UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cancellation No. 92040202
`
`U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,028,089
`U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,182,183
`
`.
`
`07-1 0-2003
`
`u.s. Patent 5. TMOfc/TM Mail Rcptot, #22
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`’)
`
`L. & J.G. STICKLEY, ]NC.,
`0
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`RONALD C. COSSER,
`
`
`
`ReSp°“de““
`
`-
`Box TTAB
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S
`
`SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`
`Petitioner, L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. (“Stickley”), submits this Opposition to Respondent,
`
`Ronald C. Cosser’s (“Respondent”) second motion to compel discovery. Respondent’s first
`
`motion to compel discovery was denied by the Hon. Karen Kuhlke pursuant to Order dated
`
`March 27, 2003, finding that Stickley’s “responses to respondent’s second set of interrogatories
`
`are sufficient and respondent’s motion to compel is denied”. The Order also provided “the
`
`parties are allowed thirty days fromthe mailing date of this Order to serve responses to any
`
`outstanding discoveiy requests (including those served during suspension).” (emphasis added).
`
`A copy of the Order dated March 27, 2003 is annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
`
`“A”. Three weeks after that Order, respondent served its Fourth Set of Interrogatory Demands
`
`and First Request for Admissions, despite the fact that there is no authority to do so provided in
`
`the Order and the original discovery deadline had long since expired. Despite the fact that these
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`new demands were untimely Stickley provided full and complete responses to them, maintaining
`
`its objection to the demands upon the grounds that they were untimely and exceeded the
`
`permissible number of interrogatories in Violation of 37 ‘C.F.R. §2.120(d)(1). Respondent’s
`
`untimely service of additional discovery demands, its repeated attempts to revise its questions
`
`after answers were provided, and its multiple motions to compel with requests for “a stay of the
`
`proceedings” is nothing more than an effort to delay a determination on the merits in this matter.
`
`RESPONDENT’S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`A1though.Stickley objected to Respondent’s Third Set of Interrogatories upon grounds
`
`including that they exceed the limit of seventy-five, Stickley provided complete responses to
`
`these interrogatories in an attempt to avoid unnecessary motion practice. Stickley also objected
`
`to Respondent’s Interrogatories because they seek facts “which form the basis for or support”
`
`what purports to be “Petitioner’s contention.” Stickley clearly stated it carmot answer the
`
`questions as phrased because it is based upon a false premise. This is because the statements
`
`made by Respondent in the interrogatories are not Stickley’s contentions. Each interrogatory
`
`question also seeks support for Stickley’s purported contention that Stickley acquired rights to or
`
`used “Registrant’s Mark”. Stickley objects to this mischaracterization because it is not Stickley’s
`
`contention that it acquired or used “Registrant’s Mark”. Respondent defines “Registrant’s Mark”
`
`as “Registrant’s The CRAFTSMAN ALS IK KAN and Woodworkers Compass Design, which is
`
`the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2,028,089 and 2,1 82,183.” Respondent’s
`
`Interrogatories Definitions, paragraph 6, Exhibit “B”.1 Respondent now seeks to redefine its
`
`1 In this motion Respondent failed to provide a copy of its First Set ofInterrogatory Demands which contain the
`definition at issue, or its Second Set of Interrogatory Demands and Stickley’s responses thereto as is required,
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2. l20(e) and TBMP §523. Copies of these documents are annexed hereto and incorporated
`herein as Exhibit “B”.
`
`

`
`
`
`definition of “Registrant’s Mark” to be broader than the specific definition that was provided in
`
`its interrogatories to compel a different answer.
`Despite the fact that Respondent improperly mischaracterizes Stickley’s “contentions”,
`
`Stickley provided a response addressing Stickley’s use of the trademarks, and stating that
`
`Stickley’s prior interrogatory responses, document production, deposition testimony and other
`
`discovery sets forth its ownership and use of the marks in question. There is no need to provide
`
`additional specification because no additional documents are provided. Stickley has previously
`provided and identified 2,259 documents in response to prior discovery demands and in support
`
`of its claims. Subsequent to that production, Respondent conducted _t_w_9_ depositions of Mr.
`
`Alfred Audi, President of L. & J.G. Stickley. During those depositions, Respondent had an
`
`opportunity to and did in fact have Mr. Audi identify the documents at issue and asked questions
`
`regarding those documents. Stickley has already advised Respondent on several occasions that it
`
`has no fi.11'tl’l€I‘ documents responsive to the interrogatories.
`
`RESPONDENT’S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`During the depositions of Alfred Audi, Respondent obtained additional details and
`
`specifies with respect to St_ickley’s interrogatory responses. On or about October 2, 2002,
`
`Stickley supplemented its responses to Respondent’s Interrogatory Nos. 13, 15-19 and 33 so that
`
`the new inibnnation from the deposition was also reflected in the interrogatory responses. Over
`
`five months later Respondents served its Fourth Set of Interrogatories seeking to further
`
`supplement Stickley’s responses. Stickley provided all the additional information responsive to
`
`Respondent’s Interrogatories where that information was available. Stickley also noted that it
`
`had already provided through prior interrogatory responses, document production, deposition
`
`testimony and other discovery, all materials responsive to these interrogatories, and that Stickley
`
`

