[E-trademarks] TTAB - Question re brief opposing motion

[Robert Reynolds]

I would just answer the substance of the motion (assuming it has merit) and drop in the correct citations in your response, assuming you know what the other side is going for.

Yes, you could skewer their shoddy brief, but I would imagine the judges would allow them to refile or amend. Your client wouldn’t get anything more out of that then an additional bill. (Of course this doesn’t apply if your client has given you instructions to fight like hell, or similar)

If you truly don’t know what they’re trying for, mention that in the body, make them do their job properly.

Bob Reynolds
Senior Counsel
Klintworth & Rozenblat IP LLP
2045 W. Grand Ave, Ste B PMB 84396
Chicago, Illinois 60612
direct 773.770-2554  fax 773.570.3328
rreynolds at kandrip.com<mailto:rreynolds at kandrip.com>
www.kandrip.com<http://www.rozenblat-ip.com/>

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________



From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Chris McHattie via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 2:54 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Chris McHattie <mchattie at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] TTAB - Question re brief opposing motion

Footnote at most assuming motion is otherwise meritorious

Feature if it substantive basis of motion being invalid

Sent from my iPhone


On Feb 23, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>> wrote:

A list member asks to post anonymously ...

We received a motion that does not contain citation to the applicable CFR section(s) that provide the basis for the motion.  Instead, the motion cites to the TBMP (and at that, they are not even the correct sections of the TBMP).  Is it worthwhile to point this defect out in a brief opposing the motion (amongst other reasons opposing the motion).  If it is viewed as worthwhile, can the moving party simply rectify that deficiency if they file a reply brief?

--
E-trademarks mailing list
E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240223/5d5a2990/attachment.htm>