Tuesday, October 13, 2009

TTABlog Back in the Trenches: a Six-Pack of Miscellaneous TTAB Papers

Here’s another half-dozen recent Board papers, unearthed via TTAB Across the Board. Nothing earth-shaking in this random collection, but it’s useful, I think, to take a look at some of these miscellaneous papers in order to develop a better feel for the practicalities of Board practice. Do you agree?

Motion to Strike Trial Testimony is Premature: During its testimony period, Applicant moved to suspend, and to strike as irrelevant certain trial testimony and evidence of Opposer. It hoped to avoid the expense of addressing the involved issue in its testimony period and in its final brief. The Interlocutory Attorney held a telephone conference and then denied the motion because it was a substantive attack on the evidence, not procedural one; she pointed out that a ruling on trial evidence must await final hearing. Hunt Control Systems, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Opposition No. 91173417.

Two Errors Cancel Out: Motion to strike late-filed reply brief denied, the Interlocutory Attorney noting that movant had failed to include a certificate of service with its trial brief. Neither paper will be stricken for non-compliance with the Board’s rules." Bell’s Brewery, Inc. v. Bell Hill Vineyards, Opposition No. 91177980.

No Need to Withdraw Twice :: Law firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel was granted in May 2006. Interlocutory Attorney declines to consider second motion to withdraw. Arturo Santana Gallego v. Santana's Grill, Inc., Cancellations Nos. 92043152, 92043160, and 92043175.

Amendment to Identification of Goods Must be by Motion: In its answer to the Notice of Opposition, Applicant proposed an amendment to its identification of goods. Interlocutory Attorney points out that such an amendment can be made only on motion, the determination of which (unless filed with consent) will be deferred until final decision. The Sisters of Bon Secours in the United States, Incorporated v. Project 7, Inc., Opposition No. 91191243.

Priest Accuses TTAB of Libel: Father Weiss sent this “Letter of Protest” to the Director, accusing the TTAB of libel. Vista Alegre Atlantis, S.A. v. Daniel A. Weiss, Opposition No. 91177170.

Certificate of Service, please!: Applicant neglects to include certificate of service with answer (Rule 2.119), but the Board, in order to expedite the matter, forwards a copy to opposer’s counsel. Thompson & Co. of Tampa, Inc. v. American Cigarette Company, Inc., Opposition No. 91192089.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2009.


At 8:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Vista v. Daniel Weiss: This party's previous Pettion to the Director requesting removal of the interlocutory attorney was denied on May 8, 2009.

At 3:07 PM, Blogger Catherine said...

I couldn't resist looking at the file in the underlying case; all I can say is, "Wow".


Post a Comment

<< Home