Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA841886
`
`Filing date:
`
`08/25/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91224515
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Christopher N. Ciko
`
`CHRISTOPHER N NCIKO
`21613 ANZA AVE
`TORRANCE, CA 90503-6425
`UNITED STATES
`Email: cciko30@gmail.com
`
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`
`Christopher N. Ciko
`
`c@formula39.com, cciko30@gmail.com
`
`/Christopher N. Ciko/
`
`08/25/2017
`
`defendantbrief.pdf(163937 bytes )
`EXHIBIT A.pdf(68336 bytes )
`EXHIBITB.pdf(3335744 bytes )
`Exhibit C.pdf(3749172 bytes )
`
`

`

`     
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`August 23, 2017 
`
`Defendant’s Brief 
` 
`Trademark Application Serial No.: 86/433293 for the mark: Formula 39 
`Filed October 24,2014 
`Published September 22, 2015 
` 
`Opposition No. 91224515 
` 
` 
`
` 
`
`The critical issue in most Trademark Oppositions is brand confusion for the typical 
`
`consumer of that product; however, in this matter the first question is if the Plaintiff has a 
`
`defendable mark, because GENERIC marks are not protected.  SEE EXHIBIT A, UNITED STATES 
`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK SEARCH SYSTEM DOCUMENT.  The document identifies Erno Laszlo 
`
`Inc. as the owner of PHORMULA NO. 3‐9 with a DISCLAIMER stating: “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO 
`
`THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “FORMULA” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.”   Plaintiff has 
`
`disclaimed exclusive rights to use the word “FORMULA.”  As for the rest of their mark, the 
`
`abbreviation of the for the word number, “NO.” is not protectable under United States 
`
`Trademark law.  All that remains of their mark are the numbers 3 and 9 which, standing alone, 
`
`are not protectable.   Formula 39 Inc. and Defendant Christopher N. Ciko must be granted full 
`
`rights to use our Trademark Formula 39.    
`
`The second critical issue in this Opposition is whether a typical consumer is likely to 
`
`confuse Erno Laszlo Brand product Phormula No. 3‐9 with Formula 39 Brand product, Formula 
`
`39.  There has not been a single confused consumer because of one reason; there is no 
`
`likelihood of confusion between the marks.   [SEE EXHIBIT B.  ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES 
`
`18‐24] 
`
`The measure for federal trademark infringement, 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and federal unfair 
`
`competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), is by identical standards. See A & H III, 166 F.3d at 
`
`

`

`202.[5]   To prove either form of Lanham Act violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has 
`
`a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the 
`
`mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion. See Commerce Nat'l Ins. 
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc., 214 F.3d 432, 437 (3d Cir.2000). The plaintiff bears the 
`
`burden of proof. See American Home Prods. Corp. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 834 F.2d 368, 371 (3d 
`
`Cir.1987).  
`
`It is undisputed that Erno Laszlo Inc. owns Phormula No. 3‐9  and Christopher N. Ciko 
`
`owns Formula 39, therefore the only issue in the case is likelihood of confusion.   Plaintiff has 
`
`responded through answers to Interrogatories 18 ‐24 that there has never been a single 
`
`instance of confusion which they have been made aware.  [EXHIBIT B PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO 
`
`INTERROGATORIES 18 ‐ 24] 
`
`A likelihood of confusion exists when "consumers viewing the mark would probably 
`
`assume that the product or service it represents is associated with the source of a different 
`
`product or service identified by a similar mark." Dranoff‐Perlstein Assocs. v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 
`
`862 (3d Cir.1992).   The Court in Lapp set forth factors that may be used to determine the 
`
`likelihood of confusion in cases of directly competing goods, at least when the marks are not 
`
`identical, accords with the approaches of the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, which 
`
`also have approved using multi‐factored tests, developed for noncompetitive goods, in the 
`
`competitive goods arena. See Banff, Ltd. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 490 (2d 
`
`Cir.1988); Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 165 F.3d 419, 421‐22 (6th Cir.1999); Duluth News‐
`
`Tribune v. Mesabi Publ'g Co., 84 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir.1996); Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin 
`
`Books U.S.A., Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1404 (9th Cir.1997).  The Lapp factors should be employed to 
`
`test for likelihood of confusion. Therefore, likelihood of confusion for both competing and 
`
`noncompeting goods should be tested with reference to the following: 
`
`

