Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1129405
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`04/26/2021
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91266610
`Defendant
`Hanna Marycheva
`SERGEI OREL
`SERGEI OREL LLC
`2125 CENTER AVE SUITE 608
`FORT LEE, NJ 07024
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: sorel@sergei-orel.com
`201-491-1464
`
`Request for Reconsideration of Non-Final Board Order
`Sergei Orel
`sergeiorel@yahoo.com
`/Sergei Orel/
`04/26/2021
`DefaultEnteredInErrorMotionToVacateDefault.pdf(76202 bytes )
`Motionn-Filed-USPTO. ESTTA. Receipt.pdf(214478 bytes )
`BrightJungle-Motion-Dismiss-R12_1_29_2021.pdf(151641 bytes )
`Exhibit_A_BrightJungle Amazing Anti-Aging 24K Gold Collagen Depuffing
`_Cooling Under Eye Mask for Men and Women.pdf(297678 bytes )
`Exhibit_B_88813250.pdf(212299 bytes )
`Exhibit_C_Amazon.com _ BrightJungle Under Eye Collagen Patch, 24K Gol d
`Anti-Aging Mask, Pads for Puffy Eyes & Bags, Dark Circles and Wrinkles, with
`Hydrogel, Deep Moisturizing Improves elasticity, 16 Pairs _ Beauty.pdf(1721722
`bytes )
`Exhibit_D_cladkaya vsinhia.pdf(180440 bytes )
`Exhibit_E_Website_BrightJungle Amazing Anti-Aging 24K Gold Collagen D
`epuffing_Cooling Under Eye Mask for Men and Women.pdf(1733515 bytes )
`Exhibit_F_Amazon.com _ BrightJungle Under Eye Collagen Patch, 24K Gol d
`Anti-Aging Mask, Pads for Puffy Eyes & Bags, Dark Circles and Wrinkles, with
`Hydrogel, Deep Moisturizing Improves elasticity, 16 Pairs _ Beauty.pdf(1672964
`bytes )
`Exhibit_G_Ebay.pdf(572406 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` Alef Judaica Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff/Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`Hanna Marycheva,
`Defendant/Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91266610
`
`Ser. No. 88/813,250
`
`Mark: BRIGHTJUNGLE
`
`CORRECTED MOTION TO VACATE ERRONEOUSLY ENTERED
`DEFAULT
`
`This Corrected Motion to Vacate Erroneously Entered Default is being
`
`submitted following the April 26, 2021 submission of the initial Motion, but this time
`
`with all of the attachments/exhibits and correct date of filing and service.
`
`Defendant, Hanna Marycheva, (“Defendant” or “Applicant” or “Marycheva”),
`
`by and through its counsel, Sergei Orel, LLC, respectfully moves The Trademark Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) to vacate the erroneously issued default that the TTAB
`
`issued on February 19, 2021, for alleged failure to file an answer or otherwise plead,
`
`which was a wrong default decision on the part of the TTAB.
`
`Defendant in fact filed a Rule 12 Motion To Dismiss the Opposition for failure
`
`by the to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on January 29, 2021. Please
`
`see attached a copy of the complete filing of the Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss, together
`
`with accompanying Exhibits. As you can see, the Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss filing has
`
`received upon the filing a transaction number from the TTAB, i.e., ESTTA Tracking
`
`

`

`ESTTA Tracking Number ESTTA1111224:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1111224
`Filing date: 01/29/2021
`
`The undersigned attorney for the Defendant notes that in January 2021 the
`
`USPTO website had been experiencing constant nearly daily glitches and filing errors,
`
`which resulted in the undersigned’s filing various documents with the USPTO.gov
`
`website, which would later not be processed by the USPTO.
`
`Thus, it seems that Defendant’s Rule 12 Motion To Dismiss the Opposition for
`
`failure by the to state a claim upon which relief may be granted which Defendant filed
`
`on January 29, 2021 with the USPTO TTAB online filing portal suffered the same fate
`
`as many other filings that were done by the undersigned in January 2021 - the Motion
`
`was not properly recorded by the TTAB in the history of the present matter online and it
`
`is not reflected in the history of the file to date, even though, as is evident from the
`
`submitted attachments, the Motion was clearly filed with the TTAB as it had receive a
`
`filing confirmation number at that time.
`
`Please update the docket in this matter with the attached filing of the Rule 12
`
`Motion To Dismiss the Opposition for failure by the to state a claim upon which relief
`
`may be granted which was done on January 29, 2021, and please reflect that Motion
`
`filing as of the date it was filed on - January 29, 2021.
`
`[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK ON PURPOSE]
`
`

`

`For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board
`
`withdraw its incorrectly issued default dated February 19, 2021 and consider the Rule
`
`12 Motion To Dismiss the Opposition for failure by the to state a claim upon which
`
`relief may be granted on its merits.
`
`Dated this 26th day of April, 2021.
`
`/Sergei Orel/
`
`Sergei Orel
`2125 Center Avenue, Suite 608
`Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
`Tel: 201-491-1464
`Email: sorel@sergei-orel.com
`Attorney for Defendant/Applicant
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing submission in re Alef Judaica Inc. v. Hanna
`Marycheva, Opposition No. 91266610 was served on Opposer, this 26th day of April, 2021, by
`email directed to Elan@eoved.com and by sending a courtesy copy of same via First Class Mail,
`postage prepaid, to:
`
`Elan@eoved.com
`ALEF JUDAICA INC

`100 ATLANTIC AVE 

`LYNBROOK, NY 11563

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____/Sergei Orel/_________________
`
`Sergei Orel
`
`
`
`

`

`1/30/2021
`
`(https://www.uspto.gov)
`
`USPTO. ESTTA. Receipt
`
`About Us (https://www.uspto.gov/about-us)
`
` Jobs (https://www.uspto.gov/jobs)
`
`Contact Us (https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/contact-us)
`
`Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals
`
`Receipt
`Your submission has been received by the USPTO.
`The content of your submission is listed below.
`You may print a copy of this receipt for your records.
`
`ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1111224
`01/29/2021
`Filing date:
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence Address
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91266610
`Defendant
`Hanna Marycheva
`ANDREA SELKREGG
`IDEALEGAL
`2240 N INTERSTATE AVENUE, SUITE 270
`PORTLAND, OR 97227
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: aselkregg@idealegal.com
`Secondary Email(s): docketing@1027tm.com,
`abrinfo@idealegal.com
`503-902-5780
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`Sergei Orel
`sorel@sergei-orel.com, sergeiorel@yahoo.com,
`tmatorney@gmail.com
`/Sergei Orel/
`01/29/2021
`
`https://estta.uspto.gov/com/receipt.jsp?iname=IUNENLHZVA0K-6059
`
`1/2
`
`

`

`1/30/2021
`
`Attachments
`
`USPTO. ESTTA. Receipt
`BrightJungle-Motion-Dismiss-R12_1_29_2021.pdf(151641
`bytes )
`Exhibit_A_BrightJungle Amazing Anti-Aging 24K Gold
`Collagen Depuffing _Cooling Under Eye Mask for Men and
`Women.pdf(297678 bytes )
`Exhibit_B_88813250.pdf(212299 bytes )
`Exhibit_C_Amazon.com _ BrightJungle Under Eye Collagen
`Patch, 24K Gol d Anti-Aging Mask, Pads for Puffy Eyes &
`Bags, Dark Circles and Wrinkles, with Hydrogel, Deep
`Moisturizing Improves elasticity, 16 Pairs _ Beauty.pdf(1721722
`bytes )
`Exhibit_D_cladkaya vsinhia.pdf(180440 bytes )
`Exhibit_E_Website_BrightJungle Amazing Anti-Aging 24K
`Gold Collagen D epuffing_Cooling Under Eye Mask for Men
`and Women.pdf(1733515 bytes )
`Exhibit_F_Amazon.com _ BrightJungle Under Eye Collagen
`Patch, 24K Gol d Anti-Aging Mask, Pads for Puffy Eyes &
`Bags, Dark Circles and Wrinkles, with Hydrogel, Deep
`Moisturizing Improves elasticity, 16 Pairs _ Beauty.pdf(1672964
`bytes )
`Exhibit_G_Ebay.pdf(572406 bytes )
`
`Return to ESTTA home page (https://estta.uspto.gov/) Start another
`ESTTA filing (https://estta.uspto.gov/filing-type.jsp)
`
`(https://www.uspto.gov/)
`
`BROWSE BY TOPIC
`
`ABOUT THIS SITE
`
`USPTO BACKGROUND
`
`FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
`
`https://estta.uspto.gov/com/receipt.jsp?iname=IUNENLHZVA0K-6059
`
`2/2
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91266610
`
`Ser. No. 88/813,250
`
`Mark: BRIGHTJUNGLE
`
`
` Alef Judaica Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiff/Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Hanna Marycheva,
`
`Defendant/Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE OPPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV.
`P. 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF
`CAN BE GRANTED AND FOR LACK OF STANDING, AND FOR TTAB’S
`LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CURRENT
`PROCEEDING BASED ON OPPOSER’S FALSE CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Defendant, Hanna Marycheva, (“Defendant” or “Applicant” or “Marycheva”),
`
`by and through its counsel, Sergei Orel, LLC, respectfully moves The Trademark Trial
`
`and Appeal Board to dismiss the Opposition of Plaintiff, Alef Judaica Inc., (“Plaintiff”
`
`or “Opposer”), pursuant to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure
`
`(“TBMP”) §§ 316 and 503, and Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6), for Plaintiff’s failure to state a
`
`claim upon which relief can be granted in its Opposition.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On July 10, 2019, the Applicant, Hanna Marycheva, which is also the
`
`Defendant in this case, began using her mark BRIGHTJUNGLE (“Applicant’s Mark”
`
`or “Defendant’s Mark”) in interstate commerce in the USA in respect of its
`
`International Class 3 goods, such as gel eye patches for cosmetic purposes. See
`
`attached Exhibit A.
`
`Marycheva filed a US Trademark Application Serial No. 88/813,250 with the
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USPTO for the mark BRIGHTJUNGLE. See attached Exhibit B.
`
`The design of Marycheva’s trademark design is completely her own. See
`
`attached Exhibit C. Marycheva created the packaging. Also the design is her own
`
`completely. She now has received an opposition from Opposer Alef Judaica Inc., due
`
`to alleged copyright infringement, which is ludicrous, baseless, and is without merit.
`
`Alef Judaica Inc., who submitted the opposition against Marycheva, unlawfully
`
`copied Applicant’s own mark and images of the mark as Applicant uses them in
`
`commerce, including on Amazon.com, and is now trying to open its own
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE Amazon listing with photographs of Marycheva’s (!!!!!!) product,
`
`https://trademarks.justia.com/889/25/hollywood-eye-24k-88925335.html. In order to
`
`do this, Opposer created several fake listings on Amazon, where it displayed
`
`Marycheva’s own photos, where Opposer passes them for Opposer’s own, while
`
`Marycheva’s listing on Amazon was created 544 days ago:
`
`https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RLSW2BY, and Opposer’s listings on Amazon were
`
`created all of 7 weeks ago https://www.amazon.com / Collagen-Wrinkles-Hydrogel-
`
`Moisturizing-elasticity / dp / B08FXHC24T / ref =
`
`psdc_7730092011_t3_B083QTLDJ4 .
`
`When Opposer created illegally its Amazon listings for Applicant’s (!!!!)
`
`trademark BRIGHTJUNGLE in violation of Applicant’s senior trademark rights, while
`
`knowing, or when Opposer otherwise should have known, by way of a simple diligent
`
`search of the Amazon listings and of the USPTO records, that Applicant had already
`
`had its own BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark application serial number 88/813,250,
`
`pending before the USPTO, based on Applicant’s actual bone fide use in US interstate
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`commerce, which Applicant’s trademark application Ser. No. 88/813,250, clearly
`
`showed that the Applicant had been using its BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark in US
`
`interstate commerce since July 10, 2019, as shown by the specimens attached to
`
`Applicant’s Application Ser. No. 88/813,250 (see Exhibit D).
`
`Opposer is the trademark infringer in this case, i.e., it is infringing on
`
`Applicant’s trademark, which Opposer adopted in reckless and intentional disregard of
`
`Applicant’s senior trademark rights in its BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark in Int. Cl. 003
`
`in respect of gel eye patches for cosmetic purposes.
`
`As such, Opposer has no standing to prosecute the present opposition action
`
`against Applicant’s BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark application.
`
`Applicant has been using and continues to use its BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark
`
`on its Class 003 goods in US interstate commerce.
`
`Applicant created its website https://www.brightjungle.info/ website for its
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE brand in 2019. See attached Exhibit E.
`
`Applicant opened up its online storefront on the www.amazon.com platform on
`
`July 10, 2019 on https://www.amazon.com/BrightJungle-Anti-Aging-Hyaluronic-
`
`Moisturizing-
`
`elasticity/dp/B07RLSW2BY/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA3smABhCjARIs
`
`AKtrg6KnntEjx3iDY2InC05QT5OX5n7Xq9KAEOh0ItjNb-
`
`gRdxGAN1liJScaAvG5EALw_wcB&hvadid=384453047246&hvdev=c&hvlocint=90
`
`04077&hvlocphy=1012859&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11594828091976894584
`
`&hvtargid=kwd-
`
`842670379674&hydadcr=27347_10142248&keywords=brightjungle&qid=161188620
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`6&sr=8-2&tag=googhydr-20. See attached Exhibit F.
`
`Applicant has been maintaining its products’ listing on www.ebay.com since
`
`July 10, 2019, i.e., https://www.ebay.com/itm/BrightJungle-Under-Eye-Collagen-
`
`Patch-24K-Gold-Anti-Aging-Mask-Pads-for-Puffy-
`
`/233528978787?norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-153677-346401-
`
`4&mkcid=2&keyword=&crlp=307364301291_&MT_ID=&geo_id=&rlsatarget=aud-
`
`759904084730:dsa-
`
`19959388920&adpos=&device=c&mktype=&loc=1012859&poi=9004077&abcId=&c
`
`mpgn=1615587334&sitelnk=&adgroupid=66643712052&network=g&matchtype=b&
`
`gclid=Cj0KCQiA3smABhCjARIsAKtrg6IvwkzG-
`
`FnPHi_72YpdhhJAzQ2XhGtMWZCHuRUn5WoCYBX6LiNXZ_gaAr8KEALw_wc
`
`B. See attached Exhibit G.
`
`Since the date of the first sale by Applicant in interstate commerce in the USA,
`
`i.e., July 10, 2019, Applicant has been regularly selling its Class 003 goods, i.e., gel
`
`eye patches for cosmetic purposes, in the US interstate commerce, over the Internet.
`
`To support its claims for alleged copyright infringement, Opposer has not
`
`provided any proof other than frivolous allegations and conjecture. In sum, Opposer
`
`has not presented in its frivolous Opposition Petition a single claim upon which relieve
`
`could be granted, i.e., the Opposition Petition that Opposer has no standing to bring,
`
`having no protectable rights in the BRIGHTJUNGLE mark, with the mak
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE belonging to the Applicant as the original and senior user of the
`
`mark.
`
`
`
`On the other hand, the attached evidence of use in the Exhibits herein supports
`
`4
`
`

`

`Applicant’s position that the Applicant is the original senior owner of the
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark, has been using the mark continuously in US commerce
`
`without interruption, including beginning prior to the date of the filing of Applicant’s
`
`USPTO trademark application serial number 88/813,250, that Applicant has never
`
`abandoned the mark, nor has it ever committed any fraud. The attached evidence is in
`
`direct contravention to Opposer’s false and fraudulent allegations against Applicant in
`
`its frivolous Opposition Petition in this proceeding, in which Opposer has no standing
`
`to bring one as not having any protectable rights in the BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark,
`
`Opposer has not, is not, and will not be damaged by Applicant’s BRIGHTJUNGLE
`
`trademark registration, and where Opposer has not stated a single valid claim upon
`
`which relief could be granted.
`
`A failure to dismiss this fraudulent and frivolous Opposition Petition for failure
`
`to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, and for lack of standing
`
`now, would require additional time and resources from Applicant, as well as from this
`
`Board, in a matter where the Opposer has no protectable trademark rights whatsoever
`
`in Applicant’s BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark in order to sustain the subject frivolous
`
`Opposition Petition, and where Opposer committed fraud on the USPTO.
`
`Opposer came to a wrong forum with his baseless claim of copyright
`
`infringement – the USPTO TTAB does NOT have jurisdiction over copyright
`
`infringement claims. The TTAB has jurisdiction over trademark matters, but not over
`
`copyright matters. As such, the Opposition must be dismissed for lack of subject
`
`matter jurisdiction.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`ARGUMENT
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal is required when a
`
`notice of opposition fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the
`
`opposition Opposer must allege facts that would, if proved, establish that (1) the
`
`Opposer has standing to maintain the proceeding, and (2) a valid ground exists for
`
`petitioning to Oppose the mark. Lipton Industries, Inc., v. Ralston Purina Co, 213 USPQ
`
`185 (CCPA 1982); See also TMBP § 503.01 and § 503.02. A notice of opposition must
`
`include (1) a short and plain statement of the reason(s) why Opposer believes it would be
`
`damaged by the continued registration of the mark (i.e., Opposer’s standing to maintain
`
`the proceeding), and (2) a short and plain statement of one or more grounds for
`
`opposition. TBMP § 309.03(a)(2). The Opposer “must allege facts 'plausibly suggesting
`
`(not merely consistent with)' a showing of entitlement to relief." Dimare Fresh, Inc. v.
`
`United States, 808 F.3d 1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2461 (2016)
`
`(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)); accord GMA
`
`Accessories, Inc. v. Dorfman-Pacific Co., Opp. No. 91196926, 2011 WL 12303167, at *5
`
`(T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2011) ("[I]n order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a
`
`complaint must allege facts ‘plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ a
`
`showing of entitlement to relief. At the same time, a court is 'not bound to accept as
`
`true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation."') (quoting Acceptance Ins. Cos. v.
`
`United States, 583 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). In particular, the petitioner must
`
`allege well-pleaded factual matter and more than “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`The Board reviews a motion to dismiss by assuming all well-pleaded allegations
`
`in the Opposition are true, and construes those allegations in a light most favorable to the
`
`Opposer. See Consol. Foods Corp. v. Big Red, Inc., 226 U.S.P.Q. 829, 831 (T.T.A.B.
`
`1985). However, the Board is not bound to accept as true legal conclusion crouched as a
`
`factual allegation. Iqbal, 556 at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A plaintiff must
`
`plead more than just labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
`
`a cause of action will not due. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion is to allow for elimination of actions that are fatally flawed in their legal premises
`
`and destined to fail, and thus to spare litigants the burdens of unnecessary pretrial and trial
`
`activity. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. v. SciMed Life Systems Inc., 26 USPQ2d
`
`1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1993); See also Bayer Consumer Care AG v. Belamora, LLC, 90
`
`USPQ2d 1587, *4 (TTAB 2009).
`
`Opposer has no standing to bring this opposition.
`
`Furthermore, opposer has no valid ground for petitioning to oppose the mark.
`
`The TTAB has no jurisdiction to consider a copyright infringement claim.
`
`The Opposer does not own copyright rights to the intellectual property in
`
`question, because, to the contrary, the Applicant owns the copyright and trademark rights
`
`to the intellectual property in question.
`
`The Opposer has committed fraud on the USPTO by having asserted to the
`
`USPTO that it has allegedly copyright and trademark rights to the intellectual property of
`
`the Applicant. Essentially, the Opposer has attacked the Applicant on the false basis of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`owning Applicant’s very intellectual property, and Opposer accuses the Applicant of
`
`infringement of Applicant’s own intellectual property, which is factually absurd, and
`
`legally false.
`
`The opposition must be dismissed.
`
`II. OPPOSER’S OPPOSER TO OPPOSE FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
`RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED
`
`Opposer alleged copyright infringement in its notice of opposition. Even if assuming,
`
`arguendo, that Opposer’s claim for copyright infringement is colorable, which it is not, and that
`
`Opposer has standing to bring this Opposition before the USPTO, which it does not, then the Opposer
`
`would have to show that the USPTO TTAB has the subject matter jurisdiction over Opposer’s
`
`copyright infringement claim, which it does not.
`
`Copyright infringement claims are decided in US Federal Courts, see 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810,
`
`and not by the USPTO TTAB.
`
`Nor can Opposer establish that Applicant had not used its BRIGHTJUNGLE mark in
`
`commerce prior to the filing of its application for registration of its BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark with
`
`the USPTO, which false and frivolous allegation by Opposer is hereby refuted by Applicant through
`
`attached evidence. Consequently, nor can the Opposer establish its outlandish and frivolous allegation
`
`of copyright infringement.
`
`Opposer has failed to plead sufficient facts to support its threadbare recitations of
`
`its alleged and frivolous grounds for opposition.
`
`Opposer in its Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
`
`because its Opposition is nothing other than a recitation of made up arguments and
`
`allegations, without any material proof.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Opposer’s frivolous allegations in its Opposition are not plausible on their face.
`
`Opposer has presented nothing but speculation and wild outlandish frivolous allegations.
`
`Applicant, on the other hand, has presented concrete material proof in support of this
`
`Motion, showing that Applicant is a bona fide owner of its BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark,
`
`which it has been using in US interstate commerce since before the filing of its
`
`trademark application, consequently, that there was no fraud of any kind on the part of
`
`the Applicant, and that the Applicant has never abandoned its mark.
`
`III. STANDARD FOR SUFFICIENT STANDING
`
`To establish standing in a Opposition proceeding, the Plaintiff must show both
`
`“a real interest in the proceedings as well as a ‘reasonable’ basis for his belief of
`
`damage.” See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999). To demonstrate a “real interest,” Opposer must show that they have a “direct and
`
`personal stake” in the outcome herein and are more than “mere intermeddler(s).” Id. at
`
`1026; see also Jewelers Vigilance Committee Inc. v. Ullenberg Corp., 853 F.2d 888, 7
`
`USPQ2d 1628 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`To withstand a motion to dismiss, a Plaintiff must show: “(1) that he has
`
`standing and (2) a statutory ground which negates the applicant's entitlement to
`
`registration.” Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has enunciated a liberal threshold
`
`for determining standing, namely, that a plaintiff must show that he or she possesses a
`
`“real interest” in a proceeding, and “a reasonable basis for his belief of damage.”
`
`Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058,
`
`1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1401 (2015); Ritchie
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lipton Industries,
`
`Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982); see also
`
`TBMP § 309.03(b). While the standard is liberal, meeting the standard is required
`
`nonetheless.
`
`To plead a “real interest” in the case, an Opposer “must have a direct and
`
`personal stake in the outcome,” i.e., a “legitimate personal interest.” Petroleos
`
`Mexicanos v. Intermix S.A., 97 USPQ2d 1403 (TTAB 2010) (quoting Ritchie v.
`
`Simpson, 50 USPQ2d at 1027). This requirement ensures that “‘mere intermeddlers’
`
`who do not raise a real controversy from bringing” notice of oppositions. Id.; see also
`
`Lipton Industries, 213 USPQ at 189 (“The purpose in requiring standing is to prevent
`
`litigation where there is no real controversy between the parties, where a plaintiff,
`
`Opposer or opposer, is no more than an intermeddler.”).
`
`It is crucial that the Plaintiff be in a position to have a right to use of the mark in
`
`question. J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition,
`
`Fourth Edition, § 20:50 (2014). Furthermore, “[t]he allegations in support of plaintiff's
`
`belief of damage must have a reasonable basis “in fact.” Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d
`
`1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that the belief of damage
`
`alleged by plaintiff must be more than a subjective belief) (citing Universal Oil
`
`Products v. Rexall Drug & Chemical Co., 463 F.2d 1122, 174 USPQ 458, 459-60
`
`(CCPA 1972)).
`
`Opposer here has no standing to bring the present Opposition.
`
`As explained above, Opposer has no protectable interest in the
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark, with the Applicant being the only trademark user and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`owner in this case; Opposer has no right in the BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark that
`
`would defeat Applicant’s prior rights in BRIGHTJUNGLE; Opposer is a trademark
`
`infringer that has infringed on Applicant’s rights in its BRIGHTJUNGLE trademark;
`
`Opposer has committed fraud on the USPTO, and as such, Opposer may not benefit
`
`from the fruits of its fraud on the USPTO.
`
`Furthermore, Opposer has not pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to standing to
`
`challenge Applicant’s mark on the frivolous grounds that it raised in its Opposition.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing reasons, the Board should dismiss Opposer’s
`
`Oppositon.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`the motion and dismiss the Opposition proceeding.
`
`Dated this 29th day of January, 2021.
`
`
`
`/Sergei Orel/
`
`Sergei Orel
`Sergei Orel, LLC
`2125 Center Avenue, Suite 608
`Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
`Tel: 201-491-1464
`Email: sorel@sergei-orel.com
`Attorney for Defendant/Applicant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Elan@eoved.com
`ALEF JUDAICA INC
`100 ATLANTIC AVE
`LYNBROOK, NY 11563
`
`
`
`
` I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO DISMISS in re Alef Judaica Inc. v.
`Hanna Marycheva, Opposition No. 91266610was served on Opposer, this 28th day of January,
`2021, by email directed to Elan@eoved.com and by sending a courtesy copy of same via First
`Class Mail, postage prepaid, to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____/Sergei Orel/_________________
`
`Sergei Orel
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`1/30/2021
`
`(cid:0)
`
`BrightJungle Amazing Anti-Aging 24K Gold Collagen Depuffing/Cooling Under Eye Mask for Men and Women
`
`https://www.brightjungle.info
`
`1/2
`
`BrightJungle Amazing
`Anti-Aging 24K Gold
`Collagen
`Depuffing/Cooling
`Under Eye Mask for
`Men and Women
`
`IMPORTANT! READ THE
`FOLLOWING ESSENTIAL
`INFORMATION TO GET
`15% DISCOUNT FOR
`YOUR NEXT PURCHASE!
`
`After using this product, it will not be an
`
`instant success right now. To be beautiful, it
`
`also needs a process So please be patient.
`
`After prolonged use, it can help you to get a
`
`satisfactory result.
`
`
`
`It also activates the emergent mechanism
`
`for young skin
`
`1. Apply to the corner of the mouth: remove lip
`
`wrinkles.
`
`2. Apply to the chin: improve the dullness.
`
`3. Apply to face: replenish moisture.
`
`4. Apply to the forehead: improve the fine
`
`lines.
`
`5. It can be used to wash face after diluting
`
`with warm water.
`
`In a cool, dry place, avoid direct sunlight or
`
`near high temperatures, please make sure
`
`that the children can not get.
`
`Reduce Eye Puffiness
`
`Hydrate and Moisturize your skin
`
`Help Prevent Premature Skin Aging
`
`Helps Depuff Area Under Eye
`
`Reduce Bags Under your Eyes
`
`Reduce The Appearance of Wrinkles and
`
`Dark Circles
`
`Warn Tips:
`
`MAIN EFFECTS:
`
`

`

`1/30/2021
`
`BrightJungle Amazing Anti-Aging 24K Gold Collagen Depuffing/Cooling Under Eye Mask for Men and Women
`
`https://www.brightjungle.info
`
`2/2
`
`

`

`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2021)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`Serial Number: 88813250
`Filing Date: 02/27/2020
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`MARK INFORMATION
`
`*MARK
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`REGISTER
`
`APPLICANT INFORMATION
`
`*OWNER OF MARK
`
`*MAILING ADDRESS
`
`*CITY
`
`*STATE
`(Required for U.S. applicants)
`
`*COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY
`
`*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`(Required for U.S. and certain international addresses)
`
`*EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
`
`TYPE
`
`COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY OF
`CITIZENSHIP
`
`88813250
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`BRIGHTJUNGLE
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any
`particular font style, size, or color.
`
`Principal
`
`Hanna Marycheva
`
`1201 Serota Pl
`
`Philadelphia
`
`Pennsylvania
`
`United States
`
`19115
`
`XXXX
`
`individual
`
`Belarus
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`*IDENTIFICATION
`
`FILING BASIS
`
`       FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE
`
`       FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
`
`       SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)
`
`003 
`
`gel eye patches for cosmetic purposes
`
`SECTION 1(a)
`
`At least as early as 07/10/2019
`
`At least as early as 07/10/2019
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT
`18\888\132\88813250\xml1 \ APP0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT
`
`       
`

`

`       SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
`
`ATTORNEY INFORMATION
`
`NAME
`
`ATTORNEY BAR MEMBERSHIP NUMBER
`
`YEAR OF ADMISSION
`
`U.S. STATE/ COMMONWEALTH/ TERRITORY
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`COUNTRY/REGION/JURISDICTION/U.S. TERRITORY
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL ADDRESS
`
`OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
`
`18\888\132\88813250\xml1 \ APP0004.JPG
`
`photos showing product packaging with the mark clearly
`displayed
`
`Andrea Selkregg
`
`XXX
`
`XXXX
`
`XX
`
`IdeaLegal
`
`2240 N Interstate Avenue, Suite 270
`
`Portland
`
`Oregon
`
`United States
`
`97227
`
`503-902-5780
`
`aselkregg@idealegal.com
`
`All other attorneys of IdeaLegal
`
`NAME
`
`Andrea Selkregg
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE
`
`aselkregg@idealegal.com
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES)
`
`docketing@1027tm.com; abrinfo@idealegal.com
`
`FEE INFORMATION
`
`APPLICATION FILING OPTION
`
`NUMBER OF CLASSES
`
`APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS
`
`*TOTAL FEES DUE
`
`*TOTAL FEES PAID
`
`SIGNATURE INFORMATION
`
`SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`TEAS Standard
`
`1
`
`275
`
`275
`
`275
`
`/Hanna Marycheva/
`
`Hanna Marycheva
`
`Owner
`
`02/27/2020
`
`

`

`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
`PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2021)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Serial Number: 88813250
`Filing Date: 02/27/2020
`
`MARK: BRIGHTJUNGLE (Standard Characters, see mark)
`The literal element of the mark consists of BRIGHTJUNGLE. The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font
`style, size, or color.
`The applicant, Hanna Marycheva, a citizen of Belarus, having an address of
`      1201 Serota Pl
`      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115
`      United States
`      XXXX
`
`requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register
`established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:
`
`International Class 003:  gel eye patches for cosmetic purposes
`
`In International Class 003, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee or predecessor in interest at
`least as early as 07/10/2019, and first used in commerce at least as early as 07/10/2019, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is
`submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed
`goods/services, consisting of a(n) photos showing product packaging with the mark clearly displayed.
`Specimen File1
`Specimen File2
`
`The owner's/holder's proposed attorney information: Andrea Selkregg. Other appointed attorneys are All other attorneys of IdeaLegal. Andrea
`Selkregg of IdeaLegal, is a member of the XX bar, admitted to the bar in XXXX, bar membership no. XXX, and the attorney(s) is located at
`      2240 N Interstate Avenue, Suite 270
`      Portland, Oregon 97227
`      United States
`      503-902-5780(phone)
`      aselkregg@idealegal.com
`
`Andrea Selkregg submitted the following statement: The attorney of record is an active member i