Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA144018
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/04/2007
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91168326
`Plaintiff
`SINGER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
`SINGER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
`SINGER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.
`247-72A 77 Crescent
`Bellerose, NY 11426
`UNITED STATES
`Kimberly B. Malerba
`Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.
`1425 EAB Plaza, 15th Floor - East Tower
`Uniondale, NY 11556
`UNITED STATES
`kmalerba@rmfpc.com, jdemaro@rmfpc.com
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`Kimberly B. Malerba
`kmalerba@rmfpc.com, jdemaro@rmfpc.com, pvakkas@rmfpc.com
`/Kimberly B. Malerba/
`06/04/2007
`20070604164844.pdf ( 53 pages )(2677333 bytes )
`20070604164942.pdf ( 64 pages )(2335850 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of trademark application Serial No.: 75469250
`For the mark BILL PINKNEY’S ORIGINAL DRIFTERS
`
`Published in the Official Gazette on August 30, 2005
`
`ODES SA HOBBS and SINGER MANAGEMENT
`
`CONSULTANTS, INC.,
`
`WILLIE B. PINKNEY,
`
`Opposers,
`
`V.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513
`
`Opposition No. 91168326
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSERS’
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING
`
`Opposers Odessa Hobbs (“Mrs. Hobbs”) and Singer Management
`
`Consultants, Inc. (“Singer”) (collectively, “Opposers”) submit this memorandum in
`
`support of Opposers’ application to suspend this proceeding. A suspension is warranted
`
`for two (2) reasons. First, a motion is pending in a federal district court action that may
`
`have a bearing on this case. Second, Opposers will be prejudiced if they are forced to
`
`move forward with discovery prior to a decision on their motion to compel Applicant to
`
`respond to Opposers’ discovery demands. This proceeding must be suspended pending
`
`the resolution of both. It is respectfully requested that TTAB issue a decision on this
`
`

`
`motion as soon as possible. The discovery period is currently scheduled to close on June
`
`30, 2007.
`
`New Jersey Federal Court Action May Have Bearing On This Proceeding
`
`A stay of the proceedings is warranted because Opposer Singer is a named
`
`respondent in a pending civil action, namely Marshak v. Treadwell, 95 Civ. 3794 (D.N.J.)
`
`(DRD), which may have a bearing on this TTAB case. The TBMP provides at Section
`
`5 l0.02(a): “Whenever it comes to the attention of the Board that a party or parties to a
`
`case pending before it are involved in a civil action which may have a bearing on the
`
`Board case, proceedings before the Board may be suspended until final determination of
`
`the civil action.”
`
`In 1995 Larry Marshak‘ commenced an action against Faye Treadwell and others
`
`for trademark infringement in connection with the mark THE DRIFTERS. In 1999 the
`
`New Jersey District Court issued a decision in favor of Treadwell and found that
`
`Treadwell possessed superior rights in the mark THE DRIFTERS. The Court also
`
`entered an injunction against Marshak. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s
`
`decision and the injunction became effective in February 2001.
`
`In late 2006 Treadwell filed a motion requesting that the district court find that
`
`Marshak and others, including Singer, have violated the court’s injunction by virtue of
`
`their use of the mark THE DRIFTERS. In response to Treadwell’s contempt motion
`
`Marshak cross—moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for an order vacating the
`
`' To be clear , Opposers’ attorney in this matter does not represent Larry Marshak in the Marshak v. Treadwell
`action.
`
` «—«-—v«~—,-———4-—«:w<7—V:‘—-—‘-._—:_7g..—:7:f..:E..«....«__._-w..~....«..
`
`

