Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1267195
`
`Filing date:
`
`02/21/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92081334
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`ONE MICROSOFT WAY
`REDMOND, WA 98052-6399
`UNITED STATES
`No email provided
`No phone number provided
`
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`
`April L. Besl
`
`april.besl@dinsmore.com, karen.gaunt@dinsmore.com,
`luke.curran@dinsmore.com, andrew.hilton@dinsmore.com, dsmstrade-
`marks@dinsmore.com
`
`/april l besl/
`
`02/21/2023
`
`Partial Motion to Dismiss Cancellation No 92081334.pdf(714740 bytes )
`Exhibit A.pdf(893772 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-vs-
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Cancellation No.: 92081334
`
`Registration No.: 5,766,386
`
`Mark: BLEEDING EDGE
`
`REGISTRANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Registrant Microsoft Corporation (“Registrant”), by and through counsel, and pursuant to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Rule 503.02 of the Trademark Rules of Practice, hereby files its Partial
`
`Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), and moves for an order dismissing Counts II, III, and IV of the
`
`Petition to Cancel filed on January 9, 2023 (the “Petition”) by Petitioner EDGE Games, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”). Counts II, III and IV of the Petition allege claims fraud under Section 14(3), no use
`
`of the mark in commerce before the application was filed under Sections 14(1) and 1(a), (c), and
`
`(d), and abandonment under Section 14(3) of the Trademark Act1. Petitioner has failed to state a
`
`claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to these three pled claims, and therefore,
`
`Registrant seeks dismissal of Counts II, III and IV with prejudice.2
`
`Additionally, Petitioner also purports to allege additional claims in its ESTTA cover sheet
`
`but failed to allege any facts to support these unpled claims. As to these additional unpled claims,
`
`
`
`1 Registrant notes that the ESTTA cover sheet accompanying the Petition cites at least nine separate grounds upon
`which the Petition is based, including, but not limited to claims of dilution and descriptiveness. However, the substance
`of the Petition only sets forth allegations and claims on four grounds. Should the Board not dismiss these allegations
`sua sponte for failure to plead, Registrant reserves all rights to move to dismiss and/or otherwise address Petitioner’s
`remaining claims, should they be considered as live claims in this proceeding.
`2 Pursuant to TBMP § 503.01, Registrant reserves the right to answer, state its affirmative defenses, bring any
`counterclaims, and/or file any appropriate motions in response to Petitioner’s claims on priority and likelihood of
`confusion after the Board renders its decision on this Motion and resets the time for filing an Answer.
`
`

`

`pursuant to TBMP § 503.01 n 5, Registrant asks that the Board dismiss these unpled claims sua
`
`sponte, or pursuant to this Motion.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Registrant (via its predecessor in interest to the BLEEDING EDGE mark) applied to
`
`register the mark BLEEDING EDGE as identified in Serial No.: 79/237,384 (the “Application”)
`
`on April 12, 2018 in connection with the following goods and services in International Classes 9,
`
`25, and 41:
`
`“computer games software” in International Class 9;
`
`“Articles of clothing, namely, t-shirts, vests, hats, caps, shorts, trousers,
`sweatshirts, hooded sweatshirts, sweaters, coats, sleepwear, gloves, wristbands,
`scarves, belts, socks, bathrobes; footwear; headwear” in International Class 25;
`and
`
`“Entertainment services, namely, providing online electronic games; providing
`information about computer games; organization of electronic game competitions”
`in International Class 41.
`
`
`
`The Application was based on International Registration No. 1414773 and filed under the
`
`Madrid Protocol, and asserted Section 66(a) of the Lanham Act as the sole filing basis. Because
`
`the Application was filed pursuant to Section 66(a) of the Lanham Act, Registrant was not required
`
`to provide, and thus did not assert, a specimen of use, nor a date of first use in U.S. commerce on
`
`the application filing date. Following a period of examination, the subject registration issued on
`
`June 4, 2019 under Reg. No. 5,766,386 (the “Registration”).
`
`Petitioner filed the instant Petition on January 9, 2023 seeking to cancel the Registration
`
`on four purported grounds as follows: (1) priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d)
`
`(Count I); (2) fraud (Count II); (3) no use of the mark in commerce before the application was filed
`
`(Count III); and (4) abandonment (Count IV). Petitioner has failed, however, to properly plead
`
`the requisite elements of Counts II, III, and IV. Registrant therefore, hereby moves to dismiss
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s claims for fraud, no use of the mark in commerce before the application was filed, and
`
`abandonment under FRCP 12(b)(6), since the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may
`
`be granted as to these three counts.
`
`II
`
`PETITIONER’S UNPLED CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED SUA SPONTE
`
`As an initial matter, on the ESTTA cover sheet accompanying the Petition, Petitioner also
`
`purports to identify the following additional grounds for cancellation: the mark was never used in
`
`commerce under Section 14(6); the mark is not inherently distinctive under Sections 14(1) and
`
`2(f); dilution by blurring and tarnishment under Sections 14(1) and 43(c); and nonownership under
`
`Sections 14(1) and 1 of the Trademark Act. Although the content of the ESTTA cover sheet is to
`
`be read in conjunction with the petition to cancel, (see, e.g., PPG Industries Inc. v. Guardian
`
`Industries Corp., 73 USPQ2d 1926, 1928 (TTAB 2005)), the mere mention of a ground on the
`
`cover sheet is insufficient to constitute a pled claim. Embarcadero Technologies Inc. v. RStudio
`
`Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1927 n.2 (TTAB 2013).
`
`In this case, the substance of the Petition itself only pleads and sets forth allegations specific
`
`to four identified grounds for cancellation. Since the Petition is devoid of any allegations to support
`
`the additional asserted grounds for cancellation set forth on the ESTTA cover sheet, pursuant to
`
`TBMP § 503.01 n 5, Registrant respectfully requests that each of these grounds be dismissed by
`
`the Board pursuant to this Motion, or sua sponte, at the Board’s discretion..
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS II, III,
`AND IV OF THE PETITION
`
`
`
`In order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for cancellation of a
`
`registered mark under FRCP 12(b)(6) and TBMP § 503.02, a petitioner’s pleadings must allege
`
`facts that, if proven, would establish: (1) the plaintiff has standing to maintain the proceeding; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`(2) a valid ground exists for cancelling the mark. Doyle v. Al Johnson’s Swed. Rest. & Butik Inc.,
`
`101 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (TTAB 2012) (citing Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377, 47 USPQ2d
`
`1752, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); see also TBMP § 503.02. Specifically, a petition to cancel “must
`
`contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`
`face.’” Doyle, 101 USPQ2d at 1782 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). In
`
`particular, “the claimant 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.’” Dragon
`
`Bleu v. VENM, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1925, 1926 (TTAB 2014) (quoting Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678)
`
`(citation omitted)). Here, Petitioner has failed to allege sufficient factual matter which, if accepted
`
`as true, would state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to Counts II (fraud),
`
`III (no use of the mark in commerce when the application was filed), and IV (abandonment), and
`
`thus, the Petition fails to properly plead these claims, and therefore, these counts must be
`
`dismissed.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Count II for Fraud Fails to State a Claim Upon Which
`Relief Can Be Granted.
`
`To sufficiently plead a claim of fraud, a petitioner must sufficiently allege that (1) the
`
`registrant made a false representation (misrepresentation) to the USPTO; (2) the false
`
`representation is material to the determination of registrability (or maintenance) of a mark; (3) the
`
`registrant had knowledge of the falsity of the representation; and (4) the registrant made the
`
`representation with the intent to deceive the USPTO to issue (or maintain) the registration. See In
`
`re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240, 91 USPQ2d 1938, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Moreover, the
`
`circumstances constituting fraud must be alleged “with particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A
`
`pleading that simply alleges the substantive elements of fraud, without setting forth the
`
`particularized factual bases for the allegations, does not satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See Petroleos
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Mexicanos v. Intermix S.A., 97 USPQ2d 1403, 1407 (TTAB 2010), citing Asian and W. Classics
`
`B.V. v. Selkow, 92 USPQ2d 1478, 1478 (TTAB 2009) (elements of fraud must be pleaded with
`
`particularity).
`
`A party seeking cancellation of a trademark registration for fraud bears a heavy burden of
`
`proof. Bose, 91 USPQ2d at 1939 (citing W.D. Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co., 377 F.2d
`
`1001, 153 USPQ 749, 750 (CCPA 1967)). Indeed, “the very nature of the charge of fraud requires
`
`that it be proven ‘to the hilt’ with clear and convincing evidence. There is no room for speculation,
`
`inference or surmise and, obviously, any doubt must be resolved against the charging party.” Id.
`
`(quoting Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 209 USPQ 1033, 1044 (TTAB 1981)). The Board will not
`
`find fraud if the evidence shows that a false statement was made with a reasonable and honest
`
`belief that it was true, rather than intent to mislead the USPTO into issuing a registration to which
`
`the applicant was not otherwise entitled. See id.; see also Woodstock’s Enters. Inc. (Cal.) v.
`
`Woodstock’s Enters. Inc. (Or.), 43 USPQ2d 1440, 1443 (TTAB 1997), aff’d (unpub’d), Appeal
`
`No. 97-1580 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 1998).
`
`Here in support of its fraud claim in Count II, Petitioner alleges in ⁋ 27 that Registrant “did
`
`not state a date of first use either in the US market or anywhere else worldwide...” and “failed to
`
`supply a sample of use of the mark in commerce.” See Petition at ⁋ 27. Petitioner also alleges in ⁋
`
`27 that Registrant “[b]y statement or implication…claimed they owned the true right and priority
`
`of right in the mark” BLEEDING EDGE and “claimed they were the true uncontested owner of
`
`an International EDGE registration.” Id.
`
`Petitioner also alleges in ⁋ 28 that after “[r]eviewing the claimed specimens of use that
`
`accompanied the application” (Petition at ⁋ 28), it was “clear that the mark was not being used for
`
`all the goods and services Registrant falsely claimed they were being used for….” (see Id.) and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`that, as a result, Registrant “falsely claimed” that the mark was being used for all the goods and
`
`services in the Registration. Id. This allegation directly contradicts Petitioner’s own statement in
`
`⁋ 27 that Registrant “failed to supply a sample of use of the mark in commerce.” See Petition at ⁋
`
`27.
`
`These allegations are not only contradictory, they are nonsensical, and demonstrate some
`
`of the many misunderstandings and misstatements contained throughout the Petition. As made
`
`clear by the USPTO records, the underlying Application which matured into the Registration was
`
`filed asserting Section 66(a), and not 1(a) (use in commerce) as the filing basis3. More specifically,
`
`as is clearly demonstrated in the USPTO’s TSDR records, the Application was filed asserting only
`
`Section 66(a) as the filing basis, and relying on International Registration No. 1414773, registered
`
`with the World Intellectual Property Organization on April 12, 2018 (the “International
`
`Registration”). The International Registration was based on European Union Application No.
`
`017885907, which matured to registration on September 18, 2018 (the “EU Registration”). As a
`
`result of its filing under Section 66(a), Registrant did not file any specimens of use with the USPTO
`
`(nor was it required to do so), so there are no specimens of record which Petitioner could have
`
`“reviewed.”
`
`Petitioner’s claim that Registrant committed fraud with respect to specimens of use and
`
`first use dates submitted in connection with filing the Application is premised on an allegation that
`
`is entirely false on its face, and simply cannot be maintained. As the USPTO records make clear,
`
`Registrant filed the Application under Section 66(a), and therefore, was not required to submit,
`
`and in fact did not submit any specimens or first use dates in filing the Application that matured
`
`into the Registration. Therefore, the Petition alleging fraud in Count II premised on alleged actions
`
`
`
`3 For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth noting here that the Application upon which the Registration eventually issued
`did not cite Section 1(a) (use in commerce) as an alternative or additional filing basis.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`at the USPTO which never occurred in the first place, and which are objectively and indisputably
`
`false, must be dismissed.
`
`Further, there is no requirement that an applied-for mark be used in commerce as of the
`
`filing date of an application under Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act. Thus, there can be no claim
`
`of fraud based on an alleged incorrect claim of use, because such an allegation—even if true—
`
`would not be material to the USPTO’s decision to register the mark. Cf. Hiraga v. Arenai, 90
`
`USPQ2d 1102, 1107 (TTAB 2009) (claimed date of first use, even if false, is not material and
`
`cannot support a fraud claim). Moreover, it is uncontroverted that Registrant owns the International
`
`Registration and the EU Registration which form the basis of the Registration in the United States.
`
`Additionally, given Registrant’s ownership of the International Registration and EU
`
`Registration for the BLEEDING EDGE mark, (neither of which have ever been contested by
`
`Petitioner or anyone else), Registrant had (and maintains) a reasonable and honest belief that it
`
`owned the subject mark when it filed its underlying Application that matured into the Registration
`
`under Section 66(a).
`
`To the extent that Petitioner is alleging that the declaration in the Application was executed
`
`fraudulently, presumably by asserting that there was allegedly a confusingly similar mark that had
`
`priority over the Registration at the time the declaration was signed, this claim again lacks
`
`sufficient particularity to state a claim for fraud. Namely, a petitioner must allege that: (1) there
`
`was in fact the same or a confusingly similar mark with priority over the applicant’s mark at the
`
`time the oath was signed; (2) the other mark had legal rights superior to the applicant’s rights; (3)
`
`the applicant knew of the other mark, and knew the other mark held rights superior to the applicant,
`
`and the applicant believed that a likelihood of confusion would result from applicant’s use of its
`
`mark, or had no reasonable basis for believing otherwise; and that (4) the applicant, in failing to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`disclose these facts to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, intended to procure a registration to
`
`which it was not entitled. See Qualcomm Inc. v. FLO Corp., 93 USPQ2d 1768, 1770 (TTAB 2010).
`
`The Petition fails to allege elements (2), (3) and (4), at a minimum.
`
`Because Petitioner failed to plead its fraud claim with particularity, and more specifically,
`
`has failed to allege that Registrant had a specific intent to mislead the USPTO and that Registrant’s
`
`allegedly false statements were material to issuance of the Registration, the Petition fails to
`
`sufficiently plead the fraud claim, and fails to state a claim for fraud upon which relief can be
`
`granted. Registrant therefore, respectfully requests that the Board dismiss Count II in the Petition
`
`with prejudice4.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Count III for No Use of the Mark in Commerce Before the
`Application was Filed Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can
`Be Granted
`
`
`
`
`In support of Petitioner’s claim in Count III of the Petition alleging no use of the mark in
`
`commerce before the application was filed under Section 14(6) of the Trademark Act, Petitioner
`
`alleges in ⁋ 31 that “contrary to the claim made by Registrant at the time of filing its application
`
`to register the mark BLEEDING EDGE that result [sic] in the Registration, Registrant did not use
`
`in interstate commerce the BLEEDING EDGE mark in connection with all the goods and services
`
`listed in such application prior to filing such application.” See Petition at ⁋ 31.
`
`
`
`Petitioner further alleges in ⁋ 32 that Registrant “was not using the BLEEDING EDGE
`
`MARK in connection with any of the goods identified in the Registration as of July 1, 2016”
`
`(which is not a date that is relevant to these proceedings), and thus, the application was void ab
`
`initio. Id.
`
`
`
`4 Registrant notes that the fraud claim in the Petition cannot be cured by amendment inasmuch as the Petition bases
`the fraud claim on allegations purporting to relate to Registrant’s allegations of use in commerce at the time the
`underlying Application was filed, since Registrant filed the Application under Section 66(a), and thus, did not make
`any allegations of use when it filed the Application that matured into the Registration.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`As noted supra herein, the Registration was issued from an Application filed under Section
`
`66(a) of the Trademark Act and not an application filed under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act,
`
`and there is no requirement that an application filed under Section 66(a) be used in commerce prior
`
`to filing. 15 U.S.C. § 1141h(a)(3) (“Extension of protection shall not be refused on the ground that
`
`the mark has not been used in commerce.”). “Thus, when directed to a mark registered under
`
`Section 66(a), a claim of cancellation due to nonuse [before the application was filed]5 is legally
`
`insufficient.” Dragon Bleu (SARL) v. VENM, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1925, 1929 (TTAB 2014).
`
`Accordingly, the basis for cancellation in Count III of the Petition alleging non-use of the
`
`mark at the time of the filing of the Application which matured into the Registration is legally
`
`deficient, cannot be corrected by amendment, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
`
`granted. Accordingly, Registrant respectfully requests that the Board dismiss Count III in the
`
`Petition with prejudice.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s Count IV for Abandonment Fails to State a Claim Upon Which
`Relief Can Be Granted
`
`
`In order for a claim for abandonment to withstand a motion to dismiss, “[t]he facts alleged
`
`must set forth a prima facie case of abandonment by a pleading of at least three consecutive years
`
`of non-use or must set forth facts that show a period of non-use less than three years coupled with
`
`an intent not to resume use.” Otto International Inc. v. Otto Kern GmbH, 83 USPQ2d 1861, 1863
`
`(TTAB 2007) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1127; Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris Inc., 899 F.2d
`
`1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Additionally, a petitioner must allege “ultimate facts” on which the alleged
`
`
`
`5 Following the enactment of the Trademark Modernization Act, a Section 66(a) registration can be cancelled under
`Section 14(6) on the ground that the mark has never been used, which is one of the nine enumerated grounds set forth
`on the ESTTA cover sheet for this proceeding, but which is not supported by any specific factual allegations in the
`body of the Petition. In fact, not only has the Petitioner failed to allege any specific facts supporting this claim, but
`has instead alleged facts that the Registrant’s mark was in use (see Petition at ⁋ 38), which axiomatically means that
`the Registrant’s mark is not eligible for cancellation on the ground that it has never been used.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`abandonment claim is based. See TBMP § 309.03(c)(1)(13) n 25 (citing Otto International, 83
`
`USPQ.2d 1861, 1863 (TTAB 2007) (additional citations omitted).
`
`Here, Petitioner alleged no facts and made no allegations to support its conclusory
`
`allegation of abandonment in ⁋ 36-37 of the Petition. Moreover, the bare allegations that Registrant
`
`has "discontinued use" makes no claim that Registrant has failed to use its mark for a period greater
`
`than three years. See Petition at ⁋ 36-37.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s misleading excerpt of an article dated in 2021 in ⁋ 38, which
`
`allegedly shows that Registrant “ceased all work on the product,” is contradicted by information
`
`Petitioner’s excerpt of the article itself, stating that ”Bleeding Edge remains active and playable.”
`
`See Petition at ⁋ 38. A complete version of the article to which Petitioner relies in its Petition is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A. This article clearly states that while there will be no further content
`
`updates, “the game is still playable on Xbox and PC.” See Exhibit A. This article is intrinsic to the
`
`operative Petition because it was explicitly cited to and relied upon by Petitioner in ⁋ 38, and
`
`therefore, does not constitute extrinsic evidence that goes beyond the pleadings for consideration
`
`of Registrant’s instant Motion to Dismiss. Further, because Petitioner relied upon this article in the
`
`Petition and misleadingly cited to it in support of Petitioner’s abandonment allegations in the
`
`Petition at ⁋ 38, the entirety of the article should be reviewed by the Board in consideration of
`
`Registrant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. See Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006)
`
`(“A court may consider evidence on which the complaint "necessarily relies" if: (1) the complaint
`
`refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party
`
`questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion.”); Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
`
`Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007) (“[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety,
`
`as well as other sources courts ordinarily examined when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference.”); See also FRCP
`
`10(c) (“A statement in a pleading may be adopted by reference elsewhere in the same pleading or
`
`in any other pleading or motion.”).
`
`Petitioner appears to allege abandonment based on the false and contradictory assertions
`
`that Registrant “has never used or intended to use the mark identified in the Subject Registration”
`
`(see Petition at ⁋ 37), and on the false allegation that Registrant “discontinued use of the mark
`
`associated with the Subject Registration” for a period of less than three years (See Petition at ⁋ 36
`
`and 38). These allegations likewise fail to state a claim for abandonment.
`
`Although the Petition includes an excerpt from an article dated in 2021 to presumably
`
`support an allegation of express abandonment for a period of less than three years, first, the Petition
`
`itself does not directly allege that there has been “a period of non-use less than three years coupled
`
`with an intent not to resume use” as required to plead a prima facie case of abandonment when
`
`there is less than a three year period of alleged non-use. Second, as explained supra, Petitioner’s
`
`own excerpt of the article itself contradicts Petitioner’s claim of abandonment, stating that
`
`“Bleeding Edge remains active and playable.” See Exhibit A. Indeed, other excerpts from the same
`
`article make clear that while Registrant has decided not to release further “content updates,” the
`
`game itself is still active and playable on multiple platforms. See Exhibit A.
`
`The Petition is at best, unclear as to the basis for Petitioner’s abandonment claim in Count
`
`IV, and Registrant should not be forced to guess at the basis for this claim. Not only does Petitioner
`
`contradictorily assert a complete lack of use while at the same time, asserting there has been
`
`“discontinued use,” the Petition fails to make any allegation required to state a claim of
`
`abandonment. More specifically, the Petition fails to assert that Registrant ceased use of the mark
`
`for a period longer than three years (which would give rise to a statutory presumption of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`abandonment – and which is disproven by Petitioner’s own inclusion of the article included here
`
`at Exhibit A and dated in 2021 in any event), and also fails to allege that Registrant ceased use of
`
`the mark for a period of less than three years with an intent not to resume use. Instead, Petitioner
`
`misleadingly cites an article that in no way shows that Registrant has ceased use of the mark in
`
`commerce, and which in fact, demonstrates that the opposite is true. See Petition at ⁋ 38; see also
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`In sum, the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on the grounds
`
`of abandonment because Petitioner failed to allege a three year period of non-use, and the
`
`remaining bare allegations are insufficiently pled to make out even a prima facie case that
`
`Registrant has ceased use of the mark with an intent not to resume use. Accordingly, Count IV in
`
`the Petition must be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Because the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to
`
`several grounds alleged therein, Registrant respectfully requests that the Board grant its Partial
`
`Motion to Dismiss the Petition with prejudice with respect to Counts II, III and IV. Because
`
`Petitioner has failed to sufficiently allege (and in fact, cannot allege) the necessary elements to
`
`support its claims for fraud, no use of the mark in commerce before the application was filed, and
`
`abandonment, Petitioner is not entitled to cancellation of the Registration on these grounds, and
`
`the Board must dismiss these claims with prejudice.
`
`Finally, Registrant also respectfully requests that the Board suspend all further dates in this
`
`proceeding while the instant Motion is decided.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Date: February 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
`
`By: /April L. Besl__________
`April L. Besl, Esq.
`Karen K. Gaunt, Esq.
`Luke S. Curran, Esq.
`Andrew D. Hilton, Esq.
`255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Telephone: (513) 977-8527
`Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
`E-mail: april.besl@dinsmore.com
`
`karen.gaunt@dinsmore.com
`luke.curran@dinsmore.com
`andrew.hilton@dinsmore.com
`
`Attorneys for Registrant
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served upon the
`
`following by e-mail this 21st day of February, 2023:
`
`Tim Langdell
`EDGE Games, Inc.
`1411 S. Oakland Ave 171
`Pasadena, CA 91106-4338
`edgegames@gmail.com
`
`
`By:
`
`/April L. Besl__________
`April L. Besl, Esq.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Leci
`
`RaUCenUrea
`
`WHATTO PLAY
`
`GAMES +
`
`ENTERTAINMENT +
`
`GUIDES +
`
`MERCH ia ioeESSit)
`
`UhdseR CleLPloy
`
`Polygon
`
`THIS IS ENTER?
`
`Aeeeliemlettty
`aoe CertToa
`
`
`
`NEWS
`
`PC
`
`XBOX
`
`Ninja Theory shuts down development
`on Bleeding Edge
`Studio nowfocusing on Hellblade sequel, two other projects
`By Owen §. Good | Jan 28, 2021, 1:38pm EST
`
`ALIENWARE ®@
`Cee ages ULEm
`Deiat
`
`CES ac START GAMING NOW»
`
`f
`
`WD
`
`Fe suare
`
`less than a year after the multiplayer melee
`Developmenthas ended on Bleeding Edge,
`battler launched on Windows PC and Xbox One.
`
`Developer Ninja Theory announcedthe end on Thursday, noting that Bleeding Edge
`remainsactive and playable. It just never drew muchof an audience. SteamCharts
`counted the game’s PC playership at an average of 480 in its launch monthof March
`2020, and it’s dwindled eversince.
