Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1292115
`
`Filing date:
`
`06/19/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92081622
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`SM Beauty, LLC
`
`SANG LEE
`LAW OFFICES OF SANG LEE
`505 E GOLF RD STE H
`ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL 60005
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: slee000@aol.com
`Secondary email(s): softbeeus@gmail.com, jlee@leebreenlaw.com,
`mlee@leebreenlaw.com
`847-208-8617
`
`Motion to Compel Discovery or Disclosure
`
`John Y. Lee
`
`mlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`/s/ John Y. Lee
`
`06/19/2023
`
`23-06.15 Respondent's Motion to Compel EXhibit D.pdf(329596 bytes )
`23-06.15 Respondent's Motion to Compel.pdf(452938 bytes )
`
`

`

`LEE & BREEN
`
`June 1, 2023
`
`Via E- Mail: Govinda.davis@dinsmore.com
`Ms. Govinda M.Davis
`Dinsmore
`255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`
`Re:
`
`YG Entertainment v. SM Beauty: Cancellation No. 92081622: Meet and Confer on
`Petitioner’s Objection to Respondent’s Written Discovery
`
`Dear Ms. Davis:
`
`This confirms and memorializes that you, Sang Lee and I held a meet an confer
`teleconference this morning regarding Petitioner’s objection that there are more than 75
`interrogatories and document requests, counting “subparts”. You further confirmed that is why
`Petitioner did not produce any documents andthat it intends to assert other objections in the
`future. Respondent’s position is that the way Petitioner counts “subparts” is ludicrous and that
`Respondent’s 33 interrogatories and 35 documents requests are well within the rules.
`
`Further, Respondent’s position that it gets to object “substantively” later to the same
`written discovery is in bad faith.
`I cannot imagine a judicial system that would subscribe to such
`dilatory practices. One would end up spending several years just on simple written discovery.
`
`You said that our interrogatory #1 was 2 questions in one. For purpose ofillustration, I
`will explain why that is in bad faith. Respondent’s interrogatory #1 states: State the full name
`and address of the person answering or furnishing any information for the answers to these
`interrogatories and for each such person identify each interrogatory for which he/she provided
`information for the answer and what information was provided. Your positionis it seeks identify
`of witnesses and the information that person provided and that is why #1 is 2 questions in
`1. And you claim that under 37 CFR Sec. 120 (d) and(e), you are allowed to count that way. We
`believe your position is unsupported by those rules. You are just parsing out words and creating
`“subparts”.
`
`Whyonly 2 subparts to #1? You can parse more words and make more “subparts”: The
`rog asks for name and address — 2 right there. Then it asks for person answering and person
`providing information — 2 more right there. Then it asks for each person, to identify for which
`interrogatory he or she provided information. Since there are 33 rogs — that’s 66 right
`there. And since it seeks names and addresses: 66 x 2= 132.
`Imagineif the rog sought email
`addresses and phone numbers, The numbersget too big for math skill.
`
`According to you, Interrogatory #3 has 13 subparts and #4 has 10 subparts. The best way
`to illustrate Petitioner’s bad faith is your position on Document Request #25, whichstates: All
`
`188 INDUSTRIAL ORIVERSSpbt@nt's MStisn td Cdinpel Exhthit Dip 20
`F. 630.748.0399
`9951 W 190TH STREET
`SUITE A MOKENA IL 60448
`T. 708.478.7240
`F. 708.479.7441
`YG Enterainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816221
`
`

`

`Documents that relate to, arise out of, reflect or are connected to the factual and informational
`bases upon which You makeallegations based on “information and belief” in the Petition,
`including but notlimited to Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,
`54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97
`of the Petition. If my counting is correct, that rog refers to 40 paragraphs from the Petition (but
`don’t forget, it’s including but not limited to). Your position that the Document Request
`contains 40 subparts is ludicrous. Again, why only 40? They are 40 paragraphsin the Petition in
`which the allegations are based on “information and belief’. So that’s 40 for under information,
`40 for underbelief, and then multiplied by “relating to” and then separately “arising out of’ and
`so on.
`
`Under your ludicrousposition, that one document request alone has more subparts than
`the 75 allowed. It seeks documents supporting the “on information and belief”allegations in the
`Petition. That is one request, not 40 or multiples of 40 depending on how you decideto parse
`words.
`
`One more example that you and I discussed - Document Request #26, which states: All
`documentsthat relate to, arise out of, reflect or are connected to the factual and informational
`bases upon which You makeallegations of “fraud” in Paragraphs 70, 71, and 72 of the
`Petition. You say that’s 3 requests.
`I say that’s ] request.
`It so happensthat in 3 paragraphs,
`the Petition alleges fraud. It does not matter how many times or in how many paragraphs fraud
`is alleged. The document request seeks any documents based on which fraudis alleged in the
`Petition. Maybe there are documents; maybethe “evidence”is oral; maybe the basis is
`speculation. Respondentis asking if there are any documents supporting thoseallegations. Your
`refusal to respond to a simple document request because you choseto readit as three requests
`(and if you add upall those created subparts, you cangetit to exceed 75 — heck, #25 alone gets
`you past 75) is outrageous.
`
`I have already written you an email about your dilatory tactic of object, don’t comply,
`object again, don’t comply, object again, and so on. That too is outrageous. Nothing in the
`CFRsor Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for such drip, drip objections and compliance.
`
`Finally, we just received Petitioner’s written discovery. We can parse words too, but our
`response is not due for a while. You agreethat the parties are at an impasse, so we will proceed
`to file our motion.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`AG DO
`
`John Y. Lee
`
`CC: Mr. Sam Lew(via email)
`Mr. Sang Lee (via email)
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit D2
`
`YG Enterainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816222
`
`

`

`6/13/23, 9:38 AM
`
`Mail - John Lee - Outlook
`
`RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Thu 6/1/2023 11:47 AM
`
`ToJohn Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`CesleeD00@acl,com <slee000@aol.com>;scftbeeus@ gmail.com <softbeeus@gmail.com>;Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Mr. Lee:
`
`The information that you seek is within the rules that | previously provided. If you disagree with the interpretation of the rules, then yes, we
`have reached an impasse and | do not believe any further back and forth would be productive. We stand by our position that the current
`objections are proper and YG Entertainment retains it right to serve specific objections and substantive responsesata later date,if
`required.
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`Dinsmore
`
`Govinda M. Davis
`Partner — Attorney-at-Law
`Dinsmore & Shohl LLP * Legal Counsel
`T (513) 977-8857 ° F (543) 977-8141
`E govinda.davis@dinsmore.com * dinsmere.com
`
`From: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 12:41 PM
`To: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@ DINSMORE.COM>
`Ce: slee000@aal.com; softbeeus@gmail.com; Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Ms. Davis:
`
`I've read those rules. They say noting about how you described that by objecting on the numberof interrogatories {really based on what
`you believe to be “subparts” whichis frivolous}, you do not have to respond so long as you object. We disagree. Nothing in the CRFs allow
`for or leave room for such bad faith, dilatory tactics.
`
`It’s been more than 28 days.
`You say in your Initial Disclosure that you have documents that are responsive to our document requests.
`Why have you not produced them? Your answer is: because you objected on the numberof written discovery (the 33 rogs and 35 doc
`reqs), That is bad faith.
`
`Our position is that you lodged one objection; you and | held a meet and confer on that and reached impasse. So that is ripe for a motion.
`Onall other potential objections, you waived them.
`
`Again, | ask you to point me to the rule that saysthat if you object on the number ofrogs or doc req, then you do not have to respond or
`produce the docs you admit you have, but you get to keep objecting without compliance with written discovery. The two rules you point to
`does no even hint at such dilatory tactics being acceptable.
`
`John ¥. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.g YOU ARE AN ERNE pect USING, CPRINEOAMATING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`EMAIL IS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERABRAPPGTALEMAS
`[pity
`spel
`esuibit
`
`
`itpefoutookoffce38s.cosRUSERTRMEDKnSMEROAMEY,Caseaonine:memedhesREGLomSpNCACOV.. 15
`
`

`

`6/13/23, 9:38 AM
`
`Mail - John Lee - Outlook
`
`From: Davis, Govinda <Govinda Davis @DINSMORE.COM>
`Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 11:10 AM
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`
`Cc: sleeQO0@aol.com; softbeeus@gmail.com; Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Mr. Lee:
`
`Wedisagree that our proper objections are in any way in bad faith or dilatory. Therefore, your request that we point you ta a TTAB rule for
`bad faith and dilatory tactics is combative and unproductive. Nevertheless, although It is not our obligation to familiarize you with the
`Trademark Rules, below please find the rules which we reference:
`
`© 37 CBR. § 2.420(d)
`* 37 CER, § 2.120(e)
`
`Additionally, it is unclear from your e-mail what you mean about objections and productions. !t appears that you have misconstrued what|
`said during the call. | indicated that per the rules mentioned above, YG Entertainment has properly lodged its objections based on the
`requests being over the numerical limits. Therefore, YG is not required to provide substantive responses atthis time, unless the Board
`orders it to de so or you amend the requeststo fit the numerical limits. Hf either of those scenarios occur, then we would provide specific
`objections and substantive responses.
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`Dinsmdre
`
`Govinda M. Davis
`Partner ~ Aliorney-at-Law
`Dinsmore & Shohl LLP * Legal Counsel
`T (543) 977-8657 + F (513) 977-8141
`E govinda,davis@dinsmore.com * dinsmore.com
`
`From: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 11:38 AM
`To: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`
`Ce: sleeQ00@ aol.com; softbeeus@gmail.com; Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Ms. Davis:
`
`I will send you a meet and confer letter that confirms and memorializes the meet and confer call you and | and Sang just had, but before
`doing so, | ask you to point me your legal basis that you do not have an obligation to respond currently.
`
`You made one objection (the number of interrogatories), which we believeis frivolous {intended only to delay, delay, and delay), but you
`say you will respond but you don’t have a current obligation to. So are you saying, so long as a party objects, they don’t have to respond
`and produce, and then that party can bring up another objection, and not respond, and then bring up another one, and not respond,etc.?
`You keep mentioning some rule without identifying it. What rule allows you to do that?
`
`| did not know that TTAB hasbuilt-in rules for bad faith and dilatory tactics in discovery. Please identify that rule for me. Thanks.
`
`John ¥. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE pasrontentsMetviante.<amnelFables DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING, FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`
`
`https://outlook.office366.conkSekiSETAEneviata Cancellationne,remodPeedecamspNcAcoVwe ab
`
`

`

`8/13/23, 9:37 AM
`
`Mail - John Lee - Outlook
`
`RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Thu 6/1/2023 10:37 AM
`
`To:Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@ DINSMORE.COM>
`Ceslee000@acl.com <slee000@aol.com>;softbeeus@gmail.com <softbeeus@gmail.com>;Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Ms. Davis:
`
`Iwill send you a meet and confer letter that confirms and memorializes the meet and confer call you and | and Sang just had, but before
`doing so, | ask you to point me your legal basis that you do not have an obligation to respond currently.
`
`You made one objection (the number ofinterrogatories}, which we believeis frivolous (intended only to delay, delay, and delay), but you
`say you will respond but you don’t have a currentobligation to. So are you saying, so long as a party objects, they don’t have to respond
`and produce, and then that party can bring up another objection, and not respond, and then bring up another one, and not respond,etc?
`You keep mentioning some rule without identifying it. What rule allows you to do that?
`
`| did not know that TTAB hasbuilt-in rules for bad faith and dilatory tactics in discovery. Please identify that rule for me. Thanks.
`
`John Y, Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING, FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`EMAILIS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE SENDER. THANK YOU,
`
`From: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 9:50 AM
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.cam>
`Ce: sleeQOR@acl.com; softbeeus@gmail.com; Monica Lee <mlee @leebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No, 92081622
`
`Mr. Lee:
`
`As previously mentioned, we will be prepared to discuss counting of both the document request and interrogatories. Additionally, attached
`please find YG Entertainment's responses to SM Beauty’s first set of requests for admissions, Our client will provide substantive responses
`and documentsto discovery requests that are within the numerical limits and, as such, currently does not have any obligation to do so
`based on SM Beauty's improper requests, as we will further discuss on the call shortly.
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`Dinsmore
`
`Govinda M. Davis
`Partner — Attomey-at-Law
`Dinsmore & Shoh| LLP + Legal Counsel
`T (513) 977-8657 «+ F (513) 977-8141
`E govinda.davis@dinsmore.com * dinsmore.com
`
`From: John Lee <jlee@leebreenla
`
`pontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit D5
`Sent: Thursday, June 1,2023 10:2
`https://outlook.office365.congFRASLAHIMIEIkidYiRAS,CancellahoniNe,neAdedhesnEGLomSpNcAcOV....
`
`To: Davis, Govinda <Govinda Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`
`1/4
`
`

`

`6/13/23, 9:35 AM
`
`Mail - John Lee - Cuiloak
`
`RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Thu 6/1/2023 9:28 AM
`
`To:Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@ DINSMORE.COM>
`
`Cc:slee000@aol.com <slee000@aol.com>;softbeeus@gmail.com <softbeeus@gmail.com>;Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Ms. Davis:
`
`To make the meet and confer call (upcoming at 11 AM your time) more efficient, would you have ready the way you counted the
`interrogatories. We served 33 rogs and you say they exceed 75, we need to discuss how you are counting what you have yet identify as the
`“subparts”, Same for the 35 document requests we served on you. There is no limitation on those, butI take it you are trying to piggyback
`onto your abjection ta the number of rags.
`
`All the documents you identified in your Initial Disclosure fall under our document requests, so please produceall of them.
`
`On the Requests to Admit, as the request itself made it clear and the law as well, your time for responding has passed, so they are
`admitted.
`
`John ¥. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING, FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`EMAIL IS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE SENDER. THANK YOU,
`
`From: John Lee
`
`Sent; Tuesday, May 30, 2023 8:50 AM
`To: 'Davis, Govinda’ <Govinda.Davis@ DINSMORE.COM>
`Cc: sleeQ00@aol.com; softbeeus@ gmail.com; Monica Lee <mlee@teebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No, 92081622
`
`Ms. Davis:
`
`Wedisagree that we are over the limit. Meet and confer on June 1 at 1100 AM Eastern time.
`
`| will call you.
`
`John ¥. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDEDRECIPIENT, USING, COPYING, FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`EMAIL IS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE SENDER. THANK YOU,
`
`From: Davis, Govinda <Govinda. Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 2:05 PM
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenfaw.com>
`
`Ce: sleed00@aol.com; softheeus@gmail.com; Monica Lee <
`
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v sRaspolitontaadationtooconipelnbkdadbit.B¥6e1622
`
`mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`
`“aa
`
`
`
`ntips://outlook.office36s.contnSATRHGEARKewMiAeAREY CARSEVABADNGmenedOeActamsprcacov... 13
`
`

`

`6/13/23, 9:34 AM
`
`Mail - John Lee - Outlook
`
`RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Jonn Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Tue 5/30/2023 8:50 AM
`
`To:Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Cc'slee000@aol.com <slee000@aol.com>;softbeeus@gmail.com <softbeeus@gmail.com>;Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Ms. Davis:
`
`We disagree that we are over the limit. Meet and confer on June 1 at 1100 AM Eastern time.
`
`| will call you.
`
`John ¥. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jiee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING, FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`EMAIL IS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE SENDER. THANK YOU.
`
`From: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@ DINSMORE.COM>
`Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 2:05 PM
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Ce: slee000@aol.com; softheeus@ gmail.com; Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.cam>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Mr. Lee:
`
`We stand by our position that, when counting subparts, $M Beauty has exceeded the numerical limits on discovery set by the Board.
`Therefore, your allegation that such objections were made in bad faith is not well taken. Nevertheless, we are amenable to a meet and
`confer to discuss this further. To ensure a productive discussion, please be prepared to discuss your counting methodin further detail as we
`will be prepared to discuss ours.
`
`Below are some dates/times that would work far a phone call this week:
`
`* Wednesday May 31 - 3:30 pm Eastern
`¢ Wednesday May 31 — 4:30 pm Eastern
`¢ Thursday June 1— 11:00 am Eastern
`* Thursday June 1—- 2:00 pm Eastern
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`Dinsmdére
`
`Govinda M, Davis
`Partner -- Aitorney-al-Law
`Dinsmore & ShohI LLP * Legal Counsel
`T (613) 977-8657 + F (513) 977-8141
`E govinda.davis@dinsmore.com * dinsmore.com
`
`From: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Sent: Monday, May 29, 2023 1:08 PM
`To: Davis, Govinda <Govinda. Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`
`
`Subject: Re: YG Entertainment v 5M
`Beality - (AIRSWIOtiOnoeMiipelExhibitDg1602
`hi
`Meebr
`L
`ga,
`Ce: sleeQ00@aol.com; SeeRESSoH
`https/outlook.office368contdirMASEEDNKinidAGancelahonie,MemedOeeifectgmspNeAcoV.12
`
`

`

`6/13/23, 9:34 AM
`
`Ms, Davis:
`
`Mail - John Lee - Outlook
`
`When are you free for a meet and confer this coming week. We find your objections to our written discovery in bad faith, and before we
`bring a motion, we should have a meet and confer. My schedule is fairly open this week. Please let me know. Thanks.
`
`John Y, Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`Mobile: (312) 804-8601
`Office: (312) 241-1420
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE OR OTHER
`PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`1F YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING, FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS
`EMAILIS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE SENDER. THANK YOU.
`
`On May 29, 2023, at 11:28 AM, Davis, Govinda <Govinda Davis@dinsmore.com> wrote:
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`Attached please find Petitioner’s Initial Disclosures in the above-captioned matter.
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`simage001 .jpg>
`Govinda M. Davis
`Partner — Attorney-at-Law
`Dinsmore & Shohl LLP + Legal Counsel
`T (513) 977-8657 «+ F (513) 977-8141
`E govinda.davis@dinsmmore.com * dinsmere.com
`
`NOTICE:This electronic mail transmission from the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl may constitute an
`attorney-client communication thatis privileged at law, It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by,
`any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it
`from your system without copyingit, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can
`be corrected.
`<YG Entertainment v SM Beauty - YG Entertainment's Initial Disclosures.pdf>
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit D8
`
`hitps:/outlook.office368.conteaHHAAnetevAas GCancelaionie,MonodPeeRotgmspNoAcovwe
`
`ta
`
`

`

`From: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM=>
`Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 9:58 AM
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Ce: sleeQO00@aal.com
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v. SM Beauty: Cancellation Ne. 92081622: Meet and Confer on
`
`Mr. Lee:
`
`Again, these e-mails are unproductive and do nothing to further your client’s position. You have already stated
`several times that we are at an impasse, so, again this back and forth is not helpful. ¥G Entertainment’s objections
`based on the numeral limit of the discovery requests are well-founded in the Trademark Rules and TTAB case law. To
`the extent that YG Entertainmentis required to make substantive objections at a later date, it will do so and such
`objections are not waived. As my e-mail mentioned, the discussion on subparts was for illustrative purposes and we
`will confirm any further count of the number of discovery requests in response to any motion that $M Beautyfiles
`and let the Board decide the issue, Therefore, we do not believe that any further discussion on this topic is
`warranted,
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`Dinsmdre
`
`Govinda M. Davis
`Partner - Atforney-at-Law
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit D9
`t
`
`YG Enterainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816229
`
`

`

`Dinsmore & Shohl LLP * Legal Counsel
`T (613) 977-8657 + F (513) 977-8141
`E govinda.davis@dinsmore.com * dinsmore.com
`
`From: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 10:30 AM
`To: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Cc: slee0O0 @ aol.com
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v. SM Beauty: Cancellation No. 92081622: Meet and Confer on
`
`Ms. Davis:
`
`This shows Petitioner's bad faith. How is it that you gave me ridiculous explanations of how you counted “subparts”
`during the meet and confer, the deadline for responding and objecting to written discovery has passed, and you are
`still trying to say that what you said during the meet and confer was “for illustration purposes”, but youstill won’t
`produce anything or tell me precisely what your objections are? That is bad faith.
`
`As | said, what you did not object to by the deadline are waived.
`
`John Y. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT
`DOCTRINE OR OTHER PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY.
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING,
`FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS EMAIL IS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE
`SENDER. THANK YOU.
`
`From: Davis, Govinda <Govinda. Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Sent: Monday, June 5, 2023 8:54 AM
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: RE: YG Entertainment v. SM Beauty: Cancellation No. 92081622: Meet and Confer on
`
`Mr, Lee:
`
`We are in receipt of your letter. As mentioned, YG Entertainment disagrees with your position and stands byits
`objections. Additionally, the examples regarding an initial count of subparts contained in the document requests and
`interrogatories mentioned during the call werefor illustration purposes and in an attemptte facilitate a meaningful
`dialogue during the meet and confer. We reserve the right to assert additional concerns regarding the counted
`subparts in response to any motion that SM Beautyfiles.
`
`Regards,
`
`Govinda
`
`a
`
`Dinsmore
`
`A
`
`Respontent’s Motion to Compel Exhibit D10
`2
`YG Enterainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 9208162210
`
`

`

`Govinda M. Davis
`Partner — Attorney-al-l aw
`Dinsmore & Shohl LLP + Legal Counsel
`T (513) 977-8657 + F (513) 977-8141
`E govinda.davis@cinsmore.cam * dinsmore.com
`
`From: fohn Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`
`Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2023 4:57 PM
`To: Davis, Govinda <Govinda.Davis@DINSMORE.COM>
`Subject: Fwd: YG Entertainment v. SM Beauty: Cancellation No. 92081622: Meet and Confer on
`
`Ms. Davis:
`
`Meet and Confer letter from today’s teleconference.
`
`John Y. Lee
`
`Lee & Breen
`
`Jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`Office: 312-241-1420
`
`Mobile: 312-804-8601
`
`THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT
`DOCTRINE OR OTHER PRIVILEGES OR CONFIDENTIALITY,
`IF YOU ARE AN UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, USING, COPYING,
`FORWARDING OR DISSEMINATING THIS EMAIL IS PROHIBITED; PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE
`SENDER. THANK YOU,
`
`Begin forwarded message:
`
`From: Monica Lee <mlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Date: June 1, 2023 at 3:54:43 PM CDT
`To: John Lee <jlee@leebreenlaw.com>
`Subject: YG Entertainment v. SM Beauty: Cancellation No. 92081622: Meet and Confer on
`
`Monica Lee
`Lee & Breen, LLC
`188 Industrial Drive, Suite 403
`Elmhurst, IL 60126
`Phone: (312) 241-1420
`Email: Mlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`IF TO OR FROM CLIENTS OR COLLEAGUES THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY
`THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE,IF YOU ARE AN
`UNINTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE ERADICATE THIS EMAIL AND ALERT THE SENDER. THANK
`YOu,
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit D11
`3
`YG Enterainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 9208162211
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Mark: BLACKPINK
`
`Reg. No.5376449
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YG ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`
` SM BEAUTY, LLC,
`
` Respondent.
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`
` Respondent SM Beauty, LLC, by its counsel, moves to compel Petitioner, YG
`
`Entertainment, Inc. to answer interrogatories and to produce documents, or in the alternative,
`
`leave to serve interrogatories and documents requests in excess of 75 each and for Petitioner to
`
`Respond to the same. In support of this motion, Respondent states as follows;
`
`
`1.
`
`Respondent served 33 interrogatories and 35 documents requests on Petitioner.
`
`They are respectively attached as Exhibits A and B.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner responded by not answering a single interrogatory or producing a single
`
`document or making any objection other than that they are in excess of 75 each, including
`
`“subparts”. Those objections based on Petitioner claiming that 33 interrogatories and 35 document
`
`requests are in excess of 75 each, and no other objection are attached as group Exhibit C.
`
`3.
`
`There are no subparts to Respondent’s interrogatories or document requests at all,
`
`but Respondent reads them by parsing words and making multiple interrogatories or document
`
`requests out of single requests.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`4.
`
`Counsel for the parties had a meet and confer and confirmed that is the only basis
`
`for Petitioner to refuse to answer a single interrogatory or produce a single document. Those
`
`meet and confer communications are attached as Exhibit D.
`
`5.
`
` Respondent confirmed and memorialized the meet and confer (see Exhibit D-1
`
`and D-2), explaining how frivolous Petitioner’s position was.
`
`6.
`
` Evidently, realizing how untenable its position was, Petitioner then emailed,
`
`claiming that the ridiculous position it took during the meet and confer was for
`
`“illustration purposes.” (See email exchange on Exhibit D-10). Putting aside Petitioner’s bad
`
`faith, moving target meet and confer positions, it still has not explained what its objections are or
`
`why it has not complied with written discovery.
`
`7.
`
`As Petitioner’s Initial Disclosure, attached Exhibit E, indicates, Petitioner has
`
`responsive documents to the document requests served by Respondent.
`
`8.
`
`All of Respondent’s interrogatories and document requests seek relevant
`
`information and documents arising out of the Petition in this matter.
`
`9.
`
` Parsing words to artificially create tortured subparts to claim that 33 and 35
`
`written discovery requests are actually more than 75 each is bad faith.
`
`10.
`
` Moreover, Petitioner’s counsel claims that it will articulate more objections
`
`later. Deadline for objecting to written discovery has long passed.
`
`11.
`
` If there are any subparts to Respondent’s 33 and 35 requests for written discovery
`
`to make them count as more than 75 each, then Respondent alternatively requests leave to serve
`
`those written discovery (already served) and to have Petitioner answer them and produce
`
`documents, as they all arise straight out of the Petition in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

` WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully moves the TTAB for an order compelling
`
`Petitioner to answer the interrogatories or document requests already served on Petitioner,
`
`regardless of whether they are counted as 33 and 35 requests or more than 75 requests each.
`
`
`
`Date: Jun 15,2023
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` By: /s/John Y. Lee
` One of the Attorneys for Respondent SM Beauty
`
`John Y. Lee
`Attorney for Registrant
`jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`Lee & Breen LLC
`188 Industrial Drive, Suite 403
`Elmhurst, IL 60126
`Tel.: (312) 241-1420
`
`Sang Lee
`USPTO Reg. No. 67,541
`Attorney for Registrant
`slee000@aol.com,
` softbeeus@gmail.com
`Law Offices of Sang Lee
`505 E Golf Road, Suite H
`Arlington Heights, IL 60005
`Tel: 1-847-208-8617
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Motion to
`
`Compel were served on the following via email, on Jun 15, 2023, as follow:
`
`
`Govinda M. Davis, Esq.
`Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
`255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Telephone: (513) 977-8200
`Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
`govinda.davis@dinsmore.com
`Attorneys for Petitioner YG Entertainment Inc.
`
`/s/ John Y. Lee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`