IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HANCOR, INC.
`
`-
`
`PRINSCO, INC.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Applicant
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91159347
`
`E
`E
`§ §
`E ‘l’
`Application Serial No. 76/512,703 E
`E °
`3:?
`
`Published in the Ojficial Gazette
`on December 23, 2003
`
`U.S.Pauna..ITM01‘cITMMallHcptpt#75
`
`APPLICANTS AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`Prinsco, Inc. ("Applicant"), a Minnesota corporation, located and doing business at 108
`
`Highway 7 West, Prinsburg, Minnesota 56281, hereby answers the Official Notice of Opposition,
`
`No. 91159347 filed by Hancor, Inc. ("Opposer") against Applicant's allowed published application
`
`to register it.s trademark, ECOFLO WT.
`
`1.
`
`Answering paragraph 1 of Hancor's Notice of Opposition, Applicant
`
`is currently
`
`without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts related to the
`
`allegations contained therein, and therefore denies same.
`
`2.
`
`Answering paragraph 2 of Hancor's Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies that
`
`Federal Registration No. 2,642,585 is for the mark ECOFIRST. Applicant is currently without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts related to the
`
`remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies same.
`
`3.
`
`Answering paragraph 3 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant is currently without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts related to the
`
`allegations contained therein, and therefore denies pamedeiollaom am
`01 FB:6402
`
`39 76512703
`300.00 DP
`
`

`
`
`
`4.
`
`Answering paragraph 4 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant is currently without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts related to the
`
`allegations contained therein, and therefore denies same.
`
`5.
`
`Answering paragraph 5 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant is currently without
`
`sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts related to the
`
`allegations contained therein, and therefore denies same.
`
`6.
`
`Answering paragraph 6 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits
`
`the
`
`allegations of said paragraph.
`
`7.
`
`Answering paragraph 7 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits that it does
`
`compete directly with the Opposer, to a limited extent only,
`
`in the agriculture and commercial
`
`markets.
`
`8.
`
`Answering paragraph 8 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits that it does
`
`sell and distribute corrugated high-density polyethylene pipe of some sizes, and does manufacture
`
`pipe using recycled high-density polyethylene, but only in a limited variety and sizes. Applicant
`
`admits that Opposer sells and distributes corrugated high-density polyethylene pipe of some sizes.
`
`Applicant
`
`is without sufficient knowledge or information as to Opposer's current manufacturing
`
`capabilities
`
`and therefore denies
`
`that Opposer manufactures pipe of recycled high-density
`
`polyethylene.
`
`9.
`
`Answering paragraph 9 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits that it sells
`
`and distributes its products in the construction, building, agricultural, recreational, residential, and
`
`specialty markets. Applicant is currently without sufficient knowledge or information as to extent
`
`of distribution channels of the Opposer, and therefore denies the remainder of this paragraph.
`
`

`
`
`
`10.
`
`Answering paragraph 10 of said Opposition, Applicant admits that
`
`it sells its
`
`products in some of the same geographical regions as Opposer, and advertises in some of the same
`
`publications and at some _of the ,same trade shows. Applicant is without sufficient knowledge to
`
`form a belief as to whether "both companies" sell their products in all of the same geographical
`
`regions and advertise in all of the same publications and at all of the same trade shows, and
`
`accordingly denies the same.
`
`1 l.
`
`Answering paragraph 11 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies that Opposer
`
`provided it technology necessary to manufacture pipe from recycled high-density polyethylene, as
`
`well as Opposer's false implication that it provided Applicant any such technology gratuitously.
`
`Applicant admits, however,
`
`that it did receive certain technology from the Opposer, as partial
`
`consideration for settlement of Applicant's civil suit for patent infringement against Opposer, to
`
`improve upon technology it already possessed for manufacturing pipe from recycled high-density
`
`polyethylene, and that it uses said technology to make products it sells under its ECOFLO WT
`
`mark.
