throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA447459
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/20/2011
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Petition for Cancellation
`
`Notice is hereby given that the following party requests to cancel indicated registration.
`Petitioner Information
`
`Name
`Entity
`Address
`
`Scott Smith
`Individual
`5714 Folsom Blvd, Ste 140
`Sacramento, CA 95819
`UNITED STATES
`
`Citizenship
`
`UNITED STATES
`
`Correspondence
`information
`
`Scott Smith
`5714 Folsom Blvd, Ste 140
`Sacramento, CA 95819
`UNITED STATES
`scott@bizstarz.com Phone:916-453-8611
`Registration Subject to Cancellation
`
`Registration No
`Registrant
`
`Registration date
`3257604
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS, P.L.C.
`165 FELL STREET
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
`UNITED STATES
`Goods/Services Subject to Cancellation
`
`07/03/2007
`
`Class 025. First Use: 2006/12/15 First Use In Commerce: 2006/12/15
`All goods and services in the class are cancelled, namely: Clothing, namely, t-shirts
`
`Grounds for Cancellation
`
`Immoral or scandalous matter
`Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l.Fraud
`Genericness
`Abandonment
`
`Trademark Act section 2(a)
`808 F.2d 46, 1 USPQ2d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`Trademark Act section 23
`Trademark Act section 14
`
`Attachments
`
`Petition to Cancel, SqueezeBlood-FINAL.pdf ( 23 pages )(188764 bytes )
`Certificate of Service.pdf ( 1 page )(44361 bytes )
`Exhibits A thru E.pdf ( 28 pages )(1230468 bytes )
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this paper has been served upon all parties, at their address
`record by Overnight Courier on this date.
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`

`
`Signature
`Name
`Date
`
`/Scott R. Smith/
`Scott Smith
`12/20/2011
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`______________________________________
`)
`
`
`)
`
`SCOTT R. SMITH,
`)
`
`an individual,
`) Cancellation No.____________
`
`
`
`)
`Petitioner,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`) PETITION TO CANCEL
`
`
`v.
`) REGISTRATION
`
`
`
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS, P.L.C., )
`a California corporation,
`
`)
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Respondent.
`)
`______________________________________ )
`
`
`
`Owner:
`
`Serial No.:
`
`Trademark:
`Registration No.:
`
`
`Register:
`International Class:
`
`
`Filed:
`Registered:
`
`
`
`Cook Collection Attorneys, P.L.C.
`77020236
`SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com
`3257604
`Principal
`025
`October 12, 2006
`July 3, 2007
`
`Petitioner "pro se" Scott R. Smith ("Smith"), is an individual with an address
`
`29
`
`of 5714 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 140, Sacramento, California 95819. Smith
`
`30
`
`believes that he is and will continue to be damaged by U.S. Registration No.
`
`31
`
`3,257,604 (Exhibit A) for the mark SQUEEZEBLOODFROMTURNIP.COM (the
`
`32
`
`"SqueezeBlood Mark"), in International Class 025 for "Clothing, namely, t-shirts."
`
`33
`
`The SqueezeBlood Mark is owned by Cook Collection Attorneys, P.L.C. (“Cook
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Collection”) a California corporation having a principal place of business at 165
`
`Fell Street, San Francisco, California 94102.
`
`As grounds for cancellation, Smith alleges that:
`
`Prior Litigation
`
`1. Smith is the president of BizStarz, a national public relations ("PR") firm for
`
`innovative and newsworthy entrepreneurs.
`
`2. Since approximately 1995, Smith has provided public relations services for a
`
`wide-variety of innovative and newsworthy entrepreneurs, including:
`
`a. Scott Olson - inventor of Rollerblade inline skates.
`b. Bob Bondurant - founder of the Bob Bondurant School of High
`Performance Driving, and internationally recognized as a leading
`authority on advanced driver training.
`c. Pat Sullivan - developer of ACT!, one of the world's best-selling
`contact management software applications.
`d. Randy Cohen - founder and CEO of TicketCity, one of the most
`successful companies in the secondary ticket market, and title sponsor
`of the NCAA's annual TicketCity Bowl.
`
`
`3. Smith and his clients have been featured by numerous major media
`
`organizations, including The New York Times, Forbes magazine, Cable
`
`News Network ("CNN"), the Oprah Winfrey Show, Success magazine,
`
`Businessweek magazine, FOX News, National Public Radio ("NPR"), The
`
`Wall Street Journal, and Money magazine.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`4. Before his role as president of BizStarz began in 2000, Smith founded
`
`EntrepreneurPR, which quickly became America's #1 PR firm for
`
`entrepreneurs and small businesses.
`
`5. In 1998, Smith was sued by Entrepreneur Media, Inc. ("EMI"), publisher of
`
`Entrepreneur magazine, for federal trademark infringement over Smith's use
`
`of the common and generic word "entrepreneur." Despite the fact that
`
`entrepreneur is a French-derived term that predates EMI by hundreds of
`
`years and is used by countless third parties around the world, including the
`
`U.S. Government and multi-national organizations such as accounting giant
`
`Ernst & Young, EMI alleges to own exclusive rights to the word
`
`entrepreneur for all goods and services.
`
`6. Numerous major media organizations have reported on EMI's controversial
`
`efforts to monopolize the word entrepreneur, and their attacks against small
`
`businesses that use the word entrepreneur in their names, including
`
`Businessweek magazine, The New York Times, Forbes magazine, and the
`
`Los Angeles Times. (Exhibit B)
`
`7. Determined to monopolize the word entrepreneur and able to spend well
`
`over ten times as much on attorneys than a small business owner such as
`
`Smith could afford, EMI hired a team of lawyers from Latham & Watkins,
`
`one of the world's largest law firms, to out duel and overwhelm Smith and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`his sole practitioner attorney. Their strategy worked. Despite a published
`
`Ninth Circuit ruling that EMI's trademark is "weak" and "descriptive," EMI
`
`was able to convince a federal judge to rule that EMI's trademark is instead,
`
`a "strong distinctive mark, deserving of significant protection. …The
`
`trademark laws are not primarily designed to protect careful and experienced
`
`consumers, but to protect 'the ignorant, the inexperienced, and the gullible.'"
`
`EMI was also able to convince the judge to rule that Smith owed EMI
`
`$1,389,908.40 in statutory damages and attorneys' fees for using the generic
`
`word entrepreneur for non-competing goods and services.
`
`8. In May 2001, Smith was forced to file personal bankruptcy as a direct result
`
`of EMI's legal attacks against his use of the word entrepreneur.
`
`9. Since at least 2001, Cook Collection has utilized unreasonable, unethical and
`
`aggressive collection tactics to try and force Smith to pay EMI, even though
`
`EMI and Cook Collection have determined that Smith cannot pay EMI the
`
`judgment and the judgment is also being appealed.
`
`10. In August 2006, the Honorable Brett Dorian, a federal bankruptcy judge,
`
`issued a $10,000,000 Order to Show Cause against EMI and its attorneys of
`
`record, including Cook Collection, for their collections efforts against Smith.
`
`(Exhibit C) The Order to Show Cause is part of Smith's pending Ninth
`
`Circuit Court of Appeals case against EMI's collections efforts.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`The SqueezeBlood Mark is Immoral or Scandalous
`
`11. Smith finds the SqueezeBlood Mark to be threatening, intimidating,
`
`pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, contemptuous, disreputable,
`
`disparaging, shocking to the sense of decency or propriety, and immoral or
`
`scandalous, now and at the time the registration was granted.
`
`12. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052 (a), bars the registration
`
`of the SqueezeBlood Mark in that the mark is immoral or scandalous and
`
`was at the time the registration was granted.
`
`13. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act may not bar use of immoral or scandalous
`
`marks, however, to maintain the integrity of the trademark register, Section
`
`2(a) prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous marks.
`
`14. The registration of the SqueezeBlood Mark should be cancelled because it
`
`gives the appearance that the immoral or scandalous SqueezeBlood Mark
`
`has been given the imprimatur of the U.S. Government.
`
`15. Registration or use of the SqueezeBlood Mark continues to be immoral or
`
`scandalous in the context of contemporary attitudes.
`
`16. Cook Collection is a law firm that specializes in the aggressive enforcement
`
`of judgments and collection of debts. (See Exhibit D)
`
`17. Registration or use of the SqueezeBlood Mark by a collections firm is
`
`shocking to the sense of decency or propriety.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`18. A substantial composite of the general public would find the SqueezeBlood
`
`Mark as depicted in the alleged specimen ("SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com,
`
`Cook Collections Attorneys") to be highly insensitive, immoral or
`
`scandalous when displayed on a t-shirt.
`
`19. A substantial composite of the general public would find the SqueezeBlood
`
`Mark as depicted in the alleged specimen ("SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com,
`
`Cook Collections Attorneys") to be highly insensitive, immoral or
`
`scandalous when registered or used by a collections firm.
`
`20. On December 20, 2006, Cook Collection submitted an "Amendment to
`
`Allege Use Under 37 C.F.R. § 2.76 With Declaration" for the SqueezeBlood
`
`Mark with an alleged "specimen showing the mark as used in commerce."
`
`The specimen shows that the SqueezeBlood Mark is used in commerce in
`
`conjunction with the name "Cook Collection Attorneys," with the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark utilizing a smaller font than the name, "Cook
`
`Collection Attorneys." The specimen was supported by a signed declaration
`
`by attorney David Cook, president of Cook Collection, acknowledging that
`
`"willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code…all statements made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true." (See
`
`Exhibit E)
`
`21. Cook Collection's alleged "specimen showing the mark as used in
`
`commerce," shows that the SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous as
`
`used in commerce, and as it was represented to the trademark office.
`
`22. Cook Collection's alleged specimen shows that Cook Collection is using the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark for and in conjunction with its collections services and
`
`efforts to seize assets from numerous individuals and organizations.
`
`23. Cook Collection regularly sends letters and envelopes that prominently
`
`display the SqueezeBlood Mark to parties that Cook Collection is trying to
`
`seize assets from.
`
`24. Cook Collection's use of the SqueezeBlood Mark on its official stationary
`
`shows that Cook Collection is using the SqueezeBlood Mark for and in
`
`conjunction with its collections services and efforts to seize assets from
`
`numerous individuals and organizations.
`
`25. Cook Collection's use of the SqueezeBlood Mark on its official stationary
`
`that Cook Collection sends to parties that it is trying to seize assets from, is
`
`highly insensitive, offensive, and scandalous or immoral.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`26. In its efforts to harass and seize assets from Smith, Cook Collection has
`
`mailed numerous envelopes to Smith that prominently display the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark. (See Exhibit F)
`
`27. The SqueezeBlood Mark is highly insensitive, immoral or scandalous when
`
`registered or used by a collections firm, and its use by Cook Collection
`
`could cause a person already suffering from high levels of stress due to an
`
`inability to pay their debts to "snap" and do harm to themselves or others.
`
`28. The registration or use of the SqueezeBlood Mark by a collections firm is
`
`highly insensitive, immoral or scandalous in light of America's current
`
`economic crisis. Bankruptcy cases filed in federal courts for fiscal year
`
`2011, the 12-month period ending September 30, 2011, totaled 1,467,221,
`
`according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (See Exhibit G)
`
`29. Cook Collection's registration or use of the SqueezeBlood Mark is
`
`particularly insensitive, immoral or scandalous because the majority of Cook
`
`Collection's targeted parties live and work in California, a state rocked by
`
`some of the nation's highest unemployment and foreclosure rates. In
`
`November 2011, California had the nation's biggest month-over-month
`
`increase in foreclosure auctions, according to a December 15, 2011 Los
`
`Angeles Times article. According to the article, "Banks set the clock for
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`forced sales of more than 26,000 homes in the state in November, a 63%
`
`increase from October." (See Exhibit H)
`
`30. Cook Collection's use of the SqueezeBlood Mark is particularly insensitive,
`
`immoral or scandalous because most people are forced into bankruptcy for
`
`reasons largely outside of their control. For instance, according to a
`
`December 18, 2011 article by The Sacramento Bee, "For the bulk of this
`
`decade, medical debt has been a leading cause of personal bankruptcy,
`
`contributing to at least 60 percent of filings by 2007, according to a 2009
`
`Harvard University study." (See Exhibit I)
`
`31. A substantial composite of individuals and organizations - particularly those
`
`facing collections - but also federal bankruptcy judges, consumer bankruptcy
`
`attorneys, consumer bankruptcy associations, and consumer bankruptcy
`
`counselors, would find the SqueezeBlood Mark to be highly insensitive,
`
`immoral or scandalous when registered or used by a collections firm.
`
`32. A substantial composite of reporters and media organizations would find the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark to be highly controversial or scandalous when
`
`registered or used by a collections firm.
`
`33. It is highly insensitive, offensive, and scandalous or immoral, for a
`
`collections firm to register or use the SqueezeBlood Mark, particularly in
`
`association with products with extensive public exposure such as "t-shirts."
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Countless news articles have been published about scandals caused by t-
`
`shirts featuring scandalous or immoral words or images. A recent Google
`
`search generated "about 28,300,000" results for the words "t-shirt scandal."
`
`(See Exhibit J)
`
`34. When registered or used by a collections firm against someone facing
`
`collections, the SqueezeBlood Mark is highly insensitive, threatening,
`
`intimidating, pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, contemptuous,
`
`disreputable, disparaging, scandalous or immoral.
`
`35. Smith has repeatedly objected to the SqueezeBlood Mark, but Cook
`
`Collection has refused to abandon the SqueezeBlood Mark, or to
`
`acknowledge its insensitive, offensive, and immoral or scandalous nature.
`
`36. The well-known idiom, "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip," is
`
`universally understood to mean that you cannot get something from
`
`someone, especially money that they do not have.
`
`37. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`created the SqueezeBlood Mark so that a substantial composite of the
`
`general public would associate the mark with the near-identical and well-
`
`known idioms, "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip" or "you can't squeeze
`
`blood out of a turnip."
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`38. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`created and uses the SqueezeBlood Mark to harass, intimidate and bring fear
`
`to those it is trying to seize assets from; and to send a message that Cook
`
`Collection is willing and able to go far beyond what is ethical or reasonable
`
`in order to seize someone's assets.
`
`39. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`created and uses the mark to attract clients that are willing to go far beyond
`
`what is ethical or reasonable in order to seize someone's assets.
`
`40. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`intentionally uses a bright Red color to emphasize the word "Blood" in the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark so that seeing the mark will generate highly unpleasant
`
`feelings and images of bloodshed or gore for a substantial composite of the
`
`general public. (See Exhibit K)
`
`41. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`uses the SqueezeBlood Mark in its law firm's email addresses and domain
`
`name. (See Exhibits L & M - web print out, whois)
`
`42. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`prominently features the SqueezeBlood Mark on its law firm's website. (See
`
`Exhibit N)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`43. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`uses the SqueezeBlood Mark in its law firm's official email addresses for
`
`court proceedings and the State Bar of California. (See Exhibit O)
`
`44. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`also owns two (2) federally registered trademarks for "WINNING IS
`
`NOTHING COLLECTING IS EVERYTHING" ("Collecting is Everything
`
`mark"). Registration No. 3008843 for "Clothing, namely, T-shirts"; and
`
`Registration No. 2395901 for "Legal Services". (See Exhibits P & Q)
`
`45. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous due to Cook Collection's
`
`simultaneous usage of its Collecting is Everything marks.
`
`46. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because in late 2005 and
`
`early 2006, a significant and increasing number of real estate experts,
`
`economists and media outlets were warning that America's real estate bubble
`
`was bursting and that real estate prices could tumble and send America into
`
`a severe recession:
`
`The booming housing market halted abruptly in many parts of the
`U.S. in late summer of 2005 …In August 2006, Barron's magazine
`warned, "a housing crisis approaches" …predicted that "the national
`median price of housing will probably fall by close to 30% in the next
`three years" …Based on slumping sales and prices in August 2006,
`economist Nouriel Roubini warned that the housing sector was in
`"free fall" and would derail the rest of the economy, causing a
`recession in 2007. Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in
`economics in 2001, agreed, saying that the U.S. might enter a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`recession as house prices declined. (Wikipedia, "United States
`housing market correction") (See Exhibit R)
`
`47. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`decided to file its intent-to-use application for the SqueezeBlood Mark soon
`
`after real estate experts, economists and media outlets began warning that
`
`America's real estate bubble was bursting and that real estate prices could
`
`tumble and send America into a severe recession.
`
`48. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`chose to begin using the mark just as America and the entire world economy
`
`began plummeting into what is often referred to as the Great Recession.
`
`49. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because Cook Collection
`
`has refused to cease use of the SqueezeBlood Mark despite the fact that
`
`millions of Americans are battling and suffering from persistent high
`
`unemployment, a continuing decline in home values, and an increase in
`
`foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.
`
`50. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because it suggests that
`
`Cook Collection is trying to use the mark to profit and capitalize on the fact
`
`that millions of Americans are unable to pay their debts due to America's
`
`current economic crisis.
`
`51. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because it suggests that
`
`Cook Collection is guilty of schadenfreude (getting satisfaction or pleasure
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`from someone else's misery or misfortune), and finds pleasure in harassing
`
`and intimidating people who are in a significantly compromised position
`
`financially and emotionally, and are unable to adequately defend themselves
`
`against an aggressive and insensitive collections firm such as Cook
`
`Collection because they are unable to afford an attorney or pay their debts.
`
`52. The SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or scandalous because it is disgraceful,
`
`shameful and shocking that a collections firm would register or use the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark for and in conjunction with its collections services and
`
`efforts to seize assets from numerous individuals and organizations.
`
`Dictionaries and Articles Show that
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark is Immoral or Scandalous
`
`53. Dictionary.com defines the word "scandalous" as being "disgraceful;
`
`shameful or shocking." (See Exhibit S)
`
`54. Dictionary.com defines the word "immoral" as "violating moral principles;
`
`not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as
`
`consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." (See Exhibit T)
`
`55. Dictionary definitions establish that a substantial composite of the general
`
`public would find the SqueezeBlood Mark as depicted in the alleged
`
`specimen ("SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com, Cook Collections Attorneys") to
`
`be highly insensitive, immoral or scandalous when displayed on a t-shirt.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`56. Dictionary definitions establish that registration or use of the SqueezeBlood
`
`Mark by a collections firm is scandalous and immoral to a substantial
`
`composite of the general public.
`
`57. Urbandictionary.com defines "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" as
`
`meaning: "You can't get something from a person, especially money, that
`
`they don't have i.e. A turnip cannot be coaxed, squeezed, or cajoled into
`
`producing blood. All efforts at obtaining blood from this vegetable will be
`
`futile." (See Exhibit U) Emphasis added.
`
`58. UsingEnglish.com defines "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" as
`
`meaning: "When people say that you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, it
`
`means that you cannot get something from a person, especially money, that
`
`they don't have." (See Exhibit V) Emphasis added.
`
`59. Dictionary.com defines "squeeze blood from a turnip" as meaning: "You
`
`can only get from people what they are willing or able to give." (See Exhibit
`
`W)
`
`60. Yourdictionary.com defines "you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" as
`
`meaning: "You can only get from people what they are willing or able to
`
`give." (See Exhibit X)
`
`61. Numerous articles establish that a substantial composite of the general
`
`public would find the SqueezeBlood Mark as depicted in the alleged
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`specimen ("SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com, Cook Collections Attorneys") to
`
`be highly insensitive, immoral or scandalous when displayed on a t-shirt.
`
`62. Numerous articles establish that registration or use of the SqueezeBlood
`
`Mark by a collections firm is scandalous and immoral to a substantial
`
`composite of the general public.
`
`63. A December 22, 2008 posting on the Chapati Mystery blog stated that,
`
`"Good lord. It almost seems like an elaborate hoax–the divorce attorney and
`
`the collections lawyer with a 'squeezebloodfromturnip.com' website?–
`
`devised to produce the greatest possible degree of literary absurdity." (See
`
`Exhibit Y) Emphasis added.
`
`64. A June 1, 2009 article by The New York Times stated that, “You can't
`
`squeeze blood from a turnip or water from a stone…When you're trying to
`
`reach a deal, you have to understand the resources of the party you’re
`
`dealing with.” (See Exhibit Z) Emphasis added.
`
`65. A November 21, 2008 article by Radio and TV consumer advocate Clark
`
`Howard, host of HLN's The Clark Howard Show, stated:
`
`Debt-collection agencies are reporting big losses, according to
`The Wall Street Journal. For example, one agency owned by
`Chase lost $15 million in the last 90 days because their level of
`collections has dropped. People are tapped out and you can't
`squeeze blood from a turnip! The Wall Street Journal also
`reports that as collectors are getting more desperate, they're also
`engaging in more illegal activity to try to get money. There are
`reports of collectors cussing at people and threatening them
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`with jail or physical harm. One caller to the show even told us
`that a collector told her 7 year old, "Mommy is going to jail."
`(See Exhibit AA) Emphasis added.
`
`
`66. An April 18, 2011 article by Dallas Bankruptcy Attorneys & Lawyers stated
`
`that:
`
`While many debt collectors are just trying to do their job by
`calling and asking you when you will be able to repay your
`debt, many times these collection attempts turn menacing and
`harassing. As the saying goes, you can’t squeeze blood from a
`turnip. If you do not have additional funds to cover your debts,
`they simply cannot get paid. Federal legislators have recognized
`that debt collectors often go to [sic] far in their attempts to
`collect a debt, which led to the enactment of the Fair Debt
`Collection Practices Act. (See Exhibit BB) Emphasis added.
`
`
`67. An October 31, 2011 article by The Sacramento Bee discussed how a school
`
`district's police officers association was put under intense scrutiny due to
`
`complaints and heavy criticism from community leaders and child advocates
`
`over the police association's selling of t-shirts with a picture of a young child
`
`behind bars surrounded by the message "U raise 'em, we cage 'em." (See
`
`Exhibit CC)
`
`Cook Collection’s Fraudulent Actions
`
`68. On October 12, 2006, Cook Collection filed its original intent-to-use
`
`application for the SqueezeBlood Mark, claiming that it had a "bona fide
`
`intention to use or use through the applicant's related company or licensee
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods and/or
`
`services."
`
`69. On December 20, 2006, Cook Collection filed an "Amendment to Allege
`
`Use Under 37 C.F.R. § 2.76 With Declaration" for the SqueezeBlood Mark
`
`with an alleged "specimen showing the mark as used in commerce,"
`
`presumably for "Clothing, namely, t-shirts" (it was unclear how the mark
`
`was actually being used in commerce from the specimen submitted by Cook
`
`Collection).
`
`70. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection intentionally and
`
`knowingly did not file bona fide proof of use of the SqueezeBlood Mark in
`
`commerce to support the registration of the SqueezeBlood Mark.
`
`71. Smith believes and alleges that the SqueezeBlood Mark is immoral or
`
`scandalous and was fraudulently obtained, because Cook Collection did not
`
`have a bona fide intention to use the SqueezeBlood Mark as claimed and did
`
`not use it as claimed.
`
`72. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection intentionally mislead the
`
`Trademark Office into believing that Cook Collection had a bona fide
`
`intention to use the SqueezeBlood Mark for "t-shirts," but instead intended
`
`to use the SqueezeBlood Mark for its collections services and efforts to seize
`
`assets from numerous individuals and organizations.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`73. Smith believes and alleges that the overwhelming majority of Cook
`
`Collection's use of the SqueezeBlood Mark has been for its collections
`
`services and efforts to seize assets from numerous individuals and
`
`organizations, not for "t-shirts" as Cook Collection claimed to the
`
`Trademark Office.
`
`74. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection has sold no more than a de
`
`minimis number of t-shirts with the SqueezeBlood Mark, and has likely not
`
`sold any t-shirts with the SqueezeBlood Mark.
`
`75. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection intentionally mislead the
`
`Trademark Office by filing for the SqueezeBlood Mark in international class
`
`025 for "Clothing, namely, t-shirts" because Cook Collection believed that
`
`the Trademark Office would have denied the SqueezeBlood Mark for being
`
`immoral or scandalous had Cook Collections filed it in international class
`
`042 for "Legal Services."
`
`76. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection had knowledge and belief
`
`that there is no viable market for SqueezeBlood Mark "t-shirts."
`
`77. Smith believes and alleges that on December 20, 2006, despite having
`
`knowledge and belief that "other persons, firms, corporations, or
`
`associations had the right to use said mark in commerce, either in the
`
`identical form or in such near resemblance thereto as may be likely, when
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`applied to the goods or services of such other person, as to cause confusion,
`
`or to cause mistake, or to deceive," Cook Collection filed a signed
`
`declaration by attorney David Cook, president of Cook Collection, stating
`
`and alleging that:
`
`I, DAVID COOK, being hereby warned that willful false
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`imprisonment or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the
`United States Code, and that such willful false statements may
`jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration
`resulting therefrom, declare that: I am the_applicant; I believe
`that I am the owner of the mark sought to be registered; to the
`best of my knowledge and belief, no other person, firm,
`corporation or association has the right to use said mark in
`commerce, either in the identical form or in such near
`resemblance thereto as may be likely, when applied to the
`goods or services of such other person, as to cause confusion, or
`to cause mistake, or to deceive; all statements made of my own
`knowledge are true; and all statements made on information and
`belief are believed to be true. (See Exhibit DD)
`
`78. Smith is unsure who would want to purchase or wear a "t-shirt" featuring
`
`the SqueezeBlood Mark and the words "Cook Collection Attorneys," and he
`
`has been unable to locate a single shirt for sale using the SqueezeBlood
`
`Mark, including nowhere on SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com, or by
`
`searching the Internet using the three largest search engines, Bing, Google,
`
`and Yahoo.
`
`79. A Google search by Smith for the near-identical phrase "Squeeze Blood
`
`From a Turnip" and the word "shirt," generated "about 2,330,000 results,"
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`none of which appeared to be controlled by or in any way associated with
`
`Cook Collection. (See Exhibit EE)
`
`80. Smith believes and alleges that at the time of filing the application, Cook
`
`Collection did not have a bona fide intent to use the SqueezeBlood Mark in
`
`commerce for "Clothing, namely, t-shirts."
`
`81. Smith believes and alleges that at the time of filing its declaration of alleged
`
`use and its alleged specimen, Cook Collection had not used the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark in commerce for "Clothing, namely, t-shirts."
`
`82. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection has never used the
`
`SqueezeBlood Mark in commerce for "Clothing, namely, t-shirts."
`
`83. Smith believes and alleges that Cook Collection knowingly and fraudulently
`
`provided the Trademark Office with false information about Cook
`
`Collection's alleged use of the SqueezeBlood Mark with the intent to deceive
`
`the Trademark Office.
`
`84. Smith be

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