throbber
ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1332956
`
`Filing date:
`
`01/09/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91285757
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Nicolet Law Office, S.C.
`
`CAROL N. SKINNER
`SKINNER AND ASSOCIATES
`212 COMMERCIAL STREET
`HUDSON, WI 54016
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: cskinner@skinnerlaw.com
`Secondary email(s): ccarper@skinnerlaw.com
`715-386-5800
`
`Answer
`
`Carol N. Skinner
`
`cskinner@skinnerlaw.com, ccarper@skinnerlaw.com
`
`/Carol N. Skinner/
`
`01/09/2024
`
`Answer to Opposition 91285757.pdf(94835 bytes )
`Exhibit A.pdf(718783 bytes )
`Certificate of Service - 91285757 - 1-9-24.pdf(214192 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK
`TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 91285757
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 97324065
`For the Mark: NICOLET LAW
`Filed: 03/22/2022
`Published: 02/28/2023
`
`
`
`
`
`BYE, GOFF & ROHDE, LTD.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`NICOLET LAW OFFICE, S.C.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant-
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO OPPOSITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Applicant, Nicolet Law Office, S.C. (hereafter Nicolet Law or Applicant), by its
`
`attorneys Skinner and Associates by Carol N. Skinner, answers the Opposition of Bye, Goff &
`
`Rohde, Ltd. (hereafter BGR or Opposer), as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
`
`Lacks information sufficient to form a belief regarding the allegations contained
`
`in paragraph 3, and puts Opposer to its proof thereon.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4.
`
`Admits that the USPTO initially issued a refusal based on surname, and required a
`
`disclaimer of the word “LAW” apart from the mark as shown. Denies remaining assumptions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7.
`
`Admits that Nicolet Law was forced to initiate legal action in US District Court
`
`for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 2-cv-654-slc, in order to stop Opposer’s
`
`repeated, intentional infringing use of Nicolet Law’s mark in an attempt to misdirect consumers
`
`to Opposer’s client, a competing personal injury law firm, Bye, Goff & Rhode, Ltd. Denies that
`
`Opposer’s use of Applicant’s mark was either “errant” or “unknowing.”
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 as written, and affirmatively
`
`alleges that attorney Spiros Nicolet, an immigration lawyer in Chicago, IL, did purchase the url
`
`nicoletlawyers.com, does not use this url in marketing, and has voluntarily redirected all
`
`searchers using this url to spirosnicoletlawoffices.com. A true and correct copy of a current
`
`printout of a Google search for nicoletlawyers.com is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Realleges all previous answers.
`
`12.
`
`Denies the allegations/legal conclusions contained in paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`Denies the allegations/legal conclusions contained in paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14, but affirmatively alleges that no
`
`such evidence is necessary, given the presumption of acquired distinctiveness after substantially
`
`exclusive and continuous use of the mark in interstate commerce for the identified services for a
`
`period of time exceeding five years. Nicolet Law has in fact been using the mark NICOLET
`
`LAW mark in association with legal services in interstate commerce substantially exclusively
`
`and continuously since at least as early as April 20, 2007.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`15.
`
`Realleges its response to the allegations contained in paragraph 15, and
`
`affirmatively alleges that Applicant has had common law trademark rights in the mark
`
`NICOLET LAW since at least as early as April 20, 2007.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Denies that Opposer would be injured by Applicant’s registration, denies that the
`
`mark is descriptive, and affirmatively alleges that Opposer’s sole reason for filing the instant
`
`Opposition is to aid its defense or obtain leverage in Case No. 2-cv-654-slc, and not because it
`
`has a reasonable belief that it will be damaged under any lawful basis stated in or envisioned by
`
`Trademark Act §13(a), 15 U.S.C. §1063(a), or §309.03(b) of the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`
`Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`Realleges all previous answers.
`
`19.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19.
`
`20.
`
`Admits the factual content of the allegations contained in paragraph 20; denies the
`
`legal conclusion.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21, and affirmatively alleges that
`
`either 1178 or “over one hundred” individuals with the surname “Nicolet” out of a possible
`
`322,278,200 individuals living in the United States does not establish that the name is a common
`
`surname.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`Neither admits nor denies that Opposer relies on information contained in
`
`Opposer’s exhibits, but affirmatively alleges that the common surnames “Davis” and “Miller”
`
`are not comparable to the surname “Nicolet”, nor does Opposer’s evidence prove anything
`
`relevant to this Opposition.
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23, and affirmatively alleges that
`
`Applicant seeks to register the mark NICOLET LAW, which has acquired descriptiveness as a
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`source identifier for Applicant’s legal services by dint of more than 16 years of substantially
`
`exclusive and continuous use of the mark in interstate commerce.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Realleges its response to paragraph 10 of this Answer, in response to the
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`Realleges all previous answers.
`
`28.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 30, and affirmatively allege that
`
`counsel for Applicant first learned of the existence of Attorney Spiros Nicolet more than four
`
`months after submitting the Section 2(f) Declaration. Upon information and belief, Attorney
`
`Spiros Nicolet had not used the url nicoletlawyers.com to market his services prior to late May of
`
`2023, instead using the url midwestgreencard.com to identify his immigration practice.
`
`Affirmatively allege that any use of a mark containing the word “Nicolet” by Attorney Spiros
`
`Nicolet of which Applicant is presently aware would not affect Applicant’s position that its mark
`
`is entitled to registration under section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.
`
`31.
`
`Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 31.
`
`32.
`
`Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 33, and questions the statutory
`
`entitlement of Opposer to bring this Opposition.
`
`34.
`
`Denies the allegation contained in paragraph 34.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Pleading further, Applicant sets forth the following affirmative and other defenses:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`Nicolet Law realleges all preceding affirmative statements.
`
`Opposer BGR has proffered no information lending credence to its claims that it
`
`will be in any way damaged by the registration of Applicant’s trademark.
`
`3.
`
`Opposer has not offered, nor will be able to offer any evidence that it has
`
`suffered, nor will suffer any damage by the registration of Applicant’s trademark.
`
`4.
`
`Opposer is not entitled to oppose Applicant’s mark, as it has not established, nor
`
`will it establish that it is within the zone of interests protected by the statute. It has neither pled
`
`nor established a “real interest,” i.e., a direct and personal stake in the outcome of this
`
`Opposition, nor a reasonable basis to believe it will be damaged by the registration of
`
`Applicant’s trademark.
`
`5.
`
`Opposer is unlawfully using this proceeding in an effort to invent a defense
`
`against the claim of intentional trademark infringement set forth in Case No. 2-cv-654-slc, with
`
`no reasonable basis in fact to believe it has suffered or will suffer damage by the registration of
`
`Applicant’s trademark.
`
`6.
`
`Having unclean hands, Opposer should be required to bear all costs of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`WHEREFORE, Applicant Nicolet Law Office, S.C. prays that Bye, Goff & Rohde’s
`
`Opposition be dismissed with prejudice, Opposer required to pay Applicant’s fees and costs
`
`incurred in this proceeding, and the Application Serial No. 97324065 be allowed to proceed to
`
`registration.
`
`Respectfully submitted this 9th day of January, 2024.
`
`SKINNER AND ASSOCIATES
`
`
`
`
`Carol N. Skinner
`Attorneys for Nicolet Law Office, S.C.
`Attorney ID # 1017307
`
`
`212 Commercial
`Hudson, WI 54016
`(715) 386-5800
`cskinner@skinnerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`nicoletlawyers.com - Google Search
`
`https://www.google.com/search?q=nicoletlawyers.com&sca_esv=5...
`
`Go gle
`
`nicoletlawyers.com
`
`xX
`
`8 @ Q
`
`Images
`
`News
`
`Perspectives
`
`Shopping
`
`Maps
`
`Videos
`
`Books
`
`Flights
`
`Finance
`
`All filters
`
`About 2,610,000 results (0.46 seconds)
`
`Showing results for nicolet lawyers
`Searchinstead for nicoletlawyers.com
`
`Results for Hudson, WI 54016=@ Use precise location
`
`Nicolet LaWW
`https://nicoletlaw.com :
`
`Nicolet Law: Award-Winning Wisconsin & Minnesota Injury...
`With decades of combined legal experience, our team of compassionate, local attorneysis
`
`prepared to meet your unique legal challenges head-on, and providethe...
`
`The Nicolet Law Story
`Since 2007, Nicolet Law hasbuilt its reputation on providing...
`
`Attorneys
`The award-winning attorneys at Nicolet Law Office have...
`
`Office Locations
`
`"The Nicolet lawyer was fantastic in helping me with my car ...
`
`Contact
`
`... Nicolet Law firm would be my first call." Barbel B. "The Nicolet...
`
`More results from nicoletlaw.com »
`
`People also ask
`
`Whois the CEO of Nicolet Law?
`
`Where did Russell Nicolet go to law school?
`
`Whatis the history of Nicolet law?
`
`Who is Russell Nicolet?
`
`Feedback
`
`1 of 4
`
`1/9/2024, 12:58 PM
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`
`
`es
`
`

`

`nicoletlawyers.com - Google Search
`
`https://www.google.com/search?q=nicoletlawyers.com&sca_esv=5...
`
`@ Facebook- Nicolet Law Office: Accident & Injury Lawyers
`7.8K+ followers
`
`Nicolet Law Office: Accident & Injury Lawyers
`Meet Braxton Phillips, a dedicated and enthusiastic personal injury attorney serving out of our
`Eau Claire, Wisconsin office!
`
`Rating: 4.8 - 63 votes
`
`Businesses
`
`f
`SSE
`: oO
`oNicoletLaw Accident
`, 435)
`White
`Gs)
`& Injury Cawyers
`Maple roe
`a ce Stillwater
`fes}
`GlenwoodCity
`gNicoletLawAccident
`ay
`&Injury ee
`Bp 39 6
`a eeaeae
`Nicolet Law Accident
`|
`~
`& injury Lawyers
`cp
`i
`oy
`len Prairie Bicomington a {0}
`Eagan
`
`Blai
`
`a
`
`;
`

`
`if
`
`(25
`
`a
`5
`
`Cedar
`
`Fall
`
`os
`
`:
`Menomonie
`
`!
`& Injury Lawyers
`
`:
`
`@)
`
`(ea)
`
`Map data ©2024 Googie
`
`Rating +
`
`Hours +
`
`Nicolet Law Accident & Injury Lawyers
`4.9
`(175) - Personal injury attorney
`15+ years in business - 517 2nd St Unit #205 - (715) 304-0222
`Open 24 hours
`Onsite services - Online appointments
`
`Nicolet Law Accident& Injury Lawyers
`5.0
`(6) Personal injury attorney
`15+ years in business - River Falls, WI - (715) 333-3220
`Open 24 hours
`Onsite services - Online appointments
`
`Nicolet Law Accident & Injury Lawyers
`5.0
`(26) - Personalinjury attorney
`15+ years in business - New Richmond, WI: (715) 260-4764
`Open 24 hours
`Onsite services - Online appointments
`
`More businesses >
`

`
`Website
`
`Directions
`

`
`Website
`
`Directions
`
`&
`
`Website
`
`Directions
`
`Ss
`
`LinkedIn - Nicolet Law Office, S.C.
`840+ followers
`
`Nicolet Law Office, S.C.
`
`Award-Winning Wisconsin & Minnesota Injury Lawyers | Nicolet Law Office, S.C. is a midwest-
`
`local, award-winning law firm focusing in the areas of Personal ...
`
`2 of 4
`
`1/9/2024, 12:58 PM
`
`

`

`nicoletlawyers.com - Google Search
`
`https://www.google.com/search?q=nicoletlawyers.com&sca_esv=5...
`
`.
`Super Lawyers
`https://profiles.superlawyers.com>... » Hudson
`
`Benjamin Nicolet - Personal Injury attorneys
`Benjamin Nicolet is one of the top rated Personal Injury attorneys in Hudson, WI. He has met
`the stringent Super Lawyers selection criteria.
`
`Videos
`
`:
`
`aia
`
`i
`
`4:09
`
`aint
`
`Get the Real Nicolet | Nicolet Law, Accident & Injury Lawyers
`
`YouTube- Nicolet Law
`Aug 23, 2023
`
`Nicolet Law Office, S.C. -Attorney Adam Nicolet. | Meet Adam ...
`
`Facebook - Nicolet Law Office: Accident & Injury Lawyers
`Dec 17, 2019
`
`Nicolet Law is Wisconsin and Minnesota's Accident & Injury...
`
`Facebook - Nicolet Law Office: Accident & Injury Lawyers
`Jun 7, 2021
`
`Hudson | Wisconsin Personal Injury Lawyers| Nicolet Law Office
`
`YouTube - Nicolet Law
`Aug 31, 2020
`
`View all >
`
`Feedback
`
`©)
`
`Instagram - nicolet_law
`19.8K+ followers
`
`:
`
`Nicolet Law (@nicolet_law)
`Nicolet Law Award-Winning Injury & Accident Lawyers. Insurance Companies Fear The Beard
`Injured? Get Nicolet. 1-855-NICOLET. WI, MN, ND. 517 2nd Street...
`
`ni
`
`LinkedIn - Russell Nicolet
`1.5K+ followers
`
`:
`
`Russell Nicolet - Nicolet Law Office, S.C.
`St. Croix County, Wisconsin, United States - Nicolet Law Office, S.C.
`
`| started Nicolet Law in 2007 as a way to help people, and that has growninto a team with...
`Learn more about Russell Nicolet's work experience, education, ...
`
`|
`
`Super Lawyers
`https://profiles.superiawyers.com » Lawyer directory
`
`Nicolet Law Office, S.C. in Hudson, Wisconsin
`Nicolet Law Office, S.C.. 517 2nd Street Unit #205. Hudson, WI 54016 Phone: 715-304-0222
`
`https://www.nicoletlaw.com https://www.nicoletlaw.com ...
`
`3 of 4
`
`1/9/2024, 12:58 PM
`
`

`

`nicoletlawyers.com - Google Search
`
`https://www.google.com/search?q=nicoletlawyers.com&sca_esv=5...
`
`Related searches
`
`nicolet law net worth
`
`how manybillboards does
`nicolet law have
`
`whereis nicolet law located
`
`nicolet law headquarters
`
`nicolet law reviews
`
`nicolet law hudson wi
`
`nicolet law billboard
`
`russell nicolet
`
`More results
`
`4 of 4
`
`1/9/2024, 12:58 PM
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK
`TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 97324065
`For the Mark: NICOLET LAW
`Filed: 03/22/2022
`Published: 02/28/2023
`
`BYE, GOFF & ROHDE, LTD.
`
`Opposer,
`
`SE
`
`NICOLET LAW OFFICE, 8.C.,
`
`Applicant-
`Respondent.
`
`Opposition No. 91285757
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Christie J. Carper, of the City of Hudson, County of St. Croix, State of Wisconsin,
`
`hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Applicant’s Answer to Opposition
`
`and Exhibit A have been served on Russell M. Spence,Jr., The Spence Law Firm by forwarding
`
`perezi@spence.law.
`
`Date: January 9, 2024 ef and Associates
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket