throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA255964
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/18/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91177493
`Plaintiff
`Grant Street Group, Inc.
`George P. Faines
`Grant Street Group, Inc.
`429 Forbes AvenueSuite 1800
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`UNITED STATES
`faines.george@grantstreet.com
`Testimony For Plaintiff
`Melissa Gallo
`melissa.gallo@grantstreet.com
`/Melissa Gallo/
`12/18/2008
`Harrington Exhibits 2.pdf ( 129 pages )(9039289 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 TRADENLARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91177493
`Serial No. 78/722,5 0'7
`
`3 ) )
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`%N~
`
`GRANT STREET GROUP, INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`REALAUCTIONCOM, LLC,
`
`Applicant,
`
` .H§&
`
`__“__?J
`
`ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS T0 APPLICANT, REALAUCTION. COM,
`LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO OPPOSER./
`Pursuant to the provisions ofRule 33 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Pi'oeedu1‘e, 37
`C.F.R. § 2.120 and T1‘ade1jna1'k Trial and Appeal Board. Manual of Procedure § 406,
`GRANT STREET GROUP, INC. (“Opposer”) hereby submitsthe following: ANSWERS
`AND OBJECTIONS TO APPLICANT, REALAUCTIONCOM, LLC’S FIRST SET OF
`
`HNTERROGATORIES TO OPPOSER.
`
`
`
`GRANT STREET
`1800 Allegheny Building
`429 Forbes Avenue
`Pittsbu1'gh, PA 15219
`(412) 391-5555 x. 365
`(412) 391~760S
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`
`Grant Street Group, Inc_ v5_
`ReaiA_uctio11.com, LLC
`
`Opposition No. 91177493
`
`

`
`0PPOSER’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS REGARDING APPLICANT
`REALAUCTION. COM, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`The following reservation ofrights is applicable to App1ica.nt’s First Set of
`
`lnterrogatories to Opposer:
`
`1.
`
`Opposer’s investigation and discovery of the facts, events, and
`
`circumstances relating to this proceeding is ongoing. Opposer, therefore, reserves the
`
`right, at any time prior to the time of any trial or hearing in this proceeding, to add to,
`
`delete from, and otherwise cha.nge or modify its responses to any ofApplicant’s
`
`discovery requests as new information or tangible items become available to it, or as it
`
`obtains a new and different understanding of the facts, events, and circumstances.
`
`2..
`
`Opposer reserves the right to question the competency, relevancy,
`
`materiality, privilege, and admissibility as evidence, for any purpose, at any trial or
`
`‘ hearing in this proceeding, of any of the in
`
`formation and/or documents produced
`
`hereunder, or the subject in
`
`atter thereof Thus, Opposer’s response to any of Appiicanfs
`
`discovery requests shall not be construed as Opposer’s waiver of such rights.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer reserves the iight to object, on any ground, to the use of any
`
`information and/or document produced pursuant to a response to any of App1icant’s
`
`discovery requests, or the subj ec
`Thus, Opposefs response to any ofApplicanfs discovery requests shall not be construed
`
`t matter thereof, at any trial or hearing in this proceeding.
`
`as Opposer’s waiver of such rights.
`
`4.
`
`Opposer1'ese1'ves the right to object, on any ground a.nd at any time, to a
`
`demand by Applicant for any further response to any of App1icant’s discovery requests.
`
`

`
`0P1’OSER’S GENERAL OBJECTIONS T0 APPLICANT, REALAUCTION.
`COM, LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`The. following general objections are applicable to Applica11t’s First Set of
`
`lnteiwogatories to Opp oser:
`
`1.
`
`Opposer objects to the clefiiiitioiis and. 1'11st1‘L1etions co11tained.i1:1
`
`Applicanfs First Set of111te1'rogato1'ies, to the extent that they are iiiconsistent with the
`applicable Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure governiiig discovery, and seek to expand or
`
`modify Oppose1"s obligations under such Rules.
`2.
`Opposer objects generally to Applicanfs First Set of l11te1'1*ogato1‘ies, to the
`
`extent that they seek info1'mation protected by the attorney—client privilege and the work-
`
`product doctrine.
`3.
`Opposer objects generally to Applicant’s First Set of I11te1'rogato1‘ies, to the
`
`extent that they seek Oppose1"s and/or a third party’s confidential i11l'o1'matio11.
`
`4.
`
`Opposer objects generally to Appl'1cant’s First Set of '[ute1'rogato1‘ies and
`
`instructions contai11edtl1e1'ein, to the extent that they are vague, overly broad, ambiguous,
`
`unduly bu1‘de11so1ne, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant
`
`admissible evidence.
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 1:
`Identify each person who was consulted
`regarding informationrelating to any ofthe answers to this first set ofinterrogatories and
`
`the docuinents considered in responding to Applicant’s First Request for Production to
`
`Opposer served simultaneously herewit'h, and specify the interrogatory or request for
`
`production for which each identified person was consulted.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to lnterrogatory No. l to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`
`also objects to interrogatory No. 1 insofar as it seeks disclosure ofinforination protected
`
`by the attorney—client privilege and/or the work—product doctrine. Subject to and without
`
`' waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that the following persons were
`
`consulted: Myles Harrington, Daniel Veres, Helen. Johns, Cara Flati, Wade Horigan,
`
`David Dering, John Carver, Bob O'Neill, and Bill I-Iaskins.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`identify, i11 order ofrelative knowledge,
`
`from most to least, the ten persons, other than attorneys, who have the most knowledge or
`
`information relating to Opposer’s alleged use of, or intent to use, the designation
`
`REALAUCTION or the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTIONCOM marks in
`
`connection with Your Products or Services.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects, to lnterrogatory No. 2 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 2 insofar as it is wholly speculative, if not impossible,
`
`

`
`for Opposer to determine, “in order of relative knowledge,” which persons have the
`
`“most knowledge" ofthe iiiforlnation sought. Subject to and without waiving the
`
`foregoing objections, Opposer responds that the following persons have knowledge or
`
`information relating to Opposer’s alleged use of, or i11tent to use, the designation
`
`REALAUCTION or the RBALAUCTION or REALAUCTlON.COI\/I marlcs in
`
`connection with Your Products or Services: Myles I-Iarrington, Wade I-Iorigan, Helen
`
`Johns, Cara Flati, David Dering, John Carver, and Bob O’Nei'll.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Identify all persons other than agents or
`
`employees of Dpposer who can verify Opposer’s alleged use of the REALAUCTION or
`
`REALAUCTIONCOM marks in cominerce.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to lnterrogatory No. 3 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evid_ence. Opposer
`
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 3 insofar as Opposer has not completed its discovery
`
`and investigation in this proceeding and therefore may lack sufficient inforination to
`
`identify “all persons” at this time. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
`objections, Opposer responds that the following persons may be able to verify Opposer’s
`use of the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTIONCOM marks in commerce: Karen
`
`Adams, Treasurer and Tax Collector for Merced County, CA; Shelley Davis, Chief
`
`Deputy Treasurer fo1'Sunnn1't County, OH; Patricia Moretti, Deputy Treasurer for
`Mariposa County, CA; George Suarez, Technical Director for l\/Iia1ni—Dade County Clerk
`of Courts; Judith Fink, Director, Paul Cissell and Polly Cacurak of the Broward County
`
`

`
`Coinmissi
`
`on Revenue Collection Division; Karl Goodwin, Assistant Ad1ninist1'ative
`
`Officer with the Orange County Clerk of Courts.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 4:
`
`With respect to each exhibit referenced in,
`
`and appended to, the Notice of Opposition, identify the person(s) most knowledge
`
`able
`
`regarding its creation and its subject matter.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burc_lensoine and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`
`also objects to interrogatory No. 4 insofar as Applicant is already in possession ofthe
`
`exhibits appended to the Notice of Opposition, which speak for themselves, and the
`
`burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer to this intenogatory from such exhibits is
`
`substantially the same for the Applicant as for the Opposer. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that the person identified as the
`
`author of an exhibit(s) appended to the Notice of Opposition is likely to be the most
`
`knowledgeable regarding its creation and its subject matter.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 5:
`
`Describe in detail the circumstances leading
`
`to and the persons involved in your alleged conception, adoption, and use ofthe
`
`designation REALAUCTION and the REALAUCTION and REALAUCTIONCOM
`
`marks in coiniection with each ofYou1' Products or Services.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Inteirogatory No. 5 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensonie and not
`
`

`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Subject to
`
`and without waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that Myles I-Ia;rrington
`
`was involved in the conception, adoption and use ofthe designation REALAUCTION
`
`and the REALAUCTION and REALAUCTION.COM marks in connection with
`
`Opposer’s Products and/or Services. In 2003, while talking to various existing and
`prospective custoiners about 0ppose1"s LienAuctionTM application for on-line sale oftax
`certificates, Mr. Harrington conceived ofusing the designation REALAUCTION and the
`
`REALAUCTION and REALAUCTIONCOM 1'l1E11‘l(S in connection with an application
`
`for on-line tax deed auctions, which could be provided to Florida tax collectors with a
`
`suite of Opposer’s services including its Lie11AuctionTM application.
`
`TERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`IN
`
`Describe your efforts to obtain any and all
`
`local, state, or federal licenses, peirnits or other qualifications required in connection with
`Opposer’s “Internet-based auction service” business reiating “to tax deeds and/or,sheriff
`
`sales” as described in Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to lnterrogatory No. 6 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensoine and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Subject to
`
`and without waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that Paragraph 6 ofits
`
`Notice of Opposition does not describe, or refer to, any “local, state, or federal licenses,
`
`permits or other qiialificatioiis” that are required i11 connection with Opposer’s Internet-
`based auction services relating to tax deeds and/or sheriff sales. Consequently, Opposer is
`
`

`
`unable to determine the “licenses, permits or other qualifications” to which Applicant is
`
`referring in this lnterrcgatory.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. '7:
`
`Describe your efforts, if any, to obtain or
`
`'
`
`register the domaiii name “realauctioncom,’
`
`’ and identify all individuals involved in such
`
`efforts.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to lnterrogatory No. 7 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated. to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 7 insofar as it seeks disclosure ofini'o1‘mation protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or the worl<:—p1'oduct doctrine. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objeetions, Opposer responds that on October 29, 2003, John
`
`Carver was directed by Myles Harrington to check the availability of the domain name
`
`“realauction.con ”. Mr. Carver discovered that it was owned by an entity in Santa
`
`Monica, CA by the name ofHairLoss1-Ielp, Ino., and their registration was due to expire
`
`on November 10, 2003. He registered with Snapblames, a back-order domain acquisition
`
`service, and placed a backorder for the domain name.
`
`I-Iai1'LossI*Ielp renewed its
`
`registration for another year, ending November 10, 2004. On March 23, 2004, Mr.
`Carver ran a WHOIS search on the domain name and confirmed that it was still owned by
`
`HairLossHelp. On October 19, 2004, after learning ofthe Applicant’s acquisition of the
`
`domain name, Mr. Carver found that information as to ow11e1'ship had been blocked with
`
`a privacy blocker, and that the domain name had been transferred on September 22, 2004.
`
`

`
`Subsequently, Opposer filed an ICANN complaint against Applicant in December of
`
`2004, which was denied on or about February 7, 2005.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`—..—..—--.._...—.-——......-—._...__.............._..........
`
`State each mark, name or symbol ever
`
`considered as an alternative to the selection, adoption, acquisition, or use of the
`
`RBALAUCTION or RBALAUCTIONCOM marks by Opposer.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 8 to the extent and on
`
`the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to iead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to
`g the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that it did not consider
`
`and without waivin
`
`any alternative mark, name or symbol.
`
`NTERROGATORY N0. 9:
`.1_.__._._...____..___,_.___.._
`
`State whether any person has ever
`
`reconiniended or advised against the acquisition, adoption, or use of the designation
`
`REALAUCTION or the RBALAUCTION or REALAUCTIONCOM marks by Opposer.
`
`If so, please explain the facts and circumstances relating to such advice.
`Answer:
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 9 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Subject to
`and without waiving the foregoing objections, Opposcr responds that no person has ever
`
`reconnne11ded_ or advised against the acquisition, adoption, or use ofthe designation
`
`REALAUCTION or the REALAUC'l‘l0N or REALAUCTION. COM marks by Opposer.
`
`

`
` {
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`Identify the goods and/or services ofthe
`
`Opposer, or any lice11see or affiliated company, allegedly offered, sold or intended to be
`
`offered or sold under the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTIONCOM marks (i.e., Your
`
`Products and Services) and for each good and/or service state:
`
`(a)
`
`The date of first use of the n1ark(s) on or in connection with each ofYour
`
`Products or Services;
`
`(13)
`
`The date of each subsequent use of the 1nark(s) on or in connection with
`
`each of Your Products or Services;
`
`(c)
`
`On an annual basis, the quantities and amount of sales in dollars of goods
`
`or services sold under the II1EL1‘l{(S) since the date of alleged first use for
`
`each of Your Products or Services;
`
`(d)
`
`The states, on a state-by—state basis, where Your Products or Services have
`
`been sold and the corresponding date(s) or such saie(s);
`
`(e)
`
`(35)
`
`The current or proposed price ofeach ofYour Products or Services;
`
`The class of customers to whom Your Products or Services were or are
`
`intended to be offered or sold;
`
`(g)
`
`The current or proposed cliannels of trade and distribution for Your
`
`Products of Services (e.g., the Internet); and
`
`(11)
`
`The manner in which the 1narlc(s) was or is intended. to be used in
`
`association with each of Your Products or Services.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 10 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence and seeks disclosure
`
`l0
`
`

`
`ofOpposer’s confidential information. Opposer also objects to Interrogatoiy No. 10
`insofar as Applicant is already in possession of exhibits appended to the Notice of
`
`Opposition which contain in'l"o1'1nation sought in this hiterrogatory and the burden of
`
`deriving or ascertaining the answer to this Interrogatory from such exhibits is
`
`substantially the same for the Applicant as for the Opposer. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds as follows: Opposer provides an
`
`lnte1net—based auction platform pertaining to tax -deed and/or sheriff sales. Opposer first
`
`used the R.BALAUCTlON1narkin connection with its Services on October 28, 2003.
`
`The class of custoiners to whom Opposer’s Services are intended to be sold includes
`
`county treasurers, tax collectors, and clerks of courts. The proposed channels oftrade
`and distribution for Opposer’s Services include the Internet, written sales proposals, and
`
`direct in person contacts with customers. The REALAUCTION and
`
`REALAUC'I‘ION.COM marks are intended to be used as service marks for {Jpposer’s
`
`Services and to identify the Services as one application in a "family or suite ofrelated
`
`products and services, which include Opposer’s LienAuctionTM, YieldAuctionTM,
`Auctionserv® and MuniAuction® software applications. See Eadiibits I through 0 of
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Ideiitify all proinotional, inarketiiig, and/or
`
`iiifonnational materials relating to Opposefs products or services allegedly sold or
`
`rendered under the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTIONCOM marks (i.e., Your
`
`Products and Services) that you claim, in Paragraphs 9 though 11 of your Notice of
`
`11
`
`

