Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1060941
`
`Filing date:
`
`06/10/2020
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92072806
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Plaintiff
`Sparks Law, LLC
`
`ROBERT SALTER
`SALTER & MICHAELSON
`21 PARK ST, SUITE 402
`ATTLEBORO, MA 02703
`UNITED STATES
`rsalter@saltermichaelson.com
`401-421-3141
`
`Motion for Default Judgment
`
`Ryan S. Luft
`
`ryan@luftlaw.com
`
`/Ryan S. Luft/
`
`06/10/2020
`
`2020.06.10_Renewed Motion_FINAL.pdf(209536 bytes )
`2020.01.31_Luft Declaration_final.pdf(1120722 bytes )
`2020.01.31_Thomas Declaration_final.pdf(2013867 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of United States Reg. Nos. 5668170 & 5672233
`
`For the mark SPARKS LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cancellation No. 92072806
`
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Petitioner, Sparks Law, LLC (“Petitioner” or “New England Sparks Law”), hereby moves
`
`for default judgment against the Respondent, Sparks Law, LLC (“Respondent” or “Georgia Sparks
`
`Law”) or, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 504, for a judgment on the
`
`pleadings with respect to the claims set forth in Petitioner’s Petition(s) For Cancellation.
`
`On May 7, 2020, the Board indicated that Respondent was in default with respect to
`
`Petitioner’s petition regarding Registration No. 5672233 because “Respondent did not include an
`
`answer to the petition that is directed to Registration No. 5672233.” TTAB Order, May 7, 2020
`
`(“TTAB Order”), p. 2. The Board therefore determined that Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment on
`
`the Pleadings was premature with respect to Registration No. 5672233. Id. at 2. The Board allowed
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Sparks Law, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Sparks Law, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent thirty days to file an amended answer, which includes its answer to the petition to
`
`cancel Registration No. 5672233. Id. at p. 3. Nonetheless, Respondent failed to file an amended
`
`answer, instead filing what appears to be a sur-reply to Petitioner’s original Motion for Judgment
`
`on the Pleadings.1 (Doc. 11.)
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner hereby moves for default judgment against the Respondent with
`
`respect to Registration No. 5672233. It is not clear to the Petitioner whether the TTAB Order
`
`required Respondent to file an amended answer with respect to Registration No. 5668170. If so,
`
`then Petitioner also moves for default judgment against the Respondent with respect to
`
`Registration No. 5668170. If not, then Petitioner renews its motion for judgment on the pleadings
`
`with respect to Registration No. 5668170 (and, if for some reason the Board determines that no
`
`default has taken place, with respect to Registration No. 5672233) on the basis that Respondent is
`
`unable to show that it has priority of rights in the SPARKS LAW mark, and also has not used the
`
`mark in interstate commerce, as it only provides services within the state of Georgia.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`Respondent is the owner of two federal registrations, Registration No. 5672233 (“SPARKS
`
`LAW” standard characters) and Registration No. 5668170 (“SPARKS LAW” design plus words,
`
`letters, and/or numbers) (collectively, the “Respondent’s Registrations”). See Declaration of Ryan
`
`S. Luft (“Luft Decl.”), dated January 31, 2020, ¶ 2. Both of Respondent’s Registrations claim a
`
`date of First Use in Commerce of March 29, 2016. See id.
`
`
`1
`Petitioner believes that its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 6) is no longer pending per the TTAB
`Order and so there can be no further briefing. Nonetheless, even if it were pending, it is clear that the brief should be
`disregarded: “Surreply briefs will be given no consideration by the Board. Accordingly, it is not necessary to file (and
`the Board discourages the filing of) a motion to strike a surreply brief or any other briefs beyond a reply brief filed on
`a motion, since such papers will not be considered whether or not a motion to strike is filed.”
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`The principal of New England Sparks Law, Thomas E. Sparks, has been a licensed attorney
`
`in Rhode Island since May 21, 1993, and in Massachusetts since December 17, 1993. See
`
`Declaration of Thomas E. Sparks (“Sparks Decl.”), dated January 31, 2020, ¶ 1. His firm, Sparks
`
`Law, LLC, the Petitioner in this matter, has been registered with the Rhode Island Secretary of
`
`State since June 19, 2012. Sparks Decl., ¶ 2. New England Sparks Law provides legal services in
`
`at least two states – Rhode Island and Massachusetts. Sparks Decl., ¶ 3. Since at least September
`
`1, 2012, New England Sparks Law has advertised its legal services and continuously used the
`
`“SPARKS LAW” mark in interstate commerce. Sparks Decl., ¶ 4. The URL, 1800sparkslaw.com,
`
`was registered in 2009, and has been used in firm advertising since at least 2012. Sparks Decl., ¶
`
`5. It has not abandoned its use of the mark. Id.
`
`On December 6, 2017, New England Sparks Law filed an application for SPARKS LAW
`
`(standard character mark). Luft Decl., ¶ 3. New England Sparks Law claims a date of first use of
`
`September 1, 2012, see id., as that marked its first use of the “SPARKS LAW” mark in Interstate
`
`commerce. See id.; see also Sparks Decl., ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`Respondent, Georgia Sparks Law, claims a first use of its marks that are subsequent to New
`
`England Sparks Law’s first use in commerce. Georgia Sparks Law was formed in Georgia on
`
`January 11, 2016. Luft Decl., ¶ 4. As evidenced on its website, none of the attorneys in the Georgia
`
`Sparks Law firm are licensed in jurisdictions outside of Georgia, and the legal services provided
`
`by that firm are confined to Georgia. Luft Decl., ¶ 6.
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, despite the above undisputed facts, the Examining Attorney responsible for
`
`Petitioner’s application cited Respondent’s marks as a bar to registration. Petitioner filed the
`
`present Petition for Cancellation against Respondent on November 11, 2019 with respect to
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Registration Nos. 5672233 and 5668170.2 Respondent filed an Answer with respect to Registration
`
`No. 5668170 only on December 31, 2019.
`
`On May 7, 2020, the Board indicated that Respondent was in default with respect to
`
`Petitioner’s petition regarding Registration No. 5672233 because “Respondent did not include an
`
`answer to the petition that is directed to Registration No. 5672233. TTAB Order, May 7, 2020, p.
`
`2. The Board therefore determined that Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was
`
`premature with respect to Registration No. 5672233. Id. at 2. The Board allowed Respondent thirty
`
`days to file an amended answer which includes its answer to the petition to cancel Registration
`
`No. 5672233. Id. at p. 3. Respondent failed to file an amended answer.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Standing
`
`In order for Petitioner to establish standing, Petitioner must show that it possesses a real
`
`interest in the proceeding beyond that of a mere intermeddler, and that it has a reasonable basis for
`
`its belief of damage resulting from the registration, or continued registration, or the subject mark.
`
`Marco Industries, Inc. v. Mark White, Cancellation No. 92065963 (T.T.A.B. 2019) [not
`
`precedential] (citing Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d. 1092, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1023, 1025-26 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`Trademark Rule 2.122(d) specifies that a party may make a pleaded registration of record
`
`in an inter partes proceeding by submitting a copy of the registration, or a printout of information
`
`
`Although unusual in form, Petitioner cited both of Respondent’s Registrations in Petitioners Petition for
`2
`Cancellation. Petitioner separated its Petition into two parts, each of which addressed one of Respondent’s
`Registrations.
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`from the USPTO database records, showing current status and title of the registration. The Board
`
`does not take judicial notice of applications or registrations residing in the USPTO records. See
`
`UMG Recordings Inc. v. O’Rourke, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1042, 1046 (T.T.A.B. 2009).
`
`Petitioner has alleged in its Petition for Cancellation that its use in commerce of SPARKS
`
`LAW predates the purported use in commerce by Respondent. In connection therewith, Petitioner
`
`has submitted the Declarations of Ryan S. Luft and Thomas E. Sparks, and also has submitted a
`
`copy of Respondent’s registrations and a printout of Petitioner’s trademark application from the
`
`USPTO database records.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office refused registration of Petitioner’s
`
`application on the basis of Respondent’s marks. Petitioner has standing in this matter pursuant to
`
`the citation of Respondent’s registration against Petitioner’s application. See, e.g., WeaponX
`
`Performance Prods. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1034, 1040 (T.T.A.B. 2018).
`
`III. Legal Standard and Argument
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Default Judgment
`
`The standard for determining whether default judgment should be entered against the
`
`respondent for its failure to file a timely answer to the complaint is the Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c)
`
`standard, which requires that the defendant show good cause why default judgment should not be
`
`entered against it. TBMP §§ 312. If the respondent fails to file a response to the notice, or files a
`
`response that does not show good cause, default judgment may be entered against it. TBMP §§
`
`312, 508. While entry of default judgment is a harsh remedy, such remedy may be appropriate in
`
`situations like the present proceeding, where the respondent is unable to show good cause why
`
`default judgment should not be entered against it. See id.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`As stated in the TTAB Order, Respondent failed to respond to Petitioner’s petition
`
`regarding Registration No. 5672233. The Board provided another opportunity to Respondent to
`
`amend its answer, and it still failed to do so. Respondent itself is a law firm, and its inexplicable
`
`failure to comply with the TTAB Order supports default judgment in this case.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`A motion for judgment on the pleadings is a test solely of the undisputed facts on the
`
`pleadings, supplemented by any facts of which the Board will take judicial notice. TBMP § 504.02.
`
`A judgment on the pleadings should be granted where, as here, the facts admitted establish that the
`
`moving party is entitled to judgment on the claim as a matter of law. Id. “A judgment on the
`
`pleadings may be granted where, on the facts as deemed admitted, there is no genuine issue of
`
`material fact to be resolved, and the moving party is entitled to judgment, on the substantive merits
`
`of the controversy, as a matter of law.” Id. Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where the
`
`nonmoving party’s pleading does not raise issues of fact, which if proved, would establish its
`
`entitled to judgment. See id. Judgment on the pleadings is particularly appropriate where, as in this
`
`case, judgment on the merits can be achieved by focusing on the pleadings.
`
`There is no dispute in this instance that the marks are confusingly similar – identical – and
`
`that the services provided by the parties are related (even though only Petitioner provides such
`
`services in interstate commerce). Therefore, the sole issues in this case involve priority and
`
`whether Respondent is an actual user of its mark in interstate commerce as required by the Lanham
`
`IV.
`
`The Petitioner Has Established Priority
`
`A petitioner is only required to show “proprietary rights in its pleaded common law mark
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Act.
`
`
`
`

`

`that precede [Respondent’s] actual or constructive use of its involved mark.” Executive Coach
`
`Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Co., 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1175, 1180 (T.T.A.B. 2017)). The respondent
`
`thereafter bears the burden of proof that the petitioner’s mark has been abandoned. See West Fla.
`
`Seafood v. Jet Restaurants, Inc., 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1660, 1666 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`To establish priority, the petitioner must show proprietary rights in
`the mark that produce a likelihood of confusion. These proprietary
`rights may arise from a prior registration, prior trademark or service
`mark use, prior use as a trade name, prior use analogous to
`trademark or service mark use, or any other use sufficient to
`establish proprietary rights.
`
`
`Herbko International Inc. v. Kappa Books Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 64 U.S.P.Q.2d 1375, 1378 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) [citations omitted]. As discussed above, Petitioner has alleged in its Petition for
`
`Cancellation, and has corroborated through declarations and admissible Internet evidence, that its
`
`use in commerce of SPARKS LAW predates the purported use in commerce by Respondent. In
`
`connection therewith, Petitioner has submitted the Declarations of Ryan S. Luft and Thomas E.
`
`Sparks,3 and also has submitted a copy of Respondent’s registrations and a printout of Petitioner’s
`
`trademark application from the USPTO database records. Petitioner has not abandoned its use of
`
`the mark in commerce.
`
`Petitioner also has alleged and shown that its URL, 1800sparkslaw.com, was created in
`
`2009. Sparks Decl., ¶ 5, and that the SPARKS LAW mark has been used in online advertising for
`
`Petitioner since at least 2012. See id. Petitioner has also submitted evidence from archive.org. The
`
`
`3
`Affidavits may be submitted in support of a motion if they (1) are made on personal knowledge, (2) set forth
`such facts as would be admissible, and (3) show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to matters stated
`therein. See TBMP § 528.05(b). These factors have all been met, and the declarations submitted by Petitioner in
`support of its motion attach documents of which the Board can take judicial notice, such as state Bar records, records
`from Secretaries of State, web pages, and pages from archive.org. The Board may take judicial notice of facts that are
`“not subject to reasonable dispute in that [they are] either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
`trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
`be questioned.” See TBMP §704.12(a).
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`earliest archived website showing Petitioner’s use of the SPARKS LAW name in web page
`
`advertising – aside from using the name in the URL itself – is from December 16, 2014. See Luft
`
`Decl., ¶ 6. While this archive post-dates Petitioner’s first use, it still shows priority over
`
`Respondent’s use of the mark. The Board has stated that archived webpages satisfy the
`
`requirements for admissibility of Internet evidence under Safer because they show the pertinent
`
`URLs, as well as the date that they were harvested by archive.org and the date on which they were
`
`downloaded from that website. See Marco Indus., Inc. v. White, Cancellation No. 92065963 [not
`
`precedential] (T.T.A.B. 2019).
`
`Nothing in Respondent’s Answer controverts Petitioner’s claims herein or in its Petition
`
`for Cancellation and, as such, there is no dispute of the material facts established by Petitioner.
`
`First, Respondent argues that “the Petition fails to allege Respondent’s prior notice of Petitioner’s
`
`alleged use of Sparks law.” However, notice is not an issue in this dispute. Second, Respondent
`
`argues that “if Petitioner can prove prior use of the mark in commerce, this proceeding should be
`
`converted into a concurrent use proceeding.” However, such a conversion would not be proper
`
`pursuant to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board precedent. See Cf. Chichi’s, Inc. v. Chi-Chi’s, Inc.,
`
`222 U.S.P.Q. 831, 832 (Comm’r 1984) (cancellation proceeding not terminated in favor of a
`
`concurrent use proceeding, but a decision in the cancellation proceeding adverse to respondent
`
`would not preclude respondent from filing a new application seeking concurrent registration with
`
`petitioner). See also Boi Na Braza, LLC v. Terra Sul Corp., 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1386, 1388 (T.T.A.B.
`
`2014) (after its registration was cancelled, respondent filed a new application seeking a concurrent
`
`use registration with petitioner). Third, Respondent alleges that the Petition only references
`
`Respondent’s design mark reg. no. 5668170. This is not true. As stated above, although the format
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`is not typical, Petitioner has clearly asserted that both of Respondent’s registrations should be
`
`cancelled.
`
`V.
`
`Failure of Respondent To Use its Mark In Interstate Commerce is an
`Independent Basis for Cancellation
`
`
`Respondent is also unable to prove that it is using its mark in interstate commerce and, as
`
`a matter of law, should not be entitled to maintain its registration on that basis alone. The scope of
`
`federal trademark jurisdiction is commerce that may be regulated by the U.S. Congress 15 U.S.C.
`
`§1127; see Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG, 841 F.3d 986, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1640,
`
`1642 (Fed Cir. 2016). “The types of commerce encompassed in this definition are interstate,
`
`territorial, and between the United State and a foreign country.” See Trademark Manual of
`
`Examining Procedure §901.03 (2018).
`
`Georgia Sparks Law was formed in Georgia on January 11, 2016. Luft Decl., ¶ 5. As
`
`evidenced on its website, none of the attorneys in the Georgia Sparks Law firm are licensed in
`
`jurisdictions outside of Georgia, and the legal services provided by that firm are confined to
`
`Georgia. Luft Decl., ¶ 5.
`
`The Lanham Act requires that a mark be used in commerce before it may be registered,
`
`unless the application to register the mark is based on a foreign registration. 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a),
`
`1053. “Use in commerce” occurs when the goods or services are sold or transported in interstate
`
`commerce. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
`
`Only the owner of a trademark used in interstate commerce may request registration of its
`
`trademark. In this instance, the facts are undisputed that Respondent, Georgia Sparks Law,
`
`provides only intrastate services in the State of Georgia, and, as such, is not entitled to maintain
`
` 9
`
`
`
`its registration.
`
`
`
`

`

`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`enter default judgment against the Respondent or, in the alternative, for a judgment on the
`
`pleadings with respect to the claims set forth in Petitioner’s Petition(s) For Cancellation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ryan S. Luft
`
`RYAN S. LUFT, PLLC
`3125 Kathleen Ave. #116
`Greensboro, North Carolina 27408
`Telephone: (336) 638-1789
`Facsimile: (336) 464-2599
`Email: ryan@luftlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the attached Motion for Default Judgment
`
`or, in the Alternative, for Judgment on the Pleadings, was served upon Sparks Law, LLC, through
`its counsel of record, by U.S. mail on June 10, 2020 at the following address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`SPARKS LAW, LLC
`KRISTOPHER M. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
`11539 PARK WOODS CIRCLE
`ALPHARETTA, GA 30005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ryan S. Luft
`
`RYAN S. LUFT, PLLC
`3125 Kathleen Ave. #116
`Greensboro, North Carolina 27408
`Telephone: (336) 638-1789
`Facsimile: (336) 464-2599
`Email: ryan@luftlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`In the matter of United States Reg. Nos. 5668170 & 5672233
`
`For the mark SPARKS LAW
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Sparks Law, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Sparks Law, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Opposition No. 92072806
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RYAN S. LUFT, ESQ.
`
`RYAN S. LUFT, ESQ., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Trademark Rule 2.20, does
`
`
`
`hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an active member in good standing of the bars of New York and North
`
`Carolina, and I am currently practicing law in the State of North Carolina, where I reside.
`
`2.
`
`Respondent, Sparks Law, LLC, is the owner of two federal registrations,
`
`Registration No. 5672233 (“SPARKS LAW” standard characters) and Registration No. 5668170
`
`(“SPARKS LAW” design plus words, letters, and/or numbers) (collectively, the “Respondent’s
`
`Registrations”). True and correct copies of Respondent’s Registrations are attached herewith as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`On December 6, 2017, New England Sparks Law filed an application for SPARKS
`
`LAW (standard character mark). A true and correct copy of the record from the United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) database is attached herewith as Exhibit B.
`
`

`

`4.
`
`Georgia Sparks Law was formed in Georgia on January 11, 2016. A true and correct
`
`copy of the record from the Georgia Secretary of State is attached herewith as Exhibit C.
`
`5.
`
`As evidenced on its website, none of the attorneys in the Georgia Sparks Law firm
`
`are licensed in jurisdictions outside of Georgia, and the legal services provided by that firm are
`
`confined to Georgia. True and correct copy of the records from the Georgia State Bar and website of
`
`of Georgia Sparks Law Firm are attached herewith as Exhibit D.
`
`6.
`
`The earliest archived website showing Petitioner’s use of the SPARKS LAW name
`
`in web page advertising – aside from using the name in the url itself – is from December 16, 2014.
`
`A true and correct copy of the screenshot from archive.org is attached herewith as Exhibit E.
`
`
`
`The undersigned, being duly warned that willful false statement and the like so made are punishable by fine
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize
`the validity of the declaration to which it pertains, declares that he is properly authorized to execute this
`declaration on behalf of the Petitioner, Sparks Law, LLC; that all statement made of his own knowledge
`are true; and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`
`Dated: January 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ryan S. Luft
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`Reg. No. 5,672,233
`
`Registered Feb. 12, 2019
`
`Sparks Law, LLC  (GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
`11877 Douglas Road, Suite 102-210
`Johns Creek, GEORGIA 30097
`
`Int. Cl.: 45
`
`Service Mark
`
`Principal Register
`
`CLASS 45: Legal services
`
`FIRST USE 11-5-2015; IN COMMERCE 11-5-2015
`
`THE MARK CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHARACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY
`PARTICULAR FONT STYLE, SIZE OR COLOR
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown:
`"LAW"
`
`SER. NO. 87-501,698, FILED 06-22-2017
`
`

`

`REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
`
`WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE
`DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
`
`Requirements in the First Ten  Years*
`What and When to File:
`
`First Filing Deadline:  You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
`
`years after the registration date.
`
` See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k.
`
` If the declaration is accepted, the
`
`registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
`
`date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
`
`Second Filing Deadline:  You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
`
`for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
`
`Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*
`What and When to File:
`
` and  an  Application for Renewal
`You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse)
`between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
`
`Grace Period Filings*
`
`The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with
`the payment of an additional fee.
`
`*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS:  The holder of an international registration with an
`extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use
`(or Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
`The time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date).  The
`deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for
`nationally issued registrations.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k.  However, owners of international registrations
`do not file renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying
`international registration at the International Bureau of the  World Intellectual Property Organization, under
`Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the
`date of the international registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1141j.  For more information and renewal forms for the
`international registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
`
`NOTE:  Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change.  Please check the
`USPTO website for further information.
` With the exception of renewal applications for registered
`extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at h
`ttp://www.uspto.gov.
`
`NOTE:  A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
`owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
`USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
`Electronic  Application System (TEAS) Correspondence  Address and Change of Owner  Address Forms
`available at http://www.uspto.gov.
`
`Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 5672233
`
`

`

`Reg. No. 5,668,170
`
`Registered Feb. 05, 2019
`
`Sparks Law, LLC  (GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
`11877 Douglas Road, Suite 102-210
`Johns Creek, GEORGIA 30005
`
`Int. Cl.: 45
`
`Service Mark
`
`Principal Register
`
`CLASS 45: Legal services
`
`FIRST USE 3-29-2016; IN COMMERCE 3-29-2016
`
`The mark consists of the words "SPARKS LAW" with a star in the first "S".
`
`No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown:
`"LAW"
`
`SER. NO. 87-501,790, FILED 06-22-2017
`
`

`

`REQUIREMENTS TO MAINTAIN YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
`
`WARNING: YOUR REGISTRATION WILL BE CANCELLED IF YOU DO NOT FILE THE
`DOCUMENTS BELOW DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS.
`
`Requirements in the First Ten  Years*
`What and When to File:
`
`First Filing Deadline:  You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) between the 5th and 6th
`
`years after the registration date.
`
` See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k.
`
` If the declaration is accepted, the
`
`registration will continue in force for the remainder of the ten-year period, calculated from the registration
`
`date, unless cancelled by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal court.
`
`Second Filing Deadline:  You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) and an Application
`
`for Renewal between the 9th and 10th years after the registration date.* See 15 U.S.C. §1059.
`
`Requirements in Successive Ten-Year Periods*
`What and When to File:
`
` and  an  Application for Renewal
`You must file a Declaration of Use (or Excusable Nonuse)
`between every 9th and 10th-year period, calculated from the registration date.*
`
`Grace Period Filings*
`
`The above documents will be accepted as timely if filed within six months after the deadlines listed above with
`the payment of an additional fee.
`
`*ATTENTION MADRID PROTOCOL REGISTRANTS:  The holder of an international registration with an
`extension of protection to the United States under the Madrid Protocol must timely file the Declarations of Use
`(or Excusable Nonuse) referenced above directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
`The time periods for filing are based on the U.S. registration date (not the international registration date).  The
`deadlines and grace periods for the Declarations of Use (or Excusable Nonuse) are identical to those for
`nationally issued registrations.  See 15 U.S.C. §§1058, 1141k.  However, owners of international registrations
`do not file renewal applications at the USPTO. Instead, the holder must file a renewal of the underlying
`international registration at the International Bureau of the  World Intellectual Property Organization, under
`Article 7 of the Madrid Protocol, before the expiration of each ten-year term of protection, calculated from the
`date of the international registration.  See 15 U.S.C. §1141j.  For more information and renewal forms for the
`international registration, see http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.
`
`NOTE:  Fees and requirements for maintaining registrations are subject to change.  Please check the
`USPTO website for further information.
` With the exception of renewal applications for registered
`extensions of protection, you can file the registration maintenance documents referenced above online at h
`ttp://www.uspto.gov.
`
`NOTE:  A courtesy e-mail reminder of USPTO maintenance filing deadlines will be sent to trademark
`owners/holders who authorize e-mail communication and maintain a current e-mail address with the
`USPTO. To ensure that e-mail is authorized and your address is current, please use the Trademark
`Electronic  Application System (TEAS) Correspondence  Address and Change of Owner  Address Forms
`available at http://www.uspto.gov.
`
`Page: 2 of 2 / RN # 5668170
`
`

`

`~— mw ... 1....
`.u.‘ ...,......... th‘.I-nv.<»1ll.u-‘|I>‘\
`‘i u. ”.1 mm» nu...- “a huh—ms um. .
`
`.m. a... u . Tmoomms - Treatment Ekcivontc Sum» 379nm (TESS!
`
`...
`
`..- _>.§»
`
`..‘.
`
`_ v‘~""-'
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`.u);.l PM CQCUV m“ ‘13.! an 31‘1"!) Micah: L'y'p'lfl‘ K23 ($1 3'
`
`
`‘ mm
`
`on '-’- mam
`
`.
`
`[03 ‘3' “IL
`
`Record 3oul015
`
`m m. Lbr ni- 'Dui‘ hum-v n! ma mound lmww tr- mm In YESS)
`
`SPARKS LAW
`
`want-tun
`umnor-‘Iuwn
`"10m cum-um cum
`mot"... cm-
`ICU-"MIN":
`unqua-
`{mt-MI.-
`Omaha! Flu: Inn
`0.0.-
`Aquo‘fluwl
`full."
`Van-Iva-
`Mum
`LIMMMUHI
`
`WARM-nu
`t
`
`‘
`
`.‘-.... .._.. mm, H
`
`‘...- Man-.Au‘m-‘a -
`
`.w"
`
`.
`
`I‘M .w.
`
`
`L
`A,
`u.
`:.-:,| -,nrl-4- ll
`-.
`U».
`'a
`mm.
`H v.
`
`-AI‘.'1 Ann!
`:2.
`«. D,
`ll
`
`.5” '.
`||'.|'3|
`.w .m m...
`
`-
`
`. q-‘muu mun -.--
`.-,,_‘ .. x
`”manna“ "Ah:
`..,, 1.....»|un «e um... mu“.
`
`———-—-——-—-—-——
`.- .
`... uuy . ......
`. A.......‘.
`
`
`
`

`

`1/4/2020
`
`GEORGIA
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`GEORGIA
`CORPORATIONS
`DIVISION
`
`BUSINESS SEARCH
`
`BUSINESS INFORMATION
`Business Name: Sparks Law, LLC
`Business Type: Domestic Limited
`Liability Company
`NAICS Code: Any legal purpose
`(cid:736)(cid:736)(cid:740)(cid:738)(cid:744) Park Woods
`Circle, Unit (cid:738)(cid:735)(cid:739),
`Alpharetta, GA, (cid:738)(cid:735)(cid:735)(cid:735)(cid:740),
`USA
`
`Principal Office Address:
`
`State of Formation: Georgia
`
`GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE
`BRAD RAFFENSPERGER
`
`HOME (cid:697)/(cid:698)
`
`Control Number: (cid:736)(cid:741)(cid:735)(cid:735)(cid:739)(cid:744)(cid:743)(cid:744)
`Business Status: Active/Owes Current
`Year AR
`
`NAICS Sub Code:
`
`Date of Formation /
`Registration Date: (cid:736)/(cid:736)(cid:736)/(cid:737)(cid:735)(cid:736)(cid:741)
`
`Last Annual Registration
`Year: (cid:737)(cid:735)(cid:736)(cid:744)
`
`REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
`Registered Agent Name: Jonathan Sparks, Esq.
`Physical Address: (cid:736)(cid:736)(cid:740)(cid:738)(cid:744) Park Woods Circle, Unit (cid:738)(cid:735)(cid:739), Alpharetta, GA, (cid:738)(cid:735)(cid:735)(cid:735)(cid:740), USA
`County: Fulton
`
`Back
`
` Name History
`Filing History
`Return to Business Search
`
`Office of the Georgia Secretary of State Attn: (cid:737) MLK, Jr. Dr. Suite (cid:738)(cid:736)(cid:738), Floyd West Tower Atlanta, GA (cid:738)(cid:735)(cid:738)(cid:738)(cid:739)-(cid:736)(cid:740)(cid:738)(cid:735),
`Phone: (cid:697)(cid:739)(cid:735)(cid:739)(cid:698) (cid:741)(cid:740)(cid:741)-(cid:737)(cid:743)(cid:736)(cid:742) Toll-free: (cid:697)(cid:743)(cid:739)(cid:739)(cid:698) (cid:742)(cid:740)(cid:738)-(cid:742)(cid:743)(cid:737)(cid:740), WEBSITE: https://sos.ga.gov/
`© (cid:737)(cid:735)(cid:736)(cid:740) PCC Technology Group. All Rights Reserved. Version (cid:740).(cid:736)(cid:737).(cid:737)
`https://ecorp.