Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA821655
`05/17/2017
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91210158
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C.
`
`JACQUELINE M LESSER
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`2929 ARCH STREET, CIRA CENTRE 12TH FLOOR
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891
`UNITED STATES
`jlesser@bakerlaw.com, jdale@bakerlaw.com, trademarksphi@bakerlaw.com,
`kblumer@bakerlaw.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Jacqueline M. Lesser
`
`jlesser@bakerlaw.com, kblumer@bakerlaw.com, bipdocket@bakerlaw.com
`
`/Jacqueline M. Lesser/
`
`05/17/2017
`
`Rebuttal Notice of Reliance.pdf(113697 bytes )
`Exhibit A.pdf(452368 bytes )
`Exhibit B.pdf(422015 bytes )
`Exhibit C.pdf(373218 bytes )
`
`
`ESTTA821655
`05/17/2017
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91210158
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C.
`
`JACQUELINE M LESSER
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`2929 ARCH STREET, CIRA CENTRE 12TH FLOOR
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891
`UNITED STATES
`jlesser@bakerlaw.com, jdale@bakerlaw.com, trademarksphi@bakerlaw.com,
`kblumer@bakerlaw.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Jacqueline M. Lesser
`
`jlesser@bakerlaw.com, kblumer@bakerlaw.com, bipdocket@bakerlaw.com
`
`/Jacqueline M. Lesser/
`
`05/17/2017
`
`Rebuttal Notice of Reliance.pdf(113697 bytes )
`Exhibit A.pdf(452368 bytes )
`Exhibit B.pdf(422015 bytes )
`Exhibit C.pdf(373218 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP
`
`
`Applicant
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`
`
`
`
`REBUTTAL NOTICE OF RELIANCE
`
`Opposer herewith identifies for its Rebuttal Notice of Reliance the following documents,
`
`each of which has already been submitted in Opposer’s Notice of Reliance, previously submitted
`
`on December 16, 2016.
`
`1. Applicant’s Responses to Opposer’s First Set of Interrogatories, dated September 10,
`
`2013 and made of record as Notice of Reliance Exhibit A. Opposer identifies the
`
`response to Interrogatory No. 10, “Applicant has used the following trademarks in
`
`association with the name Lundy Law: REMEMBER THIS NAME; I’M GLAD I
`
`REMEMBERED THIS NAME; I AM GLAD I REMEMBERED THIS NAME, for the
`
`purpose of showing that Applicant has not only used REMEMBER THIS NAME but
`
`sentence form variations. Opposer identifies the response to Interrogatory No. 12
`
`“Applicant’s practice areas are listed on its website at www.lundylaw.com” for the
`
`purpose of showing Applicant’s admission that its practice goes beyond personal injury,
`
`which is the only type of legal work discussed by Applicant’s rebuttal expert.
`
`2. Opposer identifies Admissions of Applicant made in response to Opposer’s First Set of
`
`Requests for Admission to Opposer, dated September 10, 2013, previously identified and
`
`
`
`submitted as Exhibit B to Opposer’s Notice of Reliance. Admission No. 2 states: “…it is
`
`also true that Applicant wishes to have its potential clients know how to contact its law
`
`firm.” Admission No. 10 states: “Admit that certain of Applicant’s advertisements are
`
`directed to persons who require assistance in applying for social security disability.
`
`Admitted Admission Request No. 11 states: “Admit that certain of Applicant’s
`
`advertisements are directed to persons who suffer a disability…Admitted.” Opposer
`
`identifies these admissions which show that Applicant’s business is not limited to
`
`personal injury law, despite the contention of Applicant’s expert witness.