`
`Opposition, to have distributed to existing and/or prospective customers on or about
`
`October 28, 2003 and identify:
`
`(a)
`
`Each existing and prospective customer to which the materials were sent,
`
`(b)
`
`(0)
`(cl)
`
`stating Whether the customer was existing or prospective;
`The method. by which the materials were sent (i.e. via U.S. Mail, e~rnai1,
`
`etc.);
`
`Whether the materials were solicited or unsolicited‘,
`Whether the materials sent related solely to Opposer’s products or services
`
`allegedly sold or rendered under the REALAUCTION or
`
`REALAUCTIONCOM marlcs or to other products and services offered by
`
`Opposer; and
`
`(e)
`
`The total number ofpages ofrnaterials sent to each customer‘ or
`
`prospective customer.
`Answer:
`Opposer objects to Lnterrogatory No. 11 to the extent and
`
`on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 11 insofar as Applicant is already in possession of
`exhibits appended to the Notice ofOpposition which contain inibrlnation sought in this
`Interrogatory and the burden ofderiving or ascertaining the answer to this Interrogatory
`from such exhibits is substantially the same for the Applicant as for the Opposer. Subject
`to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that it sent marketing
`materials via email or US. mail to prospective customers Karen Adams, Shelley Davis,
`
`and Patricia Moretti, as well as other attendees of a California Associati
`
`on of County
`
`12
`
`

`
`Treasurers and Tax Collectors conference, who had solicited sueI1info1‘mation. The
`niarketing mateiials related to a number of Opposefis products and services and included
`a profile for Oppose1"s Luternet-based application for the sale oftax deeds under the
`RBALAUCTION mark. See Exlnlnits D, I, J and L appended to Notice of Opposition.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 12:
`
`Identify all prolnotional, rnarketing, and/or
`
`informational materials relating to Opposer’s products or services allegedly sold or
`
`rendered under the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTION.COl\/I lnarks (i.e., Your
`Products and Services) that you claim, in Paragraphs 13 though 18 of your Notice of
`Opposition, to have distributed to existing and/or prospective customers at any time after
`
`Octohe1'28, 2003 and identify:
`(a)
`Each existing and prospective customer to which the materials were sent,
`stating whether the customer was existing or prospective;
`
`(la)
`
`The date or dates on which the materials were sent to each customer or
`
`prospective customer;
`The method by which the materials were sent (i.e. via U.S. Mail, e-mail,
`
`(0)
`
`etc.)',
`
`((1) Whether suel1111ateria1s were solicited or unsolicited;
`(e)
`Whether the materials sent related solely to 0pposer’s products or services
`allegedly sold or rendered under the REALAUCTION or
`REALAUCTIONCOM marks or to other products and services offered by
`
`Opposer; and
`
`13
`
`

`
`(f)
`
`The total number ofpages of materials sent to each customer or
`
`prospective customer.
`Answer:
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 12 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`dy in possession of
`
`also objects to Interrogatoiy No. 12 insofar as Applicant is alrea
`exhibits appended to the Notice of Opposition which contain information sought in this
`Interrogatory and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer to this lnterrogatory
`item such exhibits is substantially the same for the Applicant as for the Opposer. Subject
`to and without waiving the foregoilig objections, Opposer responds as follows: Opposer
`distributed marketing materials relating to Opposer’s I11ternet—based auction platform for
`
`tax deed and/or sheriffsales, in connection with which Opposer used the
`REALAUCTION mark, to George Suarez and other represeirtatives ofthe Miami—Dade,
`FL, County Clerk of C01.l1'llS Office on July 6, 2004 during a direct in-person meeting.
`Such inaterials were solicited and were distributed along with marketing materials for a
`number of Opposer’s products and services. Between July and August of2004, Opposer
`distributed similar marketing and informational materials relating to Opposer’s Internet-
`based auction platform for tax deed and/or sheriff sales, in connection with which
`Opposer used the REALAUCTION mark to Judith Fink, Paul Cissell, and other
`representatives ofthe Broward County Commission Revenue Collection Division. See
`Exhibits D, Q, U and V appended to Notice of Opposition which identify the above and
`additional materials that Opposer distributed to existing and/or prospective customers
`
`after October 28, 2003.
`
`14
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`
`With respect to each customer or
`
`prospective customer identified in your responses to interrogatories 9 and 10 above, state
`whether the customer or prospective customer has at any time purchased or otherwise
`utilized Your Products and Services, and if so, identify the date of each purchase and/or
`use, the amount paid in connection with each purchase or use, and the agent or employee
`
`of Opposer responsible for each purchase or use.
`Answer:
`Opposer objects to lnterrogatory No. 13 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`further objects to this Interrogatory insofar as Inte1'rogatories 9 and 10 do not ask Opposer
`to identify any customer or prospective customer. Subject to and without waiving the
`foregoing objections, Opposer responds that there have been no purchases to date.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`Identify any customer list(s) maintained by
`Opposer and as to each such list, identify each customer, stating the inclusive dates each
`customer has been a customer of Opposer and whether the customer has inquired about,
`
`purchased, or otherwise utilized Your Products and Services.
`Answer:
`Opposer objections to [nterrogatory No. 14 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 14 to the extent it is redundant, and seeks information
`requested in a prior interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
`
`15
`
`

