Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA572983
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/25/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92057485
`Plaintiff
`The Coca-Cola Corporation
`CYNTHIA R PARKS
`PARKS IP LAW LLC
`730 PEACHTREE STREET NE, SUITE 600
`ATLANTA, GA 30308
`UNITED STATES
`tmdocketing@parksiplaw.com, cparks@parksiplaw.com,
`vkeenan@coca-cola.com
`Other Motions/Papers
`Cynthia R. Parks
`tmdocketing@parksiplaw.com
`/Cynthia R. Parks/
`11/25/2013
`92057485 Petitioner's Response to Registrant's Motion for
`Reconsideration.pdf(32458 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
`
`
` Registration No. 4,259,407
`In re:
` COCALEAF
`Mark:
`Registered: December 11, 2012
`
`THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUAN RODRIGUEZ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`}
`}
`} Cancellation No. 92057485
`}
`}
`}
`}
`}
`}
`}
`}
`}
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`
`Petitioner The Coca-Cola Company (“Petitioner”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel and in accordance with Rule 2.127 of the Trademark Rules of Practice, files this
`
`Response to Registrant’s Motion for Reconsideration dated November 19, 2013 (the
`
`“MFR”).
`
`Petitioner contests the MFR for all of the reasons established by the Board in its
`
`order dated November 4, 2013. In accordance with TBMP §518, the MFR “should be
`
`limited to a demonstration that based on the facts before it and the applicable law, the
`
`Board’s ruling is in error and requires appropriate change.” Registrant has failed to use
`
`relevant facts and prevailing authorities to provide any coherent arguments in the MFR
`
`indicating that the Board erred in reaching the order it issued. Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`1
`
`
`
`requests that the Board stand by its order and deny Registrant’s request to further
`
`suspend and delay these proceedings.
`
`Furthermore, the MFR appears to have been filed primarily as an additional tactic
`
`to delay these proceedings, waste the Board’s time, and harass Petitioner, in
`
`accordance with similar behavior by Registrant’s related parties in other currently
`
`ongoing proceedings. Petitioner requests that Registrant’s request for a suspension be
`
`denied and that Registrant be required to file its Answer in accordance with the
`
`deadlines provided by the Board.
`
`Finally, Petitioner notes that Alberto Soler, who is not a party to these
`
`proceedings, has co-signed the MFR. Petitioner requests that the Board advise
`
`Registrant that Mr. Soler is not established as a party to these proceedings and
`
`therefore should not be signing documents on behalf of Registrant.
`
`
`
`SIGNATURE BLOCK
`
`
`
`2
`
`
