Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA922983
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/19/2018
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92068857
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`SafeRack, LLC
`
`Sara C. Kanos
`NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
`55 E. CAMPERDOWN WAY, SUITE 400
`GREENVILLE, SC 29601
`UNITED STATES
`skanos@nexsenpruet.com, cblackburn@nexsenpruet.com,
`mmanos@nexsenpruet.com, dleclerc@nexsenpruet.com
`864.282.1171
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Other Motions/Papers
`
`Sara Centioni Kanos
`
`skanos@nexsenpruet.com
`
`/sara centioni kanos/
`
`09/19/2018
`
`SafeRack Reply in Motion to Stay.pdf(68148 bytes )
`Stay Reply Exhibit A.pdf(438196 bytes )
`Stay Reply Exhibit B.pdf(299447 bytes )
`Stay Reply Exhibit C.pdf(136030 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In the matter of Trademark
`
`Registration No. 5211514
`Registration Date: May 30, 2017
`
`Mark:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bullard Company,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SafeRack, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 92068857
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REGISTRANT’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`SUSPEND CANCELLATION
`
`SafeRack, LLC (“Registrant”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`submits the following Reply to Petitioner Bullard Company’s Opposition to Registrant’s
`
`Motion to Suspend the Cancellation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`In its Response, Petitioner cites to no binding, let alone persuasive authority
`
`supporting its position that this Cancellation should proceed in parallel to the ongoing
`
`Litigation that even Petitioner admits involves similar issues. See Petitioner’s
`
`Response, p. 3 (“”Petitioner does allege defenses such as abandonment, and
`
`genericness….”). Instead, Petitioner’s law and argument conflate Registrant’s request
`
`for suspension with claim preclusion. Id. at p. 3 (“raising of a defense such as
`
`genericness in civil litigation … does not claim preclude a cancellation.”).
`
`A stay of this Cancellation will not preclude Petitioner’s claim. Although
`
`Registrant maintains that Petitioner has failed to state a claim for cancellation,
`
`Registrant’s reasons do not include that claim preclusion. See generally, Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss.
`
`By contrast, a stay of this Cancellation will result in judicial economy. Despite
`
`Petitioner’s decision to only assert a claim for cancellation here and not in the
`
`Litigation,1 Petitioner bases both its Litigation defense and the Cancellation on nearly
`
`identical allegations.
`
` Compare Petitioner’s Answer and Petitioners Notice of
`
`Opposition, excerpts attached as Exhibit A (Answer at p. 7-10 (functionality (fifth
`
`affirmative defense); inherent distinctiveness (seventh affirmative defense); generic
`
`(eleventh affirmative defense); secondary meaning (twelfth affirmative defense); and
`
`abandonment (twenty-third affirmative defense)); Notice of Opposition, p. 10-13 (Count
`
`
`1 Indeed, Petitioner has had opportunity to assert a claim for cancellation in the litigation. See Order
`denying stay, p. 5-6, attached as Exhibit B (“If Bullard wishes to amend its answer, it should file a
`separate motion under Rul 15(a)(2) identifying why ‘justice so requires’ when this case is less than one
`month away from the close of discovery and, as Bullard acknowledged in their Reply, it has had the facts
`necessary to assert affirmative defenses addressing the ‘validity of the trademark to the color orange’
`since at least August 2, 2017, when Bullard filed their answer.”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`II – the color orange mark is functional); (Count III – Color Orange Mark is Generic);
`
`(Count IV – Non Use/Abandonment)).
`
`What is more, Registrant’s lawsuit, which includes claims of trademark
`
`infringement and unfair competition, is premised on Registrant’s trademark being valid
`
`and enforceable. Registrant’s lawsuit pending before the District Court of South
`
`Carolina, which is in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit recognizes that the elements
`
`of trademark or trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act include: (1) ownership
`
`of a valid and protectable mark and (2) defendant’s use of a similar mark creates a
`
`likelihood of purchaser confusion, mistake, or deception. George & Co.v. Imag, Entm’t,
`
`Ltd., 575 F.3d 383, 393 (4th Cir. 2009).
`
`In short, the only issue exclusively before this Board is that of cancellation of the
`
`registration itself. That issue can and should wait, especially in view of how short the
`
`wait would be. As explained, trial is set in the Litigation for early December of 2018.
`
`See Scheduling Order, attached as Exhibit C.
`
`Based upon the foregoing, Registrant respectfully asserts that a stay of the
`
`Cancellation pending final determination of the litigation is warranted.
`
`III. CONCLUSION.
`
`
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion to Suspend the
`
`Cancellation. The Litigation is the more advanced case, shares certain common issues
`
`with the Cancellation, which will be controlled by the District Court ruling. Therefore, the
`
`Board should await the ruling before proceeding rather than having to determine the
`
`impact of the ruling in the midst of the Cancellation proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`Sara C. Kanos
`Cherie Blackburn
`Marc A. Manos
`55 E. Camperdown Way, Suite 400
`Greenville, South Carolina 29601
`(T) 864.282.1171
`(F) 864.282.1177
`e-mails: skanos@nexsenpruet.com;
`cblackburn@nexsenpruet.com;
`mmanos@nexsenpruet.com;
`dleclerc@nexsenpruet.com
`
`Attorneys for Registrant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 19, 2018
`Greenville, SC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of Trademark
`
`Registration No. 5211514
`Registration Date: May 30, 2017
`
`Mark:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bullard Company,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SafeRack, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 92068857
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I, Sara C. Kanos, attorney of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, attorneys for Registrant, hereby
`
`certify that a true, correct, and complete copy of the foregoing:
`
`
`REPLY IN MOTION TO SUSPEND
`
`
`was served on Petitioner’s attorney of record at the following address:
`
`
`Todd M. Hess
`Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms LLC
`288 Meeting St. STE 200
`Charleston, SC 29401
`thess@barnewell-whaley.com
`
`
`postage prepaid by first-class mail on September 19, 2018.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Executed on September 19, 2018 at Greenville, South Carolina.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NEXSEN PRUET, LLC
`
`
`______________________________________________
`Sara C. Kanos
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In the matter of Trademark
`
`Registration No. 5211514
`Registration Date: May 30, 2017
`
`Mark:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bullard Company,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SafeRack, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opposition No. 92068857
`
`EXHIBIT A – Excerpts from Answer and Cancellation
`
`

`

`    
`

     
`
`
`
` !"#$%&%'()* +
`
`5$6$%&7!8*+
`
`,-../012034
`19:4;:41<=
`
`>?@A?>BC??BDBEDFG55>H
`I5GD@DBEDFD>J?BCCJIGDB
`
`KLMNMNOPQORSTPULVVTMNOP
`
`?W8$"*$XY* *)Z&$[*%8Y!88Y*\W66W]$%&^! 8ZY!X\$6*7!^*8$8$W%8W"!%"*68Y* *&$X8 !8$W%$%7$"!8*7)*6W]_
`
`C*8$8$W%* >%\W (!8$W%
`
`?!(*
`
`%8$8Z
`
`77 *XX
`
`I'66! 7HW(^!%Z
`
`HW ^W !8$W%
`
`abcb"Y%$^#*B $[*
`G88!]!J!#*dE>efgha
`A?>B
`
`H$8$`*%XY$^
`
`G@
`
`88W %*Z$%\W (!i
`
`8$W%
`
`W77E_@*XX
`I! %]*66jY!6*ZC!88* XW%k@*6(XdJJH
`gccE**8$%&8d8*gbb
`HY! 6*X8W%dHgfebl
`A?>B
`(!$6+8Y*XXm)! %]*66i]Y!6*Z_"W(d((!%XW' m)! %]*66i]Y!6*Z_"W(
`CYW%*+cenoaaaabb
`
`D*&$X8 !8$W%')p*"88WH!%"*66!8$W%
`
`D*&$X8 !8$W%?W_ ogllole
`
`D*&$X8 !8$W%7!8* boqnbqgbla
`
`D*&$X8 !%8
`
`!\*D!"#dJJH
`glf!\*8Z[*%'*
`%7 *]XdHgfolb
`A?>B
`
`rWW7Xq* [$"*X')p*"88WH!%"*66!8$W%
`
`H6!XXbbh_5$ X8AX*+gbbeqblqbb5$ X8AX*>%HW((* "*+gbbeqblqbb
`
`66&WW7X!%7X* [$"*X$%8Y*"6!XX! *X')p*"88W"!%"*66!8$W%d%!(*6Z+5!66^ W8*"8$W%*s'$^(*%8!%7
`"W(^W%*%8X8Y* *W\\W \!66 *X8 !$%8!%7\!66! *X8d(!7*^ $(! $6ZW\(*8!6d%!(*6Zd&!%&]!ZXd
`X8!$ XdX!\*8Z"!&*XdX!\*8Z&!8*Xd!%7Y!%7 !$6XZX8*(X!%7^6!8\W (X\W \!66 *X8 !$%8!%7\!66! *X8
`"W(^ $X*7$%^! 8W\Y!%7 !$6Xd6W!7$%& !"#X!%7 !(^X
`
`r W'%7X\W H!%"*66!8$W%
`
`C $W $8Z!%76$#*6$YWW7W\"W%\'X$W%
`
`
`
` !7*(! #"8*"8$W%Xletlu!%7gt7u
`
`Y*(! #$XW Y!X)*"W(*&*%* $"
`
` !7*(! #"8*"8$W%letnudW *"8$W%gn$\W%
`
`'^^6*(*%8!6D*&$X8*
`
`Y*(! #"W(^ $X*X(!88* 8Y!8d!X!]YW6*d$X
`\'%"8$W%!6
`
` !7*(! #"8*"8$W%Xletlu!%7gt*utoudW
`
`*"8$W%gn$\W%'^^6*(*%8!6D*&$X8*
`
`?W'X*W\(! #$%"W((* "*)*\W *!^^6$"!8$W%d
`!(*%7(*%88W!66*&*'X*dW X8!8*(*%8W\'X*
`]!X\$6*7
`
` !7*(! #"8*"8$W%Xletlu!%7lt!udt"ud!%7
`
`t7u
`
`)!%7W%(*%8
`
`
`
` !7*(! #"8*"8$W%letnu
`
`D*6!8*7C W"**7i !\*D!"#dJJH[_I'66! 7HW(^!%ZdA%$8*78!8*XB$X8 $"8HW' 8\W 8Y*B$X8 $"8
`
`

`

`with Registrant’s goods is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive pursuant
`
`


`   

    

   

 
`
`to 15 U.S.C. §1052(d) and likely to cause harm to these senior users.
` ! "#$    

   




`
`COUNT II
`%&'()*++*
`THE COLOR ORANGE MARK IS FUNCTIONAL
`),-*%&.&/*&/0(1-*20/3*+4*5'(%)+&(0.*
`
`21.
`Petitioner incorporates the responses to each of the paragraphs contained above as
`"6 7 





  

   

`

   8  
`
`if fully set forth herein.
` 




`
`22.
`The Color Orange including the Registered Orange are necessary elements in the
`""6 9  

:


` 
` 
`

:


` 

  

    
`
`use of fall protection equipment and has utilitarian fimctionality. The Color Orange alerts the
`  

  ;   

  9  

:


`  

 
`
`user to safe areas in which to work and operate (see OSHA regulations in Paragraphs 10-12);
`

  



 

 # :<=

` 7

`

 >"$?
`
`thus, there is a need for all suppliers to use the Color Orange in marking the railings, gates and
`

  

 

   

:


` 


` 


`
`   
`
`cages of their fall protection equipment.
`
`  

 

  ; 
`
`23.
`A color is functional if it yields a utilitarian or functional advantage, e. g., orange
`"@6 =

   

 

   
`  
`


` 
`
`for safety signs that make the signs more visible against complementary contrasting colors (see
`

  
`    
`

8 
`   




`

# 
`
`ANSI standards in Paragraph 9). Brunswick C017). v. British Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 32
`=AB 

7

`

C$DEFGHIJKLMNOEPQMRQMDEJSJHTMUVWXFYYMZS[Q@\@"]@"
`
`USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (color black functional for outboard motors because it provides
`7^"" #\  

CC_$#

8  

8



8   

 
`
`competitive advantages in terms of being compatible with a wide variety of boat colors and
`    
` 

8 
` 8   

 8 

 
`
`making the engines appear smaller); Saint-Gobain C017). v. 3M Co., 90 USPQ2d 1425, 1446-48
` 
`  
`  

 

$?UWJGS`aObWJGMNOEPQMRQMcdMNOQC 7^"_"__e>_f
`
`(TTAB 2007) (color dark purple functional for sand paper because color serves a myriad of
`#99=g" ]$#





  

  

8   



  

 
`
`functions in the coated abrasives industry, including maintaining a uniform appearance of the
`    8

 


`  
` 

 

  
`
`product and color coding for grit size or coarseness); In re Ferris Corp, 59 USPQ2d 1587
`

 


`


`

h 



  $?iGMEVMjVEEJHMNOEPQC7^"f]
`
`(TTAB 2000) (color pink functional for use on surgical wound dressings because the actual color
`#99=g" $#

 

 

` 


`8      


`
`of the goods closely resembles Caucasian human skin).
` 
` 

 8     $
`
`24.
`Furthermore, there is an aesthetic utility with respect to the use of the Color
`"_6 \







   

     


`
`Orange for fall protection equipment particularly in those environments where the intensity of
`:


` 

 

  ; 



  

 

  
`10
` 
`
`
`
`

`

`light can be variable throughout the day or in response to the variable availability of sunlight.
`  
` 

 

 

   
` 


`

 

 

    
` 
`
`Notwithstanding, the availability of light, the Color Orange remains reasonably recognizable in
`
`
` 

     

  
`



 
` 


`   


` 


`
`
`its varying intensities of hue to alert the user to the safe environment through which the Color
` 
` 
`

`

  



 



  

 

` 
`

`   

 
`
`Orange protected boundaries define. This is clearly a desirable feature in protecting workers.
`
`





 
` 

 


`

   

  

 






` 


` 


`
`25.
`Registration to the Registered Orange in Registration No. 5,211,514 to Registrant
` !" #

 
`  

#





 
`


` #

 
`  ! !$  #


`
`
`should be cancelled because use of the Color Orange including the Registered Orange to demark
`  


`

 

 



 

  
`


` 
` 

#





 
`

 

 
`
`safe areas when applied to railings, gates and cages of fall protection equipment and provide
` 



 

`  

    
`  


`  

   


`

%

`
`  

`
`aesthetic appeal relative to contrasting colors in the environment where such equipment is used
`



 





 
` 
`   
` 

` 
`

` 





%

`  


`
`provides to the mark utilitarian and aesthetic fimctionality.
` 

  

    
`
`



 
`
` 
`
`COUNT III
`&'()*+,,,+
`THE COLOR ORANGE MARK IS GENERIC
`*-.+&'/'0+'01)2.+3104+,5+2.).0,&+
`
`26.
`Petitioner incorporates the responses to each of the paragraphs contained above as
` 6" 7


`

 
` 

 




`

 

  

    
` 
`

 


`
`if fully set forth herein.
`   

  




`
`
`27.
`Due to its intensive use by the number of manufacturers that have been identified
` 8" 9

  
`

`



 

`

  
` 

   



` 

`


`
`herein along with the other manufacturers the Registrant admits that have adopted the Color
`




` 
`  



 
` 

 

#


`    



 

 
`
`Orange including the Registered Orange in their fall protection equipment—see U.S. Trademark
`
`


` 
` 

#





 
`


` 

  


`

%

`:;<< =>  

 
`
`App. Serial No. 86306381, Response to Office Action (April 18. 2016)—the Color Orange
`? >

  @6AB6A@ #


`

 

?
` C? @ B6D:

  
`

`
`including the Registered Orange has become a generic designation for identifying a safe area
`
` 
` 

#





 
`

  





`

 


` 
`  

`
`  



`
`through which to operate as indicated by the railings, gates and/or cages marked in the Color
`   

 

 
` 

  

  
`  


`E  

  

 
` 

 
`
`Orange of the associated equipment.
`
`

 

 



%

`
`
`28.
`A generic trademark is a mark that through its popularity or significance, has
` @" ? 

`

  

            
`
`

  
`
`become synonymous with a general class of goods. Because the Color Orange including the
`
`




`
`  

`

     F

 



  
`


` 
` 

`
`Registered Orange as applied to the railings, gates and cages of fall protection equipment appears
`#





 
`

  

  

  
`  


`  

   


`

%

` 


`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

` 
` 

 

             
`
`
` 

 
`
`                 
`
`
`    
`   !           ! 
`
`    !!   "

 
`
`#$%&'()*(
`&$&(%+,-./.&0$&1,&'(
`
`23 4         !   
` 
`
`!!5 !   
`
`2 6  !

  
`  !        
`
`    6748        !  
`
` "


`       !     6  
`
`

 
`    

4    3 9 

       
`
` ! 5!!  !

   6  

 
`
`2    :   !          
`
`    ; !!   "

  
` 

! 
`
`        
`
`22 <        

!    !  !
`
`  ! !  !  ! 

= 

 5  
`5 
`
`6748
` 
`5   >?@ABCDDEFGHAE>GIEJIEKL@GHLEME>GIN9 N
`
`NOP2 NQRCLSIETCUVCT22O67O NN37OO WXOP QPY!
`
`

 !  Z

 [   !   \

 ! 

5
`
`

 [        \5   

5] !
`
`  Q^_
`` 4=Oa9   2PO2QP 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`manufacturer to monopolize red "in all of its shades" would deplete the color choices available to
`
`


`    



 
`

 



`


`

    




` 
`
`other market participants, but allowing a manufacturer to monopolize a specific shade of color
`
`
`



`
` 
`
` 
`


`    



 

   
`
`would not); International Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819 (9th Cir., 1993) (a
` 
` !"# $%#&'(!)!*'+,'-,'.! "%)%/0'1,2,3,*'+,456 7898
`:688 9
`
`manufacturer cannot claim all shades of red, i.e. the hues between purple and orange, but a
`
`

 
` 

 

6

6
`





`



 


`
`
`manufacturer could claim cadmium red, for instance, as a trademark). Furthermore, if the mark
`
`

   

 
`


`

65
`

 


`


`
`filed with the application for its registration does not provide an indication of the mark that
`


`
`

 
`  
`


`
` 


` 

 
`  
`


`
`
`
`Registrant has rights to, then the trademark registration with the drawing provided by the
`;


`
`
`
` 
`


`


`




`
` 
`
`

 

<
`


`
`Registrant cannot serve to give notice to others to indicate what Registrant owns and what
`;


`
` 
`




` 


`


` 
`


`  
`


`;


`
` 
`
`
`otherwise cannot be practiced.
`
`



 
`


`

6
`
`34.
`Registrant could have just as easily shown Pantone Orange 021 in the drawing
` 46= ;


`
` 

>
`

< ?
` 

@

AB
`


`
`filed with US. Trademark Application Serial No. 86306381 and/or expressly stated in the
`


`C6D6E

F 
` D

G 67H AH 7I 

J

<
`
`


`


`
`description that the orange used for the railings, gates and cages of the fall protection equipment
`

 
` 
`
`
`

 



 
`


`

 

 
`


`

` 

K


`
`
`is Pantone Orange 021. However, upon information and belief, as demonstrated by the Lawsuit
`?
` 

@

AB6L 



  
` 





 
`
`

<
`

M
`
`
`as well, Registrant intended to attempt to monopolize orange in all of its shades as expressly
`

;


`
`
`




` 
`
`


`
`    

 

 
`



J

<
`
`proscribed by the Court in Campbell Soup v. Armour.
`  

<
`

: 
`N#OPQ!&&'2%/P'-,'3"O%/"6
`
`35.
`Registrant’s failure to use the Registered Orange that was the subject of
` R6= ;


`
`S


` 


`

;


`



@


`
`
`

>

` 
`
`Registration No. 5,211,514 in commerce and using the Orange Used in Commerce instead
`;


`
` G 6RBR4 




`

@

C

: 




`


`
`constitutes abandonment of the specific shade of orange the Registrant laid claim to in US.
` 
`
`
`

 


` 
`



 

  


`

;


`
` 
` C6D6
`
`Trademark Application Serial No. 86306381. Indeed, filing the application for registration of
`E

F 
` D

G 67H AH 76T


`

 
`  


`
`  
`
`color orange under Section 1(a) could be deemed fiaud on the USPTO since, upon information
`   



D

` 9 





 
`

CD?E@

  
` 
`
`and belief, Registrant had never used the Registered Orange in commerce prior to filing the
`



;


`
`






`

;


`



@

 



 
` 
`


`
`application for registration.
` 
`  


`
` 6
`
`
`
`13
` 
`
`

`

`36.
`Registration to the Registered Orange in Registration No. 5,211,514 to Registrant
` 
`

    
`

 
` 
`

   
`

 
`
`should be cancelled due to Registrant’s non use of the Registered Orange in commerce and
`

     
`

 



  
`

 
`   
`
`Registrant’s abandonment of the Registered Orange.
`
`

 

    
`

 
` 
`
`WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Petition to Cancel be granted and Registration
` !""#"$   %&

   

$   '  
` 
`

 
`
`No. 5,211,514 to the Registered Orange be canceled.
`    
`

 
`    
`
`This the 27th day of June, 2018
`(

  ) &* +,
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`

%  &- 
`
`Bamwell, Whaley, Patterson & Helms, LLC
`./   &$ 

0! 

11'
`
`By:
`/todd m. hess/
`.&23 

344444444444444444444
`Todd M. Hess
`(5!


`288 Meeting St, Ste 200
`,,5 
`- - ++
`Charleston, SC 29401
`'

-'6 +
`Telephone: (843) 577-7700
`(  % 27, 8))9))++
`Telephone: (843) 577-7708
`(  % 27, 8))9))+,
`thess@bamwell-whaley.com
` 

:/ 9/ &
`
` ;
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`  &

$   
`Bullard Company
`.'%&
`
`
`
`14
` 
`
`

`

`XYZ[\]^\_Z`Za\bcdeeeeefghiejklime_no_aoZ[eeeepqhrsetuvwirexeeeeeygzieZe{|eZX
`
`
`
`    
`   
`   
`
` 
`
`#$%$& '$()(*+,+-./ %/-0-1/23
` !""
`#
` 
`#
` 4&$)'$"
`#5
` 
`#
` %6*
`#5
` 
`#
`=>&&?@(AB)C"
`#
` 
`#
` )@)'*
`DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD#
`
`
`789:;<5
`
`)@)'=>&&?@(AB)CEF=>&&?@G(?F)@)'G#"'H?(>IH$'6 (>)6&")6J?6
`
`'H(AB&$)'( !"EF !G(?F4&$)'$G#66'(?'HK&(J*)&66
`
`6B $$ &&C@A$''@"=>&&?@@)$6 H('H&&I'$()6( !L6(AB&$)'*
`
`MN;5O7<MP;95
`
`-*Q =>&&?@& !6!)(J&@I(?$)(?A'$()6>$ $)''((?AK&$6'('H'?>'H
`
`(?&6$'C('H&&I'$()6$)4?I?BH-")@'H?(?@)$66> H&&I'$()6*
`
`,*Q 6B()@$)I'(4?I?BH,"=>&&?@@A$'6'H'$'$6 (?B(?'$()(?I)$R@
`
`>)@?'H&J6('H''(H$(J$'HB?$) $B&B& (K>6$)66$)''J!"2$ H$I)*
`
`87MS<;5TU57VMPT85
`
`1*Q =>&&?@@A$'6'H'4&$)'$B>?B(?'6'(6'' &$A6?&'@'('H&&I@>6(
`
`$'6'?@A?!6"(J)?6H$B$) ?'$)>)?I$6'?@'?@@?66")@"$6> H'?@@?66W$6'6"
`
`&&I6$)?$)IA)'('H>)?I$6'?@'?@@?66*=>&&?@@)$6)C?A$)$)I&&I'$()6(
`
`4?I?BH1"@)$6'H$AB&$ '$()'H'$'H6A@>)&J>&>6( !L6&&I@
`
`'?@A?!6"@)$6'H&&I@W$6') ()C@$6'$) '$%'?@@?66")@@)$6'H$AB&$ '$()
`
`'H'$'H6$)?$)I@)C>)?I$6'?@'?@@?66&&I@&CK&()I$)I'( !*
`
`   
`

`
`

`

`2:17-cv-01613-RMG Date Filed 08/03/17
`Entry Number 9
`Page 7 of 12
`YZ[\]^_]`[a[b]cdefffffghijfklmjnf`op`bp[\ffffqristfuvwxjsfyfffffzh{jf\f|}f[Y
`
`
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`   
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`  !  "#$%
`
`52.
`The Complaint, on one or more counts set forth herein, fails to state a claim upon
`&'() *+,%-./0123456%.4%.4,%.7%/.7,%8.945:%:,5%;.75+%+,7,346%;231:%5.%:525,%2%8123/%90.4%
`
`which relief can be granted.
`<+38+%7,13,;%824%=,%>7245,?(%
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`"@  
`
`
`The Complaint should be dismissed because the Defendant does not have
`53.
`% &A(% *+,%-./012345%:+.91?%=,%?3:/3::,?%=,829:,%5+,%B,;,4?245%?.,:%4.5%+2C,%
`
`minimum contacts with the forum state, and therefore the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
`/343/9/%8.45285:%<35+%5+,%;.79/%:525,6%24?%5+,7,;.7,%5+,%-.975%128D:%0,7:.421%E973:?3853.4%.C,7%
`the Defendant.
`5+,%B,;,4?245(%%
`
`THIRD AFFHIMATIVE DEFENSE
`F  
`
`54.
`The Complaint should be dismissed due to improper venue.
`% &G(%% *+,%-./012345%:+.91?%=,%?3:/3::,?%?9,%5.%3/07.0,7%C,49,(%
`
`
`FOURTH AFFHIMATIVE DEFENSE
` @HF  
`(Fair Use)
` HI$
`%
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines
`55.
`% &&(% *+,%8123/:%/2?,%34%5+,%-./012345%27,%=277,?6%34%<+.1,%.7%34%02756%=J%5+,%?.85734,:%
`
`of fair use, nominative fair use and/or descriptive use.
`.;%;237%9:,6%4./34253C,%;237%9:,%24?K.7%?,:873053C,%9:,(%
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`  F  
`(Functionality)
` LM !L N$%
`
`56.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that
`% &O(% *+,%8123/:%/2?,%34%5+,%-./012345%27,%=277,?6%34%<+.1,%.7%34%02756%.4%5+,%=2:3:%5+25%
`
`any marks and trade dress at issue are f1mctiona1.
`24J%/27D:%24?%572?,%?7,::%25%3::9,%27,%;94853.421(%
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`PF  
`(Product Design Lacks Inherent Distinctiveness)
`Q!RM ISLTMUILVL I LM WLII$%
`
`57.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that
`% &X(% *+,%8123/:%/2?,%34%5+,%-./012345%27,%=277,?6%34%<+.1,%.7%34%02756%.4%5+,%=2:3:%5+25%
`
`any trade dress is product design and fails to be distinctive.
`24J%572?,%?7,::%3:%07.?985%?,:3>4%24?%;231:%5.%=,%?3:534853C,(%
`
`(oo720057.ooo<.1 )
`7
`   
`

`
`
`
`
`

`

`2:17-cv-01613-RMG Date Filed 08/03/17
`Entry Number 9
`Page 8 of 12
`[\]^_`a_b]c]d_efghhhhhijklhmnolphbqrbdr]^hhhhstkuvhwxyzluh{hhhhh|j}lhqh~h][
`
`
`
`SEVENTH AFFHIMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Color Lacks Inherent Distinctiveness)
` !"#$%&''%()$()%"()*'%'$$+,
`
`58.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that
`, -./, 012,345678,7592,6:,;12,<=7>456:;,5?2,@5??29A,6:,B1=42,=?,6:,>5?;A,=:,;12,@5868,;15;,
`color alone lacks inherent distinctiveness.
`3=4=?,54=:2,453C8,6:12?2:;,968;6:3;6D2:288/,
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`E
`(Innocent Infringement)
`%%"'%(%F)%G'H'%(+
`
`59.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because any
`, -I/, 012,345678,7592,6:,;12,<=7>456:;,5?2,@5??29A,6:,B1=42,=?,6:,>5?;A,@235J82,5:K,
`
`infringement, if any, was innocent.
`6:L?6:M272:;A,6L,5:KA,B58,6::=32:;/,
`
`NINTH AFFHIMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Statutes of Limitation)
`(!(N('$F )H)(!()%+,
`
`60.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable
`, OP/, 012,345678,7592,6:,;12,<=7>456:;,5?2,@5??29A,6:,B1=42,=?,6:,>5?;A,@K,5>>4635@42,
`statutes of limitations.
`8;5;J;28,=L,4676;5;6=:8/,
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Laches)
` !"&'$+,
`
`61.
`The claims are barred by laches because SafeRack has unreasonably delayed
`, OQ/, 012,345678,5?2,@5??29,@K,453128,@235J82,R5L2S53C,158,J:?258=:5@4K,9245K29,
`
`efforts to enforce its rights, if any, despite its full awareness of Bullard’s actions.
`2LL=?;8,;=,2:L=?32,6;8,?6M1;8A,6L,5:KA,928>6;2,6;8,LJ44,5B5?2:288,=L,TJ445?9U8,53;6=:8/,
`
`ELEVENTH AFFHIMATIVE DEFENSE
` 
`(Generic Terms)
`E'%')"'H$+,
`
`62.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that
`, OV/, 012,345678,7592,6:,;12,<=7>456:;,5?2,@5??29A,6:,B1=42,=?,6:,>5?;A,=:,;12,@5868,;15;,
`
`some or all of the marks at issue are generic.
`8=72,=?,544,=L,;12,75?C8,5;,688J2,5?2,M2:2?63/,
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`W 
`(Lack of Secondary Meaning)
` !"#F'"%X!Y'!%)%G+,
`
`63.
`The claims made in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, on the basis that
`, OZ/, 012,345678,7592,6:,;12,<=7>456:;,5?2,@5??29A,6:,B1=42,=?,6:,>5?;A,=:,;12,@5868,;15;,
`
`some or all marks at issue lack secondary meaning.
`8=72,=?,544,75?C8,5;,688J2,453C,823=:95?K,725:6:M/,
`
`(oo720057.noo<.1 )
`8
`   
`

`
`
`

`

`2:17-cv-01613-RMG Date Filed 08/03/17
`Entry Number 9
`Page 9 of 12
`bcdefghfidjdkflmnooooopqrsotuvswoixyikydeooooz{r|}o~€s|o‚oooooƒq„so‚o…†odb
`
`
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Waiver, Acquiescence, and Estoppel)
` !"#$% &# '# "'(&)*++ ,-.
`
`64.
`Each of the purported claims set forth in the Complaint is barred by the doctrines
`. /01. 2345.67.859.:;<:6<89=.4>3?@A.A98.76<85.?B.859.C6@:>3?B8.?A.D3<<9=.DE.859.=648<?B9A.
`
`of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel.
`67.F3?G9<H.34I;?9A49B49H.3B=.9A86::9>1.
`
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`JK
`(Non-Infringement)
`*'L'M!'N O ')-.
`
`65.
`Bullard has not infringed any applicable trademarks or unregistered trade dress
`. /P1. Q;>>3<=.53A.B68.?B7<?BR9=.3BE.3::>?43D>9.8<3=9@3<SA.6<.;B<9R?A89<9=.8<3=9.=<9AA.
`under federal or state law.
`;B=9<.79=9<3>.6<.A8389.>3F1.
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Causation)
`*T%&)*'-.
`
`66.
`SafeRack’s claims against Bullard are barred because SafeRack’s alleged
`. //1. U379V34SWA.4>3?@A.3R3?BA8.Q;>>3<=.3<9.D3<<9=.D943;A9.U379V34SWA.3>>9R9=.
`
`damagers were not cause by Bullard.
`=3@3R9<A.F9<9.B68.43;A9.DE.Q;>>3<=1.
`
`SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`X
`(No Damage)
`*ON -.
`
`67. Without admitting that the Complaint states a claim, there has been no damage in
`. /Y1. Z?856;8.3=@?88?BR.8538.859.C6@:>3?B8.A8389A.3.4>3?@H.859<9.53A.D99B.B6.=3@3R9.?B.
`
`any amount, manner or at all by reason of any act alleged against Bullard in the Complaint, and
`3BE.3@6;B8H.@3BB9<.6<.38.3>>.DE.<93A6B.67.3BE.348.3>>9R9=.3R3?BA8.Q;>>3<=.?B.859.C6@:>3?B8H.3B=.
`
`the relief prayed for in the Complaint therefore cannot be granted.
`859.<9>?97.:<3E9=.76<.?B.859.C6@:>3?B8.859<976<9.43BB68.D9.R<3B89=1.
`
`SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Unclean Hands)
`K'#, ''(&-.
`
`68.
`SafeRack’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
`. /[1. U379V34SWA.4>3?@A.3<9.D3<<9=.DE.859.=648<?B9.67.;B4>93B.53B=A1.
`
`EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`\