Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1031477
`
`Filing date:
`
`01/27/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91250990
`
`Defendant
`Interpet Limited
`
`RAY K HARRIS
`FENNEMORE CRAIG PC
`2394 E CAMELBACK ROAD SUITE 600
`PHOENIX, AZ 85016
`UNITED STATES
`ip@fclaw.com, rharris@fclaw.com
`602-916-5000
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Ray K. Harris
`
`rharris@fclaw.com, ip@fclaw.com
`
`/Ray K. Harris/
`
`01/27/2020
`
`Opp. no. 91250990 Applicant's Motion for Judgment on the Plead-
`ings.pdf(2567566 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`

`

`IN THE I-INITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TzuAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 9l 250990
`
`Serial No: 88/210846
`Mark: POND MONSTA
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`Monster Energy Company,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v
`
`Interpet Limited
`
`Applicant.
`
`APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Monster Energy Company ("Opposer") filed its Notice of Opposition No. 91250990, on
`
`September 17, 2019 (the "Opposition"). Interpet Limited ("Applicant") filed its Answer to
`
`Opposition, on October 22,2019 (the "Answer").
`
`Applicant now moves for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to TBMP $ 504 and Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. I2(c). The undisputed facts contained in the pleadings establish that Opposer does not have
`
`standing.
`
`The following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Opposition and Answer show that
`
`the marks are different, the products are different, and the consumers are different. Opposer has
`
`no reasonable belief of damage as a result of Applicant's registration. Applicant respectfully asks
`
`this Board to grant this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismiss the Opposition in its
`
`entirety.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`The Marks And Products At Issue Are Very Different
`
`Applicant's Mark. Applicant filed to register POND MONSTA ("Applicant's Mark"). See
`
`U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88/210846 dated November 29,2018 (the "Application");
`
`1
`
`

`

`Opposition at fl 1. As seen on the product's packaging, Applicant's Mark consists of the words
`
`POND MONSTA in all lower case letters. See Answer Exhibit A (image of Applicant's use of
`
`Applicant's Mark).
`
`Applicant's Product. The Application seeks to register Applicant's Mark in International
`
`Class 7 for use with "vacuum cleaners for ponds and aquatic environments; cleaning machines for
`
`ponds; suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners adapted for ponds and aquatic environments; brushes
`
`being parts of cleaning machines for ponds and for vacuum cleaners adapted for ponds and aquatic
`
`environments." See Opposition at fl 1. Applicant uses Applicant's Mark on a vacuum cleaner
`
`made specifically for ponds or similar environments. See Answer Exhibit A.
`
`Applicant's Use of the Mark. Applicant has sold this product since at least as early as
`
`February, 2012, and continues to sell it to those who need to clean an aquatic environment.
`
`Applicant claims first use of Applicant's Mark in interstate commerce on February 2,2012. See
`
`Application; Opposition tl 1. Applicant previously extended registration of Applicant's Mark to
`
`the United States under the Madrid Protocol with a priority date of December 1I,2007 and a
`registration date of March 17,2009. See U.S. Reg. No. 3,59I,44I; Answer at 1T l. Although
`
`Applicant's Mark was in use and incontestable, it was cancelled on February 1, 2018 by the
`
`International Bureau for nonrenewal. Id.
`
`Opposer's Monster Marks. Opposer owns several trademarks, all of which incorporate the
`
`word "MONSTER" and most of which incorporate the word "ENERGY," including the mark
`
`MONSTER ENERGY. See Opposition at \2; see generally Opposition at Exs. 1-12 (all of
`Opposer's marks are collectively referred to as the "Monster Marks."). The Monster Marks also
`
`consist of a stylized letter "M," intended to look like claw marks, and the stylized word "Monster,"
`
`that includes a vertical slash through the letter "o." See e.g., Opposition at Ex.2.
`
`Ooooser's Products. The Monster Marks are primarily used for Opposer's brand of energy
`
`drinks. See Opposition at fl 2. However, Opposer also uses the Monster Marks on clothingo hats,
`
`bags, gloves, and other apparel. Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`B. Opposer Does Not Allege Any Cognwable Damage
`
`Only one paragraph of the Opposition refers to the purported damage that will be suffered
`
`by Opposer should Applicant's Mark be registered:
`
`Opposer will be damaged by registration of the Application in that Applicant's Mark so
`resembles Opposer's MONSTER Marks, including as registered in the PTO, and in which
`Opposer owns common law trademark rights, as to be likely, when used or in connection
`with the goods and services as they are identified in the Application, as to cause confusion,
`or to cause mistake or to deceive within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act,
`1s. u.s.c. $ 1052(d).
`
`See Opposition at fl 28. Beyond these conclusory words, that primarily quote the language of l5
`
`U.S.C. $$ 1052(d), Opposer fails to provide any allegations detailing the supposed confusion and
`
`resulting damage. Opposer also served its Initial Disclosure on December 23,2019, which did not
`
`provide any additional details as to how Applicant's Mark could be confused with the Monster
`
`Marks or otherwise cause damage to Opposer. See Exhibit A (Opposer's Initial Disclosures).
`
`The Goods are not Alleged to be the Same or Related. Opposer does not allege in the
`
`Opposition that it uses the Monster Marks on vacuums for ponds or other aquatic environments.
`
`Opposer does not allege that it uses the Monster Marks on vacuums even outside of the aquatic
`
`context. Opposer does not allege that it uses the Monster Marks on cleaning machinery of any
`
`kind. Opposer does not allege that Applicant seeks to use Applicant's Mark on energy drinks.
`
`Opposer does not allege that Applicant seeks to use Applicant's Mark on any type of consumable
`
`product. Nor does Opposer allege that Applicant has registered to use Applicant's Mark on apparel
`
`of any kind.
`
`Applicant's Mark does not Resemble Opposer's Monster Marks. Opposer does not allege
`
`that Applicant's Mark is similarly stylized like the Monster Marks. Opposer does not allege that
`
`Applicant's Mark uses or could be confused with its "claw mark" letter "M." Opposer does not
`
`allege that it has any rights to, or that it uses, the word "MONSTA," as used in Applicant's Mark.
`
`The substantial differences between Applicant's Mark and the Monster Marks are readily visible
`
`when comparing the two. Compare Answer at Ex. A with Opposition at Exs. 1-12. Simply put,
`
`J
`
`

