Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA910072
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/18/2018
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91241704
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Defendant
`ARCHIDRAW
`
`SANG HO LEE
`NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
`3251 OLD LEE HIGHWAY SUITE 404
`FAIRFAX, VA 22030
`Email: docket@nkllaw.com, slee@nkllaw.com, djung@nkllaw.com
`
`Answer
`
`Angela Y. Dai
`
`docket@nkllaw.com, adai@nkllaw.com, hnovick@nkllaw.com,
`slee@nkllaw.com, djung@nkllaw.com
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`/Angela Y. Dai/
`
`07/18/2018
`
`Attachments
`
`Answer to Notice of Opposition 07 18 2018.pdf(233333 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`OPEN SCREEN LIMITED,
`
`
`
`
`
`ARCHIDRAW,
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`Opposition No.: 91241704
`
`Application S/N: 87/642,359
`
`
`Mark:
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`For online submission via ESTTA
`
`
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`Applicant ARCHIDRAW (“ARCHIDRAW” or “Applicant”), by its attorneys, requests
`
`that the Board dismiss with prejudice the Opposition against Applicant’s Trademark Application
`
`Serial No. 87/642,359 for the mark
`
`(“Applicant’s Mark”). Applicant
`
`hereby answers the Notice of Opposition filed by Opposer Open Screen Limited (“Opposer”) as
`
`follows in corresponding numbered paragraphs:
`
`Opposer and its “ARCHISKETCH” Mark
`
`1. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 1 of the Notice of Opposition, and therefore denies the same.
`
`2. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Opposition, and therefore denies the same.
`
`

`

`3. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 3 of the Notice of Opposition, and therefore denies the same.
`
`4. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Opposition, and therefore denies the same.
`
`Applicant and its
`
`Mark
`
`5. Applicant admits that Applicant is a corporation of the Republic of Korea with an
`
`address at B-zone, 8th floor, C-dong, 33, Seongchon-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
`
`Applicant denies any other remaining averments in Paragraph 5 of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`6. Applicant admits that Applicant filed an Intent-To-Use application, Application
`
`Serial No. 87/642,359 (“the ’359 application”), with the USPTO on October 11, 2017 for
`
`Applicant’s Mark
`
`for:
`
`Downloadable mobile software applications for image processing for use on
`smartphones; virtual reality game software; computer software for processing
`digital images; computer programs recorded on data media designed for use in
`construction and automated manufacturing (cad/cam); 3D scanner; image
`scanners; headsets for virtual reality games; 3D viewer apparatus for smart
`phones in the form of virtual reality headsets; cameras for smartphones;
`detachable cameras; laser range finders; infrared cameras; computer software for
`organizing and capturing digital images and photos; computer software for
`converting digital images into other electronic format; software for video,
`graphics, text processing; data processing software for graphical representation;
`data processing software; augmented reality software for creating maps;
`augmented reality software for use in mobile devices for integrating electronic
`data with real world environments; computer software for two or three-
`dimensional simulation for use in design and development of industrial products;
`downloadable image files containing three dimensional renderings of spaces;
`computer application software for smartphones, namely, software for creating
`three dimensional renderings of spaces; computer software for digital image
`processing; computer programs for audiovisual and video editing; computer
`programs and software for image processing; computer programs and software for
`image processing on mobile phones in International Class 9;
`
`
`
`and for:
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Design services for building interiors; furnishing design services for the interiors
`of buildings; commercial space interior design; providing information in the field
`of interior design via a web site; space planning of interiors; providing a website
`featuring information in the field of interior design; designing of furniture; design
`of layouts for office furniture; design of layouts for offices; design and
`development of virtual reality software; design of software relating to 3D
`technology; house remodeling design; digital compression of computer data;
`computer software design; software design and development; data conversion of
`electronic
`information; computer program design and development; data
`conversion of computer program data or information, other than physical
`conversion; computer software maintenance services; computer-aided video
`graphic design in International Class 42.
`
`Applicant denies each and every other averment in Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`7. Applicant admits that during the prosecution of the ’359 application, Applicant
`
`amended the identification of goods and services in response to an Office Action issued by the
`
`Trademark Examining Attorney. Applicant admits that the ’359 application published on April
`
`10, 2018. Applicant also admits that Exhibit 1 attached to the Notice of Opposition appears to
`
`contain a copy of the ’359 application file history obtained from the USPTO’s Trademark Status
`
`& Document Retrieval (TSDR). Applicant denies each and every other averment in Paragraph 7
`
`of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`Opposer’s “ARCHISKETCH” Application and
`
`Applicant’s
`
` Application
`
`
`8. Upon information and belief, Applicant admits that Opposer filed a Use
`
`application, Application Serial No. 87/785,067 (“the ’067 application”), with the USPTO on
`
`February 5, 2018 for the Mark ARCHISKETCH (“Opposer’s Mark”) for:
`
`Downloadable software application for computer and computer tablets, namely,
`software for two and three dimensional scaled drawing for building industries,
`such as interior, landscape and product designers, and architects in International
`Class 9.
`
`Applicant denies each and every other averment in Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`9. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in the first sentence of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Opposition, and
`
`therefore denies the same. Applicant admits that Exhibit 2 attached to the Notice of Opposition
`
`appears to contain a copy of a portion of the ’067 application file history obtained from the
`
`USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR). Applicant denies each and every
`
`remaining averment in Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Opposition.
`
`10. Applicant admits that on May 17, 2018 a Suspension Notice was issued by the
`
`Examining Attorney in the ’067 application. Applicant denies each and every other averment in
`
`Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Opposition. Applicant respectfully refers the Board to the
`
`Suspension Notice contained in Exhibit 2 attached to the Notice of Opposition for the contents
`
`thereof.
`
`11. Deny.
`
`12. Deny.
`
`13. Deny.
`
`14. Deny.
`
`15. Deny.
`
`16. Deny.
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`Likelihood of Confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d)
`
`17. Applicant incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-16 of the
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`18. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`19. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 19, and therefore denies the same.
`
`20. Deny.
`
`21. Deny.
`
`22. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the same.
`
`23. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 23, and therefore denies the same.
`
`24. Deny.
`
`25. Deny.
`
`26. Deny.
`
`
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`Likelihood of Confusion under Common Law
`
`27. Applicant incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-26 of the
`
`Notice of Opposition.
`
`28. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 28, and therefore denies the same.
`
`29. Deny.
`
`30. Deny.
`
`31. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 31, and therefore denies the same.
`
`32. Applicant lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the averments in Paragraph 32, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`33. Deny.
`
`34. Deny.
`
`35. Deny.
`
`Applicant denies that Opposer would be damaged by the registration of Applicant’s
`
`Mark, denies that Opposer is entitled to having this Opposition sustained, and denies that
`
`Opposer is entitled to having the registration of Applicant’s Mark refused. Applicant respectfully
`
`requests that this Opposition be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Applicant pleads the following affirmative defenses to the Notice of Opposition.
`
`Applicant reserves the right to raise any additional defenses warranted by the facts disclosed
`
`during discovery.
`
`1. Applicant affirmatively alleges that there is no likelihood of confusion, mistake or
`
`deception at least because Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Mark are not confusingly similar.
`
`2. Opposer’s Application Serial No. 87/785,067 is void ab initio because upon
`
`information and belief, Opposer Open Screen Limited did not own the mark as of the filing date
`
`of the application, and still does not own the mark.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 18, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Angela Y. Dai/
`Harold L. Novick
`Angela Y. Dai
`Sang Ho Lee
`NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
`3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 404
`Fairfax, VA 22030
`Telephone: (703) 745-5495
`Facsimile: (703) 563-9748
`Email: hnovick@nkllaw.com
`Email: adai@nkllaw.com
`Email: slee@nkllaw.com
`Attorneys for Applicant ARCHIDRAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES is being served on Opposer Open Screen Limited through its
`attorney of record by transmitting a copy on July 18, 2018 via email to the email address
`specified below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew Dallmann (Andrew@DallmannLaw.com)
`
`Signed: /Angela Y. Dai/
`
`
`
` Angela Y. Dai
`
`
`
`
`
`