`
`objections, Opposer responds as follows: See Answer to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 11 and 12,
`
`and Exhibit 0 appended to the Notice of Opposition.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 15:
`Opposer’s and any related entity’s orpe1'so11’s use ofthe designation REALAUCTION or
`the REALAUCTION and REALAUCTIONCOM 1'l1fl.1'l(S since Opposer’s alleged date of
`
`Identify all documents that reflect or refer to
`
`first use, October 28, 2003.
`Answer:
`Opposer objects to Inteirogatory No. 15 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofrelevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 15 i'nsofa.r as Applicant is already in possession of
`exhibits appended to the Notice ofOpposition which contain information sought in this
`Interrogatory and the burden of deriving or ascertainiiig the answer to this lnteirogatory
`from such exhibits is substantially the same for the Applicant as for the Opposer.
`Opposer further objects to Interrogatory No. 15 to the extent it is redundant and seeks
`information requested in a prior Interrogatory. Subject to and without waiving the
`s, Opposer responds as follows: See Answer to lnterrogatory Nos. 10,
`
`‘foregoing objection
`
`11 and 12.
`
`IN’1‘ERROGAT()RY N0. 16:
`
`ldeiifify each present or past agent or
`
`employee ofOpposer who, at any time has had iesponsibility for the marketing,
`advertising, proniotion, or sale of Your Products or Services and, as to each person
`
`16
`
`

`
`identified for this i11terrogatory, describe the services performed and the dates during
`
`which the services were perfornied.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 16 to the extent and on the
`
`-grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to
`
`and without waiving the i"o1'egoing objections, Opposer responds that Cara Flati, Helen
`
`Iohns, and Katherine Miller are andlor have been responsible for the marketing and
`promotion of Oppose1"s Products and Services in the normal course oftheir duties and
`employment. In 2003, Cara Flati created a product profile for Opposer’s tax deed
`application in connection with which Oppcser used the REALAUCTION rnark, which is
`attached as Exhibit D to the Notice of Opposition. Myles Harrington and Wade Horigan
`
`have been involved in the prornotion and saies of 0pposer’s Products and Services. See
`
`Exhibits 1 through V of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 17:
`
`Identify each adve1'tisen1ent,ii" any, by or on
`
`behalf of Opposer using or contaiinng the designation REALAUCTION or the
`
`REALAUCTION or REALAUCTIONCOM marks ever published, broadcast or
`
`displayed, including without limitation advertiseinents in newspapers and magazines,
`handbiils, prornotioiial flyers, and advertisements on radio and TV or other media, and
`
`for each such advertisemeritz
`
`(a)
`
`State the date on which it was published, broadcast, displayed, or
`
`distributed;
`
`1’?
`
`

`
`(b)
`
`Identify each publication in which it was published by title, date and page
`
`number or the radio or television station over which broadcast or the
`
`(c).
`
`((1)
`
`location in which displayed;
`
`State the goods or services advertised;
`
`State the market area by political subdivision and classes of customers,
`
`geography or other division, if any, to which the advertising was directed;
`
`and
`
`(e)
`
`Identify all persons affiliated with Opposer or any advertising agency or
`
`media provider who worked on or with the advertisement.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to lnterrogatory No. 17 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that it is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Subject to
`
`and without waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds that there have been no
`
`such advertisements.
`
`INTERROGA'l‘0RY NO. 18:
`
`Identify each present or past agent or
`
`employee of Opposer who has _had responsibility for lnaintaining Oppose1"s website,
`www.grantstreet.co1n, and, as to each person ide11tifiedfo1‘tI1is interrogatory, describe
`
`with particularity the services performed and the dates during which services were
`
`performed and identify any documents evidencing the services performed or directions
`
`given to perform such services.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to [nterrogatory No. 18 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that
`
`it
`
`is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`
`18
`
`

`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`
`further objects to Inteirogatory No. 18 on the grounds that it seeks information that is
`
`irrelevant, iminaterial and unrelated to the subject matter of this proceeding. Subject to
`
`and without waiving the ibregoing objections, Opposer responds that Bob 'O’Ne1'1l
`
`maintains Opposer’s website in the normal course of his duties and employment. While
`
`such services are ongoing and too varied to be listed here, Bob O’Nefll was directed on
`
`November 11, 2004 to design and iinpleinent a Legal Notice for Opposer’s website and
`
`to design and i1nple1ne1_1ta webpage with a product profile for Opposer’s tax deed auction
`
`service.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
`
`Identify any search, survey, pretest, poll, or
`
`other investigation that has been conducted by or on behalf of Opposer concerning the
`
`public’s recognition of, or reaction to, the REALAUCTION and/or
`REALAUCTIOI\l.COM marks as associated with Your Products or Services. Please
`
`identify all documents supporting your answer and all witnesses with lmowledge thereof.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 19 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that
`
`it
`
`is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensoine and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`
`also objects to Interrogatoiy No. 19 insofar as it seeks disclosure of information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer states that it has not conducted any such
`
`search, survey, pretest, poll, or other investigation.
`
`19
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
`
`(a)
`
`Has Oppeser or any attorney or agent acting on behalf of Opposer ever
`
`made or caused to be made any search relating to the registration or use of the
`
`designation REALAUCTION or the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTION.COI\/I marks
`
`or related. marks by persons other than Opposer or to determine the availability or
`
`registrability of the marks as tradernaiics or service marks?
`
`(1))
`
`If the answer to paragraph (a) of this interrogatory is other than an
`
`unqualified negative, state as to each such search:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`The date on which the search was made;
`
`The person requesting the search;
`
`The person who perfonned the search;
`
`The actions, if any, taken by Opposer as a result of any matter
`
`revealed in the report or any such search.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 20 to the extent and on the
`
`grounds that
`
`it
`
`is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduiy burdensoine and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant achnissible evidence. Opposer
`
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 20 insofar as it seeks disclosure of information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work—produet doctrine. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objections, Opposer responds as follows: In 2004, Opposer sought
`
`legal advice from Mark Fischer, Esq., an attorney in Pittsburgh, PA, and Paul Chirgott,
`Esq., Opposer’s ‘former General Counsel, with respect
`to the registration of the
`REALAUCTION and REALAUCTIONCOM marks. Thereafter, Mr. Chirgott filed
`
`trademark applications for the marks REALAUCTION and REALAUCTIONCOM with
`
`20
`
`

`
`the Florida Department of State on October 21 and 22, 2004, respectively and with the
`
`USPTO on November 14, 2005.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
`
`Identify any search, survey, nretest, poll, or
`
`other investigation that has been conducted by or on behalf of Opposer concerning the
`
`likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception resulting from the use ofthe designation
`
`REALAUCTION or the REALAUCTION or REALAUCTION.COl\/I marks by each of
`
`the Applicant and the Opposer.
`Answer:
`Opposer objects to hiterrogatory No. 21 to the extent and on the
`
`is vague, overly broad, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and not
`it
`grounds that
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Opposer
`also objects to Interrogatory No. 21 insofar as it seeks

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket