE mark in connection with such goods
`
`and that he has not used, marketed, advertised, promoted or developed any business plans or even any
`
`plans in connection with the ECOGLOBE mark in connection with Applicant’s Goods. In fact, Applicant
`
`has admitted that he has not taken any steps indicative of someone with a good faith bona fide intent to
`
`use a mark as required under the Trademark Act. Moreover, Applicant has admitted that he maintains no
`
`documents or things regarding the ECOGLOBE mark in connection with goods in International Class 25 .
`
`Finally, Applicant’s admission that he never used the mark in connection with goods in International
`
`Class 25 anywhere in the world, coupled with the cancellation of his foreign registrations for his mark,
`
`supports the fact that he has no good faith bonafide intention to use the mark.
`
`Accordingly, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with regard to Applicant’s lack of a
`
`bonafide intention to use the mark in commerce, and, as such, Globe is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law. As such, Globe requests that the Board deny registration of Applicant’s Application. Moreover,
`
`pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.l27(d), Globe requests that the Board suspend the commencement of
`
`Globe’s testimony period pending the Board’s decision on this motion.
`
`II.
`
`UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`On January 28, 1998, Applicant filed Applicant’s Application.
`
`The sole basis under which Applicant sought registration for International Class 25 was a
`
`
`
`foreign registration under Section 44(e) of the Trademark Act. E Applicant’s Application.‘
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`On August 12, 2000, Applicant’s Application published for Opposition.
`
`On November 30, 2000, Globe filed a Notice of Opposition against Applicant’s Application
`
`based on Globe’s prior and senior use and registration of the mark GLOBE.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`On October 12, 2000, Applicant answered the Notice of Opposition.
`
`On April 20, 2002, Globe served Opposer’s First Requests for Admissions (Nos. 1-18)
`
`(“Opposer’s First Admissions Requests”), Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-41) (“Opposer’s
`
`First Interrogatories”) and Opposer’s First Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Nos. 1-51)
`
`(“Opposer’s First Document Requests”). & Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stacey R. Halpem (“Halpem
`
`Decl.”) at 112.
`
`7.
`
`On January 24, 2005, Globe served Opposer’s Third Requests for Admissions (Nos. 1-112)
`
`(“Opposer’s Third Admissions Requests”) and Opposer’s Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-31)
`
`(“Opposer’s Third Interrogatories”).
`
`_S_e_§ Exhibit 2 to the Halpem Decl. at 113.
`
`8.
`
`On February 14, 2005 Globe served Opposer’s Fourth Requests for Admissions (Nos. 1-
`
`127) (“Opposer’s Fourth Admissions Requests”).
`
`_S_e_e Exhibit 3 to the Halpem Decl. at 114.
`
`9.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, No. 2 states: “[a]pplicant did not offer for sale
`
`any products or services in association with Applicant’s Mark in the U.S. prior to February 1996.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`10.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, Admission No. 3 states: “[a]pplicant did not sell
`
`any products or services in association with Applicant’s Mark in the U.S. prior to February 1996.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`11.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, Admission No. 4 states: “[a]pplicant’s Goods in
`
`Class 25 are similar to Opposer’s Goods in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” See
`
`1 Opposer notes that although Applicant’s Application claims priority from a Netherlands registration,
`Benelux registration.
`
`it is actually a
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`12.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, No. 5 states: “[o]pposer’s use of the mark
`
`GLOBE in U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,991,488 is prior to App1icant’s first use of the mark
`
`ECOGLOBE.” Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`13.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, Admission No. 6 states: “[o]pposer’s date of first
`
`use of the mark GLOBE set forth in U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,991,488 is prior to the date
`
`Applicant filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 75/424,871.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`14.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, Admission No. 7 states: “[o]pposer’s date of first
`
`use of the mark GLOBE set forth in U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,991,488 is prior to Application’s
`
`date of first use of the mark ECOGLOBE in the U.S.” Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E
`
`Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`15.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, Admission No. 12 states: “[a]pplicant’s Goods in
`
`Class 25 are or will be offered through the same channels of trade as Opposer’s Goods in Class .25.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” §_ee_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`16.
`
`In Opposer’s First Admission Requests, Admission No. 13 states: “[a]pplicant’s Goods in
`
`Class 25 are or will be offered to the same types of consumers as Opposer’s Goods in Class 25.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`17.
`
`In Opposer’s First Document Requests, No. 6 requests: “[r]epresentative samples of all
`
`documents relating or referring to or tending to show annual sales of Applicant’s goods on which
`
`Applicant’s Mark has been used in association with clothing, headwear or footwear, including, but not
`
`limited to, sweatshirts, T-shirts, sweaters, neckties, scarves, socks, underwear, sports jumpers and
`
`trousers, coats, jackets, sports shoes, sandals, sneakers, hats and caps, in both units and dollars fi'om the
`
`date of first use of Applicant’s Mark to the present.” Applicant responded as follows: “There are no
`
`documents.” _Se_e Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In Opposer’s First Document Requests, No. 7 requests: “[r]epresentative samples of all
`
`documents and things relating or referring to, or showing annual sales of any goods or services on which
`
`Applicant’s Mark has been used, in both units and dollars, from the date of first use to the present.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “There are no documents.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`19.
`
`In Opposer’s First lnterrogatories, No. 8 requested Applicant to: “[s]tate the annual sales
`
`in units and dollars from the date of first use of Applicant’s Mark as identified in response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 6, in connection with Applicant’s Goods in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“No use, no sales, no promotion, no agents, no public knowledge, no specific plans as to the use in class
`
`25.” & Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`20.
`
`In Opposer’s First lnterrogatories, No. 9 requested Applicant to: “[d]escribe in detail the
`
`manner in which Applicant’s Mark is promoted and/or advertised in the U.S.
`
`in connection with
`
`Applicant’s Goods in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows: “No use, no sales, no promotion, no
`
`agents, no public knowledge, no specific plans as to the use in class 25.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem
`
`Decl. at 115.
`
`21.
`
`In Opposer’s First lnterrogatories, No. 11 requested Applicant to: “[i]dentify the person or
`
`persons who, from the date of Applicant’s claimed date of first use of Applicant’s Mark to the present,
`
`have been responsible for the marketing and/or promotion of Applicant’s Goods in Class 25 under
`
`Applicant’s Mark, and indicate the period during which each person was so responsible.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “No use, no sales, no promotion, no agents, no public knowledge, no specific plans
`
`as to the use in class 25.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`22.
`
`In Opposer’s First
`
`lnterrogatories, No. 12 requested Applicant
`
`to: “[i]dentify all
`
`advertising agencies, public relations agencies or market research agencies which Applicant has used,
`
`participated with or cooperated with in advertising, marketing or promoting Applicant’s Goods in Class
`
`25 and indicate the time pen'od(s) during which such activities were conducted.” Applicant responded as
`
`follows: “No use, no sales, no promotion, no agents, no public knowledge, no specific plans as to the use
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`in class 25 .” §_e_e Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`23.
`
`In Opposer’s First Interrogatories, No. 14 requested Applicant to: “[d]escribe in detail all
`
`plans made or steps taken by Applicant to alter the channels of distribution mentioned in the answer to the
`
`preceding Interrogatory.” Applicant responded as follows: “No use, no sales, no promotion, no agents, no
`
`public knowledge, no specific plans as to the use in class 25.” See Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`»24.
`
`In Opposer’s First Interrogatories, No. 27 requested Applicant to: “[d]escribe in detail all
`
`plans made or steps taken by Applicant to expand the number of products or services with which
`
`Applicant’s Mark is used or is expected to be used.” Applicant responded as follows: “There are no plans,
`
`no agreements, no steps for expansion.” _S_e_e_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`25.
`
`In Opposer’s First Interrogatories, No. 28 requested Applicant to: “[d]escribe in detail all
`
`agreements you have entered into relating to the sale of Applicant’s Goods in Class 25 in connection with
`
`Applicant’s Mark, including all license agreements.” Applicant responded as follows: “There are no plans,
`
`no agreements, no steps for expansion.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`26.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No 2 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`used Applicant’s Mark in connection with Applicant’s Goods anywhere in the world.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_g§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`27.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 3 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`offered Applicant’s Goods for sale in connection with Applicant’s Mark anywhere in the world.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” S_ee_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`28.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 4 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`sold Applicant’s Goods in connection with Applicant’s Mark anywhere in the world.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” §;c_§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`29.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 5 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`advertised Applicant’s Goods in connection with Applicant’s Mark anywhere in the world.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” fig Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 6 states: “[a]pplicant is not
`
`currently using Applicant’s Mark in connection with Applicant’s Goods in the United States.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 15.
`
`31.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 7 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`used Applicant’s Mark in connection with Applicant’s Goods in the United States.” Applicant responded
`
`as follows: “Admitted.” _S_e_e_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`32.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 8 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`offered Applicant’s Goods for sale in connection with Applicant’s Mark in the United States.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_e_e_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`33.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 9 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`sold Applicant’s Goods in connection with Applicant’s Mark in the United States.” Applicant responded
`
`as follows: “Admitted.” S_ec:_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`34.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 10 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`advertised Applicant’s Goods in connection with Applicant’s Mark in the United States.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” Sfi Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`35.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 11 states: “[a]pplicant is not
`
`currently using the mark ECOGLOBE in connection with Applicant’s Goods anywhere in the world.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_e_e Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`36.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 12 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`used the mark ECOGLOBE in connection with Applicant’s Goods anywhere in the world.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” fie Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 1[5.
`
`37.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 13 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`offered Applicant’s Goods for sale in connection with the ECOGLOBE mark anywhere in the world.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” §§_e_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at fi[5.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 14 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`sold Applicant’s Goods in connection with the ECOGLOBE mark anywhere in the world.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 1[5.
