Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA786543
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/01/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91214673
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Plaintiff
`Edge Games, Inc.
`
`TIM LANGDELL
`EDGE GAMES INC
`530 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE, SUITE 171
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`uspto@edgegames.com, tim@edgegames.com
`
`Response to Board Order/Inquiry
`
`Tim Langdell
`
`uspto@edgegames.com, tim@edgegames.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/
`
`12/01/2016
`
`Attachments
`
`AmendedOpposerSubmissionReUKCourtRuling.pdf(580655 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`____________________________
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Opposition No. 91214673
`Cancellation No. 92062034
`
`Mark: EDGE
`
`
`
`AMENDED OPPOSER’S REPONSE TO THE BOARD’S
`NOVEMBER 1, 2016 ORDER REGARDING POSSIBLE PRECLUSIVE
`EFFECT OF THE JULY 7, 2011 UK PROCEEDING DECISION
`
`This response replaces the one previously filed at Docket #76. The Board’s Order of
`
`November 1, 2016 asked the parties to submit a response of no more than 15 pages on the issue
`
`of whether the UK High Court Decision of July 7, 2011 has any preclusive effect on this
`
`proceeding. Since Applicant’s filing is substantially longer than 15 pages it should be given no
`
`consideration. Further, it was given opportunity to file any such evidence by November 16, 2016
`
`and failed to do so, thus all its now produced new evidence should also not be considered.
`
`Does the UK Case have preclusive effect? In short, the answer is no, the 2011 UK ruling
`
`has no preclusive effect. For a ruling in a different court or tribunal to have a preclusive effect
`
`on this proceeding the issues considered and ruled upon in that other case must be the same as
`
`those in the instant proceeding. Here that is not true: not a single issue considered and ruled upon
`
`in the 2010-2011 UK High Court case was the same as any issue before the Board in this
`
`proceeding. Conversely, not a single issue before the Board in this case was considered by Mrs.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Justice Proudman in the UK High Court or ruled on by her in her July 2011 decision. There is
`
`thus, by law, no direct preclusive effect here.
`
`The UK proceeding dealt with whether Edge Games breached Future’s copyright in Britain
`
`under British law, and whether that breach sufficed to justify terminating the CTA. It also dealt
`
`with the revocation of certain of Edge Games British trademarks. That UK case in 2010-2011 did
`
`not consider the question of whether an irrevocable Power of Attorney was granted by the CTA
`
`or, if so, whether it survived termination of the CTA: that is an entirely new issue never before
`
`heard by the UK Court and not ruled on in the July 7, 2011 Decision. The UK Court did not deal
`
`at all with ownership rights of U.S. trademarks, or whether Edge Games may use its Power of
`
`Attorney to assign a U.S. Trademark, or any other issue before the Board here.
`
`By contrast, the outcome of the new UK Court Case filed November 10, 2016 will be
`
`preclusive since it deals with the identical issues before the Board in this proceeding.
`
`The new UK Court Case is not an abuse of process since there is not a single issue in the
`
`new case that was previously considered in the 2010-2011 case. It has also been accepted by
`
`the UK Court as valid with no question of it being an abuse. They are entirely distinct cases
`
`and the UK Court has agreed to hear the new case: this new UK case seeks revocation of
`
`Future’s UK trademarks and deals with whether an irrevocable Power of Attorney survives
`
`contract termination – an issue not before Mrs. Justice Proudman and one she did not rule upon.
`
`While Applicant keeps quoting a British trademark officer’s (Mr. Landau) opinion as to
`
`whether Edge Games has a valid Power of Attorney, that trademark officer’s opinion carries no
`
`weight in law: he is not a contract law or a power of attorney law expert, and he had no standing
`
`to rule on (and didn’t rule on) whether Edge Game’s Power of Attorney did come into effect or
`
`whether it survived termination of the CTA. Only the British High Court can decide such a
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`matter of British Law, which is why Edge Games filed the new Claim in the UK High Court to
`
`decide precisely that.
`
`. The 2010-2011 UK High Court Case is still ongoing today: Mrs. Justice Proudman’s case
`
`is still live, with the latest ruling in the case being earlier this year (April 26, 2016). In the latest
`
`ruling the UK High Court made a new decision that Edge Games is no longer to pay Future the
`
`sum indicated by Mrs. Justice Proudman in the July 2011 Decision. While it is true that Future
`
`wrongly sought to enforce that 2011 decision as a money judgment in California, it is also true
`
`that matter went to the California Appeals Court where it is expected to be reversed since the
`
`British Court recently ruled Edge Games does not have to pay that sum to Future which Mrs.
`
`Justice Proudman originally ordered be paid. The 2010-11 UK case is thus still ongoing with
`
`more hearings anticipated in 2017.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE UK HIGH COURT ORDER
`
`As the Board correctly states, the July 7, 2011 UK High Court Order is to be found at Docket
`
`#68, Exhibit B. It is important to note that the “Judgment” in Exhibit C of that filing is not part of
`
`the UK High Court Order. The terminology in the UK High Court differs from the usual
`
`terminology in the US Court System: thus what the UK Court styles an “Order” is really a
`
`combination of what a US Court would call a “judgment” mixed with what a US Court would
`
`call an “order.” While what the UK Court calls a “judgment” is in US terms more like a US
`
`Court “opinion” which is separate from the actual court’s order, and provides some background
`
`as to how the court order was arrived at. Nothing in the UK judgment, though, should be
`
`mistaken for a US Court “judgment” since it is not the ruling of the court – solely the “Order” is
`
`the ruling of the UK Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`What the UK High Court Order of July 7, 2011 ordered was, in short:
`
`
`
`The Defendants (which includes Opposer) must not copy the specific version of the
`
`EDGE logo devised by Future in Britain (since this order could only relate to Britain being a
`
`British court order)
`
` The Defendants must not pass themselves off as Future in Britain (since this is a British court
`
`order pertaining solely to the UK)
`
` The Defendants are to remove certain EDGE logos from websites
`
` The Defendants are to remove certain phrases from websites for the British territory only
`
`(since this was a UK High Court order, and the UK Court’s jurisdiction was restricted to Britain,
`
`only).
`
` Certain British trademark registrations are revoked.
`
` The Concurrent Trading Agreement (the 2004 contract between the parties) is to be deemed
`
`terminated with effect from August 20, 2010 (with no order as to what that termination means or
`
`what the implication of the termination might be under British Law).
`
`UK Order Wording is Problematic For a Number of Reasons
`
`In particular, the UK Court used wording that could be easily misunderstood or
`
`misinterpreted in regard to the Defendants’ (including Opposer’s) making a statement that refers
`
`to Future as the licensee of (Opposer) on the United States Edge Games website
`
`(www.edgegames.com). It is important to note that the UK Court Order does not order that
`
`the license between Edge Games and Future is terminated – indeed, the UK Court lacked the
`
`power to terminate the license since it was established as “perpetual and irrevocable” (see clause
`
`2.1.2 of the CTA at Docket #73, Exhibit A).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Second, notably, the UK High Court Order did not order that Edge Games remove this
`
`statement from Edge Games British website (www.edgegames.co.uk), despite that website
`
`being often referred to, and thus well known to the UK Court, during the trial and despite the
`
`same phrase appearing on that website at that time, too. Indeed, the 2011 UK Court Order left
`
`Edge Games free to make the statement about the license verbally or in writing anywhere else,
`
`on any of Edge’s other websites, or in its corporate brochures or its marketing materials or etc.
`
`Thus it would be an error to misinterpret the 2011 Order to remove the statement just from the
`
`United States (.com) website as being a ruling (or even a suggestion) that the license has ended
`
`(see Exhibit A hereto for proof the phrase is still in use just as it always has been since 2004).
`
` Third, it is in fact questionable that the UK High Court had jurisdiction to order a California
`
`Corporation to remove anything from a United States “.com” website, which probably renders
`
`this part of the July 7, 2011 Court Order invalid. An order requiring Edge Games to prevent UK
`
`consumers from viewing that part of the United States website would have made more sense, but
`
`it is likely the UK Court lacked sufficient knowledge of how the Internet works to arrive at a
`
`more sensible ruling, one that fell within the British territory jurisdiction the UK Court was
`
`limited to. Obviously, when a court makes an order that is outside of its jurisdiction to make then
`
`that part of the order is not valid and the party need not adhere to it.
`
`What the 2011 UK High Court Order Does Not State
`
`First and foremost, the 2011 UK Court Order is silent on all the key issues in dispute before
`
`the Board in this proceeding: the court order says nothing about whether or not Edge Games has
`
`a power of attorney arising from the 2004 agreement, or whether or not such a power remained
`
`in place following the termination of the agreement, or whether either Future or Edge Games
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`may or may not hold registration in the mark EDGE in the United States territory (which is not
`
`surprising given that would be outside the UK Court’s jurisdiction or discretion), and so on.
`
`Certainly, the 2011 UK Court Order is also silent on Edge Games’ ownership of, or rights in,
`
`the mark EDGE in any territory outside of Britain and only refers to revocation of certain British
`
`trademark registrations. Again, this is not surprising since obviously the UK Court jurisdiction
`
`did not extend to making any ruling regarding Edge Games’ ownership of any given U.S.
`
`trademark or Edge Games common law rights in the United States, etc.
`
`Where the 2011 Court Order Has Bearing on This Proceeding
`
`To indicate to the Board where the 2011 Court Order has bearing on this proceeding one
`
`must invoke British Law and interpretation of British Law.
`
`While there are similarities between British and U.S. contract law, there are also significant
`
`differences, particularly regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of a contract,
`
`retention of any rights (e.g. powers of attorney, etc) granted during the contact’s duration and so
`
`forth.
`
`In broad terms, when a contract written under British Law (as the CTA was) is terminated,
`
`then each side keeps whatever it has gained or obtained as at the date of termination (any
`
`property, real or intellectual; any rights, goodwill, interest, and so forth; any powers or rights to
`
`cure of breaches made prior to the termination date, and so forth).
`
`Review of the 2004 CTA (See Docket #74, Exhibit A) reveals that this was a contract
`
`between the parties that was designed not to be terminated. It was simply a statement of the
`
`settlement between the parties, originally reached in 1996 when Edge Games sued Future in the
`
`UK High Court for trademark infringement, indicating how the parties should trade going
`
`forward. As can be seen, there is no termination clause since the agreement was a for-all-time
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`binding settlement, never intended to end. The fact the UK High Court decided to terminate the
`
`CTA in fact had very little impact on either party, or the future behavior (restrictions or
`
`permissions, rights or interest) of either party, since the core conditions detailed in the CTA
`
`remained in place by virtue of the original 1996 settlement, and in accord with prevailing law in
`
`both Europe and the United States.
`
`The CTA served to assure two key things going forward: first, that Future would not seek to
`
`register the mark EDGE in its own name other than for a very limited part of class 16 for printed
`
`computer game magazines, and second, that the parties should work together with a mutual
`
`interest of promoting a single common brand “EDGE” to be associated with excellence in the
`
`game industry. It became clear in this proceeding, as it did in the UK Court Case in 2010-11, that
`
`Future repudiated the CTA in regard to the latter condition since they never did promote the
`
`brand EDGE to the mutual benefit of both parties.
`
`That left the remaining restriction of Future not being permitted to register the mark EDGE
`
`in its own name, which is the only technical implication of the CTA being terminated. However,
`
`in real terms the termination of the CTA made very little difference to either party since
`
`while the contractual restriction on Future to file for such EDGE registrations was removed as of
`
`August 20, 2010, Future continued, of course, to be bound by trademark law to not apply to
`
`register the EDGE mark in its name for any goods and services it did not have a right to do so.
`
`Which in turn means Future has remained barred from registering the mark EDGE in its name
`
`for any use it has made of the EDGE mark other than perhaps for printed magazines, since all
`
`other use of the mark EDGE by Future has been under license from Edge Games, and remains
`
`under license from Edge Games, with all goodwill therefrom vesting in Edge Games.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`What each party retained or gained when the CTA was terminated.
`Edge Games retained/gained:
`
` A Power of Attorney to execute any document, anywhere worldwide, on behalf of Future
`
`Publishing that may be reasonably required to cure a breach of the CTA committed before
`
`termination or to remedy any infraction after the date of termination that directly relates to a
`
`breach committed prior to termination.
`
` All right, title, interest and goodwill arising from any use of the mark EDGE by Future in the
`
`period from 1993 to 2010 which was not specifically purchased by Future in the CTA.
`
` The perpetual and irrevocable license between Future and Edge Games, whereby all goodwill
`
`arising from Future’s use of the mark EDGE other than for printed magazines vests in Edge
`
`Games, not Future, in perpetuity.
`
` All right, title, interest and goodwill arising from all use of the mark EDGE by Future for any
`
`use other than that for printed magazines and in particular for all electronic and Internet
`
`related use.
`
` Edge Games gained the right to register the mark EDGE in class 16 for printed games
`
`magazines (and was freed of any other such restrictions in the CTA)
`
`Future retained/gained:
`
` The perpetual and irrevocable license between Future and Edge Games, whereby all goodwill
`
`arising from Future’s use of the mark EDGE other than for printed magazines vests in Edge
`
`Games, not Future, in perpetuity.
`
` The ownership of registrations of the mark EDGE for printed magazines in the UK and
`
`Germany (they do not necessarily retain the right in the US – see below)
`
` All goodwill arising from Future’s use of the mark EDGE for printed magazines in the UK,
`
`France and Germany (but not the US, since Future admitted in this proceeding they could not
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`account for any such use in the US between 2004 and 2010, and by contractual obligation
`
`they were barred from making any such use 1993 to 2004 under the earlier Settlement). No
`
`goodwill in regard to the mark EDGE in regard to printed magazines in the US market was
`
`acquired from Edge Games by Future in 2004 since Future was expressly barred from
`
`making such use prior to 2004 and hence there was no goodwill to assign to Future.
`
` Future gained in that it was released from the restriction not to register the mark EDGE for
`
`goods other than printed computer magazines, but remained restricted since it had never
`
`made any such use itself (with goodwill vesting in it) and has no priority of use for such
`
`goods.
`
`2011 UK Court Order Means Goodwill Remains With Edge Games.
`
`Under both the original 1996 Settlement and the replacement 2004 CTA, all of Future’s use
`
`of the mark EDGE other than specifically for printed computer game magazines, had all its
`
`goodwill arising therefrom vest in Edge Games. For the entire duration of the agreements
`
`between the parties (agreed to be backdated to 1993 and continuing to the current day) all use by
`
`Future of the mark EDGE in relation, say, to electronic publication of their EDGE magazine, or
`
`promotion of it on the Internet, or via handheld devices, tablet computers, smart phones, etc, has
`
`been under license from Edge Games with all right, title, interest and goodwill arising therefrom
`
`vesting solely in Edge Games.
`
`As can be seen from the Particulars of Claim to the newly filed UK High Court Claim against
`
`Future (see Docket #74), it stated categorically in the 1996 Settlement between the parties that all
`
`use by Future of any kind of the mark EDGE from 1993 (until 2004) was under license from
`
`Edge Games, and specifically the agreement stated that all goodwill arising from Future’s use of
`
`the mark EDGE vested in Edge Games. While the 2004 CTA replaced the 1996 Settlement, no
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`where in the CTA is there any indication that Future acquired any goodwill or rights in the mark
`
`EDGE from Edge Games other than for the narrow part of class 16 pertaining to printed
`
`magazines (and even then, really just for the UK market where such goodwill had accrued, given
`
`that under the 1996 Settlement Future were specifically banned from selling the printed
`
`magazine in the United States).
