Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1168353
`10/26/2021
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`Proceeding
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92077524
`
`Defendant
`Arash Khorsandi
`
`RYAN D. KASHFIAN
`KASHFIAN & KASHFIAN LLP
`1875 CENTURY PARK EAST STE 1340
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: ryan@kashfianlaw.com
`Secondary Email(s): acyrlin@kashfianlaw.com, filings@kashfianlaw.com,
`robert@kashfianlaw.com
`310-751-7578
`
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`
`Robert A. Kashfian, Esq.
`
`ryan@kashfianlaw.com, acyrlin@kashfianlaw.com, filings@kashfianlaw.com,
`robert@kashfianlaw.com, ewang@kashfianlaw.com
`
`/Robert A. Kashfian/
`
`10/26/2021
`
`01-247003 - Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition-FINAL.pdf(376417 bytes )
`02-247003 - RJN-FINAL.pdf(538485 bytes )
`03-247003 - RJN Exhs_Part1-FINAL.pdf(4492921 bytes )
`04-247003 - RJN Exhs_Part2-FINAL.pdf(4254409 bytes )
`05-247003 - RJN Certificates-FINAL.pdf(121660 bytes )
`06-247003 - Notice of Reliance-FINAL.pdf(2406093 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`v.
`
`ARASH HOMAMPOUR,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARASH KHORSANDI,
`
`
`
`
`Registrant/Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancelation No. 92077524
`
`Registration No. 6/407,070
`Mark: ARASH LAW
`Registration Date: July 6, 2021
`
`Registration No. 6/407,071
`
`
`Mark:
`(AK ARASH LAW stylized wording and design)
`Registration Date: July 6, 2021
`
`
`
`REGISTRANT ARASH KHORSANDI(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`PETITIONER A‘A“H HOMAMPOU‘(cid:859)“ AMENDED PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FRCP 12(b)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
`
`FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT UNDER FRCP 12(e)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................ 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................................ 6
`
`ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Board Should Order Petitioner To Provide A More Definite Statement. .................... 7
`
`Ground One Fails To State A Claim For Unlawful Use. ....................................................... 8
`
`Ground Two Fails To State A Claim For Non-Use In Commerce. ...................................... 11
`
`Ground Three Fails To State A Claim For Priority And Likelihood Of
`Confusion. ......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner does not sufficiently allege priority. ................................................... 13
`
`Petitioner publicly abandoned his rights in ARASH in relation to legal
`services. ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`Petitioner cannot allege a likelihood of confusion as a matter of law. ............... 16
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Dissimilarity of the marks. ...................................................................... 16
`
`Similarity of services, trade channels, and actual confusion. ................. 18
`
`Sophistication of consumers. .................................................................. 19
`
`Laches and estoppel attributable to Petitioner. ..................................... 19
`
`Potential confusion is de minimis and other established
`facts. ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Ground Four Fails To State A Claim For False Association. ............................................... 21
`
`Ground Five Fails To State A Claim For Name Of A Particular Living
`Individual........................................................................................................................... 23
`
`G.
`
`Ground Six Fails To State A Claim Based On Merely Descriptive. ..................................... 24
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 24
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMITTAL ................................................................................................................... 26
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................. 27
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`ACI Law Grp. PLLC v. ACI Law Grp. PC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178882 (D. Ariz. Sep. 20,
`2021) ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 988 F.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ....................... 6
`ARGOS v. Orthotec LLC, 304 F. Supp. 2d 591 (D. Del. 2004) ....................................................................... 12
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................. passim
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................... 11, 12, 14
`Betterbody Foods & Nutrition, LLC v. Oatly AB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215185 (D. Utah
`Nov. 16, 2020) ...................................................................................................................................... 15
`Bos. Athletic Ass’n (cid:448). Velocity, LLC, 117 USPQ2d 1492 (TTAB 2015) .......................................................... 21
`Boston Chicken Inc. v. Boston Pizza International Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1053 (TTAB 1999) .............................. 20
`Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581 (TTAB 2008) ............................................ 22
`Brookfield Communs., Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................. 18
`Cappeillo v. Boyle, 2001 Cal. LEXIS 4797 (July 11, 2001) ............................................................................... 9
`Cappiello, Hofmann & Katz v. Boyle, 87 Cal. App. 4th 1064 (2001) .............................................................. 9
`Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG, 841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................... 12
`Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 16
`Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1987) ..................................................................... 17
`E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ............................................... 16, 18, 19, 20
`Exec. Coach Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Co., 123 USPQ2d 1175 (TTAB 2017) ....................................... 15, 16
`Geodata Sys. Mgmt. v. Am. Pac. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193679
`(C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ................................................................................................................ 14, 15
`Giersch v. Scripps Networks, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020 (TTAB 2009) ............................................................... 13
`In re Assoc. of the U.S. Army, 85 USPQ2d 1264 (TTAB 2007) ..................................................................... 17
`In re Letica Corp., 226 USPQ 276 (TTAB 1985) ............................................................................................ 10
`In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639 (TTAB 2015) .................................................................. 21, 23
`In re Pennsylvania Fashion Factory, Inc., 588 F.2d 1343 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ................................................... 10
`In re Richard M. Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174 (TTAB 2010) ..................................................................... 23, 24
`In re Sauer, 27 USPQ2d 1073 (TTAB 1993) ................................................................................................. 24
`In re Ste(cid:449)art Sand(cid:449)iches Int’l, Inc., 220 USPQ 93 (TTAB. 1983) ................................................................ 10
`In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................... 24
`In re White, 73 USPQ2d 1713 (TTAB 2004) ................................................................................................. 22
`Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. Williams Rest. Corp., 929 F.2d 662 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................. 12
`Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Grp. Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1953 (TTAB 2008) ........................................................ 16
`Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162980
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012) ........................................................................................................................ 8
`M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 13
`NAACP v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., 753 F.2d 131 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ............................. 19
`Olson v. Cohen, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (2003) ............................................................................................. 9
`Pohl v. MH Sub I, LLC, 332 F.R.D. 713 (N.D. Fla. 2019) .................................................................................. 5
`Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) ............................................................ 19
`RE/MAX, LLC v. Underwood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55943 (D. Md. May 24, 2011) ....................................... 8
`Renaissance Greeting Cards, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 227 F. App'x 239 (4th Cir.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: (continued)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`2007) ..................................................................................................................................................... 18
`Seven-Up Co. v. O-So-Grape, 283 F.2d 103 (7th Cir. 1960) ......................................................................... 19
`Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel, Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................ 16
`Simio, LLC v. Flexsim Software Prods., 983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................. 12, 18
`Thompson v. Illinois Dep't of Professional Regulation, 300 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2002) ................................. 17
`United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................. 7
`Valoro, LLC v. Valero Energy Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110554 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014) ..................... 7, 8
`Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1) ........................................................................................................................... 11, 12
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) ...................................................................................................................................... 21
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) ...................................................................................................................................... 23
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) ................................................................................................................................ 13, 15
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1) ................................................................................................................................. 24
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) ...................................................................................................................................... 24
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 ................................................................................................................................ 9, 11, 16
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6161 ................................................................................................................. 9, 10
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6160 ................................................................................................................. 9, 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Free time, Cambridge Dictionary Online, available at https://tinyurl.com/3ky6u6a5 ................................. 5
`TMEP § 1206.03 .......................................................................................................................................... 24
`TMEP § 1212 ............................................................................................................................................... 24
`TMEP § (cid:1013)(cid:1004)(cid:1005).(cid:1004)(cid:1007) ............................................................................................................................................ 12
`
`RULES
`
`Cal. St Bar Rules of Law Corp, Rule 3.154(B) ....................................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) ...................................................................................................................................... 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................................. 6, 12
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ................................................................................................................................... 7, 8
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ............................................................................................................................................ 14
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`TREATISES
`
`3 Gilson on Trademarks § 13.12 (2021) ...................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Arash Homampour ((cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:863)) seeks to cancel Registrant A(cid:396)ash Kho(cid:396)sa(cid:374)di(cid:859)s
`
`((cid:862)‘egist(cid:396)a(cid:374)t(cid:863)) trademarks for (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)AK A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) (cid:894)(cid:862)Registrant(cid:859)s Ma(cid:396)ks(cid:863)(cid:895). The Amended
`
`Petition for Cancellation (the (cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895) asserts six grounds for cancelation, but none state a claim.
`
`Thus, the Petition should be dismissed with prejudice. Alternatively, the Board should require Petitioner
`
`to make a more definite statement, by identifying (1) each trademark at issue, and (2) the specific date
`
`when Petitioner started using each specific trademark.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`On July 6, 2021, the USPTO registered Registrant(cid:859)s word mark (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) for legal services
`
`(Reg. No. 6/407,070) and the stylized mark (cid:862)AK A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) for legal services (Reg. No. 6/407,071).
`
`Registrant has been a licensed California attorney since June 5, 2007, practicing personal injury. Petition,
`
`¶ 13. Petitioner practices law for 30 years in California, focusing on catastrophic injury and wrongful
`
`death cases. Id., ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner alleges the (cid:374)a(cid:373)e (cid:862)A(cid:396)ash(cid:863) is a fai(cid:396)l(cid:455) (cid:862)(cid:272)o(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) fi(cid:396)st (cid:374)a(cid:373)e(cid:863) a(cid:374)d is
`
`used by over 50 attorneys in California. Id., ¶¶ 2-3.
`
`Over the years, Petitioner allegedly made various media appearances and, since 1993, has used
`
`the (cid:373)a(cid:396)ks (cid:862)A‘A“H HOMAMPOU‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:448)a(cid:396)ious othe(cid:396) unpled incarnations
`
`i(cid:374)(cid:272)o(cid:396)po(cid:396)ati(cid:374)g the (cid:449)o(cid:396)d (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) (cid:894)(cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Ma(cid:396)ks(cid:863)(cid:895), and various monikers such as
`
`(cid:862)A‘A“H THE LAWYE‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H THE ATTO‘NEY,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H THE PI LAWYE‘,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)A‘A“H THE PI
`
`ATTO‘NEY(cid:863) (cid:894)the (cid:862)A(cid:396)ash Mo(cid:374)ike(cid:396)s(cid:863)(cid:895). Id., ¶¶ 4, 7-11. But, Petitioner does not specify which of these
`
`marks he used and when he used them, and none are registered. Id. Also, instead of registering
`
`Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Ma(cid:396)ks or the Arash Monikers, Petitioner applied for federal and state
`
`trademarks fo(cid:396) (cid:862)HOMAMPOU‘(cid:863) (his last name) for legal services as well as other areas, and the USPTO
`
`(Reg. No. 6/423,099) and the California Secretary of State (Reg. No. 02005319) registered them for him
`
`(cid:894)the (cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s HOMAMPOUR Marks(cid:863)(cid:895). Registrant(cid:859)s ‘e(cid:395)uest Fo(cid:396) Judi(cid:272)ial Noti(cid:272)e (cid:894)(cid:862)RJN(cid:863)(cid:895), Exh. 1;
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`Registrant(cid:859)s Notice Of ‘elia(cid:374)(cid:272)e (cid:894)(cid:862)NO‘(cid:863)(cid:895), E(cid:454)h. A.
`
`In connection with his California registration, Petitioner filed a declaration, stating—under the
`
`penalty of perjury—that: (1) (cid:862)I have used HOMAMPOUR in all advertising and promotion of my Legal
`
`Services, which has been done primarily online and via modern technological means continuously since
`
`1995 until the present,(cid:863) ‘JN E(cid:454)h. 1, at 7-91 (cid:894)(cid:862)Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pou(cid:396)(cid:859)s De(cid:272)la(cid:396)atio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895); RJN Exh. 1, at 7 (¶14 emphasis
`
`added); and (2) (cid:862)the majority of my clients that have Legal Services rendered are referrals from those
`
`who recognize the solid reputation and goodwill of HOMAMPOUR.(cid:863) RJN Exh. 1, at 8 (¶5). And, in
`
`response to an office action in the USPTO, Petitioner asserted his use of HOMAMPOUR is the most
`
`dominate aspect of Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s HOMAMPOU‘ Ma(cid:396)ks. NOR, Exh. B, at 12-15.
`
`Also, Petitioner has publicly abandoned use of the (cid:449)o(cid:396)d (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) i(cid:374) (cid:396)elatio(cid:374) to offe(cid:396)i(cid:374)g legal
`
`services; according to the WayBack Machine2, from 2008 until 2012, Petitioner declared, on his website:
`
`During his free time, Mr. Homampour is called Arash. He spends time with his wife, plays
`with his children and pretends he is a rock star playing loud distorted guitar noise until
`reality sets in or other people complain (whichever is first).
`
`RJN Exhs. 2-7 (emphasis added). Notably, (cid:862)f(cid:396)ee ti(cid:373)e(cid:863) means (cid:862)ti(cid:373)e (cid:449)he(cid:374) (cid:455)ou do (cid:374)ot ha(cid:448)e to (cid:449)o(cid:396)k,
`
`stud(cid:455), et(cid:272). a(cid:374)d (cid:272)a(cid:374) do (cid:449)hat (cid:455)ou (cid:449)a(cid:374)t.(cid:863) Free time, Cambridge Dictionary Online, available at
`
`https://tinyurl.com/3ky6u6a5 (last visited July 30, 2021); RJN Exh. 8.
`
`Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pou(cid:396)(cid:859)s De(cid:272)la(cid:396)atio(cid:374) a(cid:374)d the Petition attribute the same advertising, awards, verdicts,
`
`fame, unprecedented success, and notoriety to Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Ma(cid:396)ks and the Arash
`
`Monikers, as to Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s HOMAMPOU‘ Ma(cid:396)ks. Compare, Petition, ¶¶ 7-11 & Exhs. B-C, with, RJN
`
`Exh. 1, at 7-9 (¶¶ 4-6) & 10-92 (Exhs. A-B). For instance, Petitioner att(cid:396)i(cid:271)utes to Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374)
`
`
`1 The entire Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pou(cid:396)(cid:859)s De(cid:272)la(cid:396)atio(cid:374) including exhibits is available on pages 7-91 of RJN, Exh. 1, of the
`RJN, and, although Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pou(cid:396)(cid:859)s De(cid:272)la(cid:396)atio(cid:374) is not numbered with paragraphs, there are 7 distinct
`paragraphs, which can be found on the Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pou(cid:396)(cid:859)s De(cid:272)la(cid:396)atio(cid:374), from pages 7-9 of RJN, Exh. 1.
`Pa(cid:396)ag(cid:396)aphs a(cid:396)e p(cid:396)o(cid:448)ided fo(cid:396) the Boa(cid:396)d(cid:859)s (cid:396)e(cid:448)ie(cid:449).
`2 (cid:862)I(cid:374)telle(cid:272)tual P(cid:396)ope(cid:396)t(cid:455) la(cid:449)(cid:455)e(cid:396)s f(cid:396)e(cid:395)ue(cid:374)tl(cid:455) use Wa(cid:455)Ba(cid:272)k Machine to determine issues related to
`i(cid:374)f(cid:396)i(cid:374)ge(cid:373)e(cid:374)t o(cid:396) i(cid:374)(cid:448)alidatio(cid:374) of pate(cid:374)ts, t(cid:396)ade(cid:373)a(cid:396)ks, a(cid:374)d (cid:272)op(cid:455)(cid:396)ights,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d, as su(cid:272)h, (cid:862)[(cid:374)]u(cid:373)e(cid:396)ous (cid:272)ou(cid:396)ts .
`. . ha(cid:448)e take(cid:374) judi(cid:272)ial (cid:374)oti(cid:272)e of (cid:449)e(cid:271) pages a(cid:448)aila(cid:271)le th(cid:396)ough the Wa(cid:455)Ba(cid:272)k Ma(cid:272)hi(cid:374)e.(cid:863) Pohl v. MH Sub I,
`LLC, 332 F.R.D. 713, 716 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (collecting cases); see also, RJN, at 10-14.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`Law Marks, Arash Monikers, a(cid:374)d Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s HOMAMPOU‘ Marks: (a) the same awards and verdicts,
`
`compare, Petition, ¶ 6 & Exh. B, with, RJN Exh. 1, at 8-9 (¶¶ 5-6) & 61-92 (Exh. B); (b) the same
`
`advertising, articles, and podcasts, compare, Petition, ¶ 7 & Exh. C, with, RJN Exh. 1, at 7-8 (¶4) & 10-60
`
`(Exh. A); a(cid:374)d (cid:894)(cid:272)(cid:895) the sa(cid:373)e (cid:862)excellent reputation(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)unprecedented success.(cid:863) Compare, Petition, ¶ 9,
`
`with, RJN Exh. 1, at 8 (¶5).
`
`And, Petitioner admits his (cid:862)fa(cid:373)e(cid:863) a(cid:396)ises f(cid:396)o(cid:373) HOMAMPOUR. RJN Exh. 1, at 8-9 (¶6) (declaring
`
`(cid:862)over half a billion dollars have been attained for my clients since I began providing Legal Services
`
`app(cid:396)o(cid:454)i(cid:373)atel(cid:455) (cid:1006)(cid:1009) (cid:455)ea(cid:396)s ago u(cid:374)de(cid:396) the HOMAMPOU‘ desig(cid:374)atio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895); see also, id., 7-9 (¶¶4-6) & 10-92
`
`(Exhs. A-B). Also, while Petitioner began using Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Ma(cid:396)ks and Arash Monikers
`
`since 1993, Petition, ¶ 4, both Petitioner and Registrant have coexisted for over 12 years. Id., ¶ 35.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)(cid:859)s pu(cid:396)pose (cid:862)is to allo(cid:449) the [Board] to eliminate actions that
`
`are fatally flawed in their legal premises and destined to fail, and thus to spare litigants the burdens of
`
`u(cid:374)(cid:374)e(cid:272)essa(cid:396)(cid:455) p(cid:396)et(cid:396)ial a(cid:374)d t(cid:396)ial a(cid:272)ti(cid:448)it(cid:455).(cid:863) Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 988
`
`F.2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Petitioner needs to
`
`allege facts which, if proved, would establish that a valid statutory ground exists for cancelling the
`
`subject registration. See Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has established a two-step approach for courts to apply
`
`when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. First, the Board should identify and disregard
`
`conclusory allegations for they are "not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`662, 679-80 (2009). Second, the Board "consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to
`
`determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Id.
`
`Moreover, (cid:862)[a] (cid:272)ou(cid:396)t (cid:373)a(cid:455) ... (cid:272)o(cid:374)side(cid:396) (cid:272)e(cid:396)tai(cid:374) (cid:373)ate(cid:396)ials—documents attached to the complaint,
`
`documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`(cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:448)e(cid:396)ti(cid:374)g the (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss i(cid:374)to a (cid:373)otio(cid:374) fo(cid:396) su(cid:373)(cid:373)a(cid:396)(cid:455) judg(cid:373)e(cid:374)t.(cid:863) United States v. Ritchie, 342
`
`F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the Board may consider the allegations in the Petition and the
`
`evidence submitted in connection with the concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice. RJN, at 6-15.
`
`Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) states that (cid:862)[a] party may move for a more
`
`definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or
`
`ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.(cid:863)
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENTS
`
`A.
`
`The Board Should Order Petitioner To Provide A More Definite Statement.
`
`The Petitio(cid:374)(cid:859)s ge(cid:374)e(cid:396)al allegations presents a plurality of marks, (cid:449)o(cid:396)ds, (cid:862)(cid:373)o(cid:374)ike(cid:396)s,(cid:863) as well as
`
`unidentified marks, Petitioner contends he used since 1993—specifically: (1) defi(cid:374)i(cid:374)g Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s
`
`Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Ma(cid:396)ks as (cid:862)A‘A“H HOMAMPOU‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:448)a(cid:396)ious othe(cid:396)
`
`i(cid:374)(cid:272)a(cid:396)(cid:374)atio(cid:374)s i(cid:374)(cid:272)o(cid:396)po(cid:396)ati(cid:374)g the (cid:449)o(cid:396)d (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863); and (2) vaguely claiming unknown rights in the Arash
`
`Monikers, to wit: (cid:862)A‘A“H THE LAWYE‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H THE ATTO‘NEY,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H THE PI LAWYE‘,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d
`
`(cid:862)A‘A“H THE PI ATTO‘NEY(cid:863). Petition, ¶ 4. However, these general allegations are (cid:862)so (cid:448)ague o(cid:396)
`
`ambiguous that [Registrant] cannot (cid:396)easo(cid:374)a(cid:271)l(cid:455) p(cid:396)epa(cid:396)e a (cid:396)espo(cid:374)se.(cid:863) Fed. ‘. Ci(cid:448). P. (cid:1005)(cid:1006)(cid:894)e(cid:895). Thus, the
`
`Board should order Petitioner to provide a more definite statement, by identifying (1) each trademark at
`
`issue, and (2) the specific date when Petitioner started using each specific trademark.
`
`I(cid:374)deed, (cid:862)[(cid:373)]e(cid:396)el(cid:455) listing a plurality of marks which a trademark holder has acquired prior rights
`
`through use in commerce is not enough to put a party on notice,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)[a]s such, a party alleging
`
`trademark infringement should identify the specific marks allegedly infringed.(cid:863) Valoro, LLC v. Valero
`
`Energy Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110554, at *13 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014). For instance, in Valoro, the
`
`court granted the defendant's Rule 12(e) motion, ordering a more definitive statement of Valero's
`
`(cid:373)a(cid:396)ks, (cid:271)e(cid:272)ause (cid:862)the general allegations in Valero's Counterclaim (specifically ¶¶ 9-10, 14, 16, and 23-
`
`31) present a plurality of marks Valero contends it uses, rather than specifying which marks (either
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`registered or unregistered) are infringed.(cid:863) Id. at *14. Similarly, in Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. James Hardie
`
`Bldg. Prods., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162980, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012), the court granted the
`
`defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t(cid:859)s ‘ule (cid:1005)(cid:1006)(cid:894)e(cid:895) motion, because (cid:862)the Co(cid:373)plai(cid:374)t identifie[d] only three of the allegedly infringed
`
`marks and le[ft] Defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t to guess at the othe(cid:396)s.(cid:863) Id. at *3. The cou(cid:396)t held (cid:862)[t]his is i(cid:374)suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t,(cid:863) id.,
`
`reasoning that ide(cid:374)tif(cid:455)i(cid:374)g (cid:862)e(cid:448)e(cid:396)(cid:455) t(cid:396)ade(cid:373)a(cid:396)k . . . is not an overly burdensome requirement and is
`
`(cid:374)e(cid:272)essa(cid:396)(cid:455) to p(cid:396)o(cid:448)ide Defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t (cid:449)ith ade(cid:395)uate (cid:374)oti(cid:272)e.(cid:863) Id. at *2.
`
`Likewise, the Petition here identifies only some of Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Ma(cid:396)ks and Arash
`
`Monikers, at issue and leaves Registrant to guess at the others, i.e., (cid:862)(cid:448)a(cid:396)ious othe(cid:396) i(cid:374)(cid:272)a(cid:396)(cid:374)atio(cid:374)s
`
`incorporating the words (cid:858)ARASH.(cid:859)(cid:863) Petition, ¶ 4. Also, it is not clear when Petitioner started using
`
`(cid:862)A‘A“H HOMAMPOU‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW,(cid:863) the Arash Monikers, and the alleged various other
`
`u(cid:374)pled (cid:862)incarnations.(cid:863) Id. Thus, the Board should order Registrant to provide a more definite
`
`statement. See also e.g., RE/MAX, LLC v. Underwood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55943, at *10-11 (D. Md. May
`
`24, 2011) (ordering a more definitive statement, (cid:271)e(cid:272)ause (cid:862)it is unclear whether [the mark holder] means
`
`the Blue-White Sign or other signs or trademarks,(cid:863) and thus, (cid:862)RE/MAX lacks enough information to
`
`respond to allegations of multiple trademark infringement(cid:863)(cid:895).
`
`B.
`
`Ground One Fails To State A Claim For Unlawful Use.
`
`Citing statutes involving the business name of a law corporation registered to practice law in
`
`California, Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396) (cid:272)lai(cid:373)s u(cid:374)de(cid:396) G(cid:396)ou(cid:374)d O(cid:374)e that ‘egist(cid:396)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Ma(cid:396)ks (cid:862)(cid:449)e(cid:396)e u(cid:374)la(cid:449)full(cid:455) used (cid:271)e(cid:272)ause
`
`they were not registered with the Califo(cid:396)(cid:374)ia “tate Ba(cid:396),(cid:863) Petitio(cid:374), ¶ 20, to wit:
`
`A law corporation may practice law only under the name registered with the Secretary
`of State and approved by the State Bar.
`
`Cal. St Bar Rules of Law Corp, Rule 3.154(B) (emphasis added).
`
`A law corporation is a corporation which is registered with the State Bar of California
`and has a currently effective certificate of registration from the State Bar pursuant to
`the Professional Corporation Act, as contained in Part 4 (commencing with Section
`13400) of Division 3 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, and this article. Subject to all
`applicable statutes, rules and regulations, such law corporation is entitled to practice
`law. With respect to a law corporation the governmental agency referred to in the
`Professional Corporation Act is the State Bar.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6160 (emphasis added).
`
`An applicant for registration as a law corporation shall supply to the State Bar all
`necessary and pertinent documents and information requested by the State Bar
`(cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:272)e(cid:396)(cid:374)i(cid:374)g the appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)s pla(cid:374) of ope(cid:396)atio(cid:374), i(cid:374)(cid:272)ludi(cid:374)g, (cid:271)ut not limited to . . . any
`fictitious name or names which the corporation intends to use.
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6161 (emphasis added).
`
`However, Petitio(cid:374)e(cid:396)(cid:859)s (cid:396)elia(cid:374)(cid:272)e o(cid:374) Cal. “t. Ba(cid:396) ‘ules of La(cid:449) Co(cid:396)p, ‘ule (cid:1007).(cid:1005)(cid:1009)(cid:1008)(cid:894)B(cid:895) and Cal. Bus. &
`
`Prof. Code §§ 6160, 6161 to prove that Registra(cid:374)t (cid:862)u(cid:374)la(cid:449)full(cid:455)(cid:863) used ‘egist(cid:396)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Ma(cid:396)ks as a trademark
`
`fails as a matter of law.
`
`First, as the above recit