`

`(1) the degree of similarity between the owner's mark and the alleged infringing mark; 
`
`(2) the strength of the owner's mark; 
`
`(3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of 
`
`consumers when making a purchase; 
`
`(4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion 
`
`arising; 
`
`(5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; 
`
`(6) the evidence of actual confusion; 
`
`(7) whether the goods, competing or not competing, are marketed through the same channels 
`
`of trade and advertised through the same media; 
`
`(8) the extent to which the targets of the parties' sales efforts are the same; 
`
`(9) the relationship of the goods in the minds of consumers, whether because of the near‐
`
`identity of the products, the similarity of function, or other factors; 
`
`(10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to 
`
`manufacture both products, or expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the 
`
`defendant's market, or expect that the prior owner is likely to expand into the defendant's 
`
`market. 
`
`The single most important factor in determining likelihood of confusion is mark 
`
`similarity. See Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476. The test for such similarity is "`whether the labels create 
`
`the same overall impression when viewed separately.'" Id. (quoting Banff, Ltd. v. Federated 
`
`Dep't Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 1988)).  Marks are confusingly similar if ordinary 
`
`consumers would likely conclude that [the two products] share a common source, affiliation, 
`
`connection or sponsorship."  
`
`

`

`Defendant contends that Erno Laszlo house mark should be a part of the similarity of 
`
`marks analysis.   The entire Erno Laszlo product line is built around the name Erno Laszlo.  The 
`
`packaging of the product is all ERNO LASZLO.  [SEE EXHIBIT C ERNO LASZLO PRODUCTS 
`
`PACKAGING] 
`
`ERNO LASZLO made the brand famous because he was the skin care guru to the stars.  
`
`This is quoted from the Erno Laszlo website entitled HERITAGE: 
`
`“The Birth of Bespoke 
`
`H a v i n g   p e r f e c t e d   t h e   w o r l d ’ s   m o s t   c o v e t e d   c o m p l e x i o n s   f r o m   E u r o p e   t o  
`
`H o l l y w o o d ,   D r .   E r n o   L a s z l o   b r o u g h t   h i s   b e s p o k e   s k i n c a r e   p h i l o s o p h y   t o   N e w  
`
`Y o r k   C i t y   i n   1 9 2 7 .     T h e r e ,   h e   i n t r o d u c e d   h i s   s t o r i e d   c l i e n t s   –   f r o m   G r e t a  
`
`G a r b o   a n d   J a c k i e   O .   t o   A u d r e y   H e p b u r n   a n d   M a r i l y n   M o n r o e   –   t o   h i s  
`
`s i g n a t u r e   d o u b l e   c l e a n s e   a n d   c u l t i v a t e d   t h e   b r a n d ’ s   c u s t o m i z e d   a p p r o a c h   t o  
`
`s k i n c a r e . ”  
`
` 
`
`B e s p o k e   b e a u t y   i s   k e y .       B e s p o k e   i s   d e f i n e d   a s ,   “ m a d e   t o   f i t   a  
`
`p a r t i c u l a r   p e r s o n . ”   ( W e b s t e r ’ s   d i c t i o n a r y )           A n d   l a t e r ,   “ … t h e   b r a n d ’ s  
`
`c u s t o m i z e d   a p p r o a c h   t o   s k i n c a r e . ”     N o   o n e   i s   g o i n g   t o   f o r g e t   E r n o   L a s z l o  
`
`b e c a u s e   i t ’ s   a b o u t   p e r s o n a l i z e d   s e r v i c e .     Y o u   w o u l d   n e v e r   f o r g e t  
`
`p e r s o n a l i z e d   s k i n   c a r e   s e r v i c e .     N o   o n e   w i l l   f o r g e t   E r n o   L a s z l o .     E r n o   L a s z l o  
`
`i s   t h e   m a r q u e   a n d   P h o r m u l a   N o .   3 ‐ 9   i s   j u s t   o n e   o f   h u n d r e d s   o f   p r o d u c t s  
`
`o v e r   t h e   y e a r s .    
`
`S i m p l y   l o o k   a t   t h e   l a b e l i n g   o f   a n y   E r n o   L a s z l o   p r o d u c t   a n d   y o u   w i l l  
`
`s e e   t h e   n a m e   E r n o   L a s z l o   d o m i n a t e s   e v e r y   i m a g e .     Y o u   n e e d   r e a d i n g   g l a s s e s  
`
`t o   s e e   t h e   n a m e   p h o r m u l a   3 ‐ 9 .     I t ’ s   a l l   a b o u t   E r n o   L a s z l o ,   b e c a u s e   n o  
`
`s e n s i b l e   b u s i n e s s   w o u l d   s p e n d   a n y   m a r k e t i n g   m o n e y   o n   a   p r o d u c t   n a m e   t h a t  
`
`

