Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA743965
`05/03/2016
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Notice of Opposition
`
`Notice is hereby given that the following party opposes registration of the indicated application.
`
`Opposer Information
`
`Name
`
`GrayRobinson, P.A.
`
`Granted to Date
`of previous ex-
`tension
`
`Address
`
`Attorney informa-
`tion
`
`05/04/2016
`
`401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1000
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
`UNITED STATES
`
`Kevin P. Crosby
`GrayRobinson, P.A.
`401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1000
`FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
`UNITED STATES
`chris.mendez@gray-robinson.com, kevin.crosby@gray-robinson.com,
`cole.carlson@gray-robinson.com Phone:407-843-8880
`
`Applicant Information
`
`Application No
`
`86504533
`
`Publication date
`
`01/05/2016
`
`Opposition Filing
`Date
`
`Applicant
`
`05/03/2016
`
`Opposition Peri-
`od Ends
`
`05/04/2016
`
`The Craft Beer Attorney, APC
`3914 Murphy Canyon Rd. Ste. A244
`San Diego, CA 92123
`UNITED STATES
`
`Goods/Services Affected by Opposition
`
`Class 045. First Use: 2009/01/01 First Use In Commerce: 2009/12/10
`All goods and services in the class are opposed, namely: Legal services
`
`Grounds for Opposition
`
`The mark is merely descriptive
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1)
`
`The mark is generic
`
`Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45
`
`The mark is not inherently distinctive and has not
`acquired distinctiveness
`
`Trademark Act Sections 1, 2 and 45; and Section
`2(f)
`
`Fraud on the USPTO
`
`In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d
`1938 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`Attachments
`
`GrayRobinson v The Craft Beer Attorney _ NOTICE OF OPPOSI-
`TION.pdf(152527 bytes )
`GrayRobinson v The Craft Brew Attorney Exhibit A.pdf(127077 bytes )
`
`

`
`GrayRobinson v The Craft Brew Attorney Exhibit B.pdf(3321912 bytes )
`GrayRobinson v The Craft Brew Attorney Exhibit C.pdf(960802 bytes )
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this paper has been served upon all parties, at their address
`record by First Class Mail on this date.
`
`Signature
`
`Name
`
`Date
`
`/Kevin Crosby/
`
`Kevin P. Crosby
`
`05/03/2016
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of Application Serial No. 86/504,533
`Published in the Official Gazette on January 5, 2016
`For the mark: CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY
`
`
`
`
`
` Opposition No. _________
`
`
`
`
`GRAY ROBINSON, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
` Opposer,
`
` v.
`
`
`THE CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, APC,
`
`
`
`
`
` Applicant.
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`GrayRobinson, P.A., a professional association organized and existing under the
`
`
`
`laws of the State of Florida, (hereinafter "Opposer"), believes it is or will be damaged by
`
`registration on the Principal Register of the mark CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, shown in
`
`Application Ser. No. 86/504,533, and hereby opposes the same.
`
`
`
`As grounds of opposition it is alleged that:
`
`1. Opposer has within its law firm a nationally-renowned Alcohol Beverage Law
`
`practice that operates as a premier provider of a wide variety of legal services in
`
`Florida and all across the United States. The professionals comprising
`
`GrayRobinson’s Nationwide Alcohol Industry Team continuously have served the
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`licensure, administrative and legal needs of craft brewers and related members of
`
`the alcohol beverage industry for decades.
`
`2. GrayRobinson’s Nationwide Alcohol Industry Team represents manufacturers,
`
`distributors/wholesalers and retailers. The firm’s clients include, inter alia, craft
`
`beer breweries, craft beer brewers, craft beer bottlers, craft beer distributors and a
`
`broad range of craft beer retailers, including large scale grocery chains, major
`
`restaurant groups, hotel owners/operators, night club and liquor store owners, golf
`
`course facilities and airline carriers.
`
`3. Opposer currently represents numerous craft breweries, and has promoted its legal
`
`services pertaining to the craft beer industry extensively and for years throughout
`
`the United States, including marketing and craft beer industry presentations in
`
`major cities throughout the United States.
`
`4. Opposer operates a website on which Opposer offers and promotes a variety of
`
`legal services to clients across the United States, including, inter alia, legal
`
`services pertaining specifically to the alcohol beverage industry and clients who
`
`manufacture, distribute and/or sell craft beers. See
`
` http://www.gray-
`
`robinson.com/alcohol-beverage-practice. The website also promotes Opposer’s
`
`own attorneys who represent craft beer clients. As a result, Opposer will be
`
`damaged by the registration of the alleged “mark” CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY,
`
`Ser. No. 86/504,533, in that Opposer may be prevented from using the generic
`
`and/or merely descriptive term in advertising, marketing, promoting and/or
`
`offering its services.
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`5. On information and belief, The Craft Beer Attorney, APC is a professional
`
`corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with
`
`a mailing address of 3914 Murphy Canyon Rd. Ste. A244, San Diego, California
`
`92123 (“Applicant”).
`
`6. On information and belief, Applicant offers attorney-provided legal services to
`
`craft beer clients in California and across the nation.
`
`7. On information and belief, Applicant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Application
`
`Serial Number 86/504,533 for the mark CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY (the
`
`“Application”), alleging use in connection with “legal services” in International
`
`Class 45 (“Applicant’s Mark”).
`
`8. On information and belief, Applicant filed the Application on January 15, 2015.
`
`9. In the specimen that was submitted with the Application, Applicant uses the terms
`
`“craft beer” on Applicant’s Facebook page by posting “Article about craft beer
`
`and trademarks on NPR”.
`
`10. In the Application, Applicant asserted a claim of acquired distinctiveness under
`
`Section 2(f). As alleged evidence of acquired distinctiveness, Applicant
`
`submitted a sworn Declaration that Applicant’s Mark had become distinctive of
`
`the services through substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce that
`
`the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least five years before the
`
`Application filing date of January 15, 2015.
`
`11. Applicant’s first use in commerce date, listed in the Application, is December 10,
`
`2009. On information and belief, this is the earliest date on which Applicant can
`
`show use of Applicant’s alleged Mark in commerce.
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`12. On information and belief, Applicant cannot prove that Applicant’s alleged Mark
`
`was in “substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce that the U.S.
`
`Congress may lawfully regulate for at least five years” before the Application
`
`filing date of January 15, 2015.
`
`13. The Applicant received an Office Action from the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) dated April 29, 2015, in which the examining
`
`attorney assigned to the Application refused registration based on a finding that
`
`Applicant’s alleged Mark was generic, and in the alternative, if not generic, was
`
`merely descriptive, and that Applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness was
`
`insufficient, given the highly descriptive, if not generic, nature of Applicant’s
`
`alleged Mark (the “Office Action”).
`
`14. Applicant submitted a response to the Office Action on October 28, 2015, in
`
`which Applicant disclaimed the term “attorney” and argued that Applicant’s
`
`alleged Mark is not generic and has acquired distinctiveness (the “Response to
`
`Office Action”).
`
`15. By only arguing against the genericness and insufficient evidence of acquired
`
`distinctiveness refusals in the Response to Office Action, and failing to submit an
`
`argument against the merely descriptive refusal, Applicant has admitted that
`
`Applicant’s alleged Mark is at least merely descriptive.
`
`16. By disclaiming the term “attorney” in the Response to Office Action, and failing
`
`to submit an argument against the merely descriptive refusal, Applicant has
`
`admitted that at least the term “attorney” appearing in Applicant’s alleged Mark,
`
`is generic.
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`17. Applicant’s Mark was published for opposition on January 5, 2016.
`
`18. Opposer timely filed an extension of time to Oppose Applicant’s Mark on
`
`February 3, 2016.
`
`19. Opposer timely filed the instant opposition.
`
`Count I: MARK IS GENERIC, 15 U.S.C. §1052(E)(1)
`
`20. Opposer repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1-19, inclusive, as if fully recited in this paragraph.
`
`21. On information and belief, Applicant offers legal services from an attorney to
`
`clients with legal issues pertaining to craft beer.
