throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA720827
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`01/15/2016
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92059277
`Plaintiff
`Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce
`PATRICK R STURDY
`CUMMINGS MCCLOREY DAVIS & ACHO PLC
`33900 SCHOOLCRAFT
`LIVONIA, MI 48150
`UNITED STATES
`psturdy@cmda-law.com, dwaldenmayer@cmda-law.com, jcalla-
`han@cmda-law.com, racho@cmda-law.com
`Motion to Strike
`Ronald G. Acho
`racho@cmda-law.com, kueberroth@cmda-law.com, jcallahan@cmda-law.com
`/s/ Ronald G. Acho
`01/15/2016
`CACC.Motion.Strike (Part 1).pdf(3577083 bytes )
`CACC Motion Strike (Part 2).pdf(3351111 bytes )
`CACC.Motion.Strike (Part 3).pdf(4098571 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
`
`CHALDEAN AMERICAN
`CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059277
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BEN KALASHO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PETITIONER CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S
`MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PLEADINGS AND FILINGS
`
`NOW COMES
`
`Plaintiff, CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`
`COMMERCE, by and through its attorneys, CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS &
`
`ACHO, PLC, by Ronald G. Acho, and for its Motion to Strike Defendant's Pleadings and
`
`Filings, states as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") has very specific Rules dealing
`
`with the presentation of evidence. The Defendant and his attorney have repeatedly
`
`ignored the Rules of this Board.
`
`The Rules have to be followed in order to allow all parties a full and fair
`
`opportunity to make their case before the Board. Plaintiff Chaldean American Chamber
`
`of Commerce has been unfairly prejudiced by the actions of the Defendant. The Board
`
`will see from the trial deposition testimony submitted by Plaintiff, and its extensive
`
`

`
`Exhibits, as well as the Letters of Support, that its position is well-founded and that the
`
`Defendant's registration should be cancelled.
`
`The facts adduced by the Plaintiff show that Defendant acted irresponsibly by
`
`using Plaintiffs "Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce" designation for the
`
`organization he founded 12 years later. This irresponsibility has continued through
`
`Defendant's failure to follow the Rules of this Board. That defiance of the Board's Rules
`
`should not be condoned, and supports Plaintiffs Motion to Strike.
`
`PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS AND FILINGS
`
`1.
`
`On August 31, 2015 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) issued
`
`its Scheduling Order resetting trial deadlines in this Cancellation Proceeding. (Doc. No.
`
`11: Opinion, p. 6).
`
`2.
`
`On November 23, 2015, Defendant's attorney of record filed a Substitution
`
`of Counsel in this matter, withdrawing from further representation of Defendant and
`
`appointing Defendant as his own representative, pro se. (Doc. No. 13: Registrant Ben
`
`Kalasho's Substitution of Counsel).
`
`3.
`
`The withdrawal of Defendant's former attorney was contrary to the Board's
`
`Rules. See TBMP §§ 116.02 - 116.05. Specifically, no request was filed with the Board
`
`seeking permission for Defendant's attorney of record to withdraw, which is contrary to
`
`TMBP§§ 116.02,116.05.
`
`4.
`
`The withdrawal was also contrary to TBMP §§ 116.03 - 116.05 which
`
`require that the grounds for withdrawal must be stated.
`
`

`
`5.
`
`Because no motion or request to withdraw was filed, Plaintiff did not have
`
`the opportunity to oppose the request, which is its right under TMBP § 116.05.
`
`6.
`
`Since the withdrawal of his attorney of record, Defendant has also not
`
`followed the Board's Rules and has not followed the deadlines the Board established in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to the Board's Scheduling Order, Plaintiff timely submitted its
`
`Pretrial Disclosures to Defendant on October 15, 2015 (Exhibit 1: Plaintiffs Pretrial
`
`Disclosures) and conducted the trial testimony deposition of its witness, Martin Manna,
`
`the President of the Plaintiff Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce, on November
`
`16, 2015, during its designated trial period. (Doc. Nos. 23-27: Deposition of Martin
`
`Manna and corresponding Exhibits).
`
`8.
`
`According to the Board's Scheduling Order, Defendant's Pretrial
`
`Disclosures were due on December 14, 2015. (Doc. No. 11: Opinion, p. 6). However, to
`
`date, Defendant has not submitted any disclosures to Plaintiff.
`
`9.
`
`Instead, on or about December 12, 2015, Defendant submitted what he
`
`called his "Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16, 2015" to the Board.
`
`(Doc. No. 22: Defendant's Response to Deposition). There is no such designated
`
`pleading in the Board's Rules.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant's December 12, 2015 Response does not comply with any of the
`
`Board's Rules. Specifically, the Response does not comply with requirements for Pretrial
`
`Disclosures. See TBMP §702.10 (2015).
`
`

`
`11.
`
`As an example, Defendant has not identified any witness that he intends to
`
`call, and he has not provided what is required in Pretrial Disclosures, namely, a general
`
`summary or list of subjects of expected testimony and has not provided a list of exhibits,
`
`all of which are required in Pretrial Disclosures under TBMP §702.01 (2015).
`
`12.
`
`The Board's Rules also require that: "If a party does not plan to take
`
`testimony from any witnesses, it must so state in its pretrial disclosure". See TBMP
`
`§702.10(2015).
`
`13.
`
`Defendant has not followed this requirement, and he never indicated that he
`
`does not plan to take testimony from any witness, as required under TBMP §702.10
`
`(2015).
`
`14.
`
`Defendant, once again, ignored the Board's Rules which require service of
`
`papers in "inter partes" cases. TBMP §113.04. Plaintiff never received the mailed copy of
`
`Defendant's December 12, 2015 Response (Doc. No. 22).
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff only became aware of Defendant's December 12, 2015 submission
`
`to the Board (Doc. No. 22) through monitoring TTABVUE, the Board's inquiry system.
`
`16.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Board's Scheduling Order, Defendant's
`
`trial period
`
`commenced on December 29, 2015. (Doc. No. 11: Opinion, p. 6). Yet, to date, Defendant
`
`has not submitted to Plaintiff any Notice of Testimonial Deposition in this matter.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant never submitted his Pretrial Disclosures under TBMP §702.01
`
`(2015), and,
`
`thus, should be precluded from taking any testimonial depositions in this
`
`matter.
`
`

`
`18.
`
`Instead, on December 28, 2015, Plaintiff received Defendant's "Response
`
`to Petitioner's Deposition Dated November 16, 2015", and a Certificate of Service, both
`
`dated December 21, 2015,
`
`together with 66 exhibits. (See Doc. No. 28: Defendant's
`
`Response, only, with a filing date of December 21, 2015; and Doc. No. 29: Defendant's
`
`Response and exhibits).
`
`19.
`
`The exhibits Defendant submitted, which are part of Doc. No. 29, are not
`
`referenced in the Response. Each exhibit contains a separate caption page which purports
`
`to offer a self-serving explanation about each exhibit, with no evidentiary support.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant's Response and the accompanying exhibits do not comply with
`
`the Board's rules. Again, the Board's Rules do not allow for any such filing.
`
`21. Moreover Defendant's Response does not comply with TBMP §702.10
`
`(2015) as a Pretrial Disclosure.
`
`22.
`
`Further, Defendant's Response cannot be considered trial deposition
`
`testimony under TBMP § 703.01(h) because it is unsworn, and Plaintiff received no
`
`notice of the taking of any such testimony.
`
`23.
`
`To the extent that Defendant intends to rely on the exhibits, independent of
`
`any testimony, no Notice of Reliance was filed, and these exhibits are not appropriate for
`
`introduction. See TBMP § 707.02(a).
`
`24.
`
`The Board should be aware that Defendant has attorneys that have been
`
`actively representing Defendant and his other business entities. (See Exhibits 2 and 3
`
`attached.)
`
`

`
`25. With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike from the record Defendant's
`
`Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16, 2015, which was filed on
`
`December 14, 2015 (Doc. No. 22), Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition
`
`dated November 16, 2015, which was filed on December 21, 2015
`
`(Doc. No. 28),
`
`together Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16, 2015,
`
`together with the 66 exhibits, which was filed on January 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 29).
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`Plaintiff CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`
`COMMERCE, requests the following relief:
`
`(1) that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board grant this Motion;
`
`(2) that the Board strike from the record Defendant's Response to Petitioner's
`
`Deposition dated November 16, 2015, which was filed on December 14, 2015
`
`(Doc. No. 22), Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated
`
`November 16, 2015, which was filed on December 21, 2015 (Doc. No. 28),
`
`together Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16,
`
`2015, together with the 66 exhibits, which was filed on January 6, 2016 (Doc.
`
`No. 29);
`
`(3) that the Board preclude Defendant from taking any trial depositions in this
`
`matter;
`
`(4) prohibit Defendant's introduction of any documents, exhibits, photographs or
`
`letters; and
`
`(5) that the Board award to Plaintiff any other relief it deems appropriate.
`
`

`
`Date: January 15, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Is! Ronald G. Acho
`Ronald G. Acho (P-23913)
`CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`33900 Schoolcraft Road
`Livonia, MI 48150
`(734) 261-2400
`racho @ cmda-law.com
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059277
`
`CHALDEAN AMERICAN
`CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`BEN KALASHO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PETITIONER CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`COMMERCE'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PLEADINGS AND FILINGS
`
`NOW COMES
`
`Plaintiff, CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`
`COMMERCE, by and through its attorneys, CUMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS &
`
`ACHO, PLC, by Ronald G. Acho, and for its Motion to Strike Defendant's Pleadings and
`
`Filings, states as follows:
`
`PROLOGUE
`
`Plaintiff Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce has been in existence for
`
`over 14 years. It has grown to be a nationally and internationally recognized organization.
`
`It has garnered great respect from various offices of the United States Government - from
`
`the Central
`
`Intelligence Agency,
`
`the Federal Bureau of
`
`Investigation,
`
`the State
`
`Department, up to, and including, the Office of the Vice President of the United States.
`
`But the Defendant Kalasho has attempted to trade in on the Plaintiff's good name and
`
`reputation.
`
`

`
`The Defendant Kalasho has been the cause of significant confusion because of his
`
`actions.
`
`In addition to his
`
`improper
`
`representations as President of Plaintiffs
`
`organization, he has acted irresponsibly in his dealings that have affected the Plaintiff,
`
`and he continues to act irresponsibly to this day by ignoring the Rules of the Trademark
`
`Trial and Appeal Board. This should not be allowed to continue.
`
`The Defendant Kalasho separated from his attorney in this proceedings and he
`
`should not be rewarded for not following the Board's Rules. The Defendant Kalasho is
`
`well aware of adversarial proceedings. He has a great deal of experience in being a
`
`Defendant, like he is in this case. He also has employed attorneys who currently represent
`
`him, or have represented him in the past. Examples are listed below:
`
`Case
`
`Description
`
`Kagewerks, Inc. v.
`Kalasho
`Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-
`00041692-CU-BC-CTL
`
`Defendant was
`represented by Steven F.
`Lopez APC and Steven
`F. Lopez
`
`Ideal Market, Inc. v.
`Kalasho, Inc.
`Case No. 37-2014-
`00083287--CU-BC-CTL
`
`Defendant represented by
`Steven F. Lopez APC
`and Steven F. Lopez
`
`Defendant Kalasho was sued by Kagewerks, Inc. in this
`anti-SLAPP and libel
`lawsuit. Plaintiffs
`truck was
`damaged after it was taken to Defendant's business to be
`cleaned and detailed. After the parties argued heatedly
`about payment, negative reviews about Plaintiff's business
`appeared on an online business review site, and Plaintiff
`believed Defendant published the statements directly or
`through someone else. (See Exhibit 2.)
`
`Defendant Kalasho was sued by Ideal Market for fraud and
`breach of contract, in a case with extensive discovery and
`a full jury trial. The case began after Defendant refused to
`proceed with the sale of a gas station. The lawsuit alleged,
`in part, that Defendant never intended to sell the business,
`but induced Plaintiff to liquidate assets in order to prevent
`competition. A jury found Defendant liable for fraud and
`awarded Plaintiff $10,000.00 in damages. (Exhibit 3).
`
`

`
`Case
`
`Description
`
`Precision Recovery
`Analytics, Inc. v. Kalasho
`Case No. 37-2010-
`00070853-CL-CL-EC
`
`Defendant Kalasho was sued by Precision Recovery
`Analytics, Inc. in a collection matter. Dismissal without
`prejudice was entered after a default was entered against
`the Defendant. (Exhibit 4).
`
`Elia v. Kalasho
`Case No. 37-2015-
`00038607-CU-HR-EC
`(dismissed 12/4/2015)
`
`Elia v. Kalasho
`Case No. 37-2015-
`00040370-CU-HR-EC
`(dismissed 12/17/2015)
`
`Defendant Kalasho was sued by Reva Elia for civil
`harassment to obtain a restraining order against him and
`his wife,
`Jessica. The case was dismissed without
`prejudice. (Exhibit 5).
`
`Defendant Kalasho was sued by Reva Elia for civil
`harassment to obtain a restraining order against him and
`his wife, Jessica. The case was dismissed with prejudice,
`(Exhibit 6).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`On August 31, 2015 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") issued its
`
`Scheduling Order resetting trial deadlines in this cancellation proceeding. (Doc. No. 11:
`
`Opinion, p. 6).
`
`On November 23, 2015, Defendant's attorney of record filed a Substitution of
`
`Counsel
`
`in this matter, withdrawing from further
`
`representation of Defendant and
`
`appointing Defendant as his own representative, pro se. (Doc. No. 13: Registrant Ben
`
`Kalasho's Substitution of Counsel). The withdrawal of Defendant's former attorney was
`
`contrary to the Board's Rules. See TBMP §§ 116.02 - 116.05. Specifically, no request
`
`was filed with the Board seeking permission for Defendant's attorney of record to
`
`withdraw, which is contrary to TMBP §§ 116.02, 116.05. The withdrawal was also
`
`contrary to TMBP §§ 116.02-116.05 which require that grounds for withdrawal must be
`
`

`
`stated. Because no motion or request to withdraw was filed, Plaintiff did not have the
`
`opportunity to oppose the request, which is its right under TBMP §116.05.
`
`Since the withdrawal of his attorney of record, Defendant has also not followed
`
`the Board's Rules and has not followed the deadlines the Board established in this
`
`proceeding. Pursuant to the Board's Scheduling Order, Plaintiff timely submitted its
`
`Pretrial Disclosures to Defendant on October 15, 2015 (Exhibit 1: Plaintiff's Pretrial
`
`Disclosures) and conducted the trial testimony deposition of its witness, Martin Manna,
`
`the President of Plaintiff Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce, on November 16,
`
`2015, during its designated trial period. (Doc. Nos. 23-27: Deposition of Martin Manna
`
`and corresponding Exhibits).
`
`According to the Board's Scheduling Order, Defendant's Pretrial Disclosures were
`
`due on December 14, 2015. (Doc. No. 11: Opinion, p. 6). However, to date, Defendant
`
`has not submitted any disclosures to Plaintiff. Instead, on or about December 12, 2015,
`
`Defendant submitted what he called his "Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated
`
`November 16, 2015" to the Board. (Doc. No. 22: Defendant's Response to Deposition).
`
`There is no such designated pleading in the Board's Rules.
`
`Defendant's December 12, 2015 Response does not comply with the Board's
`
`Rules. Specifically,
`
`the Response does not comply with requirements for Pretrial
`
`Disclosures. See TBMP §702.10 (2015). As an example, Defendant has not identified
`
`any witness that he intends to call, and has not provided what is required under the
`
`disclosures, namely, a general summary or list of subjects of expected testimony and has
`
`not provided a list of exhibits, all of which are required in Pretrial Disclosures under
`
`4
`
`

`
`TBMP §702.01 (2015). Defendant has not followed the requirement, and he has never
`
`indicated that he does not plan to take testimony from any witness, as required under
`
`TBMP §702.10 (2015).
`
`Defendant, once again, ignored the Board's Rules which require service of papers
`
`in inter "partes" cases. TBMP § 113.04. Plaintiff never received the mailed copy of
`
`Defendant's December 12, 2015 Response. (Doc. No. 22). Plaintiff only became aware of
`
`Defendant's December 12, 2015 submission to the Board through monitoring
`
`TTABVUE, the Board's inquiry system.
`
`Pursuant to the Board's Scheduling Order, Defendant's trial period commenced on
`
`December 29, 2015. Yet, to date, Defendant has not submitted to Plaintiff any Notice of
`
`Testimonial Deposition in this matter. Defendant never submitted Pretrial Disclosures
`
`under TBMP §702.01 (2015), and thus, should be precluded from taking any testimonial
`
`depositions in this matter.
`
`Instead, on December 28, 2015, Plaintiff received Defendant's "Response to
`
`Petitioner's Deposition Dated November 16, 2015", and a Certificate of Service, both
`
`dated December 21, 2015, together with 66 exhibits. (See Doc. No. 28, Defendant's
`
`Response to Petitioner's Deposition Dated November 16, 2015", only, with a filing date
`
`of December 21, 2015; and Doc. No. 29: Defendant's Response to Petitioner's
`
`Deposition Dated November 16, 20/5"and exhibits, with a filing date of January 6,
`
`2016). The exhibits Defendant submitted, which are part of Doc. No. 29, are not
`
`referenced in the Response. Each exhibit contains a separate caption page which purports
`
`to offer a self-serving explanation about each exhibit, with no evidentiary support.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Defendant's most recent Response, and the accompanying exhibits, do not comply
`
`with the Board's rules. Again, the Board's Rules do not allow for any such filing.
`
`Moreover, the Defendant's Response does not comply with TBMP §702.10 (2015) as a
`
`Pretrial Disclosure. Further, Defendant's Response cannot be considered trial deposition
`
`testimony under TBMP § 703.01(h) because it is unsworn, and Plaintiff received no
`
`notice of the taking of any such testimony. To the extent that Defendant intends to rely on
`
`the exhibits, independent of any testimony, no Notice of Reliance was filed, and these
`
`exhibits are not appropriate for introduction. See TBMP § 707.02(a).
`
`Defendant and his attorney have repeatedly ignored the Rules of the Trademark
`
`Trial and Appeal Board. The withdrawal of Defendant's former attorney of record from
`
`this matter is one example. On November 16, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel received a
`
`facsimile transmission purportedly directly from Defendant, indicating that he would be
`
`representing himself in this matter. (Exhibit 7: fax). The fax was unsigned and was sent
`
`after business hours on Friday, November 13, 2015 (at 7:12 P.M. EST) and was not
`
`received by Defense counsel, Ronald Acho, until 8:30 A.M.,
`
`the morning of the
`
`scheduled deposition of Martin Manna, the President of the Chaldean American Chamber
`
`of Commerce on November 16, 2015. However, USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct §
`
`11.402(a), which tracks the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, forbid an
`
`attorney of record of one party from communicating directly with the opposing party
`
`when the opposing party is represented by an attorney, absent consent of the other
`
`attorney, or authorization by law, rule or court order.
`
`

`
`Significantly, no Notice of the Withdrawal of Representation, or any other form of
`
`consent allowing Plaintiff's counsel to speak directly with Defendant, was received from
`
`Defendant's attorney of record, Matthew Becker. Despite frequent communications with
`
`Mr. Becker regarding this proceeding in the weeks leading up to the scheduled
`
`deposition, no communications were received from Mr. Becker, or his office, informing
`
`Plaintiffs counsel of the change of representation or granting Plaintiffs counsel
`
`permission to speak directly with Defendant. (See Exhibit 8: email communications to
`
`and from Mr. Becker; see also Exhibit 1.). Further, no Motion for the Withdrawal of
`
`Representation by Mr. Becker, or other papers, had been filed with the Board by the
`
`morning of November 16, 2015.
`
`On November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs counsel sent to Defendant's attorney of record,
`
`Mr. Becker, a copy of the fax, and indicated that he could not speak directly with
`
`Defendant, since Mr. Becker remained attorney of record. (Exhibit 9: 11/17/2015 email
`
`and attachment). No communication was received from Mr. Becker. It was not until
`
`about a week later, on November 23, 2015, after Defendant submitted a set of
`
`Interrogatories to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's counsel, in turn, forwarded the discovery to
`
`Mr. Becker,
`
`that Plaintiff's counsel was advised that the Substitution had been filed
`
`earlier that same day.
`
`(Exhibit 10: Interrogatories from Defendant and Exhibit 11:
`
`11/23/2015 email exchange).
`
`Also, the Interrogatories that Defendant submitted to Plaintiff on November 23,
`
`2105 were in clear violation of TBMP § 403.02 and the Board's June 3, 2014 Scheduling
`
`

`
`Order. (Exhibit 10: Interrogatories). Pursuant to the Board's Order, discovery closed in
`
`this matter onFebruary 8, 2015. (Doc. No. 2: Notice of Trial Dates Set, p. 2).
`
`Plaintiff brings these matters to the Board's attention in the instant Motion because
`
`they are examples of instances where Defendant, and/or his former attorney, ignored the
`
`Board's Rules, and they were discussed in Defendant's various Responses to Petitioner's
`
`Deposition dated November 16, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 22, 28 and 29).
`
`With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to strike from the record Defendant's Response
`
`to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16, 2015, which was filed on December 14,
`
`2015 (Doc. No. 22), Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November
`
`16, 2015, which was filed on December 21, 2015 (Doc. No. 28), together Defendant's
`
`Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16, 2015, together with the 66
`
`exhibits, which was filed on January 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 29).
`
`The Board should be aware that Plaintiff contacted Defendant
`
`to seek his
`
`concurrence in the relief requested in this Motion. (Exhibit 12). Concurrence was not
`
`obtained, necessitating the filing of this Motion.
`
`WHEREFORE,
`
`Plaintiff CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`
`COMMERCE, requests the following relief:
`
`(1) that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board grant this Motion;
`
`(2) that the Board strike from the record Defendant's Response to Petitioner's
`
`Deposition dated November 16, 2015, which was filed on December 14, 2015
`
`(Doc. No. 22), Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated
`
`November 16, 2015, which was filed on December 21, 2015 (Doc. No. 28),
`
`8
`
`

`
`together Defendant's Response to Petitioner's Deposition dated November 16,
`
`2015, together with the 66 exhibits, which was filed on January 6, 2016 (Doc.
`
`No. 29);
`
`(3) that the Board preclude Defendant from taking any trial depositions in this
`
`matter;
`
`(4) prohibit Defendant's introduction of any documents, exhibits, photographs or
`
`letters; and
`
`(5) that the Board award to Plaintiff any other relief it deems appropriate.
`
`Date: January 15, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Ronald G. Acho
`Ronald G. Acho (P-23913)
`CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`33900 Schoolcraft Road
`Livonia, MI 48150
`(734) 261-2400
`racho @ cmda-law.com
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHALDEAN AMERICAN
`CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059277
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BEN KALASHO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`I hereby certify that on January 16, 2016, a copy of the forgoing was served on the
`
`Defendant via email at the email addresses of:
`
`President@ChaldeanAmericanChamber.com and benkalasho@gmail.com,
`
`and via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, to the Defendant at the address listed below:
`
`Mr. Ben Kalsho
`San Diego East County Chaldean
`American Chamber of Commerce
`P.O. Box 710804
`Santee, CA 92072
`
`By:
`
`JU^. Q
`
`ulia A. Callahan
`
`

`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Plaintiffs Pretrial Disclosures and related correspondence to Defense counsel
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Appellate Opinion in Docket No. D064949, Kagewerks, Inc. v. Kalasho,
`San Diego County Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00041692-CU-BC-CTL
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Amended Complaint and Jury Verdict form in Ideal Market, Inc. v.
`Kalasho, Inc., San Diego County Super. Ct. Case No. 37-2014-00083287-
`CU-BC-CTL
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Register of Action and Case Detail in Precision RecoveryAnalytics, Inc. v.
`Kalasho, Case No. 37-2010-00070853-CL-CL-EC
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Register of Action and Case Detail in Elia v. Kalasho, Case No. 37-2015-
`00038607-CU-HR-EC (dismissed 12/4/2015)
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Register of Action and Case Detail in Elia v. Kalasho, Case No. 37-2015-
`00040370-CU-HR-EC (dismissed 12/17/2015)
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Fax cover sheet and letter
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Email Correspondence between Plaintiffs counsel and Defense counsel
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`11/17/2015 Email Correspondence
`
`Exhibit 10 Defendant's 11/23/2015 Interrogatories and correspondence
`
`Exhibit 11
`
`11/23/2015 email correspondence
`
`Exhibit 12
`
`1/15/2016 request for concurrence
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`Petitioner Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce's Pretrial Disc.
`
`Subject: Petitioner Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce's Pretrial Disclosures
`From: "Ronald G. Acho" <racho@cmda-law.com>
`Date: 10/15/2015 10:36 AM
`To: "Matthew A. Becker" <matt@beckerlawfirm.com>
`CC: Matthew Becker <info@beckerlawfirm.com>
`BCC: Ron Acho <racho@cmda-law.com>
`
`Mr. Becker:
`
`Please see the attached, Petitioner CACC's Pretrial Disclosures. We are faxing the
`same to your attention and have placed hard copies in today's mail.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Ron Acho
`
`—Attachments:
`
`CACC Pretrial Disclosures.pdf
`
`3.0 MB
`
`lofl
`
`1/7/201612:16 PM
`
`

`
`Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce Pretrial Disclosures
`
`Subject: Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce Pretrial Disclosures
`From: "Ronald G. Acho" <racho@cmda-law.com>
`Date: 10/15/2015 11:29 AM
`To: "Matthew A. Becker" <matt@beckerlavvfirm.com>, Matthew Becker <info@beckerlawfirm.com>
`BCC: Ron Acho <racho@cmda-law.com>
`
`Mr. Becker:
`
`We just contacted your office via telephone at (619) 522-6760, but were unable to
`leave a voice mail message for you. However, we did leave a message in your
`receptionist's voice mail box. We have attempted to fax our cover letter and
`disclosures to you at (619) 522-6763 this morning but received a message saying
`there was no answer from your fax machine at your end. We will try again to send
`the cover letter and disclosures by fax to you.
`
`We have also emailed the cover letter and disclosures to you at Matthew A. Becker
`<matt(3beckerlawfirm.com> and Matthew Becker <info(a)beckerlawfirm.com>. Another copy
`of both the letter and disclosures are attached for your convenience.
`
`I would also like to confirm your understanding that we intend to move forward
`very quickly with the depositions for our case, which is why I indicated in the
`letter that we will very likely schedule the first deposition for the week of
`November 2, 2015, and most likely for either November 3rd or November 6th.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Ron Acho
`
`Attachments:
`
`CACC Pretrial Disclosures.pdf
`
`3.0 MB
`
`lofl
`
`1/7/2016 12:15 PM
`
`

`
`Disclosures ofCACC
`
`Subject: Disclosures of CACC
`From: "Ronald G. Acho" <racho@cmda-law.com>
`Date: 10/15/2015 2:56 PM
`To: kflynn@beckerlawfirm.com
`CC: "Matthew A. Becker" <matt@beckerlawfirm.com>
`
`Kelly:
`
`Here is our Disclosures, together with a cover letter, with respect to the above
`matter. This is a follow up to your discussion with my Paralegal, Julie Callahan.
`Ms. Callahan has been trying to fax our cover letter and Disclosures to your
`office. But, your fax machine keeps rejecting our documents.
`So, as a result,
`we're emailing these documents to you because Mr. Becker has not responded to my
`email which asked that he confirm that he has received our Disclosures. Perhaps,
`he is out of the office, but I have no way of knowing.
`
`Can you please confirm for us that your office has received these Disclosures?
`
`Thank you.
`
`Ron Acho
`
`—Attachments:
`
`CACC Pretrial Disclosures.pdf
`
`3.0 MB
`
`lofl
`
`1/7/201612:15 PM
`
`

`
`Re: Disclosures of CACC
`
`Subject: Re: Disclosures of CACC
`From: "Ronald G. Acho" <racho@cmda-law.com>
`Date: 10/15/2015 3:00 PM
`To: Kelly Flynn <kflynn@beckerlawfirm.com>
`CC: '"Matthew A. Becker'" <matt@beckerlawfirm.com>
`
`Kelly:
`
`Thank you so much for your prompt response.
`
`Ron Acho
`
`On 10/15/2015 2:59 PM, Kelly Flynn wrote:
`Dear Mr. Acho,
`
`We have received them, thank you!
`
`Sincerely,
`Kelly Flynn, Legal Secretary
`Law Office of Matthew A. Becker, PC
`
`Original Message
`From: Ronald G. Acho rmailto:racho(a)cmda-law.com1
`Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:57 AM
`To: kflynn(o)beckerlawfirm.com
`
`Cc: Matthew A. Becker
`Subject: Disclosures of CACC
`
`Kelly:
`
`Here is our Disclosures, together with a cover letter, with respect
`to the above matter. This is a follow up to your discussion with my
`Paralegal, Dulie Callahan. Ms. Callahan has been trying to fax our
`cover letter and Disclosures to your office. But, your fax machine
`keeps rejecting our documents.
`So, as a result, we're emailing
`these documents to you because Mr. Becker has not responded to my
`email which asked that he confirm that he has received our
`Disclosures. Perhaps, he is out of the office, but I have no way of
`knowing.
`
`Can you please confirm for us that your office has received these
`Disclosures?
`
`Thank you.
`
`lof2
`
`1/7/2016 12:15 PM
`
`

`
`Re: Disclosures ofCACC
`
`Ron Acho
`
`!
`
`2 of2
`
`1/7/2016 12:15 PM
`
`

`
`Cummings-McClorey
`
`CMDA
`Davis ^ Acho , P.L.C.
`
`33900 Schoolcraft Road
`
`ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
`Livonia. MICHIGAN48150 - PHONE: (734) 261-2400
`
`Facsimile: (734)261-4510
`
`(mis J II MMlMis
`tilKAIIi C MAVIS
`KONAIII (i. ,VI 1(1
`Timiiiiiy YCHIKCI
`KdlllKI
`I
`111 AMI K
`II II 111 V !< (IAKK
`CIIMIMOllllH Ci. SCH
`
`IIMIIIIIV S IIHK\SI>
`I lll\N VINSON
`SAHAII I
`I'VI HKin'
`All AS' t'.VANIJFJtl AAS
`IIMIMK A. KV/IM
`I'AIKIIKK Sll ROT
`ASPKI V.
`I. HKK.I.
`
`riJJIASI
`(AltlAli
`KliVIN M. IIIK/11
`I-.IIW.M1I) I .Saiaii
`Id mi u i I llAIIN
`t ,1(11.""UN A KolllKIN
`llMMVS I I.ACISISS
`Mai km i s Kam.jk.'
`
`IAMI s H \i II"
`Diillil \s I II KII.W
`lilJ/AIII III KM •O'MONMII
`I indaMavisIhii.ihanic'
`KvHIN M MMIV
`WllllAM/ KOKIHAKIC
`IIKIAM 1 IHMJKII-IK'
`
`('•III (.OHY U liKASI
`Mai mi » W. H!:K"N
`KYAN I) Mil l m'
`I! Jill
`\V| ii\/lK. Ill
`JI'SSII AM Mill
`MUII'M Km/'
`
`OI CiUNsiX:
`li ssi
`i Vivian
`
`BnaURitP. McCumr. 1934-1995
`
`October 15,2015
`
`I MIMII II I) & I ( X All II IN I A (1SI.V
`: AIIMHII I1IN Ml. W| A; VAOM >
`> AliMIIII IMS MO 4 KS (isi >
`I AliMinil'lvMimsil
`
`Matthew A. Becker, Esq.
`The Law Offices of Matthew A. Becker
`1003 Isabella Ave.
`Coronado, CA92118
`
`VIA EMAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
`AND REGULAR UNITED STATES MAILS
`
`Re: Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce v. Kalasho
`USPTO TTAB Cancellation No. 92059277
`
`Dear Mr. Becker:
`
`Enclosed please find Petitioner Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce's
`Pretrial Disclosures, together with a Certificate of Service with respect to the above
`captioned matter.
`
`We intend to call our first witness very soon, very likely the week of November 2,
`2015. and most likely on either November 3rd or November 6th. We will forward aNotice
`of Deposition to you as soon as we confirm the date.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`CUMMINGS. McCLOREY. DAVIS & ACHO. PLC
`'c^ojU^.CLdif
`
`Ronald G. Acho
`
`/jac
`Enclosures
`
`Ci.in i on Township. Ml
`
`• Livonia. Ml
`• Gk and Ran us. Ml
`K \ n s \s ( 11 v. M o • Rlvuhsiuii.C A
`
`Tit a vi K si City. Ml
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Registration No:
`Mark:
`
`Filed:
`Registered:
`
`4,516,721
`SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY CHALDEAN AMERICAN
`CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
`November 8,2013
`April 15,2014
`
`CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`COMMERCE,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BEN KALASHO,
`
`Registrant.
`
`Cancellation No.: 92059277
`
`PETITIONER CHALDEAN
`AMERICAN CHAMBER OF
`COMMERCE'S PRETRIAL
`DISCLOSURES
`
`PETITIONER'S PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and Rule 2.120 of theTrademark Rules of Practice,
`
`Petitioner, CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, submits its
`
`Pretrial Disclosures, toRegistrant, BEN KALASHO's, and states as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`Will Call Witnesses:
`
`Martin Manna, President (and former Executive Director)
`Chaldean American Chamber of Commerce (CACC)
`30850 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 Bingham Farms, MI 48025
`(248) 996-8340
`
`

`
`Mr. Manna is CACC's President and its former Executive Director. He will offer
`
`testimony consistent with CACC's Answers to Interrogatories, Response to Document
`
`Requests, his Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit, and any exhibits referen

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