Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA498787
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`10/08/2012
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91206800
`Defendant
`Jelly Belly Candy Company
`JONATHAN A. HYMAN
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 MAIN ST FL 14
`IRVINE, CA 92614-8214
`UNITED STATES
`efiling@kmob.com;jhyman@kmob.com
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Jonathan Hyman
`efiling@knobbe.com, jhh@kmob.com
`/jhh/
`10/08/2012
`Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf ( 15 pages )(4820961 bytes )
`Exhibits for MSJ.pdf ( 126 pages )(14985515 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`JELLYB.088M
`
`TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.: 91206800
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence and all marked
`attachments are being electronically filed with the Trademark
`Trial and Appeal Board through their web site located at
`ht_tp://estta.uspto.gov On:
`
`October 8 2012
`(Date)
`
`Jonath
`
`.
`
`man
`
`) ) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`Original Gourmet Food Company, Inc.,
`
`Opposera
`
`V-
`
`Jelly Belly Candy Company,
`
`Apphcant
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Arlington, VA 22313-1451
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56 and T.B.M.P. § 528, Applicant, Jelly Belly Candy
`
`Company (“Jelly Belly”), respectfully moves the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`
`for summary judgment in the above-referenced Opposition proceeding and also respectfully
`
`moves the Board to suspend all proceedings for all matters not germane to this Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment.
`
`In addition, pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.127(d), Jelly Belly requests that
`
`the Board suspend all deadlines, including the close of the discovery period, the deadline for serving
`
`expert witness and pre-trial disclosures and the commencement of the testimony periods pending a
`
`decision on this Motion.
`
`Jelly Belly has prior rights to the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET and owns prior
`
`registrations for its THE ORIGINAL GOURMET—formative marks.
`
`Jelly Belly will establish
`
`

`
`that it is entitled to a registration for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET and, therefore, there
`
`is no basis for this Opposition.
`
`Accordingly, Jelly Belly respectfully submits that a grant of summary judgment for
`
`Applicant in this proceeding is appropriate and requeststhat the Board enter such judgment in favor
`
`of Jelly Belly and deny OGFC’s Opposition.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a trademark Opposition brought by Original Gourmet Food Company,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“OGFC”) against Jelly Belly Candy Company’s (“Jelly Belly”) U.S. Trademark Application
`
`Serial No. 85/565,862 for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for “candy” in International
`
`Class 30. Jelly Belly has filed its Answer and served Initial Disclosures on OGFC.
`
`OGFC contends that Jelly Belly’s use of the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET on
`
`“candy” infringes OGFC’s later—acquired rights to “Original Gourmet” for “gourmet food items,
`
`namely, pretzels, brownies, cookies and popcorn”. OGFC also contends that, because of
`
`OGFC’s rights to “Original Gourmet”, Jelly Belly’s use of THE ORIGINAL GOURMET on
`
`“candy” constitutes false designation of origin and unfair competition.
`
`OGFC’s assertions are unfounded because Jelly Belly has priority as a matter of law to
`
`the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET. Jelly Belly has been continuously using the mark THE
`
`ORIGINAL GOURMET on candy some 27 years before OGFC first used the virtually identical
`
`trade name or mark “Original Gourmet” on any product and 31 years before OGFC first used
`
`“Original Gourmet” on candy.
`
`Specifically, Jelly Belly’s prior rights to THE ORIGINAL
`
`GOURMET are based on its longstanding and continuous use of the marks THE ORIGINAL
`
`GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN (collectively
`
`“THE ORIGINAL GOURMET marks” or “THE ORIGINAL GOURMET family of marks”).
`
`

`
`Such longstanding use of the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET in the forms THE ORIGINAL
`
`GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN creates rights in
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET without the generic descriptor which follows. Given that Jelly
`
`Belly has used THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for decades before OGFC ever used “Original
`
`Gourmet”, Jelly Belly cannot possibly infringe any rights that OGFC may own.
`
`OGFC’s sole contention is that THE ORIGINAL GOURMET is somehow different from
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY
`
`CORN. This is wrong as a matter of law. There are no genuine issues of material fact, and a
`
`grant of summary judgment for Jelly Belly is appropriate.
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The following facts are undisputed:
`
`Since at least as early as 1977, Jelly Belly has continuously used THE ORIGNAL
`
`GOURMET marks on packaging and advertising for candy. See Declaration of
`
`Karen Vogel Weil (“Decl.”) at W 3-7; Exs. 2-6.
`
`Jelly Belly has historically used the mark THE ORIGNAL GOURMET followed
`
`by a generic descriptor,
`
`i.e. THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN and
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN. See Decl. at W 3-6; Exs. 2-5.
`
`Jelly Belly owns several United States trademark registrations for its THE
`
`ORIGINAL GOURMET marks. See Decl. at W 3-7; Exs. 2-6.
`
`Jelly Belly owns two federal registrations for THE ORIGINAL GOURMET
`
`JELLY BEAN, one for “jelly beans” and one for “candy.” See Decl. at W 3-4;
`
`U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,942,689 and 3,771,488; Exs. 2-3.
`
`Jelly Belly has continuously used the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY
`
`

`
`BEAN since at least 1977. Decl. Exs. 2-3.
`
`0 U.S. Reg. No. 1,942,689 is incontestable. Decl. Ex. 2.
`
`0
`
`Jelly Belly owns two federal registrations for THE ORIGINAL GOURMET
`
`CANDY CORN, both for “candy.” See Decl. at 111] 5-6; U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,085,121,
`
`and 3,378,061; Exs. 4-5.
`
`0
`
`Jelly Belly has continuously used the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET
`
`CANDY CORN since at least September 1996. Decl. Exs. 4-5.
`
`0 OGFC did not start doing business until 2004, selling cookies and other baked
`
`goods, but not candy, under the name “Original Gourmet”. See Decl. at Ex. 8.
`
`0
`
`It was not until late 2008, that OGFC expanded its product offering to include
`
`lollipops, also under the name “Original Gourmet”. See Decl. at Ex. 7.
`
`OGFC filed its Notice of Opposition on August 30, 2012.
`
`Jelly Belly filed its Answer
`
`and served its Initial Disclosures to this Opposition on October 5, 2012. See Decl. at 111] 11-12;
`
`Exs. 10-11.
`
`III. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`OGFC wrongly asserts that
`
`its use of the mark “Original Gourmet” predates and
`
`precludes Jelly Belly’s rights to THE ORIGINAL GOURMET.
`
`Jelly Belly has priority to the
`
`mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET, predating OGFC’s existence. OGFC has no basis to
`
`oppose Jelly Belly’s registration for a mark for which Jelly Belly has priority.
`
`IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment is proper where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
`
`and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kraft Group
`
`LLC v. Harpole, 90 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1837, 1840 (Trademark Trial & App. Bd. Apr. 22, 2009).
`
`

`
`The moving party must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. See Krafi‘ Group LLC,
`
`90 USPQ2d at 1840.
`
`V. OGFC’S OPPOSITION SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`Jelly Belly has used the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN since at least
`
`as early as January 1977 and the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN since at
`
`least as early as September 1996, years before OGFC even existed. See Decl. at W 3-7; Exs. 2-6.
`
`Based on Jelly Belly’s prior, continuous and pervasive use of these marks, Jelly Belly has
`
`priority to the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET and OGFC therefore can have no claim that it
`
`owns the mark “Original Gourmet” for candy. See Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int ’Z, Ltd, 96
`
`F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996) (“It is axiomatic in trademark law that the standard test of
`
`ownership is priority of use.”).
`
`A.
`
`Jelly Belly’s Existing Registrations Have The Same Commercial Impression As The
`Application At Issue
`
`In order for OGFC to establish priority to “Original Gourmet”, OGFC must prove that the
`
`words THE ORIGINAL GOURMET are somehow different than the full marks Jelly Belly has
`
`used——THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE ORIGINAL GOURMET
`
`CANDY CORN. This argument is nonsensical and has been rejected by the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office.
`
`Indeed, OGFC filed a trademark application for the mark “Original
`
`Gourmet” and design for candy. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the registration
`
`on the ground that OGFC’S proposed mark was confusingly similar to Jelly Belly ’s prior
`
`registrations for THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE ORIGINAL
`
`GOURMET CANDY CORN. In so doing, the Examining Attorney stated:
`
`In the present case, applicant’s mark ORIGINAL GOURMET and design is
`
`similar to [Jelly Belly’s] registered marks in sound, appearance, and connotation.
`
`

`
`All of the marks include the wording “ORIGINAL GOURMET”. Marks may be
`
`confusingly similar in appearance where there are similar terms or phrases or
`
`similar parts of terms or phrases appearing in both applicant’s and registrant’s
`
`mark.
`
`...0verall, the marks have the same commercial impression.
`
`Decl. Ex. 9 (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Under “Tacking Rule”, Jelly Belly’s Prior Use And Existing Registrations Establish
`Priorifl For The Application At Issue
`
`Under the “tacking rule,” “[m]inor changes in a mark which do not change the basic,
`
`overall commercial impression created on buyers will not constitute any abandomnent and will
`
`not interrupt the user’s chain of ownership back to adoption and use of the original form.” D&J
`
`Master Clean, Inc, v. The Servicemaster Co., 181 F. Supp. 2d 821, 825 n.2 (S.D. Ohio 2002)
`
`(quoting McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 17:27 (4th ed. 1998)). Specifically,
`
`the appendage or removal of a generic or descriptive term to or from a primary mark is covered
`
`by the “tacking rule.” See D&J Master Clean, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d at 825. (appendage of
`
`generic term “Clean” to primary mark ServiceMASTER, covered by tacking rule); Sands, Taylor
`
`& Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947, 955 (7th Cir. 1992) (altering registered version:
`
`THIRST AID——FIRST AID FOR YOUR THIRST, to just THIRST AID, continued the “key
`
`element” and was not an “abandomnent” of registered rights).
`
`Here, as the Examining Attorney in connection with OGFC’s application concluded,
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET, THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE
`
`ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN all create the same commercial impression.
`
`See
`
`American Sec. Bank v. American Sec. & Trust Co., 571 F.2d 564, 566 (C.C.P.A. 1978);
`
`McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §17:26-27; Colonial Electric & Plumbing
`
`Supply of Hammonton, LLC v. Colonial Electric Supply, Ltd, 2007 WL 4571105, at *9 (D.N.J.
`
`

`
`Dec. 27, 2007) (trademark may “be changed without abandonment or loss of priority if it is done
`
`in such a way that
`
`‘the continuing common element of the mark retains its impact and
`
`symbolizes a continuing commercial impression.’”). Thus, Jelly Belly’s use and registration of
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET with generic appendages supports Jelly Belly’s trademark rights
`
`to — and right to register — the primary mark, THE ORIGINAL GOURMET. Because Jelly Belly
`
`undisputedly has rights to the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET dating back to 1977, long
`
`before OGFC ever started doing business and long before it ever started using “Original
`
`Gourmet”, Jelly Belly has priority and is the owner of that mark.
`
`C.
`
`OGFC Cannot Prove It Will Be Harmed If Registration At Issue Is Granted
`
`Further, where there is an existing registration, there can be no harm, within the meaning
`
`of the Lanharn Act, from the issuance of a second registration, or in this case, a fifth registration,
`
`for the same or substantially identical mark for the same or substantially identical goods.
`
`Morehouse Mfg. Corp. ‘v. J. Strickland & C0., 407 F.2d 881 (C.C.P.A. 1969). This is an
`
`equitable defense, akin to laches or acquiescence, based on the failure to oppose prior similar
`registrations. TBC Corp. v. Grand Prix, Ltd, 12 U.S.P.O.2d 1311 (BNA), 1313 (Trademark
`
`Trial & App. Bd. May 30, 1989).
`
`In such a case, there is no ground for sustaining the
`
`opposition.
`
`It is undisputed that Jelly Belly already owns existing registrations for marks
`
`containing the primary mark, THE ORIGINAL GOURMET. Decl. fil 3-6; Exs. 2-5. The U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office has already determined that these registrations all include the
`
`wording “ORIGINAL GOURMET” and create the same commercial impression. Decl. Ex. 9.
`
`Finally, these registrations all cover “candy” or types of candy.‘ Accordingly, Jelly Belly’s prior
`
`1 Jelly Belly’s registration for THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN for “jelly
`beans,” U.S. Reg. No. 1,942,689 is incontestable. Decl. Ex. 2. Jelly Belly’s other registrations
`for THE ORIGINAL GOURMET marks that cover candy include U.S. Reg. Nos. 3,771,488,
`2,085,121, and 3,378,061. Decl. Ex. 3-5. OGFC has a pending motion before the District Court
`
`

`
`registrations are for the same or substantially identical mark for the same or substantially
`
`identical goods as Jelly Belly’s pending Application Serial No. 85/565,862. Under the
`
`Morehouse defense, OGFC cannot prove it will be damaged within the meaning of the Lanham
`
`Act, by Jelly Belly’s registration of THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for “candy”.
`
`The Morehouse defense is particularly applicable, where, as here, the opposer challenges
`
`a portion of the mark common to the existing registration. See Place for Vision, Inc. v. Pearle
`
`VisionCenter, Inc., 218 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1022 (Trademark Trial & App. Bd. May 16, 1983).
`
`There, the applicant owned a prior registration for VISION CENTER, and sought to register
`
`PEARLE VISION CENTER.
`
`Id. at 1023. The Board rejected an opposition related to the
`
`VISION CENTER portion of the application, based on the existing registration for this portion of
`
`the mark.
`
`Ia’. Similarly, the Board applied the Morehouse defense and allowed a registration for
`
`HOLLYWOOD in light of the holder’s prior registration for HOLLYWOOD HEALTH FOODS,
`
`because the public would perceive both marks as conveying simply HOLLYWOOD. National
`
`Bakers Services, Inc, v. Hain Pure Food, Inc., 207 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 701, 706-707 (Trademark
`
`Trial & App. Bd.
`
`1980). Here, too, Jelly Belly owns prior registrations for marks including the
`
`portion of the mark in the application at issue~—THE ORIGINAL GOURMET. Decl. Exs. 1-5.
`
`Based on Jelly Belly’s existing registrations covering THE ORIGINAL GOURMET, OGFC
`
`cannot establish any harm by an additional registration covering this same mark. Thus, there is
`
`no basis to sustain OGFC’s Opposition.
`
`
`
`of New Hampshire in Civil Action 1:11-cv-0539-SM to amend its complaint to cancel-in-part
`these three latter registrations, to limit their scope of coverage to specific types of candy.
`However, even if OGFC is successful, the Morehouse defense still applies. The registrations
`would merely be limited from “candy” to specific types of candy. Nevertheless,
`these
`registrations would continue to cover “substantially identical goods” as Jelly Belly’s pending
`Application Serial No. 85/565,862, that covers “candy.”
`
`

`
`D.
`
`Jelly Belly’s Decision To Register Composite Marks Does Not Negate Rights To
`Protectable Elements Of Those Marks
`
`Jelly Belly’s decision to register composite marks with descriptive appendages, does not
`
`negate Jelly Belly’s prior right to the protectable element THE ORIGINAL GOURMET. An
`
`applicant may apply to register any element of a composite mark if that element presents a
`
`separate and distinct commercial impression as a mark. See In re Curriculum Associates, Inc.,
`
`2004 WL 2075094 (T.T.A.B. 2004) (trademark rights recognized for QUICK-STUDY, even
`
`though use of mark was A QUICK-STUDY PROGRAM, since additional verbiage was “highly
`
`descriptive,
`
`if not generic”); see also In re Raychem Corp., 12 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1399
`
`(Trademark Trial & App. Bd. June 29,1989). Here, although Jelly Belly’s registrations were for
`
`the full scope of the composite marks, this does not undermine Jelly Belly’s rights to the
`
`isolatable, protectable elements,
`
`including THE ORIGINAL GOURMET.
`
`See Courtenay
`
`Communs. Corp. v. Hall, 334 F.3d 210, 217 (2d Cir. 2003) (an unregistered mark is entitled to
`
`protection if it qualifies for registration).
`
`E.
`
`The Common Characteristics Of Jelly Belly’s Marks Constitute A Family Of Marks
`
`In addition, by reason of Jelly Belly’s continuous and pervasive use of the marks THE
`
`ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN and THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN,
`
`Jelly Belly owns THE ORIGINAL GOURMET family of marks for candy since long prior to
`
`OGFC’s first use of “Original Gourmet”. A plurality of marks with a recognizable common
`
`characteristic may qualify as a “family” of marks where the commonality is recognized by
`
`consumers as denoting a common origin. See J&J Snack Foods Corp. v. McDonald ’s Corp., 932
`
`F.2d 1460, 1462-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (family trademark rights to surname Mc); Geofirey, Inc. v.
`
`Stratton, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1691, 1694-96 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 1990) (family trademark
`
`rights to suffix “R US”.).
`
`

`
`Because Jelly Belly has been using THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for at least 27 years
`
`before OGFC first used any mark with the words “Original Gourmet”, Jelly Belly is
`
`undisputedly the owner of this mark. Moreover, based on the Morehouse defense, OGFC cannot
`
`establish the requisite harm to establish entitlement to the opposition. Therefore, OGFC has no
`
`Valid basis to oppose Jelly Belly’s rights to THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for “candy” in Class
`
`30.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`On the basis of the facts and the law, Jelly Belly has shown that its prior use of, and
`
`registrations for,
`
`the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for “candy” bar OGFC from
`
`challenging Jelly Belly’s right to register the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET on the basis of
`
`OGFC’s subsequent use.
`
`Accordingly, Jelly Belly requests that the Board grant summary judgment in dismissing
`
`this opposition proceeding and allowing the application to proceed to registration.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`Jonath A. Hyman
`Mark
`Kachner
`
`10100 anta Monica Boulevard, Suite 1600
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(310) 551-3450
`Attorneys for Applicant,
`Jelly Belly Candy Company
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION upon counsel
`for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. by
`depositing one copy thereof in the United States Mail, f1rst—class postage prepaid, on October 8,
`2012, addressed as follows:
`
`Claire Zopf
`Z IP Law PLLC
`
`1015 Elm Street Suite 201
`
`Manchester, NH 03 101
`
`l4l05553v3
`
`

`
`JELLYB.088M
`
`TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.: 91206800
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`Original Gourmet Food Company, Inc.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Jelly Belly Candy Company,
`.
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KAREN VOGEL WEIL IN SUPPORT OF JELLY BELLY CANDY
`
`COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
`
`1, Karen Vogel Weil, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner with Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, counsel of record for
`
`Jelly Belly Candy Company. (“Applicant”) in the above-identified opposition proceeding.
`
`I am
`
`familiar with the facts of this case. The following is true of my own personal knowledge, and, if
`
`called as a witness, I would and could testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`1
`
`is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s U.S.
`
`Trademark Application Serial No. 85/565,862, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for
`
`“candy” in Class 30.
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s U.S.
`
`Registration No. 1,942,689, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN for “jelly
`
`beans” in Class 30, stating that Jelly Belly’s first use of the mark in commerce was January
`
`

`
`1977.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s U.S.
`
`Registration No. 3,771,488, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN for
`
`“candy” in Class 30, stating that Jelly Belly’s first use of the mark in commerce was January 31,
`
`1977.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s U.S.
`
`Registration No. 2,085,121, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN for
`
`“candy” in Class 30, stating that Jelly Belly’s first use of the mark in commerce was September
`
`17, 1996.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s U.S.
`
`Registration No. 3,378,061, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET CANDY CORN for
`
`“candy” in Class 30, stating that Jelly Belly’s first use of the mark in commerce was September
`
`17, 1996.
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s U.S.
`
`Registration No. 3,391,945, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET JELLY BEAN JELLY
`
`BELLY and anthropomorphic character, for “entertainment services featuring live performances
`
`by an individual in a costume resembling a humanized jelly bean wearing a chef’s hat” in Class
`
`41, stating that Jelly Belly’s first use of the mark in commerce was April 4, 1983.
`
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of OGFC’s U.S.
`
`Trademark Application Serial No. 85/603,830 for a stylized version of the mark ORIGINAL
`
`GOURMET for “candy” in Class 30, stating that OGFC’s first use of the mark in commerce was
`
`December 1, 2008.
`
`

`
`9.
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of OGFC’s Petition for
`Declaratory Judgment, Dkt. No. 1 in Civil Action No. 1:11-cv—0539-SM, pending in the United
`
`States District Court, District of New Hampshire.
`
`10.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the May 20, 2012 Office
`
`Action regarding OGFC’s U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 85/603,830.
`
`11.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s Answer to
`
`OGFC’s Opposition to Jelly Belly’s U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 85/565,862, for the
`
`mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for “candy” in Class 30.
`
`12.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of Jelly Belly’s Initial
`
`Disclosures to OGFC’s Opposition to Jelly Belly’s U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
`
`85/565,862, for the mark THE ORIGINAL GOURMET for “candy” in Class 30.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on October 8, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.
`
`Karen Vo Weil
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF KAREN
`
`VOGEL WEIL IN SUPPORT OF JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS upon Opposer’s
`
`counsel by depositing one copy thereof in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on
`
`October 8, 2012, addressed as follows:
`
`Claire Zopf
`Z IP Law PLLC
`
`1015 Elm Street Suite 201
`
`Manchester, NH 03 101
`
`
`
`14105867
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`
`TrademarldService Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`TEAS Plus Application
`
`Serial Number: 85565862
`
`Filing Date: 03/09/2012
`
`NOTE: Data fields with the ”" are mandatory under TEAS Plus. The wording "(if applicable) " appears
`
`where the field is only mandatory under the facts of the particular application.
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`
`
`TEAS Plus
`
`was
`
`MARK INFORMATION
`
`*MARK
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET
`
`*STANDARD
`CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED
`IMAGE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`THE ORIGINAL GOURMET
`
`_,MARK STATEMENT The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font,
`style, size, or color.
`
`REGISTER
`
`Principal
`
`APPLICANT INFORMATION
`
`*OWNER OF MARK
`
`Jelly Belly Candy Company
`
`*STREET
`
`One Jelly Belly Lane
`
`“‘C1TY
`
`”""STATE
`
`Fairfield
`
`(Required for U.S.
`applicants)
`
`California
`
`""C0UNTRY
`
`United States
`
`*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`(Required for U.S.
`applicants only)
`
`94533-6722
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
`
`*TYPE
`
`CORPORATION
`
`ii STATE/COUNTRY
`
`OF
`INCORPORATION
`
`California
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
`
`‘* INTERNATIONAL
`CLASS
`
`03 0
`
`IDENTIFICATION
`
`Candy
`
`‘*‘FILING BASIS
`
`sEcT1oN 1(a)
`
`FIRST USE
`ANYWHERE DATE
`
`FIRST USE IN
`COMMERCE DATE
`
`At least as early as 01/31/1977
`
`At least as early as 01/31/1977
`
`SPECIMEN
`
`\\TICRSY3XPORT‘ l\'MAGEOUT l l\855\65 8\85565 862\Xm l\
`
`FILE NAME(s)
`
`FTKOO03.JPG
`
`\\TICRSK3XPORT‘ 1\'MAGEOUT 1 1\855\65 8\85565 862\Xm 1\
`
`FTK0004.IPG
`
`\\TICRSK3XPORT‘ 1\'MAGEOUT 1 1\855\65 8\85565 862\Xm 1\
`
`FTK0005.]PG
`
`\\TICRSX3XPORT‘ 1\'MAGEOUT 1 1\855\65 8\85565 862\Xm 1\
`
`FTK0006.IPG
`
`\\TICRSX3XPORT‘ 1\'MAGEOUT 1 1\855\65 8\85565 862\Xm 1\
`
`FTK0007.IPG
`
`\\TICRSK3XPORT‘ 1\'MAGEOUT 1 1\855\65 8\85565 862\Xm 1\
`
`FTK0008.IPG
`
`SPECIMEN
`DESCRIPTION
`
`screenshots showing the mark in connection with a picture and description of
`the goods and ordering information in accordance with TMEP § 904.03
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`* TRANSLATION
`
`(if applicable)
`
`“‘TRANSLITERATION
`
`(if applicable)
`
`*CLAIMED PRIOR
`REGISTRATION
`
`(if applicable)
`
`*CONSENT
`
`(NAME/LIKENESS)
`(if applicable)
`
`The applicant claims ownership of U.S. Registration Number(s) 1942689,
`3771488, and 3378061.
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`*CONCURRENT USE
`CLAIM
`
`(if applicable)
`
`SECTION 2
`
`(I)
`
`SECTION 2(1)
`
`The mark has become distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant's
`substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce that the U.S.
`.
`.
`.
`Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before
`the date of this statement.
`
`The mark has become distinctive of the goods/services as evidenced by the
`
`ownership on the Principal Register for the same mark for related goods or
`services of U.S. Registration No(s). 3,771,488; 3,378,061; and 1,942,689.
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`Jonathan A. Hyman
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET
`NUMBER
`
`JELLYB. 0 8 8T
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`Irvine
`
`California
`
`COUNTRY
`
`United States
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`92614
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`310 551-3450
`
`949 760-9502
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`efiling@kmob.com
`
`AUTHORIZED TO
`COMMUNICATE VIA Yes
`EMAIL
`
`Darrell L. Olson, William B. Bunker, Arthur S. Rose, Ned A. Israelsen, Drew
`
`S. Hamilton, John B. Sganga, Jr., Edward A. Schlatter, Gerard von Hoffmann,
`
`Joseph R. Re, Catherine J. Holland, John M. Carson, Karen Vogel Weil,
`
`Andrew H. Simpson, Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear, Daniel E. Altman, Lynda J.
`
`Zadra-Symes, William H. Shreve, Stephen C. Jensen, Steven J. Nataupsky,
`
`Paul A. Stewart, Joseph F. Jennings, Craig S. Summers, Brenton R. Babcock,
`
`Michael H. Trenholm, Diane M. Reed, Ronald J. Schoenbaum, John R. King,
`Frederick S. Berretta, Adeel S. Akhtar, Thomas R. Arno, David N. Weiss,
`
`Dan Hart, Douglas G. Muehlhauser, Lori Lee Yamato, Michael K. Friedland,
`
`Stacey R. Halpern, Mark M. Abumeri, Jon W. Gurka, John W. Holcomb,
`
`Joseph M. Reisman, Michael L. Fuller, Eric M. Nelson, Mark R. Benedict,
`Paul N. Conover, Robert J. Roby, Sabing H. Lee, Karoline A. Delaney,
`
`Joseph S. Cianfrani, William R. Zimmerman, Paul C. Steinhardt, Eric S.
`Furman, Susan M. Natland, Rose M. Thiessen, Michael A. Guiliana, Rabinder
`
`N. Narula, Bruce S. Itchkawitz, John M. Grover, Mallary K. de Merlier, Irfan
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`OTHER APPOINTED
`ATTORNEY
`
`A. Lateef, Amy Christensen Chun, Mark J. Gallagher, David G. Jankowski,
`
`Brian C. Horne, Payson LeMeilleur, Sheila N. Swaroop, Benjamin A.
`
`Katzenellenbogen, Andrew N. Merickel, Thomas P. Krzeminski, Glen L.
`
`Nuttall, Sanjivpal S. Gill, Michael S. Okamoto, Linda H. Liu, James F.
`
`Herkenhoff, Andrew M. Douglas, Marc T. Morley, Salima A. Merani,
`
`Jonathan A. Hyman, Curtiss C. Dosier, Joseph J. Mallon, Sean M. Murray,
`Christy G. Lea, J. David Evered, Perry D. Oldham, Jerry L. Hefner, Russell
`
`M. Jeide, Abraham W. Chuang, Zi Y. Wong, Matthew S. Bellinger, Mincheol
`
`Kim, Gregory A. Hermanson, Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen, Ted M.
`Cannon, Carol Pitzel Cruz, Josué A. Villalta, Andrew I. Kimmel, Brenden
`
`Gingrich, Boris Zelkind, Maria Culic Anderson, Melanie J. Seelig, Mauricio
`
`A. Uribe, Steven A. Maddox, Curtis R. Huffmire, Christopher L. Ross, Eli A.
`
`Loots, Ryan E. Melnick, Yanna S. Bouris, Philip M. Nelson, Jay R.
`
`Deshmukh, Marko R. Zoretic, Kathleen R. Mekjian, Kerry S. Taylor, Phillip
`
`A. Bennett, Derek C. Dailey, Christopher T. Sweeney, Jarom D. Kesler,
`
`Steven P. Ruden, Colin B. Heideman, Theodore G. Papagiannis, Nicholas M.
`
`Zovko, Adam J. Gilbert, Kimberly J. Miller, Bryan W. Wahl, Thomas Y. Yee,
`Michelle E. Armond, Agnes Juang, Scott Smith, Tirzah Abé Lowe, Jason J.
`
`Jardine, Jared C. Bunker, Lance D. Smemoe, Timothy J. Goodson, Joshua J.
`
`Stowell, Reza Mirzaie, Scott Raevsky, Jonathan E. Bachand, Deborah S.
`
`Shepherd, Kenny Q. Wang, Ali S. Razai, Terry K. Tullis, Derek R. Bayles,
`
`Kregg A. Koch, Michael T. Richmond, Cheryl T. Burgess, Gregory B.
`
`Phillips, Brian C. Claassen, Brent M. Dougal, Benjamin E. Evans, Alejandro
`
`D. Mufioz, Mark Lezama, Mark D. Marsden, David K. Buckingham, Nora A.
`
`Marachelian, Bridget O'L. Smith, Sean Ambrosius, Jeremy J. Edwards,
`William 0. Adams, Shannon K. Carter, Michael R. Christensen, Charles
`
`Duan, Benjamin J. Everton, Jason A. Gersting, Ian W. Gillies, Alan G.
`Laquer, Jing Liu, Todd D. Reynolds, James P. Skelley, Vlad Teplitskiy, Erik
`
`J. Birkeneder, Jonathan I. Detrixhe, Jeffery L. Hallstrom, Milan S. Kapadia,
`
`Andrew W. Lloyd, Don C. Pua, Scott A. Barker, Jason A. Champion, Joan Y.
`
`Chan, Ankur Garg, William Noon, Lorenz Siddiqi, Maria V. Stout, Stephen
`
`W. Larson, Mark D. Kachner, James W. Chang, Kenneth R. Nielsen, Lincoln
`
`S. Essig, Eric L. Fong, Brent C. Moore, Madhavi S. Patankar, David R.
`
`Trossen, Laura L. Wine, Laura M. Blau, Amanda Carmany-Rampey, Aaron
`
`M. Davis, Alan T. Hale, Jason R. Swartz, Emily K. Sauter, Daniel V. Gibson,
`
`Benjamin B. Anger, Richard B. Christiansen, Jeremy J. Carney, Jon Cooper,
`Michael R. Harris, Frederick A. Nicholson, Andrew G. Strickland, Robert W.
`
`Winn, Allyson G. Brown, Karen M. Cassidy, Andrea L. Cheek, Michael C.
`Feng, Matthew V. Lincicum, Andrew E. Morrell, Adam B. Powell, Nicole A.
`
`Rossi, Christopher M. DiLeo, Tawfik A. Goma, Damien J. Howard, David P.
`
`Kujawa, Paul T. Main, Brigette B. Chaput, Karen J. Lenker, Bryan G.
`
`McWhorter, Willow White Noonan, Tanya Mazur, Grace J. Pak, Dawn C.
`
`Bryant, David S. Barnhill, Marissa M. Calcagno, Brian T. Drummond,
`
`Kenneth M. Frazier, Jared L. Gardner, Benjamin P. Johnson, Shannon Lam,
`Catherine Lee, Jonathan A. Menkes, Mark Metzke, David T. Okano, Scott G.
`
`Siera, Carrie Zhang, Vikas Bhargava, Daniel J. Fischer, Jacob Peterson, Sae
`Pfeiffer, Christie R. Walton, Allison L.Z. Weimer, Vladimir S. Lozan, Rustin
`
`Mangum, and Paul S. Stellman
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`‘“"NAME
`
`Jonathan A. Hyman
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`"STREET
`
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`*C1TY
`
`*STATE
`
`Irvine
`
`(Required for U.S.
`applicants)
`
`California
`
`*C0UNTRY
`
`United States
`
`*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`92614
`
`PHONE
`
`FAX
`
`310 551-3450
`
`949 760-9502
`
`‘“”EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`efi1ing@kmob. corn;j hyman@kmob. corn
`
`"‘AUTHORIZED TO
`
`COMMUNICATE VIA Yes
`EMAIL
`
`FEE INFORMATION
`
`NUMBER OF
`CLASSES
`
`1
`
`FEE PER CLASS
`
`275
`
`*TOTAL FEE PAID
`
`275
`
`SIGNATURE INFORMATION
`
`ORIGINAL PDF
`FILE
`
`CONVERTED PDF
`
`FILE(S)
`(2 Pages)
`
`hw 63139240172-182941356 . ELLYB.088T-signAppDecl.pdf
`
`\\TICRS¥EXPORT1 1\
`
`'MAGEOUT11\85 5\65 8\85565862\Xm11\FTK0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS¥3XPORT1 1\
`
`'MAGEOUT11\85 5\65 8\85565862\Xm11\FTK0010.JPG
`
`* SIGNATORY‘S
`NAME
`
`* SIGNATORY'S
`POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`PHONE NUMBER
`
`Lisa Brasher
`
`Executive Vice Chairman
`
`3105513450
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`
`
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`TEAS Plus Application
`
`Serial Number: 85565862
`
`Filing Date: 03/09/2012
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`MARK: THE ORIGINAL GOURMET (Standard Characters, see mark)
`The literal element of the mark consists of THE ORIGINAL GOURMET.
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
`
`The applicant, Jelly Belly Candy Company, a corporation of California, having an address of
`
`One Jelly Belly Lane
`Fairfield, California 94533-6722
`United States
`
`requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office on the Principal Register established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051
`et seq.), as amended, for the following:
`
`For specific filing basis information for each item, you must View the display within the Input Table.
`International Class 030