`
`22. On
`
`information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark, CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY, has a readily apparent meaning of a licensed provider of legal
`
`services for clients in the craft beer industry.
`
`23. On information and belief, the phrase “CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY” has
`
`appeared on Applicant’s own website, www.craftbeerattorney.com (“Applicant’s
`
`Website”) in a generic manner, to wit: “I am Candace L. Moon, Esq., an attorney
`
`dedicated to serving the legal needs of craft breweries. I call myself a craft beer
`
`attorney, which to me means I am someone who can meet all the various legal
`
`needs that you may run into when opening/running a brewery or brewpub, just as
`
`if you had your own corporate general counsel. As your attorney, I can handle all
`
`aspects of brewery law, including those related to business formation, brewery
`
`and beer trademark and copyright, alcohol beverage law, brand protection,
`
`employment law and contract law.” Printouts from Waybackmachine.org’s
`
`online database, evidencing Applicant’s Website and Applicant’s statements
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`identified above, are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are hereby made part of the
`
`record in these proceedings.
`
`24. On information and belief, Applicant admitted in its Response to Office Action
`
`that the genus of Applicant’s services is “legal services,” stating, “the Examiner is
`
`correct in that the genus is legal services, as those were the claimed services
`
`associated with Applicant’s mark”.
`
`25. On information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark is perceived by the relevant
`
`consuming public, namely, those in need of legal services, as a generic name for a
`
`type of legal service.
`
`26. As of the filing date of this Notice of Opposition, Applicant’s Website currently
`
`references that Applicant is “a law firm dedicated to the craft beer industry.”
`
`27. As of the filing date of this Notice of Opposition, the “About the Firm” page on
`
`Applicant’s Website displays a “Professional Certificate” to “The Business Of
`
`Craft Beer,” as well as listing “The Business of Craft Beer Advisory Board,”
`
`showing Applicant’s owner, Candace L. Moon, as being on the Business of Craft
`
`Beer Advisory Board.
`
`28. As of the filing date of this Notice of Opposition, Applicant’s Website’s “About
`
`the Firm” page states, “The Original Craft Beer Lawyers, we are a California-
`
`based firm that has spent the last seven years dedicated to advising the craft beer
`
`industry. We actively serve over 200 craft beer breweries, including breweries in
`
`planning nationwide. And to think this all got started while bartending at the
`
`word-famous craft beer bar, Hamiltons, while attending law school in San Diego.”
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`29. As of the filing date of this Notice of Opposition, the “Shop CBA” link on
`
`Applicant’s Website redirects to the website www.brewlaw101.com, which
`
`promotes Applicant’s book, “Brew Law 101: A Legal Guide to Opening a
`
`Brewery – California Edition.” The synopsis of the book states, “This
`
`comprehensive text deftly explains both the federal and California specific laws
`
`governing the manufacture of craft beer. Brew Law 101: California Edition
`
`walks the startup craft brewery and breweries-in-planning through every step of
`
`the process from business formation and capital raising to location and licensing
`
`to labeling and intellectual property to employment law and common craft beer
`
`contracts. The original Craft Beer Attorney brings together years of craft beer
`
`focused knowledge and expertise to help you successfully navigate the sudsy
`
`industry.”
`
`30. On information and belief, Applicant’s Website contains numerous, additional,
`
`generic uses of the term “craft beer,” including, inter alia, “craft beer giant,”
`
`“craft beer community” and “craft beer education events.”
`
`31. On information and belief, the term “craft beer” refers to beers made by craft
`
`brewers, and has come into common usage to reference the niche or specialty
`
`market for goods and/or services relating to beers made by craft brewers.
`
`32. On information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark combines two generic
`
`terms, “CRAFT BEER” and “ATTORNEY.”
`
`33. Likewise, the combination of those terms into the alleged mark “CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY” is, upon information and belief, itself generic because it is the apt
`
`common name of a licensed legal practitioner who specializes in advising clients
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`in the craft beer industry, much like the phrases “REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY”
`
`or “PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY” are generic.
`
`34. On information and belief, CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY is a unitary term used to
`
`refer to a general category of Applicant’s services, namely “legal services.”
`
`35. In the alternative, if CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY is not considered a unitary term
`
`as described in paragraph 30, on information and belief, the phrase CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY as a whole is used to refer to the general category of Applicant’s
`
`services, namely “legal services,” and is perceived by the relevant consuming
`
`public as a generic name for such services.
`
`36. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are multiple examples of third party generic uses of
`
`the term CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY in reference to legal services. Exhibit B is
`
`hereby made a part of the record in these proceedings.
`
`37. On information and belief, the primary significance of the term or phrase
`
`“CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY” to the relevant consuming public, namely, those
`
`seeking legal services, is not as a service mark signifying the source of the
`
`service, but rather is to identify the legal services provided to those in the craft
`
`beer industry by a licensed legal practitioner.
`
`38. Applicant’s Mark is not a service mark, but rather is generic and does not
`
`function as a mark at all and therefore should be denied registration.
`
`39. Upon information and belief, Applicant knew or should have known of the
`
`widespread third party adoption and use of the term or phrase CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY to describe and/or reference services provided by third parties, and
`
`therefore could not have formed the requisite good faith belief that Applicant is
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`the owner of the “mark” sought to be registered, and that no other person, firm,
`
`corporation or association has the right to use said “mark” in commerce, and
`
`consequently knew that such use is and would be in derogation and violation of
`
`the First Amendment rights of third parties, who have a bona fide need to use
`
`such a generic term or phrase to accurately describe and reference their own
`
`similar services.
`
`40. Opposer will be damaged if Applicant’s Application, Serial No. 86/504,533, is
`
`allowed to register in that such registration will support and assist Applicant in
`
`preventing Opposer from using the generic term or phrase CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY, and will give impermissible, colorable, exclusive, statutory rights
`
`to Applicant or a potential assignee in violation and derogation of the First
`
`Amendment rights of Opposer to be allowed to use such a generic term or phrase
`
`to accurately describe and/or reference its own identical or closely related
`
`services.
`
`Count II: MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE AND HAS NOT ACQUIRED
`DISTINCTIVENESS, 15 U.S.C. §1052(E)(1); §1052(F)
`
`41. Opposer repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1-40, inclusive, as if fully recited in this paragraph.
`
`42. On information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark, if not generic as Opposer
`
`alleges, is merely descriptive as the term “CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY”
`
`immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, purpose or
`
`characteristic of Applicant’s services to the consumer, namely, that Applicant’s
`
`legal services, provided by an attorney, are offered for the purpose of assisting
`
`those in the craft beer industry with legal issues pertaining to craft beer. This is
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`the only immediately intelligible interpretation of the term “CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY”.
`
`43. The USPTO Examining Attorney determined Applicant’s Mark to be “highly
`
`descriptive of Applicant’s services” in the Office Action.
`
`44. On information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark is highly descriptive of
`
`Applicant’s services, if not generic.
`
`45. On
`
`information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark has not acquired
`
`distinctiveness as a mark.
`
`46. On
`
`information and belief, Applicant’s alleged Mark has not acquired
`
`distinctiveness as a mark through “substantially exclusive and continuous use in
`
`commerce.”
`
`47. On information and belief, Applicant’s arguments and evidence submitted in the
`
`Response to Office Action are not sufficient to show that Applicant’s alleged
`
`Mark has acquired distinctiveness as a mark.
`
`48. Opposer will be damaged if Applicant’s Application, Serial No. 86/504,533, is
`
`allowed to register in that such registration will support and assist Applicant in
`
`preventing Opposer from using the merely descriptive, if not generic, term,
`
`CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, and will give impermissible, colorable, exclusive,
`
`statutory rights to Applicant or a potential assignee in violation and derogation of
`
`the First Amendment rights of Opposer, by depriving Opposer the right to use
`
`such generic and/or merely descriptive terms to accurately describe and/or
`
`reference its own identical or closely related services.
`
`
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Count III: FRAUD – BASED ON APPLICANT’S DECLARATION OF
`ACQUIRED DISTINCTIVENESS, 15 U.S.C. §1064(3)
`
`49. Opposer repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
`
`1-48, inclusive, as if fully recited in this paragraph.
`
`50. On information and belief, Applicant made knowingly false representations
`
`concerning material facts in its Application on January 15, 2015, and in its
`
`Response to Office Action on October 28, 2015, with the intent to deceive
`
`authorized USPTO agents and thereby induce them to accept the Application and
`
`publish Applicant’s alleged Mark for opposition, so that it may be registered.
`
`51. USPTO agents reasonably relied on, and were deceived by, Applicant’s false,
`
`material statements, concerning the acquired distinctiveness of Applicant’s Mark,
`
`and therefore accepted the Application, passing it through USPTO examination
`
`and publishing it for opposition.
`
`52. Specifically, on January 15, 2015, Applicant filed the Application with the
`
`USPTO, and Applicant’s signatory, Candace L. Moon (the “Signatory”), made the
`
`standard form declaration therein, which included the following statement: “to the
`
`best of the signatory'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 goods/services of such other
`
`person, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive. The signatory being warned
`
`that willful 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 jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration resulting
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true
`
`and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.”
`
`53. Also, on January 15, 2015, Applicant filed the Application with the USPTO, and
`
`the Signatory made a claim of acquired distinctiveness based on use under Section
`
`2(f) therein, which included the following statement: “The mark has become
`
`distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant’s substantially exclusive
`
`and continuous use in commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for
`
`at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.”
`
`54. Also, on October 28, 2015, Applicant filed the Response to Office Action, in
`
`which the Signatory represented to the PTO: “First off, the Applicant has signed a
`
`statement verifying that the applicant has exclusively and continuously used the
`
`mark in commerce at least as early as December 10, 2009 . . . Applicant attested
`
`to this fact, both at the time she initiated the instant application, but [sic] in an
`
`additional declaration . . . Thus, Applicant has adequately provided evidence that
`
`may be used to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness.”
`
`55. At the time the Signatory made the foregoing statements in the Application and
`
`the Response to Office Action, and also at the time the Signatory made her sworn
`
`declarations, she was an authorized agent and/or officer of Applicant, acting
`
`within the scope of her authority, and her false declarations are attributable to the
`
`Applicant by the doctrine of respondeat superior, as if Applicant had itself made
`
`such statements.
`
`56. On information and belief, the foregoing statements made by the Applicant, via its
`
`Signatory, were false at the time that they were made.
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`57. On information and belief, Applicant does not have any basis for claiming federal
`
`trademark rights in the alleged “mark” CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, because the
`
`alleged “mark” was not in substantially exclusive and continuous use in interstate
`
`commerce for a period of at least five years prior to the Application filing date of
`
`January 15, 2015.
`
`58. On information and belief, Applicant knew the Signatory's statements made in the
`
`Application were false at the time they were made because, as of January 15,
`
`2015, Applicant knew that other companies, including Opposer, were using the
`
`term CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY in commerce in connection with legal services
`
`within the past five years, and therefore knew that its use of the “mark” was not
`
`“substantially exclusive”.
`
`59. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are screenshots from Waybackmachine.org’s online
`
`database showing examples of third party uses of the term CRAFT BEER
`
`ATTORNEY in reference to legal services prior to January 15, 2015, and are
`
`hereby made part of the record in these proceedings.
`
`60. On information and belief, Applicant does not have any basis for claiming federal
`
`trademark rights in the alleged “mark” CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, because the
`
`“mark” was not in substantially exclusive and continuous use in interstate
`
`commerce for a period of five years prior to the Response to Office Action filing
`
`date of October 28, 2015.
`
`61. On information and belief, Applicant knew the Signatory’s statements made in the
`
`Response to Office Action were false at the time they were made because, as of
`
`October 28, 2015, Applicant knew that other companies, including Opposer, were
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`using the term CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY in connection with legal services
`
`within the past five years, and therefore knew that its use of the alleged “mark”
`
`was not “substantially exclusive”.
`
`62. On information and belief, Applicant intentionally made the foregoing false
`
`statements for the purpose of inducing the USPTO to pass the Application
`
`through examination in order to be registered.
`
`63. On information and belief, Applicant is in possession of information and
`
`documents which would prove the truth of the foregoing allegations that
`
`Applicant made knowingly false, material statements with the intent to deceive
`
`the USPTO into issuing a registration certificate for Applicant’s Mark.
`
`64. On information and belief, Applicant’s false statements, as alleged in the
`
`foregoing paragraphs, were each independently material to the USPTO’s decision
`
`to pass the Application through examination and publish Applicant’s Mark for
`
`opposition, and the USPTO reasonably relied on the false statements in
`
`determining to pass the Application through examination and publish Applicant’s
`
`Mark for opposition. Specifically, the USPTO accepted the Application and
`
`published Applicant’s Mark for opposition, and would not have done so, but for
`
`Applicant’s assertion of “substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce
`
`for at least five years” prior to making such statements, because the alleged
`
`“mark” CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY was not in substantially exclusive and/or
`
`continuous use by Applicant for the five years preceding such statements.
`
`65. Opposer will be damaged if Applicant’s Application, Serial No. 86/504,533, is
`
`allowed to register in that such registration will support and assist Applicant in
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`preventing Opposer from using the merely descriptive, if not generic, term,
`
`CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, and will give impermissible, colorable, exclusive,
`
`statutory rights to Applicant or a potential assignee in violation and derogation of
`
`the First Amendment rights of Opposer to be allowed to use such generic and/or
`
`merely descriptive terms to accurately describe and/or reference its own identical
`
`or closely related services.
`
`66. By reason of the foregoing, Opposer is likely to be harmed by the registration of
`
`the opposed application for the alleged “mark” CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY,
`
`shown in Application Ser. No. 86/504,533.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Opposer requests that registration of the phrase sought to be
`
`registered herein, CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY, of Application Ser. No. 86/504,533, be
`
`denied and that this opposition be sustained.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Kevin P. Crosby /
`
`Gray Robinson, P.A.
`
`301 E. Pine Street, Suite 1400
`
`Orlando, FL 32802
`
`(407)-843-8880
`
`Attorneys for Opposer,
`
`Gray Robinson, P.A.
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION has been served on Candace L. Moon, owner of Application Serial No.
`
`86/504,533 as listed in the USPTO database, on May 4, 2016, via First Class U.S. Mail,
`
`postage prepaid to:
`
`CANDACE L. MOON
`THE CRAFT BEER ATTORNEY
`5095 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE 240
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kevin P. Crosby
`
`KEVIN CROSBY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`016952.0011\4294099.1
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`1111111111111111111.1
`
`

`
`California Brewery Sta1t—Up Lawyer 1 San Diego Brewery Attorney [ Nationwide Beer Tr... Page I of 1
`
`THE CRAFI B.-l:R.ATTRCfNEY, AFC
`
`California Brewery Start-Up Attorney
`
`During the s’Lar“t—up or running of a craft brewery, legal matters can arise that require effective and experienced legal counsel.
`This is a very niche area of the law, requiring someone with extensive knowledge ofthe laws related to brewing.
`
`An Attorney Dedicated To The Craft Beer Industry
`
`I am Candace L. Moon, l3sq., an attorney dedicated to serving the legal needs of craft breweries. I call myself a craft beer
`attorney, which to me means I am someone who can meet all the various legal needs that you may run into when
`opening/running a brewery or brewpub, just as ifyou had your own corporate general counsel.
`
`As your attorney, I can handle all aspects ofbreweg law, including those related to business formation, brewery and beer
`trademark and copyright, alcohol and beverage law, brand protection, employment law, and contract law,
`
`’’Working with Camiace is wondezfid. She isfair, snzart. rough and so easy to work with. We started with her on a
`L-hallenging trademark issue as a text and shejust contimzar to knock it out nfllze park. Now we use lzerfbr all our
`legal neerlrfrom stock issues to Iuumzn I-e.razn‘ces. Just wandrvjitl. I am so thankful wefrmnd her. "
`
`
`
`— Jamil Zaiuaslreff, Heretic Brewing Company (Fairfield, CA)
`
`San Diego Nano Brewery Lawyer
`
`My practice is focused entirely on brewery law, and, to the best ofmy knowledge, I am the only attorney who does this. I
`went to law school to pursue intellectual property law. I also worked as a bartender for a craft beer establishment called
`Hamiltorrs. [knew all these craft brewers, but didn't know any lawyers who were dedicated to working with them. More
`than three years ago, I started my practice as a craft beer attorney, with the goal oftaking brewery and brewpub clients only.
`Currently, I assist more than 50 breweries, and 99 percent of my clients are breweries.
`
`I am not only familiar with the laws pertaining to craft brewers, butl also pay attention to new beers arriving on the market,
`which helps when dealing with trademarks.
`
`For a free initial consultation with a California brewery lawyer for start-ups and ongoing representation, contact me today at
`866-290-5553 or by filling out and submitting the online form. I offer evening and weekend appointment times by request.
`[f I cannot help you, Ihave a network of other attorneys in California and across the country who can.
`
`Contact
`
`Law Offices of
`Candace L. Moon, Esq.
`8450 Sleepy Way
`El Cajon, CA 92021
`Phone: 866-290-5553
`Fax: 619-752-2224
`Map and Di1‘CCl’lO11S
`
`Copyright © 2013 by Law Offices of Candace L. Moon. Esg. All rights reserved Disclaimer | Site Map
`Privacy Policy 1 Business Development Solutions by FindL1w. a Thomson Reuters business.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/2013 0706032133/http:/www.crafibeerattorney.com/
`
`3/23/20 l6
`
`O16952.0011\4294102.l
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`1111111111111111111 .1
`
`

`
`3/23/2016
`
`Craft Beer Attorney - Intellectual Rroperty - lP Litigation - Oadend, California — Eugene Pak
`
`EN DEL
`Q S EN
`BLKLIK
`l'.‘-L)\N«-,2-
`
`Eugene M. Park Attorney
`
`
`
`Wende Rosen Black & Dean LLP
`1111 Broadway
`Oakland, CA 94607
`
`T3 510834-5600
`F: 510.808.4726
`
`EMAIL epak@wendel.com
`
`PRACTICE AREAS
`0 Green Business
`- Natural & Organic Products
`- Business
`-
`Employment
`-
`Litigation
`-
`intellectual Property
`- Advertising
`
`INDUSTRIES
`- Restaurants
`-
`Technology
`- Wineries
`- Craft Breweries & Brew Pubs
`
`-
`
`Food and Beverage
`
`EDUCAT|QN
`- University of California,
`Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law;
`JD. (1993)
`
`- University of Michigan; BA. (1989)
`
`ADMlSSlONS
`-
`State Bar of California (1993)
`-
`Federal District Court (Central,
`Eastern, Northern and Southem
`Districts of California)
`Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
`-
`
`
`PROFILE
`
`An experienced counselor and litigator, Eugene provides strategic advice to his clients in both
`transactional and litigation matters. He acts as outside general counsel to many of his clients,
`and specialized intellectual property and litigation counsel to others. Eugene is a trusted
`advisor and vigorous advocate for his clients, helping them build and protect their businesses
`and brands, and to structure favorable deals and agreements.
`
`Eugene’s clients include apparel companies, craft breweries, computer gaming companies,
`food and beverage companies, technology companies, and many others. He brings a diverse
`background to his work, having worked at large and small firms, as in-house counsel at a
`technology company, and at a nonprofit public interest firm.
`
`intellectual Property Development, Protection and Litigation
`
`For more than fifteen years, Eugene has advised companies in the selection, registration and
`maintenance of their trademarks and copyrights both domestically and abroad. He has filed or
`managed thousands of trademark and copyright applications and registrations worldwide. He
`htip:/Iwww.wendel.corn/attorneysstaif/attorneys/pak~eugene-m#tab7
`
`1/7
`
`0l6952.00l1\4294102.1
`
`

`
`3l23I’201 6
`
`Crafi Beer Attorney - lnieleciual Property - lP Lifiga11'on— Oakland, California - Eugene Pak
`
`advises companies with large, well—established intemational tradema