ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`ESTTA1334561
`01/17/2024
`
`Proceeding no.
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92082997
`Plaintiff
`SBI Holdings, LLC
`SEAN CLANCY
`EMERGE LAW GROUP
`108 NW 9TH AVENUE, SUITE 300
`PORTLAND, OR 97209
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: sean@emergelawgroup.com
`Secondary email(s): jmacdonald@barnettfirm.com
`503-227-4525
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Yes, the Filer previously made its initial disclosures pursuant to Trademark Rule
`2.120(a); OR the motion for summary judgment is based on claim or issue pre-
`clusion, or lack of jurisdiction.
`
`The deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set
`or reset: 08/28/2024
`Sean Clancy
`sean@emergelawgroup.com, jmacdonald@barnettfirm.com
`/Sean Clancy/
`01/17/2024
`Motion for Summary Judgment 92082997 HYPNOS submitted.pdf(6256671
`bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SBI Holdings, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Chaos and Pain, LLC,
`Respondent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92082997
`
`Mark: HYPNOS
`
`Registration No. 6985906
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Petitioner SBI Holdings, LLC (“Petitioner”), by and through its undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby moves the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) for entry of summary
`
`judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Trademark Rule 2.127, granting
`
`Petitioner’s Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. 6985906 (“Respondent’s Registration”)
`
`owned by Chaos and Pain, LLC (“Respondent”) on the grounds that Respondent’s HYPNOS mark
`
`shown in Respondent’s Registration is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to
`
`source, sponsorship or affiliation with Petitioner’s HYPNOS mark as shown in Registration No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`6688738 owned by Petitioner (“Petitioner’s Registration”).
`
`11
`
`This Motion is based on the memorandum in support set forth below, the exhibits attached
`
`12
`
`thereto, as well as the pleadings, documents, and records on file in Cancellation No. 92082997 (the
`
`13
`
`“Cancellation”), which together establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
`
`14
`
`necessary to prove that Petitioner is entitled to a statutory cause of action and to prove Petitioner’s
`
`15
`
`Trademark Act Section 2(d) claim. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`16
`
`law and the Board should grant Petitioner’s Petition for Cancellation and order cancellation of
`
`17
`
`Respondent’s Registration.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`Petitioner’s application which matured into Petitioner’s Registration was filed with the
`
`USPTO on June 15, 2017 for registration of the standard character wordmark HYPNOS
`
`(“Petitioner’s Mark”) for use in connection with “Medicinal herb extracts; Medicinal herbs;
`
`Medicinal tea; none of the foregoing containing or derived from cannabis with a delta-9 THC
`
`concentration of more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis or containing CBD” in International Class
`
`5 (“Petitioner’s Goods”). Petitioner’s Registration is active, in good standing. 1 TTABVUE 9-11.
`
`10
`
`On January 24, 2022, nearly five years after Petitioner’s registered priority date,
`
`11
`
`Respondent filed its application which matured into Respondent’s Registration for registration of
`
`12
`
`the standard character wordmark HYPNOS (“Respondent’s Mark”) for use in connection with
`
`13
`
`“Dietary and nutritional supplements” in International Class 5 (“Respondent’s Goods”).
`
`14
`
`Petitioner has priority based on ownership of Petitioner’s Registration. Respondent’s Mark
`
`15
`
`is identical in all respects to Petitioner’s Mark. Respondent’s Goods are competitive with and
`
`16
`
`related to Petitioner’s Goods. The parties’ channels of trade and classes of consumers are identical.
`
`17
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s Petition for Cancellation of Respondent’s Registration on the grounds of
`
`18
`
`priority and likelihood of confusion under Trademark Act Section 2(d) should be granted.1
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner’s Petition for Cancellation alleges priority and likelihood of confusion based on both
`Petitioner’s Registration and Petitioner’s common law rights. This Motion is based only on Petitioner’s
`Registration and its rights thereunder. However, if this Motion is denied, Petitioner reserves the right to
`pursue its claims based on Petitioner’s common law rights.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`II.
`
`Argument.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when
`
`the evidence and record establish that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
`
`the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Summary judgment is intended “to
`
`secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Sweats Fashions, Inc. v.
`
`Pannill Knitting Co., 4 USPQ2d 1793, (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged
`
`factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for
`
`summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson
`
`v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 US 242, 247–48 (1986) (emphasis in original). “Only disputes over
`
`10
`
`facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude entry
`
`11
`
`of summary judgment.” Id. at 248.
`
`12
`
`“The uniform precedent of [the Federal Circuit] is that the issue of likelihood of confusion
`
`13
`
`is one of law … [and] the board may unquestionably resolve that issue on summary judgment.”
`
`14
`
`Sweats Fashions, 4 USPQ2d at 1797. To prevail on a likelihood of confusion claim at summary
`
`15
`
`judgment in a Board proceeding, the petitioner must establish that there is no genuine dispute that
`
`16
`
`(1) it is entitled to a statutory cause of action in this Cancellation; (2) that it is the prior user of its
`
`17
`
`pleaded mark; and (3) that contemporaneous use of the parties' respective marks on their respective
`
`18
`
`goods would be likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive consumers. See Hornblower &
`
`19
`
`Weeks, Inc. v. Hornblower & Weeks, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1733, 1735 (TTAB 2001). Based on the
`
`20
`
`undisputed facts and the law set forth in this Motion, the Board should grant summary judgment
`
`21
`
`in favor of Petitioner on the ground of likelihood of confusion.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A. Petitioner is Entitled to a Statutory Cause of Action.
`
`There can be no dispute that Petitioner is entitled to a statutory cause of action in this
`
`Cancellation. “[A]ny person who believes that he is or will be damaged … by the registration of a
`
`mark” may petition to cancel that registration. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1064. To have entitlement to a
`
`statutory cause of action, a petitioner must establish that it has an interest falling within the zone
`
`of interests protected by the relevant statute, and proximate causation. Lexmark International, Inc.
`
`v. Static Control Components, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 2061 (2014).
`
`Such an interest and damage caused proximately by the registration of which petitioner is
`
`seeking cancellation may be found where the petitioner alleges a claim of likelihood of confusion
`
`10
`
`not wholly without merit and where such claims are based upon current ownership of a valid and
`
`11
`
`subsisting registration. See Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) §
`
`12
`
`309.03(b), and cases cited therein. Here, Petitioner has made Petitioner’s Registration of record
`
`13
`
`and Petitioner has alleged a claim of likelihood of confusion based on Petitioner’s Registration.
`
`14
`
`Such claim of likelihood of confusion has been sufficiently pleaded, as recognized by the Board,
`
`15
`
`8 TTABVUE 4-5, and such claim is proven in this Motion. Accordingly, Petitioner has established
`
`16
`
`its entitlement to a statutory cause of action in this proceeding.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`B. Petitioner Has Prior Rights To the HYPNOS Trademark.
`
`Petitioner’s priority is not an issue in this Cancellation as to Petitioner’s Goods covered by
`
`19
`
`Petitioner’s Registration. Petitioner properly made Petitioner’s Registration of record in this
`
`20
`
`proceeding by attaching to the Petition “a current copy of information from the electronic database
`
`21
`
`records of the [USPTO] showing the current status and title of the registration.” Trademark Rule
`
`22
`
`2.122(d)(1); 1 TTABVUE 9-11. Once made of record, the registration is of record for all purposes,
`
`23
`
`including a motion for summary judgment. TBMP § 528.05(d).
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`The priority date of Petitioner’s Registration is June 15, 2017. Petitioner is entitled to rely
`
`on such date in this proceeding. See Brewski Beer Co., v. Brewski Brothers, Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1284
`
`(TTAB 1998) (a party may rely on its registration for limited purpose of proving that its mark was
`
`in use as of the application filing date). Petitioner’s priority date is well before the filing date of
`
`the application underlying Respondent’s Registration, January 24, 2022. By properly making its
`
`pleaded registration of record, Petitioner has removed Section 2(d) priority as an issue in this
`
`proceeding as to Petitioner’s Mark and Petitioner’s Goods. See King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s
`
`Kitchen, Inc., 496 F.2d 1400, 182 USPQ 108, 110 (CCPA 1974). Petitioner’s HYPNOS trademark
`
`has priority over Respondent’s junior HYPNOS trademark.
`
`C. Likelihood of Confusion Exists Between Respondent’s Mark and Petitioner’s Mark.
`
`Respondent’s use of Respondent’s Mark in connection with Respondent’s Goods is likely
`
`12
`
`to cause consumer confusion with Petitioner’s use of Petitioner’s Mark with Petitioner’s Goods.
`
`13
`
`The Board’s determination of likelihood of confusion is based upon an analysis of the probative
`
`14
`
`facts in evidence that are relevant to the duPont factors. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177
`
`15
`
`USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1800 (Fed. Cir.
`
`16
`
`2018) (DuPont “articulated thirteen factors to consider when determining likelihood of
`
`17
`
`confusion”). “‘Not all of the DuPont factors are relevant to every case, and only factors of
`
`18
`
`significance to the particular mark need be considered.’” Id. (quoting In re Mighty Leaf Tea, 94
`
`19
`
`USPQ2d 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In making this determination, two key considerations are
`
`20
`
`the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods. See In re i.am.symbolic,
`
`21
`
`llc, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 64
`
`22
`
`USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`A consideration of the relevant duPont factors in this case, with an appropriate focus on
`
`the similarities of the parties’ marks and similarities of the parties’ goods, conclusively establishes
`
`that a likelihood of confusion exists.
`
`1. Petitioner’s Mark and Respondent’s Mark Are Identical.
`
`The similarity of the parties’ marks is considered with respect to the similarities or
`
`dissimilarities of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial
`
`impression. DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567. In this case, Petitioner’s mark is the standard character
`
`wordmark HYPNOS, and Respondent’s mark is the identical standard character wordmark
`
`HYPNOS. There can be no reasonable dispute that the parties’ marks are identical.
`
`10
`
`As standard character wordmarks with identical spelling, as Respondent has admitted, 4
`
`11
`
`TTABVUE 2, the parties’ marks are identical in appearance and identical in sound. Further, the
`
`12
`
`connotation of both marks is the same. “Hypnos” is commonly known as the Greco-Roman god
`
`13
`
`of sleep. See Exhibit A (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hypnos last accessed January 16,
`
`14
`
`2024). “Hypnos” is also sometimes recognized as the “personification of sleep” and is associated
`
`15
`
`with sleep in popular culture. See Exhibit B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnos last accessed
`
`16
`
`January 16, 2024). In connection both with Respondent’s dietary and nutritional supplements and
`
`17
`
`with Petitioner’s medicinal herb extracts, medicinal herbs, and medicinal teas, the most likely
`
`18
`
`connotation among consumers seeing these goods sold under the mark HYPNOS is that such goods
`
`19
`
`will aid consumers in their sleep.
`
`20
`
`The commercial impression of the parties’ marks is also identical. In evaluating the
`
`21
`
`commercial impressions created by the marks, it is appropriate to consider the marks in the context
`
`22
`
`of use and in relation to the parties’ identified goods. See Coach Services, Inc. v. Triumph Learning
`
`23
`
`LLC, 96 USPQ2d 1600 (TTAB 2010), aff’d 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Embarcadero
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Technologies Inc. v. RStudio Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1825, 1835 (TTAB 2013). Here, viewing the
`
`parties’ marks in the context of each party’s use further supports the conclusion that the marks
`
`convey an identical commercial impression.
`
`Both parties use their respective HYPNOS marks in connection with class 5 goods for
`
`human consumption for the purpose of aiding in sleep. As shown by Respondent’s specimen in its
`
`application’s record, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C for ease of reference,
`
`Respondent advertises and promotes Respondent’s Goods as a “deep sleep and lucid dream aid”
`
`and a “sleep aid so potent you’ll have to peel the pillow off your face every morning before you
`
`head to work.” As shown by Petitioner’s specimen in its application’s record, a copy of which is
`
`10
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit D for ease of reference, Petitioner advertises and promotes its medicinal
`
`11
`
`tea as a “sleep tea” made up of a “relaxing blend to calm the body and the mind [that] encourages
`
`12
`
`sleep and may induce dreams,” and advertises and promotes its medicinal herb extract as “specially
`
`13
`
`formulated to help with loss of sleep.”
`
`14
`
`The context of each party’s use of its respective HYPNOS mark in connection with its
`
`15
`
`goods shows that both parties’ goods are advertised as serving the same purpose, namely aiding
`
`16
`
`sleep, and shows that both parties use similar wording and phrasing in connection with such
`
`17
`
`advertising, with both emphasizing that their respective products aid in sleep and dreaming. The
`
`18
`
`term HYPNOS has strong connotations with sleep and both parties emphasize such connotation
`
`19
`
`when selling products under their respective HYPNOS marks.
`
`20
`
`The parties’ marks convey identical commercial impressions, in addition to being identical
`
`21
`
`in appearance, sound, and connotation, and the first duPont factor weighs in favor of finding
`
`22
`
`likelihood of confusion.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`2. Petitioner’s Goods and Respondent’s Goods Are Closely Related.
`
`The second duPont factor considers the similarity and nature of the parties’ respective
`
`goods as recited in the relevant registrations. DuPont, 177 USPQ at 567. It is not necessary that
`
`the respective goods be identical or even competitive in order to find that they are related for
`
`purposes of the likelihood of confusion analysis. The respective goods need only be “related in
`
`some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could
`
`give rise to the mistaken belief that goods emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., 101
`
`USPQ2d at 1722. Where the marks of the respective parties are identical, as they are in this
`
`proceeding, the degree of similarity or relatedness between the goods needed to support a finding
`
`10
`
`of likelihood of confusion declines. See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d at 1411 (citing In re
`
`11
`
`Shell Oil Co., 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood
`
`12
`
`of confusion as to a class of goods if relatedness is established for any one of the recited goods
`
`13
`
`within the class. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 209 USPQ 986, 988 (CCPA
`
`14
`
`1981); In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d at 1409.
`
`15
`
`Here, Respondent’s Goods and Petitioner’s Goods are identical, at least in part. Medicinal
`
`16
`
`herbs and medicinal herb extracts, two items included in Petitioner’s Goods, are a type of dietary
`
`17
`
`supplement, an item included in Respondent’s Goods. For example, the University of Rochester
`
`18
`
`Health
`
`Encyclopedia,
`
`attached
`
`hereto
`
`as
`
`Exhibit
`
`E
`
`19
`
`(https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=85&contentid=p071
`
`20
`
`83 last accessed January 16, 2024), identifies “herbs” and “plant extracts” as a type of dietary
`
`21
`
`supplement. Further, “herbs” and “herbal supplements” are commonly referred to as dietary
`
`22
`
`supplements
`
`and
`
`such
`
`terms
`
`are
`
`used
`
`interchangeably.
`
`See
`
`Exhibit
`
`F
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=85&contentid=p071
`
`83 last accessed January 16, 2024).
`
`Relatedness of goods may be shown by the fact that one party commonly sells, under one
`
`mark, items covered by both parties’ identifications of goods. See In re Aquamar, Inc., 115
`
`USPQ2d 1122, 1126 n.5 (TTAB 2015); In re Albert Trostel & Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-
`
`86 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §1207.01(d)(iii) (Third-party registrations that cover a number of
`
`different goods or services may have some probative value to the extent that they may serve to
`
`suggest that goods or services are of a type that may emanate from a single source, if the
`
`registrations are based on use in commerce.); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281
`
`10
`
`F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (evidence that “a single company sells the goods and services of
`
`11
`
`both parties, if presented, is relevant to the relatedness analysis”).
`
`12
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a collection of active, use-based third-party registrations
`
`13
`
`for marks used and registered in connection with both one or more of Respondent’s Goods and
`
`14
`
`one or more of Petitioner’s Goods.2 The fact that multiple third parties sell both Petitioner’s and
`
`15
`
`Respondent’s goods under one mark demonstrates that both parties’ goods are of the kind that
`
`16
`
`emanate from a single source under a single mark. Therefore, consumers may assume that one
`
`17
`
`party is the source of both Petitioner’s Goods and Respondent’s Goods, and the second duPont
`
`18
`
`factor weighs in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.
`
`
`2 Also included on Exhibit G is a table listing and summarizing the third-party registrations and goods.
`The table is included for ease of reference in addition to the formal registration records, following the
`table. Targeted searches of USPTO trademark records for the following queries yielded similarly
`voluminous results: (i) 83 results for GS:("nutritional supplement*" AND "medicinal herb*") AND
`LD:true AND CB:1A AND IC:005 AND SA:registered; (ii) 113 results for GS:("nutritional supplement*"
`AND "medicinal tea*") AND LD:true AND CB:1A AND IC:005 AND SA:registered; (iii) 73 results for
`GS:("dietary supplement*" AND "medicinal herb*") AND LD:true AND CB:1A AND IC:005 AND
`SA:registered; (iv) 65 results for GS:("dietary supplement*" AND "medicinal tea*") AND LD:true AND
`CB:1A AND IC:005 AND SA:registered.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`3. The Parties’ Channels of Trade and Classes of Consumers Are Identical.
`
`There are no limitations as to channels of trade or classes of consumers in either Petitioner’s
`
`or Respondent’s identifications of goods. Accordingly, the Board must presume that the
`
`identifications of both parties encompass all goods and services of the type described, that they
`
`move in all normal trade channels for such goods, and that they are available to all potential
`
`customers for such goods, even if Respondent produces some evidence showing that its goods are
`
`sold through different channels of trade from Petitioner’s goods. See CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 218
`
`USPQ 198, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Squirtco v. Tomy Corp., 216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`
`(“[W]here the likelihood of confusion is asserted with a registered mark, the issue must be resolved
`
`10
`
`on the basis of the goods named in the registration and, in the absence of specific limitations in the
`
`11
`
`registration, on the basis of all normal and usual channels of trade and methods of distribution.”).
`
`12
`
`Additionally, when the parties’ goods are legally identical, as they are here, the goods of
`
`13
`
`both are presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same classes of consumers. See In
`
`14
`
`re Viterra Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identical goods are presumed to travel
`
`15
`
`in same channels of trade to same class of purchasers); In re Yawata Iron & Steel Co., 159 USPQ
`
`16
`
`721, 723 (CCPA 1968) (where there are legally identical goods, the channels of trade and classes
`
`17
`
`of purchasers are considered to be the same).
`
`18
`
`Therefore, the channels of trade through which both Petitioner and Respondent sell their
`
`19
`
`goods, and the classes of consumers to whom such goods are sold, are identical, and the third
`
`20
`
`duPont factor weighs in favor of finding likelihood of confusion.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`III. Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses.
`
`Respondent’s Answer filed in the Cancellation initially included twelve allegations
`
`captioned as Affirmative Defenses. During the Discovery Conference, the Board struck all such
`
`Affirmative Defenses except the fifth, eighth, tenth, and eleventh. 5 TTABVUE 6-8. In electing
`
`not to strike such remaining Affirmative Defenses, the Board noted that each one serves merely as
`
`an amplification of Respondent’s positions it intends to take in defense of Petitioner’s allegations,
`
`and not as true affirmative defenses. 5 TTABVUE 8. Accordingly, none of Respondent’s alleged
`
`Affirmative Defenses can serve to prevent judgment in Petitioner’s favor in this Cancellation.
`
`IV. Conclusion.
`
`10
`
`In this Motion, Petitioner has shown through uncontroverted facts of record that no genuine
`
`11
`
`dispute of any material facts can exist as to Petitioner’s statutory right to a cause of action,
`
`12
`
`Petitioner’s priority as to its HYPNOS mark, and a likelihood of confusion between the parties’
`
`13
`
`marks at issue. Because there are no genuine disputes of material fact relevant to the outcome of
`
`14
`
`this proceeding, moving forward with discovery and a full trial would force the parties and the
`
`15
`
`Board to devote substantial time and resources with no difference in outcome.
`
`16
`
`Petitioner is therefore entitled to summary judgment in its favor on Petitioner’s Petition for
`
`17
`
`Cancellation and Petitioner hereby respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion for
`
`18
`
`Summary Judgment, order cancellation of Respondent’s Registration with prejudice, and grant all
`
`19
`
`other appropriate relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 13
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated January 17, 2024
`
`EMERGE LAW GROUP
`
`By: /Sean Clancy/
`Sean Clancy - Oregon State Bar #142963
`EMERGE LAW GROUP
`108 NW 9th Ave, Suite 300
`sean@emergelawgroup.com
`
`and
`
`THE BARNETT FIRM LLC
`Jackson MacDonald - Oregon State Bar #144899
`11501 SW Pacific Hwy., Ste. 201
`Portland, OR 97223
`503-688-5106
`jmacdonald@barnettfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 13
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of this Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is being served on
`
`January 17, 2024 via email to Respondent addressed to:
`
`J. Nathaniel Holmes
`nholmes@bhw.law, aadams@bhw.law
`Boles Holmes White LLC
`1929 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
`Birmingham, AL 35203
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Sean Clancy
`Sean Clancy - Oregon State Bar #142963
`sean@emergelawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1/16/24, 9:10 AM
`Science & Tech
`
`Biographies
`
`Hypnos | God of Sleep, Dreaming & Death | Britannica
`Animals & Nature
`Geography & Travel
`Arts & Culture Money
`
`Videos
`
`Home  Philosophy & Religion
` Ancient Religions & Mythology
`
`History & Society
`Hypnos
`Greco-Roman god
`
` Print
`
`  Cite  Share  Feedback
`
`
`
`Also known as: Somnus
`Written and fact-checked by
`The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
`Last Updated: Dec 14, 2023 • Article History
`
` Table of Contents
`
`Category: History & Society
`Latin: Somnus
`
`See all related content →
`
`
`
`Hypnos and Thanatos carrying the
`body of Sarpedon, detail of a painting
`on a kylix from Vulci (an Etruscan
`town known for its pottery), signed
`by Pamphaios, c. 510 BC; in the British
`Museum, London.
`
`https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hypnos
`
`1/11
`
`

`

`1/16/24, 9:10 AM
`
`Hypnos | God of Sleep, Dreaming & Death | Britannica
`
`Hypnos, Greco-Roman god of sleep.
`Hypnos was the son of Nyx (Night) and
`the twin brother of Thanatos (Death). In
`Greek myth he is variously described as
`living in the underworld or on the island
`of Lemnos ( according to Homer) or
`(according to Book XI of Ovid’s
`Metamorphoses) in a dark, musty cave in
`the land of the Cimmerians, through
`which flowed the waters of Lethe, the
`river of forgetfulness and oblivion.
`Hypnos lay on his soft couch, surrounded
`by his many sons, who were the bringers
`of dreams. Chief among them were
`Morpheus, who brought dreams of men;
`Icelus, who brought dreams of animals;
`and Phantasus, who brought dreams of
`inanimate things.
`
`In Book XIV of Homer’s Iliad, Hypnos
`is enlisted by Hera to lull Zeus to sleep so
`that she can aid the Greeks in their war
`against Troy. As a reward for his services,
`Hypnos is given Pasithea, one of the
`Graces, to wed. In Book XVI of the Iliad,
`Hypnos and Thanatos carry the body of
`Sarpedon home to Lycia after he is slain
`by Patroclus, a scene depicted in the 6th
`century BC by the Greek artist
`Euphronius and others.
`
`https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hypnos
`
`2/11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Hypnos
`Personification of sleep
`
`1/16/24, 9:11 AM
`
`Hypnos - Wikipedia
`
`Hypnos
`In Greek mythology, Hypnos (/ˈhɪpnɒs/; Ancient Greek: Ὕπ(cid:460)(cid:462)ς
`means 'sleep')[3] also spelled Hypnus is the personification of
`sleep; the Roman equivalent is known as Somnus. His name is the
`origin of the word hypnosis.[4] Pausanias wrote that Hypnos was
`the dearest friend of the Muses.[5]
`
`Description
`
`Hypnos is usually the fatherless son of Nyx ("The Night"),
`although sometimes Nyx's consort Erebus ("The Darkness") is
`named as his father. His twin brother is Thanatos ("Death"). Both
`siblings live in the underworld (Hades). According to rumors,
`Hypnos lived in a big cave, which the river Lethe ("Forgetfulness")
`comes from and where night and day meet. His bed is made of
`ebony, and on the entrance of the cave grow several poppies and
`other soporific plants. No light and no sound would ever enter his
`grotto. According to Homer, he lives on the island Lemnos, which
`later on has been claimed to be his very own dream island. He is
`said to be a calm and gentle god, as he helps humans in need and,
`due to their sleep, owns half of their lives.[6][7]
`
`Family
`
`Hypnos lived next to his twin[8] brother, Thanatos (Θά(cid:460)ατ(cid:462)ς,
`"death") in the Underworld, where the rays of the sun never reach
`them.[9]
`
`Hypnos' mother was Nyx (Νύ(cid:461), "Night"), the goddess of Night,
`without a father. However, sometimes he was the son of Nyx and
`Erebus, the god of Darkness. Nyx was a dreadful and powerful
`goddess, and even Zeus feared to enter her realm.[10]
`
`Abode
`Symbol
`
`Siblings
`
`Underworld
`Poppy, River Lethe,
`Cottonwood
`Personal information
`Nyx alone[1]
`Parents
`Nyx and Erebus[2]
`Thanatos (twin
`brother), Moros, Keres,
`Oneiroi, Momus,
`Oizys, Hesperides,
`Moirai, Nemesis,
`Apate, Philotes, Geras,
`Eris, Styx, Dolos,
`Ponos, Euphrosyne,
`Epiphron, Continentia,
`Petulantia,
`Misericordia,
`Pertinacia
`Pasithea
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnos
`
`1/5
`
`Consort
`
`

`

`Hypnos - Wikipedia
`1/16/24, 9:11 AM
`His wife, Pasithea, was one of the youngest of the Charites and
`was promised to him by Hera, who is the goddess of marriage and
`birth.[11]
`
`Equivalents
`Somnus
`
`Roman
`equivalent
`
`Mythology
`
`Hypnos in the Iliad
`
`Hypnos used his powers to trick Zeus. Hypnos was able to trick
`him and help the Danaans win the Trojan War. During the war,
`Hera loathed her brother and husband, Zeus, so she devised a plot
`to trick him. She decided that to trick him she needed to make him
`so enamored with her that he would fall for the trick. So she
`washed herself with ambrosia and anointed herself with oil, made
`especially for her to make herself impossible for Zeus to resist. She
`wove flowers through her hair, put on three brilliant pendants for
`earrings, and donned a wondrous robe. She then called for
`Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and asked her for a charm that
`would ensure that her trick would not fail. To procure the charm,
`however, she lied to Aphrodite because they sided on opposite
`sides of the war. She told Aphrodite that she wanted the charm to
`help herself and Zeus stop fighting. Aphrodite willingly agreed.
`Hera was almost ready to trick Zeus, but she needed the help of
`Hypnos, who had tricked Zeus once before.[12]
`
`Hera called on Hypnos and asked him to help her by putting Zeus
`to sleep. Hypnos was reluctant because the last time he had put
`the god to sleep, he was furious when he awoke. It was Hera who
`had asked him to trick Zeus the first time as well. She was furious
`that Heracles, Zeus' son, sacked the city of the Trojans. So she had
`Hypnos put Zeus to sleep, and set blasts of angry winds upon the
`sea while Heracles was still sailing home. When Zeus awoke he
`was furious and went on a rampage looking for Hypnos. Hypnos
`managed to avoid Zeus by hiding with his mother, Nyx. This made
`Hypnos reluctant to accept Hera's proposal and help her trick
`Zeus again. Hera first offered him a beautiful golden seat that can
`never fall apart and a footstool to go with it. He refused this first offer, remembering the last time he
`tricked Zeus. Hera finally got him to agree by promising that he would be married to Pasithea, one of
`the youngest Graces, whom he had always wanted to marry. Hypnos made her swear by the river Styx
`and call on the gods of the underworld to be witnesses so that he would be ensured that he would
`marry Pasithea.[13]
`
`Hypnos and Thanatos carrying the
`body of Sarpedon from the
`battlefield of Troy; detail from an
`Attic white-ground lekythos, ca. 440
`BC.
`
`Hera went to see Zeus on Gargarus, the topmost peak of Mount Ida. Zeus was extremely taken by her
`and suspected nothing as Hypnos was shrouded in a thick mist and hidden upon a pine tree that was
`close to where Hera and Zeus were talking. Zeus asked Hera what she was doing there and why she
`had come from Olympus, and she told him the same lie she told Aphrodite. She told him that she
`wanted to go help her parent stop quarreling and she stopped there to consult him because she didn't
`want to go without his knowledge and have him be angry with her when he found out. Zeus said that
`she could go any time and that she should postpone her visit and stay there with him so they could
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnos
`
`2/5
`
`

`

`Hypnos - Wikipedia
`1/16/24, 9:11 AM
`enjoy each other's company. He told her that he was never in love with anyone as much as he loved
`her at that moment. He took her in his embrace and Hypnos went to work putting him to sleep, with
`Hera in his arms. While this went on, Hypnos traveled to the ships of the Achaeans to tell Poseidon,
`God of the Sea, that he could now help the Danaans and give them a victory while Zeus was sleeping.
`This is where Hypnos leaves the story, leaving Poseidon eager to help the Danaans. Thanks to Hypnos
`helping to trick Zeus, the war changed its course in Hera's favor, and Zeus never found out that
`Hypnos had tricked him one more time.[14]
`
`Hypnos and Endymion
`
`According to a passage in Deipnosophistae, the sophist and dithyrambic poet Licymnius of Chios[15]
`tells a different tale about the Endymion myth, in which Hypnos