TMB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`X
`
`granny
`
`Signal Share, LLC,
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91206495
`
`MOTION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING
`
`TIME TO RETAIN NEW TRADEMARK
`
`LITIGATION COUNSEL
`
`Opposer,
`
`VS.
`
`Amy R. Gurvey,
`
`Respondent Pro se.
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent Pro Se herein Amy R. Gurvey,
`a USPTO inventor and trademark registration applicant, owning intellectual
`property assets in primary and secondary mobile ticketing operations, and event
`
`and broadcast production, editing and distribution systems, hereby moves the
`
`USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (“TTAB”), for an extension of time
`
`of 30 days until November 18, 2013 to retain new litigation counsel for the instant
`
`trademark opposition proceeding.
`
`Respondent, who has been represented in trademark matters since 2005 by
`
`the Rutgers Law Clinic is permanently disabled as defined under the Americans
`
`With Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12000 et seq. (“ADA”). In addition, Respondent
`
`has been hospitalized three times over the past six months including for two weeks
`
`commencing August 10, 2013 suffering from acute ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis,
`
`Clostridium difficile colitis and pleurisy of the lefi lung with nodule proliferation
`
`(Documents annexed).
`
`1
`
`\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\lllll\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\l\\\\\l\\\l\l\\l
`*1o—21—2o13*
`gm {'2
`U .8. Patent and Trademark
`’
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`X
`
`granny
`
`Signal Share, LLC,
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91206495
`
`MOTION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING
`
`TIME TO RETAIN NEW TRADEMARK
`
`LITIGATION COUNSEL
`
`Opposer,
`
`VS.
`
`Amy R. Gurvey,
`
`Respondent Pro se.
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent Pro Se herein Amy R. Gurvey,
`a USPTO inventor and trademark registration applicant, owning intellectual
`property assets in primary and secondary mobile ticketing operations, and event
`
`and broadcast production, editing and distribution systems, hereby moves the
`
`USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (“TTAB”), for an extension of time
`
`of 30 days until November 18, 2013 to retain new litigation counsel for the instant
`
`trademark opposition proceeding.
`
`Respondent, who has been represented in trademark matters since 2005 by
`
`the Rutgers Law Clinic is permanently disabled as defined under the Americans
`
`With Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12000 et seq. (“ADA”). In addition, Respondent
`
`has been hospitalized three times over the past six months including for two weeks
`
`commencing August 10, 2013 suffering from acute ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis,
`
`Clostridium difficile colitis and pleurisy of the lefi lung with nodule proliferation
`
`(Documents annexed).
`
`1
`
`\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\lllll\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\l\\\\\l\\\l\l\\l
`*1o—21—2o13*
`gm {'2
`U .8. Patent and Trademark
`’
`
`
`
`Respondent’s previous IP attorneys Ohlandt Greeley Ruggerio & Perle, LLP
`(“OGRP”) were retained in March, 2012 to handle Respondent’s patent
`prosecution matters only. Respondent was then represented in trademark matters
`by the Rutgers Law Clinic.
`
`However, seventeen months after being retained, in August, 2013, an OGRP
`patent partner conceded to Respondent that the firm had failed to perform
`Respondent’s patent prosecution work but had all of Respondent’s relevant files.
`In addition, he said that OGRP had been performing services on the instant
`opposition proceeding. In fact services herein had been performed without
`Respondent’s express authorization and the relevant files were sent to a different
`attorney of the firm.
`
`A dispute then ensued as to the scope of OGRP’s retainer and the firm’s
`failure to perform services per retainer. On August 27, 2013, OGRP then
`unilaterally moved to withdraw from this proceeding . This was the exact time
`Respondent was released from the hospital. [Respondent now has stricture of the
`descending colon that may now require surgery.]
`
`Early in September, 2013, during the continuing acute illness, Respondent
`was granted 30 days by this Court until October 18, 2013 to retain a new attorney
`for this proceeding. However, the Court did not compel return of all Respondent’s
`files from OGRP.
`
`OGRP’s has since refused without justification to return all of Respondent’s
`relevant files including those relevant to Opposer’s discovery demands. The
`combination of factors — non—cooperation by OGRP and Respondent’s illness, has
`made it impossible for Respondent to retain a new litigation attorney in the time
`allotted.
`
`There is an additional for majeure issue that explains why Respondent does
`not have second copies of relevant IP files.
`
`On May 5, 2009 Respondent’s NJ home and offices were virtually destroyed
`when insurance carrier and their water remediation firm cut soaking plaster
`ceilings damaged from a pipe burst without performing pre-asbestos testing
`required as by law. Upon imposing the cuts, the entire ceilings avalanched
`
`
`
`contaminating the entire home, offices, air systems and all contents with friable
`asbestos and ultrahazardous waste that were primary component ofthe plaster.
`Respondent and her husband were seriously injured and were in forced evacuation
`for 27 months, during times relevant to this proceeding . This is how Respondent
`contracted the chronic pleurisy and nodules in the left lung.
`
`Respondent and her husband’s asbestos property damages and personal
`injuries lawsuit was filed in 2010 before Superior Court of NJ, Essex Vicinage,
`[Gurvey v. State Farm Insurance and Allan Industries et al., 2010—L— l 071 1].
`Respondent was in forced evacuation and her personal hard copies of the relevant
`IP files could not be salvaged by the remediation firm.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Respondent pro se Amy R. Gurvey prays that her
`motion for an extension of time to retain new trademark litigation counsel be
`granted. Respondent requires new counsel to move to compel production of all
`Respondent’s IP files from OGRP, to respond to Opposer’s discovery requests, to
`move for an order for in camera inspection under seal of Respondent’s
`confidential business files, and to submit objections to certain of Opposer’s
`discovery requests and seek discovery from Opposer.
`
`Dated: October 18, 2013
`
`Upper Montclair, NJ
`
`To: Eric Stevens, Esq.
`
`Poyner & Spruill
`
`Attorney for Opposer Signal Share, LLC
`
`301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1900
`
`Raleigh, NC 27601
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`1, Amy R. Gurvey, Respondent pro se, certify that on October 18, 2013, I
`served a true and accurate copy of Respondent’s within Motion for an Extension of
`Time to Retain Counsel upon Opposer Signal Share, LLC by depositing a true and
`accurate copy thereof in a mailbox duly maintained by the US Postal Service, duly
`addressed to Signal Share’s attorney of record herein, as follows:
`
`Eric P. Stevens, Esq.
`Poyner Spruill, LLP
`301 Fayetteville Street
`Suite 1900
`
`Raleigh, NC 27601
`
`led on October 18,
`A true and accurate copy Respondent’s motion was
`2013 by ESTTA upon the USPTO Trademark Trial and 5 peal Board, with a
`-- dra, VA 22313-1451.
`separate copy by mail, USPTO TTAB, PO Box 1451,
`‘ ~
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
