Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1117241
`
`Filing date:
`
`02/28/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91251090
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Plaintiff
`Transamerica Corporation
`
`BRUCE A MCDONALD
`SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
`1055 THOMAS JEFFERSON ST NW #400
`WASHINGTON, DC 20007
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: bmcdonald@sgrlaw.com
`202-263-4362
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`Bruce McDonald
`
`bmcdonald@sgrlaw.com
`
`/Bruce McDonald/
`
`02/28/2021
`
`2021.03.01 Opposer's Motion for Judgment or in the Alternative Order Compel-
`ling Discovery.pdf(112257 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`CARL RAYMOND AMOS,
`
`Applicant.
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`Opposition No. 91251090
`
`Adv. U.S. App. 88232718
`
`JWAHMOSE GLASS SKYSCRAPER
`FINE OZ & Design
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO TBMP 527.03,
`OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY
`
`Opposer moves the Board for judgment on the grounds that Applicant has informed
`
`Opposer’s counsel that Applicant will not answer Opposer’s outstanding discovery requests,
`
`appear for deposition, or participate further in this proceeding. Opposer respectfully refers the
`
`Board to the Declaration of Bruce A. McDonald filed herewith. Applicant, pro se, has decided that
`
`the TTAB is not the appropriate forum for this dispute and declared to Opposer’s counsel in a telephone
`
`conference on February 18, 2021, that he will not appear for deposition or answer discovery requests that
`
`have been outstanding since June 5, 2020. Id.
`
`Background
`
`On February 18, 2021, Applicant informed counsel for Opposer of his decision in a
`
`conference initiated by the Opposer’s counsel after Applicant failed to appear for a Zoom
`
`deposition scheduled at 2:00 p.m. that day. McDonald Decl., ¶1. The notice of deposition was
`
`served on Applicant by email on February 8, 2021, and by Federal Express the following day.
`
`See McDonald Decl. ¶2; Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum, February 8, 2021 (Attachment 1);1
`
`1
`
`herewith.
`
`The word “attachment” herein refers to the Declaration of Bruce A. McDonald
`
`

`

`letter to Applicant, February 8, 2021 (Attachment 2); email to Applicant, February 8, 2021
`
`(Attachment 3); Federal Express confirmation, February 9, 2021 (Attachment 5).
`
`The notice of deposition requested Applicant to produce the following documents, which
`
`were originally requested on June 5, 2020, within 72 hours in advance of the scheduled
`
`deposition:
`
` A response to Opposer’s letter dated June 5, 2020 (Attachment 5), challenging
`applicant’s objections, and copies of confidential documents withheld from
`production marked confidential as appropriate pursuant to the Board’s standard
`protective order, which Applicant now refuses to provide;
`
` A response to Opposer’s Second Set of Interrogatories dated June 5, 2020
`(Attachment 6), which Applicant now refuses to provide;
`
` A response to Opposer’s Second Request for Production of Documents dated June 5,
`2020 (Attachment 7), which Applicant now refuses to provide; and
`
` Any documents that Applicant desires to provide in supplementation, clarification or
`amendment of the documents (Attachment 8) produced in response to Opposer’s first
`discovery request.
`
`McDonald Decl., ¶3; see Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum of Carl Raymond Amos
`
`(Attachment 1). Applicant did not provide the requested documents or appear at the deposition.
`
`Id., ¶3.
`
`Applicant, by former counsel, had responded to Opposer’s first discovery request.
`
`McDonald Decl., ¶4; see Applicant’s Answers and Objections to Opposer’s First Set of
`
`Interrogatories, May 1, 2020 (Attachment 9); Applicant’s Response to Opposer’s First Request
`
`for Production of Documents, May 1, 2020 (Attachment 10); and 112-pp. “production binder”
`
`supplied by Applicant in purported response to Opposer’s request (Attachment 8).
`
`Applicant’s response to Opposer’s first discovery request was, in the opinion of Opposer,
`
`deficient for reasons explained in Opposer’s letter dated June 5, 2020 (Attachment 5). Opposer
`
`2
`
`

`

`has never received a response to that letter, or its second set of interrogatories (Attachment 6), or
`
`its second request for production of documents (Attachment 7). McDonald Decl., ¶5.
`
`Opposer’s first set of interrogatories (see Attachment 9) was limited to 22 simple
`
`questions, and its request for production of documents (see Attachment 10) was similarly
`
`reasonable in scope. Opposer also has subpoenas outstanding to suppliers and distributors of
`
`Applicant’s goods bearing the claimed mark identified by Applicant in his initial disclosures and
`
`interrogatory answers. McDonald Decl., ¶7; see Subpoenas dated February 8, 2021 (Attachment
`
`11).
`
`By its discovery requests Opposer seeks to determine the manner and extent of
`
`commercial use of the claimed mark in order to carry Opposer’s burden on its claims pursuant to
`
`the Board’s order dated December 22, 2020. McDonald Decl., ¶8. However, the parties’ dispute
`
`does not involve the scope of Opposer’s discovery but Opposer’s right to discovery per se, and
`
`Opposer’s right to challenge Applicant’s application at the TTAB. Id.
`
`Applicant asserts the belief that the Opposer is part of an international conspiracy against
`
`him. McDonald Decl., ¶9; see Applicant’s Motion for Change of Venue dated February 16,
`
`2021 (Attachment 12); see also Applicant’s motion to dismiss dated July 28, 2020 (Attachment
`
`13); and applicant’s other pleadings.
`
`On Wednesday, February 17, 2021, Opposer’s counsel left a voice mail to Applicant
`
`asking him if he had any questions about the deposition scheduled for the following day.
`
`McDonald Decl., ¶10. Also that day, the court reporter sent a notice to him providing him with
`
`the Zoom link to the deposition and instructions. Id. Later that evening, he received an email
`
`from Applicant (Attachment 14), appending a document entitled “Motion for Change of Venue”
`
`3
`
`

`

`(Attachment 12), with copies to Applicant’s previous counsel of record. Applicant’s email
`
`states:
`
`To All:
`
`Fishing Expeditions, are not generally tolerated, in Federal Circuit Court Venue.
`
`And I do not require permission, for change of Venue to Federal theatre.
`
`However, I agree, all interested parties must be given notice.
`
`Knighthood (Queen of England), may be motivation for Opposer?
`
`I recently learned that British Architect Late Zaha Hadid, was fighting Qatar/State
`[] and became an "Existential threat," to the London Shard Cabal, before her mysterious
`sudden heart attack, in Miami 2015.
`
`Further digging/research, suggests accomplices and as I follow the money, and
`those connected, body counts, increase.
`
`I arrive at postulate, that my Case With "TransAmerica et.al , Aegnon [sic]
`Netherlands (Qatar State Bank)", appears more of Criminal Case than Civil.
`
`Regards
`Carl R. Amos
`prose
`
`McDonald Decl., ¶11; see email dated February 17, 2021, C. Ramos to B. McDonald
`
`(Attachment 14).
`
`Applicant’s Motion for Change of Venue states:
`
`Applicant requests a change of venue to move from the TTAB to United States
`Federal Court before the Eastern District of Alexandria, Virginia. Further, the Applicant
`Amos requests the move due to the Adjudicated and Denied Opposition case No.
`91251090.
`
`Reasons for Transfer are:
`
` Lack of Proper Venue.
`
` Registered Architectural Works Copyrights Patents are prohibited
`defenses.
`
`4
`
`

`

` Not in TTAB prevue: and beyond its statute and scope and authority.
`
` Opposer’s actions are reckless mysterious and suspicious.
`
` Amos is owner of Registered Architectural Works Copyrights for London
`Shard, Exhibit A, awarded by USA Copyright Office to Amos and issued
`patents currently in force.
`
` Amos famous ‘Mark’ is shown in the Dec 6, 1999, National Science
`Foundation exhibit as Carl Amos Exhibit of Glass Building, Exhibit B,
`www.ncsa.illinois.edu/People/tcoffin/ACCESS/Amos/Amos09.html.
`
` Amos’ non-monetary silver and gold precious metal coin trademark is
`Class 014 whereas the Opposer’s class is 042.
`
` London Shard verbatim copyright infringement, theft & patent
`infringement structure built without Amos’ knowledge or permission from
`2009-2012 in London, Britton, UK.
`
` Amos has losses exceed 6 billion USD that benefits the Qatar State Bank
`& United Kingdom.
`
` The proper venue for Registered Architectural Works Copyrights and its
`related Trademark and in force Patents, is in Federal Court for the Eastern
`District of Virginia.
`
`Applicant’s Motion for Transfer of Venue, February 16, 2021 (Attachment 12).
`
`Responding to Applicant’s email dated February 17, 2021, Opposer’s counsel sent an
`
`email to him at 11:31 a.m. on February 18, 2021, the day of the scheduled deposition, stating:
`
`Dear Mr. Amos:
`
`I see that your former attorneys are copied on this email - can you please let me
`know if you are represented by counsel, otherwise I will communicate with you directly.
`
`I forwarded your motion of yesterday's date to our client and note for the record
`that you did not confer with me prior to filing it, which is a violation of the TTAB rules.
`
`As you know, we have a deposition scheduled for today at 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
`which will continue the following morning at 10:00 a.m. I understand that you have
`already been furnished with the Zoom link directly by the court reporter, otherwise please
`advise.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attached as a professional courtesy are the exhibits that I intend to introduce at
`the deposition. Exhibits 1 - 4 were identified in my correspondence to you and the notice
`of deposition dated February 8, 2021. You don't need to print them out, they'll be
`available for inspection in the Zoom presentation, and there is nothing in here you haven't
`seen before, but I thought that providing you these attachments might be convenient for
`you.
`
`I look forward to meeting you on Zoom and appreciate your cooperation. As
`always, I am available to confer informally any time at 202-361-5698 by you or anybody
`you designate.
`
`Thanks again.
`
`McDonald Decl., ¶13; see email dated February 18, B. McDonald to C. Amos (Attachment 15)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Being on notice of the scheduled deposition, Applicant disregarded Opposer’s written
`
`and verbal communications, requiring Opposer’s counsel to prepare for and appear at the
`
`deposition, and to incur the costs of a court reporter and videographer who appeared at the
`
`appointed hour and waited with him for 30 minutes for Applicant to appear. McDonald Decl.,
`
`¶14.
`
`At 2:19 p.m., as Opposer’s counsel, the court reporter and the videographer we were
`
`waiting for Applicant to appear, Opposer’s counsel sent him this email:
`
`Dear Mr. Amos,
`
`We are waiting for you to appear at the Zoom deposition. The link, which was
`supplied to you yesterday, yellow-highlighted below, is at
`https://tsgreporting.zoom.us/j/97167261374?pwd=blFBd1lSOExoT2Z4aHZnbG5PVTd5
`Zz09.
`
`If you get this message in real time, can you please confirm that you do NOT
`intend to appear for today’s deposition, otherwise please advise.
`
`Email dated February 18, 2021, B. McDonald to C. Amos (Attachment 16). I received no
`
`response to this email.
`
`6
`
`

`

`After Applicant failed to appear for the deposition, Opposer and its counsel discussed the
`
`threat of federal court action appearing in his “Motion for Change in Venue.” McDonald Decl.,
`
`¶16. Opposer takes the applicant’s threat of federal court litigation seriously given his history of
`
`vexatious litigation, e.g., Amos v. United States, No. 16-1094 C (Fed. Ct. Cl.) (Attachment 17);
`
`Amos v. Smithsonian Institution, No. 16-cv-01191 (E.D.Va.) (Attachment 18). Opposer is not a
`
`litigious company and has no desire for perpetuation of a dispute with Applicant about a design
`
`that Opposer does not believe Applicant is using as a trademark.
`
`For clarity, it is Opposer’s position that Applicant is not using his design to designate the
`
`origin or source of commemorative coins, but to designate the origin and source of the
`
`architectural design for the London Shard. In a letter dated September 16, 2019, Opposer
`
`therefore stated to Applicant:
`
`This will confirm that we have been authorized by Transamerica . . . to determine
`whether you would be willing to withdraw your application in return for our client’s
`consent to your usage of the proposed mark as reflected in the application.
`
`Letter dated September 16, 2019, from B. McDonald to C. Amos (Attachment 19).
`
`Upon instructions from Opposer, Opposer’s counsel called Applicant on Thursday
`
`afternoon, February 18, 2021, to extend an amicable gesture including but not necessarily limited
`
`to an offer of a stipulated dismissal of each party’s claims and counterclaims without prejudice.
`
`McDonald Decl., ¶20. Reaching Applicant by telephone at approximately 5:30 p.m. on February
`
`18, 2021, Opposer’s counsel repeated that Opposer has no quarrel with his use of the design in
`
`the manner illustrated by the evidence of record, because Opposer does not believe it functions
`
`as a trademark under the facts. Id., ¶21. He attempted to assure Applicant that Opposer is not a
`
`proxy for any Middle Eastern country, the London Shard or other third party, or part of an
`
`international conspiracy as alleged in his pleadings. Id. He told him that he was under
`
`7
`
`

`

`instructions to extend an amicable gesture to him and determine what kind of assurances
`
`Opposer could provide to address his essential interests. Id.
`
`Applicant rejected Opposer’s overtures, told Opposer’s counsel that counsel knew more
`
`than he was saying, and castigated counsel on a range of grievances including but not limited to
`
`those articulated in his pleadings, none relating to Opposer. McDonald Decl., ¶22. He stated
`
`that this dispute belongs in a federal criminal court and that he does not need permission from
`
`anybody to sue Opposer. Id. Counsel responded that Opposer was not seeking to prevent him
`
`from suing anybody but was proposing to dismiss the opposition without prejudice in
`
`reciprocation for abandonment of the application without prejudice. Id.
`
`In response, Applicant repeated his grievances about an international criminal conspiracy
`
`involving Middle Eastern countries, the United Kingdom, the London Shard, CIA agents, the
`
`African-American History Museum (the architectural design of which he claims to have been
`
`stolen from him), Obama administration officials, judges, unnamed intelligence agencies, and
`
`other ideations, causing damages of $8 billion. McDonald Decl., ¶23.
`
`Opposer’s counsel attempted to assure Applicant that Opposer understands his design is a
`
`replica of the London Shard, not the Transamerica Pyramid. McDonald Decl., ¶24. Counsel
`
`said Opposer did not think that Applicant’s use of the design in the manner illustrated in the
`
`record was likely to cause confusion but that Opposer was concerned that registration of the
`
`mark would dilute the distinctive quality of the Transamerica Pyramid Building as a trademark.
`
`Id. Counsel stated to Applicant that Opposer could not force him to accept a settlement offer or
`
`an amicable gesture, but that in the absence of a settlement, counsel was required to determine
`
`whether Applicant intends to appear for deposition or answer Opposer’s outstanding discovery
`
`requests, failing which Opposer must file a motion to compel discovery or for other relief. Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Applicant repeated that the matter belongs in criminal court and stated that he will not participate
`
`in the proceeding. Id. To make sure he understood correctly, counsel asked Applicant to
`
`confirm that he does not intend to appear for deposition or answer Opposer’s outstanding
`
`discovery request. Id. Applicant responded that this was correct and terminated the call. Id.
`
`Later that evening, on February 18, 2021, Applicant filed an Amended Motion for
`
`Change of Venue (Attachment 20), which is identical to the previous motion except he has added
`
`the following account of his February 18 telephone conversation with Opposer’s counsel:
`
`February 18, 2021 update: Applicant received erratic call from Opposer Bruce
`McDonald, counsel TransAmerica [sic], Aegon Netherlands et.al. and Opposer has
`agreed to Litigate in US Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Rocket Docket.
`
`Also Opposer further threatened Motions. However, he is not afraid to litigate
`case in US Federal Court.
`
`Opposer’s counsel has a different recollection of his telephone discussion with Applicant
`
`on February 18, 2021. McDonald Decl., ¶27. First, the conversation with Applicant lasted for
`
`37 minutes because counsel was under instructions to extend a conciliatory gesture and
`
`settlement proposal. Id. However, counsel was unable to achieve that because he reached
`
`Applicant in an agitated condition and was unable to placate him with assurances that Opposer
`
`has no desire to interfere with his business. Id. Counsel tried to explain that Opposer was
`
`offering to nonsuit the opposition without prejudice to his position and provide him with any
`
`necessary guarantees to undisturbed use of his design in the manner indicated by the record. Id.
`
`Second, Opposer did not agree to litigate in any court, counsel merely stated that Opposer was
`
`not attempting to prevent him from doing that. Id. Third, the “threat” to which Applicant refers
`
`is that of a motion for relief, which Opposer has no choice except to bring, since Applicant is
`
`refusing to answer Opposer’s reasonable discovery requests or appear at deposition. Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Argument
`
`Flowing from the Board’s inherent authority to manage the cases on its docket is the
`
`inherent authority to enter sanctions against a party. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual
`
`of Procedure (TBMP) § 527.03 (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991)). Such
`
`power “stems from the very nature of courts and their need to be able to manage their own affairs
`
`so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of the cases”) (citations omitted).
`
`For example, when a party to an inter partes proceeding before the Board advises an
`adverse party that it will not take any further action in the case, the adverse party may file
`a motion asserting this fact and request entry of judgment in its favor.”
`
`TBMP 527.03, supra (emphasis added).
`
`Opposer accordingly moves for judgment pursuant to Section 527.03 of the TTAB
`
`Manual of Procedure. See Top Tobacco, L.P. v. Cosmic Glass Co., Opposition No. 91248622,
`
`2019 WL 6652138 (TTAB Dec. 5, 2019) (unpublished) (sustaining opposition and refusing
`
`registration where applicant refused to participate in mandatory discovery conference and stated
`
`intention not to take any further action in the proceeding); accord Intel Corp. v. Intelagile LLC,
`
`Opposition No. 91245848, 2019 WL 212739 (TTAB May 13, 2019).
`
`Alternatively, Opposer moves the Board for an order compelling Applicant to answer
`
`Opposer’s outstanding discovery requests and appear for deposition on the grounds that
`
`Applicant has unjustifiably refused to answer such requests or to appear for deposition, and
`
`unequivocally stated that he will not do so, as described in the Declaration of Bruce A.
`
`McDonald. However, Opposer submits that such an order is futile because Applicant has
`
`10
`
`

`

`unequivocally stated that he will not answer Opposer’s discovery requests, appear for deposition,
`
`or otherwise participate in this case, and that judgment for Opposer is warranted.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION
`
`By:
`
`______________________________________
`Bruce A. McDonald
`SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
`1055 Thomas Jefferson St., N.W., Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`Tel.
`(202) 263-4362
`Email: bmcdonald@sgrlaw.com
`
`Date: March 1, 2021
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 1, 2021, a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S MOTION
`FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ORDER COMPELLING
`DISCOVERY, was sent by email and regular mail to Applicant at his following address of
`record:
`
`Carl Raymond Amos
`8710 W. Hillsborough Ave., Suite 413
`Tampa, FL 33615
`ahmose_inc@hotmail.com
`
`---------------------------------------------------
`Bruce A. McDonald
`
`