Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA325105
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`01/04/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91169312
`Plaintiff
`Swatch AG
`JESS M. COLLEN
`COLLEN IP
`The Holyoke-Manhattan Bldg., 80 South Highland Avenue
`Ossining, NY 10562
`UNITED STATES
`Reply in Support of Motion
`Thomas P. Gulick
`tgulick@collenip.com, pgreen@collenip.com, docket@collenip.com
`/Thomas P. Gulick/
`01/04/2010
`98885_PDF_OPPOSER-S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`STRIKE_100104.PDF ( 17 pages )(815905 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`
`ESTTA325105
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`01/04/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91169312
`Plaintiff
`Swatch AG
`JESS M. COLLEN
`COLLEN IP
`The Holyoke-Manhattan Bldg., 80 South Highland Avenue
`Ossining, NY 10562
`UNITED STATES
`Reply in Support of Motion
`Thomas P. Gulick
`tgulick@collenip.com, pgreen@collenip.com, docket@collenip.com
`/Thomas P. Gulick/
`01/04/2010
`98885_PDF_OPPOSER-S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`STRIKE_100104.PDF ( 17 pages )(815905 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. 98885
`
`SWATCH S.A.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`AMY T. BERNARD and
`BEEHIVE WHOLESALE, L.L.c.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Mark: SWAP
`Opp. No.: 91169312
`Serial No.: 78/459,527
`
`OPPOSER'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Opposer Swatch S.A. ("Opposer") hereby submits its reply in support of its Motion To
`
`Strke those portions of Applicant's Notice of Reliance which relate to the discovery deposition
`
`of a non-party witness.
`
`1. APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT A THIRD
`
`PARTY, THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC., OR ITS PRESIDENT, IS A MANAGING
`
`AGENT OF THE OPPOSER.
`
`Applicant, as the pary seeking discovery, is the party that carres the burden to prove the
`
`managing agent status. Proseus v. Anchor Line Ltd., 26 F.R.D. 165, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).
`
`Nearly all of the cases determining a proper managing agent involve whether an
`
`employee or former employee of a corporation should be a managing agent. See Founding
`
`Church of Scientology v. Webster, 802 F.2d 1448, 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1986) citing, 4A J. Moore,
`
`
`
`Moore's Federal Practice para. 30.55 at 30-72 n. 15 (2d ed. 1984).
`
`Every case cited by Applicant on the issue of "managing agent" involve employees or
`
`former employees of the party in an action, and not the status of third parties. See In re Honda
`
`Am. Motor Co. Dealership Relations Litig., 168 F.R.D. 535, 541 (D. Md. 1996) (proposed
`
`deponent was the General Manager of Public Relations for defendant; the court also denied
`
`deposition of a former employee); Rubin v. General Tire & Rubber Co.,18 F.R.D. 51, 55
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1955) (all three proposed deponents were employees of defendant); Kolb v. A.H Bull
`
`s.s. Co., 31 F.R.D. 252, 253 (E.D.N.Y. 1962) (proposed deponent was Vice President of
`
`Operations for defendant; the court also denied deposition of a former employee.); Sugarhil
`
`Records Ltd. v. Motown Record Corp., 105 F.R.D. 166, 170 (proposed deponent was Director of
`
`Creative Administration of defendant); and Boston Diagnostics Devel. Corp. Inc. v. Kollsman
`
`Mfg. Co., 123 F.R.D. 415, 415 (D. Mass. 1988) (proposed deponent was an employee of one of
`
`the defendants); see also Proseus v. Bay Ridge Operating Co., 26 F.R.D. 165, 167 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`1960) (a pier superintendent not employed by third party plaintiff does not qualifY as an officer
`
`or managing agent).
`
`In general, a managing agent is a person who:
`
`1. Acts with superior authority and is invested with general powers to exercise his
`judgment and discretion in dealing with his principal's affairs;
`
`2. Can be depended upon to carr out his principal's directions to give testimony at the
`demand of a party engaged in litigation with his principals; and
`
`3. Can be expected to identifY himself
`
`with the interests of
`
`his principal rather than those
`
`the other party.
`
`of
`
`See Luther v. Kia Alotors, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 53494, *6-*7 (W.D. Pa. June 18,
`
`2009). Most tellng in this definition are the references to the principaL. Ms. Faivet and The
`
`2
`
`
`
`Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. are not employees of
`
`Opposer. They do not control Opposer. Opposer
`
`reminds the Board that although the business names of both companies contain the word
`
`"Swatch", the Opposer, Swatch S.A. is not a subsidiary of
`
`The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., or vice
`
`versa. The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., is a Delaware corporation which distributes many brands
`
`of watches in this country, including OMEGA, RADO, LONGINES, BREGUET, TISSOT,
`
`HAMILTON, SWATCH and others. Swatch S.A. is a Swiss company and a subsidiary of
`
`The
`
`Swatch Group S.A. of Biel, Swtzerland. Swatch S.A. is a manufacturer and designer of
`
`wristwatches, jewelry and other goods. Its management is completely different from that of the
`
`Delaware corporation. There is no evidence submitted by Applicant to contradict this nor which
`
`would tend to show that Ms. Faivet or The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. can be considered
`
`managing agents of Opposer Swatch S.A.for any purpose.
`
`Applicant impliedly admits that Ms. Faivet and The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. are not
`
`managing agents of Opposer, as Applicant, recognized the need to subpoena the witness under
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. See Exhibit A to Applicant's Opposition to the Motion to Strke. If the
`
`person to be deposed is an officer, director or managing agent, a subpoena is not required.
`
`Luther, 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 53494 at *4. Otherwise, a subpoena is required. See id.
`
`Applicant knew that it had to issue a subpoena to obtain the attendance of the witness. Applicant
`
`deposed the third party witness pursuant to the subpoena, yet now seeks to use the deposition as
`
`if it were the deposition of a party or a managing agent of the party. The subpoena commanded
`
`the testimony of
`
`"The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. by and through Caroline Faivet" It did not seek
`
`testimony of Opposer, Swatch S.A.. See Exhibit A to Applicant's Opposition to the Motion to
`
`Strike.
`
`While The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. may be expected to have substantial information
`
`3
`
`
`
`regarding the sale of SWATCH brand products in the United States, as would any distrbutor,
`
`this does not mean that the U.S. distributor is defacto a managing agent with power to bind, and
`
`there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary provided by Applicant As explained previously,
`
`and contrar to Applicant's assertion, The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. does not control Opposer
`
`and Opposer does not control The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. Any assertion that The Swatch
`
`Group (U.S.) Inc. is wholly owned by Opposer is false. See Applicant's Opposition at page 7.
`
`If Applicant wanted the third parties, Ms. Faivet, or The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., to
`
`testifY for the purposes of trial, Applicant could have taken testimony during its testimony
`
`period. Applicant does not allege that anything prevented Applicant from deposing The Swatch
`
`Group (U.S.) or other third parties during its testimony period. Applicant further conceded that it
`
`could have take Opposer's deposition on written questions, but declined to do so. See
`
`Applicant's Opposition to the Motion To Strike at page 5. Applicant has provided no reason
`
`why a third party discovery deposition should be used at trial in its Notice of Reliance and thus,
`
`it should be stricken.
`
`II. APPLICANT CANNOT RELY ON A MANAGING AGENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 4
`
`FOR SERVICE TO FIT THE DEFINITION OF A MANAGING AGENT UNDER 37 C.F.R..§
`
`2.120(j(l)
`
`The cases cited by Applicant analogizing a managing agent for service of process under
`
`F.R.C.P. 4(h)(l) are misguided. Applicant's citation to Allegue and Kristinius both involve cases
`
`where the term "managing agent" is being defined under state law and not the Federal Rules.
`
`See Allegue v. Gulf & South American s.s. Co., Inc. 103 F Supp. 34, 35 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`i 952)( determining a managing agent for service of process based on New York Civil Practice
`
`4
`
`
`
`Act) and Kritinius v. H Stern Com. E. Ind. S.A., 433 F. Supp. 303, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)
`
`(expressly recognizing that it is not determining the meaning of
`
`the term "managing agent" under
`
`the Federal Rules but under New York law). In New York iì1arine iì1anagers, Inc. v.
`
`M. V Torpor-I, the term "managing agent" is not even mentioned and again the court specifically
`
`reliesonN.Y. C.P.L.R. 311. 716F. Supp. 783, 786
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1989).
`
`The final case cited by Applicant is one involving service of a complaint under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 4 upon a managing agent. In Del Sesto v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Plaintiffs sued
`
`Defendant, an airline ("TWA"), for personal injuries due to negligence. 201 F. Supp. 879, 880
`
`(D. R.I. 1962). The issue raised in that case was whether service on the ticket agent for
`
`Defendant was proper. See id. at 880-882. Here, even if there were any evidence to support the
`
`"managing agent" claim by Applicant (which there is not) this is not a case where adequacy of
`
`service is being questioned.
