Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA612331
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/26/2014
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91210813
`Defendant
`Mike Ghorbani
`PAYAM MORADIAN
`MORADIAN LAW
`10880 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 1101
`LOS ANGELS, CA 90077
`UNITED STATES
`sepehr@daghighian.com, P@moradianlaw.com
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`Payam Moradian
`p@moradianlaw.com
`/Payam Moradian/
`06/26/2014
`motion_exhibits_Reduced.pdf(4194057 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
`
`-----__u-p—————_..__ -.—--.——- __- _—_—..-....--————--—_ -_ .....u-———-- _— --——_ _..
`
`SATA GmbH & Co. KG
`
`)
`
`Opposer
`
`) Mark: EURO & Design
`
`V.
`
`Mike Ghorbani
`
`Applicant
`
`____________________________________________________________ .-.-
`
`Serial No.: 85/712789
`
`Opposition No. 91210813
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`APPLlCANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Applicant has served Opposer a first set of interrogatories and a first request for
`
`production of documents. In many instances the Opposer has completely failed to
`
`respond to the Applicant’s discovery requests, and has made no good faith attempt to
`
`supplement its responses after being notified of their deficiency. Therefore, the
`
`Applicant hereby seeks an order compelling Opposer to (a) answer fully the
`
`interrogatories set forth in “Applicant Mike Ghorbani’s Interrogatories to Opposer”, and
`
`to (b) provide written responses to “Applicant’s Mike Ghorbani’s First Request for the
`
`Production of Documents and Things” and comply with the Board rules to fully produce
`
`documents responsive to those Requests.
`
`

`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Applicant Mike Ghorbani (hereinafter “Applicant”) seeks to register the mark EURO
`
`for the goods recited in the subject application. Opposition was brought by SATA GmbH
`
`& Co. KG (hereinafter “Opposer” or “Sata”) seeking to prevent registration of the mark.
`
`On December 9, 2013, the Applicant served on the Opposer “Applicant’s Mike
`
`Ghorbani’s interrogatories to Opposer.” The Opposer responded on February 12, 2014.
`
`The Applicant’s interrogatories and the Opposer’s response are attached as Exhibit A.
`
`On January 2, 2014, the Applicant served on the Opposer “App1icant’s Mike
`
`Ghorbani’s First Request for the Production of Documents and Things." The Opposer
`
`responded on February 6, 2014. The Applicant's request and the Opposer’s response are
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`On March 19, 2014, the Applicant sent a Deficiency Letter to the Opposer setting
`
`forth the specific deficiencies in the Opposer’s discovery responses. The Deficiency
`
`Letter is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`On April 18, 2014, the Opposer responded to the Deficiency Letter. However, the
`
`Opposer failed to supplement its discovery responses to remedy these deficiencies.
`
`Opposer’s response is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`On May 2, 2014, the Applicant requested a meet and confer with the Opposer. The
`
`email exchange regarding the meet and confer is attached as Exhibit E. The Opposer sent
`
`a list of discovery deficiencies on part of the Applicant which included many alleged
`
`

`
`deficiencies on the expert discovery (Exhibit E). The Applicant requested a rescheduling
`
`of the meet and confer to supplement its expert discovery responses. (Exhibit E). The
`
`Applicant was under the impression that another meet and confer would be scheduled
`
`after the expert report was supplemented. However, on June 17, 2014, the Opposer filed
`
`a Motion to Compel without first requesting a meet and confer (Document 12, Opposer’s
`
`Motion to Compel).
`
`On June 6, 2014, as part of discovery correspondence, the Applicant asked the
`
`Opposer again to supplement its discovery. The email exchange is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`In this email exchange, Applicant had stated to Opposer, “Please take this time to
`
`reconsider your position to refuse to answer our ROGS and produce relevant documents
`
`regarding 1) where each component of Sata's spray guns are made, 2) information on
`
`competitors of Sata and market share in the US. We plan to move for a motion to compel
`
`on these issues if our meet and confer is not successfi.11"’ (Exhibit F).
`
`On June 1 1, 2014, the Opposer stated that “We will, as you have requested, further
`
`consider our stance in connection with the market share and location of manufacture
`
`issues you have raised.” This exchange is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`On June 23, 2014, the Applicant sent a follow-up email to the Opposer regarding
`
`Opposer’s promise in its June 1 1, 2014 email (Exhibit G), the Applicant stating “We have
`
`not received any documents from you since your email of June 1 1, 2014. We expect you
`
`to produce any additional documents that we requested by end of business day tomorrow.
`
`We plan to move for a motion to compel on Wednesday the 25th." (Exhibit G). The
`
`

`
`Opposer responded to Applicant on June 25, 2014, stating "we do not intend to make the
`
`further production of documents you requested.” (Exhibit G).
`
`The above facts show that the Applicant has met its burden to compel Opposer to
`
`remedy the discovery deficiencies. Applicant has repeatedly requested that Opposer
`
`remedy its deficiencies to no avail, Applicant has attempted to have a meet and confer
`
`with Opposcr but instead received Opposer"s motion to compel. and Applicant has
`
`inquired that Opposer supplement its discovery responses numerous times with no result.
`
`111.
`
`SPECIFIC MATTERS IN DISPUTE
`
`A.
`
`lnterrogatories 9, 15, and, 22 and Related Production Requests 5 and 11
`
`Applicanfs Interrogatories 9, 15 and 22 are reproduced as follows:
`
`
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory "No. 2, identify your competitors and
`their competing products.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 15:
`
`
`
`
`
`For each product requested to be identified in interrogatory No. 2, identify the market share of
`any competitors known or estimated by you.
`
`
`
` INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
`
`Describe any studies. tests. or surveys related to the United States market share. performance.
`and quality ofproducts {which compete with products you identified in response to lnterrogatory
`No. 2) sold by Ancst lwata USA. Inc. in the United States.
`
`

`
`In response to lnterrogatory 9 (identity of competitors), 15 (market share of
`
`competitors), and 22 (Information on Anest Iwata USA (one of the competitors of Sata)0,
`
`as well as Production Requests 5 and 1 1, the Opposer stated that these Interrogatories are
`
`irrelevant and refused to provide an answer. In response to the Applicant’s Deficiency
`
`Letter of March 19, 2014 (Exhibit C), the Opposer refused to supplement the
`
`Interrogatories.
`
`The requested information on Sata’s competitors is relevant because it may
`
`discredit Sata’s position that purchasers of spray guns prefer European manufactured
`
`spray guns and that any confusion regarding the mark Euro would be detrimental to Sata.
`
`For example, one of Opposer's competitors, Anest Iwata USA, is believed to
`
`manufacture its spray guns outside of Europe. The market share of spray guns, and any
`
`quality tests on competitors’ products, such as Anest Iwata USA, are relevant to the issue
`
`of whether consumers have a material preference for European made spray guns.
`
`Additionally, Sata brought up its competitors in the Notice of Opposition and
`
`cannot now allege that the identity of these competitors and their market share is
`
`somehow irrelevant. In the Notice of Opposition, Sata alleged that Sata’s paint spray
`
`guns are the “benchmark by which cornpetitor’s goods might be measured.” (Document
`
`1, Notice of Opposition, page 2).
`
`Lastly, the requested discovery is narrowly tailored. It only focuses on products
`
`identified by the Opposer in interrogatory 2, which are solely four products manufactured
`
`by Sata.
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Interrogatories 13 and 20, and Related Production Request 9
`
`Applicanfs Interrogatories I3 and 20 are reproduced below:
`
`INTERRQQATORY N0. 13:
`
`Describe in detail each incident. known to you. of actual confusion between your products. and
`
`products available under the name EURO.
`
`INTERROQATORY N0. 20:
`
`Europe.
`
`Describe in detail each incident. known to you. ofactual confusion where a product sold under
`
`the name EURO by Mike Ghorbani or ML}. Distributor. Inc. which was believed to be from
`
`In response to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 20, and Production Request No. 9,
`
`requesting evidence of actual confusion, Sata provides a vague answer based “upon
`
`information and belief" and does not cite to specific evidence. Specifically, Sata
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Answer:
`
`Upon information and belief customers have expressed confusion to SA'l'A’s exclusive
`
`authorized importer, Dan-Am. Upon information and belief potential customers have made
`
`inquiries of Dan~Am for the purpose ofdetermining whether there exists a relationship between
`
`SATA and the EURO guns offered by Applicant.
`
`
`
`The Opposer further declined to supplement its answer after being sent the
`
`Deficiency Letter of March 19, 2014 (Exhibit C), the Opposer having stated “we stand by
`
`

`
`our answers to these interrogatories." (Exhibit D"). Evidence of confusion is highly
`
`relevant in this proceeding where the Opposer has taken the position that consumers
`
`would confuse a spray gun with the mark EURO as originating from Europe.
`
`In fact, the
`
`Opposer has had several discovery requests regarding evidence of confusion. For
`
`example, Opposer’s Interrogatory 20 in Exhibit 1 of Opposer’s Motion to Compcl states:
`
`“Describe in detail all facts upon which Applicant bases its contention that purchasers of
`
`spray guns are sophisticated and unlikely to be confused. as asserted by Applicant in
`
`Paragraph 17. Applicant's Affirmative Defenses.” (Document 12, 0pposer's Motion to
`
`Compel. page 23).
`
`It is requested that the Opposer be ordered to produce any evidence
`
`that it has regarding actual confusion.
`
`C.
`
`Interrogatory 19, and Production Request 15
`
`lnterrogatory 19 is reproduced as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 19:
`
`shttp:h’wwwbinks.eom/PortalsI0:‘Reposi1oryz‘7?—2463R— I 8.pdf'>.
`
`For each product requested to be identified in Interrogatory No. 2, identify the county where
`each ofthe Following parts are manufactured: Air Nozzle. Fluid Inlet, Trigger Action. Fluid
`
`Nozzle, Needle. Side Port control, Fluid Control Knob. Forged Aluminum Body, Air Inlet. and
`
`cup. These parts are identified by a third party in a catalogue available at
`
`Sata’s answer to lnterrogatory 19 and Production Request No. 15 are non-
`
`responsive.
`
`lnterrogatory 19 asks Sata to identify where each part of Sata’s products are
`
`manufactured. Sata advertises its spray guns as manufactured or engineered in Germany
`
`

`
`(Exhibit H). Evidence that Sata hides from consumers the location of the manufacture of
`
`its parts for its spray guns in European countries outside of Gennany is probative to the
`
`issue that consumers have no material appreciation for a European made spray gun. The
`
`Applicant has the right to know where each part of the guns are manufactured, including
`
`each part listed in Interrogatory 19.
`
`D.
`
`Interrogatories 14, 24, and 25, and Production Requests 10
`
`Applicants interrogatories 14, 24, and 25 are reproduced below:
`
`INTERROGQTORY NO. 25;
`
`_|
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterregatory No. 2. state total sales and market
`share in Europe for the corresponding product sold in Europe.
`
`INTERROGAORY N0. 24:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, state total sales and market
`share in the United States.
`
`INTERROQATOBY N0. 14:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2. identify your market share in
`the United States.
`
`In response to Interrogatory 14, 24, and 25, as well as Production Request 10,
`
`(Sata’s market share), Sata states that these Interrogatories are irrelevant and refuses to
`
`provide an answer. The requested information on Sata’s market share is relevant because
`
`it may discredit Sara's position that purchasers of spray guns prefer European
`
`

`
`manufactured spray guns and that any confusion regarding the mark Euro would be
`
`detrimental to Sata.
`
`E.
`
`Production Requests 4
`
`Applicant’s Interrogatory 4 reproduced below:
`
`REQUEST N0. 4:
`
`All documents relating to the nature and title (if applicable) of the media in which all
`advertisements of for any of your products that you contend compete with PF°d“°i3 50“ “Dd”
`the name EURO by Mike Ghorbani or M.G. Distributor. Inc-. including the date Of: and
`
`geographic scope (by city and state) of such advertisements.
`
`Moreover, in response to Production Request No. 4, Sara refuses to provide
`
`documents relating to its advertisement. These documents are relevant to Sata’s
`
`contention in the Notice of Opposition that spray guns sold under the name Euro are sold
`
`in the same channel of trades as S'ata’s spray guns. (Document 1, Notice of Opposition,
`
`page 2). In addition, Sata has had multiple discovery requests on advertisements, and
`
`catmot now state that discovery requests on advertisements are irrelevant. For example,
`
`see Interrogatories 10, 12 and 21 in Exhibit 1 of Opp0ser’s Motion to Compel (Document
`
`12, Opposer’s Motion to Compel, pages 20-21, 24).
`
`

`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant requests an Order compelling Opposer to fully respond to
`
`Intcrrogatories 9, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25 and Production Requests 4, 5, 9, 10
`
`and 15.
`
`fivik
`
`Payam Moradian
`Moradian Law
`
`Attorney for Mike Ghorbani
`10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101
`Los Angeles, CA 90077
`ggazlnoradianlawcom
`917-353-1919
`
`10
`
`

`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the “APPLICANTS MOTION TO
`COMPEL,” “DECLARATION OF PAYAM MORADIAN, ESQUIRE," and EXHIBITS
`A-H” appended thereto has been duly served on June 26, 2014 by E—mail to
`tv@hvsllc.com and by depositing such copy with the US Postal Service, in an envelope
`addressed to:
`
`Thomas J. Vande Sande
`
`Hall & Vande Sande, LLC
`
`10220 River Road, Suite 200
`
`Potomac, MD 20854
`
`By: /jg’;/k
`
`Payam Moradian
`Moradian Law
`
`Attorney for Mike Ghorbani
`10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101
`Los Angeles, CA 90077
`g@moradian1aw.com
`917-353-1919
`
`11
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— an
`
`SATA GmbH & Co. KG
`
`)
`
`Opposer
`
`) Mark: EURO & Design
`
`v.
`
`Mike Ghorbani
`
`Applicant
`
`Serial No.: 85/712789
`
`Opposition No. 91210813
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`—————----__¢--g—_-__—----—--__—_—~——n--_--_—_——_-_u—____-___-_
`
`DECLARATION OF PAYAM MORADIAN, ESQUIRE
`
`1.
`
`The undersigned, Payam Moradian, is counsel for Applicant, Mike Ghorbani, in
`
`connection with Trademark Opposition Proceeding No. 91210813, captioned SATA
`
`Gmbl-1 & Co. KG v. Mike Ghorbani.
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a redacted version of a true and accurate copy of
`
`Applicant's First Set of interrogatories bearing a Certificate of Service dated December
`
`9, 2013 as well as a true and accurate copy of Opposer’s Responses thereto evidencing
`
`service on February 12, 2014. The confidential responses of the Opposer have been
`
`redacted.
`
`3.
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of Applicant's First Set
`
`of Requests for Production of Documents and Things with a certificate evidencing
`
`service on January 2, 2014 and also a true and accurate copy of Opposer's' Responses
`
`thereto with a Certificate of Service dated February 6, 2014.
`
`

`
`4.
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit C is a true and accurate copy of Applicant’s
`
`Deficiency Letter to Opposer on March 19, 2014 setting forth the specific deficiencies in
`
`the Opposer's discovery responses.
`
`5.
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of 0pposer’s response
`
`on April 18, 2014 to AppIicant’s Deficiency Letter evidencing Opposer’s failure to
`
`remedy the deficiencies raised in Applicant’s Deficiency Letter.
`
`6.
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of email
`
`correspondence commencing on May 2, 2014 between the Applicant and the Opposer.
`
`7.
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of email
`
`correspondence commencing on June 6, 2014 between the Applicant and the Opposer.
`
`8..
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of email
`
`correspondence commencing on June 11, 2014 between the Applicant and the Opposer.
`
`9.
`
`Submitted herewith as Exhibit H is a true and accurate copy of a publication by
`
`Opposer describing that its SATA spray guns are exclusively developed and
`
`manufactured in Germany.
`
`10. The undersigned has made a good faith effort through multiple items of
`
`correspondence, to resolve with Opposer’s counsel the issues presented in this motion.
`
`This Declaration is made with knowledge that willful false statements and the like so
`
`made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`13
`
`

`
`kig
`
`Payam Moradian
`Moradian Law
`
`Attorney for Mike Ghorbani
`10880 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101
`
`Los Angeles, CA 900??
`p@,moradian1aw.c0m
`917-353-1919
`
`14
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBITA
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`HE C E N EC‘
`pg} '1 E ililli
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`iI: l22 EI2 I1 lIl l2I
`
`SATA GmbH 8; Co. KG
`
`Upposer
`
`v
`D/like Ghorbani
`
`a...r---4~._a-..a-._.v~..-‘w-._a-....I-..v
`
`Mark: EU R0 & Design
`
`Serial No.: 35f'}'l2?89
`
`Opposition No. 912108 I 3
`
`OPPOSER SATA GMBH & C0. KG’S ANSWERS T0
`API’LiCANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 1:
`
`Opposer SATA Gmbl-I & Co. KG has not completed its investigation in this matter. All
`
`responses to interrogatories are based upon the information presently known to Opposer and are
`
`given without prejudice to its right to adduce evidence discovered or analyzed subsequent to the
`
`date of these answers. Opposer expressly reserves the right to revise and supplement its answers
`
`to these interrogatories in the event that its continuing investigation of the facts and/or discovery
`
`bring to light any additional information responsive to these interrogatories.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION N0. 2:
`
`Opposer objects to these interrogatories, and to each and every individual interrogalory.
`
`to the extent they seek in formation protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
`
`doctrine, andfor any other applicable privilege or protection. Without prejudice to this objection.
`
`

`
`
`
`Opposer will provide answers to these interrogatories to the extent that such responses do not
`
`waive such privileges or protections.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 3:
`
`Opposer objects to these interrogatories, including, but not limited to. the “Definitions"
`
`therein, and to each and every individual intemogatory, to the extent they purport to impose
`
`duties on Opposer that are greater than those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`andfor the TBMP.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 4:
`
`Opposer objects to these interrogatories, and to each and every individual interrogatory,
`
`to the extent they seek information outside of Opposer’s possession, custody, or control, on the
`
`grounds that any such interrogatory is overly broad and unduly burdensome. seeks to impose
`
`discovery obligations in excess of those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure andfor
`
`the TBMP. or would subject Opposer to unreasonable annoyance, burden, and expense.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION N0. 5:
`
`Opposer objects to these interrogatories, and to each and every individual interrogatory.
`
`as unduly burdensome, oppressive and in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`andfor the TBMP to the extent they purport to require Opposer to respond on behalf of, or
`
`conduct any inquiry or investigation with respect to, any party other than Opposer. Opposer will
`
`only answer interrogatories on its own behalf.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION N0. 6:
`
`Opposer objects to these interrogatories, and to each and every individual interrogatory.
`
`to the extent they seek information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence.
`
`

`
`
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 7:
`
`Opposer objects to these Interrogatories, and to each and every individual interrogatory,
`
`as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent they do not include a limitation or proposed
`
`definition of a relevant time period.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 8:
`
`Opposer specifically reserves all objections as to the competence, relevancy. materiality
`
`and admissibility of its documents and interrogatory answers or the subject matter thereof, and
`
`all rights to object on any ground to the use of any document or interrogatory answer. or the
`
`subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding, including without limitation to the trial of
`
`this or any action.
`
`Opposer expressly incorporates the above General Objections as though set forth fully in
`
`response to each of the following individual -interrogatories, and. to the extent they are not raised
`
`in any particular response. Opposer does not waive those objections. An answer to an
`
`interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver ofany applicable specific or general objections to an
`
`interrogatory.
`
`[flj1jEE3OGA'I'0Rl§§
`
`LNTERROGATORY N0. 1:
`
`Describe in detail the circumstances through which you first became aware of Mike Ghorbani
`and the use of the EURO mark.
`
`Employees of Opposer first became aware of the products otfered by M6. Distributor as a result
`ofthose employees visiting the M.G. Distributor's booth at the SEMA Show 2012.
`
`

`
`
`
`N
`
`AT
`
`Identify every product which you sell, offer to sell. or market in the United States which you
`contend compete with products sold under the name EURO by Mike Ghorbani or M.G.
`Distributor. inc.
`
`SWBI‘:
`
`1.)
`2.)
`3.)
`4.)
`
`SATAjet 100 B F HVLP
`SATAjet I00 B F RP
`SATAjet 1000 B HVLP
`SATAjet 1000 B RP
`
`INTERR
`
`OR N .
`
`:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, identify the persons most
`knowledgeable about each product.
`
`Agswegg
`
`Dr. Ewald Sehrnon, Head of R & D, SATA GmbH & Co. KG.
`
`INTERRO TO
`
`4'
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, identify the price at which
`each of those products is offered in the United States.
`
`ggmer:
`
`The products identified as l and 2 in response to interrogatory 2 are sold in the US. at prices
`between— The products identified in response to lnterrogatory 2 as 3 and 4 are
`offered in the us. at prices between—
`
` 1HQ..5t
`
`For each product requested to be identified in Interrogatory No. 2, describe the channels of trade
`ofthe product in the United States.
`
`Acme;
`
`SATA delivers all products for the U.S. market to Dan-Am, an independent company acting as
`exclusive authorized importer for SATA in the United States. Dan-Am sells these products to
`selected U.S. dealers. These dealers in turn sell products to end users, either in local stores or in
`some limited instances. online.
`
`

`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 6:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, identify the persons most
`
`knowledgeable about the sales and distribution ofthc product in the United States.
`
`Answer:
`
`Mr. Joerg Goettling, Head of Export at SATA GrnbH & Co. KG.
`
`INTERRO
`
`TOR NO.7'
`
`For each product requested to be identified in Interrogatory No. 2, identify the nature and title (if
`
`applicable) of the media in which all advertisements of the product or service have appeared.
`including the date of‘. and geographic scope (by city and state) of such advertisements.
`
`Agswer:
`
`Opposer objects to this inlerrogatory as being irrelevant and also as being overly broad and
`unduly burdensome requesting as it does the identification of “all advertisements" and the dates
`
`and geographic scope of “all advertisements". Opposer further objects to this interrogatory to
`
`the extent that it inquires of Opposer as to advertising activities engaged in by third parties.
`
`Without waiving these objections Opposer notes that its products are advertised in the U .S.
`
`through catalogs, price lists. leaflets. publications such as “SAT/t news", “Dan-Am news",
`online advertisements. trade fairs. and through other means customary in the business.
`
`Advertising efforts are not, to SATA‘s knowledge, geographically limited within the US.
`
`INTERROGATQRY N0. 8:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, describe the target markets
`
`and characteristics of targeted consumers.
`
`Answer:
`
`As to those products identified in the Answer to lnterrogatory 2 as l and 2, the market and
`
`relevant consttmers include those involved in auto refinishing. As to those products identilied as
`3 and 4 in response to Interrogatory 2, markets and consumers include those involved in auto
`
`refinishing and carpentry and various activities involving glazing. staining, and painting of
`wood.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 9:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2. identify your competitors and
`
`their competing products.
`
`

`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to this interrogatory as seeking information which is not relevant to any issue
`
`involved in this dispute, specifically the registrability oft~1URO to Applicant for use in
`
`connection with paint spray gun equipment.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`Describe any studies, tests, ratings, or surveys related to the quality of the products offered under
`the mark EURO.
`
`Answer:
`
`See documents produced in response to Applicant's production request 6 evidencing the
`
`superiority of SATA guns over those offered by Applicant.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 11:
`
`Describe any studies. tests, ratings, or surveys related to consumer recognition of SATA mark.
`
`Answer:
`
`Although Opposer is currently unaware ofspecific studies, tests, ratings, or surveys relating to
`consumer recognition of the SATA marks, as noted and evidenced in response to various other of
`
`Applicant's interrogatories. and as further evidenced by various documents produced in response
`to App|icant’s requests. with more than 100 years of history. SATA and SATA products have a
`very good reputation in the market as evidenced in the comments found at various Internet fora
`
`and websites and is recognized by dealers and consumers involved with this market and these
`goods. The high quality of goods offered under the SATA mark has even been recognized by
`Applicant as evidenced through S 0485.
`
`INTERROQATORY NO. 12:
`
`Describe any studies, tests. ratings. or surveys related to consumer recognition of EURO mark.
`
`Answer:
`
`Oppose!‘ is not currently aware of any studies. tests. ratings. or surveys related to consumer.
`recognition ofAppIicar1t’s EURO mark-
`
`INTERROGA
`
`R
`
`. 13:
`
`Describe in detail each incident, known to you, of actual confusion between your products, and
`
`products available under the name EURO.
`
`

`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`Upon information and belief customers have expressed confusion to SA'l‘A’s exclusive
`
`authorized importer, Dan-Am. Upon information and belief potential customers have made
`
`inquiries of Dan-Am for the purpose of determining whether there exists a relationship between
`
`SATA and the EURO guns offered by Applicant.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 14:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, identify your market share in
`the United States.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to this interrogatory as seeking information which is not relevant to any issue
`involved in this dispute, involving as it does the registrability of EURO to Applicant for use in
`
`connection with paint spray gun equipment.
`
`TNTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in Interrogatory No. 2, identify the market share of
`
`any competitors known or estimated by you.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposcr objects to this interrogatory as seeking information which is not relevant to any issue
`involved in this dispute, involving as it does the registrability of EURO to Applicant for use in
`connection with paint Spray gun equipment.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
`
`Describe in detail any supporting evidence that you have for your contention in the complaint
`that the products sold under the Mark EURO are "inferior in quality to SATA’s goods.”
`
`Answer:
`
`The test results referred to responding to Interrogatory No. 10 and the documentation offered in
`
`response to related document request 6 establish the fact that the products sold under the EURO
`
`mark are inferior in quality to SATA‘s products.
`
`In addition to the test results, numerous
`
`pubiically available publications and websites, including dealers’ websites. extol the virtues and
`
`high performance levels of 0pposer’s goods. See also Applicant's acknowledgement of the high
`quality of SATA‘s products proclaimed in S 0485, produced in response to Applicant's requests
`for the production ofdocuments.
`
`

