Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA458542
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/27/2012
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92052260
`Defendant
`Edgar Alexander Barrera
`ALEXANDER BARRERA
`10 CASTANIA CT
`ST AUGUSTINE, FL 32086
`UNITED STATES
`axlellism@netbusiness.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Edgar Alexander Barrera
`axlellism@netbusiness.com
`/EdgarAlexanderBarrera/
`02/27/2012
`TTAB 2.pdf ( 8 pages )(3424464 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cancellation No. 92l052,260
`(Serial No. 77l378,015)
`
`)_
`
`) ) i
`
`STEPHEN A. WESTLAKE,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`EDGAR ALEXANDER BARRERA )
`
`) )
`
`Respondent-.
`
`RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION
`OF TIME TO SECURE NEW LEGAL COUNSEL
`
`Comes now the Respondent EDGAR ALEXANDER BARRERA and
`hereby submits his Response to Opposition to Motion for a Further Extension of
`Time to Secure New Legal Counsel
`in the above-captioned Opposition
`proceeding.
`
`NOTE: lt Petitioners co-counsel, Mr. Guyelte is so precise with his infonnation,
`can he inform everyone why he has deliberately given his address to the TTAB and
`those associated with these proceedings as." 19 Chenango St. #1101, Binghamton, NY
`13901-2904?
`
`The “Prosecution History” will clearty demonstrate rnultipie mailings from the
`TTAB to Mr. Guyette’s office have been returned as “Unable to Deliver.” The
`Respondent can also attest to this as well, as multiple correspondence sent to Mr.
`Guyette has -also been retumed the same way in each instance. Now, Mr. Guyette
`suddenly appears from nowhere with a “new address” given as 136 Court Street,
`Binghamton, New York 13901.
`
`lsn’t anyone who represents either a Petitioner or a Respondent supposed to at
`all times make sure his proper address is provided?
`
`ANSWER TO OPPOSITION
`
`In response, to Petitioner's Opposition, a point—by—point rebuttal foltows:
`
`1. Petitioner's Declarationlcertification: “Petitioner doubts the extent of the
`
`ciaim of impairment to health of the respondent."
`
`Respondenfis Answer: Petitioner and his co-counsel are not certified or
`qualified medical doctors and cannot render such an opinion as it
`is
`completely unqualified and without any merit whatsoever. Since this
`proceeding began Respo_ndent’s health has been seriously impaired for
`most of this time. Respondent has attempted to resume a normal work
`
`

`
`scheduie as much -as he possibly can, and is still in considerable pain.
`Respondent's medical problems have been fully documented for the court
`in several letters from his physician, Dr. Gohar S. Khan, MD.
`
`A Declaration is supposed to be made based upon on the Dec|arant’s
`personal knowledge.
`
`Every statement made that is not based on the Declaranfs personal
`kriowiedge is pure speculation.
`
`Petitioner and his co-counsel are not doctors, and not physicians and have
`never seen the patient and cannot make such a Declaration within their
`own personal knowledge.
`
`innuendo,
`speculation, based on hearsay,
`is pure
`it
`Therefore,
`suppositions, insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations -and therefore must
`be disregarded, as it
`is inadmissible and lacks any evidentiary basis
`whatsoever.
`
`2. Petitioner's Declarationlcertificationz "According to information which is
`available to anyone on the internet, treatment for acute pancreatitis requires a
`few days stay in a hospital for intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and medication to
`relieve pain. Unless complications arise, acute pancreatitis resolves in a few
`days.”
`
`Respondent's Answer; Anythin can be found on the Internet and cannot
`invalidate a qualified medical opinion which is an‘ audacious claim on the
`part of the Petitioner. Likewise, the broad, ambiguous and vague assertion
`of “according to information available to anyone on the internet" is without
`any merit. Furthermore, petitioner does not attach any so-called
`documentation to support his claim.
`
`A Declaration is supposed to be made based upon on the Declarant’s
`personal knowledge.
`
`Every statement made that is not based on the Declarant’s personal
`knowledge is pure speculation.
`
`Petitioner and his co-counsel are not doctors, and not physicians and have
`never seen the patient and cannot make such a Declaration within their
`own personal knowledge.
`
`innuendo,
`speculation, based on hearsay,
`pure
`is
`it
`Therefore,
`suppositions, insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations and therefore must
`be disregarded, as it is inadmissible and lacks any evidentiary basis
`whatsoever.
`
`