`
`12.
`
`Answering paragraph 12 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant admits that
`
`Opposer is the owner of recently issued U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,765,879 on the un-
`
`enforceable Supplemental Register. Applicant is without suficient knowledge or information to
`
`form a belief as to the alleged use to which the Opposer may put the green band referred to therein,
`
`and therefore denies the use referred to in said paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`Answering paragraph 13 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant states that
`
`it
`
`initially made limited experimental use of a green shrink-wrap to protect its gasket. Unsatisfied,
`
`Applicant shifted to the use of a stronger white shrink-wrap, and continues such usage to date.
`
`Applicant denies paragraph 13 in all other respects.
`
`

`
`
`
`14.
`
`Answering paragraph 14 of said Notice of Opposition, Applicant denies that its
`
`ECOFLO WT mark is of an identical nature to any mark owned by the Opposer, and denies that its
`
`goods and services are ofan identical nature to those of the Opposer, and denies that its ECOFLO
`
`WT mark is likely to cause C0[1filSl0I‘l, to cause mistake, or to deceive.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`Applicant's first usage of ECOFLO WT in commerce antedates Opposer's date of
`
`alleged first usage of ECOFIRST and Design as claimed in Registration No. 2,642,585, or any
`
`alleged use of the word ECOFIRST apart from any design element, and such use by Applicant has
`
`been valid in the ordinary course of trade without abandonment. Accordingly, Opposer's opposition
`
`fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`2.
`
`On infonnation and belief, Opposer's only mark is comprised of a distinctive design
`
`element in combination with the term ECOFIRST as shown in Registration No. 2,642,585, not the
`
`word ECOFIRST used alone, as alleged by Hancor, and ECOFLO WT clearly is not confusingly
`
`similar with Opposer's combination mark.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Opposer's alleged mark ECOFIRST is not entitled to
`
`protection under Federal, State, or common law, because Opposer has made no use of the mark
`
`ECOFIRST alone, as alleged by Opposer, and therefore has developed no goodwill or rights in and
`
`to the mark ECOFIRST, used alone as alleged by Opposer.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Opposer is not entitled to rely on its alleged trademark
`
`rights in the mark ECOFIRST in opposing Applicant's application to register the mark ECOFLO
`
`WT because Applicant has developed prior and/or intervening rights over Opposer to use the mark
`
`ECOFLO WT as a trademark on plastic drainage pipe made of recycled polyethylene.
`
`

`
`
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's ECOFLO WT mark is not likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake,
`
`or to deceive with respect to Opposer‘s alleged mark, because it differs materially phonetically and
`
`in appearance, spelling, content, and meaning.
`
`APPLICANT’S COUNTERCLAHVI IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR CANCELLATION OF
`OPPOSER’S PLEADED REGISTRATION
`
`Applicant, Prinsco, Inc_, believes that it is being, and will be, damaged by registration of the mark
`
`shown in Opposer’s pleaded Registration No. 2,642,585 in the current Opposition Proceeding, and
`
`as its counterclaim herein, hereby petitions for cancellation of said Registration No. 2,642,585. As
`
`grounds for Applicant’s Counterclajm in the Alternative for Cancellation of Opposer’s Pleaded
`
`Registration, Applicant asserts the following:
`
`1,
`
`Applicant reasserts and incorporates herein, to an extent not inconsistent with the pleadings
`
`of this alternative counterclaim, those answers, responses and allegations to Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition set forth in Paragraphs 1-14 above, and Applicant’s Affirmative Defenses 1-5 thereto, as
`
`though fiilly set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`Opposer
`
`is
`
`the owner of U.S. Registration No. 2,642,585 (hereinafier “Pleaded
`
`Registration”), for the mark ECOFIRST & Design, covering “flexible polyethylene pipe for use in
`
`water drainage,” the application for which recites an alleged date of first use of the mark anywhere
`
`and in interstate commerce at least as early as October 24, 2001.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant has been using, and is now using in the United States, and in interstate commerce,
`
`the mark ECOFLO WT as a trademark in connection with the sale of water drainage tubing
`
`constructed of recycled high density polyethylene.