`

`Opposer has neither alleged nor disclosed any possible way that Applicant's Mark could be
`
`confused with Opposer's Monster Marks or its products.
`
`Similaritv in Channels of Trade is not Alleged. Opposer alleges that it promotes its
`
`beverage products in stores such as Lowe's, Auto Zone, Home Depot, Sears, and Walmart. See
`
`Opposition at fl 9. There is no allegation that Applicant distributes in these retail stores. Applicant
`
`affirmatively alleges that it does not distribute its products in hardware or department stores. See
`
`Answer J14. Even if Applicant and Opposer shure channels of trade, Opposer has not alleged
`
`anyfacts that would result in consumer confusion or resulting damages.
`
`Discoverv is not Necessarv Given the Lack of Allesations to Establish Confusion.
`
`Applicant's POND MONSTA product has been on sale in commerce since at least as early as
`
`February 2012. The pending Application was filed more than a year ago. Despite this long period
`
`of concurrent use and notice of the POND MONSTA mark, Opposer offers no allegation of actual
`
`confusion and no factual allegation upon which a likelihood of confusion can be founded. Due to
`
`the substantial visible differences between the relevant marks, and the differences in the goods for
`
`which registration of Applicant's Mark is sought, there is no discovery that could change these
`
`undisputed facts.l
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`A. Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Standard
`
`"After the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - aparty may move for
`
`judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c); TBMP $ 504.01. The purpose of a motion for
`
`I The unreasonableness of Opposer's claim that it will be damaged by Applicant's Mark is
`demonstrated by its written discovery requests. On January 75,2020, Opposer served on Applicant
`thirty-three Requests for Admissions, Jifty-one Interrogatories, and Jifty-four Requests for
`Production, for a total of one hundred and thirty-eighf discovery requests. These discovery
`requests are not tailored to specific theories of possible damage but ask about every imaginable
`facet of Applicant and Applicant's Mark. Clearly, Opposer is propounding overbroad and
`overburdensome discovery requests because it has no coherent theory to show it would be damaged
`by Applicant's Mark. Instead, Opposer has embarked on a fishing expedition, seeking to take
`Applicant and the Board along on an expensive and needless journey designed to bully Applicant
`into submission.
`
`4
`
`

`

`judgment on the pleadings is to test "the undisputed facts" and any facts "of which the Board may
`
`take judicial notice." Id. at $ 504.02. "For purposes of the motion, all well pleaded factual
`
`allegations of the nonmoving party must be accepted as true, while those allegations of the moving
`
`party that have been denied...are deemed false." Id. However, 'ofc]onclusions of law are not taken
`
`as admitted ." Id. This Board may grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of Applicant where
`
`"on the facts as deemed admitted, there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved, and the
`
`moving party is entitled to judgment, on the substantive merits of the controversy, as a matter of
`
`law." Id.
`
`In this case, the parties do not and cannot dispute the marks at issue and the nature of the
`
`products sold under those marks. There are no well plead factual allegations to support a likelihood
`
`of confusion or resulting damages. The facts plead demonstrate that Applicant's Mark and the
`
`Monster Marks are so wildly different from one another and are used on such vastly different
`
`products that, as a matter of law, there can be no confusion and, thus, no reasonable belief of
`
`damage. Judgment on the pleadings should be granted in favor of Applicant.
`
`B.
`
`The Undisputed Facts Show Opposer's Claim Of Damage Is Unreasonable
`
`In order to have standing to bring an opposition, a person must show that he or she has a
`
`"real interest" in the registration of the mark based on a "Feasonable basis for a belief that he
`
`would be damaged by its registration;' See Ritchiev. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092,1095 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999) (emphasis added); 15 U.S.C. $ 1063(a). The belief cannot merely be a subjective belief in
`
`damage but "must have a reasonable basis in fact." Ritchie,l70 F.3d at 1098. In an opposition
`
`proceeding, the opposer bears the burden of proof, which often involves demonstrating the
`
`reasonable belief of damage on grounds of "likelihood of confusion." Massey Junior Coll., Inc. v.
`
`Fashion Inst. of Tech., 492F .2d 1399,1403 (C.C.P.A. 1974); see also l5 U.S.C. $ I 125(a) (stating
`
`that a person can be damaged by the use of a trademark that is "likely to cause confusion, or to
`
`cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with
`
`5
`
`

`

`another person, or as to origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or
`
`commercial activities by another person.").
`
`Opposer alleges the legal conclusion that it would be damaged by Applicant's Mark
`because of a likelihood of confusion and bases that conclusion exclusively on the *fact" that
`
`"Applicant's Marksa resembles Opposer's MONSTERMarks."
`
`Opposition atfl 28 (emphasis
`
`^See
`
`added). This is not a case where standing can be found because the trademarks are the same or
`
`similar and they are used on the same or related products. See e.g., Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort
`
`Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1101 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (finding that the opposer had standing
`
`based on its justified belief that it would be damaged by the registration of a similar trademark that
`
`would be used for identical goods). Here, the undisputed facts show that the marks are completely
`
`different and the products on which the marks are used are completely different. There can be no
`
`reasonable likelihood of confusion and resulting damage to Opposer.
`
`Applicant's Mark consists merely of the words "Pond" and "Monsta" (a fictitious word)
`
`whereas the Monster Marks consist of some combination of the words "Monster," "Energy,"
`
`"Java," and "Lo-Carb." See Opposition atl2. Moreover, Opposer's Monster Marks are stylized,
`
`including an "M" that is intended to look like claw marks, as well as a unique font being used for
`
`the word "Monster." See Opposition at Exs. l-T2. Clearly, anyone comparing Applicant's Mark
`
`with the Monster Marks would see immediate differences. In fact, the marks are so different that
`
`seeing POND MONSTA simply would not bring to mind the Monster Marks.
`
`In addition to the differences in sight, sound, meaning and commercial impression of the
`
`marks, there is no overlap between the products marketed under the marks. The only products on
`
`which Opposer uses the Monster Marks are beverages, nutritional supplements, and appnel. See
`
`Opposition a|l2. Not only does Applicant not use Applicant's Mark on beverages, it doesn't use
`
`it on any product that is consumable. Applicant also does not use the mark on any apparel.
`
`Applicant only uses the mark on vacuum cleaners for ponds and similar aquatic environments.
`
`6
`
`

`

`These utterly unrelated products cannot support a finding of reasonable consumer confusion as to
`
`which company makes which product.
`
`This Opposition is ludicrous on its face and is a complete and total waste of resources.
`
`Opposer is actually trying to convince this Board that some people will be confused into thinking
`
`that the same company behind MONSTER ENERGY drinks creates pond vacuums that bear a
`
`completelv different trademark. This is not a case where Applicant is trying to apply the same
`
`trademark to a different product - this is both a different trademark and a completely different type
`
`ofproduct.
`
`The only way that Opposer could succeed in its Opposition is if it has absolute rights over
`
`all derivations of the word "Monster" for all types of products. But Opposer does not allege such
`
`rights, nor can it. A search on the Trademark Electronic Search System ("TESS") for the word
`
`"Monster" reveals 1,640 active records that contain or relate to that word. See Exhibit B (first
`
`page of "Monster" TESS search results).2 Additionally, a search on TESS for the word "Monsta"
`
`reveals 34 active records that contain or relate to that word. See Exhibit C (first page of "Monsta"
`
`TESS search results).3 Clearly, Opposer exists in the marketplace with these other active pending
`
`or registered trademarks and is not being damaged.
`
`There is nothing specific to Applicant's Mark that would cause damage to Opposer.
`
`Accordingly, Opposer lacks standing to bring this Opposition. Opposer cannot show that it has a
`
`reasonable belief that it will be damaged by the registration of Applicant's Mark. McDermott v.
`
`San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent,z4}F. App'x 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming
`
`a dismissal for lack of standing where the opposer had no reasonable belief that it would be
`
`2 Applicant respectfully requests that this Board take judicial notice of Exhibit B. See TBMP
`5 704.12; Fed. R. Evid. 20i (a court "must" take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to
`reasonable dispute because it can be "accurately and readily determined from sources whose
`accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" when a party requests the court do so and supplies it
`with the necessary information.).
`
`3 Applicant respectfully requests that this Board take judicial notice of Exhibit C. See n.2.
`
`7
`
`

`

`damaged by the registration). Applicant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as a matter of
`
`law.
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`This Board should decide this case now before the parties (and the Board) waste time and
`
`resources on a dispute that should not exist. The trademarks are not similar. The products are not
`
`similar. There is no reasonable likelihood that the registration of Applicant's Mark - which has
`already been used for years in the marketplace - would cause harm to Opposer. If confusion were
`likely, it would have already occurred and Opposer would have alleged the requisite facts to
`
`establish damages, or at least a theory of damages. The POND MONSTA vacuum is not likely to
`
`confuse consumers of MONSTER ENERGY drinks. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant
`
`respectfully asks that this Board issue a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Applicant.
`
`Dated: January 27,2020
`
`Ray K. Harris
`Mario C. Vasta
`Fennemore Craig, P.C.
`23948. Camelback Road, Suite 600
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016
`Attorney for Applicant
`Interpet Limited
`
`8
`
`

`

`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Answer to Notice of Opposition
`was serve via first class mail on January 27,2020 to:
`
`Steven J. Nataupsky
`Bwaa Kahf
`Jason A. Champion
`Alexander D. Zeng
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Signature:
`
`Date: J
`
`15504744
`
`enA/rr*l ?1, ?'tlzo
`\)
`
`9
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`HANB.10083M
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No.: 91250990
`
`Serial No.: 88/210846
`
`Mark: POND MONSTA
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`INTERPET LIMITED,
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`OPPOSER’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.120 and Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`Opposer, Monster Energy Company (“Opposer”), hereby makes the following initial disclosures.
`
`These initial disclosures are based on information and documents presently available to and
`
`located by Opposer and its attorneys. Opposer has not completed its investigation of the facts
`
`related to this proceeding, its discovery in this action, or its preparation for trial. By making
`
`these disclosures, Opposer does not represent that it is identifying every document, tangible thing
`
`or witness possibly relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding. Nor does Opposer
`
`waive its right to withhold from production any document or tangible thing disclosed herein on
`
`the basis of privilege,
`
`the work product doctrine, relevancy, undue burden or other valid
`
`objection.
`
`Opposer’s disclosure represents a good faith effort to identify information it reasonably
`
`believes is required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Accordingly, the disclosures
`
`made herein are without prejudice to Opposer’s right to supplement its disclosures as provided
`
`by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`

`

`A.
`
`WITNESSES
`
`Opposer has not yet identified all the persons whom it may call as a witness in this
`
`action. Upon information and belief, other persons having discoverable information which
`
`Opposer may use to support its claims may be uncovered during discovery. However, pursuant
`
`to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(l)(A)(i), Opposer identifies the following person who
`
`may have discoverable information that Opposer may use to support its claims:
`
`1.
`
`Rodney Sacks
`1 Monster Way
`Corona, CA 92879
`
`Mr. Sacks is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Monster Energy
`
`Company and has knowledge regarding Opposer’s extensive and continuous use of Opposer’s
`
`marks identified in Opposer’s Notice of Opposition filed in this proceeding (“Opposer’s
`
`Marks”), including Opposer’s marketing and promotion of Opposer’s Marks, the products and
`
`services offered in connection with Opposer’s Marks, Opposer’s channels of distribution for its
`
`products and services sold in connection with Opposer’s Marks, Opposer’s sales for its products
`
`and services sold in connection with Opposer’s Marks, Opposer’s first use of Opposer’s Marks,
`
`consumer recognition of Opposer and Opposer’s Marks, Opposer’s enforcement efforts relating
`
`to unauthorized uses of Opposer’s Marks, and Opposer’s business in general. Mr. Sacks should
`
`be contacted through Opposer’s counsel.
`
`Opposer reserves the right
`
`to supplement
`
`these disclosures in accordance with the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 37 C.F.R. Part 2—Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases.
`
`B.
`
`DOCUMENTS
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), Opposer provides below a
`
`description by category of the documents that are in its possession, custody or control that it
`
`currently believes it may use to support its claims, excluding any documents subject to claims of
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`privilege or immunity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5). By providing the
`
`following description of documents, Opposer does not waive its right
`
`to withhold from
`
`production any document based on grounds of attorney-client privilege, work product immunity,
`
`or any other immunity or privilege:
`
`1.
`
`Applicant’s application for Applicant’s mark identified in Opposer’s Notice of
`
`Opposition filed in this proceeding (“Applicant’s Mark”) and/or the prosecution
`
`history of Applicant’s Mark.
`
`Documents relating to Applicant’s use, advertisement, and/or promotion of
`
`Applicant’s Mark.
`
`Documents relating to Opposer’s federal trademark registrations for Opposer’s
`
`Marks and/or the prosecution histories of these marks.
`
`Documents relating to Opposer’s extensive and continuous use of Opposer’s
`
`Marks.
`
`Documents relating to Opposer’s advertising and promotion of, and recognition of
`
`Opposer’s Marks.
`
`Documents relating to goods and services offered in connection with Opposer’s
`
`Marks.
`
`Documents relating to sales of goods and/or services offered in connection with
`
`Opposer’s Marks.
`
`Products and/0r labels, point—of—sale materials, marketing materials, promotional
`
`materials, physical samples and/or other specimens of use bearing Opposer’s
`
`Marks.
`
`Documents relating to the strength of Opposer’s Marks.
`
`

`

`10.
`
`Documents relating to the fame of Opposer’s Marks.
`
`11.
`
`Documents showing the types of customers of the goods and/or services sold or
`
`offered under Opposer’s Marks.
`
`12.
`
`Documents showing the overlap in the channels of trade of the goods and/or
`
`services sold or offered under Opposer’s Marks and the goods and/or services
`
`sold under Applicant’s Mark.
`
`13.
`
`Documents showing likelihood of confusion between Opposer’s Marks and
`
`Applicant’s Mark.
`
`The documents and things identified above are kept at counsel’s office and/or Opposer’s
`
`offices. Opposer reserves the right to produce or make available for inspection additional
`
`documents and things as discovery progresses and Opposer’s investigation of the facts of this
`
`matter continues.
`
`C.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`Monetary damages are not applicable to this proceeding.
`
`D.
`
`INSURANCE
`
`Opposer is not presently aware of any applicable insurance coverage.
`
`

`

`Opposer’s investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case is ongoing,
`
`and Opposer reserves the right to supplement this disclosure as appropriate under the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 37' C.F.R. Part 2-Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases.
`
`Dated: December 23, 2019
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS. OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`By:
`
`/Alexander D. Zeng/
`Steven J. Nataupsky
`Baraa Kahf
`
`Jason A. Champion
`Alexander D. Zeng
`David C. O’Hair
`
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`(949) 760-0404
`efiling@knobbe.com
`Attorneys for Opposer,
`MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY
`
`