`
`3. Opposer identifies Applicant’s Responses and Objections to Opposer’s Request for
`
`Production of Documents and Things, dated September 10, 2013, previously submitted as
`
`Exhibit C to Opposer’s Notice of Reliance. Request No. 4 seeks “All documents and
`
`things referring or relating to any searches, surveys, investigations, analyses, or studies
`
`by or on behalf of Applicant relating to any trademark, service mark, trade name, name,
`
`word, design, term or phrase that includes the term REMEMBER, or REMEMBER THIS
`
`NAME, including dates of any of the above searches, surveys, investigations, analyses or
`
`studies. Response. Applicant states that Applicant will provide non-privileged responsive
`
`documents, provided there are any.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER
`
` /Jacqueline M. Lesser/
`
`Jacqueline M. Lesser
`
` 2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor,
`
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`Telephone: 215.564.2155
`
`Facsimile: 215.568.3439
`
`
`
`Email: jlesser@bakerlaw.com,
`
`kblumer@bakerlaw.com, bipdocket@bakerlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 17th day of May 2017, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing REBUTTAL NOTICE OF RELIANCE to be served by
`
`email upon Manny D. Pokotilow, Esq., counsel for Applicant, Lundy Law at
`
`mpokotilow@crbcp.com and trademarks@crbcp.com.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LARRY PITT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`
`Opposer,
`
`vs.
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91210158
`
`Serial No. 85767757
`
`APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO OPPOSER'S FIRST
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 37 C.F.R. §2.120(d),
`
`Applicant, Lundy Law, LLP. hereby serves upon Opposer, Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. their
`
`objections and responses to Opposer's First Set oflnterrogatories to Applicant.
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Each of the following general responses and objections are incorporated in the response
`
`to each and every interrogatory:
`
`1.
`
`By responding to any interrogatory, Applicant does not concede the materiality of
`
`the subject to which it refers. Applicant's responses are made expressly subject to, and without
`
`waiving or intending to waive, any questions or objections as to the competency, relevancy,
`
`materiality, privilege, or admissibility as evidence or for any other purpose of any of the
`
`infornrntion or res:Ponse produced, or the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding, including the
`
`trial of this action or any subsequent proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Interrogatories to the extent that they call for
`
`information subject to the attorney-client, attorney work-product, and/or other privilege.
`
`In
`
`1
`
`Exhibit A
`Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. v. Lundy Law,LLP
`Opposition No. 91/210158
`
`
`
`responding to these interrogatories, Applicant does not waive, but rather preserves, all such
`
`privileges.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's interrogatories to the extent that they are unduly
`
`broad and burdensome. Unless otherwise indicated, Applicant will provide relevant responses.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant objects generally to Opposer's interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`seek information beyond the scope of this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant objects generally to those interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`information beyond the scope of Rule 26(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant objects, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`to any interrogatory that asks it to identify documents, that it produces in this action.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant objects to those inte1Togatories that seek infonnation which Applicant
`
`considers to be confidential or proprietary, including trade secrets or other confidential research,
`
`development or commercial information. Responses to such interrogatories only will be
`
`provided on an attorneys' eyes only basis and as warranted under the tenns of the Protective
`
`Order in this proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`Inadvertent production of any information which is privileged, was prepared in
`
`anticipation of litigation, or is otherwise immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of
`
`any privilege or of any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to that document or
`
`any other document, or the subject matter thereof, or the information contained therein, or of
`
`Applicant's right to object to the use of any such document or the infonnation contained therein
`
`during any proceeding in this action or otherwise.
`
`9.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Interrogatories that request the identification of all
`
`persons having knowledge, or who participated in a particular event, or requesting the production
`
`2
`
`
`
`(
`
`or identification of all documents or things as burdensome and oppressive, especially where the
`
`degree of knowledge or participation of lesser and lmowledgeable or contributing persons or the
`
`degree of relevance of ce1iain documents is significantly less than the others, and where a
`
`complete response can thus even be misleading. However, Applicant will identify those persons
`
`believed to be most knowledgeable or who have participated most in the subject matter of the
`
`specific requests and will identify and/or produce those documents believed to be most
`
`responsive to the subject matter of the specific request, if not otherwise objectionable.
`
`10.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Interrogatories, including but not limited to the
`
`definitions and instructions, to the extent that they call upon Applicant to determine or produce
`
`information and documents wherein such information and documents are not in the possession,
`
`custody or control of Applicant.
`
`11.
`
`Applicant objects to the production of any infonnation that would require
`
`Applicant to violate any applicable contractual obligation to third parties.
`
`12.
`
`The responses provided herein are submitted while Applicant is continuing its
`
`investigation of facts and discovery of information and documents relating to the claims and
`
`defenses in this Opposition Proceeding. These responses are based only upon Applicant's
`
`current knowledge and reasonable belief.
`
`13.
`
`Applicant reserves its right to supplement its responses and objections to
`
`Applicant's discovery requests.
`
`14.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's instructions to the extent not permitted under or
`
`beyond the scope of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Practice governing Opposition
`
`Proceedings.
`
`3
`
`
`
`(
`
`These General Objections are incorporated by this reference into each and every response
`
`to the Interrogatories herein.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`Interrogatory No 1.
`
`Identify by name, and contact information the persons at Applicant chiefly responsible
`
`for: a) the operation of the company; b) the marketing of the company's services; and c) financial
`
`records for the company.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant objects to this
`
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infomiation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discove1y of
`
`admissible evidence. Subject to these objections and the foregoing General Objections, and
`
`without waiving the same, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`(a) L. Leonard Lundy, Managing Partner, (b) Tami S01iman, Marketing Director, and (c)
`
`Kelly Carson, Fim1 Administrator.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2.
`
`Identify by name, address and principle contact each advertising, marketing, promotional
`
`and/or production agency used by Applicant to produce adve1iising for Applicant from 2009 to
`
`the present.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant objects to this
`
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infomiation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`4
`
`
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Inte1TOgatory to the extent that it is
`
`seeking confidential business information, attorney-client privilege info1mation, that constitutes
`
`attorney work product, or that is protected by any other applicable privilege or protection.
`
`Subject to these objections and the foregoing General Objections, and without waiving the same,
`
`Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`CJ Advertising has done legal adve1iising for Lundy Law since 2003, Whitehardt
`
`Advertising made commercials for Marvin Lundy from 2006-2010, Bozeken Productions makes
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME ads for Lundy Law from 2011 to date, Ningio Adveiiising makes
`
`Soul Football ads for Lundy Law since 2011. Lundy Law advertises on most TV stations in the
`
`Philadelphia Designated Market Area (DMA) through CJ Advertising or the individual stations
`
`themselves, on KYW radio through the station, on Comcast Cable through Comcast, at the Wells
`
`Fargo Center through Comcast Spectacor, on Public Transportation in Pennsylvania, New Jersey
`
`and Delaware through Titan Advertising and Gateway Outdoor Advertising and Direct Media,
`
`All Web services are through CJ Advertising or Ningio Advertising , all print and graphic
`
`advertising and give-aways are done in house.
`
`Interrogatory No. 3.
`
`Identify and describe all types of advertising, marketing _and promotional activities that
`
`Applicant conducts to market, promote and sell its services under REMEMBER THIS NAME;
`
`list the type(s) of advertising, the medium for any ad placement; the geographic location of
`
`advertising; and identify all individuals or entities involved in the creation, selection and
`
`placement of all such advertising, marketing and promotional materials for Applicant since the
`
`first use of the slogan REMEMBER THIS NAME to the present.
`
`5
`
`
`
`(
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that "all types of advertising, marketing and promotional
`
`activities" is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Applicant futiher objects to this
`
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential information which is irrelevant to the
`
`current proceeding. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant
`
`incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 2. Applicant will respond further to
`
`this Interrogatory after the entry of a Protective Order.
`
`Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`Identify all persons with personal knowledge of Applicant's use and claim of iights in the
`
`phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME from date of adoption to the present.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that "all persons with personal knowledge" is overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome and requires a search for information that far exceeds the scope of
`
`infommtion relative to the claims or defenses in this proceeding. Subject to and without waiver
`
`of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Leonard Lundy and Tami Sortman.
`
`Interrogatory No. 5.
`
`Identify Applicant's first use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME in interstate
`
`commerce, and identify: 1) the date of first use; 2) the manner of first use; 3) the type of first use;
`
`4) the location of the first use, and 5) all persons with personal knowledge of Applicant's first
`
`use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME in interstate commerce.
`
`6
`
`I
`
`
`
`(
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Subject to and without waiver
`
`of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminaiy response is as follows:
`
`(1) The date of first use is May 16, 2011;
`
`(2) The manner first used was on banners used at a Philadelphia SOUL game and at
`
`motorcycle events;
`
`(3) The type of first use: See (2) above;
`
`(4) The location of the first use: See (2) above.
`
`Interrogatory No. 6.
`
`Identify all channels of trade in which Applicant promotes and provides services under the
`
`slogan REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogato1y on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and unduly burdensome. Subject
`
`to and without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminaiy response is as
`
`follows:
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME is used on all fom1s of advertising, television, radio, print,
`
`outdoor, stadium, website advertising in pai1s of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. All
`
`advertising that uses REMEMBER THIS NAME says REMEMBER THIS NAME LUNDY
`
`LAW, or on occasion, the adve1tising says REMEMBER THIS NAME, 1-800-Lundy-Law on
`
`some radio announcements due to time constraints.
`
`7
`
`
`
`(
`
`Interrogatory No. 7.
`
`Identify and describe the circumstances sunounding Applicant's decision to file any
`
`applications to register REMEMBER THIS NAME and I'M GLAD I REMEMBERED THE
`
`NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infom1ation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. Applicant further objects to this Inte1mgatory as seeking information that is protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product or that is protected by any
`
`other applicable p1ivilege or protection. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general
`
`objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Applicant tries to register all of the marks it uses. It is routine. Applicant does it to
`
`protect its marks.
`
`Interrogatory No. 8.
`
`Identify and describe the decision-making process behind Applicant's creation, conception,
`
`clearance and adoption of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant fu11her objects to
`
`this Inte1TOgatory on the grounds that it seeks infom1ation that is protected by the attorney-client
`
`p1ivilege, that it constitutes attorney work product, or that is protected by any other applicable
`
`privilege or protection. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general objections,
`
`Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`8
`
`
`
`(
`
`(
`
`The creation, conception, clearance and adoption was a result of a meeting between
`
`Leonard Lundy, Tami Sorkin and Mike Fanelle ofBozekin Productions.
`
`Interrogatory No. 9.
`
`Identify all slogans or phrases that Applicant has contemplated for use with Applicant's
`
`services as an alternative to the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks inforn1ation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking infonnation that
`
`is protected by the attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is
`
`protected by any other applicable privilege or protection. Applicant objects to this Inten-ogatory
`
`on the basis that the Inten-ogatory is unclear and confusing and not understandable. Subject to
`
`and without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminmy response is as
`
`follows:
`
`To the extent that it is understandable, Applicant has not used a phrase or trademark as an
`
`alternative to REMEMBER THIS NAME.
`
`Interrogatory No. 10.
`
`Identify all slogans used in connection with the name Lundy Law.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Inten-ogatory on the grounds that it seeks inforniation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`9
`
`
`
`(
`\
`
`admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general objections,
`
`Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Applicant has used the following trademarks in association with the name Lundy Law:
`
`REMEMBER THIS NAME, I'M GLAD I REMEMBERED THIS NAME, I AM GLAD I
`
`REMEMBERED THE NAME.
`
`Interrogatory No. 11.
`
`Identify all standalone usages of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME by Applicant,
`
`including the media, the manner and date or dates of such use.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent that "all standalone usages of the phrase REMEMBER THIS
`
`NAME" is not understandable to Applicant, and accordingly, Applicant is unable to respond
`
`because the Interrogatory is vague and indefinite. The use of REMEMBER THIS NAME by
`
`Applicant is shown in the documents produced by Applicant.
`
`Interrogatory No. 12.
`
`Describe Applicant's areas of legal practice.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Subject to and without waiver
`
`of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`Applicant's practice areas are listed on its website at www.lundylaw.com and a copy of
`
`the website is being produced.
`
`10
`
`
`
`(
`
`Interrogatory No. 13.
`
`Identify and describe each means utilized by Applicant to promote its services to clients
`
`and/or potential clients.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and uses language that requires a search
`
`for infomiation that far exceeds the scope of information relative to the claims or defenses raised
`
`in this proceeding. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome. Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it not
`
`only seeks infom1ation protected by the attorney-client privilege, it also seeks infonnation that is
`
`highly confidential and in-elevant to this proceeding. To the extent such infonnation is not
`
`confidential or privileged, Applicant states that it has previously answered above how it publicly
`
`promotes its services to clients.