`
`Thus undisputedly, as at the date of termination of the CTA in August 2010, all right title
`
`interest and goodwill arising from Future’s use of the mark EDGE for electronic publication,
`
`promotion, etc, all vested solely in, and is solely owned by, Edge Games.
`
`2011 Court Order Means Edge Games Retained Power of Attorney
`
`By British Law, Edge Games also retained all powers and rights that it had already acquired
`
`as of August 2010. This thus means, undisputedly, that as at August 2010 Edge Games had
`
`acquired and thus retains the Power of Attorney granted to it by paragraph 2.8 of the CTA: this
`
`power was invoked the moment Future filed to register the European Community Trademark for
`
`the mark EDGE in its own name in 2008, and was then invoked again on July 5, 2010 when
`
`Future once again filed to register the mark EDGE in its own name for the forbidden classes of
`
`goods in the UK (these being the two UK registrations that the instant two US applications were
`
`based upon). Since the Power of Attorney was, in both instances, granted to be “irrevocable” it
`
`therefore follows that the Power of Attorney certainly survived termination of the CTA. It
`
`survives both by British contract law (each party gets to keep whatever it has gained by the date
`
`of termination) and by British Power of Attorney Act that states that a power of attorney granted
`
`and styled as “irrevocable” cannot be ended by any means other than by the purpose for which
`
`the power was granted being completed to the satisfaction of the party who was granted the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`power. For proof of this law, please see the Particulars of Claim in Docket #74 to the new Claim
`
`filed against Future in the UK High Court.
`
`2011 Court Order Means Edge Games Had The Right To Use The Power Of Attorney To
`Assign The U.S. Trademarks To Itself
`
`
` The Power of Attorney had been automatically invoked (and once invoked, was irrevocable)
`
`in 2008 when Future applied to register the mark EDGE for goods other than printed game
`
`magazines in the European Union (a so-called Community Trademark). The Power was re-
`
`invoked on July 5, 2010 when Future applied to register the mark EDGE in various classes other
`
`than class 16 for printed magazines, where one mark was word-only and the other mark used the
`
`visual image of the EDGE logo Future laid claim to own copyright in.
`
`Thus the 2011 Court Order effectively ruled that since both parties retain what they have
`
`acquired by the date of termination, Edge Games had thus acquired and retained this Power. The
`
`Power remains in place – is irrevocable – until all breaches and infractions by Future arising
`
`from their filing the unlawful trademark applications in the UK in July 2010 have been fully
`
`cured. And the Power grants Edge Games the right to execute any document, anywhere
`
`worldwide, to ensure any such trademarks are reassigned to (or back to) Edge Games.
`
`This Power then extended to the two U.S. trademark applications in this proceeding because
`
`both applications were based specifically on the two offending UK July 2010 Applications, and
`
`indeed stand as extensions of the alleged UK rights to the US territory. Accordingly, the 2011
`
`High Court Order effectively rules that Edge Games may, in accord with British Law pertaining
`
`to the use of Powers of Attorney, may use the Power to assign to itself the two U.S. trademarks
`
`subject of this proceeding.
`
`While Edge Games had a right to assign both marks to itself, it chose to only assign the one
`
`that was a word-only mark, since the other involved what Future allege is their copyright logo of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`the word EDGE, and rather than have a dispute over that issue, Edge Games permitted that
`
`trademark to be surrendered (cancelled) by Future.
`
`The 2011 UK Court Order also ruled that the license between Future and Edge Games
`
`remained in place since it was established as irrevocable and perpetual, and hence could not be
`
`ended by the termination of the CTA (unless specifically ruled to be terminated, which did not
`
`happen). Thus accordingly, since for all the goods and services listed by Future in the instant
`
`trademarks pertain to those where use by Future is under license from Edge Games, and since it
`
`is well established law in both the US and Britain that only a licensor (not a licensee) may own
`
`the registration for licensed mark, it follows that only Edge Games may own the trademark in
`
`question in this proceeding anyway.
`
`There are thus at least two ways in which the 2011 UK High Court Order affirms and
`
`supports the actions of Edge Games in assigning the trademark applied for by Future in October
`
`2010 to itself.
`
`2011 UK Court Order Means Edge Games Was Within Its Right To Assign The Earlier
`EDGE Registration To Itself
`
`
`Since the UK Court did not order the 2004 CTA to be voided entirely, but rather terminated it
`
`as of a specific date, therefore for all time prior to that date the contract was in full force and
`
`effect, and Future remains liable for any newly discovered breaches of the CTA, despite it being
`
`terminated, so long as the breaches took place prior to August 20, 2010.
`
`In this proceeding, Future admitted that it had no proof whatsoever of any income or
`
`marketing expense for the mark EDGE in the United States for any period from 2004 to 2010
`
`(see Future’s responses to Opposer’s Interrogatories filed in this proceeding). Edge Games only
`
`agreed to assign the U.S. trademark registration for the mark EDGE (part of Reg No 2219837)
`
`on strict condition that Future make use of the mark EDGE in the United States by publishing a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`specific US edition of its printed EDGE magazine. This representation was a key reason that
`
`Edge Games agreed to enter into the CTA, and was a condition acknowledged between the
`
`parties of Edge Games including this US registration’s assignment to Future in the overall 2004
`
`agreement.
`
`What became clear in these proceedings was that Future was guilty of fraud in the
`
`inducement since it never had any intention of honoring the key promise it had made to induce
`
`Edge to sign the CTA: namely, it never intended to publish a US version of its EDGE magazine
`
`in print format. Accordingly, this proceeding proved for the first time that Future repudiated the
`
`CTA at the very moment of executing the contract. Which in turn, gave Edge Games the right to
`
`re-assign the US Trademark (which matured in 1999) back to Edge Games.
`
`Future’s essential abandonment of the mark EDGE in the US territory, underscored by its
`
`willingness to voluntarily abandon its EDGE registration, along with the 2011 UK Court Order
`
`granting Edge Games the right to own the registration for EDGE for printed magazines, meant
`
`that Edge Games was empowered to assign the 1999 registration back to itself.
`
`Under British Law, since a Power of Attorney had already been invoked to cure breaches of
`
`the CTA, it followed that the 2011 Court Order effectively granted Edge Games the right to
`
`complete the cure of the 2004 breach by using the Power to assign the 1999 registration back to
`
`itself.
`
`The Fact Future Admitted Its Admissions Is Made Relevant By The 2011 UK Court Order
`
`The Board states in a footnote of its Order that Edge Games’ arguments that Future admitted
`
`that the 1999 registration should be assigned back to Edge, and that the 2011 UK Court Order
`
`should be deemed void, were “not well taken.” However, the Board fails to give any detail as to
`
`why they were not well taken.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Asking the Board’s patience, Edge Games wishes to clarify how the 2011 UK Court Order
`
`has bearing here.
`
`First, it is well-settled trademark law that if a party fails to respond to a Request for
`
`Admissions within the time permitted then that party is deemed to have admitted the matter
`
`(FRCP 36(a)(3)). Future never responded to Edge Games’ First Request for Admissions within
`
`the 30-days permitted, or at all, ever. Nor did Future try to argue that it had not timely received
`
`the requests (their proper service is not in dispute since Edge provided proof). And the point in
`
`time at which the admissions became deemed admitted in accord with FRCP 36(a)(3) was
`
`appreciably before Future sought to terminate this proceeding by voluntarily surrendering
`
`registration,
`
`Thus Edge Games’ point cannot be said to be not well taken due to any act by Future
`
`rendering the argument invalid or moot. The simple fact remains that in accord with trademark
`
`law, Future is deemed to have admitted the material. In the case of Requests 27 and 28 they thus
`
`admitted the 2011 High Court Order should be deemed voided (not that it has any direct
`
`preclusive impact anyway). And in accord with Request 10, Future admitted that the 1999
`
`registration was rightly reassigned back to Edge Games. It is therefore not clear why the Board
`
`said this argument is not well taken when it rests on well-settled Trademark Law.
`
`Further, the admission within this proceeding by Future in its Interrogatory Responses that it
`
`had not made any use of the mark EDGE in US commerce from 2004 to 2010 gave Edge Games
`
`the right to ask such requests for admission. The direct consequence of the 2011 Court Order –
`
`even if one accepts that Future’s admission it is void is not well taken – is that Edge Games was
`
`given the right to assign the 1999 registration (3713604) back to itself.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Thus Edge Games had every right to ask Future to admit that the mark should be assigned
`
`back to Edge Games, and when Future failed to respond in a timely manner, Edge Games had a
`
`right under British Law to use that failure as permission (proactive or retroactive) to use the
`
`Power of Attorney to assign the mark to itself. Thus there is a direct link between the 2011 High
`
`Court Order, its consequences as to Edge Games rights, the admissions which have Future
`
`admitting the mark should be assigned, and the assignment of it by Edge Games to itself using
`
`the Power that the 2011 Court Order provides is still in place for such use.
`
`Edge Games notes yet again that there was far more than ample time for Future to challenge
`
`the fact that it had been deemed to have admitted its admissions – particularly in regard to
`
`admitting that the registration should be assigned back to Edge rather than being cancelled. Yet
`
`Future did not avail itself of any remedies that it had, and is now substantially out of time to do
`
`so.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Tim Langdell_______
`Dr Tim Langdell, CEO
`Edge Games Inc
`530 S. Lake Avenue 171
`Pasadena CA 91101
`Opposer
`
`
`Dated: December 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing AMENDED OPPOSER’S
`
`REPONSE TO THE BOARD’S NOVEMBER 1, 2016 ORDER REGARDING POSSIBLE
`
`PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF THE JULY 7, 2011 UK PROCEEDING DECISION has been
`
`served by mailing said copy on December 1, 2016, via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon
`
`the following party of record:
`
`Robert N Phillips
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`San Francisco,
`CA 94105
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 1, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature: /Tim Langdell/________
` Dr. Tim Langdell
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Appendix A
`Appendix A
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`11/30/2016
`
`EDGE/THE EDGE EUROPE - Indie games developer publisher
`
`Available on the
`
`D App Store
`
`OUT NOW FOR iPhone®IiPad®/iPod Touch®!
`
`EDGE MAGAZINE
`
`Future Pub|ishing's use ofthe mark EDGE in relation to
`electronic publication versions of their EDGE Magazine is
`under a perpetual and irrevocable license from Edge Games.
`All right, title, interest and goodwill arising from such use by
`Future Publishing of the mark EDGE vests in Edge Games.
`
`Read the magazine online here.
`
`"Children are our future." EDGE/THE EDGE donates 10% of
`its profits to charities and institutions for the benefit of children
`in need, at-risk children and sick children.
`
`http://www.edgegames.co.uk/
`
`1/2
`
`

`
`11/30/2016
`
`EDGE/THE EDGE EUROPE - Indie games developer publisher
`
`Looking for our U.S. website?
`wvvw.edgegames.com
`
`EDGETM/THE EDGETM/EDGE GAMESTM
`(c) 2010
`
`BOBBY BEARING, EDGE, THE EDGE, EDGE GAMES are trademarks of Edge Games. (c) 1984-2016.
`All rights reserved. iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch are all trademarks of Apple, Inc.
`
`http://www.edgegames.co.uk/
`
`2/2