`
`injunction. Copies of papers filed by Marshak in support of his cross-motion are annexed
`
`hereto as Appendix A. Among other things, Marshak relies upon the determination
`
`by TTAB in the matter Willie B. Pinkney v. Treadwell ’s Drifters, Inc. (TTAB Opposition
`
`No. 91151984) in which TTAB found that Mr. Pinkney possessed rights superior to
`
`Treadwell's Drifters, Inc. in the mark THE DRIFTERS based upon prior use. Marshak
`
`also claims that he is in direct privity with Pinkney (the Applicant is this case) with
`
`respect to the right to use the mark THE DRIFTERS based upon, among other things,
`
`two (2) consent judgments. Marshak asserts that in 1983 he entered into a consent
`
`judgment with Pinkney in the matter of Marshak v. Branch (Civil Action No. C-C-82-
`
`5066-M (W.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 1983) (the “1983 Consent”). According to Marshak, under
`
`the 1983 Consent Pinkney agreed that Marshak would have the “unqualified and
`
`exclusive right to use throughout the United States the name or mark “THE DRIFTERS.”
`
`Marshak also claims that in 1996, in connection with a dispute with Pinkney regarding
`
`compliance with the 1983 Consent, Pinkney and Marshak reconfirmed the agreement
`
`expressed in the 1983 Consent in a consent judgment that provided for Marshak’s
`
`exclusive and unqualified right to use the name and mark THE DRIFTERS. Marshak v.
`
`Bridge, er al., Marshak v. Pinkney, and Marshak v. Branch et al., Case Nos. 82-CV-566-
`
`MU, 89—CV-283-MU, and 93-CV-131-MU, Consent Judgment (W.D.N.C. May 20,
`
`1996).
`
`In April 2007 Pinkney filed a declaration with the New Jersey District Court in
`
`connection with the claims made by Marshak in his cross-motion. A copy of that
`
`declaration is annexed hereto as Appendix B.
`
`

`
`iI
`
`lE E3 l
`
`In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the New Jersey District Court action may
`
`have a bearing on this case. In terms of timing, the motions have been fully briefed and a
`
`two—day hearing has taken place. Final, post-hearing briefs are due to be filed on June 9,
`
`2007 and a decision is expected from the bench thereafter. To conserve judicial
`
`resources and avoid conflicting judgments this proceeding should be stayed pending a
`
`decision on Marshak’s cross-motion by the New Jersey District Court.
`
`This Proceeding Must Be Staged Pending A Decision On Oggosers ’ Motion To Comgel
`
`A suspension of this proceeding is also warranted because Opposers’ motion to
`
`compel Applicant to respond to Opposers’ discovery demands and for other relief is still
`
`pending and, as a result, Opposers will be prejudiced if they are forced to move forward
`
`with discovery prior to a decision. This proceeding must be stayed pending a decision by
`
`TTAB on Opposers’ motion to compel.
`
`Opposers filed their motion to compel on May 7, 2007 based upon Applicant’s
`
`failure and refusal to respond to Opposers’ document demands and interrogatories within
`
`the applicable time period.2 Opposers requested an order (i) compelling Applicant to
`
`respond immediately to Opposers’ discovery demands (including Opposers’ document
`
`demands and interrogatories); (ii) finding that Applicant has forfeited his right to object
`
`to Opposers’ discovery demands; (iii) extending the discovery period and other scheduled
`
`dates in this matter for three (3) months; and (iv) granting Opposers such other and
`
`further relief as TTAB deems just and proper.
`
`2A copy of Opposers’ motion to compel, without the appendices, is annexed as Appendix C.
`
`

`
`
`
`On May 29, 2007 Opposers received Applicant’s reply to the motion to compel.3
`
`Opposers also received on May 29, 2007 documents that Applicant purports to be
`
`responses to Opposers’ discovery demands. Those untimely responses are replete with
`
`improper objections and Applicant improperly withholds documents and information. It
`
`appears that Applicant served these purported “responses” in order to argue that Opposers
`
`now have sufficient documents and information to proceed with further discovery. Any
`
`such argument is without merit.
`
`Opposers will be prejudiced if they are forced to move forward with discovery
`
`prior to a decision. For example, without a decision and proper responses to Opposers’
`
`discovery demands Opposers cannot adequately prepare witnesses for depositions. In
`
`addition, Opposers will be unfairly prejudiced if they are required to take Applicant’s
`
`deposition without the documents and information that Opposers are entitled to.
`
`Proceeding at this point will also require repetitive discovery and a waste ofjudicial and
`
`attorney resources. In short, Opposers cannot participate in meaningful discovery
`
`without a decision on the motion to compel and Applicant’s full, complete and required
`
`responses to Opposers’ discovery demands.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based upon the foregoing, Opposers respectfully requested that TTAB issue an
`
`order immediately: (i) suspending this proceeding and all discovery pending the final
`
`determination of BOTH (a) Marshak’s cross-motion in the civil action Marshak v.
`
`3 Opposers’ time to reply to App1icant’s “Memorandum in Support of Applicant’s Reply” has not yet expired and
`Opposers reserve the right to file responsive papers.
`
`

