Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA783289
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/16/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91225753
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Sure Conveyors, Inc.
`
`GORDON E R TROY
`GORDON E R TROY PC
`PO BOX 1180
`SHELBURNE, VT 05482
`UNITED STATES
`uspto@webtm.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Gordon E. R. Troy
`
`uspto@webtm.com
`
`/Gordon E. R. Troy/
`
`11/16/2016
`
`Opposers Reply to Motion Summary Judgment.pdf(444728 bytes )
`Ex 1. Certified Assignment Recordation - SURE PRODUCTS.pdf(635143 bytes )
`Ex 2. Certified File Wrapper - SURE CONVEYORS.pdf(5330994 bytes )
`Ex 3. Certified File Wrapper - SURE PRODUCTS.pdf(2573639 bytes )
`EX. 4. Earman v. US.pdf(289878 bytes )
`
`

`

`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Trademark Application
`Trademark: SURE PRODUCTS
`Serial No. 86546537
`Published: November 10, 2015
`
`
`
`Sure Conveyors, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Opposer,
`
`- against -
`
`
`Charter Equipment Inc.,
`
`Defendant/Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Charter Equipment’s
`Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`
`The ‘537 Application is Void Because the Wrong Party was Identified as the
`1.
`Applicant.
`
`
`As Opposer argued in its Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), Doc. #7,
`
`ESTTA776505, the ‘537 Application was filed by Jeff Anderson, an individual, when in fact
`
`all evidence submitted by Respondent shows the applied-for mark was used only by Charter
`
`Equipment, Inc. (“Charter”), to which Anderson subsequently attempted to assign the ‘537
`
`Application1. Under TMEP §§ 1201.02(b) and (c), the ‘537 Application is void and cannot be
`
`cured by assignment.
`
`
`1 A certified copy of the assignment, attached to the MSJ as Exhibit 3, is attached to this Reply as Exhibit 1.
`Opposer also attaches certified copies of MSJ, Exhibit 4 (file wrapper for Application Serial No. 86595048);
`and MSJ, Exhibit 7 (file wrapper for application serial no. 85667279), as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively.
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 1
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`
`
`By failing to answer Opposer’s Requests for Admission (about which more will be said
`
`below), Charter admitted Request No. 23, which states “Admit that Mr. Anderson does not
`
`as an individual engage in the business of manufacturing or selling ‘Belt conveyors;
`
`Assembly line conveyor machinery; Conveyor lines; Hydraulic conveyors; Staged and
`
`segmented conveyors.” See, Opposer’s MSJ, Exhibit 5, Doc. #7, ESTTA776505, p.116,
`
`Request No. 23. In attempting to refute that admission, Anderson now alleges in a
`
`Declaration2, without any evidentiary support, that
`
`I am President and CEO of Applicant Charter Equipment, Inc. (“Charter”). Since 2012,
`I have been in the conveyor manufacturing business, making and selling belt
`conveyors, assembly line conveyor machinery, conveyor lines, hydraulic conveyors,
`staged and segmented conveyors.”
`
`¶ 2, Declaration of Jeff Anderson In Support of Applicant Charter Equipment Inc.’s
`
`Response/Opposition to Opposer’s MSJ, Doc. #10, ESTTA780520, p.32 (hereinafter
`
`“Response”).
`
`Charter’s purported “Supplemental Statement of Supporting Facts” similarly alleges:
`
`Since at least October 31, 2012, Mr. Anderson and Charter have been engaged in
`manufacturing and selling “Belt conveyors; Assembly line conveyor machinery;
`Conveyor lines; Hydraulic conveyors; Staged and segmented conveyors.”
`
`See, Response, par. 2 of Applicant’s Supplemental Statement of Supporting Facts. In
`
`support of this claim, Charter cites ¶ 2 of Anderson’s Declaration cited above, and
`
`“Opposer’s Exhibit 2, p. 3,” which bears no relation to Anderson’s claim. Response, Doc.
`
`#10, ESTTA780520, p.26. Neither Anderson nor Charter provide any evidence that
`
`Anderson used or uses the SURE mark as an individual. The specimens submitted in the
`
`
`2 As discussed below, although Charter moved to withdraw the admissions, it did not amend them, but simply
`provided counter-argument.
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 2
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`‘537 Application show only use by Charter, not its President and CEO as an individual. See,
`
`MSJ Exhibit 2, Doc. #7, ESTTA776505, pp. 41-433.
