Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA317253
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/17/2009
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91189499
`Plaintiff
`Beyond Boundaries Travel, Inc.
`John L. Welch
`Lando & Anastasi, LLP
`One Main Street, 11th Floor
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`UNITED STATES
`jwelch@ll-a.com, jlwtrademarks@ll-a.com, gmaclellan@ll-a.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`John L. Welch
`jlwtrademarks@ll-a.com, nharris@ll-a.com
`/johnlwelch/
`11/17/2009
`91189499 Welch Declaration.pdf ( 45 pages )(1876661 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91 189499
`
`Mark: FANTRIP
`Application No.: 77/376,164
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`Beyond Boundaries Travel, Inc.
`d/b/a Fan Trips,
`
`v.
`
`FanTrip LLC,
`
`Opposer,
`
`Applicant.
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN L. WELCH
`
`I, John L. Welch, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am Of Counsel to Lando & Anastasi, LLP of Cambridge, Massachusetts,
`
`counsel to Opposer Beyond Boundaries Travel, Inc. d/b/a Fan Trips, in this opposition
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I make this Declaration in support of Opposer’s Opposition to
`
`“Applicant’s Motion to Compel and Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)” and in
`
`support of Opposer’s Motion to Strike.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s counsel has completely and disturbingly mischaracterized the
`
`dealings between the parties, through their counsel, in this proceeding. Attached hereto as
`
`Exhibits A—E is a collection of e-mails and letters comprising the complete
`
`correspondence between counsel regarding this case.1 It shows that counsel, while at
`
`times in disagreement over discovery issues, were courteous, civil, and cooperative.
`
`1 All email threads between the parties are presented.’ Earlier emails that appear in a thread here are not
`reproduced separately as they would be unnecessarily duplicative.
`
`987619.]
`
`1
`
`