`
`Treadwell, 95 Civ. 3794 (D.N.J.) and (b) TTAB’s decision on Opposers’ motion to
`
`compel; and (ii) granting Opposers such other and further relief as TTAB deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated: Uniondale, New York
`
`June 4, 2007
`
`RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C.
`
` Jo
`
`.
`
`
`A orney for Opposers
`1425 Reckson Plaza
`East Tower, 15th Floor
`Uniondale, New York 1 1556-0190
`
`(516) 663-6600
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the attached
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSERS’ MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING
`
`was served upon James M. Slattery, Esq. of the law firm of Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch,
`
`LLP at 8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East, Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 by Federal Express
`
`on the 4”‘ day of June, 2007.
`
` Kimb rly B. Malerba
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`....__..,_,h...._.._...__~_‘.‘....._._....,....,,..,”V.,-.-,.._.
`
`Z.
`‘
`
`.
`
`. i1
`
`.
`
`li 5 l1ii l1
`
`i1
`
`v ii
`
`i2v
`
`i liQ1 1
`
`.1,
`
`1t1.Av1x
`
`1x
`
`l1 1 1v I
`
`l
`
`.
`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794—NHP Document 199
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 1 Of 2
`
`Jefirey Schreiber (JS—61 82)
`MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN LLP
`2G Auer Court
`
`Williamsburg Commons
`East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
`(732) 432-0073
`"
`
`William L. Charron (pro hac vice application pending)
`Maiyaneh M. Simonian (pro hac vice application pending)
`PRYOR CASHMAN SHERMAN & FLYNN LLP
`410 Park Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10022
`(212) 4214100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Larry Marshak and Non—Parties Andrea Marshak, Jody Marshak, Paula
`Marshak, DCPM, Inc., Cal Cap, Ltd., Barry Singer and Singer Management Consultants, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————..- X
`
`LARRY MARSHAK,
`
`'
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 95-3794 (DRD)
`
`v.
`
`2 NOTICE or CROSS-MOTION
`'
`(Oral Argument Requested)
`
`FAYE TREADWELL, TRBADWELL’S DRIFTBRS,
`INC. and THE DRIFTERS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— .._ X
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the above-listed counsel for plaintiff Larry ‘Marshal:
`
`(“Plaintiff”) shall cross-move before this Court,
`
`the Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise,
`
`U.S.D.J., at 10:00 am. on the 26th day of March 2007, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be
`
`heard, or on such other date and time specified by the Court: (a) for an Order pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 60(b) vacating and/or modifying an Order of permanent injunction against Plaintiff in the
`
`above~captioned action dated August 16, 1999 and previously entered by this Court (the
`
`“Injunction”); and (b) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`

`
`Case 2:95-cv-03.794-NHP Document 199
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that Plaintiff shall rely on the accompanying
`
`declarations of Plaintiff and of non-party motion respondents Andrea Marshak, Paula Marshak,
`
`Jody Marshak, Charles Mehlich and Barry Singer, and of non-parties Dave Revels and James
`
`Arnold, and the memorandum of law accompanying this Notice; and further upon the declaration
`
`of non—party motion co-respondent Lowell Davis and his accompanying memorandum of law;
`
`and upon all. prior pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein.
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to the So Ordered stipulation
`
`between the parties in this matter, defendants Faye Treadwell and Treadwe1l’s Drifters, Inc.’s
`
`answering papers (if any) to Plaintiffs cross—motion are due by February 28, 2007.
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that Oral Argument in connection with the
`
`within Cross-Motion is hereby requested pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b).
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that a proposed form of Order is submitted
`
`herewith.
`
`Dated: East Brunswick, New Jersey
`
`January 29, 2007
`
`Jeffre Schreiber (JS-6} 82)
`(a ~. ber ofthe firm)
`2G ' uer Court
`
`Williamsburg Commons
`East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
`(732) 432-0073
`
`- ofcounsel -
`William L. Charron (pro hac vice application pending)
`Marryaneh M; Simonian (pro hac vice application pending)
`PRYOR CASHMAN SHERMAN & FLYNN LLP
`410 Park Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10022
`(212)421-4100
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:95—cv—03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 1 of 43
`
`Return Date:
`
`March 26, 2007
`10:00 am.
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————__x
`
`LARRY MARSHAK,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 95-3794 (DRD)
`
`v.
`
`FAYE TREADWELL, TREADWELL’S DRIFTERS,
`INC. and THE DRIFTERS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`_____________________________________________________________________....x
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND IN SUPPORT OF
`CROSS-MOTION TO VACATE AND/OR MODIFY INJUNCTION
`
`
`Ofcounsel:
`
`William L. Charron
`(pro hac vice application pending)
`Maryaneh M. Simonian
`(pro hac vice application pending)
`PRYOR CASHMAN SHERMAN &
`FLYNN LLP
`410 Park Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10022
`(2 I
`1 _41
`
`Jeffrey Schreiber (IS-6182)
`MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN LLP
`2G Auer Coun
`Williamsburg C0mm0I1S
`East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
`(732) 432—0073
`
`_
`_
`Attorneysfor })l6ZlI’lt§XfLd7‘7‘y Marshak
`and Non-Parties Andrea Marshak, Jody
`Marshak, Paula Marshak, DCPM, Inc.,
`Cal Cap, Lz‘d., Barry Singer and Singer
`Management Consultants, Inc.
`
`

