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
`ESTTA380267
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/23/2010
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91188693
`Plaintiff
`KINGDOM AUTO PARTS
`Robert C.J. Tuttle and Hope V. Shovein
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`UNITED STATES
`hshovein@brookskushman.com,ejbrooks@brookskushman.com,rtuttle@brooks
`kushman.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Hope V. Shovein
`hshovein@brookskushman.com, rtuttle@brookskushman.com,
`lsavage@brookskushman.com
`/hope v shovein/
`11/23/2010
`Notice of Final Determination 112310.pdf ( 5 pages )(72406 bytes )
`Notice of Final Determination - Ex A.pdf ( 18 pages )(2396888 bytes )
`Notice of Final Determination - Ex B.pdf ( 26 pages )(888506 bytes )
`Notice of Final Determination - Ex C.pdf ( 15 pages )(52500 bytes )
`Notice of Final Determination - Ex D.pdf ( 27 pages )(164702 bytes )
`Notice of Final Determination - Ex E.pdf ( 4 pages )(21596 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KINGDOM AUTO PARTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE
`OPERATING COMPANY INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91188693
`
`Serial Nos. 77/468,285, 77/468,293,
`77/468,275, 77/468,279, 77/468,290
`and 77/468,288
`
`
`
`
`
`Trademarks: 71572, 71661, 71662,
`71672, 71678 and 71679
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION IN CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer, KINGDOM AUTO PARTS, INC., (“Kingdom” or “Opposer”), hereby
`
`provides notice to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) of the final determination in
`
`Tenneco Automotive Operating Company, Incorporated v. Kingdom Auto Parts and Prime Choice
`
`Auto Parts (No. 08-CV-10467, ED Mich.) (the “Complaint”), and seeks judgment in its favor as a
`
`result of the final determination.
`
`
`
`By way of background, Applicant, Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc.
`
`(“Tenneco” or “Applicant”), alleged in the referenced Complaint that Kingdom infringed its “unique
`
`product numbers” (Seventh Cause of Action). Kingdom counterclaimed, seeking a “judgment
`
`declaring that Tenneco's 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics not to be ‘trademarks,’ as that term is
`
`defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1127, and determining such 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics not to be
`
`registrable as trademarks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office.” See Kingdom’s October 14, 2008 Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Second
`
`Amended Complaint and Counterclaim, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`

`
`Opposition No. 91188693
`
`
`Atty. Docket No: KIAP0104OC
`
`Kingdom’s counterclaim specifically included the following applications for 5 and 6-
`
`digit product numbers1 2, which were pending as of the date of Kingdom’s counterclaim:
`
`Serial Number
`77468293
`77468275
`77468290
`77468288
`77468285
`77468279
`77481497 (Reg. No. 3,756,538, registered March 9, 2010)
`77481493 (Reg. No. 3,649,652, registered July 7, 2009)
`77481490 (abandoned April 9, 2009 for failure to respond)
`77481485 (Reg. No. 3,756,537, registered March 9, 2010)
`77481477 (Reg. No. 3,756,536, registered March 9, 2010)
`77481471 (Reg. No. 3,756,535, registered March 9, 2010)
`77481462 (Reg. No. 3,756,534, registered March 9, 2010)
`77481458 (Reg. No. 3,649,651, registered July 7, 2009)
`77481453 (Reg. No. 3,649,650, registered July 7, 2009)
`77456046
`77456040
`77456036
`77456035
`77456031
`77456030
`77470209
`77456051
`77456044
`
`Mark
`71661
`71662
`71678
`71679
`71572
`71672
`902973
`902941
`905911
`903900
`904919
`902999
`901940
`901944
`902949
`171504
`171661
`171994
`171615
`171672
`171616
`171878
`171920
`171880
`
`
`See Exhibit A, pp. 13-14.
`
`
`1 The above-listed applications for Tenneco’s 90- product numbers were all initially refused for failure to
`function as a trademark. Tenneco’s initial responses (Tenneco did not respond in support of its 77/481,490
`application) relied, in part, on the fact that the PTO had already published the 71- formative product numbers,
`and that the 171- formative product numbers were approved for publication. The five 90- formative product
`numbers that registered in March of 2010 include 2(f) claims of acquired distinctiveness and claim ownership
`of the three 90- product numbers that registered in July of 2009 (where the examining attorney accepted
`Tenneco’s initial arguments).
`
` 2
`
` The above-listed applications for Tenneco’s 171- product numbers published for opposition on March 24,
`2009, Kingdom filed extensions of time to oppose on the same day, and on April 1, 2009 the applications were
`restored to the jurisdiction of the examining attorney. Office actions issued on April 6, 2009, reinstating the
`refusals for failure to function as a trademark. Tenneco sought suspension of all applications for the 171-
`formative product numbers based on the pending civil action. A second round of Suspension Letters issued on
`April 19, 2010, followed by October 27, 2010 Suspension Inquiries (in all but one case, Serial No.
`77/470,209).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Opposition No. 91188693
`
`
`
`
`Atty. Docket No: KIAP0104OC
`
`Kingdom subsequently moved for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment
`
`counterclaim that Tenneco’s “product numbers” do not qualify as trademarks. Kingdom’s December
`
`24, 2008 Motion for Summary Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment Counterclaim is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`On May 18, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Michigan GRANTED Kingdom’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment
`
`Counterclaim:
`
`The Court finds that the product numbers have not acquired
`secondary meaning such that they function as a source identifier for
`Tenneco’s strut assemblies. Because the Court finds that product
`numbers are not entitled to trademark protection, use of them by
`defendants is not prohibited.
`
`Summary judgment is therefore GRANTED on defendants’
`counterclaim which seeks declaratory judgment of no trademark
`protection in Tenneco’s product numbers.
`
`
`
` A
`
` copy of the May 18, 2009 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`On July 16, 2009, Tenneco filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Order
`
`granting Kingdom’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties filed briefs and oral arguments
`
`were heard on April 28, 2010.
`
`
`
`
`
`On October 28, 2010, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming
`
`the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the product number claims. A copy of the October
`
`28, 2010 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Tenneco did not take any further action, and
`
`pursuant to the Court’s October 28 disposition, the mandate issued on November 22, 2010. A copy
`
`of the November 22, 2010 mandate is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Opposition No. 91188693
`
`
`Atty. Docket No: KIAP0104OC
`
`
`
`
`
`As a result of the declaratory judgment of no trademark protection in Tenneco’s
`
`above-mentioned product numbers (including the product numbers identified in the opposed
`
`applications), which declaratory judgment was finally affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of
`
`Appeals, Kingdom hereby requests that judgment be entered in its behalf, that registration of
`
`Application Serial Nos. 77/468,285, 77/468,293, 77/468,275, 77/468,279, 77/468,290 and
`
`77/468,288 be refused, and this opposition be sustained.
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`_______________________________
`ROBERT C.J. TUTTLE
`HOPE V. SHOVEIN
`1000 Town Center,
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 23, 2010
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I certify that I served:
`
`
`
`
` NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION IN CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`on November 23, 2010 by:
`
`__ delivering
`
` √ mailing (a copy via First-Class mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` a
`
` copy to:
`
`Lisabeth H. Coakley
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
`5445 Corporate Drive, #200
`Troy, MI 48098
`
`Applicant’s Attorney of Record
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`Hope V. Shovein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`KINGDOM AUTO PARTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE
`OPERATING COMPANY INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91188693
`
`Serial Nos. 77/468,285, 77/468,293,
`77/468,275, 77/468,279, 77/468,290
`and 77/468,288
`
`
`
`
`
`Trademarks: 71572, 71661, 71662,
`71672, 71678 and 71679
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION IN CIVIL ACTION
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Kingdom’s October 14, 2008 Answer and Affirmative Defenses
`to the Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaim
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE
`
`OPERATING COMPANY INC.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`VS.
`
`KINGDOM AUTO PARTS and
`
`PRIME CHOICE AUTO PARTS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
`MAG. JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB
`
`Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-10467
`
`(Pl6554)
`ROBERT J. LENIHAN, II
`(P34l08)
`LISABETH H. COAKLEY
`(P63079)
`BRENT G. SEITZ
`HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE PLC
`
`5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
`Troy, Michigan 48098
`Tel:
`(248)641-1600 ext. 256
`Fax:
`(248)641-0270
`
`Attorney for Plain tifi"
`
`(P25222)
`(P40765)
`(P61964)
`
`ROBERT C.J. TUTTLE
`PHYLLIS G. MOREY
`JOHN S. LE ROY
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Tel:
`(248) 358-4400
`Fax:
`(248)358-3351
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`TO PLAINTIFF TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY'S
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
`
`COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center. 22"‘ Fl.
`Southfield, M1-18075-1238
`USA
`
`Tel
`Fax
`
`(248) 353.4400
`(248)358-3351
`
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`ANSWER
`
`Defendants Kingdom Auto Parts and Prime Choice Auto Parts hereby answer the
`
`like—numbered paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The allegations of this paragraph are directed to the purported legal bases
`
`for the claims pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint, and no responsive pleading is required.
`
`To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegations of this paragraph are considered
`
`denied or voided.
`
`2.
`
`6.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction is contested.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Denied.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Denied.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`BK
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22" Fl.
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(243) 353-4400
`Tel
`(248) 353-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`-1-
`
`EFILED 10/14/os
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`FiIed10/14/2008
`
`Page3of17
`
`12.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`16.
`
`Admitted that Exhibit 1 to the Second Amended Complaint purports to be
`
`copies of Registrations No. 3,046,796 and 3,153,807, but denied that such registrations are valid
`
`or were duly issued in compliance with the law.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`21 .
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`2
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`‘,’,,',,‘;,";‘,jw‘f,"c',',',{‘,‘,f';,‘.’.‘§,j
`Soulhfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`Tel
`Fax
`
`(248) 358-4400
`(243) 353-3351
`
`www,brookskush.man.com
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv—10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`22.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`24.
`
`Denied.
`
`25.
`
`Denied.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`29.
`
`Denied.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`3 1 .
`
`Denied.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`33.
`
`Denied.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefabout
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`-3-
`
`EFILED 10/14/os
`
`‘,’0'(,‘:,“}‘jw‘f,';';c':,{;',f';,‘.’.'§,j
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`Tel
`Fax
`
`(248) 358-4400
`(248) 358-3351
`
`www.brookskushmaILcom
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`36.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`39.
`
`Admitted that Exhibit 3 to the Second Amended Complaint purports to be
`
`a photocopy of Copyright Registration No. TX6-828-850, but denied that such copyright
`
`registration is valid or was duly issued in compliance with the law.
`
`40.
`
`Admitted that defendant Kingdom Auto Parts includes instruction inside the
`
`packaging for its StrutTEK complete strut assemblies. Denied as to defendant Prime Choice Auto
`
`Parts. Denied that Exhibit 4 to the Second Amended Complaint is a true and correct copy of the
`
`installation instructions in use by defendant Kingdom Auto Parts.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefabout
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`44.
`
`Denied.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`Brook: Kushmnn P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22”‘ Fl.
`Southfield, MI 480754238
`USA
`
`(243) 353.4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`-4-
`
`EFILED 10/14/os
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`46.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations of paragraphs 1 - 46, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`48.
`
`Denied.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`50.
`
`Denied.
`
`51.
`
`Denied.
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations of paragraphs 1 - 52, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`54.
`
`Denied.
`
`55 .
`
`Denied.
`
`56.
`
`Denied.
`
`57.
`
`Denied.
`
`58.
`
`Denied.
`
`59.
`
`Denied.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations ofparagraphs 1 - 59, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`-5-
`
`‘
`
`EFILED 10/14/os
`
`{’oj,‘:,";‘jw'f,"C‘e'_§{';,f',‘,‘.’.'§j
`Southficld, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(248) 358.4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`62.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`64.
`
`Admitted that Exhibit 3 to the Second Amended Complaint purports to be
`
`a photocopy of Copyright Registration No. TX6-828-850, but denied that such copyright
`
`registration is Valid or was duly issued in compliance with the law.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`66.
`
`Admitted that defendant Kingdom Auto Parts includes instruction inside the
`
`packaging for its StrutTEK complete strut assemblies. Denied as to defendant Prime Choice Auto
`
`Parts. Denied that Exhibit 4 to the Second Amended Complaint is a true and correct copy of the
`
`installation instructions in use by defendant Kingdom Auto Parts.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore deny the same.
`
`69.
`
`Denied.
`
`70.
`
`71-
`
`72.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied-
`
`Denied.
