ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1387857
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/07/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91293635
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Defendant
`EDGE Games Inc.
`
`TIM LANGDELL
`EDGE GAMES INC
`35 N LAKE AVENUE
`SUITE 710
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: edgegames@gmail.com
`Secondary email(s): uspto@edgegames.com
`626-824-0097
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Reply in Support of Motion
`
`Tim Langdell
`
`edgegames@gmail.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/
`
`10/07/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`Applicants Reply in Support of Motion.pdf(1136261 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91293635
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 98089617
`For the Trademark CUTTING EDGE
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Applicant,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Opposer
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1451
`
`
`APPLICANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SERVE UNREDACTED NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`
`EDGE Games, Inc. (“Applicant”) Replies in Support of its Motion to Dismiss as follows.
`
`OPPOSER FAILED TO SERVE ITS RESPONSE TO MOTION ON APPLICANT
`
`At this point, Applicant can only conclude that Opposer is being deliberately perverse. Or
`
`perhaps Respondent does not believe that the rules apply to it. In filing a Response to a Motion
`
`to Cancel based on Opposer not having served its “under seal” complete real document on
`
`Applicant, Opposer then did the same thing with its Response. As Dr. Langdell avers in his
`
`declaration (Exhibit A), Microsoft did not serve its Response on Applicant using email, which is
`
`the method required in TBMP 113.04. Nor did Opposer serve the documents on Applicant by
`
`the usual method when files are large of emailing a link to a file hosting service (such as
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`“Dropbox”) where the recipient can download the document that is too large to send as an email
`
`attachment.
`
`While Applicant could view the heavily redacted publicly viewable Response on TTABVUE,
`
`Opposer has not served either that document or the real complete unredacted version on
`
`Applicant as it is required to do by Board rules. Instead, Opposer sent an email with two links in
`
`it to an online application in the form of a portal where the recipient is invited to view an
`
`electronic document but is not permitted to either download that document or print it (see
`
`Langdell decln.¶¶ 3-4 and attached Exhibited email as Exhibit A). While Applicant could not
`
`get the portal to work properly (only the first page could be viewed due to the document failing
`
`to scroll), to view the documents sent via the two links what Applicant could see confirmed the
`
`method of viewing documents but does not permit the document to be downloaded or printed
`
`(Langdell decln.¶¶ 5-8). This does not meet the requirements of serving documents on the
`
`opposing party electronically via email per TTAB Rules. Once again, as with the originally filed
`
`Notice of Opposition, there are no certificates of service of the two documents (as required by
`
`TBMP 113.02), and certainly sending a party links to only view the documents in a portal does
`
`not meet the requirements of serving actual documents on the party.
`
`As stated in TBMP 113.04, the Board requires parties to serve documents on the other party
`
`via email or, where a filed is excessively large, to use email to link to a file sharing service that
`
`enables the other party to download a copy of the document which they can then print. While the
`
`TTAB Rule does contemplate parties agreeing alternative methods where a file is particularly
`
`large, the rule is clear that the parties must agree to such alternative method of service before the
`
`time service is required. The rule does not permit a party to utilize an alternate method—such as
`
`a link to only view the document online followed by receipt eventually of a mailed hard copy—
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`and then later insist that the other party must accept this alternate method having never been
`
`asked if it would accept it. Since Opposer did not serve a copy of the actual, full unredacted
`
`Response on Applicant, the Board should send a message to Opposer that such failure to serve is
`
`unacceptable to the Board by the Board deciding this motion in favor of Applicant
`
`THIS WAS A FAILURE TO SERVE, NOT A HYPER-TECHNICALITY
`
`Not being timely, validly served with an actual copy of the full unredacted copy of Opposer’s
`
`Response, Applicant relies only on the heavily redacted publicly filed version of it in this Reply
`
`in Support of Motion. Applicant takes exception to Opposer styling their failure to serve their
`
`Notice of Opposition on Applicant as a mere hyper-technicality. Applicant did notify Opposer
`
`that it had failed to serve the actual real unredacted Notice of Opposition on Applicant in a
`
`timely manner, and while Opposer did eventually attempt to email a copy of the complete actual
`
`Notice of Opposition to Applicant by this time Opposer was substantially out of time to oppose
`
`the application, and Applicant was in any event unable to open that file. This late-provided
`
`document was also not accompanied by a Certificate of Service.
`
`If the Board were to follow Opposer’s logic, the Board would be required to agree with
`
`Opposer that if a party files an essentially blank piece of paper with the Board that simply has
`
`written on it “Opposition filed under seal,” then so long as they label the filing of the blank sheet
`
`of paper as a “Notice of Opposition” then they are considered to have timely filed the Opposition
`
`and have no requirement to send the actual Notice to Applicant at the same time, or within the
`
`deadline to oppose. Instead, Opposer appears to argue, Applicant would need to sit around for
`
`days wondering what is going on and eventually contact Opposer to ask what they are playing at
`
`whereupon Opposer would then, and only then, supply the actual Notice to Applicant. This,
`
`Opposer seems to argue, is perfectly standard procedure and it is merely Applicants “tough luck”
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`that the time in which it has to file an Answer is from when the blank sheet of paper was filed as
`
`a Notice of Opposition, and the TTAB sent an email linking to that piece of blank paper: not
`
`from when Applicant finally receives a full copy of the Notice, well after the deadline for a full
`
`copy of the Notice to have been filed and served.
`
`This interpretation by Opposer cannot surely be correct. If the Board concurs with Opposer
`
`that Opposer was under no obligation whatsoever to itself serve a copy of the actual Notice of
`
`Opposition on Applicant before the time to file an Opposition ran out, then the entire Opposition
`
`process would become a nonsense. And let us be clear here what Opposer openly filed within the
`
`time limit it was set-- i.e. the heavily redacted publicly filed Notice which the TTAB emailed
`
`Applicant a link to—was not an actual (complete) Notice of Opposition. Because the first filed
`
`document was heavily redacted it might just as well have been a blank sheet of paper since
`
`Applicant could no more respond with an Answer to it than it could to a blank sheet of paper.
`
`The document that Opposer refers to as the “confidential version of the Opposition” (page 6)
`
`was in truth the actual real Notice of Opposition. The attempt to make this fact seem trivial by
`
`referring to it not being served on Applicant as hyper-technicality hides the fact that what was
`
`openly filed publicly by Opposer was not an actual Notice of Opposition. And yet under the new
`
`rules created by the TTAB, it is only that very first filed document that the TTAB serves on the
`
`Applicant because it is reasonably assumed that this first filed document is an actual, real,
`
`complete Notice of Opposition. Not a heavily redacted document that is hardly any better than a
`
`blank sheet of paper when it comes to Applicant determining what Opposer’s pleadings are so as
`
`to be able to draft and file a timely Answer.
`
`This was not a matter of Opposer needing to fix a deficiency in service, it was a complete
`
`failure to serve the actual real, complete Notice on Applicant by the time limit set by the Board
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`for Opposer to be able to legitimately file and serve the full complete Notice on Applicant. I
`
`believe any experienced attorney would know if they need to file a document labelled as a
`
`“Notice of Opposition” which is in fact no more useful than a blank sheet of paper, then they
`
`must also file and serve on the Applicant the actual real complete Notice at the same time. And
`
`you would know if you were even remotely experienced that you cannot sit around waiting for
`
`the TTAB to serve that actual real unredacted Notice because that is not what the TTAB has ever
`
`been in a position to do. Ever. And to be further clear, when Opposer finally did email a copy of
`
`the actual real Notice of Opposition to Applicant, Applicant was unable to open that document.
`
`But what was clear was that the document while being “sent” to Applicant was not being served
`
`on Applicant by Opposer. That is, it was clear that Opposer did not believe a service copy was
`
`required and for this reason did not accompany it with a Certificate of Service. Thus, to this day
`
`Applicant has still not been served with a copy of the actual complete readable Notice of
`
`Opposition since neither Opposer nor the TTAB has served such a document on Applicant. This
`
`is not a hyper-technicality, it is how the Board’s rules work: when a second or subsequent
`
`document in opposition proceedings is filed with TTABVUE it has to be served on the other
`
`party at the same time accompanied by a certificate of service (TBMP 113.02).
`
`Opposer wrongly states that Applicant failed to cite any law or rule to support its position
`
`that it was not served in a timely manner with the actual Notice of Opposition (or served at all as
`
`it happens, even now). On the contrary, Applicant cited the Board’s new rules on precisely this
`
`issue of filing Oppositions and Cancellations and who is now responsible for service and how
`
`that service takes place. As noted in the original Motion, the new rules are clear on this: the very
`
`first document a party files in an Opposition or a Cancellation is to be the actual ‘real’ Notice of
`
`Opposition or Petition for Cancellation, and the TTAB will take responsibility for serving that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`first-filed document on the Applicant or owner of the mark. The new rules are also clear on what
`
`is meant here by the TTAB “serving” this initially filed document on the other party—namely, it
`
`is made clear that what constitutes “service” by the TTAB is an automatically generated email to
`
`the Applicant or Mark Owner stating the Opposition or Cancellation has been filed and providing
`
`a link to the TTABVUE system for the receiving party to be able to view, download and print the
`
`publicly filed document.
`
`That is stated to be the end of the TTAB’s responsibility regarding service under the new
`
`rules for Oppositions and Cancellations. What the new rules also make clear is that for the
`
`second document filed in any Opposition or Cancellation, and all subsequent documents filed,
`
`the filing party must serve that document on the other party and display a certificate of service on
`
`that second and subsequently filed document to prove it was properly served. Again, this is not a
`
`hyper-technicality, it is what the new Board rules state.
`
`In the presumably rare instance where the very first document filed in an Opposition or
`
`Cancellation is not the real “actual” Notice of Opposition or Petitioner to Cancel, then for the
`
`new Board rules to make any sense whatsoever, the Board must have intended that the second
`
`document subsequently filed—namely the actual Notice of Opposition or the actual Petition to
`
`Cancel—must be filed simultaneously with the originally filed incomplete document and must be
`
`served by the filing party on the other party since the new rules state clearly that the second and
`
`subsequently filed documents have to be served by the filing party not by the TTAB. If this is not
`
`what the Board intended, then the Board would be leaving itself open to all future Oppositions
`
`and Cancellations being filed as blank sheets of paper on which is written that the actual
`
`document is filed under seal. Which would cause chaos for the Board as parties then wade
`
`through numerous motions where the applicant or mark owner has to move to compel the other
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`party to actually serve the real document on them, as well as move to extend the period in which
`
`an Answer is due to start from when they are actually served with the real document.
`
`This cannot, surely be what the Board intended with the new rules regarding initial service of
`
`Oppositions and Cancellations. The Board cannot have intended the receiving parties to be
`
`forced into an endless series of motions to finally receive the actual document they are meant to
`
`be filing an Answer to. And to be clear here, Opposer tries to belittle this and refer to it as a mere
`
`hyper-technicality because all the mark applicant or owner would need to do is contact the filing
`
`party to say “Hey where is the actual document? Why weren’t we served with it?” whereupon
`
`Opposer argues they would be happily sent a copy of the missing document. Or not .,. since there
`
`is no rule according to Opposer’s interpretation of the new rules that says the filing party has to
`
`serve the “actual” document on the applicant or mark owner. According to Opposer’s
`
`interpretation since it is solely the TTAB who is mean to serve the Notice of Opposition (or
`
`Petition to Cancel) therefore there is no real onus on the filing party to send a copy themselves
`
`until they are ordered by the Board to do so following a motion to compel. If, that is, Opposer’s
`
`interpretation of the new rules is accurate, which Applicant does not believe it is.
`
`What Opposer is suggesting the new Board rules mean cannot actually be what the Board
`
`holds that they mean. It makes vastly more sense that if a party were to take the very odd course
`
`of filing a document that is not an actual Notice of Opposition or Petitioner to Cancel, then
`
`having filed their second document in the case under file (being the actual real pleadings
`
`document) then as the Board rules clearly state the filing party would be obliged to then serve
`
`that second document on the other party, making clear they had served it at the same time as the
`
`originally filed document by attaching a certificate of service to that second filed document. This
`
`must surely be what the Board intends by the new rules? Not the invitation to endless motions to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`compel service of pleadings on the other party or motions to extent time to file an Answer. The
`
`balance of Opposer’s voluminous Response filing should be given no weight by the Board as
`
`being entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand in the motion. What is or is not happening in another
`
`case before the Board, or did or did not happen before courts in the US and UK dozens of years
`
`ago, all have no bearing on the instant motion. As to Opposer’s baseless claim that it “had to”
`
`file its Notice of Opposition in drastically redacted form as to be barely more useful than a blank
`
`sheet of paper all because they wanted to rely in the Opposition on a document in another case
`
`that is claimed to be confidential, is of course utter nonsense.
`
`As the Board is well aware, and as Applicant pointed out in its motion, there is never a
`
`rational or reasonable argument for why either a Notice of Opposition or an initial Petition to
`
`Cancel should ever be redacted or need to have exhibits filed under seal. All the filing party
`
`needs to do in its initial filing is indicate without breaching confidentiality that it is basing its
`
`opposition or pleadings for cancellation partly on a claimed confidential document, indicate
`
`without breaching confidentiality why it would be relevant, and then indicate that the document
`
`will be relied on in the actual proceedings as they unfold. There are numerous ways a filing party
`
`can avoid needing to redact any part of the initially filed Notice or Petition. Indeed, as argued In
`
`the motion, the new Board rules appear to require that the initially filed document must be
`
`complete and viewable by the public since the TTAB will be tasked with serving it on
`
`applicant/owner and the TTAB can only “serve” by linking to publicly viewable documents on
`
`TTABVUE.
`
`MR. KRIEGER’S DECLARATION SHOWS HE KNEW FILING UNDER SEAL
`CANNOT BE AN INITIAL FILING.
`
`Mr. Krieger’s declaration details how he was challenged by the TTAB system when trying to
`
`file Opposer’s Notice of Opposition, since at first he tried to file the ‘real’ unredacted document
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`as the initial filing. He admits this made sense to him to have the first filed document be the
`
`actual Notice of Opposition containing the entire pleadings. But the system rightly informed him
`
`that a party cannot file any document under seal until a proceeding number has been assigned.
`
`This should have been Mr. Krieger’s first clue that since the unredacted version of the document
`
`was clearly the ‘real’ Notice of Opposition, therefore the Board does not condone, and the TTAB
`
`system does not permit, filing of a Notice of Opposition that cannot be viewed in its entirety by
`
`the public.
`
`Clearly, he knew when he came to file the Notice of Opposition that the actual real notice
`
`that contained Opposer’s full pleadings would need to be filed as a second or subsequent
`
`document filing having chosen to take the unusual path of filing a redacted, incomplete Notice,
`
`as the first filing. And it is well established, and well known to Mr. Krieger and his firm, that the
`
`second or subsequent filing in an opposition or cancellation proceeding must be served on the
`
`other party by the filing entity and must have an associated certificate of service showing the
`
`filing and service was all done within the deadline permitted to the party to file an Opposition.
`
`The act of filing alone during the period permitted to Oppose is not adequate, the filing must be
`
`accompanied by concurrent service on the other party, or it is not deemed a valid timely
`
`Opposition filing.
`
`The initial pleading stage of proceedings is not the time to produce confidential information
`
`or exhibit confidential exhibits. There are innumerable ways Opposer could have avoided using
`
`any text that needed to be redacted or exhibiting any document that needed to be hidden from
`
`public view. Even if the TTAB rules do not explicitly state it, it is self-evident that both a Notice
`
`of Opposition and a Petition to Cancel must be publicly viewable documents—viewable in their
`
`entirety by the public. And again, Mr. Krieger’s first clue that this is the case came when he
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`discovered that the system was preventing him from filing any document under seal until after a
`
`proceeding number had been determined by the TTAB system.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Board should reject Opposer’s argument that what they did was a mere hyper-
`
`technicality which could be fixed by an out-of-time service of the complete, real Notice of
`
`Opposition on Applicant after the deadline to oppose had passed (which out of time sent copy
`
`could not be opened by Applicant anyway). Applicant notes again that as of today’s date it has
`
`still not been served with the actual full Notice of Opposition by Opposer, certificate of service
`
`attached, as the rules require. Accordingly, since the Notice of Opposition was not validly served
`
`in a timely manner on Applicant, the Board should grant this motion to dismiss. In the alternate,
`
`since Opposer’s opposition to this motion was not validly served on Applicant, it should not be
`
`taken into account or given any weight by the Board. Accordingly, this motion to dismiss the
`
`opposition should be granted as unopposed.
`
`Dated October 7, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: ____________________
`
`Dr. Tim Langdell, CEO
`Applicant in pro se.
`EDGE Games, Inc.
`35 N Lake Avenue, Ste 710, Pasadena, CA 91101
`edgegames@gmail.com, uspto@edgegames.com
`626 824 0097
`
`Certificate of Service on separate page
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that pursuant to CFR 2.101(b), on October 7, 2024, a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing APPLICANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SERVE UNREDACTED NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`Was served via email on Respondent’s counsel:
`
`trademarkslv@dickinsonwright.com, jkrieger@dickinsonwright.com,
`cvillanueva@dickinsonwright.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/____________
`Dr. Tim Langdell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 91293635
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial No. 98089617
`For the Trademark CUTTING EDGE
`
`)
`
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Applicant,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Opposer
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIMOTHY LANGDELL IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLICANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`I, Dr. Timothy Langdell, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`
`
`States that the following is true and correct:
`
`1.
`
`I am the CEO of the Applicant corporation, EDGE Games, Inc., and unless stated
`
`otherwise, I have personal knowledge of the following facts set forth in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I make my declaration in support of Applicant’s Reply in Support of Motion to
`
`Dismiss (the “Motion”).
`
`3.
`
`In my role as CEO of the Applicant corporation, I received an email sent by
`
`“Ashely B. Moretto” who I understand to be an Office Manager at Opposer’s legal
`
`representative’s law firm. This email is exhibited as Exhibit TL1 hereto. As can be seen, the
`
`writer indicates that she is providing links to view the Confidential and Public versions of
`
`Opposer’s Response to Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss. She does not say this communication,
`
`or the links provided are by way of service of the documents on Applicant.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I noticed immediately that the links were each labelled “VIEW” and that they
`
`were indicated to expire on “2024-10-19.” Initially, I attempted to access the links using my
`
`smartphone and found that I was taken to an Internet portal at an address hosted at
`
`“vault.netvoyage.com’ in which portal was displayed the header of a document. To the right
`
`was a statement (see Exhibit TL2) about the type of document and stating the link will expire
`
`on 10/18/2024 (not 10/19/2024 as the covering email had stated). I tried to scroll the
`
`document but was unable to do so and thus unable to view the document. I tried all methods I
`
`am familiar with to try to download or print the document and could find no way to either
`
`print it or download it. Clicking the “help” link took me to a webpage that seemed to confirm
`
`that the document was to be viewed only, and not intended to be downloaded or printed.
`
`5.
`
`When I returned to work on 9/24/24, I attempted once again to click the “VIEW”
`
`link provided by Ms. Moretto, thinking that perhaps the functions of downloading or printing
`
`might only be available on a computer and not a on a smartphone. Unfortunately, I discovered
`
`the same situation on a PC where the document could not be scrolled so that it could not even
`
`be viewed. But more importantly, there was still no way I could determine to either download
`
`or print the document. I undertook a brief review of the Netdocument in the Netvoyage system
`
`that Opposer elected to use without consulting Applicant, and it appears it is a system
`
`designed solely to view pdf documents, not actually transmit a copy to the recipient so that the
`
`recipient can possess its own copy of the document.
`
`6.
`
`I am familiar with the rules in the TBMP that require service of documents filed
`
`with TTABVUE to be served on the other party by email as an attachment. Or, if a file is too
`
`large to be sent as an email attachment, service is deemed valid if the large document is sent
`
`using a file transfer system such as “Dropbox” that easily enables a sender to send a link to
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`the other party that enables the recipient to download the large file. I thus knew that this
`
`system Opposer attempted to use is not a valid method of service, a fact that an experienced
`
`law firm like Dickinson Wright knows or should know. I thus wrote to Mr. Krieger who
`
`represents Opposer and asked why Opposer had failed yet again to serve the full unredacted
`
`filing on Applicant. This email is in Exhibit TL3. I relayed to Mr. Krieger the fact that
`
`Applicant was not validly served and that while the portal appears to only be intended to view
`
`documents (not download or print them), we couldn’t even view them.
`
`7.
`
`Mr. Krieger responded (also in Exhibit TL3) stating that he disagreed with
`
`Applicant’s position regarding service. He falsely claimed that Opposer had sent electronic
`
`copies of its opposition as well as serving it via U.S. Mail. I responded again by email (see
`
`Exhibit TL4) in which I referred to the relevant section of the TBMP in my email and invited
`
`Mr. Krieger to correct me if he believes there is a TTAB rule I may have overlooked that
`
`supports Opposer attempting to serve the documents in the manner they did. And that if he
`
`cannot so provide such a cite from the TBMP, that he be deemed to have accepted on behalf
`
`of Opposer that therefore there was no valid service on Applicant.
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Krieger has not responded with any challenge to Applicant’s claim that there
`
`was no valid service of Opposer’s Response to Motion together with a cite to a rule in the
`
`TBMP that states a party may validly serve a document on the other party of sending a link to
`
`only view that document (but not download or print it) accompanied by mailing of a copy in
`
`U.S. Mail. At the time of swearing this declaration, no copy has been received by me via U.S.
`
`Mail either.
`
`DATED this 26th day of September, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`………………………….
`Dr. Tim Langdell
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT TL1
`EXHIBIT TL1
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`9/26/24, 11:40 AM
`
`Gmail - Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`
`EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`Ashley B. Moretto <AMoretto@dickinson-wright.com>
`To: "edgegames@gmail.com" <edgegames@gmail.com>, "uspto@edgegames.com" <uspto@edgegames.com>
`Cc: "John L. Krieger (he/him/his)" <JKrieger@dickinson-wright.com>, "Cindy A. Villanueva" <CVillanueva@dickinson-wright.com>
`
`Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:20 PM
`
`Good Afternoon,
`
` I
`
` have included links to the Confidential and Public versions of Opposer’s Response to Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss as filed today in the above referenced case. Let
`me know if you have any issues accessing the links.
`
`
`
`Links expire 2024-10-19
`
`2024-09-20 PUBLC Response to Motion to Dismiss (Filed).pdf
`
`2024-09-20 CONFIDENTIAL Response to Motion to Dismiss (Filed).pdf
`
`VIEW
`
`VIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Powered by netdocuments
`
`
`
`Kind regards,
`
`Ashley
`
`
`
`Ashley B. Moretto
`Office Manager
`O:702-550-4464
`AMoretto@dickinsonwright.com
`
`3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 800, Las Vegas NV, 89169
`The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s), and may be legally privileged. If you are
`not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments, destroy any printouts that you may have made and notify us immediately by return e-mail.
`Neither this transmission nor any attachment shall be deemed for any purpose to be a "signature" or "signed" under any electronic transmission acts, unless
`otherwise specifically stated herein. Thank you.
`
`https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=3f71ddfe3e&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1810751521711351526&simpl=msg-f:181075152171135152… 1/1
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT TL2
`EXHIBIT TL2
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`DICKINSONWRIGHT
`
`O/20/24, 1:05 PM
`
`USPTO. ESTTA. Receipt
`
`(https://www.uspto.gov)
`
`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
`
`Help
`
`2024-09-20 PUBLC Response to Motion to Dismiss
`(Filed)
`
`Modified: 9/20/2024, 2:11:08 PM
`Type: Portable Document Format (.pdf)
`Size: 12099 KB
`
`ID: 4854-6 7353-6423
`
`This link will expire on 10/18/2024
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT TL3
`EXHIBIT TL3
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`9/26/24, 11:41 AM
`
`Gmail - Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`
`EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`
`Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:52 PM
`To: "John L. Krieger (he/him/his)" <JKrieger@dickinson-wright.com>
`Cc: EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`
`Mr. Krieger,
`
`We are unclear what you are doing, whether you for instance are being intentionally perverse, but we were not validly
`served with your Opposition to Motion regarding our Motion to Dismiss in the CUTTING EDGE opposition matter.
`
`While we did receive an email that we believed was meant to be service on us of the public and under-seal versions of
`your filing, the email did not have any documents attached to it. Instead, the email contained links to what appears to be a
`portal where pdf documents may be viewed but there is no way to either download or print the documents. And as you
`know, for service to be valid, you need to supply us electronically with copies of your filings that can be downloaded and
`printed. Enabling the other party to only view a document online does not meet the requirements of service. Not least
`since the email states the link (and hence the ability to view the document) is set to expire. That said, we could not get the
`portal to work and were unable to view either of the documents, thus there is no sense whatsoever in which you timely
`served us.
`
`Sincerely,
`Dr Tim Langdell CEO
`EDGE Games Inc
`Applicant in pro se
`
`https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=3f71ddfe3e&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r7114883928871931209&simpl=msg-a:r7114883928871931… 1/1
`
`

`

`9/26/24, 11:45 AM
`
`Gmail - RE: Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`
`EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`
`RE: Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`John L. Krieger (he/him/his) <JKrieger@dickinson-wright.com>
`Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 5:40 PM
`To: EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`Cc: "Ashley B. Moretto" <AMoretto@dickinson-wright.com>, "Cindy A. Villanueva" <CVillanueva@dickinson-wright.com>
`
`Ti(cid:373):
`
` I
`
` disag(cid:396)ee (cid:449)ith you(cid:396) posi(cid:415)o(cid:374) (cid:396)ega(cid:396)di(cid:374)g se(cid:396)(cid:448)i(cid:272)e. We se(cid:374)t ele(cid:272)t(cid:396)o(cid:374)i(cid:272) (cid:272)opies of ou(cid:396) opposi(cid:415)o(cid:374), as (cid:449)ell as se(cid:396)(cid:448)ed it (cid:448)ia
`U.S. Mail. The opposi(cid:415)o(cid:374) (cid:449)as a la(cid:396)ge do(cid:272)u(cid:373)e(cid:374)t, (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h (cid:396)e(cid:395)ui(cid:396)ed (cid:373)y assista(cid:374)t to se(cid:396)(cid:448)e the li(cid:374)ks (cid:271)e(cid:272)ause the files (cid:449)e(cid:396)e
`too la(cid:396)ge to (cid:271)e a(cid:425)a(cid:272)hed to a(cid:374) e(cid:373)ail. You should (cid:396)e(cid:272)ei(cid:448)e the physi(cid:272)al (cid:272)opies eithe(cid:396) today o(cid:396) to(cid:373)o(cid:396)(cid:396)o(cid:449) (cid:894)assu(cid:373)i(cid:374)g the
`U.S. Postal Se(cid:396)(cid:448)i(cid:272)e is o(cid:374) (cid:415)(cid:373)e(cid:895). The opposi(cid:415)o(cid:374) (cid:449)as (cid:415)(cid:373)ely se(cid:396)(cid:448)ed.
`
`
`
`Tha(cid:374)ks fo(cid:396) le(cid:427)(cid:374)g us k(cid:374)o(cid:449) you a(cid:396)e ha(cid:448)i(cid:374)g diffi(cid:272)ul(cid:415)es a(cid:272)(cid:272)essi(cid:374)g the li(cid:374)ks. I’(cid:448)e (cid:272)opied (cid:373)y assista(cid:3