`
`Such use of the mark ECOFLO WT by the
`
`Applicant has been valid, continuous and without interruption or abandonment since a date prior to
`
`October 24, 2001, and on information and belief, since a date prior to Opposer’s first use of its
`
`

`
`
`
`registered mark ECOFIRST & Design in connection with those goods designated in its Pleaded
`
`Registration.
`
`4.
`
`As a result of Applicant’_s continuous and uninterrupted use of the mark ECOFLO WT in
`
`connection with water drainage tubing constructed of recycled high density polyethylene, the mark
`
`ECOFLO WT has become associated in the minds of the consuming public with such goods
`
`emanating from the Applicant, and is symbolic of extensive goodwill and consumer recognition
`
`developed by Applicant.
`
`5.
`
`Opposer has alleged that Applicant competes directly with Opposer in the same markets;
`
`that both companies sell and distribute, inter alia, corrugated high density polyethylene pipe in a
`
`variety of sizes; that both manufacture pipe using recycled high density polyethylene; and that both
`
`companies sell and distribute their products to customers in the construction, building, agricultural,
`
`recreational, residential and specialty markets. To the extent that the Board deems these allegations
`
`to constitute allegations that Opposer and Applicant’s market the same or similar products through
`
`the same or similar channels of trade and in the same markets, Applicant hereby recites said
`
`allegations in support of Applicant’s Counterclaim in the Alternative for Cancellation of Opposer’s
`
`Pleaded Registration, and asserts same in the alternative.
`
`6.
`
`Opposer has alleged that,
`
`in view of the identical nature of Opposer’s and Applicant’s
`
`respective marks and the identical nature of the goods and/or services of the respective parties,
`
`Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confiJsion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. To the extent that
`
`the Board deems these allegations to constitute an allegation that there is a likelihood of confusion
`
`between Opposer’s and Applicant’s respective trademarks, ECOFIRST & Design and ECOFLO
`
`WT, Applicant hereby recites said allegation in support of Applicant’s Counterclaim in the
`
`Alternative for Cancellation of Opposer’s Pleaded Registration, and asserts same in the alternative.
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`By virtue of the existence of 0pposer’s Pleaded Registration, and in View of the fact that
`
`Opposer’s mark ECOFIRST & Design is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
`
`deceive, as alternatively pleaded herein, Applicant has been and will continue to be damaged in that
`
`Opposer’s Pleaded Registration, U.S. Registration No. 2,642,585, casts a cloud on Applicant’s legal
`
`right to use, develop and expand the use of its established trademark ECOFLO WT.
`
`Applicant hereby appoints Schroeder & Siegfried, P.A., 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2870,
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota
`
`55402,
`
`to act as attorneys for Applicant herein, with fiill power to
`
`prosecute said Opposition,
`
`to transact all relevant business with the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office and in the United States Courts and to receive all official communications in
`
`connection with this Opposition.
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant respectfiilly prays that Opposer's Opposition be dismissed in its
`
`entirety, and that Opposer’s Pleaded Registration No. 2,642,585, for ECOFIRST & Design, be
`
`cancelled in favor of Applicant’s counterclaim herein.
`
`Dated:
`
`j:/_V 2/4 Eye-’
`7
`
`'
`
`
`
`Brian F. Schroeder
`
`Schroeder & Siegfried, P.A.
`222 South Ninth Street
`
`Suite 2870
`
`Phone: 612/339-0120
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`us.Pmma.TMOTCITMMailHcntnt.#79
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91 159347
`
`E
`E
`Application Serial No. 76/512,703 E
`E
`§
`2
`E
`
`Published in the Oflicial Gazette
`on December 23, 2003
`
`05-24-2004
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`HANCOR, INC.
`
`PRINSCO, INC.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Applicant
`
`APPL]lCANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS
`
`Please take notice that Applicant, Prinsco, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`15(a) and 37 CFR §2.201, hereby moves the Board for leave to amend its initial Answer in the
`
`above Opposition to include Applicant's Counterclaim in the Alternative to Cancel Opposer’s
`
`Pleaded Registration, based on likelihood of confiision and priority of use. Pursuant to 37 CFR
`
`§2.106(b)(2)(i), it is believed that the instant Motion is timely by reason, as will be shown herein,
`
`that grounds for Applicant's counterclaim were not known at the time Applicant filed its Answer to
`
`the Opposition, and are being promptly pleaded upon learning of such grounds supporting the
`
`counterclaim subsequent thereto. Accordingly,
`
`leave to amend the Applicant's pleadings in this
`
`Opposition is respectfully requested.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On April 28, 2003, Applicant filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Ofiice
`
`Application Serial No. 76/512,703 to register the mark ECOFLO WT under International Class 17
`
`for corrugated polyethylene tubing used for underground drainage purposes.
`
`In its application,
`
`Applicant alleged June 1, 2001 as its date of first use “anywhere,” and February 7, 2003 as its date
`
`of first use “in commerce.”
`
`This application, which is the subject of the instant opposition
`
`proceeding, was published for opposition on December 23, 2003. Opposer, Hancor, Inc., thereafter
`
`

`
` I
`
`mad
`
`its Notice of Opposition on January 8, 2004 alleging,
`
`inter alia,
`
`that Applicant's mark
`
`ECOFLO WT was likely to cause confiision with Opposer's registered mark ECOFIRST and
`
`Design, U.S. Registration No. 2,642,585. Opposer alleges a date of first use of its mark ECOFIRST
`
`and Design since “at least as early as October 24, 2001 .” (0pposer’s Notice of Opposition, ‘H 1).
`Applicant's Answer ‘to Opposer's Notice of Opposition was prepared and filed on March 12,
`
`2004, denying the substantive allegations of Opposer and asserting several amrmative defenses in
`
`response thereto. Unfortunately, in the process of investigating and preparing Applicant's Answer,
`
`it was determined that the initial date of first use “anywhere,” as recited in Applicant's initial
`
`application, was in error.
`
`(Petersen Aff., fil 4). Applicant erroneously believed that the date of first
`
`use “anywhere” meant the date upon which Applicant first internally referenced the designated
`
`goods as ECOFLO WT, which was the date it first began commercially producing such goods.
`
`Therefore, the date of first use was, in fact, erroneously recited as the date of first production, rather
`
`than the first date the mark ECOFLO WT was used as a trademark. (Petersen Aff., 11 3).
`
`Despite such error, Applicant continued to believe that, in View of its early production date,
`
`first use of its mark ECOFLO WT in connection with the goods would likely have followed soon,
`
`and may have been prior to Opposer's alleged date of first use of its mark ECOFIRST and Design.
`
`(Petersen Aff., 1] 4). For this reason, Applicant undertook a search for evidence of such early usage
`
`at its principal manufacturing facility in Prinsburg, Minnesota. However, at the time of filing
`
`Applicant's Answer to Opposer's Notice of Opposition, Applicant had not found any evidence of
`
`use of its mark ECOFLO WT which predated Opposer’s alleged first use date of ECOFIRST &
`
`Design. Applicant had not yet, however, had the opportunity to explore and investigate the
`
`shipping documents maintained at a number of its ofi‘-site storage facilities (Petersen Aff_, 1] 4).
`
`Therefore, at
`
`the time of filing Applicant's Answer to Opposer's Notice of Opposition, while
`
`Applicant believed evidence existed, facts supporting a counterclaim for cancellation of Opposer's
`
`pleaded registration based on priority of use were not known or available to the Applicant.