`
`'i’o'o‘Zi°%‘§w'§“c’e'.1I'£$2J«'§.§
`Soulhfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(248) 358-4400
`Tel
`(243) 353-3351
`Fax
`www.bIookskushman.com
`
`-6-
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS—MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`73.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations of paragraphs 1 - 72, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`74.
`
`Denied.
`
`75.
`
`Denied.
`
`76.
`
`Denied.
`
`77.
`
`Denied.
`
`78.
`
`Denied.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations of paragraphs 1 — 78, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`80.
`
`Denied.
`
`81.
`
`Denied.
`
`82.
`
`Denied.
`
`83.
`
`Denied.
`
`84.
`
`Denied.
`
`85.
`
`Denied.
`
`86.
`
`Denied.
`
`87.
`
`Denied.
`
`88.
`
`Denied.
`
`89.
`
`Denied.
`
`Brooks Kushman RC.
`1000 Town Center. 22"‘ Fl.
`Southficld, MI 48075~ l 238
`USA
`
`(248) 353.4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`90.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations of paragraphs 1 - 89, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`-7-
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467—GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`91.
`
`Denied.
`
`92.
`
`Denied.
`
`93.
`
`Denied.
`
`94.
`
`Denied.
`
`95.
`
`Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference their responses to the
`
`allegations of paragraphs 1 - 94, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`96.
`
`Denied.
`
`97.
`
`Denied.
`
`98.
`
`Denied.
`
`99.
`
`Denied.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
`
`The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants.
`
`The Second Amended Complaint, including all "Causes OfAction" thereof,
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is guilty of unclean hands in its application to register the claim of
`
`copyright asserted as infringed in the "Third Cause OfAction."
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is guilty of copyright misuse.
`
`8
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`?0'(,‘:,°::wl:"C:':,::,'_';2l:.'E,f
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`Tel
`Fax
`
`(248) 358-4400
`(243) 353.3351
`
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`6.
`
`Any federal registration ofthe claim of copyright asserted by plaintiff in the
`
`"Third Cause Of Action" is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements for copyright
`
`registration, 17 U.S.C. § 409.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`LISC.
`
`Plaintiffs "product numbers" are fimctional, and unprotectable.
`
`Any use by defendants of plaintiffs so-called "product numbers," is a fair
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is guilty of unclean hands, including the unlawful and anti-
`
`competitive "Monroe Loyalty Program," in which Monroe customers are paid or otherwise
`
`rewarded by Monroe if they refuse to engage in trade or commerce with competitors of Monroe.
`
`In this case, the "Monroe Loyalty Program" would pay or otherwise reward wholesalers and store
`
`jobbers who refuse to deal in the "StrutTEK" complete strut assemblies in favor of dealing only in
`
`plaintiffs "Quick-Strut" complete strut assembly.
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`I000 Town Center, 22"‘ F1.
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(248) 358-4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-335l
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`Case 2:08—cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`COUNTERCLAIM OF KINGDOM AUTO PARTS
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaimant Kingdom Auto Parts, Inc. ("Kingdom Auto Parts") is a
`
`Canadian corporation with a principal place of business at 201 Iber Road, Stittsville K2S 1E7,
`
`Ontario, Canada.
`
`2.
`
`Counterdefendant Tenneco Automotive Operating Company ("Tenneco")
`
`is a Delaware corporation having aprincipal place ofbusiness at 500 Northfield Drive, Lake Forest,
`
`Illinois 60045.
`
`3.
`
`There exists a case ofactual controversy within the jurisdiction ofthis Court,
`
`for which the Court may declare the rights and other legal relations of counterclaimant Kingdom
`
`Auto Parts in respect of the allegations of counterdefendant Tenneco that it possesses trademark
`
`rights in its so-called "product numbers," and whether such "product numbers" are registrable as
`
`trademarks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`4.
`
`The Court has the power to rectify the Principal Register ofthe United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office, including the power to determine the right to registration, under 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1119.
`
`5.
`
`Subj ect matterjurisdiction for the declaratoryjudgment claim pleaded herein
`
`is conferred upon the Court by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1501
`
`et seq.
`
`6.
`
`The justiciable controversy begins with the allegations of paragraph 22 of
`
`the Second Amended Complaint, reproduced below for convenience of reference:
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22"" F1.
`Soulhfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`Tel
`Fax
`
`(248) 358-4400
`(248) 353-3351
`
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`

`
`Case 2:08—cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`Tenneco‘s struts, including struts that are incorporated into
`22.
`its strut assemblies, are each stamped with a unique Tenneco
`product number, and are manufactured and distributed by Tenneco
`in connection with its Monroe® brand.
`
`7.
`
`The "struts" referred to in paragraph 22 ofthe Second Amended Complaint
`
`are designated by a 5-digit numeric, e.g. , 71992 and 71994, which respectively designate the front
`
`and rear struts for the Ford Escort 2001 model year.
`
`8.
`
`The "strut assemblies" referred to in paragraph 22 of the Second Amended
`
`Complaint are designated by a 6-digit numeric, e.g., 171992 and 171994, which respectively
`
`designate the front and rear strut assemblies for a Ford Escort, 2001 model year.
`
`9.
`
`Tenneco refers to these 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics in its public
`
`communications as "part numbers."
`
`10.
`
`Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a web page from the Monroe E-
`
`Catalog, Passenger Cars
`
`and Light Trucks-Ride Control Section,
`
`at
`
`the
`
`address:
`
`http://catalog.tenneco.com/monroe/eCatalog.do, visited 10/ 14/2008.
`
`1 1 .
`
`Tenneco refers to the 5-digit numerics 71992 and 71994, as "part numbers,"
`
`in the web page from the Monroe E—Catalog, of Exhibit 1.
`
`12.
`
`Tenneco refers to the 6-digit numerics 171992 and 171994, as "part
`
`numbers," in the web page from the Monroe E—Catalog, of Exhibit 1.
`
`13.
`
`Tenneco regularly refers to the 5—digit numerics and 6-digit numerics, that
`
`it characterizes as "product numbers" in paragraph 22 ofthe Second Amended Complaint, as "part
`
`numbers" in its public communications.
`
`-1 1-
`
`EFILED 1o/14/os
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22'‘ F1.
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(248) 358-4400
`Tel
`(248)358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed10/14/2008
`
`Page13of17
`
`14.
`
`Tenneco has applied to register numerous of these 5-digit numerics and 6-
`
`digit numerics as trademarks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office, according to the following listing:
`
`Serial Number
`
`77468293
`
`77468275
`
`77468290
`
`77468288
`
`77468285
`
`77468279
`
`77481497
`
`77481493
`
`77481490
`
`77481485
`
`77481477
`
`77481471
`
`77481462
`
`77481458
`
`77481453
`
`77456046
`
`77456040
`
`77456036
`77456035
`77456031
`
`Mark
`
`71661
`
`71662
`
`71678
`
`71679
`
`71572
`
`71672
`
`902973
`
`902941
`
`905911
`
`903900
`
`904919
`
`902999
`
`901940
`
`901944
`
`902949
`
`171504
`
`171661
`
`171994
`171615
`171672
`
`mm
`é2‘i?.,EZ.Z,“§1i“:§‘a3§fI£'s
`USA
`Tel
`(248) 358-4400
`Fax
`(248) 358-3351
`
`www.bro0kskuslm1an.c0m
`
`-12-
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`Serial Number
`
`77456030
`
`77470209
`
`77456051
`
`77456044
`
`Mark
`
`171616
`
`171878
`
`171920
`
`171880
`
`15.
`
`Tenneco has not informed the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`that it refers to the marks of the above-identified applications as "part numbers" in its public
`
`communications.
`
`16.
`
`Tenneco has not disclosed to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`that the question of whether these 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics qualify for protection as
`
`trademarks, is a litigable issue in this case.
`
`1 7.
`
`The 5-digit numerics listed above identify a model number ofthe Sensa-Trac
`
`struts.
`
`assemblies.
`
`18.
`
`The 6-digit numerics listed above identify a model of the Quick-Strut strut
`
`19.
`
`The 5-digit numerics and the 6-digit numerics, identified above, do not
`
`function as trademarks to identify and distinguish Tenneco's goods from those of others and to
`
`indicate the source of Tenneco's goods.
`
`20.
`
`Counterclaimant Kingdom Auto Parts is entitled to a judgment declaring
`
`Tenneco's 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics do not qualify as a "trademark," as that term is
`
`defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22"“ F1.
`Soulhfield, MI 48075-123 8
`USA
`
`(248) 358-4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`21.
`
`Counterclaimant Kingdom Auto Parts is entitled to a judgment declaring
`
`Tenneco‘s 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics are not registrable as trademarks on the Principal
`
`Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, defendant and counterclaimant Kingdom Auto Parts and defendant
`
`Prime Choice Auto Parts ask the Court to enter judgment in their favor against plaintiff Tenneco,
`
`as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Dismissing all claims of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice;
`
`Deeming this case to be "exceptional," in the sense of 15 U.S.C. § ll 17(a),
`
`and awarding defendants their reasonably attorney fees;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Awarding defendants their reasonable attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 ;
`
`A judgment declaring Tenneco‘s 5-digit numerics and 6-digit numerics not
`
`to be "trademarks," as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1 127, and determining such 5-digit
`
`numerics and 6-digit numerics not to be registrable as trademarks on the Principal Register of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office; and
`
`E.
`
`Granting such other, further and different reliefto defendants as may be just
`
`and equitable on the proofs.
`
`Brooks Kushman PC.
`1000 Town Center, 22"‘ F1.
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(243) 358-4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`Case 2:08-cv-10467-GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`/s/ Robert C. J. Tuttle
`By:
`(P25222)
`Robert C}. Tuttle
`(P40765)
`Phyllis G. Morey
`(P61964)
`John S. Le Roy
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075-1238
`Tel:
`(248) 358-4400/Fax:
`(248) 358-3351
`email: rtutt1e@brookskushman.com
`pmorey@brookskushman.com
`'1ero
`brookskushman.com
`
`Dated: October 14, 2008
`
`Attorneysfor Defendants
`
`Brooks Kushmnn P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22'''‘ F1.
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(248) 358-4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`wwwibrookskushrnamcom
`
`-15-
`
`EFILED 1o/14/as
`
`

`
`Case 2:O8—cv—10467—GCS-MKM Document 84
`
`Filed 10/14/2008
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on October 14 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing
`DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF TENNECO
`
`AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF with the Clerk of the Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Michigan using the ECF System which will send notification to the following
`registered participants of the ECF System as listed on the Court's Notice of Electronic Filing:
`Robert J. Lenihan, Brent Seitz. I also certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the
`paper to the following non-participants in the ECF System:
`
`Lisabeth H. Coakley
`Harness, Dickey
`5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
`Troy, Michigan 48098-2612
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`/s/ Robert C. J. Tuttle
`By:
`(P25222)
`Robert C]. Tuttle
`(P40765)
`Phyllis G. Morey
`(P6l964)
`John S. Le Roy
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075-1238
`Tel:
`(248) 358-4400/Fax:
`(248) 358-3351
`email: rtuttle@brookskushman.com
`pmorey@brookskushman.com
`'lero
`brookskushman.com
`
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22"“ F1.
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`USA
`
`(243) 353.4400
`Tel
`(248) 358-3351
`Fax
`www.brookskushman.com
`
`EFILED 10/14/08
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`KINGDOM AUTO PARTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE
`OPERATING COMPANY INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91188693
`
`Serial Nos. 77/468,285, 77/468,293,
`77/468,275, 77/468,279, 77/468,290
`and 77/468,288
`
`
`
`
`
`Trademarks: 71572, 71661, 71662,
`71672, 71678 and 71679
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION IN CIVIL ACTION
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`Kingdom’s December 24, 2008 Motion for Summary
`Judgment on its Declaratory Judgment Counterclaim
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE
`OPERATING COMPANY INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`KINGDOM AUTO PARTS and
`PRIME CHOICE AUTO PARTS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ROBERT J. LENIHAN, II
`(P16554)
`LISABETH H. COAKLEY
`(P34108)
`BRENT G. SEITZ
`(P63079)
`HARNESS DICKEY & PIERCE PLC
`5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
`Troy, Michigan 48098
`Tel:
`(248) 641-1600 ext. 256
`Fax:
`(248) 641-0270
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
`MAG. JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB
`
`Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-10467
`
`(P25222)
`(P40765)
`(P61964)
`
`ROBERT C.J. TUTTLE
`PHYLLIS G. MOREY
`JOHN S.
`LE ROY
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`Tel:
`(248) 358-4400
`Fax:
`(248) 358-3351
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTIO