Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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