`
`4.
`
`Contrary to Applicant’s assertions in its motion to compel, Opposer has
`
`never “stonewalled” as to discovery in this proceeding, nor has it resorted to
`
`“gamesmanship.” Instead Opposer has met every deadline, obtained Applicant’s
`
`agreement to extensions of time for discovery, and proceeded with courtesy and civility
`
`throughout.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant’s assertion that Opposer delayed production by three months
`
`(p. 3) is flatly and demonstrably wrong. Opposer and Applicant provided discovery
`
`responses virtually in tandem, in accordance with a mutually—agreed upon schedule,
`
`culminating in an exchange of production documents on September 11, 2009, as more
`
`fully described below.
`
`6.
`
`The discovery period in this proceeding opened on June 9, 2009. On that
`
`very day, Applicant served its interrogatories and document requests by mail, making
`
`responses due on July 14, 2009. As Opposer informed Applicant at that time, the
`
`undersigned counsel was busy preparing for a pre-trial conference in New Orleans on
`
`July 23, 2009 for a patent infringement trial in Innovenzion Toys, LLC v. MGA
`
`Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:07-cv-06510-MLCF—ALC). As Opposer also
`
`informed Applicant at that time, the trial was to commence on August 10, 2009, in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Opposer therefore requested,
`
`and Applicant agreed to, a one-month extension of time for service of its written
`
`responses.
`
`7.
`
`When, on or about July 23, 2009, the trial in New Orleans was postponed
`
`sine die (because both parties had filed motions for summary judgment). the undersigned
`
`promptly informed Applicant’s counsel. (See Exhibit E, p. BB0l2l .) Opposer then
`
`9876 1 9.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`proceeded to serve its written responses to discovery on the extended date of August 14,
`
`2009.
`
`8.
`
`Production of Opposer’s documents, however, was delayed for three
`
`reasons: (1) the undersigned took a vacation to Cape Cod; (2) Opposer’s information
`
`technology specialist went on vacation for three weeks; and (3) Opposer’s president,
`
`Jeannie Barresi was traveling to Egypt during the latter part of August. (See Exhibit A,
`
`p. BB01 05.) Counsel for the parties agreed to exchange documents on September 1 1,
`
`2009.
`
`9.
`
`Opposer then served by mail its production documents on September 1 1,
`
`Q (not on September 15, 2009, as falsely claimed by Applicant). Letter from John L.
`
`Welch to Jeffrey M. Drake, Esq. (Sept. 11, 2009) (Exhibit F.) Thus Opposer had
`
`completed its discovery responses on September 11, 2009, still only half-way through the
`
`discovery period. Contrary to Applicant’s baseless assertion, Opposer made a good faith
`
`effort to search for and produce documents responsive to Applicant’s requests. It then
`
`produced the non-privileged relevant documents that were responsive to the requests.
`
`10.
`
`During the discovery and settlement conference held by counsel on June 9,
`
`2009, the parties agreed that no motions for summary judgment would be filed before
`
`October 1, 2009. Letter from John L. Welch to Jeffrey M. Drake, Esq. (June 8, 2009)
`
`(Exhibit D.) Opposer abided by that agreement, and waited to file for summary judgment
`
`until October 1st. Astoundingly, Applicant now asserts that there was something wrong
`
`with Opposer filing its summary judgment motion on October 1st, as if Opposer should
`
`have waited for Applicant’s permission or gotten App1icant’s prior approval. This, of
`
`course, contrasts sharply with Applicant’s own actions in serving its discovery demands
`
`9876 l 9.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`on the first day of the discovery period, obviously in an attempt to obtain some tactical
`
`advantage over Opposer.
`
`l 1.
`
`Applicant never complained about the documents produced by Opposer on
`
`September 11th until it filed its motion to compel, one week before the deadline for
`
`Applicant’s response to Opposer’s summary judgment motion. In other words, Applicant
`
`had Opposer’s production documents in its hands for six weeks, and Opposer’s summary
`
`judgment papers for four weeks, before making any effort to address the motion or the
`
`document production. At the last hour, apparently having recognized that it had no
`
`response to the summary judgment motion, Applicant in desperation has concocted a
`
`fairy tale about Big Bad Opposer terrorizing poor little Applicant. Unfortunately the facts
`
`get in Applicant’s way.
`
`12.
`
`Applicant tries to make some hay out of the undersigned’s statement on
`
`July 9th that “I suspect we will have a lot more documents than you will.” (p. 3).
`
`Actually, Opposer did produce nearly four times as many documents as Applicant. But
`
`the undersigned was at the time under the mistaken impression that Opposer was a much
`
`larger operation and would have many more documents than it had. For example, the
`
`undersigned assumed that Opposer would have fliers and brochures reflecting use of its
`
`FAN TRIPS mark, but that is not the case.
`
`13.
`
`Moreover, and again contrary to Applicant’s overblown assertions,
`
`Opposer is a very small company.
`
`It is run by a husband and wife team and has a total of
`
`six employees. Its FAN TRIPS business has provided less than 35% of its revenues since
`
`2003. Applicant’s counsel has Opposer’s revenue figures for the FAN TRIPS portion of
`
`987619.]
`
`4
`
`

`
`the business, and so for Applicant to suggest in its motion that Opposer is some Goliath
`
`in the travel industry is both disingenuous and ludicrous.
`
`l4.
`
`Contrary to the implication in Applicant’s brief (p. 2), Applicant FanTrip
`
`LLC has no business and has admittedly never used its mark. And Applicant is once
`
`again being misleading when it asserts (p. 2) that Opposer “provides travel agent services
`
`such as packaged tours to ski and cruise destinations,” when Applicant knows full well
`
`(as the production documents and the Exhibits to the summary judgment motion show)
`
`that Beyond Boundaries, under its FAN TRIPS operation, has been providing tours for
`
`fans of movies, books, theater, music and similar themes since 2003. In fact, so similar
`
`are the respective services of the parties that Applicant has accused Opposer of infringing
`
`its mark. (See Letter from John S. Mortimer to John L. Welch (Jan. 7, 2009)) (Ex. C.)
`
`l5.
`
`Applicant’s counsel claims in his declaration that “Opposer’s production
`
`did not contain broad categories of document requested by Applicant” (p. 2), but that is
`
`flatly untrue, unsupported, and unsupportable. And equally bogus is the assertion that
`
`Opposer has “refused to minimally comply” (p. 2) with Applicant’s discovery requests,
`
`since Opposer has fully responded to every request and has produced the relevant,
`
`nonprivileged documents in its possession.
`
`16.
`
`Another falsity is the assertion by Applicant’s counsel that “Many of the
`
`documents attached to Opposer’s [summary judgment] Motion are dated the very day
`
`Opposer was producing documents to Applicant on September 15, 2009.” First, there
`
`were not “many” documents dated September 15, 2009. There was one article comprising
`
`two pages. Secondly, as Applicant’s counsel well knows, Opposer’s documents were
`
`987619.]
`
`5
`
`

`
`served by mail on September 11, 2009, not September 15, 2009. But Applicant is not
`
`about to let the facts get in the Way of a bad story.
`
`17.
`
`Applicant’s counsel also asserts that Opposer’s document production does
`
`not contain any documents relating to secondary meaning of Opposer’s mark. Applicant
`
`conveniently ignores Opposer’s interrogatory responses setting forth the sales and
`
`advertising figures for the FAN TRIPS mark, ignores the documentation regarding
`
`website hits, and ignores the many printouts of Opposer’s website. In short, Opposer has
`
`fully responded to every one of Applicant’s document requests. [In any event, as pointed
`
`out in Opposer’s Memorandum, the issue of whether Opposer’s mark has secondary
`
`meaning is wholly irrelevant to the issue of mere descriptiveness of Applicant’s mark that
`
`is the focus of Opposer’s summary judgment motion. Regardless of whether Opposer has
`
`developed secondary meaning in its FAN TRIPS mark, Applicant’s mark FAN TRIP is
`
`merely descriptive and unregistrable to Applicant.]
`
`18.
`Applicant’s dramatic but phony assertion that Opposer “blindsided” (p. 1)
`Applicant by failing to produce “hundreds of documents” (p. 3) that it subsequently relied
`
`on is again flatly wrong. Opposer produced all non-privileged responsive documents in
`
`its possession on September I 1, 2009. A total of1 pages of the Exhibits to its summary
`
`judgment motion were responsive to Applicant’s production requests but were not
`
`previously produced, but the time stamps on those five pages shows they were obtained
`
`by Opposer after September 11. And so, this is just another example of Applicant’s
`
`hysterical, hyperbolic, and unsupported allegations.
`
`19.
`
`In this same vein, Applicant falsely asserts that “[t]he same day Opposer
`
`made its insufficient production, it was printing the very same documents attached to its
`
`9876l9.l
`
`6
`
`

