Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA687681
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`08/05/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91214673
`Plaintiff
`Edge Games, Inc.
`REV DR TIM LANGDELL
`EDGE GAMES INC
`530 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE , 171
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`uspto@edgegames.com, tim@edgegames.com
`Motion to Compel Discovery
`Tim Langdell
`uspto@edgegames.com, tim@edgegames.com
`/Tim Langdell/
`08/05/2015
`OpposersAmendedMotionToCompel.pdf(526156 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
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LTD.,
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`Applicant
`
`
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________}
`
`Opposition No. 91214673
`
`Mark: EDGE
`
`Application Serial Nos. 85153958
`and 85153981
`
`
`
`OPPOSER'S AMEMDED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`RESPONSES AND MOTION TO TEST THE SUFFICIENCY OF
`RESPONSE TO OPPOSER'S ADMISSION REQUESTS;
`
`
`
`Comes Opposer Edge Games, Inc. ("Opposer") with an amendment to its prior motion to
`
`compel the applicant Future Publishing, Ltd. ("Applicant") to comply with discovery requests
`
`and to both produce documents reasonably requested and to correct and amend its inadequate or
`
`false responses to Admission Requests. Opposer includes the entirety of its prior Motion to
`
`Compel dated July 25, 2015 herein and adds as follows to move to compel Applicant to comply
`
`with Opposer's second set of discovery requests, too.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Shortly after filing Opposer's recent Motion to Compel, Applicant was due to serve its
`
`responses on Opposer in regard to Opposer's second set of discovery requests dated June 25,
`
`2015. While Opposer had good reason to doubt that Applicant would provide acceptable
`
`responses to this second set of requests, in good faith Opposer waited for those responses to be
`
`served.
`
`Upon receipt of Applicant's responses to Opposer's second set of discovery requests,
`
`Opposer was disappointed to note that Applicant had been even less compliant than with the first
`
`set. Whereas Applicant's responses to Opposer's first set of requests showed at least a small
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`amount of effort to be responsive and compliant, these latest responses showed no effort
`
`whatsoever to craft a single actually "responsive" response. Instead, Applicant simply gave the
`
`same template, "cookie cutter" excuse for every response in each case, and by so doing refused
`
`to provide a reasonable answer to any of the Second Set of Interrogatories, failed to even admit
`
`the existence of a single requested document (let alone produce any) in response to the Second
`
`Set of Document Requests, and refused to admit or deny or give any kind of truly responsive
`
`response to any of Opposer's Second Set of Admission Requests.
`
`Given the history in this action of Applicant blocking any reasonable attempt by Opposer
`
`to have Applicant participate properly in discovery, Opposer had low expectations that Applicant
`
`would be responsive to a request for more compliant, responsive, responses. Opposer was not
`
`disappointed: in a telephone call today between Mr. Robert Phillips for Applicant and Dr. Tim
`
`Langdell for Opposer, Mr. Phillips confirmed categorically that Applicant intends to stand by its
`
`completely non-compliant and unresponsive responses, and has no intention of being acceptably
`
`responsive. Accordingly, with an eye to judicial economy, Opposer is amending its Motion to
`
`Compel Responses to Discovery Requests to include the second set of Opposer's requests so that
`
`hopefully all discovery issues between the parties may be resolved by this one motion.
`
`Attached to Dr. Langdell's further declaration hereto are Applicant's responses as
`Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. Attached as Exhibit 4 thereto is a true copy of the email to Mr. Phillips
`
`summarizing the telephone call and clarifying that once again the parties are deadlocked with
`
`Opposer having no option other than to request the Board compel Applicant to respond to
`discovery requests.1
`
`GROUNDS TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION (SECOND SET OF
`DOCUMENT REQUESTS)
`As can be seen from Applicant's responses to Opposer's Second Set of Document
`
`Requests (Langdell decl. Exhibit 1), Applicant has once again refused to produce even a single
`
`document, and this time has refused to admit that even one document exists that could be
`
`produced. As can also be seen, Opposer was careful to craft its requests so as to be adequately
`
`narrow in scope, reasonable, in no way vague, in no way ambiguous, never overbroad, never
`
`burdensome and never oppressive. Opposer was also careful to ensure that every document
`
`
`1 The issue of late service was left unresolved between the parties, since Applicant may have been out of time.