`

`t a k e s   u p   s u c h   a   s m a l l   s p a c e   o n   t h e   l a b e l .     I t ’ s   c l e a r   n o   m a t t e r   h o w   y o u   l o o k  
`
`a t   t h e   b r a n d ;   i t ’ s   a l l   a b o u t  Erno Laszlo   n o t   P h o r m u l a   n o .   3 ‐ 9 .     [ S E E  
`
`E X H I B I T   D ]  
`
`T h e   e f f e c t   o f   a   d o m i n a n t   m a r k   i s   c o n s i d e r a b l e   a n d   i t   i s   r e c o g n i z e d  
`
`a n d   s u p p o r t e d   i n   c a s e   l a w .   "Use of a strong, well‐known mark as a part of a composite 
`
`name reduces the likelihood that the remainder of the composite name will create a commercial 
`
`impression distinct from that mark." Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Koury Corp., 776 F.Supp. 240, 
`
`247 (E.D.N.C.1991); see also W.W.W. Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Gillette Co., 984 F.2d 567, 573 (2d 
`
`Cir.1993) ("[W]hen a similar mark is used in conjunction with a company name, the likelihood of 
`
`confusion may be lessened."); Astra Pharm. Prods, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 
`
`1201, 1205 (1st Cir.1983) .  The dominant mark is clearly Erno Laszlo.   
`
` 
`
`Weight given to being Issued Trademark from USPTO. 
`
`On November 24, 2014 the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted 
`
`Christopher N. Ciko a Trademark for Formula 39 and assigned it serial number 86433293.  
`
`Regarding the weight to be given a USPTO’s granting of a Trademark, the court has stated, 
`
`"While not dispositive of the issue of likelihood of confusion, the PTO's refusal to register 
`
`Defendant's marks is entitled to substantial consideration by this Court."); Driving Force, Inc. v. 
`
`Manpower, Inc., 498 F.Supp. 21, 25 (E.D.Pa.1980) (same); Syntex Labs., Inc. v. Norwich Pharm. 
`
`Co., 437 F.2d 566, 569 (2d Cir.1971) (refusal of Patent Office to register a mark is "entitled to 
`
`great weight").  Whether it is the refusal to register a mark or the granting of the mark, the 
`
`PTO’s decision should be given great weight.   
`
` 
`
`

`

`Strength of Mark Opposer’s Mark 
`
`The strength of Plaintiff’s mark is weak.  To determine the strength of the mark we must 
`
`look to Lapp factor (2), "the strength of the owner's mark," the District Court applied 
`
`the Fisons test, which measures mark strength by "(1) the distinctiveness or conceptual strength 
`
`of the mark; and (2) the commercial strength or marketplace recognition of the mark." A & H 
`
`IV, 57 F.Supp.2d at 164. The first prong of this test looks to the inherent features of the mark; 
`
`the second looks to factual evidence of "marketplace recognition." See Fisons, 30 F.3d at 479. 
`
`In order to determine whether a mark is protectable as a trademark, marks are divided 
`
`into four classifications: (1) generic (such as "DIET CHOCOLATE FUDGE SODA"); (2) descriptive 
`
`(such as "SECURITY CENTER"); (3) suggestive (such as "COPPERTONE"); and (4) arbitrary or 
`
`fanciful (such as "KODAK"). See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S.Ct. 
`
`2753, 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992).[14] Arbitrary or fanciful marks use terms that neither describe nor 
`
`suggest anything about the product; they "bear no logical or suggestive relation to the actual 
`
`characteristics of the goods." A.J. Canfield, 808 F.2d at 296 (citation omitted).  Suggestive 
`
`marks require consumer "imagination, thought, or perception" to determine what the product 
`
`is. Id. at 297. Descriptive terms "forthwith convey[] an immediate idea of the ingredients, 
`
`qualities or characteristics of the goods." Id. Generic marks are those that "function as the 
`
`common descriptive name of a product class." Id. at 296. In order to qualify for Lanham Act 
`
`protection, a mark must either be suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful, or must be descriptive with a 
`
`demonstration of secondary meaning. See id. at 297. Generic marks receive no protection; 
`
`indeed, they are not "trademarks" at all. See id. at 305.   
`
`PHORMULA NO. 3‐9 is a GENERIC mark.  A quick search of the United States Patent and 
`
`Trademark site shows over 1000 live active trademarks with the word Formula.   Plaintiff in their 
`
`filing to the United States Patent and Trademark filing made the following disclaimer, “NO
`
`

`

`CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "FORMULA" APART FROM THE MARK AS
`
`SHOWN” [SEE EXHIBIT A.] ERNO LASZLO INC. has filed a disclaimer, disclaiming any rights to the
`
`word “Formula”. This is only because it is a GENERIC TERM and not protectable. This entire
`
`opposition is based up a right to use the word “formula” which they disclaimed any rights to the name.  
`
`PHORMULA NO. 3 ‐9  is also a weak mark.  “ Fisons, 30 F.3d at 479, the extensive use of 
`
`the term in other markets may also have a weakening effect on the strength of the mark.”  
`
`Common marks like "Arrow," though certainly not particularly descriptive of the underlying 
`
`product, have been held to be "weak" marks. See Arrow Distilleries, Inc. v. Globe Brewing 
`
`Co., 117 F.2d 347, 351 (4th Cir.1941). "Self‐laudatory" marks like "Sure," see Procter & Gamble 
`
`Co. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 485 F.Supp. 1185, 1196 (S.D.N.Y.1980), "Super Duper," see S.M. 
`
`Flickinger Co., Inc. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 174 U.S.P.Q. 51, 56 (T.T.A.B.1972), "Plus," see Plus 
`
`Prods., 722 F.2d at 1005.  For example, in Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Savings & 
`
`Loan Association, 651 F.2d 311, 316‐17 & n. 8 (5th Cir.1981), the court gave special weight to 
`
`the fact that 25 competing financial institutions used the word "sun" in their titles, but also 
`
`noted that over 4,400 Florida businesses used the term. The Sun Banks court thus clearly 
`
`considered extensive use in other markets in its assessment of the weakness of the contested 
`
`term.   
`
`The consumer of high‐end skin care products are very sophisticated and very educated.   
`
`The "sophistication of consumers," which is the functional equivalent of Lapp factor (3), "the 
`
`price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers 
`
`when making a purchase."   Anti‐aging and skin care products are very expensive, hundred’s of 
`
`dollars per ounce.   The consumers of these product are smart highly educated, affluent and 
`
`over the age of forty‐five.   This is the most highly regard consumer class, one that researches 
`
`products extensively.  Skin care is all about getting out your glasses and reading the ingredient 
`
`list.  The entire success of each product is based upon specific ingredients or claims; both 
`
`

