Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1161711
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/23/2021
`
`Filing date:
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91240135
`Plaintiff
`Savile Investments Pty. Ltd.
`MATTHEW J DOWD
`DOWD SCHEFFEL PLLC
`1717 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW STE 1025
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`Secondary Email(s): service@hucknutrition.com
`202-559-9175
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Extend
`Matthew J. Dowd
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com, kmotiwala@dowdscheffel.com
`/Matthew J. Dowd/
`09/23/2021
`Motion for Extension.pdf(125822 bytes )
`MJD Declaration.pdf(682738 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________________
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`AND TO RESET TRIAL DATES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and 15(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.121, and TBMP
`
`§ 509, Opposer moves to request an extension of time and to reset the trial dates. Based on the
`
`extraordinary circumstances created by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and unexpected court
`
`action in other pending matters, Opposer is seeking a thirty-day extension and a concomitant
`
`modification of the pending trial dates.
`
`“A motion to extend must set forth with particularity the facts said to constitute good cause
`
`for the requested extension; mere conclusory allegations lacking in factual detail are not
`
`sufficient.” TMBP § 509.01(a); see also Societa Per Azioni Chianti Ruffino Esportazione Vinicola
`
`Toscana v. Colli Spolentini Spoletoducali SCRL, 59 USPQ2d 1383, 1384 (TTAB 2001)
`
`(“Opposer’s counsel, in his declaration, has set forth the facts relating to his other litigation matters
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Proceeding No. 91240135
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`In re Serial No. 87594452 for HUCK
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`Huck Doll LLC,
` Applicant,
`
` v.
`
`Savile Investments Pty. Ltd.,
`
` Opposer.
`
`

`

`
`in sufficient detail to warrant a finding that good cause exists for at least a limited extension of
`
`
`
`opposer’s testimony period”).
`
`“Moreover, a party moving to extend time must demonstrate that the requested extension
`
`of time is not necessitated by the party’s own lack of diligence or unreasonable delay in taking the
`
`required action during the time previously allotted therefor.” TBMP § 509.01(a); see, e.g., Trans-
`
`High Corp. v. JFC Tobacco Corp., 127 USPQ2d 1175, 1176-77 (TTAB 2018) (finding good cause
`
`to extend close of discovery even though extension effectively reopened the time to serve
`
`discovery).
`
`A combination of actions in other pending matters and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
`
`have contributed to the need to request a final extension for this matter. Counsel for Opposer has
`
`been adversely impacted in undertaking various tasks, including general business operations. The
`
`impact on Opposer’s counsel is exacerbated by one of the firm’s employees testing positive for
`
`COVID-19 in August 2021. Declaration of Matthew J. Dowd (“Dowd Decl.”) ¶ 7. The firm
`
`immediately undertook appropriate precautionary measures to assess the safety of the firm
`
`employees, including self-isolating as necessary and seeking medical attention as necessary. Id.
`
`Firm operations were disrupted during this time, and work on all cases stalled. Id. As a small
`
`firm, this complete disruption to work caused a backlog of work and is something from which the
`
`firm is still recovering. Id.
`
`Additionally, the COVID-19 surge in Australia negatively impacts Opposer, especially
`
`considering Victoria, the locality of Opposer’s registered office, recorded its “highest single-day
`
`tally [of new COVID-19 cases] ever recorded in the state” this week. Dowd Decl. ¶ 8; see also
`
`Victoria Records 766 New Local Cases of COVID-19 and Four Deaths, Protester in Hospital with
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Coronavirus, ABC News (Sept. 23, 2021).1 Additionally, Australia has been seeing many protests
`
`
`
`and demonstrations in response to the government restrictions and mandates. Dowd Decl. ¶ 8; see
`
`also Australian Police Clash with Anti-Lockdown Protestors, Arrest Nearly 270, New York Post
`
`(Sept. 20, 2021).2 These facts, in addition to the time difference between Australia and
`
`Washington, D.C., have hindered the ability of Opposer’s counsel to coordinate with Opposer.
`
`Dowd Decl. ¶ 8.
`
`Furthermore, the COVID-related issues have been exacerbated by unexpected activity
`
`other pending matters being handled by Opposer’s counsel. Opposer’s counsel is engaged to
`
`represent the defendants in an upcoming trial in BPI Sports, Inc. v. ThermoLife International, LLC,
`
`No. 0:19-cv-60505-Smith (M.D. Fla.), which is now set for trial during the two-week period
`
`beginning October 12, 2021. Dowd Decl. ¶ 9. The case was originally scheduled for trial in
`
`August 2021, but the trial had to be continued to October due to previously mentioned operational
`
`disruptions to the firm due to COVID-19. Id. Had that case gone to trial as originally scheduled,
`
`and absent the other events here, it is very likely that discovery in the present Opposition could
`
`have been completed within the current schedule. Id. Additionally, Opposer’s counsel is
`
`representing ThermoLife International LLC in another matter before the District of Arizona that
`
`is proceeding through fact discovery, ThermoLife International LLC et al. v. Human Power of
`
`NeoGenis Labs, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-2980-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.). Dowd Decl. ¶ 10.
`
`Dowd Scheffel is also representing the defendant in Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v.
`
`Atticus, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-00509-D (E.D.N.C.), a patent infringement case involving methods of
`
`
`https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/victoria-records-new-local-covid-cases-vaccine-
`1
`progress/100484718
`2
`https://nypost.com/2021/09/20/australian-police-clash-with-anti-lockdown-protesters-arrest-
`nearly-270/
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`synthesizing the fungicide azoxystrobin. Dowd Decl. ¶ 11. In July 2021, the district court
`
`
`
`unexpectedly scheduled a hearing in Greenville, North Carolina, to hear argument on
`
`approximately twelve pending motions. Id. Travel and preparation for the hearing took a
`
`significant amount of time. Id. Additionally, the court ruled on numerous discovery motions that
`
`had been pending due to the COVID-19 pandemic just last week, and Opposer’s counsel has had
`
`an unexpected influx of discovery obligations in that matter in light of last week’s order. Id.
`
`Opposer’s counsel are also representing Starwalker PR, LLC, in Starwalker PR, LLC v.
`
`Secretary of the Army, No. 20-2024 (Fed. Cir.). Dowd Decl. ¶ 12. Oral argument was heard in
`
`the matter on September 2, 2021. Id. The scheduling of oral argument in this appeal so soon after
`
`briefing was unexpected, and thus a substantial amount of time was required to prepare for oral
`
`argument during August 2021. Id. Given the confluence of unexpected and unplanned events,
`
`Opposer respectfully submits that good cause warrants the present request. Opposer does not
`
`expect the need for any additional time to complete discovery.
`
`The current trial schedule is set as follows:
`
`EVENT
`
`DATE
`
`Discovery Closes
`
`September 23, 2021
`
`Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures Due
`
`November 7, 2021
`
`Plaintiff’s 30-day Trial Period Ends
`
`December 22, 2021
`
`Defendant’s Pretrial Disclosures Due
`
`January 6, 2022
`
`Defendant’s 30-day Trial Period Ends
`
`February 20, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Disclosures Due
`
`March 7, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s 15-day Rebuttal Period Ends
`
`April 6, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Brief Due
`
`June 5, 2022
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Defendant’s Brief Due
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Brief Due
`
`Request Oral Hearing (optional) Due
`
`
`
`
`
`July 5, 2022
`
`July 20, 2022
`
`July 30, 2022
`
`If the motion is granted, the revised trial dates will be as follows:
`
`EVENT
`
`DATE
`
`Discovery Closes
`
`October 23, 2021
`
`Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures Due
`
`December 6, 2021
`
`Plaintiff’s 30-day Trial Period Ends
`
`January 21, 2022
`
`Defendant’s Pretrial Disclosures Due
`
`February 5, 2022
`
`Defendant’s 30-day Trial Period Ends
`
`March 22, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Disclosures Due
`
`April 6, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s 15-day Rebuttal Period Ends
`
`May 6, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Brief Due
`
`Defendant’s Brief Due
`
`Plaintiff’s Reply Brief Due
`
`July 5, 2022
`
`August 4, 2022
`
`August 19, 2022
`
`Request Oral Hearing (optional) Due
`
`August 29, 2022
`
`
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that good cause exists for the requested extension, as set
`
`forth in the attached declaration. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a combination of
`
`actions in other pending matters establish good cause for the requested extension. See Dowd
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 6–13.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`To the extent that excusable neglect is necessary to reset any of the deadlines, Opposer
`
`submits that excusable neglect has been shown. See TBMP 509.01(b)(1) (“The movant must show
`
`that its failure to act during the time previously allotted therefor was the result of excusable
`
`neglect.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B))). Here, given the overall circumstances and given
`
`other previous commitments of and limitations on Opposer’s counsel, any neglect in satisfying
`
`any deadlines is certainly excusable.
`
`Undersigned counsel has conferred by e-mail with counsel for Applicant. Counsel for
`
`Applicant has stated that Applicant does oppose the requested thirty-day extension of time. Dowd
`
`Decl. ¶ 14. Applicant’s counsel did not identify any undue prejudice that would be attributable to
`
`the requested extension, and that any short extension could not reasonably be deemed prejudicial.
`
`In conclusion, Opposer submits that the foregoing motion for a thirty-day extension is
`
`supported by good cause and, if necessary, excusable neglect and that the trial deadlines should be
`
`reset as proposed.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 23, 2021
`
`By: /Matthew J. Dowd/
`Matthew Dowd
`Dowd Scheffel PLLC
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
`Suite 1025
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`(202) 559-9175
`
`Counsel for Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on this 23rd day of September 2021, the foregoing document has been
`
`filed and served on Applicant’s counsel via email as follows:
`
`Paul W. Reidl
`Law Office of Paul W. Reidl
`285 Troon Way
`Half Moon Bay, California 94019
`paul@reidllaw.com
`Phone: (650) 560-8530
`
`
`
`By: /Matthew J. Dowd/
`Matthew Dowd
`Dowd Scheffel PLLC
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
`Suite 1025
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`(202) 559-9175
`
`Counsel for Opposer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Proceeding No. 91240135
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`In re Serial No. 87594452 for HUCK
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`Huck Doll LLC,
` Applicant,
`
` v.
`
`Savile Investments Pty. Ltd.,
`
` Opposer.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF MATTHEW J. DOWD IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER’S MOTION
`FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO RESET THE TRIAL DATES
`
`I, Matthew J. Dowd, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a founder and the managing partner of the firm Dowd Scheffel PLLC (“Dowd
`
`Scheffel”), located in Washington, D.C.
`
`2.
`
`I am counsel of record for Opposer Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. in the above-
`
`referenced action.
`
`3.
`
`I have knowledge of the facts set forth herein and in Opposer’s Motion for an
`
`Extension of Time and to Reset the Trial Dates (“Motion”). I submit this Declaration in support
`
`of the Motion.
`
`4.
`
`Dowd Scheffel is a small IP boutique in Washington, D.C. We have two partners,
`
`two associates/law clerks (law school graduates who are awaiting admission to the bar), one remote
`
`attorney, and one recently retained of counsel who assists on limited matters. We also have a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`recently retained legal assistant/paralegal (hired in September 2021) who is assisting with various
`
`administrative and paralegal duties.
`
`5.
`
`To adequately represent Opposer in the current proceeding and to adequately
`
`develop the necessary record so that the Trial Trademark and Appeal Board can make a reasoned
`
`decision on a complete and accurate assessment of the law and facts, Opposer is moving for a
`
`thirty-day extension of time and to request a resetting of the trial dates. If the request is granted,
`
`the new trial dates would be as set forth in the Motion.
`
`6.
`
`A combination of actions in other pending matters and the ongoing COVID-19
`
`pandemic have contributed to the need to request a final extension for this matter.
`
`7.
`
`The COVID-19 pandemic continues to adversely impact our firm and Opposer
`
`Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. In August 2021, one of the firm’s employees tested positive for
`
`COVID-19. The firm immediately undertook appropriate precautionary measures to assess the
`
`safety of the firm employees, including self-isolating as necessary and seeking medical attention
`
`as necessary. Firm operations were disrupted during this time, and work on all of our cases stalled.
`
`As a small firm, this complete disruption to work caused a backlog of work and is something from
`
`which we are still recovering.
`
`8.
`
`Opposer is located in Australia. From numerous reports and from being informed
`
`by our client, I understand that Australia is currently going through a COVID-19 surge, with
`
`Victoria, the locality of Opposer’s registered office, recording “the highest single-day tally [of new
`
`COVID-19 cases] ever recorded in the state.” Victoria Records 766 New Local Cases of COVID-
`
`19 and Four Deaths, Protester in Hospital with Coronavirus, ABC News (Sept. 23, 2021).1
`
`
`https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/victoria-records-new-local-covid-cases-vaccine-
`1
`progress/100484718
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Additionally, Australia has been seeing many protests and demonstrations in response to the
`
`government restrictions and mandates. See Australian Police Clash with Anti-Lockdown
`
`Protestors, Arrest Nearly 270, New York Post (Sept. 20, 2021).2. The time difference between
`
`Australia and Washington, D.C., adds further complications to the situation. These current
`
`circumstances have hindered the ability of our firm to coordinate with our client.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to the above circumstances, counsel for Opposer has been involved with
`
`several other existing matters that have recently required more of the firm’s time and resources
`
`than expected. For instance, our firm, including undersigned counsel, are engaged to represent the
`
`defendants with the upcoming trial in BPI Sports, Inc. v. ThermoLife International, LLC, No. 0:19-
`
`cv-60505-Smith (M.D. Fla.), which is set for trial during the two-week period beginning October
`
`12, 2021. This case was originally scheduled for trial in August 2021, but the trial had to be
`
`continued to October due to COVID-related issues. Had that case gone to trial as originally
`
`scheduled, we would have likely been able to complete discovery in the present Opposition within
`
`the current schedule.
`
`10. We are also representing ThermoLife International LLC in another matter before
`
`the District of Arizona that is proceeding through fact discovery, ThermoLife International LLC et
`
`al. v. Human Power of NeoGenis Labs, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-2980-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.).
`
`11.
`
`Dowd Scheffel is also representing the defendant in Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
`
`v. Atticus, LLC, No. 5:19-cv-00509-D (E.D.N.C.), a patent infringement case involving methods
`
`of synthesizing the fungicide azoxystrobin. In July, the district court unexpectedly scheduled a
`
`hearing in Greenville, North Carolina, to hear argument on approximately twelve pending motions.
`
`
`https://nypost.com/2021/09/20/australian-police-clash-with-anti-lockdown-protesters-arrest-
`2
`nearly-270/
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`The hearing was conducted in person, in part, over two days, and thus required substantial
`
`preparation, as well as travel time, as it was the first in-person hearing our firm participated in
`
`since the initial outbreak of the pandemic. Undersigned counsel is lead counsel in that matter. The
`
`court ruled on numerous discovery motions that had been pending due to the COVID-19 pandemic
`
`just last week, and our firm has had an unexpected influx of discovery obligations in that matter
`
`as well in light of the court’s order.
`
`12. We are also representing Starwalker PR, LLC, in Starwalker PR, LLC v. Secretary
`
`of the Army, No. 20-2024 (Fed. Cir.). I presented oral argument on behalf of Starwalker PR, LLC,
`
`on September 2, 2021. The scheduling of oral argument in this appeal so soon after briefing was
`
`unexpected. The court scheduled argument during the first possible week—and the week before
`
`Labor Day. Based on my past experience of arguing numerous Federal Circuit appeals and being
`
`involved in many more, it is uncommon for a case to be scheduled so soon after the briefing was
`
`complete. Nonetheless, the case was scheduled for argument soon after briefing was scheduled,
`
`and thus a substantial amount of time was required to prepare for oral argument.
`
`13.
`
`Additionally, as noted above, our firm has two “associates/law clerks” (law school
`
`graduates who are awaiting admission to the bar). Both members have passed their respective bar
`
`exams and are awaiting admission. Our firm’s expectation was that, by this time, both associates
`
`would be admitted to practice and thus would be able to more fully assist in the present Opposition
`
`and other proceedings. It is my understanding that the processing of admitting lawyers to state
`
`bars has likewise been delayed by the ongoing pandemic.
`
`14.
`
`To ascertain if Applicant would consent to the requested extension, our law clerk,
`
`Kisa Motiwala, emailed counsel for the Applicant, Paul W. Reidl, on September 22, 2021. He did
`
`not respond to this email. Ms. Motiwala then called him and spoke with him on the phone on the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`afternoon of September 23, 2021. During this phone call, he expressed his opposition to the
`
`requested extension of time. I followed up as to our request by email shortly thereafter. During
`
`our subsequent email exchange, Applicant’s counsel expressed his opinion that he would not agree
`
`to any extension. A copy of the email exchange is attached to this Declaration.
`
`15.
`
`Based on the foregoing and the totality of the circumstances, I submit that good
`
`cause and excusable neglect are established for the requested extension and resetting of trial dates.
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
`
`September 23, 2021.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew J. Dowd/
`Matthew Dowd
`Dowd Scheffel PLLC
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
`Suite 1025
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`(202) 559-9175
`
`Counsel for Opposer
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 18:24:11 Eastern Daylight Time
`
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`Date:
`Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 5:23:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
`From: MaJhew Dowd
`To:
`Paul Reidl
`CC:
`Kisa MoMwala
`
`Paul,
`
` I
`
` can’t stop you from assuming about our situaMon. We were simply expecMng a liJle professional courtesy.
`Based on your reply below, it seems that you simply are objecMng because of your unfounded concern about
`“being played.”
`
`In any event, we’re disappointed by the sudden and complete change in your tone during the phone call and
`in the emails below.
`
`Best,
`MaJ
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 4:38 PM
`To: MaJhew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Cc: Kisa MoMwala <kmoMwala@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Matt,
` am by nature an agreeable guy which is why I agreed to the prior extensions, but at some point it starts to look
`like I am being played because you have had since May to take a Zoom deposition. That's a day or two of prep
`and a day on a Zoom call. My guess is that you have not even done the prep for the deposition. I am well aware of
`the disruptions to business over the last 18 months, mine included as well as my client's, but we have gotten
`through it as have others. I have to do what is right by my client by denying your request even though that will
`result in more motion practice at the Board.
`
`Regards,
`
`Paul
`
`
`
`On Thursday, September 23, 2021, 01:11:14 PM PDT, Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com> wrote:
`
`
`Paul,
`
`Our associate was taken aback by your abrupt and questionable tone. Indeed, the aggressiveness in your email,
`out of the blue, is in stark contrast to our prior agreements. Perhaps we caught you at the wrong time, and for that
`we apologize.
`
`
` I
`
`Page 1 of 13
`
`

`

`In any event, as I’m sure you can understand, the past several months have been a continuing struggle for many
`small firms and companies, ours included as well as our client in Australia. We are still addressing a business
`disruption from less than two months ago that has cascaded through various matters, compounded by
`unexpected court action in other cases.
`
`Contrary to your statement, the opposition concerns more than mere priority, as you did not oppose entry
`amended notice of opposition that sets for additional grounds, including fraud.
`
`While we expected you to be more understanding, we will request relief from the Board.
`
`Best,
`Matt
`
`
`From: "reidl@sbcglobal.net" <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 3:59 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: RE: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Matt,
`
` I
`
` think she was more taken aback that I said no and told her why; my client is very frustrated that this keeps going
`on and on following the same pattern since the schedule was reset in in May. We wait for you to schedule a
`deposition, nothing happens, and then at the 11th hour I get asked for an extension due to something. And here it
`is because you are doing something in the future and you were not feeling well this week. I just do not think that is
`good cause for an extension under the circumstances. You have had five months to do this, and now you want
`two more. Six months is the length of the Board’s standard discovery period! And the COVID situation in
`Melbourne has nothing to do with the deposition of my client who is in the USA. I think we have been more than
`accommodating of your requests.
`
`This case has been going on for over three years. This is a simple priority case. Your claim is that by putting
`PayPal on his Australian web site and indicating a willingness to ship to the USA, and getting web hits from the
`USA, he was using the mark in the USA. Our response is: No, that is not use, and you do not need my client’s
`deposition to make your case. You will have an opportunity to depose my client during the trial period and you
`can cross examine him at that time.
`
`Regards,
`
`Paul
`
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`

`

`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 12:08 PM
`To: Kisa Motiwala <kmotiwala@dowdscheffel.com>; reidl@sbcglobal.net
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
`I’m a little surprised to hear about the tone of your call with Kisa this afternoon. She was taken aback, as am I,
`after hearing about it.
`
`In any event, we thought this would be a straightforward, non-objectionable request, give our past exchanges and
`given our ongoing situation. We happy to lay out in more detail, but, if not, we’ll include it in our motion. At this
`point, and given the other unexpected situations on our end (as well as the ramped-up lockdowns recently in
`Australia), we would propose a final 60-day extension to ensure that we can wrap up the remaining discovery,
`including the deposition of your client.
`
`Although I’m at best fifty percent today due to a combination of a sinus cold and allergies, I can join a call if you
`want.
`
`Best,
`Matt
`
`
`
`From: Kisa Motiwala <kmotiwala@dowdscheffel.com>
`Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 12:40 PM
`To: "reidl@sbcglobal.net" <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Cc: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Good afternoon Paul,
`
`My name is Kisa, and I am a law clerk at Dowd Scheffel. I was recently assigned to assist Matt on this case. He’s
`been feeling under the weather this week and the firm is also preparing to go to trial in another case in two and a
`half weeks. Given this, would you have any objection to a thirty-day extension of the discovery schedule?
`Discovery is currently set to close tomorrow, September 23, 2021, so this would extend that to October 23, 2021.
`
`Best,
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`

`

`Kisa
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Date: Monday, August 23, 2021 at 6:33 PM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Jealous, and great for you!
`
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Monday, August 23, 2021 at 6:17 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`We go to Hamanasi in Southern Belize. Have done that 6 times. Great snorkeling, birding, riding, hiking, food,
`people, weather, etc.
`
`On Monday, August 23, 2021, 03:16:09 PM PDT, Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com> wrote:
`
`
`No need to apologize, as I waited.
`
` I
`
` hope you enjoyed it. I hear Belize is magnificent.
`
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Monday, August 23, 2021 at 6:15 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Sorry. I was in Belize for 10 days -- first vacay since the pandemic hit. Returned early this morning.
`
`On Monday, August 23, 2021, 03:13:32 PM PDT, Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com> wrote:
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Thank you, sir.
`
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Monday, August 23, 2021 at 6:13 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`no objection
`
`On Monday, August 23, 2021, 03:10:03 PM PDT, Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com> wrote:
`
`
`Paul,
`
`Do you have any objection to the requested extension? Let me know, and I can get on a call. If not, we will file the
`extension.
`
`Best,
`Matt
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Date: Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 5:21 PM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
`We’ll need to request another extension. Our firm had a COVID infection that disrupted our work this month.
`Could you confirm that you consent to an extension, and I will file.
`
`Best,
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`

`

`Matt
`
`Matthew J. Dowd
`Dowd Scheffel PLLC
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 1025
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Direct: (202) 573-3853
`Office: (202) 559-9175
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`http://www.dowdscheffel.com
`http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewdowd
`
`
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Date: Friday, July 23, 2021 at 9:25 PM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Have a good weekend.
`
`
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Friday, July 23, 2021 at 3:52 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`ok
`
`On Friday, July 23, 2021, 12:47:24 PM PDT, Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com> wrote:
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Paul,
`
`Would you kindly agree to a 30-day extension? If so, we will file the consent motion.
`
`Best,
`Matt
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Date: Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 10:02 AM
`To: "reidl@sbcglobal.net" <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
`Thanks for your email. We will need to file another extension. On my end, we have had some unexpected
`development in other cases requiring our attention, including a joint report that was due yesterday and a hearing
`scheduled for July 28, among other things. Yesterday, I also had oral argument scheduled at the Federal Circuit
`for September 2, which was somewhat surprising as it was the first week possible and is before the Labor Day
`weekend.
`
`We would like to extend the schedule in the opposition to accommodate the deposition. Please let us know if you
`would agree to an extension.
`
`Matt
`
`
`
`From: "reidl@sbcglobal.net" <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Friday, July 9, 2021 at 5:16 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: RE: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Matt,
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`

`

` I
`
` lost the 23d due to a mediation. Apologies.
`
`Paul
`
`From: reidl@sbcglobal.net <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 3:25 PM
`To: 'Matthew Dowd' <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: RE: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Matt,
`
`We would propose July 23 or 26. We do need a proper notice, however.
`
`Paul
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 11:52 AM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
`We have not heard back from you concerning the deposition. Please confirm that Mr. Murdock is available either
`on Thursday or Friday for a remote deposition.
`
`Best,
`Matt
`
`Matthew J. Dowd
`Dowd Scheffel PLLC
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 1025
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`

`

`Direct: (202) 573-3853
`Office: (202) 559-9175
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`http://www.dowdscheffel.com
`http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewdowd
`
`
`
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 9:18 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
` I
`
` will check with my client. He may want to do an in person deposition but thanks for suggesting the alternative.
`
`Paul
`
`On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, 4:07:23 PM PDT, Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com> wrote:
`
`
`Paul,
`
` A
`
` remote deposition would be fine for this matter.
`
`
`Matt
`
`From: reidl@sbcglobal.net <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 6:46 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: RE: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Zoom or in person?
`
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`

`

`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:18 AM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
`Please let us know of several dates when Mr. Murdock is available for a deposition.
`
`Best,
`Matt
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 1:21 PM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
`The period of suspension did not commence until the Board issued its order on January 28, 2021. The Trademark
`Rule is quite clear in that the mere filing of a motion does not toll a party from complying with discovery deadlines.
`
`Please let me know whether you intend to make Mr. Murdock available for a deposition.
`
`Matthew J. Dowd
`Dowd Scheffel PLLC
`1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 1025
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Direct: (202) 573-3853
`Office: (202) 559-9175
`mdowd@dowdscheffel.com
`http://www.dowdscheffel.com
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`

`

`http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewdowd
`
`
`
`From: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 1:17 PM
`To: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Subject: RE: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
` I
`
` think the TMBP is very clear. The suspension is automatic on the filing of a motion. You do not get to continue
`taking discovery until the Board eventually issues the suspension order. That is why in all cases (apparently except
`this one), the schedule is reset to the time existing as of the date of the filing of a motion.
`
`
`From: Matthew Dowd <mdowd@dowdscheffel.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:18 PM
`To: Paul Reidl <reidl@sbcglobal.net>
`Subject: Re: Savile Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Huck Doll LLC
`
`Paul,
`
` I
`
` am following up on your email below. We disagree with your position that the deposition notices were improper.
`As detailed in 37 C.F