`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA836314
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/30/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91232896
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`CCG Creative, LLC
`
`CHARLES GATLING
`CCG CREATIVE LLC
`1235 RING BILL LOOP
`UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20774
`UNITED STATES
`Email: cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Answer
`
`Charles Gatling
`
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`/Charles Gatling/
`
`07/30/2017
`
`Attachments
`
`CCGC-Response-To-Motion-To-Strike-4th-Answer-BSoA.pdf(349517 bytes )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CCG Creative, LLC
`1235 Ring Bill Loop
`Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
`TEL: 301-246-2242
`FAX: 301-298-5176
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`In Pro Per
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Serial No.: 86/914322
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated this 30th day of July, 2017
`
`
`
`Boy Scouts of America,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Opposer,
`
`CCG Creative, LLC,
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S REPLY
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`CCG Creative, LLC (“CCG Creative”, herein referred to as “Applicant”), having an address at
`
`1235 Ring Bill Loop, Upper Marlboro, MD. 20774 believes that no damage will be done to Boy Scouts
`of America (hereinafter “Boy Scouts” or “Opposer”) with regard to its request to register the mark
`RACK SCOUT as shown in U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86/914322 (“the ’322 Application”)
`which was filed February 20, 2016 in International Class 35 for “Retail on-line department stores; on-
`
`8
`
`line retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods; online retail store services featuring
`
`9
`
`shoes; online retail store services featuring clothing, accessories, footwear, hats, belts, gloves, scarves,
`
`10
`
`bags, handbags, packs, purses, luggage, briefcases, watches, jewelry, eyewear, home products,
`
`11
`
`housewares, home décor, kitchen and cooking products, dishes, glassware, cutlery, bathroom products,
`
`cosmetics, beauty and personal care products, fragrances, skin and hair products, bedding and linens,
`baby goods, sporting goods, and storage and organization products.”
`Applicant would like to submit the following response to the Opposer’s allegations against it and
`its RACK SCOUT mark contained in the 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 (herein referred to as the “Reply”) filed July 28, 2017;
`1. For the Opposer’s allegation that the Applicant’s third answer is non-compliant (Non-numbered
`Paragraph #1 from the Opposer’s Reply), Applicant again admits this allegation, with
`
`clarification. Applicant specifically cited each allegation against its RACK SCOUT mark using
`the allegation’s quoted text from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition, followed by the reference
`
`of the specific paragraph containing the allegation placed in parentheses, and then concluding
`
`with the denial or admittance for the allegation. The Applicant calls attention to the previous
`highlighted statement “against its RACK SCOUT mark” which serves to note that it only cited
`
`and referenced statements from the thirty-eight (38) numbered paragraphs that put forth an
`
`allegation against its RACK SCOUT mark. Any other statements from any of the remaining
`
`numbered paragraphs were not referenced in any way with an admittance or denial of the
`
`statements or paragraphs. Applicant responded in this manner because in pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Civ. P. 8(b), specifically 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(1)(B), the Applicant must “state in short and plain
`terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it” and “admit or deny the allegations asserted
`against it by an opposing party”. From that, Applicant concluded that since paragraphs from the
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition did not necessarily contain what it thought were allegations
`
`directly against its RACK SCOUT mark, that they did not warrant an admittance/denial. Per
`contra, statements from Paragraph #20, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, and 38 of the Opposer’s
`
`Notice of Opposition did contain allegations against its RACK SCOUT mark, and the Applicant
`
`cites each allegation and responds according to the rules governing this proceeding. The
`
`Applicant asserts that it put forth a good faith effort to fully comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b),
`
`made applicable to this proceeding by Trademark Rule 2.116(a) as directed by the Trademark
`Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “TTAB”). The Applicant prays that the TTAB understand
`the Applicant’s misinterpretation of the rule, not enter default judgment against the Applicant,
`and accept the revised version of its Response to the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition that it filed
`
`on July 13th, 2017.
`2. For the Opposer’s allegation that the Applicant’s fourth answer is non-compliant (Non-numbered
`Paragraph #1 from the Opposer’s Reply), Applicant denies this allegation. Applicant cites the
`
`response it received from the TTAB on July 13 that states "Any paper filed during the
`pendency of this motion which is not relevant thereto will be given no consideration.” The
`Applicant believed that it’s submission is relevant to the motion because it clarifies it’s
`
`misunderstanding of the rule that lead to the prior responses being non-compliant, and to submit
`a correct and proper response that follows the TTAB’s guidance. The Applicant believes that it
`
`needed to submit that answer to ensure the TTAB received what they deem a compliant
`
`response, and has not seen any rules or guidelines that states it must wait for the TTAB to
`
`request such a submission.
`3. For the Opposer’s allegation that the Applicant’s fourth answer “shows that Applicant is not
`serious” (Non-numbered Paragraph #7 from the Opposer’s Reply), Applicant denies this
`allegation. 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
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`from a time prior to Applicant’s first use of Applicant’s Mark.” (Paragraph #36 from the
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant admitted this allegation in its third answer. Upon re-
`evaluating the Opposer’s statement in the Notice of Opposition, the Applicant states that it lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of this allegation. The
`
`Applicant then clearly explained that it has insufficient knowledge of any marks associated with
`
`the Opposer and how that has affected its public notoriety or when the Opposer initiated use of
`
`any marks associated with the Opposer. This is a clear explanation that the Applicant at once
`
`thought that it understood that the Scout Marks of the Opposer was famous prior to the date of
`
`the filing of its Application, but then considered that it could not adequately provide any concrete
`evidence to support an admittance. In the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition, it references “Scout
`Marks that it and/or the public have adopted” (Paragraph #16 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition) which is vague, and thus the Applicant reassessed that it would state a lack of
`
`knowledge or information since it did not understand all of the marks that the Opposer was
`
`referencing or when the Opposer used any such marks. The Applicant also humbly submits that
`
`it truly values the TTAB resources and would not have taken the time in Pro Per to, with the best
`
`effort and to the best of its ability, research rules and guidance governing the process, understand
`
`all allegations, and provide detailed and compliant responses if it were not serious about
`
`opposing the allegations made by the Opposer. The Applicant has tried to offer clarifications as
`
`to why it did not understand why its responses were not compliant, and also ensure it has crafted
`
`a correct and proper response for the TTAB.
`4. For the Opposer’s allegation that the Applicant’s fourth answer “contradicts itself” (Non-
`numbered Paragraph #11 from the Opposer’s Reply), Applicant denies this allegation. Opposer
`cites the Applicants’ responses for its allegations made in paragraphs #23 and #25 in its Notice
`of Opposition. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Congress, in 36 U.S.C. §30905, granted
`Opposer “the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and
`words or phrases” that it adopts.“, (Paragraph #23 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition),
`
`Applicant stated that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of this allegation. The Applicant states that the statement that the Opposer has been granted
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`“exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or
`phrases” that it adopts.“ is vague and does not definitively state all of the items that the Opposer
`
`is claiming. Therefore, the Applicant clearly stated that it has insufficient knowledge of what
`
`emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the Opposer has
`exclusive rights to use. The Applicant then stated that it denied the Opposer’s allegation that the
`“Applicant’s use and/or registration of Applicant’s Mark is in direct contravention and
`derogation of the rights granted to Opposer by Congress.” (Paragraph #25 from the Opposer’s
`Notice of Opposition) with an explanation specifically referencing the name “Rack Scout” and
`any other marks that may incorporate the term “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS”. This is a clear
`
`explanation of the supporting information that the Applicant used to response to the two
`
`allegations. The Applicant believes that the Opposer is attempting to present a subjective view
`
`of its submissions in order to draw attention from the data contained therein, which present clear
`and substantive evidence against the Opposer’s claims.
`5. For the Opposer’s allegation that the Applicant’s “Fourth answer also seeks to include arguments
`and evidentiary matters” (Non-numbered Paragraph #15 from the Opposer’s Reply), Applicant
`
`denies this allegation. Applicant humbly submits that the information provided in its answer is
`
`not an argument but a presentation of substantive evidence to deny any allegations put forth by
`
`the Opposer. To ensure compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b), and furthermore 8(b)(2),
`Applicant’s has attempted in good faith to fairly respond to the substance of the allegation, which
`
`the Applicant interprets as the essential parts of each allegation. Applicant submits that an
`
`answer may include affirmative assertions that, although they may not rise to the level of an
`affirmative defense, nevertheless state the reasons for, and thus amplify, the defendant’s denial
`
`of one or more of the allegations in the complaint. These amplifications of denials, whether
`referred to as “affirmative defenses,” “avoidances,” “affirmative pleadings,” or “arguments,”
`
`may be permitted by the TTAB because they serve to give the plaintiff fuller notice of the
`
`position which the defendant plans to take in defense of its right to registration. See Blackhorse
`
`v. Pro-Football Inc., 98 USPQ2d 1633, 1637-38 (TTAB 2011); Morgan Creek Productions Inc.
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`v. Foria International Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1134, 1136 (TTAB 2009); Order of Sons of Italy in
`
`America v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1223 (TTAB 1995).
`
`By reason of the foregoing, the Applicant continues to submit that the Opposer would in no way
`
`be damaged by the registration of its RACK SCOUT mark in International Class 035.
`WHEREFORE Applicant prays that the TTAB understand the Applicant’s misinterpretation of
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b), not enter default judgment against the Applicant, and accept its revised version of
`its Response to the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition submitted on July 13th, 2017. Applicant also
`continues to pray that this Opposition be overruled and that the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark be
`
`9
`
`allowed registration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Correspondence Address
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please direct all communications to:
`
`Charles Gatling
`
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`CCG Creative, LLC
`
`1235 Ring Bill Loop
`
`Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
`
`DATED this 30th day of July, 2017.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CCG Creative, LLC
`
`/Charles Gatling/
`
`Charles Gatling
`
`1235 Ring Bill Loop
`
`Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
`
`Telephone 301-246-2242
`
`Facsimile: 301-298-5176
`
`Self-represented Applicant, CCG Creative, LLC
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO
`OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION has been served on Gary A. Hecht, Esq. by forwarding said
`
`3
`
`copy on the 30th day of July, 2017, via email to: Gary A. Hecht, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, P.O. Box
`
`4
`
`5231, Princeton, NJ 08543-5231, ghecht@frof.com, dmcgregor@frof.com, ipdocket@frof.com,
`
`5
`
`colszyk@frof.com.
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`/Charles Gatling/
`
`8
`
`Charles Gatling
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 8
`
`
`
`
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d16a5/d16a564ec0b89408f5c33b70f6cd1b112a90c740" alt=""
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d16a5/d16a564ec0b89408f5c33b70f6cd1b112a90c740" alt=""
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d16a5/d16a564ec0b89408f5c33b70f6cd1b112a90c740" alt=""
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7cc3/c7cc3db45841a589e07bef14164b37297599bc5f" alt=""
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