throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. httgj/estta.usQto.gov
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`9205651 7
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Orley, LLC
`TED SABETY
`HAND BALDACHIN & AMBURGEY LLP
`8 W 40TH STREET, FL 12
`NEW YORK, NY 10018
`UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`docket@sabety.net
`
`Reply in Support of Motion
`
`Ted Sabety
`
`docket@sabety.net
`ltsl
`
`10/08/2013
`
`Ps Reply to Opposition to Motion to Extend Discovery.pdf(205797 bytes)
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA563874
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`10/08/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92056517
`Plaintiff
`Orley, LLC
`TED SABETY
`HAND BALDACHIN & AMBURGEY LLP
`8 W 40TH STREET, FL 12
`NEW YORK, NY 10018
`UNITED STATES
`docket@sabety.net
`Reply in Support of Motion
`Ted Sabety
`docket@sabety.net
`/ts/
`10/08/2013
`Ps Reply to Opposition to Motion to Extend Discovery.pdf(205797 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
`_________________________________________
`
`|
` Orley, LLC,
`|
`
`|
` Petitioner,
`|
`
`|
`
`| Cancellation No. 92056517
`
`|
`
` Orly International Inc.,
`| PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`
`| REGISTRANT’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`| PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`
`
`| EXTEND DISCOVERY DATES
`
`|
` Registrant.
`|
`_________________________________________|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO REGISTRANT’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY AND TRIAL DATES
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Orley, LLC, (“Orley” or “Petitioner”) with an address of 648 Broadway, Suite
`
`1003, New York, New York 10012, hereby replies to Registrant’s Opposition to Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to Extend Discovery.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER HAS MET THE STANDARD OF GOOD CAUSE
`
`The baseline of good cause was adequately demonstrated by Petitioner to justify the
`
`Board granting its Motion to Extend. Good cause is generally found—especially on a first
`
`briefed motion to extend—when the moving party has not been guilty of negligence or bad faith
`
`and the privilege of extensions is not abused. See Am. Vitamin Prods. Inc. v. DowBrands Inc., 22
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1312, 1314 (T.T.A.B. 1992). The cause of delay in this case was the press of another
`
`federal patent litigation deadline, UbiComm LLC v. OpenSky Project, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01020
`
`(D. Del. 2013), as well as Registrant’s failure to meet its discovery obligations. Petitioner’s First
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Request for documents expressly requested evidence of sales and transportation of ORLY
`
`branded class 25 goods for every year from 1980 to 2013. But Registrant only provided
`
`documents from 2006 to 2013 in its reply, and the majority of which were not even relevant
`
`documents. Upon receiving Registrant’s non-responsive discovery document production by the
`
`extended deadline, Petitioner expected that Registrant would supplement its responses in order to
`
`meet its obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) and TMBP § 408. Those rules
`
`require that a responding party adequately search for records and supplement its responses and
`
`disclosures accordingly to meet its full duty to search and comply with Petitioner’s Request.
`
`Petitioner expected that Registrant would on its own live up to that duty to continue to search its
`
`records and supplement its responses—but now understands that it was mistaken. Therefore,
`
`filed concurrent with this Reply is a timely-filed Motion to Compel directed towards Registrant’s
`
`inadequate reply to the Petitioner’s First Request for Documents. This filing further renders moot
`
`Registrant’s objection to Petitioner’s allegation that Registrant’s deficient discovery replies were
`
`an additional cause of delay.
`
`Even Registrant’s Cited Cases Demonstrate that Petitioner’s Press of
`A.
`
`Litigation Constitutes Good Cause to Support an Extension of the Discovery Period
`
`
`
`Registrant fails to cite even one case to support its unfounded position that the press of
`
`non-extendible patent litigation deadlines on a small law firm somehow does not constitute good
`
`cause in seeking an extension of the discovery period. Luemme, Inc. v. D.B. Plus Inc., 53
`
`U.S.P.Q.2D 1758 (T.T.A.B. 1999) involved a second briefed motion to extend the discovery
`
`period, which in large part copied the same arguments of cause for delay from the first motion.
`
`In that case, the Board only concluded that a barefaced allegation of “extensive travel”—already
`
`sparsely alleged in the granted-first motion to extend—without supporting facts regarding that
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`travel, was not sufficient to demonstrate good cause. This case is distinguishable from Luemme
`
`because this is a first briefed unconsented motion to extend, not a second one, and Petitioner has
`
`alleged sufficient facts to support its claim of delay due to another complex and burdensome
`
`litigation, as well as Registrant’s non-compliant responses.
`
`
`
`The second case Registrant cited Societa Per Azioni Chianti Ruffino Esportazione
`
`Vinicola Toscana v. Colli Spolentini Spoletoducali SCRL, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1383, 1384 (T.T.A.B.
`
`2001), actually supports Petitioner’s position that the press of co-pending complex patent
`
`litigation deadlines is good cause to justify an extension of the discovery period. Societa
`
`involved a contested motion to extend due to the “press of other litigation” and deficiencies in
`
`discovery responses. The Societa Board granted the request to extend time on the basis of
`
`counsel’s involvement in other litigation, and explained that “[i]t is settled that the press of other
`
`litigation . . . may indeed constitute good cause for an extension of time.” Id. at 1384. As in
`
`Societa, Petitioner had demonstrated good cause to justify the extension.
`
`Registrant’s Motion Contained Sufficient Facts to Demonstrate Good Cause
`B.
`
`for Delay Due to Scheduling Burdens of a Co-Pending Patent Litigation
`
`
`
`Registrant misconstrues and miscites Petitioner’s Motion, but in fact Petitioner has
`
`alleged sufficient facts to support its claim of good cause for delay due to a co-pending complex
`
`patent litigation. Those facts include: its counsel experienced a heavy and heightened litigation
`
`work load; the litigation was a complex patent infringement case; counsel works at a small law
`
`firm; the small law firm was involved in responding to a non-extendible deadline with a
`
`substantive motion to dismiss brief due on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 (the deadline was
`
`previously extended twice and could no longer be extended; during this time counsel was
`
`involved in analyzing the asserted patent, analyzing the patent file history, researching the case
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`and dismissal theories, and drafting the complex argument for its motion to dismiss); upon the
`
`subsiding of that heightened litigation work-load, Petitioner’s counsel realized the tight
`
`timeframe remaining in this proceeding and requested Registrant’s counsel’s consent to an
`
`extension of the discovery period; Petitioner assumed Registrant’s counsel would grant consent
`
`as Petitioner itself had provided Registrant with consents for extensions upon Registrant’s
`
`request; and when Registrant’s counsel refused the Petitioner’s request for extension consent,
`
`Petitioner’s counsel had to then redirect its attention and efforts towards researching and drafting
`
`its Motion to Extend to be filed by the final date of discovery on Monday, September 9, 2013.
`
`See Pet’s Motion to Extend, at p. 3-4. In light of these facts, as well as the others contained in
`
`Petitioner’s Motion, Registrant’s claim that Petitioner has not alleged supporting facts for its
`
`request is simply without merit.
`
`Petitioner Filed a Motion to Compel and Therefore Registrant’s Failure to
`C.
`
`Comply With the First Requests is Indeed an Additional Ground to Extend Discovery
`
`Petitioner concurrently files a timely Motion to Compel. Therefore, that filing moots
`
`
`
`Registrant’s claim that the allegation of discovery abuses without a filing of a Motion to Compel
`
`is not sufficient to show good cause. Furthermore, as Petitioner’s previously arguments already
`
`demonstrated “the press of other litigation,” Societa, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1384, is sufficient good
`
`cause due to support a finding a good cause and grant the extension even if a Motion to Compel
`
`was not filed.
`
`PETITIONER HAS GRANTED REGISTRANT WITH CONSENT TO EXTEND
`II.
`ITS OWN DEADLINES ON NUMEROUS OCCASSIONS IN THE SPIRIT OF
`COOPERATION, YET REGISTRANT UNFAIRLY REFUSES TO GRANT
`PETITIONER WITH EVEN ONE EXTENSION
`
`
`
`Petitioner has granted Registrant with multiple consents to extend, and yet Registrant
`
`unfairly opposes Petitioner for its first request of any kind. Registrant’s refusal to grant consent
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`to extend the opposition period along with its opposition brief are mere litigation games.
`
`Registrant has not demonstrated any harm or injury that it would suffer as a result of an
`
`extension of the discovery period. In fact, just over two weeks after filing its Opposition to
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Extend, Registrant’s counsel contacted Petitioner’s counsel again to
`
`request a twenty-one (21) day extension on the deadline for Registrant’s Responses to
`
`Petitioner’s Second Requests for Documents, Information, and Admissions. Petitioner again
`
`freely granted its consent in the spirit of cooperation, and remains baffled as to why Registrant
`
`refuses to cooperate in any way with Petitioner despite Petitioner’s numerous accommodations
`
`of Registrant’s scheduling constraints. See Am. Vitamin Prods. Inc. v. DowBrands Inc., 22
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1312, 1315 (T.T.A.B. 1992) (noting the Board is liberal in granting timely filed
`
`motions to extend so long as the motion is not filed in bad faith and the requesting party has not
`
`previously abused the privilege of extension requests).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant its
`
`motion for an extension of the discovery period for ninety (90) days.
`
`
`
`Dated: 10/8/2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: ___/s/ Ted Sabety___
`Ted Sabety
`Of Counsel
`HAND BALDACHIN AMBURGEY LLP
`8 West 40th Street, 12th Floor
`New York, NY 10018
`Telephone: 212.481.8686
`tsabety@hballp.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Orley, LLC
`5
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner ORLEY, LLC hereby certifies that a copy of this MOTION TO EXTEND
`
`TIME has been served upon Registrant ORLY INTERNATIONAL INC. through its counsel
`
`SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY LLP on this 8th day of October, 2013, by Federal
`
`Express - Overnight Express Mail, postage prepaid, at the following address:
`
`James E. Shlesinger
`Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey LLP
`5845 Richmond Highway, Suite 415
`Alexandria, Virginia 22303
`
`
`___/s/ Ted Sabety___
`Ted Sabety
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`6

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