To ————jv- ——-.
`
`TTAB
`
`OMID A‘ MANTASHI
`ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`350 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 90
`OAKLAND, CA 94610
`510.593.9442 (VOICE)
`510.868.8310 (FAX)
`OMlD@CAL|F'ORN|A.COM
`
`
`October 27, 2006
`
`VIA USPS EXPRESS MAIL
`
`EQ108843915US
`
`USPTO
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P. O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`RE:
`
`Opposers’ Reply Motion in Support
`of Motion to Suspend, Motion to Reset
`Opposition No.: 91 161202
`Our File: 01989-O6
`
`To the Honorable Members of the Board:
`
`Enclosed herewith for filing in the above captioned proceeding is the
`Opposers’ reply motion, Complete with exhibits A through D.
`
`Very truly yours,
`(-
`
`zl/L
`
`Omid A. Mantashi
`
`Encl.
`
`Certificate of Express Mailing
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence, and all documents mentioned herein, are being deposited with the United States Postal
`Service with sufficient postage as “Express Mail Post Office to Addresses,” No. EQl08343915US, in an envelope addressed to:
`USPTO, TTAB, P. O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 2313-l45|.
`
`on rat; By: Omid A. Mantashi
`
`10-27-2006
`
`U.S. Patent &TMOfc.'TM Mail Rcpt D1. #22
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91161202
`
`OPPOSERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF MOTION TO SUSPEND,
`MOTION TO RESET.
`
`DAVID FAIVUS, and
`PLANET PLEASURES, INC.
`
`Opposers.
`
`VS.
`
`VICKIE CANEPA,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`Opposers David Faivus and Planet Pleasures, Inc. (“Opposers”), through
`
`their undersigned counsel, hereby seek leave to file this reply in support of their
`
`combined motion to suspend pending the outcome of a related civil action, or in the
`
`alternative, motion to reset.
`
`It is hoped that this reply, necessitated by factual
`
`developments since the filing of the Opposers’ motion, will be considered by the Board
`
`insofar as it aids in adjudicating the issues raised by the parties’ motions practice.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Opposers’ Motion to Suspend Based on a State Court Action
`
`Opposers filed a motion to suspend, or in the alternative to reset trial
`
`dates, on September 20, 2006, prior to the start of the trial testimony period. That motion
`
`was prompted by the filing of a state court action based on, inter alia, California and
`
`Lanham Act trademark infringement claims against the Applicant herein, as well as other
`
`parties not before the Board. The complaint, as briefed earlier, alleged infringement of
`
`the pleaded registeration herein, PARROT PINATA, Reg. No. 2,988,970, as well
`
`infringement of Opposers’ other trademarks, including SHREDDERS, Reg. No.
`
`Opp.No.9ll6l202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 1 of7
`
`

`
`3,053,053. A copy of that complaint, was attached to the Opposers’ motion as Exhibit A
`
`thereto, and is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
`
`B.
`
`Removal to Federal Court & Counterclaim for Cancellation
`
`Applicant filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court,
`
`Central District of California, on September 18, 2006, and later served undersigned
`
`counsel by mail on September 20, 2006. A true and correct copy of the Notice of
`
`Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Applicant’s
`
`answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of the Applicant’s
`
`counterclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Applicant’s answer and counterclaim were
`
`filed and served by mail on September 21, 2006.
`
`Applicant has counterclaimed in Federal court for cancellation of the
`
`pleaded PARROT PINATA mark. Exhibit C, W 15 - 17.
`
`In its opposition brief, filed on
`
`October 10, 2006, Applicant did not apprise the Board that nearly three weeks earlier it
`
`counterclaimed in Federal district court for cancellation of the pleaded registration in this
`
`proceeding. When this motion to suspend was filed on September 20, 2006, undersigned
`
`counsel was unaware of the removal to Federal court, or the Applicant’s answer and
`
`counterclaim in Federal court. Opposers respectfully submit that this information, newly
`
`acquired since the filing of the Opposers’ opening brief, is germane to the Board’s ruling
`
`on this motion, and warrants the Board’s consideration of this reply motion.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Suspension of the instant proceeding is warranted because of the
`pendency of Federal litigation subsuming the issues and the parties
`before the Board.
`
`This proceeding fundamentally arises under Section 2(d) of the Trademark
`
`Act. The pending Federal litigation includes claims arising under section 2(d), but also
`
`Opp. No. 91151202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`
`includes significant additional claims (e.g., under Sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the
`
`Trademark Act), and prayers for relief (e.g., under Sections 34 and 35 of the Trademark
`
`Act), which are not, and could not be brought, before the Board. Exhibit A, W 3 - 5. The
`
`Federal litigation also includes causes of action and prayers for relief under California
`
`law, additional parties and trademarks, as well as counterclaims by Applicant for the
`
`cancellation of the Opposers’ pleaded registration.
`
`lgl_., Exhibit C, W 15 - 17.
`
`The Board’s jurisprudence and practice have uniformly favored
`
`suspension when the parties are involved in a Federal litigation which may be dispositive
`
`of, or have a bearing on, the Board proceedings. TBMP § 5 l0.02(a) (“ordinarily the
`
`Board will suspend proceedings in the case before it if the final determination of the other
`
`proceeding will have a bearing on the issues before the Boar ”) (emphasis added). In the
`
`pending Federal litigation Opposers inter alia have prayers for monetary damages and
`
`injunctive relief under both California and Federal statutes, including denial of
`
`registration to the Subject Mark. Furthermore, Applicant has interposed counterclaims
`
`for cancellation of the Opposers’ registration pleaded in this proceeding. Clearly,
`
`suspension is warranted because the Federal court’s decision could be dispositive of, or
`
`have a bearing on, the issues and pleaded registration in this proceeding. General Motors
`
`Corp. v. Cadillac Club Fashions, Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1933 (TTAB 1992).
`
`Applicant claims that “Opposers should not be allowed to delay the
`
`outcome of the current proceeding when there would be little to resume upon the
`
`conclusion of the civil suit.” Applicant’s Opposition Brief at p. 6.
`
`In fact, Applicant has
`
`it backwards:
`
`these proceedings should be suspended because there would be little to
`
`resume upon the conclusion of the Federal litigation, particularly in light of potential
`
`cancellation of the pleaded registration herein. Moreover, even if the Board renders a
`
`final ruling in this case, that ruling will be largely advisory in nature. Goya Foods, Inc. v.
`
`Tropicana Products, Inc., 846 F.2d 848, 853, 6 USPQ2d 1950, 1953 (2d Cir. 1988),
`
`(Federal district court review “is intended to be a trial de novo .
`
`.
`
`. since additional cross
`
`Opp. No. 91 I6l202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`
`an
`
`
`examination and presentation of additional testimony is permitted,’’) CAE Inc. v. Clean
`
`Air Engineering, 267 F.3d 660, 673-74 (7th Cir. 2001) (though courts must defer to the
`
`Board’s findings of fact, the parties may submit new evidence to the Federal court, and
`
`the Federal court's “review of the TTAB’s decision is considered de new when the
`
`parties present new evidence and assert additional claimsg”) see also Herbko Int’l Inc. v.
`
`Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1160, 64 USPQ2d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`(TTAB conclusions of law are reviewed without deference.)
`
`Though Applicant essentially acknowledges the Board’s advisory role in
`
`light of the Federal litigation —~ “there would be little to resume upon the conclusion of the
`
`civil suit" — it quixotically insists that judicial resources would be best served by the
`
`Board devoting resources to rendering an advisory opinion. Neither the Board’s docket,
`
`nor the litigants’ resources, would be served by pursuing the Board’s advisory opinion.
`
`B.
`
`Exercise of primary jurisdiction by the Board is not warranted
`because of the presence of additional parties, claims, and prayers
`for relief before the Federal court.
`
`Applicant claims that “the very court in which the Opposers’ case was
`
`recently filed has stated a preference for the TTAB to complete its work in a matter
`
`before it such as to aid the court effectively,” citing Citicasters Co. V. Country Club
`
`Communications, 44 USPQ2d 1223 (CD. Cal. 1997).
`
`In fact Citicasters argues against
`
`an exercise of primary jurisdiction in this case.
`
`In Citicasters the plaintiff in Federal court was brought before the Board
`
`(by the defendant therein) in a cancellation proceeding against the plaintiffs pleaded
`
`registration in the Federal litigation. Citicasters, 44 USPQ2d at 1223. Judicial economy
`
`was best served in that case by having a TTAB ruling on the pleaded registration prior to
`
`the Federal litigation ensuing based on that pleaded registration. Because Applicant has
`
`counterclaimed in Federal court for cancellation of the Opposers’ pleaded registration,
`
`Opp. No. 91161202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`
`‘:1
`
`efficiency interests are best served by having the Federal court’s ruling on the status of
`
`the Opposers’ pleaded registration before commencing to trial before the Board based on
`
`that pleaded registration. General Motors Corp., 22 USPQ2d at 1937 (TTAB 1992)
`
`(proceedings stayed because Federal litigation sought cancellation of registration pleaded
`
`before the Board).
`
`Citicasters is further distinguished from the instant proceeding because in
`
`that case apparently the same parties, issues, and claims were involved in the Federal
`
`action and the Board cancellation proceeding. See Qgyg, 846 F.2d at 854, 6 USPQ2d at
`
`1954 (“If a district court action involves only the issue of whether a mark is entitled to
`
`registration .
`
`.
`
`. the doctrine of primary jurisdiction might well be applicable”) Such is
`
`not the case in the instant matter where, as previously noted, there are multiple parties,
`
`issues, and claims before the Federal court that the Board can not have any jurisdiction
`
`over. Though Applicant repeatedly represents to the Board that a stay will be obtained in
`
`Federal court, no such motion has been brought to date.
`
`In fact, counsel have submitted a
`
`joint report under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(f) which has set forth specific forthcoming dates
`
`for discovery, motions, and trial practice in Federal court. A true and correct copy of the
`
`joint report is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs are diligent in pursuit of this Proceeding, and any delay to
`date has been necessitated by Applicanfs diseovegy abuses.
`
`Applicant has also argued that “the Opposers’ history of motions in the
`
`instant matter make even more likely the Applicant’s argument that the present motion
`
`for stay is unwarranted, untimely and presented only to delay the administration ofjustice
`
`for the Applicant.” Opposition Brief at p. 2. Opposers’ respectfully invite the Board’s
`
`scrutiny of the motions practice in this proceeding, and submit that such a review will
`
`support a contrary finding.
`
`Opp. No.91Iei202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`
`.4‘;
`
`Opposers have been diligent in pursuit of this proceeding, and where they
`
`have brought motions before the Board, they have in fact prevailed. Opposers brought a
`
`motion to compel on March 23, 2005, alleging multiple abuses of discovery by the
`
`Applicant, which motion was fully granted by the Board’s Order of August 30, 2005.
`
`Due to the Applicant’s failure to timely comply with the Board’s Order of August 30,
`
`2005, Opposers then brought a motion for sanctions on October 7, 2005, which motion
`
`was partially granted, and trial dates reset, by the Board’s Order of June 6, 2006. At that
`
`time, the Board also denied Applicant’s motion to compel of November 7, 2005, because
`
`Applicant had failed its good faith meet and confer duties. Clearly, Opposers have been
`
`diligent in pursuit of this proceeding, and any delays occasioned to date have been
`
`necessitated by Applicant’s repeated discovery abuses and dilatory motions practice.
`
`Applicant’s argument that this motion is untimely is similarly
`
`unwarranted. The instant motion was filed before the opening of the testimony period,
`
`before any notice of testimony, and before any testimony or trial briefs have been
`
`submitted for the Board’s consideration. Where the Board has declined to suspend
`
`proceedings pending civil action, the request for suspension was filed after the
`
`commencement of the trial period and the taking of substantial testimony. B_o@
`
`Collection Ltd. v. Herrington & Co., 65 USPQ2d 2017, 2018-19 (TTAB 2003), M
`
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. G.C. Murphy Co., 199 USPQ 807, 808 fn. 3 (TTAB 1978),
`
`Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Hudson Pharmaceutical Corp, 178 USPQ 429, 430
`
`(TTAB 1973).
`
`WHEREFORE, Opposers respectfully solicit favorable considration, and
`
`pray that the Board suspend this opposition pending the outcome of Case No. CV-O6-
`
`05937 in United States District Court, Central District of California, or in the alternative,
`
`that these proceedings be suspended in the interim while a decision is rendered on the
`
`Opp. No. 9| 161202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`
`.41
`
`instant motion, and that the trial dates be reset if the motion for supsension pending the
`
`outcome of Federal litigation is ulimately declined by the Board.
`
`Date: October 27, 2006
`
`Attorney for Opposers,
`DAVID FAIVUS, and
`PLANET PLEASURES, INC.
`
`fr’
`
`Omid A. Mantashi
`
`360 Grand Avenue, Ste. 90
`Oakland, CA, 94610
`(510) 593-9442
`(510) 868-8310 (Fax)
`omid@califomia.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY USPS CERTIFIED MAIL
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing OPPOSERS’ REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUSPEND, MOTION TO RESET has been served on
`counsel for applicant by mailing said copy on October 27, 2006, via USPS Certified
`Mail, Receipt No. 7004-2510-0002-4609-1719, postage prepaid, to Robert Famiglio,
`Famiglio & Associates, P. O. Box 1999, Media, PA, 19063.
`
`Executed on October 27, 2006,
`
`11%
`
`Omid A. Mantashi
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal
`Service as Express Mail, Receipt No. EQ108843915US, in an envelope addressed to:
`USPTO, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`on the date shown below:
`
`
`
`IBIQWJI2
`Date
`
`Om d A. Mantashi
`
`Opp. No. 9l16l202
`Reply in Supp. of Motion to Suspend
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`

`
`()1
`
`Planet Pleasures et al. v. Ccmega
`Opposition No. 91161202
`
`Opposers’ Reply in Supp. of
`Motion to Suspend, Motion to Reset
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`'
`
`'
`
`*
`
`r
`1
`
`SILVER 8. FREEDIIIIAN
`A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
`MITCHELL N. REINIS, CSB 36131
`SAMANTHA F. SPECTOR, CS8 204482
`2029 Century Park East, 19”‘ Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3005
`Tel 310.232.9400 I Fax 310.282.2500
`Email: mreinis@silverfreedman.com
`‘sspector@siIverfraedman.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`FETCH-IT PETS. INC.. VICKIE CANEPA
`and MICHAEL CANEPA
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA .
`
`(533)
`CASEN(t‘&\J _g5—-U549 3?
`
`NOTICE or REMOVAL or ACTION
`UNDER 28 use. § 1441(0) (FEDERAL
`QUESTION)
`
`PLANET PLEASURES. INC.. a California
`corporation, and DAVID FAIVUS.
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`vs.
`
`FETCH-IT PETS. INC., a Caiifornia
`corporation, VECKIE CANEPA. an
`Individual. dlb/a "Fetch-It-Pets.” MICHAEL
`CANEPA, an Individual. and DOES 1-20,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`«I:
`
`O(Dfl*lO)l.ll-htniloaa
`
`at
`
`i afi
`
`.5 N
`
`-8 I9
`
`.3 -B
`
`A 0!
`
`.5 CI
`
`.1. "1
`
`.3 Q
`
`.L ID
`
`N9
`
`I0 .1.
`
`NN
`
`TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
`
`CALIFORNIA:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants. FETCH-IT PETS. INC.. VICKIE
`
`CANEPA and MICHAEL CANEPA (collectively "Defendants"), through their attorneys,
`
`hi hi
`
`Silver & Freedman, A Professional Law Corporation, hereby remove to this Court the
`
`M&
`
`state court action described below.
`
`N0!
`
`23%
`
`1.
`
`On August 21. 2006, an action was commenced in the Superior Court of the
`
`State of California in and for the City of Los Angeles, entitled Planet Pleasures. Inc., at al.
`
`27 v. Fetch-it Pets, Inc, et at, Case No. BC 357306. A copy of the Complaint is attached
`
`23 hereto as Exhibit "A."
`
`S&F00316265 V1 {B800-500
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 14410:) (FEDERAL QUESTION)
`
`

`
`at
`
`2.
