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
`
`
`
`92056888
`
`Plaintiff
`Isaac A. Potter Jr.
`
`ISAAC A POTTER JR
`5503 S TAMPA AVENUE
`ORLANDO, FL 32839
`UNITED STATES
`
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`
`
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`Isaac/A/Potter/Jr
`
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`Isaac/A/Potter/Jr
`
`1 1/04/201 3
`
`trademark complaint VA.pdf(313235 bytes )
`motion for claim prec|usion.pdf(1138557 bytes )
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA568678
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/04/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92056888
`Plaintiff
`Isaac A. Potter Jr.
`ISAAC A POTTER JR
`5503 S TAMPA AVENUE
`ORLANDO, FL 32839
`UNITED STATES
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`Isaac/A/Potter/Jr
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`Isaac/A/Potter/Jr
`11/04/2013
`trademark complaint VA.pdf(313235 bytes )
`motion for claim preclusion.pdf(1138557 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
` ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`ISAAC A. POTTER JR,
`
`5503 S. TAMPA AVENUE
`
`ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32839
`
`407-217-3120
`
`Email: ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`
` Plaintiff/petitioner/movant
`
`v.
`
`1. ROBERTA S. BREN, et al
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`2. OBLON SPIVAK et al
`
`REGISTERED AGENT: BRAD LYTLE
`
`1940 DUKE STREET
`
`ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314
`
`3. TERESA STANEK REA et al
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1451
`
`

`
`4. LINDA M. KING et al
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1451
`
` Defendants,
`
`GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION: Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction only
`in a very few kinds of federal question cases, such as lawsuits involving copyright
`violations, patent infringement, or federal tax claims.
`
`
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`
`
` UNFAIR COMPETITION AND VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
`
`ISAAC A. POTTER JR, AND SAMUEL J. POTTER
`
`5503 S. TAMPA AVENUE, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32839
`
`PH# 407-217-3120 ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`
`TRADEMARK (FRAUD) (INFRINGEMENT) REGISTRATION NO. 3431651
`
`PROCEEDING NO. 92056888
`
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT- REGISTRATION NO. VAU-613-668
`
`VALID COPYRIGHT OWNER- ISAAC ABRAHAM POTTER JR., REG. NO.
`
`VAU-357-366
`
`
`
`

`
`VALID TRADEMARK OWNER— ISAAC ABRAHAM POTTER JR, AND
`
`SAMUEL J. POTTER, STATE OF INDIANA TRADEMARK REGISTRATION:
`
`FILE NO. 2004-0105 AND 2004-0106
`
`COMPANIES ILLEGAL LICENSE BENEFITS:
`
`1. BANDAI OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`
`2. KURUMADA M ASAMI
`
`3. CARTOON NETWORK INC, TED TURNER
`
`4. TOEI ANIMATION INC,
`
`5. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD
`
`6. DIC ENTERTAINMENT
`
`7. GENERAL MILLS, INC
`
`8. SHUEISHA
`
`9. VISION PERSPECTIVE INTERNET
`
`10. A.D. VISION INC.
`
`11. RENAISSANCE—ATLANTIC FILMS CORP
`
`12. RENAISSANCE—ATLANTIC ENTERTAINMENT CORP
`
`13. YAHOO, INC
`
`12. GOOGLE, INC
`
`13. AMAZON INC.
`
`14. DISNEY
`
`VALID TRADEMARK OWNER- ISAAC ABRAHAM POTTER JR, AND
`
`SAMUEL J. POTTER, STATE OF INDIANA TRADEMARK REGISTRATION:
`
`FILE NO. 2004-0105 AND 2004-0106
`
`COMPANIES ILLEGAL LICENSE BENEFITS:
`
`1. BANDAI OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`
`2. KURUMADA M ASAMI
`
`3. CARTOON NETWORK INC, TED TURNER
`
`4. TOEI ANIMATION INC,
`
`5. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD
`
`6. DIC ENTERTAINMENT
`
`7. GENERAL MILLS, INC
`
`8. SHUEISHA
`
`9. VISION PERSPECTIVE INTERNET
`
`10. A.D. VISION INC.
`
`11. RENAISSANCE-ATLANTIC FILMS CORP
`
`12. RENAISSANCE-ATLANTIC ENTERTAINMENT CORP
`
`13. YAHOO, INC
`
`12. GOOGLE, INC
`
`13. AMAZON INC.
`
`14. DISNEY
`
`

`
`TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS:
`
`1. ROBERTA S. BREN
`
`1940 DUKE STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
`
`PH# 703-413-2220 tmdocket@oblon.com
`
`2. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD
`
`2-10-5, HIGASHI OHIZUMI, NERIMA-KU
`
`TOKYO 178-8567 JAPAN
`
`PLAINTIFF PREY:
`
`1. JUST COMPENSATION ACCORDING TO LAW
`
`2. STATUTORY DAMAGES ACCORDING TO LAW
`
`3. INTEREST ACCORDING TO LAW
`
`4. RESTITUTION ACCORDING TO LAW
`
`5. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ACCORDING TO LAW
`
`6. CANCEL AND RESTORE FEDERAL TRADEMARK/REGISTRATION NO.
`
`WHO IS DAMAGED;
`
`ISAAC A. POTTER JR, AND SAMUEL J. POTTER VALID INTELLUCTUAL
`
`PROPERTY OWNERS.
`
`DAMAGES CAUSED:
`
`1. CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (FRAUD ON COPYRIGHT
`
`OFFICE)
`
`

`
`2. CRIMINAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (FRAUD ON TRADEMARK
`
`OFFICE)
`
`3. ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE VIOLATION act of 1996
`
`4. CONSPIRACY
`
`5. FAILURE TO RECEIVE DUE PROCESS
`
`6. VIOLATION OF SECTION 506
`
`7. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL STATUE RULE 44(a)
`
`8. violation of rule 56(b) fraud
`
`9. 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1831 (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) benefit any foreign
`
`government
`
`10. 15 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1120 CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE OR
`
`FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION (SECTION 38)
`
`11. THE 1976 ACT REVAMPED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS BY CHANGING THE " FOR
`
`PROFIT REQUIREMENT TO INFRINGEMENT CONDUCTED"
`
`AMENDED PETITION TO CANCEL FOR FRAUD ON TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNDER SUBSECTION 38 OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. SUBSECTION
`
`1120), FED. R. CIVIL. P. 11 BASED ON CLAIM OF FRAUD, RULE 9(b)
`
`Particularity
`
`· Isaac A. Potter Jr.
`
`5503 S. Tampa avenue
`
`

`
`Orlando, florida 32839
`
`Ph: 407-217-3120- email: ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`
`
`
`To the best of Petitioner’s knowledge the name and address of the current owner of
`
`the registration are:
`
`Toei Animation co, ltd corporation Japan 2-10-5, Higashi Ohizumi, Nerima-Ku
`
`Tokyo 178-8567 Japan
`
`The above-identified petitioner believes that it/he/she will be damaged by the
`
`above-identified registration, and hereby Petitions to cancel the same.
`
`The grounds for cancellation are as follows:
`
`Fraud on Trademark Office under section 38 of the Lanham Act.
`
`· The petitioner allege a false representation of material fact
`
` 
`
`The petitioner allege knowledge or belief on the part of the filer that the
`representation is false.
`
`· The petitioner allege intent to induce the PTO to act or refrain from acting in
`reliance on the misrepresentation.
`
`· The petitioner allege reasonable reliance by the PTO on the misrepresentation.
`
`· The petitioner allege damage from such reliance.
`
`· The petitioner allege inconsistencies in the record and actual use.
`
`· The petitioner allege the respondent knows or should have known registration to
`be false or misleading.
`
`

`
`· The petitioner allege the statement of use is fraudulent.
`
`· The petitioner allege false statements regarding “use” whether the mark is in use
`or not and when that use started in the United States.
`
`· The petitioner allege failure to file an affidavit or assignment.
`
`· The petitioner allege liklihood of confusion.
`
`· The petitioner allege common-law rights to trademarks and copyright
`registrations.
`
`· The petitioner allege respondent has failed to file for incontestability after
`continuous and open use of the mark for five years.
`
`· The petitioner allege the respondent knowingly made a false material
`representation with the intent to deceive the trademark office.
`
`· The petitioner allege section 38 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. subsection 1120)
`vest the district court with jurisdiction creating civil liability for a false or
`fraudulent registration.
`
` 
`
`The petitioner allege under Rule 9b particularity subsection 292 claims that the
`respondent was aware of the 2006-2007 trademark and copyright judgment by
`Judge Julie E. Carnes.
`
`· The petitioner allege fraudulent placing of a Trademark on a work.
`
`· The petitioner allege Trademark already existed.
`
`· The petitioner allege defendant willfully acted.
`
`· The petitioner allege violation by the respondent 15 U.S.C. subsection 1120 civil
`liability for false or fraudulent registration (section 38) July 5, 1946, ch 540
`
`· The petitioner allege violation of economic espionage act of 1996, 18 U.S.C.
`subsection 1831 (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5).
`
`· The petitioner allege violation by the respondent section of the Sherman Act, 15
`U.S.C. subsection, Tariff Act violations, violations of the Lanham Act.
`
`

`
`· The petitioner allege respondents use of theft of trade secret to benefit a foreign
`entity, 18 U.S.C. subsection 1831; theft of trade secrets for commercial advantage,
`18 U.S.C. subsection 1832
`
`· The petitioner allege unfair competition, unfair practices in import trade, 19
`U.S.C. subsection 1337; section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930
`
`· The petitioner allege violations of federal false claims Act, U.S.C. subsection
`3730 (a)(b)(1)(2)
`
`· The petitioner allege recognition for representation CFR subsection 2.17(a)
`duration of power of attorney ended when the ownership changes.
`
`· The petitioner allege ownership changes occurred prior to registration.
`
`· The petitioner allege the power was not filed in connection with an affidavit
`under section 8, 12 (c), 15 or 71 of the Trademark Act, under section 7 of the Act.
`
`  
`
`The plaintiff allege fraudulent declaration by Roberta S. Bren and Toei
`Animation co, ltd violation under section 1001 of title 18 of the united states code
`and violation under 1051(b) of title 15 of the United States Code likely to cause
`confusion or mistake, or to deceive when applied to the goods or services of such
`other person.
`
`· The plaintiff allege certification by USPTO is defective.
`
`· The plaintiff allege insufficient identification of applicant
`
`· The plaintiff allege irregularities relating to the entitlement of the applicant to file
`an International Application.
`
`· The plaintiff allege omission of designation contracting party or parties (Toei
`Animation Inc).
`
`· The plaintiff allege Toei animation co, ltd (jurisdiction Japan) is not a national of
`the United States.
`
`· The plaintiff allege Toei Animation co, ltd does not have a domicile in the United
`States.
`
`

`
`· The plaintiff allege Toei Animation co, ltd does not have a real and effective
`industrial or commercial establishment in the United States. (Toei Animation Inc.
`is registered in California for research purposes only).
`
`· The plaintiff allege the basic application registration the mark and the owner must
`be the same as the mark and the owner of the basic application.
`
`· The plaintiff allege priority, first to file, first to invented common-law use on
`trademark and copyright registrations.
`
`
`
`BY: SIGNATURE, __________________________________,
`ISAAC ABRAHAM POTTER JR.
`
`
`
`5503 S. Tampa Avenue
`Orlando, Florida 32839
`EMAIL: ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`407-217-3120
`DATE: _10/ /_2013____
`
`
`
` STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`THE PETITIONER ALLEGE ALL ALLEGATIONS FOR TRADEMARK
`INFRINGEMENT, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, FRAUD IN THE
`INDUCEMENT AND FRAUD ON THE USPTO OFFICE, ARE VIOLATIONS
`BY ROBERTA S. BREN, OBLON SPIVAK, KING M. LINDA, TERESA
`STANEK REA, JENNIFER KRISP, VERONICA WHITE, TOEI ANIMATION
`CO, LTD, TOEI ANIMATION INC WHOM ARE ALL DEFENDANTS IN
`CIVIL ACTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS EXHAUSTED BY THE
`PETITIONER.
`
`
`
` BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`

`
`IN THE MATTER OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION NO. 3431651 FOR THE
`
`MARK: KNIGHTS OF THE ZODIAC
`
`AMENDED PETITION TO CANCEL FOR FRAUD ON TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNDER SUBSECTION 38 OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. SUBSECTION
`
`1120), FED. R. CIVIL. P. 11 BASED ON CLAIM OF FRAUD, RULE 9(b)
`
`Particularity
`
`unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,
`
`information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
`
`circumstances:
`
`(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
`
`unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
`
`(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law
`
`or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law
`
`or for establishing new law;
`
`(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,
`
`will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
`
`investigation or discovery; and
`
`(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
`
`specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
`
`“ BACKGROUND FACT”
`
`

`
`1. ROBERTA S. BREN WAS THE ATTORNEY ASSIGNED POWER OF
`
`ATTORNEY for designation of domestic representative as of December 20, 2002;
`
`power of attorney ended upon issue of registration (May 20, 2008) or at the change
`
`of ownership (CFR subsection 2.17(a).
`
`2. The petitioner allege failure of respondents to file an affidavit including these
`
`representations would result in cancellation of trademark.
`
`3. The petitioner allege false statements regarding “use” NOTICE OF
`
`ALLOWANCE ISSUED MAY 10, 2005 (SERIAL NO. 76477503).
`
`4. THE PETITIONER ALLEGE Statement of Use filed in under 37 C.F.R. 2.88,
`
`with Declaration in November 15, 2007 by Satoko Sasaki, Deputy
`
`Director for Toei Animation co, ltd.
`
`5. The petitioner allege that the executed application for registration (December 20,
`
`2002) by Roberta S. Bren along with the declaration, drawing and Power of
`
`Attorney, with 0 specimen(s) included in the application.
`
`6. The petitioner allege false declaration under section 1001 of title 18 of the
`
`United States Code issued by Mr. Katsnoki Yamamoto, director, International
`
`department on December 17, 2002; knew or should have known of the applicant
`
`was not entitled to use such mark in commerce after receiving the following
`
`rejected trademark applications as follows:
`
`
`
`

`
`Serial no. filing date owner app. Name
`
`74267190 April 20, 1992 Bandi America Inc. knights of the zodiac
`
`74265344 April 13, 1992 Renaissance-Atlantic knights of the zodiac
`
`74564781 August 23, 1994 Renaissance- Atl. Film knights of the zodiac
`
`74564780 August 23, 1994 Renaissance-Atl. Film knights of the zodiac
`
`76477503 December 20, 2002 Toei Animation co.ltd knights of the zodiac
`
`76477503 December 20, 2002 Toei Animation co. ltd knights of the zodiac
`
`76548193 September 11, 2003 Toei Animation co. ltd knights of the zodiac
`
`74553473 July 25, 1994 Renaissance-Atl.Ent. saint seiya
`
`76548193 September 11, 2003 Toei Animation co. ltd saint seiya
`
`
`
`7. The petitioner allege false statements by Roberta S. Bren regarding “use” in the
`
`United States that prior use of works on March 16, 2004 in Opposition no.
`
`91/159/348, serial no. 76477503 stating “ it appears that you and or your clients ‘
`
`may not be aware that the title and mark KNIGHTS OF THE ZODIAC was used in
`
`different languages prior to adoption of ZODIAC KNIGHTS 2000 BY your
`
`clients. (The petitioner has priority of use in the United States, common-law rights,
`
`first use and first to invent in the United States; whereas the foreign languages for
`
`Knights of the Zodiac failed to register in the United States titled: CALLEROS
`
`

`
`DEL ZODIACO-DEAD—MAY 16, 1995—74564780 AND CHEVALIER DU
`
`ZODIAC—DEAD—SEPTEMBER 26, 1995—74564781.
`
`DEL ZODIACO-DEAD-MAY 16, 1995-74564780 AND CHEVALIER DU
`
`ZODIAC-DEAD-SEPTEMBER 26, 1995-74564781.
`
`
`
`

`
`Anomqnyuaaet 1102454231 lllbrjb
`
`BDXITUFEI-I
`
` nm
`
`MARK: NA
`
`SERIAL NO.‘
`
`TO:
`
`THE HONORABLE OOMMTSSIONFJI FOR 'l'l!AiJl3M-.4.RlC-S
`
`AI'I"Ll'CAN-'1' NAME:
`
`CIL, Ttd.
`
`NOTTCF. OF AILOWANCE MAILING DATE:
`
`1..
`
`2;
`
`:41
`
`4-.
`
`5.
`
`Applicant mqucds Iegist.'I-ation of the above-identified t: Inuit in the
`United Sldazslhtent and Tradenndsomncun the Ptilxcipal Register emnblishcdly the
`Act ofJuly 5, 1946 [I5 U'.S.~C. 105! ct. am], as unaided).
`
`Applinauis:singflIematl:incommcrcofi:rflsegoodsHstedinClus9. Llgggggtg
`
`Thernukwasfimt used on the gooulslsa-vicuat leastaxexarlyasz .
`
`TImrukwasfirstnsod:in oommeroeatlasuscudyaaz QuIohcr?.l, @.
`
`{1nc(l}qacuirIImfir'eachc|assshM5'ingllL‘«mmkasused.in commurwisanhniuuiwifla
`Lhisalalclnmt
`
`Thnuk’¢d.bdngha'd:ymmodvmaLwfllfilfibalzumaHmaJihowmdem:ndfidi¢byfi:M
`i':nwisauI=lI,oI’b@.l.Inde'r 18 .U.S.C', Ifl0|.mdIh:sa:dum1lfu]fnlses{alumn1sI:I)'jeop¢fi1:bnlifliyof
`“‘|*9?P5l=Iil¢’ll)v'filflfingtfiisImion.deduu&!.heI‘éc'naIhui94aa1Iuaxccuclzissifinlitufuscon
`bshalfnfflclmliamhaldifibdicvutlpapzifizmmhlhaonzaofthc. ImcIL'u1IIt!urvieoIltsugh1b‘|:io
`regisiaud, lhcitndarurluiuw-icc'markisunw'u1unn in i:am;n_>oaml.uIJ shtuaus-nsnflfula-cwm
`kmMeQ:ncuncuddIflatun:ol:'nud:miIfivnuinnudhdH‘uebdicvcdmbcuuc.
`
`-
`
`TOFJ ANIMATION C0-. LTD.
`
`Sxgnamre:
`
`Name:
`
`Title:
`
`Dun:
`
`RSBE. a*hIyws3aais.2«cn11I:s'.st‘u:a.a:_
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` CANCELLATION FOR FRAUD ON THE USPTO (TTAB),
`PROCEEDING NO. 92056888, REGISTRATION NO. 3431651, FILED
`MARCH 11, 2013
`
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-2076-JEC , FILED AUGUST 21, 2007; IN
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF GEORGIA (ATLANTA DIVISION)
`
` DAMAGES FOR FRAUD
`
`The types of recovery allowable where fraud has been proved by clear and
`
`convincing evidence are:
`
`1. Delay damages. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 181 Va. 824, 835,
`
`27 S.E.2d 198, 203 (1943).
`
`2. Damages for embarrassment and humiliation and mental anguish. Sea-Land
`
`Serv., Inc. v. O’Neal, 224 Va. 343, 297 S.E.2d 647 (1982); Humphreys v. Baird,
`
`197 Va. 667, 90 S.E.2d 796 (1956).
`
`3. In cases dealing with property the damages are the difference between the actual
`
`value of the property at the time the contact was made and the value that the
`
`property would have possessed if the representation had been true. Prospect
`
`Development Company, Inc. v. Bershader, 258 Va. 75, 91, 515 S.E.2d 291, 300
`
`

`
`(1999). Repair or relpacement costs are not the proper measure of damages in these
`
`cases. Klaiber v. Freemason Assocs, Inc., 266 Va. 478, 486, 587 S.E.2d 555, 559
`
`(2003).
`
`4. Loss of potential future earnings. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. O’Neal, 224 Va. 343,
`
`297 S.E.2d 647 (1982).
`
`5. Attorney’s fees. Prospect Development Company, Inc. v. Bershader, 258 Va. 75,
`
`92, 515 S.E.2d 291, 300 (1999).
`
`
`
` 6. Punitive damages. Jordan v. Sauve, 219 Va. 448, 452, 247 S.E.2d 739, 741
`
`(1978).
`
`7. Rescission, Ashmore v. Herbie Morewitz, Inc., 252 Va. 141, 148 (1996).
`
`Although the elements of fraud in general must be proven by clear and convincing
`
`evidence the amount of damage need only be proven by the greater weight of the
`
`evidence. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 181 Va. 824, 835, 27 S.E.2d
`
`198, 203 (1943).
`
`Fraudulent inducement to perform a contract may exist where the contract is
`
`executory and one party induces the other party to perform by concealing some
`
`fact which otherwise would excuse performance by the latter party. Ware v. Scott,
`
`220 Va. 317, 257 S.E.2d 855 (1979).
`
`It
`
`

`
`The types of recovery allowable where fraud has been proved by clear and
`
`convincing evidence are:
`
`Delay damages. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 181 Va. 824, 835, 27
`
`S.E.2d 198, 2. Damages for embarrassment and humiliation and mental anguish.
`
`Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. O’Neal, 224 Va. 343, 297 S.E.2d 647 (1982); Humphreys
`
`v. Baird, 197 Va. 667, 90 S.E.2d 796 (1956).
`
`3. In cases dealing with property the damages are the difference between the actual
`
`value of the property at the time the contact was made and the value that the
`
`property would have possessed if the representation had been true. Prospect
`
`Development Company, Inc. v. Bershader, 258 Va. 75, 91, 515 S.E.2d 291, 300
`
`(1999). Repair or relpacement costs are not the proper measure of damages in these
`
`cases. Klaiber v. Freemason Assocs, Inc., 266 Va. 478, 486, 587 S.E.2d 555, 559
`
`(2003).
`
`4. Loss of potential future earnings. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. O’Neal, 224 Va. 343,
`
`297 S.E.2d 647 (1982).
`
`5. Attorney’s fees. Prospect Development Company, Inc. v. Bershader, 258 Va. 75,
`
`92, 515 S.E.2d 291, 300 (1999).
`
`6. Punitive damages. Jordan v. Sauve, 219 Va. 448, 452, 247 S.E.2d 739, 741
`
`(1978).
`
`

`
` 7. Rescission, Ashmore v. Herbie Morewitz, Inc., 252 Va. 141, 148 (1996).
`
`203 (1943).
`
`Although the elements of fraud in general must be proven by clear and convincing
`
`evidence the amount of damage need only be proven by the greater weight of the
`
`evidence. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 181 Va. 824, 835, 27 S.E.2d
`
`198, 203 (1943).
`
`ISAAC A. POTTER JR, PRO SE
`
`5503 S. TAMPA AVENUE
`
`ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32839
`
`407-217-3120
`
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`
`

`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA564715
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`10/14/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92056888
`Plaintiff
`Isaac A. Potter Jr.
`ISAAC A POTTER JR
`5503 S TAMPA AVENUE
`ORLANDO, FL 32839
`UNITED STATES
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`Motion to Reopen
`Isaac/A/Potter/Jr
`ipotter2000@yahoo.com
`Isaac/A/Potter/Jr
`10/14/2013
`ttabvue-92056888-CAN-5.pdf(1131639 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`«I
`
`TTAB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ISAAC A. POTTER JR, et al
`
`IN the Matter of Trademark
`
`Petitioner(s),
`
`3,431,651
`
`Registration No.
`
`Serial no. 76477503
`
`V.
`92056888
`TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD,
`
`Cancellation no.
`/
`.
`__,
`f
`.
`Q Obévégzgpy
`FOR the Mark: Knights of the Zodiac
`
`Registered: May 20, 2008
`ROBERTA S BREN
`OBLON SPIVAK MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT PC
`1940 DUKE STREET
`
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
`UNITED STATES
`
`tmdocket@oblon.com
`/
`My
`
`i‘
`A
`7,,
`S:
`ml
`‘i’z1>R Mfllid/0 ialfi C/«I9:/V1
`
`in
`
`1
`/u5,¢,\§
`
`MOTION FOR CLAIM PRECLUSION
`
`FRCP 41 (b) subsection 14.01
`
`[1] Identical Parties
`
`ISAAC A. POTTER JR, SAMUEL J. POTTER V. CARTOON NETWORK
`LLLP/ INC. (CREATOR: TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD) SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
`ANSVVER OF DEFENDANT THE CARTOON NETWORK, INC. CIVIL
`ACTION FILE NO. l:06—CV—2076—JEC
`
`The doctrine of claim preclusion includes an “identity—of—parties”
`
`requirement. In addition to the actual parties in the prior adjudication, persons
`
`1
`
`’
`
`I
`
`r\j:},n
`
`M)’ I/$13 Q7 /6%,
`
`.,
`
`,
`
`lll!lllllLHl(£lll1llgllllllllmlll!
`I
`muummmuum
`US Patentfi7'mQr~’v;,yr,-=.x:u~..~. ..-.
`
`

`
`or entities not named in the original case may be subject to claim preclusion
`if they are sufficiently related to original parties, i.e., if they are in privity to
`the litigants. [E.g., Federated Department Stores, Inc. V. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394
`(l98l)]
`
`Non—parties to a litigation who are in privity to a party are deemed to have
`
`had their interests represented in the prior action, or are deemed to have no
`
`greater interest than did the losing party in that action.
`
`“Strangers” — those neither parties to, nor in privity with, nor otherwise
`
`[2] Identical Claims
`
`1. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT (FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION)
`SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 ANSWER CASE NO. l:O6—CV—2076—JEC
`
`2. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION)
`SEPTEMBER 5, 2007—ANSWER —CASE NO. l:O6—CV—2076—JEC
`
`3. FRAUD (THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION) SEPTEMBER 5,
`2007—ANSWER—CASE NO. l:O6—CV—2076—JEC
`
`Claim preclusion is founded on an expanded concept of a “claim” which
`
`It is irrelevant whether the claim was actually asserted in the prior case, as
`
`long as it could have been. [Commissioner of Internal Revenue V. Sunnen, 333
`U.S. 591 (l948)]
`
`Many jurisdictions apply the transaction test set forth in Restatement
`
`(Second) of Judgments § 24 in order to determine if a claim should be
`
`precluded. Section 24 defines the claim precluded by the judgment to include
`
`2
`
`CW W/stafiexss
`
`“tttfi
`
`

`
`“all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all
`
`or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the
`[original] action arose.”
`
`[3] Final Judgment on the Merits
`
`l. 1:06-CV—2076—JEC, OCTOBER 13, 2006 -US DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`JULIE E. CARNES 2 PAGES (IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`2.
`
`l:O6—CV—2076—JEC, AUGUST 21, 2007- US DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`JULIE E. CARNES (DOCUMENT l4 FILED 08/21/07 8 PAGES (IN THE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
`GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`A lawsuit cannot have preclusive effect until it has been reduced to final
`
`judgment. [Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 ( 1982)] Federal courts
`
`regard their judgments to be final even if the case is under appeal. In contrast,
`
`some state systems do not give finality to their judgments as long as there is a
`
`possibility that the outcome will be changed through appeal.
`
`Only judgments on the merits are entitled to claim—preclusive effect.
`
`Judgments in favor of the plaintiff are considered to be on the merits, even if
`
`the judgment was rendered by default, stipulation between the parties, or
`
`summary judgment.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party
`
`may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the
`
`part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought. The
`
`court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
`
`- 3%
`ii /‘M miql/ma) 6
`
`(2
`
`TTH73
`
`

`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for
`
`granting or denying the motion.
`
`Indeed, the Lanham Act provides that a prima facie case of abandonment is
`established upon proof ofnon—use for two years. See 15 U.S.C. § ll27(a) (1982).
`Here, over two years passed
`
`[w]hen a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the
`
`plaintiffs claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar ..., the claim
`
`extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the
`
`defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of
`
`connected transactions, out of which the action arose.
`
`The Board observed that "[a] subsequent claim will be barred by claim
`
`preclusion if: '(I) there is identity of parties (or their priVies); (2) there has
`
`been an earlier final judgment on the merits of a claim; and (3) the second
`
`claim is based on the same set of transactional facts as the first."'
`
`
`l"/’ll’li:"/\:~“ri7l4>/x5
`,D/5.
`
`i
`
`Q
`
`

`
`State of Floridao
`County of
`BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary,
`
`GENERAL AFFIDAVIT
`
`‘
`
`[name of No ry before whom affidavit is sworn], on this
`
`[day of month] day of
`
`MARCH
`
`_mon
`
`, O“13
`
`r
`
`llyappeared
`
`person and of la
`
`ul age, who eing by me first duly sworn, on
`
`Wage of affiant], known to me to be a credible
`[his or her] oath, deposes and says:
`
`MOTION CLAIM PRECLUSION FRCP 41(b)subseCtion
`14.01
`
`[set forth affiant's stateme t offftsj
`F“
`‘
`
`I.
`
` ,7[‘,»/,77 W
`
`
`.
`re of affiant]
`I
`ISAAC A. POTTER J
`
`
`
`[typed name of affiant]
`
`_5503 S. TAMPA AVENUE_
`[address of affiant, line 1]
`
`_ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32839 (407)217-3120 ipotter2000@yah0o.C0m__
`[address of affiant, line 2]
`
`(2
`{A
`
`State of Florida
`County of
`- methisIW‘ dayof WW ,
`SworntoL;(‘oraffirme
` ’
`WI
`
`,7
`
`’
`
`(year), by
`
`I G
`
`ENEVA MITCHELL
`Notary Publlc. State of Florida
`Cofmmsion 8 E 209836
`
`
`
`
`
`(Sinature of Notary Public — State of Florida
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`C:IInI2I/a mm 11
`(Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) \/I
`Personally Known
`OR P
`uced Identification
`Type of Identification Produced
`’/ W
`
`TABLE OF CONTENT
`
`MOTION FOR CLAIM PRECLUSION FRCP 41 (b) Subsection 14.01
`
`INDEX OF CASES ..... ..
`
`1) CASE NO. 1:06—CV—2076-JEC
`
`DESCRIPTION OF RECORD ...... ..
`
`1.) ORDER— OCTOBER 13, 2006, CASE NO. 1:06—CV—2076—JEC
`
`(DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT) DENIES
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE
`
`2. ORDER & OPINION— AUGUST 21, 2007- CASE NO. 1:O6—CV-2076—JEC
`(DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A MORE DEFINITE
`STATEMENT [9]
`(DENIED)
`
`3. STATE OF INDIANA OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
`
`CLASS OF MERCHANDISE: 22
`
`FILE NO. 2004-0106
`
`DATE OF REGISTRATION: 3/1/2004 DATE OF EXPIRATION: 2/28/2014
`
`4. STATE OF INDIANA OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
`
`CLASS OF MERCHANDISE: 38
`
`FILE NO. 2004-0105
`
`DATE OF REGISTRATION: 3/1/2004 DATE OF EXPIRATION: 2/28/2014
`
`

`
`21, 2007 AS FOLLOWS:
`
`A. VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C. SUBSECTION I498(b)
`B. section 506
`
`C. Rule 56(b)
`
`D. Violation of Fifth and 14th amendment
`
`E. Section of the Sheiman act
`
`F. 15 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1
`
`G. TARIFF ACT VIOLATIONS
`
`H. VIOLATION OF LANHAM ACT
`
`I. CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ACT
`
`I. ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1996
`
`K. 18. U.S.C. SUBSECTION I831 (a)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
`
`L. 15 U.S.C. SUBSCTION 1120 (SECTION 38)
`
`M. 35 U.S.C. SECTION 283
`
`2. CAUSE FOR RELIEF-CASE NO. 1:06-CV-2076—JEC
`
`A. CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`
`B. CRIMINAL TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`/4.
`rv]}’3r*l1’,n \
`/DC‘, -
`
`l‘
`
`M‘ ‘gig ‘TTW3
`
`

`
`C. FRAUD
`
`D. ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
`
`E. CONSPIRACY
`
`3. CAUSE FOR RELIEF CASE NO. 1:O6—CV-2076—JEC AUGUST 21, 2007
`I. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CRIMINAL
`
`2. CYBERSQUATTING AND CYBERPIRACY
`
`3. FRAUD
`
`4. ESPIONAGE
`
`5. COUNTERFEIT/ILLICIT LABELS AND COUNTERFEIT DOCUMENTS
`
`6. UNFAIR PRACTICES IN IMPORT
`
`7. THEFT TO BENEFIT A FOREIGN ENTITY
`
`4. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF-CASE NO. 1:06—CV—2076—JEC JUDGE JULIE E.
`CARNES
`
`A. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENTS— COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION NO.
`Vau—357-366
`
`B. STATUTORY DAMAGES
`
`C. VIOLATION OF FRCP 81(c)
`
`D. INJUNCTIONS, 17 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 502
`
`13. 17 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 504(b)
`
`F. 17 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 504 (c)(2)(5)
`
`G. 17 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 505
`
`H. 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1836
`
`1. 17 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 506(a)(1)(A)
`
`J. 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 2319(0)
`
`K. 17 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1204
`
`A'
`
`1:§l\1V"rYIn~L{/.4\ /\i,\
`
`8'
`
`,
`
`ATJTIT./T/T4.‘
`
`/188 5/ré?&i>‘é~£?/S??? mg
`
`

`
`L. 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 2318
`
`AUTHORIZED PENALTIES: A DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO PAY
`RESTITUTION TO COMPENSATE VICTIMS FOR THE HARM
`
`FOR REGISTRANT'S MARK BE CANCELLED AND FOR SUCH OTHER
`AND FUTHER RELIEF AS THE TRADEMARK TRAIL AND APPEAL
`BOARD DEEMS APPROPRIATE
`
`BRIEF OF SUMMARY
`
`;§g§;g;g;ATTLE»MADRID
`
`Post Reply Add Post
`
`1902.07(a) IRREGULARITIES THAT
`MUST BE REMEDIED BY THE USPTO
`
`ip0tter2000
`5/16/2012 9:21 :27 PM
`
`TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD
`REGISTRATION NO. 3431651 AND SERIAL
`NO. 76477503 AND SERIAL NO. 76548193,
`1902.02 (J) STATEMENT OF
`ENTITLEMENT.
`1. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD IS NOT A
`NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES.
`2. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD DOES NOT
`HAVE A DOMICILE IN THE UNITED
`STATES
`3. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD DOES HAVE
`
`

`
`A REAL AND EFFECTIVE INDUSTRIAL OR
`COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE
`UNITED STATES.
`_
`4.TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD HAS
`PROVIDED IN SUFFICIENT
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICANT
`5. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD OMISSION
`OF DESIGNATION OF CONTRACTING
`PARTY OR PARTIES.
`
`6. TOEI ANIMATION CO, LTD HAS
`PROVIDED THE USPTO WITH
`
`IRREGULARITIES RELATING TO THE
`ENTITLEMENT OF THE APPLICANT TO
`FILE AN INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION.
`7. THE USPTO HAS ISSUED A DEFECTIVE
`CERTIFICATION TO ROBERTA S. BREN
`ESQ, ALTER EGO FOR TOEI ANIMATION
`CO, LTD.
`
`Subject
`
`Posted
`
`By
`
`Posted On
`
`Re: Re: Re: Re: 1902.07(a) IRREGULARITIES THAT
`MUST BE REMEDIED BY THE USPTO
`
`ipotter2
`000
`
`5/31/2012
`6:55:32 PM
`
`Re: Re: Re: 1902.07(a) IRREGULARITIES THAT MUST
`BE REMEDIED BY THE USPTO
`
`Anony
`1nous
`
`5/24/2012
`7:05:30 AM
`
`Re: Re: 1902.07(a) IRREGULARITIES THAT MUST BE
`REMEDIED BY THE USPTO
`
`Re: 1902.07(a) IRREGULARITIES THAT MUST BE
`REMEDIED BY THE USPTO
`
`1902.07(a) IRREGULARITIES THAT MUST BE
`REMEDIED BY THE USPTO
`
`ip0tter2
`000
`
`5/23/2012
`6:06:03 AM
`
`Anony
`mous
`
`5/17/2012
`7:14:49 AM
`
`ipotter2
`000
`
`5/16/2012
`9:21:27 PM
`
`Sgle
`gt
`
`gm
`c_t
`
`§_e1<_:
`gt
`
`Sgje
`g
`
`Sglg
`91
`
`(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party
`
`
`
`“T7141 ‘H
`
`

`
`may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the
`
`part of each claim or defense —— on which summary judgment is sought. The
`
`court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for
`
`granting or denying the motion.
`
`Indeed, the Lanham Act provides that a prima facie case of abandonment is
`established upon proof of non—use for two years. See l5 U.S.C. § ll27(a) (1982).
`Here, over two years passed
`
`[w]hen a Valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the
`
`plaintiffs claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar ..., the claim
`
`connected transactions, out of which the action arose.
`
`The Board observed that "[a] subsequent claim will be barred by claim
`
`preclusion if: ’(l) there is identi

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