`
`Consequently,
`
`in order to preserve this potential defense and investigate the matter fiuther,
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`' Applicant, in its Answer, alleged priority of use of its mark ECOFLO WT as an affirmative defense.
`
`(Answer to Notice of Opposition, Affirmative Defense N0. 1; Schroeder Aff., 1[ 3).
`
`On or about March 18, 2004, and while in the process of investigating facts and searching
`
`for documents responsive to Opposer's first set of Discovery requests, Applicant discovered records
`
`from one of its non-principal off-site facilities pertaining to shipments made of products in
`
`connection with which the mark ECOFLO WT was intended for use. Upon further study of such
`
`records, Applicant found various documents pertaining to orders filled from its Rose Creek,
`
`Minnesota storage facility under the mark ECOFLO WT. (Petersen Aff.
`
`1] 6). Although the
`
`investigation of such documents is continuing at the time of filing the instant Motion, Applicant
`
`now believes: that it has uncovered suficient documentation to establish a continuing bona fide use
`
`of its mark ECOFLO WT in interstate commerce since a date prior to Opposer's alleged date of first
`
`use, October 24, 2001, claimed in U.S. Registration No. 2,652,585.
`
`(Petersen Aff. 1] 6)‘
`
`Opposer's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents and
`
`Things were served upon Applicant February 24, 2004. Applicant's responses thereto were served
`
`on Opposer March 29, 2004, along with Applicant's First Set of Interrogatories and Applicant's First
`
`Request For Production of Documents and Things. Although Applicant requested documents that
`
`would allow it to verify Opposer’s actual date of first use of the mark ECOFIRST & Design, to
`
`date, no documents have been exchanged between the parties. Moreover, no Stipulated Protective
`
`Order has yet been proposed or considered for the exchange of confidential
`
`information; no
`
`Privilege Document Logs have been produced by either party; and there appears to be a number of
`
`discovery issues that remain unresolved between the parties: Discovery is therefore in its infancy.
`
`In view of the above, and based on information now in the hands of Applicant, Applicant
`
`still does not know Opposer’s actual date of first use of its mark ECOFIRST &
`1 Applicant
`Design, but has requested documents of Opposer from which this information may be obtained.
`2 Applicant wrote to Opposer on May 11, 2004 regarding deficiencies in Opposer’s
`responses to Applicant’s initial discovery requests, and requested a reply by May 18, 2004.
`Opposer’s counsel, citing no reason, stated that it was unable to reply by the above date, and
`provided Applicant with no date by which it will reply. (Schroeder Aff., 1] 4)
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`respectfiilly requests leave of the Board to amend its initial pleadings to add its counterclaim for
`
`cancellation of Opposer's pleaded registration.3
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Title 37 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, §2.lO6(b)(2)(i) provides,
`
`in
`
`relevant part, that when grounds for a counterclaim attacking the validity of a pleaded registration
`
`are learned subsequent to the filing of Applicant's Answer,
`
`the counterclaim shall be pleaded
`
`promptly afier the grounds therefor are learned. Pursuant to 37 CFR §2. 107, such an amendment to
`
`the pleadings may be made in the same manner and to the same extent as in a civil action in a
`
`United States district court. Leave to grant an amendment to the pleadings shall be "freely given
`
`when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`13(f), made applicable to Board proceedings under 37 CFR §2.l16, provides that such a
`
`counterclaim may be added by amendment even if the counterclaim was originally omitted “through
`
`oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires...” In view thereof, leave to
`
`add omitted counterclaims is generally freely granted, especially when the omitted counterclaim is a
`
`compulsory counterclaim. See 6 WRIGHT, NIILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Civil
`
`2d §1430, at PP.223-25 (1990). See also, e.g., See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 12
`
`USPQ2d 1395 (TTAB 1989); and Mitek Corp. v. Woods Industries, Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1307 (TTAB
`
`1996).
`
`ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S MOTION TO AMEND PLEADINGS
`
`I.
`
`Applicant's Counterclaim is Timely Under 37 CFR §2.l06(b)(2)(i).
`
`3 Opposer alleges a date of first use “at least as early as October 24, 2001.” Although it is
`recognized that Opposer’s actual date of first use still remains to be determined, it now appears that
`this information may take longer than expected to develop through discovery. Therefore, it is
`believed that the timing of Applica.nt’s Motion to Amend Pleadings is prudent.
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`Under 15 USC. §1052(d), a priority of use defense exists against a party asserting
`
`likelihood of confiision with a registered mark, if it can be established that the accused mark was
`
`"previously used in the United States" and not abandoned. Under 37 CFR §2.l06(b)(2)(i), if
`
`grounds for such a counterclaim are known at the time of filing Applicant’s answer,
`
`it is to be
`
`pleaded as a part of its answer.
`
`If grounds for such a counterclaim are learned latter, it may be
`
`added by amendment, if done so promptly upon learning of such grounds. Q. Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`l5(a),
`
`leave to grant such an amendment to the pleadings shall be "freely given when justice so
`
`requires."
`
`In the present case, although it was initially believed by Applicant that its use of the mark
`
`ECOFLO WT preceded Opposer's alleged first use of its registered mark, ECOFIRST and Design, it
`
`was discovered just prior to filing its Answer to Opposer's Notice of Opposition that the date upon
`
`which it was relying was in error. (Petersen Alf. fil 4).
`
`It was determined that the date of first use
`
`asserted by Applicant in its application to register ECOFLO WT was actually the first date of
`
`production of the product upon which Applicant intended to use the mark ECOFLO WT, rather than
`
`the date of actual first use of such mark as a trademark in connection therewith. (Petersen Aff., 1] 3).
`
`The erroneous date asserted by Applicant in its application to register ECOFLO WT was not made
`
`with intent to deceive or defraud the Untied States Patent and Trademark Office in any way.
`
`(Petersen Alf, 1] 3).
`
`Although Applicant searched the office records of its principal
`
`location in Prinsburg,
`
`Minnesota, it was unable to establish use of its mark ECOFLO WT that predated Opposer’s mark
`
`ECOFIRST & Design prior to filing its Answer to Opposer's Notice of Opposition. However,
`
`Applicant believed such evidence likely existed at one or more of its off-site storage facilities, but it
`
`had not yet had the opportunity to search the records of such facilities. (Petersen All‘. 1] 4). Thus, at
`
`the time it filed its Answer, Applicant did not have grounds to assert a counterclaim under 37 CFR
`
`§2. l06(b)(2)(i).
`
`

`
` I
`
`7:
`
`1]
`
`' Applicant has been Prompt and Diligent in Assessing and Asserting its Counterclaim
`
`If grounds for a counterclaim are learned after the filing of Applicant’s Answer,
`
`the
`
`counterclaim is to be pleaded “promptly” upon learning same. 37 CFR §2_106(b)(2)(i). Applicant
`
`in this case discovered evidence of use of its trademark ECOFLO WT predating Opposer’s alleged
`first use date of ECOFIliST &‘ Design only after filing it Answer to Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition, during a search of its off-site storage facilities. (Petersen AE. 111] 4-6). On March 29,
`
`2004, Applicant served Interrogatories and Production Requests on Opposer seeking, inter alia,
`
`documents that would allow it to verify the exact date of Opposer’s first use of its mark ECOFIRST
`
`& Design. Opposer’s response to App1icant’s initial discovery requests were received May 6, 2004.
`
`On May 11, 2004 the undersigned wrote to Opposer’s counsel regarding a number of deficiencies
`
`noted in Opposer’s responses, and requested a substantive reply by May 18, 2004. On May 12,
`
`2004, Opposer’s counsel
`
`responded by advising the undersigned that it could not respond by the
`
`above “arbitraiy deadline,” and gave no date by which they would respond. (Schroeder Aff. 1] 4).
`
`Although the Applicant has not yet obtained documents enabling it to verify the actual date
`
`of first use of the mark ECOFIRST & Design by Opposer, it believes it has been both diligent and
`
`prompt in its efforts to determine such information upon learning that its date of first use of its mark
`
`ECOFLO WT, anywhere and in interstate commerce, predates the earliest date alleged by Opposer
`
`in its pleaded registration.4 While Applicant
`
`is continuing to seek resolution of a number of
`
`outstanding discovery issues, it has not yet received a substantive response from the Opposer; nor
`
`has any date been set when a response will be forthcoming. To date, neither party has exchanged
`
`documents; nor has either party established a date upon which an inspection of same will be made.
`
`Therefore, it is evident that Discovery is at its relative infancy in the instant proceeding.
`
`In view of the fact that it will likely take additional time to confirm or otherwise ascertain
`
`Opposer's "actual" date of first use of its mark ECOFIRST and Design, under the circumstances and
`
`4 Opposer alleges a date of first use “at least as early as October 24, 2001,” leaving open
`the question of its actual date of first use.
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`inlthe interest of providing prompt notice of its counterclaim, Applicant believes that it is both
`
`prudent to rely at this juncture upon Opposer‘s “alleged” date of first use a basis for bringing
`
`Applicant's Counterclaim. As noted by the Board in Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies,
`
`11 USPQ2d 1355, 1359 (TTAB 1989), where there is little prejudice to the non-moving party, there
`3
`is no “undue delay.’ As Discovery is in its early stages, under the foregoing circumstances, it is
`
`believed that Applicant has been prompt in asserting its counterclaim, as required under 37 CFR
`
`§2.106(b)(2)(i), and justice requires that leave be freely granted to allow Applicant’s Motion to
`
`Amend Pleadings.
`
`[I].
`
`Opposer is not Prejudiced by Applicant’s Amended Pleadings
`
`As noted above, in the present case, Discovery is in its relative infancy. Neither party has
`
`exchanged documents or established a time for inspecting same. No depositions have been
`
`scheduled or taken; privilege documents logs have not been exchanged; nor has a Stipulated
`
`Protective Order governing the production of confidential materials been drafted or considered by
`
`either party. Given the relatively early stages of Discovery, and the promptness with which
`
`Applicant now asserts its counterclaim, it is respectfi.1lly submitted that there is little or no prejudice
`
`against the Opposer in allowing Applicant's amendment of its pleadings.
`
`A favorable ruling on Applicant’s Motion is also consistent with the Board’s longstanding
`
`recognition and following of the liberal policy established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`concerning amendments to pleadings. See See’s Candy Shops, Inc, 12 USPQ2d at 1397; Mitek
`
`_C__Q_I]J_., 41 USPQ2d at 1307. This is particularly true in the case of a compulsory counterclaim,
`
`wherein the effect of dismissing or denying Applicant's request to amend would be to foreclose the
`
`Applicant from asserting its claim against Opposer‘s registration not only in this proceeding, but
`
`likely in any future proceeding as well. See 6 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
`
`PROCEDURE Civil 2d §l430, at PP.223-24 (1990). Therefore, a balancing of hardships in this case
`
`clearly warrants the allowance of Applicant's amendment to assert its counterclaim, and therefore
`
`the Board’s approval is most respectfiilly requested.
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`In connection with the foregoing, Applicant submits herewith Applicant's Amended Answer
`
`including its counterclaim requesting cancellation of Opposer's registration No. 2,642,585, and the
`
`accompanying fee of $300.00 established under 37 CFR §2.6(l6) covering such a petition to cancel
`
`said registration.
`
`In the event the amount submitted herewith is insufficient in any respect, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional amount due to our Deposit Account
`
`No. 19-0715 and notify us of the same.
`
`Dated: 522»/fizz-z=<—
`
`Brian F. Schroeder
`
`Schroeder & Siegfried, P.A.
`222 South Ninth Street
`Suite 2870
`
`Phone: 612/339-0120
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT
`
`

`
`
`
`tr
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HANCOR, INC.
`
`PRINSCO, INC.
`
`-
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Applicant
`
`)
`
`)
`)
`>
`)
`>
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91 159347
`
`Application Serial No. 76/512,703
`
`Published in the Ofiicial Gazette
`on December 23, 2003
`
`_
`72'’
`.,r
`E
`E 8
`g S.’
`E E5
`E
`‘3
`
`
`
`U.S.Faten1&TMOic.'TMMailHemDt#79
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF BRIAN F. SCHROEDER
`
`ss
`
`) ) )
`
`)
`)
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
`
`1, Brian F. Schroeder, being first duly sworn under oath, hereby depose and state as follows:
`
`I am an attorney with the law firm of Schroeder & Siegfried, P.A., 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2870,
`
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. I am one of the attorneys representing Applicant, Prinsco, Inc., (hereinafter
`
`"Prinsco") in the above Opposition proceeding filed by Opposer, Hancor, lnc., (hereinafter "Hancor").
`
`I submit this affidavit in support of Prinsco's Motion to Amend Pleadings.
`
`Prinsco's Answer to Hancor's Notice of Opposition was prepared and filed on March 12, 2004. While in the
`
`process of preparing Prinsco's Answer, for reasons more fully set forth in the Affidavit of Darrell C. Petersen,
`
`filed herewith, it was determined that the earliest date of first use relied upon by Prinsco in its application to
`
`register ECOFLO WT, application Serial No. 76/512,703, was in error. Although Prinsco believed it had
`
`evidence ofuse of its mark ECOFLO WT that predated Ha.ncor's alleged date of first use of ECOFIRST and
`
`Design, at the time of filing Prinsco's Answer to Hancor's Notice of Opposition, Prinsco did not have such
`
`evidence of prior use in hand. Since Prinsco believed such evidence may exist at one or more ofits multiple
`
`off-site storage facilities, but had not yet had the opportunity to investigate and search the records thereof,
`
`priority of use was asserted as an affirmative defense in Prinsco's Answer in order to preserve same and
`
`

`
`
`
`provide the opportunity for further investigation.
`
`Upon discovering documents in Prinsco‘s records evidencing use of the mark ECOFLO WT in interstate
`
`commerce prior to that alleged by Hancor for its mark ECOFIRST and Design, Interrogatories and
`
`Production Requests were prepared and served upon Hancor on March 29, 2004. Prinsco‘s discovery
`
`requests sought documents that would, inter alia, allow Prinsco to verify the exact date upon which Opposer
`
`Hancor first used its mark ECOFIRST and Design. Hancor‘s response to Prinsco‘s initial discovery requests
`
`were received on May 6, 2004. Noting numerous deficiencies in Hancor‘s responses, I wrote to Ha.ncor's
`
`counsel on May 1 1, 2004 in an attempt to resolve the outstanding discovery issues. I requested a substantive
`
`reply to my letter by May 18, 2004. However, on May 12, 2004, Hancor's counsel advised me by letter that
`
`they would not be able to respond by the above "arbitrary deadline," and gave no date by which they would
`
`respond. A copy of the letter received from Hancor's counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Hancor has leit open the question of its actual date of first use of its mark ECOFIRST and Design by alleging
`
`use since "at least as early as October 24, 2001." (see, Notice of Opposition, 1] 1). While Prinsco expects to
`
`obtain this information through discovery, it appears that additional time may be necessary to first resolve a
`
`number of outstanding discovery issues with Hancor. For this reason, given the circumstances and early
`
`stages of discovery, it is believed that the timing ofApp1icant's Motion is timely and within the spirit of the
`
`rules.
`
`FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
`
`74.x
`