ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1405414
`
`Filing date:
`
`12/31/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91295292
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Defendant
`MMMera, Inc.
`
`BRYAN PEROFF
`PEROFF IP
`169 MADISON AVENUE, SUITE 2478
`NEW YORK, NY 10016
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: bryan@peroff-ip.com
`No phone number provided
`
`Answer
`
`Bryan Peroff
`
`Bryan@peroff-ip.com, docket@peroff-ip.com
`
`/BDP/
`
`12/31/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`In the Matter of SPACE QUEST.pdf(134302 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In re Trademark Application Serial No. 98/046,988 for SPACE QUEST, filed on June 16,
`2023 and published on July 23, 2024; Opposition No. 91295292
`
` )
` )
`ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., )
` )
`Opposer, )
` )
`v. ) APPLICANT MMMERA, INC.’S ANSWER
` ) AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`MMMERA, INC., )
` )
` Applicant. )
` )
` )
`
`APPLICANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Applicant MMMera, Inc. (“Applicant”), by and through its attorney, hereby responds to the
`
`Notice of Opposition (the “Opposition”) filed by Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Opposer”) on
`
`November 20, 2024, as follows:
`
`1. For Paragraph One of the Opposition, Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to
`
`form a belief as to whether Activision is in fact a subsidiary of the Microsoft Corporation, and
`
`therefore denies the same. Further, Applicant denies that Opposer exclusively owns trademark
`
`rights to the mark Space Quest in the United States or that any such rights are enforceable
`
`against Applicant.
`
`1
`
`
`
`2. Applicant admits that Microsoft Corporation timely filed a Request for an Extension of Time
`
`to Oppose on August 22, 2024; however, Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information
`
`to form a belief as to whether Microsoft Corporation is the “parent company” of Activision
`
`Publishing, Inc., and therefore denies the same.
`
`3. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether
`
`Opposer’s Paragraphs 3-9 in its Opposition are true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`4. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether Opposer’s
`
`Paragraphs 10-15 in its Opposition are true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`5. Applicant admits the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Opposition.
`
`6. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether Opposer’s
`
`Paragraphs 17-19 in its Opposition are true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`7. Applicant admits the allegations in Paragraphs 20-21 of the Opposition.
`
`8. Applicant admits to the allegation in Paragraph 22 that it filed trademark applications for a
`
`variety of abandoned video game titles in 2021; however denies filing a trademark application
`
`for Space Quest in 2021.
`
`9. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether Opposer’s
`
`Paragraphs 23 in its Opposition are true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`10. Applicant denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Opposition.
`
`11. Applicant admits the allegations in Paragraphs 25-26 of the Opposition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`12. Applicant admits the allegation in Paragraph 27 that the USPTO published the application for
`
`opposition on July 23, 2024; however, Applicant denies that Opposer is entitled to an extension
`
`of the deadline to file an opposition by November 20, 2024.
`
`13. Applicant denies the allegation in Paragraph 28 of the Opposition.
`
`14. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether
`
`Opposer’s Paragraph 29 in its Opposition are true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`15. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether
`
`Opposer’s Paragraph 31 in its Opposition is true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`16. Applicant denies the allegation in Paragraph 32 of the Opposition.
`
`17. Applicant admits the allegations in Paragraphs 33 of the Opposition.
`
`18. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether
`
`Opposer’s Paragraph 34 in its Opposition is true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`19. Applicant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 35-37 of the Opposition.
`
`20. Applicant denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Opposition.
`
`21. Applicant admits the allegations in Paragraphs 40 of the Opposition.
`
`22. Applicant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 41-45 of the Opposition.
`
`23. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether
`
`Opposer’s Paragraph 46 in its Opposition is true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`3
`
`
`
`24. Applicant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 47-51 of the Opposition.
`
`25. Applicant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to whether
`
`Opposer’s Paragraphs 53-55 in its Opposition are true or false and therefore denies the same.
`
`26. Applicant denies the allegations in Paragraphs 56-58 of the Opposition.
`
`APPLICANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`1. Opposer lacks standing to bring this Opposition because it failed to timely file a Notice of
`
`Opposition or a Request for an Extension of Time to Oppose by the deadline of thirty (30) days
`
`following the USPTO’s publication of Applicant’s Mark on July 23, 2024.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`2. Opposer is barred from bringing this Opposition under the Doctrine of Acquiescence because
`
`Opposer has had knowledge of multiple third parties using the identical mark for identical goods
`
`and services and Opposer consented to such use or failed to object to such use in a timely
`
`manner.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`3. Opposer’s claims are barred under the Doctrine of Waiver due to its own long standing
`
`conduct and actions, wherein Opposer continuously allowed various third parties to use the
`
`identical mark for identical goods and services over the course of many years without any
`
`objection, which led Applicant to reasonably believe that (1) Applicant’s Mark would peaceably
`
`coexist with any other parties using a similar or identical mark for video games and (2)
`
`Applicant’s registration of Applicant’s Mark would not any consumer confusion nor cause any
`
`harm to Opposer, and (3) Opposer would not challenge Applicant’s subject application.
`
`4
`
`
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`4. Opposer’s claims are barred under the Doctrine of Laches because Opposer unduly delayed
`
`enforcement of its purported rights in Applicant’s Mark over many years by allowing third
`
`parties to continually use the identical mark for identical goods and services for many years
`
`without any objection, which has prejudiced Applicant and Applicant’s Application.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`5. Opposer cannot demonstrate that it will suffer any actual damage or any real harm from the
`
`registration of Applicant’s Mark, as required under the Trademark Act, when there are a multiple
`
`third parties using the identical mark for identical goods and services for video games that are
`
`widely available on the internet, without objection or policing from Opposer.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`6. Applicant’s use of the Applicant’s Mark constitutes fair use and a protected form of free
`
`expression that does not infringe, dilute nor tarnish any rights Opposer alleges to have in the
`
`subject mark.
`
`APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Board dismiss this Opposition in its entirety and allow
`
`Applicant’s Application for Space Quest to proceed to registration.
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing APPLICANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`was served by email to: John L. Krieger: jkrieger@dickinson-wright.com, Counsel for
`
`Opposer.
`
`New York, New York By: /Bryan D. Peroff/
`
`December 31, 2024 Bryan D. Peroff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
