Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA323697
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/22/2009
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92050624
`Plaintiff
`Lloyd, Inc. of Iowa
`BREWSTER TAYLOR
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`1199 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET SUITE 900
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
`UNITED STATES
`BTAYLOR@STITES.COM
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Amy S. Cahill
`acahill@stites.com, btaylor@stites.com, pkirylo@stites.com
`/Amy S. Cahill/
`12/22/2009
`Weems Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf ( 163 pages )(6961756 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`OFFICE
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`me. or IOWA,
`Petitioner,
`
`: v.
`
`JENNIFER L. WEEMS,
`Respondent
`
`\-/\-/\-/N-/\n—r'\/NJ
`
`Cancellation No. 92050624
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
`MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IN THE FORM OF ORDER CANCELLING .
`
`REGISTRATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE BOARD’S PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Petitioner, Lloyd Inc. of Iowa (“Petitioner’), moves for summary judgment under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56, on the basis that there is no issue of material fact to be resolved and Petitioner is
`
`entitled to judgment on the merits of the cancellation proceeding as a matter of law, or in the
`
`alternative, for an Order cancelling Respondent’s registration as a sanction for Respondent’s
`
`violation ofthe Board’s protective order pursuant to TBMP § 527.01 and 37 CFR § 2.120(g).
`
`There is no evidence of record and no evidence that Respondent could submit that would
`
`prevent a finding that Petitioner has prior rights in the EQU-AID mark, nor that a likelihood of
`
`consumer confusion between Petitioner’s EQU—AID mark and Respondent’s proposed EQUI-
`
`ADE mark that is the subject of the challenged registration would not be likely among the
`relevantconsurning public.
`L
`
`In addition, Respondent’s counsel has admitted to violating the Board’s protective order
`
`by disclosing TRADE SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE materials that included a
`
`complete list of Petitioner’s customers and sales data fiom 2002 through 2009 to Respondent,
`
`another company in the equine health industry. The only appropriate remedy for such a violation
`
`

`
`under these facts is an Order ofjudgment in Petitioner’s favor that cancels the challenged
`
`registration.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to a resolution ofthe Cancellation proceeding in its
`
`favor and to have Registration No. 2,992,027 cancelled.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner filed a Notice of Cancellation seeking to cancel the registration for
`
`Respondenfs EQUT-ADE mark registered for use with-‘.‘electrolytes for horses” in International
`
`_
`
`Class 5. Petitioner relies on a priority of rights and a likelihood of COI1fl1SlOI1 between the mark
`
`EQU—AID and the mark EQULADE under 15 U.S.C. § 1 l25(d), and bfmgs its petition within
`
`five years of the date of the challenged registrationpursuant to TBMP § 307.02(a). Petitioner
`
`has standing to challenge the registration as it has a real interest in the proceeding and a
`
`reasonable basis for its belief that it would be damaged by the continued registration of
`Respondent’s mark. See Richie v. Simpson, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
`
`§
`
`309.03(b). Discovery opened on May 13, 2009 and closed on November 9, 2009. Both parties
`
`have served and responded to written discovery requests. Petitioner’s 30-day trial period will
`
`open on January 6, 2010. Thus, this matter is ripe for the determination of dispositive motions.
`
`On October 9, 2009, Petitioner supplemented its earlier discovery responses by producing
`
`responsive internal documents that included a comprehensive computer generatedreport listing
`
`the names of Petitioner’s customers and other commercially sensitive information. All
`
`documents were marked TRADE SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE and their
`
`production was accompanied by a cover letter fi'om Petitioner’s counsel noting the TRADE
`
`SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE status of the enclosed materials. Amy S. Cahillr
`
`Declaration (“Cahill Decl.”) attached as Exhibit A, ‘H 3.
`
`

`
`On October 14, 2009, counsel for Petitioner received an email directly from Respondent,
`
`Ms. Weems, that revealed that she was in receipt of Petitioner’s TRADE SECRET '
`
`COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE materials, including the Lloyd Inc. of Iowa customer list
`
`produced pursuant to the protective order only five days earlier. Cahill Decl., 114. Respondent’s
`
`counsel later confirmed that all of the protected materials had, in fact, been provided to his client
`
`in violation ofthe Board’s standard protective order in place in this proceeding. Cahill Decl., 1]
`
`5.
`
`In an effort to mitigate the damage caused by the disclosure of its customer list to I
`
`Respondent, Petitioner requested that Respondent undertake certain actions, including returning
`
`the materials and providing sworn representations that Ms. Weems has not used and agrees not to
`
`use in the future the information in any form for any purpose. Cahill Decl., 1] 6. Respondent has
`
`not complied with Petitionefs requests. Specifically, Respondent has refiised to agree to refrain
`from contacting Petitioner’s customers identified in the confidential materials for any purpose.
`
`Cahill Decl., 1] 7.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS
`
`Petitioner’s Rights in its EQU-AID Mark
`
`Stuart C. Johnson is Director of Marketing and Sales of Petitioner. Lloyd, Inc. of Iowa,
`
`and has ‘been employed by-Petitioner, including by its predecessor company, Vet-A-Mix, since
`
`1972. Stuart Johnson has knowledge of Petitioner’s use ofthe EQU-AID mark that spans several
`
`decades. See ‘Declaration of Stuart C. Johnson, attached as Exhibit B hereto (“Johnson D_ecl.”), 1[
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner, Lloyd, Inc."of Iowa, is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical and nutritional
`
`products for animals and has distributed its products worldwide for over forty years. Among its
`
`

`
`products are a number of veterinary products intended for use in the equine industry, including
`
`Petitioner’s EQU-AID product. Johnson Decl., 11 3. Petitioner’s EQU-AID product is a
`
`balanced, fortified dietary supplement specifically formulated for horses to promote optimal
`
`equine health, appearance, and performance. Johnson Decl., 11 4.
`
`Petitioner began using its EQU-AID mark in connection with its equine nutritional
`
`product in commerce in January 1962, and has used the mark continuously from 1962 to the
`
`present. At no time has Petitioner discontinued use of the EQU-AID mark. Johnson Decl., 11 5.
`
`Sales figures for Petitioner’s EQU-AID product from 1999 through 2008 are included as a sealed
`
`exhibit to the Johnson Declaration. Johnson Decl., 11 6. Petitioner has also produced and
`
`provides in support hereof representative sales invoices from each quarter fiom the years
`
`spanning 2002 to the present. Johnson Decl., 1] 7. For each of these years, Petitioner has spent a
`
`significant percentage of the gross sales earned from the sale of EQU-AID on advertising its
`
`EQU—AID product in commerce. Johnson Decl., 1] 8.
`
`Petitioner markets its EQU-AID product to horse owners and veterinarians. Johnson
`
`Decl., 11 9. Petitioner distributes its EQU-AID product to animal health distributors who then sell
`
`it to veterinarians and to equine mail order catalog sales outlets. Johnson Decl., 1] 10. Petitioner
`
`has current business plans to expand distribution of its EQU-AID product to include over-the
`
`counter sales through retail outlets that will sell the product directly to consumers. Johnson
`
`Decl., 1[ 11.
`
`Petitioner promotes its EQU-AID product via its Intemet web site located at
`
`h_t_tp://Www.1loydinc.com/vet eguine eguaid.h1m1. Print—outs from Petitioner’s web site showing
`
`use of the EQU-AID mark are attached to the Johnson Declaration. Johnson Decl., 1] 12.
`
`Petitioner also promotes its product at trade shows, including the American Association of
`
`

