Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1291603
`
`Filing date:
`
`06/15/2023
`
`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
`
`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
`
`jlee@leebreenlaw.com
`
`/s/ John Y. Lee
`
`06/15/2023
`
`Attachments
`
`23-06.15 Respondent's Motion to Compel.pdf(452938 bytes )
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
