throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA460721
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`03/08/2012
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92054976
`Defendant
`VDF FutureCeuticals, Inc.
`
`VDF FUTURECEUTICALS INC
`819 NORTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
`MOMENCE, IL 60954
`UNITED STATES
`Reply in Support of Motion
`Bradley J. Walz
`sbaird@winthrop.com, sarmstrong@winthrop.com, jrezac@winthrop.com,
`trademark@winthrop.com, bwalz@winthrop.com
`/Bradley J. Walz/
`03/08/2012
`Reply.pdf ( 6 pages )(295737 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
`
`Sandwich Isles Trading Co., Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`VDF FutureCeuticals, Inc.
`
`Respondent
`—
`
`€%%\J%%\/\/
`
`Cancellation No. 92054976
`
`RESPONDENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`
`MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
`
`I. Introduction
`
`VDF FutureCeuticals,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Respondent”)
`
`submits
`
`this Reply in Support of
`
`Respondent’s Motion for a More Definite Statement.
`
`Sandwich Isles Trading Co.’s
`
`(“Petitioner”) Response to Respondent’s Motion for a More Definite Statement mischaracterizes
`
`the standards of standing and the requirements of an initial pleading in an effort to reframe
`
`Respondent’s motion as a bad faith attempt to delay answering SITC’s Petition to Cancel.
`
`However, a close reading of SITC’s Petition and clarification of the relevant standards makes
`
`clear that SITC’s Petition is so vague and ambiguous that Respondent cannot form a responsive
`
`pleading without prejudicing itself.
`
`II. Argument
`
`Petitioner argues that the disposition of this motion should be suspended pending the
`
`disposition of a patent infringement case in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Hawaii, captioned VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. V. Sandwich Isles Trading C0,, Inc., CV11-00288
`
`ACK/RLP (USDC, District of Hawaii), commenced on April 29, 2011 (the “Hawaii Patent
`
`Action”), per Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend filed on February 6, 2012. Respondent recently
`
`

`
`filed its Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board”) on February 27, 2012, which makes clear that because Petitioner lacks the required
`
`“case or controversy” to maintain its declaratory judgment claim for trademark invalidity in
`
`district court and because the Hawaii Patent Action has been stayed and administratively closed
`
`for what is likely to be a number of years, this Cancellation action should proceed.
`
`As outlined in Respondent’s Response to Motion to Suspend, in the present action,
`
`suspension is neither necessary nor appropriate. Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend was filed solely
`
`to cause delay of these proceedings and to postpone resolution of Respondent’s rights in its nine
`
`(9) registrations incorporating the COFFEEBERRY® mark. First, Petitioner filed its Motion to
`
`Suspend with fi1ll knowledge that the Hawaii Patent Action will likely not be reopened or
`
`resolved for years.
`
`The case has been stayed and administratively closed to allow for
`
`reexamination of the patents at issue in the suit. On average, patent reexamination at the USPTO
`
`alone takes over two years. Biomet Biologics, LLC v. Bio Rich Medical, Inc., Case No. SACV
`
`l0-1582 DOC (PJWx), *5 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2011). As the Hawaii Patent Action is
`
`administratively closed — save for Petitioner’s
`
`filing of its Amended Complaint and
`
`Respondent’s responsive pleading thereto — the Court will likely not make any decision about
`
`whether it will even consider the validity of Respondent’s marks for at least two years. Second,
`
`suspension is inappropriate where the District Court has not determined that it has jurisdiction to
`
`even hear Petitioner’s recently amended trademark claims. Respondent filed its Partial Motion
`
`to Dismiss the Amended Counterclaim on February 27, 2012 on grounds that (1) Petitioner has
`
`not alleged facts sufficient to confer declaratory judgment jurisdiction on the District Court and
`
`(2) the determination of the validity of Respondent’s marks should be made by the Board.
`
`Respondent expects to prevail on this motion, but the Court will not rule on this motion until the
`
`

`
`case is administratively reopened.
`
`In light of these facts, Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend is
`
`premature, and it should not prevent the Board from ruling on the present motion.
`
`Petitioner also attempts to distract the Board from the main issue at hand by calling into
`
`question Respondent’s motives for bringing its Motion for a More Definite Statement. Petitioner
`
`has alleged that Respondent’s “real motive” in filing its Motion for a More Definite Statement is
`
`that “filing an Answer in this proceeding would have evidenced an ‘actual case or controversy’
`
`between the parties with regard to VDF’s trademark registrations,” and implies that doing so
`
`would jeopardize Respondent’s good faith in arguing that there is no case or controversy to
`
`support jurisdiction in the Hawaii Patent Action. However, the adjudication of an administrative
`
`proceeding in fiont of the Board alone is insufficient to create a case or controversy sufficient to
`
`confer jurisdiction on an Article III court, particularly when no claim of trademark infringement
`
`has been raised, as is the situation here. See I/Wzam-0, Inc. v. Manley Toys, Ltd., 2009 WL
`
`6361387, 92 USPQ2d l750 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2009); see also Surefoot LC v. Sure Foot Corp,
`
`531 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2008). Respondent moved for a more definite statement for the reasons
`
`articulated in its original motion, and the inability of the Court to hear Petitioner’s claim to
`
`invalidate Respondent’s COFFEEBERRY registrations is neither helped nor hindered by
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for a More Definite Statement before the Board.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that in the District Court action VDF filed a Motion to Dismiss
`
`claims for invalidity and cancellation for lack of standing, without seeking a more definite
`
`statement, misses the mark. Petitioner conflates the threshold for standing in Article III courts
`
`for a declaratory judgment claim and in front of the Board for a petition to cancel. Simply put,
`
`the threshold for standing in front of the Board is far lower than that of an Article III court.
`
`There is no “case or controversy” requirement for administrative proceedings in front of the
`
`

`
`Board, as there is in an Article III court. See Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 1094 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999). The threshold for filing a petition to cancel a mark on the grounds of genericness or
`
`descriptiveness with the TTAB is low; “any person who believes it is or will be damaged by
`
`registration of a mark has standing to file a complaint’’ and the petitioner need not show a
`
`personal interest in the proceeding different or beyond that of the general public. TBMP §
`
`303.03(b). Not so with an Article III court, as demonstrated by the District Court’s dismissal of
`
`Petitioner’s initial
`
`trademark invalidity and cancellation claims,
`
`for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`Petitioner’s speculation into Respondent’s motives in bringing its Motion for a More Definite
`
`Statement is simply not relevant.
`
`Finally, the petition is vague and ambiguous because it does not identify the goods and
`
`services as to which the marks are allegedly generic or merely descriptive. Respondent is Well-
`
`aware of the goods listed in its nine (9) registrations.
`
`It is Petitioner’s pleading that is “vague
`
`and ambiguous.” Petitioner alleges that Respondent’s COFFEEBERRY® mark “is the generic
`
`name for some or all of the products identified in the registrations” or “at most, merely
`
`descriptive of some or all of the goods offered by Respondent or Respondent’s licensees.” (Pet.
`
`to Cancel, 1111 20, 21, 23) (emphasis added). However, the inquiry into whether a mark is
`
`descriptive or generic necessarily involves identification of the associated goods or services. In
`
`re IP Carrier Consulting Group, 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1031 (TTAB 2007); see also In re
`
`Greenliant Systems, Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1082 (TTAB 2010). Petitioner simply has not
`
`identified which of Respondent’s registered goods it claims to be descriptive and/or generic.
`
`Notice pleading requires that
`
`the petitioner provide the respondent with sufficient
`
`information that enables the respondent
`
`to frame a response. Fair Indigo LLC v. Style
`
`Conscience, 85 USPQ2d 1536, 1538 (TTAB 2007) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Electrical Sciences
`
`

`
`Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570, 1571 (since the function of pleadings is to give fair notice of a claim, a
`
`party is allowed reasonable latitude in its statement of its claims)); see also TBMP §309.03(a)(2).
`
`Petitioner’s failure to identify the goods its believes to be descriptive and/or generic does not
`
`meet this standard and puts Respondent in the unfair position of having to consider and/or
`
`address the standards for both descriptiveness and genericness in connection with all of its
`
`registered goods in formulating its answer and affirmative defenses.
`
`III.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the reasons outlined above, Respondent respectfully requests that the Board issue an
`
`order requiring Petitioner to provide a more definite statement of these grounds for cancellation,
`
`specifically identifying those goods that Petitioner alleges to be descriptive and/or generic for
`
`each of Respondent’s marks.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A_.
`
` Stephen . Baird
`
`
`
`Sharon D. Armstrong
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Attorneys for Respondent
`VDF FutureCeuticals, Inc.
`
`671 0804v2
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Registration Nos.: 3,165,945 issued October 31, 2006;
`3,155,232 issued October 10, 2006;
`3,420,510 issued April 29, 2008;
`3,643,304 issued June 23, 2009;
`3,646,701 issued June 30, 2009;
`
`3,163,412 issued October 24, 2006;
`3,155,230 issued October 10, 2006;
`3,155,231 issued October 10, 2006; and
`3,160,267 issued October 17, 2006
`For the marks: COFFEEBERRY; COFFEEBERRY & Design, and COFFEEBERRY FORTE
`
`Cancellation No. 92054976
`
`)
`
`5
`5
`;
`
`3 )
`
`Sandwich Isles Trading C0,, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`VDF FutureCeuticals, Inc.,
`Registrant.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`Jennifer E. Rezac declares that on the 8th day of March, 2012, she mailed by United States mail,
`
`first class postage thereon prepaid, a true and correct copy of:
`
`1.
`
`Respondent’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for a More Definite Statement
`
`in the above-captioned action to the following address identified in the TTABVUE database to-
`
`wit:
`
`Martin E Hsia
`
`CADES SCHUTTE LLP
`
`1000 Bishop Street, 12th Floor
`Honolulu, Hi 96813
`
`67358l6vl

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