Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA836193
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/28/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91232896
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Boy Scouts of America
`
`GARY A HECHT
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`PO BOX 5231
`PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5231
`UNITED STATES
`Email: ghecht@frof.com, dmcgregor@frof.com, ipdocket@frof.com,
`colszyk@frof.com
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Gary A. Hecht
`
`ghecht@foxrothschild.com, ipdocket@foxrothschild.com, dfowl-
`er@foxrothschild.com, bstaufenberg@foxrothschild.com,
`mscott@foxrothschild.com
`
`/gah/
`
`07/28/2017
`
`Op-
`posers_Reply_in_Support_of_its_Motion_to_Strike_Applicants_Third_Answer_a
`nd_for_entry_of_Default_Judgment_With_Motion_to_Strike_Applicants_Newly_
`Filed_Fourth_Answer.pdf(36093 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Boy Scouts of America,
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`CCG Creative, LLC,
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91232896
`
`Application Serial No. 86/914,322
`
`Mark: “RACK SCOUT”
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`OPPOSER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICANT’S
`THIRD ANSWER AND FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`WITH
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICANT’S NEWLY FILED FOURTH ANSWER
`
`On June 1, 2017, the Board granted Opposer’s Previous Motion to Strike and ordered
`
`Applicant to file an answer compliant with the rules. [Dkt. #10]. In response, on June 27, 2017,
`
`Applicant filed a Third Answer [Dkt. #11], which also is noncompliant. On July 13, 2017, in
`
`response to Applicant’s non-compliant Third Answer, Opposer filed its currently pending Motion
`
`To Strike Applicant’s Third Answer And For Entry Of Default Judgment. [Dkt. #12]. Applicant
`
`responded on July 13, 2017, with Applicant’s Response to Opposer’s Motions to Strike
`
`Applicant’s Third Answer [Dkt. #13], and on the same date, filed a Fourth Answer [Dkt. #14].
`
`This Fourth Answer was filed without the Boards leave or Opposing party’s written consent
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and is still noncompliant. Accordingly, Opposer maintains its
`
`motion to strike and for entry of default judgment. Applicant also moves to strike Applicant’s
`
`Fourth answer as noncompliant with both Rule 15 and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`As discussed in Opposer’s pending motion, Applicant’s Third Answer is noncompliant.
`
`Applicant’s attempted Fourth Answer further shows that Applicant will not comply with the rules
`
`ACTIVE\45216213.v2-7/28/17
`
`

`

`
`
`and continues to waste the time of the Board and Opposer.
`
`Argument
`
`The Board, in its Order of June 1, 2017, spelled out exactly how to answer the Notice of
`
`Opposition:
`
`The notice of opposition filed by Opposer consists of 38 paragraphs
`
`setting forth the basis of opposer’s claim of damage. In accordance with
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(b), Applicant must answer the notice of opposition
`
`by specifically admitting or denying the allegations contained in
`
`each paragraph. If Applicant is without sufficient knowledge or
`
`information on which to form a belief as to the truth of any one of
`
`the allegations, it should so state and this will have the effect of a
`
`denial.
`
`[Order, DKT #10 (emphasis added to that provided in the original order)].
`
`Despite the explicit instructions, and despite multiple opportunities to file a rule compliant
`
`answer, Applicant filed a Third noncompliant answer, which is the subject of Opposer’s pending
`
`motion.
`
`Now, in addition to its response to Opposer’s pending motion, Applicant files a Fourth
`
`Answer. As an initial matter, this Fourth Answer is not compliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and
`
`should be stricken. Rule 15 allows the amending of one’s answer once as a matter of course. Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Applicant does not have consent from Opposer or leave from the Board for
`
`its Fourth Answer.
`
`Moreover, the Fourth Answer shows that Applicant is not serious. For example, in it’s
`
`Third Answer [Dkt. #11], Applicant expressly admitted the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of
`
`
`ACTIVE\45216213.v2-7/28/17
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition as follows:
`
`For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer’s Scout Marks have been
`
`famous from a time prior to the filing date of the Application, from a time
`
`prior to the claimed priority date, and from a time prior to Applicant’s first
`
`use of Applicant’s Mark.” (Paragraph #36 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition), Applicant admits this allegation.
`
`[Third Answer, Dkt. #11, paragraph 8].
`
`Despite this express admission made previously, in its newly filed Fourth Answer [Dkt. #14],
`
`Applicant seeks to deny this very same allegation as follows:
`
`For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer’s Scout Marks have been
`
`famous from a time prior to the filing date of the Application, from a time
`
`prior to the claimed priority date, and from a time prior to Applicant’s first
`
`use of Applicant’s Mark.” (Paragraph #36 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition), Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief about the truth of this allegation. The Applicant has insufficient
`
`knowledge of any marks associated with the Opposer and how that has
`
`affected its public notoriety nor when the Opposer initiated use of any
`
`marks associated with the Opposer.
`
`[Fourth Answer, Dkt. #14, paragraph 36].
`
`Applicant contradicts itself even within the newly filed Fourth Answer. First, Applicant
`
`denies the existence of 36 USC §30905 in paragraph 23 of the Notice of Opposition as follows :
`
`For the Opposer’s allegation that “Congress, in 36 U.S.C. §30905, granted
`
`Opposer “the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or
`
`
`ACTIVE\45216213.v2-7/28/17
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`designating marks, and words or phrases” that it adopts.“, (Paragraph #23
`
`from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of this allegation.
`
`[Fourth Answer, Dkt. #14, paragraph 23].
`
`Yet, just two paragraphs later in paragraph 25 of the same document, when denying an
`
`allegation of common law rights asserted by Opposer, Applicant contradicts himself
`
`when stating the following:
`
`Per 36 U.S.C. §30905, Opposer “has exclusive right to use emblems,
`
`badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the
`
`corporation adopts”.
`
`[Fourth Answer, Dkt. #14, paragraph 25].
`
`Furthermore, as with its Third Answer, the Fourth answer also seeks to include
`
`arguments and evidentiary matters, such as the results of Applicant’s alleged TESS
`
`search, to dispute the merits of Opposer’s claims. The inclusion of such information is
`
`improper and fails to apprise Opposer of which allegations will not be an issue at trial
`
`and which allegations Applicant disputes.
`
`Applicant continues to disregard the rules and wastes the time and resources of the Board
`
`and Opposer. Applicant does not follow the rules and has now submitted four answers. In view
`
`of Applicant’s purposeful disregard of the rules and the Board’s Order, Opposer respectfully
`
`requests that the Board strike the Third and Fourth Answers and enter default judgment against
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 28, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/gah/
`Gary A. Hecht
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE\45216213.v2-7/28/17
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Melissa E. Scott
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`(215) 299-2416
`ATTORNEYS FOR OPPOSER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Deborah Fowler, hereby certify that, on this 28 day of July 2017, I served a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Opposer’s Reply In Support Of Its Motion To Strike Applicant’s
`
`Third Answer And For Entry Of Default Judgment With Motion To Strike Applicant’s Newly
`
`Filed Fourth Answer upon Applicant via email at the following address of record:
`
`CCG Creative, LLC
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 28 July 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Deborah Fowler /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVE\45216213.v2-7/28/17
`
`5
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket