Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA720957
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`01/15/2016
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91216585
`Defendant
`Thatch, LLC
`FRANK J GILBERT
`SCHWARTZ & CERA LLP
`201 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 450
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`UNITED STATES
`frank@schwartz-cera.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Frank J. Gilbert
`frank@schwartz-cera.com
`/frank j. gilbert/
`01/15/2016
`Registrant-Applicant's Response to Motion to Quash Depo Redacted
`1-15-16.pdf(658262 bytes )
`Declaration of DRS ISO Response Motion to Quash Depo Redacted
`1-15-16.pdf(177888 bytes )
`Declaration of Andy Spade ISO Response Motion to Quash Depo Redacted
`1-15-16.pdf(143349 bytes )
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Application Serial No. 85/932,097
`
`Mark: PATIO BY THE SPADES
`
`Kate Spade LLC,
`
`Thatch, LLC
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No.: 91216585
`
`In the matter of Registration No. 3,647,470 and Serial No. 86/179,137
`
`Marks: TI-IE SPADES (DESIGN) and THE SPADES
`
`Kate Spade LLC,
`
`Petitioner/Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`The Spades Trademark Company, LLC
`
`Registrant/Applicant.
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059594 and
`
`Opposition No.: 91217168
`
`Hearing Date: January 15, 2016
`Time: 1:00 EST
`
`REGISTRANT/APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE
`
`TO MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES
`
`This is a consolidated action by Petitioner/Opposer Kate Spade LLC (“KSLLC”), the
`
`owner of numerous registrations in the name “Kate Spade,” against two companies — The Spades
`
`Trademark Company, LLC and Thatch, LLC (together referred to as the “App1icants”) — that are
`
`controlled by thefozmders and namesakes of KSLLC, Ms. Kate Spade and Mr. Andy Spade,
`
`seeking to prevent Applicants, and ostensibly Kate and Andy Spade, from registering and using
`
`

`
`marks containing the words “The Spades.” Applicants hereby respond to KSLLC’s Motion to
`
`Quash Notices of Deposition of Craig Leavitt and Deborah Lloyd, each of whom is an officer
`
`and director of KSLLC. KSLLC’s motion is a feeble and transparent attempt to delay these
`
`proceedings and prevent Applicants from conducting discovery to which they are absolutely
`
`entitled. KSLLC’s argument that these deponents do not have personal or relevant knowledge of
`
`the facts of these cases — which involve its well—known founders and namesake considering to
`
`launch a new business that may be competitive with KSLLC and using a name which KSLLC
`
`claims is confusingly similar to its own name - is both ludicrous and contrary to the evidence
`
`produced so far in the discovery in this case. These proposed deponents are well aware of the
`
`facts of this case and their testimony will lead to discoverable and admissible evidence. In
`
`addition, the deposition notices were timely served with sufficient notice so that the depositions
`
`would be concluded before the close of Applicants’ discovery. KSLLC’s motion should be
`
`denied in its entirety.
`
`Applicants request that the Board extend the deadline for Applicants’ discovery so that
`
`the noticed depositions may be scheduled and taken, and extend all subsequent dates accordingly
`
`to allow the parties to conclude discovery and prepare for trial.
`
`BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
`
`The Board’s Order dated November 25, 2015 provided that these consolidated
`
`proceedings were to be suspended through December 21 , 2015 and that discovery was to close
`
`for the Applicants on January 5, 2016. Accordingly, on December 21 , 2015, Applicants timely
`
`served on KSLLC by overnight delivery with a courtesy copy to KSLLC’s counsel by email, a
`
`Notice of Deposition for each of Craig Leavitt, the Chief Executive Officer of KSLLC, and
`
`Deborah Lloyd, the Chief Creative Officer of KSLLC, for January 5, 2016 at 9:00am and
`
`

`
`1:00pm respectively. The depositions were set on the same day because it is expected that they
`
`will each take about three hours.
`
`(_S_e_e Declaration of Douglas R. Schwartz in Support of
`
`Registrant/Applicants’ Response to Motion to Quash Deposition Notice (the “Schwartz
`
`Declaration”), Paragraph 3.)
`
`Andy Spade was questioned by KSLLC’s counsel and testified in his deposition in this
`
`case as to several conversations he had with Craig Leavitt regarding REDACTED.
`
`(§_e_e
`
`Schwartz Declaration, Paragraph 5 and Exhibit A, containing excerpts from Andy Spade’s
`
`deposition; and the Declaration of Andrew Spade in Support of Registrant/Applicants’ Response
`
`to Motion to Quash Deposition Notice (the “Spade Declaration”), Paragraph 4.) ln one of those
`
`conversations, Mr. Leavitt told Andy Spade REDACTED.
`
`(ld_.) Andy Spade and Craig Leavitt
`
`also exchanged emails on at least three occasions regarding these very same topics.
`
`(_S_e_e
`
`Schwartz Declaration, Paragraph 6 and Exhibit B; and Spade Declaration, Paragraph 4 and
`
`Exhibit A). On July 2, 2014, Mr. Leavitt personally informed Andy Spade by email that
`
`REDACTED. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Leavitt emailed to Andy Spade, among other things,
`
`“REDACTED.” Thus, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Leavitt has been personally involved in this
`
`matter on behalf of KSLLC from its very inception and has actual, unique and superior
`
`knowledge of the facts in this case, and that his deposition will lead to and result in admissible
`
`evidence.
`
`Deborah Lloyd is the Chief Creative Director at KSLLC, and works closely with Craig
`
`Leavitt on matters involving brands and intellectual property. In this capacity, Ms. Lloyd
`
`oversees all creative aspects of the Kate Spade brands and is in charge of all new brands and
`
`brand extensions. Ms. Lloyd is involved in every decision at KSLLC regarding product design,
`
`product naming and branding, product plans, brand strategies, new brands, expansion of brands
`
`

`
`and products, marketing and advertising, and consumer strategies.
`
`(§e_e_, Spade Declaration,
`
`Paragraph 3). Ms. Lloyd is thus the best person at KSLLC to depose regarding KSLLC’s plans
`
`for other brands that are potentially confusing with the Applicants’ marks, proposed uses by
`
`KSLLC of marks that may include “the Spades” or variations thereof, product plans, expansion
`
`of product plans, alleged harm to KSLLC’s marks related to Applicants’ marks, marketing,
`
`advertising and sales of KSLLC’s goods, and branding and consumer strategies. It is highly
`
`likely in her capacity as an officer and director with specific duties involving branding issues that
`
`she has had relevant and non—privileged conversations with Craig Leavitt and others regarding
`
`these matters and has personal and relevant knowledge as to the facts. Applicants certainly have
`
`good cause to take the deposition of Deborah Lloyd and probe further as these matters to which
`
`she has personal and relevant knowledge and which will lead to and result in admissible
`
`evidence.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`l.
`
`The Prop_osed Depositions are Proper Because the Deponents have Actual
`Knowledge_ of Relevant Facts and Matters.
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 30(a)(l) and TBMP 404.02 provide that a party
`
`may depose “any person, including a party.” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)
`
`provides that litigants may obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
`
`to any party, claim or defense,” with the test for relevancy being any matter that is “reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” TBMP 406.06(a) provides that “If
`
`the party is a corporation, organization, partnership association or other juristic person, Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 30(b)(l) allows an adverse party to notice the deposition of a particular officer, director,
`
`or managing agent of a party organization,” and that the “deposition ofa named officer, director,
`
`or managing agent of a party organization in his or her organizational capacity, just like a Fed. R.
`
`

`
`Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition taken of a representative of an organization, is testimony of the
`
`organization.” Further, where a notice of deposition specifies certain officers or directors, the
`
`corporation has no right to designate others to appear in their stead and if the corporation is a
`
`party, the notice compels it to produce the officer or director named in the deposition notice.
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37(d); United States v. One Parcel ofReal Estate at 5860
`
`North Bay Road, MIai'7?i Beach, Fla, (SD FL 1988) 121 FRD 439, 4390440; Bon Air Hotel, Inc.
`
`v. Time, Inc, (Sm Cir. 1967) 376 F. 2d 118, 121.
`
`KSLLC relies on the somewhat unsettled “apex doctrine” in arguing that the noticed
`
`depositions should be quashed, supported only by boilerplate assertions that the depositions
`
`constitute an undue burden and harassment. However, “The apex doctrine does not represent an
`
`exception to the rule that a party seeking to quash a subpoena bears the ‘heavy burden’ of
`
`demonstrating that the subpoena represents an undue burden.” United States ex. rel. Galmines v.
`
`N0vart1'.s' Pharm. Corp, No. CV—06-3213, 2015 WL 4973626, at *3, (ED. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015);
`
`See also, General Star Indemnity Ca. V. Plalimim Indemnity Ltd, 210 F.R.D. 80, 82 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
`
`(“The party seeking to bar the deposition bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed
`
`deposition would not lead to relevant information”). Moreover, even in those jurisdictions where
`
`the apex doctrine is recognized, it does not apply where the proposed deponent has actual or
`
`relevant knowledge of the facts at issue in the case. Federal courts have consistently and
`
`universally permitted the depositions of high level executives when conduct and knowledge at
`
`the highest corporate levels are relevant in the case. See, e.g., Webside Story, Inc. V Netratings,
`
`Inc, 2007 WL 205067, at *2 (N .D. Cal. January 25, 2007) (“When a witness has personal
`
`knowledge of facts relevant to the lawsuit, even a corporate president or CEO is subject to
`
`deposition”); Nafiic/21' v. New York University Medical Center, er. al., 172 F.R.D 130 (S.D.N.Y
`
`1997) (permitting deposition because executive did not assert lack of personal knowledge);
`
`5
`
`

`
`Nyfield 12. Virgin Islands Telephone Corp, 202 F.R.D. 192 (D. VI. 2001) (permitting deposition
`
`because executive-:’s conduct was at issue and he had personal knowledge).
`
`it is notable that KSLLC’s moving papers do not - nor can they — assert that these
`
`proposed deponents do not have knowledge of the facts at issue, and KSLLC has proffered no
`
`declarations from the deponents so stating a lack of personal knowledge. Quite the contrary, this
`
`matter is being played out at the very highest level of KSLLC, as evidenced by Craig Leavitt’s
`
`direct involvement in numerous communications with Andy Spade.
`
`It is unthinkable that the
`
`highest level executives of KSLLC would not be involved in a situation whereby the company’s
`
`namesake, founders and former highest level executives seek to launch a potentially competitive
`
`business using a trademark that KSLLC claims, without basis, is potentially confusing with its
`
`own trademarks. Indeed, this case is vastly different from cases where the apex doctrine is
`
`typically invoked, including those cited by KSLLC, which often involve personal injury, product
`
`liability or employment claims that are far removed from the knowledge of high level executives.
`
`By contrast, the founders and namesakes of a company seeking to launch a competitive business
`
`may be viewed as a direct threat to KSLLC’s business and would naturally get the full attention
`
`of the company’s highest level executives. Thus, KSLLC has utterly failed to show that the apex
`
`doctrine applies in this case or that these proposed depositions are harassing in any way, and the
`
`noticed depositions should therefore proceed. It is also worth noting that KSLLC has already
`
`deposed, without objection from Applicants, the highest level officers and representatives of
`
`Applicants.
`
`KSLLC’s claim that these depositions should be quashed because of inconvenience,
`
`undue burden or expense are similarly groundless. They are, of course, the party that began
`
`these proceedings. The depositions are expected to take no more than three hours at most, and
`
`