`
`The first date upon which Defendants received a copy of the Complaint was
`
`OCDQNIOIIJI-Sllafilil-A
`
`.5
`
`-Q i
`
`an N
`
`....a. 0-3
`
`.1 «K
`
`.5 0|
`
`August 23. 2006 when Defendants were sewed with a copy of the Complaint and a
`
`Summons from the state court. A copy of the Summons is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
`3.,
`This is an action by Plaintiff PLANET PLEASURES. INC. and DAViD
`
`FAIVUS (collectively "Plaintiffs") against Defendants for trademark infringement, unfair
`
`competition, trademark dilution. injury to business reputation, and deceptive trade
`
`practices arising under the common iaw and statutes of California and the Federai
`
`Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. Ptaintifts are in the business of selling.
`
`in their
`designing, manufacturing and marketing pet toys and related products.
`Complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ “Poily Wanna Pinata" or "Sheddef‘
`
`trademarks used in connection with the sale of Defendants‘ bird toys in interstate
`
`commence infringe upon the proprietary rights. as well as cause confusion. mistake or
`
`deception among consumers and potential customers. as to the origin of Plaintiffs‘
`products bearing trademarks of "Parr'otPinata“ and "Shredders" which have been
`
`registered under the Federal Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. Plaintiffs‘
`
`.5 O)
`
`Complaint seeks actual and lost damages according to an amount to be proven at trial,
`
`.5 ‘NI
`
`-5 G
`
`.5 to
`
`NG
`
`N-L
`
`NN
`
`NIn!
`
`N«b
`
`NU!
`
`treble damages. punitive damages and an award of attorneys fees under 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1117 (a) and (b). See Plaintiffs‘ Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`4,
`
`This is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331. and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendants pursuant
`
`to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) in that it arises under the Federal Trademark Act,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and in particular involves alleged violations of Section 32(1) of
`
`the Fedora! Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and Section 43(a) of the Federal
`
`Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). which are federal statutes.
`
`5.
`
`Under Section 43(a) of the Federal Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). a
`
`26
`
`person who. or in the connection with any goods or services, uses in commerce any
`
`27 word. term. name, symbci or device or combination thereof, or any false designation of
`
`28 origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact
`
`2
`S5!’-'O0‘.316265 V1 I 3800-500
`N
`OTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(5) (FEDERAL QUESTION)
`
`

`
`which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake. or to deceive as to the affiliation.
`
`connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin,
`
`sponsorship. or approval of his or her goods. services. or commercial activities by
`
`another person, or in commercial advertising or promotion. misrepresents the nature,
`
`characteristics. qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods,
`
`services. or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who
`
`believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. Furthermore, under
`
`section 32(1) of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), any person who shall,
`
`without the consent of the registrant, use in commerce any reproduction. counterfeit.
`
`(D@'~lGII.H-Build-.3
`
`10 copy of colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale. offering for
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`sale, distribution or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which
`
`such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive shall be liable in
`
`a civil action by the registrant for remedies brought under 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
`
`6,
`
`7.
`
`All Defendants have been sewed with process.
`
`Defendants identified as “DOES 1 through 20" in Plaintiffs‘ Complaint are
`
`16
`
`merely fictitious parties against whom no cause of action can be validly alleged. To the
`
`17
`
`best of Defendants‘ information and belief, no fictitiousiy designated defendant has been
`
`18
`
`sewed with process.
`
`19
`
`8.
`
`These Defendants appear to be the only defendants served with process in
`
`20
`
`this action. and they are represented by the same counsel. Defendants are VICKIE
`
`21
`
`22
`
`CANEPA, the wife of Defendant MICHAEL CANEPA. and a company known as "FETCH-
`
`IT PETS, INC.'' No joinder by defendants in the removal is necessary.
`
`
`
`23
`
`HI
`
`24
`
`III
`
`25
`
`III
`
`26 IN
`
`27 H!
`
`28 I I I
`
`3
`S&FO0316265 v1 raaoa-soc
`' "T NOTICE or REMOVAL or= ACTION uuosn 23 u.s.c. 5 1441(h_)(FEDERAL question)
`
`"
`
`

`
`1
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the above—entttied action now pending in the
`
`2 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeies. be removed to
`
`3 this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(2)).
`
`SILVER & FREEDMAN
`
`
`rofessional Law Corporation
`
`MITCH LL N. REINIS
`SAMANTHA F. SPECTO
`Attorneys for Defendan
`FETCH-IT PETS. |NC.,
`and MICHAEL CANEP
`
`
`
`ICKIE CANEPA
`
`DATED: September _1__§, 2006
`\
`
`4
`
`‘QU-vlO30‘I
`
`19
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13 ,
`
`14
`
`15
`
`18
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2‘!
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`S&F00316265 V1 1 8800-500
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 11.5.0. § 14410:) (FEDERAL QUESTION)
`
`

`
`SILVER & FREEDMAN
`A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
`MITCHELL N. REINIS, CSB 36131
`mreinis
`silverfreedmamcom
`SAM
`A F. SPECTOR, CSB 204482
`ss ector@silverfreedman.cq£n
`2
`9 Century Park East, 19 Floor
`Los An eles California 90067-3005
`Tel 310. 82.0400 I Fax 310.282.2500
`Attomoysfor Defendants, 1}‘etch-it Pets,
`Inc., V1ck1e Canepa and Mxchael Canepa
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`PLANET PLEASLIRES, INC.‘ 3
`Califorma corporation, and DAVID
`FAIVUS,
`
`CASE NO. CV06-05937 sxo (ssx)
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE
`OF REMOVAL, ETC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`VS.
`
`FETCH-_IT PETS INC, a California
`porpqratlon, VICKIE CANEPA? an
`mdmdual dfb/a "Fetch-It _Pe§s,‘_
`MICHAEL CANEPA, an lndmdua,
`and DOES E-20,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`l~J|-‘©\D%‘~'IG\lh-Du-tdhll-'
`
`uni--it-I
`
`no D-I
`
`I-I «B-
`
`I—I UI
`
`but O‘-
`
`I-- NI
`
`I-I W
`
`I-I V0
`
`I0©
`
`hi 1
`
`I9 I9
`
`Id0-!
`
`I0Ji-
`
`{'9UI
`
`[0OK
`
`IN) '4
`
`IN) 3
`
`S&F003l'7T08 vl /8800-500
`
`

`
`ill
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`_ At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a arty_to this
`action.
`I am erriplo ed in the County of Los An eles, State of Ca iforma._ My_
`B8Es)1éi_’es?sb2bcl5dress is 029 Century Park East, 19t Floor, Los Angeles, California
`
`On Se tember 20 2006 I served the following document(s described as
`NOTICE O REMOVAL Oi? ACTION UNDER 3 U.S.C.,§E441grIR- NOTICE
`OF FILING OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO UNI
`D s
`’rEs
`DISTRICT COURT NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIEs- CIVIL CASE
`COVER SHEET NOTICE OF PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM;
`NOTlCE OF ASSIGNMENT T0 us. MAGISTRATE OPTICAL
`SCANNING ENROLLMENT; AND NOTICE TO COiINsEL
`
`on the interested parties in this action as follows:
`
`_
`Omid A. Mantashi,_Esq.
`Law Offices of Omid A. Mantashi
`360 Grand Avenue Suite 90 '
`Oakland, CA 946l0
`
`I enclosed the doci_IrneIit_(s) in a sealed erivelo e or package addressed
`BY MAIL:
`to the persons at the addresseslisted in the Service_List an placed the envelo e for
`collection and l_1’lal11l%, foliowing our ordinary business practices. I am readi y
`familiar with Silver
`Freedman, APLC’s(practice for collecting and processin
`correspondence fo_r_mailing. On the same ay that the correspondence 13 place for
`collection and mailin , it is deposited In the ordinary course of business with the
`United States Postal ervice, in a sealed envelo c with postage fully prepaid.
`‘I declare under penalty of perjury under t e laws of the United States of
`America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office
`of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
`
`Executed on September 20, 2006, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`laudia LeBrane
`
`;\D$~.IO\UI-lb-{aJI~J|"
`
`i i
`
`run Is.)
`
`l—I 1.»
`
`ma uh-
`
`that U!
`
`I-A O\
`
`II-I NI
`
`I-I ®
`
`in \O
`
`NO
`
`N I-
`
`in) IO
`
`Nbl
`
`IQ «D-
`
`I») UI
`
`Is) GI
`
`20 “-3
`
`is)Q
`
`S&F003I7708 V1 8800-500
`
`

`
`II)
`
`Planet Pleasures et al. v. Canega
`Opposition No. 91161202
`
`Opposers’ Reply in Supp. of
`Motion to Suspend, Motion to Reset
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`
`_I
`
`DID®'~lO3UIhhDl0
`
`.3
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`SILVER & FREEDMAN
`A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
`MITCHELL N. REINIS, CSB 36131
`SAMANTHA F. SPECTOR, CSB 204482
`2029 Century Park East, 19"‘ Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-3005
`Tel 310.282.9400 I Fax 310.282.2500
`Email: mreinls@silverfreedman.com
`sspector@silverfreedmamcom
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`FETCH-IT PETS, INC., VICKIE CANEPA
`and MICHAEL CANEPA
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`PLANET PLEASURES, INC., a California
`corporation, and DAVID FAIVUS.
`_
`_
`Plaintiffs.
`
`CASE NO. CV-06-05937 SJO (SSX)
`
`ANSWER or DEFENDANTS TO
`COMPLAINT
`
`A vs.
`
`'
`
`14 FETCH-IT PETS, INC., a California
`corporation. V|CKlE CANEPA, an
`15 Individual, dlbla "Fetch-lt-Pets," MICHAEL
`16 CANEPA. an individual, and DOES 1-20.
`Defendants.
`
`‘IT
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`Defendants FETCH-IT PETS. INC., VICKIE CANEPA and MICHAEL CANEPA
`
`20 (collectively "Defendants") answer Plaintiff PLANET PLEASURES, INC. and DAVID
`
`21
`
`FAIVUS (collectively "Plaintiffs") as follows:
`
`22
`
`23
`
`1.
`
`Defendants admit the claims alleged by Plaintiffs in paragraph 1, but deny
`
`ANSWER
`
`24 generally and specifically that any allegation sets forth a viable claim against them.
`
`25
`
`2.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`25 as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2.
`
`27
`
`3.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form abelief
`
`' 33 as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3.
`S&F00316852 V1 I 8800-500
`
`

`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 4.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 5. ’
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set '
`6. .
`forth in paragraph 6.
`.7.
`' Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`r
`
`'
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 8.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants admit that VICKIE CANEPA and MICHAEL CANEPA are
`
`husband and wife, and deny generally and specifically each and every remaining
`
`allegation set forth in paragraph 10.
`11.
`Defendants are without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the tmth of the allegations in paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16, except admit that there is an Exhibit "A"
`
`attached that speaks for itself.
`
`—L
`
`@'~lO'.IUI-Ihblh)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`S&FO0316862 V1 /8800-500 2
`
`

`
`17.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17, except admit that there is an Exhibit "B"
`
`attached that speaksfor itself.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18, except admit that there is an Exhibit "C"
`attached that speaks for itself.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19. except admit that there is an Exhibit "D"
`
`attached that speaks for itself.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 20.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 26.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 forth in paragraph 29.
`
`
`
`S8-F00316862 V1 /8800-500 3
`
`I]
`
`

`
`30.
`31.
`
`Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 30.
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 31.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`32.
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 32.
`-33.
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 36.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants admit the first sentence of paragraph 37 and that FETCH-lT
`
`PETS. lNC. uses the "POLLY WANNA PINATA" mark but deny generally and specifically
`each and every allegation relating to FETCH-IT PETS, lNC.'s use of the "SHREDDERS"
`
`mark and the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 37.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants repeat. and incorporate by reference the responses contained
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 38, above. in answer to paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 40.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 41.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 42.
`
`on-«cams:-um-a
`
`ID
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`S&F0O316862 V1 18800-500
`4
` __j_
`
`

`
`43.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 43.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants admit that FETCH-IT PETS, lNC. uses the "POLLY WANNA
`
`PINATA" mark. and deny generally and specifically the remaining allegations set forth in
`paragraph 44.
`'45.
`’ Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 45.
`46.
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 46.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 47.
`
`48.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 48.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 49.
`50.
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 50.
`
`A
`
`51.
`
`Defendants repeat. and incorporate by reference the responses contained
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 50, above, in answer to paragraph 51.
`
`52.
`
`Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation set
`
`forth in paragraph 52.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in par