Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1065129
`
`Filing date:
`
`06/30/2020
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91254356
`Defendant
`Julius Sämann Ltd.
`ERIC J SHIMANOFF
`COWAN LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN PC
`114 WEST 47TH STREET
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`UNITED STATES
`trademark@cll.com, ejs@cll.com, jzk@cll.com, fxm@cll.com
`212-790-9200
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Eric J. Shimanoff
`trademark@cll.com, ejs@cll.com, jzk@cll.com, fxm@cll.com
`/Eric J. Shimanoff/
`06/30/2020
`Nasser - opposition to motion to set aside.pdf(1597426 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`In re Application Serial No. 88624526
`Filed: September 20, 2019
`For Mark: LITTLE TREES
`Published in the Official Gazette: January 28, 2020
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------- X
`:
`
`:
`IBRAHIM NASSER,
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`---------------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91254356
`
`
`v.
`
`JULIUS SÄMANN LTD.,
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`APPLICANT’S OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER’S
`
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Opposer has failed to set forth any sustainable legal or factual basis for the Board to set
`
`aside its proper dismissal of the instant Opposition. Opposer filed a generally incomprehensible
`
`Notice of Opposition alleging that Applicant’s LITTLE TREES word mark as applied to t-shirts,
`
`baseball caps and socks fell into the “public domain” upon the expiration of two patents owned by
`
`Applicant’s predecessor-in-interest (1 TTABVUE). Opposer based his Notice of Opposition on a
`
`complete misinterpretation of Kellogg Co. v. Nat’l Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), and Singer
`
`Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896), that is contrary to well-settled principles of
`
`trademark law. Moreover, the expired patents—each entitled “Container for Volatile Substances,”
`
`which protected inventions and improvements for envelopes for porous members impregnated
`
`
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`

`

`
`
`with volatile substances—did not even mention the words “little trees” or the goods at issue in the
`
`instant Application, namely, t-shirts, baseball caps and socks.
`
`Applicant timely filed a motion to dismiss Opposer’s Notice of Opposition for failure to
`
`state a claim on April 7, 2020 (4 TTABVUE). Opposer failed to file papers in opposition to the
`
`motion by his deadline of April 27, 2020. See Trademark Rule 2.127(a) (setting 20-day deadline
`
`for opposition to motion to dismiss); TBMP § 502.02(b). Opposer similarly did not timely seek
`
`an extension of time to respond to Applicant’s motion. The Board granted Applicant’s motion to
`
`dismiss as conceded and dismissed the Opposition with prejudice one month later, on May 27,
`
`2020 (7 TTABVUE).
`
`Applicant filed a document entitled “Motion Set Aside Judgment” nearly three weeks later,
`
`on June 15, 2020 (9 TTABVUE). Although the statutory basis of Opposer’s motion is unclear
`
`from the face of his papers, the Board (10 TTABVUE) has interpreted Opposer’s motion as one
`
`pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the Board’s final judgement dismissing the
`
`Opposition on May 27, 2020.
`
`Rule 60(b) states:
`
`On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
`from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
`
`(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
`been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
`
`fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
`or misconduct by an opposing party;
`
`(4)
`
`the judgment is void;
`
`(5)
`
`the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
`earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
`prospectively is no longer equitable; or
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`(6)
`
`any other reason that justifies relief.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Relief from a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only
`
`in exceptional circumstances.” TBMP § 544. See also Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition
`
`Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988).
`
`Opposer’s motion does not reference Rule 60(b) or any of the grounds therein. Nor does
`
`Opposer attempt to rebut the legal and factual arguments set forth in Applicant’s motion to dismiss,
`
`which arguments conclusively show that Opposer’s Notice of Opposition fails to state a claim
`
`upon which relief can be granted. Opposer merely claims that the Board should overturn its Order
`
`dismissing the Opposition with prejudice because Opposer did not have access to some unspecified
`
`books at a local law library, which was physically closed for some unspecified period of time due
`
`to COVID-19 (9 TTABVUE 4-7). Opposer thus appears to argue that his failure to submit papers
`
`in opposition to Applicant’s motion to dismiss was due to “excusable neglect.”
`
`In Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993), which
`
`the Board adopted in Pumpkin, Ltd. v. The Seed Corps, 42 USPQ2d 1582 (TTAB 1997), the
`
`Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a party’s neglect is excusable is:
`
`at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances
`surrounding the party’s omission. These include . . . [1] the danger of prejudice to
`the [nonmovant], [2] the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial
`proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
`reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether the movant acted in good faith.
`
`Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. “[T]he third factor—the reason for the delay and whether it was within
`
`the movant’s control” is the most important factor in the analysis, and often will outweigh all other
`
`factors. FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc. v. CareFirst of Md., Inc., 479 F.3d 825, 829 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). See also Luster Prods. Inc. v. Van Zandt, 104 USPQ2d 1877, 1879 (TTAB 2012).
`
`While COVID-19 has had an unprecedented effect on the nation, Opposer has failed to
`
`provide any reason why he did not timely ask for an extension of time to respond to Applicant’s
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`motion to dismiss by April 27, 2020. As discussed herein, Opposer’s claim of delay in seeking an
`
`extension of time to respond to Applicant’s motion to dismiss resulted from forces entirely within
`
`Opposer’s control, is inconsistent with his actions during the same time period in other Board
`
`proceedings, is part of a pattern of disregard for deadlines, reeks of bad faith, is unsupported by
`
`any detailed or sustainable facts and is contrary to the actual facts.
`
`Opposer does not claim he was unaware of his deadline to respond to Applicant’s motion
`
`to dismiss, nor could he. The Board’s procedures and Trademark Rules, including the TBMP,
`
`were clearly accessible to Opposer via the USPTO website at www.uspto.gov at all relevant times.
`
`Indeed, in its initial scheduling Order, the Board expressly informed Opposer of the legal resources
`
`available to him:
`
`LEGAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT WEB PAGE
`
`For a general description of Board proceedings, see TBMP §102.03. Proceedings
`are governed by the Trademark Rules of Practice in Parts 2 and 7 of Title 37 of the
`Code of Federal Regulations. These rules, the Manual of Procedure (TBMP),
`information on Accelerated Case Resolution (ACR) and Alternative Dispute
`Resolution (ADR), and many Frequently Asked Questions, are available on the
`Board’s web page, at: http://www.uspto.gov/ttab. The parties should check the web
`page for important changes, announcements, etc., many of which apply to
`proceedings already in progress.
`
`2 TTABVUE 6. Nor can Opposer claim that he was not served with a copy of Applicant’s motion
`
`to dismiss. The undersigned counsel for Applicant served a copy of the motion to dismiss on
`
`Opposer via email on April 7, 2020, as set forth in the certificate of service accompanying the
`
`motion (4 TTABVUE 17). A copy of that email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit A.1
`
`
`1 It is worth noting that, in violation of Trademark Rule 2.119(b), Opposer did not serve a
`copy of the instant motion papers on Applicant via email. Opposer’s certificate of service claims
`he served his papers only via first class mail; he does not claim to have first made any attempt to
`effectuate service via email (9 TTABVUE 9). Applicant learned of the instant motion through
`electronic notice from the Board of Opposer’s ESTTA filing and only received the hard copy of
`the motion papers sent by Opposer via first class mail on or about June 24, 2020.
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Opposer’s pro se status similarly does not excuse him from knowledge of and compliance
`
`with the Board’s deadlines, procedures and rules. See Prakash Melwani v. Allegiance Corp., 97
`
`USPQ2d 1537, 1541-42 (TTAB 2010) (pro se opposer held to same standards as any party in
`
`opposition; finding no excusable neglect); Raygun Ltd. v. Planet 9 Studios, Inc. and SapientX Inc.,
`
`Cancellation No. 92064727 (TTAB May 27, 2020) (27 TTABVUE 2) (“the Board holds pro se
`
`parties to the same standards and deadlines applicable to parties represented by counsel”). The
`
`Board expressly warned Opposer in its initial scheduling Order that:
`
`This proceeding is similar to a civil action in a federal district court and can be
`complex. The Board strongly advises all parties to secure the services of an
`attorney who is familiar with trademark law and Board procedure . . . . The Board
`requires strict compliance with all applicable authorities whether or not the party is
`represented by counsel.
`
`2 TTABVUE 6 (emphasis in original). Moreover, despite his pro se status, Opposer has been
`
`involved in many Board proceedings, often as plaintiff, and should be familiar with motion
`
`opposition deadlines and the need to adhere to Board rules and procedures. See, e.g., Nasser v.
`
`Tompson, Cancellation No. 92073487; Nasser v. MVP Group Int’l, Inc., Cancellation No.
`
`92072280; Nasser v. D & J Distrib. & Mfg., Opposition No. 91247846; Nasser v. Broten,
`
`Opposition No. 91246293; Nasser v. Energizer Brands II LLC, Opposition No. 91246087; Nasser
`
`v. Givaudan SA, Opposition No. 91245594; Julius Sämann Ltd. v. Nasser, Cancellation No.
`
`92057371; Julius Sämann Ltd. v. Nasser, Opposition No. 91210658; Serious Scents Inc. v.
`
`American Covers, LLC, Cancellation No. 92065106.
`
`Opposer thus clearly was or should have been aware of his April 27, 2020, deadline to
`
`respond to Applicant’s motion to dismiss. Yet, Opposer fails to provide any explanation why he
`
`did not ask for an extension of time to respond to Applicant’s motion to dismiss prior to that
`
`deadline (or at any time prior to the time the Board issued its dismissal or within the nearly three
`
`weeks thereafter). Opposer’s failure to provide any basic explanation why he did not timely seek
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`an extension alone compels the Board to deny Opposer’s motion. See Gaylord Ent. Co. v. Calvin
`
`Gilmore Prods. Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1369, 1372 (TTAB 2000) (no excusable neglect where movant
`
`failed to provide specific reasons for former counsel’s inaction).
`
`Nor could Opposer provide any sustainable justification for his failure to seek an extension
`
`in a timely manner. As noted above, Opposer has been a party to several Board proceedings,
`
`including two active oppositions: Nasser v. Broten, Opposition No. 91246293, and Nasser v.
`
`Givaudan SA, Opposition No. 91245594. On May 1, 2020—three days after Opposer’s deadline
`
`to respond to Applicant’s motion to dismiss in the instant Opposition—Opposer filed with the
`
`Board and served papers in Broten and Givaudan concerning those applicants’ alleged failure to
`
`respond to discovery requests. See Exhibits B & C hereto (Broten, 17 TTABVUE; Givaudan, 15
`
`TTABVUE). As set forth in those papers, Opposer served discovery requests in Broten and
`
`Givaudan at the end of March and beginning of April 2020, also during the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`Opposer’s drafting of discovery requests and filing of motions to compel in these other opposition
`
`proceedings in late-March through early-May 2020 clearly shows he could have filed timely papers
`
`in the instant Opposition. Yet, Opposer chose to file and serve papers only in other proceedings
`
`where he believed such actions served his own interests. See Luster Prods., 104 USPQ2d at 1879
`
`(Applicant’s motion to reopen discovery denied and no excusable neglect found where Board
`
`concluded that applicant made a calculated strategic decision, within its control, not to take
`
`discovery in the hope opposer had lost interest in the case). Opposer’s own actions in these other
`
`proceedings show the ability to seek a timely extension was completely in Opposer’s control,
`
`which facts completely belie any argument that Opposer’s failure to seek a timely extension was
`
`due to excusable neglect. See Pumpkin, 42 USPQ2d at 1587-88 (no excusable neglect where
`
`failure to respond was due to facts solely within opposer’s control).
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Ironically, Opposer expected the applicants in Broten and Givaudan to respond to
`
`discovery and engage in motion practice before the Board during the height of the same pandemic
`
`that Opposer speciously claims prevented him from timely filing opposition papers or requesting
`
`an extension of time in the instant Opposition. Such glaring hypocrisy shows Opposer’s belated
`
`papers and excuses are nothing more than a bad faith pretense. See Baron Philippe de Rothschild,
`
`S.A. and Societe Civile de Chateau Lafite-Rothschild v. Styl-Rite Optical Mfg. Co., 55 USPQ2d
`
`1848, 1852-53 (TTAB 2000) (no excusable neglect where Board found excuse for delay was
`
`incredulous and belied by attorneys’ actions).
`
`Opposer’s actions in Broten and Givaudan also show Opposer has engaged in a pattern of
`
`untimely filings. In both of those proceedings, Opposer served discovery and then sought to
`
`compel responses many months after the deadline for discovery had lapsed with no justifiable
`
`excuse. As the Board held in Broten:
`
`The Board notes Opposer’s notice (filed May 1, 2020) of “failure to complete or
`comply [with] discovery” requests that Opposer served on March 27, 2020, . . . .
`Such notice is not well-taken. The discovery period closed in this case on December
`24, 2019, more than four months ago . . . . Opposer was required to serve any
`discovery requests in this case by the thirty-first day prior to the close of the
`discovery period, November 24, 2019. Based on the foregoing, the discovery
`requests at issue in Opposer’s notice were served more than three months after the
`close of discovery and are untimely by more than four months. Applicant need not
`respond to those discovery requests. Further, because the due date for Opposer’s
`pretrial disclosures was April 20, 2020, Opposer may no longer file a motion to
`compel or a motion for summary judgment in this case. Opposer’s notice will
`receive no further consideration.
`
`See Exhibit D hereto (Broten, 18 TTABVUE 1-2). Opposer’s discovery requests in Givaudan
`
`were served nearly seven months after the close of discovery. See Exhibit E hereto (Givaudan,
`
`16 TTABVUE). Opposer also failed to serve pretrial disclosures or proffer any testimony or
`
`notices of reliance during his testimony period in in Givaudan, which opposition is subject to a
`
`pending motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. See Exhibit F hereto (Givaudan, 17-19
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`TTABVUE). Opposer’s pattern of disregard for Board rules and deadlines further weighs against
`
`a finding of excusable neglect here. See Baron Philippe de Rothschild, 55 USPQ2d at 1852-53
`
`(pattern of delay weighed against finding of excusable neglect).
`
`
`
`In addition to Opposer’s failure to provide a justifiable excuse for not timely seeking an
`
`extension, he has failed to set forth sufficient details concerning how COVID-19 prevented him
`
`from drafting a substantive reply to Applicant’s motion to dismiss. Despite pontificating at length
`
`on immaterial issues such as the definition of a “necessary condition,” Opposer tellingly omits
`
`from his motion papers specific details about his local law library. Opposer does not state between
`
`what specific dates his local law library was closed. Nor does Opposer state what specific books
`
`and materials he needed from the law library in order to provide a substantive response to
`
`Applicant’s motion to dismiss. Such omissions also fail to show excusable neglect. See HKG
`
`Industries Inc. v. Perma-Pipe Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1156, 1158 (TTAB 1998) (no excusable neglect
`
`where no factual details as to the date of counsel’s death in relation to plaintiff’s testimony period
`
`or as to why other lawyers in deceased counsel’s firm could not have assumed responsibility for
`
`the case). See also TBMP § 509.01(b)(1) (“[a] party moving to reopen its time to take required
`
`action must set forth with particularity the detailed facts upon which its excusable neglect claim is
`
`based; mere conclusory statements are insufficient”).
`
`In any event, it appears that Opposer’s local law library in San Diego has continued to
`
`offered to community members significant legal resources online and via telephone, including
`
`throughout the time the library was physically closed due to COVID-19. These include online
`
`access to free caselaw databases and law librarians to assist with legal research. See Exhibit G
`
`hereto. Opposer provides no reason why he did not avail himself of these remote resources or the
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`myriad online resources available to him throughout the pandemic, including those offered via the
`
`USPTO’s own website. Opposer has not come close to showing excusable neglect.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`While Applicant is sensitive to the deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,
`
`Opposer’s use of the coronavirus as a purported excuse for not taking timely action in this
`
`Opposition is disingenuous and disrespectful. It is clear that Opposer’s current COVID-19 excuse
`
`is nothing more than a pretense made up after the dismissal, not supported by any specific facts
`
`and belied by his ability to serve discovery and file motions in other oppositions where he deemed
`
`such actions to his advantage and his own expectations that other parties comply with discovery
`
`and engage in motion practice during pandemic. Opposer has not shown excusable neglect or any
`
`other basis under Rule 60(b) to set aside the Board’s May 27, 2020, dismissal with prejudice.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Board should deny Applicant’s Motion for Relief from Final
`
`Judgment.
`
`
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`June 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
` Attorneys for Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`Eric J. Shimanoff
`Jonathan Z. King
`114 West 47th Street
`New York, New York 10036
`(212) 790-9200
`
`
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing APPLICANT’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT was served on Opposer via email
`
`on the below date.
`
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`June 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Eric J. Shimanoff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`

`

`Shimanoff, Eric J.
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Shimanoff, Eric J.
`Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:42 AM
`balweh@hotmail.com
`King, Jonathan
`IBRAHIM NASSER v. Julius Sämann Ltd., Opp. No. 91254356 - Motion to Dismiss
`motion to dismiss - Nasser - reduced.pdf
`
`Importance:
`
`High
`
`Dear Mr. Nasser 
` 
`Attached please find a service copy of Applicant’s motion to dismiss the above‐referenced opposition. 
` 
`Sincerely, 
` 
`Eric J. Shimanoff 
`Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.  
`114 West 47th Street
`New York, NY 10036-1525  
`t: (212) 790-9226 | f: (212) 575-0671  
`cll.com | bio | vCard | EJS@cll.com 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
` 29887/011/3491591
`
`

`

`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1052784
`
`Filing date:
`
`05/01/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91246293
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Ibrahim M. Nasser
`
`IBRAHIM M NASSER
`SERIOUS SCENTS
`PO BOX 5626
`CHULA VISTA, CA 91912
`UNITED STATES
`balweh@hotmail.com
`619-253-9624
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Ibrahim Nasser
`
`balweh@hotmail.com
`
`/ibrahimnasser/
`
`05/01/2020
`
`Notice of failure to complete or comply Discovery Peace Grenades .pdf(396655
`bytes )
`
`

`

` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`In re Application Serial No.: 88/029,184
`
`IBRAHIM NASSER and
`
`SERIOUS SCENTS,
`
`V.
`
`KEVIN BROTEN,
`
`Opposition No.: 91246293
`
`Opposers,
`
`Mark: Peace Grenades
`
`Published: January 08, 2019
`
` Applicants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR COMPLY DISCOVERY
`
`The Trademark Trial And Appeal Board
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`KEVIN BROTEN:
`
`Please be advised and noticed:
`
`Discovery was tendered to you on March 27, 2020.
`
`A true copy of same is being electronically filed with the Trademark Board Court. You
`
`have failed to respond completely. Your Answers are not and was not satisfactory or
`
`completed. It is not my legal duty to educate you as how to proceed that responsibility
`
`falls upon you as an In-Pro-Per Defendant in the matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`If you do not satisfy the discovery request, or withdraw your application for the peace
`
`Grenades Trademark I will move the Trademark Board for a summary judgment and
`
`dismissal of your application.
`
`I await your prompt and positive notice of withdrawal and abandonment of this
`
`Trademark Infringement. You can avoid the other cost that will follow in collection of
`
`damages in the District Federal Court.
`
`
`Verification Of Pleading and Notice:
`
`I Ibrahim M. Nasser verify this pleading to be true and correct under the penalty of
`
`perjury of the the Law of the State of California and The Federal Court Rules
`
`Entered in on May 01, 2020.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Ibrahim M. Nasser
`Owner/Serious Scents
`P.O.Box 5626

`Chula Vista, CA 91912
`Tel: (619) 253-9624
`balweh@hotmail.com
`
`/Ibrahim Nasser/
`
`_____________________
`
`Ibrahim M. Nasser
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I ROBY LISTER hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF
`FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR COMPLY DISCOVERY was served upon
`Respondents’ Kevin Broten Owner of record via first class mail, email on the 1st day of
`May 2020, I am not a party to this cause of action. I am over the age of 18 years and
`reside at 356 Roosevelt St #2 Chula Vista, CA 91910.
`Served via first class mail the following address:
`
`Kevin Broten
`22542 430th Ave
`Roseau, Minnesota 56751
`
`
`/Roby Lister/
`___________________
`Roby Lister
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In re Application Serial No.: 88/029,184
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBRAHIM NASSER and
`
`SERIOUS SCENTS,
`
`V.
`
`KEVIN BROTEN,
`
`Opposition No.: 91246293
`
`Opposers,
`
`Mark
`
`: Peace Grenades
`
`Published: January 08, 2019
`
` Applicants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSER’S INTERROGATORIES
`
`Opposer, Ibrahim Nasser and Serious Scents, requests that Kevin Broten respond to the
`
`following interrogatories. you are required to answer these interrogatories separately and
`
`fully in writing, under oath.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Each Interrogatory is to be answered fully on the basis of information which is in
`
`your possession.
`
`B.
`
`In each of your answers to these Interrogatories, you are requested to provide not
`
`only such information as in your possession, but also information as is reasonably
`
`available. In the event that you are able to provide only part of the information called for
`
`by any particular Interrogatory, please provide all the information you are able to provide
`
`and state the reason for your inability to provide the remainder.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`C.
`
`If you object to or otherwise decline to answer any portion of any Interrogatory,
`
`please provide all information called for by that portion of the Interrogatory to which you
`
`do not object or to which you do not decline to answer. For those portions of an
`
`Interrogatory to which you object or to which you do not decline to answer, state the
`
`reason for such objection or declination.
`
`
`
`1. Please Explain in Detail: The Legal Basis & Use of Grenade Trademark that is in
`
`Dispute As Defined By Sub Parts Of (a-e:) as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`33(a)(1). Please see footnote1
`
`a. Explain in detail the original source of the Grenade Trademark you have laid
`claim to in the case at bar.
`b. Please define original though process that resulted caused and created Grenade
`Trademark
`c. Please define and supply any and all pertinent facts that supports your present
`and continuing legal right claim title to use and apply Grenade Trademark that is
`in dispute.
`d. Provide copy of any and all documentation that supports your legal right to use
`of Grenade Trademark.
`
`
`1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). (a) In General. (1) Number. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
`party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve
`additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).Court Rejects Black Letter
`Numerical Limit on Interrogatories Court adopts “related question approach” in requiring party to answer discrete subparts
`
`A federal district court compelled a patent litigation defendant to answer interrogatories which the defendant contended exceeded the
`numerical limit imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). The court held that in the context of patent litigation involving
`only one accused product and sufficiently related patents, an interrogatory with multiple subparts will be counted as a single
`interrogatory for purposes of the Rule 33 limit.
`
`In Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant for patent infringement based on just one allegedly infringing
`product. The plaintiff moved to compel responses to interrogatories, which the defendant opposed because it had previously answered
`the plaintiff’s first set of five interrogatories with at least 21 different subparts.
`
` THE DEFENDANT ARGUED that responding to plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories would exceed the 25 interrogatory
`limit. The court examined whether the case involved more than one accused product, the number of patents in the suit, and whether
`interrogatories that asked for facts, documents, and witnesses related to a discrete subject or contention. Although there were four
`patents in the suit, the court concluded that there was only one accused product and the patent applications were sufficiently related to
`be the subject of a single inquiry.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`e. Please define the dates of first use that resulted caused and created Grenade
`Trademark at issue
`
`
`2. Please Explain in Detail of all persons who you may rely upon to support Grenade
`
`Trademark you have laid claim to in the case at bar.:
`
`a. Supply the name
`b. Addresses
`c. Phone Numbers
`d. Relationship
`e. Type of Transaction
`f. Date of Transaction
`
`
`3. Please Explain of all payments made to any of the following in Detail who you may
`
`rely upon to Support Grenade Trademark you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`a. Supply the name
`b. Addresses
`c. Phone Numbers
`d. Relationship
` e. Type of Transaction
` f. Date of Transaction
` g. Service Provided
` h. Amount of Transaction
` i. Date of Delivery of Product or Service
` j. True Copy of Invoice
` k. Mode of Payment
`
`
`
`4. Please Explain of all payments received from the sales of Grenade Trademark Products
`
`any of the following in Detail who you may rely upon to Support Grenade Trademark
`
`you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`a. Supply the Name Buyer
`b. Buyer Addresses
`c. Buyers Phone Numbers
`d. Buyer Relationship Date Established
`e. Buyer Sales Transaction
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`d. Buyer Grenade Trademark Date of Transaction
`f. Service Provided to Buyer
`g. Amount of Transaction
`h. Date of Delivery of Product or Service to Buyer
`i. True Copy of Invoice to Buyer
`j. Mode of Payment by buyer
`
`
`
`5. Please Explain of all payments made to all raw material suppliers used in the creation
`
`for the sales of Grenade Trademark Products any of the following in Detail who you may
`
`rely upon to Support Grenade Trademark you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`a. Supplier’s Name Buyer
`b. Supplier’s Addresses
`c. Supplier’s Phone Numbers
`d. Supplier’s Relationship Date Established
`e. Supplier’s Sales Transaction
`f. Supplier’s Grenade Trademark Date of Transaction
`g. Service Provided to from Supplier’s to Your Business
`h. Amount of Transaction with Supplier’s
`i. Date of Delivery of Product or Service to your business from Supplier’s
`j. True Copy of all Invoice Supplier’s invoices from start date to current date.
`
`
`6. Please Explain of all payments made to all legal services used in the creation for the
`
`sales of Grenade Trademark Products any of the following in Detail who you may rely
`
`upon to Support Grenade Trademark you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`a. Trade Mark Researchers Name
`b. Researchers Addresses
`c Researchers Phone Numbers
`d. Researchers Relationship Date Established
`e. Researchers Transaction
`d. Researchers Grenade Trademark Date of Transaction
`f. Researchers who Provided Your Business with trademark research
`g. Amount of paid to and for Legal Trademark Researchers
`h. Date of Delivery of Trademark Researchers Service to your business
`i. True Copy of all Invoice of Trademark Researchers Service to your business
`invoices from start date to current date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`7. Please supply in detain under what legal theory you claim you may be entitled to rely
`
`upon to Support Grenade Trademark you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`a. Are you Claiming First Use as the theory you claim you may to rely upon that entitles
`and supports that claimed right explain in detail:
`
`b. If you elect to use 1st use claim please supply true copies of
`
`1. Legal Authorities to support those claim of First Trademark use Grenade Trademark
`
`you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`2. Define Persons who will be called as witnesses to support your first use claim
`
`Grenade Trademark you have laid claim to in the case at bar:
`
`a. Witnesses Name
`b. Witnesses Addresses
` c. Witnesses Phone Numbers
`d. Witnesses Relationship
`e. Date Witnesses Relationship was established
`d. Does Witnesses Have a pecuniary interest in your business
`f. Supplier’s Grenade Trademark Date of Transaction
`g. Service Provided to from Supplier’s o Your Business
`h. Amount of Transaction with Supplier’s
`i. Date of Delivery of Product or Service to your business from Supplier’s
`j. True Copy of all Invoice Supplier’s invoices
`
`
`Dated: March 27, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Ibrahim M. Nasser
`Owner/Serious Scents
`P.O.Box 5626
`Chula Vista, CA 91912
`Tel: (619) 253-9624
`balweh@hotmail.com
`
`/Ibrahim Nasser/
`_____________________
`Ibrahim M. Nasser
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true and complete copy of the forgoing OPPOSER’S
`
`INTERROGATORIES has been served on Kevin A. Broten by forwarding said copy on
`
`March 27, 2020, via email to:
`
`Kevin Broten
`22542 430th Ave
`Roseau, Minnesota 56751
`pe