ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1381588
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/04/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91292919
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Defendant
`Crumley Roberts LLP
`
`BLAKE P. HURT
`TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
`400 BELLEMEADE STREET, SUITE 800
`GREENSBORO, NC 27401
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: bhurt@tuggleduggins.com
`Secondary email(s): pdillon@tuggleduggins.com
`336-271-5229
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Answer
`
`Blake P. Hurt
`
`bhurt@tuggleduggins.com
`
`/blakehurt/
`
`09/04/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`954942-19--First Answer and Affirmative Defenses.pdf(32244 bytes )
`
`
`
`ESTTA1381588
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/04/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91292919
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Defendant
`Crumley Roberts LLP
`
`BLAKE P. HURT
`TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
`400 BELLEMEADE STREET, SUITE 800
`GREENSBORO, NC 27401
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: bhurt@tuggleduggins.com
`Secondary email(s): pdillon@tuggleduggins.com
`336-271-5229
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Answer
`
`Blake P. Hurt
`
`bhurt@tuggleduggins.com
`
`/blakehurt/
`
`09/04/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`954942-19--First Answer and Affirmative Defenses.pdf(32244 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Opposition No.: 91292919
`
`
`
`Serial No.: 97/520,592
`
`
`
`Filing Date: July 26, 2022
`
`
`
`Published: April 02. 2024
`
`
`
`Mark: CR LEGAL TEAM
`
`
`
`
`
`Carruthers & Roth, P.A.
`
`Opposer,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Crumley Roberts, LLP
`
`Applicant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSTION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(S)
`
`
`
`Applicant CR Legal Team, LLP (formerly known as Crumley Roberts, LLP) (referred to
`
`herein as “Applicant”), by and through its attorneys, hereby submits its Answer to the Notice of
`
`Opposition as follows:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Admitted
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations, and therefore denies the same.
`
`954942-19
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations, and therefore denies the same.
`
`Applicant admits that it is the applicant of record of Application Serial No. 97/520592
`
`(the ‘592 Application), seeking registration of the mark CR LEGAL TEAM for "Legal
`
`services in the field of personal injury" in International Class 45, and that Applicant is
`
`a law firm based in Greensboro, North Carolina; except as otherwise admitted, denied.
`
`6.
`
`Admitted
`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations, and therefore denies the same.
`
`8.
`
`Denied
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Denied
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Denied
`
`
`
`To the extent any of the foregoing enumerated paragraphs contained in Opposer’s Notice
`
`of Opposition have not been expressly addressed, there are hereby denied.
`
`
`
`954942-19
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(S)
`
`
`
`Additionally, or in alternative in view of the foregoing, Applicant alleges and asserts the
`
`following in support of its defense(s):
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Applicant CR Legal Team, LLP (formerly known as Crumley Roberts, LLP) is a North
`
`Carolina Limited Liability Partnership, with a principal place of business at 2400
`
`Freeman Mill Road, Greensboro, NC 27406.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Since at least as early as 2008, Applicant has commercially offered goods and services
`
`under one or more mark(s) utilizing the letters “C” and “R”, including marks consisting
`
`substantially of the mark(s) “CR” either in connection with other textual or graphical
`
`elements, or existing independently (collectively herein “the CR Marks”).
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`For over a decade, Applicant has prominently advertised the aforementioned goods and
`
`services, specifically legal services in the field of personal injury as recited in U.S.
`
`Trademark Application Serial Number 97/520,592 (the ‘592 Application). Over the
`
`years, these advertising activities include, but are not limited to, print, billboard, and
`
`digital media advertising. These advertising activities have been, and continue to be,
`
`targeted across the state of North Carolina, and indeed throughout the Mid-Atlantic
`
`region of the United States.
`
`14.
`
`Opposer Carruthers & Roth, P.A. is a North Carolina Professional Association, with a
`
`954942-19
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`principal place of business at 235 N. Edgeworth St., Greensboro, NC 27401.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Opposer conducts little (if any) advertising as it relates to
`
`the legal services it offers.
`
`16.
`
`Owing to its widespread advertising, Applicant has become renowned in the field of
`
`personal injury law. On information and belief, Opposer was aware of Applicant’s use
`
`of the CR Marks for over ten years, and at no time contacted Applicant to raise so much
`
`as a single concern.
`
`17.
`
`Prior to the filing of the ‘592 Applicant, Applicant undertook a brand refreshment
`
`campaign in the wake of a corporate reorganization, including the hiring of an
`
`independent marketing firm and budgeting in excess of $1 million dollars for the
`
`advertising of goods and services, specifically legal services in the field of personal
`
`injury.
`
`18.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Opposer’s petition to oppose Applicant’s application should
`
`be estopped, as the Opposer has delayed in raising this issue regarding the marketing,
`
`advertising, and commercial use of the CR Marks in connection with legal services for
`
`over a decade, a length of time that is unreasonable by any objective measure. Further,
`
`Applicant would undoubtedly be prejudiced were Opposer’s petition to oppose
`
`Applicant’s application be sustained, given the brand equity and goodwill built up by
`
`Applicant using the CR Marks, the acclaim, and indeed fame Applicant has earned
`
`954942-19
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`under the CR Marks, and the financial resources that have been expended, and continue
`
`to be spent, marketing Applicant’s services to the public.
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Additionally or in the alternative in view of the foregoing, Opposer’s petition to oppose
`
`Applicant’s application should be denied under the doctrine of latches, as the Opposer
`
`has delayed in raising this issue regarding the marketing, advertising, and commercial
`
`use of the CR Marks in connection with legal services for over a decade, a length of
`
`time that is unreasonable by any objective measure. Further, Applicant would
`
`undoubtedly be prejudiced were Opposer’s petition to oppose Applicant’s application
`
`be sustained, given the brand equity and goodwill built up by Applicant using the CR
`
`Marks, the acclaim, and indeed fame Applicant has earned under the CR Marks, and
`
`the financial resources that have been expended, and continue to be spent, marketing
`
`Applicant’s services to the public.
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Additionally or in the alternative in view of the foregoing, Opposer’s petition to oppose
`
`Applicant’s application should be denied under the doctrine acquiescence, as the
`
`Opposer has delayed in raising this issue regarding the marketing, advertising, and
`
`commercial use of the CR Marks in connection with legal services for over a decade, a
`
`length of time that is unreasonable by any objective measure. Further, Applicant would
`
`undoubtedly be prejudiced were Opposer’s petition to oppose Applicant’s application
`
`be sustained, given the brand equity and goodwill built up by Applicant using the CR
`
`Marks, the acclaim, and indeed fame Applicant has earned under the CR Marks, and
`
`the financial resources that have been expended, and continue to be spent, marketing
`
`954942-19
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`Applicant’s services to the public.
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Applicant requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board deny the
`
`Opposer’s petition, and that registration of the Application be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`CR Legal Team, LLP
`By: _/blakehurt/________________
`Blake P. Hurt
`Registration No. 67,181
`Attorney for Applicant
`Tuggle Duggins P.A.
`400 Bellemeade St, Suite 800
`Greensboro, NC 27401
`Telephone: 336-271-5229
`Facsimile: 336-274-6590
`Email: bhurt@tuggleduggins.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I certify that a copy of Applicant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses was served on
`
`Opposer’s counsel of record James Lester of MacCord Mason PCCL, 2733 Horse Pen Creek Rd.,
`
`Suite 101, by email at jlester@maccordmason.com, on September 4, 2024.
`
`
`
` By: _/blakehurt/_________________
`
` Blake P. Hurt
`
` Registration No. 67,181
`
` Attorney for Applicant
`
`954942-19
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
