Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1295176
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/03/2023
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff
`YG Entertainment Inc.
`
`GOVINDA M DAVIS
`DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
`255 E FIFTH STREET SUITE 1900
`CINCINNATI, OH 45202
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: govinda.davis@dinsmore.com
`Secondary email(s): trademarks@dinsmore.com
`513-977-8200
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`Govinda M. Davis
`
`govinda.davis@dinsmore.com, trademarks@dinsmore.com
`
`/Govinda M. Davis/
`
`07/03/2023
`
`YG Entertainment Inc v SM Beauty LLC - YG Entertainment Opposition to Mo-
`tion to Compel and Exhibits.pdf(4031602 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`YG Entertainment, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SM Beauty, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the matter of:
`Registration No. 5376449
`
`For the mark: BLACKPINK
`
`Cancellation No: 92081622
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Respondent. )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`Petitioner YG Entertainment, LLC (“YG Entertainment”) hereby opposes Respondent SM
`
`Beauty, LLC’s (“SM Beauty”) June 15, 2023 motion to compel discovery (the “Motion”) (see
`
`TTABVUE Doc. Nos. 8, 9 & 10). At the outset, SM Beauty’s motion is wholly frivolous and stems
`
`from SM Beauty and its counsel unwillingness to familiarize themselves with the applicable
`
`Trademark Rules, namely, 37 CFR § 2.120, subsections (d) and (e). Despite the fact that it is not
`
`YG Entertainment’s obligation or responsibility to ensure that SM Beauty is aware of the
`
`applicable rules, counsel for YG Entertainment did make counsel for SM Beauty aware of these
`
`subsections prior to the Motion being filed. Nevertheless, SM Beauty continues to misinterpret the
`
`Trademark Rules and has filed the Motion, which not only wastes party resources, but also wastes
`
`Board resources. This motion practice could have been avoided if SM Beauty simply narrowed its
`
`overly numerous discovery requests.
`
`As to the substance of the Motion, YG Entertainment’s counting of SM Beauty’s
`
`interrogatories and document requests is permissible and reasonable under the Board case law and
`
`all applicable rules and guidance. Indeed, even an exceedingly generous and conservative counting
`
`
`
`

`

`of SM Beauty’s interrogatories and document requests results in interrogatories and document
`
`requests far in excess of the permitted 75 each. Moreover, YG Entertainment properly objected to
`
`SM Beauty’s interrogatories and document requests, and SM Beauty’s allegation that YG
`
`Entertainment has somehow waived any further objections is flat out wrong. Finally, SM Beauty
`
`has identified no basis or good cause for the alternative relief it seeks, namely, leave to serve
`
`interrogatories and document requests in excess of 75. Accordingly, YG Entertainment
`
`respectfully request that the Board deny SM Beauty’s Motion in its entirety and issue an order
`
`confirming that SM Beauty’s First Interrogatories to Petitioner and First Request for Production
`
`of Documents to Petitioner 1 exceed the limit set by the Trademark Rules and that YG
`
`Entertainment is not required to respond to these requests, as further described below.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Law: Procedure For Responding To Excessive Discovery Requests.
`
`The applicable Trademark Rules make it clear that each subpart to a discovery request is
`
`counted separately and “[t]he Board is not bound by the propounding party’s numbering or
`
`designating system.” One Jeanswear Grp. Inc. v. YogaGlo, Inc., 127 USPQ2d 1793, 1796 (TTAB
`
`2018) (citing Kellogg Co. v. Nugget Distrib. Coop. of Am. Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1468, 1469 (TTAB
`
`1990)). Particularly:
`
`[T]he Board will look to the substance of each interrogatory to
`identify whether it actually asks multiple distinct questions (e.g.,
`sales figures and advertising figures counted as two requests), in
`which case each question is counted as a separate interrogatory, or
`whether it asks a single question, or all relevant facts and
`circumstances concerning a single issue, applicable to all pleaded
`
`
`1 YG Entertainment notes that SM Beauty also served a First Set of Requests for Admissions. These Requests for
`Admissions were within the numerical limit set by the Trademark Rules; therefore, YG Entertainment did not object
`on this basis and provided responses.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`marks or all asserted goods and services (such as, sales figures for
`each of a party’s marks for multiple years), in which case it is
`counted as a single interrogatory.”
`
`One Jeanswear, 127 USPQ2d at 1796 (citing Jan Bell Mktg., Inc. v. Centennial Jewelers, Inc., 19
`
`USPQ2d 1636, 1637 (TTAB 1990)).2
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Trademark Rule § 2.120(d) provides in relevant part (emphasis added):
`
`If a party upon which interrogatories have been served believes that
`the number of interrogatories exceeds the limitation specified in this
`paragraph (d), and is not willing to waive this basis for objection,
`the party shall, within the time for (and instead of) serving answers
`and specific objections to the interrogatories, serve a general
`objection on the ground of their excessive number.
`
`Similarly, Trademark Rule § 2.120(e) provides in relevant part (emphasis added):
`
`If a party upon which requests have been served believes that the
`number of requests exceeds the limitation specified in this
`paragraph, and is not willing to waive this basis for objection, the
`party shall, within the time for (and instead of) serving responses
`and specific objections to the requests, serve a general objection on
`the ground of their excessive number.
`
`Contrary To SM Beauty’s Contentions, YG Entertainment Has Followed The
`Correct Procedure For Responding To Excessive Discovery Requests.
`
`B.
`
`
`Initially, SM Beauty, in both the Motion and in its correspondence with YG Entertainment,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`has made much of the fact that YG Entertainment made “no other objection” to SM Beauty’s
`
`Interrogatories or Document Requests besides the general objection on the ground of their
`
`excessive number. (See TTABVUE Doc. No. 8; see also TTABVUE 10, Exhibit D.) Inexplicably,
`
`SM Beauty evidently believes that YG Entertainment—by following the proper procedure for
`
`
`2 Most of the case law regarding counting discovery requests relates to interrogatories since interrogatories, prior to
`the Trademark Rule change of 2016, were limited to 75 and document requests and admissions were not. Since all
`three categories of discovery are now limited to 75, YG Entertainment applies the same counting principles to each.
`See TBMP § 406.05(d).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`when a party believes that the number of interrogatories or document requests exceeds the specified
`
`limitation of 75—has waived its right to later serve specific responses and objections to the
`
`discovery requests at issue. SM Beauty even goes so far as to baselessly and repeatedly accuse YG
`
`Entertainment of acting in “bad faith” for following the proper procedure. (See TTABVUE 10,
`
`Exhibit D.) Of course, SM Beauty is mistaken.
`
`
`
`The applicable rules cannot be any more clear: when a party believes it has been served
`
`with excessive interrogatories or document requests, the proper procedure is to “serve a general
`
`objection on the ground of their excessive number,” “within the time for (and instead of) serving
`
`answers [or responses] and specific objections to the interrogatories [or requests].” 37 CFR §
`
`2.120(d) & (e) (emphasis added). Here, YG Entertainment has properly followed this procedure to
`
`the letter, despite SM Beauty’s attempts to paint this as, somehow, bad faith or a waiver YG
`
`Entertainment’s right to later raise substantive objections. Accordingly, SM Beauty was sorely
`
`mistaken when its counsel indicated that 37 CFR § 2.120(d) & (e) “say noting [sic] about . . . by
`
`objecting on the number of interrogatories [] you do not have to respond so long as you object. We
`
`disagree. Nothing in the CRFs [sic] allow for or leave room for such bad faith, dilatory tactics.”
`
`(See TTABVUE 10, Exhibit D.) Counsel insisted: “I’ve read those rules.” (Id.) However, perhaps
`
`not closely enough.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Applicable Law: Counting Interrogatories & Document Requests.
`
`As noted briefly above, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure
`
`(“TBMP”), Section 405.03(d), provides specific guidance with respect to counting interrogatories
`
`and document requests. “[T]he Board will count each subpart within an interrogatory as a separate
`
`interrogatory, regardless of whether the subpart is separately designated (i.e., separately numbered
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`or lettered).” TBMP § 405.03(d) (collecting cases). “[T]he Board will not be bound by the
`
`propounding party’s numbering or designating system. Rather, the Board will look to the substance
`
`of the interrogatories, and count each question as a separate interrogatory.” Id. (citing Jan Bell
`
`Marketing, Inc., 19 USPQ2d at 1637. “[I]f two or more questions are combined in a single
`
`compound interrogatory, and are not set out as separate subparts, the Board will look to the
`
`substance of the interrogatory, and count each of the combined questions as a separate
`
`interrogatory.” TBMP § 405.03(d) (citing Jan Bell, 19 USPQ2d at 1637; Kellogg, 16 USPQ2d at
`
`1469 (TTAB 1990)).
`
`[I]f an interrogatory begins with a broad introductory clause
`(‘Describe fully the facts and circumstances surrounding applicant’s
`first use of the mark XYZ, including:’) followed by several subparts
`(‘Applicant’s date of first use of the mark on the goods listed in the
`application,’ ‘Applicant’s date of first use of the mark on such goods
`in commerce,’ etc.), the Board will count the broad introductory
`clause and each subpart as a separate interrogatory, whether or not
`the subparts are separately designated.
`
`TBMP § 405.03(d) (citing Jan Bell, 19 USPQ2d at 1637). Finally, “[i]f an interrogatory requests
`
`information concerning more than one issue, such as information concerning both ‘sales and
`
`advertising figures,’ or both ‘adoption and use,’ the Board will count each issue on which
`
`information is sought as a separate interrogatory.” TBMP § 405.03(d).
`
`
`
`“In determining whether the number of requests for production served by one party on
`
`another exceeds the limit specified in 37 CFR. § 2.120(e), requests will be counted in the same
`
`manner as interrogatories.” TBMP § 406.05(d) (citing TBMP § 405.03(d); MISCELLANEOUS
`
`CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950,
`
`69962 (October 7, 2016)). Thus, when counting each individual subpart contained in SM Beauty’s
`
`interrogatories and document request, it is clear that they have exceeded the limits.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`YG Entertainment Has Reasonably Objected To The Interrogatories And
`Document Requests Because They Each Vastly Exceed The 75 Limit Permitted
`By Rule.
`
`SM Beauty’s interrogatories and document requests both far exceed the 75 permitted by
`
`Trademark Rule § 2.120, subsections (d) and (e), as further detailed below.
`
`Interrogatories
`
`
`
`This is not a “close call.” Keeping in mind the Board’s guidance, as outlined above, YG
`
`Entertainment counts no less than 158 distinct interrogatories (and this is, in many ways, a
`
`conservative estimate, as will be explained in more detail below). Indeed, even giving SM Beauty
`
`the further benefit of the doubt, and counting 12 interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11,
`
`12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, & 21) that request information identified in previous clearly compound
`
`interrogatories as single interrogatories themselves, the number of distinct interrogatories still
`
`numbers 110. Again, this is simply a case of “tortured” reading or “parsing words” as SM Beauty
`
`would have the Board believe.
`
`
`
`Take SM Beauty’s very first interrogatory, which asks YG Entertainment to: “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.” See YG Entertainment’s
`
`Annotated Copy of SM Beauty’s Interrogatories, annexed hereto as Exhibit A. This interrogatory
`
`clearly contains three distinct subparts: “[1] State the full name and address of the person answering
`
`or furnishing any information for the answers to these interrogatories and [2] for each such person
`
`identify each interrogatory for which he/she provided information for the answer and [3] what
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`information was provided.” Id. (emphasis added). A more textbook example of a compound
`
`interrogatory could hardly be devised.
`
`
`
`Even upon a generously conservative counting of subparts, SM Beauty’s interrogatories
`
`are compound and, in total, excessive. For example, take Interrogatory No. 4, which asks YG
`
`Entertainment to: “[1] State when YG first used YG TM 84, [2] where it used it, and [3] what
`
`goods or services were advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or arising out
`
`of that first use of YG TM 84, and [4] where and [5] what such advertisement, marketing,
`
`publication or sale took place.” Id. (emphasis added). There are obviously at least five subparts to
`
`this interrogatory. However, the TBMP instructs that “[i]f an interrogatory requests information
`
`concerning more than one issue, such as information concerning both ‘sales and advertising
`
`figures,’ or both ‘adoption and use,’ the Board will count each issue on which information is sought
`
`as a separate interrogatory.” TBMP § 405.03(d). Here, SM Beauty at least twice, and perhaps three
`
`times, requests answers relating to “[1] advertis[ing], [2] market[ing], [3] publis[ing] or [4]
`
`[sales].” Thus, Interrogatory No. 4 can reasonably be read to contain 11 distinct subparts, and as
`
`many as 14. That YG Entertainment has counted Interrogatory No. 4 (and five other Interrogatories
`
`composed of a nearly identical structure, see Interrogatory Nos. 7, 10, 13, 16, & 19) as having
`
`merely five distinct subparts (instead of 11 or 14) serves to illustrate just how clearly excessive the
`
`interrogatories are. Taking the language of the TBMP to its logical end, one could easily count 236
`
`distinct subparts of SM Beauty’s interrogatories. Again, this is simply not a close call.
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 23 is perhaps the most obviously compound of all SM Beauty’s
`
`interrogatories. There, SM Beauty asked YG Entertainment to “State the factual and informational
`
`bases upon which You make allegations based on” information and belief” in the Petition to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Cancel, including but not limited to [41 distinct paragraphs of the Petition].” This should be
`
`considered 41 separate interrogatories. Likewise, Interrogatory No. 24 requests the same of three
`
`distinct paragraphs of the Petition to Cancel, and should be considered three distinct
`
`interrogatories.
`
`
`
`Having used the above illustrative examples to demonstrate how YG Entertainment
`
`counted the subparts contained in SM Beauty’s interrogatories, YG Entertainment requests that the
`
`Board review Exhibit A, which identifies (in red ink) where YG Entertainment believes each
`
`subpart begins. As detailed above, depending on one’s method of counting, there may be well over
`
`200 interrogatories, but, realistically, no less than 110. By YG Entertainment’s count, giving SM
`
`Beauty the benefit of the doubt in many instances, there are 158 interrogatories. This is all to say,
`
`no matter how one counts them, there are far more than the permitted 75.
`
`Document Requests
`
`
`
`SM Beauty’s document requests are, similarly, excessive. Even giving SM Beauty the
`
`benefit of the doubt, and counting three requests (Document Requests Nos. 8, 10, & 26) that seem
`
`to request information identified in previous clearly compound interrogatories as single
`
`interrogatories themselves, the number of distinct interrogatories is still at least 107. As in the case
`
`of the interrogatories, this is not a close call, or a case of “tortured” reading or “parsing words” as
`
`SM Beauty would have the Board believe.
`
`
`
`Take SM Beauty’s very first document request, which asks YG Entertainment for: “[1] All
`
`Documents You referenced or identified in response to any Interrogatory, [2] all Documents You
`
`referred to or reviewed in responding to any Interrogatory, and [3] all documents that contain
`
`information supporting or relating to, arising out of, referring to, reflecting any response to any
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Interrogatory.” See YG Entertainment’s Annotated Copy of SM Beauty’s Document Requests,
`
`annexed hereto as Exhibit B (emphasis added). This is clearly three separate requests disguised as
`
`one.
`
`
`
`As an additional example, Document Request No. 6 requests: “[1] Any and all Documents
`
`relating to, arising out of, or reflecting when YG first used YG TM 84, [2] where it used it, and [3]
`
`what goods or services were advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or arising
`
`out of that first use of YG TM 84.” There are clearly three distinct subparts to this document
`
`requests. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the TBMP instructs that “[i]f a[] [document
`
`request] requests information concerning more than one issue, such as information concerning both
`
`‘sales and advertising figures,’ or both ‘adoption and use,’ the Board will count each issue on
`
`which information is sought as a separate [document request].” TBMP § 405.03(d); see TBMP §
`
`406.05(d). Here, SM Beauty requests documents regarding “what goods or services were “[1]
`
`advertised, [2] marketed, [3] published or [4] sold.” Thus, Document Request No. 6 can reasonably
`
`be read to contain six subparts. That YG Entertainment has counted Document Request No. 6 (and
`
`2 other document requests composed of a nearly identical structure, see Document Request Nos. 9
`
`& 15) as having merely three distinct subparts (instead of 6) serves to illustrate just how clearly
`
`excessive the document requests are. Simply taking the language of the TBMP to its logical end,
`
`one could reasonably count 116 distinct subparts of SM Beauty’s document requests based upon
`
`these requests alone.
