Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA787410
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/06/2016
`
`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
`
`Defendant
`Future Publishing Limited
`
`ROBERT N PHILLIPS
`REED SMITH LLP
`101 SECOND STREET, SUITE 1800
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
`UNITED STATES
`IPDocket-CHI@reedsmith.com, robphillips@reedsmith.com, nbor-
`ders@reedsmith.com, dkalahele@reedsmith.com
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`Robert N. Phillips
`
`robphillips@reedsmith.com, kkershner@reedsmith.com
`
`/Robert N. Phillips/
`
`12/06/2016
`
`Attachments
`
`2016.12.06 Future Opposition to Opposer Motion to Suspend.pdf(12355 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial Nos. 85/153,981 and 85/153,958
`
`Published in the Official Gazette on October 1, 2013
`
`Marks: EDGE and EDGE (Stylized)
`
`Opposition No. 91214673
`
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING LIMITED
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`Box TTAB
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`FUTURE PUBLISHING’S OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`
`Introduction
`
`On November 16, 2016, Opposer Edge Games (“Opposer”) filed a Motion to Suspend
`
`Proceedings Pending Outcome of Civil Action, based upon a UK lawsuit Opposer filed on
`
`November 10, 2016, British High Court Claim No. HC-2016-003221 (“the New UK Case”).
`
`Applicant Future Publishing Limited (“Future”) respectfully submits that Opposer’s motion to
`
`suspend is without merit, and should be denied, for the reasons discussed herein.
`
`Argument
`
`As the Board is aware, Future has objected to Opposer’s fraudulent and unauthorized
`
`creation and execution of a “Power of Attorney” and “Assignments” of Future’s applications to
`
`Opposer. Opposer responded by arguing that it was entitled to create and sign the powers of
`
`
`
`

`
`attorney, and assign itself Future’s marks, based on a 2004 Concurrent Trading Agreement (the
`
`“CTA”). In reply, Future showed that Opposer’s arguments were meritless, because the CTA
`
`was declared terminated by the British High Court on July 7, 2011 in Case No. HC09CO2265)
`
`(the “Decision”). On November 1, 2016, the Board asked the parties brief the issue of whether
`
`the Decision is entitled to preclusive effect in this proceeding. Only after the Board issued its
`
`order did Opposer file the New UK Case. This is a frivolous, transparent attempt to try to evade
`
`the Board’s resolution of the issues presented to it.
`
`The New UK Case is not only an improper delay tactic, it has absolutely no chance of
`
`succeeding. Indeed, Opposer previously sought to appeal the Decision in the UK and was denied
`
`by Lord Justice Lewison, whose order was “a final Order and that domestic appeal rights have
`
`been exhausted.” (Dkt 77, Lingard Decl., ¶6-8). The Decision is thus final in the UK, and the
`
`New UK Case, which simply rehashes the same factual and legal issues, is an abuse of process,
`
`is estopped based upon the final Decision, and has no prospect of success. (Dkt. 77, Lingard
`
`Decl., ¶21-22).
`
`Notably, by moving to suspend, Opposer effectively concedes that the Decision has
`
`preclusive effect. Opposer cannot have it both ways. It cannot argue that the Decision is not
`
`preclusive, yet simultaneously argue that this proceeding should be suspended pending the
`
`outcome of the New UK Case. The Decision either does or does not have preclusive effect.
`
`Here, there is no reason to suspend, as Future has already demonstrated in its prior filing that the
`
`Decision has preclusive effect under US precedent. Moreover, Opposer has effectively conceded
`
`the question the Board raised in its prior order. The Decision is preclusive, and Opposer’s
`
`requested suspension should be denied. In addition, Future reiterates its prayer that the Board
`
`rule that 1) the Decision has preclusive effect, 2) the “powers of attorney” and “assignments” are
`
`fraudulent and void, 3) Future’s marks are abandoned/surrendered, and 4) that Opposer be
`
`sanctioned for its repeated perjury and fraud on this tribunal.
`
`//
`
`2
`
`

`
`Dated: December 6, 2016
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert N. Phillips
`Robert N. Phillips
`Reed Smith LLP
`10 Second Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Attorneys for Applicant
`Future Publishing Limited
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing FUTURE PUBLISHING’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO SUSPEND was served on Opposer via first
`
`class mail on December 6, 2016.
`
`
`Dr. Tim Langdell
`Edge Games, Inc.
`530 South Lake Avenue, Suite 171
`Pasadena, California 91101
`Telephone: (626) 449-4334
`Facsimile: (626) 844-4334
`Email: tim@edgegames.com
`
`/s/ Robert N. Phillips
`Robert N. Phillips
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4