throbber
Ql THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TTAB
`
`CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., ]NC., and
`
`CHURCH & DWIGHT VIRGINIA CO.,
`
`INC.,
`
`Vs.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`:
`
`Cancellation No.: 92 043 694
`
`SCOTT D. FUSCO,
`
`Respondent.
`
`EEONERS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE PETITION FOR
`CANCELLATION
`
`Petitioners, Church & Dwight Co.,
`
`Inc. and Church & Dwight Virginia Co.,
`
`Inc.
`
`(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Church & Dwight”), hereby move for leave to amend the
`
`Petition for Cancellation to set forth additional grounds for Cancellation, namely, Count Four, as
`
`it appears in the attached proposed First Amended Petition for Cancellation.
`
`Legal Argument
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.l l5, pleadings in a Cancellation proceeding may be amended
`
`in the same manner and in the same extent as a civil action in a United States District Court.
`
`Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amendments to the pleadings are governed by Rule
`
`15. Amendments in general are governed by F.R.C.P. l5(a) which reads as follows:
`
`...a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by
`written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given
`when justice so requires.
`
`01-17-2006
`U.S. Patent & TMOfc/TM Mail RG91 Dt. #26
`
`

`
`A party may amend its pleading by leave of the Board, which must be freely given when
`
`justice so requires.
`
`(F.R.C.P. l5(a) and T.B.M.P. §507.02).
`
`In fact, the Board liberally grants
`
`leave to amend pleadings at any stage of a proceeding when justice so requires, unless the entry
`
`of the proposed amendment would violate settled law or be prejudicial to the rights of the
`
`adverse party. T.B.M.P. §507.02.
`
`It is important to recognize that a proposed amendment need not of itself set forth a claim
`
`or defense, rather the proposed amendment may serve simply to amplify allegations already
`
`included in the moving party’s pleading. This is the case at hand with regard to Church &
`
`Dwight’s First Amended Petition for Cancellation.
`
`In the original Petition for Cancellation, Church & Dwight alleged that the Respondent
`
`obtained its registration fraudulently, and in violation of §l4(3) of the Lanham Act (Count One);
`
`that any sales by Respondent of its product bearing the registered trademark amounts to token
`
`use (Count Two); and Respondent’s mark will cause a likelihood of confusion with Church &
`
`Dwight’s registered and pending trademarks (Count Three). Afier finally having the opportunity
`
`to depose Respondent, Church & Dwight received information compelling it to amplify the
`
`allegations in its first two Counts, both originally focused on Registrant’s use alleged in his
`
`Statement of Use and asserting that Respondent’s use did not support registration and he
`
`obtained his registration fraudulently.
`
`It is recognized that the timing of the Motion for Leave to Amend under F.R.C.P. l5(a)
`
`plays a large roll in the Board’s determination of whether the adverse party would be prejudiced
`
`by the allowance of a proposed amendment.
`
`(T.B.M.P. §507.02(a)).
`
`In this case, Church &
`
`

`
`Dwight has moved within less than 30 days receipt of the Deposition Transcript of Mr. Fusco.
`
`Therefore, there is little prejudice to Mr. Fusco.‘
`
`Church & Dwight seeks to amend its Petition to Cancel so as to comply with the
`
`information just received from Mr. Fusco about use of his mark, on his Class 3 goods, which is
`
`information that has always been in the possession of Mr. Fusco. Specifically, Petitioner seeks
`
`to amend the Petition to Cancel to add Count Four and assert the allegation that at the time of
`
`filing his Statement of Use, Mr. Fusco’s use of his mark TROJAN SUNSCREEN in connection
`
`with his Class 3 products was unlawful and/or illegal use in commerce. Count Four also asserts
`
`that Mr. Fusco’s use of his TROJAN SUNSCREEN mark on his Class 3 goods was not bona fide
`
`valid, genuine use in commerce under the Lanham Act.
`
`It also asserts that sales of Mr. Fusco’s
`
`sunscreen product bearing the TROJAN SUNSCREEN mark amounted to illegal use and/or
`
`illegal sales under state and federal regulatory laws and therefore, in total, the claimed use in his
`
`Statement of Use did not support issuance of a Certificate of Registration. Finally, Count Four
`
`asserts Mr. Fusco’s creation and submission of his specimens of use amounted to fiaud upon the
`
`U.S. Trademark Office.
`
`At the time of filing the Petition to Cancel, Church & Dwight believed that Mr. Fusco’s
`
`submission of specimens of use to the Trademark Office amounted to token use or fabricated use
`
`supporting its original claims of fraud against the Trademark Office. While Petitioner still
`
`believes these claims to be valid, evidence derived from Mr. Fusco’s Deposition has indicated
`
`that the Board may find Mr. Fusco’s activities with regard to submission of specimens of use
`
`with his Statement of Use amounted to either illegal use in commerce, or use which is considered
`
`illegal or inappropriate under the Lanham Act (§43(a)). Accordingly, Church & Dwight has
`
`‘ Respondent, Mr. Fusco, was deposed on December 7, 2005 and Church & Dwight’s counsel received the
`transcript of proceedings on December 22, 2005.
`
`