`
`Equine Practitioners Convention (“AAEP”), Where it displayed banner advertisements in 2004,
`
`2005, 2006 and 2007. Johnson Decl., fi[ 13. Examples of Petitioner’s banner advertisements and
`
`marketing brochures promoting its EQU-AID products showing the mark as used in connection
`
`with the products are included as attachments to the Declaration of Stuart Johnson. Johnson
`
`Decl., 1] 14. Petitioner has advertised its EQU-AID mark in printed publications. Johnson
`
`Decl., 11 15.
`
`From time to time, Petitioner has reformulated its EQU-AID product to reflect changes in
`
`guidelines known as the Nutrient Requirements of Horses published by the National Research
`
`Counsel of the National Academies (“NRC”). Johnson Decl., 1} 16. For example, in 1984
`
`Petitioner’s EQU-AID formulation was altered to increase Vitamin E and Zinc levels and to
`
`include Selenium and Mathione in response to increased scientific knowledge regarding the
`
`biochemical needs of horses. Johnson Decl., 11 17. This improved formulation has variously
`
`been marketed as “BQU-AID Plus” or “New Formula EQU—AID” to indicate to consumers that
`
`the product had been reformulated to reflect scientific improvements. Johnson Decl., 1] 18
`
`Examples of EQU-AID Plus packaging is attached to the Johnson Declaration. Johnson Decl., 1]
`
`19.
`
`The EQUI—A])]i'. Mark of Respondenfs Regstration No. 2,992,027
`
`Respondent has provided verified answers to Petitioner’s First Set of Interrogatories and
`
`has responded to Petitioner’s First Requests for Admissions. These responses establish the facts
`
`' surrounding Respondenfs adoption and use of the EQUI—ADE mark of Registration No.
`
`2,292,027, and are proper evidence for purposes of a dispositive motion before the Board.
`
`TBMP § 528.05(c); Trademark Rule 2.127(e)(2). A copy of Respondent’s Verified Answers to
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s First Set of lnterrogatories is attached as Exhibit C. A copy of Respondent’s
`
`Responses to Petitioner’s First Requests for Admissions is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`Respondent Jennifer Weems is an individual residing in Sisters, Oregon. Respondent
`
`states that she alone is responsible for the promotion, sale, and distribution of Respondent’s
`
`products under the EQUI-ADE mark. Answer to Interrogatory No. 2.
`
`Respondent admits that she adopted her mark in late 2003 and began using the EQUI-
`
`ADE mark in November 2003 in connection with her equine electrolyte products, and in early
`
`2004 in connection
`
`ancillary promotional products} Respondent’s Answers to
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 3, 8.
`
`Respondent admits that she uses her proposed EQULADE mark in connection with an
`
`electrolyte drink mix for use by horses. Answer to Interrogatory No. 6.
`
`Respondent admits that she sells her EQUI—ADE product to horse owners and caretakers
`
`of animals. Response to Request No. 18; Answer to Interrogatory No. 22.
`
`Respondent admits that she promotes her EQUI—ADE product via the Internet through her
`
`web site www.egui—ade.com. Response to Request No. 22; Answer to Interrogatory No. 30.
`
`I
`
`Respondent admits that she promotes her product through print advertisements. Answer
`
`to Interrogatory No. 22. Respondent’s print advertisements include a telephone number for
`
`product orders by telephone. Exhibit E,
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner_Has Priority of Rights
`
`Petitioner establishes, by way of the attached declaration from Stuart C. Johnson and the
`
`supporting exhibits, that Petitioner began using its EQU-AID mark at least as early as January
`
`1 Respondent sells aprons, mugs, visors, t-shirts and kitchen magnets bearing the EQUI-ADE mark.
`
`_6
`
`

`
`22, 1962, and has provided sales data including sales reports showing continuous use since prior
`
`to the alleged time use by Respondent began. 2
`
`Respondent admits that the earliest possible date on which she began using her proposed‘
`
`EQUI-ADE mark was November 2003.
`
`There is no genuine issue of fact regarding Petitioner’s prior and continuous rights in its
`
`EQUL-AID mark.
`
`B.
`
`Consumers Are Likey to Be Confused by Registered E5 2UI—AD_E Mark
`
`A determination ofthe issue of likelihood of confusion is based on analysis of all ofthe
`
`probative facts in evidence that are relevant to the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de
`
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973); see also In re Majestic Distilling
`
`Co., Inc, 315 F.3d 1311, 65 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In any likelihood of confusion
`
`analysis, however, the two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the
`
`similarities between the goods. See In re White Rock Distilleries Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1282, I284
`
`(TTAB 2009).
`
`Petitioner’s mark and Respondent’s mark are nearly identical and are used for closely
`
`related products, which are -intended to improve the health of horses. Petitioner’s goods and
`
`Respondent’s goods are sold through overlapping marketing channels to the same class of
`
`purchasers. There is no genuine issue of fact regarding the likelihood of consumers to be
`
`confused by Respondent’s junior use of the challenged mark in commerce. and therefore
`
`Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. .
`
`I.
`
`The EQU-AID and EQUI-ADE Marks‘ Are Highly Similar
`
`"The use of the additional word “Plus” does not affect the basic overall commercial impression of the mark and thus
`does not interrupt the user’s chain of ownership back to use in the original form. See e.g. Hess ‘s ofAllentown, Inc.
`v. National Bellas Hess, Inc., 169 USPQ 673 (TTAB l9'7l)(I-IESS BROS. to HESS permitted) .
`
`7
`
`

`
`Nothing speaks more clearly in support of Petitioner’s position than a side-by-side
`
`comparison of the marks as shown below:
`
`PETITIONER
`
`
`
` RESPONDENT
`
` '
`
`
`
`EQU-AID
`
`The marks EQU-AID and EQUI-ADE are nearly identical in sound.
`
`The marks EQU-AID and EQUI-ADE are extremely similar in appearance.
`
`Most importantly, the marks create similar commercial impressions, namely the “EQU”
`
`taken from the Latin word “EQUUS” for “horse” used in connection with “aid” or a sound alike
`
`“ade” that, taken together, suggest a supplement for horses. The Dictionary.com definitions for
`
`“EQUUS" are “type genus of the Equidae; only surviving genus of the family Equidae” and “a
`
`genus of the family Equidae that comprises the horses, asses, zebras, and related recent and
`
`extinct mammals.” One of the definitions provided by Dictionary.com for “aid” is “help or
`
`support; assistance.” Prir_1t—outs of definitions from Dictionary.com are attached as Exhibit F.
`
`The degree of similarity necessary to support a likelihood of confusion is something less
`
`than exact identity, and the degree of similarity required to prove likely confusion varies with the
`
`competitive differences between the parties’ goods. Less similarity is required to prove a
`
`likelihood of confiision where goods are competitive than in the case of dissimilar products. As
`
`the Board has recognized, “as the degree of similarity of the goods of the parties increases, ‘the
`
`degree of similarity [ofthe marks] necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion
`
`declines.” Fossil Inc. v. Fossil Group, 49 USPQ2d“ 1451 (TTAB 1998), quoting in part from
`
`Century 2] Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life ofAmerica, 23 USPQ2d 1698, 1700 (Fed. Cir.
`
`

`
`1992). In this case, as the parties’ goods are closely related, exact similarity of marks is not
`
`required.
`
`In fact, although marks are compared in terms of similarity of sound, sight, and meaning,
`
`similarity as to only one ofthese three factors may be sufficient to support a likelihood of
`
`confusion. In re White Swan, Ltd, 8 USPQ2d 1534 (TTAB 1988); Interstate Brands Corp., 53
`
`USPQ2d 1910 (TTAB 2000)(“Similarity in either form, spelling or sound alone maybe be
`
`sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion”) Petitioner’s EQU-AID mark and
`
`Respondent’s EQUI-ADE mark sound virtually identical. Where the marks sounds identical to
`
`the ear, even though some visual dissimilarities exist, the auditory similarities are particularly
`
`important where the goods are of the types frequently purchased by verbal order. See TBC Corp.
`
`v. Holsa, Inc., 126 F.3d 1470, 44 USPQ2d 1315 (Fed. Cir. l997)(“In this age of business over
`
`the telephone and advertising on TV and radio the close similarity in sound between GRAND
`
`SLAM and GRAND AM [both for vehicles tires] would be likely to result in mistake if not
`
`confusionf’). From the advertisements Respondent has produced which prominently display a
`
`telephone number for orders, it is reasonable" to conclude that Petitioner takes orders from
`
`customers by telephone, rendering the identical sounds of the marks particularly relevant in this
`
`case.
`
`2.
`
`The Parties’ Goods Are Closely Related
`
`A side-by—side comparison of the parties’ goods appears below.
`
`PETITIONER
`
`RESPONDENT '
`
`

`
` Dietary supplements for animals in
`
`International Class 5.
`
`_ Elect1'olytes for horses in International Class 5.
`
`
`
`Petitioner sells dietary supplements for animals including horses.
`
`Respondent’s registration is for electrolytes for horses in International Class 5.
`
`Petitioner’s goods are intended to promote the physical well—being of horses.
`
`Respondent’s electrolytes for horses are intended to promote the physical well-being of
`
`horses. Responde-nt’s Response to Request for Admission No. 26.
`
`Petitioner’s products are intended to improve the performance of horses.
`
`Respondent advertises her product as intended to improve the performance of horses. See
`
`attached Exhibit G.
`
`Goods are considered to be related not because of their inherent characteristics, but
`
`because buyers are likely to believe that such goods come from the same source or are connected
`
`with or sponsored by a common company. Packard Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 56
`
`USPQ2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Save Venice New York, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)(“The related goods test measures whether a reasonably prudent consumer would believe
`
`that noncompetitive but related goods sold under similar marks derive from the same source
`
`.. .”). Many third-party trademark registrations that have issued in the veterinary health industry
`
`that include electrolyte products also include nutritional supplements for animals. These “live”
`
`registrations on file with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that include both "electrolytes”
`
`and “nutritional supplernen ” for animals include U.S. Registration Nos. 3,681,620; 3,514,364;
`
`3,352,498; 3,403,594; 3,309,668; 3,309,636; 3,106,145; 3,103,109; 2,932,962; 3,649,575;
`
`3,637,949; 3,576,151; and 2,803,893. A chart ofthe registrations which includes the relevant
`
`10
`
`

