\)
`
`Docket No. 12838-163
`
`ujlml
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ,
`
`,
`
`
`
`In re Matter efA1aplicatien No.
`
`05-12-2oo4
`U.8. Pawn! I TMOfclTM Mull Rent 01. #22
`
`78/223,428 for the mark: SOCK-UM
`
`
`
`
`
`Mattel. |nC..
`
`Opposition No. 91160087
`
`Opposer,
`
`ANSWER
`
`Vs.
`
`
`
`Patricia G. Briden,
`
`Applicant.
`
`TO: Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`ATTN: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, Virginia 22202-3514
`
`Applicant, Patricia G. Briden (“Briden”), having her residents at 418 22”“
`
`Street, Virginia Beach, VA 23451, by counsel files this answer on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Briden admits to the allegations contained in paragraph #1.
`
`Briden admits to the allegations contained in paragraph #2.
`
`Briden admits to the allegations contained in paragraph #3.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #4; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #4 and demands strict proof
`
`thereof.
`
`5.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #5; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #5 and demands strict proof
`
`thereof.
`
`

`
`Q)
`
`6.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #6; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #6 and demands strict proof
`
`thereof. Mattel places significant emphasis on robots and associates their
`
`trademarks with robots. Briden’s trademark SOCK-UM is a game played by
`
`children on a mat where a sock is volleyed back and forth and has no association
`
`with robots.
`
`7.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #7; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #7 and demands strict proof
`
`thereof.
`
`8.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #8; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #8 and demands strict proof
`
`thereof. The consuming public has not come to recognize goods bearing the
`
`ROCK’EM SOCK’EM Marks as products distributed only by Mattel. The Rock’em
`
`Sock’em Robots are advertised on the web and other media as “Rock'em
`
`Sock’em Robots by Marx”; which gives the consuming public the impression that
`
`the game is owned by Marx and not by Mattel. The Rock’em Sock’em Robots
`
`trademark filing with the USPTO references Tyco Industries, Inc. as the last listed
`
`owner; which gives the consuming public the impression that the trademark is
`
`owned by Tyco Industries, Inc. and not by Mattel. Also, many other products with
`
`similar names are in the market place and not owned by Mattel such as;
`
`ROCK’EM SOCK’EM SUPER-HEROES and DON CHERRY'S ROCK’EM
`
`SOCK'EM HOCKEY.
`
`9.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #9; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #9. Mattel has not controlled the
`
`consumer market with the ROCK’EM SOCK’EM mark nor does the consumer
`
`market believe that Mattel
`
`is the only company using this mark. Many very
`
`similar marks are being used in the market place or have been filed with the
`
`

`
`
`
`USPTO such as; ROCK’EM SOCK’EM SUPER-HEROES, DON CHERRY’S
`
`ROCK’EM SOCK’EM HOCKEY, ROCK’EM SOCK’EM BOXING, ROCKEM
`
`SOCKEM, SOC ‘EM, SOCK’EM, SOCKEM DOG, SOCK’EM BOPPERS and
`
`BLOCKEM-SOCKEM PADDLE BAT.
`
`10.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #1 0; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #10.
`
`11.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #11; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #11.
`
`12.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #12; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #12. Consumers do not associate
`
`ROCK’EM SOCK’EM Marks singularly with Mattel since there are so many other
`
`products in the market with ROCK’EM SOCK’EM in their name. Some of these
`
`products are listed in other paragraphs herein.
`
`13.
`
`Briden denies
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph #13.
`
`ROCK’EM SOCK’EM Marks by Mattel are associated with robot games and are
`
`not similar or confusing with Briden’s trademark SOCK-UM; which is a game
`
`played by children on a mat where a sock is volleyed back and forth.
`
`14.
`
`Briden denies
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph #14.
`
`ROCK’EM SOCK’EM Marks by Mattel are associated with robot games and are
`
`not similar or confusing with Briden’s trademark SOCK-UM; which is a game
`
`played by children on a mat where a sock is volleyed back and forth.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Briden denies the allegations contained in paragraph #15.
`
`Briden denies the allegations contained in paragraph #16. The
`
`consuming public has not come to recognize goods bearing the ROCK’EM
`
`SOCK’EM Marks as products distributed by Mattel. The Rock’em Sock’em
`
`Robots are advertised on the web and other media as “Rock’em Sock’em Robots
`
`by Marx"; which gives the consuming public the impression that the game is
`
`owned by Marx and not by Mattel. The Rock’em Sock’em Robots trademark
`
`

`
`filing with the USPTO references Tyco Industries, Inc. as the last listed owner;
`
`which gives the consuming public the impression that the trademark is owned by
`
`Tyco Industries, Inc and not by Mattel.
`
`17.
`
`Briden is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the information contained in paragraph #17; therefore
`
`denies the allegations contained in paragraph #17.
`
`18.
`
`Briden pleads that her SOCK-UM mark is not similar in sound,
`
`appearance and meaning and is not confusingly similar to the ROCK’EM
`
`SOCK'EM mark and that she may discover other defenses to this Opposition
`
`during the discovery phase of this action.
`
`WHEREFORE, Briden prays that this Opposition be dismissed, and that
`
`Briden’s registration of the Application be granted.
`
`Dated: May 10, 2004
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`ration No. 50704
`USPTO Regi
`3669 Seagull Bluff Drive
`Virginia Beach, VA 23455-1721
`
`Attorney for Patricia G. Briden
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby certify that this Answer is being deposited with the United States
`Postal Service, postage prepaid, first class mail,
`in an envelope addressed to
`Commissioner for Trademarks, Attn: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Box
`2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513 and Jill M. Pietrini, Esquire at
`MANATl', PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP, 11355 W. Olympic B d., Los Angeles,
`California 90064 on this 10"‘ day of M y, 2004.
`
`
`William G. S
`s, Esquire
`
`
`
`

`
`WILLIAM G. SYKES
`ATTORNEYAND COUNSELOR AT LAW
`4605 Pembroke Lake Circle, Suite 103
`Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455
`Office: (757) 490-8586
`Fax:
`(757) 363-3405
`.william@wi11iamsykeslaw.com
`
`z—'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`05.1 2-2004
`
`us. munu TMOtcITM MI" R=v‘°'- "2
`
`May 10, 2004
`
`Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`Re: MATTEL, INC. v. BRIDEN, PATRICIA G.
`Opposition No. 91160087
`
`Dear Clerkz.
`
`Enclosed is our Answer for the Opposition filed by Mattel, Inc. Please file
`the same with this case.
`
`if you have any questions or if you need any
`Please give me a call
`additional information. Thank you!
`
`Sincerely,
`
` .S es
`
`cc:
`
`Jill M. Pietrini, Esquire
`Patricia G. Briden
`
`Environmental 9 Patents 0 Personal Injury 0 Product Liability 9 Toxic Mold Litigation