Coach Services, Inc.v.Unhuh Entertainment & Marketing Services, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

No. 91200165 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: February 28, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
Coach Services, Inc.
v.
Unhuh Entertainment & Marketing Services, Inc.
_____

Opposition No. 91200165
_____

Jean Clement of Coach Services, Inc. for Coach Services, Inc.

John E. Hope of Law Offices of John E. Hope, for Unhuh Entertainment &
Marketing Group, Inc.
_____

Before Bucher, Kuhlke, and Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Unhuh Entertainment & Marketing Group, Inc. (applicant) filed an
application to register the mark C&C as shown below,

for watches in Class 14.1 Coach Services, Inc. (opposer) has opposed the application
on the ground of likelihood of confusion with its CC design mark, as shown below,

1 Application Ser. No. 85115798, filed on August 25, 2010, based on Section 1 (a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a).
Opposition No. 91200165

2

for a wide variety of leather and other material goods, including watches. Opposer
alleges prior common law use of its mark in connection with leather and material
goods and also alleges ownership of the following registrations for its CC design
mark: Reg. Nos. 3396554, 2593963, 2626565, 3695920, 2832589, 28322318, and
2822629. Opposer did not attach status and title copies of its registrations to the
notice of opposition.
Applicant filed an answer in which it denied the salient allegations in the
notice of opposition.2
The trial dates were set by the Board in its institution order dated June 8,
2011. The opposer’s testimony period was scheduled to end on May 13, 2012 and
applicant’s testimony was scheduled to end on July 12, 2012. Opposer’s rebuttal
period was scheduled to end on August 26, 2012.
On May 11, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation permitting the submission of
testimony on affidavit or declarations, which was granted. The parties did not
request an extension of the testimony periods, and none was granted. To the

2 Applicant asserted five “affirmative defenses” with its answer. Most of these “defenses”
are further explanations of the denial of likelihood of confusion. To the extent that
applicant pleaded any true affirmative defenses, it did not pursue them and we therefore
consider them waived.
Opposition No. 91200165

3

contrary, the Board’s order, dated May 23, 2012 specifically stated: “Trial dates
remain as set in the Board’s institution order dated June 8, 2011.”
Opposer did not file any testimony or evidence during its trial period. On
July 24, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation to extend applicant’s trial period for
two weeks, through July 26, 2012, which was granted.3 During applicant’s
extended trial period, applicant filed its testimony, which consisted of the
declaration of applicant’s president, Curtis F. Wong, and 24 notices of reliance.
Opposer filed testimony and evidence during its rebuttal trial period on
August 27, 2012 and on September 10, 2012. Opposer’s testimony consisted of the
declaration of Jean Clemente, Counsel of opposer, which was executed on May 31,
2012 and six notices of reliance. Jean Clemente’s declaration and two of the notices
of reliance were filed on August 27, 2012. The other four notices of reliance were
filed on Monday September 10, 2012.
The proper purpose of the rebuttal period is to submit evidence explaining or
discrediting applicant’s evidence, not to prove opposer’s case-in-chief. Wet Seal Inc.
v. FD Management Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1632 (TTAB 2007). Opposer neither
requested nor obtained any extension of time to take its testimony in chief. The
Trademark Rules clearly state that:
No testimony shall be taken except during the times
assigned, unless by stipulation of the parties approved by
the Board, or upon motion granted by the Board, or by
order of the Board.
Trademark Rule 2.121 (a) (1).

3 Opposer’s rebuttal period was re-scheduled to end on September 9, 2012.
Opposition No. 91200165

4

Thus, the documents submitted by opposer during the rebuttal period that
are outside the scope of rebuttal are improper and may not be considered.
Accordingly, because opposer did not submit testimony or evidence during its case-
in-chief, opposer has failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, its claim of priority and likelihood of confusion.
Decision: The opposition is dismissed.