Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1245445
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/02/2022
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92080651
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Backwood Pet Foods, LLC
`
`JULIA ANNE MATHESON
`POTOMAC LAW GROUP, PLLC
`1300 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20004
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: tm@potomaclaw.com
`Secondary email(s): jmatheson@potomaclaw.com, eblabac@potomaclaw.com
`202-251-6920
`
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`
`Julia Anne Matheson
`
`jmatheson@potomaclaw.com, tm@potomaclaw.com
`
`/s/ Julia Anne Matheson
`
`11/02/2022
`
`Motion to Dismiss Happy Paws Petition for Cancellation 4866-9467-1671
`v.1.pdf(501214 bytes )
`Exhibit A to Motion to Dismiss.pdf(5610783 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________________________
`Happy Paws Pet Wellness, LLC,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Blackwood Pet Food, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`________________________________________
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`
`Reg. No. 6206078
`
`RESPONDENT BLACKWOOD PET FOOD, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and T.B.M.P. § 503, et seq.,
`
`Respondent Blackwood Pet Food, LLC (“Blackwood”) respectfully submits this Motion and
`
`supporting Memorandum of Law to dismiss each of the claims set forth in Petitioner Happy
`
`Paws Pet Wellness, LLC’s (“Petitioner’s”) Petition for Cancellation of Blackwood’s Registration
`
`No. 6206078 (the “Registration”). Petitioner filed this cancellation action in retaliation for
`
`Respondent’s refusal to provide a consent for registration of a confusingly similar mark covering
`
`directly competing goods. As demonstrated below, both of the claims set forth in the Petition are
`
`fatally defective as a matter of law. Petitioner has not stated, and cannot state, claims for which
`
`relief may be granted and, accordingly, its Petition should be dismissed in its entirety.
`
`I.
`
` BACKGROUND
`
`The following facts are taken from the allegations in the Petition which, if well pled, are
`
`to be accepted as true solely for purposes of the instant motion, the documents referenced
`
`therein, and the Registration and its associated file wrapper.1
`
`
`
`
`1 The Registration, and the file wrapper containing it, are of record because “[t]he file of each … registration against
`which a petition or counterclaim for cancellation is filed forms part of the record of the proceeding without any
`action by the parties and reference may be made to the file for any relevant and competent purpose in accordance
`with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.” 37 C.F.R. §2.122(b)(1).
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`On February 21, 2018, Registrant’s predecessor BrightPet Nutrition Group, LLC
`
`(hereafter, “Applicant”) filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87804907 covering “pet
`
`food; pet treats” in Class 31 pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act (the “Application”).
`
`Having examined the mark for registrability, and following a call with Applicant’s counsel, on
`
`June 6, 2018, the PTO entered a disclaimer of the term “nutrition” by Examiner’s Amendment.
`
`Following publication on July 10, 2018, the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance on September 4,
`
`2018.
`
`On August 7, 2020, Applicant filed a Statement of Use in which it attested, in a
`
`declaration signed by its President, that “[t]he mark was first used by the applicant, or applicant’s
`
`related company, licensee, or predecessor in interest at least as early as 11/20/2019, and is now
`
`in use in such commerce.” Applicant’s specimens, submitted therewith, consisted of two
`
`separate printouts from the Blackwood Pet Food “store” on Amazon.com, including:
`
`(A) a six-page specimen dated July 31, 2020; and
`
`(B) a separate single page specimen dated June 12, 2020.
`
`Both specimens show use of the applied-for mark in logo format in close proximity to pictures of
`
`the goods and the means for ordering the same. As the specimens are comprised of page
`
`captures from the Blackwood Pet Food “store” on Amazon.com, Applicant aptly described same
`
`as “print-out of electronic display showing mark associated with the goods.” Below are image
`
`captures of the first two pages of Applicant’s six-page specimen showing Applicant’s storefront,
`
`Applicant’s pet food, and the subject mark in logo format; and of the second single page
`
`specimen also showing the same:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`From Applicant’s 6-page specimen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`From Applicant’s Second Single-Page Specimen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On the same date, Applicant filed a fourth (4th) extension of time to file a Statement of
`
`Use as a protective measure in the event, for whatever reason, the PTO rejected its specimens.
`
`Applicant thus filed its subject Statement of Use well before its final statutory deadline to do so.
`
`A complete copy of Applicant’s Statement of Use and accompanying Specimens are attached
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 6 of 16
`
`
`hereto as Exhibit A. The Statement of Use was acknowledged and accepted by the Trademark
`
`Office on October 23, 2020, and the challenged Registration issued on November 24, 2020.
`
`On March 2, 2020, Petitioner filed Application Serial No. 88817557 for the mark “360
`
`PET NUTRITION” (hereafter, the “‘557 Application”) covering goods identical to those covered
`
`by the Registration, namely, “pet food; edible pet treats” in International Class 31. On May 20,
`
`2020, the PTO issued a refusal of registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act citing
`
`Registration No. 5686219 for the mark 360 NUTRITION against the ‘557 Application’s goods in
`
`Class 5, together with an anticipatory refusal against the Class 31 goods, citing Applicant’s
`
`Application Serial No. 87804907, on the grounds that Petitioner’s 360 PET NUTRITION mark
`
`for pet food and pet treats was likely to cause confusion with Applicant’s 360° OPTIMAL
`
`NUTRITION mark for pet food and pet treats.
`
`In response, Petitioner deleted its Class 5 goods from the ‘557 Application, and argued
`
`multiple times that its mark and Blackwood’s mark were dissimilar in meaning and commercial
`
`impression. Those arguments, offered in responses filed August 4, 2020 and February 28, 2022,
`
`were unsuccessful and, on March 30, 2022 the PTO issued a final refusal of Petitioner’s 360 PET
`
`NUTRITION mark.
`
`On September 26, 2022, Petitioner commenced the instant cancellation proceeding
`
`asserting two claims, namely:
`
`
`
`
`
`Count One: That the Registration is void ab initio because Applicant and its
`successor Blackwood (A) “had no bona fide use” of the mark 360° OPTIMAL
`NUTRITION “prior to or at the time of filing the Statement of Use, or within the
`expiration of the time for filing a Statement of Use in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
`1051(a), (c), and (d)” and (B) had no “no bona fide intent to use the mark 360°
`OPTIMAL NUTRITION in commerce as a trademark” to identify the goods
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`covered by the Application as of the filing date, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b);
`and
`
`Count Two: That the PTO erred in accepting Applicant’s specimens because the
`nature of Applicant’s use of the 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION mark reflects mere
`advertising or informational use, and not trademark use
`
`such that the subject Registration should be cancelled.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Board Should Dismiss With Prejudice Claims in a Petition if, as Here, the
`Allegations are Fatally Flawed and Destined to Fail
`
`II.
`
`
`
`The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is “to allow the court to eliminate actions that are fatally flawed
`
`in their legal premises and destined to fail, and thus to spare litigants the burdens of unnecessary
`
`pretrial and trial activity. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 988 F.2d
`
`1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To survive a motion to dismiss, a petition for cancellation must
`
`allege “sufficient factual content that, if proved, would allow the Board to conclude or draw a
`
`reasonable inference, that (1) the plaintiff has standing to maintain the proceeding; and (2) a
`
`valid ground exists for opposing or cancelling the registration.” Dragon Bleu (Sarl) v. VENM,
`
`LLC, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1925, 1926 (T.T.A.B. 2014).
`
`A petition to cancel must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
`
`v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). Specifically, the claimant in a Board proceeding “must
`
`allege well-pleaded factual matter and more than ‘[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
`
`of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” T.B.M.P. § 503.02 (citing Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
`
`In adjudicating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Board may consider
`
`documents referenced in the petition if their authenticity is not in dispute, they are central to
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 8 of 16
`
`
`petitioner’s claim, or they are sufficiently referenced to in the petition. Schaefer v. IndyMac
`
`Mortg. Servs., 731 F.3d 98, 100 n.1 (1st Cir. 2013); see also In re Stacs Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d
`
`1399, 1405 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that “documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint
`
`and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading,
`
`may be considered” in a motion to dismiss. The consideration of such documents does not
`
`convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id.
`
`Here, the Board may consider Blackwood’s Application, Statement of Use, accompanying
`
`Declaration; and supporting specimens, which are part of the Registration’s file wrapper.
`
`Petitioner cannot reasonably dispute the authenticity of the Statement of Use, accompanying
`
`Declaration; or its associated specimens.
`
`B. Petitioner Fails to State a Claim for Void Ab Initio
`
`
`
`1. Petitioner’s Void Ab Initio Claim Is Facially Deficient For Its Failure to Cite
`Any Operative Facts
`
`As noted above, Petitioner’s claim that the subject Application is void ab initio is based
`
`upon the two-fold claim that Applicant and its successor Blackwood had no bona fide intent to
`
`use the applied-for mark as a mark prior to filing the Application and at the time the Statement
`
`of Use was filed, and, further, had no bona fide use of the mark as a mark at the time Applicant
`
`filed its Statement of Use. Petitioner fails, however, to set forth any facts to support either of
`
`these claims.
`
`With respect to the alleged lack of bona fide intent to use the mark, Petitioner offers no
`
`facts which, even if proven, could sustain a cause of action for lack of bona fide intent. A mere
`
`conclusory allegation is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. T.B.M.P. § 503.02 and
`
`citations therein, supra. Therefore, to the extent Petitioner’s motion intends to set forth a
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 9 of 16
`
`
`separate cause of action for lack of bona fide intent, this claim should be dismissed, and/or
`
`Paragraph 14 should be stricken from the Petition. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. See also,
`
`Danjaq, LLC v. .007 Percent LLC, No. 91238814, 2019 WL 1377228, at *2 (TTAB Mar. 25,
`
`2019) (granting a motion to dismiss where opposer had failed to allege any facts to support its
`
`bare claim that applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use the subject marks in commerce at the
`
`time it filed the applications); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Nat'l Data Corp., 228 USPQ 45, 48
`
`(TTAB 1985) (petitioner's Trademark Act § 2(a) allegations were merely conclusory and
`
`unsupported by factual averments and thus suitable for dismissal).
`
`Petitioner’s claims regarding no bona fide use are equally deficient. The Petition sets
`
`forth no facts either in its introduction or in Count One, “void ab initio,” that if true, would
`
`establish no bona fide use of the mark. Indeed, the only “facts” offered (albeit indirectly) consist
`
`of the specimens filed in support of the challenged Application’s statement of use. The Board
`
`may rule as a matter of law that the specimens show use of the mark as a trademark.
`
`Alternatively, if the Board were to interpret the facts plead under Count Two as somehow
`
`useable to support Count One, the Petition still fails to set forth facts that, even if true, would
`
`support a claim of no bona fide use. The Petition contains only conclusory allegations that the
`
`specimens of record do not demonstrate trademark use. The Board may rule on the record that
`
`they do, as there are no extraneous facts alleged.
`
`2. Petitioner’s Void Ab Initio Claim Is Deficient As a Matter of Law
`
`The Board has ruled repeatedly that the adequacy of specimens submitted during the
`
`prosecution of an application does not constitute appropriate grounds for cancellation of a mark.
`
`Granny’s Submarine Sandwiches, Inc. v. Granny’s Kitchen, Inc., 199 USPQ 564 (TTAB 1978).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 10 of 16
`
`
`See also, Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 11 USPQ2d 1355, 1358 (TTAB 1989)
`
`(the insufficiency of specimens, per se, does not constitute grounds for cancellation; the proper
`
`ground for cancellation is that the term has not been used as a mark). The rationale for this rule
`
`is based upon the following. Unlike in a cancellation proceeding, during ex parte examination of
`
`an application, the applicant facing a challenge to its specimens would have an opportunity to
`
`address the objection, and submit acceptable substitute specimens. It is, thus, unfair to penalize a
`
`registrant for not submitting substitute specimens when such requirement was never made by an
`
`Examining Attorney. Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Century Life of America, 10 USPQ2d
`
`2034 (TTAB 1989).
`
` Blackwood’s certificate of registration on the Principal Register “shall be prima facie
`
`evidence of the validity of the registration.” See §7(b) of the Lanham Act. In view of this
`
`statutory presumption, Petitioner, to sustain its burden of proof, must “leave nothing to
`
`conjecture.” The Board has counseled that such a petition can only be granted “with due
`
`caution” and “after a most careful scrutiny of the facts.” Granny’s Submarine Sandwiches, Inc.,
`
`199 USPQ at 568, citing Rockwood Chocolate Co., Inc. v. Hoffman Candy Company, 152 USPQ
`
`599 (CCPA, 1967). Further, “[t]he petitioner bears a heavy burden of persuading us that
`
`cancellation is warranted, a burden that must overcome the statutory presumption of validity of
`
`the registration.” Id. Citing Massey Junior College v. Fashion Institute of Technology, 181
`
`USPQ 272 (CCPA, 1974). The Board will not substitute its judgment for that of the Examiner,
`
`on the same facts that were before the Examiner, absent convincing evidence of clear error.
`
`“This is especially so in a case where the only issue is whether the Examiner properly exercised
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 11 of 16
`
`
`her discretion in accepting specimens as supporting use of the mark sought to be registered.” Id.
`
`at 568.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s speculative and unsupported allegations that Blackwood: (A) “had no bona
`
`fide intent to use in commerce Registrant’s Mark as a trademark to identify each of the goods
`
`identified in the Registration as of the filing date of the Registration” and (B) “had no bona fide
`
`use of Registrant’s mark as a trademark in commerce to identify each of the goods identified in
`
`the Registration prior to or at the time of filing the Statement of Use, or within the expiration of
`
`the time for filing a Statement of Use” are manifestly insufficient to overcome the statutory
`
`prima facie validity of the registration. This is particularly true in light of Blackwood’s actual
`
`use of the registered mark as a trademark in its specimens of record – which the Board can find
`
`as a matter of law.
`
` Section 904.03(i)(B)(1) of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, titled
`
`Prominence of a Mark, advises that “when determining whether a web page display specimen
`
`shows the mark in direct association with the goods identified in the application, the examining
`
`attorney may consider the prominence of the mark. Id. Citing In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d
`
`1220, 1223 (TTAB 2007) (“Another factor in the analysis of whether a specimen is an acceptable
`
`display used in association with the goods is whether the mark is displayed in such a way that the
`
`customer can easily associate the mark with the goods.” (citing In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1725,
`
`1728 (TTAB 2004). The more prominently an applied-for mark appears on a web-page display,
`
`the more likely the mark will be perceived as being associated with the goods. Id. According to
`
`the TMEP, a mark may appear more prominent when the specimen:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`• Presents the mark in larger font size or different stylization or color than the surrounding
`text;
`• Places the mark at the beginning of a line or sentence;
`• Positions the mark next to a picture or description of the goods; or
`• Uses the “TM” designation with the applied-for mark.
`
`Id. citing In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2010) (describing an
`
`applied-for mark as “prominently displayed” on a specimen when the mark appeared by itself
`
`above pictures relating to applicant’s goods in relatively large font and in a different color than
`
`some of the other text on the page).
`
` Blackwood’s specimens of record satisfy three of the four criteria articulated above.
`
`Both of Blackwood’s specimens show use of mark in a manner that clearly sends a brand signal
`
`to consumers – the mark is used in a stand-alone, prominent matter coupled with a design
`
`element; the mark is presented in all caps, and the mark is shown proximate to pictures of pet
`
`food (the covered goods). No amount of discovery around Applicant’s “intent to use” the mark
`
`as a trademark or the actual use of the applied-for mark as a trademark can alter these
`
`fundamental facts.
`
`Petitioner has failed to allege, much less prove, clear PTO error. No amount of discovery on
`
`the part of Petitioner can rebut the existence in the specimens of the design elements described
`
`above. Accordingly, this claim should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`C. Petitioner Fails to State a Claim for Failure to Function
`
`Like its First Count, Petitioner’s Second Count likewise asks that the Board substitute its
`
`judgment regarding the content and acceptability of Blackwood’s specimens, as well as the
`
`inherent registrability of the subject mark, for that of the original Examiner.
`
`1. Petitioner’s Failure to Function Claim is Deficient on Its Face
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`Once again, mere conclusory assertions that the mark fails to function are insufficient,
`
`standing alone, to state a viable claim for relief. Compare Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v.
`
`Chef’s Touch Sales and Marketing, LLC, 2018 (TTAB 2018) (Non-precedential)2 (where
`
`Opposer pleaded facts as to the average consumers understanding of the slogan “let’s tailgate”
`
`that were more than mere [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action and were thus
`
`sufficient to place Applicant on notice of the claim being asserted); and Dt Fashion, LLC, No.
`
`91234482, 2018 WL 1558118, at *4 ( TTAB Mar. 29, 2018) (non-precedential)(holding that
`
`opposer's claim that applicant's mark failed to function as a mark was not supported in the text of
`
`the notice of opposition by any factual allegations which form a basis therefor). The Petition
`
`contains only conclusory allegations that the specimens of record do not demonstrate trademark
`
`use. The Board may rule on the record that they do, as there are no extraneous facts alleged.
`
`2. Petitioner’s Failure to Function Claim is Deficient As a Matter of Law
`
`Petitioner contends that Blackwood’s specimens of record show use of the mark 360°
`
`OPTIMAL NUTRITION as “mere advertising” or “informational matter” but not as a trademark.
`
`It contends, without any support or, indeed, explanation, that the specimens demonstrate use of
`
`Blackwood’s mark either solely: (1) to refer to the health benefits of its products; or (2) to
`
`Registrant’s manufacturing method. It is silent on how the mark in question could demonstrate
`
`either of the foregoing. In fact, Petitioner’s “merely informational” challenge is nothing less
`
`than a mere descriptiveness challenge in disguise.
`
`
`
`2 See TMEP Section 705.05 (“A decision designated as not precedential is not binding upon the
`TTAB but may be cited for whatever persuasive value it might have.“)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`TMEP Section 1202.04 defines merely informational matter as unregistrable because
`
`consumers would perceive such matter as merely conveying general information about the goods
`
`or services or an informational message, and not as a means to identify and distinguish the
`
`applicant’s goods or services from those of others. Factors to consider when evaluating where
`
`matter qualifies as “merely informational” include:
`
`• The matter merely conveys general information about the goods or services;
`• The matter is a common phrase or message that would ordinarily be used in advertising
`or in the relevant industry, or that consumers are accustomed to seeing used in everyday
`speech by a variety of sources; or
`• The matter is a direct quotation, passage, or citation from a religious text used to
`communicate affiliation with, support for, or endorsement of, the ideas conveyed by the
`religious text.
`
`
`Id. If a proposed mark is merely informational, an examining attorney is required to issue a
`
`failure-to-function refusal in which he/she explains the basis for the refusal and provides
`
`evidence showing, inter alia, decorative or informational use by applicant or other manufacturers
`
`with goods or services of a similar nature, or evidence of frequent use by others in connection
`
`with the sale of their own goods or services. When such refusal is raised, as it should be, in an ex
`
`parte setting, an applicant is given the opportunity to respond to such refusal with arguments
`
`and/or substitute specimens.
`
`Petitioner’s failure to function claim, like its void ab initio claim, does not constitute an
`
`appropriate ground for cancellation of a mark. No amount of discovery will change the fact that
`
`the Examining Attorney charged with examination of the Application reached the two-fold
`
`decision that (1) Blackwood’s 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION mark qualified as sufficiently
`
`distinctive to be registrable on the Principal Register for pet food and pet treats; and (2) found
`
`the nature of the use of the mark displayed in Blackwood’s specimens adequate to demonstrate
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 15 of 16
`
`
`trademark use. (See discussion of TMEP § 904.03(i)(B)(1), and a description detailing the
`
`specimen features that demonstrate use as a mark, infra at pp. 2-5, 11). Thus, as with its Count I,
`
`Petitioner fails in its burden to allege facts sufficient to make a case for clear Examiner error, nor
`
`its burden of demonstrating facts sufficient to overcome the strong statutory presumption of
`
`validity that attaches to the subject registration. Because no amount of discovery could salvage
`
`this second claim, it likewise should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`As the above makes clear, Petitioner cannot prove its claims. Blackwood therefore
`
`respectfully asks the Board to grant its Motion and to dismiss Petitioner’s claims in their entirety
`
`and with prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Julia Anne Matheson/
`
`Julia Anne Matheson
`POTOMAC LAW GROUP, LLC
`1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`jmatheson@potomaclaw.com
`202-251-6920
`
`Attorneys for Respondent
`BLACKWOOD PET FOOD, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
`Cancellation No. 92080651
`Mark: 360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondent Blackwood Pet
`Food, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Cancellation has been served on
`November 2, 2022 by emailing a copy to Counsel for Petitioner YangYang Li at
`legal@goldenhippo.com; travis.li@goldenhippo.com.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Keri D. Click
`Keri D. Click, paralegal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no personsare required to respondto a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMBcontrol number.
`PTO Form 1553 (Rev 09/2005)
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Statement of Use
`(15 U.S.C. Section 1051(d))
`
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`
`
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`87804907
`
`
`
` LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED LAW OFFICE106
`
`
`
`
`EXTENSION OF USE
`YES
`
`
`
` MARK SECTION
`
`
`MARK
`mark
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION
`
`
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`YES
`
`
`
` USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES
`
`
`
`
`
`hevole,consistsofStandard characters, without claim to any particular
`
`MARKSTATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OWNERSECTION(current)
`
`
`NAME
`BrightPet Nutrition Group, LLC
`
`
`MAILING ADDRESS
`38281 Industrial Park Road
`
`
`CITY
`Lisbon
`
`
`STATE
`Ohio
`
`
`
` ZIP/POSTAL CODE 44432
`
`
`
`STATE/COUNTRY/REGIONIJURISDICTION/U'S.
`United States
`
`EMAIL
`XXXX
`
`
`
`OWNERSECTION(proposed)
`
`
`NAME
`BrightPet Nutrition Group, LLC
`
`
`MAILING ADDRESS
`38281 Industrial Park Road
`
`
`CITY
`Lisbon
`
`
`STATE
`Ohio
`
`
`
` ZIP/POSTAL CODE 44432
`
`
`
`STATE/COUNTRY/REGIONIJURISDICTION/U'S.
`United States
`
`
`EMAIL XXXX
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION(current)
`
`
`
`NAME GLENN A. GUNDERSEN
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR
`AGEREDRED
`
`trademarks@dechert.com
`
`

`

`031
`
`Pet food; Pet treats
`
`KEEP ALL LISTED
`
`11/20/2019
`
`11/20/2019
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xml5 \
`SQU0008.JPG
`
`SPNO-2041552303-202007311 31102992761 . Amazon.com
`
`Blackwood Pet Food-360 - Specimen.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xml15\
`SOQU0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xm15\
`SOQU0003.JPG
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xml15\
`SOQU0004.JPG
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xm15\
`SQU0005.JPG
`
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xm15\
`SQU0006.JPG
`
`
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY
`COPIES)
`
`NOT PROVIDED
`
`CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION(proposed)
`NAME
`
`Glenn A. Gundersen
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR
`CORRESPONDENCE
`
`trademarks@dechert.com
`
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY
`COPIES)
`
`NOT PROVIDED
`
`GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS
`
`CURRENTIDENTIFICATION
`
`GOODS OR SERVICES
`
`FIRST USE ANYWHEREDATE
`
`FIRST USE IN COMMERCEDATE
`
`SPECIMENFILE NAME(S)
`
`JPG FILE(S)
`
`ORIGINALPDFFILE
`
`CONVERTEDPDFFILE(S)
`(6 pages)
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT18\IMAGEOUT18\878\049\87804907\xm15\
`SQU0007.JPG
`
`SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
`
`REQUESTTO DIVIDE
`
`PAYMENT SECTION
`
`NUMBEROFCLASSESIN USE
`
`SUBTOTAL AMOUNT[ALLEGATION OF USE FEE]
`
`TOTAL AMOUNT
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`DECLARATION SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`print-out of electronic display showing mark associated with the goods
`
`NO
`
`100
`
`100
`
`/Matthew C Golladay/
`
`Matthew Golladay
`
`President
`
`08/07/2020
`
`

`

`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`3304249700
`
`FILING INFORMATION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`Fri Aug 07 08:25:45 ET 2020
`
`USPTO/SOU-XXX.XXX.XXX.X-2
`0200807082545292614-87804
`907-740a75a26cf5655f1dc69
`67c87c31124c74f65aclaab6c
`a9d42d7641e892429ed-DA-25
`4495 14-202008051037131355
`716
`
`

`

`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no personsare required to respondto a collection of information unlessit displays a valid OMB control number.
`
`Trademark/Service Mark Statement of Use
`(15 U.S.C. Section 1051(d))
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`MARK:360° OPTIMAL NUTRITION(Standard Characters, see https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/87804907/large)
`SERIAL NUMBER:87804907
`An Extension of Timeform is being filed with the Allegation of Use.
`
`OWNER AND/OR ENTITY INFORMATION
`
`The owner proposesto amend thefollowing:
`Current: BrightPet Nutrition Group, LLC, having an address of
`38281 Industrial Park Road
`Lisbon, Ohio 44432
`United States
`Email: XXXX
`Proposed: BrightPet Nutrition Group, LLC, having an address of
`38281 Industrial Park Road
`Lisbon, Ohio 44432
`United States
`Phone:
`Email: XXXX
`
`The owneris submitting the following allegation of use information:
`
`ForInternational Class 031:
`
`Current identification: Pet food; Pet treats
`
`The mark is in use in commerceon or in connection with all of the goods/services, or to indicate membership in the collective organization listed
`in the application or Notice of Allowance or as subsequently modified for this specific class.
`
`The mark wasfirst used by the applicant, or the applicant's related company,licensee, or predecessorin interest at least as early as 11/20/2019,
`and first used in commerceat least as early as 11/20/2019, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one specimen for the
`class showing the mark as used in commerceon or in connection with any item in the class, consisting of a(n) print-out of electronic display
`showing markassociated with the goods.
`
`JPG file(s):
`Specimen File1
`Original PDFfile:
`
`SPNO-2041552303-202007311 31102992761 . Amazon.com Blackwood Pet Food-360 - Specimen.pdf
`Converted PDFfile(s) (6 pages)
`Specimen File1
`Specimen File2
`Specimen File3
`Specimen File4
`Specimen FileS
`Specimen File6
`
`The applicantis not filing a Request to Divide with this Allegation of Use form.
`
`Correspondence Information (current):
`GLENN A. GUNDERSEN
`PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: trademarks@dechert.com
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): NOT PROVIDED
`
`

`

`‘Correspondence Information (proposed):
`Glenn A. Gundersen
`
`PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: trademarks@dechert.com
`SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): NOT PROVIDED
`
`Requirement for Email and Electronic Filing: I understand that a valid email address must be maintained by the applicant owner/holder and
`the applicant owner's/holder's attorney, if appointed, andthat all official trademark correspondence must be submitted via the Trademark
`Electronic Application System (TEAS).
`
`
`
`A fee paymentin the amount of $100 will be submitted with the form, representing paymentfor the allegation of use for 1 class.
`
`Declaration
`
`Thesignatory believes that the applicant is the owner of the mark soughtto be registered.
`For a trademarkorservice mark application, the mark is in use in commerce onor in connection withall the goods/services in the
`application or notice of allowance, or as subsequently modified.
`Fora collective trademark, collective service mark, collective membership mark application, the applicant is exercising legitimate
`control over the use of the mark in commerce by memberson or in connection with all the goods/services/collective membership
`organization in the application or notice of allowance, or as subsequently modified.
`Fora certification mark application, the applicant is exercising legitimate control over the use of the mark in commerceby authorized
`users on or in connection with the all goods/service