`
`identifications of goods and supporting registration certificates from the USPTO are attached as
`
`Exhibit H.
`
`In examining applications for a likelihood of confusion with existing registered marks, an
`
`Examining Attorney may rely upon copies of prior use-based registrations of a mark for both
`
`applicant’s goods/services and the goods/services listed in the cited registration. TMEP §§
`
`l207.01('a)(vi); l207.0l(d)(iii). This is because third-party registrations that cover a variety of
`goods or services have probative value to the extent that they suggest that goods or services are
`
`of a type that may eminent from a single source. See On-line Careline Inc. v. America Online
`
`Inc., 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (goods and services are “related” if they are
`
`available from a single source”)
`
`In his Declaration, Mr. Johnson confirms what these registrations suggest — - that a
`
`number of companies in the equine science and health industry sell both nutritional supplements
`
`and electrolyte products for animal use. Based on his thirty plus years of experience in the
`
`equine health industry, Mr. Johnson attests -- that consumers who encounter the EQUI-ADE
`
`mark used in connection with electrolyte products for horses are likely to believe that those
`
`products emanate from or are endorsed by or are affiliated with the same commercial source that
`
`produces nutritional supplements for horses sold under the EQU—AID mark. Johnson Dec1., 1['[[
`
`20, 21..
`
`Moreover, a trademark owner has rights in his trademark not only for the goods it
`
`actually sells, but also for those goods in markets into which it might reasonably be expected to
`
`expand in the fiiture.
`
`In determining the possibility of expanding product lines, it is the ordinary
`
`.customer’s perception of possible expansion that guides the analysis. See Planetary Motion Inc.
`
`v. Techsplosion, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1894 (1 1”‘ Cir. 2001). Given the number of companies that
`
`11
`
`

`
`sell both nutritional supplements and electrolytes in the veterinary industry, it is highly likely
`
`that consumers would believe that Petitioner had expanded its product lines to include electrolyte
`
`products for horses. Thus, those who encounter Respondent’s electrolyte products for horses in
`
`the marketplace are likely to believe that they originate fi'om or are associated with Petitioner.
`
`Johnson Decl, 1] 21.
`
`3.
`
`p The Parties Use Overlapping Marketing Channels
`
`Both Petitioner and Respondent advertise their respective products via the Internet and
`
`Via print advertisements in publications directed to the trade. Overlapping marketing channels
`
`weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion. The Board has held that confusion was likely by use
`
`of the same mark on children’s clothing and adult women’s clothing because “an appreciable
`
`number. of purchasers of children’s wearing apparel are mothers, grandmothers and other adult
`
`female relatives and friends of the children who wear them, all of whom are also purchasers of
`
`ladies apparel.” Piccolo Sportswear, Inc. v. Mast Industries, Inc., 227 USPQ 710 (TTAB 1985).
`
`4.
`
`The Parties ’Products Are Intendedfor the Same Class ofConsumers and
`Will Be Sold Through Identical Trade Channels
`
`The intended consumers for both Petitioner and Respondent’s products include
`
`Veterinarians and horse owners. Further, although Petitioner currently distributes its products
`
`through distributors who sell through mail order catalogs, Petitioner has current plans to expand
`
`the sales of its product to include over the counter sales directly to veterinarians and horse
`
`owners.3 The planned expansion would render the sales channels for Petitioner’s EQU-AID
`
`productand Respondent’s EQUI-ADE identical. Present methods of' distribution are not
`
`3 In her interrogatory answers Respondent suggests that she sells directly to veterinarians and horse
`owners. Answer to Interrogatory No. 23. However, in a recent email to counsel for Petitioner,
`Respondent references contacting her “reps at the most popular veterinary supply companies” suggesting
`that she does use third~party distributors to sell her EQUI-ADE product. See Cahill Decl., ‘ii 10.
`
`12
`
`

`
`conclusive of no likely confusion because marketing and distribution methods are always subject
`
`to change. See Glamorene Products Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 190 USPQ 543 (CCPA
`
`1976)(where applicant does not specify channels of sales, present differences between the parties
`
`is not controlling in likelihood of confusion analysis); Wella Corp. v. California Concept Corp.,
`
`194 USPQ 419 (CCPA I977)(reversing Board holding that the parties were “locked into” ‘
`
`separate trade channels because there was no proof of impossibility of use of common trade
`
`channels in the future).
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner ’s EQU-AID Mark is Strong
`
`Petitioner has used its EQU—AID mark in commerce for over thirty years. During this
`
`period, consumers have come to recognize the EQU-AID mark and to associate the mark
`
`exclusively with Petitioner. Petitioner has invested considerably in the goodwill of its mark
`
`through advertising and product development over this period. Accordingly; the strength of
`
`Petitioner’s EQU—AID mark weights in favor of a finding of likely confusion. In close cases, a
`
`party to an opposition who is a senior user of a mark is entitled to the benefit of any doubt as to
`
`likelihood of confusion under. Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act. In re Apparel, Inc., 151 USPQ
`
`353 (CCPA 1966); In re Arthur Holland, Inc., 192 USPQ 494 (TTAB 1976).
`
`W.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`A motion for summary judgment allows the Board to dispose of cases in which the
`
`evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TBMP § 528.01; Fed.R.Civ. P. 56(0). A party moving
`
`for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of
`
`material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Board does not hesitate
`
`13
`
`

`
`to resolve cases on summary judgment where it is appropriate.
`
`See, e.g Sweats Fashions Inc. v.
`
`Pannill Knitting Co., 4 USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`Petitioner as plaintiff in the Cancellation proceeding bears the burden of proving, by a
`
`preponderance of evidence, its asserted grounds of priority and likely confusion. See Cereceries
`
`Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
`
`Cunningham v. Laser GolfCorp., 55 USPQ2d 1842, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The evidence of
`
`record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact bearing on priority or
`
`likelihood ofconfusion and that Petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ‘
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE SANCTION OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT
`JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR
`
`Petitioner is also entitled to an entry of default judgment in its favor as a sanction for
`
`Respondent’s violation of the Board’s protective order in this case.
`
`The Board’s Protective Order in place in this proceeding provides in relevant portion:
`
`Trade Secret/Commercially Sensitive -Material to be shielded by
`the Board fiom public access, restricted :Erom any access by the
`parties, and available for review by outside counsel for the parties
`and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 and 5, by independent
`experts or consultants for the parties.
`
`Despite the existence of a protective order in this case and Petitioner's proper designation
`
`of discovery materials as TRADE SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE pursuant to this
`order, Respondent’s counsel admits that he forwarded to his clientlhighly confidential
`
`proprietary information comprising Petitioner’s twenty-eight page sales chart that includes a
`
`complete list of Petitioner’s customers, and quantities of EQU-"AID product sold to them with
`
`accompanying dates, for the period September 2002 through September 2009.
`
`14
`
`

`
`The Trademark Rules of Practice permit the imposition of sanctions, including an entry
`
`of default judgment against a party, for violations of Board protective orders. Sanctions for
`
`Failure to Comply with Board Protective Order, TBMP § 527.0l(a), Trademark Rule 2.120(g)
`
`provides:
`
`If a party fails to comply with an order of the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board relating to discovery, including a protective order,
`_the Board may make any appropriate order, including any of the
`orders provided in Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, except that the Board will not hold any person in
`contempt or award any expenses to any party. The Board may
`impose against a party any of the sanctions provided by this
`subsection in the event that said party or any attorney, agent, or
`designated witness of that party fails to comply with a protective
`order made pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure.
`
`The sanctions which may be entered by the Board include, inter alia, striking all or part
`
`ofthe pleadings ofthe disobedient party; refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or
`
`oppose designated claims or defenses; prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing
`
`designated matters in evidence; and entering judgment against the disobedient party. Although
`
`default judgment is a harsh remedy, it is justified .where no less drastic remedy would be
`
`effective and there is a strong showing of willful evasion. See Unicut Corporation v. Unicut,
`
`Inc, 222 USPQ 341 (TTAB 1994). The alternative sanctions available to the Board, i.e. striking
`
`part of the pleadings of the disobedient party or prohibiting the disobedient party from
`
`introducing certain matters into evidence, would not address the potential harm to Petitioner. See
`TBMP § 527.01.
`4
`
`The appropriateness of the Board’s sanction turns on the conduct of the wrongdoer and
`
`the remedies available to effectively address the harm. Respondent’s counsel has offered no
`
`explanation for the reckless disclosure of information to his client and has not yet ever complied
`
`15
`
`

`
`fully with Petitioner’s requests to remedy the situation to the extent remedial actions are
`
`available. In this case, the harm to Petitioner from the unauthorized disclosure of its client list is
`
`irreversible. Petitioner and Respondent sell highly related horse health products to the same
`
`classes of purchases. Petitioner's customer list and invoices can be used by Respondent to
`
`Petitioner’s competitive disadvantage. Further, Respondent has openly contacted potential
`
`customers concerning this case. Cahill Decl., 1] 9.
`
`The circumstances presented -- flagrant disregard for the Board’s Order and irreversible
`harm to a party —— justify an entry ofdefaultjudgment as a sanction against the violating party.
`
`The alternative forms of relief such as striking from evidence those materials notproduced by a
`
`disobedient party or fonning legal presumptions as a matter of law that allow inferences in favor
`
`of the wronged party would not address the harm to he suffered by Petitioner under the facts.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner seeks judgment in its favor as a sanction against Respondent for the
`
`disclosure of proprietary information designated TRADE SECRET" COMMERCIALLY
`
`SENSITIVE.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the
`
`Alternative, for Sanctions be granted and that judgment be entered against the Respondent and
`
`that Registration No. 2,992,027 be cancelled.
`
`16
`
`

`
`s/Amy Sullivan Cahill
`Amy Sullivan Cahill
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`
`400 West Market Street
`Suite 1800
`
`Louisville, Kentucky 40202
`(502) 587-3400
`Fax (502) 587-6391
`
`Brewster Taylor
`Srrms & HARBISON PLLC
`
`1199 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 900
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`(703) 837-3906
`Fax (703) 739-9577
`Attorney for Petitioner,
`Lloyd, Inc. of Iowa
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I have served a copy hereof by first class mail this 22nd day of
`December, 2009 upon the following:
`
`Dean T. Sandow
`
`.
`Jason Ayers
`FARLEIGH WADA WITT
`
`121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`
`s/Amy S. Cahill
`Amy S. Cahill
`
`342LT:l006:7471l6:l:LOUISVILLE
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LLOYD, INC. OF IOWA,
`Petitioner,
`
`vI
`
`JENNIFER L. WEEMS,
`
`Registrant
`
`\-/*-J‘-—/V-—4'N-—’V-—’\-:4
`
`Cancellation No. 92050624
`
`DECLARATION OF AMY S. CAHILL
`
`I, Amy S. Cahill, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I offer this Declaration in support of Petitioner, Lloyd, Inc. of Iowa’s
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Motion for Sanctions filed in the
`
`above-styled action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and if
`
`called as a witness to testify in this matter, I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I am one of the attorneys of record for the Petitioner Lloyd, Inc. of Iowa
`
`(“Lloyd”) in the above-styled action.
`
`3.
`
`On October 9, 2009, Petitioner supplemented its earlier discovery
`
`responses by producing responsive internal documents numbered PET0039-PET0069,
`
`which documents constituted a comprehensive computer generated report reflecting the
`
`names of Petitioner’s customers and sales data for the EQU—AID product from September
`
`2002 through September 2009. All documents were marked'TRADE SECRET
`
`COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE and their production was accompanied by a cover letter
`
`fiom Petitioner’s counsel noting the TRADE SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE
`
`status of the enclosed materials. Exhibit 1 (SEALED).
`
`

`
`4.
`
`On October 14, 2009, counsel for Petitioner received an email directly
`
`from Respondent, Ms. Weems, that revealed that she was in receipt of Petitioner’s
`
`TRADE SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE materials, including the Lloyd Inc.
`
`of Iowa customer list produced pursuant to the protective order only five days earlier.
`
`This email is not submitted in support of this Declaration because Petitioner designated
`
`the communication for “Settlement Purposes Only.”
`
`5.
`
`On October 19, 2009, the undersigned contacted Respondent’s counsel
`
`directly inquiring whether the TRADE SECRET COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE
`
`materials had been provided to his client. Exhibit 2.
`
`6.
`
`Respondent’s counsel confirmed by email dated October 20, 2009, that all
`
`of