`
`39.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 15 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`advertised Applicant’s Goods in connection with the ECOGLOBE mark anywhere in the world.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S§_c_: Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`40.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 17 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`used the mark ECOGLOBE in connection with Applicant’s Goods in the United States.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_g Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 1[5.
`
`41.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 20 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`advertised Applicant’s Goods in connection with the mark ECOGLOBE in the United States.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at ‘H5.
`
`42.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 72 states: “[a]pplicant does not
`
`have any documentary evidence showing that Applicant has plans to use Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s
`
`Goods.” Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`43.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 79 states: “[a]pplicant has not hired
`
`any distributors to sell Applicant’s Goods under Applicant’s Mark.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” gee Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 1[5.
`
`44.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 80 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`hired any distributors to sell Applicant’s Goods under Applicant’s Mark.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`45.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 81 states: “[a]pplicant has not hired
`
`any distributors to sell Applicant’s Goods under the mark ECOGLOBE.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 82 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`hired any distributors to sell Applicant’s Goods under the mark ECOGLOBE.” Applicant responded as
`
`follows: “Admitted.” _S_ge Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`47.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 86 states “[t]he public is
`
`unaware that Applicant
`
`intends to use the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`48.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 87 states “Applicant has no
`
`specific plans as to the use of Applicant’s Mark in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 15.
`
`49.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 88 states “Applicant has no
`
`specific plans as to the use of the mark ECOGLOBE in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” See Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`50.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 89 states “Applicant never had
`
`any specific plans as to the use of the mark ECGOLOBE in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 1[5.
`
`51.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 90 states: “[a]pplicant never had
`
`any specific plans as to the use of the mark ECOGLOBE in Class 25.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`52.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 92 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any product development to use of the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 1[5.
`
`53.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 93 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any product testing to use Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as
`
`follows: “Admitted.” §_g§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 94 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any product testing to use the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded
`
`as follows: “Admitted.” fige Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`55.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 95 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any market research to use Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as
`
`follows: “Admitted.” S_e§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`56.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 96 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any market research regarding use of the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” §§§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`57.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 97 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`drafted any business plans regarding the use of Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_e§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`58.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 98 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`drafted any business plans regarding the use of the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” fig Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`59.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 99 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`offered a license to a third party to use Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as
`
`follows: “Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`60.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 100 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`offered a license to a third party to use the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “Admitted.” fige Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 115.
`
`61.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 101 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any marketing activities regarding his use of Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_@ Exhibit 4 to the Halpem Decl. at 15.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`62.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 102 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`conducted any marketing activities regarding his use of the mark ECOGLOBE on Applicant’s Goods.”
`
`Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” _S_e_e Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 15.
`
`63.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 103 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`taken any steps to acquire distributors for Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`64.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 104 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`taken any steps to obtain government approvals for Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as follows:
`
`“Admitted.” gag Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`65.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 105 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`
`purchased any raw materials for Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” E
`
`Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 115.
`
`66.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Admission Requests, Admission No. 106 states: “[a]pplicant has never
`)3
`made any product designs for Applicant’s Goods. Applicant responded as follows: “Admitted.” fig
`
`Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 15.
`
`67.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Interrogatories, No. 2 requested Applicant to: “[e]xplain in detail all
`
`steps Applicant has taken to use Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded as
`
`follows: “No specific steps were taken to use the mark ECOGLOBE on goods. Hence no description is
`
`possible.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 1l5.
`
`68.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Interrogatories, No. 4 requested Applicant to: “[e]xplain in detail all
`
`product development Applicant has made in connection with the use of Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s
`
`Goods.” Applicant responded as follows: “No specific product development for the use of the mark
`
`ECOGLOBE on goods was undertaken. Hence no description is possible.” _S_e§ Exhibit 4 to the Halpern
`
`Decl. at 115.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`69.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Interrogatories, No. 6 requested Applicant to: “[e]xplain in detail all
`
`products testing Applicant has made in connection with the use of Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s
`
`Goods.” Applicant responded as follows: “No product testing for the use of the mark ECOGLOBE on
`
`goods was undertaken. Hence no description is possible.” E Exhibit 4 to the Halpern Decl. at 15.
`
`70.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Interrogatories, No. 8 requested Applicant to: “[e]xplain in detail all
`
`market research Applicant has conducted in connection with the use of Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s
`
`Goods.” Applicant
`
`responded as follows: “No specific market research for the use of the mark
`
`ECOGLOBE on goods was undertaken. Hence no description is possible.” _S_e_e_ Exhibit 4 to the Halpern
`
`Decl. at 15.
`
`71.
`
`In Opposer’s Third Interrogatories, No. 10 requested Applicant
`
`to: “[s]tate whether
`
`Applicant has offered any licenses to use Applicant’s Mark on Applicant’s Goods.” Applicant responded
`
`as follows: “No license was offered to the use of the mark ECOGLOBE on goods. Hence no description is
`
`pos
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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.
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.
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