`
`I I:E
`
`.
`
`I
`
`I
`
`_
`
`_
`
`'
`II‘
`
`_
`
`g
`
`II
`
`1
`
`_
`
`'
`
`E
`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 2 of 43
`
`r
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
`There Has Been No Contempt By The Motion Respondents ..........................................................1
`
`The Injunction Should Be Vacated Or Modified........................................................................_.....2
`
`FACTS .............................................................................................................................................4
`ARGUMENT......................................................................................................
`...........................6
`I. THE INIUNCTION SHOULD BE VACATED OR MODIFIED ...................................6
`
`A. The Injunction Is Based Upon The Premise That Treadwell Has
`Senior Use Rights To “The Drifters” Mark As Against Marshak .................... ..6
`B. The TTAB Proceeding Established Pinkney’s
`Priority Over Treadwell ..................................................................................... ..7
`
`C. The TTAB Proceeding Undermines Treadwell’s
`Position Against Marshak ...................................................................................8
`
`D. Treadwell May Not Relitigate The TTAB Proceeding .......................................9
`
`E. The TTAB Proceeding Warrants Vacatur Or
`Modification Of The Injunction Under Rule 60(b)(5) .......................................I0
`F. The Injunction Should Also Be Vacated
`Or Modified Under Rule 60(b)(6).................................................................... ..1l
`
`I
`G. The Injunction Should Be Modified To Permit Marshak
`To Acquire Rights Through The Estate Of Elsbeary Hobbs .............................l2
`
`H. TREADWELUSAMOTION FOR CONTEMPT SHOULD BE DENIED ....................13
`
`A. Treadwell Has No Damages .............................................................................13
`
`B. None OfThe Motion Respondents Is Liable For Contempt ............................. 14
`1. Treadwell Has No Evidence Of Contempt By Larry
`Marshak, Which Mandates Denial OfHer Entire Motion ................... ..15
`
`a. The Scope OfThe Injunction Is Limited By Rule 65(d) ...........15
`
`

`
`
`
`’
`
`l
`
`1
`‘t
`
`g*
`
`X
`
`l,-it
`
`l 1
`
`1I
`l
`
`.
`
`Case 2:95-cv—03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 3 of 43
`
`b. Clark’s Declaration Is Not Probative OfAny Contempt ........... 19
`
`c. Bauman’s Declaration Is Not Probative
`OfAny Contempt.......................................................................21
`d. Newman’s Declaration Is Not Probative
`Of Any Contempt..................................................................... ..22
`
`e. Salvo’s Declaration Is Not Probative OfAny Contempt ...........25
`
`2. Treadwell Has No Evidence Of Contempt By Cal Cap.........................26
`
`3. Treadwell Has No Evidence Of Contempt By Jody Marshak ............. ..26
`
`4. Treadwell Has No Evidence Of Contempt By Singer
`Management, Or By Barry Singer Or Charles Mehlich In Their
`Capacities As Representatives Of Singer Management....................... ..26
`
`5. Treadwell Has No Evidence Of Contempt By DCPM,
`Andrea Marshak, Paula Marshak Or Charles Mehlich In
`Their Capacities as Representatives ofDCPM ......................................28
`
`a. The Woods-DCPM Phone Calls Do Not Evince Any
`Contempt .................................................................................. ..29
`
`b. The 2002 “Media Kit” Does Not Establish Any _
`Contempt.................................................................j,..................32
`
`5
`
`III. TREADWELL’S MOTION OFFENDS BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ..............34
`
`A. Most OfThe Motion Respondents Were Not
`Properly Served With Notice By Treadwell .....................................................34
`
`B. The Motion Respondents Are Entitled To A Hearing.......................................35
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................35
`
`

`
`‘;_.
`1.
`g. _
`
`1191: i
`
`11
`
`1 l1l1l1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 4 of 43
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE s
`
`Agostini v. Felton,
`521 U.S. 203 (1997) .................................................................. Q ..................................... ..10
`
`Ardex Laboratories, Inc. V. Cooperider,
`319 F. Supp. 2d 507 (E.D. Pa. 2004) .................................................................................34
`
`
`Aris Isotoner Inc. V. Berkshire Fashions Inc.,
`924 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................. ..33
`
`Baksalary V. Smith,
`No. Civ. A. 76-429, 2005 WL 1941319 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2005) .................................... ..10
`
`Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority,
`350 F.3d 338 (3d Cir. 2003)............................................................................................. ..10
`
`CMI Corp. V. Cedarapids, Inc.,
`149 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (W.D. Okla. 2001) ........................................................................ ..12
`
`Coca-Cola Co. v. Standard Bottling Co.,
`138 F.2d 788 (10th Cir. 1943) ......................................................................................... ..10
`
`Diarama Trading Co. v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. 01 Civ. 2950 (DAB), 2005 WL 2148925 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2005),
`aff_d, No. 05-6112-CV, 2006 WL 2570838 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2006) .................................. ..9
`
`
`Doctor's Associates Inc. v. Reinert & Duree P.C.,
`191 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 1999)............................................................................................. ..l7
`
`Farm Credit Bank of Tex. v. Guim,
`240 F. Supp. 2d 585 (M.D. La. 2002) ........................................................................ ..11, 12
`
`Ferggson V. United States,
`343 F. Supp. 2d 787 (S.D. Iowa 2004) ...................................................................... ..1 1, 12
`
`Garabedian v. Allstates Engineering Co.,
`811 F.2d 802 (3d Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................. ..34
`
`International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagyzell,
`512 U.S. 821 (1994) ......................................................................................................... ..34
`
`
`Jean Alexander Cosmetics Inc. v. L'Oreal USA Inc.,
`458 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... ..9
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`,__H__,,_,_,,__M______,_,,M_”__,,_M,,,,MN__M,__,.,,,,,_.,...,,w_....,_.m...,.,....
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:95-cv—O3794—NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 5 of 43
`
`CASES
`
`PAGEQSQ
`
`Lapinee Trade Inc. V. Paleewong Trading C0,,
`687 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ill. 1988), affd without opinion,
`876 F.2d 106 (7th Cir. 1989). ....................................................................................... ..8, 11
`
`‘
`.
`Lewis v. Microsoft Corp,
`410 F. Supp. 2d 432 (E.D.N.C. 2006) ................................................................................ ..9
`
`Life Techs, Inc. v. Promega Corp,
`189 F.R.D. 334 (D. Md. 1999) ................................................................................... ..11, 12
`
`Louis Greenberg & Brothers v. A.I. Namm & Son,
`4 F. Supp. 166 (D.N.Y. 1933) .......................................................................................... ..35
`
`Marshak v. Reed,
`229 F. Supp. 2d 179 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), aff‘d, 87 Fed. Appx. 208 (2d Cir.
`2004) ................................................................................................................................ ..27
`
`
`Marshak v. Reed
`
`No. 96 CV 2292 (NG) (MLO), 2001 WL 92225 (E. & S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1,
`2001), aff'd, 87 Fed. Appx. 208 (2d Cir. 2004) .............................................................. ..13
`
`Marshak V. Treadwell,
`58 F. Supp. 2d 551 (D.N.J. 1999) (Politan, J.), aff’d in part, appeal
`dismissed in part, 240 F.3d 184, 198-200 (3d Cir. 2001) .................................................. ..6
`
`Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros,
`176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................... .. passim
`
`Measuring & Monitoring Servs., Inc. v. Watt Busters, Inc.,
`No. 03-4820 (WHW), 2006 WL 1644857 (D.N.J. June 6, 2003) .............................. ..14, 15
`
`Money Store, Inc. v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc.,
`885 F.2d 369 (7th Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................... ..13
`
`Nelson Tool & Machine Co. v. Wonderland Originals, Ltd.,
`491 F. Supp. 268 (ED. Pa. 1980) .............................................................................. ..14, 15
`
`
`Newton v. A.C. & S. Inc.,
`918 F.2d 1121 (3d Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................... ..34, 35
`
`Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Pub1‘g Group, Inc.,
`25 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)................................................................................ ..17
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 6 of 43
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE s
`
`Pennwa1tCo;'p. V. Durand-Wayland, Inc.,
`708 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................... ..34’
`
`Pinkney v. Treadwe11's Dfifters, Incf,
`Opposition No. 91151984 (U .S.P.T.O.,
`Trademark Trial & App. Bd., Sept. 24, 2004) ............................................................... ..4, S
`
`Schauffler v. Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association,
`292 F.2d 182 (3d Cir. 1961) ....................................................................................... ..14, 34
`
`Silberstein v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
`424 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .................................................................. ..14, 30, 31
`
`_
`TMT N. America, Inc. V. Magic Touch GmbH,
`57 F. Supp. 2d 586 (ND. 111. 1999) ........................................................................... ..15, 28
`
`United Pharmacal Com. v. United States,
`306 F.2d 515 (1st Cir. 1962) ...................................................................................... ..17, 30
`
`United States ex rel. Salvino Steel & Iron Works v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.,
`181 Fed. Appx. 247 (3d Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. ..15
`
`STATUTES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1(a) ................................................................................................................... ..35
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(1) ..................................................................................................................... ..25
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)....................................................................................................1, 6, 10, 11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) .................................................................................................. ..1, 6, 10, 11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) ......................................................................................................1, 16, 17, 19
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) ..................................................................................................................... ..21
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ......................................................................................................................... ..21
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 701 .......................................................................................................... ..-. ............ ..21
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ......................................................................................................................... ..21
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(0) ............................................................................................................... ..20, 21
`
`

`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 7 of 43
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`
`15 U.S.C.'§ 1127.........
`
`..
`
`vi,
`
`

`
`Case 2:95-cv—O3794-NHP Document 199-.16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 8 of 43
`
`Plaintiff Larry Marshak (“Marshak”), together with non-parties Jody Marshak, Paula
`
`Marshak, Andrea Marshak, DCPM, Inc., Cal ‘Cap Ltd., Barry Singer, Singer Management
`
`Consultants, Inc., and Charles Mehlich (at times Marshak and the non—parties are referred to
`
`collectively as the “Motion Respondents”), oppose the motion for contempt and sanctions by
`
`defendants Faye Treadwell and Treadwell’s Drifters, Inc. (collectively “Treadwell”) for alleged
`
`violation of an Order of permanent injunction by this Court dated August 16, 1999 (the
`
`“Injunction”), and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(S) and 60(b)(6), Marshak additionally cross-
`
`moves to vacate or modify the Injunction.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`There Has Been No Contempt By The Motion Resgondents
`
`Treadwell’s motion for contempt and sanctions should be denied as a matter of law. Her
`
`motion is based largely on vague and inadmissible hearsay, incompetent speculation, and
`
`intentionally incomplete information and half—truths from interested witnesses. Treadwell also
`
`relies upon contumacious—sounding evidence and testimony on matters that are over four years
`
`old, without offering any explanation or justification for her delay in bringing such matters to
`
`light. Nevertheless, much of this evidence is demonstrably inaccurate and unreliable, and none
`
`ofit demonstrates contempt. What little remaining evidence, moreover, undermines her motion
`
`because it clearly demonstrates m violations of the Injunction by anyone.
`
`Therefore, notwithstanding Treadwel1’s pervasive inflammatory rhetoric, she falls far
`
`short of satisfying her high burden to show contumacious conduct by a “clear and convincing”
`
`standard against any of the Motion Respondents. Critically, Treadwell offers no evidence of a
`
`single violation of the Injunction by Marshak. This failure is wholly dispositive against
`
`Treadwell’s motion, because under Rule 65(d) none of the other Motion Respondents can be
`
`

`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794-NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 9 of 43
`
`liable for “aiding and abetting” Marshak in contempt if Treadwell cannot establish contempt by
`
`Marshak himself. The Third Circuit addressed this and related issues in Max’s Seafood Cafe V.
`
`Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999), which also involved an unsuccessful contempt motion
`
`relating to a trademark. Treadwell’s motion should be summarily denied.
`
`The Motion Respondents have been extremely respectful of the Injunction. Marshak
`
`experienced first hand fiom Judge Politan and the Third Circuit this Court’s power, and
`
`Treadwell could not be further off-base when she asserts that Marshak “thumbed his nose” at the
`
`Injunction. Those are empty words that Treadwell uses as a substitute for evidence. Motions for
`
`contempt are serious and are not granted on the basis of conclusory disparaging remarks.
`
`In any event, Treadwell’s request for summary relief against the Motion Respondents is
`
`inappropriate. Due process _r_e_qy_ifl that alleged contemnors be given notice and a hearing.
`
`Most of the Motion Respondents were not even properly served by Treadwell. Furthermore,
`
`although a motion for contempt may be summarily denied for a failure to meet the requisite
`
`“clear and convincing” evidentiary standard as a matter of law (as the Court should hold here), a
`
`finding 9_f contempt cannot be made on the basis of declarations alone.
`
`The Court, however, need not even reach the issues raised by Treadwell’s motion,
`
`because there are important intervening developments concerning Treadwell’s claimed rights in
`
`the mark, “The Drifters,” which warrant vacatur or modification of the Injunction.
`
`The Injunction Should Be Vacated Or Modified
`
`Marshak cross—moves to vacate or modify the Injunction in light of an interceding
`
`adjudication against Treadwell by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“TTAB”), which establishes that Treadwell’s use rights in the mark “The
`
`
`
`,,,_,.,,,..,.___Wr...,....,
`
`
`
`
`
`_awn“,,....,...,,,i.,-_r_._.__f.f_”_k_,._._...»_.u..w.........-....4.4
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:95-cv-03794-NHP Document199—16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`Page 10 of 43
`
`Drifters” vis-a~vis Marshak are significantly less than were previously believed by Treadwell and
`
`by this Court when the Court issued the Injunction. The Injunction is no longer a fair order.
`
`In 2004, the TTAB denied Treadwell’s registration application for “The Drifters” mark
`
`on the ground that an opposer, Willie B. (Bill) Pinkney (“Pinkney”), a founding member of the
`
`group "The Drifters,” has senior use rights (relative to Treadwell) in marks that the TTAB found
`
`to be confusingly similar: “The Original Drifters” and “Bill Pinkney & the Original-Drifters.”
`
`The TTAB proceeding established Pinkney’s use dating back to 1953. Treadwell was found by
`
`Judge Politan to have use rights dating back only to 1954. Treadwell, who was represented by
`
`counsel, had a filll and fair opportunity to litigate before the TTAB the issue of Pinkney’s
`
`priority of use, which was a_ critical issue between the parties. Treadwell failed to rebut
`
`Pinkney’s evidence of use and also did not appeal the TTAB’s ruling against her (the “TTAB
`
`Proceeding”). Treadwell should now be collaterally estopped from relitigating that proceeding
`
`and the issue of Pinkney’s priority of use. Marshak did not learn of the TTAB Proceeding and
`
`decision against Treadwell until the Fall of 2006.
`
`The TTAB Proceeding undermines Treadwell’s position here because Pinkney and
`
`Marshak are in direct privity with respect to the right to use “The Drifters” mark. In particular,
`
`Pinkney and Marshak entered into consent judgments in 1983 and 1996 (the “Pinkney
`
`Consents”), whereby Pinkney agreed to Marshak’s exclusive and unconditional right to use “The
`
`Drifters” mark in the United States and to enjoy exclusive goodwill associated with that mark.
`
`Therefore, the TTAB Proceeding constitutes a material change in circumstances that
`
`warrants vacatur or modification of the Injunction. Treadwell can no longer claim to have
`
`damages arising from Marshak’s use of “The Drifters” mark, where Marshak actually has
`
`superior rights flowing from Pinkney’s priority over Treadwell.
`
`

`
`Case 2:95—Cv-O3794—NHP Document 199-16
`
`Filed 01/29/2007
`
`