`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA844778
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/09/2017
`
`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/
`
`09/09/2017
`
`Attachments
`
`CCGC-Response-To-Notice-Of-Opposition-BSoA.pdf(3463725 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
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated this 13th 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 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`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 its
`RACK SCOUT mark contained in the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition filed February 15, 2017;
`1. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer, Boy Scouts of America, (hereinafter “Boy Scouts”
`or “Opposer”), is a federally chartered corporation organized under laws of the United States of
`
`America with a business address of 1325 West Walnut Hill Lane, P.O. Box 152079, Irving, TX
`75015-2079.“, (Paragraph #1 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 pertaining to the business structure of the Opposer.
`2. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Applicant, CCG Creative, LLC, (hereinafter “CCG” or
`“Applicant”) is a limited liability company of Maryland having an address of 1235 Ring Bill
`Loop, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774. “, (Paragraph #2 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition),
`
`Applicant admits this allegation.
`3. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Applicant filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
`86914322 (the “Application”) seeking to register the mark “RACK SCOUT”, (the “Applicant’s
`Mark”) for the following services: “Retail on-line department stores; on-line retail store services
`
`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
`
`
`
`featuring a wide variety of consumer goods; online retail store services featuring shoes; online
`
`retail store services featuring clothing, accessories, footwear, hats, belts, gloves, scarves, bags,
`
`handbags, packs, purses, luggage, briefcases, watches, jewelry, eyewear, home products,
`
`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”, in
`international class 35. “, (Paragraph #3 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant
`
`admits this allegation.
`4. For the Opposer’s allegation that “The Application was filed on February 20, 2016, on the basis
`of “in use” and alleging a date of first use of June 30, 2013, and was later amended to the basis
`of “intent to use” which is the current basis for the Application.“, (Paragraph #4 from the
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant admits this allegation. Prior to filing the registration
`
`application, the Applicant used the name in acquisition of the website domain
`
`www.rackscout.com (dated Sunday, June 30, 2013 as seen in the email confirmation attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.) where the name RACK SCOUT and a to-be-registered stylized mark of the
`
`name appears on the website, as well as in a prototype mobile application that had been created
`
`by the Applicant. The website was made publicly available and acts as the introductory or
`“Coming Soon” message for visitors that will visit the website from random Internet searches or
`
`from any information shared with the public pertaining to RACK SCOUT for the purposes of
`
`advertising and marketing. The prototype mobile application had been discussed with another
`
`software developer working with the Applicant as well as associates of the Applicant. Upon
`
`filing the registration application, the Applicant believed that this prior use of RACK SCOUT
`
`constituted use of the mark in commerce. After filing the application and it later being examined
`
`by the Trademark Examining Attorney, the attorney concluded that those instances did not
`
`constitute use of the mark in commerce prior to the filing and the application basis had to be
`amended to “intent to use” which is the current basis for the Application.
`5. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Applicant’s earliest priority date is February 20, 2016. “,
`(Paragraph #5 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant denies this allegation. The
`
`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
`
`
`
`Applicant believes it has very strong rights to have an earlier priority date based on the use of the
`
`mark, as the Applicant cited previously, with using the name in acquisition of the website
`
`domain www.rackscout.com (dated Sunday, June 30, 2013 as seen in the email confirmation
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.).
`6. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer is a famous youth organization in the United States.
`
`Beginning around February 8, 1910, and continuing to the present, Opposer has been engaged in
`the organization and management of programs for young people. “, (Paragraph #6 from the
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), the Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief about the truth of this allegation. The Applicant has insufficient knowledge of the
`extent of the organization’s fame on a national level, or for what activities the Opposer has been
`
`engaged in over any specified amount of time.
`7. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer adopted and began using marks incorporating the
`term “SCOUT” since as early as 1910 (Opposer’s marks and trade names incorporating
`“SCOUT”, registered and unregistered, are collectively referred to herein as “Opposer’s Scout
`Marks” or “Scout Marks”).“, (Paragraph #7 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 when the Opposer began using marks incorporating the
`term “SCOUT”.
`8. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer operates various programs for boys and young men,
`
`which programs include CUB SCOUTS, BOY SCOUTS, SEA SCOUTS and EAGLE SCOUTS
`
`and which, in addition to the name Boys Scouts of America, SCOUTS, SCOUT, and
`
`SCOUTING, are well known and famous names and identities of Opposer (the names and
`identities identified in this paragraph are collectively referred to herein as Opposer’s “Scout
`Names And Identities”). Opposer has used and/or been known by its Scout Names And Identities
`
`prior to the filing date of the Application, and before any date of actual first or constructive use
`which may be claimed by the Applicant. “, (Paragraph #8 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 pertaining to referencing the terms
`
`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
`
`
`
`SCOUTS, SCOUT, and SCOUTING and them being synonymous as well known and famous
`
`names and identities of Opposer. Applicant believes the Opposer referencing those terms as the
`its “Scout Names And Identities” would indicate exclusive use, of which the Opposer has failed
`
`to illustrate.
`9. For the Opposer’s allegation that “In addition to its various programs, BSA operates retail stores,
`
`including an online retail store at scoutstuff.org, which sells various goods and services in
`connection with its marks that contain the term “Scout”. These goods and services, including
`
`clothing, apparel, bags, cutlery, hats, drinkware, sleeping bags, personal care products, and
`watches among other goods, are offered to the general public “, (Paragraph #9 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 the
`
`programs, retail or online retail businesses operated by the Opposer.
`10. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer has used its Scout Marks in the United States long
`
`prior to the filing date of the Application, and long before the date of actual first use claimed by
`the Applicant. “, (Paragraph #10 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 when the Opposer initiated use of any marks associated
`
`with the Opposer.
`11. For the Opposer’s allegation that “The United States Congress recognized the importance of
`protecting BSA’s marks from unauthorized use and granted the BSA the exclusive right to use its
`various marks with 36 U.S.C. § 30905, a federal statute, which provides that BSA “has the
`
`exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases
`the corporation [BSA] adopts”.“, (Paragraph #11 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 what emblems, badges, descriptive or
`
`designating marks, and words or phrases the Opposer has exclusive rights to use.
`12. For the Opposer’s allegation that “As an example of the protection provided by 36 U.S.C.
`
`§30905 in regard to Opposer's ownership of the mark BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, the United
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) created U.S. Application Serial Nos. 89/000,095
`
`and 89/001,573, special records within the PTO indicating that this mark is protected for all
`classes of goods and services pursuant to the federal statute.“, (Paragraph #12 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 what the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted the Opposer for any marks associated
`
`with the Opposer.
`13. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer is also the owner of, and will also rely on herein, the
`
`following valid and subsisting United States trademark registrations which include trademarks,
`service marks, and collective marks (collectively, “Opposer’s Registered Scout Marks”):
`{followed by listing of aforementioned trademark registrations}“, (Paragraph #13 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 all of the
`
`trademark registrations managed by the Opposer.
`14. For the Opposer’s allegation that “In view of Opposer’s Registered Scout Marks, Opposer has
`priority in this Opposition. “, (Paragraph #14 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition),
`
`Applicant denies this allegation. Applicant believes that the Opposer attempts to claim priority
`with regard to using the term “SCOUT” of which the Opposer illustrates no right to have
`
`exclusivity of use as well as right to have priority with regard to this Opposition.
`15. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer also has and will assert its common-law rights
`
`resulting from its ownership and use of its unregistered Scout Marks in connection with its
`
`various goods and services. Such marks include various trademarks, service marks, collective
`
`membership marks, and trade name uses, which uses have not been abandoned, are distinctive or
`
`have obtained secondary meaning, and which have been valid and continuous since a date prior
`to the filing date of the Application, prior to the claimed priority date, and prior to Applicant’s
`
`first use of its marks. Such common law Scout Marks include the following: (1) VARSITY
`
`SCOUT as used with clothing; (2) BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA as used with clothing; (3)
`
`BOY SCOUT as used with clothing, personal care products, cutlery, drinkware, and watches (4)
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`EAGLE SCOUT as used with clothing, drinkware, jewelry and cutlery; (5) CUB SCOUT as used
`
`with clothing, watches, cutlery, drinkware, and personal care products; and (6)
`
`SCOUTSTUFF.ORG as used in connection with retail services for clothing, bags, back packs,
`
`watches, hats, accessories, sporting goods, camping goods (including cooking stoves and
`utensils), drinkware, personal care items, and the like.“, (Paragraph #15 from the Opposer’s
`
`Notice of Opposition), the Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of this allegation. The Applicant has insufficient knowledge of what unregistered
`
`marks the Opposer can assert common-law rights upon. Applicant submits that it interprets this
`
`allegation to mean that the Opposer is attempting to assert its common-law rights over the term
`
`SCOUT, which the Opposer may attempt to use as support for opposing the registration of the
`Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark. Applicant submits that the Opposer fails to illustrate proof
`that it has exclusive right to use the term “SCOUT”. Furthermore, the term “SCOUT” in the
`Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark does not identify any member of the Opposer’s organization or
`the Opposer’s goods and services. Proof that the Opposer has no exclusive right to use the term
`“SCOUT” can be seen from the information the Applicant retrieved from the Trademark
`Electronic Search System (“TESS”) maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office (“USPTO”). The Applicant performed a search for all LIVE trademarks currently
`cataloged within the TESS of marks that contain the word “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” in the mark,
`
`and 643 records of approved trademarks were returned. From those 643 records, Applicant
`selected 57 trademarks as a sampling of marks where the word “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” in the
`
`mark is used as the second term in the mark (similar to how the Opposer displays SCOUT in
`
`some of their Scout marks) or is used as a singular mark itself (as seen in Exhibit A). The
`
`Applicant believes that these approvals for registration illustrate that the Opposer does not and
`should not have any exclusive right to use the term “SCOUT” in a mark and cause the opposition
`of another party’s ability to use it in a mark. With that information, the Applicant believes that
`
`its RACK SCOUT mark is not, in any way, in direct contravention and derogation of the rights
`granted to Opposer by Congress and does not pose any threat of infringement to the Opposer’s
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Scout marks to any greater degree than those found in the listing of approved marks containing
`the word “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” as returned from the TESS search results.
`16. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer also will assert its common law rights in its Scout
`Marks that it and/or the public have adopted, the use of which inures to Opposer’s benefit
`
`regardless of whether such marks are used by Opposer. Such marks include various trademarks,
`
`service marks, collective membership marks, and trade name uses, which uses have not been
`
`abandoned, are distinctive or have obtained secondary meaning, and which have been valid and
`
`continuous since a date prior to the filing date of the Application, prior to the claimed priority
`date, and prior to Applicant’s first use of its marks. Such common law Scout Marks include the
`following: (1) SCOUT as used to identify a member of Opposer’s organization and Opposer’s
`goods and services; (2) SCOUTS as used to identify membership in Opposer’s organization,
`
`troops and units of Opposer, and goods and services of Opposer; (3) SCOUTING as used in
`association with Opposer’s organization, participation in Opposer’s programs and activities, and
`goods and services of Opposer; and (4) BOY SCOUTS as used in association with Opposer’s
`organization, and goods and services of Opposer.“, (Paragraph #16 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition), the Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of this allegation. The Applicant has insufficient knowledge of what marks that it and/or
`
`the public have adopted and which, if any, of these marks the Opposer can assert common-law
`
`rights upon. Applicant submits that it interprets this allegation to mean that the Opposer is
`
`attempting to assert its common-law rights over the term SCOUT, which the Opposer may
`attempt to use as support for opposing the registration of the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark.
`
`Applicant submits that the Opposer fails to illustrate proof that it has exclusive right to use the
`term “SCOUT”. Furthermore, the term “SCOUT” in the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark does
`not identify any member of the Opposer’s organization or the Opposer’s goods and services.
`Applicant cites the listing of 643 records of approved trademarks containing the term “SCOUT”
`or “SCOUTS” that have been granted by the USPTO as support that Opposer does not illustrate
`it has exclusivity for use of the term “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS”.
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`17. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer’s Scout Marks constitute a family of marks that
`include the term “SCOUT”“, (Paragraph #17 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), the
`
`Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of this
`allegation. The Applicant has insufficient knowledge of what the Opposer considers a “family of
`marks”. Applicant submits that it interprets this allegation to mean that the Opposer is
`attempting to state that since it has multiple marks that incorporate the term “SCOUT” that it
`
`may constitute it having priority to use the term and bar the Applicant from using the term in
`
`registration of its RACK SCOUT mark. Applicant furthermore submits that the Opposer fails to
`illustrate proof that it has exclusive right to use the term “SCOUT”. Applicant reiterates that the
`term “SCOUT” in the its RACK SCOUT mark does not identify any member of the Opposer’s
`organization or the Opposer’s goods and services. Applicant cites the listing of 643 records of
`approved trademarks containing the term “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” that have been granted by the
`
`USPTO as support that Opposer does not illustrate it has exclusivity for use of the term
`“SCOUT” or “SCOUTS”.
`18. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer has established a valuable reputation and goodwill in
`
`its Scout Marks by reason of its long continuous use, extensive promotion, and sale of goods and
`rendering services utilized in association with its Scout Marks.“, (Paragraph #18 from the
`Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), the Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief about the truth of this allegation. The Applicant has insufficient knowledge of any
`
`reputation and goodwill of the Opposer with regard to any marks associated with the Opposer.
`19. For the Opposer’s allegation “As a result of Opposer’s long continuous use and extensive
`marketing efforts, Opposer’s Scout Marks are well known, and the public has come to associate
`Opposer with said Scout Marks.“, (Paragraph #19 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), the
`
`Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of this
`
`allegation. The Applicant has insufficient knowledge of utilization and marketing with regard to
`
`any marks associated with the Opposer and how that has affected the public notoriety of and
`
`association with the Opposer.
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`20. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Applicant’s Mark as proposed for registration is substantially
`similar to Opposer’s Scout Marks.” (Paragraph #20 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition),
`
`Applicant denies this allegation. The Applicant believes this allegation is based on the notion
`that the Opposer is referencing use of the term “SCOUT” in the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT
`
`mark. Applicant submits that the Opposer fails to illustrate proof that it has exclusive right to
`use the term “SCOUT”. Furthermore, the term “SCOUT” in the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT
`mark does not identify any member of the Opposer’s organization or the Opposer’s goods and
`
`services. Applicant cites the listing of 643 records of approved trademarks containing the term
`“SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” that have been granted by the USPTO as support that Opposer does not
`illustrate it has exclusivity for use of the term “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS”.
`21. For the allegation “The services for which Applicant seek to register Applicant’s Mark are
`
`similar or related to the goods and services for which Opposer uses and/or has registered its
`Scout Marks.” (Paragraph #21 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant admits this
`allegation. The USPTO explicitly states that the “Failure to identify your goods and/or services
`
`correctly may result in major delays in the prosecution of your application. In some cases, an
`incorrect identification may prevent registration of your mark.” With that guidance, the
`
`Applicant is attempting to be as clear as possible when describing the services to be represented
`
`by the mark within the International Class 035 where it is to be registered. Applicant also
`
`submits that the services to be covered by the RACK SCOUT mark are within the same business
`
`space (retail on-line department stores) but will be considerably different from that of the
`
`Opposer (of which the company confidential details are not disclosed in this forum). The
`
`Applicant highlights that its description of its services is similar to the Opposer, but noticeably
`more extensive for its RACK SCOUT mark than the Opposer’s Scout Mark,
`
`SCOUTSTUFF.ORG, in International Class 035. The Applicant also highlights that the
`Opposer’s Scout mark in question, SCOUTSTUFF.ORG, clearly references a website domain
`
`name, which the Applicant believes holds no similarity in name or use to the registration of its
`RACK SCOUT mark. Furthermore, the Opposer’s mark refers to a .ORG web domain which
`
`has historically been intended for non-profit entities, and is commonly used by schools, open-
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`source projects, and communities. This is completely opposite to the commercial nature of the
`Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark. The Applicant believes that the Opposer presents no further
`burden of proof that the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark is substantially similar to its Scout
`marks, and this allegation should not be grounds to oppose the registration of the Applicant’s
`
`RACK SCOUT mark.
`22. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer repeats and realleges each and every allegation set
`forth in paragraphs 1 through 21 herein.” (Paragraph #22 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition), Applicant refers to each admittance, denial, or lack of sufficient knowledge or
`
`information statement and the corresponding verbiage listed in response to each allegation set
`
`forth in paragraphs 1 through 21 herein.
`23. 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 lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of this allegation. The
`
`Applicant has insufficient knowledge of what emblems, badges, descriptive or designating
`
`marks, and words or phrases the Opposer has exclusive rights to use.
`24. For the Opposer’s allegation that “The rights granted under 36 U.S.C. §30905 to Opposer
`include the exclusive right to Opposer’s Scout Marks as used in the United States.“, (Paragraph
`#24 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), the Applicant lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of this allegation. The Applicant has insufficient
`knowledge of what will be considered to constitute the Opposer’s Scout Marks and what
`
`exclusive rights those marks will be provided.
`25. For 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), Applicant denies this allegation. Per 36 U.S.C.
`§30905, Opposer “has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating
`marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts.” Opposer fails to illustrate proof that it has
`adopted use of “Rack Scout” and, as a result, has no exclusive right to use it. The Applicant
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`submits that if any common law rights can be claimed for use of “RACK SCOUT”, they would
`
`be granted to the Applicant for first use of this mark in acquisition of the website domain
`
`www.rackscout.com (dated Sunday, June 30, 2013 as seen in Exhibit B) where the name RACK
`
`SCOUT and a to-be-registered stylized mark of the name appears on the website, as well as in a
`
`prototype mobile application that has been created. Applicant also submits that if the Opposer is
`referencing 36 U.S.C. §30905 with regard to use of the term “SCOUT”, Opposer fails to
`illustrate proof that it has exclusive right to use the term “SCOUT”. Furthermore, the term
`“SCOUT” in the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark does not identify any member of the
`Opposer’s organization or the Opposer’s goods and services. Applicant cites the listing of 643
`records of approved trademarks containing the term “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” that have been
`
`granted by the USPTO as support that Opposer does not illustrate it has exclusivity for use of the
`term “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS”. With that information, the Applicant believes that its RACK
`
`SCOUT mark is not, in any way, in direct contravention and derogation of the rights granted to
`Opposer by Congress and does not pose any threat of infringement to the Opposer’s Scout marks
`
`to any greater degree than those found in the listing of approved marks containing the word
`“SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” as returned from the TESS search results.
`26. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Opposer repeats and realleges each and every allegation set
`forth in paragraphs 1 through 25 herein.” (Paragraph #26 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition), Applicant refers to each admittance, denial, or lack of sufficient knowledge or
`
`information statement and the corresponding verbiage listed in response to each allegation set
`
`forth in paragraphs 1 through 25 herein.
`27. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Relevant persons, including those persons for whom BSA’s
`
`collective membership marks are displayed, are likely to believe that the services for which
`Applicant seek to register Applicant’s Mark emanate from, are endorsed by, or are in some way
`associated with BSA’s organization.” (Paragraph #27 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition),
`Applicant denies this allegation. The Applicant highlights that the Opposer states it “is a famous
`youth organization in the United States” and “has been engaged in the organization and
`management of programs for young people” (Paragraph #6 from the Opposer’s Notice of
`
`APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION - 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Opposition). The Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark will exist and operate in a complete
`
`different business space (commercial retail and on-line shopping) and will be considerably
`
`different from that of the Opposer (of which the company confidential details are not disclosed in
`
`this forum). The Applicant would also submit that from other marks containing the term
`“SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” that have been granted by the USPTO, the Applicant believes that
`these approvals for registration illustrate that the Opposer’s statement is unfounded and holds no
`additional merit with regard to the Applicant’s mark nor should it be grounds to oppose the
`registration of the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark.
`28. For the Opposer’s allegation that “Applicant’s Mark so resembles Opposer’s Scout Marks, when
`used on or in connection with Applicant’s services, as to be likely to cause confusion, or to cause
`mistake, or to deceive.” (Paragraph #28 from the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition), Applicant
`
`denies this allegation. The Applicant believes this allegation is based on the notion that the
`Opposer is referencing use of the term “SCOUT” in the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark.
`Applicant cites the listing of 643 records of approved trademarks containing the term “SCOUT”
`or “SCOUTS” that have been granted by the USPTO. The Applicant believes that its RACK
`SCOUT mark does not pose any threat of infringement to the Opposer’s S