Hollywood Casino LLCv.Chateau Celeste, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2015

No. 91203686 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

BUO
Mailed: December 14, 2015

Opposition No. 91203686
Hollywood Casino LLC
v.
Chateau Celeste, Inc.

Before Seeherman, Lykos, and Wellington, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

By the Board:

Background

Chateau Celeste, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks to register the mark HOLLYWOOD
HOTEL, in standard character format, for “[b]ar and cocktail lounge services; hotel,
restaurant and catering services; providing social meeting, banquet and social
function facilities; [and] provision of conference, exhibition and meeting facilities,”
in International Class 43.1
On February 6, 2012, Hollywood Casino Corp., the original opposer in this
proceeding, filed a notice of opposition on the ground of likelihood of confusion,

1 Application Serial No. 85281324 (“the ’324 application”), filed March 30, 2011, based on
Applicant’s allegation of use of the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15
U.S.C. § 1051(a). Applicant alleges March 2, 2001, as the date of first use anywhere and in
commerce.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
General Contact Number: 571-272-8500
THIS OPINION IS A
PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Opposition No. 91203686

- 2 -
pleading ownership of two registrations, both for the mark HOLLYWOOD CASINO,
in standard characters, for “casino services,” in International Class 41;2 and “hotel
services,” in International Class 42.3 1 TTABVUE 3-4, ¶ 2.4 Opposer attached copies
of printouts from the USPTO’s electronic database, which show the current status
and title of Opposer’s pleaded registrations as of the filing date of the notice of
opposition. See Trademark Rule 2.122(d).5
Applicant, in its answer filed September 13, 2012, denied the salient allegations
of the notice of opposition.
Now before the Board is Opposer’s renewed combined motion filed January 8,
2015: (i) to amend its notice of opposition to add a claim that “Applicant is not the
owner of the applied-for HOLLYWOOD HOTEL mark,” based upon certain
responses given during Applicant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition, 49 TTABVUE

2 Registration No. 1851759, issued August 30, 1994, from an application filed May 5, 1993.
3 Registration No. 1903858, issued July 4, 1995, from an application filed May 5, 1993.
4 Citations to the record are to TTABVUE, the docket history system for the Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board. Because the Board primarily uses TTABVUE in reviewing
evidence, the Board prefers that citations to material or testimony in the record that has
not been designated confidential include the TTABVUE docket entry number and the
TTABVUE page number. For material or testimony that has been designated confidential
and which cannot be viewed on TTABVUE, the TTABVUE docket entry number where such
material or testimony is located should be included in any citation. See Turdin v. Trilobite,
Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014).
5 The printouts are from the USPTO’s prior electronic file system, referred to as
Trademark Application and Registration Retrieval (TARR). This system has since been
replaced with the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system; however, the
TARR printouts attached to the notice of opposition filed prior to this change retain their
probative value.
Opposition No. 91203686

- 3 -
31, ¶ 18; and (ii) for summary judgment based upon the proposed claim that
Applicant does not own the mark.6
With respect to its motion to amend the notice of opposition, Opposer asserts
that: (i) its “request is timely because the facts underlying Opposer’s amendment
did not come to light until the deposition of Applicant’s President and CEO,” id. at
22; (ii) “Opposer’s amendment is well-pled,” id. at 23; and (iii) “Applicant will not be
prejudiced by the amendment because the facts concerning ownership of the
applied-for mark are exclusively within Applicant’s control and Applicant needs no
discovery from Opposer on this topic.” Id.
By way of its motion for summary judgment, Opposer alleges that “Applicant, by
its own admission, does not control the nature and quality of the services rendered
at the HOLLYWOOD HOTEL property. Applicant is a mere licensee of the applied-
for mark HOLLYWOOD HOTEL,” and therefore, “its Application is void ab initio,
and judgment should be entered” in Opposer’s favor. Id. at 8.
Both motions are fully briefed.
Motion to Amend Notice of Opposition – Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)
In contesting Opposer’s motion for leave to file an amended notice of opposition,
Applicant states only that “Opposer should … not be granted leave to amend its

6 On September 18, 2014, Opposer filed a combined motion to amend the notice of
opposition and for summary judgment. Citing Trademark Rule 2.120(e)(2), the Board
denied consideration of Opposer’s motion, explaining that the proceeding was deemed
suspended as of the earlier filing of Applicant’s motion to compel, and that any papers filed
subsequent to that date that were not germane to the motion to compel would not be
considered. See Jain v. Ramparts Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1429, 1430 (TTAB 1998) (proceedings
deemed suspended as of the filing of the motion). The Board subsequently granted
Applicant’s motion to compel in part, and denied it in part.
Opposition No. 91203686

- 4 -
notice of opposition to add improper ownership of the application as a basis for
opposing the subject application.” 51 TTABVUE 9.
The Board liberally grants leave to amend pleadings at any stage of a proceeding
when justice so requires, unless entry of the proposed amendment would be
prejudicial to the rights of the adverse party or would violate settled law. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure
(“TBMP”) § 507.02 (2015) and cases cited therein. Inasmuch as the information that
forms the basis of Opposer’s proposed claim was learned through Applicant’s
deposition responses just days before the filing of Opposer’s motion for leave to
amend its pleading, the claim was timely raised. Although this proceeding has
passed the discovery stage, the Board does not find, and Applicant has not pointed
to any specific prejudice that would result from amendment of Opposer’s pleading.
See Metromedia Steakhouses Inc. v. Pondco II Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1205, 1206-07
(TTAB 1993); Focus 21 Int’l Inc. v. Pola Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 22 USPQ2d
1316, 1318 (TTAB 1992) (motion to amend filed prior to opening of petitioner’s
testimony period permitted). As Opposer points out, much if not all of the
information needed for Applicant to defend the proposed additional claim is already
in Applicant’s custody or control. Therefore, no reopening of the discovery period is
necessary. Additionally, the allegation of facts supporting the proposed added claim
provides sufficient detail as to the basis thereof. Conolty v. Conolty O'Connor NYC
LLC, 111 USPQ2d 1302, 1309 (TTAB 2014); Great Seats, Ltd. v. Great Seats, Inc.,
84 USPQ2d 1235, 1244 (TTAB 2007).
Opposition No. 91203686

- 5 -
Accordingly, the motion for leave to file an amended notice of opposition adding
a claim of nonownership is GRANTED, and Opposer’s amended pleading filed
January 8, 2015, is now Opposer’s operative pleading. We now turn to Opposer’s
motion for summary judgment. For purposes of deciding the motion, we will deem
Applicant to have denied the allegations regarding the newly added ground.
Summary Judgment – Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)
Entry of summary judgment is appropriate only where there are no genuine
disputes as to any material facts, thus allowing the case to be resolved as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is genuine if, on the evidence of
record, a reasonable fact finder could resolve the matter in favor of the non-moving
party. See Opryland USA Inc. v. Great Am. Music Show Inc., 970 F.2d 847, 23
USPQ2d 1471, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Roundy’s, Inc., 961
F.2d 200, 22 USPQ2d 1542, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Evidence on summary judgment
must be viewed in a light favorable to the non-movant, and all justifiable inferences
are to be drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Lloyd’s Food Prods., Inc. v. Eli’s, Inc.,
987 F.2d 766, 25 USPQ2d 2027, 2029 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Opryland USA, 23 USPQ2d
at 1472. The Board may not resolve genuine disputes as to material facts; it may
only ascertain whether genuine disputes as to material facts exist. See Lloyd’s Food
Prods., 25 USPQ2d at 2029; Olde Tyme Foods, 22 USPQ2d at 1542.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating
that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317 (1986); Sweats Fashions Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co. Inc., 833 F.2d 1560, 4
Opposition No. 91203686

- 6 -
USPQ2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987). If the evidence produced in support of the summary
judgment motion does not meet the moving party’s burden, “summary judgment
must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.” Id. (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee notes to the 1963 amendments).
Trademark Act Section 1 requires that an Applicant “be the owner of the mark
sought to be registered.” 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(3)(A). See also In re Wella A.G., 787
F.2d 1549, 229 USPQ 274, 277 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (C.J. Nies concurring) (“Under
section 1 of the Lanham Act, only the owner of a mark is entitled to apply for
registation.”) “It is fundamental that ownership of a mark is acquired by use, not by
registration.” Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 534 F.2d 312, 189 USPQ 630, 635
n.6 (CCPA 1976). See also Huang v. Tzu Wei Chen Food, 849 F.2d 1458, 7 USPQ2d
1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Therefore, “an application filed by one who is not the
owner of the mark sought to be registered is a void application.” In re Tong Yang
Cement Corp., 19 USPQ2d 1689, 1690 (TTAB 1991) (citing In re Techsonic
Industries, Inc., 216 USPQ 619 (TTAB 1982)). See also, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a); Huang,
7 USPQ2d 1335; Holiday Inn, 189 USPQ at 635 n.6 (“One must be the owner of a
mark before it can be registered.”); Great Seats, 84 USPQ2d at 1239 (“In a use-
based application under Trademark Act Section 1(a), only the owner of the mark
may file the application for registration of the mark; if the entity filing the
application is not the owner of the mark as of the filing date, the application is void
ab initio.”); Trademark Rule 2.71(d).
Opposition No. 91203686

- 7 -
Opposer asserts in its brief that “Applicant’s President and CEO testified
unequivocally at his deposition that someone other than Applicant – Zarco Hotels,
Inc. – controls the nature and quality of the services rendered at the HOLLYWOOD
HOTEL property.” 49 TTABVUE 14. Citing, inter alia, Smith Int’l Inc. v. Olin
Corp., 209 USPQ 1033, 1044 (TTAB 1981), Opposer asserts that “[t]he owner of a
mark is the entity that controls the nature and quality of the goods or services
offered under the mark and is the only party who may apply to register the mark,”
and therefore, Applicant is not the true owner of the applied-for mark. 49
TTABVUE 6. Opposer argues that Applicant is merely a licensee of non-party Zarco
Hotels, Inc., “the only party that could seek to register the alleged mark
HOLLYWOOD HOTEL.” Id. at 15.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Opposer introduced:
• the subject application including the specimens of use
comprised of a photo of a hotel bearing the name “Hollywood
Hotel The Hotel of Hollywood,” a printout from the website
http://www.hollywoodhotel.net/, describing the hotel property,
and an advertising flyer for the Hollywood Hotel;7

• excerpts from the deposition transcript of Applicant’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness, Jeff Zarrinnam, Applicant’s president
and CEO, taken September 9, 2014; and

• Applicant’s errata sheet, submitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(e), making various substantive changes, clarifications and
typographical and gramatical corrections to the transcript of
Mr. Zarrinnam’s deposition.

49 TTABVUE 40-79, Exhs. C-E.

7 Because the application file is automatically of record by operation of Trademark Rule
2.122(b), there was no need to submit it.
Opposition No. 91203686

- 8 -
Opposer’s argument principally relies upon Mr. Zarrinnam’s testimony,
including the following:
Q Were you the president and CEO of Chateau Celeste since
1998?

A Yes.

Q And does Chateau Celeste own – own the property?

A Which property?

Q The property at 1160 North Vermont Avenue, Hollywood,
California.

A No.

Q Who does own that property?

A Zarco Hotels, Inc.

. . .

Q Okay. Which of those four holding companies controls the
nature and quality of the services that are provided at the
property?

A Zarco Hotels, Inc.
And Chateau Celeste, Inc., is the management company.

Q Chateau Celeste, Inc., is the management company?

A Correct.

Q Does Chateau Celeste, Inc., have a license from Zarco
Hotels, Inc., to use trademarks?

A Yes.

49 TTABVUE 65-66, and 67-68.

In another excerpt from the deposition, Mr. Zarrinnam testifies:
Opposition No. 91203686

- 9 -
Q … I believe you testified earlier that Zarco Hotels, Inc.,
owns the property now; is that correct?

A Yes.
Q Okay. And when did Zarco Hotels, Inc., become the owner
of the property?

A 1994.
. . .
Q So just -- I just want to make sure that the record is clear
on this. Zarco Hotels, Inc., became the owner of the
property in 1994, and they continue to be the owner
today; is that correct?

A Correct.
Q And there have been no other owners, you know, within
that time?

A No.
Q Okay. Was the property ever called Chateau Celeste?
A No.
. . .
Q And I believe you stated earlier that Chateau Celeste,
Inc., who is the applicant in this proceeding, is the
management company for Zarco Hotels, Inc., is that
correct?

A Correct.
52 TTABVUE 19 and 20-21.

However, on October 17, 2014, Applicant served an errata sheet changing
certain portions of that deposition transcript. Specifically, Applicant sought to
“clarify” that “Zarco Hotels, Inc. is the owner and operator of the property, and
Opposition No. 91203686

- 10 -
Chateau Celeste, Inc. is the management company that manages and controls the
nature and quality of the services at the property.” Id. at 78. Additionally, Mr.
Zarrinnam changed his testimony with regard to the licensing of the mark, now
stating that “Zarco Hotels, Inc. has a license from Chateau Celeste, Inc. to use
trademarks.” Mr. Zarrinnam’s proffered reasons for the changes were to provide
“clarification to provide [a] more complete answer and avoid confusion of the
entities’ roles in view of terminology used in the question,” and “clarfication of [the]
answer due to misunderstanding the question and the way names of entities were
listed in relation to their roles about licensing to use trademarks.” Id.
Opposer argues that “Applicant’s errata sheet cannot raise a genuine issue of
material fact to defeat summary judgment, regardless of whether it remains part of
the record, because the errata sheet contradicts the clear-cut, pivotal admissions
given at the [discovery] deposition of Applicant’s [Rule] 30(b)(6) corporate designee
with no plausible explanation.” Id. at 16. Opposer asserts that “[i]t was only after
receiving Opposer’s motion for summary judgment in September 2014 that
Applicant decided that Mr. Zarrinnam’s testimony required ‘clarification.’ Mr.
Zarrinam’s errata sheet is a sham affidavit tactically designed to avoid summary
judgment.” Id. at 20 (citing EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253,
269-70 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting that courts refuse to consider alterations to deposition
testimony that are submitted after a summary judgment motion is filed)).
Applicant contends that “Mr. Zarrinnam was well within his right to review his
deposition transcript within the 30 days allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Opposition No. 91203686

- 11 -
Procedure 30(e) and stipulated to by counsel for the parties, and then offer any
changes or corrections to his testimony on an errata sheet,” and that “[t]he fact that
Opposer chose to file its first motion for summary judgment during that 30-day
window of time does not suddenly attribute bad or evil motives to the changes
offered on the errata sheets.” 51 TTABVUE 6.
In determining the issues now before the Board, three questions must be
answered: (1) whether the Board may consider the errata sheet as part of the record
in deciding this motion for summary judgment; (2) whether the Board may consider
Applicant’s declaration submitted in connection with its response to opposer’s
motion for summary judgment; and (3) whether a genuine dispute of material fact
exists as to Opposer’s newly asserted nonownership claim in light of whatever
evidence may properly be considered.
A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) – Errata Sheet
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) involves discovery depositions by oral
examination and provides:
(1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the deponent or
a party before the deposition is completed, the deponent must
be allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the
transcript or recording is available in which:

(A) to review the transcript or recording; and
(B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a
statement listing the changes and the reasons for
making them.

The Board has not had occasion to previously address this particular issue with
respect to a discovery deposition. However, with respect to testimonial depositions
Opposition No. 91203686

- 12 -
“the Board has made it clear that, while typographical and editorial corrections may
be made in a transcript, any changes in a testimony deposition which are
substantive in nature and, in effect, change the testimony after the fact, will not be
considered.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 25 USPQ2d 1321, 1325
(TTAB 1992) (citing Cadence Indus. Corp. v. Kerr, 225 USPQ 331 (TTAB 1985) and
Entex Indus., Inc. v. Milton Bradley Co., 213 USPQ 1116 (TTAB 1982)). The Board
has also noted that in the context of discovery depositions “[a]lthough some courts
do not allow witnesses to change their transcripts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) to
directly contradict their examination testimony on material matters, others do,
preferably with the original answers remaining in the record.” Bayer Consumer
Care AG v. Belmora LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1623, 1632 n.69 (TTAB 2014) (citing 8A
Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2118 (3d ed. April 2013)) aff’d
in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care
AG, 84 F. Supp.3d 490, 115 USPQ2d 1032 (E.D. Va. 2015), appeal docketed, No. 15-
1335 (4th Cir.). Therefore, we look to the federal courts for further elucidation on
the interpretation of Rule 30(e).
Our primary reviewing court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the
context of a patent suit, addressed whether Rule 30(e) allows for “substantive
changes to deposition testimony through an errata sheet,” in Delaware Valley Floral
Group Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets LLC, 94 USPQ2d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Federal
Circuit applied the relevant law of the pertinent regional circuit – the Eleventh
Circuit – and found that the district court had not abused its discretion in excluding
Opposition No. 91203686

- 13 -
defendants-appellants’ errata sheet submitted to substantively correct testimony
given during the deposition of defendant Kenneth P. Shaw. Id. at 1069. The court
reasoned that “even if Rule 30(e) does not prohibit such substantive changes, it
certainly does not require them.” Id. The court noted the untimeliness of the
submission of the errata sheet, Id. at 1068; and the questionable submission of the
errata sheet only after “Plaintiffs served [Mr. Shaw] with their motion for sanctions,
notifying him that his testimony was fatal to his claim.” Id.8 Finally, the court noted
that “[a]t least one circuit … has determined that a party cannot create an issue of
fact by amending his deposition under Rule 30(e),” Id. at 1069 n.2, (citing
Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225-26 (9th
Cir. 2005) (“While the language of FRCP 30(e) permits corrections ‘in form or
substance,’ this permission does not properly include changes offered solely to
create a material factual dispute in a tactical attempt to evade an unfavorable
summary judgment.”)).
Other circuits apply different interpretations of Rule 30(e). For example, the
Tenth Circuit has explained that it does not “condone counsel’s allowing material
changes to deposition testimony and certainly do[es] not approve of the use of such
altered testimony that is controverted by the original testimony.” Garcia v. Pueblo
Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233, 1242 n.5 (10th Cir. 2002). Similarly, the Third Circuit
has stated that “a party may not generate from whole cloth a genuine issue of

8 The district court also considered Mr. Shaw’s previous deposition experience, concluding
that he was a “seasoned deponent,” and his responses to opposing counsel’s direct and
repeated inquiries wherein Mr. Shaw provided consistent answers. See Delaware Valley
Floral Group Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1068.
Opposition No. 91203686

- 14 -
material fact (or eliminate the same) simply by retailoring sworn deposition
testimony to his or her satisfaction.” EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d
253, 267-68 (3d Cir. 2010). In contrast, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
has held that the “rule does not limit a party to correction of stenographic errors,
but also permits changes in form or substance,” Pina v. Children’s Place, 740 F.3d
785 (1st Cir. 2014); and the Second Circuit has stated that “the judge does not
examine the sufficiency, reasonableness, or legitimacy of the reasons given for
changes to the deposition, even if those reasons are unconvincing, and the rule
places no limitations on the type of changes that can be made.” Podell v. Citicorp
Diners Club, Inc., 112 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1997). Both the First and Second Circuits
attempt to mitigate any unfairness caused by such changed evidence, the former by
allowing the deposition to be reopened to allow examination on the altered
testimony, and the latter by allowing the original answers to remain as part of the
record for weighing at trial.
However, as the Third Circuit noted in EBC, Inc., “reopening the deposition
might not be a sufficient remedy, for the deponent who has reviewed his original
testimony and settled on an opposite answer may also prove unimpeachable.” EBC,
Inc., 618 F.3d at 268. Additionally, in the context of a motion for summary
judgment, a court does not have the luxury of weighing evidence such as a party’s
original answers against its altered responses for credibility, as issues of fact such
as this may not be resolved on summary judgment. See Lloyd’s Food Prods., 25
USPQ2d at 2029; Olde Tyme Foods, 22 USPQ2d at 1542. Therefore, a party could
Opposition No. 91203686

- 15 -
raise such an issue simply to evade a potential judgment against it upon motion for
summary judgment.
Determination of the instant motion requires interpretation of Rule 30(e) in the
summary judgment context. We conclude that use of a flexible approach —
consistent with our prior analogous jurisprudence — is appropriate. Although
parties must be allowed to correct errors within deposition testimony, a party
should not be allowed to make an unexplained “about-face” with respect to
damaging deposition testimony. To follow such an interpretation of Rule 30(e)
would eviscerate the purpose of sworn depositions, and would severely prejudice the
deposing party’s ability to rely upon or strategize based on the responses given by a
deponent. As the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana explained in
Greenway v. International Paper Co.:
The purpose of Rule 30(e) is obvious. Should the reporter make a
substantive error, i.e., he reported “yes” but I said “no,” or a
formal error, i.e., he reported the name to be “Lawrence Smith”
but the proper name is “Laurence Smith,” then corrections by
the deponent would be in order. The Rule cannot be interpreted
to allow one to alter what was said under oath. If that were the
case, one could merely answer the questions with no thought at
all then return home and plan artful responses. Depositions
differ from interrogatories in that regard. A deposition is not a
take home examination.

144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La. 1992), quoted with approval in E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 277 F.R.D. 286, 297 (E.D. Va. 2011) and
Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 790 F. Supp. 2d 435, 465 (E.D. Va. 2011).

Opposition No. 91203686

- 16 -
Therefore, we examine the circumstances surrounding the submission of the
errata sheet to determine whether it should be excluded from the record by
addressing certain factors viewed by the various circuit courts. These factors
include:
(1) the timeliness of the submission of the errata (the language
of Rule 30(e) allows for amendments within 30 days after the
deposed party is notified by the officer that the transcript or
recording is available);

(2) the reasons or explanation given for the need to amend the
deposition testimony, and whether such explanation is itself a
question of fact not suitable for disposition on a motion for
summary judgment, e.g. medical conditions, see McCormick v.
City of Ft. Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1240 n.7 (11th Cir. 2003)
(deponent’s capacity was diminished by the effects of
anaesthesia and other pain medications taken for a recent
surgery); cf. Sanford v. CBS, Inc. et al., 594 F.Supp. 713, 715,
225 USPQ 136, 137 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (“it is not enough for the
witness to give general conclusory reasons for all the changes …
or … for the witness to record no reasons at all.”);

(3) the circumstances which precipitated the submission of the
errata sheet, e.g. submission in response to a motion pointing
out that the deponent’s deposition testimony may be fatal to the
party’s claim; see Delaware Valley Floral Group, 94 USPQ2d at
1068;

(4) the manner and number of changes made to the testimony;
see Deuer Mfg. Inc. v. Kent Prods Inc., 1989 WL 297879, 17
USPQ2d 1379, 1381 (E.D. Mich. 1988), rev’d on other grounds,
907 F.2d 158 (1990);

(5) whether consideration of the errata sheet would serve to
undermine the reliability of the deposition process; Id.; and

(6) the extent to which prejudice to the deposing party may be
mitigated by a reopening of the deposition to allow for the
impeachment of the prior testimony.

Opposition No. 91203686

- 17 -
Where the proposed changes are substantive in nature and relate to an issue that is
potentially dispositive of a claim or defense, heightened scrutiny should be applied.
1) Timeliness
Applicant’s errata sheet was timely served on Opposer within thirty days of the
transcript being made available to Applicant for inspection.
2) Explanation of the Need for Amendment
The reasons provided for the changes, “[c]larification to provide more complete
answer and avoid confusion of the entities’ roles in view of terminology used in the
question,” and “[c]larification of answer due to misunderstanding the question and
the way names of entities were listed in relation to their roles about licensing to use
trademarks,” are not convincing. Mr. Zarrinnam himself laid out the cast of entities,
and was given multiple opportunities to correctly identify them. Mr. Zarrinnam’s
proffered reasons do not indicate that the responses were inaccurately transcribed,
but simply that he misunderstood the role of the entities that he identified in
relation to the questions asked. Further, Applicant’s counsel had opportunity, but
did not attempt to rehabilitate his witness to clarify or correct any misstatements.
3) Circumstances Precipitating the Need for Amendment
We are not convinced that Applicant has not attempted to evade the potential
entry of judgment against it through its submission of the errata sheet, which seeks
to correct responses regarding the very issue that Opposer raised in its initial
motion for summary judgment. Although the submission was timely, the service of
the errata sheet only after Applicant was alerted to the damaging nature of the
Opposition No. 91203686

- 18 -
testimony of its witness, given the totality of the circumstances, e.g. the timing of
the changes, the nature of the changes, and the lack of a reasonable explanation for
the changes, suggests an evasive motive.
4) The Manner of Amendment
Moreover, the manner of the changes, as the Third Circuit described, are not
changes to correct erroneously reported testimony of a substantive nature, but serve
to recreate Applicant’s testimony, presumably to defeat Opposer’s newly added
nonownership claim. This is particularly well illustrated by an excerpt cited by
Opposer in which Mr. Zarrinnam gave the simple answer ‘Yes,’” to the inquiry of
whether Applicant has a license from Zarco Hotels, Inc., to use trademarks; the
correction in the errata sheet changes the formerly simple response to this direct
question to saying “yes”, but then totally reversing what the “yes” stands for: “Yes,
Zarco Hotels, Inc. has a license from [Applicant] to use trademarks.” 49 TTABVUE
78.
5) Integrity of the Deposition Process
Given the nature and timing of the changes, and the context in which this issue
is being determined, consideration of the errata sheet would indeed undermine the
reliability of sworn depositions, and would also deprive Opposer of its ability to seek
judgment on its newly asserted claim.
6) Mitigation of Prejudice
Finally, and as previously noted, a reopening of the deposition to allow for
impeachment of the “corrected” testimony would intrinsically defeat the motion for
Opposition No. 91203686

- 19 -
summary judgment as the Board could not weigh the credibility of the contradicting
evidence in a summary judgment context. Indeed, reopening the time for Opposer to
depose Mr. Zarrinnam would likely result in Mr. Zarrinnam consistently hewing to
his amended responses per counsel’s instruction and not impeaching his prior
testimony. Accordingly, giving Opposer another opportunity to depose Mr.
Zarrinnam would very likely be useless. See EBC, Inc., 618 F.3d at 268. Therefore,
taking the sixth factor into account in determining this motion for summary
judgment would inherently weigh against consideration of the errata sheet.
Balancing the factors, consideration of the errata sheet under these
circumstances would be inappropriate. Applicant has not provided credible reasons
for the wholesale substantive changes sufficient to overcome their questionable
timing and nature of the changes. Therefore, we will not consider the errata sheet
as part of the record in determining the motion for summary judgment.
B. Declaration – “Sham Affidavit”
Applicant, in support of its brief in opposition to Opposer’s motion for summary
judgment, attached a declaration from Mr. Zarrinnam. In his declaration, Mr.
Zarrinnam maintained that the responses in his deposition were inaccurate and
advanced explanations similar to the reasons for the changes he asserted in his
errata sheet. Additionally, Mr. Zarrinnam claimed that “Opposer’s attorney did not
explain anything about the meaning of the term ‘controls the nature and quality of
the services that are provided at the property,’” which caused him to provide
inaccurate answers. 51 TTABVUE 13. Mr. Zarrinnam stated that his responses of
Opposition No. 91203686

- 20 -
“Yes” to both the questions: “Chateau Celeste, Inc. is the management company?”
and “Does Chateau Celeste, Inc., have a license from Zarco Hotel, Inc., to use the
trademarks?,” needed clarification after he reviewed the transcript because “some of
[his] responses to those questions were unintentionally confusing and could be
misunderstood.” Id.
Opposer, in response, contends that Mr. Zarrinnam’s declaration is a “sham
affidavit.” Opposer asserts that “[t]hough [Mr. Zarrinnam] claims in his declaration
that he was confused by the simple and straightforward questions asking the
identity of the entity that controlled the nature and quality of the services rendered
at the HOLLYWOOD HOTEL property – information that a President and CEO
would certainly know – the question was direct and [Mr. Zarrinnam’s] answer did
not reflect any confusion.” 52 TTABVUE 7.
In determining a similar issue in Delaware Valley Floral Group, the Federal
Circuit, applying the law of the Eleventh Circuit, determined that the district court
had not abused its discretion in not considering a declaration submitted by Mr.
Shaw in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 94 USPQ2d at 1070. The
court, quoting the Eleventh Circuit, explained that “[w]hen a party has given clear
answers to unambiguous questions which negate the existence of any genuine issue
of material fact, that party cannot thereafter create such an issue with an affidavit
that merely contradicts, without explanation, previously given clear testimony …
[r]ather, that affidavit would be a sham.” Id. at 1069 (quoting McCormick, 333 F.3d
at 1240 n.7) (emphasis in original). The court further stated that “[i]t is well settled
Opposition No. 91203686

- 21 -
that a court may ‘disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing
a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by
deposition testimony.’” Id. at 1070. The Fourth Circuit’s position is similar. See,
e.g., In re Family Dollar FLSA Litig., 637 F.3d 508, 512-13 (4th Cir. 2011)
(nonmovant “cannot create a dispute about a fact that is contained in deposition
testimony by referring to a subsequent affidavit of the deponent contradicting the
deponent’s prior testimony, for it is well established that a genuine issue of fact is
not created where the only issue of fact is to determine which of the two conflicting
versions of a party's testimony is correct”) (citations omitted).
In his deposition testimony Mr. Zarrinnam provided clear answers to Opposer’s
unambiguous questions. Therefore, under these circumstances we will not consider
Mr. Zarrinnam’s contradictory declaration. To rule otherwise would contravene our
determination with regard to Mr. Zarrinnam’s errata sheet, as Applicant would
essentially defeat the motion for summary judgment by simply submitting a sham
affidavit that reiterates the points in the errata sheet.
C. Conclusion
Nonetheless, drawing all justifiable inferences in favor of Applicant as the non-
moving party, viewing the evidence submitted, including Mr. Zarrinnam’s
deposition testimony without regard to the errata sheet or declaration,9 we cannot

9 The parties should note that evidence submitted in connection with the motion for
summary judgment is of record only for consideration of this motion. To be considered at
final hearing, any such evidence must be properly introduced in evidence during the
appropriate trial period. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. R. Josephs Sportswear Inc., 28 USPQ2d

Opposition No. 91203686

- 22 -
find on this record that Opposer has discharged its burden of showing that there are
no genuine disputes of material fact, and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. In particular, the deposition testimony does not make clear that Applicant
was not, in fact, the owner of the trademark HOLLYWOOD HOTEL at the time the
application was filed. The testimony Opposer cites as supporting its claim that
Applicant was not the owner merely establishes that Applicant was not the owner of
the physical property known as the Hollywood Hotel, located at 1160 North
Vermont Avenue in Hollywood, California at the time the application was filed.
Accordingly, we find that a genuine dispute of material fact exists at least as to the
question of whether Applicant was the owner of the trademark HOLLYWOOD
HOTEL on the date the application was filed.10
Therefore, Opposer’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Proceedings
are resumed upon the following schedule:
Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures 1/1/2016
Plaintiff’s 30-day Trial Period Ends 2/15/2016
Defendant’s Pretrial Disclosures 3/1/2016
Defendant’s 30-day Trial Period Ends 4/15/2016
Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Disclosures 4/30/2016
Plaintiff’s 15-day Rebuttal Period Ends 5/30/2016

In each instance, a copy of the transcript of any testimony, together with copies
of documentary exhibits, must be served on the adverse party within thirty days
after completion of the taking of that testimony. Trademark Rule 2.125.

1464 (TTAB 1993); Pet Inc. v. Bassetti, 219 USPQ 911 (TTAB 1983); Am. Meat Inst. v.
Horace W. Longacre, Inc., 211 USPQ 712 (TTAB 1981).
10 The fact that we have identified only one genuine dispute should not be construed as a
finding that this is necessarily the only dispute which remains for trial.

Opposition No. 91203686

- 23 -
Briefs shall be filed in accordance with Trademark Rules 2.128(a) and (b). An
oral hearing will be set only upon request filed as provided by Trademark Rule
2.129.