`
`Interrogatory No. 14.
`
`Does Applicant refer any retained clients to third party law finns?
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infomiation that is neither relevant .to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking info1mation that
`
`is protected by the attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is
`
`protected by any other applicable privilege or protection. Still further, Applicant further objects
`
`11
`
`
`
`to this Interrogatory insofar as it seeks highly confidential business infonnation and there is no
`
`Protective Order in place.
`
`Interrogatory No. 15.
`
`If the answer to the preceding question is yes, describe the process and reasons for referring
`
`such clients to third party law firms.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its objections with respect to Interrogatory No. 14
`
`and accordingly, will not produce the information requested by Inte1Togatory No. 15.
`
`Interrogatory No. 16.
`
`Identify and describe Applicant's awareness of the use of the word "remember" in law
`
`finn advertising.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Interrogatory is vague and indefinite insofar as it
`
`requests "Applicant's awareness of the use of the word 'remember' in law firm advertising." It is
`
`not clear what meaning this expression has with respect to any claim or defense raised in this
`
`proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Applicant
`
`fu1ther objects on the basis it is vague and indefinite because it does not specify what time frame
`
`Opposer requests as to Applicant's awareness. Subject to and without waiver of these and its
`
`general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`To the extent that Applicant has become aware of searches performed, after the filing of
`
`this proceeding, Applicant states that it is aware that the term "REMEMBER" is part of
`
`trademarks of the applications and registrations produced by Applicant.
`
`12
`
`
`
`(
`
`Interrogatory No. 17.
`
`Describe Applicant's purpose in marketing its services through advertising via billboards;
`
`public transportation placement; public arenas; and via television.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infom1ation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory insofar as it seeks highly
`
`confidential business information without there being a Protective Order in place. Subject to and
`
`without waiver of these and its general objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as
`
`follows:
`
`Applicant's purpose in marketing in all of the areas set forth in Interrogatory No. 17 is to
`
`market its services.
`
`Interrogatory No. 18.
`
`Identify and describe any searches, surveys, investigations, analyses, or studies by or on
`
`behalf of Applicant relating to Applicant's use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NAME and the
`
`dates of such searches, surveys, investigations, analyses, or studies and the names of the persons
`
`who commissioned the same.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks infonnation that is protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is protected by <my other
`
`13
`
`
`
`(
`
`applicable privilege or protection. Subject to and without waiver of these and its general
`
`objections, Applicant's preliminary response is as follows:
`
`None.
`
`Interrogatory No. 19.
`
`State with specificity where, when and how Applicant first became aware of Opposer's
`
`use of the phrase REMEMBER THIS NUMBER in Opposer's advertising.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant fu1ther objects to
`this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks infonnation that is neither relevant to any claim or
`defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence, because this proceeding does not relate to infringement, but rather to the
`registerability of Applicant's mark REMEMBER THIS NAME. Accordingly, this Interrogatory
`is completely in-elevant. Subject to and without waiving its objections, Applicant states that on
`January 24, 2013 an employee reported to Applicant that she saw someone else using the mark
`REMEMBER THIS NAME. The employee did not remember who. Applicant requested that
`she return to the place where she saw the advertisement and find the name of the law firm using
`the mark. The employee took a picture of the advertisement located on the inside of a SEPTA
`bus with her cell phone. The advertisement was that of Opposer. The advertisement did not use
`the Applicant's mark REMEMBER THIS NAME, rather, it used the mark REMEMBER THIS
`NUMBER.
`
`Interrogatory No. 20.
`
`Identify all persons who participated in any way in the preparation of the answers or
`
`responses to any of these interrogatories and requests for production, and requests for admission
`
`including the areas of participation of each such person.
`
`Response
`
`Applicant incorporates by reference its general objections. Applicant further objects to
`
`this Intenogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
`
`14
`
`
`
`(
`
`privilege, that constitutes attorney work product, or that is protected by any other applicable
`
`privilege or protection.
`
`As to Objections,
`
`Dated: September 10, 2013
`
`CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN,
`COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD.
`
`ｂｹｾＭ］Ｏｭ］､ｾｰｾＯｾｾｾｾｾｾｾｾ＠
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`163 5 Market Street
`Seven Penn Center - 12th Floor
`Philadelphia, .PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 567-2010
`Fax: (215) 751-1142
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`15
`
`
`
`vmUFICATlON
`
`I. L. LEONARD LUNDY, Managing Partner of Lundy Law, LLP have read the
`
`foregoing Responses and Objections to Opposer's J7irst Set of Interrogatories. Based upon
`
`my personal knowledge, I hereby cerLify that Lhe statements set forlh
`
`in Applicant's
`
`Responses are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
`
`Dated: Septembe1· _'£._. 2013
`
`/
`
`
`
`(
`
`(
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the within APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO
`OPPOSER'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES is being served upon counsel ofrecord for
`Applicant, via First Class Mail on September 10, 2013, in an envelope addressed to:
`
`Jacqueline M. Lesser
`Woodcock Washburn LLP
`2929 Arch Street
`Cira Centre, lzth Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`/mdp/
`Manny D. Pokotilow
`
`16
`
`
`
`(
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LARRY PITI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
`
`Opposers,
`
`vs.
`
`OPPOSITION NO. 91210158
`
`Serial No. 85767757
`
`LUNDY LAW, LLP,
`
`Applicant.
`
`APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`APPLICANT'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS TO OPPOSERS (NOS. 1-33)
`
`Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 2.116 and 2.120 of
`
`the Trademark Rules of Practice, Applicant, Lundy Law, LLP hereby submits its objections and
`
`responses to Opposer's Requests for Admission. In fumishing these objections and responses,
`
`Applicant does not admit or concede the relevance, materiality, authenticity and/or admissibility
`
`in evidence of any such responses or admissions.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`All of Applicant's specific responses are subject to and without waiver of the following
`
`.
`general objections:
`
`1.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Requests and the definitions and instructions
`
`thereto, to the extent they may seek to impose on Applicant obligations different from, or greater
`
`than, those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Rules of Practice.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Requests to the extent they seek i11fo1111ation that
`
`is neither relevant to any claim or defense raised in this proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to
`
`Exhibit B
`Larry Pitt & Associates, P.C. v. Lundy Law,LLP
`Opposition No. 9H210158
`
`
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that Applicant provides responses,
`
`notwithstanding these objections, it is an effort to expedite discovery in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant objects generally to Opposer's Requests to the extent they call for
`
`inf onnation that is subject to one or more privileges, including, but not limited to, the attorney(cid:173)
`
`client and work-product privileges. To the extent p1ivileged infon11ation is inadvertently
`
`disclosed, such disclosure is without prejudice to, and is not a waiver of, any subsequent
`
`assertion of privilege by Applicant.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant objects to the definitions of "Lundy Law" and "Applicant," as
`
`overbroad. Applicant states that as referenced in its responses herein, unless otherwise indicated,
`
`Applicant is defined as Lundy Law LLP.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Requests to the extent that they require Applicant
`
`to render legal conclusions regarding the relationship of certain infomrntion or documents to
`
`contested legal or factual issues. By responding to these Requests, Applicant makes no
`
`representation as to whether or not such infonnation or documents tend to prove or disprove any
`
`factual or legal issue.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Requests on the grounds and to the extent that
`
`they are overly broad and unduly burdensome.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Requests on the grounds and to the extent that
`
`they are vague or ambiguous.
`
`8.
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer's Requests to the extent they contain undefined or
`
`ambiguously defined tenns or call for speculation, conject11re, or opinion.
`
`9.
`
`Applicant objects to each of Oppose1·'s Requests on the grounds and to the extent
`
`they call for disclosure of infonnation outside the possession, custody or control of Applicant.
`
`2
`
`
`
`10.
`
`The specific objections and/or answers set fo1th below are based upon
`
`infoffi1ation now available to Applicant after making a diligent search of any files in their
`
`possession, custody, or control that reasonably relate to one or more of the specific requests
`
`contained in the Requests. All responses herein are submitted as presently advised, and are made
`
`without prejudice to Applicant's right to modify, amend, revise, correct, supplement, add to
`
`and/or clarify such responses as any addition
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
