Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1018223
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/25/2019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91243104
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Plaintiff
`Salt Life, LLC
`
`JASON A PITTMAN
`DORITY & MANNING PA
`75 BEATTIE PLACE, SUITE 1100
`GREENVILLE, SC 29601
`UNITED STATES
`jpittman@dority-manning.com, litdocketing@dority-manning.com,
`timw@dority-manning.com
`864-271-1592
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Motion for Discovery Sanctions
`
`Jason A Pittman
`
`JPITTMAN@DORITY-MANNING.COM
`
`/jason a pittman/
`
`11/25/2019
`
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Show Cause_Sanctions_11-25-19_For Filing.pdf(185946 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of trademark application Serial No. 87/753,722
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SALT LIFE, LLC,
`
`Opposition No. 91243104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Serial No. 87/753,722
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark: SALT LIFE SOLUTIONS
`SALT LIFE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
`
`Salt Life, LLC (referred to hereinafter as “Opposer”), pursuant to TBMP §§ 411.05 and
`
`
`
`527 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h), hereby moves and respectfully requests that the Board issue an
`
`order imposing discovery sanctions upon Applicant, Salt Life Solutions, LLC (referred to
`
`hereinafter as “Applicant”), for failing to comply with two (2) Orders of the Board directing
`
`Applicant to provide complete and proper responses to Opposer’s interrogatories and requests for
`
`production. See Order, 8 TTABVUE 1 and Order, 13 TTABVUE at 1.
`
`In both Orders (8 TTABVUE and 13 TTABVUE), the Board granted a Motion to
`
`Compel Discovery filed by Opposer and provided Applicant with thirty (30) days in which to
`
`provide full and complete discovery responses, without objection. Id. at 2. The deadlines for
`
`Applicant to comply with the Orders of the Board have long expired and Applicant has not
`
`provided any further discovery responses. Having failed to comply with multiple Orders of the
`
`Board, discovery sanctions against Applicant are warranted under TBMP §527 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`2.120(h).
`
`“The Board expects parties (and their attorneys or other authorized representatives) to
`
`cooperate with one another in the discovery process, and looks with extreme disfavor on those
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`who do not.” TBMP §408.01. In the present case, Applicant has repeatedly failed to provide
`
`complete and proper responses to any of Opposer’s interrogatories and requests for production.
`
`See generally, Motions to Compel, 6 TTABVUE and 11 TTABVUE. Similarly, Applicant has
`
`not provided any basis for its uncooperative and dilatory discovery practices. See, e.g., First
`
`Motion to Compel, 6 TTABVUE 1-2. In each Order (8 TTABVUE and 13 TTABVUE), the
`
`Board warned Applicant that its failure to comply with these Orders could result in the sanctions
`
`requested herein. Id. at 2. Notwithstanding this admonition, Applicant failed to comply with two
`
`Orders of the Board.
`
`The precedent of the Board makes it clear that when a party fails to comply with an Order
`
`of the Board granting motions to compel, sanctions are appropriate. See, e.g., M.C.I. Foods Inc.
`
`v. Bunte, 86 USPQ2d 1044, 1048 (TTAB 2008) ("Because M.C.I. failed to comply with the
`
`Board's orders [granting motions to compel], sanctions are appropriate."), and MHW Ltd. v.
`
`Simex, Aussenhandelsgesellschaft Savelsberg KG, 59 USPQ2d 1477, 1478 (TTAB 2000) ("The
`
`law is clear that if a party fails to comply with an order of the Board relating to discovery,
`
`including an order compelling discovery, the Board may order appropriate sanctions as defined
`
`in Trademark Rule 2.120(g)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), including entry of judgment
`
`[citations omitted]."). In instances where a party has been afforded multiple opportunities to
`
`comply with the Board’s discovery rules and orders, an appropriate discovery sanction has been
`
`determined to be an entry of judgment against the non-compliant party. See Benedict v.
`
`Superbakery Inc., 665 F.3d 1263, 101 USPQ2d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming Board’s
`
`entry of judgment as a discovery sanction for repeated failures to comply with Board’s
`
`reasonable orders), aff’g 96 USPQ2d 1134 (TTAB 2010). In the present case, Applicant has
`
`failed to comply with multiple Orders issued by the Board and repeatedly failed to comply with
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`the Board’s discovery rules. Despite being warned by the Board of its obligation to provide full
`
`and complete discovery responses, Applicant has disregarded the Orders of the Board. Given
`
`these multiple failures, Opposer submits that an appropriate discovery sanction would be an
`
`entry of judgment against the non-compliant party, Applicant.
`
`To the extent, the Board is inclined to permit Applicant further time in which to provide
`
`full and complete discovery responses, despite Applicant’s failure to comply with the Orders (8
`
`TTABVUE and 13 TTABVUE) of the Board, Opposer would respectfully request that the Board
`
`enter an Amended Schedule for this case which permits Opposer, but not Applicant, a period of
`
`ninety (90) days in which to conduct additional discovery related to the new information and/or
`
`documents that may be produced by Applicant.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Applicant has failed to comply with multiple Orders from the Board requiring Applicant
`
`to provide complete and proper responses to Opposer’s Discovery Requests. Applicant has
`
`failed to make any effort to comply with the Orders of the Board or provide full and complete
`
`discovery responses to Opposer. Having repeatedly failed to comply with the Orders of the
`
`Board, discovery sanctions are warranted under TBMP §527 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(h).
`
`For these reasons, Opposer respectfully requests that the Board issue an Order entering
`
`sanctions against Applicant for its failure to comply with the Orders of the Board. Given the
`
`multiple failures noted herein, an appropriate discovery sanction would be an entry of judgment
`
`against the non-compliant party, Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`DATED: November 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__/ Jason A Pittman / ___
`Jason A. Pittman
`jpittman@dority-manning.com
`DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
`75 Beattie Place, Suite 1100
`Greenville, SC 29601
`Phone: 864-271-1592
`Fax: 864-335-0127
`
`Attorney for Opposer
`Salt Life, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 25, 2019, I served a true and complete copy of the
`
`foregoing OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS on opposing counsel via
`
`email as follows:
`
`
`ROSENNY BURGOS
`18520 NW 67 AVE, STE 351
`MIAMI, FL 33015
`Rbtrademark@rosennyburgos.com
`Phone: 305-392-7475
`
`
` / Jason A. Pittman /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason A. Pittman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jpittman@dority-manning.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`75 Beattie Place, Suite 1100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenville, SC 29601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: 864-271-1592
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fax: 864-335-0127
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket