`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA809832
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/27/2017
`
`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 e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`CCG Creative, LLC
`
`CCG CREATIVE LLC
`1235 RING BILL LOOP
`UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20774
`UNITED STATES
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`Answer
`
`Charles Gatling
`
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`/Charles Gatling/
`
`03/27/2017
`
`Response-To-Opposers-Motion-To-Strike-Applicants-Answer-BSoA.pdf(91082
`bytes )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1235 RING BILL LOOP, UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20774
`
`TEL 301-246-CCGC (2242)
`
`info@ccgcreative.com
`
`www.ccgcreative.com
`
`
`
`Response to the Opposer’s Motion To Strike Applicant’s Answer
`
`CCG Creative, LLC (“CCG Creative”, herein referred to as “Applicant”), having an address at 1235
`
`Ring Bill Loop, Upper Marlboro, MD. 20774 would like to provide the following response to Boy Scouts
`
`of America (hereinafter “Boy Scouts” or “Opposer”) and the motion to strike the Applicant’s answer to
`
`the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition (the “answer”) filed against the Applicant’s 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 035.
`
`The Opposer states that the Applicant’s answer was argumentative and failed to admit or deny
`
`the allegations contained in the opposition. The Applicant humbly submits that the information
`
`provided in the answer is not an argument but a presentation of substantive evidence to deny any
`
`allegations put forth in the opposition, and that the Applicant made statements to that effect in the
`
`answer.
`
`But with respect to the Board and in order ensure that the answer’s intent has been as clear as
`
`possible for the Opposer, the Applicant would like to directly state that given the evidence outlined in
`
`the answer, the Applicant believes the following with regard to the registration of its RACK SCOUT mark;
`
`1) EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS – The Opposer does not illustrate any sole ownership or exclusive rights to claim
`
`the term “SCOUT” in a mark in (as a single term or in conjunction with another term), nor does the
`
`Opposer provide sufficient support for the opposition of the Applicant’s right to use it in the
`
`
`
`
`
`registration of a mark. This is illustrated in the details in the answer referencing the other marks
`
`containing the term “SCOUT” that have been granted by the USPTO. With regard to the Opposer’s
`
`statement to use common law rights resulting from its ownership and use of its unregistered Scout
`
`marks, the Opposer does not indicate any common law right to use “RACK SCOUT” nor do they claim
`
`this as an unregistered SCOUT mark, which the Applicant believes should further support the
`
`registration of its RACK SCOUT mark. The Applicant argues 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 from the answer) 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.
`
`2) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION / FALSE ASSOCIATION – The Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark will not
`
`confuse or deceive relevant persons, including those persons for whom the Opposer’s collective
`
`membership marks are displayed into believing that Applicant’s mark emanate from, are endorsed
`
`by, or are in some way associated with BSA’s organization, or are otherwise authorized by,
`
`sponsored by, licensed by, affiliated with, or associated with Opposer. This can be illustrated from
`
`the fact that there is only one of the Opposer’s marks (SCOUTSTUFF.ORG) that falls in the same
`
`International Class 035 as does the Applicant’s mark, of which the Applicant’s mark makes a clear
`
`distinction between it and the Opposer’s mark via the description of items covered in International
`
`Class 035. The Applicant further highlights that the Opposer “is a famous youth organization in the
`
`United States” and “has been engaged in the organization and management of programs for young
`
`people”. The Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark will exist and operate in a complete different business
`
`space (retail on-line department stores) and will be considerably different from that of the Opposer,
`
`which further supports that its RACK SCOUT mark will not present any likelihood of confusion or
`
`false association in any way. The Applicant would also submit that from other marks containing the
`
`
`
`
`
`term “SCOUT” that have been granted by the USPTO, the Applicant believes that these approvals for
`
`registration show that the Opposer’s statement that there will be a likelihood of confusion or false
`
`association 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.
`
`3) DILUTION – The Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark will not cause dilution of the Opposer’s Scout marks
`
`in any way. As in the Applicant’s answer to the Opposer’s Notice of Opposition, the Applicant again
`
`calls attention to the LIVE trademarks currently cataloged within the Trademark Electronic Search
`
`System (“TESS”) maintained by the USPTO where 637 records were returned of approved
`
`trademarks that contain the word “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” in the mark, and where either term 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. Highlighting the fact that the USPTO has granted
`
`registration of this number of marks, many of those marks after the Opposer’s adoption and use of
`
`its Scout marks (registered and unregistered), would illustrate that the Opposer’s statement
`
`regarding the dilution of its Scout marks 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.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, the Applicant strongly believes that from the information outlined in the
`
`answer and the clarifications made in this response, the Opposer would in no way be damaged by the
`
`registration of the mark RACK SCOUT in International Class 035 to the Applicant.
`
`WHEREFORE Applicant prays that the answer submitted not be stricken, that the Opposition be
`
`overruled, and that the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark be allowed registration.
`
`Correspondence Address
`Please direct all communications to:
`
`Charles Gatling
`cgatling@ccgcreative.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CCG Creative, LLC
`1235 Ring Bill Loop
`
`Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
`
`
`DATED this 27th day of March, 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
`
`
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