`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`
`Describe in detail any supporting evidence that you have for your contention in the Complaint
`that your products are manufactured in Germany.
`
`Answer:
`
`The fact that SATA's paint spray guns are manufactured in Germany is common knowledge.
`Supporting evidence includes the publication “I00 Years of SATA", and articles publically
`available through the Internet such as that appearing at ww\v.ltm_-oflltlithn In addition, the fact
`that tours are offered through Opposer’s manufacturing facilities located in Kornwestheim,
`
`Germany well evidences the fact that 0pposer’s products are manufactured in Germany.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. I8:
`
`Describe in detail any supporting evidence that you have for your contention in the Complaint
`that your products have superior performance.
`
`Answer:
`
`Evidence supporting the superior performance of SATA‘s products include the many positive
`references to SATA and its products located at publically available websites and dealer fora, the
`acknowledgement by Applicant of the high quality of SATA goods (see S 0485). and the test
`results produced in response to Applicanfs production requests bearing production nos. S 0480 -
`S 0481.
`
`INTERROG ATORY NO. 19:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, identify the county where
`each ofthe following parts are manufactured: Air Nozzle. Fluid Inlet, Trigger Action, Fluid
`Nozzle, Needle, Side Port control. Fluid Control Knob, Forged Aluminum Body. Air Inlet, and
`
`cup. These parts are identified by a third party in a catalogue available at
`<http:h’wwwbinks.com.*'Portals!OfRcpository!7'1'-2463R-|3.pdf>.
`
`Answer:
`
`Each identified part is manufactured in Germany or in other European countries. SATA objects
`to this interrogatory to the extent that it makes reference to the catalog of a third party in no way
`involved in this proceeding. Supporting evidence includes. but is not limited to, the publication
`“I00 Years of SATA". See also the reference at \'l\|lu'\Ar'.l_‘ll1I-I._I_l_'|lIl".ll.3._Li§' to the effect that SATA
`
`exclusively produces its goods in Kornwestheim. Germany.
`
`

`
`
`
`INTERROQA I ORY N0. 20:
`
`Describe in detail each incident. known to you, of actual confusion where a product sold under
`the name EURO by Mike Ghorbani or M.(}. Distributor. Inc. which was believed to be from
`
`Europe.
`
`Answer:
`
`See Opposer‘s answers to lnterrogatories l and I3.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
`
`Describe any studies, tests, ratings. or surveys related to consumer recognition of HVLP spray
`
`guns originating from Europe.
`
`Answer:
`
`Consumer recognition of paint spray guns originating from Europe is not limited to HVLP paint
`
`spray guns. Numerous references to the high quality of SATA guns are publically available
`
`through the Internet and include those found at wwtv.lowridermagaz.inc.cum and
`
`wsvwgaraggoturnajlcom (S 0530 — S 0538) among many others.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 22:
`
`Describe any studies, tests. or surveys related to the United States market share. performance.
`
`and quality of products (which compete with products you identified in response to lnterrogatory
`No. 2) sold by Anest Iwata USA. Inc. in the United States.
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant to any issue involved in this proceeding.
`
`inquiring as it does, as to the business and products of‘ an uninvolved third party.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, identify the country of final
`
`assembly.
`
`Answer:
`
`Germany.
`
`INTERROQAOBY N0. 24:
`
`For each product requested to be identified in lnterrogatory No. 2, state total sales and market
`share in the United States.
`
`

`
`
`
`Answer:
`
`Opposer objects to this interrogalory to the extent that it inquires of 0pposer‘s market share in
`the US. as such is irrelevant to any issue involved in this proceeding. Total units sold in the
`
`US. for the years 2012 and 2013 in connection with each of the four models identified in
`
`response to lnterrogatory 2 are as follows:
`
`201?.
`
`20|3
`
`SATA'et