estta tracking number: estta1081473 09/11/2020

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov

ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1081473

Filing date: 09/11/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Proceeding 91252016

Party PlaintiffRLP Ventures, LLC

CorrespondenceAddress

RAMONA PRIOLEAURLP VENTURES LLCTIMES SQUARE STATIONPO BOX 2605NEW YORK, NY 10108-2605UNITED STATESPrimary Email: [email protected] phone number provided.

Submission Opposition/Response to Motion

Filer's Name Ramona Prioleau

Filer's email [email protected]

Signature /Ramona Prioleau/

Date 09/11/2020

Attachments Response to Motion to Compel - 09112020.pdf(123430 bytes )Declaration of Ramona Prioleau - Opp to MTC- 09112020.pdf(1624353 bytes )

http://estta.uspto.gov



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.

Mosaic Learning, Inc.

Applicant.

Opposition No. 91252016

Mark: MOSAIC LEARNING

Serial No. 88/075,609

Filed: Aug. 13, 2018

Published: Sep. 3, 2019

OPPOSER’S (I) RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND (II)

OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Opposer, RLP Ventures, LLC (“Opposer”), hereby responds to the motion to compel

filed by Mosaic Learning, Inc. (“Applicant”) on August 22, 2020. The motion is fundamentally

flawed because the discovery requests (namely, the interrogatories and production requests) were

responded to in accordance with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure

(“TBMP”) and the cases related thereto.

Opposer opposes the motion to compel on the grounds that (i) the Applicant did not

provide the Board with an accurate statement of the facts in the motion to compel; (ii) the

Applicant failed to meet and confer in good faith and (iii) the Opposer complied with its

obligations during discovery and has responded to Applicant’s discovery requests in accordance

with the TBMP as well as the cases related thereto. Thus, Applicant’s motion to compel should

be denied.

Separately, Opposer moves for a protective order from the Board pursuant to Rule 26(c)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories and

Applicant’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents & Things.

As described below, Applicant has asked for a variety of discovery requests that are

excessive, unnecessary, unduly burdensome and overbroad categories of documents and

information, many of which exceed the scope of discoverable information for this opposition

proceeding and clearly are meant to harass and financially tax the Opposer, which is a small

limited liability company. Moreover, the total of all interrogatories and document requests, including

discrete subparts, appears to exceed 75.

Opposer seeks an order precluding the excessive discovery sought, or modifying the

scope of the discovery requests to that which is related to the matters that are the subject of the

opposition proceeding as well as an order denying the motion to compel. In support of thereof,

Opposer states as follows:

BACKGROUND

The relevant facts are set forth in the Notice of Opposition dated November 2, 2019, as

supplemented by the First Amended Notice of Opposition dated August 24, 2020, and the

Declaration of Ramona Prioleau (“Prioleau Decl.”), attached hereto as Attachment A. However,

for the Board’s convenience, a brief recitation of the facts is repeated here.

The Opposer

The Opposer is the owner and operator of an entity that uses the trademark

“MOSAEC”. The MOSAEC platform is a commerce, content, entertainment, advertising,

technology and social media ecosystem that spotlights film, music, art, theater, dance, literature,

fashion, sports and locales. In addition, via the MOSAEC platform, the Opposer distributes

consumer goods, buys and sells advertising, and seeks funding from individuals, corporations

2

and governments. It has also been used to advance personal, educational, and career goals. The

use of the MOSAEC mark commenced as early as September 1998. See Prioleau Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.

The Applicant’s Application

Pursuant to Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act, on Aug. 13, 2018, Applicant filed the

Application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register Applicant’s Mark on

the Principal Register, which was published for opposition on September 3, 2019 for the

following services (“Applicant’s Services”):

“business advisory services in the field of development, education and training programs

and methodologies” in Class 35;

“educational services, namely, developing customized curriculum and course material in

connection therewith, for others; consulting services in the development and

implementation of customized curriculum and course material in connection therewith,

for others” in Class 41; and

“development of software for others, namely, non-downloadable software used to

manage their proprietary digital content; downloadable software provided as a service,

namely, non-downloadable software used to manage proprietary digital content” in Class

42.

Notice of Opposition

Opposer’s original notice of opposition pleaded (i) priority and (ii) likelihood of

confusion under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act as the statutory basis for opposition, among other

matters. 1 TTABVUE.

On December 9, 2019, Applicant filed an answer to the Notice of Opposition, denying

Opposer’s claims.

On August 24, 2020, Opposer filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Notice of

Opposition (as attached thereto) in this proceeding, alleging (i) priority; (ii) likelihood of

confusion and (iii) Applicant lacked a bona fide use in commerce of Applicant’s Mark on each of

the recited services. (See TTABVUE 8). The motion to amend is still pending.

3

Discovery

Discovery opened on January 13, 2020, and closed on July 11, 2018. See TTABVUE 2.

Opposer served written first requests on Applicant on June 11, 2020. Similarly, Applicant, in

served written first requests on Opposer on June 11, 2020.

Initial Disclosures: On February 11, 2020, Opposer served its initial disclosures. On

February 11, 2020, Applicant served its initial disclosures.

Opposer’s Interrogatories, Requests for Documents and Requests for Admissions: On

June 11, 2020, Opposer served its First Set of Interrogatories, First Set of Documents Requests

and First Set of Requests for Admission on Applicant.

Applicant’s Interrogatories and Requests for Documents: On June 11, 2020, Applicant

served its First Set of Interrogatories, First Set of Documents Requests and First Set of Requests

for Admission on Opposer.

On July 11, 2020, Opposer objected to Applicant’s excessive discovery requests in

accordance with the TBMP.

Discovery closed on July 11, 2020.

On July 14, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer amended discovery requests – three

days after the close of discovery.

On August 13, 2020, Opposer objected to Applicant’s late revised discovery requests in

accordance with the TBMP.

On August 22, 2020, Applicant filed a motion to compel (See TTABVUE 7).

On August 24, 2020, Opposer filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of

Opposition (See TTABVUE 8).

4

Prior to the filing of the instant motion to compel, Applicant did not attempt to meet and

confer with the Opposer.

Applicant could have easily avoided the time and expense of these motions by meeting

and conferring with Opposer. Instead of taking that simple step to attempt to resolve these issues,

the Applicant filed this motion, upending established processes that the Board mandates to avoid

needless motion practice.

ARGUMENT

A motion to compel may be filed when a party fails to produce requested documents or

responses. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. 2.120(e)(1). If the non-moving party cannot show that neglect of

its discovery obligations was excusable, the Board generally should order that discovery

responses be provided without objection. See No Fear, Inc. v. Rule, 54 USPQ2d 1551, 1554

(TTAB 2000).

Here, Opposer has not neglected its discovery obligations. In fact, not only has Opposer

objected to Applicant’s discovery requests in accordance with the TBMP, Opposer provided

Applicant’s attorney the sections of the TBMP that governs objections related to excessive

requests. See the Opposer’s analysis of Applicant’s excessive requests Prioleau Decl. Exs Q &R.

Despite Opposer having met its obligations under the TBMP, Applicant filed a motion to

compel seemingly in bad faith, for the purpose of delay, as well as to overburden, harass and

financially tax the Opposer with vexatious litigation practice.

In addition, Applicant’s claims that Opposer failed to meet its discovery obligations

should be considered in light of Applicant’s misleading statements that Opposer failed to confer

in good faith.

Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Opposer

Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Opposer: TBMP § 405.03(e) and TBMP § 406.05(e) instructs

5

a party receiving excessive interrogatories and requests for the production of documents, respectively, to

withhold responding to any propounded request.

Specifically, TBMP § 405.03(b) and TBMP § 406.05(b), respectively, provide that the total

number of interrogatories and requests for production of documents that a party may serve on another

party over the course of an entire proceeding, not just per set of discovery requests, cannot exceed 75

(emphasis added). Thus, pursuant to the rules, if two or more separate sets of discovery requests are

served over the course of the proceeding, the discovery requests in the separate sets would be added

together for purposes of determining whether the numerical limit specified in the rules have been

exceeded. See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1467

(TTAB 1990) (interrogatories); See also, Kellogg Co. v. Nugget Distributors’ Cooperative of America

Inc., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1468 (TTAB), wherein the Board held:

In determining whether a set of interrogatories exceeds this limit, each subdivision of separate

questions, whether set forth as a numbered or lettered subpart, or as a compound question or a

conjunctive question, is counted as a separate interrogatory. Kellogg, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1469.

Here, Opposer counted the First Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Interrogatories together

as well as First Set of Document Requests and Second Set of Document Requests together. As a result,

the Opposer found that Applicant propounded over 75 interrogatories and document requests. See

Prioleau Decl. Exs Q & R.

Applicant’s Bad Faith in Filing a Motion to Compel.

Applicant’s claim that Opposer has not responded to Applicant’s discovery requests are

insincere. Opposer objected to discovery requests in accordance with the TBMP, providing the

sections of the TBMP that governs objections related to excessive requests.

Even with its motions, though, Applicant has failed to follow the rules. Before a party

may move for sanctions or to compel, it must confer with the adverse party in good faith in an

effort to resolve (or at least narrow) the dispute. See 37 CFR § 2.120(f)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)

(1), (d)(1)(B). Applicant offers no certification of good faith consultation here because it did not

6

even try to provide a reasoned analysis of the discovery requests to the Opposer. Rather,

Applicant’s approach was (and continues to be) that any concerns Opposer raised are invalid and

that absent full compliance, Applicant would seek Board relief.

Applicant’s allegations signify nothing and are mere cover for its decision to fail to meet

and confer. Based on the TBMP, Opposer’s objection to Applicant’s discovery requests were

per se proper, meaning Opposer objected in accordance with the TBMP. Thus, there is no basis

for granting Applicant’s request for sanctions or entering an order compelling Opposer to

respond to Applicant’s interrogatories or production requests cause of Applicant’s negligent

disregard of the TBMP and the case law related thereto.

Applicant’s raising of issues related to the document requests in the instant motion to

compel is in bad faith as the Applicant has not complied with the requirements of TBMP

§523.02, requiring that

the motion to compel be supported by a written statement from the moving party that

such party or its attorney has made a good faith effort, by conference or correspondence,

to resolve with the other party or its attorney the issues presented in the motion, and has

been unable to reach agreement.

As such, the motion to compel with respect to Opposer’s objections to said discovery is

procedurally deficient and should be given no consideration.

Applicant Failed to Meet and Confer in Good Faith as Required by the Rules

Applicant’s motion separately fails because Applicant failed to confer with Opposer

in good faith in advance about the issues on which it moves. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), (d)(1)

(B) (a motion to compel discovery or for sanctions based on a failure to respond to discovery

requests “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

confer” with the party that allegedly failed to act); cf. also 37 CFR § 2.120(f)(1). Here, the

Opposer has not failed to act and the Applicant failed to confer in good faith. In accordance with

the TBMP, Opposer objected to Applicant’s discovery requests.

7

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Pursuant to 37 CPR § 2.120(f), “the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may make any

order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

undue burden or expense, including one or more of the types of orders provided by clauses (1)

through (8), inclusive, of Rule 26( c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

The TBMP explains that a party may seek a protective order when the adverse party

serves a clearly unreasonable number of requests for production. TBMP 410 provides that in

cases where a request for discovery constitutes clear harassment – for example, when a clearly

unreasonable number of requests for production or interrogatories are served – the party on

which the request was served may properly respond to it by filing a motion for a protective order

that the discovery not be had, or be had only on specified terms and conditions.

Applicant seeming use of the motion to compel as a means to overburden, harass and

financially tax the Opposer with vexatious litigation practice, necessitates Opposer’s seeking,

pursuant to 37 CFR § 2. 120(f), a protective order relieving Opposer of any obligation to provide

any additional responses to Applicant’s discovery requests given that Opposer has provided

substantive responses and objections to date in accordance with the TBMP and cases related

thereto.

Moreover, depending on the subject matter, the exhibits to the Prioleau Declaration

provide substantial supporting documentary evidence that clearly demonstrate Opposer’s

superior rights in the opposition proceeding.

CONCLUSION

Opposer urges the Board to reject the motion to compel. Separately, for the reasons stated

herein, the Board should issue an order granting Opposer the motion for protective order.

8

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 11, 2020 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC

Times Square Station

P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

Opposer

9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached Opposer’s (i)

Response To Applicant’s Motion To Compel and (ii) Opposer’s Motion For Protective Order was

served on the Attorney for the Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.

8171 Maple Lawn Boulevard Suite 200

Maple Lawn, MD 20759

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Dated: September 11, 2020 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau

ATTACHMENT A



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



Declaration of Ramona Prioleau

I, Ramona Prioleau, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1 I am over the age of eighteen and competent to make this Declaration.

2 The facts stated in this Declaration are within my personal knowledge are true.

3 I am the founder and representative of Opposer (RLP Ventures, LLC), who, in the

above referenced trademark opposition proceeding, is opposing registration of the mark

MOSAIC LEARNING in International Classes 35, 41 and 42 (the “Applicant’s Mark”). In my

position, I am authorized to assert to and confirm the activities and beliefs of Opposer.

4 I verify that Opposer is the owner and operator of an entity using the trademark

“MOSAEC” (“Opposer’s Mark”).

5 Opposer offers the

5.a Class 41 services identified in USPTO electronic records (TSDR) for U.S.

Registration No. 5,409,856 (See Exhibit A (RLP 1-5)); and

5.b Class 42 services identi�ied in USPTO electronic records (TSDR) for U.S.

Registration No. 5,284,032 (SeeExhibitB(RLP6-9)).

6 In addition, since 1999, Opposer has used Opposer’s Mark for the following

services – “Advisory services in the field of development, education and training” in Class 35.

7 The MOSAEC mark is used only with the permission and under the control of

Opposer. The Opposer also uses and/or licenses the use of Opposer’s Mark.

8 The MOSAEC entity was and continues to be targeted to users interested in Class

35, 41 and 42 services.

9 The use of the MOSAEC mark commenced as early as September 1998.

10 I, on behalf of Opposer, developed the concept for the MOSAEC platform during

the period 1996 – 1998, including classes with publishing executives. Initially, the concept began

in paper form and transitioned to a digital format with a “beta” platform. Aspects of the business

plan and source code for the platform were developed by me, acting on behalf of Opposer,

during courses at New York University and other schools during the period 1996-1999.

11 Opposer first released the platform in a “beta” form during the fall of 1998. The

beta version of the site was used to recruit talent, seek funding as well as sell ads. The “alpha”

version of the platform was launched in the spring of 1999. Since its launch, the MOSAEC

platform has been used throughout the United States and internationally with users engaging

with its content and purchasing its consumer goods.

12 On behalf of Opposer, I assert that the Opposer is located in New York.

13 On August 13, 2018, Applicant filed a use-based (Section 1(a)) application with

the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the MOSAIC LEARNING mark

(“Applicant’s Mark”) shown in USPTO electronic records (TSDR) for U.S. Application Serial

No. 88/075,609 (“Applicant’s Application”). (See Exhibit C (RLP 10-14)).

2

14 Applicant’s Application identified the following services (“Applicant’s

Services”):

14.a “business advisory services in the field of development, education and training

programs and methodologies” in Class 35;

14.b“educational services, namely, developing customized curriculum and course

material in connection therewith, for others; consulting services in the

development and implementation of customized curriculum and course material

in connection therewith, for others” in Class 41; and

14.c “development of software for others, namely, non-downloadable software used to

manage their proprietary digital content; downloadable software provided as a

service, namely, non-downloadable software used to manage proprietary digital

content” in Class 42.

15 On November 2, 2019, Opposer filed a Notice of Opposition with the Trademark

Trial and Appeal Board against registration of the Applicant’s Application. The opposition was

designated No. 91252016.

16 On February 11, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer its Initial Disclosures, a

true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D (RLP 15-18) and relied upon in

the Response.

17 On February 11, 2020, Opposer served upon Applicant its Initial Disclosures, a

true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E (RLP 19-24) and relied upon in

the Response.

3

18 On June 11, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer its First Set of Interrogatories,

a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F (RLP 25-43) and relied upon in

the Response.

19 On June 11, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer its First Set of Document

Requests, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G (RLP 44-57) and

relied upon in the Response.

20 On June 11, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer its First Set of Requests for

Admission, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H (RLP 58-62) and

relied upon in the Response.

21 On July 11, 2020, Opposer served Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC’s Objection to

Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories and dated July 11, 2020, a true and correct copy of which

is attached hereto as Exhibit I (RLP 63-66) and relied upon in the Response.

22 On July 11, 2020, Opposer served Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC’s Objection to

Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and dated July 11, 2020, a true

and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit J (RLP 67-70) and relied upon in the

Response.

23 On July 11, 2020, Opposer served Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC’s Response to

Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Admission and dated July 11, 2020, a true and correct copy

of which is attached hereto as Exhibit K (RLP 71-78) and relied upon in the Response.

24 I, on behalf of the Opposer authenticate that attached as Exhibit L (RLP 79-81)

is a true and correct copy of a September 10, 2020 print out of an email dated July 14, 2020 from

Opposer to Applicant.

4

25 On July 14, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer its Amended First Set of

Interrogatories, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit M (RLP 82-97)

and relied upon in the Response.

26 On July 14, 2020, Applicant served upon Opposer its Amended First Set of

Document Requests, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit N (RLP 98-

108) and relied upon in the Response.

27 On August 13, 2020, Opposer served Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC’s Objection

to Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and dated August 13, 2020, a

true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit O (RLP 109-112) and relied upon

in the Response.

28 On August 13, 2020, Opposer served Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC’s Objection

to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories and dated August 13, 2020, a true and correct copy of

which is attached hereto as Exhibit P (RLP 113-116) and relied upon in the Response.

29 Attached hereto as Exhibit Q (RLP 117-135) is an annotated copy of Applicant’s

First Set of Interrogatories, which is relied upon in the Response.

30 Attached hereto as Exhibit R (RLP 136-149) is an annotated copy of Applicant’s

First Set of Document Requests, which is relied upon in the Response.

31 Discovery closed on July 11, 2020.

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made

are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful

false statements may jeopardize the validity of the current cancellation proceeding, declares that

all statements made of his or her own knowledge are true and that statements made on

information are believed to be true.

5

Ramona Prioleau

By: / Ramona Prioleau /

Title: Founder

Date: September 11, 2020

6

Exhibit A

RLP 1

STATUS DOCUMENTS MAINTENANCE Back to Search Print

For assistance with TSDR, email [email protected] and include your serial number, the document you are looking

for, and a screenshot of any error messages you have received.

Generated on: This page was generated by TSDR on 2020-09-11 22:23:44 EDT

Mark: MOSAEC

US Serial Number: 86587316 Application Filing Date: Apr. 03, 2015

US Registration Number: 5409856 Registration Date: Feb. 27, 2018

Filed as TEAS Plus: Yes Currently TEAS Plus: Yes

Register: Principal

Mark Type: Service Mark

TM5 Common Status

Descriptor:

LIVE/REGISTRATION/Issued and Active

The trademark application has been registered with the Of

Status: Registered. The registration date is used to determine when post-registration maintenance documents ar

Status Date: Feb. 27, 2018

Publication Date: Dec. 12, 2017

Mark Information

Goods and Services

Mark Literal Elements: MOSAEC

Standard Character Claim: Yes. The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.

Mark Drawing Type: 4 - STANDARD CHARACTER MARK

Note:

The following symbols indicate that the registrant/owner has amended the goods/services:

Brackets [..] indicate deleted goods/services;

Double parenthesis ((..)) identify any goods/services not claimed in a Section 15 affidavit of incontestability; and

Asterisks *..* identify additional (new) wording in the goods/services.

For: Entertainment services, namely, providing information by means of a global computer network in the field

and popular culture; Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line reviews of entertainment, film, fine

culture, music, sports, fashion, theater, and dance; Providing a website featuring entertainment informatio

entertainment, film, fine arts, museums, literature, culture, music, sports, fashion, theater, dance, and new

and commentary in the field of entertainment; Providing information, news and commentary i

activities; Provision of information relating to children's entertainment

International Class(es): 041 - Primary Class U.S Class(es): 100, 101, 107

Status Search SN 5409856 https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=5409856&caseSearchType=US_AP...

1 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:24 PM

RLP 2

Basis Information (Case Level)

Current Owner(s) Information

Attorney/Correspondence Information

Prosecution History

Class Status: ACTIVE

Basis: 1(a)

First Use: Sep. 03, 1998 Use in Commerce: Sep. 03, 1998

Filed Use: Yes Currently Use: Yes

Filed ITU: No Currently ITU: No

Filed 44D: No Currently 44E: No

Filed 44E: No Currently 66A: No

Filed 66A: No Currently No Basis: No

Filed No Basis: No

Owner Name: RLP Ventures, LLC

Owner Address: Times Square Station

PO Box 2605

New York, NEW YORK UNITED STATES 10037

Legal Entity Type: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY State or Country Where

Organized:

NEW YORK

Attorney of Record

Attorney Name: Willard A. Stanback Docket Number: 321-03

Attorney Primary Email

Address:

[email protected] Attorney Email Authorized: Yes

Correspondent

Correspondent

Name/Address:

RLP VENTURES, LLC

Willard Alonzo Stanback, PC

36 West Lafayette Street, Suite 103

Trenton, NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES 08608

Phone: 8556141111 Fax: 609-751-5121

Correspondent e-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Correspondent e-mail

Authorized:

Yes

Domestic Representative - Not Found

Date Description Proceeding Number

Aug. 30, 2018 NOTICE OF SUIT

Mar. 03, 2018 TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED


2 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:24 PM

RLP 3

Feb. 27, 2018 REGISTERED-PRINCIPAL REGISTER

Dec. 12, 2017 OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION CONFIRMATION

E-MAILED

Dec. 12, 2017 PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION

Nov. 22, 2017 NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLICATION E-MAILED

Nov. 08, 2017 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER

Nov. 04, 2017 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED 88889

Nov. 03, 2017 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE 88889

Nov. 03, 2017 TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED

Oct. 02, 2017 NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED

Oct. 02, 2017 FINAL REFUSAL E-MAILED

Oct. 02, 2017 FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN 91234

Sep. 12, 2017 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED 88889

Sep. 12, 2017 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE 88889

Sep. 12, 2017 TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED

Mar. 14, 2017 NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED 6325

Mar. 14, 2017 NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED 6325

Mar. 14, 2017 NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN 91234

Mar. 09, 2017 LIE CHECKED SUSP - TO ATTY FOR ACTION 76568

Aug. 27, 2016 REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL

SUSPENDED

76568

Aug. 27, 2016 ASSIGNED TO LIE 76568

Feb. 19, 2016 TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED

Feb. 12, 2016 NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED 6332

Feb. 12, 2016 LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED 6332

Feb. 12, 2016 SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN 91234

Jan. 21, 2016 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED 88889

Jan. 20, 2016 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE 88889

Jan. 20, 2016 TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED

Dec. 28, 2015 ATTORNEY/DOM.REP.REVOKED AND/OR APPOINTED

Dec. 28, 2015 TEAS REVOKE/APP/CHANGE ADDR OF ATTY/DOM REP

RECEIVED

Jul. 20, 2015 NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED 6325

Jul. 20, 2015 NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED 6325

Jul. 20, 2015 NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN 91234

Jul. 10, 2015 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 91234

Apr. 15, 2015 NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED

Apr. 14, 2015 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED IN

TRAM


3 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:24 PM

RLP 4

TM Staff and Location Information

Assignment Abstract Of Title Information - Click to Load

Apr. 07, 2015 TEAS AMENDMENT ENTERED BEFORE ATTORNEY

ASSIGNED

88889

Apr. 07, 2015 TEAS VOLUNTARY AMENDMENT RECEIVED

Apr. 07, 2015 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM

TM Staff Information - None

File Location

Current Location: PUBLICATION AND ISSUE SECTION Date in Location: Feb. 27, 2018

Proceedings - Click to Load


4 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:24 PM

RLP 5

Exhibit B

RLP 6

STATUS DOCUMENTS MAINTENANCE Back to Search Print




Mark: MOSAEC

US Serial Number: 87159118 Application Filing Date: Sep. 01, 2016

US Registration Number: 5284032 Registration Date: Sep. 12, 2017

Filed as TEAS Plus: Yes Currently TEAS Plus: Yes

Register: Principal


TM5 Common Status

Descriptor:

LIVE/REGISTRATION/Issued and Active

The trademark application has been registered with the Of

Status: Registered. The registration date is used to determine when post-registration maintenance documents ar

Status Date: Sep. 12, 2017

Publication Date: Jun. 27, 2017

Mark Information

Goods and Services

Mark Literal Elements: MOSAEC



Note:





For: Providing temporary use of a non-downloadable web application for posting, searching, accessing, sharin

ratings, referrals, recommendations, and other information as well as advertising, uploading photos, addin

interacting with other users, related to entertainment, film, fine arts, museums, literature, culture, music, s

restaurants, recreation and leisure activities

International Class(es): 042 - Primary Class U.S Class(es): 100, 10



1 of 3 9/11/2020, 10:23 PM

RLP 7




Prosecution History

Basis: 1(a)

First Use: Sep. 1998 Use in Commerce: Sep. 1998






Filed No Basis: No

Owner Name: RLP Ventures, LLC

Owner Address: Times Square Station

PO Box 2605

New York, NEW YORK UNITED STATES 10108

Legal Entity Type: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY State or Country Where

Organized:

NEW YORK

Attorney of Record - None

Correspondent

Correspondent

Name/Address:

RLP VENTURES, LLC

RLP VENTURES, LLC

PO BOX 2605

TIMES SQUARE STATION

NEW YORK, NEW YORK UNITED STATES 10108



Apr. 21, 2020 NOTICE OF SUIT

Nov. 13, 2019 NOTICE OF SUIT

Aug. 30, 2018 NOTICE OF SUIT

Sep. 12, 2017 REGISTERED-PRINCIPAL REGISTER

Jun. 27, 2017 OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION

CONFIRMATION E-MAILED

Jun. 27, 2017 PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION


2 of 3 9/11/2020, 10:23 PM

RLP 8



Jun. 07, 2017 NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLICATION

E-MAILED

May 19, 2017 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL

REGISTER

May 18, 2017 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED 88889

May 18, 2017 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW

OFFICE

88889

May 18, 2017 TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

RECEIVED

Nov. 30, 2016 NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION

E-MAILED

6325

Nov. 30, 2016 NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED 6325

Nov. 30, 2016 NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN 68603

Nov. 29, 2016 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 68603

Sep. 08, 2016 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA

ENTERED IN TRAM

Sep. 05, 2016 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM

TM Staff Information - None

File Location

Current Location: PUBLICATION AND ISSUE SECTION Date in Location: Sep. 12, 2017



3 of 3 9/11/2020, 10:23 PM

RLP 9

Exhibit C

RLP 10

STATUS DOCUMENTS Back to Search Print





US Serial Number: 88075609 Application Filing Date: Aug. 13, 2018

Filed as TEAS RF: Yes Currently TEAS RF: Yes

Register: Principal


TM5 Common Status

Descriptor:

LIVE/APPLICATION/Opposition Pending

The pending trademark application has been examined by

published for opposition, at which time one or more oppos

they have not yet been decided.

Status: An opposition after publication is pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. For further informatio

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board web page.

Status Date: Nov. 04, 2019

Publication Date: Sep. 03, 2019

Mark Information

Goods and Services

Mark Literal Elements: MOSAIC LEARNING



Disclaimer: "LEARNING"

Note:





For: business advisory services in the field of development, education and training programs and methodologi



Basis: 1(a)

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88075609&caseSearchType=US_...

1 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:22 PM

RLP 11




First Use: May 21, 2007 Use in Commerce: May 21, 2007

For: educational services, namely, developing customized curriculum and course material in connection therew

services in the development and implementation of customized curriculum and course material in connec



Basis: 1(a)


For: development of software for others, namely, non-downloadable software used to manage their proprietary

software provided as a service, namely, non-downloadable software used to manage proprietary digital co

International Class(es): 042 - Primary Class U.S Class(es): 100, 101


Basis: 1(a)







Filed No Basis: No

Owner Name: MOSAIC LEARNING, INC.

Owner Address: Suite R-250

10005 Old Columbia Road

Columbia, MARYLAND UNITED STATES 21046

Legal Entity Type: CORPORATION State or Country Where

Organized:

MARYLAND

Attorney of Record

Docket Number: Mosaic

Attorney Primary Email

Address:

[email protected] Attorney Email Authorized: Yes

Correspondent


2 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:22 PM

RLP 12

Prosecution History


Correspondent

Name/Address:

JONATHAN R WACHS

OFFIT KURMAN PA

8171 MAPLE LAWN BOULEVARD

SUITE 200

MAPLE LAWN UKRAINE 20759

Phone: 212-545-1900 Fax: 301-575-0335



Nov. 04, 2019 OPPOSITION INSTITUTED NO. 999999 252016

Sep. 26, 2019 EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE RECEIVED

Sep. 03, 2019 OFFICIAL GAZETTE PUBLICATION

CONFIRMATION E-MAILED

Sep. 03, 2019 PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION

Aug. 14, 2019 NOTIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PUBLICATION

E-MAILED

Jul. 29, 2019 ASSIGNED TO LIE 70138

Jul. 19, 2019 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL

REGISTER

Jan. 04, 2019 NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION

E-MAILED

6332

Jan. 04, 2019 LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED 6332

Jan. 04, 2019 SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN 78329

Dec. 27, 2018 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED 88889

Dec. 27, 2018 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW

OFFICE

88889

Dec. 27, 2018 TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

RECEIVED

Dec. 03, 2018 NOTIFICATION OF NON-FINAL ACTION

E-MAILED

6325

Dec. 03, 2018 NON-FINAL ACTION E-MAILED 6325

Dec. 03, 2018 NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN 78329

Nov. 29, 2018 ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER 78329

Aug. 21, 2018 NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA

ENTERED IN TRAM

Aug. 16, 2018 NEW APPLICATION ENTERED IN TRAM

TM Staff Information

TM Attorney: PRATER, JILL I Law Office Assigned: LAW OFFICE 119


3 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:22 PM

RLP 13


File Location

Current Location: PUBLICATION AND ISSUE SECTION Date in Location: Jul. 30, 2019



4 of 4 9/11/2020, 10:22 PM

RLP 14

Exhibit D

RLP 15



_______________________________________

)

RLP VENTURES, LLC )

) Opposition No. 91252016

Opposer; )

) Mark: MOSAIC LEARNING

) Serial No. 88/075,609

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

MOSAIC LEARNING, INC. )

)

Applicant. )

)

_______________________________________)

OPPOSER’S RULE 26(a)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(l), Applicant Mosaic Learning,

Inc. (“Applicant”) hereby makes its initial disclosures:

I. Individual with Discoverable Information: Applicant at this time believes

that the following individual may have discoverable information that Applicant may use

to support its claims (other than information that would be used solely for impeachment):

1. Brendan Connors, Chief Executive Officer, Mosaic Learning, Inc., c/o Offit Kurman,

P.A., 8171 Maple Lawn Boulevard, Suite 200, Maple Lawn, Maryland 20759,

Attn: Jonathan R. Wachs

Brendan Connors is likely to have knowledge of issues related to Applicant’s use of

the trademark MOSAIC LEARNING.

RLP 16

2

Applicant reserves the right to amend this list upon identification of other

individuals through discovery or through development of the issues.

II. Documents: The following documents are in the possession, custody, or

control of Applicant and may be used to support Applicant’s claims:

1. Documents related to Applicant’s federal trademark application for the

trademark MOSAIC LEARNING.

2. Documents related to Applicant’s use of the trademark MOSAIC

LEARNING.

3. Documents related to Applicant’s advertising and marketing, channels of

trade, and exposure of the mark MOSAIC LEARNING.

4. Documents related to consumer recognition of the mark MOSAIC

LEARNING associated with the services for which the mark is used.

Applicant reserves the right to amend this list upon identification of other

documents and things through discovery or through development of the issues.

III. Computation of Damages: Not applicable.

IV. Insurance Coverage: Not applicable.


OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.

Dated: February 11, 2020 By__/s/ Jonathan R. Wachs___________________

Jonathan R. Wachs

Laura J. Winston

Attorneys for Applicant

8171 Maple Lawn Boulevard, Suite 200

Maple Lawn, Maryland 20759

Email: [email protected];

[email protected];

[email protected]

RLP 17

3


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing INITIAL

DISCLOSURES was served by e-mail to Opposer at its address of record.

DATED: February 11, 2020

By: /s/ Jonathan R. Wachs

4844-4267-5380, v. 1

RLP 18

Exhibit E

RLP 19



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



OPPOSER’S RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Opposer, RLP Ventures, LLC (“Opposer”) hereby makes the following disclosures

required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(l) based upon information reasonably available to it at this

time. These disclosures are preliminary and discovery is ongoing. The Opposer therefore

reserves the right to correct, amend, or modify these disclosures based on new information.

A. The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each

individual likely to have discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to

support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of

the information.

Subject to the limitations set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(l)(A), Opposer identifies the

following individuals, each of whom is likely to have discoverable information that Opposer

may use to support its claims or defenses:

Name/Title Address & Phone Number Subject Matter

Ramona Prioleau

Owner

RLP Ventures, LLC

Time Square Station

P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

(917) 960-9693

Adoption of MOSAEC mark,

continuing use of mark in

commerce, and type of goods

and services associated with

mark.

RLP 20

2

Opposer reserves the right to amend the list of persons upon identification of other

individuals through discovery or otherwise through the process of the proceedings.

B. A copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data

compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party

and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for

impeachment.

Subject to the limitations set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B), Opposer identifies the

following categories of documents which Opposer may use to support its claims or defenses. By

making this disclosure, Opposer does not represent that it is identifying every potentially relevant

document upon which it may rely for purposes of this proceeding. Opposer’s continuing

investigation and discovery may reveal additional relevant documents and Opposer therefore

reserves the right to supplement this disclosure accordingly. Opposer does not waive its right to

object to the production of any particular document disclosed herein on the basis of any valid

objection as to its discoverability or admissibility. However, Opposer will not produce any

documents that are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Opposer will also only

produce confidential documents in accordance with the Protective Order now in force as entered

by the Board. Opposer identifies the following initial list of documents:

1. Documents concerning Opposer’s ownership and use of its MOSAEC mark.

2. Documents concerning Opposer’s priority in the MOSAEC mark.

3. Documents concerning the nature of the goods and services that are offered under

Opposer’s MOSAEC mark.

4. Documents concerning the facts and circumstances underlying Opposer’s claims set

forth in its Notice of Opposition.

RLP 21

3

Opposer notes that there may be documents in the possession, custody or control of

Applicant and/or third parties that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this proceeding,

including but not limited to:

1. Documents associated with all applications for registration of the Applicant’s mark;

2. Documents reflecting the origin and creation of the Applicant’s mark;

3. Documents related to Applicant’s proposed goods and services using Applicant’s

mark; and

4. Documents related to the marketing of Applicant’s proposed goods and services using

Applicant’s mark.

Opposer reserves the right to amend this list of document categories upon identification

of additional types of documents through discovery or otherwise through the process of the

proceedings. In addition, Opposer may rely on documents in the public domain to support any of

its claims or defenses.

C. A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party,

making available for inspection and copying under Rule 34 the documents or other

evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such

computation is based, including materials bearing the nature and extent of injuries

suffered,

Opposer asserts that no damages are required to be claimed in this administrative action.

D. For inspection and copying as under Rule 34 any insurance agreement under

which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a

judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments

made to satisfy the judgment.

Not applicable in this matter.

RLP 22

4


Dated: February 11, 2020 By: /s/Ramona Prioleau

Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC


P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

OPPOSER

RLP 23

5


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Opposer’s Rule 26 Initial

Disclosures was served on the Attorney for the Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Dated: February 11, 2020 By: /s/Ramona Prioleau

Ramona Prioleau

RLP 24

Exhibit F

RLP 25



_______________________________________

)

RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; )


) Serial No. 88/075,609

)

v. )

)

)

)

)


)

Applicant. )

)

_______________________________________)

APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Applicant Mosaic Learning, Inc.

(“Applicant”) hereby requests that Opposer, RLP Ventures, LLC (“Opposer”), answer

each of the following interrogatories separately and fully, in writing and under oath,

within thirty (30) days after service hereof. Pursuant to these interrogatories, Opposer has

a continuing obligation to update its responses with any information discovered after the

original date set for responses, and correct any response to any interrogatory as may be

required.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

The following definitions and instructions apply to these document requests.

1. The term “Opposer” shall mean RLP Ventures, LLC, its predecessors in

RLP 26

2

interest, and all of its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and the officers, directors,

employees, agents, brokers, attorneys, representatives and any other persons or entities

acting or purporting to act on its behalf.

2. The term “Applicant” shall mean Mosaic Learning, Inc., its predecessors

in interest, and all of its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and the officers, directors,



3. The terms “you” and “your” shall refer to Opposer as defined above.

4. The term “person(s)” means any natural person, any form of business

entity (whether partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, company or

otherwise), and any governmental entity or department, agency, bureau, or political

thereof.

5. The term “MOSAEC” refers to the designation that is the subject of

Opposer’s United States Trademark Registration Nos. 5409856 and 5284032.

6. The term “Opposer’s Services” refers to the services identified by or used

in connection with MOSAEC, whether or not included in Registration Nos. 5409856

and/or 5284032.

7. The term “Opposed Application” refers to Applicant’s United States

Trademark Application Serial No. 88075609.

8. The term “MOSAIC LEARNING” refers to the mark that is the subject of

the Opposed Application.

9. The term “Applicant’s identified services” refers to the services identified

in the Opposed Application.

RLP 27

3

10. The term “document(s)” shall be given the fullest interpretation allowable

under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to paper

and electronic documents and files, and shall include writings, recordings, and

photographs, as those terms are defined in Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Without limiting the foregoing, “document(s)” means all written, typed, or printed matter

and all electronic, magnetic or other records or documentation of any kind or description

(including, without limitation, letters, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, notes,

records, minutes, contracts, agreements, records, or notations of telephone or personal

conversations, conferences, interoffice communications, e-mail, microfilm, bulletins,

circulars, pamphlets, photographs, facsimiles, invoices, tape recordings, computer

printouts and worksheets), including drafts and copies not identical to the originals, all

photographs and graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, and all compilations

of data from which information can be obtained, and any and all writings or recordings or

any type or nature, in your actual possession, custody or control, including those in the

possession, custody or control of any consultants, accountants, attorneys, or other agents,

whether or not prepared by you.

11. Without limiting the term “control,” a document is deemed to be within

your control if you have ownership, possession or custody of the document, or the right

to secure the document or a copy thereof from any person or entity having physical

possession thereof.

12. Unless otherwise specified, “describe” or “identify,” when referring to a

person, means you must state the following: (a) the full name; (b) the present or last

known residential and/or business address; (c) the present or last known residential and/or

RLP 28

4

business telephone numbers; (d) the present occupation, job title, employer and

employer’s address at the time of event or period referred to in each particular

interrogatory; and (e) in the case of any person other than an individual, identify the

officer, employee, or agent most closely connected with the subject matter of the

interrogatory, and the officer who is responsible for supervising that officer or employee.


document, means you must state the following: (a) the type of document (e.g. letter,

handwritten note, etc.); (b) the title or heading that appears on the document; (c) its date,

author or authors, and addressee(s), if any; and (d) its present location and custodian. If

any such document is no longer in your possession or subject to your control, “identify”

also means to state: (e) what disposition was made of it; (f) the circumstances

surrounding the authorization of the document’s disposition; and (g) the date of

disposition.

14. Unless otherwise specified, “describe” or “identify,” when referring to an

act, occurrence, transaction, decision, statement, or communication (hereinafter

collectively referred to as “act”), means you must describe in substance the event or

events constituting such act(s), the place and date thereof, the manner in which such

act(s) took place and to identify the persons present, the persons involved, and any

document referring or relating thereto.

15. The term “communication(s)” is used herein in its broadest sense to

encompass any transmission or exchange of information, ideas, facts, data, proposals, or

any other matter, whether between individuals or between or among members of a group,

whether face-to-face, by telephone or by means of written electronic or other medium.

RLP 29

5

16. The phrase “relate to,” the word “concerning,” or any variants thereof,

mean any document, communication or information that constitutes, contains, embodies,

responds to, describes, analyzes, or is otherwise pertinent to the subject matter request.

17. The term “or” shall mean “and/or”; the term “and” shall mean “and/or”;

and the terms “and” as well as “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the request all documents which

might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope.

18. The term “any” refers to any and all documents, persons or entities

inclusively.

19. All references to the singular shall include the plural, and all references to

the plural shall include the singular.

20. In the following interrogatories, if a privilege is alleged as to information

or materials, if an interrogatory is otherwise not answered in full, or if an objection is

made to any of this discovery, the reasons therefor shall be stated for not answering in

full and answering said interrogatory to the extent to which it is not objected, including

the identification of all information or materials for which privilege is claimed and the

specific nature of any such privilege.

INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1

Identify each officer and managing agent of Opposer, giving each officer’s and

managing agent’s name, address, title and duties with respect to Opposer.

Answer:

RLP 30

6

Interrogatory No. 2

Identify Opposer’s predecessors-in-interest, and all of its subsidiaries and

affiliated companies, and the officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives

thereof.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 3

Describe in detail your first use of MOSAEC in the United States as a trademark,

including the date of first use, the context in which it was used, the geographic location of

its use, and the services in connection with which it was first used.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 4

Describe in detail your use of MOSAEC in the United States from first use to the

present, including the type of services associated with MOSAEC, the geographic scope of

your use, the target market of customers to whom MOSAEC is directed (i.e., gender, age,

hobbies, activities, etc. of such customers), and the channels of trade through which

Opposer’s Services have been sold and/or provided.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 5

State all facts relating to the circumstances under which you first became aware of

Applicant’s use of MOSAIC LEARNING, including when you became aware of

RLP 31

7

such use, how it was being used by Applicant, and where you saw Applicant's use of the

mark.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 6

State all facts relating to how you promoted the MOSAEC in the United States

from your first use to the present, including identifying the specific marketing medium

utilized, the geographic area(s) in which such marketing, advertising or promoting

occurred, the time period(s) during which such marketing, advertising or promoting was

conducted, as well as the specific goods and/or services marketed, advertised or

promoted.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 7

Explain why you chose to adopt the designation MOSAEC.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 8

State all facts and identify all documents relating to the specimen you submitted

during the prosecution of the application which matured into the pleaded Reg. No.

5284032.

Answer:

RLP 32

8

Interrogatory No. 9



5409856.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 10

State all facts and identify all documents supporting your allegation in Paragraph

1 of your Notice of Opposition.

Answer:




Answer:




Answer:


RLP 33

9



Answer:




Answer:




Answer:

Interrogatory No. 16:

State all facts and identify all documents supporting your allegation in the second

Paragraph 8 of your Notice of Opposition.

Answer:


State all facts and identify all documents supporting the following statement in

your allegation in Paragraph 10 of your Notice of Opposition: “[T]o the extent that

RLP 34

10

Applicant’s and Opposer’s Services do not already overlap, Applicant’s Services are

within Opposer’s zone of natural expansion.”

Answer:



your allegation in Paragraph 13 of your Notice of Opposition: “[U]pon information and

belief, Applicant will offer Applicant’s Services under Applicant’s Mark in connection

with services for users that are within the same group targeted by Opposer.”

Answer:


State all facts and identify all documents supporting the statement in your

allegation in Paragraph 13 of your Notice of Opposition that you have cultivated a

“diverse community of users” through your “long, extensive, and continuous use of

Opposer’s Mark.”

Answer:


Identify all third party uses of MOSAEC or MOSAIC for any goods or services of

which you are aware.

Answer:

RLP 35

11


If you are aware of any instances of actual or possible confusion between you and

Applicant or between goods and/or services of you and those of Applicant, including but

not limited to telephone calls, inquiries by mail, or other communications from anyone

referring to or making any mention of Applicant, Applicant's goods and/or services, or

Applicant's trademarks, or exhibiting any mistaken association between Applicant or

Applicant's services and you or your goods and/or services, describe each instance of

actual or possible confusion, including the date thereof, the identity of the persons

involved, and all documents relating in any way to such instance.

Answer:


Identify each person or agency which has rendered or is rendering assistance to

you in connection with the advertising, promotion, distribution, and/or sale of any

product or service bearing MOSAEC in the United States and, with respect to each such

person or agency, describe each matter in which assistance has been or is being rendered.

Answer:


Describe and identify any and all communications which took place between you

and any other person regarding the subject of the pending opposition proceeding, and

identify any and all documents which relate to your answer.

RLP 36

12

Answer:


Identify all contracts and/or agreements between you and other persons relating to

MOSAEC, including but not limited to all purchase contracts, distribution contracts, and

license agreements.

Answer:


State the dollar amount of your gross sales revenue derived from use of MOSAEC

in the United States from your first use of MOSAEC to the present, broken down

annually.

Answer:


State the dollar amount of your advertising expenditures for the promotion of

MOSAEC in the United States from your first use of MOSAEC to the present, broken

down annually.

Answer:


Identify each witness, including experts, whose testimony you intend to rely upon

in this proceeding.

RLP 37

13

Answer:


Describe the media (e.g., radio, television, internet, magazines, etc.) which you

used to promote the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify all agreements concerning MOSAEC, including all licenses and

assignments.

Answer:


Identify the persons employed or retained by you, including, but not limited to,

any third-party independent contractors or consultants, with the most knowledge

concerning the identity and nature of goods and/or services you are marketing,

distributing or selling, or intend to market, distribute or sell, under MOSAEC.

Answer:


RLP 38

14

Identify the persons, including, but not limited to, any third-party independent

contractors or consultants, with the most knowledge concerning your business or

marketing plans for the sale or intended sale of goods and/or services under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify any actual and/or intended sales representatives, dealers, distributors,

retailers and/or licensees for goods and/or services under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify all persons (other than clerical personnel) who participated in any way in

providing responses to these interrogatories.

Answer:


Identify all persons whose files were searched for documents responsive to

Opposer’s First Request for Production of Documents served concurrently herewith.

Answer:


Have you or any of your officers or managing agents identified in the answer to

Interrogatory No. 1 ever considered or attempted to initiate or ever been party to a

RLP 39

15

lawsuit, United States Patent and Trademark Office opposition or cancellation proceeding

(other than the present proceeding) in the United States involving or relating to the use or

registration of Applicant’s Mark?

Answer:


If the answer to Interrogatory 35 is yes, set forth the following concerning each

such litigation or proceeding: identify each actual or potential adversary and the

trademarks involved; state its case docket number and filing date and identify the tribunal

involved; state its outcome; identify all documents referring or relating to such litigation

or proceeding and ensuing negotiations, if any; and state the name(s) and address(es) and

telephone number(s) of all counsel representing any adverse party in such litigation or

proceeding.

Answer:


Identify any study, research, focus group, testing or similar validation procedure

employed by you or any person or entity at your request or on your behalf to determine

the presence and/or absence of any confusion between Opposer’s Services and

Applicant’s Identified Services.

Answer:


RLP 40

16

State the number of current registered users for the web site MOSAEC.COM.

Answer:


State the number of visits to the web site MOSAEC.COM in the past five (5)

years.

Answer:


State the number of unique visitors to the web site MOSAEC.COM in the past

five (5) years.

Answer:


Identify any and all documents responsive to the foregoing interrogatories which

are lost or unavailable and identify the date(s) the loss or unavailability was first

discovered, the person(s) who first discovered the loss or unavailability and the person(s)

most knowledgeable about the contents of such lost or unavailable documents.

Answer:


RLP 41

17

Identify the person within Applicant who has the greatest knowledge as to the

information requested, as to each of the above interrogatories.

Answer:

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.

Dated: June 11, 2020 By__/s/ Laura J. Winston___________________

Jonathan R. Wachs

Laura J. Winston





[email protected];

[email protected]

RLP 42

18


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served by e-mail to Opposer at its address of

record.

DATED: June 11, 2020

By: /s/ Laura J. Winston

4827-3581-0239, v. 2

RLP 43

Exhibit G

RLP 44



_______________________________________

)

RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; )


) Serial No. 88/075,609

)

v. )

)

)

)

)


)

Applicant. )

)

_______________________________________)

APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS


(“Applicant”) hereby requests that Opposer, RLP Ventures, LLC (“Opposer”), respond to

the Requests for Production listed below in writing and under oath within thirty (30) days

after service hereof. Pursuant to these requests for production, Opposer has a continuing

obligation to update its responses with any information discovered after the original date

set for responses.


Applicant incorporates by reference all the instructions and definitions listed in

Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories served concurrently with these Requests for

RLP 45

2

Production of Documents. The following definitions and instructions apply to these

RPDs.

REQUESTS

Request No. 1

Produce all documents requested to be identified in Applicant’s First Set of

Interrogatories.

Request No. 2

Produce all documents relating to your responses to each of Applicant’s

Interrogatories, and all documents relied on or employed in formulating such responses.

Request No. 3

If Opposer denies any of the requested admissions set forth in Applicant’s First

Set of Requests for Admission to Opposer served herewith, produce all documents

Opposer will rely upon in this proceeding to prove that each such requested admission is

untrue.

Request No. 4

Produce all documents relating to Opposer's organizational structure, including

without limitation, documents identifying all officers, directors, and employees with

RLP 46

3

responsibilities relating to MOSAEC.

Request No. 5

Produce all documents relating to any search, investigation or evaluation of any

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) records conducted by or for

Opposer relating to MOSAEC.

Request No. 6






promoted.

Request No. 7

Produce all documents relating to your selection and adoption of MOSAEC.

Request No. 8

Produce all documents relating to any other mark considered, used or intended to

be used by you in connection with the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC in

RLP 47

4

the United States.

Request No. 9

Produce all documents relating to any applications for registration of MOSAEC

with the USPTO.

Request No. 10

Produce all documents relating to any application or registration of MOSAEC or

of any variation of, permutation of, or phrase containing MOSAEC with any computer

network domain name registering body.

Request No. 11

Produce all documents relating to your first use of MOSAEC in commerce in

connection with any goods and/or services.

Request No. 12

Produce all documents relating to your first use of MOSAEC in commerce

between your first use and the present.

Request No. 13

Produce all documents relating to your specimen submitted during the prosecution

RLP 48

5

of the application which matured into the pleaded Reg. No. 5284032.

Request No. 14



Request No. 15

Produce all receipts and invoices relating to the sale of goods and/or services

under MOSAEC by you to any and all other persons between your first use of MOSAEC

and the present.

Request No. 16:

Produce all documents relating to your gross revenue earned from the sales of any

goods and/or services under MOSAEC between your first use of MOSAEC and the

present.

Request No. 17

Produce all documents concerning all advertising, marketing, and/or other efforts

by you to promote goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC between your first use

of MOSAEC and the present.

RLP 49

6

Request No. 18

Produce all documents relating to use of MOSAEC in connection with “advisory

services in the field of development, education and training”.

Request No. 19

Produce all documents relating to Applicant within the last five (5) years.

Request No. 20

Produce documents sufficient to describe your document retention policies,

document destruction policies, document retention practices, and document destruction

practices within the last six (6) years.

Request No. 21

Produce all documents concerning your perceived market for goods and/or

services offered under MOSAEC from your first use of MOSAEC to the present.

Request No. 22

Produce all documents relating to your allegation in Paragraph 1 of your Notice of

Opposition.

Request No. 23


Opposition.

RLP 50

7

Request No. 24


Opposition.

Request No. 25


Opposition.

Request No. 26


Opposition.

Request No. 27


Opposition.

Request No. 28

Produce all documents relating to your allegation in the second Paragraph 8 of

your Notice of Opposition.

Request No. 29

Produce all documents relating to the following statement in Paragraph 10 of your

RLP 51

8

Notice of Opposition: “[T]o the extent that Applicant’s and Opposer’s Services do not

already overlap, Applicant’s Services are within Opposer’s zone of natural expansion.”

Request No. 30

Produce all documents relating to the following statement in Paragraph 13 of your Notice

of Opposition: “[U]pon information and belief, Applicant will offer Applicant’s Services

under Applicant’s Mark in connection with services for users that are within the same

group targeted by Opposer.”

Request No. 31

Produce all documents relating to the statement in Paragraph 13 of your Notice of

Opposition that you have cultivated a “diverse community of users” through your “long,

extensive, and continuous use of Opposer’s Mark.”

Request No. 32

Produce all DOCUMENTS which refer to or describe the types or categories of

customers, or intended customers, of the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC.

Request No. 33

Produce documents sufficient to show all geographic territories within the United

States in which you have customers of the good and/or services offered under MOSAEC.

RLP 52

9

Request No. 34

Produce all documents which refer to the channels of trade in which you have sold or

distributed and/or intend to sell or distribute goods and/or services under MOSAEC in the

United States.

Request No. 35

Produce all documents relating to your advertising or promotional expenditures

for any goods and/or services offered or intended to be offered under the MOSAEC in the

United States.

Request No. 36

Produce all documents relating to the number of registered users of the

MOSAEC.COM web site during each of the past five (5) calendar years.

Request No. 37

Produce all documents relating to the number of visits to the MOSAEC.COM

web site during each of the last five (5) calendar years.

Request No. 38

Produce all documents relating to the number of visitors who logged into the


Request No. 39

RLP 53

10

Produce all documents relating to the media in which you have advertised or

promoted or will advertise or promote your goods and/or services in the United States in

connection with MOSAEC, including but not limited to documents relating to television,

radio, internet, and printed media publications promoting MOSAEC.

Request No. 40

Produce all documents relating to any instance in which a person demonstrated or

suggested a belief that any of your goods and/or services marketed or distributed under

the MOSAEC were in any way associated with or related to Applicant or Applicant’s

identified services.

Request No. 41

Produce all documents relating to communications received by you, including

telephone calls, letters, emails, invoices and other forms of communication, that relate to

Applicant or Applicant’s identified services.

Request No. 42

Produce all agreements between you and any other persons relating to MOSAEC,

including, but not limited to, licenses, assignments, coexistence agreements, settlement

agreements, and consent agreements.

Request No. 43

RLP 54

11

Produce all documents relating to proposed agreements with third parties

regarding MOSAEC including, but not limited to proposed licenses, assignments,

coexistence agreements, settlement agreements, and consent agreements.

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.


Jonathan R. Wachs

Laura J. Winston





[email protected];

[email protected]

RLP 55

12

RLP 56

13



FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served by e-

mail to Opposer at its email address of record.



4834-5696-8383, v. 1

RLP 57

Exhibit H

RLP 58



_______________________________________

)

RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; )


) Serial No. 88/075,609

)

v. )

)

)

)

)


)

Applicant. )

)

_______________________________________)

APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION



each of the following requests separately and fully, in writing and under oath, within

thirty (30) days after service hereof. Pursuant to these requests, Opposer has a continuing


set for responses, and correct any response as may be required.




RLP 59

2

Admission.. The following definitions and instructions apply to these RFAs.

REQUESTS

Request No. 1

Admit that you do not currently use MOSAEC in connection with “advisory

services in the field of development, education and training” in the United States.

Request No. 2

Admit that you have not used MOSAEC in connection with “advisory services in

the field of development, education and training” in the United States in the past three (3)

years.

Request No. 3

Admit that you have never used MOSAEC in connection with “advisory services

in the field of development, education and training” in the United States.

Request No. 4

Admit that the documents you have produced in response to Opposer’s First Set

of Requests for Production of Documents served herewith are authentic.

.

RLP 60

3

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.


Jonathan R. Wachs

Laura J. Winston





[email protected];

[email protected]

RLP 61

4



FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION was served by e-mail to Opposer at its

email address of record.



4824-5046-6495, v. 1

RLP 62

Exhibit I

RLP 63



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



RLP VENTURES, LLC’S OBJECTION TO


RLP Ventures, LLC hereby objects to Mosaic Learning, Inc.’s (“Applicant”) First Set of

Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”), pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and Section 405 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure

(“TBMP”).

In violation of TBMP § 405.03, Applicant has propounded interrogatories in excess of

the 75 interrogatory limit set by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Accordingly, RLP

Ventures, LLC will not respond to any interrogatory in Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories.

See TBMP § 405.03(e) (instructing a party receiving excessive interrogatories to withhold

responding to any propounded interrogatory).

RLP 64


Dated: July 11, 2020 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC


P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

2

RLP 65


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached RLP Ventures,

LLC’s Objection to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories was served on the Attorney for the

Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Ramona Prioleau

3

RLP 66

Exhibit J

RLP 67



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



RLP VENTURES, LLC’S OBJECTION TO APPLICANT’S FIRST SET

OF REQUEST S FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

RLP Ventures, LLC hereby objects to Mosaic Learning, Inc.’s (“Applicant”) First Set of

Requests for Production of Documents (the “Requests”), pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 406 of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of

Procedure (“TBMP”).

In violation of TBMP § 406.05, Applicant has propounded Requests in excess of the 75

limit for the production of documents and things set by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Accordingly, RLP Ventures, LLC will not respond to any Request in Applicant’s First Set of

Requests for Production of Documents. See TBMP § 406.05(e) (instructing a party receiving

excessive requests for the production of documents to withhold responding to any propounded

request).

RLP 68



Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC


P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

2

RLP 69



LLC’s Objection to Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents was served

on the Attorney for the Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Ramona Prioleau

3

RLP 70

Exhibit K

RLP 71



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



RLP VENTURES, LLC’S RESPONSE TO

APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF RE Q UEST S FOR ADMISSION

RLP Ventures, LLC hereby objects and responds to Mosaic Learning, Inc.’s

(“Applicant”) First Set of Requests for Admission (the “Requests,” also referred to individually

as “Request”), pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 407 of

the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Board Procedure.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These responses are made solely for the purpose of this opposition proceeding, and are

subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility, and all

other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of any information identified

herein if such information were proffered to be received in evidence at trial, all of which are

expressly reserved.

RLP Ventures, LLC has not concluded formal and informal review and trial preparation

with respect to the issues in this proceeding. Therefore, while these responses are based upon

diligent exploration and investigation by RLP Ventures, LLC, they reflect the current state of

RLP 72

RLP Ventures, LLC’s knowledge and analysis respecting the matters about which inquiry is

made and are not intended to be final and conclusive. RLP Ventures, LLC reserves the right to

amend, supplement, delete from, or otherwise change any response herein as further discovery

may make appropriate, and/or if it appears that omissions or errors have been made herein.

The responses below are based upon information presently available to RLP Ventures,

LLC, and no incidental or implied admissions are intended. The fact that RLP Ventures, LLC

agrees to respond to all or part of any request is not and should not be deemed to be either (1) an

admission that RLP Ventures, LLC accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or

assumed by such request, or that such response constitutes admissible evidence, or (2) a waiver

by RLP Ventures, LLC of all or any part of any objections which it has made to any request.

RECURRING OBJECTIONS

1. The general objections set forth in paragraphs 2 through 8 apply to and are

incorporated into RLP Ventures, LLC’s response to each Request as if set forth at length, unless

the context specifically states otherwise.

2. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to the Applicant’s Requests to the extent they request

information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence where

Applicant’s definition is broad enough to cover matters that manifestly are not in issue in this

proceeding.

3. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to the Requests to the extent they seek discovery of

information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. RLP

Ventures, LLC does not intend to disclose any information or produce any documents protected

by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Any inadvertent disclosure of such

information or production of such documents shall not be deemed a waiver of the attorney-client

privilege or the work product doctrine. RLP Ventures, LLC will describe any response withheld

2

RLP 73

on the ground of immunity or privilege in a manner that, without revealing information itself

privileged or protected, will enable RLP Ventures, LLC to assess the applicability of the

privilege or protection.

4. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to all of the Requests to the extent they seek disclosure of

information containing or embodying trade secrets, confidential business information,

proprietary materials and/or other private matters protected under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(c)(7) and/or Federal Rule of Evidence 501. RLP Ventures, LLC will describe any

response withheld on the ground of immunity or privilege in a manner that, without revealing

information itself privileged or protected, will enable RLP Ventures, LLC to assess the

applicability of the privilege or protection.

5. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to the Requests to the extent they seek discovery of

information provided in confidence to RLP Ventures, LLC by persons or entities not a party to

this action which constitute or embody information or material that is private, confidential,

business, proprietary or trade secret and which RLP Ventures, LLC has agreed not to disclose or

disseminate, pursuant to any form of confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement or which are

inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 408.

6. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information that

could be obtained from another source that would be more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive.

7. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to the Requests to the extent they attempt to obligate RLP

Ventures, LLC (a) to conduct anything other than a reasonable inquiry about the information

sought, or (b) to respond as to information, documents or things that are not within RLP

Ventures, LLC’s possession, custody or control.

3

RLP 74

8. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to the definition of “Opposer”, “You” and “Your”

respectively contained in Definitions 1 and 3, in that Definitions 1 and 3 require RLP Ventures,

LLC to make a determination whether a person or entity qualifies or acted within one of many

enumerated capacities, and/or bears a particular relationship to or affiliation with another person

or entity, which renders the Definition and each Request to which it applies, unduly burdensome,

vague and ambiguous.

9. RLP Ventures, LLC objects to each Request to the extent that it assumes disputed facts

or legal conclusions in defining the information requested. RLP Ventures, LLC ’s objections are

based on a good faith investigation and are made without in any manner waiving the right to

object to the use of any response for any purpose, in this action or other actions, on the grounds

of privilege, relevance, materiality, or any other available ground. In responding to each request,

RLP Ventures, LLC neither admits nor denies any such disputed facts or legal conclusions.

10. RLP Ventures, LLC reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility of evidence in this or any subsequent proceeding

or trial or any other action for any purpose whatsoever.

11. These responses are given without prejudice to further revision or supplementation of

these responses by RLP Ventures, LLC if further discovery or investigation so requires.

12. RLP Ventures, LLC also notes that discovery in this matter is ongoing, and that it has

not yet completed its preparations for trial. As discovery proceeds, facts, information, evidence,

documents, and things may be discovered that are not set forth in these responses, but which may

have been included in these responses had they been available.

4

RLP 75

RESPONSES

REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that you do not currently use MOSAEC in connection with

“advisory services in the field of development, education and training” in the United States.

RESPONSE:

� RLP Ventures, LLC hereby incorporates by reference all of its Recurring Objections.

Notwithstanding and without waiving the foregoing objections and based on RLP

Ventures, LLC’s understanding of Applicant’s Request, denied.

REQUEST NO. 2: Admit that you have not used MOSAEC in connection with “advisory

services in the field of development, education and training” in the United States in the past three

(3) years.

RESPONSE:




REQUEST NO. 3: Admit that you have never used MOSAEC in connection with “advisory

services in the field of development, education and training” in the United States.

RESPONSE:




5

RLP 76

REQUEST NO. 4: Admit that the documents you have produced in response to Opposer’s

First Set of Requests for Production of Documents served herewith are authentic.

RESPONSE:



Ventures, LLC’s understanding of Applicant’s Request, not applicable. RLP Ventures,

LLC served Applicant with its Objection to Applicant’s First Set of Interrogatories and

its Objection to Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.


Dated: July 11, 2020 By: /s/Ramona Prioleau

Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC


P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

6

RLP 77



LLC’s Response to Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Admission was served on the Attorney

for the Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Dated: July 11, 2020 By: /s/Ramona Prioleau

Ramona Prioleau

7

RLP 78

Exhibit L

RLP 79

RLP Vent <[email protected]>

RE: RLP Ventures v. Mosaic Learning - Oppn. No. 912520161 message

Winston, Laura <[email protected]> Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:51 AM

To: RLP Vent <[email protected]>Cc: "Wachs, Jonathan" <[email protected]>

Dear Ramona,

Please see attached (1) Applicant’s Amended First Set of Requests for Production and (2) Applicant’s Amended First

Set of Interrogatories. Although we disagree with your determination that our original versions exceeded the allowed

number of discovery requests, we have substantially reduced the number in a good-faith effort to resolve this issue

without the need for intervention by the TTAB.

Please notify us by Monday, July 20, 2020 if you do not plan to respond substantively to our amended discovery

requests within 30 days, i.e. by August 13, 2020. We take the opportunity to remind you that both parties have a

good-faith obligation to cooperate with one another to resolve disputes over discovery in accordance with TBMP 408. We are doing so and trust that you will as well.

Regards,

Laura J. Winston

Laura J. Winston

Principal

D 347.589.8536

[email protected]

10 East 40th Street

Suite 3500

New York, NY 10016

T 212.545.1900

F 347.589.8535

offitkurman.com

Gmail - RE: RLP Ventures v. Mosaic Learning - Oppn. No. 91252016 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5aa2707a5b&view=pt&search=all...

1 of 2 9/11/2020, 10:30 PM

RLP 80

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION/PRIVACY NOTICE

Information contained in this transmission is attorney-client privileged and confidential. It is solely intended for use by the individual or entity

named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying

of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and

delete this communication.

Any tax advice included in this communication may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant tax

issues or authorities. This communication is solely for the intended recipient’s benefit and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity.

2 attachments

Applicant's Amended First Set of Interrogatories 7 14 20.pdf

170K

Applicant's Amended First Set of Requests for Production 7 14 20.pdf

137K

Gmail - RE: RLP Ventures v. Mosaic Learning - Oppn. No. 91252016 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5aa2707a5b&view=pt&search=all...

2 of 2 9/11/2020, 10:30 PM

RLP 81

Exhibit M

RLP 82



) RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; ) ) Mark: MOSAIC LEARNING ) Serial No. 88/075,609 )

v. ) ) ) )

) MOSAIC LEARNING, INC. )

) Applicant. )

)

)

APPLICANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES







required.


The following definitions and instructions apply to these interrogatories.


RLP 83

2












thereof.





and/or 5284032.







RLP 84

3




















possession thereof.




RLP 85

4













disposition.











RLP 86

5









inclusively.









INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1

Identify each officer of Opposer.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 2

RLP 87

6

Identify the officers of Opposer’s related companies.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 3


including the goods and/or services in connection with which it was first used.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 4


present, including the type of services associated with MOSAEC, the target market of

customers to whom MOSAEC is directed, and the channels of trade through which

Opposer’s Services have been provided.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 5


Applicant’s use of MOSAIC LEARNING.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 6


from your first use to the present.

RLP 88

7

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 7

State all facts relating to the specimen you submitted during the prosecution of the

application which matured into the pleaded Reg. No. 5284032.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 8

State all facts relating to the specimen you submitted during the prosecution of the

application which matured into the pleaded Reg. No. 5409856.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 9

State all facts supporting your allegation in Paragraph 1 of your Notice of

Opposition.

Answer:



Opposition.

Answer:


RLP 89

8


Opposition.

Answer:



Opposition.

Answer:



Opposition.

Answer:



Opposition.

Answer:


State all facts supporting your allegation in the second Paragraph 8 of your Notice

of Opposition.

RLP 90

9

Answer:


State all facts supporting the following statement in your allegation in Paragraph

10 of your Notice of Opposition: “[T]o the extent that Applicant’s and Opposer’s

Services do not already overlap, Applicant’s Services are within Opposer’s zone of

natural expansion.”

Answer:


State all facts supporting the following statement in your allegation in Paragraph

13 of your Notice of Opposition: “[U]pon information and belief, Applicant will offer

Applicant’s Services under Applicant’s Mark in connection with services for users that

are within the same group targeted by Opposer.”

Answer:


State all facts supporting the statement in your allegation in Paragraph 13 of your

Notice of Opposition that you have cultivated a “diverse community of users” through

your “long, extensive, and continuous use of Opposer’s Mark.”

Answer:

RLP 91

10




Answer:


If you are aware of any instances of confusion between you and Applicant,

describe each instance of actual or possible confusion.

Answer:


Identify each person that has rendered assistance to you in connection with the

advertising, and/or sale of any product or service bearing MOSAEC in the United States.

Answer:


Identify any and all communications which took place between you and any other

person regarding the subject of the pending opposition proceeding.

Answer:


Identify all agreements between you and other persons relating to MOSAEC.

Answer:

RLP 92

11




annually.

Answer:




down annually.

Answer:



in this proceeding.

Answer:


Describe the media which you used to promote the goods and/or services offered

under MOSAEC.

Answer:

RLP 93

12


Identify the persons with the most knowledge concerning the inature of goods

and/or services you are selling under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify the persons with the most knowledge concerning your business plans for

the sale of goods and/or services under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify any licensees for goods and/or services under MOSAEC.

Answer:




Answer:



Applicant’s Amended First Request for Production of Documents served concurrently

herewith.

RLP 94

13

Answer:


Have you ever been party to a lawsuit, United States Patent and Trademark Office

opposition or cancellation proceeding (other than the present proceeding) in the United

States relating to the use or registration of MOSAEC?

Answer:



such litigation or proceeding: state its case docket number and filing date and identify the

tribunal involved.


Identify any procedure initiated by you to determine whether there is any

confusion between Opposer’s Services and Applicant’s Identified Services.

Answer:



Answer:


RLP 95

14


years.

Answer:



five (5) years.

Answer:




Answer:

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.

Dated: July 14, 2020 By__/s/ Laura J. Winston

Jonathan R. Wachs Laura J. Winston Attorneys for Applicant

8171 Maple Lawn Boulevard, Suite 200 Maple Lawn, Maryland 20759 Email: [email protected];

[email protected]

RLP 96

15


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served by e-mail to Opposer at its address of record.

DATED: July 14, 2020


4840-0780-7683, v. 1

RLP 97

Exhibit N

RLP 98



) RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; ) ) Mark: MOSAIC LEARNING ) Serial No. 88/075,609 )

v. ) ) ) )

) MOSAIC LEARNING, INC. )

) Applicant. )

)

)

APPLICANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS






set for responses.




RLP 99

2


RPDs.

REQUESTS

Request No. 1

Produce all documents relating to Opposer's organizational structure.

Request No. 2

Produce all documents relating to any trademark search conducted by or for


Request No. 3


Request No. 3

Produce all documents relating to any other mark used by you in connection with

the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC in the United States.

Request No. 4

Produce all documents relating to any application or registration of a domain

RLP 100

3

name containing MOSAEC with any computer network domain name registering body.

Request No. 5



Request No. 6

Produce all documents relating to your use of MOSAEC in commerce between

your first use and the present.

Request No. 7



Request No. 8



Request No. 9

Produce all invoices relating to the sale of goods and/or services under MOSAEC

by you to any and all other persons between your first use of MOSAEC and the present.

Request No. 10:

RLP 101

4



present.

Request No. 11

Produce all documents concerning efforts by you to promote goods and/or

services offered under MOSAEC between your first use of MOSAEC and the present.

Request No. 12



Request No. 13


Request No. 14




RLP 102

5

Request No. 15



Request No. 16


Opposition.

Request No. 17


Opposition.

Request No. 18


Opposition.

Request No. 19


Opposition.

Request No. 20


Opposition.

RLP 103

6

Request No. 21


Opposition.

Request No. 22



Request No. 23




Request No. 24





Request No. 25


RLP 104

7



Request No. 26

Produce all DOCUMENTS which refer to or describe the types of customers of

the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC.

Request No. 27



Request No. 28

Produce all documents which refer to the channels of trade in which you have sold goods

and/or services under MOSAEC in the United States.

Request No. 29

Produce all documents relating to your advertising expenditures for any goods

and/or services offered or intended to be offered under the MOSAEC in the United

States.

Request No. 30



RLP 105

8

Request No. 31



Request No. 32



Request No. 33

Produce all documents relating to the media in which you have advertised your

goods and/or services in the United States in connection with MOSAEC.

Request No. 34

Produce all documents relating to any instance in which a person demonstrated a

belief that any of your goods and/or services marketed under the MOSAEC were in any

way related to Applicant or Applicant’s identified services.

Request No. 35

Produce all documents relating to communications received by you that relate to


Request No. 36

RLP 106

9

Produce all agreements between you and any other persons relating to MOSAEC.

Request No. 37


regarding MOSAEC.

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.

Dated: July 14, 2020 By__/s/ Laura J. Winston

Jonathan R. Wachs Laura J. Winston Attorneys for Applicant

8171 Maple Lawn Boulevard, Suite 200 Maple Lawn, Maryland 20759 Email: [email protected];

[email protected]

RLP 107

10


The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served by e- mail to Opposer at its email address of record.

DATED: July 14, 2020


4851-3555-1171, v. 1

RLP 108

Exhibit O

RLP 109



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



RLP VENTURES, LLC’S OBJECTION TO APPLICANT’S AMENDED

FIRST SET OF REQUEST S FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trademark Rule 2.120(a)

(3), Opposer, RLP Ventures, LLC, objects to the Amended First Set of Document Requests (the

“Requests”) that Applicant, Mosaic Learning, Inc., served on July 14, 2020.

Rule 2.120(a)(3) provides that document requests must be served early enough in

discovery so that responses will not be due later than the close of discovery. See 37 CFR §

2.120(a)(3); see also TBMP, § 406.01. Opposer’s responses to the Requests were due on August

13, 2020. Discovery, however, closed on July 11, 2020. See D.I. 2. The Requests were therefore

improper because they failed to afford Opposer sufficient time to prepare a response.

RLP 110


Dated: August 13, 2020 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC


P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

2

RLP 111



LLC’s Objection to Applicant’s Amended First Set of Requests for Production of Documents

was served on the Attorney for the Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Ramona Prioleau

3

RLP 112

Exhibit P

RLP 113



RLP Ventures, LLC

Opposer,

v.


Applicant.



Serial No. 88/075,609



RLP VENTURES, LLC’S OBJECTION TO

APPLICANT’S AMENDED FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Trademark Rule 2.120(a)

(3), Opposer, RLP Ventures, LLC , objects to the Amended First Set of Interrogatories (the

“Interrogatories”) that Applicant, Mosaic Learning, Inc., served on July 14, 2020.

Rule 2.120(a)(3) provides that interrogatories must be served early enough in discovery

so that responses will not be due later than the close of discovery. See 37 CFR § 2.120(a)(3); see

also TBMP, § 405.01. Opposer’s responses to the Interrogatories were due on August 13, 2020.

Discovery, however, closed on July 11, 2020. See D.I. 2. The Interrogatories were therefore

improper because they failed to afford Opposer sufficient time to prepare a response.

RLP 114



Ramona Prioleau

RLP Ventures, LLC


P.O. Box 2605

New York, NY 10108-2605

[email protected]

2

RLP 115



LLC’s Objection to Applicant’s Amended First Set of Interrogatories was served on the Attorney

for the Applicant on the date listed below via email:

Jonathan R. Wachs

Offit Kurman, P.A.



[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


Ramona Prioleau

3

RLP 116

Exhibit Q

RLP 117



_______________________________________

)

RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; )


) Serial No. 88/075,609

)

v. )

)

)

)

)


)

Applicant. )

)

_______________________________________)








required.


The following definitions and instructions apply to these document requests.


RLP 118

2












thereof.





and/or 5284032.







RLP 119

3




















possession thereof.




RLP 120

4













disposition.











RLP 121

5









inclusively.









INTERROGATORIES

Interrogatory No. 1

Identify each officer and managing agent of Opposer, giving each officer’s and

managing agent’s name, address, title and duties with respect to Opposer.

Answer:

This Interrogatory has 8 questions based on 405.03

RLP 122

6

Interrogatory No. 2

Identify Opposer’s predecessors-in-interest, and all of its subsidiaries and

affiliated companies, and the officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives

thereof.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 3


including the date of first use, the context in which it was used, the geographic location of

its use, and the services in connection with which it was first used.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 4


present, including the type of services associated with MOSAEC, the geographic scope of

your use, the target market of customers to whom MOSAEC is directed (i.e., gender, age,

hobbies, activities, etc. of such customers), and the channels of trade through which

Opposer’s Services have been sold and/or provided.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 5


Applicant’s use of MOSAIC LEARNING, including when you became aware of





RLP 123

7

such use, how it was being used by Applicant, and where you saw Applicant's use of the

mark.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 6






promoted.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 7

Explain why you chose to adopt the designation MOSAEC.

Answer:

Interrogatory No. 8



5284032.

Answer:

This Interrogatory has 1 question based on 405.03



RLP 124

8

Interrogatory No. 9



5409856.

Answer:




Answer:




Answer:




Answer:






RLP 125

9



Answer:




Answer:




Answer:


State all facts and identify all documents supporting your allegation in the second

Paragraph 8 of your Notice of Opposition.

Answer:



your allegation in Paragraph 10 of your Notice of Opposition: “[T]o the extent that






RLP 126

10

Applicant’s and Opposer’s Services do not already overlap, Applicant’s Services are

within Opposer’s zone of natural expansion.”

Answer:



your allegation in Paragraph 13 of your Notice of Opposition: “[U]pon information and

belief, Applicant will offer Applicant’s Services under Applicant’s Mark in connection

with services for users that are within the same group targeted by Opposer.”

Answer:


State all facts and identify all documents supporting the statement in your

allegation in Paragraph 13 of your Notice of Opposition that you have cultivated a

“diverse community of users” through your “long, extensive, and continuous use of

Opposer’s Mark.”

Answer:




Answer:




RLP 127

11


If you are aware of any instances of actual or possible confusion between you and

Applicant or between goods and/or services of you and those of Applicant, including but

not limited to telephone calls, inquiries by mail, or other communications from anyone

referring to or making any mention of Applicant, Applicant's goods and/or services, or

Applicant's trademarks, or exhibiting any mistaken association between Applicant or

Applicant's services and you or your goods and/or services, describe each instance of

actual or possible confusion, including the date thereof, the identity of the persons

involved, and all documents relating in any way to such instance.

Answer:


Identify each person or agency which has rendered or is rendering assistance to

you in connection with the advertising, promotion, distribution, and/or sale of any

product or service bearing MOSAEC in the United States and, with respect to each such

person or agency, describe each matter in which assistance has been or is being rendered.

Answer:


Describe and identify any and all communications which took place between you

and any other person regarding the subject of the pending opposition proceeding, and

identify any and all documents which relate to your answer.




RLP 128

12

Answer:


Identify all contracts and/or agreements between you and other persons relating to

MOSAEC, including but not limited to all purchase contracts, distribution contracts, and

license agreements.

Answer:




annually.

Answer:




down annually.

Answer:



in this proceeding.





RLP 129

13

Answer:


Describe the media (e.g., radio, television, internet, magazines, etc.) which you

used to promote the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify all agreements concerning MOSAEC, including all licenses and

assignments.

Answer:


Identify the persons employed or retained by you, including, but not limited to,

any third-party independent contractors or consultants, with the most knowledge

concerning the identity and nature of goods and/or services you are marketing,

distributing or selling, or intend to market, distribute or sell, under MOSAEC.

Answer:





RLP 130

14

Identify the persons, including, but not limited to, any third-party independent

contractors or consultants, with the most knowledge concerning your business or

marketing plans for the sale or intended sale of goods and/or services under MOSAEC.

Answer:


Identify any actual and/or intended sales representatives, dealers, distributors,

retailers and/or licensees for goods and/or services under MOSAEC.

Answer:




Answer:



Opposer’s First Request for Production of Documents served concurrently herewith.

Answer:


Have you or any of your officers or managing agents identified in the answer to

Interrogatory No. 1 ever considered or attempted to initiate or ever been party to a





RLP 131

15

lawsuit, United States Patent and Trademark Office opposition or cancellation proceeding

(other than the present proceeding) in the United States involving or relating to the use or

registration of Applicant’s Mark?

Answer:



such litigation or proceeding: identify each actual or potential adversary and the

trademarks involved; state its case docket number and filing date and identify the tribunal

involved; state its outcome; identify all documents referring or relating to such litigation

or proceeding and ensuing negotiations, if any; and state the name(s) and address(es) and

telephone number(s) of all counsel representing any adverse party in such litigation or

proceeding.

Answer:


Identify any study, research, focus group, testing or similar validation procedure

employed by you or any person or entity at your request or on your behalf to determine

the presence and/or absence of any confusion between Opposer’s Services and

Applicant’s Identified Services.

Answer:





RLP 132

16


Answer:



years.

Answer:



five (5) years.

Answer:


Identify any and all documents responsive to the foregoing interrogatories which

are lost or unavailable and identify the date(s) the loss or unavailability was first

discovered, the person(s) who first discovered the loss or unavailability and the person(s)

most knowledgeable about the contents of such lost or unavailable documents.

Answer:






RLP 133

17



Answer:

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.


Jonathan R. Wachs

Laura J. Winston





[email protected];

[email protected]


RLP 134

18



FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served by e-mail to Opposer at its address of

record.



4827-3581-0239, v. 2

RLP 135

Exhibit R

RLP 136



_______________________________________

)

RLP VENTURES, LLC )


Opposer; )


) Serial No. 88/075,609

)

v. )

)

)

)

)


)

Applicant. )

)

_______________________________________)

APPLICANT’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS






set for responses.




RLP 137

2


RPDs.

REQUESTS

Request No. 1

Produce all documents requested to be identified in Applicant’s First Set of

Interrogatories.

Request No. 2

Produce all documents relating to your responses to each of Applicant’s

Interrogatories, and all documents relied on or employed in formulating such responses.

Request No. 3

If Opposer denies any of the requested admissions set forth in Applicant’s First

Set of Requests for Admission to Opposer served herewith, produce all documents

Opposer will rely upon in this proceeding to prove that each such requested admission is

untrue.

Request No. 4

Produce all documents relating to Opposer's organizational structure, including

without limitation, documents identifying all officers, directors, and employees with

This Request has 1 question based on 405.03

This Request has 3 questions based on 405.03



RLP 138

3

responsibilities relating to MOSAEC.

Request No. 5

Produce all documents relating to any search, investigation or evaluation of any

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) records conducted by or for


Request No. 6






promoted.

Request No. 7


Request No. 8

Produce all documents relating to any other mark considered, used or intended to

be used by you in connection with the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC in





RLP 139

4

the United States.

Request No. 9

Produce all documents relating to any applications for registration of MOSAEC

with the USPTO.

Request No. 10

Produce all documents relating to any application or registration of MOSAEC or

of any variation of, permutation of, or phrase containing MOSAEC with any computer

network domain name registering body.

Request No. 11



Request No. 12

Produce all documents relating to your first use of MOSAEC in commerce

between your first use and the present.

Request No. 13







RLP 140

5


Request No. 14



Request No. 15

Produce all receipts and invoices relating to the sale of goods and/or services

under MOSAEC by you to any and all other persons between your first use of MOSAEC

and the present.

Request No. 16:



present.

Request No. 17

Produce all documents concerning all advertising, marketing, and/or other efforts

by you to promote goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC between your first use

of MOSAEC and the present.





RLP 141

6

Request No. 18



Request No. 19


Request No. 20




Request No. 21



Request No. 22


Opposition.

Request No. 23


Opposition.







RLP 142

7

Request No. 24


Opposition.

Request No. 25


Opposition.

Request No. 26


Opposition.

Request No. 27


Opposition.

Request No. 28



Request No. 29








RLP 143

8



Request No. 30





Request No. 31




Request No. 32

Produce all DOCUMENTS which refer to or describe the types or categories of

customers, or intended customers, of the goods and/or services offered under MOSAEC.

Request No. 33







RLP 144

9

Request No. 34

Produce all documents which refer to the channels of trade in which you have sold or

distributed and/or intend to sell or distribute goods and/or services under MOSAEC in the

United States.

Request No. 35

Produce all documents relating to your advertising or promotional expenditures

for any goods and/or services offered or intended to be offered under the MOSAEC in the

United States.

Request No. 36



Request No. 37



Request No. 38



Request No. 39






RLP 145

10

Produce all documents relating to the media in which you have advertised or

promoted or will advertise or promote your goods and/or services in the United States in

connection with MOSAEC, including but not limited to documents relating to television,

radio, internet, and printed media publications promoting MOSAEC.

Request No. 40

Produce all documents relating to any instance in which a person demonstrated or

suggested a belief that any of your goods and/or services marketed or distributed under

the MOSAEC were in any way associated with or related to Applicant or Applicant’s

identified services.

Request No. 41

Produce all documents relating to communications received by you, including

telephone calls, letters, emails, invoices and other forms of communication, that relate to


Request No. 42

Produce all agreements between you and any other persons relating to MOSAEC,

including, but not limited to, licenses, assignments, coexistence agreements, settlement

agreements, and consent agreements.

Request No. 43





RLP 146

11


regarding MOSAEC including, but not limited to proposed licenses, assignments,

coexistence agreements, settlement agreements, and consent agreements.

OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.


Jonathan R. Wachs

Laura J. Winston





[email protected];

[email protected]


RLP 147

12

RLP 148

13



FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was served by e-

mail to Opposer at its email address of record.



4834-5696-8383, v. 1

RLP 149