Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA614058
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`07/07/2014
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91203462
`Defendant
`Nextdoor.com, Inc.
`JENNIFER L KELLY
`FENWICK WEST LLP
`801 CALIFORNIA ST
`MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@fenwick.com, jkelly@fenwick.com, gjobson@fenwick.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Jennifer L. Kelly
`trademarks@fenwick.com, jkelly@fenwick.com, gjobson@fenwick.com,
`eball@fenwick.com
`/Jennifer L. Kelly/
`07/07/2014
`NEXTDOOR Notice of Judgment.pdf(307782 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
`
`
`
`In the matter of
`Trademark Application Serial No. 85/236,918 for NEXTDOOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Raj Abhyanker,
`
` Opposer,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`Nextdoor.com, Inc.,
`
` Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition Nos. 91203462
`and 91203762
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
`IN FAVOR OF NEXTDOOR.COM
`AND RAJ ABHYANKER’S DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF ALL CLAIMS
`
`
`On November 6, 2012, the Board stayed Opposition Nos. 91203462 and 91203762
`
`pending the outcome of a civil action between the parties: Nextdoor.com, Inc., v. Raj Abhyanker,
`
`Case No. CV-12-5667. Since then, all claims regarding ownership of the NEXTDOOR mark
`
`have been resolved in Applicant Nexdoor.com’s favor. Moreover, the Court dismissed with
`
`prejudice all other claims made by Opposer Raj Abhyanker in Nextdoor.com, Inc., v. Raj
`
`Abhyanker, Case No. CV-12-5667. Pursuant to TBMP 510.02(b), Nextdoor.com requests that
`
`the Board dismiss Opposition Nos. 91203462 and 91203762 with prejudice and enter a Judgment
`
`in Nextdoor.com’s favor so that Nextdoor.com’s Application Serial No. 85/236,918 for the
`
`NEXTDOOR mark may proceed to registration.
`
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND
`REQUEST TO TERMINATE OPPOSITIONS
`Mark: NEXTDOOR
`Opposition Nos. 91203462 and 91203762
`
`

`
`More specifically, Nextdoor.com, notifies the Board that on May 16, 2014, the Court of
`
`the Northern District of California entered a Partial Final Judgment in Nextdoor.com, Inc., v. Raj
`
`Abhyanker, Case No. CV-12-5667 finding that:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Nextdoor.com, Inc. owns trademark rights in and has priority of use of
`
`the NEXTDOOR mark in the field of online social networking.
`
`2.
`
`All of Counterclaimant Raj Abhyanker’s claims to priority of use and ownership
`
`of the NEXTDOOR mark are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
`
`3.
`
`Abhyanker, and each of his agents, servants, and employees, and those persons in
`
`active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this
`
`order, shall not use the NEXTDOOR mark, or any colorable imitation thereof or
`
`confusingly similar term, in the field of online social networking for so long as
`
`Nextdoor.com or its successors has not abandoned or ceased use of the
`
`NEXTDOOR mark.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Court’s May 16, 2014 Partial Final
`
`Judgment.
`
`Additionally, on June 17, 2014, the Court entered an Order dismissing with prejudice
`
`each of Opposer’s remaining claims against Nextdoor.com, including any claims for
`
`infringement of Abhyanker’s alleged FATDOOR word or logo marks. Attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Court’s June 17, 2014 Order dismissing with prejudice
`
`each of Abhyanker’s remaining claims.
`
`2
`
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND
`REQUEST TO TERMINATE OPPOSITIONS
`Mark: NEXTDOOR
`Opposition No. 91203462
`
`
`

`
`This Judgment and Order resolves all claims by Opposer in the civil action between the
`
`parties. On June 19, 2014, Opposer and Nextdoor.com filed a Joint Case Management
`
`Conference Statement with the Court confirming that the Court’s Judgment and Order resolved
`
`Opposer’s claims and that Applicant’s NEXTDOOR mark can proceed to registration. In
`
`particular, the parties represented to the Court that:
`
`There are also co-pending oppositions to Nextdoor.com’s registration of its
`NEXTDOOR mark in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) filed by
`Abhyanker (Opposition Nos. 31203462 and 91203762). Those opposition
`proceedings have been suspended pending the outcome of this case. However,
`because of the Court’s Judgment confirming Nextdoor.com’s right to the
`NEXTDOOR mark [Dkt Nos. 192-193] and Abhyanker’s dismissal of all claims
`[Dkt No. 226], the parties are required to notify the TTAB of the resolution of
`Abhyanker’s claims so that the TTAB proceedings can resume and
`Nextdoor.com’s application for the NEXTDOOR mark can proceed to
`registration.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the parties June 19, 2014 Joint Case
`
`Management Conference Statement.
`
`Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to TBMP 510.02(b), Nextdoor.com requests that
`
`the Board dismiss Opposition Nos. 91203462 and 91203762 with prejudice and enter a Judgment
`
`in Nextdoor.com’s favor so that Nextdoor.com’s Application Serial No. 85/236,918 for the
`
`NEXTDOOR mark may proceed to registration.
`
`Dated: July 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND
`REQUEST TO TERMINATE OPPOSITIONS
`Mark: NEXTDOOR
`Opposition No. 91203462
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jennifer L. Kelly/
`Jennifer Kelly, Esq.
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Tel: (415) 875-2300
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Nextdoor.com, Inc.
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I declare that:
`
`I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, California.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause. My
`
`business address is Fenwick & West LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street,
`
`Mountain View, CA 94041. On the date set forth below, I served the within
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM AND RAJ ABHYANKER’S DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF
`
`ALL CLAIMS on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in
`
`a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, and causing it to be placed for first class
`
`delivery by the U.S. Postal Service, which envelope was addressed as follows:
`
`
`Kuscha Hatami, Esq.
`Raj Abhyanker, P.C.
`1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 13
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that
`
` I
`
`this declaration was executed at Mountain View, California, this 7th, day of July, 2014.
`
`/Deborah A. Shaw/
` Deborah A. Shaw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND
`REQUEST TO TERMINATE OPPOSITIONS
`Mark: NEXTDOOR
`Opposition No. 91203462
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHI BI T A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document193 Filed05/16/14 Page1 of 2
`Case3:12—cv—O5667—EMC Document193 Fi|edO5/16/14 Pagel of2
`
`LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CSB No. 115163)
`lpu1grarn@fenwick.com
`JENNIFER L. KELLY (CSB No. 193416)
`jkelly@fenwick.com
`ERIC J. BALL (CSB No. 241327)
`ebal1@fenwick.com
`MATTHEW B. BECKER (CSB No. 291865)
`mbecker@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile:
`415.281.1350
`
`\lO'\UI-P
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC. and Counterdefendant
`PRAKASH JANAKIRAMAN
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FENWICK8:WESTLLP
`
`ATTORNEYSATLAW
`
`SANFRANCISCO
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`RAJ ABHYANKER, an individual,
`
`Defendant.
`
`RAJ ABHYANKER, an individual,
`
`Counterclaimant,
`
`V.
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; PRAKASH JANAKIRAMAN, an
`individual; BENCHMARK CAPITAL
`PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited
`partnership; BENCHMARK CAPITAL
`MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company; SANDEEP SOOD, an
`individual; MONSOON ENTERPRISES, INC., a
`California corporation, and DOES 1-50,
`inclusive,
`
`Counterdefendants.
`PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(B)
`AND 58(A)
`
`Case No-: 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`PURSUANT To FED. R. crv. P. 54(3)
`AND 58(A)
`
`CASE NO. 3: 12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document193 Filed05/16/14 Page2 of 2
`
`E S D ISTRIC
`
`T
`
`C O
`
`S T
`I T I S S O O R D E R E D
`
`T
`
`A
`
`D
`E
`
`UNIT
`
`N O R
`
`T
`
`16th
`
`U
`
`R
`
`T
`
`FORNIA
`
`C A LI
`
`J u d ge E d wa r d M . C h e n
`
`O F
`
`H E R
`
`N
`
`DIST R I C T
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHI BI T B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document226 Filed06/17/14 Page1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`BRUNO W. TARABICHI, CA State Bar No. 215129
`bruno@legalforcelaw.com
`HEATHER R. NORTON, CA State Bar No. 257014
`heather@legalforcelaw.com
`SCOTT J. ALLEN, CA State Bar No. 178925
`scott@legalforcelaw.com
`LEGALFORCE RAJ ABHYANKER, P.C.
`1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 13
`Mountain View, California 94040
`Telephone: 650.965.8731
`Facsimile: 650.989.2131
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
`Raj Abhyanker
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
`ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
`WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT AND
`COUNTERCLAIMANT RAJ
`ABHYANKER’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`AGAINST COUNTERDEFENDANTS
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC. AND PRAKASH
`JANAKIRAMAN
`
`
`
`
` Case Filed: November 5, 2012
`
` Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen
`
`-1-
`
`STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
`3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`RAJ ABHYANKER, an individual,
`
`Defendant.
`
`RAJ ABHYANKER, an individual
`
`Counterclaimant,
`
`vs.
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; and PRAKASH
`JANAKIRAMAN, an individual;
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document226 Filed06/17/14 Page2 of 5
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants Nextdoor.com, Inc. (“Nextdoor.com”) and Prakash
`
`Janakiraman (“Janakiraman”) and Defendant/Counterclaimant Raj Abhyanker (“Abhyanker”),
`
`through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree, and request the Court to enter, the
`
`following Order resolving Abhyanker’s counterclaims in this matter.
`
`1.
`
`On December 5, 2013, Abhyanker filed a Second Amended Answer and
`
`Counterclaims [Dkt. No. 132] (“SACC”), asserting counterclaims for trade secret
`
`misappropriation against Nextdoor.com and Janakiraman, and trademark infringement,
`
`infringement of an unregistered mark, and California unfair competition against Nextdoor.com.
`
`2.
`
`On May 8, 2014, Nextdoor.com and Abhyanker stipulated to a dismissal of
`
`Abhyanker’s trademark infringement counterclaim, and to entry of judgment on Nextdoor.com’s
`
`claim for declaratory judgment that it has established trademark rights, including priority of use,
`
`of the NEXTDOOR Mark in the field of online social networking [Dkt. 188].
`
`3.
`
`Abhyanker, on behalf of himself and any entities he controls, now or in the future,
`
`wishes to dismiss with prejudice and forever release all remaining counterclaims against
`
`Nextdoor.com and Janakiraman.
`
`4.
`
`Each party preserves the right to move for or oppose an award of attorneys’ fees
`
`and costs with respect to the matters dismissed and adjudicated by this Order at an appropriate
`
`time in this action and to present any and all admissible evidence with respect to such a motion.
`
`5.
`
`Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as an admission of liability or
`
`wrongdoing of any kind by any of the parties hereto.
`
`-2-
`
`STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
`3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document226 Filed06/17/14 Page3 of 5
`
`
`
`Stipulated and agreed to this 13th day of June 2014.
`
`
`
`/s/ Bruno W. Tarabichi
`Bruno W. Tarabichi
`Heather R. Norton
`Scott J. Allen
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Raj Abhyanker
`
`
`
`/s/ Ilana Rubel
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Ilana Rubel
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and
`Counterdefendants Nextdoor.com, Inc.
`and Prakash Janakiraman
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that all signatories to this filing have
`
`provided their consent to this filing.
`
`/s/ Bruno W. Tarabichi
`Bruno W. Tarabichi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
`3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document226 Filed06/17/14 Page4 of 5
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`
`
`In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown, the Court
`
`hereby orders, adjudges and decrees that:
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaimant Raj Abhyanker’s claim of trade secret misappropriation is hereby
`
`dismissed with prejudice.
`
`2.
`
`Counterclaimant Raj Abhyanker’s claims of trademark infringement, to the extent not
`
`already dismissed pursuant to the Court’s Entry of Partial Dismissal, Dkt. 192, are hereby
`
`dismissed with prejudice.
`
`3.
`
`Counterclaimant Raj Abhyanker’s claim of California Unfair Competition is hereby
`
`dismissed with prejudice.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E S D ISTRIC
`
`T
`
`C O
`
`U
`
`R
`
`T
`
`T
`
`A
`
`S T
`I T I S S O O R D E R E D
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`17th
`ENTERED this _________ day of June, 2014.
`
`D
`E
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIT
`
`FORNIA
`
`C A LI
`
`HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`J u d ge E d wa r d M . C h e n
`
`N O R
`
`O F
`
`T
`
`H E R
`
`N
`
`DIST R I C T
`
`-4-
`
`STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
`3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document226 Filed06/17/14 Page5 of 5
`
`-1-
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Case No. 12-CV-4413YGR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHI BI T C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page1 of 16
`
`
`
`LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CSB No. 115163)
`lpulgram@fenwick.com
`JENNIFER L. KELLY (CSB No. 193416)
`jkelly@fenwick.com
`ILANA S. RUBEL (CSB No. 221517)
`irubel@fenwick.com
`GUINEVERE L. JOBSON (CSB No. 251907)
`gjobson@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 875-2300
`Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
`
`ERIC J. BALL (CSB No. 241327)
`eball@fenwick.com
`MATTHEW B. BECKER (CSB No. 291865)
`mbecker@fenwick.com
`Fenwick and West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`NEXTDOOR.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Case No.: 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT
`CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`v.
`
`RAJ ABHYANKER, an individual,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Judge:
`
`June 26, 2014
`10:30 a.m.
`Honorable Edward M. Chen
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page2 of 16
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 16-10, the Court’s Standing Order, and the Court’s Minute Order
`
`following the February 21, 2014 hearing on Nextdoor.com’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt
`
`No. 163], the undersigned parties respectfully submit the following Fourth Supplemental Joint
`
`Case Management Statement.
`
`1.
`
`Only Counts 2-4 of Nextdoor’s Affirmative Claims Remain in the Case
`
`Nextdoor.com’s Summary of the Remaining Claims: In this matter alone,1 Defendant,
`
`and formerly Counterclaimant, Raj Abhyanker has pled at least seven different theories of
`
`liability against Plaintiff Nextdoor.com. These include claims based on four trade secrets, two
`
`trademarks and one patent. Each of these theories was either dismissed with prejudice by the
`
`Court or voluntarily – without any compensation from Nextdoor.com – by Abhyanker. But
`
`before dismissal, Nextdoor.com had to expend substantial attorneys’ fees and costs responding to
`
`Abhyanker’s ever changing and baseless theories of liability. Nextdoor.com now seeks recovery
`
`for having to respond to Abhyanker’s actions.
`
`First, on March 15, 2013 Nextdoor.com filed a motion to dismiss Abhyanker’s baseless
`
`trade secret claim because his idea (but not use) of the NEXTDOOR name was public and not a
`
`secret. [Dkt No. 38]. On June 6, 2013 the Court granted Nextdoor.com’s motion to dismiss the
`
`trade secret claim to the extent it was based on the idea for the NEXTDOOR name. [Dkt No. 95].
`
`Second, after multiple rounds of discussions, on November 21, 2013, Nextdoor.com served a
`
`Rule 11 motion asking Abhyanker to withdraw his baseless putative patent infringement claim
`
`(for which he had sought leave to assert) and a second trade secret claim based on his “source
`
`code.” [Dkt No. 125]. In response to the Rule 11 letter, Abhyanker advised the Court that he no
`
`longer intended to pursue these claims. [Dkt No. 132 and 135]. Third, on January 9, 2014,
`
`Nextdoor.com filed a motion for summary judgment addressing Abhyanker’s two remaining trade
`
`secret claims (alleged bidding history for the nextdoor.com domain and his alleged pilot in
`
`
`1 Abhyanker has also plead additional theories of liability against Nextdoor.com in: (1) a
`previously filed and dismissed action in Santa Clara County Superior Court; (2) two trademark
`oppositions currently pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; and (3) a recently
`filed and related patent infringement case in the Northern District of California, Case No. 14-cv-
`02335.
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page3 of 16
`
`
`
`Lorelei). [Dkt No. 143]. On April 23, 2014, the Court again dismissed one of Abhyanker’s
`
`alleged trade secrets (bidding history)—because it was not a secret. Fourth, on April 16, 2014,
`
`Nextdoor.com served Abhyanker with a second Rule 11 letter asking Abhyanker to withdraw his
`
`baseless claim for infringement of the NEXTDOOR mark, premised on his allegation that he used
`
`that mark in commerce before Nextdoor.com did. On May 5, 2014, Abhyanker agreed to
`
`withdraw this claim and the Court entered a Partial Judgment against Abhyanker. [Dkt No. 193].
`
`Remarkably, Mr. Abhyanker withdrew his claims for infringement of the NEXTDOOR mark
`
`only five months after Abhyanker asked the Court to allow him to add this claim to his
`
`Counterclaims. Fifth, after multiple rounds of discovery, depositions, discovery motions and
`
`hearings regarding Abhyanker’s baseless claims and fabricated evidence, on June 13, 2014,
`
`Abhyanker agreed to dismiss all of his remaining claims (trade secret and trademark
`
`infringement). [Dkt No. 224]. Notably, Abhyanker’s agreement to dismiss his claims came after
`
`Nextdoor.com confronted Abhyanker with substantial evidence that Abhyanker fabricated
`
`evidence and mislead the Court in connection with his opposition to Nextdoor.com’s summary
`
`judgment motion. Abhyanker’s agreement to dismiss the remainder of his claims also came only
`
`after a June 13, 2014 hearing before Judge Cousins during which Judge Cousins repeatedly
`
`warned Abhyanker of the likelihood of sanctions for the pursuit of baseless claims.
`
`With the dismissal of each of Abhyanker’s claims, the only remaining claims in this
`
`matter are Nextdoor.com’s affirmative claims for relief under:
`
`• Count 2—Seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Abhyanker’s
`
`FATDOOR marks;
`
`• Count 3—Nextdoor.com’s cyberpricy claim based on Abhyanker’s use of domain names
`
`confusingly similar to Nextdoor’s NEXTDOOR mark; and
`
`• Count 4—Nextdoor.com’s trademark infringement claim based on Abhyanker’s use of
`
`Nextdoor.com’s NEXTDOOR mark.
`
`As part of Abhyanker’s dismissal of his trademark infringement claim regarding the
`
`NEXTDOOR mark, the Court entered a Judgment in Nextdoor.com’s favor on Nextdoor.com’s
`
`Count 1 for a declaratory judgment that Nextdoor.com owns the NEXTDOOR mark. [Dkt No.
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`2
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page4 of 16
`
`
`
`193]. Nextdoor.com also voluntarily agreed to waive the right to seek damages or disgorgement
`
`of profits under Count 4 of Nextdoor.com’s Complaint. Nextdoor.com retained all other
`
`remedies relating to Count 4, including its attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`Additionally, with the dismissal of Abhyanker’s claims, the only remaining parties in this
`
`matter are Abhyanker and Nextdoor.com. All claims have been dismissed against Prakash
`
`Janakiraman, Benchmark Capital Partners VII, L.P., Benchmark Capital Management Co. VII
`
`LLC, Monsoon Company and Sandeep Sood.
`
`2.
`
`Facts
`
`Nextdoor.com’s Statement of Facts For more than two and half hears, (and eighteen
`
`months before this Court), Nextdoor.com has had to expend substantial attorneys’ fees, costs and
`
`time defending against Abhyanker’s baseless claims. During this process, Nextdoor.com has
`
`learned that Abhyanker mislead the Court, fabricated evidence, and continued to pursue his
`
`claims in bad faith. Such actions include:
`
`• Misleading the Court in his statements and sworn attestation regarding the
`
`completeness of his document production, when, in fact, he had not searched or
`
`produced email documents off a later “found” hard drive. [Compare Dkt. No. 165-1
`
`¶ 2 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 233-250]. Since Abhyanker’s certification, he
`
`has produced additional information and documents that address the core trademark
`
`issues in dispute and reveal his efforts to mislead the Court. Even more,
`
`Nextdoor.com continues to wait for the substantial remainder of Abhyanker’s
`
`document production.
`
`• Falsely alleged a trade secret relating to his use of the Lorelei neighborhood, when, in
`
`fact, he did not know of any Lorelei residents that joined his service, and his claims of
`
`90% penetration in the Lorelei neighbor had in fact represented no such thing.
`
`[Compare MSJ Decl. ¶ 14 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 279-282].
`
`• Fabricating evidence by adding the term “Lorelei” to a PowerPoint purportedly
`
`provided to former counterclaim-defendant Benchmark. (RA000396). [Compare
`
`MSJ Decl. ¶ 24 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx. pp.233-234].
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`3
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page5 of 16
`
`
`
`• Fabricating evidence by portraying a collection of files he gathered in 2013 as a “Due
`
`Diligence CD” that he provided to Benchmark in 2007.
`
`• Fabricating evidence by modifying the purported source code of his
`
`www.edirectree.com website.
`
`• Misleading the Court regarding the dates of his first use of the NEXTDOOR mark.
`
`[Dkt. Nos. 141 and 153].
`
`• Misleading the Court regarding the existence of “source code” and “database
`
`structures” for his www.edirectree.com website which purportedly showed the
`
`NEXTDOOR mark. [Dkt. Nos. 141 and 153].
`
`• Misleading the Court regarding the dates on which the images shown in Exhibit D to
`
`his Supplemental Statement Regarding Prior Trademark Use [Dkt No. 141] and Errata
`
`to his Supplemental Statement Regarding Prior Trademark Use [Dkt No. 153]
`
`appeared on the www.edirectree.com website.
`
`• Destroying evidence relating to his www.edirectree.com website.
`
`• Destroying evidence regarding the creation of his Due Diligence CD.
`
`• Fabricating evidence by relying on documents in which he claimed the authority to
`
`assign himself assets of various companies, including Legalforce, Inc. and Center’d
`
`Corporation. Abhyanker had no authority to assign himself any remaining assets of
`
`these companies. [See e.g., June 6, 2007 Rough Tx., pp. 56-57, 168].
`
`• Fabricating evidence by claiming that Sood signed the alleged NDA and
`
`Confidentiality Agreement that formed the basis of Abhyanker’s claim that Sood owed
`
`him a duty of confidentiality with respect to the alleged trade secrets asserted in this
`
`case. As explained in Mr. Sood’s declaration, he never signed these documents.
`
`[Compare Dkt. No. 155-1 ¶ 2 with Dkt. No.171 ¶ 3].
`
`•
`
`Illegally recording two separate conversations with Nextdoor.com’s CEO Nirav Tolia
`
`and Sandeep Sood. [Compare Dkt. No. 165-1 Supp. MSJ Decl. ¶ 7 and 155-5 Reply
`
`MSJ Decl. ¶¶ 2-16 with Dkt. No.171 ¶ 4 and Dkt No. 150-1 ¶¶ 52-70].
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`4
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page6 of 16
`
`
`
`• Attempted ex parte communications with the Court by failing to serve Nextdoor.com
`
`with his June 13, 2014 letter to the Court. [Dkt. No. 225].
`
`• Continued failure to comply with his discovery obligations by, for example:
`
`o Stipulating to further specific document production, only to later backtrack and
`
`claim that prior productions were sufficient.
`
`o Claiming to have produced specific documents, only to later backtrack and claim
`
`that that he cannot locate the specific documents that were supposedly in the
`
`production.
`
`o Failing to search for relevant documents from each of Abhyanker’s relevant email
`
`addresses.
`
`o Failing to review documents prior to production and instead merely comingling
`
`unresponsive and irrelevant files with any potentially relevant materials.
`
`o Multiple productions on the eve of and even during depositions.
`
`o Failing to produce more than a handful of documents dated between 2012 and the
`
`present.
`
`o Failing to provide a privilege log for the majority of his production.
`
`• Multiple additional instances of perjury and efforts to mislead the Court uncovered
`
`during Abhyanker’s deposition, including:
`
`o That the document attached as Exhibit G to Abhyanker’s Declaration in Support of
`
`his Opposition to Nextdoor.com’s Motion for Summary Judgment was a true and
`
`correct copy thereof, when in fact, it was a truncated version of that document.
`
`[Compare Dkt. No. 150-1 (“MSJ Decl.”) ¶ 44, Exhibit G with June 6, 2014 Rough
`
`Tx., p. 198 at 7-9; 198-203; and 219, Deposition Exhibit 82].
`
`o That in November 2012, attorney Daniel Hansen advised Abhyanker that Jeff
`
`Drazan had the authority to appoint him interim CEO of Center’d, without any
`
`further action required, when, in fact, Hansen wrote and said that he could give no
`
`such advice. [Compare MSJ ¶ 46 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx. pp., 203-205,
`
`Deposition Exhibit 84].
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`5
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page7 of 16
`
`
`
`o That Abhyanker believed he had authority to act as interim CEO of Center’d in
`
`November 2012 (when he purported to execute an agreement on its behalf,
`
`assigning all Center’d assets to himself for $1), when in fact, he admitted to its
`
`Board members that, without their consent, he knew he did not have such
`
`authority. [Compare MSJ Decl. ¶¶ 45-50 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., p. 209 at
`
`1-6 and pp. 208-212, Deposition Exhibit 85].
`
`o That, at the time of the presentation of the $1 assignment agreement between
`
`himself and Center’d to the Court in his Opposition to Nextdoor’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment (MSJ Decl., Exhibit H) in 2014, Abhyanker believed this
`
`agreement was valid, when in fact, he knew the Center’d Board had again in 2013
`
`refused to allow him to act on its behalf (even after being threatened with breach
`
`of fiduciary duty claims by Abhyanker if it refused). [Compare MSJ Decl. ¶ 44-48
`
`with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 199-200, 212-213].
`
`o That he disclosed “much of this information” about his selection of and efforts in
`
`the Lorelei neighborhood to Benchmark via the alleged Due Diligence CD he
`
`provided to them on June 22, 2007, when, other than the fabricated Lorelei PPT,
`
`the alleged CD contained no mention of Lorelei, and Abhyanker could not identify
`
`a single document in his files, other than the Lorelei PPT that mentioned Lorelei.
`
`[Compare MSJ Decl. ¶ 23 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 83-84, 86-89].
`
`o That in October 2007, Legalforce was dissolved at the direction of the Board of
`
`Directors (when there was in fact no Board) and that he was assigned all of its
`
`assets (Dkt. No. 71 ¶ 3)—when, in fact, Legalforce was wound up only in
`
`December 2008, and the only assets Abhyanker received were the domain name
`
`Legalforce.com and its patent applications. [Compare Dkt. No. 165-1 ¶ 4-5 with
`
`June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 129-130, 143-145, Deposition Exhibit 76].
`
`o That he did not add the Diligence CD to the “found” hard drive in an effort to
`
`make it appear like it had been there all along, or know that it had been added after
`
`December 5, 2013. [June 7, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 6-20].
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CMC
`STATEMENT
`
`6
`
`Case No. 3:12-cv-05667-EMC
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MOUNTAIN VIEW
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05667-EMC Document235 Filed06/19/14 Page8 of 16
`
`
`
`o That, when he created a “Diligence CD” for this case and included labels on it
`
`when producing it (in order to make it look like it was an actual CD provided to
`
`Benchmark), those labels were the originals created and placed on the CD in 2007,
`
`when, in fact, those labels appear to have been created for the purpose of this
`
`litigation. [Compare MSJ Decl. ¶ 25 with June 7, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 33-34].
`
`o That in or about April, 2008, he received express permission from the Center’d
`
`Board to continue using the Fatdoor brand (after he had been fired from the
`
`company in 2007), when no action or permission by the Board exists. [Compare
`
`MSJ Decl. ¶ 44 with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 170-196, Deposition Exhibits
`
`78-79].
`
`o That that he began personally using the “FATDOOR” mark in commerce as soon
`
`as he got the Center’d Board’s approval (which he never got), when in fact, there
`
`is no evidence that he made any use of that mark in commerce between 2008 and
`
`2012. [Compare Dkt. No. 132 ¶ 29 (Second Amended Counterclaim) with June 7,
`
`2014 Rough Tx., p. 22].
`
`o That attorney Daniel Hansen drafted documents to carve out Legalforce’s private
`
`social network assets separately from those of Fatdoor, when no such document
`
`exists, and Abhyanker’s deposition testimony was that Legalforce’s patent
`
`applications were in fact assigned to Fatdoor. [Compare Dkt. No. 71 (Declaration
`
`of Raj Abhyanker in Support of Motion to Disqualify (“DQ Decl.”) ¶ 12-13) with
`
`June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 130-136, Deposition Exhibit 74].
`
`o That Legalforce’s ownership of the alleged trade secrets was evidenced by Warren
`
`Myers’ complaint that Fatdoor had Legalforce’s assets, and that this was disclosed
`
`to Fatdoor investors, when, in fact, Myers complained that Fatdoor had his real
`
`estate company’s assets, and this is what was disclosed. [Compare DQ Decl. ¶ 15
`
`with June 6, 2014 Rough Tx., pp. 106-111, Deposition Exhibit 71].
`
`Agains