Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1152583
`08/11/2021
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92077524
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Arash Khorsandi
`
`ARASH KHORSANDI
`2960 WILSHIRE BLVD FL 3
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90010
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: ak@arashlaw.com
`No phone number provided.
`
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`
`Robert A. Kashfian, Esq.
`
`robert@kashfianlaw.com, ryan@kashfianlaw.com, acyrlin@kashfianlaw.com, fil-
`ings@kashfianlaw.com
`
`/Robert A. Kashfian/
`
`08/11/2021
`
`92077524 - Defendant Motion to Dismiss.pdf(380463 bytes )
`92077524 - Defendant Notice of Reliance.pdf(2741361 bytes )
`92077524 - Request for Judicial Notice and Declaration.pdf(411956 bytes )
`92077524 - Exhibits 1 - Part 1 of 2 - Request for Judicial Notice.pdf (4893580
`bytes )
`92077524 - Exhibits 1 - Part 2 of 2 - Request for Judicial Notice.pdf (3551908
`bytes )
`92077524 - Exhibits 2 to 8 - Request for Judicial Notice.pdf(1187653 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’“ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`PETITIONER A‘A“H HOMAMPOU‘’“ 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.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Order Homampour To Provide A More Definite Statement
`Of Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law Marks Per Fed. ‘. Ci(cid:448). P. 12(e). ....................................... 9
`Ground One Fails To State A Claim For Priority And Likelihood Of Confusion
`Under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). ............................................................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Homampour does not sufficiently allege priority. ............................................... 11
`
`Homampour publicly abandoned any claim he had in the word
`(cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) i(cid:374) relatio(cid:374) to offeri(cid:374)g legal ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es. .................................................... 12
`Homampour does not sufficiently allege likelihood of confusion. ...................... 13
`
`Homampour cannot allege a likelihood of confusion under E. I. Du
`Pont de Nemours & Co., as a matter of law. ........................................................ 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Dissimilarity of the marks. ...................................................................... 14
`
`Dissimilarity of services. ......................................................................... 15
`
`Laches and estoppel attributable to Homampour. ................................ 16
`
`Potential confusion is de minimis and other established
`facts. ........................................................................................................ 18
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground Two Fails To State A Claim For False Association Under 15 U.S.C. §
`1052(a). ............................................................................................................................. 18
`
`Ground Three Fails To State A Claim For Name Of A Particular Living
`Individual, Under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c). .............................................................................. 21
`
`Ground Four Fails To State A Claim For No Bona Fide Use In Commerce
`Under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) and Fraud On The USPTO. ...................................................... 22
`
`Ground Five 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)
`
`Adobe Sys. v. Blue Source Grp. Inc.,
`125 F. Supp. 3d 945 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc.,
`988 F.2d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 8, 13, 14
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 8, 11, 13
`
`Betterbody Foods & Nutrition, LLC v. Oatly AB, No. 2:20-CV-00492-DAK,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215185 (D. Utah Nov. 16, 2020) ......................................................................... 12
`Bos. Athletic Ass’n v. Velocity, LLC,
`117 USPQ2d 1492 (TTAB 2015) ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`Boston Chicken Inc. v. Boston Pizza International Inc.,
`53 USPQ2d 1053 (TTAB 1999) .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman,
`88 USPQ2d 1581 (TTAB 2008) .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG,
`841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................... 24
`
`Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
` 668 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`Enbridge Inc. v. Excelerate Energy LP,
`92 USPQ2d 1537 (TTAB 2009) .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`Exec. Coach Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Co.,
`123 USPQ2d 1175 (TTAB 2017) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Fair Indigo LLC v. Style Conscience,
`85 USPQ2d 1536 (TTAB 2007) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Geodata Sys. Mgmt. v. Am. Pac. Plastic Fabricators, Inc., No. CV 15-04125 MMM (JEMx),
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193679 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ................................................................. 11, 12
`
`Giersch v. Scripps Networks, Inc.,
`90 USPQ2d 1020 (TTAB 2009) .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc.,
`281 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................. 16
`
`In re Assoc. of the U.S. Army,
`85 USPQ2d 1264 (TTAB 2007) .............................................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Bose Corp.,
`580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`In re E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973) .................................................................................................. 14, 16, 18
`
`In re Electrolyte Labs., Inc.,
`929 F.2d 645 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ......................................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`In re Nieves & Nieves LLC,
`113 USPQ2d 1639 (TTAB 2015) ...................................................................................................... 19, 21
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: (continued)
`
`
`In re Richard M. Hoefflin,
`97 USPQ2d 1174 (TTAB 2010) ........................................................................................................ 21, 22
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Sauer,
`27 USPQ2d 1073 (TTAB 1993) .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`In re St. Helena Hosp.,
`774 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................................... 16
`
`In re TriVita, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 872 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................................... 24
`
`In re White,
`73 USPQ2d 1713 (TTAB 2004) .............................................................................................................. 20
`
`Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. Williams Rest. Corp.,
` 929 F.2d 662 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................................... 24
`
`Life Zone Inc. v. Middleman Grp. Inc.,
`87 USPQ2d 1953 (TTAB 2008) .............................................................................................................. 12
`
`L'Oreal S.A. v. Marcon,
`102 USPQ2d 1434 (TTAB 2012) ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc., No. C-12-3433 SC,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162980 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 9, 10
`
`My Health, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 15-CV-80-JDP,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172252 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2015) ...................................................................... 12
`
`NAACP v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc.,
`753 F.2d 131 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Petroleos Mexicanos v. Intermix S.A.,
`97 USPQ2d 1403 (TTAB 2010) .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`Pohl v. MH Sub I, LLC,
`332 F.R.D. 713 (N.D. Fla. 2019) ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp.,
`287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) .................................................................................................................. 17
`
`RE/MAX, LLC v. Underwood, No. WDQ-10-2367,
` 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55943 (D. Md. May 24, 2011) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Rise Above Fitness LLC v. Rise Above Performance Training,
`2019 TTAB LEXIS 147 (TTAB May 30, 2019) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`Seven-Up Co. v. O-So-Grape,
`283 F.2d 103 (7th Cir. 1960) ................................................................................................................. 17
`
`Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel, Ltd.,
`393 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Valoro, LLC v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 14-21694-CIV-MORE,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110554 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2014) ........................................................................... 9
`
`Young v. AGB Corp.,
`152 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: (continued)
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`Page(s)
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) ...................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) ...................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) ...................................................................................................................................... 21
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) .......................................................................................................................... 10, 12, 13
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1) ................................................................................................................................. 24
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) ...................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 .................................................................................................................................... 12, 24
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Free time, Cambridge Dictionary Online, available at
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/free-time ...................................................... 7
`
`TMEP § 1206.03 .......................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`TMEP § 1212 ............................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) ....................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ........................................................................................................................................ 8, 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ............................................................................................................................... 8, 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ......................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`TREATISES
`
`3 Gilson on Trademarks § 13.12 (2021) ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 31:77 (5th ed.
`2018) ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Arash Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour (cid:894)(cid:862)Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour(cid:863) or (cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:863)) seeks to cancel Arash Khorsa(cid:374)di’s
`
`(cid:894)(cid:862)Khorsa(cid:374)di(cid:863) or (cid:862)‘egistra(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)Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Marks(cid:863)(cid:895).
`
`In the Petitio(cid:374) for Ca(cid:374)(cid:272)ellatio(cid:374) (cid:894)the (cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895), Homampour asserts five Grounds for cancelation;
`
`however, none state claim for cancelation, and thus, the Petition should be dismissed with prejudice. In
`
`Ground One, Homampour claims of priority and ow(cid:374)ership i(cid:374) the (cid:373)arks (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)arious other i(cid:374)(cid:272)ar(cid:374)atio(cid:374)s i(cid:374)(cid:272)orporati(cid:374)g the words (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) or
`
`(cid:862)LAW.(cid:863) Petitio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1008). Yet, Homampour does not specify which marks he used and when he used them.