`Opposer reserves its rights in this regard and is still researching the issue. See Exhibit 5 attached to Langdell decl.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`request was relevant to the subject matter of this action and likely to lead to discovery of
`
`admissible--indeed, crucial--evidence. Opposer was also clear that it should never to be assumed
`
`to ever be requesting the production of Privileged Information. Despite all this careful crafting,
`
`Applicant acted as if it had not even bothered to read any of the requests, and instead gave the
`
`exact same generic "cookie cutter" response to every request, namely:
`
`Applicant objects to this document request as vague and ambiguous,
`overbroad, burdensome and oppressive. Applicant further objects to
`this document request as it is irrelevant to the subject matter of this
`t
`action and no likely to lead to this (sic) discovery of admissible
`evidence. Applicant further objects to this document request to the
`extent it seeks production of Privileged Information.
`
`
`
`As the Board can easily see from reviewing each of Opposer's document requests, there is
`
`not a single request for which this 'response' by Applicant could be considered reasonable,
`
`appropriate, responsive or valid. As a prime example, consider the first Request for Document
`
`Production (No. 51): this request is quite reasonably one for all documents so far identified by
`
`Applicant that as of the date of asking they intend to rely on at trial but have not yet been
`
`produced. This is clearly relevant, not at all ambiguous, not overly burdensome, nor can any of
`
`the other objections be seen as valid. Certainly, it is not asking for Privileged Information. This
`
`same picture is repeated for all of Opposer's Second Set of Document Requests, none of which
`
`can fairly or reasonably be responded to with Applicant's objections. The Board should thus,
`
`please, compel Applicant to respond acceptably and responsively, and actually identify and
`
`produce all of the documents requested or be barred from further defending this action.
`
`GROUNDS TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`The situation with Applicant's supposed "responses" to Opposer's Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories is essentially identical. That is, in each instance, Applicant has refused to respond
`
`to any of the interrogatories, and instead has given the exact same "cookie cutter" broad
`
`objection of all grounds it could think of. Opposer gave considerable thought to crafting this
`
`second set of Interrogatories, ensuring in each case that the interrogatory is never vague, never
`
`ambiguous, never overbroad, never unduly burdensome or oppressive, and that in each instance
`
`the interrogatory is relevant to a claim or defense asserted (noting that Opposer some months
`
`ago now orally asked the Board for permission to amend the Opposition to include the
`
`grounds of fraud--and is still awaiting the Board's permission to amend accordingly), and in all
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`instances is designed to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Yet again, as with the
`
`document production requests, at no time is Opposer ever requesting information that is
`
`protected by attorney client and/or work product privileges. Despite this careful crafting of the
`
`interrogatories by Opposer, Applicant refuses to answer any of them, instead objecting on
`
`precisely the grounds that Opposer went to great lengths to ensure are not valid grounds.
`
`Opposer has a right to have these interrogatories fully, responsively and truthfully
`
`answered, and calls on the Board to compel such responses from Applicant or if it will not
`
`respond to then bar Applicant from further defending this action.
`
`GROUNDS TO TEST THE SUFFICIENCY OF ADMISSION RESPONSES
`
`Similarly, as the Board can see from Applicant's supposed "responses" to Opposer's
`
`Second Set of Requests for Admission, once again Applicant has not actually responded to any
`
`Request. Instead, again, Applicant has merely "responded" with the exact same "cookie cutter"
`
`set of completely invalid, disingenuous and inappropriate objections--just as it did with the other
`
`two discovery requests in this second set.
`
`Opposer rightly deems these requests for admission as central to this case, since in each
`
`case Opposer is requesting admission of a fact that is well known to be true by Applicant. By
`
`gaining these admissions from Applicant, the parties will be able to drastically reduce the
`
`number of issues that the Board will need to deal with at trial, since all the key issues would be--
`
`indeed, should be--agreed upon between the parties. Yet in each case, despite carefully crafting
`
`the requests for admission to be clear, unambiguous and relevant, Applicant nonetheless fails to
`
`really answer, and refuses to either admit or deny any of them.
`
`In every case, seeming to have not taken the time to even read each request, Applicant
`
`simply responds with a "kitchen sink and all" list of objections:
`
`Applicant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
`harassing, unduly burdensome and oppressive, and calls for
`information that is not relevant to any claim or defense asserted in
`this proceedings, is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence, and/or calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`Not only are none of these grounds for objection valid for any of the requests for
`
`admission, but Opposer finds the last grounds stated for objection particularly frustrating ("calls
`
`for legal conclusion") since well before Applicant drafted these responses it was in possession of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Opposer's recent filings making clear that TTAB rules do not permit a blanket objection on the
`
`grounds that the question may call for a legal conclusion (TMBP 414(21)).
`
`Opposer believes that the Board can see that Applicant is being deliberately obstructive,
`
`non-compliant, and not acceptably responsive. Opposer further believes that it is self evident that
`
`none of the responses provided by Applicant can be considered sufficient. Accordingly, Opposer
`
`calls for the Board to compel Applicant to supply sufficient, responsive, responses to these
`
`requests, and if Applicant fails to do so then Opposer calls for the Board to bar Applicant from
`
`further defending this action or to otherwise severely sanction Applicant for this unacceptable
`
`behavior. The Board may, for instance, in the alternate to barring Applicant from further
`
`defending the action, instead bar Applicant from producing or relying on any document,
`
`evidence, or fact at trial that it failed to timely disclose and produce to Opposer during this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tim Langdell___________
`Dr Tim Langdell
`CEO, Edge Games Inc
`Opposer in Pro Se
`530 South Lake Avenue 171
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`Tel: 626 824 0097
`Fax: 626 844 4EDGE (844 4334)
`Email: tim@edgegames.com
`
`discovery period.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing OPPOSER'S AMENDED MOTION TO
`
` I
`
`COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TO TEST SUFFICIENCY OF RESPONSE TO
`
`ADMISSION REQUESTS AND ATTACHED DECLARATION BY DR LANGDELL IN
`
`SUPPORT THEREOF was served on Applicant via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on
`
`August 4, 2015
`
`
`
`Robert N Phillips
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco
`CA 94105
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Cheri Langdell___________
` Cheri Langdell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LTD.,
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`}
`
`
`Applicant
`
`
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________}
`
`Opposition No. 91214673
`
`Mark: EDGE
`
`Application Serial Nos. 85153958
`and 85153981
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR TIM LANGDELL
`IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND TEST THE SUFFICIENCY
`OF RESPONSE TO ADMISSION REQUESTS
`
`
`
`I, Tim Langdell, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am the CEO of the Opposer corporation, Edge Games Inc. ("Opposer"),
`
`
`
`which is in pro se in these proceedings. The matters set forth in this declaration are based
`
`on my personal knowledge, except where otherwise indicated, and if called as a witness I
`
`could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Opposer's
`
`Second Set of Requests for Document Production, including a Certificate of Service on
`
`the last page, followed by Applicant's attempt to respond thereto.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Opposer's
`
`Second Set of Interrogatories, as amended by inter-party agreement, including a
`
`Certificate of Service on the last page, followed by Applicant's attempt to respond
`
`thereto.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Opposer's
`
`Second Requests for Admission, including a Certificate of Service on the last page,
`
`followed by Applicant's attempt to respond thereto.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Opposer's email
`
`to Applicant's representative Mr. Phillips, dated August 4, 2015
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Applicant's
`
`email to Opposer dated March 5, 2015 stating that time to respond to discovery requests
`
`is 33 days.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I confirm that upon receipt of Applicant's supposed "responses" to
`
`Opposer's second set of discovery requests, and noting that none of the responses were
`
`actually responsive--rather, were just invalid objections--I telephoned Mr. Robert Phillips
`
`acting for Applicant. In that telephone call I inquired if Applicant would be providing
`
`more responsive responses to Opposer's requests, or indeed would be identifying or
`
`producing any of the requested documents. Mr. Phillips replied that no documents would
`
`be identified or produced and that Applicant stands by its unresponsive responses and
`
`would not be amending them in any way. Accordingly, the parties have done all
`
`reasonably possible to resolve the discovery dispute.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I informed Mr. Phillips that if Applicant refused to respond acceptably
`
`then Opposer would have no option other than to file and Amended Motion to Compel
`
`Responses to Discovery Requests, and Mr. Phillips merely repeated that Applicant
`
`intends to stand by the unresponsive responses it had served. Opposer thus met the same
`
`level of refusal to participate properly or reasonably in discovery that it has faced with
`
`Applicant since August of 2014. All possible being done to resolve the dispute first,
`
`Opposer had no option other than to file and serve the instant Amended Motion and trusts
`
`that the Board will either compel Applicant to respond or if it will not respond, then the
`
`Board will bar Applicant from further defending this action or give such other severe
`
`sanction to Applicant as the Board sees fit.
`
`9.
`
`Last, attached as Exhibit 5 is an email from Mr. Phillips to Opposer dated
`
`3/5/15 in which he stated that the permitted time to respond to discovery requests is 30
`
`days with 3 further days for mailing. This was the basis of Opposer's belief that Applicant
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`was at least one day late in serving its discovery responses, since they were received in
`
`34 days. Opposer is thus accordingly researching the rules in this regard and reserves its
`
`right in respect to the issue of whether Applicant's responses were indeed timely or not.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
`
`that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th day of August, 2015, at Pasadena,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Tim Langdell____________
`Tim Langdell for Opposer in pro se
`
`California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No.: 91214673
`
`Applications Serial Nos. 85153958 and
`85153981
`
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S SECOND SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS
`(NUMBERING CONTIGUOUS WITH FIRST SET)
`
`
`Pursuant to Trademark Rule of Practice 2.120 (37 U.S.C. § 2.120). Trademark
`Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure § 408, and Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 34, Opposer EDGE requests that Applicant FUTURE produce the
`following documents and things forthwith.
`
`For the purpose of this Request, the following definitions and instructions shall
`apply.
`
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`
`
`The terms “FUTURE,”“you,” and “your” refer to Applicant and include
`1.
`any persons controlled by or acting on behalf of that entity, including but not limited
`to all officers, directors, owners, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys,
`and any predecessors, subsidiaries, parent companies, affiliated companies, or joint
`venturers.
`
`
`The term “EDGE” refers to Opposer and includes any persons
`2.
`controlled by or acting on behalf of that entity, including but not limited to all officers,
`directors, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, and any predecessors,
`subsidiaries, parent companies, affiliated companies, or joint venturers.
`
`
`The term EDGE means any word, name, symbol or device or other
`3.
`designation of origin incorporating the letter string EDGE or its phonetic equivalent,
`in which you claim rights, including any trademark, service mark, or Internet domain
`name, or any trademark or service mark application or registration.
`
`
`The term “Future Marks” means, specifically, the trademark
`4.
`applications 85153958 and 85153981, both for the mark EDGE and both with
`effective filing dates in the United States of October 15, 2010
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`The term “Edge Marks” means any and all trademark registrations or
`5.
`common law rights in the mark EDGE, or EDGE formative marks, owned by EDGE
`either as a result of its own use of the mark EDGE in U.S. commerce, or use by any
`of EDGE’s licensees.
`
`
`The term “person” means any natural person or any business, legal or
`6.
`governmental entity, or association.
`
`
`The term “document” as used herein is synonymous in meaning and
`7.
`equal in scope to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, any
`“writings and recording” and “photographs” as defined by Federal Rule of Evidence
`1001, and its interpretation by the courts, and includes, without limitation, all
`originals, drafts, and non-identical copies of any written, printed, typed, recorded,
`electronic, magnetic, optical, punched, copied, graphic or other tangible thing in,
`upon or from which information may be conveyed, embodied, translated, or stored
`(including, but not limited to, papers, records, books, correspondence, contracts,
`minutes of meetings, memoranda, notes or desk calendars and appointment books,
`intra-office communications, canceled checks, invoices, telegrams, telexes, dictation
`or other audio tapes, video tapes, studies, electronic mail, information stored in
`computer readable form, on a compact disc, or any other type of data storage device
`or medium, computer printouts, microfilm, microfiche, laser disks, diaries, calendars,
`photographs, charts, viewgraphs, drawings, sketches and all other writings or drafts
`thereof), as well as all other tangible things subject to production under Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure 34.
`
`
`The term “identify,” when referring to:
`
`8.
`
`a. a natural person, means to give his or her full name, present or last known
`address and telephone number, last known place of employment and job title;
`b. a public or private corporation, partnership, association, agency or other
`entity, means to give its present or last known address and telephone
`number, and state of incorporation, if applicable;
`c. a document, means to state its general character, title, date, addressee or
`recipient, author or signatory, present location, and who has possession,
`custody or control of the document;
`d. a product, means to provide a description of the item which is offered for
`sale, and the intended customer groups, channels of trade, approximate
`price, and market for the product;
`e. a service, means to describe the service and the intended customer
`groups, channels of trade, approximate price, and market for the service.
`9.
`The term “communication” is defined as any transmission or exchange
`of information between two (2) or more persons, orally or in writing, and includes,
`without limitation, any conversation or discussion, whether face-to-face or by means
`of telephone, letter, facsimile, electronic, digital or other media.
`
`10. The terms “relating to” and “related to” mean concerning, containing,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`evidencing, describing, constituting, referring to, explaining, discussing or reflecting.
`
`
`11. The connectives “and” and “or” and the term “and/or” shall be
`construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope
`of the request all documents that might otherwise be construed to be outside its
`scope.
`
`
`12. The use of a present tense shall include past tenses.
`
`
`
`13. The use of the singular form of any word also includes the plural and
`vice versa.
`
`
`14. The terms “all” and “each” shall each be construed to include the
`
`other.
`
`
`
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`You are requested to produce for inspection and copying all
`1.
`responsive documents and things in your possession, custody or control, including
`all documents and things in the custody of your attorneys, consultants, agents, other
`representatives, and other persons or entities subject to your control.
`
`You are to produce the documents and things as they are kept in the
`2.
`ordinary course of business, with appropriate markings or designations so that it may
`be determined to which request they are responsive.
`
`
`You are to produce the original and all non-identical copies of each
`3.
`requested document or thing, including all copies which bear any additional file
`stamps, marginal notes or other additional markings or writings that do not appear
`on the original. The production shall include the file, envelope, folder, binder, o other
`container in which the responsive documents and things are kept. If, for any reason,
`the container cannot be produced, you are to produce copies of all labels or other
`identifying markings.
`
`
`Documents that exist in digital format and constitute or comprise
`4.
`databases or other tabulations or collections of data or information should be
`produced in a machine-readable format to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
`Documents that exist in digital format and constitute or comprise written
`communications between natural persons (e.g., e-mail messages, internal memos,
`letters, etc.) should be produced both in a machine-readable format to be mutually
`agreed upon by the parties and in hard-copy form.
`
`
`If you cannot fully respond to any request after a diligent attempt,
`5.
`respond to the request to the extent possible and specify the portion of the request
`to which you are unable to respond.
`
`
`If you claim that any request, definition or instruction is ambiguous,
`6.
`state the language you claim is ambiguous and the interpretation you have used to
`respond to the request.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`If you contend that any document or thing has been lost or destroyed,
`7.
`set forth the contents of the document or thing, the location of any copies, the date of
`loss or destruction, the name of the person who ordered or authorized the
`destruction, if any, and the authority and reasons for such destruction.
`
`
`If you decline to produce any information, document, or thing on this
`8.
`basis of the attorney-client, work product, or other privilege, respond to so much of
`the discovery request as is not subject to the claimed objection, and for each
`document or thing, provide the following information:
`
`
`a. the type and title of the document or thing;
`b. the general subject matter of the document or description of the thing;
`c. the date of its creation;
`d. the identity of the document’s author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s);
`e. the nature of the privilege being claimed; and
`f. in detail, all facts upon which you base your claim of privilege.
`9. With respect to any document stored on a machine-readable medium,
`please make available both a hard copy printout of the document and a copy of the
`computer or electronic tape, disc or other electronic medium on which the document
`is stored.
`
`
`10. Complete production is to be made on the date and at the time
`indicated above.
`
`
`11. You have a duty to supplement your responses from now until the time
`of hearing or trial, as provided by Federal Rule of Procedure 26(e).
`
`
`DOCUMENTS AND THINGS REQUESTED
`
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 51:
`All documents you intend to rely on at trial that you have identified as of the
`date of this request but which have not yet been produced by you to Opposer.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 52:
`All documents relating to communications between you and any past or
`present licensee of Opposer or any such licensee’s representative, where such
`communications relate to the subject matter of this action. Where such
`communication was oral, then this request is for any notes, recordings or other
`record of that oral communication.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 53:
`All documents relating to communications between you and Velocity Micro or
`any current or past employee of Velocity Micro (including but not limited to Randall
`“Randy” Copeland) where such communications relate to the subject matter of this
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`action. Where such communication was oral, then this request is for any notes,
`recordings or other record of that oral communication.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 54:
`All documents relating to communications between you and Razer (Asia-
`Pacific) Pte Ltd, or any representative or employee of that company or any of its
`subsidiaries or affiliates where such communications relate to the subject matter of
`this action. Where such communication was oral, then this request is for any notes,
`recordings or other record of that oral communication.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 55:
`All documents relating to your revenues arising from sales and marketing
`activity in the United States market in relation to the goods and services listed in the
`instant applications subject of this action for the period August 19, 2005 to August
`19, 2010. To ensure this request is neither burdensome or overly broad, the scope of
`this request is limited to such documents that establish the quantum of such
`revenues, together with representative samples of sales and marketing use sufficient
`to show use of the trademark for the period in question to confirm genuine, non-
`trivial, use.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 56:
`All documents relating to your revenues arising from sales and marketing
`activity in the United States market in relation to the goods and services listed in
`clause 2.1.2 of the 2004 Concurrent Trading Agreement (which defined the scope of
`the 2004 EIM license) for the period August 19, 2005 to August 19, 2010. To ensure
`this request is neither burdensome or overly broad, the scope of this request is
`limited to such documents that establish the quantum of such revenues, together
`with representative samples of sales and marketing use sufficient to show use of the
`trademark for the period in question to confirm genuine, non-trivial, use.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 57:
`All documents relating to your revenues arising from sales and marketing
`activity in the United States market in relation to the goods and services listed in the
`instant applications subject of this action for the period August 20, 2010 to the date
`of filing of the instant applications subject of this action. To ensure this request is
`neither burdensome or overly broad, the scope of this request is limited to such
`documents that establish the quantum of such revenues, together with
`representative samples of sales and marketing use sufficient to show use of the
`trademark for the period in question to confirm genuine, non-trivial, use.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 58:
`All documents relating to your revenues arising from sales and marketing
`activity in the United States market in relation to the goods and services listed in
`clause 2.1.2 of the 2004 Concurrent Trading Agreement (which defined the scope of
`the 2004 EIM license) for the period August 20, 2010 to the date of filing of the
`instant applications subject of this action. To ensure this request is neither
`burdensome or overly broad, the scope of this request is limited to such documents
`that establish the quantum of such revenues, together with representative samples
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`of sales and marketing use sufficient to show use of the trademark for the period in
`question to confirm genuine, non-trivial, use.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 59:
`All documents relating to your revenues arising from sales and marketing
`activity in the United States market in relation to the goods and services listed in the
`instant applications subject of this action for the period from the date of filing of the
`instant applications subject of this action to the date of this request. To ensure this
`request is neither burdensome or overly broad, the scope of this request is limited to
`such documents that establish the quantum of such revenues, together with
`representative samples of sales and marketing use sufficient to show use of the
`trademark for the period in question to confirm genuine, non-trivial, use.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 60:
`All documents relating to your revenues arising from sales and marketing
`activity in the United States market in relation to the goods and services listed in
`clause 2.1.2 of the 2004 Concurrent Trading Agreement (which defined the scope of
`the 2004 EIM license) for the period from the date of filing of the instant applications
`subject of this action to the date of this request. To ensure this request is neither
`burdensome or overly broad, the scope of this request is limited to such documents
`that establish the quantum of such revenues, together with representative samples
`of sales and marketing use sufficient to show use of the trademark for the period in
`question to confirm genuine, non-trivial, use.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Dated:June 25. 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.: 91214673
`
`Applications Serial Nos. 85153958 and
`85153981
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`Opposer.
`
`vs.
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LTD.
`
`l
`Applicant.
`
`APPLICANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`
`OPPOSER’S SECOND SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS
`
`Applicant Future Publishing Ltd. (“Applicant”) hereby objects and responds to Opposer
`
`Edge Gaméis, Inc.’s (“Opposer”) Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents as
`
`follows:
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Applicant objects to the extent the Document Requests (“Requests”) seek material
`
`protected fiom disclosure by the attorney—client privilege, attorney work—product rule, other
`
`applicable privileges (herein