`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1082683
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/17/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91256549
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Stonecoat GP, LLC
`
`WARREN V NORRED
`NORRED LAW PLLC
`515 E. BORDER STREET
`ARLINGTON, TX 76010
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: wnorred@norredlaw.com
`Secondary Email(s): carol@norredlaw.com, anorred@norredlaw.com, an-
`gela@norredlaw.com
`817-704-3984
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Reply in Support of Motion
`
`Warren V. Norred
`
`warren@norredlaw.com
`
`/Warren V. Norred/
`
`09/17/2020
`
`Attachments
`
`2020_09_17-SC-ReplyinSupportofMotLateFile.pdf(190304 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`StonCor Group, Inc.
`Opposition No. 91256549
` Opposer,
`
`
`
`v.
`Mark: STONECOAT
`
`
`
`
`Stonecoat GP, LLC
`App. No.: 88600289
`Applicant’s Mark: Earthlok
` Applicant
`
`
`
`
`§ § § § § § § §
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLICANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ENTRY OF DEFAULT and
`MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER and BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`
`COMES NOW, Stonecoat GP, LLC ("Stonecoat"), Applicant in the above opposition, to
`
`
`
`file this reply (“Reply”) supporting his request that the TTAB vacate its entry of default in this
`
`proceeding and extend time to file an answer (“Motion”) to the Opposition filed by StonCor
`
`Group, Inc. (“StonCor” or “Opposer”).
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`Opposer’s entire response distills to the claim that the Applicant should not be granted
`
`the motion because he acted at the end of the deadline instead of at some other arbitrary point
`
`agreeable to the Opposer. Opposer alleges this supposedly dispositive claim specifically at least
`
`five times and implies many more times. To add to this, Opposer essentially re-alleges his Notice
`
`of Opposition to refute the meritorious defense of the Applicant, which does not truly prove that
`
`a meritorious defense of the Applicant does not exist. Contrary to Opposer’s Response,
`
`Applicant demonstrably acted for good cause and presented a complete and meritorious defense.
`
`Having had an opportunity to argue against the Motion and failing to provide the TTAB with any
`
`legitimate reason to believe that the Motion should not be granted, Opposer’s Applicant asks
`
`TTAB to vacate the default and for leave to file his answer for good cause and excusable neglect.
`
`
`91256549, Reply ISO Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Extend Time to File an Answer
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`Applicant filed his Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Motion to Extend Time to File
`
`an Answer and Brief in Support on August 14, 2020. The Motion included the supporting
`
`Declaration of Ken Morrison and proposed answer, incorporated here by reference.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer filed
`
`its Opposition
`
`to
`
`the Applicant’s Motion
`
`to Vacate Entry of
`
`Default and Motion to Extend Time to File an Answer on August 28, 2020.
`
`III. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S ARGUMENTS
`
`4.
`
` Although Applicant disagrees with the characterization of the facts presented in Section
`
`II (B) of the Opposer’s Response, the fact that both the Applicant and his counsel contacted the
`
`Opposer’s through is counsel prior to the deadline to resolve the matter is correct.
`
`5.
`
` Opposer argues that Applicant failed to show “good cause” for the late answer to the
`
`Notice of Opposition, because Opposer alleges Applicant acted willfully or negligently and
`
`Applicant has failed to show meritorious defense to the action.
`
`A. Applicant did not act willfully or with gross negligence.
`
`i.
`
`Applicant’s contact with Opposer proves that Applicant did not willfully fail to act.
`
`6.
`
`As noted in his declaration, Applicant contacted Opposer through who he believed to be
`
`the right contact, to resolve the issue of the August 3, 2020 deadline. Opposer freely admits in
`
`Section II (B) that such contact did occur before the end of the deadline.
`
`7.
`
`As all parties agree, Opposer’s counsel requested Mr. Morrison contact Opposer through
`
`his counsel, Mr. Norred, to resolve the matter through official channels.
`
`8.
`
`Again, as noted in both the Applicant’s Declaration and Opposer’s Response, Mr. Norred
`
`contacted Opposer’s counsel concerning the matter before the end of the deadline.
`
`91256549, Reply ISO Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Extend Time to File an Answer
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Additionally Section II (B) of Opposer’s response confirms both counsel for the Opposer
`
`and counsel for the Applicant discussed the matter of extending the deadline, yet counsel for the
`
`Opposer claimed she was unable to authorize any extension without confirmation from the
`
`Opposer. He freely admits in his response that he was unavailable to discuss the details of the
`
`deadline resolution due to his own travel arrangements.
`
`10.
`
`If Opposer wishes to argue that travel during a suit with impending deadlines is
`
`inadvisable, especially when a deadline of this magnitude was imminent, perhaps Opposer
`
`should consider how his own travel arrangements confounded the reasonable effort made by
`
`Applicant and his counsel to resolve said deadline.1
`
`ii. Applicant acted within the deadline to answer and moved for leave reasonably.
`
`11.
`
` Opposer repeatedly alleges throughout his response that somehow Applicant acted
`
`negligently simply because of when the action took place within the deadline. The exact
`
`occurrence of an action within a deadline, which is relevant to the resolution of the matter at
`
`hand, has no import on the legitimacy of that effort so long as it occurred within the deadline.
`
`Applicant would request this Court consider what the purpose of a deadline is if one’s efforts can
`
`be labeled negligent simply because the opposition deems it “the absolute last day” and therefore
`
`somehow illegitimate.
`
`12.
`
`Opposer has provided no legitimate reason to suggest that actions on the last day of a
`
`deadline equate to willful or gross negligence as described in four factors in the four factor test
`
`of exclusable neglect found in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Asso., Ltd.
`
`Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1992), as described in the Motion.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` See p.5 of Opposer’s Opposition to Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Motion to Extend Time to
`File an Answer.
`91256549, Reply ISO Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Extend Time to File an Answer
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Opposer has not indicated why the TTAB should not join the Supreme Court in
`
`disfavoring default judgments, or determine the victor on something other than the merits.
`
`B. Applicant has a Meritorious Defense to this Action.
`
`14.
`
`Opposer helpfully notes the elements of a meritorious defense in Section III (B)(2). “To
`
`determine whether a party has a meritorious defense, the defaulting party need not establish that
`
`there is a likelihood that it ‘will carry the day.’” El Encanto, 2001 WL 531176, at *2 (quoting
`
`Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 98 (2d Cir. 1993). However, the party must show that
`
`“the evidence submitted, if proven at trial, would constitute a complete defense.” Id. See also
`
`Advanced Commc’n Design, Inc. v. Premier Retail Networks, Inc., 46 Fed. Appx. 964, 973 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (stating in a patent infringement case that “in the Rule 55(c) context … a meritorious
`
`defense means that the evidence or argument proffered by the defaulting party could reasonably
`
`lead to a finding in the defaulting party’s favor”).
`
`15.
`
`As presented in his Opposition to the Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of
`
`Default and Motion to Extend Time to File an Answer, Applicant presents this court with a
`
`proposed answer to the Notice of Opposition from the Opposer.
`
`16.
`
`As meets the requirements stated in El Encanto, the proposed answer submitted would
`
`constitute a complete defense. Applicant believes that this defense will indeed carry the day
`
`based on the quality and quantity of evidence and arguments presented.
`
`IV. PRAYER
`
`
`
`As described above and in the Declaration, the missed deadline was inadvertent, and once
`
`the error was recognized, this motion and attached proposed answer was written and
`
`expeditiously provided. As Opposer has suffered no prejudice, Applicant asks that the entry of
`
`91256549, Reply ISO Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Extend Time to File an Answer
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`default be vacated and the answer allowed to be filed and considered, and for all other relief
`
`appropriate by law or equity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Warren V. Norred
`Warren V. Norred, TX Bar No. 24045094
`515 E. Border Street; Arlington, Texas 76010
`817-704-3984 O; 817-524-6686 F
`wnorred@norredlaw.com
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above
`response has been served on the following by delivering said copy on September 17, 2020, via
`the TTAB's e-filing system, to counsel for Opposer.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Warren V. Norred
`Warren V. Norred, TBN 24045094
`
`91256549, Reply ISO Applicant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default and Extend Time to File an Answer
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`