`
`motion.” (p. 1). And again, Applicant falsely claims that: “Incredibly, many of the
`
`documents attached to Opposer’s Motion are dated the Very day Opposer was producing
`
`documents on September 15, 2009!” (p. 3). For the truth, see paragraph 18 above.
`
`20.
`
`Applicant also asserts without any basis that “Opposer has not produced
`
`gy documents demonstrating that its mark has acquired secondary meaning” (p. 1) and
`
`that “no documents related to the claims or defenses in this action were produced” (p. 5).
`
`Opposer suggests that Applicant go back and look at Applicant’s document production
`
`and its interrogatory responses, which provide documents showing use of the mark
`
`continuously since 2003 (including newspaper articles, website printouts, Internet traffic
`
`data, and sales and advertising figures). In fact Opposer has produced all relevant, non-
`
`privileged documents requested by Applicant.
`
`21.
`
`Nothing is more demonstrative of the lack of merit in Applicant’s position
`
`than its complaint that Opposer objected “over five times to each and every document
`
`request” (p. 3). Actually, Opposer merely prefaced its responses with standard, general
`
`objections. Moreover, Applicant fails to reveal that, in its responses to Opposer’s
`
`discovery requests, it included general objections, and specific objections to many of
`
`Applicant’s requests. All parties to TTAB proceedings do the same thing.
`
`22.
`
`In preparing Opposer’s brief, I reviewed the definition of the word
`
`“pertinent” in the Merriam- Webster ’s Collegiate Dictionary (1 1th ed. 2003). A
`
`photocopy is included as Exhibit G.
`
`23.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`//»/7— M
`
`Date
`
`9876l9.l
`
`7
`
`.4/Z/£44
`
`L. Welch
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the date set forth below, a true copy of
`
`the foregoing document was served upon Applicant by first-class mail, postage pre-paid,
`
`by mailing same to Jeffrey M. Drake, Esq., Wood Phillips, 500 West Madison Street,
`
`Suite 3800, Chicago, IL 60661-2562.
`
`//~/747
`Date
`
`
`
`lch, Esq.
`Anastasi, LLP
`One Main Street, Eleventh Floor
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`617/395-7000
`
`

`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`LOWRIE, LANDO A
`&ANAsTAs1, LLP
`Devoted to Intellectual Property Law
`
`Jeff Krillenberger
`FanTrip LLC
`1960 N Lincoln Park West # 3005
`Chicago, IL 60614
`
`John L. Welch
`of counsel
`jwelch@LL—A.com
`direct dial 517-3957072
`
`September 19, 2008
`
`Re:
`
`FANTRIP
`U.S. Service Mark Application Serial No. 77/376,164
`
`Dear Mr. Krillenberger:
`
`It has come to our attention that your company, FanTrip LLC of Chicago, Illinois, has a filed
`United States Service Mark Application to register the
`mark FANTRIP for “Travel agency services,
`rtation, temporary lodging, and event tickets for
`ows, and concerts.” Our client IS highly concerned
`,
`'
`'
`'
`that use ofthe applied-for mark for those proposed se
`
`or approved by, Beyond Boundaries. Any dissatisfa '
`the applied-for mark would reflect upon and irrep
`goodwill as embodied in its FAN TRIPS mark.
`
`'
`our client would be better offifyour company chose a new mark for its services
`We look forward to your response.
`
`your company and
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`Jo
`
`. Welch
`
`JLW/jw
`
`Riverfront Ofl‘ice Park, One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 T 617-395-7000
`
`VVWW/.l.L-A.COM
`
`F 617-395-7070
`
`66 0/é3
`
`

