[E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: TTAB - Question re brief opposing motion

Fri Feb 23 21:21:52 EST 2024

The TTAB decisions often explain how they interpret a certain motion or pleading the way a correct version of the motion or pleading would have been filed so the Board Judges or Interloc attorneys themselves will typically call out the error of the filer while also correcting it. So here’s another vote against addressing form over function in the responsive motion and for just addressing the argument.

For example, from today’s TTABlog post (emphasis and highlighting added):

Amend Petition to Add Descriptiveness Claim?: Petitioner asserted that the issue of descriptiveness was also tried with regard to registrant’s identical mark. The Board, construing this argument as seeking an amendment to the pleadings to conform to the evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) based on implied consent, was unmoved.

Alex Butterman
Partner
DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG
211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175
T: 703-777-7319 – BIO<https://www.dbllawyers.com/attorney/alex-butterman/>
[Icon  Description automatically generated]<https://www.dbllawyers.com/> [Icon  Description automatically generated] <https://www.facebook.com/dbllawyers/>  [Icon  Description automatically generated] <http://linkedin.com/company/dbllawyers>  [Logo, icon  Description automatically generated] <https://twitter.com/DBLLawyers?lang=en>  [Icon  Description automatically generated] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL1n8Wupq5xZA8C74gCcw0w>  [Icon  Description automatically generated] <https://www.instagram.com/dbl_lawyers/?hl=en>  [Icon  Description automatically generated] <https://www.dbllawyers.com/podcasts/>
This electronic message contains information from Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC and may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 04:00 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Kevin Grierson <kgrierson at cm.law>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [E-trademarks] TTAB - Question re brief opposing motion

Agreed. I think you should address the merits of the motion that rather than focusing on the deficiencies in the reg or rules cited.  If the relevant rule says something different, that’s certainly worth noting, but triers of fact generally don’t have much patience with an opposition that amounts to “he/she cited the wrong rule.”

Kevin Grierson
CULHANE|MEADOWS PLLC<http://www.culhanemeadows.com/>
[Mobile:]
  757-726-7799<tel:757-726-7799>
[Fax:]
  866-521-5663<fax:866-521-5663>
[Email:]
  kgrierson at cm.law<mailto:kgrierson at cm.law>

From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Chris McHattie via E-trademarks
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 3:54 PM
To: For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Chris McHattie <mchattie at optonline.net<mailto:mchattie at optonline.net>>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] TTAB - Question re brief opposing motion

EXTERNAL EMAIL
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/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13538 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5324 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6447 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7300 bytes
Desc: image007.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5458 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9333 bytes
Desc: image009.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8946 bytes
Desc: image010.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 285 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 452 bytes
Desc: image012.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.png
Type: image/png
Size: 394 bytes
Desc: image013.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240224/b20ed6bb/attachment-0009.png>