`
`are set to take place in Manhattan just over one mile from KSLLC’s principal offices. (See
`
`Schwartz Declaration, Paragraphs 3 and 4). Both depositions can be completed in one day, so
`
`any inconvenience, burden and expense will be minimal, given the importance of the matter at
`
`hand.
`
`There does not appear to be any less burdensome means of obtaining the required
`
`deposition testimony. In its Initial Disclosure, KSLLC proffered as its only proposed witness its
`
`in—house counsel, Geri Lynn Elias, who has been present at all of the depositions taken in this
`
`case to date. While it is likely that Ms. Elias does have personal knowledge of these matters,
`
`Applicants chose not to depose Ms. Elias because as counsel all or most of her communications
`
`and knowledge are likely protected by the attorney—client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`This offer is just another transparent attempt by KSLLC to avoid its discovery obligations.
`
`Applicants chose, as is their absolute right, to depose two officers of KSLLC who have actual
`
`and relevant knowledge of the matters at hand and whose testimony should not be shielded by
`
`the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines.
`
`Counsel for KSLLC, Roxanne Elings, at the deposition of Ms. Kate Spade in this matter,
`
`stated the following: “REDACTED.” (See, Exhibit C to Schwartz Declaration.) KSLLC and
`
`Ms. Elings cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek to improperly probe beyond the limits of
`
`discovery in their own discovery, yet try to preclude Applicants from seeking discovery to which
`
`they are perfectly entitled. KSLLC’s motion to quash these depositions is groundless and should
`
`be denied in its entirety, and these depositions should proceed.
`
`2.
`
`The D_epositions were Properly and Timely Noticed.
`
`These depositions were set for January 5, 2016, which was the date of the close of
`
`Applicant’s discovery under the Board’s Order dated November 25, 2015. The depositions were
`
`

`
`set for 9:00 and 1:00 respectively and were expected to take about three hours each.
`
`(§:_:§
`
`Schwartz Declaration, Paragraph 3.) Thus, the depositions would easily be completed before the
`
`close of discovery had KSLLC produced the witnesses as noticed. KSLLC’s argument that the
`
`depositions were not timely noticed because the boilerplate language
`
`the notices provided that
`
`they will continue from day to day until completed is specious and utterly ridiculous.
`
`KSLLC’s contention that two weeks’ notice is insufficient for a party deposition is
`
`similarly baffling and contrary to law and common practice. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`Rule 30(b)(l) provides that a notice of deposition must give “reasonable” notice to the parties.
`
`Notice periods as short as two days and three days have been found reasonable. Duke Um’versz'ly
`
`v. Haggai‘ Clothing Co., 54 USPQ2d I443, I444 (TTAB 2000); Hamilton Burr Publishing Co. v.
`
`E. W Com;-nunications, Inc, 216 USPQ 802, 804 n.6 (TTAB 1982) (two—day notice of
`
`deposition, although short was not unreasonable where deposition was held a short distance from
`
`applicanfs attorney’s office and where no specific prejudice was shown). Indeed, ten days’
`
`notice is commonly accepted as reasonable for a party deposition, and KSLLC can cite no cases
`
`where two weeks was found to be unreasonable in a case such as this with only two parties and
`
`where the depositions will be relatively short in duration. In this instance, moreover, the Board’s
`
`Order dated November 25, 2015 suspended proceedings until December 21, 2015, so Applicants
`
`could not have noticed the depositions any earlier. KSLLC did not contact Applicants’ counsel
`
`to seek an extension or to otherwise indicate that the proposed deponents could not appear for
`
`deposition on January 5 and seek an alternative, more convenient date. Instead, KSLLC filed the
`
`instant motion without any attempt whatsoever to meet and confer with respect to the noticed
`
`depositions.
`
`

`
`These depositions were properly and timely noticed with sufficient time for the
`
`depositions to take place and be completed before the close of Applicants’ discovery. Therefore,
`
`the depositions should be ordered to proceed and KSLLC’s motion should be denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`3.
`
`The Board Should Extend the Close of_/_\_pplicants’ Discovery Period to Allow the
`Noticed Depositions to Proceed.
`
`KSLLC filed the instant motion instead ofprodueing the deponents on the date set for
`
`their depositions. The close of Applicants’ discovery has now passed. Applicants request that
`
`the Board order the depositions to proceed and unilaterally extend the deadline for Applicants’
`
`discovery so that the noticed depositions may be scheduled and taken, and also extend all
`
`subsequent dates accordingly to allow the parties to conclude discovery and prepare for trial.
`
`

`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, KSLLC°s Motion to Quash Deposition Notices should
`
`be denied in its entirety, and the noticed depositions should be ordered to proceed. Applicants
`
`request that the Board provide a range of dates within which to take the depositions, so that
`
`counsel and the deponents may find an available date. Applicants fiirther request that the Board
`
`unilaterally extend the deadline for Applicants’ discovery so that the noticed depositions may be
`
`scheduled and taken, and also extend all subsequent dates accordingly to allow the parties to
`
`conclude discovery and prepare for trial.
`
`Dated: January 13, 2016
`
`Schwartz & Cera
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Doug s R. Schwartz
`Kenneth B. Cera
`
`Frank J. Gilbert
`
`Attorneys for Registram‘/Applicams
`Thatch, LLC and The Spades Trademark
`Company, LLC
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 13"‘ day of January, 2016, a true and complete copy of the
`foregoing Registrant/Applicant’s Response to Motion to Quaslz Deposition Notices to
`Petitioner/Opposer has been served upon the Petitioner/Opposer’s counsel of record by
`delivering the same via overnight delivery at the following address:
`
`G. Roxanne Elings
`Charles LeGrand
`
`Lisa Keith
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Stars, 21“ Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`
` onise Higginbotham
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Application Serial No. 85/932,097
`
`Mark: PATIO BY THE SPADES
`
`Kate Spade LLC,
`
`Opposition No.: 91216585
`
`Thatch, LLC
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Applicant.
`
`In the matter of Registration No. 3,647,470 and Serial No. 86/ 1 79,1 37
`
`Marks: THE SPADES (DESIGN) and THE SPADES
`Kate Spade LLC,
`
`Petitioner/Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059594 and
`Opposition No.: 91217168
`
`The Spades Trademark Company, LLC
`
`Registrant/Applicant.
`
`DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS R. SCHWARTZ
`IN SUPPORT‘ OF
`
`REGISTRANT/APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITIONS
`
`Douglas R. Schwartz hereby declares as follows:
`
`I.
`
`I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and am a
`
`member of the law firm Schwartz & Cera, counsel to Registrant/Applicants The Spades
`
`Trademark Company, LLC and Applicant Thatch, LLC (together, the “Applicants”) in the
`
`above—captioned cases. The following matters are true to my own knowledge and if called as a
`
`witness, I could and would testify completely thereto.
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Kate and Andy Spade are owners and the controlling parties of Applicants. Kate
`
`and Andy Spade are also two of the original founders of the business now known as Kate Spade,
`
`LLC (“KSLLC”), and Kate Spade is the namesake of the Kate Spade line of products made and
`
`sold by Petitioner/Opposer Kate Spade LLC.
`
`3.
`
`On December 21, 2015, our office served on KSLLC by overnight delivery with a
`
`courtesy copy to KSLLC’s counsel by email, a Notice of Deposition for each of Craig Leavitt,
`
`the Chief Executive Officer of KSLLC, and Deborah Lloyd, the Chief Creative Officer of
`
`KSLLC, for January 5, 2016 at 9:00am and 1:00pm respectively. The depositions were set on
`
`the same day because it is expected that they will each take about three hours.
`
`4.
`
`The depositions were noticed to take place in Manhattan at the offices of K&L
`
`Gates, 199 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY, which is, according to Google Maps, 1.1 miles
`
`from KSLLC’s corporate offices in Manhattan at 2 Park Avenue, New York, NY.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and correct copies of pages 23, 38 through
`
`41, 46, 47, 83 and 90 of the transcript of the deposition of Andrew Spade in this matter, taken on
`
`November 12, 2015, each of which pages contains details of various conversations that Mr.
`
`Spade had with Craig Leavitt, Chief Executive Officer of KSLLC with respect to the facts of this
`
`case.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of email exchanges
`
`between Andy Spade and Craig Leavitt held on July 2, 2014, August 19 and 20, 2015, and
`
`December 15 and 18, 2014, respectively, which were produced in this case and were also entered
`
`as Exhibit 16 to the deposition of Andrew Spade taken in this matter.
`
`

`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of pages 68 and 69 of the
`
`transcript of the deposition of Katherine Brosnahan Spade in this matter, taken on September 30,
`
`2015.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
`
`Declaration was executed. on January 13, 2016 in San Francisco, California.
`
`H;
`
`
`0%’ 4/V) ‘VDOUGL
`
`I
`
`z -.,
`
`I
`
`,
`
`R. SCHWARTZ
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`REDA CTEDREDA CTEDREDA CTED
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT BEXHIBIT BEXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`REDA CTEDREDA CTEDREDA CTED
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT CEXHIBIT CEXHIBIT C
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`REDA CTEDREDA CTEDREDA CTED
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 13"‘ day of January, 2016, a true and complete copy of the
`foregoing Declaration of Douglas R. Schwartz In Support of Registrant/Applicant’s
`Response to Motiorz to Quasi: Deposition Notices to Petitioner/Opposer has been served
`upon the Petitioner/Opposer’s counsel of record by deiivering the same via overnight
`delivery at the following address:
`
`G. Roxanne Elings
`Charles LeGrand
`
`Lisa Keith
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Stars, 21“ Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`
`Donise Higginboth
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Application Serial No. 85/932,097
`
`Mark: PATIO BY THE SPADES
`
`Kate Spade LLC,
`
`Opposition No.: 91216585
`
`Thatch, LLC
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`Applicant.
`
`In the matter of Registration No. 3,647,470 and Serial No. 86/ 179,137
`
`Marks: THE SPADES (DESIGN) and THE SPADES
`Kate Spade LLC,
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059594 and
`
`Petitioner/Opposer,
`
`Opposition No.: 91217168
`
`V.
`
`The Spades Trademark Company, LLC
`
`Registrant/Applicant.
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW SPADE
`
`IN SUPPORT OF
`
`REGISTRANT/APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITIONS
`
`Andrew Spade hereby declares as follows:
`
`I.
`
`I am a resident of the State of New York and a principal of Registrant/Applicants
`
`The Spades Trademark Company, LLC and Applicant Thatch, LLC (together, the “Applicants”)
`
`in the above-captioned cases. The following matters are true to my own knowledge and if called
`
`as a witness, I could and would testify completely thereto.
`
`

`
`2.
`
`I am one of the founders of the business now known as Kate Spade, LLC, and my
`
`wife, Katherine Brosnahan Spade, is the namesake of the Kate Spade line of products made and
`
`sold by Petitioner/Opposer Kate Spade LLC (“KSLLC”).
`
`I am also the former Creative Director
`
`of KSLLC and am currently Creative Director of Sleepy Jones, LLC (which manufactures and
`
`sells clothing and accessories), and I therefore have knowledge of the role and duties of a
`
`Creative Director, and specifically of the Creative Director of KSLLC.
`
`3.
`
`The current Creative Director of KSLLC is Deborah Lloyd. In her capacity as
`
`Creative Director of Kate Spade, LLC, Ms. Lloyd oversees all creative aspects of the Kate Spade
`
`brands and is in charge of all new brands and brand extensions. Ms. Lloyd is involved in every
`
`decision at KSLLC regarding product design, product naming and branding, product plans, brand
`
`strategies, new brands, expansion of brands and products, marketing and advertising, and
`
`consumer strategies.
`
`4.
`
`I have had several conversations with Craig Leavitt, Chief Executive Officer of
`
`KSLLC regarding REDACTED. In one of those conversations, Mr. Leavitt told me
`
`REDACTED. Craig Leavitt and I also exchanged emails on at least three occasions regarding
`
`these very same topics, which emails were produced in this case and are attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`I was questioned at my deposition in this matter regarding these conversations and
`
`emails.
`
`

`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
`
`Declaration was executed on January 13, 2016 in New York, New York.
`
`
`CM
`
`
`ANDREW SPADB
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`REDA CTEDREDA CTEDREDA CTED
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 13"‘ day of January, 2016, a true and complete copy of the
`foregoing Declaration ofAndrew Spade In Support of Registrant/Applicant’s Response to
`Motioiz to Quasi: Deposition Notices to Petitioner/Opposer has been served upon the
`Petitioner/Opposer’s counsel of record by delivering the same via overnight delivery at the
`following address:
`
`G. Roxanne Elings
`Charles LeGrand
`
`Lisa Keith
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Stars, 21“ Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`
` Donise Higginboth