Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA218955
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/19/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91180471
`Plaintiff
`Marc Vianello
`Arthur K. Shaffer
`Intellectual Property Center, LLC
`9233 Ward ParkwaySuite 100
`Kansas City, MO 64114
`UNITED STATES
`ashaffer@theIPCenter.com
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`Arthur K. Shaffer
`ashaffer@theIPCenter.com, manesha@theIPCenter.com
`/Arthur K. Shaffer/
`06/19/2008
`Motion and Brief to Compel Discovery.pdf ( 7 pages )(22519 bytes )
`Exhibit A_motion to Compel.pdf ( 26 pages )(1161249 bytes )
`Exhibit B_motion to Compel.pdf ( 3 pages )(716997 bytes )
`Exhibit C_motion to Compel.pdf ( 1 page )(312364 bytes )
`Exhibit D_motion to Compel.pdf ( 4 pages )(1475582 bytes )
`Exhibit E_motion to Compel.pdf ( 3 pages )(1008946 bytes )
`Exhibit F_motion to Compel.pdf ( 3 pages )(323415 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE
`THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.:91180471
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Marc Vianello
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Sandra Nudelman
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S COMBINED MOTION TO COMPEL
`AND MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND TRIAL DATES
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
`
`
`
`
`
`2.120 of the Trademark Rules of Practice, Opposer Marc Vianello (“Opposer”)
`
`respectfully moves the Board for an order compelling Applicant Sandra Nudelman.
`
`(“Applicant”) to make herself available to Opposer’s Depostion Request without
`
`objections.
`
`
`
`In addition, Opposer requests an extension of the discovery period for the limited
`
`purpose of allowing Opposer (and not Applicant) time to consider Applicant’s deposition
`
`testimony as ordered by the Board, and to pursue follow-up discovery if necessary.
`
`
`
`Such an order is appropriate because Applicant failed entirely to respond to
`
`Opposer’s Interrogatories and Document Requests prior to the Discovery cut-off date and
`
`Applicant failed to make herself available for the scheduled Depostion and has since
`
`stated that she will not comply with Opposer’s deposition request. Counsel for Opposer
`
`has made good faith efforts to resolve the issues with Applicant but, to date, such efforts
`
`have been unsuccessful.
`
`

`
`I.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On October 31, 2007, Opposer filed a Notice of Opposition against Application
`
`Serial No. 77/110,266 for Ms. Nudelman’s mark for “background investigation and
`
`research services” and “legal services.” Opposer asserts, among other things, that it owns
`
`the distinctive marks shown in Serial Nos. 77/031,981, 77/212,172, (“the Vianello
`
`Marks”) for various electronic and print publication needs1. Opposer also asserts that he
`
`has extensively used and promoted the Vianello marks in the United States since at least
`
`as early as September 1, 2007 (Not. of Opp. ¶ 2-5), well prior to the date of Applicant’s
`
`use of Applicant’s mark which was filed as an Intent to Use and no Statement of Use has
`
`been entered. As grounds for the opposition, Opposer alleges priority of use and
`
`likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C § 1052(d) and
`
`dilution under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). (Not. of Opp.
`
`¶¶6-8).
`
`
`1 THE JUDICIAL VIEW, U.S. Application Serial No. 77/031,981, filed October 30, 2006, in international
`class 041 for “publication of an online legal newspaper,” and THE JUDICIAL VIEW, U.S. Application
`Serial No, 77/212,172, filed June 21, 2007, in international class 038 for “providing e-mail notification
`alerts of recent court decisions to others” and in international class 041 for “providing on-line publications
`in the nature of newspapers, newsletters, magazines, and articles in the field of law, classified advertising,
`display and text advertising, law review, legal case summaries, feature articles, current events, civil rights,
`finance and banking, communications, immigration, education, politics, administrative law, agriculture,
`intellectual property, antitrust, bankruptcy, civil procedure, civil remedies, commercial contracts, computer
`and technology, conflicts at law, constitutional law, criminal justice, corporate and shareholder law,
`employment law, energy and utilities, environmental law, expert witness, family law, health, immigration,
`international law, lost profits, maritime and marine, military, products liability, professional malpractice,
`real and personal property, securities law, federal, state and local taxation, torts and personal injury,
`veterans, wills, trusts and estates, sports, entertainment, art, government, insurance, transportation, business
`valuation, alternative dispute resolution and legal matters; on-line journals, namely, blogs featuring
`information on recent court decisions, current events, civil rights, finance and banking, communications,
`immigration, education, politics, administrative law, agriculture, intellectual property, antitrust, bankruptcy,
`civil procedure, civil remedies, commercial contracts, computer and technology, conflicts at law,
`constitutional law, criminal justice, corporate and shareholder law, employment law, energy and utilities,
`environmental law, expert witness, family law, health, immigration, international law, lost profits, maritime
`and marine, military, products liability, professional malpractice, real and personal property, securities law,
`federal, state and local taxation, torts and personal injury, veterans, wills, trusts and estates, sports,
`entertainment, art, government, insurance, transportation, business valuation, alternative dispute resolution
`and legal matters.”
`
`

`
`
`
`On October 31, 2007, the Board instituted this proceeding and set discovery to
`
`open on November 20, 2007, and to close on May 18, 2008. Applicant’s Answer to the
`
`Notice of Opposition was due December 10, 2007.
`
`
`
`On December 10, 2007, Applicant filed an answer denying the essential
`
`allegations in the Notice of Opposition. On April 14, 2008, Opposer served the
`
`Applicant with Opposer’s First Request for the Production of Documents and Opposer’s
`
`First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant. (Copies of these Requests are attached as
`
`Exhibit A.) Responses to Opposer’s discovery requests were due May 14, 2008. On
`
`April 19, 2008 Opposer served Applicant with Opposer’s Request for Deposition (copy
`
`of which is attached as Exhibit B). This deposition was scheduled to be conducted in
`
`Brooklyn, NY on May 15, 2008 near Applicant’s address in the city of Applicant’s
`
`residence as listed with the TTAB.
`
`
`
`Opposer’s requests were all served on Applicant within the time permitted by 37
`
`CFR § 2.120(a) and were in compliance with all applicable discovery rules. The
`
`deposition was noticed in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b) and 37 CFR § 2.120(a).
`
`The deposition was scheduled to be completed at an appropriate venue in accordance
`
`with 37 CFR § 2.120(b) based on Applicant’s residential address contained in the record.
`
`On May 7, 2008, after a phone call by Opposer on May 6 confirming receipt of
`
`said notices, Applicant sent Opposer notice via fax (attached as Exhibit C) indicating that
`
`Applicant needed to reschedule the deposition because she was unavailable. In addition,
`
`she notified Applicant that it would be more convenient if Opposer would send future
`
`communications to Applicant’s home address, which was different from that listed with
`
`the TTAB.
`
`

`
`More than ten days after a response was due, On May 27, 2008, Applicant sent
`
`Opposer’s attorney a letter refusing to provide discovery (attached as Exhibit D). In the
`
`letter, Applicant stated that Opposer’s discovery demands were premature and improper
`
`because “Opposer never attempted, in good faith, to hold required Discovery Plan
`
`Conference or work out a Discovery schedule with the Applicant…prior to initiating
`
`Discovery demands….” In addition, Applicant stated that because leave of court was not
`
`obtained prior to Opposer’s “unilateral discovery demands” and because Opposer made
`
`no attempt to schedule or hold a Discovery Plan Conference, Opposer had waived any
`
`right to further Discovery.
`
`Opposer then responded via First Class Mail on May 27, 2008 (attached as
`
`Exhibit E) to Applicant’s May 27, 2008 letter demanding compliance with Opposer’s
`
`Discovery Requests, referring Applicant to the relevant rules and suggesting she obtain
`
`counsel. Specifically, Opposer requested compliance by (1) producing documents
`
`responsive to Opposer’s request for production, (2) providing written responses to
`
`Opposer’s interrogatories, and (3) rescheduling her deposition.
`
`
`
`On June 2, 2008, via facsimile, Applicant provided written responses to
`
`Opposer’s First Set of Document Requests and Interrogatories. However, Applicant has
`
`still refused to comply with Opposer’s Deposition request as stated in her June 2, 2008
`
`transmittal letter (attached as Exhibit F).
`
`
`
`

`
`II. MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`A.
`
`Opposer Has Made a Good Faith Effort to Work with Applicant
`
`In accordance with Trademark Rule 2.120(e), Opposer submits that it has made a
`
`good faith effort to resolve with Applicant the issues presented in the motion.
`
`Specifically, Opposer has contacted Applicant and requested that she comply with
`
`Discovery Demands and that she obtain competent counsel, but Applicant has not
`
`responded timely to Opposer’s Requests and has made it abundantly clear that she will
`
`not. As detailed above, Applicant has not responded timely to Opposer’s discovery
`
`requests, and has informed Opposer that such testimony will not be forthcoming in the
`
`foreseeable future.
`
`B.
`
`Applicant Forfeited its Right to Object
`
`The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) provides
`
`that a party that fails to comply with discovery requests and deposition requests during
`
`the time allowed therefor, and which is unable to show that its failure was the result of
`
`excusable neglect, may be found, upon motion to compel filed by the propounding party,
`
`to have forfeited its right to object to discovery on the merits. See TBMP §§ 403.03 and
`
`407.01, citing Bison Corp. V. Perfecta Chemie B.V., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1718 (TTAB 1987);
`
`Luehrmann v. Kwik Kopy Corp., 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1303 (TTAB 1987).
`
`

`
`Notice was sent on April 19, 2008 scheduling Applicant’s deposition for May 15,
`
`2008, prior to the close of discovery. Applicant failed to appear or make herself available
`
`pursuant to the notice. Applicant’s discovery responses were due on or before May 14,
`
`2008. Applicant’s belated responses were received on June 2, 2008, more than ten days
`
`after discovery had closed and more than three weeks after they were due. As we are
`
`now more than three weeks beyond the close of discovery and into the testimony period
`
`without receiving the requested discovery, Opposer is placed at a disadvantage in
`
`determining what testimony to seek in order to bolster its claims and rebut Applicant’s
`
`assertions. Accordingly, Opposer respectfully requests that the Board order Applicant to
`
`fully respond to Opposer’s Notice of Deposition without objections within the first
`
`twenty days from the mailing date of the Board’s order on this motion.
`
`
`
`III. MOTION TO EXTEND
`
`
`
`In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), Opposer hereby moves the Board for a
`
`thirty (30) days extension of the discovery period for the limited purpose of allowing
`
`Opposer (and not Applicant) time to review Applicant’s deposition responses as ordered
`
`by the Board, and to pursue follow-up discovery if necessary. Opposer also requests an
`
`extension of its testimony periods.
`
`
`
`As detailed above, Opposer has been diligent during the discovery period.
`
`Opposer served discovery prior to the discovery cut-off and after receipt of Applicant’s
`
`Answer to the Notice of Opposition. Opposer has also expended considerable expense in
`
`obtaining local counsel and making counsel available for the Scheduled Deposition.
`
`

`
`
`
`Opposer also made a good faith effort to resolve this matter before filing a motion
`
`to compel. Applicant, on the other hand, has not proceeded in good faith, denying all of
`
`Opposer’s discovery requests and failing to review the rules governing this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Opposer does not seek an extension of time for purposes of delay. It is requested
`
`that the limited thirty (30) day extension run from the date of service of Applicant’s
`
`discovery responses as ordered by the Board, and that the discovery period be otherwise
`
`closed.
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, Opposer respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`Opposer’s motion to compel and order Applicant to respond to Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Deposition without objections within twenty days from the mailing date of the Board’s
`
`ruling on the motion. Opposer also respectfully requests that the Board grant Opposer’s
`
`motion for an extension of the discovery period for the limited purpose of allowing
`
`Opposer (and not Applicant) time to review Applicant’s discovery responses as ordered
`
`by the Board, and to pursue follow-up discovery if necessary. Opposer requests that the
`
`extension run from the date of service of Applicant’s discovery responses as ordered by
`
`the Board, and that the discovery period be otherwise closed. Opposer requests that its
`
`testimony period be re-set to follow close of its discovery.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`______________________________
`
`Attorney for Opposer,
`Marc Vianello
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`In the matter of application
`Serial No.:
`77/110,266
`
`
`Filed:
`April 14, 2008
`
`
`Applicant:
`Sandra L. Nudelman
`
`
`Mark:
`JUDICIAL REVIEW
`
`
`Published:
`August 14, 2007
`
`
`
`
`MARC VIANELLO,
` Opposer,
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`SANDRA L. NUDELMAN,
` Applicant.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91180471
`
`OPPOSER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANT
`
`Pursuant to Section 2.120 of the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases and Rule
`
`
`
`
`
`33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Opposer, Marc Vianello, by its undersigned
`
`attorneys, requests that Applicant, Sandra L. Nudelman, answer the following interrogatories in
`
`accordance with the instructions below. As required by Rule 33, the interrogatories are to be
`
`answered separately, under oath, within thirty (30) days from their date of service. These
`
`interrogatories are continuing and the responses thereto must be supplemented to the extent
`
`required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`
`
`

`
`Instructions and Definitions
`
`Unless otherwise indicated, the following definitions and instructions shall be
`
`
`
`
`
`applicable:
`
`
`
`A. "Opposer" means Marc Vianello and each of his employees, agents or
`
`representatives, accountants, attorneys or other individuals acting or purporting to act on her
`
`behalf.
`
`
`
`B. "Applicant" means Sandra L. Nudelman. and each of her employees, agents or
`
`representatives, accountants, attorneys or other individuals acting or purporting to act on her
`
`behalf.
`
`
`
`C. "Use" of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark shall infer to the actual use of the
`
`mark and/or the intended use of the mark.
`
`
`
`D. Reference to Applicant's JUDICIAL REVIEW mark refers to the mark
`
`identified in U. S. trademark application Serial No. 77/110,266 and/or any variations of such
`
`mark.
`
`
`
`E. "Documents" shall have the same meaning and scope as in Rule 34(a) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall include without limitation correspondence,
`
`memoranda, reports, minutes of meetings, agreements, notes, studies, plans, analyses, work
`
`papers, statistical and financial records, stationery, letterhead, press releases, records or notes of
`
`meetings, conferences, telephone calls, or other conversations, invoices, checks, printouts,
`
`videos, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, data processing tapes, disks, or other records,
`
`phonographs, tapes, product prototypes, or other recordings, data compilations and all copies of
`
`any documents that contain any notation or otherwise differ from the original and other copies,
`
`in the possession, custody or under the control of Applicant and specifically including any and
`-2-
`
`

`
`all drafts of the above and any and all handwritten notes or notations in whatever form.
`
`
`
`F. When used in connection with a person, "identify" means to state the person's
`
`full name, present (or last known) address, present place of business or employment, present
`
`position, present phone number, and email address.
`
`
`
`G. When used in connection with a document, "identify" means to state the
`
`document's title or other subject matter identification, date, author(s) and recipient(s) (including
`
`all recipients of copies).
`
`
`
`H. When used in connection with an occurrence, “identify” means to state the
`
`date of the occurrence, the person or persons involved in the occurrence, if the occurrence was
`
`recorded, each and every document related to the occurrence, and any follow up activities related
`
`to the occurrence.
`
`
`
`I. When used in connection with a company, "identify" means to state the
`
`company's full legal name, its trading name(s) if any, its place of incorporation if any, its
`
`principal business address, and the identity of the person or persons having knowledge of the
`
`matter with respect to which the company is named.
`
`
`
`J. Wherever used herein, the singular shall be deemed to include the plural, the
`
`plural shall be deemed to include the singular; the masculine shall be deemed to include the
`
`feminine and the feminine shall be deemed to include the masculine; the disjunctive ("or") shall
`
`be deemed to include the conjunctive ("and"), and the conjunctive ("and") shall be deemed to
`
`include the disjunctive ("or").
`
`
`
`K. A document "relating," "related," or "which relates" to any given subject
`
`includes any document that constitutes, contains, embodies, evidences, reflects, identifies, states,
`
`refers to, deals with, or is in any way pertinent to that subject, including without limitation,
`-3-
`
`

`
`documents concerning the preparation of other documents.
`
`
`
`L. If a claim of privilege is asserted concerning any document for which
`
`identification is requested, please:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Identify the document with sufficient particularity so the matter may be
`
`brought before the Board. This identification should include its date, author,
`
`recipients, length and subject matter;
`
`
`
`
`
`2. State the nature of the privilege asserted; and
`
`3. State in detail the basis for the claim of privilege.
`
`M. To the extent that you consider any of the following interrogatories subject to
`
`objection, respond to that part of each interrogatory to which you do not object, and separately
`
`describe that part of each interrogatory to which you object and each ground for objection.
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`Interrogatories
`
`
`
`A. Identify by common commercial descriptive name each product and/or service
`
`which has been or is intended to be sold, offered for sale, manufactured, advertised and/or
`
`rendered by Applicant in the United States under the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark.
`
`
`
`B. For each type of product and service identified in answering subpart "A"
`
`above:
`
`
`
`
`
` i. State the date of first use by Applicant in the United States of the
`
`JUDICIAL REVIEW mark in connection with the product or service;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii. Describe the circumstances surrounding such first use;
`
` iii. Identify the geographical location of such first use;
`
` iv. State the date and geographical location of last use in the United
`
`States of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark in conjunction with the product or service;
`
`
`
`
`
` v. State the dollar volume of sales of the product or service bearing the
`
`JUDICIAL REVIEW mark from the date of first use to the present, on a yearly basis;
`
`
`
`
`
` vi. State the dollar volume expended by Applicant in advertising the
`
`product or service bearing the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark from the date of first use to the
`
`present, on a yearly basis;
`
`
`
`
`
`vii. Describe the wholesale, retail and/or other channels of trade in the
`
`United States through which the product or service is distributed, rendered and/or sold;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` viii. State the intended end use of the product or service;
`
` ix. Identify each type or class of consumers and/or end users for the
`-5-
`
`

`
`product or service and/or the characteristics of the consumers and/or end users for the product or
`
`service, and the class or type of purchaser or end user to which Applicant concentrates its
`
`marketing efforts.
`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`
`
`In connection with Applicant's Affirmative Defenses, explain with particularity
`
`each fact known to Applicant which it asserts is a basis for such Affirmative Defenses.
`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 3
`
`
`
`A. Identify individuals and/or businesses and identify the nature of such
`
`individuals and/or businesses who buy, sell and/or use and/or are intended to buy, sell and/or use
`
`Applicant's services bearing the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark.
`
`
`
`B. For each service listed in Applicant's application, explain with particularity
`
`the purpose of such services, the uses of such services and those who are intended to receive
`
`such services.
`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 4
`
`
`
`Identify each person who supervised, participated in or was involved in the
`
`origination, clearance, selection, and adoption of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark to identify
`
`Applicant and Applicant's services, and describe with particularity the circumstances
`
`surrounding the origination, clearance, selection, and adoption of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark
`
`including, but not limited to, the date of origination, the derivation of the mark, the meaning or
`
`suggestive connotation of the mark, if any, and identify any searches that were conducted for
`
`third party uses or registrations of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark.
`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 5
`
`
`
`State the date Applicant first became aware of Opposer's use of THE JUDICIAL
`
`VIEW mark, and describe the circumstances surrounding this first awareness, including, but not
`
`limited to, the identity of the person(s) associated with Applicant who first became aware of
`
`Opposer's use thereof.
`
`Answer:
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 6
`
`
`
`Identify all occurrences of actual confusion known to Applicant resulting from the
`
`contemporaneous use or offering of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark by Applicant and THE
`
`JUDICIAL VIEW mark by Opposer, giving the date of, location of, and circumstances
`
`surrounding each such occurrence, including the persons confused in each case and the persons
`
`witnessing each such occurrence.
`
`Answer:
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 7
`
`
`
`A. Identify each magazine and trade journal in which Applicant has advertised or
`
`plans to advertise or promote itself or its services under the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark.
`
`
`
`B. Identify each trade presentation, seminar, and meeting Applicant has attended
`
`or plans to attend at which it promoted itself or its services under the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark.
`
`
`
`C. Identify any other media, including internet websites Applicant has used or
`
`intends to use to promote itself or its services under the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark, including
`
`the dates of such use, the name of each media, and the person who has custody of the copy of
`
`each use.
`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 8
`
`
`
`Identify each individual, employee, agent or representative of Applicant, from the
`
`earliest date of use of the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark asserted by Applicant to the present, who
`
`was and/or is primarily responsible for marketing, advertising, sales or other distribution, or
`
`manufacturing of any products or services made, rendered, sold, offered for sale, distributed by
`
`Applicant, or intended for sale or distribution under the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark and briefly
`
`describe their respective duties and the products or services for which they are or were
`
`responsible.
`
`Answer:
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 9
`
`
`
`Identify all advertising agencies, marketing agencies or other business entities,
`
`and the account executives at each such agency or other entity, that have been responsible for the
`
`advertising and promotion of Applicant's goods or services bearing the JUDICIAL REVIEW
`
`mark and state the time period when each was so responsible.
`
`Answer:
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 10
`
`
`
`Identify all agreements, including licenses and assignments, entered into by
`
`Applicant relating to the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark, and identify all persons participating in the
`
`negotiation and creation of each such agreement and the parties to each such agreement.
`
`Answer:
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 11
`
`
`
`Identify all interviews, surveys, or public opinion polls conducted by or on behalf
`
`of Applicant pertaining or relating to the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark by date, title, and company
`
`or other entity conducting the interview, survey, or public opinion poll and the person requesting
`
`the survey.
`
`Answer:
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 12
`
`
`
`A. Identify with particularity all trademark registrations of, and all trademark
`
`applications to register the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark or other designations including the
`
`formative "JUDICIAL REVIEW" owned and/or filed by Applicant in the United States
`
`(including state applications and registrations) by date of registration or filing date, status,
`
`registration or serial number, country or state, the goods and/or services listed in the application
`
`or registration, and the date or dates of first use claimed in the application or registration.
`
`
`
`B. If any application identified in answering subpart "A" above was abandoned
`
`without a registration issuing therefrom, identify each such application, state the date of
`
`abandonment, and state why the application was abandoned.
`
`Answer:
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 13
`
`
`
`Identify all objections by Applicant and all legal proceedings instituted by
`
`Applicant against third parties' use of trade names, trademarks, service marks or other
`
`designations based on Applicant's perceived rights in the JUDICIAL REVIEW mark and
`
`provide:
`
`
`
`(a) Country or state in which the objection was made or in which the legal
`
`proceeding was filed;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) Name and address of the third party;
`
`(c) Date of objection or institution of the legal proceeding;
`
`(d) Court, governmental agency or other forum in which the objection or legal
`
`proceeding was filed;
`
`
`
`
`
`(e) Status or outcome of the objection or legal proceeding;
`
`(f)
`
`The mark(s) employed by the third party which was (were) the subject of
`
`the objection or legal proceeding.
`
`Answer:
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 14
`
`
`
`Identify all objections by third parties made to Applicant and all legal proceedings
`
`instituted by third parties against Applicant related in any way to Applicant's use of the
`
`JUDICIAL REVIEW mark, including the marks and goods and services involved and the
`
`outcome of the controversy.
`
`Answer:
`
`-19-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 15
`
`
`
`Identify each person who had more than a clerical role in preparing the answers to
`
`these interrogatories and the responses to the contemporaneously served first requests for
`
`production of documents, stating specifically the number of each interrogatory or request for
`
`production for which such person supplied information or documents.
`
`Answer:
`
`-20-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 16
`
`
`
`If documents and things identified in answering these interrogatories are known
`
`or believed to exist but are not in Applicant's possession, custody or control, identify each such
`
`document and thing insofar as it is possible to do so, and identify who has possession, custody or
`
`control of such document or thing.
`
`Answer:
`
`-21-
`
`

