throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA394075
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/18/2011
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92053495
`Defendant
`Horphag Research Management SA
`HORPHAG RESEARCH MANAGEMENT S.A.
`71 AVENUE LOUIS CASAI, CP 80
`COINTRIN GENEVA, 1216
`SWITZERLAND
`Answer
`Marvin S. Gittes
`msgittes@mintz.com, teslonim@mintz.com, jmdicioccio@mintz.com
`/ Marvin S. Gittes/
`02/18/2011
`Cancellation 92053495 Answer and Exhibits 1-13.pdf ( 161 pages )(5592254
`bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket: 27990-804
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Isotonic OPC Antioxidants, Inc.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Horphag Research Management S.A.
`
`Registrant.
`
`Cancellation No. 92053495
`-
`
`Registration No. 176963 3
`
`ANSWER AND AFFIRNIATIVE DEFENSES
`
`TO PETITION TO CANCEL
`
`Commission for Trademarks
`
`P.0. Box 1451
`
`Arlington, VA 22313-1451
`
`Sir/Madam:
`
`Registrant, Horphag Research Management S.A. (“Horphag” or “Registrant”), by and
`
`through its attorneys, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., answers the Petition for
`
`Cancellation (the “Petition”) filed by Isotonic OPC Antioxidants, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in the
`
`above-referenced matter as followszl
`
`ANSWER
`
`1.
`
`The above-identified petitioner believes that it/he/she will be damaged
`_ by the above—identified registration, and hereby petitions to cancel the
`same.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 1
`
`Registrant admits that Petitioner seeks to cancel Registration No. 1769633 by
`
`1 To facilitate presentation, the representative paragraphs of the Petition are set forth below in numbered
`order followed by Registrant’s response thereto. Otherwise, the text of the original petition has not been
`altered in any way in the numbered paragraphs. No attempts to correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation
`in the Petition have been made.
`
`

`
`virtue of its Petition filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “TTAB”) on
`
`January 9, 2011, but denies that the petition has merit. Registrant specifically denies that
`
`Petitioner is or will be damaged by Registration No. 1769633 for the mark
`
`PYCNOGENOL® for dietary and nutritional supplements in International Class 005.
`
`Horphag further admits that its correct name and address is Horphag Research
`
`Management S.A., a corporation of Switzerland, 71 Avenue Louis CASAI, CP 80 1216
`
`Cointrin Geneva, Switzerland. Horphag denies each and every remaining allegation in
`
`Paragraph 1.
`
`GROUND FOR CANCELLATION- GENERICNESS
`
`The owner of this trademark and its legal representative have been promoting its
`use in generic ways for the last 2 decades. PYCNOGENOL has been used massively
`as a generic name in scientific publications, commercial magazines and almost every
`internet page containing the word PYCNOGENOL for the last 2 decades. It has
`genericized in such a way that it is no longer qualified as a protected trademark.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 2
`
`Registrant denies all of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. Registrant
`
`further avers that it is Petitioner who has made flagrant, improper use of Registrant’s
`
`registered trademark in ways that are plainly violative of 15 U.S.C {$1125 and calculated
`
`to cause others to perceive Registrant’s registered mark as a generic term for OPCs
`
`(Oligomeric Procyanthocyanidins) or a term which, as used by Petitioner, may describe
`
`both Petitioner’s product and that of Registrant. This was done, inter alia, by reference
`
`to Registrant’s mark on Petitioner’s websites with respect to Petitioner’s product and also
`
`by reference to scientific literature discussing Horphag’s PYCNOGENOL® French
`
`maritime pine bark extract product and altering the same to make them appear as though
`
`they were discussing Petitioner’s product. Such misuses of Registrant’s mark were then
`
`

`
`bootstrapped to serve as grounds for this Petition. Registrant denies the petition has merit
`
`or that its trademark has become generic.
`
`“Evidences for GENERICNESS”
`
`Evidence # 1.
`
`Pycnogenol is NOT used (or extremely rarely used) in the Horphag company
`website as a trademark - an indicator of the manufacturer source of a particular
`product: http:l/wWW.pyc11ogenol.com
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 3
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
`
`Here are 3 quotes from their official web page
`http://www.pycnogenol.com/consumer/consumer_about.php
`
`
`
`Quote 1: "Pycnogenol is a water extract from the bark of...."
`Quote 2: "Additional published findings have demonstrated Pycnogenol's beneficial
`effects in cardiovascular health,......"
`Quote 3: "Pycnogenol is produced by a validated manufacturing process.....
`
`H
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 4-Quote 1:
`
`Registrant denies that “Quote I” aliegedly from Registrant’s website located at
`
`Pycnogenol.corn/corrsurner/consu.mer_about.php (the “Web Page”) reads “Pycnogenol is
`
`a water extract from the bark of. . . .” The quote currently, and at the time the Petition was
`
`filed, reads “Pycnogeno1® is a water extract from the bark of. . ..” As done ad museum in
`
`this Petition and uniformly in its website, Petitioner has deceptively removed the
`
`registration symbol ® which appears in association with the mark PYCNOGENOL® on
`
`the Web Page. Further Petitioner has failed to include a copy of the Web Page which
`
`clearly shows use of the trademark Pycn0geno1® with the registration symbol ® to mask
`
`its attempt to deceive the TTAB. A true and correct copy of the Web Page is included as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`

`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 4—Quote 2:
`
`Registrant admits that the Web Page contains the quote, “Additional published
`
`findings have demonstrated Pycnogenol’s beneficial effects in cardiovascular health. . ..”
`
`Here again Petitioner failed to include a copy of the Web Page which shows use of the
`
`trademark PYCNOGENOL® with the registration symbol ® earlier in the same paragraph
`
`where the quoted language appears and again uses the trademark with the registration
`
`symbol in the immediately subsequent paragraph. Since the possessive form
`
`(“Pycnogenol’s”) of the mark is not strictly the registered mark PYCNOGENOL® per se,
`
`bookending the use of the possessive form of the mark with registration designated uses
`
`is typical and not improper. Registrant avers that Petitioner’s failure to include a copy of
`
`the Web Page is again intended to deceive the TTAB. See Exhibit 1.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 4-5 Quote 3:
`
`Registrant denies that the alleged “Quote 3” from Registrant’s website located on
`
`the Web Page reads “Pycnogenol is produced by a validated manufacturing process. . . ..”
`
`The quote currently, and at the time the Petition was filed, actually reads “Pycnogenol®
`
`is produced by a validated manufacturing process. . ..” Petitioner has again deliberately
`
`deleted the registration symbol ® as it appears on the Web Page to manipulate the
`
`purported “evidence” and failed to include a copy of the Web Page to mask the
`
`deception. See Exhibit 1.
`
`These and most other uses of PYCNOGENOL in the website of the trademark
`
`registrant automatically deny that PYCNOGENOL is a trade mark, but a
`generic name.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 5
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
`
`

`
`Quote 1 denies that Pycnogenol is a TRADEMARK of a water extract from the bark
`of.....
`
`ANSVVER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 6
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. As stated
`
`above (ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 4-Quote 1), the alleged “Quote 1” from the
`
`Web Page is misquoted, misstated and inaccurate. It does not read “Pycnogenol is a
`
`water extract from the bark of. . . .” Rather, the quote actually reads “Pycnogenol® is a
`
`water extract from the bark of. . ..” Registrant avers that Petitioner has deliberately
`
`altered the quote by deleting the registration symbol to manipulate the purported
`
`“evidence” and mask its bad faith attempt to portray Registrant’s use of the trademark as
`
`generic.
`
`In Quote 2, if PYCNOGENOL were used as a trademark as an indicator of
`manufacturer source, PYCNOGENOL would not have any health benefits because
`it is just an indicator of manufacturer source. If PYCNOGENOL has health
`benefits, it is not qualified as a trademark, but a generic name.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 7
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. Registrant
`
`avers that as proffered, Paragraph 7 is not intelligible but any allegations contained
`
`therein are denied. Registrant’s response, as set forth above (ANSWER TO
`
`PARAGRAPH NO. 4-Quote 2), is also applicable here and is included by reference.
`
`In Quote 3, if PYCNOGENOL were used as a trademark as an indicator of
`manufacturer source, PYCNOGENOL would not have been produced by a
`validated manufacturing process.
`
`

`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 8
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. Registrant
`
`avers that as proffered, Paragraph 8 is not intelligible but any allegations contained
`
`
`
`therein are denied. Registrant’s response, as set forth above (ANSWER TO
`
`PARAGRAPH NO. 4-Quote 3), is also applicable here and is included by reference.
`
`Evidence # 2
`
`Attachment 1 shows a list of about 240 scientific publications, and PYCNOGENOL
`is used as a general term in article titles of most of the articles.
`PYCNOGENOL is massively used as a generic term in scientific literature, and
`those authors describe that PYNOGENOL has a variety of biological activities.
`As a mark of manufacturer source cannot have biological activities,
`PYCNOGENOL is not used as a trademark.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 9
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9. Registrant
`
`avers that Attachment 1 appears to be a copy of the bibliography posted on Registrant’s
`
`website, located at wWw.pycnogenol.com, which is a listing of some of the many
`
`research articles published over the years describing research conducted using
`Pycnogenol® pine bark extract. Registrant further avers that this bibliography contains
`
`approximately 217 scientific publications and references and that each and every
`
`scientific article titie included in Attachment 1 uses Registrant’s PYCNOGENOL®
`
`trademark with the proper initial capitalization and registration symbol ® proclaiming to
`
`the world that it is a registerd trademark. Registrant avers that this use demonstrates
`
`proper trademark usage, including in articie titles such as, for example, “Pycnogenol®,
`
`French Maritrnie Pine Bark Extract, Augments Endothelium-Dependent Vasodilation in
`
`Humans (Ref. No. 230 on page 7 of Attachment 1); PycnogenoI® French Maritime Pine
`
`Bark Extract, Improves Endothelial Function of Hypertensive Patients (Ref. No. l 17 on
`
`

`
`
`
` . 3ir1iJ
`
`.
`
`i|
`l1
`
`(
`
`page 8 of Attachment 1); and Antidiabetic Effect of Pycnogenol® French Maritime Pine
`
`Bark Extract in Patients with Diabetes Type II (Ref. No. 142 on page 15 of Attachment
`
`1). Registrant specifically denies that “PYCNOGENOL is used as a “general term” in
`
`article titles of most of the articles or that “PYCNOGENOL is massively used as a
`
`generic term in scientific literature.” Registrant admits that the authors of certain
`
`scientific articles, including some of those listed in Attachment 1, articulate that
`
`Pycnogenol® pine bark extract has a wide variety of biological activity. Registrant also
`
`specifically denies Petitioner’s allegation that “[a]s a mark of manufacturer source cannot
`
`have biological activities, PYCNOGENOL is not used as a trademark,” which is
`
`unintelligible as proffered.
`
`10.
`
`Evidence # 3
`
`The search results from Google search engine using 3 exact terms of
`"PYCNOGENOL benefits": About 1,210 results (0.20 seconds);
`"PYCNOGENOL health benefits": About 2,830 results (0.17 seconds);
`"PYCNOGENOL side effects": About 2,130 results (0.25 seconds).
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 10
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. Registrant
`
`avers that Paragraph 10 is irrelevant to any analysis of whether the Pycnogenol®
`
`trademark is generic. Registrant further avers that the purported Google searches are
`
`inaccurate and highly misleading. Petitioner has again failed to attach a copy of the
`
`purported search results in another attempt to deceive the TTAB and mask his deception.
`
`11.
`
`There are always instances in each Website of_the World-wide web that
`PYCNOGENOL is used in the similar generic Ways from the Google search results
`using pycnogenol? as a search term. We did not see a single exception among 200
`websites that We checked.
`
`

`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 11
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.
`
`“Our [Petitioner’s] Opinions and Arguments”
`
`12.
`
`Based on the Lehman Act, the sole purpose of a trademark is to act as a source
`indicator of a product and service, serving as the information for consumers to
`know that “WHO makes WHAT" or "WHOSE WHAT". A trademark can only he
`used as the mark of WHO as a noun, or as the mark of WHOSE as an adjective.
`Lehman Act on trademark law has an inherent meaning that a trademark cannot
`be used for WHAT as a noun in any circumstance.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 12
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. Registrant
`
`avers that a “trademark” includes:
`
`[A]ny word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof—
`(1) used by a person, or
`(2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce
`and applies to register on the principal register established by this
`Act [the Lanham Act],
`
`to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product,
`from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of
`the goods, even if that source is unknown.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127, TMEP § 1202 (7th Edition, October 2010).
`
`Thus, in addition to indicating the source of the goods, trademarks serve to identify and
`
`distinguish the goods manufactured or sold by one source from other sources. As held by
`
`the U.S. Supreme Court, “the [trademark] law helps assure a producer that it (and not an
`
`imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a
`
`desirable product." _S_e§_ Qualitex Co. V. Jacobson Products Co, 514, US. 159 (1995),
`
`attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`

`
`13.
`
`There are a plenty of resources in the internet, providing legal advices how a
`trademark may be used in order to avoid genericness claims.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 13
`
`Registrant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies each of the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`For example, a web page at the University of Pennsyvenia says:
`"NEVER use a trademark as a noun. Always use a trademark as an adjective
`modifying a noun". http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archivesl000943.html
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 14
`
`Registrant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14 and as to whether the web blog page located
`
`at the URL in Paragraph 14 is in fact “at the University of Pennsyvenia [sic]” or is in fact
`
`sponsored by or undertaken with the support of the University of Pennsylvania and
`
`therefore denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 14. Registrant refers to a Web
`
`blog page, to which the URL in Paragraph 14 points, for its full import and context as it
`
`speaks for itself.
`
`15.
`
`Such a philosophy to police trademarks is adopted by many big corporations to
`avoid genericizing their trademarks. For example: McAfee, Inc. enforces its
`trademark guidelines in their webpage this way: "Your use or display of a
`McAfee trademark must always: (a) use the McAfee trademark as an adjective,
`including an appropriate noun after the trademark;....." (See:
`http://Www.mcafee.com/us/about/legal/trademark-policy—and-guidelines.aspx)
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 15
`
`Registrant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth and relevance of the allegations of Paragraph 15 and therefore denies all
`
`

`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 15. Registrant generally avers that some corporations
`
`have adopted trademark policies, guidelines and!or a philosophy to police trademarks in
`
`attempts to ensure proper trademark usage by licensees and the public generally.
`
`Registrant avers that the URL provided in Paragraph 15 points to a web page on which
`
`the language quoted in Paragraph 15 is set forth and refers to its full text for its full
`
`import and context as it speaks for itself. Registrant avers that Paragraph 15 is irrelevant
`
`to any analysis of whether the Pycnogenol® trademark is generic. Registrant further
`
`avers that While not a “big corporation[],” Registrant and its related companies have a
`
`Patents, Trademarks, and Labeling Policy in place, and have had one in place for many
`
`years. Registrant further avers that this policy is clearly posted on
`
`pycnogenol.com/industry/industry_patents.php. Moreover Registrant avers that it has
`
`had a proper and effective trademark enforcement policy in place for many years to
`
`ensure that its trademark Pycnogeno1® is not misused. Furthermore, it was in fact
`
`through the administration of that enforcement policy that Registrant became aware of
`
`Petitioner’s deceptive alteration of scientific literature discussing Registrant’s
`
`PYCNOGENOL® French maritime pine bark extract product. Registrant denies all other
`
`allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`How are we affected by this generic use of word PYCNOGENOL
`
`We are a startup company selling OPC antioxidant dietary supplement, which
`contains the same active ingredient from French maritime pine bark extract as
`Horpl1ag's pycnogenol. According to US FDA regulations, we are legal in
`referencing published scientific results and any expired patents, which are not
`protected by any intellectual property laws, in supporting our marketing efforts.
`
`I0
`
`

`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 16
`
`Registrant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16 and therefore denies each of the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 16. Registrant avers that Paragraph 16 is not relevant to any
`
`analysis of whether the Pycnogenol® trademark is generic. Registrant further avers that
`
`neither US. FDA regulations nor Petitioner’s understanding thereof change or modify the
`
`Lanham Act.
`
`17.
`
`The word PYCNOGENOL has become the real name of the underlying good. It is
`also a protected trademark for the same underlying good, While its generic use has
`flooded in the every corner in the world.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 17
`
`Registrant denies that “the word PYCNOGENOL has become the real name of
`
`the underlying good,” and that “its generic use has flooded in the every corner of the
`
`world.” Registrant admits that “[i]t is also a protected trademark for” Registrant’s French
`
`maritime pine bark extract. Registrant denies all remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`Consequently, we have been experiencing extreme hardship in excising our legal
`right in referencing published scientific results related to the pine bark extracts.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 18
`
`Registrant is Without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 18 and therefore denies each of the allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 18. Registrant avers that it contacted Petitioner to require it to accurately
`
`refer to and quote from scientific articles included on Petitioner’s Websites that related to
`
`Registrant’s products instead of altering the descriptions of those articles to make them
`
`11
`
`

`
`appear applicable to Petitioner’s product or OPC products in general. Registrant avers
`
`that being a “startup company” does not imbue Petitioner with the right to attempt to
`
`purloin the cachet of another’s trademark to launch an intemet business. Evidence of
`
`Petitioner’s bad faith and unclean hands in filing this Petition, is contained on websites
`
`operated by Petitioner, namely www.opc-1-2-3.corn, www.antioxidant.name, and
`
`www.stores.isotonic-opc.net (the “Sun-Operated Websites”), as such websites existed
`
`prior to Registrant's first contacting Petitioner.2
`
`Registrant avers that in those websites, Petitioner falsely and misleadingly
`
`represented that the results of scientific research conducted only with Horphag’s
`
`proprietary PYCNOGENOL® French maritime pine bark extract, support Petitioner’s
`
`efficacy claims for its O1igopin® ingredient and French Glory® isotonic OPC products.
`
`This was done even though Petitioner’s products do not contain Pycnogenol® pine bark
`
`extract. Registrant avers that the Sun-Operated Websites contained abstracts and
`
`references to twenty-six different scientific articles purporting to support Petitioner’s
`
`efficacy claims for their O1igopin® ingredient and French Glory® Isotonic OPC
`
`products. Registrant avers that Petitioner did not include a single scientific peer-
`
`reviewed article for its French Glory® Isotonic OPC products and only included a single
`
`article on their Oligopin® ingredient. Registrant further avers that since Petitioner was
`
`unable to support its claims with its own research, Petitioner misappropriated research
`
`and studies devoted to PYCNOGENOL® French maritime pine bark extract and
`
`removed all evidence of Registrant’s trademarks from the titles and abstracts of those
`
`articles. Moreover Registrant avers that of the twenty-six scientific articles included on
`
`2 Copies ofthe relevant excerpts from the Sun-Operated Websites as they existed when Registrant first contacted
`Petitioner are attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`1 2
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Websites, at least fifteen of those studies were devoted _S_0flV_‘l0 an investigation
`
`conducted on Horphag’s proprietary PYCNOGENOL® French maritime pine bark
`
`extract. These fifteen research articles, concerning the health benefits of
`
`PYCNOGENOL® French maritime pine bark extract, are the result of Horphag-
`
`sponsored research (collectively the “Horphag-Sponsored PYCNOGENOL®
`
`Studies”) Registrant avers that the I-Iorphag-Sponsored PYCNOGENOL® Studies are
`
`not applicable to products not containing PYCNOGENOL® French maritime pine bark
`
`extract, including Patitioner’s Oligopin ® ingredient and French Glory® Isotonic OPC
`
`products.
`
`Registrant further avers that in its effort to mislead the consuming public,
`
`Petitioner has deliberately misapplied, altered and Inisquoted Horphag-Sponsored
`
`PYCNOGENOL® Studies by, inter alia, replacing the trademark "Pycnogenol®" as
`
`originally used in the titles and abstracts of the articles with misleading and inaccurate
`
`generic terms such as "OPC" or "pine bark extract," and further, by not listing the
`
`names of the authors of the articles. Registrant avers that below are side-by-side
`
`comparisons of the actual titles of exemplary Horphag-Sponsored PYCNOGENOL®
`
`Studies versus Petitioner’s deceptive alterations of such titles.
`
`Altered Title on the Sun-Operated Websites
`
`Actual Published Title
`
`extract
`bark
`pine
`French maritime pine bark extract OPC reduces French maritime
`thromboxane generation in blood from diabetic
`[ycn0genol® reduces thromboxane generation
`male rats.
`in blood from diabetic male rats.
`
`Effect of pine bark extract OPC on symptoms
`of knee osteoarthritis.
`
`Effect of pine bark extract P cno enol on
`symptoms of knee osteoarthritis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of
`pharmacology
`anti-inflammatory
`The
`Pycnogenol® in humans involves COX-2 and
`5-LOX mRNA expression in leukocytes.
`
`
`
`The anti—inflammatory pharmacology of OPC
`pine bark extract in humans involves COX-2
`and 5-LOX mRNA expression in leukocytes.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`Oligomeric procyanidjns of French maritime
`pine bark extract (Pycnogenol®) effectively
`inhibit alpha-glucosidase.
`
`
`
`
`
`Oligomeric procyanidins QOPCL of French
`maritime pine bark extract effectively inhibit
`alpha-glucosidase.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Registrant avers that this also was done by the Petitioner with respect to the abstracts of
`
`Horphag-Sponsored PYCNOGENOL® Studies.
`
`PYCNOGENOL as the substitute of the real name of pine bark extract, (but not as a
`trademark as Horphag claims), has existed in every scientific publications using
`Horphag's pycnogenol for the last 2 decades, including those in the paper titles
`(Attachment 1).
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 19
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
`
`In our company website at http://www.opc-1-2-3.com, we cite some published
`scientific results related to OPC pine bark extracts of a variety of sources and
`manufacturers, including several research papers using Horphag's pycnogenol pine
`bark extract.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 20
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. Registrant
`
`avers that all of the citations to the titles and abstracts of the scientific articles originally
`
`contained on the Sun-Operated Websites were removed as of January 1 1, 2011. With
`
`respect to the foregoing content prior to that date, Registrant refers to its answer to
`
`Paragraph 18 which is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`21.
`
`For the last several 2-3 months, Horphag's legal representative has been
`threatening, harassing and intimating us by sending letters and e-mails, demanding
`our removal of cited publications from our website, in the names of pycnogenol
`trademark dilution and infringement. Attachments 2 & 3 show the letters and an
`email We received from Horphag's legal representative.
`
`14
`
`

`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH N0. 21
`
`Registrant denies each of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. Petitioner’s
`
`Attachment 2, as detailed below, contains altered versions of actual email
`
`communications which took place. Petitioner’s Attachment 3 was not filed or otherwise
`
`provided by Petitioner.
`
`Registrant avers that on November 19, 2010 its attorneys sent the cease and desist
`
`letter attached as Exhibit 4. Registrant further avers that after almost one month, without
`
`a response, it sent Petitioner a follow-up letter on December 15, 2010, attached as Exhibit
`
`5. Registrant avers that rather than attempting to amicably resolve the matter, Petitioner,
`
`through its “customer service manager,” Cana Sun, responded, on December 15, 2010,
`
`with a nonresponsive, over-reactive email, attached as Exhibit 6. Registrant further avers
`
`that the email of Exhibit 6 was promptly followed on December 17, 2010 by an email
`
`(attached as Exhibit 7) from Petitioner’s President, Sengen Sun, PhD which belligerently
`
`dismissed the issues raised. Registrant admits that on December 20, 2010 attorneys for
`
`Registrant sent Petitioner the email attached as Exhibit 8. Registrant further avers that
`
`Without further discussion Petitioner, on December 20, 2011, responded to Registrant’s
`
`attorneys with the an email, attached as Exhibit 9, whose essence is I am not
`
`convinced/Sue me.
`
`In addition, Registrant avers that again on the same day, December 20, 2010,
`
`Petitioner, to further exacerbate matters, advised in another email, attached as Exhibit 10,
`
`that “Instead of deleting anything, we have added 3 more paragraphs of content [on the
`
`Sun-Operated Websites] under our header ‘Reference Outlines On OPC Pine Bark
`
`Extract’ . . ..I am really curious to see how you make a case of trademark
`
`15
`
`

`
`‘misrepresentation’ in court.” This was followed, that same day, by yet another email
`
`where Mr. Sun, PhD, declared, “I am the world’s recognized expert in my field...” and
`
`included a link to what appears to be an unrelated scientific article (Exhibit 11).
`
`Registrant avers that on January 1 1, 2011, two days after the instant Petition was
`
`filed, but before Registrant had knowledge thereof, Petitioner again sent an email to
`
`Registrant’s attorneys (attached as Exhibit 12) claiming that “[a]s of today, 01/ 1 1/201 1,
`
`we have removed all the research articles on pine bark extract related to pycnogenol from
`
`our website.” Registrant avers that on the following day, January 12, 2011, attorneys for
`
`Registrant replied with, “Thank you for your below email. We shall treat this matter as
`
`amicably concluded at this time,” attached as Exhibit 13.
`
`Registrant denies that there was ever any Attachment 3 to the Petition either as the
`
`Petition was filed with the TTAB or as mailed to Registrant’s attorneys. Petitioner also
`
`denies that a complete Version of what appears to be Attachment 2 was filed with the
`
`TTAB. Registrant avers that the version of Attachment 2 that was improperly mailed by
`
`Petitioner via Express Mail to Registrant’s attorneys contains two additional pages which
`
`are not present in the version of the Petition filed with the TTAB. Registrant avers that
`
`Petitioner’s failure to fully enclose all of the correspondence between Petitioner and
`
`Registrant is yet another bad faith attempt to mislead the TTAB. Further, Petitioner has
`
`filed copies of emails where certain previous emails in the chain have been deleted.
`
`Registrant also avers that Petitioner failed to properly serve the Petition on Registrant and
`
`instead emailed these incorrect copies to the attorneys for Registrant and Registrant.
`
`22.
`
`Our business is seriously and negatively impacted by their threatening, harassing
`and intimating. And we plan to take a further legal action to seek compensation for
`our business loss caused by their legal ignorance on the trademark law.
`
`16
`
`

`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 22
`
`Registrant denies that Petitioner’s “business is seriously and negatively impacted
`
`by their threatening, harassing and intimating.” Registrant avers that any alleged harm
`
`Petitioner is suffering or may have suffered is solely a result of Petitioner’s bad faith
`
`actions, and unclean hands in its attempts to steal the cachet of Registrant’s
`
`PYCNOGENOL® trademark by deceptively altering the titles and abstracts of published
`
`scientific research performed on Registrant’s PYCNOGENOL® pine bark extract so as to
`
`make them appear applicable to Petitioner’s products and then publishing the altered
`
`materials on its website to market its products. Registrant is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegation “[a]nd we plan to take a further
`
`legal action to seek compensation for our business loss caused by their legal ignorance on
`
`the trademark law” contained in the second sentence of paragraph 22, and therefore
`
`denies that allegation. Registrant further avers that this allegation is not relevant to any
`
`analysis of whether the Pycnogenol® trademark is generic but clearly demonstrates
`
`Petitioner’s bad faith in bringing this cancellation proceeding.
`
`23.
`
`Therefore, we petition that PYCNOGENOL be cancelled as a protected trademark
`because of its massive generic use, promoted by the registrant and its legal
`representative.
`
`ANSWER TO PARAGRAPH NO. 23
`
`Registrant admits that Petitioner seeks to cancel the Registration but specifically
`
`denies each and every other allegation contained in Paragraph 23. Registrant further
`
`denies that the Petition has merit.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Registrant respectfully reserves the right to amend its Answer in the event that it
`
`becomes clear, as discovery progresses, that Petitioner, as a result of the numerous
`
`spelling, punctuation, formatting, and grammatical errors contained in the Petition, is
`
`attempting to re-write, alter, or “clarify” the original language contained in the Petition to
`
`embrace positions not now set forth therein. Further, because of the difficulties arising in
`
`coordinating responses in this Answer with the un-numbered paragraphs in the Petition,
`
`Registrant hereby denies all allegations that have not specifically been admitted.
`
`Registrant requests that the Notice of Cancellation filed against its Registration be
`
`denied in its entirety, that judgment be entered in favor of Registrant in this proceeding,
`
`and that the Registration for the mark PYCNOGENOL® remain in full force and effect.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to Petitioner, in
`
`part, because Petitioner lacks standing herein.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition should fail because, on information and belief, Petitioner has not
`
`suffered and is not likely to suffer any injury or damage as a result of the Pycnogenol®
`
`trademark registration. Further, even if it is assumed arguendo that a registration did not exist
`
`for Regist;rant’s mark, Petitioner’s false and misleading alteration of scientific articles to make
`
`them appear applicable to its products and the publication thereof on Petitioner’s website would
`
`be actionable and terminable under the Lanham Act.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition should fail because, on information and belief, Petitioner claims, in
`
`whole or in p

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