`
`
`
`was not aware of additional information other than that which had been previously provided, all
`
`despite the fact that Respondent’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories clearly exceeds the permissible
`
`limit of seventy-five pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.l20(d)(1). The numerical limit of seventy-five
`
`“pertains to the total number of interrogatories that one party may serve upon another party over
`
`the course of an entire proceeding, not just per set of interrogatories.” TBMP §406.03(b). The
`
`TBMP further provides “in determining whether the number of interrogatories served by one
`
`party upon another exceeds the limit of 37 C.F.R. §2.120(d)( 1), the board will count each subpart
`
`within an interrogatory as a separate interrogatory, regardless of whether the subpart is separately
`
`designated. ... the Board will look to the substance of the interrogatories and count each question
`
`as a separate interrogatory.” TBMP §406.03(d). Many of the interrogatories in Respondent’s
`
`first four sets of interrogatories contain multiple questions, and the total number of
`
`interrogatories is well in excess of the permissible limit of seventy-five. Yet, the Respondent has
`
`moved to compel further responses to interrogatories that have been fully answered, for the
`
`purpose of delaying these proceedings.
`
`RESPONDENT’S RE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS
`
`In addition to being untimely, Respondent’s Request for Admissions at issue were either
`
`intentionally or carelessly drafied in a manner that makes their meaning unclear. Stickley
`
`unequivocally denies request for admission No. 1. Stickley also provides additional basis for its
`
`denial.
`
`Admission requests Nos. 2-7 seek admissions that Stickley “has no documents or copies
`
`of documents which set forth a transfer of rights” to various parties. Each of these requests is
`
`unequivocally denied. In addition, specific objections are raised to the form of the request.
`
`Stickley is unable to admit or deny request for admission No. 15 and sets forth the basis
`
`

`
`
`
`for its inability to‘ answer the request. The Respondent seeks an admission about certain
`
`documents that are not properly identified. Any such documents “speak for themselves” and are
`
`not properly the subject of a request for admission. Tate v. Camgbell, 2001 WL 1681112, p.4
`
`(S.D. Ohio 2001), attached as Exhibit “C”.
`
`Request for admission No. 20 is unequivocally denied.
`
`Request for admission No. 21 seeks an admission that “There has been no confusion
`
`between Stickley’s use of ALS IK KAN in its catalog and Registrant’s use of Registrant’s mark
`
`. on furniture.” Stickley is unable to admit or deny this request for admission because it has no
`
`knowledge of confusion caused by Stickley’s use of the mark. There is no allegation in this case
`
`that Stickley’s use of the mark has caused confusion, but rather that Respondent’s use of the
`
`mark has caused confusion, which was so stated in the response.
`
`Stickley has no information with respect to request for admission Nos. 23 and 24. Alfred
`
`Audi is not a party to this action, and he has no information with respect to these requests in his
`
`capacity as President of L. & J.G. Stickley.
`
`WHEREFORE, based upon the reasons set forth above, Respondent’s Second Motion to
`
`Compel should be denied in its entirety.
`
`Dated: July 7, 2003
`
`
`' Respectfully submitted,
`_.
`
`
`
`
`Susan E. Farley, Esq.
`David P. Miranda, Esq.
`HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C.
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner, L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc
`5 Columbia Circle
`
`Albany, New York 12203
`Telephone: 518-452-5600
`Facsimile: 518-452-5579
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE 01+‘ SERVICE .
`
`I
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and accurate copy of “PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO REGISTRANT’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVER ”
`
`was served upon the attorneys for Defendant by placing the same in an envelope addressed as
`
`follows:
`
`Kenneth F. Florek, Esq.
`Hedman & Costigan, P.C.
`1185 Avenue of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10036-2601
`
`and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service as first class mail, on this 7th day of July 2003.
`
` avid P. Miranda, Esq.
`
`HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C.
`5 Columbia Circle
`
`Albany, New York 12203-5160
`Telephone: (518) 452-5600
`Facsimile: (518) 452-5579
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc.
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`L. & J.G. STICKLEY, lNC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`RONALD C. COSSER,
`
`Respondent.
`
`&/\&\&\&\-/%/NJ}/M
`
`Cancellation No. 92040202
`
`U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,028,089
`U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,182,183
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING BY “EXPRESS MAIL”
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 0861.003
`
`EXPRESS MAIL Mailing Label No.2 EV 036120212 US
`
`Date of Deposit: July 7, 2003
`
`Enclosures:
`
`*
`
`*
`*
`*
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO REGISTRANT’S SECOND MOTION TO
`
`COIVIPEL DISCOVERY (_pgs. w/Exhibits “A” and “B” attached)
`Certificate of Service by 1“ Class Mail to: Kenneth F. Florek, Esq. (lpg)
`Return Receipt Postcard (1)
`’
`Certificate of Mailing by “Express Mail” (in duplicate)
`
`37 CFR 1.10 Certification
`
`I hereby certify that this paper and the indicated enclosures are being deposited
`with the U.S. Postal Service “Express Mail Post Office to Addressee” service
`under 37 CFR 1.10 on the date indicated above and addressed to:
`
`‘Box TTAB — No Fee
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`E §Q(3‘§§£ 33;, E ]mQ3§q_1{
`(Typed or printed name of person mailing paper or fee)
`
`QB q;n§2s;m<.. /E’/l\\m«2§»
`(Signature of person mailing paper or fee)
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`. Trademark Trial and -Appeal Board
`2900 Crystal Drive
`.
`Arlington, Virginia 22202"-3 S13
`
`Mailed: March 27, 2003 Cancellation No. 40,202
`
`
`“H-";sLm 'r<o'aH:r;
`‘
`mRfiY&MfiflH%.
`
`
`L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc.
`
`V.
`
`Ronald C. Cosser
`
`Karen Knhlke, Attorney:
`
`~
`
`I
`
`This case now comes up for consideration of.
`respondent's motion (filed September 23, 2002)
`to compel
`
`responses to interrogatories nos. 37 and 38 in respondent's
`
`second set of interrogatories to petitioner-1
`
`In support of its motion,
`
`respondent states that it
`
`served the second set of interrogatories on August 13, 2002
`and in a letter dated August 30, 2002 petitioner “refused to
`respond to [the interrogatories] on the grounds that the
`
`first set exceeded 75 interrogatories.” Respondent further
`
`to compel
`1 Respondent's second motion (filed November 29, 2002)
`responses to respondent's third set of interrogatories to
`,petitioner and respondent's first set of requests for admissions
`to petitioner is denied without prejudice as untimely inasmuch as
`proceedings are considered to have been suspended as of the
`filing of the first motion to compel and the requests that are
`the-subject of the second motion to compel were served on
`September 30, 2002 after the filing of the first motion to
`compel.
`See Trademark Rule 2.120
`
`'
`
`

`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 40,202t
`
`states that the Ytotal number of interrogatories was well
`
`within the 75 permitted.”
`
`in response, petitioner states that on September 19,
`
`2002 “respondent's attorney sent a fax requesting additional
`
`information with respect to its interrogatories..-[and] on
`
`Friday, September 20, 2002, before providing [petitioner]
`
`with an opportunity to respond to its fax,
`
`respondent filed
`
`this motion to compe1...[thereafter] on Tuesday, September
`
`24, 2002,
`
`[petitioner] provided responses to respondent's
`
`Second Set of Interrogatories,
`
`including full identification
`
`of its fact and expert witnesses...[but] specifically
`
`preserving'its objections to respondent's interrogatories."
`Petitioner argues that “since [petitioner] has fully S
`responded to respondent's second set of interrogatories,
`respondent's motion to compel is moot...”
`
`In reply,
`
`respondent states that the “responses
`
`submitted by petitioner are wholly inadequate in that they
`
`provide only a portion of the information requested in the
`
`interrogatories.” Specifically, respondent states that
`
`petitioner did not provide “the details of
`
`[the witnessesf]
`
`knowledge regarding this proceeding and the subject matter
`
`of their expected testimony" and in response to petitioner's
`
`objections to those interrogatories,
`
`respondent argues that
`
`‘tthe subject matter of expected testimony is a far cry from
`
`a detailed specification of the evidence petitioner intends
`
`

`
`
`
`'Cance11ation,No.h40,202
`
`to'present.5p Further,
`
`respondent cites to Eedfi R. Civ['P.
`
`26(a)(2)(b) and 26(b)(4)(a)
`
`to support its proposition that
`
`petitioner must disclose information about its expert
`
`witness and without such information “a deposition of the
`
`’alleged expert would not be'a fruitful endeavor.”
`
`Interrogatories nos. 37 and 38 in respondent's second
`
`set of interrogatories read as follows:
`
`For each of the persons Petitioner identified as
`an intended witness in response to Registrant's
`Interrogatory No. 35 in the above captioned
`matter, specify the details of their knowledge
`”regarding this proceeding and the subject matter
`of their expected testimony.
`"
`~
`
`For each of the persons Petitioner identified as
`an intended witness in response to-Registrant's,
`_Interrogatory No. 35 in the above captioned
`matter,
`identify whether the witness is intended
`to be a fact witness or an expert witness and for
`each person identified as an expert witness
`_
`provide the information required in Rule 26(a)(B),
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`Petitioner initially responded to these interrogatories
`
`' with a general objection that they exceed the permissible
`
`number.
`
`In a later response, petitioner provided the names
`
`and addresses of petitioner's fact witnesses and
`
`petitioner's expert witness, and specifically objected that’
`
`“the information sought in the [interrogatories]
`
`...goes
`
`beyond the scope permissible."
`
`Turning first to petitioner's general objection that
`
`respondent's second set of interrogatories are in excess of
`
`the 75 interrogatories permitted under the rules,
`
`the Board
`
`

`
`
`
`cancellation ho, 40,262‘
`
`finds that respondent's first and second set of
`
`interrogatories do not exceed-the permitted number or 75.
`
`However,
`interrogatories nos. 5 and 6 including subparts
`consist of two interrogatories each.
`In addition,
`
`interrogatories nos. 31 and 32 contain two interrogatories.
`
`Turning now to petitioner's specific objections to
`interrogatories nos. 37 and 38 in respondent's second set of
`
`the Board first notes that contrary to
`interrogatories,
`respondent's position, petitioner did object to
`
`interrogatories nos. 37 and 38 as beyond the scope
`
`‘ipermissible in Board proceedings. _Petitioner’s initial
`
`response to applicant's second set of interrogatories was in
`
`the form of a general objection as to the potentially
`
`excessive number.
`
`See August 30, 2002 letter.
`
`It would not
`
`have been appropriate to assert specific objections at that
`time. Trademark Rule 2.120ld).
`iThereafter,
`in the interest
`
`of resolving the_discovery dispute, petitioner served
`
`respondent with a response to the interrogatories which
`
`included its specific objections to these interrogatories.
`
`As stated by petitioner, a party need not,
`in advance
`of trial, specify in detail the evidence it intends to
`
`present, or identify the witnesses it intends to call except
`that the names of erpert witnesses intended to be called are
`
`discoverable.
`
`See TBMP Section 419 and cases cited therein.
`
`Respondent's argument that the “subject matter of expected
`
`

`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 40,202
`
`testimony is a far cry from a detailed specification of the
`
`evidence.petitioner intends to present” is not well taken.
`
`Further, respondent's reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(a)(2)(b) and 26(b)(4)(a)
`
`is misplaced. These rules are
`
`not applicable to.Board proceedings. Trademark Rule
`
`2.120(a); see also Effect of December 1, 1993 Amendments to
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board Inter Partes Proceedings, 1159 TMOG 14
`
`(February 1, 1994)
`
`(Rules 26(a)(1)-26(a)(4) and 26(b)(4) not
`
`applicable to Board proceedings). Petitioner was under no
`
`obligation other than to provide the name of its expert
`
`witness. Petitioner provided the names and addresses of all
`
`witnesses and named the expert witness.
`
`In View thereof,
`
`petitioner's responses to respondent's second set of
`
`interrogatories are sufficient and respondent's motion to
`
`compel is denied.
`
`The parties are allowed thirty days from the mailing
`
`date of this order to serve responses to any outstanding
`
`discovery requests (including those served during
`
`suspension).
`
`

`
`
`
`Cancellation" No. 40,202 .0
`
`Dates are r_eset_ as indicated below.” '
`
`o‘5WO3
`
`DISCOVHERY PERIOD TO CLOSE:
`
`0
`30~day testimony period for party in position ofplaintiff
`to close:
`-
`'
`A 30-day testimony period forparty in position of defendant September 17, 2003
`to close:
`,
`15-day rebuttal testimony period to close:
`
`ATiiEril 20, 2003
`-
`«—»a--.——-n
`DOCKE
`D
`
`July 19, 2003
`
`'
`
`November 1, 2003
`
`DOCKETED______._..__._..'_..,..
`
`_
`
`/3*».
`
`.\
`
` :_—~
`2
`
`-
`
`Respondent's request that the proceeding “be tolled" contained
`in its motion to compel and petitioner's motion (filed November
`22, 2002)
`to reset testimony periods are granted to the extent
`indicated above.
`‘
`
`

`
`
`
`236—X—0O5 A
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`L. & J.G. Stickley, -Inc.)
`
`' Cancellation No.: 92/040,202
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Ronald C. Cosser,
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`__R_E_GISTRANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PETITIONER
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2.120 of the
`
`Trademark Rules of Practice, Registrant, Ronald C. Cosser (“Registrant”), by his
`
`attorneys, request that Petitioner, L. & J.G. Stickley, Inc. (“Petitioner”), answer the A
`
`‘following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.
`
`DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`“Registrant” or “Cosser”” refers to Ronald C. Cosser, owner of the United
`
`States Trademark Registrations at issue herein.
`
`_/4-.\
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`“Petitioner,” “You,” or “Your,” refers to L. & J. G. Stickly, Inc., and
`
`Petitioner’s employees, agents, predecessors-in-interest, or any other person acting on
`
`V
`
`their behalf or with their authority.
`
`3.
`
`“Person” when used in these interrogatories shall include any natural person,
`
`corporation, association, partnership, business, government agency and any other entity.
`
`Whenever You are asked to identify a person, give the full name, address, phone number
`
`and employment of the Person.
`
`4.
`
`“Document(s)” when used in these interrogatories shall mean all items
`
`subject to discovery within the scope of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to any written or
`
`recorded material, correspondence,
`
`memoranda,
`
`reports,
`
`ledgers, books, brochures, advertisements,
`
`invoices, bills of
`
`materials, purchase orders, proposals,‘ working papers, drawings, notes of telephone
`
`conversations or other communications, electronic mail, voice mail, video tapes, audio
`
`tapes, photographs (prints as well a negatives), electronically stored data, computerized
`
`databases, backup tapes or diskettes of such information, and all other data compilations
`
`from which information can be obtained, including the originals_ and all non-identical
`
`‘copies of such materials.
`
`5.
`
`“Communication(s)” includes
`
`the disclosure,
`
`transfer or exchange of
`
`information by any means, written, verbal, electronic or otherwise.
`
`6.
`
`“Registrant’s Mark” means Registrant’s THE CRAFTSMAN ALS IK KAN
`
`and Woodworker’s Compass design, which is the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration
`
`_ Nos. 2,028,089 and 2,182,183.
`
`/ex
`
`.Kn,-
`
`

`
`
`
`7.
`
`“Your Marks” means each and every one of Petitioner’s marks upon which
`
`You allege a likelihood of confusion with Registrant’s Mark.
`
`8.
`
`“Identify” when used in these interrogatories with respect to:
`
`a.
`
`a Document means a description in terms sufficient that the document
`
`can be readily and unambiguously sought in a request for production of documents under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and shall include a statement of general nature and
`
`contents of the document (e.g., whether it is a letter, memorandum, notebook, pamphlet,
`
`report, e-mail, etc.), the date, the author, all addresses and copy recipients, and the person
`
`who has custody of the document. In lieu of such identification, Registrants will accept a
`
`clear and legible copy of the document at the time Petitioners answer this set of
`
`interrogatories withia correlation of the produced document to the interrogatory number;
`
`and
`
`b. a $1 requires Petitioners to state (a) in case of natural person, that
`
`Person’si
`
`(i) full name; (ii) last known home and business address; (iii) responsibilities
`
`with respect to the subj ect matter of the interrogatory and the periods of time that person
`
`had such responsibilities; and (iv) relevant knowledge or participation; or (b) in the case
`
`of corporations, partnerships, proprietorships, unincorporated associations and the like,
`
`the (i) full name, including any additional name it does business under; (ii) form and
`
`place of organization or incorporation; and (iii) principal place of business.
`
`9.
`
`“Date” means the exact day, month, andyear, if ascertainable and, if not,
`
`Your best approximation thereof.
`
`

`
`
`
`"¥P.>""
`
`10; The use of male,
`
`female or neutral gender
`
`in these interrogatories
`
`incorporates all genders and should not be construed to limit the information requested in
`
`any way. The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice-versa.
`
`11. When answering these interrogatories, please set forth each interrogatory
`
`prior to Your answer.
`
`12.
`
`If any information is withheld from the answer due to an objection or
`
`privilege, state the nature of the information withheld and the basis for the objection or
`
`privilege.
`
`13. These interrogatories are to be regarded as continuing and You are requested
`
`' to provide promptly, by way of supplementary answers thereto, such additional
`
`information as may hereafter be obtained by You or and Person or entity acting on Your
`
`behalf which will augment or otherwise modify any answers given to the following
`
`V
`
`interrogatories.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`Identify each and every one of Your Marks mark owned by Petitioner upon
`
`which You allege a likelihood of confusion exists with Registrant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 2:
`
`Identify all documents evidencing Your use of each of the marks identified
`
`in Response to Interrogatories No. 1.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`L)
`
`. INTERROGATORY No. 4:
`
`State whether You allege ownership of Registrant’s Mark;
`
`

`
`
`
`Unless the answer to Interrogatories No. 3 is an unqualified “no”; identify
`
`all documents which evidence Your ownership of Registrant’s mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 5:
`
`Identify and describe the circumstances by which You first became aware of
`
`Registrant’s use of Registrant’s Mark on:
`
`a. wood furniture polish; and
`
`b. furniture
`
`including but not limited to the Date upon which You first became aware of such use, all
`
`Persons with knowledge thereof, and all Documents relating thereto for each.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Identify and describe the circumstances by which You first became aware
`
`that Registrant had obtained a United States registration for Registrant’s Mark for use on:
`
`a. wood furniture polish; and
`
`b. furniture
`
`including but not limited to the Datelupon which You first became aware of such
`
`registration, all Persons with knowledge thereof, and all Documents relating thereto for
`
`each.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7i
`
`Identify and describe any instance or occasion in which You raised objection
`
`to Registrant’s use of Registrant’s Mark, including any documents relating thereto.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`

`
`
`
`Identify and describe any instance or occasion in which You raised objection
`
`to Registrant’s registration of Registrant’s Mark, including any documents relating
`
`thereto.
`
`. INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Identify and describe any instance or occasion of which You are aware of
`
`confusion or mistake involving the source, origin, or sponsorship of goods or services
`
`sold or provided by Registrant under Registrant’s Mark, all Persons with knowledge
`
`thereof, and all Documents relating thereto.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`Identify and describe any instance or occasion of which You are aware of
`
`confusion or mistake involving the source, origin, or sponsorship of goods or services
`
`sold or provided by You under Your Marks and/or Registrant’s Mark, all Persons with
`
`knowledge thereof, and all Documents relating thereto.
`
`' INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Identify and describe any searches, surveys, investigations, analyses, or
`
`studies by or on behalf of Petitioner of the Registrant or its ‘operations, including but not
`
`limited to any meetings" or conversations with Registrant, any meetings or conversations
`
`‘with former or current employees of Petitioner as well as all Persons with knowledge
`
`thereof, and all Documents relating thereto.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`
`Identify and describe any instances or occasions in which Registrant objected
`
`to any use of the term THE CRAFTSMAN by You, or any person or entity associated
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`with You, including but not limited to any conversations, correspondence or other
`
`communications and the contents thereof. V
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`
`Identify and describe the manner of advertising and the advertising media
`
`through which You or any Person on Your behalf have advertised, are advertising, or
`
`intend to advertise goods and services under Your Marks and/or Registrant’s Mark.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`Identify each and every hiatus in Your use of each of Your Marks and/or
`
`'Registrant’s Mark, indicating the date use was stopped and the date use was resumed for
`
`each.
`
`INTERROGATORY No. 15:
`
`Identify and describe each and every use of Your Marks and/or Registrant’s
`
`Mark during the period from 1921 to 1979, including any documents relating thereto.
`
`. INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
`
`Identify and describe each and every action taken by Petitioner to maintain
`
`Your Marks and/or Registrant’s Mark during the period from 1921 to 1949.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 1 7:
`
`Identify and describe each and every action taken by Petitioner to maintain
`
`Your Marks and/or Registrant’s Mark during the periods from 1949 to the date of your
`
`response to these interrogatories.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
`
`Q
`
`

`
`
`
`Identify each and every document that refers or relates to any transfer of Your
`
`Marks and/or Registrant’s Mark, including but not limited to any documents that refer or
`
`relate to a transfer from Gustav Stickley and/or any entity owned by ‘Gustav Stickley.
`
`INTERROGATORY N 0. 19:
`
`Identify with particularity each and every type of product or service promoted
`
`sold or rendered by Petitioner with respect to Your Marks and/or Registrant’s Mark,
`
`specifically including the style of furniture on which Your Marks and/or Registrant’s
`
`Mark has been used from 1901 until 1978, when adopted by Registrant herein.
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 20:
`
`State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identifyall Documents relating
`
`thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 6 of Your Petition for Cancellation,.that,
`
`t
`
`“Petitioner continues to use said marks on its furniture and related products.”
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
`
`State the grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating
`
`I
`
`thereto for Your allegation, in Paragraph 7 of Your Petition of Cancellation," that,
`
`“Petitioner has developed and enjoys extensive goodwill throughout the United States
`
`and the world with respect to these marks.”
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 22:
`
`State the grounds, all facts known to You, and all Documents relating thereto
`
`for Your allegation, in Paragraph 8 that, “Petitioner has spent substantial sums in the
`
`advertising and promotion throughout the United States of its goods provided under these
`
`marks”, including but not limited to an identification of the particular advertisements,
`
`where the advertisements were published and the costs thereof.
`
`

`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
`
`State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating
`
`thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 20 of Your Petition for Cancellation, that any
`
`statements made by Petitioner in his referenced trademark applications “were made by
`
`Respondent with the knowledge and belief that said statements were false” and that,
`
`“Said false statements were made with the intent to induce authorized agents ofthe
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant said registration.”
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
`
`State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating
`
`"thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 21 ofYour Petition for Cancellation, that,
`
`“Respondent had made no use of the purported mark THE CRAFTSMAN ALS IK KAN
`
`with Woodworker’s Compass design on any of the goods identified in its application for
`
`Registration No. 2,028,089 at the time of filing of the application in September of-1993
`
`or at the time registration was issued in January of 1997.”
`
`. INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
`
`State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating
`
`thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 22 of Your Petition for Cancellation, that,
`
`“Respondent had made no use of the purported mark THE CRAFTSMAN ALS IK KAN
`
`with Woodworker’s Compass design on any of the goods identified in its application for
`
`"Registration No. 2,182,183 at the time of filing of the application in June of 1997 or at
`
`the time registration was issued in August of 1998.”
`
`Q
`
`

`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY N0. 26
`
`State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating
`
`thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 23 of Your Petition for Cancellation, that,
`
`“Respondent has made no commercial use of the trademark THE CRAFTSMAN ALS lK
`
`KAN and Woodworker’s Compass design, as registered for furniture, Registration No.
`
`1 2,182,183 when applied to the goods of the Respondent, since first adopting said
`
`trademar .”
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
`
`‘State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating _
`
`thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 24 of Your Petition for Cancellation, that,
`
`“Respondent has made no commercial use of the trademark THE CRAFTSMAN ALS IK
`
`KAN and Woodworker’s Compass design, as registered for wood furniture polish,
`Registration No. 2,028,089 when applied to the goods of the Respondent, since first
`
`adopting said trademark.”
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
`
`State all grounds, all facts known to You, and identify all Documents relating
`thereto, for Your allegation, in Paragraph 25 ofYour Petition for Cancellation, that,
`
`“Respondent has failed. to use the mark THE CRAFTSMAN ALS ]K KAN and
`
`Woodworker’s Compass design, as registered for furniture, Registration No. 2,182,183
`
`‘by failing to apply it to goods used in interstate commerce for three consecutive years,
`
`without intent to resume. commercial use.”
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
`
`

`
`
`
`State all grou