`
`Interrogatory No. 17
`
`Identify any expert witnesses expected to testify in this opposition and set forth
`
`the substance of each expert's testimony.
`
`Answer:
`
`MARC VIANELLO
`
`ARTHUR K. SAFFER
`Patent OfticY' °° ego No. 50,257
`FE"I:r:ECTUAL PROPERTY CENTER, LLC
`9233 Ward Parkway, Suite 100
`Kansas City, Missouri 64114
`Telephone: (816) 363-1555
`Facsimile:
`(816) 363-1201
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`
`-22-
`
`

`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Opposer's First Set of Interrogatories
`
`to Applicant has been served by first class mail, postage prepaid, on Sandra L. Nudelson 92
`
`Stone Hurst Lane, Dix Hills, NY 11746-7934, this 14th day of April, 2008.
`
`______________________________
`Jeffrey Sonnabend
`
`SonnabendLaw
`600 Prospect Avenue
`Brooklyn, NY 11215
`718-832-8810
`JSonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of application
`Serial No.:
`77/1 10,266
`
`Filed:
`
`April 18, 2008
`
`Applicant:
`
`Sandra L. Nudelman
`
`Mark:
`
`JUDICIAL REVIEW
`
`Published:
`
`August 14, 2007
`
`MARC VIANELLO,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V .
`
`SANDRA L. NUDELMAN,
`Applicant.
`
`\./\./§/\./%-/\_/§/\../\/\i\&\J&/\é\./\-/\—/\./\J\./
`
`Opposition No. 91180471
`
`OPPOSER'S FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQ QUESTS TO APPLICANT
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(d)(2), Opposer, Marc
`
`Vianello, by its undersigned attorneys, hereby serves the following Document Requests on
`
`Applicant.
`
`Instructions and Definitions
`
`The definitions provided in Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories to Applicant are
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`

`
`Reguest No. 1
`
`Reguests
`
`All documents identified by Applicant in her responses to Opposer’s First Set of
`Interrogatories to Applicant.
`
`Reguest No. 2
`
`Applicant.
`
`Reguest No. 3
`
`All documents relating to the use of the JUDICIAL REVIEW in commerce by
`
`All documents concerning any trademark searches that Applicant or its representatives or
`agents (including without limitation attorneys) performed in connection with the mark JUDICIAL
`REVIEW.
`
`Reguest No. 4
`
`All documents comprising, constituting, concerning or relating to advertising, promoting or
`marketing of any services under the mark JUDICIAL REVIEW by Applicant.
`
`MARC VIANELLO
`
`Respecttffilly submitted,
`It4
`
`:.
`
`,y,»~’
`
`'\
`
`“ ARTHUR’ K. SHAFFER
`
`Patent Office Reg. No. 50,257
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CENTER, LLC
`9233 Ward Parkway, Suite 100
`Kansas City, Missouri 641 14
`Telephone: (816) 363-1555
`Facsimile:
`(816) 363-1201
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`
`

`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Opposer's First Set of Document
`
`Requests to Applicant has been served by first class mail, postage prepaid, on Sandra L.
`
`Nudelson 92 Stone Hurst Lane, Dix Hills, NY 11746-7934, this __ day of April, 2008.
`
`Jeffrey Sonnabend
`
`SonnabendLaw
`
`600 Prospect Avenue
`Brooklyn, NY 11215
`718-832-8810
`
`J Sonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com
`
`

`
`IN Tliii {ENITED STATES F'ATENT AND TRADEMARK (}FFi{'I!£
`BEFORE THE "§‘RA1)E:Vi;\RK’I‘RlAL AND APPISA1. BOAR!)
`
`In the mamczr ofzippiication
`Scrizxi ?\'s.3.:
`77.51 iQ,2(t$s.’3
`
`Fiiszd:
`
`FC§§1‘U21i’”)r' 12%, 2%?
`
`Appiicant:
`
`Sarxdm L. Nudeiman
`
`:’V122r§<;:
`
`.¥{}DI(“.1AI, I??.f§iV§§:IW
`
`Pubiishciit
`
`AL1gu5;t I4, BOW
`
`?»i;’«‘«.R C VIA Ei.,i,..O,
`
`Oppescr.
`
`X .
`
`‘:3g\Ni)RA L. NUDELMAN,
`
`.4‘
`'~.../\..e’\.../\.—/-.«'-../K.../~..r
`
`No-"
`
`Appiicana
`0-.....................................___.._..__~.._w,,.”_.______.‘_..............................J
`
`C)p;:v0s§ii0n No. 9} i§§if)47i
`
`Qfififiéfiiilflfijii Q13? i*;(3.¥“ ‘i3i51’0SlT1<‘3N Til‘ AF‘
`
`§“§ca5;:: ‘cake zmtice shat pursuant to Fed. ‘R.
`
`iLTi\«'. P. 30 and 37 CPR {ti 2.120(b}. (;>p;ms<;*r,
`
`Marc V‘v’iaz1::ii{.>, win take the dcpositkm upon oral examination ui‘Sar3c3ra L. Nticielmzazx r:::;i<1§n.g:
`
`at 93, S‘u;m::hurst Ln, Six Hiils, NY Li 1746-793»? The Lkzpozsition will occur at 189 iviomaguis
`
`i$;t'rect.. Same 503, Bm0§<;§yn,, NY commezzcing at 9:30 am. 0;: Mzxy i5, 2{)()8. Tim ziepogiiiozz mi}
`
`be r<:<:<>rde<i ‘my gtenographic means befere a quaiified notary public.
`
`MARC‘. 273:t§?”\z‘§1¢1,o
`
`Resp€bi£l§3r
`
`s{:bn‘s§tic¢i,
`
`«N1 w.«M..,
`
`2
`"W4-~...,,A
`h‘’*«.,,
`.5
`a‘
`A
`4,
`8“
`/‘
`''‘‘*~~»...Iv’
`., ...,_,_.,