Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1103677
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/22/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91266066
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Edge Games, Inc.
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`171
`530 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: tim@edgegames.com
`Secondary Email(s): timlangdell@gmail.com, uspto@edgegames.com
`6264494334
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Answer
`
`Tim Langdell
`
`timlangdell@gmail.com, uspto@edgegames.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/
`
`12/22/2020
`
`Attachments
`
`Applicants Answer.pdf(1784749 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 86538581
`For the Mark: EDGE
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`MOBIGAME,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`)
`__________________________________________)
`
`Assistant Commissioner for
`Trademarks P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91266066
`
`APPLICANT’S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`
`Edge Games, Inc. (“Applicant”) hereby responds to Mobigame’s (“Opposer”) Notice of
`
`Opposition against Applicant’s United States Application Serial No. 86538581 for the mark
`
`EDGE. In preamble, Applicant notes that Opposer abandoned its 2009 attempt to register the
`
`mark EDGE in the U.S., leaving Applicant the effective victor in that earlier Opposition action.
`
`Opposer also abandoned its French registration—Applicant now owns the exclusive French
`
`rights in the mark (EDGE/ EDGE GAMES; Reg No 4621943), meaning Opposer no longer owns
`
`rights in the mark EDGE even its home territory and yet still persists in harassing Applicant and
`
`trying to steal Applicant’s mark from it by frivolous actions before the Board such as this and by
`
`Opposer’s ceaseless malicious defamation campaign against Applicant and its officers. By
`
`contrast, Applicant (through its predecessors in rights) has owned various EDGE trademarks in
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`the US for the instant products and services since its first US filing on October 2, 1984 (Serial
`
`No. 73502096), and owns the directly related U.S. registration for the marks EDGE GAMES
`
`(Reg. No. 5934761), EDGE GAMING PC (Reg. No. 5987061) and EDGE PC (Reg. No.
`
`5987060). Applicant owned various “EDGE” U.S. trademark registrations with filing dates in the
`
`1990s, which were valid at least up to 2013. Then its filing date for its EDGE GAMES
`
`registration was in 2010, meaning that at all times Applicant has enjoyed the protection of
`
`trademark registration/filing date priority, from the 1990s right through to the current day.
`
`Applicant has never shown any indication of abandoning its long-standing rights in the mark in
`
`what is now some 36 years of actively policing and protecting its EDGE marks in the US.
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS
`
`1. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny this statement.
`
`2. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny this statement.
`
`3. Acknowledged, but Applicant notes that Opposer let the application in question go
`
`abandoned and while it has applied to revive that application, and the USPTO system has
`
`given it an updated status as if it is revived, Applicant trusts that the USPTO will not
`
`permit revival since Opposer had no good reason for letting the application go
`
`abandoned. Opposer has repeatedly lied to the USPTO over and again since at least or
`
`about 2013, repeatedly stating it forgot or had a clerical error when it misses any
`
`deadline. Opposer has a serial habit of missing deadlines and asking the USPTO to ignore
`
`its failures. So far, the USPTO has overlooked all of the many times Opposer has falsely
`
`claimed to have forgotten to file a response, or similar, and Applicant trusts that this time
`
`the USPTO will say “Enough is enough, the application Serial No. 86/491,036 is not
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`revived since Opposer has not given a truly credible reason for missing the filing
`
`deadline.”
`
`4. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny this statement.
`
`5. Denied. Opposer’s use—if any— has at all times been an infringement on the common
`
`law rights and registered rights of Applicant and thus no rights have been accrued to
`
`Opposer in relation to its use of the mark EDGE in U.S. commerce.
`
`6. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny this statement. But repeats that
`
`any identification built by Opposer was done while knowingly infringing on Applicant’s
`
`36-year-old rights in the same mark for the same or similar goods.
`
`7. Responses to paragraphs 1-6 above are incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`8. Confirmed.
`
`9. Confirmed insofar as this is in the public record.
`
`10. Confirmed insofar as this is in the public record.
`
`11. Responses to paragraphs 1-10 above are incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`12. Confirmed as to the facts in the public record, except that any confusion is caused by
`
`Opposer using a mark confusingly similar to Applicant’s long-established mark for the
`
`same or essentially the same goods.
`
`13. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny this statement.
`
`14. Denied.
`
`15. Denied. Any confusion has been or will be caused by Opposer unlawfully using
`
`Applicant’s mark since Applicant is the true owner of the mark for the goods and services
`
`in question and has been the true owner since at least 1984.
`
`16. Denied.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`17. Responses to paragraphs 1-16 above are incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`18. Confirmed insofar as this statement is in agreement with the public record.
`
`19. Denied.
`
`20. Denied. Judge Alsup made no such rulings, the only ruling he made was to deny the
`
`application for preliminary injunction. What Judge Alsup wrote in his order was his
`
`opinions based solely on reviewing a highly misleading document submitted by the
`
`opposing party (Electronic Arts) and not permitted any consideration of rebuttal
`
`submissions by Edge Games Inc. Had Judge Alsup permitted a rebuttal by Edge Games
`
`Inc he would have seen that none of Electronic Arts allegations were true – there never
`
`was any evidence of Applicant or its CEO altering or falsifying any specimens, no truth
`
`to the assertion that a specimen was of an item that had discontinued use more than ten
`
`years before, no truth to the false statements about Applicant’s licenses or relation to its
`
`licensees, when in fact all of Applicant’s claimed use through licenses was valid. See
`
`Exhibit A attached hereto for a refutation of a sample selection what Judge Alsup stated
`
`in his ruling, showing that the assertions made by Electronic Arts (and repeated without
`
`verification by Judge Alsup) were all false. As can be seen, Electronic Arts itself
`
`fabricated specimens and evidence, and repeatedly mislabeled specimens, in order to give
`
`the appearance that Applicant or its CEO had fabricated specimens. The Final Order by
`
`Judge Alsup stated that there was no finding as to wrongdoing by any party, which in
`
`turn means neither Applicant nor its CEO were found to have committed any
`
`wrongdoing. That is, neither Applicant nor its CEO were found in the final order to have
`
`committed fraud on the USPTO (or any other wrongdoing), or to have abandoned any
`
`mark by non-use since in the final order Applicant’s historic use of the mark EDGE since
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`1984 was affirmed and Applicants common law rights in the mark EDGE were
`
`effectively confirmed by the court ruling in Applicant’s favor on Electronic Arts’ request
`
`to deem Applicant’s common law rights voided due to non-use or otherwise.
`
`21. Denied. See Response 20 above. Judge Alsup made no such ruling: The Final Order
`
`stated Applicant was found not to have committed any wrongdoing, including not
`
`submitting falsified specimens to the USPTO.
`
`22. Denied. Applicant has never been ruled by any court to have intentionally misled the
`
`USPTO or to have ever falsified specimens filed before the USPTO. Judge Alsup
`
`rendered his opinion on such issues based on false and deliberately misleading
`
`information provided to him maliciously by the opposing party in that court case. The
`
`case never got to discovery let alone a trial on the merits of such issues as misleading the
`
`USPTO or submitted falsified specimens and the only final ruling was that there was no
`
`wrongdoing by any party, including by Applicant or its CEO.
`
`23. Denied. The statement is illogical – it seems to try to argue that because of what someone
`
`said in 2010 that had nothing to do with the instant application, therefore the application
`
`in 2015 was based on misrepresentations without providing any evidence to support such
`
`an outrageous allegation.
`
`24. Denied. No evidence of any false representations in respect to the instant Application has
`
`been provided by Opposer for the simple reason there has been no false representations.
`
`25. Denied. Applicant repeats its responses on this topic given above regarding Applicant’s
`
`priority of use rights since 1984, and etc.
`
`26. Denied. Opposer does not supply one jot of evidence that anything about the instant
`
`application was fraudulent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`27. Responses to paragraphs 1-26 above are incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`28. Denied. Patently untrue given it is in the public domain that Applicant has used the mark
`
`EDGE since at least 1984 as anyone can confirm with a simple Internet search.
`
`29. Denied. Again, patently untrue, as any simple Internet search would show.
`
`30. Denied.
`
`31. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`32. As a first affirmative defense, the filing fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for
`
`legitimate opposition and for denying registration.
`
`33. As a second affirmative defense, the opposition is an abuse of process by Opposer.
`
`34. As a third affirmative defense, the opposition is barred by waiver and estoppel due to
`
`Opposer having already previously litigated the subject matter of this case in front of the
`
`TTAB, making the exact same arguments, and which prior case before the Board
`
`(Opposition No. 91212834) lasted around ten years with both the discovery and
`
`deposition phases being completed, with Opposer already receiving undisputed proof that
`
`none of its allegations are true, either regarding its claim to priority of use or regarding
`
`Applicant having not used or having abandoned use of the mark, or as to the false
`
`accusation of fraud on the USPTO by Edge. Indeed, in that prior action Opposer already
`
`received undisputed proof of Applicant’s historic long-standing use of the marks in US
`
`interstate commerce for most of the five-year period prior to filing of the instant mark
`
`(2004-2009), as well as proof of use by Applicant of the mark EDGE for the years 2010
`
`to 2015. Furthermore, Applicant previously proved to Opposer in the prior action that
`
`Applicant not only has use of the mark in the relevant period via its own sales, but also
`
`through the sales of various licensees, whose use of the mark EDGE in US commerce
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`vests in Applicant. In addition, in that prior action Applicant already demonstrated
`
`continuous use of the EDGE mark since its first use in 1984. The 2010 Court Case final
`
`order also expressly affirmed and left in place Registrant’s extensive US common law
`
`rights in the mark as at October 2010 which use continued to the filing of the instant
`
`application. That prior action between the two parties took some ten years at a very high
`
`cost to Applicant before concluding with a ruling against Opposer, and it would be
`
`grossly unfair for Applicant to have to suffer the time and costs all over again to litigate
`
`the issues that were already fully litigated before the Board. Applicant previously proved
`
`its case that it is the rightful owner of the mark in question and has priority of use over
`
`any claim by Opposer, as the evidence in the prior action clearly proved.
`
`35. As a fourth affirmative defense, Opposer has unclean hands since it is fully aware that it
`
`has previously received both documentary and oral deposition evidence proving that none
`
`of the allegations made in the instant petition are true. Opposer received in that prior case
`
`before the Board evidence that its allegations relating to the matter before Judge Alsup
`
`were not true and evidence proving Edge Games’ extensive common law rights and
`
`priority of use over any use by Mobigame. The purpose of this opposition is clearly to
`
`knowingly waste both Applicant’s and the Board’s time relitigating matters that has
`
`already been fully proven in Applicant’s favor.
`
`36. As a fifth affirmative defense, in the prior action between the parties before the Board
`
`(Opposition No. 91212834), Opposer is on record as stating that it did not sell any
`
`product in US interstate commerce prior to the filing date of its 2009 application for the
`
`mark EDGE. This fact was reaffirmed by Opposer stating in response to Applicant’s
`
`request for document production that Opposer did not possess any documents relating to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`sales in the United States responsive to Applicant’s requests. Since it follows that
`
`Opposer in its best case would be attempting to rely on any infringing use of Registrant’s
`
`mark in the period from 2009 to the filing date of this application as invalid ‘proof’ of
`
`priority of rights over Opposer’s continuous use in US interstate commerce every year
`
`since 1984, therefore there is not the slightest possibility that Opposer could prevail in
`
`this opposition. Hence, the opposition should be dismissed forthwith as frivolous and
`
`solely intended to be an unnecessary burden on Board and Applicant’s resources and
`
`costs.
`
`37. As a sixth affirmative defense, Applicant is owner of the US registration of the mark
`
`EDGE GAMES which is essentially identical in law to the mark EDGE given both are
`
`for games (Reg. No. 5,934,761). For this reason, Applicant has a prima face right to
`
`registration of the instant applied for mark since it already owns essentially the same
`
`mark for the same goods on the US register. While Opposer has filed a petition to cancel
`
`that registration (No. 92075393), the petition proceedings are ongoing and if Applicant
`
`prevails, as it is confident it will, then the instant opposition proceedings become moot
`
`since Applicant will have been proven to be the true owner of the essentially identical
`
`mark EDGE GAMES for the same goods (games). Accordingly, Applicant will ask the
`
`Board to suspend these proceedings pending the outcome of the petition to cancel.
`
`38. As a seventh affirmative defense, Applicant is the owner of the US registrations for the
`
`marks EDGE GAMING PC (Reg. No. 5987061) and EDGE PC (Reg. No.
`
`5987060). For this further reason in addition to the sixth affirmative defense above,
`
`Applicant has a prima face right to registration of the instant applied for mark since it
`
`already owns essentially the same registration of EDGE in these two further forms, and
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`for essentially the same or closely related goods. Both EDGE GAMING PC and EDGE
`
`PC are essentially the same mark as EDGE since in both cases they merely describe what
`
`the company does for a living: sell computer (PC) games. Hence, EDGE, EDGE
`
`GAMES, EDGE PC, and EDGE GAMING PC are all essentially synonymous in law
`
`given they are all the mark EDGE in relation to the sale of computer games and the
`
`games computers on which computer games run. Applicant notes that Opposer did not
`
`oppose either the registration of EDGE GAMING PC or EDGE PC (for games), nor has
`
`Opposer indicated any objection to these directly related EDGE marks for computer
`
`games and games computers remaining on the US register. Last, Applicant notes that all
`
`these US registrations (EDGE GAMES, EDGE GAMING PC and EDGE PC) have filing
`
`dates that predate any other pending application for the mark EDGE by Opposer.
`
`Dated: December 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tim Langdell__________
`CEO, Edge Games, Inc.
`530 South Lake Avenue, #171
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`Telephone: 626 449 4334
`Email: timlangdell@gmail.com
`Applicant in pro se.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that pursuant to CFR 2.101(b), on December 22, 2020 a true and correct
`copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION was served via
`email on Opposer’s counsel:
`
`PATRICK J CONCANNON
`NUTTER MCLENNEN & FISH
`pconcannon@nutter.com
`
`
`/Tim Langdell/____________
`Dr. Tim Langdell
`
`22 December 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`10
`10
`
`

`

`Rebuttal of the mistaken opinions rendered by Judge Alsup in his Order Denying Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction, dated 1 October 2010.
`The purpose of this document is not to rebut each and every false or misleading statement made in the
`Alsup Order, but rather to clarify by giving some examples how Electronic Arts deliberately mislead the
`court into thinking Edge Games had either committed fraud on the USPTO or that it has abandoned any
`of its games. Neither was true, as these examples will demonstrate. Again, Edge Games was never given
`the opportunity to respond to the deliberately misleading document filed by Electronic Arts, and thus
`the judge made the error of thinking Electronic Arts was presenting accurate information when it was
`not.
`
`
`
`A. Rebuttal of the section “Fraud and Abandonment Regarding “EDGE”
`The court relied on the false statements and misleading images provided by Electronic Arts
`(“EA”) and Judge Alsup simply repeated the false statements without permitted Edge Games to
`correct his misunderstandings.
`
`Repeating the deliberate lie made in the papers filed with him by EA, he wrongly stated that the
`specimen of Edge Magazine supplied to the USPTO was fake. These are the deliberately
`misleading images that EA supplied to the court and which are replicated in the Order:
`
`
`In fact, the image on the left was the front cover of Edge Game’s version of the Edge Magazine
`published in the US, whereas the image on the right was the image of the Future Publishing
`version of the magazine that they published for the United Kingdom market. While it is difficult
`to see in the document, the image on the right has a price in Pounds Sterling on it, whereas the
`one on the left has a price in US dollars. Neither image is a ‘fake’ – rather, EA deliberately
`mislabeled the images to falsely suggest the image supplied by Edge Games was not an ‘actual’
`cover, when in fact it was.
`
`The Order then goes on to repeat the falsehoods stated in the EA filing in regard to the EDGE
`comic books. Had Edge Games been able to respond at the time, it could easily have
`demonstrated that on the one hand the copies of the comic books that were alleged to have
`been not published for some 15 years, were in fact represented as currently on sale by Marvel
`when they filed a statement of use with the USPTO. Contrary to the false statements made,
`
`

`

`Marvel did reach an agreement with Edge Games which apparently Marvel’s counsel, Mr. Bard
`was not aware of when he made his sworn testimony. Again, Edge Games could have proven
`this had it been afforded the opportunity to do so. To be clear, the hearing for the preliminary
`injunction was not the time for Edge Games to be permitted to submit all evidence and rebuttal
`argument. Rather, Edge Game’s opportunity to file its evidence and rebuttal argument would
`have been during the discovery and trial phases of the court case. But of course, the matter
`never got beyond the initial brief 10-15minute hearing that Judge Alsup permitted in regard to
`the motion for preliminary injunction. It is thus all the more frustrating to Edge Games that
`Judge Alsup made the statements that he did given he was aware he had only heard one side’s
`version of events and had not come close to seeing all the relevant evidence at the time he issued
`this preliminary order.
`Mythora.com domain name: On page 11 the Judge repeated the false statement the Edge
`Games had not registered the domain name mythora.com until October 2008 and that thus the
`box it provided as proof of use of the mark EDGE must be a fake since it alleged to be from 2004
`and had the domain name on it. However, the truth – which the court did not permit Edge
`Games to present – is that due to clerical error Edge mistakenly let the domain name go
`cancelled due to no payment in 2008 and had to re-register it. This is why it appeared to have
`been registered that year. But in fact, Edge first registered the domain name in June 2003 and
`this is why it appeared on a box dated 2004:
`
`
`
`
`B. Fraud and Abandonment Regarding “THE EDGE”
`First, EA misled the court when it stated the Snoopy game was “already seven years old” since
`the game had been sold on various formats over the years, and was still on sale at the time in
`
`
`
`

`

`question. Again, a fact Edge could easily have demonstrated had the judge permitted Edge the
`right of response.
`
`EA then did a similar trick to make it look like Edge Games had faked a specimen when they
`supplied to the court the following pair of images with the following misleading descriptions:
`
`
`Once again, EA falsely implied that the image on the left was not of an ‘actual’ box cover by
`labelling the one on the right ‘Actual Box Cover.’ In fact, had Edge been able to clarify to the
`court, it could have been easily stated that the image on the left is of Edge’s product for the
`United States market, whereas the one on the right was made for the United Kingdom market.
`All the differences between the two box cover artworks are explained by this fact – both were
`real, neither was fake.
`C. Fraud and Abandonment Regarding “GAMER’S EDGE”
`Once again, EA mislead the court. While the very first version of a Garfield game had been
`produced some years earlier, further versions had been done over the years and the Garfield
`game was still on sale at the time in question, albeit at a budget (warehouse overstock
`clearance) price. Once again, EA deliberately mislead the court by the way they presented the
`box cover images and the way they labelled the images. Worse, in this instance Electronic Arts
`faked one of the two images in order to make it look as if Edge Games had faked an image.
`
`
`The image on the left was a genuine box cover produced by Edge and used in commerce.
`However, the image on the right is a fake image created by Electronic Arts. While the righthand
`
`

`

`image is labelled ‘Actual Box Cover” (to suggest the one on the left is not an actual box cover,
`when it is), it is in fact a copy of the poster that Edge produced for the game which EA had
`reduced and cropped for size to make it look like a box cover. We know this since the image in
`question is identical to the image of the far larger poster and because any true box cover would
`have the computer format on the front which the righthand image lacks. Only the posters had
`no computer format sticker on them. There was never an actual box cover that had no format
`sticker on it, hence we know the EA image is a fake.
`
`
`And of course, none of this evidence faked by EA went to prove in any way that Edge Games had
`abandoned its use of any of its EDGE brand variants: EDGE, THE EDGE, GAMER’S EDGE or
`otherwise. Indeed, it was because EA failed to prove either that Edge Games had committed
`fraud on the USPTO or had abandoned use of any of its EDGE marks, that lead to the parties
`settling as they did with no finding of wrongdoing and with Edge’s common law rights in the
`mark EDGE found to be subsisting. It is also the reason why the parallel cancelation proceedings
`by EA against Edge before the USPTO were not terminated in favor of EA with any finding of
`either fraud or abandonment due to non-use, since the settlement between the parties had
`specifically asserted no fraud was to have been found or any abandonment of its EDGE marks by
`Edge. In fact, that is a key reason why it took some additional 3 years from the ruling by Judge
`Alsup for the parties to conclude the USPTO action and for Edge’s registrations to be cancelled
`in 2013 since the parties and the USPTO had to find a way to conclude proceedings that did not
`suggest Edge had committed fraud or had abandoned any of its marks.
`
`The filings by EA also deliberately confused the court in regard to the proof offered by Edge
`Games as to it sales in US interstate commerce. They intentionally confused the court into
`believing that some of Edge’s filed sales figures related to the UK rather than the US (which was
`not true – there was no reason why Edge would have submitted UK sales figures to a US court),
`and additionally deliberately clicked on the wrong links on Edge Games’ website to give the
`illusion that Edge’s games could not be purchased when in fact they could be. They also
`convinced the court to dismiss any sale via Amazon.com as not a ‘real’ sale which was of course
`absurd.
`
`Again, had Edge been permitted the right to file a rebuttal with counter evidence at the time, it
`could easily have shown it had use of its marks in US sales for the years in question. But to be
`clear, this case never got to discovery (exchange of evidence) let alone a trial on the merits.
`Thus, the Judge, let alone the jury (it was to be a jury trial) never saw the real evidence and
`there was no finding or ruling made on the merits – only the ruling to deny the preliminary
`injunction requested by Edge. The statements made by Judge Alsup in the exhibited order was
`not as a result of his having considered all the issues on their merits or view all the necessary
`evidence on the issues. And the final order, based on the interparties settlement, specifically
`stated that there was to be no finding of wrongdoing by Edge/Langdell (hence no fraud on the
`USPTO) and no abandonment by Edge of any of its marks since its common law rights were
`reasserted in the final order as valid and subsisting in law.
`
`