`
`sought to amplify its Petition for Cancellation with regard to the claimed use and specimens of
`
`use which are the focus of the first two Counts of the current Petition for Cancellation, and has
`
`been the focus of discovery in this matter.
`
`Given that the information with regard to the allegations in Count Four have always been,
`
`and continues to be, in the possession of Mr. Fusco, there is no prejudice to Mr. Fusco with
`
`regard to adding this Count. In fact, through discovery inquiries and Counts One and Two of the
`
`Petition to Cancel, Mr. Fusco has been on notice of Church & Dwight’s claims being based upon
`
`his Statement of Use and specimens of use. No additional discovery is required by Mr. Fusco in
`
`defense of these claims, because all the information possessed by Church & Dwight on this
`
`subject has come from Mr. Fusco, including during his December 7, 2005 Deposition. As a
`
`result, there can be no claimed prejudice to Mr. Fusco.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Because the Board must liberally grant leave to amend pleadings at any stage of the
`
`proceedings when justice so requires, Church & Dwight respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant its request to file a First Amended Petition for Cancellation, which includes adding Count
`
`Four to amplify the allegations in the original Petition for Cancellation. Recognizing that Count
`
`Four arises ou.t of information provided by the Respondent during his discovery deposition, has
`
`been the focus of discovery since the inception of this case and that Petitioner should be able to
`
`argue the merits of its case based upon the facts as now provided by the Respondent, justice
`
`

`
`compels this Board to enter the First Amended Petition for Cancellation attached hereto.
`
`Dated:_/[[3100
`
`‘
`
`Respectfully Submitted:
`
`CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. and
`
`CHURCH & DWIGHT VIRGINIA CO.,
`
`INC.,
`
`BY: / ggflfi Q 1/étlrtfllt/\..___
`
`I
`
`rooks R. Bruneau, Esq.
`Attorney for Petitioners
`Mathews, Shepherd, McKay & Bruneau, P.A.
`100 Thanet Circle, Suite 306
`
`Princeton, NJ 08540
`(609) 924-8555
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby centify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service as first class mail
`in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner For Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`Attn: BOX TTAB NO FEE
`
`
`
`/[/3[u(_.
`(
`eof
`
`ep
`
`
`
`it) %i
`
`
`(Si na re)
`[Z /' Ego Q
`Date of Si nature
`
`

`
`CER TIFICA TE 0F SER VICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend
`
`the Petition for Cancellation was served upon Respondent this id/ay of January, 2006, via First
`
`Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
`
`Scott D. Fusco
`
`477 35th Street
`
`Manhattan Beach, California 90266
`
`Date: _4g/1 % '0 to
`
`BY:
`
`fig
`
`gm.
`
`rooks R. Bruneau, Esq.
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Mathews, Shepherd, McKay & Bruneau, P.A.
`100 Thanet Circle, Suite 306
`Princeton, New Jersey 08540
`Tel: (609) 924-8555
`Fax: (609) 924-3036
`
`

`
`El THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., and
`CHURCH & DWIGHT VIRGINIA CO.,
`INC .,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`:
`
`Cancellation No.1 92 043 694
`
`Vs.
`
`SCOTT D. FUSCO,
`
`Respondent
`
`FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`In the matter of United States Trademark Registration No. 2,882,051 for the mark
`
`“TROJAN SUNSCREEN,” registered in connection with sunscreens, and owned by Scott D.
`
`Fusco, with a date of registration of September 7, 2004.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners, Church & Dwight Co., Inc. and Church & Dwight Virginia Co., Inc.,
`
`(hereinafter collectively “Church & Dwight”), a corporation of the State of Delaware, located
`
`and doing business at 469 North Harrison Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08543, believes that it is
`
`damaged by the continued registration of Trademark Registration No. 2,882,051 for “TROJAN
`
`SUNSCREEN,” Accordingly, Church & Dwight hereby petitions to cancel said registration on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Church & Dwight
`
`is the owner of the following United States Trademark
`
`Applications (hereinafter “Trojan Applications”):
`
`NUMBER
`
`76/362,110
`
`TROJAN (Stylized
`Letters
`
`TROJAN MAN
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`
`TROJAN
`
`TROJAN SUPRA &
`DESIGN
`
`78/292,339
`
`
`
`TROJAN SUPRA &
`DESIGN
`
`78/292,373
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Deodorants and
`Antiersirants Class 3
`
`Antiersirants Class 3
`
`Antiersirants Class 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Antiperspirants and
`deodorants for personal use;
`perfiime, cologne, essential
`oils, massage oil; facial
`soaps, cleansers, toners,
`exfoliates, moisturizer and
`masks; shaving creams,
`lotions and gels, aftershave
`creams, lotions and gels,
`non-medicated skin creams,
`lotions and gels for
`relieving razor burns; non-
`medicated lip balms; hand
`and body soaps, deodorant
`soaps, bath and shower gels,
`body scrubs, hand and body
`creams and lotions, body
`powders, hair care waxes;
`dentifrices, mouthwash,
`non-medicated breath
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fresheners Class 3
`
`Personal lubricants,
`spermacides, contraceptive
`gels, foams and sponges;
`topical analgesic antibiotic,
`antihistamine and anti-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inflammatory preparations;
`anti-fungal preparations for
`the relief of athlete’s foot,
`jock itch, ringworm and nail
`fungus; antiseptic
`preparations; preparations
`for the relief of itching, skin
`irritations, rashes and
`
`

`
`hemorrhoids; medicated
`pre-moistened towelettes
`and wipes; medicated lip
`balms; preparations for the
`relief of cold sores, fever
`blisters and canker sores;
`medicated hair care
`
`preparations; medicated
`dermatological ointments;
`medicated body and foot
`powders, medicated skin
`cleansers, acne treatment
`preparations; medicated
`mouthwashes and mouth
`
`rinses; adhesive bandages,
`sports adhesive tape (Class
`5).
`
`3.
`
`Church & Dwight is the owner of the following United States Trademark
`
`Registrations (hereinafter referred to as “Trojan Registrations”):
`
`UNITED STATES
`REGISTRATION NO.
`
`GOODS
`
`Prophylactic Membranous
`articles for the preventions
`of contagious diseases
`
`
`
`544,931
`
`600,080
`
`638,126
`
`847,092
`
`
`
`TROJAN (Stylized letters)
`
`MARK
`
`
`
`TROJEN-ENZ (Stylized
`letters)
`
`TROJANS (Stylized
`letters)
`
`TROJAN & DESIGN
`
`
`
`
`
`Prophylactic rubber goods
`for the prevention of disease
`Class 10
`
`Prophylactic rubber articles
`for the prevention of
`contagious diseases (Class
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Prophylactic rubber articles
`for the prevention for the
`contagious diseases (Class
`
`
`
`

`
`TROJANS PLUS &
`
`DESIGN
`
`TROJAN PLUS 2
`
`TROJAN PLUS
`
`
`
` TROJAN MAN
`
`
` TROJAN ULTRA
`
`992,828
`
`Prophylactic rubber articles
`for the prevention of
`contagious diseases (Class
`
`
`
`
`
`condoms (Class 10)
`
`Spermicidally lubricated
`Condoms (Class 10)
`Condoms (Class 10)
`Condoms (Class 10)
`
`
`
`
`2,203,169
`
`Condoms (Class 10)
`
`2,344,102
`
`Condoms (Class 10)
`
`
`
`
`
`PLEASUQ
`TRIPLE TESTED
`
`TROJAN QUALITY &
`DESIGN
`
`TROJAN SUPRA
`
`TROJAN SUPRA &
`
`DESIGN
`
`TROJAN PLEASURE
`
`MESH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Condoms (Class 10)
`
`Condoms (Class 10)
`
`2,350,916
`
`1,533,749
`
`
`
`4.
`
`All of Church & Dwight’s Trojan Applications and Trojan Registrations are valid
`
`(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Trojan Marks”).
`
`5.
`
`Respondent’s “TROJAN SUNSCREEN” trademark has been cited as a bar to
`
`registration of Church & Dwight’s Trojan Applications Serial Nos. 76/362,110; 76/362,113, and
`
`76/362,114.
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Respondent has not had bona fide use of its mark on
`
`the goods as declared on its filed Statement of Use.
`
`

`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, Respondent obtained its registration fraudulently, and in Violation of
`
`Section 14(3) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1064(3)), and said registration should be cancelled.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, any sales made by Respondent of sunscreen with the
`
`“TROJAN SUNSCREEN” trademark amounted to token use and therefore was insufficient to
`
`support registration of the “TROJAN SUNSCREEN” trademark application, pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. 105 l(d)(l), and said registration should be cancelled.
`
`COUNT THREE
`
`9.
`
`Church & Dwight first registered its “TROJAN” mark at least as early as July 10,
`
`1951 with dates of first use of November 5, 1946.
`
`10.
`
`Church & Dwight’s use of its Trojan Registrations has been in used in connection
`
`with prophylactzlcs and condoms in Class 10.
`
`ll.
`
`R'.espondent’s “TROJAN SUNSCREEN” U.S. Trademark Application was filed
`
`June 16, 2000, and the resulting registration claims an earliest date of first use of September 18,
`
`2001.
`
`

`
`12..
`
`lDuring prosecution of Church & Dwight’s Trojan Applications, the United States
`
`Trademark Examining Attorney has made of record a conclusion that sunscreens and deodorants
`
`and antiperspirants are frequently marketed together to the same consumers in the same channels
`
`of trade, and therefore, there is a likelihood of consumer confusion. Moreover, sunscreens and
`
`condoms are frequently sold to the same consumers in the same retail stores so that there is a
`
`likelihood of consumer confusion.
`
`13.
`
`Respondent’s registration of “TROJAN SUNSCREEN” so resembles Church &
`
`Dwight’s Trojan Marks as it is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or to deceive as to
`
`the source of origin or sponsorship of Respondent’s goods.
`
`14.
`
`The use and registration by Respondent of its “TROJAN SUNSCREEN” mark
`
`enables Respondent to utilize and trade on the goodwill established by Church & Dwight in its
`
`Trojan Marks, and the continued registration of Respondent’s mark injures Church & Dwight in
`
`the use of its “TROJAN” Marks and said registration of its Trojan Applications.
`
`15.
`
`Continued registration of Respondent’s mark on the Principal Register of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office will cause damage to Church & Dwight because,
`
`inter alia,
`
`it will interfere with Church & Dwight’s ability to obtain federal registration of its
`
`Trojan Applications, and interfere with Church & Dwight’s legitimate present and future
`
`activities in cormection with its Trojan Marks, by placing Respondent in a position to raise
`
`doubts as to the right of Petitioner to use its Trojan Marks in connection with all of its goods. As
`
`a result, Church & Dwight’s Trojan Marks will eventually be deprived of all distinctiveness,
`
`

`
`since Respondent’s use will blur Church & Dwight’s Trojan Marks and the goodwill to which
`
`they have come to convey.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`
`16.
`
`Church & Dwight hereby re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-15 as
`
`if fully set forth at length herein.
`
`17..
`
`Respondent’s claimed use of his mark at the time of filing his Statement of Use
`
`was unlawful and/or illegal use in commerce.
`
`18
`
`Respondent’s registration was based upon illegal use and/or illegal sales of his
`
`sunscreen product under State and/or Federal regulatory laws, (including FDA regulations) and
`
`therefore the claimed use in his Statement of Use did not support issuance of registration,
`
`compelling it to be cancelled.
`
`19.
`
`’.espondent’s registration was not based upon bona fide, valid, genuine or legal
`
`use in commerce under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and/or valid, genuine or legal use as
`
`required by the Lanham Act, and therefore should be cancelled.
`
`20.
`
`Prior to and after the filing of his Statement of Use, Respondent purchased
`
`sunscreen products from third party retailers, including RBI, and then without permission from
`
`those retailers re-labeled the products with his mark, and submitted such specimens to the United
`
`States Trademark Office with his Statement of Use. Such conduct, with regard to the fabrication
`
`

`
`of specimens of use and/or fabrication of sunscreen products for re-sale and claimed as use in his
`
`Statement of Use amounted to fraud upon the U.S. Trademark Office.
`
`WHEREFORE, Church & Dwight request that Registration No. 2,882,051 granted on
`
`September 7, 2004 to Scott D. Fusco, be cancelled and stricken from the Principal Register of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`Dated:_L,['/3 Q6»
`
`Respectfiilly Submitted:
`
`CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC. and
`CHURCH & DWIGHT VIRGINIA CO.,
`INC.,
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`,6
`7££’(M./g...
`
`Brooks R. Brunea , Esq.
`Mathews, Collins, Shepherd & McKay
`100 Thanet Circle, Suite 306
`Princeton, NJ 08540
`(609) 924-8555
`
` CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service as first class mail
`in an envelope addressed to: Assistant Commissioner For Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-
`3513
`
`Attn: BOX_T77il Q5
`
`/ [ / 3 [ 0 6
`E
`ofDepogt)
`(Si nature)
`
`I

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket