Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA451602
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`01/17/2012
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91200167
`Defendant
`Higher Logic, LLC
`LAURI S THOMPSON
`GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
`3773 HOWARD HUGHES PAKWAY , STE 400 N
`LAS VEGAS, NV 89169
`UNITED STATES
`lvpto@gtlaw.com, thompsonl@gtlaw.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Lauri S. Thompson
`lvttab@gtlaw.com, thompsonl@gtlaw.com, burrelll@gtlaw.com,
`neyc@gtlaw.com, chavezr@gtlaw.com
`/s/ Lauri S. Thompson
`01/17/2012
`Higher Logic Opposition.pdf ( 13 pages )(53089 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
`
`M2 SOFTWARE, INC.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`HIGHER LOGIC, LLC,
`
`Applicant.
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91200167
`
`SERIAL NO. 85/017,071; 85/017,090
`
`MARK: M2 MOBILE MEMBERSHIP
`
`APPLICANT’S OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`Applicant, HIGHER LOGIC, LLC (“Higher Logic” or “Applicant”), by and through
`
`its attorneys of record,
`
`the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, hereby files this
`
`Opposition to Opposer, M2 Software, Inc.’s (“M2” or “Opposer”), Motion to Compel.
`
`This Opposition is based upon the points and authorities as identified below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Crux of Opposer’s Motion is its deliberate misinterpretation of the discovery
`
`rules to demand that Applicant hand over confidential, sensitive business information
`
`directly to M2. M2 is not represented by counsel. Without attorney gatekeepers in
`
`place to ensure M2 does not obtain Applicant’s trade secret and other commercially
`
`sensitive information, and without a Protective Order specifically drafted to prevent M2’s
`
`direct review of this information, Applicant has not, and cannot provide this information.1
`
`To do so would cause unmitigated harm to Applicant because M2 could use that
`
`information both for its own commercial benefit, and to the detriment of its claimed
`
`1 The TTAB recognizes this dilemma. Its rules expressly state that, “[w]hile the Board’s standard protective order
`sets forth guidelines for the disclosure of confidential information to pro se litigants and in-house counsel, in some
`cases, a modification of the Board’s standard protective order upon motion or stipulation of the parties, approved by
`the Board, may be desirable.” TBMP § 412.02(b). Under the terms of the standard protective order, pro se litigants
`“do not have access to trade secret/commercially sensitive information.” Id.
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`competitor, Higher Logic.2
`
`If Opposer were correct in that it was entitled to this commercially sensitive
`
`information,
`
`then any business could obtain its alleged competitor’s trade secrets,
`
`confidential customer lists, sensitive financial information and the like, simply by filing a
`
`TTAB proceeding without being represented by counsel. Logically, this is not the
`
`purpose of these proceedings, nor the intent of the discovery rules.
`
`The other main argument Opposer makes is its objection to the manner in which
`
`Applicant has responded to the discovery requests. Applicant is not a magician and
`
`cannot miraculously interpret many of the convoluted, senseless discovery requests
`
`propounded by Opposer. Applicant’s objections are not only proper under the rules,
`
`they are intended to offer an explanation to M2 as to why Applicant has difficulty in
`
`responding to the requests.
`
`If Opposer truly wanted the information it seeks, rather than
`
`wasting time on filing motions, that time could be better spent re-drafting the requests in
`
`clearer, unambiguous language - in a manner that Applicant cannot object to. Had M2
`
`immediately done so in mid-November 2011 when it
`
`first received Higher Logic’s
`
`objections, M2 would have already received Applicant’s revised responses. The fact
`
`that M2 fails to acknowledge the faults in its requests, ignored the clear need for it to re-
`
`draft its requests, but instead rushed to file this motion and without allowing Higher
`
`Logic time to supplement its responses, as it expressly stated it would time and time
`
`again throughout its responses, strongly suggests Applicant is simply playing the “bully”
`
`as it has done before in many prior proceedings.3
`
`Also, M2’s discovery requests seeks irrelevant
`
`information without any valid
`
`basis as to why Applicant should exert the time, effort and expense to go beyond what
`
`is required under the rules to provide this unnecessary information: Information that
`
`2 The fact that M2 alleges that Higher Logic uses the same mark for similar goods and services which equates to
`being a competitor, weakens any argument that it is entitled to Higher Logic’s commercially sensitive business
`information. Higher Logic does not acknowledge it is a competitor. However, with Higher Logic’s confidential
`information, M2 could potentially take that information and expand its services into Higher Logic’s market.
`3 A party may not seek immediate entry of sanctions for no response unless the responding party has expressly
`informed the inquiring party that no response will be made to the discovery requests. TBMP §411.02. Here,
`Applicant has not refused to respond to discovery. Applicant has, and will continue to respond to discovery.
`Its
`objections simply point out those requests which it cannot respond to at this time.
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`does not concern any of the issues in this proceeding and would not be used as
`
`evidence. These requests are overburdensome and were properly identified as so.
`
`If,
`
`however, M2 could provide a reasonable and legal basis for seeking such information,
`
`for example, the request for insurance information in a proceeding where damages are
`
`not awarded and where the only issues are priority of use and likelihood of confusion,
`
`Applicant might reconsider the request.
`
`The bottom line is that M2 is being unreasonable.
`
`If Applicant
`
`loses this
`
`proceeding the result is that it cannot obtain a federal registration but it can continue its
`
`common law use of the mark to the extent it believes it has the right to do so. As
`
`articulated to the Interlocutory Attorney during the Initial Case Conference, Applicant
`
`has offered to abandon its applications, in effect, giving M2 the same result as a victory
`
`in this proceeding, provided M2 did not challenge its common law use.
`
`Incongruously,
`
`M2 refused the settlement offer further supporting Higher Logic’s belief
`
`that M2’s
`
`actions in this proceeding, including its discovery bullying, are not in good faith.
`
`II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`M2 makes several arguments in support of its Motion all of which Applicant
`
`deems inappropriate for the following reasons:
`
`A. Applicant’s Initial Disclosures Were Appropriate
`
`M2 complains about the inadequacy of Applicant’s Initial Disclosures. (Motion p.
`
`1). Based upon the information available to it at that time, Applicant properly provided
`
`both witness information and documents in its Initial Disclosures.
`
`(See Exhibit 2
`
`attached to Motion).
`
`In fact, Applicant identified both Rob Wenger and a person most
`
`knowledgeable as witnesses for Higher Logic with contact information appropriately
`
`through Higher Logic’s counsel, Greenberg Traurig. Also, Mr. Escamilla and a person
`
`most knowledgeable for M2 were identified as likely witnesses. At this time Applicant
`
`does not know of other witnesses, nor does it intend to depose other witnesses, such
`
`that its witness disclosures were complete and proper.4
`
`4 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), a party is not obligated to disclose the name of every witness, document or
`thing that may have or contain discoverable information about its claim or defense, but merely the witnesses,
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`M2’s objection that Higher Logic only identified Rob Wenger is unjustified
`
`because if that is the only person Applicant believes at this time would be a suitable
`
`witness then that that is the only person required to be identified. Further, under the
`
`federal discovery rules, a person most knowledgeable is simply a person the company
`
`makes knowledgeable and prepares to testify on its behalf at the time of deposition.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Applicant need not have a specific person in mind until the
`
`time of the deposition. Id.
`
`Additionally, Applicant produced 138 pages of documents attached to its Initial
`
`Disclosures as compared to a lesser 132 pages by M2.
`
`Incongruously, M2 complains
`
`that it did not like Applicant’s production of the file history for Applicant’s M2 mark and
`
`demands Applicant re-produce those documents even though M2 produced that very
`
`same file history attached to its own disclosures. Clearly, M2’s complaints are baseless
`
`and amount to no more than self-indulgent whining.
`
`B. Incomprehensible Discovery Requests:
`
`M2’s discovery is rife with incomprehensible requests often made more
`
`convoluted by their compound nature and ambiguous terminology. A prime example
`
`includes the following:
`
`INTERROGATORY REQUEST NO. 7:
`With respect to the first use(s) of the M2 MARK in connection with the sale
`or distribution of each item of goods or services identified in Interrogatory
`No. 3, please list each item separately and state:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`The manner in which the M2 MARK was used, e.g., by affixation to
`containers or labels, use on signs, use on web pages, use on
`printed promotional materials, as a trade name, etc.;
`labels, printed
`If
`the M2 MARK was printed on containers,
`promotional materials, or web pages for the product or service, the
`name and address of the PERSON(s) or organization which printed
`the term;
`(c) Whether the product or service was sold;
`(d) Whether the product or service was distributed or provided free of
`charge.
`The name and address of the PERSONS to whom the product or
`service was sold, distributed, or provided;
`Whether APPLICANT itself manufactured or provided each of the
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`documents and things having or containing discoverable “information that the disclosing party may use to support
`its claims or defenses.” 37 C.F.R. §2.120(a)(3).
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`(h)
`
`goods or services identified;
`(g) Whether the sale, distribution, or provision of each item of goods or
`services under the M2 MARK has been continuous from the date
`specified in Interrogatory No. 6 to the present;
`If the answer to Interrogatory 7g. is in the affirmative, whether the
`circumstances described in answer to Interrogatories 7a., 7b., 7c.,
`7d., 7f. prevailed throughout the period identified in Interrogatory
`7g.;
`If the circumstances described in answer to Interrogatories 7a., 7b.,
`7c., 7d., and 7f. did not prevail throughout the period identified in
`Interrogatory 7g., state how they changed, providing specific dates
`and names wherever requested; and
`is in the negative, state the
`If
`the answer to Interrogatory 7g.
`periods of time during which the M2 MARK was not used by the
`Applicant
`in connection with the sale, distribution, provision, or
`operation of any of the items of goods, services or trade entity.
`
`(i)
`
`(j)
`
`This interrogatory is,
`
`in a word,
`
`indecipherable.
`
`Applicant believes this
`
`Interrogatory on its own might well exceed the 75 interrogatory limit, including subparts,
`
`under the rules. TBMP §405.03(a).
`
`It is difficult to know for sure without a team of
`
`mathematicians to calculate the requests. Further, buried deep in this Interrogatory are
`
`improper requests for information, such as manufacture information, which is irrelevant
`
`to the issues involved in this trademark proceeding. Surely, after the twenty plus Board
`
`proceedings filed by M2,
`
`it knows that certain information is not
`
`relevant, not
`
`discoverable and need not be produced yet it still “sneaks” requests for that information
`
`into its discovery, and then acts with outrage when that information is not produced.
`
`Regardless, Applicant did its best to wade through the quagmire and find some
`
`identifiable parts of the request and reasonably responded as follows:
`
`Not withstanding said objection, and without waiver of same, see
`applications Serial Nos. 85017090, and 85017090 for the goods and
`services on which the mark is used, and the dates of first use. The marks
`have been in continuous use since the dates of first use and have been
`used on Applicant’s website found at <www.higherlogic.com>, in print in
`Higher Logic’s product brochure,
`in print
`in a dedicated handout, on
`banners displayed at
`tradeshows and on the mobile application
`downloadable onto mobile phones.
`Applicant
`reserves the right
`to
`supplement this response should additional information become available
`at a later date.
`
`INTERROGATORY REQUEST NO. 8:
`
`Identify the PERSON or PERSONS most knowledgeable CONCERNING
`import, distribution, display or sale of
`the design, ordering, purchase,
`products and the performance of services bearing the M2 MARK, and
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`state the circumstances of such design, ordering, purchase,
`distribution, display, or sale. (Emphasis added).
`
`import,
`
`Applicant properly objected that this request is overbroad and burdensome and
`
`more specifically compound. Applicant continues that objection because:
`
`1. The Interrogatory seeks both a Person Most Knowledgeable concerning a
`list of activities and information on the circumstances relating to a list of
`activities;
`2. The request does not define or explain what is meant, or the information
`being sought, in relation to the terms “concerning” and/or “circumstances.”
`For example, does “concerning” the sale of products, mean to what
`customers are the products being sold to? What products have been
`sold? Does “circumstances” of sale mean how it is sold, the process for
`selling the product? How it is advertised letting customers know it is for
`sale?
`3. M2’s use of the term “or” means the request can be read as seeking a
`person most knowledgeable concerning the design, or ordering, or
`purchase, or import, or distribution, or display or sale of products and the
`performance of services and certain information of
`the design, or
`ordering, or purchase, or import, or distribution, display or sale of
`products and the performance of services.
`4. Applicant believes M2 might have intended that the request be read as
`seeking a person most knowledgeable concerning the design, and
`ordering, and purchase, and import, and distribution, and display and
`sale of products and the performance of services and certain information
`the design, and ordering, and purchase, and import, and distribution,
`of
`display and sale of products and the performance of services.
`
`Based upon the large number of potential
`
`interpretations of this one request,
`
`Applicant’s objection was proper. Regardless, Applicant did its best to respond by
`
`identifying the witnesses named in its Initial Disclosures as persons most
`
`knowledgeable, which they are. Further, and even though Applicant does not believe
`
`that the how, why, where, of a product’s design is relevant to the use of a trademark
`
`associated with that product, M2 has the ability to depose the persons most
`
`knowledgeable already identified to determine if that information might be relevant or
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The bottom line is that the discovery is
`
`still
`
`in its early days and M2 will obtain additional
`
`information and documents from
`
`Applicant as they become available such that the Motion to Compel is not yet ripe.5
`
`/ / /
`
`5 Applicant supplemented its discovery requests on January 17, 2012 and continues reviewing and identifying
`relevant documents and information which might either be produced or identified on a Privilege Log.
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`C. Higher Logic’s Objections Are Permitted And Appropriate
`
`M2 argues that Applicant’s objections are not applicable in Federal Proceedings
`
`(Motion at p. 6), ignoring, or perhaps unaware of TBMP § 410 acknowledging that, “. . .
`
`rules governing discovery in proceedings before the Board provide for both the
`
`assertions of objections to discovery requests believed to be improper and a means . . .
`
`for testing the sufficiency of those objections” Moreover, if Applicant failed to exercise
`
`its right to object, that right would be deemed waived. (See for example, Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33 (b)(4) (Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived); TBMP § 405.04(b).
`
`Based upon the above-referenced examples of
`
`the convoluted and at
`
`times
`
`indecipherable nature of M2’s discovery requests, Applicant believed its objections were
`
`proper. More significantly, Applicant did not simply refuse to respond to the requests.
`
`It
`
`did what it could to interpret the request, offer a reasonable objection with explanation
`
`where appropriate, respond with information and documents (more than M2 produced),
`
`known to it at the time of the response, and expressly stated it would supplement its
`
`responses.
`
`D. Higher Logic’s Objections Identify The Basis For Why Applicant Cannot
`Fully Respond.
`
`Objections are permitted to challenge a discovery request. TBMP § 410. They
`
`allow a responder to identify the nature of the objection putting the party propounding
`
`the request on notice of what it is about the request that is objectionable - why it is
`
`difficult to give a complete response. The party propounding the request then has the
`
`ability to re-served a better articulated request. Permissible objections going to the
`
`merits of a discovery request include: overly broad, unduly vague and ambiguous,
`
`burdensome and oppressive . . . . TBMP § 410. Applicant used these and other
`
`similarly permissible objections in its responses to M2’s discovery.
`
`Before filing a Motion to Compel, M2 should have given serious review and
`
`evaluation to the merits of Applicant’s objections and then re-drafted and re-served its
`
`requests. That it did not do so, and in fact quickly filed its Motion, strongly suggests to
`
`Higher Logic that this proceeding is simply a vehicle for M2 to act like the trademark
`
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`bully it is and to harass Applicant, even after Applicant has offered to settle this matter.
`
`E. Opposer Seeks Irrelevant Information
`
`Many of M2’s requests seek information that is not relevant to this trademark
`
`proceeding. Some examples are as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`identifying: a)
`Describe in detail APPLICANT'S business structure,
`APPLICANT and any parents, subsidiaries, partners and/or affiliates and b)
`the identity of any principals, owners, directors, shareholders, officers,
`and/or general or limited partners of each entity identified in (a), and the
`percentage of the respective entity that each of the foregoing owns or
`controls.
`
`Applicant properly objected that this request for information on corporate entities
`
`seeks irrelevant information but appropriately did respond that the information regarding
`
`ownership of the mark, which is relevant to the issues in this proceeding, could be
`
`identified by looking at the record of the trademark application.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`For each product or service identified in Interrogatory No. 3, please identify
`in detail:
`
`(a)
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`any software tools utilized to develop the product or service;
`the name, manufacturer, and version number of any
`software or database application used to develop the
`product or service;
`all programming languages utilized in developing the product
`or service.
`
`This request
`
`is more suited to a patent
`
`infringement proceeding and not a
`
`trademark case as the development of Higher Logic’s product and software is irrelevant
`
`to use of a trademark in commerce.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
`Has APPLICANT ever entered into any AGREEMENT or policy providing
`insurance or other reimbursement for trademark infringement or for any
`other legal costs in connection with trademark use or registration? If so,
`please identify:
`
`(a)
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`the PERSON or entity providing such coverage;
`the date on which each AGREEMENT or policy was entered
`into;
`the policy number, terms and coverage of such
`AGREEMENT or policy;
`the identity of any documents evidencing or relating hereto.
`
`

`
`As stated above, the Board has found insurance information irrelevant to a Board
`
`proceeding because no damages are awarded.6 Significantly, Applicant identified that
`
`this information is not applicable in its Initial Disclosures. M2 clearly ignored that
`
`designation in Higher Logic’s Initial Disclosures,
`
`inappropriately requested this
`
`information through discovery, and now loudly complains because that information is
`
`not forthcoming.
`
`M2 also improperly sought documents not relevant to this proceeding which
`
`involves use of a M2 mark in relation to a computer application for mobile devices. M2’s
`
`requests sought documents on goods and services that were not related to mobile
`
`applications, or where not used with an M2 mark, and so were not at relevant in this
`
`proceeding or likely to lead to admissible evidence.
`
`If M2 believes there is some
`
`connection between these other goods and services and the goods and services at
`
`issue in this proceeding, it has the ability through deposition to question the person
`
`most knowledgeable for Applicant, identify the chain of relevancy, and then propound
`
`follow-up discovery. At this time the relevance of the information is not apparent from
`
`M2’s discovery requests and Applicant is not required to “guess” that somehow it is.
`
`Regardless, Applicant continues to look for and identify documents to be produced to
`
`M2 and will continue to supplement its document production through the end of the
`
`discovery period.
`
`Significantly absent from Opposer’s Motion, is any valid basis for seeking this
`
`irrelevant information. Based upon M2’s apparent ignorance, or deliberate disregard, of
`
`the discovery rules, and blinkered assessment of Higher Logic’s discovery responses,
`
`Applicant believes M2 failed to properly evaluate the appropriateness of Higher Logic’s
`
`discovery responses, including objections, and would have filed this motion to compel
`
`regardless, simply to harass Higher Logic.
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`6 The TTAB does not require disclosure of damage computations or insurance agreements because those are going
`to be irrelevant to opposition or cancellation proceedings. 72 Fed. Reg. 42242 (Aug. 1, 2007).
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`F. Requests for Admissions
`
`Opposer’s arguments regarding the insufficiency of Applicant’s responses to the
`
`requests for admissions are similarly baseless and ignores the fact that Applicant gave
`
`appropriate one word “admit” or “deny” responses where it could. There were multiple
`
`compound requests which were improper under the rules and Applicant’s objections
`
`were proper. Significantly, there is no limit to the number of requests for admissions a
`
`party may propound and M2 had, and still has, the ability to re-draft the requests to
`
`separate the admission sought into individual requests.
`
`G. Opposer Is Not Entitled To Higher Logic’s Confidential, Sensitive
`Business Information
`
`Applicant believes there is not an appropriate Protective Order in place that
`
`would permissibly allow it to provide confidential and business sensitive information
`
`directly to M2. The matter of the Protective Order, and M2’s lack of legal counsel, was
`
`raised by the Interlocutory Attorney during the Early Case Conference in this matter.
`
`This issue was summarily dismissed by Mr. Escamilla.
