Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA707321
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`11/09/2015
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92062378
`Defendant
`Hobsons, Inc.
`
`HOBSONS INC
`50 E-BUSINESS WAY, STE 300
`CINCINNATI, OH 45241
`UNITED STATES
`Answer
`Frederick H. Gribbell
`fred.gribbell@ieee.org,fhgribbe@fuse.net
`/Fred Gribbell/
`11/09/2015
`cvi0363Answer.pdf(36809 bytes )
`cvi0363ExhibitAcoversheet.pdf(8898 bytes )
`cvi0363ExhibitA.pdf(4163233 bytes )
`cvi0363ExhibitBcoversheet.pdf(8889 bytes )
`cvi0363ExhibitB.pdf(167532 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the matter of Registration No.: 4796031
`Date of Issue: August 18, 2015
`Trademark:
`RADIUS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HOBSONS, INC.
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`Registrant, Hobsons, Inc. (“Registrant”) by and through its attorney, FREDERICK H.
`
`GRIBBELL, LLC, hereby answers the Petition for Cancellation as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 1 alleges factual assertions in support of Petitioner’s conclusion(s) of law, Registrant
`
`denies the same.
`
`
`
`2. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 2 alleges factual assertions in support of Petitioner’s conclusion(s) of law, Registrant
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`

`

`denies the same.
`
`
`
`3. Registrant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in paragraph 3 and, accordingly, denies the same.
`
`
`
`4. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 4 alleges factual assertions in support of Petitioner’s conclusion(s) of law, Registrant
`
`denies the same.
`
`
`
`5. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 5 by stating that the three pending
`
`trademark applications in the PTO filed by Petitioner and described in paragraph 5 are all posted in
`
`the PTO online database, and thus those applications speak for themselves. As to whether the
`
`Petitioner is the correct owner of the trademark rights involving those three applications, Registrant
`
`is relying on the PTO records and the statements made by Petitioner. Registrant denies that the
`
`trademark applications referenced by Petitioner in paragraph 5 confer or afford any trademark rights
`
`of any kind on Petitioner.
`
`
`
`6. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 6 by stating that the three pending
`
`trademark applications in the PTO filed by Petitioner and described in paragraph 6 are all posted in
`
`the PTO online database, including the suspended action by the PTO, and thus those applications
`
`speak for themselves. With regard to the second portion of paragraph 6, Registrant admits that it is
`
`the owner of Serial No. 86/146,409 for the mark RADIUS, which is now Registration No.
`
`4,796,031 (the object of this cancellation proceeding).
`
`
`
`7. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 7 by stating that the registration speaks
`
`for itself.
`
`
`
`8. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 8 by stating that the registration speaks
`
`for itself.
`
`
`
`9. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 9 by stating that the registration has not
`
`yet become incontestable.
`
`
`
`10. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 10 by repeating and realleging the
`
`answers given above for each of paragraphs 1 through 9, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`

`

`
`
`11. Registrant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in paragraph 11 and, accordingly, denies the same.
`
`
`
`12. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 12 alleges factual assertions in support of Petitioner’s conclusion(s) of law, Registrant
`
`denies the same.
`
`
`
`13. Registrant admits that the RADIUS mark that is the subject of Registration No.
`
`4,796,031 is identical to Petitioner’s RADIUS mark in “appearance and sound” for the application
`
`Serial No. 86/480,132 only, but not for the other two applications, Serial No. 86/480,123 and Serial
`
`No. 86/480,138. Furthermore, Registrant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 regarding “connotation or commercial
`
`impression” and, accordingly, denies the same.
`
`
`
`14. Registrant admits that the words “customer relationship management” are found in both
`
`the Registration No. 4,796,031 (the object of this cancellation proceeding) and in the three pending
`
`applications listed in paragraph 5, but as to the statements made in paragraph 14, Registrant lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph
`
`14 and, accordingly, denies the same.
`
`
`
`15. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 15 alleges factual assertions in support of Petitioner’s conclusion(s) of law, Registrant
`
`denies the same.
`
`
`
`16. Registrant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in paragraph 16 and, accordingly, denies the same.
`
`
`
`17. Registrant answers the allegations of paragraph 17 by stating that the three pending
`
`trademark applications in the PTO filed by Petitioner and described in paragraph 5 are all posted in
`
`the PTO online database, and thus those applications speak for themselves. However, to be clear
`
`about those three pending trademark applications, all three were also refused registration under
`
`Section 2(d) because of two other prior-filed trademark applications (i.e., Serial No. 86/257,769 and
`
`Serial No. 86/350,095). In other words, PTO Registration No. 4,796,031 (the object of this
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`

`

`cancellation proceeding) is not the only obstacle that is preventing Petitioner from obtaining
`
`registrations in connection with the three pending trademark applications that are described in
`
`paragraph 5.
`
`
`
`18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 18 alleges factual assertions in support of Petitioner’s conclusion(s) of law, Registrant
`
`denies the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Registrant, Hobsons, Inc. respectfully requests that the Cancellation
`
`Proceeding be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(submitted electronically, November 9, 2015)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HOBSONS, INC.
`
`By: / Frederick H. Gribbell /
`Frederick H. Gribbell
`Attorney for Registrant
`Registration No. 33,892
`
`
`
`
`
`FREDERICK H. GRIBBELL, LLC
`5515 Timber Way Drive
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45238
`(513) 891-2100
`FAX: (513) 891-2100
`e-mail: fred.gribbell@ieee.org
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMITTAL
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that this ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CANCELLATION is being filed
`
`electronically with the TTAB via ESTTA on November 9, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` / Frederick H. Gribbell /
`Frederick H. Gribbell
`Attorney for Registrant
`Registration No. 33,892
`
`
`
`
`
`FREDERICK H. GRIBBELL, LLC
`5515 Timber Way Drive
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45238
`(513) 891-2100
`FAX: (513) 891-2100
`e-mail: fred.gribbell@ieee.org
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that the undersigned has served on this date a true and correct copy of the
`
`within and foregoing ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CANCELLATION, regarding the registered
`
`trademark RADIUS, Registration No. 4796031, upon counsel for the Petitioner, electronically and
`
`by United States First Class Mail, in a properly addressed envelope, with adequate postage affixed
`
`thereon, addressed as follows:
`
`
`
`Timothy D. Pecsenye, Esq.
`BLANK ROME LLP
`One Logan Square, 130 N. 18th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 9, 2015
`
`\a14\docs\cvi0363.Answer.doc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ / Frederick H. Gribbell /
`Frederick H. Gribbell
`Attorney for Registrant
`Registration No. 33,892
`
`
`
`FREDERICK H. GRIBBELL, LLC
`5515 Timber Way Drive
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45238
`(513) 891-2100
`FAX: (513) 891-2100
`e-mail: fred.gribbell@ieee.org
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92062378
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket: CVI0363
`
`
`
`

`

`(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
`Blank Rome LLP
`130 North 18th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place (III "X”in One Box 0;in
`
`D 1 US. Government
`Plaintiff
`
`8 3
`
`Federal Question
`((1.8. Govern/nan! Not (I Par/y)
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an ”X" in One Box/0r Plaintiff
`(For Diversity Crises Only
`and One Boxfm- Defendant)
`PTF
`DEF
`3 4
`D 4
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`PTF
`3 l
`
`DEF
`D 1
`
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`ot‘Business In This State
`
`
`
`3 5
`
`D 5
`
`
`
`Js44 (Rev. 12/12)
`
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`
`The .18 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
`provrded by local. rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required for the use oftlie Clerk of Court for the
`purpose of initiating the cm] docket sheet.
`(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORILI.)
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`DEFENDANTS
`HOBSONS,1NC.
`
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Montgomery
`(EXCEPT/N US PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`Hamilton
`County of Residence ofFirst Listed Defendant
`(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLIQ
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED,
`
`NOTE:
`
`Attorneys (IfKnown)
`Frederick H. Gribell
`5515 Timber Way Drive
`Cincinnati, OH
`
`D 2 US. Government
`Defendant
`
`D 4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizens/rip Q/Par/iex in Item 111)
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Forei '11 Country
`
`3 2
`
`D 2
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`
`3 3
`
`D 3
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`D 6
`
`D 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REAL PROPERTY
`D 210 Land Condemnation
`3 220 Foreclosure
`D 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
`3 240 Torts to Land
`3 245 Tort Product Liability
`3 290 All Other Real Property
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D 3
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER STATUTES
`3 375 False Claims Act
`3 400 State Reapportionment
`3 410 Antitrust
`3 430 Banks and Banking
`3 450 Commerce
`D 460 Deportation
`D 470 Racketeer Influenced and
`Corrupt Organizations
`D 480 Consumer Credit
`D 490 Cable/Sat TV
`D 850 Securities/Commodities/
`Exchange
`3 890 Other Statutory Actions
`3 891 Agricultural Acts
`3 893 Environmental Matters
`3 895 Freedom of Information
`Act
`3 896 Arbitration
`3 899 Administrative Procedure
`Act/Review or Appeal of
`Agency Decision
`3 950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes
`
`
`
`IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X” in One Box Orr/)9
`BANKRUPTCY
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY
`CONTRACT
`TORTS
`
`
`3 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`D 625 Drug Related Seizure
`3 1 10 liisurance
`PERSONAL INJURY
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`
`
`
`D 120 Marine
`3 310 Airplane
`3 365 Personal 1njiiry -
`of Property 21 USC 881
`3 423 Withdrawal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 315 Airplane Product
`Product Liability
`D 690 Other
`28 USC 157
`3 130 Miller Act
`
`
`Liability
`3 367 Health Care/
`3 140 Negotiable Instrument
`
`
`3 320 Assault, Libel &
`Pharmaceutical
`3 150 Recovery of Overpayment
`
`
`Slander
`Personal Injury
`3 820 Copyrights
`& Enforcement of Judgment
`
`
`3 830 Patent
`3 151 Medicare Act
`3 330 Federal Employers’
`Product Liability
`
`
`3 840 Trademark
`Liability
`D 368 Asbestos Personal
`3 152 Recovery of Defaulted
`
`D 340 Marine
`Injury Product
`Strident Loans
`
`
`
`D 345 Marine Product
`Liability
`(Excludes Veterans)
`
`
`Liability
`PERSONAL PROPERTY D 710 Fair Labor Standards
`D 861 HIA (1395ff)
`D 153 Recovery of Overpayment
`
`
`
`
`D 350 Motor Vehicle
`D 370 Other Fraud
`Act
`3 862 Black Lung (923)
`of Veteran‘s Benefits
`
`
`
`D 160 Stockholders’ Suits
`D 355 Motor Vehicle
`3 371 Truth in Lending
`D 720 Labor/Management
`D 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
`
`
`
`
`3 864 SSID Title XVI
`D 190 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`3 380 Other Personal
`Relations
`
`
`
`
`3 865 RSI (405(g))
`D 195 Contract Product Liability
`3 360 Other Personal
`Property Damage
`D 740 Railway Labor Act
`
`
`
`
`D 751 Family and Medical
`D 196 Franchise
`lnjuiy
`3 385 Property Damage
`
`
`
`
`
`Leave Act
`3 362 Personal Injury -
`Product Liability
`
`D 790 Other Labor Litigation
`Medical Mal ractice
`
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS
`
`CIVIL RIGHTS
`
`D 791 Employee Retirement
`
`Habeas Corpus:
`Income Security Act
`3 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff
`D 440 Other Civil Rights
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 463 Alien Detainee
`or Defendant)
`3 441 Voting
`
`
`
`
`3 510 Motions to Vacate
`3 871 IRS—Third Party
`3 442 Employment
`
`
`
`
`Sentence
`26 USC 7609
`3 443 Housing/
`
`
`
`D 530 General
`Accommodations
`
`
`D 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - D 535 Death Penalty
`
`D 462 Naturalization Application
`Employment
`Other:
`
`
`
`
`
`D 465 Other Immigration
`3 446 Amer. W/DISRIJIIIIICS ~ 3 540 Mandamus & Other
`
`
`Actions
`Other
`3 550 Civil Rights
`
`
`3 448 Education
`3 555 Prison Condition
`
`
`
`3 560 Civil Detainee -
`
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`
`V. ORIGIN (Place an "” in One BoxOnM
`)2! 1 Original
`D 2 Removed from
`Remanded from
`D 4 Reinstated or D 5 Transferred from
`D 6 Multidistrict
`spew )1
`Proceeding
`State Court
`Appellate Court
`Reopened
`finotlfmjr District
`Litigation
` Cite the US, Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not citejurisdictional statutes miles: diversity:
`
`.
`'
`.
`.
`Briefdescriptionofcause:
`
`Unfair Competition and False De8ignation of Origin
`
`C] CHECK 1F THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
`DEMAND $
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`15 USC.
`
`1051 etse .
`
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
`IF ANY
`
`DATE
`
`(See ins/motions):
`JUDGE
`SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`ls/ Timothy D. Pecsenye
`07/07/2015
`WWW—”M
`
`RECEIPT it
`
`AMOUNT
`
`APPLYING IFP
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG, JUDGE
`
`
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`JURY DEMAND:
`>31 Yes
`D No
`
`

`

`.18 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)
`
`INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
`
`Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
`
`The J S 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
`required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
`required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
`Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
`
`I.(a)
`
`Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
`only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
`then the official, giving both name and title.
`(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name ofthe county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
`time of filing.
`In US. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing.
`(NOTE: In land
`condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
`(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
`in this section "(see attachment)".
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires thatjurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
`in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
`United States plaintiff.
`(1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
`United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
`Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
`to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States.
`In cases where the US. is a party, the US. plaintiff or defendant code takes
`precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
`Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
`citizenship ofthe different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
`cases.)
`
`Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section ofthe IS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
`section for each principal patty.
`
`Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
`sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
`one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
`
`Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.
`Original Proceedings.
`(1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
`Removed from State Court.
`(2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
`When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
`Remanded from Appellate Court.
`(3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district couit for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
`date.
`
`(4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
`Reinstated or Reopened.
`Transferred from Another District.
`(5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
`multidistrict litigation transfers.
`Multidistrict Litigation.
`(6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
`When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
`
`VI.
`
`Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
`statutes unless diversity. Example: US. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
`
`VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`Demand.
`In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
`Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
`
`VIII. Related Cases. This section of the J S 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
`numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
`
`Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
`
`a
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`5,
`
`i
`
`
`
`ll i
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
`
`APPENDIX 1
`
`Radius Global Solutions LLC
`
`v.
`
`Hobsons, Inc.
`
`2
`
`1
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO.
`
`In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
`plaintiff shall complete a case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
`filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
`side of this form.)
`In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
`designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
`the plaintiff and all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to
`which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
`
`SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
`
`(a) Habeas Corpus — Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 through §2255.
`
`(b) Social Security — Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
`and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits
`
`(c) Arbitration — Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.
`
`(d) Asbestos — Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
`exposure to asbestos.
`
`(e) Special Management — Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
`commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
`the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
`management cases.)
`
`(f) Standard Management —— Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.
`
`(
`
`)
`
`(
`
`(
`
`)
`
`)
`
`(
`
`)
`
`(
`
`)
`
`(J)
`
`July 7, 2015
`
`Date
`
`(215) 569-5619
`
`Telephone
`
`Timothy Pecsenye
`
`Radius Global Solutions LLC
`
`Attorney-at-law
`
`Attorney for
`
`(215) 832-5619
`
`FAX Number
`
`pecsenye@blankrome.com
`
`E-Mail Address
`
`(Clv. 660) 10/02
`
`,
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`
`
`50 W. Skippack Pike
`Ambler, Pennsylvania
`Plaintiff,
`
`19002
`
`V.
`
`HOBSONS,
`
`INC.,
`
`50 E—Business Way, Suite 300
`.
`.
`.
`.
`CinCinnatl, Oth 45241
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`““—“‘_‘———————————
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Radius Global Solutions LLC, by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, files this civil action against Hobsons,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Hobsons” or “the Defendant”) as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Radius Global Solutions LLC (“Radius”)
`
`is a
`
`Pennsylvania limited liability corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 50 Skippack Pike Ambler, PA 19002.
`
`2.
`
`Radius is an industry leader in customer relation
`
`management services, particularly as they relate to accounts
`
`receivable management and customer care solutions.
`
`3.
`
`Since at least as early as 2007, Radius and its
`
`141184.00101/101188556v.l
`
`

`

`predecessor—in—interest have offered these services under the
`
`trademark RADIUS. As a result of Radius’
`
`longstanding use of its
`
`RADIUS Marks and substantial marketing efforts relating thereto,
`
`consumers have come to associate RADIUS with Plaintiff’s
`
`customer care solutions. Radius is also the owner of a number of
`
`federal service mark applications,
`
`including Application Serial
`
`Nos. 86/480,132 for RADIUS; 86/480,138 for RADIUS (stylized
`
`design); 86/480,123 for RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (collectively,
`
`“the RADIUS marks”).
`
`
`
`See, e.g., below; see also U.S. Trademark
`
`Applications attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Hobsons,
`
`Inc.
`
`is a
`
`Delaware Corporation, with a principal places of business
`
`located at Suite 300, 50 E—Business Way, Cincinnati, Ohio 45241.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief,
`
`the Defendant conducts
`
`business under the name Radius by Hobsons, which is located on
`
`the Internet at the URL <radius.hobsons.com>. See below.
`
`
`
`141184.00101/101188556V.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief,
`
`the Defendant is the
`
`owner of U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86/146,409 (“the
`
`’409 Application”)
`
`for the standard character mark RADIUS in
`
`International Classes 035, 041, and 042. See U.S. Trademark
`
`Application attached hereto as Exhibit B. On July 22, 2014,
`
`the
`
`'409 Application was published for opposition pursuant to
`
`15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1062(a).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction in this matter
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331 in that the claims arise under the
`
`laws of the United States. Specifically,
`
`this Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over the counts relating to federal
`
`trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and
`
`cybersquatting pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125 and 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331, 1332 and 1338.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant
`
`to
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1367(a) because Radius’ state law and common law
`
`claims are so related to federal claims within the Court’s
`
`original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
`
`141184.00101/101188556v.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant
`
`because,
`
`inter alia, Defendant:
`
`transacts business within and
`
`has availed itself of this forum; engages in a persistent course
`
`of conduct in this forum; expects, or should reasonably expect,
`
`its acts to have legal consequences in this forum; and maintains
`
`substantial, systematic, and continuous minimum contacts in this
`
`forum.
`
`10. Venue is proper in the United States District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant
`
`to
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391 in that a substantial part of the events that
`
`give rise to the claims occurred in this District, and a
`
`substantial part of the property that is the subject of this
`
`action is situated in this District.
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGA'I'IONS
`
`The Business and Marks of Radius Global Solutions LLC
`
`11. Radius and its predecessor—in—interest, Radius
`
`Solutions, Inc., have continuously used the RADIUS Marks in
`
`connection with “customer relationship management services”
`
`since at least as early as 2007, well prior to the December 17,
`
`2013 filing date of Hobson’s trademark application.
`
`12. As a result of Radius’
`
`longstanding, substantially
`
`141184.00101/101188556v.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`exclusive and widespread promotion and use of the RADIUS Marks,
`
`as well as its adherence to strict standards of quality control,
`
`the marks have acquired significant goodwill and have come to be
`
`strongly associated with Radius’ customer relationship and
`
`accounts receivable management services. As such,
`
`the RADIUS
`
`Marks are valid and enforceable under the provisions of the
`
`Lanham Act.
`
`Defendant's Unlawful Acts Related to Use of the
`<radius.hobsons.com> Domain Name and the RADIUS Marks
`
`13.
`
`On February 13, 2015, Defendant, by and through
`
`counsel, corresponded with Radius regarding Radius' use of and
`
`applications to register the RADIUS Marks with the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Defendant’s
`
`correspondence asserted inter alia (i) superior rights in the
`
`RADIUS marks by virtue of the December 17, 2013 filing date of
`
`the ’409 Application and (ii) a likelihood of confusion between
`
`the mark that is the subject of the ’409 Application and the
`
`RADIUS Marks, and demanded that Radius cease and desist from all
`
`use of the RADIUS Marks in connection with “customer
`
`relationship management services.” See Correspondence attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`141184.00101/101188556V.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`14. Recognizing that its rights the RADIUS Marks were
`
`superior to those Defendant purported to assert in its original
`
`correspondence, Radius responded with its own demand that
`
`Defendant cease and desist its use of the word “Radius” in
`
`connection with its services, or any other mark,
`
`logo, or other
`
`source indicia that is identical or confusingly similar thereto
`
`or premised in whole or in part upon “Radius” and to delete
`
`“customer relationship management services” from the recitation
`
`of services in the ’409 Application. See id.
`
`15.
`
`On or around March 26, 2015,
`
`the Examining Attorney
`
`cited the '409 Application against all of the pending RADIUS
`
`Marks as a prior~filed application that,
`
`if it were to register,
`
`could bar registration under 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1052(d) on the grounds
`
`that the mark that is the subject of the ’409 Application is
`
`confusingly similar to the RADIUS Marks. See Office Action dated
`
`March 26, 2015 attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`16.
`
`On or around May 4, 2015,
`
`the Defendant, despite
`
`having received verifiable, written notice of Radius’ use of the
`
`RADIUS Marks at least as early as 2007, filed with the USPTO an
`
`amendment
`
`to allege use in the ’409 Application, alleging a
`
`first use in commerce of April 28, 2014. Accompanying
`
`Defendant’s statement of use was a printout from Defendant’s
`
`website purporting to establish Defendant’s use of its applied—
`
`141184.00101/101188556v.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`for RADIUS Mark in commerce. See Amendment to Allege Use filed
`
`May 4, 2015 attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`17.
`
`To date,
`
`the parties have been unable to resolve their
`
`dispute regarding the RADIUS Marks, and upon information and
`
`belief, Defendant continues to offer the services set forth in
`
`the ’409 Application under using the word “Radius” (e.g.,
`
`customer relationship management), despite repeated demands from
`
`Plaintiff to cease and desist use of its RADIUS mark and to
`
`delete “customer relationship management” from the recitation of
`
`services in the ’409 Application in view of Plaintiff’s superior
`
`rights in the RADIUS Marks.
`
`18. Defendant’s unlawful use of the mark that is the
`
`subject of the ’409 Application constitutes unfair competition
`
`and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and has
`
`caused, and will continue to cause, confusion in the minds of
`
`Radius’ existing and potential consumers.
`
`19. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s continuing
`
`use of marks,
`
`logos, and/or other indicia of source which are
`
`confusingly similar to the RADIUS Marks,
`
`including without
`
`limitation the use of the <radius.hobsons.com> domain name and
`
`the stylized “D” displayed therein,
`
`is an attempt to capitalize
`
`and trade off on the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of
`
`the RADIUS Marks.
`
`141184.00101/101188556v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`20.
`
`As evidenced by Defendant’s own correspondence and the
`
`Examining Attorney’s citation of the ’409 Application against
`
`the pending applications for the RADIUS Marks, reasonable,
`
`ordinary consumers will mistakenly believe that Defendant’s
`
`services are owned, operated, sponsored, or approved by Radius.
`
`21. Defendant’s unauthorized conduct causes Radius to
`
`suffer irreparable injuries for which it has no adequate remedy
`
`at law.
`
`22. All such conduct by the Defendant was and continues to
`
`be in bad faith, willful, deliberate, and in knowing violation
`
`of the law.
`
`
`
`141184.00101/101188556v.l
`
`8
`
`

`

`Count I
`
`Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin under Section
`43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1125(a)
`
`23.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 22 are re—
`
`incorporated as if fully alleged herein.
`
`% ig .
`
`24. Defendant has knowingly and intentionally used, and
`
`continues to use marks,
`
`logos, and other source indicia that are
`
`confusingly similar to the RADIUS Marks, without the consent of
`
`Radius,
`
`including without limitation the mark that is the
`
`subject of the '409 Application.
`
`25. Defendant has used in commerce, and continues to use
`
`in commerce,
`
`the mark that is the subject of the ’409
`
`Application to advertise, promote, offer, and market its
`
`services.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant’s actions are likely to cause confusion
`
`among consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
`
`Defendant’s goods or services.
`
`27. Defendant’s actions violate Lanham Act section 43(a),
`
`15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125(a),
`
`in that Defendant’s use in interstate
`
`commerce of marks,
`
`logos, and other indicia of source that are
`
`confusingly similar to the RADIUS Marks, constitutes unfair
`
`competition and false designation of origi