Proceeding no.
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`ESTTA1385018
`09/20/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91293635
`
`Plaintiff
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`JOHN L. KRIEGER
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`3883 HOWARD HUGHES PARKWAY, SUITE 800
`LAS VEGAS, NV 89169
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: Jkrieger@dickinson-wright.com
`Secondary email(s): amoretto@dickinson-wright.com, trademark-
`slv@dickinson-wright.com, slnorton@dickinson-wright.com, CVil-
`lanueva@dickinson-wright.com
`702-550-4400
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`John L. Krieger
`
`jkrieger@dickinson-wright.com, amoretto@dickinson-wright.com
`
`/John L. Krieger/
`
`09/20/2024
`
`2024-09-20 PUBLIC Response to Motion to Dismiss - CUTTING
`EDGE.pdf(401092 bytes )
`Exhibit 1 - PUBLIC - Krieger Declaration ISO Opposition to Motion to Dismiss re
`CUTTING EDGE.pdf(2626582 bytes )
`Exhibit 2 - Decision.pdf(4220367 bytes )
`Exhibit 3 - PUBLIC - DOC 044 Microsoft Response to Motion Challenging Desig-
`nation.pdf(5291510 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`EDGE GAMES INC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Mark: CUTTING EDGE
`Serial No. 98/089,617
`
`Opposition No. 91293635
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`Applicant.
`
`OPPOSER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Opposer, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), by and through undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Failure to Serve Unredacted Notice of
`
`Opposition (the “Motion”) filed by Applicant Edge Games Inc. (“Edge Games”).
`
`Because this Opposition is predicated on a document Edge Games erroneously maintains
`
`is confidential in another TTAB proceeding (Cancellation No. 92081334), Microsoft, as a
`
`courtesy, complied with Edge Games’ request to keep the document and any mention of it
`
`confidential in this proceeding, at least until the matter can be adjudicated in the other TTAB
`
`proceeding. However, in the vein of “no good deed goes unpunished,” Edge Games improperly
`
`perceives some misguided advantage in exploiting a technicality derived from a situation Edge
`
`Games wrongfully created. Specifically, the fact that Edge Games did not receive an unredacted
`
`copy of the Notice of Opposition immediately upon filing is not a legitimate basis on which to
`
`dismiss the Opposition. A motion to dismiss is not an appropriate remedy in this situation.
`
`Rather, Edge Games could have easily reached out and asked for an unredacted copy, but failed
`
`to do so.
`
`Edge Games’ Motion is without merit and just another example of its proclivity to file
`
`frivolous motions in order to vexatiously increase costs and bog down the entire TTAB process.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`BACKGROUND
`
`On January 9, 2023, Edge Games instituted a cancellation action against Microsoft’s
`
`registration for its BLEEDING EDGE mark, alleging likelihood of confusion, among other
`
`claims, with Edge Games’ alleged mghts in EDGE-formative marks, which included the
`
`CUTTING EDGEmark. (See Edge Games, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Cancellation No. 92081334
`
`(the “Cancellation Proceeding”).) Microsoft filed a partial motion to dismiss challenging the
`
`sufficiency of Edge Games’ claims, which the Board granted, but allowed Edge Gamesleave to
`
`replead certain claims. (/d. at 8 TTABVUE.) Edge Gamesfiled its amended petition on June 7,
`
`2023. Ud. at 9 TTABVUE.)
`
`On July 18, 2023, Edge Gamesfiled U.S. Application Serial Number 98/089,617 (the
`
`“Application”) for the mark CUTTING EDGE(the “Applied-For Mark’) for “Computer game
`
`programmes downloadable via the Internet; Computer game software downloadable from a
`
`global computer network; Downloadable computer game software for use on mobile and cellular
`
`phones; Downloadable video and computer game programs; Recorded computer game
`
`software,” in Class 9, alleging continuousrights dating back to 1984.
`
`On April 5, 2024, Microsoft sought leave to amend its answer and assert counterclaims
`
`against Edge Games in the Cancellation Proceeding. (Edge Games, Inc., Cancellation No.
`
`92081334 at 26 TTABVUE.) Microsoft’s counterclaims are based, in part, on Edge Games’
`
`A briefhistory ofthePo is as follows:
`
`e Edge Gamesfiled a lawsuit against Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) on June 15, 2010,
`
`in the United States District Court Northern District of California, Case No. 3:10-
`
`cv-02614-WHA (the “Litigation”), for trademark infringement, false designation
`
`of origin, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment based upon its “EDGE”
`
`marks, which included the CUTTING EDGE mark. (Declaration of John L.
`
`Krieger (“Krieger Decl.”) attached hereto as Exhibit 1, § 3.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Edge Gamesfiled a motion for prelimimary injunction, which EA opposed.
`
`On October 1, 2010, the court denied Edge Games’ motion finding it had no
`
`likelihood of succeeding on its claims. Edge Games, Inc. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 745 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1101, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2010). (A true and correct copy of the court’s
`
`decision is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.) Specifically, the court found that “the
`
`record contains numerous items of evidence that plaintiff willfully committed
`
`fraud against the USPTO in obtaining and/or maintaining registrations for many
`
`of the asserted “EDGE” marks, possibly warranting criminal penalties if the
`
`misrepresentation prove true” and that “EA has put forth substantial evidence
`
`calling into severe question many of the representations made by Dr. Langdell in
`
`his declaration submitted to the Court. Indeed, the declaration provided by EA
`
`from two of plaintiffs supposed ‘licensees’...revealed that many of Dr.
`
`Langdell’s assertions in his declaration were materially misleading or downright
`
`false.” 745 F. Supp. 2d at 1115.
`
`Shortly thereafter,
`
`MES(1c= Opp0. 96.6 Ex. 1: Krieger Decl,
`
`44.)
`
`In the
`
`I2.1 525)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Microsoft maintains there is simply no legitimate basis
`
`upon which to keep the
`
` under seal. (Krieger Decl., ¶ 7.) A true and
`
`correct copy of the Microsoft’s response addressing the alleged confidentiality of the
`
`
`
` is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and is incorporated by reference.
`
`On August 28, 2024, after filing and being granted two extensions of time to oppose,
`
`Microsoft timely filed its Notice of Opposition (“Opposition”) against the Applied-for Mark and
`
`paid the required fee. (1 -4 TTABVUE.) Microsoft had no other choice but to file certain
`
`portions of the Opposition under seal because they referenced the
`
`
`
`(Krieger Decl., ¶ 7.) In accord with its obligations under TBMP 412.01(c), Microsoft was very
`
`judicious in its redactions and only redacted thirteen (13) lines of the seven (7) page Opposition.
`
`(Id.) Notwithstanding, until a decision is rendered by the Board in the Cancellation Proceeding
`
`on the confidentiality of the
`
`
`
` (Id.)
`
`On the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) generated filing
`
`form, the ESTTA does not allow for an initial filing to be filed under a confidential designation
`
`until a proceeding number is assigned to the matter. (Krieger Decl., ¶ 8.) Therefore, Microsoft
`
`was required to file the redacted Opposition initially, which is the document that would appear
`
`on the public record, and then link the confidential version of the Opposition once the proceeding
`
`number was assigned. (Krieger Decl., ¶ 9.) Both filings were completed and accepted by the
`
`ESTTA system on August 28, 2024. (Id.)
`
`On the same day, August 28, 2024, the Board issued the Notice of Institution (2
`
`TTABVUE), which acknowledges that under 37 C.F.R. § 2.105 the Board “shall prepare a notice
`
`of institution” and the Board notice “constitutes service of the notice of opposition to the
`
`applicant.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.105(a)
`
`4
`
`

`

`On September 3, 2024, Edge Games filed this Motion alleging Microsoft failed to
`
`complete service on Edge Games because Microsoft did not send on August 28, 2024, a copy of
`
`the confidential unredacted version of the Opposition. Given the activity and motions filed in the
`
`Cancellation Proceeding, Edge Games is well aware of Microsoft’s position regarding the
`
`
`
` and that the redacted portions of the Opposition were designated to honor
`
`Edge Games’ request.
`
`After receiving service of the Motion, Microsoft’s counsel provided Edge Games a copy
`
`of the confidential version of the Opposition on September 3, 2024. (Krieger Decl., ¶ 10.) In
`
`addition, counsel for Microsoft sent Edge Games an email that same day explaining why there
`
`was both a public and confidential version of the Notice of Opposition, to which Edge Games
`
`should not be surprised given its position in the Cancellation Matter, noting that there was no
`
`prejudice to Edge Games, and requesting that Edge Games withdraw the Motion. (Krieger Decl.,
`
`¶ 11.) Edge Games did not respond to the email and, to date, has refused to withdraw the Motion.
`
`(Id.)
`
`A. Microsoft Complied With the Requirements to Initiate the Opposition.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`Opposition proceedings commence upon the filing of a timely notice of opposition and
`
`payment of the required fee. 37 C.F.R. § 2.101(a). So long as a plaintiff-opposer meets those
`
`requirements, the opposition proceeding begins. There is no dispute Microsoft filed its
`
`Opposition timely through the ESTTA. Consequently, the action has commenced.
`
`Rather than addressing any substantive portion of the Opposition, Edge Games seeks
`
`dismissal based upon a hyper technical argument that service of the confidential version of the
`
`Opposition, which was properly linked to the redacted publicly-filed version, was not made by
`
`either ESTTA or Microsoft. Notices of opposition are the exception to the general rule requiring
`
`a party to serve every submission made to the Board on the other party(ies). TBMP 113. In 2017,
`
`the Board changed the prior practice of requiring the plaintiff-opposer to serve the defendant-
`
`5
`
`

`

`applicant with the notice of opposition and placed the impetus on the Board to serve. 3 McCarthy
`
`on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 20:6 (5th ed.) Consequently, since 2017, “service” is
`
`deemed to occur as soon as the Board notifies the applicant by email of the opposition
`
`proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 2.105(a) (“the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board shall prepare a notice
`
`of institution...The notice, which will include a Web link or Web address to access the electronic
`
`proceeding record, constitutes service of the notice of opposition to the applicant.”).
`
`Edge Games does not dispute it received the email from ESTTA with a link to the
`
`redacted Opposition. (5 TTABVUE at 3.) Thus, service was properly completed and effectuated.
`
`B. Dismissal Is not a Remedy for Edge Games’ Failure to Receive a Copy of the
`Confidential Version of the Opposition on the Same Day the Opposition Was Filed.
`
`So long as the defendant-applicant receives notice an opposition proceeding has
`
`commenced, the Board generally disfavors motions to dismiss predicated on some hyper
`
`technical omission. See Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v. Karlo Flores, 91 USPQ 2d
`
`1698 (TTAB 2009) (noting the TTAB recognizes “a distinction between a complete lack of
`
`actual service and defective but curable actual service.”). See also Info. Superbrand, Inc.,
`
`Opposition No. 91184900, 2011 WL 810227, at *4 (TTAB Feb. 8, 2011) (“it is well established
`
`that the Board prefers to decide cases on their merits, rather than on technicalities.”). In fact,
`
`Edge Games fails to cite to any rule or case law that supports its novel argument that somehow
`
`the entire proceeding should be dismissed simply because Edge Games did not receive a copy of
`
`the confidential version of the Opposition by August 28, 2024. Any oversight by either ESTTA
`
`or Microsoft to provide Edge Games with the confidential version of the Opposition linked to the
`
`publicly redacted version does not invalidate the fact that service occurred sufficiently to place
`
`Edge Games on notice of the action.
`
`In Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v. Karlo Flores, 91 USPQ 2d 1698 (TTAB
`
`2009), the Board clarified that “the purpose of service in a board proceeding is to provide notice
`
`of the action.” 91 USPQ 2d at 1700. In that case, although the applicant was not served at the
`
`correct address (at the time opposer was required to serve), the Board concluded that “[s]ince
`
`6
`
`

`

`applicant responded with an answer and a motion to dismiss, opposer’s service was clearly
`
`sufficient to provide notice to the defendant.” Id. Accordingly, the Board denied the applicant’s
`
`motion to dismiss. Id.
`
`In assessing whether alleged defects in service for which a motion to dismiss may be an
`
`appropriate remedy, the Board draws a careful distinction between lack of actual service and
`
`“defective but curable” actual service. Id. at 1700. Here, even if a failure to provide the
`
`confidential version of the Opposition on the same date the redacted version was filed could be
`
`deemed a service defect (which Microsoft does not concede), it was curable. See Musical
`
`Directions v. Norman W. McHugh, 104 USPQ2d 1157, 1159 (TTAB 2012) (“Although
`
`Applicant did not in fact receive a copy of the notice of opposition sent through the Postal
`
`Service, we find no harm to applicant under the circumstances inasmuch as applicant clearly
`
`knew about the notice of opposition and its applicant’s apparent former counsel contacted
`
`opposer on applicant’s behalf to arrange a telephone conference regarding this opposition
`
`proceeding.”). Microsoft quickly provided Edge Games with a copy of the confidential version
`
`upon receiving notice of the Motion, and would have done so sooner had Edge Games simply
`
`reached out and notified counsel that it had not received the link through ESTTA. (Krieger Decl.
`
`¶ 10.)
`
`In the current matter, Edge Games admits it received actual notice of the Opposition in a
`
`timely manner. Indeed, Edge Games filed the instant Motion. As in Chocoladefabriken Lindt,
`
`Edge Games is well aware of the proceeding and has the ability to defend itself. More
`
`importantly, Microsoft only redacted select portions of the Opposition so as to comply with Edge
`
`Games’ demands
`
`Cancellation Proceeding.
`
` the
`
`Edge Games is on notice and well aware that Microsoft challenges any alleged rights
`
`asserted by Edge Games in the Applied-for Mark
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`defect that could be attributed to Edge Games not receiving a copy of the confidential version of
`
`(Notice Oppo. at Ex. 1 § 2.3.) Moreover, any service
`
`the Opposition has been cured. (Krieger Decl. ¶ 10.)
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Microsoft respectfully requests the Board deny Edge Games’ Motion for the reasons
`
`stated above. Microsoft also requests that the Board allow Edge Games thirty (30) days to
`
`respond to the Opposition from the date that its order on the Motion is issued and set going-
`
`forward trial dates based upon the same date. This outcome will better serve both parties as well
`
`as the policy objectives of the opposition process by providing both parties the finality of a
`
`decision rendered by the Board on the merits.
`
`Dated: September 20, 2024.
`
`
`
`DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_____________
`
`/s/ John L. Krieger
`John L. Krieger, Esq.
`Cindy A. Villanueva, Esq.
`jkrieger@dickinsonwright.com
`cvillanueva@dickinsonwright.com
`trademarkslv@dickinsonwright.com
`3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 800
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
`(702) 550-4400 (phone)
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of OPPOSER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`APPLICANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS is being filed electronically with the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and being served this 20th day
`
`of September 2024 via email and U.S. mail as follows:
`
`Tim Langdell
`EDGE Games, Inc.
`35 North Lake Avenue, Suite 710
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`Email: edgegames@gmail.com; uspto@edgegames.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley B. Moretto
`An Employee of Dickinson Wright PLLC
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`ICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAES NC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Opposer,
`
`Mark: CUTTING EDGE
`Serial No. 98/089,617
`
`v.
`
`Opposition No. 91293635
`
`EDGE GAMES INC,
`
`Applicant.
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN L. KRIEGER, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER’S
`RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`I, John L. Krieger, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that
`
`the following is true and correct:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney with the firm of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Respondent’s counsel
`
`in this opposition proceeding, and, unless stated otherwise, I have personal knowledge of the
`
`following facts set forth in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I make this declaration in support of Opposer’s Response to Applicant’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss (the “Motion”).
`
`3.
`
`On January 9, 2023, Edge Games instituted a cancellation action against
`
`Microsoft’s registration for its BLEEDING EDGE mark, alleging likelihood of confusion, among
`
`other claims, with Edge Games’ alleged rights in EDGE-formative marks, which included the
`
`CUTTING EDGE mark. (See Edge Games, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Cancellation No. 92081334
`
`(the “Cancellation Proceeding”).)
`
`4.
`
`On April 5, 2024, Microsoft sought leave to amend its answer and assert
`
`counterclaims against Edge Games in the Cancellation Proceeding. (Edge Games, Inc.,
`
`Cancellation No. 92081334 at 26 TTABVUE.) Microsoft’s counterclaims are based, in part, on
`
`Edge Games’ breach of
`
`. Specifically, Edge Games
`
`filed a lawsuit against Electronic Arts, Inc. (“EA”) on June 15, 2010, in the United States District
`
`

`

`Court Northern District of California, Case No. 3:10-cv-02614-WHA, and then, on or around
`
`
`
` (Notice Oppo. ¶ 6 & Ex.
`
`1.)
`
`5.
`
`After Microsoft filed its motion for leave to amend and proposed counterclaim in
`
`the Cancellation Proceeding,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Due to the pending motion in the Cancellation Proceeding, Microsoft had no other
`
`choice but to file certain portions of the current Opposition under seal because they referenced the
`
`. In accord with its obligations under TBMP 412.01(c), Microsoft was
`
`very judicious in its redactions and only redacted thirteen (13) lines of the seven (7) page
`
`Opposition.
`
`7.
`
`Microsoft maintains there is simply no legitimate basis upon which to keep the
`
` under seal. Notwithstanding, until a decision is rendered by the Board in
`
`the Cancellation Proceeding on the confidentiality of the
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) does not really
`
`accommodate for filing an initial document that must be filed in both redacted and confidential
`
`form. For example, even though the ESTTA generated filing form allows for a confidential
`
`designation to be applied to an opposition proceeding, as soon as the “confidential” selection is
`
`made from the drop down menu, a second screen pops up expressly telling the user the confidential
`
`filing cannot be made until a proceeding number is assigned to the matter. True and correct copies
`
`of the ESTTA initial submission filing page and drop down menu, as well as the subsequent “error”
`
`page, are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
`
`

`

`9.
`
`Therefore, Microsoft was required to file the redacted Opposition initially, which
`
`is the document that would appear on the public record, and then link the confidential version of
`
`the Opposition once the proceeding numberwasassigned. Both filings were timely completed and
`
`accepted by the ESTTA system on August 28, 2024.
`
`10.
`
`After I received a copy of the Motion from Edge Games on September3, 2024, I
`
`had myoffice provide Edge Gameswith a copy of the confidential version of the Opposition, and
`
`would have done so sooner had Edge Games simply reached out and notified me that it had not
`
`received the link through ESTTA.I instructed myassistant to serve on Applicant Edge Gamesthe
`
`confidential version of the Opposition. A true and correct copy of the email my assistant sent to
`
`Edge Games with a copy of the confidential version of the Notice of Opposition attached is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`11.
`
`On the same day, September 3, 2024,
`
`that my assistant sent a copy of the
`
`confidential version of the Opposition, I also sent a separate email to Edge Games explaining why
`
`Microsoft was requiredto file both a public and confidential version of the Notice of Opposition,
`
`to which Edge Gamesshould not have been surprised given its position in the Cancellation Matter.
`
`A true and correct copy of my September 3, 2024 email is attached hereto as Exhibit D. I noted
`
`that there was no prejudice to Edge Games, and requested it withdraw the Motion. (/d.) Edge
`
`Gamesdid not respond to the email and, to date, has refused to withdraw the Motion. See Ex. D at
`
`1 (copy of September 4, 2024 follow up email again requesting withdrawal).
`
`DATEDthis 20" day of September, 2024.
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`

`

`About Us
`Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals
`
`View ESTTAtechnical requirements, new features and other important user guidelines
`
`If you are using Internet Explorer, please ensure that the Compatibility View
`(Tools>Compatibility Viewsettings) is disabled or not enabled.
`
`Browse ESTTAforms and learn when and howto use them
`
`File Size Limits: The maximumsize for each attached file 1s 6 MB. A single ESTTAfiling may
`comprise more than one attachedfile, totaling no more than 53 MB.
`
`Please choose oneof the following optionsto start filing a form for
`
`*® Request for Extension of Time to File an Opposition
`File a request for extension of time to file a notice of opposition, relinquish an extension, or other actions
`related to extensionsoftime to oppose.
`Enter the application serial numberto which thefiling applies:[ Start
`Fees are required for certain requests for extension that can befiled using this form.
`
`®
`
`File a New Proceeding
`Use these options to file a new opposition, cancellation, or appeal from a final refusal to register or an
`expungementor reexamination proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`There is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¥]
`Typeoffiling:
`
`
`Start |
`
`Opposition, Cancellation or Concurrent Use (generalfilings)
`Ex Parte Appeal (generalfilings)
`bsition,
`Use these a
`ithe oe
`aienal Consent Motions (opposition or cancellation)
`xx), ex parte
`number
`appeal on See ot = a _ _ Ee R) , which
`
`yourfiling E)CONFIDENTIALOp) ess ion,Cancellation«
`-Concurren
`i
`
`Type Of (CONFIDENTIAL Opposition, Cancellation or Concurren v||98089617 Start
`
`:
`filing:
`
`Mostfilings do not require a fee.
`
`UNITED STATES
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`TLC WETS
`
`BROWSEBY TOPIC
`
`elMee
`
`USPTO BACKGROUND
`
`FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
`
`Patents
`Trademarks
`
`Poet] e1 LAY
`
`Freedomof Information Act
`
`Information Quality Guidelines
`
`https://estta .uspto.gov/filing-type.jsp
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`

`

`=>?@>ABCÿ?EFAGÿHI
`JKLMNOÿPKMMHOÿQRSRTUÿMVWX
`    
`
`

`ÿÿ !ÿ#ÿ$!
`%&'ÿÿ '&' !
`
`()*+,-./0+ÿ234,*5ÿ6.-ÿ7-89*58-:ÿ7-08)4ÿ8/9ÿ;<<*8)4
`
`YZZW[F>>X[ZZ\O][WZ^OU^_>`RW>`Oa[Wbc^deT\eXfcRSRTUgZVWXh`W`gWd^`XXiRTUgT]ejXdf=kEk=G?@
`
`?>l
`
`

`

` ÿÿ 
`ÿÿ



ÿ
` 

ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ
`ÿÿ  ÿÿ
`
`ÿ

ÿ



ÿ

ÿ



ÿ 

ÿ  

ÿ
`ÿ 
`
` ÿ
`
` 

ÿ 

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ !"#$%ÿ 

ÿ


`£©§¨©ª«žÿ§¥¬ª¦ÿ–­
`®z¯•°ÿ”z••–°ÿ‘œ¡œ±ÿ•²™ 
`

ÿ ÿÿ & !"#%ÿÿ 
`
` ÿÿ
` 

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ"ÿ
`
`"& !#"%
`'

ÿ()*ÿ 

 ÿ
`+

` ÿÿ 
`ÿÿ 
`ÿ


`  ÿ
`ÿ




` ,--  -
`
`.




` -
`
`.
`

  
` 
`-  %
`/ÿ ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ/ 
` ÿ(
`
`ÿ ÿ
`ÿ  ÿ ÿ0 



ÿ'


` 10 



ÿ'

ÿ

%ÿ

ÿ

 ÿ
`ÿ ÿ 
`2
` ÿ()*ÿ
`ÿÿ 
`ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ3
`45567899:::;<765=;>=?95@ABCDA@E7FA66GHIA5H=JF6@=IC7795@ABCDA@EF5@HAGFAJBFA66CAGFK=A@B9HJBCLF
`C755AFM=@D7N
`O

ÿ)

PÿQ



,ÿS4CÿDALHD<Dÿ7HTCÿM=@ÿCAI4ÿA55AI4CBÿMHGCÿH7ÿUÿVW;ÿXÿ7HJ>GCÿYZSSXÿMHGHJ>ÿDA[
`I=D6@H7CÿD=@Cÿ54AJÿ=JCÿA55AI4CBÿMHGC\ÿ5=5AGHJ>ÿJ=ÿD=@Cÿ54AJÿ]^ÿVW;
`_`abcdcebfgbhicjkecblibmh`kmckjci`nbcikcj`abcdcmki`obckjckppkh`i`kmqceba`mfg`hrcdmcblibmh`kmqckeckirbecdoi`kmh
`ÿz{|}{
`umibecirbcdppa`odi`kmchbe`dacmgnvbecikcwr`orcirbcj`a`mxcdppa`bhyÿ
`ebadibscikcblibmh`kmhckjci`nbcikckppkhbt
`_bbhcdebcebfg`ebscjkecobeid`mcebfgbhihcjkecblibmh`kmcirdicodmcvbcj`abscgh`mxcir`hcjkent
`~hbcirbhbckpi`kmhcikcj`abcdcmbwckppkh`i`kmqcodmobaadi`kmqckecdppbdacjekncdcj`mdacebjghdacikcebx`hibeckecdm
`blpgmxbnbmickecebbldn`mdi`kmcpekobbs`mxt
`ki`obckjckppkh`i`km
`€ppa`odi`kmchbe`dacmkt
`bi`i`kmcjkecodmobaadi`km
`‚bx`hiedi`kmcmkt
`ki`obckjcdppbdacjekncj`mdacebjghda
`€ppa`odi`kmchbe`dacmkt
`ki`obckjcdppbdacjekncblpgmxbnbmiƒebbldn`mdi`km
`ulpgmxbnbmickecebbldn`mdi`kmcmkt
`z{|}{
`„…pbckjcj`a`mxy
`„rbebc`hcdcj`a`mxcjbbcdhhko`dibscw`ircirbhbcjkenht
`~hbcirbhbckpi`kmhcikcj`abcskognbmihc†nki`kmhqcve`bjhqcbiot‡c`mcdmcdaebds…cbl`hi`mxckppkh`i`kmq
`odmobaadi`kmqcokmogeebmicghbqckecdppbdacpekobbs`mxtcˆrkkhbcdcj`a`mxckpi`kmcdmscbmibecirbckppkh`i`km
`mgnvbec†‰Šllllll‡qcodmobaadi`kmcmgnvbec†‰‹llllll‡qcokmogeebmicghbcmgnvbec†‰Œllllll‡qcblcpdeib
`dppbdac†llllllll‡qckecblpgmxbnbmiƒebbldn`mdi`kmcmgnvbec†…………lllllluckec…………llllll‚‡cikcwr`or
`…kgecj`a`mxcdppa`bht
`„…pbckjj`a`mxyŽ‘’“”•’–—ÿ™™š›œ{œšžÿŽ|Ÿ ¡¡|{œšÿš}ÿŽšŸ¢}} £¤¥¤£¦§¨
`z{|}{
`³{{™›¬©© ›{{|°¢›™{š°±š´©Ÿœ™©Ÿ°µ›™¶·š}¸|¸ ¹·œ¡œ±º{²™ »Ÿ™Ÿº™}šŸ  ¼œ±º¢¸½ }¹£¤¥¤£¦§¨
`
`ª©¾
`
`

`

`,#('!@ÿ$#''+@ÿ2ABACDÿ'EFG
`
`67897:;<ÿ8=>:?ÿ+5
`   
`  






`
` !"#$ÿ&ÿ'!()*
`+!,'ÿ'-)#ÿ#)'$
`,#('!ÿ+*./ !,01
`2$1$ +3ÿ/!4$ 05$0'
`
`HIIFJ>77GJIIK@LJFIM@DMN7OAF7O@PJFQRMSTCKTGURABACDVIEFGWOFOVFSMOGGXACDVCLTYGSU6Z=Z6?89
`
`[7[
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`

`

`John L. Krieger
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Good Morning:
`
`Ashley B. Moretto
`Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:41 AM
`edgegames@gmail.com; uspto@edgegames.com
`John L. Krieger (he/him/his); Cindy A. Villanueva; Shauna L. Norton
`Microsoft Corporation v. EDGE Games Inc. / Opposition No. 91293635
`DOC 004 - 2024-08-28 CONFIDENTIAL Notice of Opposition re CUTTING EDGE
`4884-8455-5488 v.1.pdf
`
`I have attached a copy of the Confidential Notice of Opposition as filed with the TTAB in the above referenced matter.
`
`Kind regards,
`Ashley
`
`Ashley B. Moretto
`
`
`
`Senior Legal Assistant
`O: 702-550-4464
`AMoretto@dickinson-wright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 800, Las Vegas NV, 89169
`
`1
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`EXHIBITD
`
`ICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAES NC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`

`

`John L. Krieger
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`John L. Krieger (he/him/his)
`Wednesday, September 4, 2024 4:10 PM
`EDGE Games
`TrademarksLV; Cindy A. Villanueva; uspto@edgegames.com
`RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Microsoft v. EDGE Games; Opposition No. 91293635
`
`Importance:
`
`High
`
`Tim:
`
`I haven’t received a response from you. Is Edge Games willing to withdraw its frivolous motion to dismiss?
`
`John
`
`John L. Krieger (he/him/his)
`
`
`
`Member
`O: 702-550-4439
`JKrieger@dickinsonwright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 800, Las Vegas NV, 89169
`
`From: John L. Krieger (he/him/his)
`Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 10:41 AM
`To: EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`Cc: TrademarksLV <TrademarksLV@dickinson-wright.com>; Cindy A. Villanueva <CVillanueva@dickinson-wright.com>;
`uspto@edgegames.com
`Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: Microsoft v. EDGE Games; Opposition No. 91293635
`
`Tim:
`
`We are more than happy to provide you with a copy of the unredacted version of the notice of opposition. You are well
`aware that Microsoft opposes any trademark filing in violation of the
`, of which the CUTTING
`EDGE mark is part. Even though we completely disagree with your position that the
` out of respect for your position and the pending confidentiality designation motion in the BLEEDING EDGE
`matter, we redacted the few references to it and filed the exhibit containing it in under seal. This should be of no
`surprise to you. There is no prejudice to Edge Games. A simple email request for a copy of the unredacted version would
`have sufficed. A motion to dismiss is not a remedy, and is a complete waste of the Board’s time. Please immediately
`withdraw your motion.
`
`John
`
`From: EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 10:01 PM
`To: John L. Krieger (he/him/his) <JKrieger@dickinson-wright.com>
`Cc: TrademarksLV <TrademarksLV@dickinson-wright.com>; Cindy A. Villanueva <CVillanueva@dickinson-wright.com>;
`uspto@edgegames.com; EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Microsoft v. EDGE Games; Opposition No. 91293635
`
`1
`
`

`

`Dear Sirs,
`
`Please find attached by way of service our Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Sincerely,
`Dr Tim Langdell CEO
`EDGE Games Inc
`Applicant in pro se
`
`Virus-free.www.avast.com
`
`2
`
`

`

`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. EDGE GAMES INC
`OPPOSITION NO. 91293635
`
`

`

`Case 3:10-cv-02614-WHA Document 67 Filed 10/01110 Page 1 ~ -23
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`fl
`
`9
`
`IO
`
`I I
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`I&
`
`19
`
`IN THE U lTED STA T ES DlSTR ICT COURT
`
`FOR TH' NORTHERN DISTR]CT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`EDGE GAMES, a C.~ a CalikH"l1i~L
`corporatfon..
`
`No. C 10-02614 WUA
`
`ORDIER DE . YI G MOTION FOR
`PRELIMJ NARY JNJ . CTION
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS, me .. ii Dcluwarre
`corporatfon,
`
`Defendant.
`
`[n abis tradcmork infringement action involving video-gaming giant Eleclronic Arts. Int.
`
`I TRODUCTlON
`
`:20
`
`and its 41fC'\rol utionaiQ'"' first-person, action-adventure- vi<ko game .,.MiJTor's Edge," plaintiff Edge
`
`22
`
`prdiminarily enjoin dcfcndool Electronic Am from using the ·'MIRROR' S !EDGE" mark while
`
`2.3
`
`1ihi.s dispute unfolds in ooun. Be-cause pfoin1iff has failed to establish that: im is likely to succeed on
`
`24 11he merits, that it ·i ｾ＠1 ikely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence ,of pre Ii minary relief, that the
`
`25
`
`balance of equities lips. it11 ils favor, or that an injuncl·io n is. in lbe public inleres.~ lhe n10tion for a
`
`prelilir'linary i11j1,nu;:1ion is Dt:l'<ilt:D.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3: 10-cv-02614-WHA Document 67 Filed 10/01110 Page 2 ~ -23
`
`STATIEME~T
`
`2
`
`,3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Edge G1unr;s~ l nc. i:i ··one of ehc oldest suni\<ing video g."ITTIC dt'\•dopmt..11t and publishing
`
`busincs!;es"" on lbe planet -
`
`at least. lhait • s ,,.•hat ils founder, chief cxccuthrc· officer, mid sole
`
`shareholder. Dr. Tiua Langdell, would. have :1.juty believe (Lang.dell Deel.
`
`I 3). A,coorni~g to
`
`6 Dr. Langdell's declilrnli011 . 11e began using the "EDGE'' mark in connection with video-giune
`
`7 markering ands.ales. back in 1984 (!trough a London-ba.ioOO vidco,-game eo:m~ny c,Lllcd Sofl.ek
`
`,R
`
`(id. a l 2). Solilek: is !>U~edly ii predece.s:-.or-in-in.te~l to Edge Game~. AR.er Or. Lang.dell
`
`9 moved to Los; Attgele1. ·in 1990, he rein-corporated Softek a.-i. Ed_ge huerncl.ive Media (.another
`
`IO
`
`~upposed predecel'>.S.Ot-in-inleresl to Edge Game.i-:),. Me th er1 mric-0rpota1ed Edge Gan'le.s. -
`
`the
`
`I I
`
`ei I k.-gcd ·tradcmi,rl: ho Mer hr;:rein -
`
`in 2005 (id al. 3 ).
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff Edge Gttmc.-s nnd ils prcdrocss.ors suppo~dly w.wclopcd. dis'Lributed, and sold
`
`13
`
`several dozen video g11:mes from the mid- 1990s th rough 2010 bearing the asserted marks (id. at •
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17). !Examples of recent 11.'idco-gamc products pill(J)O'rtedl.y .marketed by !Edge Gi;rmcs and bearing
`
`cme or mo.re of lhe a~erted marks lnc]ude •• Bobby Beai'ing," " Rames..," "'M ythora~" ''Pengu,"
`
`16
`
`" BntHepod!.;' afld. ··Race~'' (h,l. at 14, :E.~hs .. K- T). Between 2003 a,,d 2009, Edge Games
`
`17
`
`I&
`
`purport<.-dly sold over 11,000 -.mi ts of R~mes, M ythoru, o11nd Ra<.'iCni, which ~re '·p~c'.k~Lgcd PC
`video game" product;, as well as over 45.000 units or Bobby Bcanng, Pcngu~ and BaltlePods,
`
`19 which arc g:uncs thin can be played on certain mobile :phones (id. at ｾ＠15- 16