`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA811234
`
`Filing date:
`
`04/03/2017
`
`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/
`
`04/03/2017
`
`Response-
`To-Opposers-Renewed-Motion-To-Strike-Applicants-Answer-BSoA.pdf(812344
`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 Renewed 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.
`
`1) The Opposer states that the “Applicant did not write its Response in numbered paragraph format to
`
`correspond to the numbered paragraphs of Opposer’s Notice”. In accordance with the Trademark
`
`Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure 2017-01, section 311.01(a) Format for Answer, “An
`
`answer need not follow a particular format, as long as the answer meets the requirements for the
`
`particular type of submission to the Board (37 CFR § 2.126(a) for electronic filings through ESTTA…”.
`
`Furthermore, 37 CFR § 2.126(a) cites no such requirement to provide a response in numbered
`
`paragraph format to correspond to the numbered paragraphs of Opposer’s Notice.
`
`2) The Opposer states that “Applicant has failed to serve Opposer with its Response and its Answer as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 2.119 and TBMP § 113”. The Applicant submits that to the best of his
`
`knowledge, his responses are not to be served directly to the Opposer, but via ESTTA to the
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Pursuant to 37 CFR § 2.126(a), “Submissions must be made to
`
`
`
`
`
`the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board via ESTTA.” The Applicant has ensured he has followed this
`
`process to adequately comply with USPTO rules and guidelines governing this proceeding.
`
`3) The Opposer states “Opposer cannot adequately participate in this proceeding if it is not receiving
`
`proper notice of the papers being filed by Applicant.” Given the Opposer’s statement that “There
`
`are certainly elements of Applicant’s Answer that suggest the filing is Applicant’s attempt to amend
`
`and/or clarify the substance of its Response to the Notice” which the Opposer previously references
`
`the Applicant’s Answer as the “Response to the Opposer’s Motion to Strike Applicant’s Answer” (the
`
`“Answer”). [See Answer, at Dkt. #6]”, the Applicant is led to believe that the Opposer did receive
`
`submissions put forth by the Applicant via ESTTA. Furthermore, the email received by the Applicant
`
`via the ESTTA for the Opposer’s Renewed Motion To Strike Applicant’s Answer (attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A) displays the Opposer’s email addresses input into the system by the Opposer for their
`
`submission to the ESTTA. The identical email addresses can also be seen in the email received by
`
`the Applicant via the ESTTA for the Applicant’s submission of his Answer to the ESTTA on March 27,
`
`2017 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). These details serve to disprove any notion that the Opposer did
`
`not receive proper notice of the papers being filed by the Applicant. The Applicant would like to
`
`state that he has maintained the best attempt to follow the USPTO guidelines with regard to his
`
`submitted responses and that he is not attempting to amend his response to the Opposer. From the
`
`Opposer’s repeated submissions to the Board to strike the Applicant’s submissions, the Applicant is
`
`giving a best attempt to be as clear as possible to the Board and the Opposer that the Applicant
`
`denies that the registration of its RACK SCOUT mark infringes on any of the Opposer’s SCOUT marks.
`
`The Applicant strongly believes the Opposer is falsely depicting the execution of this proceeding, as
`
`well as attempting to present a subjective view pertaining to the Applicant’s submissions to draw
`
`attention from the data contained therein, which present substantive evidence against the
`
`Opposer’s claims relating to the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark.
`
`
`
`
`
`4) The Opposer states that the Applicant’s response “failed to admit or deny the individual allegations
`
`set forth in each of the thirty-eight paragraphs contained in the Notice”. The Applicant submits that
`
`he has made direct statements such as “The Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark will not confuse or
`
`deceive relevant persons…” and believes these, and other statements from his submissions explicitly
`
`deny any claims the Opposer has presented against the registration of his RACK SCOUT mark. But
`
`with respect to the Board and in order ensure that the intent of each of the Applicant’s submissions
`
`has been as clear as possible for the Opposer, the Applicant would like to directly state that given
`
`the evidence outlined in each submission, the Applicant denies that the registration of its RACK
`
`SCOUT mark infringes on any of the Opposer’s SCOUT marks.
`
`5) The Opposer claims that the Applicant is “attempting to argue the merits of Opposer’s claims”. The
`
`Applicant would like to submit that the information provided is not an argument but a presentation
`
`of factual evidence to deny any allegations put forth by the Opposer, noting that Rule 8(b)(2) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as cited in Trademark Rule 2.106(b)(1)), declares “A denial must
`
`fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.” To the best of the Applicant’s knowledge, the
`
`substance is any allegation presented in any submission by the Opposer against the registration of
`
`his RACK SCOUT mark.
`
`6) The Applicant wishes to restate that the Opposer;
`
`a) Has not proven any right to solely claim the ability to use the term “SCOUT” in a mark.
`
`b) Fails to show how the Applicant’s RACK SCOUT mark will infringe on its SCOUT marks in any
`
`distinctive way that could differentiate it from any of the other 637 USPTO approved trademarks
`
`that contain the word “SCOUT” or “SCOUTS” in the mark.
`
`c) Fails to show sufficient support for the opposition of the Applicant’s right to use the term
`
`“SCOUT” in the registration of a mark, nor indicate any common law right to use “RACK SCOUT”
`
`
`
`
`
`or claim it as an unregistered SCOUT mark, yielding the Applicant to have full rights to register it
`
`as a trademark.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, the Applicant denies that the registration of its RACK SCOUT mark
`
`infringes on any of the Opposer’s SCOUT marks. The Applicant also strongly believes that from the
`
`information outlined in the answer and the clarifications made in all responses submitted, the Opposer
`
`would in no way be damaged by the registration of the mark RACK SCOUT in International Class 035 to
`
`Applicant.
`
`WHEREFORE Applicant prays that the answer or any subsequent submissions 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 3rd day of April, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – ESTTA email receipt to Applicant for Opposer’s Renewed Motion To Strike
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit B – ESTTA email receipt to Applicant for Applicant’s Answer filed March 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`