`

`companies know and rely upon this.   All Erno Laszlo products rely on the name ERNO LASZLO 
`
`and the storied history of Marilyn Monroe, Jackie O, Audrey Hepburn and Greta Garbo some of 
`
`histories most beautiful women.   All Formula 39 products rely on our ultra Nano technology. 
`
`Erno Laszlo has products that sell for over $500 dollars.  Without a doubt, these highly educated 
`
`consumers know exactly what they are buying and there is not chance of confusion.  
`
`Defendant asks the Trademark Trial and Appeal board to dismiss the Plaintiffs 
`
`opposition and grant us full rights to our trademark Formula 39.  
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`_____/Christopher N. Ciko/_____            ___8/23/17____ 
`
`            Christopher N. Ciko  
`
`                        Date 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
` 
` 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
`
` 
` 
` 
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Document for 
` 
`Defendant’s 30 Day Trial Period was served this 25h day of August, 2017,by 
`depositing a copy thereof in the U.S. mail, addressed to the Opposer as follows: 
` 
` 
`Kenneth E. Aldous, Tom Walsh 
`Montagu Law 
`1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor 
`New York, New York, 10036 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`                         
` 
` 
` 
`
`____/Christopher N. Ciko/           8/23/2017             
` 
`By:  Christopher N. Ciko 
` 
`   Date  
` 
`                     
`
` 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
` 
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A 
`EXHIBIT A
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Word Mark
`
`PHORMULA NO. 3-9
`
`Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052. G & S: Non-medicated skin care
`preparations. FIRST USE: 20021231. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20021231
`
`
`
`Standard
`Characters Claimed
`
`Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Serial Number
`
`85075895
`
`Filing Date
`
`July 1, 2010
`
`Current Basis
`
`1A
`
`Original Filing Basis 1A
`
`Published for
`Opposition
`
`Registration
`Number
`
`April 17, 2012
`
`4166421
`
`Registration Date
`
`July 3, 2012
`
`Owner
`
`(REGISTRANT) Erno Laszlo, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 519 Broome
`Street, 2nd Floor New York NEW YORK 10013
`
`Attorney of Record Alexandre A. Montagu
`
`Disclaimer
`
`NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "FORMULA"
`APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
`
`Type of Mark
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`Register
`
`PRINCIPAL
`
`Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL ANDAPPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Application Serial No. 86/433293
`
`ERNO LASZLO, INC.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`CIKO, CHRISTOPHER N.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`vvvvvvvvv
`
`Opposition No. 91224515
`
`OPPOSER’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`
`APPLLICANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trademark Rule
`
`2.120(d), Opposer Erno Laszlo, Inc. hereby responds and objects to the First Set of
`
`Interrogatories to Opposer, dated January 27, 2016 (the “Interrogatories”), of Applicant,
`
`Christopher N. Ciko, as follows:
`
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it: (i) is overly broad as to
`
`time or content, vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome or oppressive; (ii) seeks information that
`
`is not relevant to any claim or defense in this proceeding; and/or (iii) is not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`2.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production
`
`of information and/or documents that are outside of Opposer’s possession, custody or control.
`
`To the extent that Opposer produces information and/or documents responsive to one or more
`
`interrogatories that are not otherwise subject to one or more of the general and/or specific
`
`

`

`objections set forth below, Opposer will search those files in its possession, custody or control
`
`where there is a reasonable likelihood that responsive information and/or documents may be
`
`located.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory — and Opposer will not intentionally
`
`produce any information and/or documents — to the extent that an interrogatory seeks
`
`information and/or documents that: (i) are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client
`
`privilege; (ii) are protected from disclosure under the work-product doctrine; (iii) were prepared
`
`in anticipation of litigation or for trial; (iv) disclose the mental impressions, conclusions or legal
`
`theories of any of Opposer’s attorneys; or (v) are otherwise privileged or exempt from discovery.
`
`In the event that Opposer produces information and/or a document that is privileged or exempt
`
`from disclosure, it will have been produced through inadvertence and shall not constitute a
`
`waiver of any privileges applicable to that or any other document.
`
`4.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information and/or
`
`documents that contain confidential and/or proprietary information, including but not limited to
`
`the confidential and/or proprietary information of one or more third parties. Although Opposer
`
`will agree, at the appropriate time, to a confidentiality agreement and/or protective order
`
`governing the production of such documents, Opposer will only agree to produce information
`
`and/or documents responsive to any interrogatory — information and/or documents that are not
`
`otherwise subject to one or more of the general and/or specific objections set forth below —
`
`when/if such an agreement has been reached between the parties.
`
`5.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it purports to impose upon
`
`Opposer obligations beyond those stated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Trademark
`
`Rules and/or any other applicable law or regulation.
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it fails to define relevant
`
`terms or phrases.
`
`7.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the production
`
`of “all” documents pertaining to particular subj ects, on the ground that such language is
`
`overbroad and unduly burdensome. To the extent that Opposer produces information and/or
`
`documents responsive to any interrogatory — documents that are not otherwise subject to one or
`
`more of the general and/or specific objections set forth below — Opposer will search those files in
`
`its possession, custody or control where there is a reasonable likelihood that responsive
`
`information and/or documents may be located.
`
`8.
`
`Opposer objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information and/or
`
`documents readily available to Applicant Via public sources.
`
`9.
`
`Opposer objects to Applicant’s failure to define the words and/or phrases “came
`
`up with,” “Fanciful,” “you,” “managing agent,” “philosophy,” and “paid professiona .” Opposer
`
`also objects to any characterization of its Mark “Phormula No. 3-9” as a “name.”
`
`10.
`
`In objecting to each interrogatory, Opposer does not concede that any of the
`
`information and/or documents sought or produced are relevant, material, admissible into
`
`evidence or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and Opposer
`
`does not waive any of the objections set forth herein.
`
`11.
`
`Opposer’s objections to each interrogatory are not intended to be, and shall not be
`
`construed as, an agreement or concurrence by Opposer with Applicant’s characterizations of any
`
`facts, circumstances and/or legal obligations or with Applicant’s definitions or instructions as set
`
`forth in the interrogatories. Opposer reserves the right to contest any suCh characterization as
`
`inaccurate. Opposer also objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it contains express or
`
`

`

`implied assumptions of fact or law with respect to matters at issue in the above-referenced
`
`action.
`
`12.
`
`Opposer reserves the right to supplement or amend these responses and
`
`objections. Opposer’s responses shall not waive or prejudice any objections it may later assert,
`
`including but not limited to objections as to the relevance, admissibility or materiality at trial of
`
`information or categories of information. Opposer submits these responses and objections to the
`
`interrogatories Without conceding the relevance, admissibility or materiality of the subject matter
`
`of any interrogatory and without prejudice to its right to object to further discovery or to object
`
`to the admissibility at trial or in any other proceeding in this action of any disclosed information.
`
`13.
`
`The fact that Opposer has objected to a particular interrogatory shall not be
`
`interpreted as' implying that responsive information and/or documents exist or that Opposer
`
`acknowledges the propriety of such interrogatory.
`
`14.
`
`Opposer reserves the right to modify, supplement and/or amend any or all of these
`
`objections, if necessary or appropriate, in any way and at any time.
`
`

`

`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Subject to, and without waiver or any of the foregoing general objections, which are
`
`incorporated by reference into each of the following specific objections, Opposer objects to the
`
`specific interrogatories as follows:
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`Identify the process with which Erna Laszlo came up with the Fanciful Mark “Phormula
`N0. three hyphen nine
`
`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory N0. 1
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. l as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence and calls for a speculative response.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer responds as follows:
`
`When Dr. Emo Laszlo developed products associated with its Mark “Phormula No. 3-9,”
`
`Opposer employed a naming convention related to the products’ characteristics and development
`
`status.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`Identify the meaning you are giving to the Fanciful word, “Phormula ”?
`
`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 2
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 2 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence and calls for a speculative response.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer refers to, and
`
`incorporates by reference, its responses and objections to Interrogatory No. 1.
`
`

`

`Interrogatogy No. 3
`
`Identifi/ phonetically, how you pronounce “Phormula No. 3—9 ”.
`
`
`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 3
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 3 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence and calls for a speculative response.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer refers to, and
`
`incorporates by reference, its responses and objections to Interrogatory No. 1.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 4
`
`Identify each oflicer and managing agent ofOpposer, giving each oflicer ’s and managing
`agent’s name, address, title and duties with respect to Opposer.
`
`
`Responses and Ojjections to Interrogatogy No. 4
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 4 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer responds as follows: In
`
`its Initial Disclosures, dated January 29, 2016 (the “Initial Disclosures”), Opposer identified (by
`
`name and with contact information) individuals Who Opposer believes are likely to have
`
`discoverable, non-privileged knowledge of facts that Opposer may use to support its claims and
`
`defenses. Aside from those individuals identified in its Initial Disclosures, there are no officers,
`
`employees or agents of Opposer whose testimony would be likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence/information.
`
`

`

`Interrogatogy No. 5
`
`Identifi/ the philosophy behind the Erno Laszlo brand.
`
`
`Responses and Objections to InterrogatorxNo. 5
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 5 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Oppposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence and calls for a speculative response.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 6
`
`Identijy and define what Erno Laszlo mean [sic] by the Bespoken Beauty Company.
`
`
`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory N0. 6
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 6 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 7
`
`Identify andproduce document [sic] showing how much money Erno Laszlo spent to
`market the Erno Laszlo brand in the years 2013, 2014, and 2015.
`
`Responses and Objections to Interroggtory No. 7
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 7 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 8
`
`Identifi/ the philosophy behind Phormula No. 3-9.
`
`

`

`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 8
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 8 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence and calls for a speculative response.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer refers to, and
`
`incorporates by reference, its responses and objections to Interrogatory No. 1.
`
`Interrogatory N0. 9
`
`Identijj/ andproduce documents showing how much Erno Laszlo spent to market
`Phormula No. 3-9 in the years 2013, 2014, and 2015.
`
`Responses and Objections to InterrogatorLNo. 9
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 9 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it: (i) is not likely to lead to the discovery
`
`of admissible information/evidence; and (ii) seeks the disclosure of Opposer’s proprietary and
`
`confidential business information and/or trade secrets.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer responds as follows:
`
`Opposer reserves the right to seek a revised protective order or such other appropriate and
`
`necessary relief. Opposer will not provide information and/or documents responsive to
`
`Interrogatory No. 9, unless and until sufficient safeguards have been put in place (e.g. , a revised
`
`protective order) to protect Opposer’s proprietary and confidential business information and/or
`
`trade secrets.
`
`Interrogatory No. 10
`
`Identifi/ andproduce document [sic] showing how much Erno Laszlo spent to market its
`other skin care products in the years 2013, 2014, and 2015.
`
`

`

`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 10
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 10 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence.
`
`Interrogatory No. 11
`
`Identifi/ each product that lists the name or terms “Phormula No. 3-9. ”
`
`Re_s_ponses and Obj_ections to Interrogatory No. 11
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 11 as vague and ambiguous.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer responds to
`
`Interrogatory No. 11 as follows: The products that Opposer currently associates with its Mark
`
`“Phormula No. 3-9” include: (i) Phormula No. 3—9 Repair Balm; (ii) Phormula No. 3-9 Repair
`
`Cream; (iii) Phormula No. 3-9 Repair Serum; and (iv) Phormula No. 3—9 Repair Eye. In
`
`addition, Opposer discontinued, in 2609, its product Phormula No. 3-9 Lipbalm, which it
`
`associated with its Mark “Phormula No. 3-9” (see www.ernolaszlo.com/concern/stressed-
`
`skin.html).
`
`Interrogatory No. 12
`
`Identifi/ all the ways “Phormula No. 3-9” is marketed.
`
`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 12
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 12 as vague and ambiguous. Opposer also objects
`
`because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information/evidence.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer responds as follows:
`
`Rather than market its Mark “Phormula No. 3-9,” Opposer markets certain of its products using,
`
`among other things, its Mark “Phormula No. 3-9.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Interrogatogy N0. 13
`
`Identify when the name “Phormula No. 3-9 [sic] wasfirst used in commerce.
`
`Responses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 13
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 13 as vague and ambiguous. Opposer also objects
`
`because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information/evidence.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Opposer responds as follows:
`
`Opposer first used its Mark “Phormula No. 3-9” in connection with its products in or about 2001.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 14
`
`Identifi/ all the print adsfeaturing Phormula No. 3-9 products.
`
`Respgnses and Objections to Interrogatory No. 14
`
`Opposer objects to Interrogatory No. 14 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vexatious,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. Opposer also objects because it is not likely to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible information/evidence.
`
`Interrogatogy No. 15
`
`Identifiz all radio and/0r TV commercialsfor the Phormula No. 3-9 products.
`
`R