`
`And, Homampour has not and cannot sufficiently pled priority and likelihood of confusion. In Ground
`
`Two, Homampour claims Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Marks create a false association with him, but Homampour does
`
`not allege sufficient facts to state such a claim. Ground Three for name of a living person should be
`
`dismissed, because, among other reasons, the Petition fails to establish that the Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Marks
`
`describe Homampour. Also, Homampour has not meet the heightened pleading requirements for
`
`Ground Four for fraud. And, Ground Five for merely descriptive lacks merit, si(cid:374)(cid:272)e Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Marks
`
`(cid:272)learly are (cid:374)ot (cid:862)(cid:373)erely des(cid:272)ripti(cid:448)e(cid:863) of legal ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es.
`
`Alternatively, Homampour should be required to make a more definite statement to clarify
`
`which specific marks he is claiming ownership of and when he began each such marks.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`On July 6, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the (cid:862)U“PTO(cid:863)(cid:895) registered
`
`Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Marks for the word mark (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) for legal services (Reg. No. 6/407,070) and the
`
`stylized word and design mark (cid:862)AK A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) also for legal services (Reg. No. 6/407,071). Khorsandi
`
`has been a licensed California attorney since June 5, 2007, practicing personal injury, Petition, ¶ 13, and
`
`Homampour has had a law practice for almost thirty years in the State of California, largely focusing on
`
`catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. Id., ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour alleges the (cid:374)a(cid:373)e (cid:862)Arash(cid:863) is a
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`fairly (cid:862)(cid:272)o(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) first (cid:374)a(cid:373)e(cid:863) a(cid:374)d is used (cid:271)y o(cid:448)er fifty attor(cid:374)eys i(cid:374) Califor(cid:374)ia. Id., ¶¶ 2-3.
`
`Homampour alleges, over the years, he has made various media appearances and, since 1993,
`
`has used the (cid:373)arks (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)arious other
`
`i(cid:374)(cid:272)ar(cid:374)atio(cid:374)s i(cid:374)(cid:272)orporati(cid:374)g the words (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) or (cid:862)LAW(cid:863) (cid:894)(cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)er’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law Marks(cid:863)(cid:895). Id., ¶¶ 4,
`
`7-8. However, Homampour 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)er’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law Marks, Homampour
`
`applied for federal and state trademarks for the word (cid:373)ark (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 the word mark for him (cid:894)the (cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)er’s HOMAMPOUR Marks(cid:863)(cid:895).
`
`Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Co(cid:374)(cid:272)urre(cid:374)tly Filed ‘e(cid:395)uest For Judi(cid:272)ial Noti(cid:272)e (cid:894)(cid:862)‘JN(cid:863)(cid:895), E(cid:454)h. 1; Khorsa(cid:374)di’s Concurrently Filed
`
`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, Homampour filed a declaration asserting—under
`
`the penalty of perjury—that (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)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895), ¶ 4 (emphasis added), and
`
`(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) Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1009). And, in response to an
`
`office action in the USPTO, Homampour asserted that his use of the phrase HOMAMPOUR is the most
`
`dominate aspect of his mark. NOR, Exh. B, at 12-18 (arguing that HOMAMPOU‘ is (cid:862)is (cid:373)u(cid:272)h larger i(cid:374) size,
`
`utilizes a different style, and is physically set off from the wordi(cid:374)g (cid:858)THE’ a(cid:374)d (cid:858)LAW FI‘M,’(cid:863) a(cid:374)d that
`
`(cid:862)[t]hese differe(cid:374)(cid:272)es … (cid:448)isually e(cid:373)phasize a(cid:374)d disti(cid:374)guish HOMAMPOU‘ as a separate a(cid:374)d disti(cid:374)(cid:272)t
`
`(cid:272)o(cid:373)(cid:373)er(cid:272)ial i(cid:373)pressio(cid:374) apart fro(cid:373) the other ele(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts(cid:863)(cid:895).
`
`Also, Homampour has publicly abandoned use of the word (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) i(cid:374) relation to offering legal
`
`services; according to the WayBack Machine, from 2008 until 2012, Homampour declared, on his
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`website, that:
`
`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)1. Notably, (cid:862)free ti(cid:373)e(cid:863) means (cid:862)ti(cid:373)e whe(cid:374) you do (cid:374)ot ha(cid:448)e to work,
`
`study, etc. and can do what you want.(cid:863) Free time, Cambridge Dictionary Online, available at
`
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/free-time (last visited July 30, 2021); RJN Exh. 8.
`
`Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374) a(cid:374)d the Petition attribute the same advertising and notoriety to
`
`Petitio(cid:374)er’s Co(cid:373)mon Law Marks and Petitio(cid:374)er’s HOMAMPOU‘ Marks. Compare, Petition, ¶¶ 6-7, 9-11
`
`& Exhs. B-C, with, Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374), ¶¶ 4-6 & Exhs. A-B. For instance, Homampour attributes to
`
`Petitio(cid:374)er’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law Marks a(cid:374)d Petitio(cid:374)er’s HOMAMPOU‘ Marks: (cid:894)a(cid:895) the sa(cid:373)e awards a(cid:374)d
`
`verdicts, compare, Petition, ¶ 6 & Exh. B, with, Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374), ¶¶ (cid:1009)-6 & Exh. B; (b) the same
`
`advertising, articles, and podcasts, compare, Petition, ¶ 7 & Exh. C, with, Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1008)
`
`& E(cid:454)h. 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, Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1009). And, Homampour has admitted that his alleged (cid:862)fa(cid:373)e(cid:863) arises from
`
`his last (cid:374)a(cid:373)e (cid:894)Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour(cid:895). Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s De(cid:272)laratio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1010) (cid:894)de(cid:272)lari(cid:374)g (cid:862)over half a billion dollars have
`
`been attained for my clients since I began providing Legal Services approximately 25 years ago under the
`
`HOMAMPOU‘ desig(cid:374)atio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895); see also, id., ¶¶ 4-6. Also, while Homampour allegedly began using
`
`Petitio(cid:374)er’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law Marks since as early as 1993, Petition, ¶ 4, both Homampour and Khorsandi
`
`have coexisted for over 12 years. Id., ¶ 24 (alleging Khorsa(cid:374)di’s first use was February 9, 2009).
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`The Board should dismiss with prejudice claims in a petition if, as here, the allegations are fatally
`
`
`1 (cid:862)I(cid:374)telle(cid:272)tual Property lawyers fre(cid:395)ue(cid:374)tly use WayBa(cid:272)k Ma(cid:272)hi(cid:374)e to deter(cid:373)i(cid:374)e issues related to
`i(cid:374)fri(cid:374)ge(cid:373)e(cid:374)t or i(cid:374)(cid:448)alidatio(cid:374) of pate(cid:374)ts, trade(cid:373)arks, a(cid:374)d (cid:272)opyrights,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d, as su(cid:272)h, (cid:862)[(cid:374)]u(cid:373)erous (cid:272)ourts .
`. . have taken judicial notice of web pages available through the WayBa(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.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`flawed and destined to fail. Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)’s purpose (cid:862)is to allow the [Board] to
`
`eliminate actions that are fatally flawed in their legal premises and destined to fail, and thus to spare
`
`litiga(cid:374)ts the (cid:271)urde(cid:374)s of u(cid:374)(cid:374)e(cid:272)essary pretrial a(cid:374)d trial a(cid:272)ti(cid:448)ity.(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 a valid statutory ground exists
`
`for cancelling the subject registration. See Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a (cid:862)short and plain
`
`statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.(cid:863) Rule 8 (cid:862)de(cid:373)a(cid:374)ds (cid:373)ore tha(cid:374) a(cid:374)
`
`unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-(cid:373)e a(cid:272)(cid:272)usatio(cid:374).(cid:863) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). (cid:862)A pleading that offers (cid:858)labels and
`
`conclusions’ or (cid:858)a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’(cid:863) Id. (quoting
`
`Twombly, (cid:1009)(cid:1009)(cid:1004) U.“. at (cid:1009)(cid:1009)(cid:1009)(cid:895). (cid:862)Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders (cid:858)naked assertion[s]’ devoid of
`
`(cid:858)further factual enhancement.’(cid:863) Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). A plaintiff needs to allege
`
`enough factual matter to suggest that its claim is plausible and to (cid:862)raise a right to relief above the
`
`speculative level.(cid:863) Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56. More specifically, a claimant must allege well-pleaded
`
`fa(cid:272)tual (cid:373)atter a(cid:374)d (cid:373)ore tha(cid:374) (cid:862)[t]hread(cid:271)are recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
`
`(cid:373)ere (cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:272)lusory state(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts.(cid:863) Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662.
`
`And, as explained below, a claim of fraud in the procurement of a registration requires the
`
`circumstances constituting fraud to be alleged (cid:862)with particularity.(cid:863) Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
`
`Also, (cid:862)[a] (cid:272)ourt (cid:373)ay ... (cid:272)o(cid:374)sider (cid:272)ertai(cid:374) (cid:373)aterials—documents attached to the complaint,
`
`documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without
`
`(cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:448)erti(cid:374)g the (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss i(cid:374)to a (cid:373)otio(cid:374) for su(cid:373)(cid:373)ary 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 5-15.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)
`
`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) A Rule 12(e) motion must (cid:862)point out the defects
`
`complained of and the details desired.(cid:863) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENTS
`
`A.
`
`The Board Should Order Homampour To Provide A More Definite Statement Of
`Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s Common Law Marks Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
`The ge(cid:374)eral allegatio(cid:374) i(cid:374) Ho(cid:373)a(cid:373)pour’s Petitio(cid:374) prese(cid:374)ts a plurality of (cid:373)arks, as well as
`
`unidentified marks, Homampour contends he used (cid:862)[s]ince at least as early as 1993,(cid:863) Petition, ¶ 4
`
`(defi(cid:374)i(cid:374)g Petitio(cid:374)er’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law Marks 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)arious other i(cid:374)(cid:272)ar(cid:374)atio(cid:374)s i(cid:374)(cid:272)orporati(cid:374)g the words (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) or (cid:862)LAW(cid:863)), which (cid:373)akes it (cid:862)so (cid:448)ague or
`
`ambiguous that [Khorsandi] (cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:374)ot reaso(cid:374)a(cid:271)ly prepare a respo(cid:374)se.(cid:863) Fed. ‘. Ci(cid:448). P. (cid:1005)(cid:1006)(cid:894)e(cid:895). Thus, the
`
`Board should order Homampour to provide a more definite statement of Petitio(cid:374)er’s Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) Law
`
`Marks—i.e., (1) identify each mark at issue, and (2) when Homampour started using each mark.
`
`I(cid:374)deed, (cid:862)[(cid:373)]erely listi(cid:374)g a plurality of (cid:373)arks whi(cid:272)h a trade(cid:373)ark holder has a(cid:272)(cid:395)uired 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., No. 14-21694-CIV-MORE, 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)arks, (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 registered or unregistered) are infringed.(cid:863) Id. at *14. Similarly, in Louisiana Pacific
`
`Corp. v. James Hardie Bldg. Prods., Inc., No. C-12-3433 SC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162980, (N.D. Cal. Nov.
`
`14, 2012), the court granted the defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t’s ‘ule (cid:1005)(cid:1006)(cid:894)e(cid:895) motion, because (cid:862)the Co(cid:373)plai(cid:374)t ide(cid:374)tifie[d]
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`only three of the allegedly infringed marks and le[ft] Defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t to guess at the others.(cid:863) Id. at *3. The
`
`court held (cid:862)[t]his is i(cid:374)suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t,(cid:863) id., reasoning that ide(cid:374)tifyi(cid:374)g (cid:862)e(cid:448)ery trade(cid:373)ark . . . is not an overly
`
`(cid:271)urde(cid:374)so(cid:373)e re(cid:395)uire(cid:373)e(cid:374)t a(cid:374)d is (cid:374)e(cid:272)essary to pro(cid:448)ide Defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t with ade(cid:395)uate (cid:374)oti(cid:272)e.(cid:863) Id. at *2.
`
`Likewise, here, Ho(cid:373