Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1159737
`
`Filing date:
`
`09/15/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92074468
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Defendant
`Velcro BVBA and Velcro IP Holdings LLC
`
`JOSHUA JARVIS
`FOLEY HOAG LLP
`155 SEAPORT BOULEVARD
`BOSTON, MA 02210
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: jjarvis@foleyhoag.com
`Secondary Email(s): nkinsley@foleyhoag.com, ttab@foleyhoag.com, psulli-
`van@foleyhoag.com, ebelt@mccarter.com, lshyavitz@mccarter.com, ashan-
`non@mccarter.com, aried@mccarter.com, bostontrademarks@mccarter.com
`617-832-1000
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`Erik Paul Belt
`
`jjarvis@foleyhoag.com, nkinsley@foleyhoag.com, ttab@foleyhoag.com, psulli-
`van@foleyhoag.com, ebelt@mccarter.com, lshyavitz@mccarter.com, ashan-
`non@mccarter.com, aried@mccarter.com, bostontrademarks@mccarter.com
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`/Erik Paul Belt/
`
`09/15/2021
`
`Attachments
`
`NHDNC v. Velcro - Petition to Disqualify [Public - Redacted].PDF(272710 bytes
`
`) R
`
`ied Declaration ISO Petition to Disqualify.PDF(122401 bytes )
`Ex. A to Ried Declaration.PDF(94918 bytes )
`Ex. B to Ried Declaration.PDF(134933 bytes )
`Ex. C to Ried Declaration (Public Version).PDF(4037 bytes )
`Ex. D to Ried Declaration.PDF(1922077 bytes )
`Ex. E to Ried Declaration.PDF(37075 bytes )
`Ex. F to Ried Declaration.PDF(130050 bytes )
`Ex. G to Ried Declaration.PDF(717644 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`REDACTED VERSION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`------------------------------------------------------X
`NHDNC LLC,
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`Velcro IP Holdings LLC and Velcro BVBA, :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`Respondents. :
`------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92074468
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ANDREW BOCHNER,
`SERGE KRIMNUS, AND BOCHNER IP, PLLC
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`An attorney may not act as a witness for its client. Doing so calls into question the
`
`attorney’s credibility. In this case, Petitioner NHDNC and its counsel, the Bochner IP firm, are
`
`one and the same. That is, NHDNC is owned entirely by two Bochner IP attorneys who appeared
`
`in this case (
`
` and
`
`), and, overall, four of Bochner IP’s six attorneys
`
`represent NHDNC in this proceeding. NHDNC and Bochner IP even share the same physical
`
`address, office, and management. Not surprisingly, in its Rule 26 initial disclosures, NHDNC
`
`identified Bochner IP’s named partner, Andrew Bochner, who is also lead counsel for NHDNC,
`
`as its only witness and person with knowledge and facts about this matter. As further explained
`
`below, Mr. Bochner, as well as other attorneys from Bochner IP, are necessary witnesses for
`
`NHDNC, which will cause credibility issues and blur the line between advocate and witness.
`
`Disqualifying Bochner IP will not prejudice NHDNC because the case is in its early stages and
`
`thus substitute counsel will have time to get up to speed. Accordingly, the Board should disqualify
`
`Bochner IP from representing Petitioner NHDNC LLC in this cancellation proceeding.
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`

`

`
`
`Disqualification of Mr. Bochner alone does not resolve this matter because, for example,
`
`, another Bochner IP attorney who appeared in this case,
`
`
`
` will also need to testify for NHDNC. Respondents Velcro IP
`
`Holdings LLC and Velcro BVBA (collectively “VIPH” or “Respondents”) will certainly depose
`
`both Bochner and Krimnus. Meanwhile, two other Bochner IP attorneys, Erik Dykema and Paul
`
`Fraulo, have appeared as counsel for NHDNC. Given that four of Bochner IP’s six attorneys
`
`represent NHDNC, there does not appear to be any meaningful separation between NHDNC and
`
`Bochner IP. The two are joined at the hip.
`
`As Respondents have previously contended, NHDNC is a sham company formed to extort
`
`money from Respondents. Respondents will depose and cross-examine Mr. Bochner and other
`
`Bochner IP attorneys on this very issue, which will cause Mr. Bochner and other Bochner IP
`
`attorneys to put their credibility on the line as witnesses. Thus, pursuant to Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 513.02, United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Rules of Professional Conduct 11.307 (37 C.F.R. § 11.307) and 11.108 (37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.108), Respondents petition to disqualify Bochner IP from representing NHDNC in
`
`this proceeding. At the very least, the Board should disqualify Messrs. Bochner and Krimnus from
`
`representing NHDNC in this proceeding.
`
`FACTS
`
`Should this case get to trial, Respondents will show that NHDNC has no real intent to use
`
`its applied-for mark and thus no standing. Indeed, Respondents have reason to believe that
`
`NHDNC is a sham company that was formed for the singular purpose of extorting money from
`
`Respondents. For example, NHDNC was formed on June 2, 2020, the same date that Bochner, on
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`behalf of NHDNC, signed and filed the trademark application underlying this cancellation.1 See
`
`Declaration of Alexander L. Ried (“Ried Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A & B. Just five days later, on June
`
`7, 2020, Bochner filed the original petition for cancellation. See 1 TTABVUE.
`
`
`
`
`
` Ried Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C. NHDNC
`
`shares the same exact address as Bochner IP: 295 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY
`
`10017.2 See Ried Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. C & D. That NHDNC was formed on the day that NHDNC
`
`filed an application to register Respondents’ registered VELCRO® mark and just days before
`
`Bochner and his colleagues filed the cancellation petition is suspicious.
`
`Respondents served interrogatories on NHDNC and asked it to identify all persons with
`
`knowledge about the facts of the case, about the use or intended use of the applied-for mark, about
`
`the associated goods and services, etc. NHDNC merely referred Respondents to NHDNC’s initial
`
`disclosures. Id. ¶ 6, Ex. E. As seen above, Mr. Bochner was the only identified witness. Id. ¶ 7,
`
`Ex. F. Respondents also asked NHDNC to identify its officers, directors, owners, etc., including
`
`anyone funding this proceeding on behalf of NHDNC. In response, NHDNC merely referred
`
`Respondents to documents it produced. Id. ¶ 6, Ex. E. The only relevant documents in the
`
`identified production range were the
`
` articles of incorporation for
`
`NHDNC, which, as seen above, identify only
`
`. That answer suggests that
`
`Bochner IP itself is funding this proceeding for NHDNC. Certainly nobody else was identified.
`
`
`1 NHDNC first sought to appropriate Respondents’ registered trademark VELCRO® by filing an
`application for the identical mark. NHDNC’s application was assigned Serial No. 88944535.
`NHDNC expressly abandoned Application Serial No. 88944535 on August 11, 2020. See Ried
`Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.
`2 The address listed for NHDNC LLC as the owner of U.S. Trademark Application Serial No.
`88944535 is: c/o Bochner IP, 295 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017.”
`(Emphasis added.). See Ried Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.
`
`3
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`

`

`
`
`In addition to Bochner and Krimnus, two other Bochner IP attorneys—Attorneys Fraulo
`
`and Dykema—have since appeared on behalf of NHDNC in this proceeding. 21 TTABVUE 3; 22
`
`TTABVUE 1. Bochner IP lists only six attorneys in total on its website. See Ried Decl. ¶ 8, Ex.
`
`G. Four of Bochner IP’s six attorneys now represent NHDNC in this proceeding, and NHDNC is
`
`owned entirely by Bochner IP attorneys.
`
`The intertwined relationship between NHDNC and Bochner IP has only become more
`
`apparent as this proceeding has progressed. For example, in its Rule 26 initial disclosures,
`
`NHDNC listed only Mr. Bochner—the name partner of Bochner IP—as having knowledge of the
`
`facts of this matter. Id. ¶ 7, Ex. F. As the sole listed witness, Bochner will, presumably, testify on
`
`behalf of NHDNC. Respondents will thus want to depose Bochner. Respondents also will depose
`
`Bochner IP attorneys will be witnesses in this proceeding (including its name partner), the
`
`. Given that at least two
`
`credibility of the Firm itself is at issue.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Petitions to disqualify counsel in TTAB proceedings are governed by TBMP § 513.02 and
`
`USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct 11.307. According to TBMP § 513.02, a “party may file a
`
`petition to disqualify [a] practitioner” if it believes “that [the] practitioner representing another
`
`party to the proceeding should be disqualified (due, for example . . . because the practitioner should
`
`testify in the proceeding as a witness on behalf of his client).” USPTO Rule of Professional
`
`Conduct 11.307 prohibits attorneys from both advocating for their clients and acting as witnesses:
`
`(a) A practitioner shall not act as advocate at a proceeding before a
`tribunal in which the practitioner is likely to be a necessary
`witness unless:
`
`
`1. The testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
`
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2. The testimony relates to the nature and value of legal
`services rendered in the case; or
`
`3. Disqualification of the practitioner would work
`substantial hardship on the client.
`
`
`In determining whether an attorney should be disqualified, the Board undertakes a two-part
`
`analysis, first determining “whether the attorney is a necessary witness,” and if so, next
`
`determining whether the attorney “meet[s] a listed exception.” Schiedmayer Celesta GMBH v.
`
`Piano Factory Grp., Cancellation No. 92061215, 2016 WL 8222575, at *6 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 21,
`
`2016). “An attorney will be considered a necessary witness where no other person is available to
`
`testify in his or her place.” Id. (citing Northbrook Digital, LLC v. Vendio Servs., Inc., 625 F. Supp.
`
`2d 728, 765 (D. Minn. 2008)). “A necessary witness is one who offers evidence that is not
`
`available from another source.” Greystone Capital Mgmt. Inc. v. Greystone Capital Grp., LLC,
`
`Cancellation No. 92063282, 2016 WL 8222576, at *3 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) (citing
`
`Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc., 836 F.2d 1332, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1424, 1428 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988).
`
`In this case, only
`
` are listed as
`
` of NHDNC, and
`
`Bochner was listed as the only witness in the Rule 26 initial disclosure. See Ried Decl. ¶¶ 4 & 7,
`
`Exs. C & F. Although Respondents asked NHDNC to identify other people with knowledge of
`
`NHDNC’s business and use of its mark, NHDNC identified nobody else. See id. ¶ 6, Ex. E.
`
`In a case upholding disqualification of an attorney who was a necessary witness, the
`
`Supreme Court of Colorado explained the rationale for the advocate-witness rule, noting in
`
`particular concerns about credibility and also prejudice to the opposing party:
`
`The [advocate-witness] rule, stated broadly, is that counsel cannot
`maintain dual roles as advocate and witness in the same manner
`before the same tribunal. Among the multitude of rationales for the
`rule, we have emphasized that a lawyer who intermingles the
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`functions of advocate and witness diminishes his effectiveness in
`both cases. We explained, [t]he client’s case is subject to criticism
`that it is being presented through the testimony of an obviously
`interested witness who on that account is subject to impeachment,
`and, of equal importance, placed in the unseemly position of arguing
`his own credibility to the jury. Drafters of the ABA Model Rules
`recommend similar rationales for the rule; but the drafters also
`mention the opposing party’s interest, noting that combining the
`roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the opposing party as
`well as involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
`
`Fognani v. Young, 115 P.3d 1268, 1272 (Colo. 2005) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
`
`In Royal Travel, Inc. v. Shell Management Hawaii, Inc., No. 08-00314 JMS-LEK, 2009
`
`WL 649929 (D. Haw. Mar. 12, 2009), the district court disqualified a lawyer representing the
`
`plaintiff corporation of which he was also the president and thus would be testifying at trial.
`
`Relying on a rule almost identical to USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct 11.307, the court held
`
`that the lawyer was a necessary witness. Royal Travel, 2009 WL 649929, at *5-6 (discussing
`
`Hawaii Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7). The district court noted that the disqualified lawyer’s
`
`“status as counsel and witness may unduly complicate discovery and his dual role may create an
`
`improper inference that his testimony is more credible than that of Defendants’ witnesses.” Id.
`
`Like the court in Royal Travel, the Board should disqualify Attorneys Bochner, Krimnus,
`
`and the entire Bochner IP firm from representing NHDNC because Bochner IP attorneys are
`
`necessary witnesses in this matter and Bochner IP’s representation of NHDNC forces the firm to
`
`vouch for the credibility of its own attorney-witnesses, thus creating improper inferences regarding
`
`the credibility of such testimony.
`
`I.
`
`The Board Should Grant the Petition to Disqualify Bochner IP Because the Firm
`and NHDNC are so Intertwined That They Are One Entity
`
`A. Bochner IP Has a Proprietary Interest in the Outcome of this Proceeding and
`Therefore Should Be Disqualified
`
`
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct 11.307(b) states that “[a] practitioner may act as
`
`advocate in a proceeding before a tribunal in which another practitioner in the practitioner’s firm
`
`is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by §§ 11.107 or 11.109”
`
`(emphasis added). Here, at least § 11.107 precludes Bochner IP from representing NHDNC in this
`
`proceeding because the Firm has a personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding. More
`
`specifically, USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct § 11.107 states (emphasis added):
`
`Except as provided paragraph (b) of this section, a practitioner
`shall not represent a client if the representation involves a
`concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest
`exists if:
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`The representation of one client will be directly adverse to
`another client; or
`
`There is a significant risk that the representation of one
`(2)
`or more clients will be materially limited by the practitioner’s
`responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or
`by a personal interest of the practitioner.
`
`Here, Bochner IP as a whole has a personal and proprietary interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding because NHDNC and the Bochner IP firm are so interrelated that NHDNC is
`
`functionally nothing more than a subset of the firm itself. NHDNC is wholly-owned by Bochner
`
`IP attorneys, it shares personnel and the exact same address and office with Bochner IP, and
`
`, controls both NHDNC and his law firm. Given the
`
`lack of any meaningful separation between NHDNC and Bochner IP, any personal interest
`
`NHDNC has in the outcome of this proceeding it shares with Bochner IP. Therefore, Bochner IP
`
`should be disqualified from representing NHDNC in this proceeding.
`
`B. Bochner IP Should be Disqualified Because the Prohibition Against the
`Acquisition of a Proprietary Interest is Imputed to Entire Firms
`
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct § 11.108(i)(1) states that “[a] practitioner shall not
`
`acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action . . . or a proceeding before the Office which the
`
`practitioner is conducting for a client . . . .” When this prohibition applies to even just one
`
`practitioner in a firm, the prohibition is imputed to the entire firm. See USPTO Rule of
`
`Professional Conduct § 11.108(k) (“While practitioners are associated in a firm, a prohibition in
`
`paragraphs (a) though (i) of this section that applies to any one of them shall apply to all of them.”).
`
`Therefore, even if the Board finds that Bochner IP should not be disqualified due to its
`
`interrelatedness with NHDNC, the Board should disqualify Bochner IP because at least two
`
`Bochner IP attorneys--
`
`--have
`
`proprietary interests in this proceeding. Those interests are prohibited by, and violate, USPTO
`
`Rule of Professional Conduct § 11.108(i)(1). Under USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct §
`
`11.108(k), the prohibition against the individual attorney is imputed to the law firm as a whole.
`
`Therefore, the Board should disqualify Bochner IP from representing NHDNC in this proceeding.
`
`C. Bochner IP Should Be Disqualified Because Any Attempt to Screen Out
`Attorneys Bochner and Krimnus Will be Futile
`
`Alternatively, if the Board finds that only Messrs. Bochner and Krimnus should be
`
`disqualified (see infra Section II), it should disqualify Bochner IP as well because any effort to
`
`screen out Bochner and Krimnus through an ethical wall will be futile. See Energy Intel. Grp.,
`
`Inc. v. Cowen & Co., LLC, No. 14 CIV. 3789 (NRB), 2016 WL 3920355, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 15,
`
`2016) (finding ethical wall insufficient to screen out certain attorneys in “very small firm
`
`consisting of four partners and about ten other attorneys in a single office, which by its nature
`
`imperils an ethical screen.”); see also Crudele v. New York City Police Dep’t, No. 97 CIV. 6687
`
`(RCC), 2001 WL 1033539, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2001) (requiring disqualification of law firm
`
`“comprised of only 15 lawyers” because of “the danger of inadvertent disclosure and the
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`appearance of impropriety” and further noting that district courts have found “screening attempts
`
`to be inadequate in the context of small law firms.”). Similarly, any screening attempts by Bochner
`
`IP would be impossible because the Firm is comprised of only six attorneys in one office (the same
`
`office for NHDNC), which is significantly smaller than the firms in the Energy Intel. Grp. (about
`
`14 attorneys) and Crudele (15 attorneys) cases in which courts found screening attempts
`
`inadequate due to the firms’ small amount of attorneys.
`
`II.
`
`The Board Should Grant the Petition to Disqualify Attorney Bochner and Attorney
`Krimnus Because They Are Necessary Witnesses and Do Not Meet Any Exceptions
`
`In addition to violating USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct § 11.108(i)(1) (see supra
`
`Section I.B.), Bochner and Krimnus should be disqualified under USPTO Rule of Professional
`
`Conduct 11.307. Both Bochner and Krimnus are necessary witnesses under this section because
`
`. See Ried Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C. There is no other
`
`person available to testify on NHDNC’s behalf in place of Attorneys Bochner and Krimnus in this
`
`matter because
`
` Nor has NHDNC identified any other
`
`witnesses. See Ried Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F. Further, it will be necessary for Bochner and Krimnus to
`
`offer evidence that is unavailable from any other source in this proceeding, particularly because
`
`no other sources of information exist. Certainly, NHDNC has identified no other sources of
`
`information in its discovery responses and Rule 26 initial disclosures. See Advanced Visual
`
`Concepts, Ltd. v. Saffron Props., LLC, 30 N.Y.S.3d 793, 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) (finding
`
`attorney was necessary witness where attorney was “the only person, other than plaintiff[] and
`
`defendant . . . who ha[d] personal knowledge of the disputes underlying th[e] litigation” and
`
`disqualifying attorney from representing defendant).
`
`Additionally, NHDNC listed Bochner on its initial disclosures as the only person who is
`
`likely to have discoverable information that NHDNC may use to support any of its claims or
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`defenses in this proceeding. Ried Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F. This amounts to an admission by NHDNC that
`
`Bochner is a necessary witness in this proceeding. See, e.g., Royal Travel, Inc. v. Shell Mgmt.
`
`Haw., Inc., No. 08-00314 JMS-LEK, 2009 WL 649929, at *1-3, 6 (D. Haw. Mar. 12, 2009)
`
`(disqualifying attorney who was president of the plaintiff corporation he was representing and
`
`where attorney was identified by client as a witness on initial disclosures); See also Fognani v.
`
`Young, 115 P.3d 1268, 1275-76 (Colo. 2005) (disqualifying attorney because attorney was listed
`
`on initial disclosures as material witness).
`
`
`
`Neither Bochner nor Krimnus meet any of the exceptions in USPTO Rule of Professional
`
`Conduct 11.307(a)(1)-(3). First, Bochner and Krimnus will need to testify to many contested
`
`issues in this proceeding, including but not limited to NHDNC’s standing to pursue this
`
`cancellation and NHDNC’s use or intended use of its mark, business plan, market research, and
`
`communications with fastener manufacturers, as well as NHDNC’s allegations in its petition.
`
`Second, the “nature and value of legal services” that Bochner IP and/or Attorneys Bochner and
`
`Krimnus have provided in this proceeding is not at issue (at least not currently) and therefore the
`
`second exception does not apply. (And even if the nature and value of legal services did become
`
`an issue, it is not the only issue. Rather, the main issues for which
`
` will be
`
`deposed and on which they will likely testify relate to NHDNC’s business and the allegations of
`
`the petition.) Third, disqualification of Bochner and Krimnus will not work a substantial hardship
`
`on NHDNC because the case is still in its early stages, discovery only recently began, and the
`
`schedule will allow for substitution of counsel. Therefore new counsel will have ample time to
`
`acclimate itself with the substance of this proceeding. Royal Travel, Inc., No. 08-00314 JMS-LEK,
`
`2009 WL 649929, *6 (D. Haw. Mar. 12, 2009) (ruling out any prejudice to disqualified attorney’s
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`client because “case [wa]s in its early stages” which allowed other counsel “ample time to assume
`
`any duties currently handled by [the disqualified attorney].”).
`
`
`
`Therefore, should the Board not disqualify Bochner IP as a whole, the Board should grant
`
`Respondents’ Petition to Disqualify Attorneys Bochner and Krimnus.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Respondents Velcro IP Holdings LLC and Velcro BVBA
`
`respectfully request the Board grant its Petition to Disqualify Bochner IP, PLLC and in the
`
`alternative, to disqualify Attorneys Bochner and Krimnus.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Erik P. Belt/
`Erik Paul Belt
`Lori J. Shyavitz
`Anne E. Shannon
`Alexander L. Ried
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel.: (617) 449-6500
`Fax: (617) 607-9200
`ebelt@mccarter.com
`lshyavitz@mccarter.com
`ashannon@mccarter.com
`aried@mccarter.com
`bostontrademarks@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Respondents Velcro IP Holdings LLC
`and Velcro BVBA
`
`
`Date: September 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 15th day of September, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Petition for Disqualification to be served by e-mail on counsel of record for
`
`Petitioner NHDNC LLC to andrew@bochnerip.com, serge@bochnerip.com,
`
`paul@bochnerip.com, erik@bochnerip.com and admin@bochnerip.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Alexander L. Ried/_____________
`Alexander L. Ried
`
`
`
`
`ME1 37458728v.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`------------------------------------------------------X
`NHDNC LLC,
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`Velcro IP Holdings LLC and Velcro BVBA, :
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`Respondents. :
`------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92074468
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER L. RIED
`
`Alexander L. Ried, of full age, declares as follows pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
`
`1.
`
`I am an associate at the law firm of McCarter & English, LLP and represent
`
`Respondents Velcro IP Holdings LLC and Velcro BVBA (“Respondents”) in this proceeding. I
`
`have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of NHDNC’s Articles of
`
`Organization, which were obtained from the New York Department of State.1
`
`3.
`
`Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the TSDR records for U.S.
`
`Trademark Application Serial No. 88944535.
`
`4.
`
`Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of NHDNC’s operating
`
`agreement, which NHDNC produced to Respondents with the confidentiality designation
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL AND ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY.”
`
`
`1 Although NHDNC’s Articles of Organization are publicly available from the New York
`Department of State, NHDNC improperly designated them “CONFIDENTIAL AND
`ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY.”
`
`
`
`ME1 37485719v.1
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the “Contact Us” page of
`
`Bochner IP, PLLC’s website. I accessed this page on September 14, 2021. This page is
`
`accessible via the following link: https://bochnerip.com/contact/
`
`6.
`
`Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of NHDNC’s
`
`responses to Respondents’ interrogatories.
`
`7.
`
`Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the initial disclosures NHDNC
`
`served on Respondents in this proceeding.
`
`8.
`
`Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the “Our Attorneys” page of
`
`Bochner IP, PLLC’s website. I accessed this page on September 14, 2021. This page is
`
`accessible via the following link: https://bochnerip.com/attorneys/
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true and
`
`correct.
`
`Executed on September 15, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alexander L. Ried
`Alexander L. Ried
`
`
`ME1 37485719v.1
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION
`
`OF
`
`NHDNC LLC
`UnderSection 203 of the Limited Liability Company
`
`Law
`
`a natural person
`THE UNDERSIGNED,
`eighteen (18) years of age, and
`acting
`being
`formed under Section 203 of the
`the
`of the limited
`liability company hereby being
`organizer
`Limited Liability Company Law of the State of New York certifies that:
`
`ofat least
`
`as
`
`FIRST:
`
`The nameofthe limited liability companyis:
`NHDNC LLC
`
`SECOND: To cngage in any lawful act or
`within the purposcs for which limited
`activity
`liability
`to Limited
`that
`Law
`companies may be
`organized pursuant
`Liability Company
`provided
`not formed to engagein any act or
`the limited
`the
`liability company 1s
`activity requiring
`consent or
`of any
`or other
`without
`state official, department, board, agency,
`approval
`body
`such consent or approvalfirst being obtained.
`
`THIRD:
`
`The county, within this state, in which the office of the limited liability company is to be
`located is NEW YORK.
`
`as
`FOURTH: The Secretary of State is designated
`agent of the limited liability company upon whom
`it may be served. The address within or without this state to which the
`process against
`Secretary of State shall mail a
`the limited
`copy of any process against
`liability company
`served upon him orher1s:
`
`Andrew D. Bochner, Esq.
`295 Madison Ave, 12th Floor
`BOCHNER IP
`NEW YORK, NY 10017
`
`FIFTH:
`
`and hold harmless all members,
`liability company shall defend, indemnify
`The limited
`managers, and former members and managersof the limited
`lability company against
`expenses (including attorney's fees, judgments, fines, and amounts
`in
`paid
`settlement)
`causes of action, demands, damages, liabilities of
`incurred in connection with any claims,
`or
`or threatened action, suit,
`the limited
`liability company, and any pending
`proceeding.
`Such indemnification shall be made to the fullest extent
`permitted by the laws of the State
`that such acts or omissions which
`rise to the cause ofaction
`of New York, provided
`gives
`or
`occurred while the Member or
`was in
`of his or her
`Manager
`proceedings
`performance
`duties for the limited liability company and wasnotas
`result of his or her fraud, gross
`negligence, willful misconduct or a
`wrongful taking. The indemnification provided herein
`shall inure to the bencfit of successors, assigns, heirs, executors, and the administrators of
`any such person.
`
`DOS-1239-f-11 (Rev. 02/12)
`
`FILE NUMBER: 200602010149; DOS ID: 5759923
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`that I have read the above statements, I am authorized to
`I
`sign these Articles of Organization,
`certify
`that the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledgeand belief and that my
`below constitutes my signature.
`signature typed
`
`/Andrew Bochner/
`
`(signaturc)
`, ORGANIZER
`Andrew D. Bochner, Esq.
`295 Madison Ave, 12th Floor
`BOCHNERIP
`NEW York, NY 10017
`
`Filed by:
`Andrew Bochner
`
`295 Madison Avenue
`
`12th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`
`FILED WITH THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON: 06/02/2020
`FILE NUMBER: 200602010149; DOS ID: 5759923
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit B
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`9/14/2021
`
`Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
`
`For assistance with TSDR, email teas@uspto.gov and include your serial number, the document you are looking for,
`and a screenshot of any error messages you have received.
`
`Processing Wait Times: Please note that due to an extraordinary surge in applications, processing times are longer than
`usual. See current trademark processing wait times for more information.
`
`STATUS
`
`DOCUMENTS
`
`Back to Search
`
`Print
`
`Generated on: This page was generated by TSDR on 2021-09-14 12:03:20 EDT
`
`Mark: VELCRO
`
`US Serial Number: 88944535
`
`Register: Principal
`
`Mark Type: Trademark
`
`TM5 Common Status
`Descriptor:
`
`Application Filing Date: Jun. 02, 2020
`
`DEAD/APPLICATION/Withdrawn/Abandoned
`
`The owner of the trademark application withdrew (e.g. aband
`application and the application is no longer active.
`
`Status: Abandoned because the applicant filed an express abandonment. To view all documents in this file, click on
`Retrieval link at the top of this page.
`
`Status Date: Aug. 11, 2020
`
`Date Abandoned: Aug. 10, 2020
`
`Mark Information
`
`Mark Literal Elements: VELCRO
`
`
`
`Standard Character Claim: Yes. The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.
`
`Mark Drawing Type: 4 - STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`Goods and Services
`
`Note:
`The following symbols indicate that the registrant/owner has amended the goods/services:
`Brackets [..] indicate deleted goods/services;
`Double parenthesis ((..)) identify any goods/services not claimed in a Section 15 affidavit of incontestability; and
`Asterisks *..* identify additional (new) wording in the goods/services.
`For: velcro fasteners; separable fasteners, namely, velcro type fasteners and components thereof
`
`International Class(es): 026 - Primary Class
`
`U.S Class(es): 037, 039, 040, 042, 05
`
`Class Status: ACTIVE
`
`Basis: 1(b)
`
`Basis Information (Case Level)
`
`https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88944535&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
`
`Privacy - Terms
`
`1/3
`
`

`

`9/14/2021
`
`Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
`
`Filed Use: No
`
`Filed ITU: Yes
`
`Filed 44D: No
`
`Filed 44E: No
`
`Filed 66A: No
`
`Filed No Basis: No
`
`Currently Use: No
`
`Currently ITU: Yes
`
`Currently 44E: No
`
`Currently 66A: No
`
`Currently No Basis: No
`
`Current Owner(s) Information
`
`Owner Name: NHDNC LLC
`
`Owner Address: c/o Bochner IP
`295 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor
`New York, NEW YORK UNITED STATES 10017
`
`Legal Entity Type: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
`
`Attorney/Correspondence Information
`
`Attorney of Record
`Attorney Name: Andrew Bochner
`
`State or Country Where
`Organized:
`
`NEW YORK
`
`Docket Number: VELCRO
`
`Attorney Primary Email
`Address:
`
`Correspondent
`Correspondent
`Name/Address:
`
`andrew@bochnerip.com
`
`Attorney Email Authorized: Yes
`
`ANDREW BOCHNER
`BOCHNER IP
`295 MADISON AVE., 12TH FLOOR
`NEW YORK, NEW YORK UNITED STATES 10017
`
`Phone: 917-553-1529
`
`Correspondent e-mail: andrew@bochnerip.com
`admin@bochnerip.com
`
`Domestic Representative - Not Found
`
`Prosecution History
`
`Correspondent e-mail
`Authorized:
`
`Yes
`
`Date
`Aug. 11, 2020
`
`Aug. 11, 2020
`
`Aug. 10, 2020
`
`Jun. 23, 2020
`
`Jun. 05, 2020
`
`Description
`ABANDONMENT NOTICE E-MAILED - EXPRESS ABANDONMENT
`
`Proceeding Number
`
`ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED
`
`TEAS EXPRESS ABANDONMENT RECEIVED
`
`NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN TRAM
`
`NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM
`
`TM Staff and Location Information
`
`TM Staff Information - None
`
`https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88944535&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
`
`Privacy - Terms
`
`2/3
`
`

`

`9/14/2021
`File Location
`Current Location: NEW APPLICATION PROCESSING
`
`Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
`
`Date in Loc