`
`
`
`A further admission that Anderson did not use the SURE mark as an individual and
`
`had no right to apply for the Sure mark in his individual capacity is found in ¶ 10 of
`
`Anderson’s Declaration, wherein Anderson states that Charter, not Anderson personally,
`
`“acquired all of the Assets” (including the SURE mark) from Citizens Bank. Charter’s claim to
`
`have acquired the SURE mark is addressed in Section 3 below, but Charter cannot make
`
`this claim and at the same time argue that Anderson was the owner and user of the SURE
`
`mark.
`
`As the nonmoving party, Charter must
`
`produce sufficient evidence to show a genuine dispute of material fact which would
`allow a reasonable finder of fact to rule in its favor. Such evidence need not be
`admissible at trial; nevertheless, mere denials, conclusory statements or evidence
`that is merely colorable or not significantly probative are not sufficient to preclude
`summary judgment.
`
`
`Earman v. US, Case No. 10-617 C, U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims, December 12, 2013
`
`(http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/BUSH.EARMAN121213.pdf),
`
`attached as Exhibit 4, see p. 19; Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., Inc., 786 F.2d 1136, 1141 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1986) (“The party opposing summary judgment must show an evidentiary conflict on the
`
`record; mere denials or conclusory statements are not sufficient”); and Barmag Barmer
`
`Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 836 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“Mere
`
`denials or conclusory statements are insufficient”). Consequently, Charter has failed to raise
`
`
`3 Opposer notes that the Certified Copy of the file wrapper for Serial No. 85/667279 submitted herewith as
`Exhibit 3 does not include the specimens which are included in the TSDR full electronic file wrapper printout
`attached to Opposer’s Motion as Exhibit 2.
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 3
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`any material fact demonstrating that the Applicant, Anderson, used the SURE mark as an
`
`individual.
`
`Charter’s Motion to Withdraw its Defaulted Admissions Must Be Denied.
`
`2.
`
`
`In order to avoid admissions resulting from a failure to respond, a responding party
`may pursue two separate avenues for relief: a party may either (1) move to reopen its
`time to respond to the admission requests because its failure to timely respond was
`the result of excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), or (2) move to withdraw
`and amend the admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).
`
`Giersch v. Scripps Networks, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1306 (TTAB 2007); TBMP Rule 411.03.
`
`Clearly, Charter could not reopen its time to respond based on excusable neglect: the
`
`Requests for Admission were duly served together with Opposer’s Interrogatories and
`
`Requests for Production of Documents, all of which Charter simply ignored. See, MSJ, Exhibit
`
`5, Doc. #7, ESTTA776505, pp 103-122, consisting of the Interrogatories, Requests for
`
`Admission and Requests for Document Production first served by Opposer on Charter’s
`
`counsel of record on May 5, 2016 and re-served via Federal Express on June 1, 2016.
`
`Withdrawal, on the other hand, is at the discretion of the court and may be granted
`
`(a) “when doing so better serves the presentation of the merits of the case,” Giersch, supra,
`
`citing Atakpa v. Perimeter OB-GYN Associates, P.C., 912 F.Supp. 1566 (N.D.Ga. 1994), and
`
`(b) where the party that has obtained the admissions would not be prejudiced, Giersch,
`
`supra, citing McClanahan v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 144 F.R.D. 316, 320 (W.D.Va. 1992).
`
`Withdrawal is not appropriate here. First, while Charter has moved to withdraw its
`
`admissions, it has not amended them. Instead, in response to the MSJ, Charter filed a
`
`“Supplemental Statement of Facts,” “Objections to Opposer’s Statement of Facts,” and a
`
`Declaration from Charter’s President and CEO, Jeff Anderson. These documents are
`
`insufficient to refute Charter’s admissions. “An admission that is not withdrawn or amended
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 4
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`cannot be rebutted by contrary argument or testimony.” The Armor All/STP Product
`
`Company v. Limited liability company "Autoplastic", Cancellation No. 92056035 (November
`
`14, 2013), citing Texas Department of Transportation v. Tucker, 95 USPQ2d 1241, 1244
`
`(TTAB 2010); AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, 19 USPQ2d at 1144. In The Armor
`
`All/STP, the Board found “that the facts set forth in each of petitioner’s RFAs have been
`
`conclusively established,” and so the Board should do so here. In both Giersch, supra, and
`
`SARL Corexco v. Webid Consulting Ltd., 110 USPQ2d 1587 (TTAB 2014), the defaulting
`
`parties, unlike Charter, submitted responses to the requests for admission
`
`contemporaneously with their cross-motions to withdraw.
`
`Second, Opposer would be prejudiced by allowing Charter to withdraw its admissions.
`
`Charter attempts to argue that Opposer was playing a “quiet game” by not filing a motion to
`
`compel, but filing a motion to compel is not obligatory. Rather, it was Charter that ignored its
`
`discovery obligations. Initial Disclosures were due by April 17, 2016, but Charter waited until
`
`September 7, 2016, to serve them on Opposer. Discovery in this matter closed one week
`
`later, on September 14, 2016, without any response to any of Opposer’s discovery requests.
`
`“[T]he decision to allow a party to withdraw its admission is quintessentially an
`equitable one, balancing the rights to a full trial on the merits, including the
`presentation of all relevant evidence, with the necessity of justified reliance by
`parties on pretrial procedures and finality as to issues deemed no longer in dispute.”
`
`McClanahan v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra, 144 F.R.D. at 320. Permitting Charter to withdraw
`
`its admissions would not serve the end of a “full trial on the merits” and “presentation of all
`
`relevant evidence,” when Charter has defaulted on all of its discovery obligations, including
`
`but not limited to compliance with Opposer’s Request for Production of Documents No. 18,
`
`which requested production of “all Documents relied upon in your responses to each
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 5
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`Request to Admit.” MSJ, Exhibit 5, Doc. #7, ESTTA776505, p. 119 (Opposer’s First Set of
`
`Discovery Requests).
`
`TBMP Rule 411.05 provides a range of sanctions when a party has failed to comply
`
`with its discovery obligations, including “inter alia, striking all or part of the pleadings of the
`
`disobedient party; refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated
`
`claims or defenses; drawing adverse inferences against uncooperative party; prohibiting the
`
`disobedient party from introducing designated matters in evidence; and entering judgment
`
`against the disobedient party.” In light of Charter’s substantial failure to respond to any of
`
`Opposer’s discovery requests, the Board should deny Charter’s motion to withdraw its
`
`admissions and enter summary judgment in favor of Opposer.
`
`Charter has failed to show that it acquired the SURE mark and associated good will
`3.
`from Opposer’s predecessor.
`
`
`Charter’s claim to ownership of the SURE mark is based wholly on the theory that
`
`Opposer’s predecessor, Sure Products, Incorporated, surrendered its trademark and good
`
`will to Citizens Bank, which then sold them to Charter. Tellingly, Charter does not provide a
`
`copy of any document by which Citizens Bank transferred anything to Charter. Instead,
`
`Charter’s President and CEO, Anderson, proffers a copy of a “Surrender Agreement”
`
`between Sure Products, Incorporated, Raymond Blanchet and Grace Blanchet. This
`
`agreement must be ignored for several reasons:
`
`First, neither Anderson nor Charter are parties to the Surrender Agreement or third
`
`party beneficiaries under that agreement, and neither are competent to testify as to whether
`
`the parties -- Citizens Bank, Sure Products, Incorporated, and the Blanchets -- transferred or
`
`even intended to transfer to Citizens Bank the SURE trademark and the good will associated
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 6
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`therewith. The Surrender Agreement contains no express language covering trademarks and
`
`good will.
`
`Second, the Surrender Agreement is not evidence of what Citizens Bank transferred
`
`to Charter, or what Charter acquired. ¶ 10 of Anderson’s Declaration that “by the Fall of
`
`2012, Charter had acquired all of the Assets that were forfeited under Mr. Blanchet’s
`
`Agreement with Citizens Bank,” is simply a conclusory statement that fails to raise a dispute
`
`of material fact. (See Section 1 above, regarding the insufficiency of conclusory statements
`
`in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.)
`
`Third, Charter was obligated, but failed, to produce in discovery (a) any actual
`
`agreement under which it (allegedly) acquired the SURE trademark, and (b) the Surrender
`
`Agreement which Charter apparently finds relevant and on which it intends to rely. See, MSJ,
`
`Exhibit 5, Doc. #7, ESTTA776505, pp. 118-120, Request for Document Production, Request
`
`Nos. 1, 2, 3, 17, 18 and 20, each of which encompasses these documents.
`
`
`
`Given that failure, both the Surrender Agreement and Charter’s unsubstantiated
`
`claim to have purchased the “Surrendered Assets” listed in that agreement, should be
`
`disregarded. In its MSJ, Opposer averred that Charter acquired only equipment from Citizens
`
`Bank, providing a list of that equipment. See, MSJ, Exhibit 6, Doc. #7, ESTTA776505, pp.
`
`124-128 (the Blanchet Declaration), paragraphs 12, 13, 15 and 16 (pp. 126-127) and
`
`Exhibit E thereto, pp. 148-153. Charter “objects” to that list, disputes its “admissibility and
`
`authenticity” and “further disputes that it represents a complete list of all of the assets that
`
`Charter purchased” -- but again, Charter fails to come forward with a copy of the actual
`
`agreement or other document evidencing what it acquired from Citizens Bank. See, Doc.
`
`#10, ESTTA780520, p. 19 (Objections to Opposer’s Statement of Facts, par. 15). Moreover,
`
`discovery closed on September 14, and the Board should therefore preclude Charter, under
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 7
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`TBMP Rule 411.05, from either producing the Surrender Agreement or drawing any
`
`inferences from it.
`
`
`
`In sum, Charter has failed to show that it acquired from Citizens Bank the SURE Mark
`
`and the good will associated with it, which is the entire basis for its claim of ownership over
`
`that mark.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For each of the reasons set forth above and in Opposer’s Motion Memorandum, the
`
`Board should grant summary judgment in Opposer’s favor.
`
`Dated: November 16, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`GORDON E. R. TROY, PC
`/s/ Gordon E. R. Troy, Esq.
`By:____________________________
` Gordon E. R. Troy
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`
`PO Box 1180
`
`Shelburne, VT 05482
`
`(802) 881-0640 Phone
`
`(646) 588-1962 Fax
` gtroy@webtm.com Direct Email
` uspto@webtm.com Service Email
`
`
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 8
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`Summary of Exhibits
`Certified copy of Trademark Assignment Agreement from Applicant Jeff Anderson
`to Charter Equipment Inc. Trademark Reel: 005602, Frames 0194-0196,
`replacing Exhibit 3 filed with the MSJ.
`Certified copy of File wrapper for Application Serial No. 86595048 SURE
`CONVEYORS + Design; Applicant: Sure Conveyors, Inc., replacing Exhibit 4 filed
`with the MSJ.
`Certified copy of File wrapper for Application Serial No. 85667279 SURE
`PRODUCTS design mark; Applicant: Charter Equipment Inc., replacing Exhibit 7
`filed with the MSJ.
`Earman v. US, Case No. 10-617 C, U.S. Ct. of Fed. Claims, December 12, 2013
`(http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/BUSH.EARMAN1212
`13.pdf)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 9
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 16th day of November, 2016, the
`
`foregoing Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibits was
`
`served on Applicant’s current counsel of record via USPS First Class Mail, postage pre-paid:
`
`Ruth Khalsa
`Raj Abhyanker P.C.
`1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 6
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`GORDON E. R. TROY, PC
`/s/ Gordon E. R. Troy, Esq.
`By: ____________________________
` Gordon E. R. Troy
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer’s Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment
`Sure Conveyors, Inc. vs. Charter Equipment Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 10
`Opposition No. 91225753
`
`

`

`
`
`Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
`and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`By Authority of the
`
`P. R. GRANT
`
`Certifying Officer
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`October 05, 2016
`
`THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ANNEXED IS A TRUE COPY FROM THE
`
`RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE OF A DOCUMENT RECORDED ON
`
`AUGUST 19, 2015.
`
`_
`
`__
`--
`
`-
`
`__
`
`25-5
`
`’\
`.
`
`t
`
`.
`
`_
`
`._
`,.
`
`..
`.
`-_
`mnlmHI'ITIII’lHII
`' ‘m.-.‘-fl_w
`
`I
`
`l
`
`.
`
`\-
`
`v
`
`l
`
`-
`
`l
`
`

`

`900334788
`
`08” 9(201 5
`
`TRADEMARK ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
`
`Electronic VersIon v1.1
`
`Stylesheet Version v1.2
`
`ETAS ID: TM351853
`
`SUBMISSION TYPE:
`
`NATURE OF CONVEYANCE:
`
`
`
`NEW ASSIGNMENT
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF THE ENTIRE INTEREST AND THE GOODWILL
`
`
`
`CONVEYING PARTY DATA
`“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RECEIVING PARTY DATA
`m
`
`
`
`
`_ C
`
`ORPORATION: MICHIGAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROPERTY NUMBERS Total: 1
`
`Property Type m Word Mark
`Serial Number:
`86546537
`SUFIE PRODUCTS
`
`
`
`
`0P$40.0036546537
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORRESPONDENCE DATA
`989-2131
`
`Fax Number:
`
`Correspondence will be sent to the e-mall address first; ll that is unsuccessful, It will be sent
`using a fax number, if provided; if that is unsuccessful, it will be sent via US Mall.
`Phone:
`650 965-8731
`
`Email:
`
`Irademarks©legaif0rce.com
`
`Correspondent Name:
`Address Line 1:
`
`Shauna Maloney
`451 N Shorel'me Blvd
`
`Address Line 4:
`
`Mountain View, CALIFORNIA 94043
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Total Attachments: 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lShauna Maloneyl
`
`08l19l201 5
`
`
` Shauna Manney
`
`sourcezPDF — AA - Sure producle#page1.lif
`
`
`
`source=PDF — AA - Sure products#page2.tif
`
`900334788
`
`TRADEMARK
`REEL: 005602 FRAME: 0194
`
`
`
`

`

`'i‘RADQQMARK ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT
`
`THIS 'I‘RADEMARK ASSIGNMENT Agreement (“ASSIGNMENT”) is executed on
`
`18____ day of August, 2015 by Jeff Andorson, a citizen of USA rcsiélng at 42771
`this
`Geoi'goiown, Novi, M ECHIGAN 483'i5 United States (lwminaficr rcfcrmd to as “ASSIGNOR’U
`
`IN FAVOR 0!“
`
`Charter Equipment Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ASSIGNEE”}, a corporation incorporated
`under the laws of Michigan, having principal place of business at 50420 Dennis CL, Wixom,
`l‘clichigan 48393, United Slates.
`
`W’l—EEREAS, the Assignor is the applicant and lawful ovmer of all rights, titles and imerosrs in.
`the mllowing trademark applications pending with the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office,
`together with the goodwill of the business connected with and symbolized by the
`Trademarks;
`
`E
`
`_ ___fing’ifififi_..
`.
`
`FILENG
`
`STATU‘"
`A non-final Office:
`action has been sent
`
`;
`
`'
`
`{issued} to film
`applican‘l. 'l‘his ix :1
`12111:: from £11.:
`
`examining anionic};
`requiring additional
`inlbrmation audio!
`
`February 2o,
`
`301.5
`
`making an initial
`refusal. The applicant
`must respond to this
`Office action. To view
`all documents in ibis
`lilo, click 0.31119
`Tradomarl; Document
`Retioval link'a‘a' the
`
`J________is) of Ellisijmage.
`
`Trademark
`
`8654653?
`
`SURE
`PRGEMECTS
`
`E
`
`i
`
`5 l l
`
`
`
`ANSI} WHEREAS, Assigncc desires to acquire all rights, titles and interests in and to the
`Ttadcmark;
`
`NOW, THEREFGRE. for good and valuable consideration as agreed by the parties, me receipt
`and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the parties intending to be legally bound by this
`Assignment, hereby agree as below:
`
`’l'he Asxignor hereby irrevocably and perpemally assigns, transfers and conveys to Assignex: the
`entire rights, titles, interests in the above mentioned Trademarks in the United States and in all
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REEL: 005602 FRAME: 0195
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`jmisdielions eutside the United States, along with the goodwil} attached to the business
`
`connected with and symbolized by the Trademarks (including, without Iimitafior}, the right to
`renew any future registrations leciuded in the 'l‘rademarks, the right to appiy for trademark
`
`registmtiens within or outside the United States and any priority right that may aTise from the
`
`'l‘rademarks), the same to be heid and enjoyed by Assignee as fuliy and entirely as said interest
`
`eeuid have been held and enjoyed by Assignor had this sale, assignment, transtr and
`
`conveyance not been made-
`
`I
`
`EN WITNESS WHEREOF,
`
`the Assignor hereto. has executed this 'l‘rademark Assigmnent
`
`Agreement as of the date first above written.
`
`meme}:
`III:
`
`,I/
`
`/;2-
`
`In")
`
`Jill;
`
`.fi/v/
`
`,/E
`
`"
`,4/
`
`5‘ " [’“"#7" d
`.334- "111.1% ’-
`I/ flmyflnflmm
`Midersen, L110
`/ M? / '
`
`
`
`RECORDED: 08l19I2015
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REEL: 005602 FRAME: 0196
`
`

`

`
`
`Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
`and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`\n’ouuuw3sysl-xw-mw_
`
`
`
`""33‘3!3HM“HUI-l‘m5‘!“u-‘!.‘n.IIu.ua10-h
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`October 05, 2016
`
`THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ANNEXED IS A TRUE COPY FROM THE
`
`RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE OF THE TRADEMARK FILE WRAPPER AND
`
`CONTENTS OF:
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION: 86/595,048
`
`FILING DATE: April 13, 2015
`
`By Authority of the
`
`Certifying Officer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TrademarkaerviceMarkApplication,PrincipalRegister
`
`PTO Fan“ 1438 (Rev 912006}
`
`OMB No. UGS1~GODQ (Exp 022812018)
`
`Page1of7
`
`lI
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Filing Date: 041132015
`mW—HWWWW
`
`Serial Number: 86595048
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`86595048
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\MAGEOUT 16\865\950\86595048
`\xm11\ RFAOOOZJPG
`
`
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`MARK INFORMATION
`
`
`
`USP'I‘OuGENERATED IMAGE
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`SURE Conveyors
`
`COLOR MARK
`
`
`
`
`COLOR(S) CLAIMED
`(If applicable)
`
` *DES CRIPTION OF THE
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The color(s) are red and blue istare claimed as a feature of
`the mark.
`
`The mark consists of the word SURE in a stylized font with
`the upper part of the "S" extended over "URE" and the
`word CONVEYORS in a smaller stylized font beneath the
`word SURE.
`
`(and Color Location, if
`applicable)
`
`
`
`mum-m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*STATE
`(Required for US. applicants)
`
`M h.
`C Igan
`
`*COUNTRY
`
`United States
`
`fileszD:\p2mp\temp\html\OEMS.htm
`
`906/2016
`
`Copy provided by USPTO from the TICRS Image Database on 09f26t2016
`
`

`

`Trademarkaervioe Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`,
`*ZIPIPOSTAL CODE
`{Required for US. applicants)
`
`
`
`
`MERNATIONAL CLASS
`007
`
`Egg handling equipment, conveyors, accessories and parts,
`
`namer= conveyor belt systems for separating manure in a
` *IDENTIFICATION
`hen house and tramporting eggs from a hen house, into a
`
`clean room for processing or packaging eggs for shipment;
`
`
`
`
`SECTION 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 12f10i2014
`
`At least as WI)" as 1211012014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`FIRST USE ANYWHERE
`DATE
`
`FIRST USE IN
`comaERCE DATE
`
`SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0R1GmAL
`PDF FILE
`
`gglfiwm‘fifign
`(3 pages,
`
`httpfltgateIPDFEBASi’QO15f04f13f20150413104051756502-
`86595048-001_001fSPE00-651973128-
`20] 50413102347241 176_._SureConveyors_Specimenspdf
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT1 6'\IMAGEOUT16\865\950\86595048
`\mn11\RFA0003.JPG
`
`'\\TIC.RS'\EXPORT1QIMAGEOUT16\865\950\86595048
`\xml 1\R.FA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\865\950\86595048
`\m11\RFA0005.JPG
`
`The specimen consists of: photographs of a label showing
`
`use ofthe markin connectionwiththeapplied for goods.
`
`ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The mark was first used anywhere in a different form other
`USE OF THE MARK IN
`than that sought to be registered at least as early as
`
`ANOTHER FORJM
`06:“01/1989, and in commerce at least as early as
`
`06.101/ 1989.
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION
`
`SURE Conveyors in Logo.US
` ATTORNEY DOCKET
`
`file :r'!’D :\p2mp\temp\htm1\OEMS .htrn
`
`9/262’20 1 6
`
`Copy provided by USPTO horn the TICRS Image Database on 09l26l2016
`
`
`
`LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
`
`M. h.
`1° 133-“
`
`m S
`
`TATEICOUNTRY OF
`“CORPORATION
`
`GOODS AND!OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
`
`
`
`

`

`Trademark/S enrice Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`I
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`NUMBER
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`
`
`Gordon E. R. Troy, PC
`
`PO Box 1180
`
`Shelbume
`
`Vermont
`
`United States
`
`ZIP(POSTAL CODE
`
`05482
`
`PHONE
`
`FA >4
`
`8028810640
`
`6465881962
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`usptomail@webtm.com
`
`AUTHORIZED TO
`COLIMUNICATE VIA EMAIL
`
`Yes
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`FERMNAL/IE
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`Gordon B. R. Troy, Esq.
`
`Gordon B. R. Troy, PC
`
`PO Box 1180
`
`Shelbume
`
`Vermont
`
`United States
`
`ZII’IPOSTAL CODE
`
`05482
`
`PHONE
`
`94
`
`802 88 1 0640
`
`6465881962
`
`*EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`usptomail@webtm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*AUTHORIZED TO
`COWUNICATE VIA EMAIL
`
`FEE INFORMATION
`
`APPLICATION FILING
`OPTION
`
` NUMBER OF CLASSES
`
`
`FEE PER CLASS
`
`*TOTAL FE DUE
`
`*TOTAL FEE PAID
`
`H:g
`
`TEAS RF
`
`,_a
`
`275
`
`275
`
`275
`
`file :HI):\pzmpxtemp\hnn1\0EMS.htm
`
`9I26X2016
`
`Copy provided by USPTO from the TICFIS Image Database on 0919612016
`
`

`

`Trademarkaervice Mark Application Principal Register
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`
`SIGNATURE INFORMATION
`
`SIGNATURE
`
`{Gordon B. R. Troy/
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`Gordon E. R. Troy
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`Attorney of record, Vermont bar member
`
`SIGNATORY‘S PHONE
`NUMBER
`
`
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`802 881-0640
`
`04fl3f2015
`
`
`
`
`file :XI'D:\p2mp\temp‘~html\OEMS .htm
`
`9:26:20 1 6
`
`Copy provided by USPTO from the TICRS Image Database on 0912612016
`
`

`

`TrademarkHService Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`PTO Form we [Rev 9-9006}
`
`OMB No. 0651-3009- (Exp OMWO‘lS)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Serial Number: 86595048
`
`Filing Date: MIISIZDIS
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`MARK: SURE Conveyors (stylized andfor with design, see mark)
`
`The literal element ofthe mark consists of SURE Conveyors.
`The color(s) are red and blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the word
`SURE in a stylized font with the upper part of the "S" extended over "URE" and the word
`CONVEYORS in a smaller stylized font beneath the word SURE.
`The applicant, Sure Conveyors, Inc, a corporatiori of Michigan, having an address of
`305 N Pontiac Trail
`
`Walled Lake, Michigan 48390
`United States
`
`requests registration ofthe trademarb’sendce mark identified above in the United States Patent and
`Trademark Ofiice on the Principal Register established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 15.8.0. Section
`1051 et seq. ), as amended, for the following:
`
`International Class 007: Egg handling equipment, conveyors, accessories and parts, namely,
`conveyor belt systems for separating manure in a hen house and transporting eggs from a hen house,
`into a clean room for processing or packaging eggs for shipment;
`
`In International Class 007, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or
`licensee or predecessor in interest at least as early as 131012014, and first used in commerce at least as
`early as 12/103014, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one(or more)
`specimen(5) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of
`listed goods/services, consisting of a(n) The specimen consists of: photographs of a label showing use of
`the mark in connection with the applied for goods.
`
`Original PDF file:
`httpfltgatefPDFfBASf'ZO15f04x‘13z’20150413104051756502-86595048-001_00lz’SPEOO-651973128-
`201504131023 47241 176_.fiSureConveyors_Specimens.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) (3 pages)
`Specimen Filel
`Specimen File2
`Specimen Fi1e3
`
`Use of the mark in another form
`The mark was first used anywhere in a different form other than that sought to be registered at least as
`
`sesame
`file:x’i’D:\p2mp\temp\html\OEMS.htm
`f=
`I:__—__________.____———-—————-—-
`Copy provided by USPTO from the TICFIS Image Database on OBI2GI2016
`
`

`

`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`early as 06K) U1989, and in commerce at least as early as 0620111989.
`
`The applicant's current Attorney Information:
`Gordon E. R. Troy, Esq. of Gordon E. R. Troy, PC
`PO Box 1 180
`
`Shelburne, Vermont 05482
`United States
`The attorney dockefireference number is SURE Conveyors in Logo.US.
`
`The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
`
`Gordon E. R. Troy, Esq.
`
`Gordon E. R. Troy, PC
`PO Box 1180
`
`Shelburne, Vermont 05482
`
`8028810640(phone)
`
`6465831962(fax)
`
`usptomai1@webtmcom (authorized)
`E—mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspoadence concerning the
`application to the applicant or applicant's attorney at the e—mail address provided above. I understand
`that a valid e-mail address must be maintained and that the applicant or the applicant's attorney must
`file the relevant subsequent application-related submissions via the Trademark Electronic Application
`System (TEAS). Failure to do so will result in an additional processing fee of $50 per international
`class of goods/services.
`
`A fee payment in the amount of $275 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for
`1 class(es).
`
`Declaration
`
`The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing the application under 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), the
`applicant is the owner ofthe trademark/service mark sought to be registered; the applicant or the
`applicants related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the
`goods/services in the application, and such use by the applicant's related company or licensee inures to
`the benefit of the applicant; the specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the
`goodsfservices in the application; and/or ifthe applicant filed an application under 15 U.S.C. Section
`1051(b), Section 1126021), and!or Section 1126(e), the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce;
`the applicant has a bona fide intention to use or use. through the applicant's related company or licensee
`the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goodstservices in the application- The signatory
`believes that to the best of the sigrratcry’s knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use the
`mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on
`or in connection with the goodsfservices of such other person, to cause confusion or mistake, or to
`deceive. The signatory being warned that Willfill false statements and the like are punishable by fine or
`imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like
`may jeepardize the validity of the application or any regi-stratiou resulting therefrom, declares that all
`statements made of hjsz'her own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief
`are believed to be true.
`
`
`
`Declaration Signature
`
`file :1!D :\p2mp\temp\htn11\OEMS .htm
`
`90620 16
`
`
`Cow provided by USPTO from the TICFIS Image Database on 09r26f2016
`
`
`
`

`

`I
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Applicatiom Principal Register
`
`Page 7 of7
`
`Signaxwe: {Gordon E. R.