`
`3. Petitioner’s Declarationicertification: "The treatment for chronic pancreatitis
`may require hospitalization for pain management,
`IV hydration and nutritional
`support. Nasal gastric feedings may be necessary for several weeks if the person
`continues to lose weight.”
`
`Resgondenfs Answer: Again, this is the Petitioner and his co-counsel
`attempting to be a physician when neither one has any qualifications to do
`so and is totally without any basis of fact as Mr. Guyette nor Mr. Westiake
`are qualified medical doctors.
`
`A Declaration is supposed to be made based upon on the Dec!arant’s
`personal knowledge.
`
`Every statement made that is not based "on the Dectarant’s personal
`knowledge is pure speculation.
`
`Petitioner and his co-counsel are not doctors, and not physicians and have
`never seen the patient and cannot make such a Declaration within their
`own personal knowledge.
`
`innuendo,
`hearsay,
`speculation, based on
`pure
`is
`it
`Therefore,
`suppositions, insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations and therefore must
`be disregarded, as it
`is inadmissible and lacks any evidentiary basis
`whatsoever.
`
`4. Petitioner's Declarationlcertificationz “There has been no indication that the
`
`respondent has lost weight due to this condition, nor has there been specification
`of whether the condition is acute or chronic.”
`
`Respondent's Answer: If Petitioner would refer back to previous Motions,
`petitioner would see that the Respondent lost weight due to his serious
`medical condition and is suffering from “acute pancreatitis.”
`
`Dr. Khan has previously stated when respondent first encountered this
`serious medical problem that: “llllr. Barrera is still experiencing severe
`fatigue, along with various gastronomical symptoms common during
`recovery. These include bloating, abdominal pain,
`loss of appetite,
`difficulty swallowing, and weight loss.”
`
`A Declaration is supposed to be made based upon on the Declarant's
`personal knowledge.
`
`Every statement made that is not based on the Declarant’s personal
`knowledge is pure speculation.
`
`

`
`Petitioner and his co-counsel are not doctors, and not physicians and have
`never seen the patient and cannot make such a Declaration within their
`own personal knowledge.
`
`innuendo,
`hearsay,
`speculation, based on
`pure
`is
`it
`Therefore,
`suppositions, insinuation, unsubstantiated ailegations and therefore must
`be disregarded, as it
`is inadmissible and tacks any evidentiary basis
`whatsoever.
`
`5. Petitioners Deciarationicertification: “What does appear chronic is the
`respondent's faiiure to cooperate with his attorney which led to his withdrawal.”
`
`Respondent's Answer: Petitioner’s allegations are totally false about the
`Respondent's failure to cooperate with his attorney which led to his
`withdrawal. Petitioner's statements are based on innuendo, insinuation,
`unsubstantiated allegations and therefore must be disregarded as pure
`speculation.
`
`6. Petitioner’s Declarationlcertlfication: “While the respondent includes his so-
`called list regarding his efforts to secure counsel,
`it should be noted that there
`are no specifics as to whom the attorneys are that he cailed."
`
`Res[;ondent’s Answer: Respondent has made a diligent effort and fully
`complied with the TTAB's requests and in many respects has provided
`more information than requested at the time. Petitioner’s statements are
`based on innuendo, insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations and therefore
`must also be disregarded as pure speculation.
`
`7. Petitioner's Deciarationicertificationz “Further, he includes attorneys that do
`not specialize in Intellectual Property Law, therefore, he is wasting everyone's
`time.”
`-
`
`Respondent's Answer: Again, Petitioner nor his co-counsel, Mr. Guyette
`have fully read the Motions respondent fiied as it was never stated that he
`was speaking with any attorney who did not specialize in lnteilectual
`Property Law but instead clearly stated “they do not specialize in this type
`of trademark law” which centers around publishing, which requires further
`specialization in intellectual Property matters, and they “do not specialize
`in this type of trademark litigation.” There are many trademark attorneys
`and a number of them do not practice before the TTAB as anyone, except
`apparently Petitioner and his co-counsel. This was cleariy stated in the
`Motion for a Further Extension of Time to Secure New Legal C-ounsel
`submitted on February 2, 2012.
`
`

`
`llllr. Guyette states clearly that if “attorneys
`Also, petitioner's co"-counsel,
`do not specialize in Intellectual Property Law, therefore, he is wasting
`everyone’s time.” is the Petitioner’s co-counsel, Mr. Guyette perhaps
`referring to himself here as he is wasting everyone’s time with this Motion
`as llllr. Guyette does not specialize in Intellectual Property Law and does
`not a have a law degree to practice in this type of law?
`
`So maybe, Mr. Guyette can shed some light on his skills specifically as a
`licensed trademark attorney as he is not an Intellectual Property Attorney,
`then he by his own admission, he “is wasting everyone’s time” based on
`his own declarationlcertification. llllr. Guyette is therefore stating he is not
`qualified to participate in these proceedings and for all
`intents and
`purposes has disqualified himself. Based on this alone, the Petitioner’s
`Motion should be inadmissible.
`
`llllr. Guyette’s Facebook page listed as Law Offices of Kevin F. Guyette on
`Facebook.com states: “Handling personal injury, criminal, workers‘ comp,_
`civil rights, family courtisupport. Admitted in NY, PA and FL state and
`federal court. 23 years experience in court.”
`
`“Kevin F. Guyette has developed a reputation of fighting for just results,
`whether it be against insurance companies, police agencies, employers or
`recalcitrant spouses. Kevin handles each case personally and is therefore
`intimately familiar with his clients‘ problems. He fights to provide solutions
`for these problems.
`in personal injury cases, Kevin does not attempt a
`quick settlement at the expense of the full value for the client. In criminal
`cases, Kevin has the experience to know what motions to file and the
`wisdom when to file them. Kevin works patiently to fully develop the
`medical records in workers‘ comp cases.”
`
`to practice Intellectual
`There is no mention of Petitioner’s co-counsel
`Property Law, yet he boldiy asserts that nobody should deal with any
`“attorneys [who] do not specialize in Intellectual Property Law" as
`"therefore, he is wasting everyone-'s time.”
`
`8. Petitioner's Declarationlcertification: “The respondent claims to be so sick
`that he cannot participate in the proceedings, yet he is not so sick that he cannot
`drive a sick relative to a doctor's appointment."
`
`It is apparent that Petitioner and his co-counsel
`Respondenfs Answer:
`have not read Respondenfs motions. The Respondent has never stated
`that he “drove” a sick relative to a doctor’s appointment. Respondent went
`with his sick relative to his doctor's appointment. If anything it has been
`very difficult on the Respondent and it has further impaired his health in
`the process. It has placed the Respondent in a terrible hardship position as
`there is nobody to care for his sick relative, except to help transport him to
`
`

`
`medical appointments. Petitioner’s statements are based on innuendo,
`insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations, suppositlons, and therefore must
`be disregarded as pure speculation.
`
`9. Petitioner's Declarationicertification: While he claims to be disadvantaged
`with "Mr. McAu|iffe's abrupt and unexpected withdrawal the case", during the
`time that Mr. McAulifie represented him, he did nothing to assist Mr. McAuiifl'e in
`this matter; apparently, he did not pay his legal fees.
`
`Resgondenifs Answer: Again, petitioner and his co-counsel, Mr. Guyette
`are totally distorting the facts. Mr. McAuiiffe did not discuss Respondent’s
`legal bill with his client. in fact, it was the Respondent who first initiated
`such a conversation with Mr. McAuliffe. So Petitioner and his co-counsel
`
`are once more making wrongful assumptions about Respondent's legal
`bill. Mr. llllcAu|iffe insisted to the Respondent not to wony about anything,
`that his health came first and the legal bill wasn’t an issue. Respondent
`paid a substantial retainer when the case started. Mr. McAu|iffe had given
`Respondent every assurance that he would continue to be his counsel. His
`request to withdraw was sudden and unexpected. Respondent cooperated
`with his counsel at all times, so again, Petitioner and his co-counsel have
`once more ciearly distorted the facts. The Petitioners statements are
`based on innuendo, insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations and therefore
`must be disregarded as pure speculation.
`
`‘[0. Petitioner's Declarationicertificationz "It is further beyond comprehension
`how the respondent who lives in St. Augustine, Florida can travel to see his
`doctor whose office is located in South Daytona, which is at least 2 hours away
`by car.”
`
`Respondent’s Answer: Petitioner and his co-counsei wrongly assume, that
`the Respondent drives himself to his appointments which are only 45
`minutes away driving time (not "at least 2 hours away by car,” as Petitioner
`claims) from St. Augustine to South Daytona, Fiorida. Respondent stays
`with a friend in Daytona Beach, Fiorida when he has to go to doctor’s
`appointments.
`If “anyone” who uses the Internet as petitioner and his co-
`counsel state they would clearly see that a Google Map alone would
`completely refute their assertions that the doctor “is at least 2 hours away
`by car” Google lillap clearly states 1 hour and 12 minutes, which is not two
`hours. But again, Petitioner and his co-counsel incorrectly assume that the
`Respondent drives himself from St. Augustine to South Daytona.
`
`A Declaration is supposed to be made based upon on the Declarant’s
`personai knowledge.
`
`Every statement made that is not based o.n the Declarant’s personal
`knowledge is pure speculation.
`
`

`
`insinuation,
`innuendo,
`on
`based
`are
`statements
`Petitioner’s
`unsubstantiated allegations and therefore must be disregarded as pure
`speculation.
`
`11. Petitioner's Declarationlcertificationz “Clearly if he was really experiencing
`severe fatigue, it is unfathomable how he could travel the distance to see his own
`doctor Ietaione take a sick relative to their doctor's appointment, while making all
`of these phone calls.”
`
`Respondent’s Answer: Again, Petitioner and his co-counsel are taking on
`the role of being a‘ certified medical doctor, and what has just been stated
`clearly demonstrate how absurd their allegations truly are. Likewise
`making a few phone calls a day is tiring on the Respondent but he has
`wanted to demonstrate good faith and did it against medical orders as
`clearly demonstrated in the Motion filing. In spite of this, Respondent has
`worked very diligently to obtain new legal counsel.
`
`12. Petitioner's Declarationlcertificationz “It appears that the respondent is
`merely stalling to drag this matter out, for reasons which apparently are his own
`at this time.”
`
`Respondent's Answer: The Respondent is not dragging anything out and
`once again Petitioner and his co-counsel’s declarations are. based on
`innuendo, insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations and therefore must also
`be disregarded as purespeculation.
`
`13. Therefore, Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion should be disregarded as it is all
`pure speculation, based on hearsay and double hearsay, innuendo, suppositions,
`insinuation, unsubstantiated allegations and therefore must be disregarded as
`they have no foundation and lacks any evidentiary basis whatsoever.
`
`The interests of justice will be served if the Opposition to Motion for a Further
`Extension of Time is denied.
`
`WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully seeks this Opposition to Motion for
`a Further Extension of Time to Secure New Legal Counsel to be denied
`based upon the foregoing reasons.
`
`Certified and Respectfully submitted by:
`
` Edgar-jfillexander
`
`

`
`10 Castania Ct.
`
`St. Augustine, FL 32086
`
`Telephone (386) 852-0012
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby oeriify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was placed in the
`United States Mail, postage prepaid, this 27th day of February, 2012, addressed
`to:
`
`Mark Levy, 700 Security Mutual Bidg., 80 Exchange Street, Binghamton, NY
`13902
`
`and
`
`Kevin Guyette, 19 Chenango St. #1101, Binghamton, NY 13901-2904
`and
`
`Kevin Guyette, 136 Court Street, Binghamton, NY 13901