`
`Bleeding Edge @
`@BleedingEdgeNT: Follow
`
`wy
`
`With the studio now focusing on our new projects
`(Senua’s Saga, Project Mara & The Insight Project) we
`have decidedthat there will be no further content updates
`for Bleeding Edge. The game is still playable an Xbox and
`PC. Thank you to the fans & keep teaming up & causing
`chaos!
`Jan 28, 2021
`12:00 PM-
`@ 29K @ Reply
`
`@
`
`tt, Share
`Read 354 replies
`
`Bleeding Edge was announced at Eg 2019. The gamefeatured teamsof fourplayers,
`drawing froma rosterof 13 bizarre characters, fighting with stylish melee and ranged
`weapons.It wasthefirst Xbox One game developed by Ninja Theoryfollowing
`Microsoft's acquisitionof the studio in 2018.
`
`Ninja Theorynowturnsits full attention to Senua’s Saga: Heliblade 2, the sequel to
`2017's award-winning Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice. Senua’s Saga was announcedat
`The Game Awards 2019; it doesn’t yet have a launchdate butit will launch on Windows
`PC and XboxSeries X.
`
`FEATURED VIDEOS FROM POL’
`
`Plavina F1 on the ultimate PC racina ria
`
`
`
`
`
`¢
`
`Patch Notes
`Aweekly roundupof the best things
`from Polygon
`
`Email (required)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`CAPTCH,
`and Terms of Service
`
`e
`
`Privacy Policy
`
`SUBSCRIBE
`
`@AT&TBusiness
`
`AT&1 Business Fiber’
`
`Fast. Secure.
`Straightforward
`Pricing.
`eT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Most Read
`
`

`

`
`Bi Sa
`Beast became the X-Men’s Henry Kissinger,
`so Wolverine put a stop to him
`
`Company of Heroes 3 propelsreal-time
`
`OPEN A
`HIGH YIELD
`SAVINGS
`ACCOUNT
`
`Playing F1 on the ultimate PC racingrig
`
`SPONSORED CONTENT
`
`strategy past the real-time part
`
`Terie. ply
`
`> es‘
`
`ram
`High West A Midwinter
`Nights Dram
`Caskers
`
`2
`t
`You Can Do Anything You
`WantIn This Game
`RAID: Shadow Legends
`
`ew
`Totally Fake - The 35
`Most Fake Reality Shows.
`People Actually Believed
`Were Heal
`YourDIy
`
`a”a Bee
`i
`
`‘
`
`q
`2 a,
`[Photos] 22 Inappropriate
`Vintage Ads That Were
`Once Socially Acceptable
`12up
`
`Totally Awkward
`Magazine Covers People
`Regret Ever Doing
`Definition
`
`15 Classic Movies That
`Are Now Unacceptable
`MoneyPail
`
`®utorain >
`
`The Latest
`
`PokémonPresents livestream event announcedfor
`Pokémon Day
`
` chael MeWhertor |
`
`
`
`Chill eco-strategy gameTerra Nil comes to Steam and
`Netflix next month
`
`B
`h
`|
`
`Howto use the scannerin Atomic Heart
`
`By |
`
`Whereto find every substory in Like a Dragon:Ishin!
`
`B
`o |
`
`Thefirst Street Fighter 6 world championwill win $1
`million
`By O
`
`| would watch an entire show about TheLast of Us’
`
`grumpyold couple
`eaeMetaeeeeeae Contact
`
`Sign up forPatch Notes
`A weekly roundup ofthe best things from Polygon ueCUoeatu eaacdoe anorectalg
`any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policyand Terms:
`fo)goafeBlas
`
`Do NotSell or Share My Personal Info - Licensing FAQ - Accessibility
`- Send UsaTip - Community Guidelines Masthead -
`
`Peeled molly
`
`VOXMEDIA
`Pent
`Jobs @ Vox Media
`
`

`

`PSsCelgiMees RelleiuMe RCORALCome aleeal
`PPR (ord0 ee
`
`/1/28/22254694/bleeding-edge-ended-development-shut-down-ninja-theory
`
`9:57:25 AM 2/21/2023
`https://www.polygon.co
`
`