`
`Though Mr. Escamilla is correct that the Standard TTAB Protective Order is
`
`automatically in place,
`
`it
`
`is not workable in this proceeding if M2 seeks sensitive
`
`business information but does not have counsel to act as a filter for Higher Logic’s
`
`production of commercially sensitive materials. M2 cannot have it both ways.
`
`If it wants
`
`to argue that
`
`the Standard Protective Order is sufficient, with its designations of
`
`sensitive documents to be marked “Attorneys Eyes Only” and it does not have
`
`attorneys, then it simply must accept that it cannot have access to Higher Logics
`
`sensitive information. TBMP § 412.02(b). Alternatively, if M2 believes access to that
`
`information is relevant to its case, then it either needs to retain counsel, or be creative in
`
`explaining to Higher Logic how some other form of Protective Order could be drafted
`
`that would preclude M2’s access to Applicant’s confidential
`
`information. M2 does
`
`neither.
`
`It simply complains about Applicant’s failure to provide information and
`
`documents without recognizing the situation created by its own lack of counsel, and
`
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`without offering any valid solution to the issue it has chosen to create.7
`
`For the Board’s information, Applicant is diligently complying with its discovery
`
`obligations and although it will not provide M2 with its confidential information, it is in the
`
`process of creating a Privilege Log to be served on M2 when the process is complete.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`M2 chose not to be represented by counsel knowingly precluding its ability to
`
`obtain sensitive business information from Higher Logic. The difficulty of proceeding
`
`without counsel was pointed out to Mr. Escamilla by the Interlocutory Attorney during
`
`the Early Case Conference. Moreover, the lack of legal counseling is apparent in the oft
`
`times convoluted language of
`
`the discovery requests. Mr. Escamilla cannot now
`
`complain of Applicant’s allege discovery failures when they are of his own creation.
`
`Applicant has done its best to respond to the discovery requests and has provided both
`
`information and documents, it offered proper objections to point out the problems with
`
`the requests, and Applicant will continue to supplement
`
`its discovery responses
`
`throughout the remainder of the discovery period which closes on April 9, 2012, almost
`
`three months from now.
`
`If M2 was seriously concerned about obtaining documents and information from
`
`Higher Logic, it would have given sound consideration to Applicant’s objections received
`
`on or about November 11, 2011, realized there are issues with the way the discovery
`
`requests are drafted, re-drafted and re-served the requests and, even assuming the
`
`requests were re-served by the end of November, M2 would have had Applicant’s
`
`responses by the end of December 2011.
`
`Regardless, Applicant is aware of its obligation under the discovery rules and
`
`continues to review documents and information to supplement its discovery responses.
`
`Again, on January 17, 2012, Applicant supplemented its Answers to Interrogatories.
`
`M2’s Motion to Compel
`
`is unripe,
`
`fails to allow time for any supplementation of
`
`7 Applicant is diligently complying with its discovery obligations and although it will not provide M2 with its
`confidential
`information,
`it
`is in the process of creating a Privilege Log to be served on M2 (with
`appropriate supplements) when this lengthy process is complete.
`
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`discovery, ignores its own failings in propounding discovery, ignores the fact it is not
`
`entitled to Higher Logic’s sensitive business information, and is believed solely intended
`
`to harass Applicant.
`
`As Applicant continues to supplement
`
`its discovery, M2’s Motion should be
`
`denied as moot. Further, the Board should find that M2 has the ability to re-draft and re-
`
`serve its discovery requests and should do so.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Dated: January 17, 2012
`
`/s/ Lauri S. Thompson
`Lauri S. Thompson
`Laraine M. I. Burrell
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`3773 Howard Hughes Parkway,
`Suite 400 N.
`Las Vegas, NV 89169
`Counsel for Higher Logic, LLC
`
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY should be
`
`accepted as timely-filed is being filed electronically with the united states patent and
`
`trademark office trademark trial and appeals board and being served by first class mail,
`
`postage prepaid, on January 17, 2012, on the following:
`
`D. Escamilla
`M2 Software, Inc.
`6725 Sunset Blvd., Suite 230
`Los Angeles, CA 90028
`
`/s/ Cynthia L. Ney
`An employee of Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`
`LV 419,645,711v1 1-17-12