Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1026121
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/31/2019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91236668
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`LaGree Technologies, Inc.
`
`CHAD E ZIEGLER
`NEUSTEL LAW OFFICES LTD
`2534 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 4
`FARGO, ND 58103
`UNITED STATES
`michael@neustel.com, jason@neustel.com, chad@neustel.com
`701*281-8822
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Reply in Support of Motion
`
`Chad Ziegler
`
`chad@neustel.com
`
`/Chad Ziegler/
`
`12/31/2019
`
`Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Opposer to Produce Information and Doc-
`uments Regarding Its Alter Ego Relationship.pdf(443793 bytes )
`Ex. H.pdf(284060 bytes )
`Ex. I.pdf(466599 bytes )
`Ex. J.pdf(463816 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Coreology, Inc.,
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
` v.
`
`Lagree Technologies, Inc.,
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`Consolidated
`Opposition No. 91236668 (Parent)
`Opposition No. 91236942
`Opposition No. 91238139
`Opposition No. 91245111
`Opposition No. 91246748
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`Coreology, Inc. made its alter-ego status with Sarah Martz a central issue when it
`
`
`
`opposed Lagree’s motion to amend the pleadings regarding its licensee estoppel defense and
`
`contended the amendment was “futile” because “Coreology has never been a licensee of
`
`Lagree.” 36 TTABVUE 1. However, the decision Coreology cited for support, Fair Isaac Corp.
`
`v. Experian, explained that Coreology’s position is inapplicable when the opposer is the alter-ego
`
`of the licensee. Since Lagree asserts and Coreology has previously conceded that Ms. Martz is a
`
`licensee of Lagree, Coreology has affirmatively placed the issue that Coreology is the alter-ego
`
`of Ms. Martz center stage.
`
`Coreology does not dispute the requested alter-ego evidence is relevant to Lagree’s
`
`defense of its five trademarks. Instead, Coreology’s Opposition for the first time contends the
`
`discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case. However, Coreology should have raised
`
`that issue with Lagree in a meet and confer after Lagree’s August 27, 2019 letter. Regardless,
`
`discovery is proportional as it relates to issues that are directly dispositive of all proceedings and
`
`imposes no undue burden on Coreology or Ms. Martz.
`
`Coreology’s last minute surprise stipulation, which it sent to Lagree just two days before
`
`the Opposition deadline, does nothing to resolve Lagree’s legitimate need for alter-ego
`
`1
`
`

`

`discovery. Rather, it was clearly a ruse intended only to be an exhibit to the Opposition as
`
`discussed below.
`
`A.
`
`Coreology’s Belated Stipulation Is a Ruse.
`
`Two days before its original Opposition deadline, Coreology sent a narrowly drafted
`
`stipulation that proposed only that Coreology “assumed” the 2010 agreement produced as
`
`CORE000072-CORE000073 (“2010 Agreement”). Exs. A, B to 58 TTABVUE. The proposed
`
`stipulation was simply a ruse, however, because (1) Coreology contends the 2010 Agreement has
`
`never been used by Ms. Martz, (2) it carefully excluded Coreology being a licensee under an
`
`implied license and (3) its effect was limited only to Lagree’s licensee estoppel defense.
`
`Coreology has denied Lagree’s Requests for Admission that Ms. Martz (1) “became a
`
`licensee of Lagree” under the 2010 Agreement, (2) was “entitled to use Lagree’s trademarks”
`
`under the 2010 Agreement and/or (3) “operated under” the 2010 Agreement. Ex. H, pp. 4-8, 21
`
`(RFA Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 36.) Based on Coreology’s position, its stipulation that Coreology only
`
`“assumed” the 2010 Agreement was thus meaningless.
`
`Furthermore, the stipulation was carefully crafted to avoid admitting that Coreology is a
`
`licensee under an implied license between Ms. Martz and Lagree. Coreology has previously
`
`argued that “Ms. Martz is a licensee” for her Palos Verdes studio. Ex. I, p. 3. However, if “Ms.
`
`Martz is a licensee” of Lagree but did not operate, use Lagree’s trademarks, or qualify as a
`
`licensee under the 2010 Agreement as Coreology argues, the only logical conclusion is that
`
`Coreology considers Ms. Martz to only have an implied license with Lagree for the marks at
`
`issue. However, because the stipulation carefully avoided admitting Coreology is a licensee
`
`under the implied license between Ms. Martz and Lagree it is also meaningless for that reason.
`
`Finally, to ensure the stipulation could never be used by Lagree for any of the other
`
`defenses of its five marks, Coreology went so far as to specifically limit the effect of the
`
`2
`
`

`

`stipulation to only licensee estoppel. However, Coreology knew prior to drafting the stipulation
`
`that it was meaningless as Lagree could not accept a stipulation that would not apply to
`
`Coreology’s other claims such as genericness, descriptiveness, naked licensing and failure to
`
`police. Ex. D to 58 TTABVUE.
`
`B.
`
`Lagree Is Entitled to Use Alter Ego Discovery for Other Issues.
`
`The Board should give short shrift to Coreology’s belated complaints that Lagree’s
`
`motion is trying to somehow expand the requested discovery for use with defenses other than
`
`licensee estoppel. 58 TTABVUE 6. First, it is simply too late for Coreology to complain now
`
`when it refused to engage with Lagree in a good faith pre-motion meet and confer discussion
`
`after it refused to respond to Lagree’s August 27, 2019 letter. Ex. G to 54 TTABVUE. Second,
`
`the fundamental rules of discovery and evidence are that a party is entitled to discover evidence
`
`that is relevant to any claim or defense in a proceeding and that evidence is admissible with
`
`respect to any issue to which it is relevant.1 Coreology’s belated complaints are thus just an
`
`attempt to distract the Board.
`
`C.
`
`Alter-Ego Discovery Is Proportional to the Needs of the Case.
`
`1.
`
`The Issues for Which Alter-Ego Is Sought Are Vitally Important to Lagree’s
`Defense of Its Rights to the Five Trademarks at Issue.
`
`Coreology’s Opposition focuses exclusively on the alleged burden imposed by the
`
`requested discovery and completely ignores the other half of the proportionality equation the
`
`Board must consider, namely, “the importance of the issues at stake in the action.”2 The issue of
`
`Coreology’s licensee status is in fact highly consequential to these five consolidated proceedings
`
`as it is likely dispositive of all five proceedings.
`
`
`1 Fed. R. Civ. P. §26(b)(1); Fed. R. Evid. §402.
`
` Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); TBMP § 412.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Lagree asserts that Coreology was a licensee of Lagree with respect to the Lagree
`
`trademarks at issue when it filed each of the five pending oppositions. As a licensee, Coreology
`
`is barred from challenging the validity of or Lagree’s entitlement to those trademarks in this
`
`proceeding.3 Accordingly, Coreology’s licensee status may well be dispositive of all issues
`
`raised in the oppositions.
`
`Even if Coreology could prove the license was terminated at some point in time as it
`
`contends (58 TTABVUE 2), licensee estoppel would still apply to bar Coreology from
`
`challenging the validity or Lagree’s entitlement to the trademarks at issue based on facts
`
`occurring during the term of the license.4
`
`Further, Coreology’s licensee status is also relevant to a number of other defenses in
`
`addition to licensee estoppel. Coreology’s use of the trademarks under license may be used by
`
`Lagree to demonstrate the strength of Lagree’s trademarks, the function of Lagree’s trademarks
`
`qua trademarks, and establish the usage of Lagree’s trademarks for the recited services in the
`
`applications.5 Conversely, if Coreology is permitted to maintain the fiction that only Ms. Martz
`
`is the licensee, then Coreology will undoubtedly and unjustly attempt to rely on its use of the
`
`marks as evidence of Lagree’s abandonment of the marks.
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Freeman v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 64 USPQ2d 1700, 1703-04 (TTAB 2002) (validity
`challenge based on genericness barred under doctrine of licensee estoppel); Estate of Biro v. Bic Corp., 18
`USPQ2d 1382, 1386 (TTAB 1991) (title challenge based on lack of quality control barred); see also A&M
`Wings, Inc. v. Thompson, Cancellation 92064042019, WL 655036 (T.T.A.B. February 14, 2019) (title
`challenge based on uncontrolled licensing barred); Jeffrey Schermerhorn v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors,
`Cancellation 92061031, 2016 WL 1677314 (T.T.A.B. March 30, 2016) (genericness challenge barred).
`
` 4
`
` STX, Inc. v. Bauer USA, Inc., 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492, 1500–01 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (Former licensee
`is estopped to challenge trademark as abandoned based on facts arising during the term of the license.).
`
` 5
`
` Moreno v. Pro Boxing Supplies, Inc., 124 U.S.P.Q.2d 1028 (T.T.A.B. 2017) (“It is well-settled
`that use of a mark by a licensee inures to the benefit of the trademark owner.”).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Coreology placed its licensee status and its alter-ego relationship with Ms. Martz directly
`
`in issue in these proceedings by previously arguing that licensee estoppel is “futile” because
`
`“Coreology has never been a licensee of Lagree.” 36 TTABVUE 1. However, the decision
`
`Coreology cited for this proposition explained it is inapplicable when the opposer is the alter-ego
`
`of the licensee.6
`
`Further, Coreology has refused to stipulate to either its licensee status or its alter-ego
`
`relationship status, as proposed by Lagree, thus requiring Lagree to seek the requested discovery
`
`at issue. The issues to which the requested discovery is relevant are potentially dispositive of
`
`these proceedings. It would therefore be unjust to permit Coreology to evade the requested
`
`discovery based on its belated, speculative, and unsupported allegations of burden.
`
`2.
`
`Coreology Acknowledges the Importance of the Dispositive Issue of Licensee
`Estoppel.
`
`In its Opposition to Lagree’s motion to amend to include licensee estoppel, Coreology
`
`specifically requested 60 additional days for discovery if the amendment was allowed because
`
`“[t]he timing of any alleged license is important because it would dramatically affect the range of
`
`available defenses and permissible supporting evidence.” 36 TTABVUE 12. Clearly, even
`
`Coreology appreciates the significant importance of the licensee estoppel defense to the case –
`
`which is why Coreology opposed Lagree’s amendment so zealously.
`
`3.
`
`Coreology Waived its Proportionality Objection by Refusing to Meet and
`Confer in Good Faith.
`
`Coreology’s counsel ignored Lagree’s attempts to engage in compromise discussions,
`
`including Lagree’s August 27, 2019 letter, thus forcing Lagree to file the present motion. Ex. G
`
`to 54 TTABVUE. The Board expects the parties to “take into account the principals of
`
`proportionality” and to “confer in good faith about the proper scope of discovery so as to
`
`6 Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 650 F.3d 1139, 1150 (8th Cir. 2011).
`
`5
`
`

`

`minimize the need for motions.”7 Because Coreology failed to raise or discuss its proportionality
`
`objection in good faith in a pre-motion meet and confer, and instead sprang it as a surprise in its
`
`Opposition, that objection should be deemed waived and should not prevent the alter-ego
`
`discovery sought by the present motion.8 Given that proportionality is the only substantive
`
`objection Coreology raised in its Opposition, Lagree’s motion to compel should be granted in its
`
`entirety.
`
`4.
`
`Coreology’s Proportionality Objection Lacks Any Basis.
`
`Coreology’s proportionality objection lacks basis in law and in fact. Regarding the law,
`
`the Board should keep in mind that the requested discovery closely tracks the evidentiary factors
`
`numerous courts have held should be considered in determining alter-ego status, as laid out in
`
`Lagree’s motion. Coreology does not contend that the requested discovery is not in line with
`
`these factors.
`
`Regarding the facts, Coreology claims the discovery sought is overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome because Ms. Martz is a “small business owner,” suggesting that she doesn’t have the
`
`resources or the time to participate in discovery in six opposition proceedings she had Coreology
`
`initiate. 58 TTABVUE 12. However, the respective resources of the parties are hardly
`
`asymmetrical as Lagree also runs a relatively small business. Further, Coreology’s resources do
`
`not appear to be as limited as suggested. Coreology is represented by two large, sophisticated
`
`law firms in these proceedings – K&L Gates and Dentons. Simultaneously, Coreology has
`
`aggressively pursued discovery of four terabytes of Lagree’s ESI unlawfully obtained by third
`
`
`7 The Phillies v. Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 2149 (TTAB 2013)
`(citing TBMP § 2.120(a)).
`
` 8
`
` Cf. Emilio Pucci International BV v. Sachdev, 118 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (TTAB 2016) (“[T]he
`Board’s finding of a lack of good faith effort, alone, is sufficient to deny the motion for a protective
`order.”).
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`party Ronald Shafii using three additional law firms.9 Ms. Martz and the phalanx of attorneys
`
`she has retained to represent Coreology in connection with these matters are fully capable of
`
`meeting the discovery obligations imposed by the document requests and interrogatories at issue.
`
`Further, given its own aggressive actions, Coreology has no right to attempt to paint itself as a
`
`victim of harassment.
`
`As far as the time it would take to complete the discovery, Coreology contends without
`
`specificity or support that it would take an “incalculable amount of time to compile” the
`
`documents and information at issue. 58 TTABVUE 12. However, to avoid discovery on the
`
`basis of undue burden or breadth, Coreology must provide “a particular and specific
`
`demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.”10
`
`Coreology’s bare argument fails in that regard.
`
`Coreology’s argument also is objectively dubious given the opposition paper’s
`
`characterization of Coreology as a “small business,” in which case, unlike a large corporation,
`
`the number of witnesses and computer systems from which responsive information and
`
`documents must be gathered would be very limited. Indeed, Coreology has identified only Ms.
`
`Martz as the “small business owner” who would have relevant information concerning the
`
`interrogatories at issue. 58 TTABVUE 12.
`
`Moreover, the mere fact that Ms. Martz and Coreology may experience burden in
`
`responding to the requested discovery does not make that burden undue, particularly in view of
`
`the discovery’s importance to the issues in the proceedings. Responding to any discovery
`
`involves some amount of burden – that alone does not make the burden undue. Here, Coreology
`
`
`9 Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP, Turner Friedman Morris & Cohan, LLP, and the Law Offices of
`Josephine Ko; see 30 TTABVUE.
`
`10 FMR Corp. v. Alliant Partners, 51 USPQ2d 1759, 1761 (TTAB 1999).
`
`7
`
`

`

`and Ms. Martz have made Coreology’s alter-ego and licensee status a central issue. Thus, they
`
`have brought the burden of responding to discovery on that issue on themselves.
`
`Coreology also erringly claims the discovery sought is overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome because it seeks documents and information covering a nearly ten year time-span.
`
`58 TTABVUE 12. However, that time-span is not arbitrary. Licensee estoppel prohibits
`
`Coreology from attacking Lagree’s marks based on acts that occurred any time during the period
`
`it was a licensee.11 Ms. Martz became a licensee and formed Coreology, Inc. in 2010, nearly ten
`
`years ago. The time-span specified in the interrogatories and requests at issue thus tracks the
`
`legally relevant period for determining Coreology’s alter-ego and licensee status. Indeed,
`
`Coreology has previously conceded that “[t]he timing of any alleged license is important because
`
`it would dramatically affect the range of available defenses and permissible supporting
`
`evidence.” 36 TTABVUE 12.
`
`Coreology’s complaint is also at odds with its own discovery demands in these
`
`proceedings. For example, Coreology’s document requests “apply to the time period from
`
`March 15, 2000 to the present,” nearly twenty years ago. Ex. J, p. 5. Under Board rules,
`
`Coreology cannot have it both ways here.12
`
`5.
`
`Lagree Is Entitled to the Full Scope of the Discovery Sought.
`
`Coreology contends that certain of the discovery sought could have been narrowed to
`
`meet Lagree’s needs for evidence to determiner alter-ego. For example, Coreology contends that
`
`it would have been “more appropriate” to limit the scope of interrogatory 44 and document
`
`request no. 67 to information disclosing “Coreology’s asset to debt ratio on a year by year basis
`
`
`11 See, e.g., Garri Publication Associates, Cancellation No. 16,759 (TTAB Dec. 16, 1988); STX,
`Inc., 43 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1500-01.
`
`12 See TBMP § 402.01 and accompanying note 11.
`
`8
`
`

`

`for the last two years.” 58 TTABVUE 9. As an initial matter, Coreology never provided or
`
`offered to provide that information to resolve the issue before forcing Lagree to file the present
`
`motion. Having failed and refused to engage in a good faith pre-motion meet and confer, it is
`
`unfair to Lagree for Coreology to make that argument for the first time now in its Opposition and
`
`it should not be heard.
`
`Moreover, Coreology is incorrect that the narrowed information it now proposes would
`
`satisfy Lagree’s legitimate discovery needs. Lagree is entitled to establish that Coreology and
`
`Ms. Martz had an alter-ego relationship such that Coreology was a licensee between the time
`
`Coreology was formed and the institution of the pending oppositions. The initial three
`
`oppositions were instituted more than two years ago. Thus, evidence of their alter-ego
`
`relationship limited to only the last two years clearly would not satisfy Lagree’s legitimate need
`
`for that evidence with respect to the initial three oppositions.
`
`Coreology’s assertion that “since liability is not an issue in this proceeding, this
`
`information is not relevant to whether the license agreement was assumed by Coreology” (58
`
`TTABVUE 9) makes no sense. The requested discovery is specifically directed to one of the
`
`evidentiary factors the courts have found is relevant to demonstrate entities are not separate but
`
`are actually alter-egos, i.e., under-capitalization of the corporate entity by the individual entity.
`
`The requested discovery is thus relevant for this Board to determine whether Coreology is the
`
`alter-ego of Ms. Martz and a licensee of Lagree for the purposes of these proceedings.
`
`Moreover, interrogatory 44 and document request no. 67 seek information concerning not
`
`only the level of capitalization, but also transactions affecting capitalization. Coreology’s asset
`
`to debt ratio at any given time would not reveal information concerning how capital was moved
`
`9
`
`

`

`into and out of Coreology, for what purpose, in what form, and by whom, as requested. That
`
`information is inarguably relevant to establishing alter-ego.
`
`The bare fact that Ms. Martz owns and manages Coreology is insufficient by itself to
`
`establish alter-ego.13 Lagree therefore intends to develop evidence the Coreology was treated in
`
`a manner inconsistent with its corporate status. Discovery of Coreology’s capitalization and
`
`transactional information concerning or affecting its capitalization, for example, lending, cash
`
`contributions, conversion or transfer of assets, and capital distribution, may reveal such
`
`inconsistencies.14 The relevance of such discovery is not limited simply to issues of liability, but
`
`is present in any circumstance where, as here, the failure to disregard corporate formality would
`
`lead to injustice.15
`
`D.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons stated above, Applicant’s Motion to Compel should be granted.
`
`Date: December 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Chad E. Ziegler/
`Chad E. Ziegler (Reg. No. 44,273)
`Michael S. Neustel (Reg. No. 41,221)
`Jason L. Gilbert (Reg. No. 63,621)
`NEUSTEL LAW OFFICES, LTD
`2534 South University Drive, Suite 4
`Fargo, North Dakota 58103
`Telephone: (701) 281-8822
`Email: chad@neustel.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14 AT&T Co., 94 F.3d at 591.
`
`15 Id. (alter-ego factors relevant to the personal jurisdiction of parent based on contacts of
`subsidiary).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Coreology, Inc.,
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
` v.
`
`Lagree Technologies, Inc.,
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`Consolidated
`Opposition No. 91236668 (Parent)
`Opposition No. 91236942
`Opposition No. 91238139
`Opposition No. 91245111
`Opposition No. 91246748
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLICANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL was served via electronic mail upon the
`following counsel of record for Opposer in Consolidated Opposition Nos. 91236668
`(parent), 91236942, 91238139, 91245111, and 91246748:
`
`
`Henry Pogorzelski
`K&L Gates LLP
`2801 Via Fortuna
`Suite 359
`Austin, TX 78746
`Email: henry.pogorzelski@klgates.com
`
`
`
`Date: December 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Chad E. Ziegler/
`Chad E. Ziegler (Reg. No. 44,273)
`NEUSTEL LAW OFFICES, LTD
`2534 South University Drive, Suite 4
`Fargo, North Dakota 58103
`Telephone: (701) 281-8822
`Email: chad@neustel.com
`
`ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Coreology, Inc. v. Lagree Technologies, Inc.
`Consolidated Opposition No. 91236668
`
`Exhibit H
`
`Submitted by: Lagree Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the Matters of U.S. Trademark Applications Serial Nos. 87/160,134 for alleged mark
`SCRAMBLED EGGS; 87/975,341 for alleged mark WHEELBARROW; and 87/507,864 for
`alleged mark SPIDER LUNGE, and 87/659,572 for alleged mark SEXY BACK, assigned to Lagree
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`COREOLOGY INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LAGREE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`§
`§
`Consolidated
`§
`§ Opposition No. 91236668 (parent)
`§ Opposition No. 91236942
`§ Opposition No. 91238139
`§ Opposition No. 91245111
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`APPLICANT LAGREE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-45)
`
`Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and TBMP § 406, Opposer
`
`Coreology Inc. (“Coreology”) provides the following responses to Applicant Lagree Technologies,
`
`Inc. (“Lagree”)’s First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-45).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Opposer Coreology’s investigations of facts concerning this action are continuing. These
`
`responses therefore are based upon a reasonable investigation of information and documents that
`
`are presently available to Coreology. Coreology anticipates that further investigation and analysis
`
`may supply additional facts and additional meaning to the known facts. Coreology reserves the
`
`right to modify or supplement, as appropriate or as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`and any applicable TTAB Rules, any and all responses herein as additional facts are ascertained, as
`
`additional documents are obtained, and as additional analysis and contentions are formulated.
`
`
`
`1
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`

`

`Coreology also reserves the right to object to the admissibility of information and/or documents
`
`disclosed in response to these Requests at the time of trial.
`
`Upon request by Lagree, Coreology is willing to meet and confer regarding its responses
`
`below.
`
`
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
`
`Opposer Coreology asserts the following Specific Objections with respect to each request
`
`for admission, whether or not restated specifically in its objections to the request. The additional
`
`objections made further below in each response are intended to supplement these Specific
`
`Objections and do not limit the applicability of these Specific Objections to each response.
`
`1.
`
`Opposer Coreology objects to each specific request for admission to the extent that
`
`it seeks to elicit information protected from disclosure by any privilege, including, but not limited
`
`to, the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and Rule 26(b)(4) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise subject to any other applicable privilege or immunity.
`
`2.
`
`Opposer Coreology objects to each specific request for admission to the extent that
`
`it is unreasonably burdensome and oppressive.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer Coreology objects to each specific request for admission to the extent that
`
`it seeks the discovery of information and/or documents that are not relevant to any party’s claim or
`
`defense.
`
`4.
`
`Opposer Coreology objects to the “Definitions” and “General Instructions” to the
`
`extent that they seek to impose burdens and obligations on Coreology that are greater than or
`
`different from those obligations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the TBMP,
`
`
`
`2
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`

`

`or give meanings to words different than their ordinary English meaning or definitions set forth in
`
`applicable statutes or rules.
`
`5.
`
`Opposer Coreology objects to the term “Applicant’s Marks” as purportedly defined
`
`by Applicant. The alleged marks that are the subjects of the opposed applications (i.e., “scrambled
`
`eggs,” “spider lunge,” “wheelbarrow”, and “sexy back”) are neither marks, nor trademarks, nor
`
`service marks in any sense. Instead, the alleged marks are the names of exercise movements;
`
`Applicant’s proposed definition for “Applicant’s Marks” further wrongly implies that Applicant has
`
`ownership rights to these terms. Applicant does not, but Applicant is merely the applicant to the
`
`opposed trademark applications that are the subject of the present opposition proceedings.
`
`6.
`
`Opposer Coreology objects to Applicant’s overbroad definition of the term
`
`“Opposer” to include persons and entities that are not parties to this proceeding, such as Los Angeles
`
`Ventures LLC (“LAV”), which is not a party to this proceeding.
`
`7.
`
`When a response is provided upon one or more objections, the response is subject to
`
`these foregoing Specific Objections and each further stated additional objection, and thereby does
`
`not constitute a waiver of any such objections.
`
`
`
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`REQUEST NO. 1
`
`Admit that Coreology, Inc. has previously identified itself as a “licensee” of Applicant.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`3
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`

`

`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that it has ever
`
`identified itself as a “licensee” of Applicant with respect to the alleged marks at issue in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 2
`
`Admit the agreement Opposer produced as CORE000072-CORE000073 dated June 10,
`
`2010 was signed by Sarah Martz.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 9 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, admitted that Sarah Martz signed the
`
`document produced as CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 3
`
`Admit that Sarah Martz became a licensee of Lagree under the agreement Opposer produced
`
`as CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`4
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`

`

`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that Sarah Martz
`
`became a licensee of Lagree under the agreement Opposer produced as CORE000072-
`
`CORE000073, for the alleged marks at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 4
`
`Admit that Coreology, Inc. became a licensee of Lagree under the agreement Opposer
`
`produced as CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that it became a
`
`licensee of Lagree under the document Opposer produced as CORE000072-CORE000073, for the
`
`alleged marks at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 5
`
`Admit the agreement Opposer produced as CORE000072-CORE000073 has never been
`
`terminated.
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`5
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`

`

`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that the alleged
`
`agreement Opposer produced as CORE000072-CORE000073 has never been terminated.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 6
`
`Admit that Sarah Martz operated under the agreement Coreology produced as
`
`CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that Sarah Martz
`
`“operated under the agreement” Coreology produced as CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 7
`
`Admit that at the time Sarah Martz signed the agreement produced as CORE000072-
`
`CORE000073, she intended to form a company to operate under the agreement.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`6
`
`OPPOSER COREOLOGY INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`FOR ADMISSION (Nos. 1-45)
`
`

`

`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that at the time
`
`Sarah Martz signed the alleged agreement produced as CORE000072-CORE000073, she intended
`
`to form a company to “operate under the agreement.”
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 8
`
`Admit that Coreology, Inc. operated under the agreement Coreology produced as
`
`CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE
`
`Opposer Coreology incorporates by reference Specific Objections 1 through 7 as if fully
`
`stated herein. Opposer Coreology further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks admission
`
`of facts not relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its objections, Opposer Coreology denies that it “operated
`
`under the agreement” Coreology produced as CORE000072-CORE000073.
`
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 9
`
`Admit that the Palos Verdes Studio operated under