`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`
`LOWRIE, LANDO
`&ANASTASI, LLP
`Devoted to Intellectual Property Law
`
`December 10, 2008
`
`Jeff Krillenberger
`FanTrip LLC
`1960 N Lincoln Park West # 3005
`
`Chicago, IL 60614
`
`John L Welch
`of counsel
`jwelch@LL-A.com
`direct dial 617-395-7072
`
`Re:
`
`“FanTrip” U.S. Service Mark Application Serial No. 77/376,164
`
`Dear Mr. Krillenberger:
`
`We wrote to you in September on behalf of our client, Beyond Boundaries Travel, Inc. of
`Colorado Springs, Colorado. As we indicated, our client has extensively promoted and used the mark
`FAN TRIPS since 2003 in connection with travel services, including organizing all components for
`travel as an event, as multi—day, and as single day tours for fans of movies, books, theater, music and
`similar themes.
`
`As you know, your U.S. Service Mark Application for the mark “FanTrip” was published for
`opposition yesterday. On behalf of our client, we have requested and obtained a 90-day extension of
`time within which to oppose your application. We do not intend to wait that long to oppose, but rather
`than oppose immediately, we decided to contact you in the hope of resolving the matter promptly and
`amicably.
`
`I am attaching hereto copies of several Internet website pages showing use of the FAN TRIPS
`mark by our client in 2005 and in 2008. This is just a sample of the evidence that we will provide to the
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board should this case proceed. We have no doubt that our client will
`succeed in an opposition proceeding, given the identity of the services and the near identity of the marks
`FanTrip and FAN TRIPS.
`'
`
`Nonetheless, our client is willing settle the matter now on the following basis: it will reimburse
`you for the government filing fee for your application, in exchange for your withdrawing the application
`with prejudice and agreeing not to use the mark “FanTrip.” This is a one-time offer which will be
`revoked if and when the opposition proceeding goes forward.
`
`If you are interested in such a solution, please conatact me right away. Unless we hear from you
`by the first of the year, we will conclude that you are not interested in an amicable resolution of the
`matter, and we will proceed accordingly.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`{MAM
`
`Jo
`
`Welch
`
`JLW/jw
`l
`.'
`(enc S )
`
`.
`Riverfront Office Park, One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 T 617-395-7000
`WW\lV.LL-A.COM
`
`I
`F 617-395-7070
`
`650/£4
`
`

`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`
`.
`rel
`C3290O
`yfi wood g phillips
`
`John S. Mortimer
`Direct No.2 (3 l2)-876-2l l3
`Email: jsmortimer@woodQhil|ips.com
`
`January 7, 2009
`
`
`
`500 W. Madison Street, Suite 3800
`
`Chicago, ii. 60661-2562
`T (312) 876-1800
`‘
`F (312) 375.2020
`www.woodphil|ips.com
`
`Mr. John L. Welch
`
`Lowrie, Lando & Anastasi, LLP
`Riverfront Office Park
`One Main Street
`
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`
`Re:
`
`U.S. Service Mark Application Serial No. 77/376,164 - FANTRIP
`Our Ref.: FAN 10543Z000O1
`
`Dear Mr. Welch:
`
`. -My: firm represents FanTrip LLC in intellectual property matters. Your letter of
`p;
`'
`December-l;O;:2OQ8'-;«to=Mr; 'gIeffgI<’-gri,1iler?iberger;,=;'.-hasrbeenreferrecl tgogas:foriconsideration:fuzz
`
`'
`
`understoodvthat’Mr. Krillenberger-.has, on behalf of FanTrip LLC,
`First of-all‘, it should.
`invested a significant amount of time and money in setting up the business to be promoted under
`the subject mark. Mr. Krillenberger has also secured a corresponding domain name to facilitate
`the conducting of business in the fiiture.
`
`The claim on behalf of your client that it has been using a similar mark, from a time
`predating FanTrip LLC’s application for registration, is without merit. The uses relied upon are
`nothing more than uses of the words “fan trips” in a descriptive sense. This is recognized by the
`Examining Attorney in the rejection -of Beyond Boundaries Travel, Inc.’s U.S. application Serial
`No. 77/574,519. We have seen no evidence that “fan trips” has been used by your client in a
`trademark sense that would give it any rights preempting those now owned by FanTrip LLC. To
`the extent that there are any rights that may exist, they reside in the various letters or words in
`front of the descriptive “fan trips” terminology.
`
`has applied to register 'themark.. FANTRIP to be..used in
`On the other hand, FanTrip
`a trademark sense in association with the identified services. The Trademark Examining
`Attorney assigned ;i__to"Fa'I1_=TriP .1?4L;G?s‘:app‘lié'atiojrr‘:has recognized thisv-by approvingtthe-fmark for
`13ub1ica_tri,6n:;:,;,;.-
`.-.:.i.;:..;.;.-~."'..:.:;;
`1
`"
`:--:-.:.-- 2
`.
`:.:
`5 ~22:
`==:.-':..-.:
`-A:
`
`66 0/£5
`
`

`
`4
`
`Mr. John L. Welch
`
`January 7, 2009
`Page 2
`
`i wood g phiuips
`
`Please be advised that while Beyond Boundaries Travel, Inc. is entitled to continue using
`the terminology “fan trip” in a descriptive sense, FanTrip LLC will not allow your client to
`modify its usage to a trademark sense, whereby it would be infringing upon FanTrip LLC’s
`rights.
`
`Under the circumstances, there is no legitimate legal basis for your client to oppose
`FanTrip LLC’s mark. However, should a decision be made to proceed in this manner, our client
`intends to strongly defend its rights in light of the significant investment it has made in its mark
`to date.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`
`
` ohn S. Mortimer
`
`JSM:lb
`
`6@ 0/éé
`
`

`
`Exhibit D
`
`

`
`'
`
`LANDO &
`
`vANASTAS1, LLP
`
`’
`
`Devoted to Intellectual Property Law
`
`June 8, 2009
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake, Esq.
`Wood Phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2562
`
`John L. Welch
`Of Counsel
`jwelch@LL-A.com
`direct dial 617-395-7072
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`Beyond Boundaries Travel, Irzc. Dba Fan Trips
`v. FanTrip LLC
`Opposition No. 91 189499
`
`Dear Jeff:
`
`This will confirm that, on behalf of our respective clients, we held the required Rule
`2.120 discovery conference in this opposition proceeding this morning.
`
`We discussed, inter alia, the claims at issue, settlement, alternative dispute resolution, the
`protective order, the taking of discovery, and trial procedures.
`
`.
`2009.
`
`We agreed that neither party would file a summary judgment motion prior to October 1,
`A
`
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`Regards,
`
`J
`
`L. Welch
`
`JLW/jw
`
`56 0/62
`
`Riverfront Office Park, One Main Street, Eleventh Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142 T 617-395-7000
`WWW.LL-A.COM
`
`F 617-395-7070
`
`

`
`Exhibit E
`
`

`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`John L. Welch mwWVv
`
`»~«wwwwmw««wu«mw«»».~~ayy~—~.,.mm~»vm-wt
`
`From:
`
`John L. Welch
`
`Sent:
`
`Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:48 PM
`
`To:
`
`‘Jeffrey M. Drake‘
`
`Subject: RE: Fan Trip/Beyond
`
`To say that I am trying to “stonewall’ is simply laughable. There is nothing in the rules that allows one side
`to insist on a “meet-and-confer’ at as specific time on a specific date.
`
`We remain willing to have the meet and confer after we receive your client's responses, so that we can
`address all the issues in one session. That seems eminently reasonable to me. You obviously don't want
`me to see your client's responses before we see yours, for some supposed tactical, one-upmanship
`reason, I guess.
`
`You may, of course, proceed however you like and we shall respond appropriately.
`
`Regards,
`JLW
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailto:jmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:38 PM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: RE: Fan Trip/Beyond
`
`John-
`
`Your continued attempts to stonewall are transparent. We have met our meet and confer requirement
`and will proceed accordingly.
`
`-Jeffrey
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`,
`wood | phtllips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`wvvw.woodphil|ips.com
`
`If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`distribution, copying, or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHlBlTED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall
`not constitute a waiver of privilege or confidentiality.
`if you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, collect, or return the Email, and
`delete this copy from your system.
`
`From: John L. Welch [mailto:jwelch@l|-a.com]
`Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 09:39
`To: Jeffrey M. Drake
`Subject: RE: Fan Trip/Beyond
`
`Sorry. But l’m going to wait to receive your client's responses. That seems to be the more efficient way to
`proceed.
`Regards,
`JLW
`
`8/21/2009
`
`

`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailtozjmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:31 AM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: RE: Fan Trip/Beyond
`
`John-
`
`That is unacceptable to FanTrip. Please advise as to when you are available August 215‘ or August 24"‘ for a
`meet and confer.
`
`-Jeffrey
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood I phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`www.woodphillips.com
`
`If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying,
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall not constitute a waiver of privilege
`or confidentiality.
`If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, collect or return the Email. and delete this copy from your system.
`
`From: John L. Welch [mailto.]we|ch@ll-a.com]
`Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 09:28
`To: Jeffrey M. Drake
`Subject: RE: Fan Trip/Beyond
`
`I suggest that we wait until your client serves its responses, and we can then address both parties‘ responses.
`JLW
`-
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailto:jmdrake@woodphiIlips.com]
`Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:20 AM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: Fan Trip/Beyond
`
`John-
`
`Please let us know when you are available for a Rule 37 meet and confer tomorrow or on Monday to discuss
`Beyond’s responses to FanTrip’s written discovery.
`
`-Jeffrey
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood I phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`www.woodphillips.com
`
`If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying,
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall not constitute a waiver of privilege
`or confidentiality.
`If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, collect, or return the Email, and delete this copy from your system.
`
`8/21/2009
`
`66 0097
`
`

`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`John L. Welch
`vvv-rev-cu-x
`
`wwuwwwwwwwmmmm
`
`. mm
`
` «
`
`From:
`
`John L. Welch .
`
`Sent:
`
`Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:46 AM
`
`To:
`
`‘Jeffrey M. Drake‘
`
`Subject: RE: FanTrip/Beyond
`That should work. lfl have them ready before then, l’ll let you know.
`JLW
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailto:jmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:32 AM
`To: John L. Welch
`Subject: RE: FanTrip/Beyond
`
`John-
`
`How about September 11"‘? That date is approximately 3 months after service of the document requests.
`
`-Jeffrey
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood | phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`www.woodphi|lips.com
`
`It you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL lNFORMATlON.
`distribution, copying. or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall
`not constitute a waiver of privilege or confidentiality.
`If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, collect, or return the Email, and
`delete this copy from your system.
`
`From: John L. Welch [mailto:jwelch@|l-a.com]
`Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 16:22
`To: Jeffrey M. Drake
`Subject: RE: FanTrip/Beyond
`
`,
`Hello, Jeff.
`My client is in Egypt until Aug. 26, so it would be good if we could push off the date by a week or two.
`JLW
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailto:jmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 5:16 PM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: FanTrip/Beyond
`
`John-
`
`We would like to come to an agreeable date to exchange documents. We propose August 28"‘.
`
`Please let us know if that is agreeable to Beyond. Othenivise, provide an alternative date.
`
`Regards,
`
`Jeffrey
`
`8/21/2009
`
`Efi fl/& 5
`
`

`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood | phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 38
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`vvww.woodphillips.com
`
`00
`
`you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying.
`If you are not an intended recipient,
`D AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRIVILEGE
`nt is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall not constitute a waiver of privilege
`or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachme
`lease notify the sender immediately by telephone. collect, or return the Email, and delete this copy from your system.
`or confidentiality.
`lf you have received this Email in error. p
`
`8/21/2009
`
`66 0/1%
`
`

`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`John L. Welch
`
`From:
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake [jmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`
`Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:34 PM
`
`To:
`
`John L. Welch
`
`Subject: RE: FanTrip v. Beyond
`
`Sender ALLOWED [Ber_n_9v_e] [El details
`vanquish Ar2t.i—Spam Control Panel
`
`Thank you John.
`
`We will do the same with ours.
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood I phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`wvvw.woodphi||ips.com
`
`If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRNILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`distribution, copying, or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall
`not constitute a waiver of privilege or confidentiality.
`If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, collect, or return the Email, and
`delete this copy from your system.
`
`From: John L. We|ch [maiIto:jweIch@|I-a.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 14:37
`To: Jeffrey M. Drake
`Subject: RE: FanTrip v. Beyond
`
`They were mailed Friday. I'll pdf them to you. J
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailto:jmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:32 PM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: FanTrip v. Beyond
`
`John-
`
`We have yet to receive Opposer's responses to Applicant's written discovery.
`
`
`
`Please advise.
`
`—Jeffrey
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood I phillips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`www.woodphillips.com
`
`If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`distribution, copying, or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall
`not constitute a waiver of privilege or confidentiality.
`If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, collect, or return the Email, and
`delete this copy from your system.
`
`8/21/2009
`
`35 am 7
`
`

`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`John“ L. Welch
`wwamm
`
`From:
`
`Sent:
`
`To:
`
`John L. Welch
`
`Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:48 PM
`
`‘Jeffrey M. Drake‘
`
`Subject:
`
`Beyond Boundaries discovery responses
`
`Attachments: Scanned document from ECopy Scans (ecopyscans@|I-a.com); Scanned document from ECopy
`Scans (ecopyscans@II-a.com)
`
`Please note that Interrogatory Response No. 5 has been designated “Trade Secret/Commercially
`Sensitive” under the Standard Protective Order.
`
`8/21/2009
`
`65 a/0 0°
`
`

`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`John L. Welch
`
`From:
`
`Sent:
`
`To:
`
`John L. Welch
`
`Sunday, August 02, 2009 4:16 PM
`
`‘Jeffrey M. Drake‘
`
`Subject:
`
`RE: FanTrip
`
`Attachments: jwelch@ll-a.com.vcf
`
`Thank you, Jeff. JLW
`
`John L. Welch
`Of Counsel
`
`iweich@LL—A.com
`Lando & Anastasi, LLP
`Riverfront Office Park
`One Main Street - 11th Floor
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`T 617/395-7006; F 61713954079; DD 61?1395~7072
`
`Confidentiality Note: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged infonnation. Ifyou are not the
`intended recipient, please notily me immediately by replying to this message. Please destroy all copies of this message and any
`attachments. Thank you.
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailto:jmdrake@woodphillips.com]
`Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:17 PM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: RE: FanTrip
`
`Thanks John.
`
`Please see ours attached.
`
`Have a good weekend.
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood | phitlips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, lL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`wvvw.woodphil|ips.com
`
`if you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
`This Email and any attachments may contain PRlVlLEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
`distribution, copying, or disclosure of the contents of this Email or any attachment is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any review of this Email by other than an intended recipient shall
`not constitute a waiver of privilege or confidentiality.
`If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone. collect. or return the Email, and
`delete this copy from your system.
`
`From: John L. Welch [mailto:jwe|ch@ll-a.com]
`Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:15
`To: Jeffrey M. Drake
`Subject: RE: FanTrip
`
`Here are the admission requests. Although named backup, this does seem to be the final version.
`JLW
`
`John L. Welch
`Of Counsel
`
`jweioh@LL—A.com
`d
`',LLP
`Lan o&Anastasi
`
`8/21/2009
`
`O
`
`

`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Riverfront Office Park
`One Main Street - 11th Floor
`Cambridge, MA 02142
`T 51?1395~7000; F 617395-7070; DD 617:‘395—70?2
`
`Confidentiality Note: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged infonnation. Ifyou are not the intended
`recipient, please notify me immediately by replying to this message. Please destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank
`you.
`
`,.«.......
`
`V
`
`From: Jeffrey M. Drake [mailtozjmdrake@woodphil|ips.com]
`Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:51 PM
`To: John L. Welch
`
`Subject: FanTrip
`
`John-
`
`We would appreciate it if you could send us an electronic copy of your written discovery (in Word format) so that
`we can prepare our responses. We can also send an electronic copy of ours.
`
`Please let me know.
`
`Regards,
`
`Jeffrey
`
`Jeffrey M. Drake
`wood | phiilips
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 3800
`Chicago, IL 60661-2511
`Tel. (312)876-2115
`