`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S INITIAL
`
`DISCLOSURES has been served on Applicant’s counsel of record on December 23, 2019 Via
`
`electronic mail to:
`
`Ray K. Harris
`FENNEMORE CRAIG PC
`
`rharris@fclaw.com
`ip@fclaw.com
`
`Signature: W
`
`Name: Doreen P. Buluran
`
`Date: December 23 2019
`
`31680466
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`1/27/2020
`
`Record List Display
`
`Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`TESS was last updated on Mon Jan 27 04:37:21 EST 2020
`
`HEWLJEEFi'
`
`
`
`Hl-EEEIWHI L'IIr..'1 STFI‘|_II::T‘JF:E[I
`Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
`
`_-_--
`
` Start List
`At:
`
`OR
`
`to
`record:
`
`Refine Search (live)[LD] AND (monster)[COMB]
`
`1640 Records(s) found (This
`page: 1 ~ 50)
`
`Current Search: 87: (live)[LD] AND (monster)[COMB] docs: 1640 occ: 5130
`
`
`
`I:
`1
`
`
`
`————:
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`88744858 |:| DIVE MONSTER
`TSDR
`LIVE
`88622521
`MONSTER MOTION SAFETY
`|TSDR
`I LIVE
`tmsearch.uspto.gov/binlshowfield?f=toc&state=4808%3A716xva.7.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_p|ura|=yes&p_s_PARA1=|ive...
`
`1/2
`
`

`

`1/27/2020
`
`Record List Display
`
`@———:m
`
`
`
`
`
`IE==:I==
`
`IE_—_:I_
`li_—_:l_
`@———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`
`
`EIIEIEIIiIIiIIEIIEIWWEIIEIIEI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42———E—
`43
`
`———:—
`
`HEP-ILJEEF?
`
`
`mm“. L1Ir..'1 SEARCH 06 --_- HELP
`STFrI_|-:Z:TIIJF:E[I
`
`|.HOME | SITE INDEXI SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRWACY POLICY
`
`tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4808%3A716xva.7.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=|ive...
`
`2/2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`1/27/2020
`
`Record List Display
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`
`Trademarks > Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
`
`TESS was last updated on Mon Jan 27 04:37:21 EST 2020
`
`HE?! LlEiEFi'
`
`
`Hl-EEEIWHI L'IIr..'1 SEARCH 06 --
`STFi'I_II::TuFlE[I
`Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.
`
`HELP
`
` Start List
`At:
`
`OR-to
`record:
`
`34 Records(s) found (This
`page: 1 ~ 34)
`
`Refine Search (live)[LD] AND (monsta)[COMB]
`
`Current Search: 88: (live)[LD] AND (monsta)[COMB] docs: 34 occ: 113
`
`
`
`———:—
`————:
`
`———:—
`————:
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`———:—
`
`————:
`_———:
`———:—
`1———E—
`19———E—
`87944164 |:| THE GREEN GM VEGAN MONSTA-AAH
`TSDR
`LIVE
`87944157 |:| THE GREEN GM VEGAN MONSTA
`TSDR
`LIVE
`
` E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
`
`—_mm
`
`
`WWWHWIWI
`tmsearch.uspto.gov/binlshowfield?f=toc&state=4808%3A716xva.8.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_p|ura|=yes&p_s_PARA1=|ive...
`
`1/2
`
`

`

`1/27/2020
`
`Record List Display
`
`419805
`5776115
`—_
`5416313
`471298
`
`(A)
`
`MONSTA-D
`
`MEL MONSTA
`
`TSDR
`
`LIVE
`
`m T
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`188934__I9 188818
`
`
`MONSTA BUD
`3
`78405789
`3088507
`OZI MAGIC GRO JUICE MONSTA BUD
`SDR
`3795753 MONSTA CLOTHING CO T DR778474433 LIVE
`
`
`
`
`
`HEWLIEEFI
`
`
`
`Ell-1:111:51 L'IIr..'1 STFu‘LIIIZITUFrEfl
`
`| HOME | SITE INDEXI SEARCH | eBUSINESS | HELP | PRWACY POLICY
`
`tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4808%3A716xva.8.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_p|ura|=yes&p_s_PARA1=|ive...
`
`2/2
`
`