`
`
`
`As a further illustration, take Document Request No. 18, which requests:
`
`[1] Any and all Documents relating to, arising out of, or reflecting
`when YG first used the words “black pink” other than YG TM 84 or
`YG TM 26, [2] where it used it, and [3] what goods or services were
`advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`arising out of that first use of the words “black pink” other than YG
`TM 84 or YG TM 26, and [4] where and [5] what such
`advertisement, marketing, publication or sale took place.
`
`Exhibit B (emphasis added). This document request obviously contains five distinct subparts. And,
`
`similar to Document Request No. 6 (and Interrogatory Nos. 7, 10, 13, 16, & 19), requests
`
`documents about “[1] advertisement, [2] marketing, [3] publication or [4] sale” three times (or at
`
`least twice). Accordingly, taking the language of the TBMP to its logical end, one could reasonably
`
`count this request as containing 14 distinct subparts. Given that Document Request Nos. 18 and
`
`21 also have virtually identical structures, one could reasonably count 143 distinct document
`
`requests. Simply put, this is no marginal case. However one counts the document requests, there
`
`are clearly many more than the permitted 75.
`
`
`
`Finally, Document Request No. 25 is perhaps the most obviously compound request. It
`
`requests documents pertaining to the allegations of 41 distinct paragraphs of the Petition, and
`
`should, therefore, be treated as 41 document requests. Likewise, Document Request No. 26
`
`requests documents relating to three distinct paragraphs of the Petition, and should, therefore, be
`
`treated as three document requests.
`
`
`
`Having used the above illustrative examples to demonstrate how YG Entertainment
`
`counted the subparts contained in SM Beauty’s document requests, YG Entertainment requests
`
`that the Board review Exhibit B, which identifies where YG Entertainment believes each subpart
`
`begins. As detailed above, depending on one’s method of counting, there may be over 143
`
`document requests, but, in any event, no less than 107. However one reasonably counts the
`
`document requests, they are excessive and have exceeded the requirements under the Trademark
`
`Rules.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`Conclusion.
`
`In light of the fact that YG Entertainment’s First Interrogatories to Petitioner and First
`
`Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner (each individually, not collectively) clearly
`
`exceed the numerical limit set by the Trademark Rules, YG Entertainment requests that the Board
`
`deny the Motion in its entirety and issue an order confirming that YG Entertainment is not required
`
`to respond to SM Beauty’s First Interrogatories to Petitioner and First Request for Production of
`
`Documents to Petitioner.
`
`Date: July 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
`
`B y : / G o v i n d a M . D a v i s /
`Govinda M. Davis
`Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
`255 E. Fifth Street
`Suite 1900
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Tel: (513) 977-8200
`Fax: (513) 977-8141
`govinda.davis@dinsmore.com
`Counsel for YG Entertainment, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL has been served upon the
`
`following by e-mail this 3rd day of July 2023:
`
`
`
`Sang Lee
`Law Offices Of Sang Lee
`505 E Golf Rd Ste H
`Arlington Heights, IL 60005
`slee000@aol.com, softbeeus@gmail.com, jlee@leebreenlaw.com, mlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`John Y. Lee
`Lee & Breen LLC
`188 Industrial Drive,
`Suite 403 Elmhurst, IL 60126
`jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`___/Govinda M. Davis/______________
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`YG ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
`
`Cancellation No. 92081622
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Mark: BLACKPINK
`
`VS.
`
`Reg. No.5376449
`
`SM BEAUTY, LLC,
`
`Respondent.
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`RESPONDENT'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO PETIONER
`Respondent SM beauty, LLC ("SM") hereby propounds Petitioner, the following
`
`interrogatories to be answered and served upon counsel for SM within the time specified by law.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`Each interrogatory is required to be answered upon your entire knowledge from
`
`all sources and all information in your possession or otherwise available to you, including
`
`information of your officers, employees, agents, representatives, or attorneys, and information
`
`which is known by such officers, employees, agents, representatives, or attorneys. Every
`
`document or source of information not within your immediate or direct control must be consulted
`
`in answering each interrogatory propounded herein if such document or source of information is
`
`either subject to inspection by or production on demand by you.
`
`2.
`
`If any of the following written interrogatories cannot be answered in full, answer
`
`to the extent possible, specifying the reason for your inability to answer the remainder, and
`
`stating all information or knowledge you have concerning the answered portion.
`
`If your
`
`1
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit Al
`YG entertainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816221
`
`

`

`answers are qualified in any particular, set forth the terms and explanations of each such
`
`qualification.
`
`3.
`
`If requested to "identify" a person, people, an entity or entities, provide the
`
`following: if a person or people, their (a) name, (b) last known address and telephone number,
`
`and (c) relationship with defendant, if any; if an entity or entities, their (i) name, (ii) principal
`
`business address, and (iii) relationship with defendant, if any.
`
`4.
`
`All words or phrases shall be construed as either singular, plural, masculine,
`
`feminine, or as necessary to bring within the scope of these discovery requests any information
`
`and documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.
`
`5.
`
`"And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively to
`
`bring within the scope of these discovery requests any information which might otherwise be
`
`construed to be outside of their scope.
`
`6.
`
`As used in these interrogatories, the term "Person" means any natural person or
`
`any business entity, or governmental agency.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`As used in these interrogatories, the term "YG" shall refer to YG Entertainment.
`
`As used in these interrogatories, the term "BLACKPINK" shall refer to the K-pop
`
`group referenced in Paragraph 7 of YG's Petition for Cancellation (hereafter referred to as the
`
`"Petition") Cancellation No. 92081622 Filed before the United State Patent and Trademark
`
`office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`9.
`
`"You" or "Your" refers to YG and BLACKPINK, their parent company, or any
`
`of their officers, employees, agents, representatives and anyone acting on their behalf.
`
`10.
`
`"SM TM" refers to SM's trademark "BLACKPINK" registration no. 5376449
`
`referenced in Par. 2 of the Petition.
`
`2
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit A2
`YG entertainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816222
`
`

`

`11.
`
`"YG TM 84" refers to YG's trademark "BLAKCENK & DESIGN"
`
`registration no. 6488584 referenced in Par. 3 of the Petition.
`
`12.
`
`"YG TM 26" refers to YG's trademark "BLACKPINK & DESIGN" registration
`
`no. 5440426 referenced in Par. 3 of the Petition.
`
`13.
`
`"YG App" refers to YG's BLACKPINK application no. 79335161 referenced in
`
`Par. 3 of the Petition.
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`1.
`
`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
`1
`interrogatory for which he/she provided information for the answer and what information was
`
`provided.
`
`2.
`
`I
`I
`State when and where BLACKPINK debuted.
`
`3.
`
`i
`State when BLACKPINK debuted in the United States and what products or
`I
`services were advertised, marketed, published or sold, and where and when, in coordination
`
`with or arising out of that U.S. debut.
`
`4.
`
`State when YG first used YG TM 84, where it used it, and what goods or
`
`services were advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or arising out of that
`
`first use of YG TM 84, and where and what such advertisement, marketing, publication or sale
`
`took place.
`
`5.
`
`I
`x5
`State itemized costs YG incurred for its activity identified in answer to
`
`Interrogatory No 4.
`x
`State what itemized revenues were generated as a result of YG's activity
`
`6.
`
`identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`3
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit A3
`YG entertainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816223
`
`

`

`7.
`
`1
`State when YG first used YG TM 84 in the United States, where it used it,
`
`1
`and what goods or services were advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or
`
`arising out of that first use of YG TM 84 in the United States, and Lhere and what such
`
`advertisement, marketing, publication or sale took place.
`x 5
`State itemized costs YG incurred for its activity identified in answer to
`
`8.
`
`Interrogatory No. 7.
`)( b
`1
`State what itemized revenues were generated as a result of YG's activity
`
`9.
`
`identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 7.
`
`10.
`
`1
`1
`1
`State when YG first used YG TM 26, where it used it, and what goods or
`
`services were advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or arising out of that
`1
`first use of YG TM 26, and where and what such advertisement, marketing, publication or sale
`
`took place.
`
`11.
`
`I 5
`State itemized costs YG incurred for its activity identified in answer to
`
`Interrogatory No. 10.
`1
`State what itemized revenues were generated as a result of YG's activity
`
`12.
`
`identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 10.
`1
`State when YG first used YG TM 26 in the United States, where it used it,
`
`13,
`
`and what goods or services were advertised, marketed, published or sold in coordination with or
`
`arising out of that first use of YG TM 26 in the United States, and where and what such
`
`advertisement, marketing, publication or sale took place.
`5
`State itemized costs YG incurred for its activity identified in answer to
`
`14.
`
`Interrogatory No. 13.
`
`4
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit A4
`YG entertainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816224
`
`

`

`15.
`
`x
`State what itemized revenues were generated as a result of YG's activity
`
`identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 13.
`
`16.
`
`1
`State when YG first used the words "BLACK PINK" other than YG TM 84
`
`or YG TM 26, where it used it, and what goods or services were advertised, marketed, published
`
`or sold in coordination with or arising out of that first use of the words "BLACKPINNK" other
`
`than YG TM 84 or YG TM 26, and where and what such advertisement, marketing, publication
`
`or sale took place.
`
`17.
`
`State itemized costs YG incurred for its activity identified in answer to
`
`Interrogatory No. 16.
`
`18.
`
`7( 5
`State what itemized revenues were generated as a result of YG's activity
`
`identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 16.
`1
`State when YG first used the words "BLACKPINK" other than YG TM 84
`
`19.
`
`or YG TM 26 in the United States, where it used it, and what goods or services were advertised,
`
`marketed, published or sold in coordination with or arising out of that first use of the words
`
`"BLAKPINK" other than YG TM 84 or YG TM 26, and where and what such advertisement,
`
`marketing, publication or sale took place.
`•
`...._.
`k 5
`State itemized costs YG incurred for its activity identified in answer to
`
`20.
`
`Interrogatory No. 19.
`x
`State what itemized revenues were generated as a result of YG's activity
`
`21.
`
`identified in answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
`I
`I
`Identify and itemize the "damages" alleged in Paragraph 23 of the Petition.
`1 X 'i
`State the factual and informational bases upon which You make allegations
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`based on "information and belief' in the Petition, including but not limited to Paragraphs 33, 34,
`
`5
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit A5
`YG entertainment v. SM Beauty Cancellation No. 920816225
`
`

`

`35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
`
`67, 68, 87. 88. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97 of the Petition.
`I y
`State the factual and informational bases upon which You make allegations
`
`24.
`
`of "fraud" in Paragraphs 70, 71, and 72 of the Petition.
`
`25.
`
`State the factual and informational bases of Your allegation that
`I
`Respondent has made a "business practice" of "trading on goodwill of others", including but not
`
`limited to who those "others".
`
`26.
`
`State the use of the musical group Sistar or its management company's use
`
`of any trademark or tradename in the United States.
`
`27.
`
`State the bases for Your claim that Respondent's products are "Korean
`
`cosmetic products" as alleged in Paragraph 74 of the Petition.
`I
`State when the song "Touchdown" by the musical group BLACK PINK
`
`28.
`
`debuted in the United States.
`I
`State the factual or informational bases for Your allegations of
`
`29.
`
`"misrepresentation of source" or "likelihood of confusion" as alleged in Paragraph 84 of the
`
`Petition between any trademark of YG and any of Respondent's trademarks, advertisement,
`
`marketing material or products.
`
`30.
`
`i
`State all the steps taken by YG to protect its trademark rights against
`
`Respondents after January 25, 2019 other than the filing of the Petition,
`t
`State all the Communications from or on behalf of YG to Respondent
`
`31.
`
`after January 25, 2019. i
`I ------
`Identify the differences between YG TM 84 and YG TM 26 and YG App
`
`
`
`I
`--,,.....
`
`32.
`
`I
`and the reasons for filing YG App when YG already registered YG TM 84 and YG TM 26.
`
`6
`
`Respontent's Motion to Compel Exhibit A6