IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INLAND ACQUISITION CO., LLC,
`
`Opposition No.:
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`SYSCO CORPORATION,
`
`Applicant.
`
`In re Application Serial No. 76/083,386
`
`Filed: July 5,2000
`Mark: NEWPORT
`Published: July 23, 2002
`
`:;
`
`T;
`
`7:
`9”“ -3 I
`F73
`ffj':_::
`Evy»
`
`ca
`
`Cg)-4
`
`«
`‘*3
`
`f-‘-5
`L?‘
`-w
`
`U.S. Pihlntdr. TMOfcITM Mail ficpt. Dr. #40
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`Inland Acquisition C0,, L.L.C., an Oregon Corporation with a principal place of business
`
`at 3220 SW First Avenue, Portland, Or 97201, U.S.A. (“Opposer”), believes that it will be
`
`damaged by registration of the mark shown in the above-identified application, and hereby
`
`opposes the same.
`
`The grounds for opposition are as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Opposer, or its predecessor-in—interest (collectively, “Opposer”) has been engaged
`
`in the business of providing seafood products under its ”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT
`
`SHRIMP” trademarks since at least as early as 1988. Opposer has used in interstate commerce
`
`the marks “”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP” in connection with seafood since long
`
`prior to applicant"s filing date for its mark “NEWPOR .”
`
`2.
`
`Opposer, since at least as early as 1988, has been and is now using the marks
`
`”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP” in connection with seafood. The use has been valid
`
`and continuous since the date of first use, and it has not been abandoned. Opposer’s mark is
`
`symbolic of extensive goodwill and consumer recognition built up by Opposer. Opposer’s
`
`”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP” marks for seafood are well-known by consumers
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 1
`
`a
`
`o9/21/aooa rsumc
`01 m3,”
`
`ooooom mama
`m_W W
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`INLAND ACQUISITION CO., LLC,
`
`Opposition No.:
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`SYSCO CORPORATION,
`
`Applicant.
`
`In re Application Serial No. 76/083,386
`
`Filed: July 5,2000
`Mark: NEWPORT
`Published: July 23, 2002
`
`:;
`
`T;
`
`7:
`9”“ -3 I
`F73
`ffj':_::
`Evy»
`
`ca
`
`Cg)-4
`
`«
`‘*3
`
`f-‘-5
`L?‘
`-w
`
`U.S. Pihlntdr. TMOfcITM Mail ficpt. Dr. #40
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`Inland Acquisition C0,, L.L.C., an Oregon Corporation with a principal place of business
`
`at 3220 SW First Avenue, Portland, Or 97201, U.S.A. (“Opposer”), believes that it will be
`
`damaged by registration of the mark shown in the above-identified application, and hereby
`
`opposes the same.
`
`The grounds for opposition are as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Opposer, or its predecessor-in—interest (collectively, “Opposer”) has been engaged
`
`in the business of providing seafood products under its ”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT
`
`SHRIMP” trademarks since at least as early as 1988. Opposer has used in interstate commerce
`
`the marks “”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP” in connection with seafood since long
`
`prior to applicant"s filing date for its mark “NEWPOR .”
`
`2.
`
`Opposer, since at least as early as 1988, has been and is now using the marks
`
`”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP” in connection with seafood. The use has been valid
`
`and continuous since the date of first use, and it has not been abandoned. Opposer’s mark is
`
`symbolic of extensive goodwill and consumer recognition built up by Opposer. Opposer’s
`
`”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP” marks for seafood are well-known by consumers
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 1
`
`a
`
`o9/21/aooa rsumc
`01 m3,”
`
`ooooom mama
`m_W W
`
`
`
`
`
`S.
`
`The mark proposed for registration by Applicant, “NEVVPORT,” is confusingly
`
`similar to Opposer’s marks ”NEWPORT” and “NEWPORT SHRIMP,” and it is to be used for
`
`goods related to Opposer’s goods, namely, “beef, meat, namely custom cut steaks.” Applicant’s
`
`use thereof would therefore be taken by the public as an endorsement by Opposer of Applicant’s
`
`goods bearing the mark. Further, any defect, objection or fault found with Applicant’s products
`
`marketed under its mark would necessarily reflect upon and seriously injure the business and
`
`personal reputation of Opposer.
`
`4.
`
`If Applicant is granted the registration herein opposed, it would thereby obtain at
`
`least prima facie exclusive right to the use of its mark, and such registration would damage
`
`Opposer.
`
`WHEREFORE, Opposer prays that the application Serial No. 76/083,386 be rejected, and
`
`that the mark therein sought for the goods herein specified in Class 29 be denied and refused.
`
`A duplicate copy of this Notice of Opposition and the fee required by § 2.6(a)(l7) are
`
`enclosed herewith. A copy of this Notice of Opposition is being served upon the Applicant
`
`simultaneously herewith.
`
`Date: 0Qi,Qj09x
`
`Karen
`
`ethere l
`
`avis
`
`Ingrid S. Sprangle
`Elliott, Ostrander & Preston, P.C.
`
`707 SW Washington Street
`Portland, OR 97205, USA
`
`(206) 224-71 12
`karen@eoplaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 2
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE or EXPRESS MAIL
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.10
`
`TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
`
`Express Mail Label No. EV 076297629 US
`Date of Deposit: September 19, 2002
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF OPPOSITION of
`
`Inland Acquisition Co., L.L.C. is being deposited with the United States Postal Service,
`
`postage pre-paid, in duplicate (original plus one copy) as Express Mail, mailing label no.
`
`EV 076297629 US, in an envelope addressed to Commissioner for Trademarks, Box
`
`TTAB — Fee, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
`
`<02.
`DATED this/9 day of September, 2002.
`
` Niel Chamberlin-Wolfe
`
`Paralegal
`Elliott, Ostrander & Preston, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE or MAILING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.8
`
`TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
`
`Date of Deposit: September 19, 2002
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF OPPOSITION of
`
`Inland Acquisition Co., L.L.C. is being deposited with the United States Postal Service
`
`with sufficient postage as first class mail on the date indicated above, in an envelope
`
`addressed to Nathan C. Belzer, Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP, 600 Travis, Suite 3400,
`
`Houston, Texas 77002-3095.
`
`DATED this pfflday ofSeptember, 2002.
`
`Case
`
`
`Niel Chamberlin—Wolfe
`
`Paralegal
`Elliott, Ostrander & Preston, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`ELL_I0'IT,
`
`0sTRAN1)ER&
`
`PRESTON, P.C.
`
`UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TOWER
`707 SW WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1500
`PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
`TELEPHONE: (503) 224-7112
`FACSIMILE: (503)224-7819
`WEBSITE: www.eoplaw.com
`
`09-1 9-2002
`
`OFFICES ALSO LOCATED IN SEATTLE, WA
`
`U.S. Paunm TMOfcITM Mail Rcpt, D1, #40
`
`KAREN WETHERELL DAVIS
`WILLIAM A. DREW
`JEROME F. ELLIOTT
`JOHN D. OSTRANDER
`ROBERT J . PRESTON
`INGRID S. SPRANGLE
`
`MEMBERS ARE LICENSED IN
`OREGON, WASHINGTON,
`CALIFORNIA, ALASKA & OHIO
`NIEL CHAMBERLIN-WOLFE
`PARALEGAL
`
`EMAIL: niel@eOplaw.com
`
`September 19, 2002
`
`VIAEXPRESSMAIL -EViD?I=E‘l?I=E"iUS
`
`Box TTAB FEE
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`Re:
`
`“NEWPORT,” Serial No. 76/083,386
`
`Notice of Opposition
`
`Dear Sir or Madam:
`
`Enclosed please find the following documents:
`
`Enclosed please find the following items:
`I.
`
`$3
`CD
`C’?
`
`‘
`Q.)
`
`557%
`-3
`
`:73
`‘
`()1
`f\)
`
`55
`_?‘.~
`—> 9|’
`‘ 1
`
`EA-'c-1>
`-A-‘ - 4'
`IT"
`-.'
`
`5'3 --4
`'74 L13
`
`3? 7;’
`C3‘
`T
`1':
`
`.V‘.4>E”.‘"!"‘
`
`Original and one copy of the Notice of Opposition;
`Certificate of Mailing to Commissioner of Trademarks;
`Certificate of Mailing to Opposing Counsel;
`A check in the amount of $300.00; and
`A self-addressed, stamped return post card.
`
`Please date-stamp the retum acknowledgment card, and return it to our offices. Thank you.
`
`Please telephone if you have any questions.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`ELLIOTT, OSTRANDER & PRESTON, P.C.
`
`/LSL
`
`Niel Chamberlin-Wolfe
`
`Paralegal
`
`zncw
`
`Enclosures
`
`cc:
`
`Craig Urness (w/ encl.)
`Karen Wetherell Davis (w/ encl.)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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