`
`IlL THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF MARCH 3, 2008 DID NOT RULE THAT THE
`
`DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT is ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL.
`
`Applicant sought to compel the deposition of Caroline Faivet before the Board. Before
`
`the Board had ruled, the Court had already ordered the deposition of Caroline Faivet. This is
`
`why the Board deemed the motion to compel moot. The Board's order specifically recognized
`
`that the deposition was taken pursuant to a District Court order. The District Court had been
`
`asked to determine that validity of a subpoena such as whether a subpoena addressed to "The
`
`Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. by and through Caroline Faivet" was deficient because: (1) it fàiled to
`
`list topics under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); (2) if meant for Caroline Faivet as an individual,
`
`Applicant failed to properly serve the individual witness; and (3) notice given on August 30,
`
`5
`
`
`
`2006 for a deposition on September 5, 2006 was unreasonably short under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
`
`See The Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc.'s Motion to Quash the Subpoena at page 2, attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`The District Court decision did not speak to the admissibility of the deposition. It simply
`
`decided that the Court would not quash the subpoena on grounds related to facial defects in
`
`service and short notice. It did not decide anything about the status of
`
`The Swatch Group (U.S.)
`
`Inc., as a third party, including whether it even could be deposed to bind Opposer, Swatch S.A.
`
`The court order specifically deferred the question of admissibility of the deposition to the
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. See Exhibit B to Applicant's Opposition to Motion to Stirke
`
`and Exhibit A to Opposer's Motion to Strike at pages 2-3. Applicant did not thereafter move the
`
`Board to rule on the admissibility, and the Board has never so ruled. The only time the issue was
`
`before it, the Board deemed moot the question of permitting a deposition to go forward, since by
`
`that time, the deposition already had occurred.
`
`iv. CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant has failed to meet its burden. It has no proof for its claim that Ms. Faivet or
`
`The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., third parties to the opposition proceeding, have any status as
`
`managing agents for the purposes of binding testimony on Opposer, a separate entity, and has
`
`failed to show under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(j)(1) and (2) that the deposition testimony should be
`
`admitted under a Notice of Reliance. Opposer requests that the Board strike the portion of the
`
`Applicant's Notice of Reliance relating to the deposition of "The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. by
`
`and through Caroline Faivet."
`
`6
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted for
`Opposer SWATCH S.A.
`
`By:
`
`Jess M. Collen
`Thomas P. Gulick
`COLLEN IP
`The Holyoke-Manhattan Building
`80 South Highland Avenue
`Ossining, Westchester County
`NEW YORK 10562
`(914) 941- 5668
`
`Town of
`
`JMCITPG
`
`DATED: January 4,2010
`
`SHOULD ANY OTHER FEE BE REQUIRED, THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`is HEREBY REQUESTED TO CHARGE SUCH FEE TO OUR DEPOSIT ACCOUNT 03-
`2465.
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CORRESPONDENCE IS BEING FILED
`ELECTRONICALLY WITH THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE.
`
`Dated: January 4, 2010
`
`7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Patti Green, hereby certifY that I caused true and correct copy of the following:
`Reliance to
`
`its Motion to Strike Portions of Applicant's Notice of
`
`Opposer's Reply in Support of
`
`be served upon:
`
`William J. Utermohlen
`OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC
`277 South Washington Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Via first-class mail, postage pre-paid.
`
`Said service having taken place this 4th Day of January, 2010.
`
`8
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNTED STATES DISTRCT COURT
`IN THE MA ITER OF: DISTRCT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`APPLICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 45 OF
`THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.), INC. TO QUASH Civil Action No.
`A SUBPOENA ISSUED IN THE NAM OF THE
`DISTRICT COURT BY WILLIA J.
`UTERMOHLEN, ESQUIRE, ON BEHALF OF
`AMY T. BERNARD IN CONNECTION WITH
`TH MA TIER OF SWATCH A.G. v. AMY T.
`BERNAR, OPPOSITION NUBER: 91169312,
`CURRTL Y PENDING BEFORE TH
`TRAEMA TRL AN APPEAL BOAR, MOTION DATE: October 10,2006
`AND COMMING APPEARCE AT A
`DEPOSITION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER ORAL ARGUMNT REQUESTED
`5,2006.
`
`BRIEF ON BEHALF OF MOVANT, THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.), INC.,
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
`
`DILLON, BITAR & LUTHR, L.L.C.
`53 Maple Avenue
`P.O. Box 398
`Morrstown, New Jersey 07963-0398
`(973) 539-3100
`
`COLLEN IP, P.C.
`The Holyoke-Manatt Building
`80 South Highland A venue
`Ossing-on- Hudson
`Westchester County, New York 10562
`(914) 941-5668
`
`Attorneys for Movant,
`The Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc.
`
`THOMAS P. GULICK
`PETER E. MORAN
`On the Brief
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................ ii
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 3
`
`POIN
`
`I
`
`THE SUBPOENA AND TH SERVICE THEREOF
`ARE DEFICIENT UNER RULE 45 AND/OR
`RULE 30 (B)(6), THUS, THE SUBPOENA SHOULD
`BE QUASHED............................................................... 3
`
`CONCLUSION........................................................................................ . 5
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`In re Johnson & Johnson, 59 F.R.D. 174 (D. DeL. 1973)........................................ 2
`
`Lloyd Lifestyle Ltd. v. Soaring Helmet Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16539
`(W.D. Wash. March 23,2006)............................................................
`
`Norwch Pharmacal Co. v. Chas. Peizer & Co., Inc., 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8899,
`165 U.S.P.Q. 619 (N.D. N.Y. March 30,1967)... ................... ................... 2
`
`Taub et al v. Rausser et aI, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8859, 159 U.S.P.Q. 220
`
`(D.N.J. June 21, 1968)........................... ........................... ............... 2
`
`StatuteslRegulations
`
`35 U.S.C.S. § 24 ................................................................................. ....
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.120 (b) .......................................... .....................................
`
`Other
`
`F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) .......................................... ....................................... 4
`
`F.R.C.P. 45 .......................................................................................... passim
`
`11
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. ("Swatch U.S.") moves, pursuant to Rule 45 of Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order quashing the deposition subpoena which was served on or
`
`about August 30, 2006 and issued in the name of this Court by Wiliam 1. Utermohlen, Esquire,
`
`on behalf of Amy T. Bernard to compel a deposition noticed for Septembe 5, 2006 in
`
`Hackensack, New Jersey. This subpoena was issued in connection with a on-going discovery
`
`proceeding pending before the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board")
`
`concerning Ms. Bernard's attempt to register the mark "SWAP" to be used in connection with
`
`her marketing of a brand of
`
`wrst watches. Swatch A.G. is opposing Ms. Bernard's registrtion
`
`of this mark before the Board.
`
`The subpoena at issue in this matter was addressed to "The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc., by
`
`and through Caroline Faivet." It is important to note that because the Board does not have the
`
`power to compel the attendance of non-par at a deposition, paries must issue a subpoena from
`
`a distct Court in order to secure attendance. Specifically, 35 U.S.C.S. § 24 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`2.120 (b) essentially provide that such a subpoena must be issued from the United States distrct
`
`court in the Federal judicial distrct where the deponent resides or is regularly employed. Swatch
`
`U.S. has a place of business located in Weehawken, New Jersey and Ms. Faivet, an employee,
`
`also works from the Weehawken location. Thus, both Swatch U.S. and/or Ms. Faivet are
`
`properly before this Cour to contest the subpoena.
`
`For puroses of determining this motion to quash, "the provisions of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure relating to the attendance of witnesses... shall apply to contested cases in the
`
`Patent and Trademark Offce." 35 U.S.C.S. § 24; see also, Lloyd Lifestyle Ltd. v. Soarng
`
`Helmet Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16539 (W.D. Wash. March 23,2006) (detennining motion
`
`
`
`to quash a deposition subpoena under Rules 26 and 45 in connection with a consolidated
`
`opposition and cancellation proceeding before the Trademark Tnal and Appeal Board); accord,
`
`In re Johnson & Johnson, 59 F.R.D. 174 (D. DeL. 1973) (motion to quash subpoena issued in
`
`connection with trademark opposition proceeding); Norwch Pharmacal Co. v. Chas. Peizer &
`
`Co., Inc., 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8899, 165 U.S.P.Q. 619 (N.D. N.Y. March 30, 1967); Taub et
`
`al v. Rausser et al, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8859, 159 U.S.P.Q. 220 (D.N.J. June 21, 1968)
`
`(motion to quash deposition subpoena related to an interference proceeding before the U.S.
`
`Patent Offce). Thus, the Cour is to determine this motion under the same standards it would
`
`use in deciding a typical motion to quash in connection with a pending cour action.
`
`Within this procedural setting, the subpoena at issue here must be quashed because: (l)
`
`service was not proper and/or not properly effectuated upon Caroline Faivet, an individual, as
`
`she was not personally served; (2) the subpoena is defective under Rule 45 as the notice given is
`
`unreasonable; and/or (3) to the extent that the subpoena was issued for Swatch U.S., the
`
`subpoena did not comply with Rule 30 (b) (6) because it did not descnbe with reasonable
`
`particulanty the matter on which examination was requested.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc.'s motion to quash the subpoena
`
`should be granted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`I. THE SUBPOENA AND THE SERVICE THEREOF AR DEFICIENT
`UNDER RULE 45 AND/OR RULE 30 (B)(6), THUS, TH SUBPOENA
`SHOULD BE QUASHED.
`
`The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. hereby moves to quash the subpoena of Caroline Faivet
`
`served on August 30, 2006 on the Corporation Service Company, a servce agent for The Swatch
`
`Group (U.S.) Inc. Amy T. Bernard's ("Applicant") subpoena calls for a deposition on September
`
`5,2006. A copy of
`
`the subpoena is attached to the Declaration of
`
`Thomas P. Gulick, Esq. ("Dec1
`
`of TPG") at Exhibit A This subpoena is in connection with a discovery proceeding pending
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Offce. Ms. Faivet is a non-pary, and here, the
`
`Board lacks authority to issue process. As a result, Applicant must issue a subpoena to compel
`
`attendance of a non-pary witness.
`
`First the service of the subpoena is improper. Applicant Amy T. Bernard's attempt to
`
`serve an individual, Caroline Faivet, is not proper. Ms. Faivet is an individual and she has not
`
`been personally served. Service was made on the Corporation Service Company, a service agent
`
`for the company, The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. (Ms. Faivets employer). Rule 45 (b) (1)
`
`requires personal service upon an individual.
`
`Second, the subpoena was served on August 30, 2006 for an appearance on September 5,
`
`2006. This is just 3 business days before the appearance. This is patently uneasonable and does
`
`not give proper notice for a third par subpoena F.R.C.P.45(c)(3)(A)(i). Whle the Applicant
`
`may wish to take the deposition prior to the close of discovery on September 10, 2006, it is not
`
`entitled to shorten the reasonable period for notice simply as a result of its own delay in noticing
`
`this witness. Discovery has been open in ths matter since March 14, 2006. See copy of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Order, dated, Februar 22, 2006, attached to the Decl ofTPG
`
`at Exhibit B.
`
`Third, to the extent that Defendant would now seek to justify the subpoena (apar from
`
`the deficient notice above) as being directed toward a corporation, it is woefully defective under
`
`F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6). There was no subject matter enumerated for the corporation to be able to
`
`designate a proper corporate representative under F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6). Furter, the Rules do not
`
`pennit the noticing part to designate a corporate witness and command attendance by the
`
`individual representative it wishes to depose.
`
`The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. seeks costs and fees associated with being forced to quash
`
`a defective subpoena so because that Applicant had been put on notice about said defects. See
`
`correspondence of August 30, 2006 and September 1,2006 from Thomas P. Gulick, attorneys for
`
`Plaintiff Swatch AG and William 1. Utennohlen, attorney for Defendant Amy T. Bernard,
`
`attached to the Decl. ofTPG at Exhibit C.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc.'s motion to quash should be
`
`granted.
`
`4
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, The Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc.'s Motion to Quash the
`
`Subpoena should be granted.
`
`Respectflly submitted,~~Peter E. Mora, Esq.
`
`DILLON, BITAR & LUTHER, L.L.c.
`53 Maple Avenue
`P.O. Box 398
`Morrstown, New Jersey 07963-0398
`(973) 539-3100
`
`-and-
`
`Thomas P. Gulick, Esq.
`COLLEN IP, P.C.
`The Holyoke-Manhatt Building
`80 South Highland A venue
`Ossing-on- Hudson
`Westchester County, New York 10562
`(914) 941-5668
`
`Attorneys for Movant,
`The Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc.
`
`DATED: September 4, 2006
`Morrstown, New Jersey
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
