Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA892688
`
`Filing date:
`
`04/26/2018
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91233160
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Now-Casting Economics Ltd
`
`MARY L GRIECO
`OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
`1325 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`NEW YORK, NY 10019
`UNITED STATES
`Email: mgrieco@olshanlaw.com
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Mary L. Grieco
`
`mgrieco@olshanlaw.com, sanand@olshanlaw.com, abivona@olshanlaw.com,
`enunn@olshanlaw.com
`
`/marylgrieco/
`
`04/26/2018
`
`NOWCAST - Reply to Opposition to Motion to Suspend.pdf(163373 bytes )
`Mary Grieco Declaration NOWCAST Reply to Opposition to Motion to Sus-
`pend.pdf(238046 bytes )
`Mary Grieco Declaration Exhibit A.pdf(165937 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NOWCASTING ECONOMICS LTD.,
`
`
`
`Opposer/Petitioner,
`
`
`Mark: NOWCAST
`Serial Nos. 86/539,705 and 85/730,653
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`Applicant/Registrant. :
`:
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`ECONOMIC ALCHEMY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED:
`Opposition No. 91233160
`Cancellation No. 92065549
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF APPLICANT TO
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`
`Opposer/Petitioner Now-Casting Economics Ltd. (“Opposer”) submits this reply to the
`
`opposition filed by Applicant/Registrant Economic Alchemy LLC (“Applicant”) to Opposer’s
`
`Motion to Suspend Pending Outcome of Civil Action (“Motion to Suspend”). Opposer respectfully
`
`requests that the Board grant Opposer’s Motion to Suspend and suspend these proceedings until
`
`the conclusion of the civil action.
`
`
`In opposing Opposer’s Motion to Suspend, Applicant argues the merits of the TTAB
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`proceedings and the civil action, which is irrelevant in determining whether a suspension pending
`
`civil litigation is appropriate. The Board has a long-standing history of suspending TTAB
`
`proceedings pending the outcome of a civil action that may have a bearing on the proceedings
`
`before it. The instant proceedings are still in the pleading stages, and there is simply no good reason
`
`why these proceedings should not be suspended. The civil action will resolve not only the issue of
`
`
`4598060-1
`
`

`

`
`
`whether the NOWCAST registration should be cancelled, but it will also resolve the issue of
`
`whether Opposer is infringing Applicant’s trademark rights, a claim over which the Board has no
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Opposer is not forum-shopping or engaging in any other nefarious conduct as alleged by
`
`Applicant. Opposer filed the civil action due to Applicant’s repeated and increasingly threatening
`
`and hostile allegations of Opposer’s alleged infringement of Applicant’s rights. The civil court
`
`proceeding is the only venue where those allegations can be determined, and Opposer is entitled
`
`to a court determination that Opposer is NOT infringing Applicant’s alleged rights. Without such
`
`a determination, there will continue to be a cloud over Opposer and its business, and the issue of
`
`registerability of the NOWCAST mark alone will not resolve the issue.
`
`Given the various motions pending before the Board in this matter and in the related matter
`
`involving Applicant’s NOW-CAST registration, Opposer respectfully request the following:
`
`1.
`
`That the Board consolidate Cancellation No. 92067090 with Opposition No.
`
`91233160 and Cancellation No. 92065549;
`
`2.
`
`That the Board deny Applicant’s various Motions to Dismiss and Motion for
`
`Reconsideration pending in the maters; and
`
`3.
`
`That the Board grant Opposer’s Motion to Suspend.
`
`A. Opposer is not “Forum Shopping”
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Opposer is not “forum shopping” as Applicant alleges. Instead, Opposer filed the civil
`
`action to resolve the repeated and increasingly hostile attacks from Applicant regarding Opposer’s
`
`alleged trademark infringement. The Board has no authority to decide the matter of infringement,
`
`and Applicant has made this allegation in a cease and desist letter and continues to allege
`
`4598060-1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`infringement in these proceedings. Opposer is entitled to a declaration from a civil court, with
`
`jurisdiction to decide a matter of trademark infringement, that Opposer is not infringing
`
`Applicant’s alleged trademarks. Accordingly, Opposer filed the civil action.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Opposer is not Attempting to “Usurp the Authority” of the TTAB
`
`Again, Opposer is entitled to file a civil action against a party that has sent it a cease and
`
`desist letter and that continues to make allegations of infringement, seeking a declaration of non-
`
`infringement. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. That is all Opposer has done. There is nothing improper
`
`in filing such an action, and it is not “usurping” the authority of the TTAB as the TTAB has no
`
`authority to determine matters of trademark infringement.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Opposer is entitled to seek cancellation of trademark registrations in such a civil
`
`action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1119, which provides:
`
`In any action involving a registered mark the court may determine the right to
`registration, order the cancelation of registrations, in whole or in part, restore
`canceled registrations, and otherwise rectify the register with respect to the
`registrations of any party to the action. Decrees and orders shall be certified by the
`court to the Director, who shall make appropriate entry upon the records of the
`Patent and Trademark Office, and shall be controlled thereby.
`
`In enacting this statute, Congress clearly intended to allow a civil court to order
`
`
`
`cancellation of a trademark registration “in any action involving a registered mark”, which would
`
`be binding upon the USPTO. See, also, Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure §1610.
`
`C.
`
`The Board Has No Jurisdiction to Determine the Merits of the Civil Action
`
`
`
`Applicant spends a great deal of time in its opposition to the Motion to Suspend arguing
`
`the merits of these proceedings as well as the merits of the civil action. Applicant indicates that it
`
`intends to make a motion to dismiss the civil action on a number of grounds. This is all irrelevant
`
`in determining whether or not to suspend these proceedings, and the Board has no jurisdiction to
`
`make a determination on the propriety of the civil litigation – that is the job of the district court
`
`4598060-1
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`judge assigned to the matter.
`
`
`
`Even if the Board does not suspend these proceedings, the civil action will continue, and
`
`the Board does not have the authority to dismiss the civil proceedings or order that the civil
`
`proceedings be suspended.
`
`
`
`Opposer has already addressed Applicant’s substantive arguments as to why Applicant
`
`believes that these proceedings have no merit and sees no need to address them again in the context
`
`of this Motion to Suspend. What IS important for purposes of this Motion to Suspend is that: 1)
`
`Applicant admits that the civil action and these proceedings involve the same parties; and 2)
`
`Applicant admits that the civil action and these proceedings involve the same claims (with the civil
`
`action adding a claim for declaratory relief). Under these circumstances, there is simply no reason
`
`NOT to suspend these proceedings. If Applicant then wishes to file a motion to dismiss or take
`
`any other action it deems appropriate in the civil action, Applicant will be free to do so.
`
`D.
`
`Judicial Economy Dictates that These Proceedings be Stayed Pending the Civil Action
`
`
`
`Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, judicial economy is best served by not having multiple
`
`proceedings pending at the same time. Regardless of whether the Board suspends these
`
`proceedings, the civil action will continue. Thus, it makes no sense to allow both matters to move
`
`forward simultaneously, which would unduly tax the resources of the TTAB.
`
`
`
`Also, it makes the most sense to have the civil action decided first because the issues
`
`presented in the civil action are broader than the issues presented in the TTAB and will likely
`
`decide the issues in the TTAB.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`Opposer is not Attempting to “Flee a Forum”
`
`Once again, Applicant makes patently untrue, spurious, and defamatory allegations against
`
`Opposer. Opposer has addressed these time and again, and will not burden the Board with
`
`4598060-1
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`addressing them yet again. Opposer is not trying to “flee” the TTAB, and Opposer is confident
`
`that it will ultimately prevail on the matters presented in these proceedings. Opposer is seeking a
`
`declaration for a court that it is not infringing any of Applicant’s trademarks. This is an entirely
`
`proper legal claim, and Opposer has every right to bring such a claim.
`
`
`
`Further, Opposer is confident that the pending motions to dismiss will be denied.
`
`Accordingly, the Board may properly decide the pending motions to dismiss filed by Applicant
`
`and then suspend these proceedings.
`
`
`
`In support of its argument that “Congress clearly envisioned the T.T.A.B. to be the most
`
`appropriate forum for resolution of cancellation actions in the first instance”, Applicant cites to an
`
`Amicus brief, which is not a binding court decision, filed by the International Trademark
`
`Association (“INTA”) in support of a Writ of Certiorari filed before the U.S. Supreme Court in
`
`2012. In the Amicus brief, INTA merely sets forth that 15 U.S.C. §1119 does not provide an
`
`independent basis for jurisdiction in a federal court – namely, a claim seeking cancellation of a
`
`federal registration cannot be the sole basis for jurisdiction in federal court, but it may be brought
`
`in connection with another matter involving the trademark at issue, such as a claim seeking
`
`declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Submitted herewith as Exhibit A is a true and correct
`
`copy of the Amicus brief.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`In conclusion, there is no reason why these proceedings should not be suspended pending
`
`the outcome of the civil litigation. These proceedings are still in the very early stages. There has
`
`been no discovery and no evidence presented. Regardless of whether these proceedings are
`
`suspended, the civil action will proceed and will likely decide the issues presented in these
`
`proceedings. Therefore, judicial economy dictates that these proceedings should be suspended, and
`
`4598060-1
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Opposer has presented no valid reasons why the Board should stray from its usual practice of
`
`suspending a TTAB proceeding in favor of a civil action when the outcome of the civil action will
`
`have a bearing on the issues presented in the TTAB proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Mary L. Grieco
`Mary L. Grieco
`Safia A. Anand
`1325 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019
`(212) 451-2300
`Attorneys for Opposer
`
`
`
`4598060-1
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this day, April 26, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`document, entitled
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF APPLICANT TO
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`
`was served upon Applicant via email, addressed as follows:
`
`Giselle Guzman
`Economic Alchemy, LLC
`info@economicalchemy.com; gguzman@economicalchemy.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mary L. Grieco
`MARY L. GRIECO
`
`4598060-1
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NOWCASTING ECONOMICS LTD.,
`
`
`
`Opposer/Petitioner,
`
`
`Mark: NOWCAST
`Serial Nos. 86/539,705 and 85/730,653
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`Applicant/Registrant. :
`:
`---------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`
`ECONOMIC ALCHEMY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED:
`Opposition No. 91233160
`Cancellation No. 92065549
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARY L. GRIECO AND EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF
`OPPOSER’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT TO MOTION TO SUSPEND
`PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`Mary L. Grieco, being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code, states:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of New York and California and
`
`in Washington, D.C. I am an attorney for the Opposer/Petitioner, Now-Casting Economics Ltd.
`
`(“Opposer”). I submit this declaration in support of Opposer’s Reply to Opposition of
`
`Applicant/Registrant to Motion to Suspend Pending Civil Action.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an Amicus brief filed by the
`
`International Trademark Association that was referenced by Applicant/Registrant in its opposition to
`
`the Motion to Suspend, found at http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAAlreadyNike.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`4598287-1
`
`1
`
`

`

` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`
`
`true and correct.
`
`Executed on this 26th day of April 2018 at New York, New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mary L. Grieco
`Mary L. Grieco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4598287-1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this day, April 26th , 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`document, entitled
`
`DECLARATION OF MARY L. GRIECO AND EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF
`OPPOSER’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION OF APPLICANT TO MOTION TO SUSPEND
`PENDING CIVIL ACTION
`
`were served upon Applicant/Registrant via email, addressed as follows:
`
`
`Giselle Guzman
`Economic Alchemy, LLC
`info@economicalchemy.com; gguzman@economicalchemy.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mary L. Grieco
`Mary L. Grieco
`
`
`
`
`4598287-1
`
`3
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`No. 11-982
`
`IN THE
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`ALREADY, LLC, D/B/A YUMS,
`
`v.
`NIKE, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
`of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUSCURIAE THE
`INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
`
`MARC LIEBERSTEIN
`TINA MEPANI
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND
`& STOCKTON LLP
`1114 Avenue of the
`Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 775-8781
`
`DAVID H. BERNSTEIN*
`CHRISTOPHER J. HAMILTON
`NEELIMA TEERDHALA
`DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
`919 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 909-6696
`dhbernstein@debevoise.com
`*CounselofRecord
`
`CLAUDIA RAY
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4948
`
`VIJAY K. TOKE
`HIARING + SMITH, LLP
`101 Lucas Valley Rd, Ste 300
`San Rafael, CA 94903
`(415) 457-2040 ext 103
`CounselforAmicusCuriae
`The International Trademark Association
`October 1, 2012
`
`

`

`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTEREST OF THE AMICUSCURIAE.................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
`ARGUMENT ....................................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT .............................................................. 6
`
`I. Respondent’s Covenant Not to Sue Was
`Sufficient to Divest the District Court of
`Article III Jurisdiction. ....................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Although MedImmune,Inc.v.
`GenentechSets Forth a Broad
`Standard for Subject Matter
`Jurisdiction in Declaratory
`Judgment Actions, There Remain
`Important Limitations on Such
`Jurisdiction Under Article III. ............. 7
`
`Respondent’s Covenant Not to
`Sue Was Unconditional. ....................... 9
`
`The Circuits Are Aligned That
`An Unconditional Covenant Not
`To Sue Removes Article III
`Jurisdiction. ........................................ 11
`
`A Broad Covenant Not to Sue
`Satisfies the Voluntary Cessation
`Standard Urged by Petitioner
`and by the United States.................... 12
`
`

`

`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`II. Petitioner’s Cancellation Counterclaim
`Cannot Provide an Independent Basis for
`Jurisdiction. ...................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Section 37 of the Lanham Act
`Does Not Provide a Basis for
`Jurisdiction Over an
`Independent Cancellation Claim. ...... 15
`
`Every Court Of Appeals That
`Has Squarely Confronted The
`Issue Has Held That Section 37
`Does Not Provide An
`Independent Basis For Article III
`Jurisdiction. ........................................ 16
`
`III. The T.T.A.B. Provides a More Appropriate
`Forum for Resolution of Cancellation
`Claims................................................................ 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Would Have Standing
`to Bring a Cancellation Action
`Before the T.T.A.B. ............................. 19
`
`The T.T.A.B. Has Extensive
`Expertise in Addressing
`Cancellation Petitions. ....................... 21
`
`Ruling that the Federal District
`Court Does Not Retain
`Jurisdiction Comports with the
`Doctrine of Exhaustion of
`Administrative Remedies. .................. 24
`
`

`

`iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`IV. The Second Circuit’s Decision Below
`Lessens the Burden on the Federal Court
`System Without Prejudicing Petitioner. .......... 28
`
`CONCLUSION......................................................... 31
`
`

`

`iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`AetnaLifeIns.Cov.Haworth, 300 U.S. 227
`(1937)................................................................... 10
`
`Anti-Monopoly,Inc.v.Gen.MillsFunGroup,
`684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
`459 U.S. 1227 (1983)............................................. 2
`
`Bancroft&Masters,Inc.v.AugustaNat’l,
`Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) ………6, 11, 16
`
`InreBorden,Inc., 92 F.T.C. 669 (1978), aff’d
`subnom.Borden,Inc.v.Fed.Trade
`Comm’n, 674 F.2d 498 (6th Cir. 1982),
`vacatedandremanded, 461 U.S. 940
`(1983)..................................................................... 2
`
`CardinalChem.Co.v.MortonInt’l,Inc., 508
`U.S. 83 (1993)................................................ 14, 29
`
`Century21RealEstateCorp.v.Nev.Real
`EstateAdvisoryComm’n, 448 F. Supp.
`1237 (D. Nev. 1978), aff’d, 440 U.S. 941
`(1979)..................................................................... 3
`
`Chloev.QueenBeeofBeverlyHills,LLC, 616
`F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) ......................................... 2
`
`ChristianLouboutinS.A.v.YvesSaint
`LaurentAmerica, No. 11-3303-cv, 2012 WL
`3832285 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2012) ............................ 2
`
`

`

`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`CIBERInc.v.CIBERConsulting,Inc., 326
`F. Supp. 2d 886 (N.D. Ill. 2004) ........................ 17
`
`InreColeman, 560 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2009) ........ 10
`
`Colemanv.Dretke,409 F.3d 665 (5th Cir.
`2005).................................................................... 23
`
`Conopco,Inc.v.MayDep’tStoresCo., 46 F.3d
`1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................ 2
`
`CreativeCompounds,LLCv.StarmarkLabs.,
`651 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................... 14
`
`D.R.v.E.BrunswickBd.ofEduc., 109 F.3d
`896 (3d Cir. 1997) ............................................... 28
`
`DastarCorp.v.TwentiethCenturyFoxFilm
`Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003)...................................... 2
`
`Deniusv.Dunlap, 330 F.3d 919 (7th Cir.
`2003).................................................................... 23
`
`Dickinsonv.Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999)................... 2
`
`Ditriv.ColdwellBankerResidential
`Affiliates,Inc., 954 F.2d 869 (3d Cir.
`1992).............................................................. 17, 22
`
`eBay,Inc.v.MercExchange,L.L.C., 547 U.S.
`388 (2006).............................................................. 8
`
`Fla.PrepaidPostsecondaryEduc.ExpenseBd.
`v.Coll.Sav.Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999) ............... 2
`
`

`

`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`FleischerStudios,Inc.v.A.V.E.L.A.,Inc., 654
`F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2011)........................................ 2
`
`FriendsoftheEarth,Inc.v.LaidlawEnvtl.
`Services(TOC),Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).... 12, 13
`
`GlobalDNS,LLCv.Kook’sCustomHeader,
`Inc., No. C08-0268RSL, 2008 WL 4380439
`(W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2008)............................... 17
`
`ITC.Ltdv.Punchgini,Inc., 482 F.3d 135 (2d
`Cir. 2007)............................................................... 2
`
`JeffD.v.Andrus, 899 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1990)...... 28
`
`KMartCorp.v.Cartier,Inc., 486 U.S. 281
`(1988)..................................................................... 2
`
`KittyHawkAircargo,Inc.v.Chao,418 F.3d
`453 (5th Cir. 2005).............................................. 23
`
`Kokkonenv.GuardianLifeIns.Co.ofAm.,
`511 U.S. 375 (1994)............................................. 16
`
`KPPermanentMakeup,Inc.v.Lasting
`ImpressionI,Inc., 543 U.S. 211 (2004)................ 2
`
`LeviStrauss&Co.v.Abercrombie&Fitch
`TradingCo., 633 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2011) ......... 2
`
`LiptonIndus.,Inc.v.RalstonPurinaCo., 670
`F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1982) .................................. 20
`
`LouisVuittonMalletier,S.A.v.HauteDiggity
`Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)............... 2
`
`

`

`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`ManganaroFoods,Incv.Manganaro’sHero-
`Boy,Inc., 2002 WL 1560789 (S.D.N.Y. July
`15, 2002) ........................................................ 17, 22
`
`MarylandCasualtyCo.v.PacificCoal&Oil
`Co., 312 U.S. 270 (1941) .................................... 14
`
`McKartv.UnitedStates, 395 U.S. 185
`(1969) .............................................................. 26, 27
`
`MedImmune,Inc.v.Genentech,Inc.,549 U.S.
`118 (2007).....................................................passim
`
`MicrochipTechnologyInc.v.Chamberlain
`Group,441 F.3d 936 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................ 15
`
`Moseleyv.VSecretCatalogue,Inc., 537 U.S.
`418 (2003).............................................................. 2
`
`MWSWireIndus.,Inc.v.Calif.FineWireCo.,
`797 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1986)............................... 28
`
`Myersv.BethlehemShipbuildingCorp., 303
`U.S. 41 (1938)...................................................... 25
`
`Nike,Inc.v.AdidasAm.,Inc., No. 05-CV-541-
`BR, 2006 WL 3716754 (D. Or. Dec. 14,
`2006).................................................................... 17
`
`Nike,Inc.v.Already,LLC, 663 F.3d 89 (2d
`Cir. 2011)......................................................passim
`
`PreferredRiskMut.Ins.Co.v.UnitedStates,
`86 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 1996)................................... 2
`
`

`

`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`PublicServiceComm’nofUtahv.WycoffCo.,
`73 S. Ct. 236 (1952)....................................... 26, 27
`
`QualitexCo.v.JacobsonProds.Co., 514 U.S.
`159 (1995).............................................................. 2
`
`RalstonPurinaCo.v.On-CorFrozenFoods,
`Inc., 746 F.2d 801 (Fed. Cir. 1984)....................... 2
`
`Reddv.ShellOilCo., 524 F.2d 1054 (10th Cir.
`1975), cert.denied, 425 U.S. 912 (1976) .............. 3
`
`RevolutionEyewear,Inc.v.AspexEyewear,
`Inc., 556 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................... 12
`
`RosettaStoneLtd.v.Google,Inc., 676 F.3d
`144 (4th Cir. 2012)................................................ 2
`
`Schlossv.Sweeney, 515 F. Supp. 2d 1068
`(N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................. 17
`
`StarbucksCorp.v.Wolfe’sBoroughCoffee,
`Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009)............................ 2
`
`SunshineKidsJuvenileProds.,LLCv.
`IndianaMills&Mfg.,Inc., No. C10-
`5698BHS, 2011 WL 862038 (W.D. Wash.
`Mar. 9, 2011) ....................................................... 17
`
`SuperSackMfg.Corp.v.ChasePackaging
`Corp., 57 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................. 12
`
`SurefootLCv.SureFootCorp., 531 F.3d 1236
`(10th Cir. 2008)..................................................... 7
`
`

`

`ix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Syntex(U.S.A.)Inc.v.E.R.Squibb&Sons
`Inc., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1879 (T.T.A.B. March
`22, 1990).
`..................................................... 20, 21
`
`TestMastersEduc.Servs.v.Singh, 428 F.3d
`559 (5th Cir. 2005)................................................ 2
`
`Thomas&BettsCorpv.PanduitCorp., 48
`F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 1999).................. 18, 22
`
`TrafFixDevices,Inc.v.Mktg.Displays,Inc.,
`532 U.S. 23 (2001)................................................. 2
`
`TwoPesos,Inc.v.TacoCabana,Inc., 505 U.S.
`763 (1992).............................................................. 2
`
`UnitedPublicWorkersofAmerica(C.I.O.)v.
`Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) ............................... 10
`
`UnitedStatesexrel.Dinglev.BioPortCorp.,
`270 F. Supp. 2d 968 (W.D. Mich. 2003) ............. 23
`
`UniversalOilProds.Co.v.RexallDrug&
`Chem.Co., 463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972) ........ 20
`
`UniversalSewingMachineCo.v.Standard
`SewingEquip.Corp., 185 F. Supp. 257
`(S.D.N.Y. 1960) .................................................. 18
`
`VantageTrailers,Inc.v.BeallCorp., 567 F.3d
`745 (5th Cir. Tex. 2009)........................................ 7
`
`Wal-MartStores,Inc.v.SamaraBros., 529
`U.S. 205 (2000)...................................................... 2
`
`

`

`x
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`WarnerVisionEntm’tInc.v.Empireof
`Carolina,Inc., 101 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 1996).......... 2
`
`InreWellbutrinSR/ZybanAntitrustLitig.,
`281 F. Supp. 2d 751 (E.D. Pa. 2003) .................. 23
`
`Wilsonv.Collins, 517 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2008) ...... 10
`
`WindsurfingInt’l,Inc.v.AMFInc., 828 F.2d
`755 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................ 17
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1064 ....................................................... 19
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1064(3)................................................... 22
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1067 ....................................................... 22
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3) .............................................. 30
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1119 ................................................... 6, 15
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 2.173(b)(3) and (4) .............................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1)(iv) ......................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.56(a) ................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 2.61(b) (g) and (h) ............................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.76(b)(2) .............................................. 21
`
`

`

`xi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`37 C.F.R. § 2.86(a)(3) .............................................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.86(b) ................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.88(b)(2) .............................................. 21
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 7.37(g) and (h) .................................... 21
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`David H. Bernstein and Andrew Gilden, No
`TrollsBarred:TrademarkInjunctionsafter
`eBay, 99 TMR 1037 (2009) ................................... 7
`
`Elizabeth C. Buckingham, TTABorFederal
`Court:WheretoLitigateaU.S.Trademark
`Dispute?PartOne:BoardProceedings, 67
`INTA BULLETIN, No. 3 (Feb. 1, 2012)................. 24
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.......................... 30
`
`J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON
`TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (4th
`ed. 2012) .................................................. 20, 27, 30
`
`S. REP. NO. 85-1960 (1958) ...................................... 19
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of
`Procedure (TBMP) §§ 702.04(a)-(e) .................... 23
`
`

`

`xii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`TTAB New Filings and Performance
`Measures, United States Patent and
`Trademark Office (2012), availableat
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/
`appeal/TTAB_New_Filings_and_
`Performance_Measures.jsp ...........................…..22
`
`Michael Weinstein, Comment, TheFateofthe
`FederalCircuit’s“ReasonableApprehension”
`StandardinPatentSuitsforDeclaratory
`JudgmentFollowingMedImmune, Inc. v.
`Genentech, Inc.,127S.Ct.764(2007), 76 U.
`Cin. L. Rev. 681 (2007-2008)................................8
`
`

`

`1
`
`INTEREST OF THE AMICUSCURIAE1
`
`Founded in 1878, INTA is a not-for-profit
`organization
`dedicated
`to
`the
`support
`and
`advancement of trademarks and related intellectual
`property concepts as essential elements of trade and
`commerce.
`INTA has more than 5,900 members in
`more than 190 countries.
`Its members include
`trademark
`owners,
`law firms,
`and
`other
`professionals who regularly assist brand owners in
`the
`creation,
`registration,
`protection,
`and
`enforcement of their trademarks. All of INTA’s
`members
`share
`the
`goal
`of
`promoting
`an
`understanding of the essential role that trademarks
`play in fostering informed decisions by consumers,
`effective commerce, and fair competition.
`
`INTA members are frequent participants in
`trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings
`and in court
`litigation as both plaintiffs and
`defendants, and therefore are interested in the
`development of clear, consistent, and equitable
`principles of trademark and unfair competition law.
`INTA has substantial expertise and has participated
`as amicus curiae in numerous cases involving
`
`1
`
`Both parties are members of INTA, and both the law firm
`representing Petitioner and one
`of
`the
`law firms
`representing Respondent, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., are
`associate members of INTA. Attorneys associated with the
`parties and their law firms have not participated in the
`preparation or submission of this amicuscuriaebrief. This
`brief was authored solely by INTA and its counsel.
`
`

`

`2
`
`significant
`Court.2
`
`trademark issues,
`
`including in this
`
`2
`
`Cases in which INTA has filed amicus briefs include: KP
`PermanentMakeup,Inc.v.Lasting ImpressionI,Inc., 543
`U.S. 211 (2004); Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox
`Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003); Moseley v. V Secret
`Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003); TrafFix Devices, Inc.
`v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001); Wal-Mart
`Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205 (2000); Fla.
`Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav.
`Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S.
`150 (1999); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S.
`159 (1995); Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S.
`763 (1992); K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281
`(1988); Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent
`America, No. 11-3303-cv, 2012 WL 3832285 (2d Cir. Sept. 5,
`2012); RosettaStoneLtd.v.Google,Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th
`Cir. 2012); Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654
`F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2011); LeviStrauss&Co.v.Abercrombie
`&FitchTradingCo., 633 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2011); Chloev.
`Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.
`2010); StarbucksCorp.v.Wolfe’sBoroughCoffee,Inc., 588
`F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009); ITC.Ltdv.Punchgini,Inc., 482 F.3d
`135 (2d Cir. 2007), certifiedquestionsaccepted, 870 N.E.2d
`151 (N.Y.), cert denied, 128 S. Ct. 288, certified questions
`answered, 880 N.E.2d 852 (N.Y. 2007), later proceedings,
`518 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2008); LouisVuittonMalletier,S.A.v.
`HauteDiggityDog,LLC,507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007); Test
`MastersEduc.Servs.v.Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005);
`WarnerVision Entm’t Inc. v. Empire of Carolina, Inc., 101
`F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 1996); Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`UnitedStates, 86 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 1996); Conopco,Inc.v.
`May Dep’t Stores Co., 46 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
`Ralston Purina Co. v. On-Cor Frozen Foods, Inc., 746 F.2d
`801 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Anti-Monopoly,Inc.v.Gen.MillsFun
`Group, 684 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
`1227 (1983); In re Borden, Inc., 92 F.T.C. 669 (1978), aff’d
`subnom.Borden,Inc.v.Fed.TradeComm’n, 674 F.2d 498
`
`

`

`3
`
`INTA (formerly known as the United States
`Trademark Association) was founded in part to
`encourage the enactment of
`federal
`trademark
`legislation after the invalidation on constitutional
`grounds of the United States’ first trademark act.
`Since then, INTA has been instrumental in making
`recommendations
`and providing
`assistance
`to
`legislators in connection with almost all major
`trademark legislation.
`
`INTA and its members have a particular
`interest in this case because Petitioner’s position
`threatens to weaken the incentives that
`foster
`compromise and settlement of trademark disputes.
`In addition, INTA and its members oppose any
`actions that would undermine the T.T.A.B.’s role as
`principal arbiter in the first instance of disputes over
`the registration of trademarks, since maintaining
`the T.T.A.B.’s role will help ensure the consistent
`development and application of trademark law and
`the efficient resolution of disputes over trademark
`registrations.
`
`(6th Cir. 1982), vacatedandremanded, 461 U.S. 940 (1983);
`Reddv.ShellOilCo., 524 F.2d 1054 (10th Cir. 1975), cert.
`denied, 425 U.S. 912 (1976); Century 21 Real Estate Corp.
`v. Nev. Real Estate Advisory Comm’n, 448 F. Supp. 1237
`(D. Nev. 1978), aff’d, 440 U.S. 941 (1979).
`
`

`

`4
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
`ARGUMENT
`
`International Trademark Association
`The
`(“INTA”) submits this brief as amicus curiae to
`explain why trademark law and public policy
`mandate affirmance of the lower courts’ dismissal of
`Petitioner’s action seeking to cance