Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA448981
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/30/2011
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92054966
`Defendant
`Cook Collection Attorneys, P.L.C.
`
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS PLC
`165 FELL STREET
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
`UNITED STATES
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`David J. Cook (SBN # 060859)
`cook@squeezebloodfromturnip.com, mbaron@cookcollectionattorneys.com
`/djc/
`12/30/2011
`Smith 12b6 motion.pdf ( 282 pages )(25474204 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. 92054966
`Registration No. 3257604
`
`) ) ) )
`
`’)
`
`l
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`SCOTT R. SMITH, an individual,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS,
`P.L.C., a California corporation,
`,3
`
`Respondent.
`
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS, P.L.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION TO
`CANCEL, AND MOVE FOR ENTRY OF PREFILING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS, P.L.C. (“Respondent”) hereby moves the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“TTAB”) for the following relief:
`31. For an order dismissing the Petition to Cancel the trademark registration of Cook
`Collection Attorneys, P.L.C., Serial No. 77020236, Registration No. 3257604, for the Trademark
`Squeezi_eBloodFromTurnip.com, appearing on T-shirts herein (“SqueezeB1ood Trademark”) under
`Fed.R.:!Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6) and TBMP § 503.02, on the basis, among other grounds, that Scott Smith,
`the Petitioning party, (“Smith”) lacks any standing therein or recognizable interest thereunder, or
`
`any other claim, right or interest recognized under Article III of the United States Constitution.‘
`
`For an order barring and prohibiting Smith from filing, now or in the future, any other
`_Petition to Cancel for any other trademark of Cook Collection Attorneys, P.L.C., either in part or
`
`in whole, based upon the inequitable, wrongful, and malicious conduct undertaken by Smith,
`
`arising}; out of and based upon this current Petition to Cancel, and moreover, the prior prosecution
`
`of a Petition to Cancel the trademarks of Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (“EMI”) for its Trademarks
`
`bearing a) Cancellation No. 92053982/Registration No. 2408039, for the Trademark described as
`
`ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZlNE’S SMALL BUSINESS EXPO; and b) Cancellation No.
`92053,&724/Registration No. 2391145 for the Trademark described as ENTREPRENEUR EXPO
`
`(“EMI;-Trademarks”).
`
`
`
`' With prejudice and with costs.
`
`)"
`
`-1-
`
`,._a 7.‘
`
`S\DOO\lO'\-5>~LaJl\J
`
`|\)v—I>—-r—--r--r-—-:-nr—IO\OOO\lO’\U1-JAUJIQ
`
`l\) v—-
`
`K0K9
`
`l\)U)
`
`l\)-5
`
`[ULII
`
`NO\
`
`N\J
`
`[Q 00
`
`

`
`._A
`
`.a\DOO\lO\UI-l>bJl\)
`
`p_.A
`
`p-A
`
`:-o [Q
`
`n— U)
`
`u—- A
`
`r—- LII
`
`v-- O\
`
`v-—- \l
`
`r— 00
`
`r—I VD
`
`I9O
`
`l\J 7-4
`
`l\)Ix)
`
`l\J DJ
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`For the issuance of a prefiling order barring, either in part or in whole, Smith from the
`filing, iprosecution, or participation in any hearing or proceeding before the TTAB, unless any and
`all papers and pleadings are submitted at the outset thereof for approval by a judicial officer herein
`that peitain or related to any trademark held by Respondent.
`
`4. For an order declaring Smith to be a vexatious litigant, and barring him from the filing
`of anytiother papers, pleadings, or other matter, seeming to attack, challenge, or denegrate
`Respondent, or any part of the same, without either in part or in whole the submission to ajudicial
`officerifor approval as to filing thereof.
`
`-7This motion is undertaken on the basis that the Respondent represents EMI in the post-
`
`judgment proceedings in that action entitled Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith, pending in
`
`the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, (Sacramento) Case No. 2: 10-mo-
`0005 (“Enforcement Action”); that EMI is in the process of litigating the matter,
`includilig but not limited to, various post-judgment proceedings thereunder; that the Respondent
`
`represents EMI in the prosecution thereunder, and just completed an order of examination
`(debtoiffs exam); that as a strategy, Smith has previously filed a Petition to Cancel the Trademark
`
`of EM-l, which the court summarily dismissed, based upon the lack of standing therein, and
`
`moreover, that the Petition to Cancel has been brought for the sole purpose of harassment and
`intimidation, for the purpose up the expense of EMI and the Respondent, and to deter the
`
`Respondent from firrther representation of EMI, constituting a violation ofboth the civil rights of
`
`EMI,
`
`moreover, the Respondent herein.
`;I_This motion is based upon these grounds, the attached motion, the Memorandum ofPoints
`and Arithofities, the Declaration of David J. Cook, Esq., upon all matters which the court may take
`
`judicial notice which include, but is not limited to, the following proceedings:
`
`,:,4' 1. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith, pending in the United States District Court,
`
`Central District of California, Case No. CV-98-3607 FMC (Ctx), and all appeals therefrom
`(“Infiingement Action”);
`Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith, pending in the United States Bankruptcy
`
`Court,%,Eastern District of California, (Sacramento) Case No. 01 25334 B 7 / Adv. No. O1-22l9—A,
`
`
`
`

`
`1
`
`and allhappeals therefrom (“Nondischargeability Action”)
`
`' 3. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith, pending in the United States District Court,
`
`Eastern District of California, (Sacramento) Case No. 2: 10-mc—0O055-JAM-EFB, and all
`
`enforcement proceedings therein (“Enforcement Action”);
`
`:4. Scott Smith v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc., Cancellation No. 92053982/Registration No.
`
`2408039, for the Trademark described as ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZlNE’S SMALL BUSINESS
`and Cancellation No. 92053724/Registration No. 2391145 for the Trademark described as
`ENTREPRENEUR EXPO, and all appeals thereunder (“EMI-TTAB Actions”)?
`
`All matters in this proceeding, and any and all other matters which the court may take
`
`S\DOO\lO'\UIJ>b-)l\.)
`
`judicial notice thereunder.
`'
`- -
`This motion is also based upon all papers, pleadings an e
`: - file herein, and
`
`oral evidence and argument which may be - '-
`
`sented at the hearing hereof.
`
`
`
`0 Response, Respondent submits the ccompanying
`
`upon
`
`__In support of this Motion to Dismiss
`
`F:\USEl§_tS\DJCNEW\cook trademarkdismiss
`
`4
`-.2
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1,3,2 The two registrations of EMI at issue are Cancellation No. 92053982/Registration No.
`2408039, for the Trademark described as ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZ]NE’S SMALL BUSINESS
`EXPOE, and Cancellation No. 92053724/Registration No. 2391145 for the Trademark described as
`ENTREPRENEUR EXPO. Smith’s 2008 Cancellation Petition filed with the TTAB on March 7,
`2008 iijlvolved EMI’s ENTREPRENEUR EXPO mark, Registration No. 2391145. For Smith’s
`second; Cancellation Petition against the same trademark, filed on March 8, 2011, the Cancellation
`No. is 92053724.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`SCOTT R. SMITH
`5714 Folsom Blvd., Suite 140
`Sacramento, CA 95819
`
`I declare:
`
`I am employed in the County of San Francisco, California. I am over the age of eighteen
`(18) years and not a party to the within cause. My business address is 165 Fell Street, San
`Francisco, CA 94102. On the date set forth below, I served the attached:
`
`_COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS, P.L.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
`‘TO CANCEL, AND MOVE FOR ENTRY OF PREF‘ILING ORDER AND OTHER
`‘RELIEF
`
`on the above-named person(s) by:
`
`XXX G3Y MAIL) Placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
`thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed to the
`person(s) served above.
`
`declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true 1.
`
` 4.
`
`.-A
`
`%I—‘
`
`V-‘©\OOO\lO'\U1-kbélxi
`[\)u—-n—-u—-p--u—-r—->—o--O\OOO\lO\Ua-hbatxi
`
`(Q n—--
`
`IO(N)
`
`N)U)
`
`[Q-33-
`
`[9U’:
`
`10ON
`
`I9 \I
`
`I9 00
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cancellation No. 92054966
`Registration No. 3257604
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`) )
`
`SCOTT R. SMITH, an individual,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`COOKCOLLECTION ATTORNEYS,
`P.L.C., a California corporation,
`
`Respondent.
`
`COOK COLLECTION ATTORNEYS, P.L.C.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION TO CANCEL, AND
`MOVE FOR ENTRY OF PREFILING ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`p_n
`
`S\OOO\lO\U1-[>0-¥l\J
`
`

`
`....a
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`‘INTRODUCTION .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`EH3‘-S;
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-1-
`
`-2-
`
`HISTORY OF THIS CASE .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`A.
`
`Infiingement Action .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-2-
`
`-3-
`
`5\OO0\lO'\UI-l>UJl\)
`
`PETITION TO CANCEL EMI’S TRADEMARK .
`
`-No STANDING .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-6-
`
`-9-
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Intervenjng Bankruptcy Action .
`
`Enforcement Action .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-4-
`
`-6-
`
`.5-<25
`
`FWHY SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE? .
`
`‘REMEDIES SOUGHT .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-11-
`
`-13-
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Remedies
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Inherent Powers of Court
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-13-
`
`VII.
`
`PETITIONER SEEKS TO HOLD RESPONDENT’S MARKS AS HOSTAGE TO
`
`ECOERCE RESPONDENT TO ABANDON REPRESENTATION OF EMI
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-15-
`
`VH1.
`
`‘PRIOR VEXATIOUS LITIGATION .
`
`SMITH REVEALS HIS MOTIVES .
`
`.
`
`b.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-16-
`
`-18-
`
`-22-
`
`:PETITIONER HAS BEEN WARNED BY THE TTAB .
`
`XI.
`
`CONCLUSION .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`PAGES:
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-1-, -11-
`
`. ..
`
`-13-
`
`CASES:
`Collinsii v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
`‘(9th Cir. 2007) 505 F.3d 874 .
`Chamgers v. NASCO
`1501 U.S.32, 111 S.Ct.2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991)
`
`.
`
`Continental Specialties Corp. v. Continental Connector Corp.
`‘.1192 U.S.P.Q. 449 (T.T.A.B. 1976)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`\OO0\]O\£II-59319
`
`10
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-9-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`-14-, -15-
`
`De Long vs. Hennessey
`1912 F.2d 1144 (9"‘ Cir. 1990) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Entrepfeneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith
`:'279 F.3d 1135 (9"‘ Cir. 2002) (reversing in part district court’s grant of summary
`ajudgment); 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24078 (C.D.Ca1. June 24, 2003) (decision following
`bench trial), aff’d, 101 Fed. Appx. 212 (9"‘ Cir. 2004) (unpublished); 2004 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 24078 (C.D.Cal. June 23, 2004)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-2-
`
`FBI v. .iS'ociete: M. Bril & Co.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`-9-
`
`o—- B)
`
`1-- LI:
`
`3,172 U.S.P.Q. 310 (T.T.A.B. 1971)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`In re Franklin Press, Inc.
`
`n-I O\
`
`v—I \l
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. -7-, -9-
`
`"201 U.S.P.Q. 662 (C.C.P.A. 1979)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`1-- O0
`
`In Re éowell
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-15-
`
`,-851 F.2d 427 (D.D.C. Cir. 1988) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`In re Scott R. Smith, Smith v. Entrepreneur Media, Inc.
`:2009 WL 6058677 (Vt. A.G. Dec. 17, 2009) .
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-11-
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`In re UPLAND PARTNERS
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`.'}2006 WL 980583 (Bkrtcy-D.Hawai’i ), *8 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-14-
`
`International Tel. and Telegraph Corp. v. International Mobile Machines Corp.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-8-
`
`‘.218 U.S.P.Q. 1024; 1983 T.T.A.B. LEXIS 227, *8-9 (T.T.A.B. 1983)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Jewelers Vigilance Committee, Inc., v. Ullenberg Corp.
`
`3823 F.2d 490 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. -3,
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`1 Kissel ‘v. DiMartino
`
`2
`
`3
`
`11993 WL 289430 (E.D.N.Y.) (1993), *8 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-14-
`
`Lipton3gIndus., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. -7--9-
`
`4
`
`$670 F.2d 1024 (C.C.P.A. 1981) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`5 Molskii vs. Evergreen Dynasty Corporation etc.
`
`6
`
`:-3500 F.3d 1047 (9"‘ Cir. 2007) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. -14-, -17-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. -7-, -9-
`
`7 Ritchie: v. Simpson
`8
`170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`9 Scotch Game Call Company, Inc. v. Lucky Strike Bait
`
`10
`
`.1148 F.R.D. 65 (1993)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-13-
`
`11 Shiraishi v. United States ofAmerica
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-13-
`
`12
`
`12011 WL 4625723 (D.Hawai’i), *9 .
`
`13 Weissrnan vs. Quail Lodge, Inc.
`
`14
`
`.-:_ 179 F.3d 1194 (9“‘ Cir. 1999) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-15-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-13-
`
`15 Wolfe George
`16
`486 F.3d 1120, FN12 (2007) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-9-
`
`17 Yard-I1{lan, Inc. v. Getz Exterminators, Inc.
`18
`157 U.S.P.Q. 100 (T.T.A.B. 1968)
`19
`20 Federal:
`21
`Federa1 Rule of Civil Procedure
`22
`69(a)(1)&(2)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-4-
`
`-13-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`23
`
`{Rule 1 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`-13-
`
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`;{Ru1e 11 .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`15 Unigted States Code
`1064 .............................................................. .
`28 Un1ted States Code
`1927 .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`.
`
`-7-
`
`-13-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`2;
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`42 United States Code
`
`Ҥ1983.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`-1-
`
`Unitecf States Bankruptcy Code
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. -3-, -4-
`
`1.'§ 523(a)(6) .
`
`§ 727 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-3-
`
`State:'Z:
`
`0
`
`California Business & Professions Code
`
`"§ 17200 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..
`
`-21-
`
`California Code of Civil Procedure
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-4-
`
`5’-§ 708.110(a).
`
`§ 708.510 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`-4-
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I. INTRODUCTION.
`
`This Petition to Cancel the Trademark of Cook Collection Attorneys, P.L.C. for the use of
`
`the words SqueezeBloodFromTumip.com, Registration No. 3257604, is an attempt by Scott R.
`
`Smith (“Smith”) to interfere, if not deprive, Cook Collection Attorneys, P.L.C. (“Respondent”) of
`
`its Constitutionally protected rights to the access of Article III courts. This brief will demonstrate
`
`to this court that the purpose of this Petition has nothing to do with Respondent’s T-shirts bearing
`
`SqueezeBloodFromTurnip.com, but rather, an attempt by Smith to deter, intimidate, harass, and
`
`ultimately interfere and block Respondent’s access to an Article III judge, a Constitutionally
`
`protected rights. The seriousness of this wrongfiil conduct carmot be understated and, as this brief
`
`will demonstrate, Respondent will ask this court for more than just a mere dismissal of this matter,
`
`with prejudice, but moreover, appropriate sanctions to deter this conduct in the future. Anytime
`
`judicial process is used (or misused) to violate the civil rights of another party, constitutes one of
`
`the most egregious wrongs, condemned under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
`
`,Before delving into the history of this case, and the brief recitation of the prior Petitions to
`Cancel filed by Smith for the EMI Trademarks, the salient fact is that Smith is the judgment debtor
`
`of EMI based upon the willfiil and malicious infiingement of EMI’s intellectual property
`
`(“Infringement Action”). This willful and malicious infringement now takes the form of a final
`
`District Court judgment, affirmed on appeal, and determined to be nondischargeable at the level of
`
`the Bankruptcy Court and Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“Nondischargeablity Action”) Unlike
`
`state law, upon the entry of a District Court judgment, the judgment is deemed final for purposes
`ofcollateral estoppel. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 505 F.3d 874. In the
`
`hrfiingement Action the District Court determined that Smith engaged in conduct to infringe upon
`
`EMI’s'§trademark for his own profit and gain. In the Nondischargeability Action, the Bankruptcy
`Court detennined that Smith acted willfully and maliciously, and with a subjective intent to injure,
`
`damage EMI, without just cause or excuse. The ensuing Petitions filed by Smith seeking
`harm,
`to can£_)el the EMI registration, and now the registration for Respondent’s T-shirts, constitutes a
`
`continuation of Smith’s predatory practices. This is not hyperbole, aggrandizement, or
`
`p_a
`
`3\ooo\1oxu:4>pat~.>
`
`g—n
`
`p—A
`
`0-: Ix)
`
`—I U)
`
`—A -P
`
`—- LII
`
`u—- O\
`
`>—- \I
`
`n-- x
`
`r—- )0
`
`IN)C
`
`l\) n—-
`
`N[9
`
`B3 DJ
`
`M-5
`
`[Qfill
`
`l\7ON
`
`I9\I
`
`I000
`
`

`
`p—s
`
`exaggeration.‘ Smith’s malicious conduct has now been cycled through four courts, and a total of
`
`.-O-‘\OO0\IO\Lh-J>-Uélx)
`
`p—A
`
`p—n
`
`—I I9
`
`r— U)
`
`>—- -5
`
`—I (II
`
`r--I O\
`
`v--n \l
`
`v—- 00
`
`r--I \O
`
`I00
`
`[Q :—A
`
`{QIx)
`
`IOU)
`
`N4:-
`
`N!U!
`
`IN)O\
`
`[0\l
`
`B3 00
`
`eight separate Judges (District Court-1; Ninth Circuit-3; Bankruptcy Court-1 [the trial judge only,
`
`even though the prior judge, Judge Dorian, granted the summary adjudication]; BAP-3). Therefore,
`this papel in considering both the motion to dismiss filed by Respondent, should consider the fact
`
`that eight Judges have already held that Smith has acted, and continues to act, in a manner to harm,
`
`injure and destroy EMI, and now Respondent.
`
`0
`II. HISTORY OF THIS CASE.
`‘Respondent clearly recognizes that TTAB has already cycled through a good deal ofthe
`history ofthis case through the litigation of the Petitions to Cancel entitled Scott Smith v.
`Entrepreneur Media, Inc., Cancellation No. 92053982/Registration No. 2408039, for the
`
`Trademark described as ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZINE’S SMALL BUSINESS EXPO; and
`Cancelglation No. 92053724/Registration No. 2391145 for the Trademark described as
`ENTREPRENEUR EXPO, which culminated in the dismissal with prejudice, based upon a
`judgment. Notwithstanding the institutional knowledge ofthis court ofthis proceeding,
`some history is relevant in laying out the basis for the sanctions as sought.
`
`Infringement Action.
`‘ A.
`‘Z EMI filed its Complaint in the United States District Court, Central District of California,
`
`entitled Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith, Case No. CV-98-3607 FMC (Ctx), a copy of that
`
`Complaint which is attached hereto marked Exhibit “A ” and incorporated by reference. EMI
`
`claimejd and asserted that Smith infiinged upon EMI’s intellectual property.
`ilnitially, the case culminated in the granting of a summaryjudgment, which was later
`reverséd in Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Scott Smith, 279 F.3d 1135 (9“‘ Cir. 2002) (reversing in
`part
`court’s grant ofsummaryjudgment); 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24078 (C.D.Cal. June 24,
`2003) (decision following bench trial), aft’d, 101 Fed. Appx. 212 (9"‘ Cir. 2004) (unpublished);
`
`2004 US. Dist. LEXIS 24078 (C.D.Ca1. June 23, 2004) (entry of findings of fact and conclusions
`
`of lawfrom trial).
`
`Plus another Petition to Cancel the trademark ofthe name “COOK” as indicated by
`Exhibit “N” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
`(
`:1‘t
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`The Infringement Action went to trial, that led to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
`
`Law which is attached hereto marked Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference. Judgment was
`entered, a copy which is attached hereto marked Exhibit “C” and incorporated by reference. The
`
`findings shed great light in understanding the base motives of Petitioner:
`
`25. Entrepreneur is entitled to its attomey’s fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
`«l117(a) which provides that attomey’s fees may be awarded in exceptional cases,
`and Section 11l7(b), which provides that “the court shall, unless the court finds
`.~_. extenuating circumstances, enter judgment. . .together with a reasonable attorney’s
`‘ fee, in the case of any violation. .
`. that consists ofintentionally using a mark or
`; designation, knowing such mark or designation is a counterfeit mark .
`.
`. .” (Page
`10, Par. 25, lines 18-25) (Emphasis added)
`
`This matter ultimately went on appeal, and a copy of the appellate opinion which is attached hereto
`marked Exhibit “D” and incorporated by reference.’ The short summary is that Smith willfully
`
`and maliciously infringed upon the intellectual property (trademarks) for and on behalf of EMI.
`The cciurt rendered a moneyjudgment, inclusive of costs, interest and fees, in the principal amount
`
`of $669,656, plus attorneys fees of $680,895, and costs of $39,267.46, for a total of $1,389,818.40.
`
`Said judgment remains unsatisfied.
`
`' B.
`
`Intervening Bankruptcy Action.
`
`’ During the midst of the Infiingement Action and afier the summary judgment, but before
`
`the reversal, Smith filed his Petition under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the
`
`United; States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, (Sacramento) Case No. 01 25334 B
`7. The_l._Complaint was filed with essentially two courts, the first of which was to assert that the
`underlying infiingement judgment was undertaken willfully and maliciously, and subject to the
`exempition fiom the discharge under Bkrtcy.C. § 523(a)(6), and to bar the discharge of Smith for
`
`certain misconduct arising out of the bankruptcy under Bkrtcy.C. § 727. During the course and
`
`scope of the bankruptcy proceeding, Judge Dorian issued an order to show cause for the failure to
`
`prosecute the Bkrtcy.C. § 727 action, which the succeeding Judge (McManus) discharged, which
`
`was upheld by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (see below). The Bkrtcy.C. § 727 trial went to
`
`1;
`
`r ”
`
`The Circuit court affinned the fee award: “Because EMI provided strong credible
`evidence that Smith intended to confuse consumers, attomey’s fees were justified.” Exhibit “D”
`at page *2 l 5
`
`-3-
`
`p_s
`
`S\OOO\lO'\UI-BU?!‘-3
`
`.—A
`
`.—n
`
`—- l\J
`
`>-- U)
`
`n-- -F
`
`v-- U’:
`
`n— C\
`
`—I \l
`
`n—- 00
`
`|—I \D
`
`ix)0
`
`l\J —-
`
`(QB)
`
`KN)U)
`
`N-I5
`
`[QU!
`
`IQO\
`
`[Q\l
`
`[9 00
`
`

`
`judgment, in favor of Smith. The Bkrtcy.C. § 523(a)(6) case went to trial, in which EMI prevailed,
`
`and a copy of the Findings of Fact and Judgment are attached hereto marked Exhibit “E ” and
`incorporated by reference.’
`I Smith appealed the matter to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel which affirmed on all
`grounds, and a copy ofthe Opinion (West1aw only) which is attached hereto marked Exhibit “F”
`and incorporated by reference. Smith appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit, in which briefing
`was complete, but oral argument has not been set.
`
`Enforcement Action.
`C.
`1 EMI has registered the Infringement Action Judgment from the United States District
`
`Court,._Eastem District of California, (Sacramento) Case No. 2: 10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB
`(“Enforcement Action”) under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 69(a)(l)&(2) to enforce the judgment. EMI has
`sought, among other remedies, a motion for assignment ofrights under C.C.P. § 708.510, entitling
`ajudgment creditor to have assigned to it all rights to payment ofmoney due ajudgment debtor.
`That rriotion (without exhibits) which is attached hereto marked Exhibit “G” and incorporated by
`refereriice.
`The court has issued a series of orders scheduling and rescheduling the motion, essentially
`
`predicated upon the results of a “debtor’s exam” authorized under C.C.P. § 708.1l0(a). At issue is
`
`whether or not Smith has accounts and accounts receivable which would be subject to
`
`enforcement. Smith claims in summary in his debtor’s exam that he does not have any accounts
`
`and accounts receivable arising out of and based upon the operation of his business under the name
`
`of Bizs:tarz, which incidentally is a registered trademark, and a copy of that registration is attached
`heretofrnarked Exhibit “H” and incorporated by reference. While this motion is not a Petition to
`
`Cancel‘Bizstarz, Smith unequivocally stated that he is not generating any revenue, one way or
`
`another, in the operation of his business under the name of Bizstarz.
`the court of the Enforcement Action, Smith has engaged in repetitive conduct to
`
`,3 Judge McManus held: “Smith willfully committed trademark infringement against EMI.
`to EMI’s property was deliberate and intentional.” (Exhibit “E, ” Page 2, Para. 1, lines
`This
`22-24); “Smith knew that his willful trademark infiingement would necessarily injure EMI. (Ibid.,
`Page 37, para. 2, lines 19-20)
`R
`
`-4-
`
`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
`
`

`
`pa
`
`S\OOO\lO\U'I-btfilxi
`
`,._n p_|
`
`—- IN)
`
`r—- LAJ
`
`o---- A
`
`—- LII
`
`I- O\
`
`u—- \l
`
`r---- 00
`
`—I \O
`
`I9O
`
`IN) o—d
`
`I9N
`
`B)U.)
`
`N-5
`
`[0 CI!
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`harass, humiliate, intimate, and oppress David J. Cook of Respondent. Petitioner filed in the
`Enforcfiement Action a DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS, RESTRAINING
`
`ORDER, AND TURNOVER ORDER (Docket #82), a copy ofwhich is attached hereto marked
`Exhibit “I” and incorporated by reference. The key to this filing is that Smith sought sanctions
`
`against David J. Cook and EMI predicated upon misconduct before the New York Court of
`
`Claims. For purposes of brevity, Respondent attaches the relevant portions of the Memorandum,
`
`commencing at page 1, and attaching the offending decision by the New York Court of Claim, at
`
`pages 007-0027 as Exhibit B thereto.‘
`__:In an ensuing filing, Smith sought to defend the filing, and a copy ofhis Memorandum in
`Opposition is attached hereto marked Exhibit “J” and incorporated by reference. He makes
`various claims, as follows:
`
`Cook spends the majority of EMI’s Motion to Compel arguing over a mistake that
`Smith made in his Opposition to EMI’s Motion for Assignment of Rights, when he
`:1 mistakenly identified Cook as being the same David Cook that was sanctioned by a
`New York Court. Smith’s error was an honest mistake, which Smith immediately
`and dutifully sought to correct. There was nothing “willful” or “intentional” about
`Smith’s mistake — it was simply a mistake. Even without any “new” evidence,
`Cook’s conduct has long show a pattern of misconduct, a pattern which existed
`before Smith’s mistake, and continues to exist to this day. There are many
`_ examples of Cook’s bad-faith conduct throughout this over 10-year long battle,
`ranging from the $10 million Show Cause Order issued against Cook based on his
`; meritless claims, to Cook’s flagrant motto boating his ability to “squeeze blood
`‘ from a turnip.” Smith may have had the wrong David Cook in his prior filing;
`however, Smith’s mistake does not change the actions take by Cook throughout his
`tenure as EMI’s collections attorney.
`
`5 Cook’s reputation, including his tactics designed to “squeeze blood from a turnip”,
`5 contributed to Smith’s error in believing the David Cook sanctioned by another
`court was, in fact, the same David Cook as in the present case. Additionally,
`,Smith’s personal experience with Cook’s collection efforts that consistently cross
`the line in tenns of ethical conduct, made it seem likely that Cook was the attorney
`_ in question. Additionally, Cook does appear in courts outside of California; thus, it
`was not obvious that he was not the same David Cook appearing in a NY court.”
`
`‘(DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING SCOTT
`
`, " Smith caught this error and “apologized” and refiled nearly the identical Memorandum
`shortly thereafter. Smith, however, did not expunge the offending New York Court of Claims
`decision. As stated elsewhere herein, Magistrate Judge Brennan denied the motion for a prefiling
`order. _;
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`p_a
`
`n—-n—-V-‘©\OOO\lO\Llt-l>'~I-*3‘-3
`[\Jn—Av--Ar--t-An—A>—-n-Ar—t©\DOO\lO\LII5U-lb)
`
`IN) n----
`
`[9N
`
`I\)DJ
`
`M-5
`
`IN)LII
`
`[0O\
`
`IN)\I
`
`I000
`
`SMITH TO SUBMIT ALL PAPERS TO THE USDC, E.D.CAL FOR APPROVAL
`PRIOR TO FILING AND SERVICE UNDER 28 U.S.C. C.C.P. § 1927 AND UNDER
`THE EQUITABLE POWERS OF THIS COURT [PREFILING MOTION], Enforcement
`Action, p. 2, 11. 8-24, p. 3, 11. 1-2.)
`
`Malice overflows this filing by Petitioner, as does this Petitioner to Cancel, much less the Petition
`
`to Cancel the registration for Cook Collection Attorneys.
`
`III. PETITION TO CANCEL EMI’S TRADEMARK.
`
`"This is not the first time Smith has filed a Petition to Cancel a trademark. Smith has filed
`
`two Petitions to Cancel EMI Trademarks, and copies of the two Petitions to Cancel, Registration
`
`No. 2408039 and Registration No. 2391145, are attached hereto marked Exhibit “K” and
`incorporated by reference (without exhibits). This court dismissed the same, with prejudice, and a
`
`copy of the two orders thereof are attached hereto marked Exhibits “L ” and “M” and incorporated
`
`by reference. The basis, as here, is the lack of standings
`
`: This Petition to Cancel the SqueezeB1ood Trademark is now being followed by a second
`
`Petition to Cancel the trademark for Cook Collection Attorneys (“COOK”), Cancellation No.
`
`54970, Registration No. 3414311, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit “N. ” The
`purpose ofthis Petition to Cancel the registration for Cook Collection Attorneys and all