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

ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA918450

Filing date: 08/27/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Proceeding 91227730

Party PlaintiffOne Styling, LLC

CorrespondenceAddress

GAIL TULER FRIEDMANFRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN LTD780 SOUTH FEDERAL ST STE 710CHICAGO, IL 60605UNITED STATESgail@friedmanpatents.com,gene@friedmanpatents.com312-922-8882

Submission Opposition/Response to Motion

Filer's Name Gail Tuler Friedman

Filer's email gail@friedmanpatents.com

Signature /gail tuler friedman/

Date 08/27/2018

Attachments F31ERMD.TTAB.pdf(182222 bytes )F31- investo agreementr.pdf(1136442 bytes )F31 email.txt(851 bytes )F31tina personal loan agreement.pdf(865759 bytes )

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

One Styling, L.L.C, )

)

Opposer, ) Opposition No. 91227730

v. )

One Styling, Inc. ) Opposition No. 91227734

)

Applicant. )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO ONE

STYLING, INC’S REPLY

Applicant, One Styling, Inc., (“Applicant”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss to

Opposition Nos. 91227730 and 91227734 based upon the fact that One Styling, L.L.C

(“Opposer”).voluntarily filed a Certificate of Dissolution of Limited Liability Company

on January 11, 2017, is no longer a legal entity able to transact business, and therefore

supposedly has no standing to proceed with these Oppositions.

Opposer filed a response to Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss the Oppositions and

Applicant. filed a reply. In that reply Applicant. argues new facts alleging that Opposer’s

response to Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss is based entirely on fraud and fraudulent

statements. Applicant’s assertions are patently false and are intended to intentionally

mislead the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the”Board”). Opposer. moves for leave

to file the attached additional response to Applicant’s reply to provide the Board with

documents, which disprove the obviously false asserts by Applicant.

In conclusion, Opposer requests that the Board dismiss Applicant’s Motions to

Dismiss Opposition Nos. 91227730 and 91227734 instanter and substitute FMK as the

Opposer or in the alternative substitute David Kim as the Opposer in these oppositions.

Respectfully submitted,

- 2 -

Dated August 27, 2018 /gail tuler friedman/

Gail Tuler Friedman

Member of the Illinois bar

Friedman & Friedman, Ltd.

Printers Square – Suite 710

780 South Federal Street

Chicago, Illinois 60605

(312) 922-8882

Attorney for Opposer

- 3 -

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

One Styling, L.L.C, )

)

Opposer, ) Opposition No. 91227730

vi. )

One Styling, Inc. ) Opposition No. 91227734

)

Applicant. )

SUR RESPONSE TO APPLICANT ONE STYLING, INC.’S REPLY

In response to Applicant One Styling, Inc.’s (“Applicant”) reply in favor of its

Motion to Dismiss, Opposer One Styling, L.L.C.(“Opposer”) states as follows:

On July 14, 2011, Salon Styling Concepts, Ltd. (“Salon Styling”) d/b/a One

Styling was incorporated in the State of Illinois, and on August 22, 2011, it was

registered as a foreign corporation in the State of Ohio. Eun Joo Park a/k/aTina Kim was

named as president on the incorporation documents. Applicant alleges that not only did

Tina Kim have a one hundred percent (100%) ownership in Salon Styling, but that David

Kim was merely an employee of Salon Styling and did not have any ownership in the

company. This is entirely false. On December 23, 2011, just four months after Salon

Styling was registered as a foreign corporation in Ohio, an Investment Agreement was

made between Zora Gill, an investor of Salon Styling and Salon Styling. Under the

Agreement, Zora Gill was to become twenty-five percent (25%) owner of Salon Styling,

subject to specific terms, and entitled to one seat on Salon Styling’s four (4) member

board of directors. Tina Kim, David Kim and Joseph Kim were each to own 25% of the

shares of Salon Styling and were each entitled to one seat on Salon Styling’s board of

directors. The document was signed by David Kim, Joseph Kim, Tina Kim, and Zora

- 4 -

Gill. (A copy of the Investment Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.) Even if Tina Kim

had been a 100% shareholder of Salon Styling when the company was incorporated, less

than four months later, she only held a 25% share in the company. Tina Kim’s share in

the company never changed after the Agreement was signed. The other three members of

the board each held a 25% share in Salon Styling, a share equal to Tina Kim’s share.

Applicant’s allegation that David Kim was merely an employee is also false.

David Kim was president and CEO from the inception of Salon Styling. At least as early

as June 27, 2014, Tina Kim acknowledged that David Kim was president. On that day,

Tina Kim sent David Kim an email requesting that he sign a Repayment Agreement

between Salon Styling and herself. David Kim was to sign in his individual capacity and

as president of Salon Styling. Paragraph 5 of the document states that in the event Salon

Styling failed to pay credit card debt to Tina Kim when due, that “DK, the president of

the Company, agrees to become personally liable for the Credit Card Debt….” In this

document prepared by Tina Kim acknowledges that David Kim was president of Salon

Styling. (A copy of the June 27, 2014, email and Repayment Agreement are attached as

Group Exhibit B.) David Kim was president and CEO of Salon Styling from its inception

and all the investors and shareholders in Salon Styling knew that fact.

As early as the beginning of 2015, Salon Styling ceased doing business. In

fighting among Tina Kim and David Kim and some of the investors precipitated the filing

of an involuntary bankruptcy Chapter 7 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern

District of Illinois, Case No. 15 bk 14770 against Salon Styling on April 23, 2015. The

petition was filed by Salon Styling’s creditors, one of which was Tina Kim. Having been

warned that the involuntary bankruptcy petition was to be filed, on April 22, 2015, Lester

- 5 -

Haverty, one of Salon Styling’s investors registered One Styling, L.L.C. as a limited

liability company in Ohio and named David Kim as its president and CEO. Lester

Haverty was trying to recoup some of the money he had lost with Salon Styling. Prior to

the bankruptcy petition being filed, Salon Styling had ceased doing business and was no

longer using the marks, “ONE STYLING,” “ONE,” “EPIC,” “LEGACY,” and

“VERGE.” David Kim as president and CEO of Salon Styling and now president and

CEO of Applicant. knew that these marks had been abandoned and began using the

marks. The marks were never owned by Tina Kim. Tina Kim was not 100% owner of

Salon Styling as evidenced by Exhibit A. Even prior to the involuntary bankruptcy

petition being filed, Salon Styling stopped doing business and ceased using the mark,

allowing David Kim to begin using the marks.

Even if it could not be said that the marks could not be transferred to David Kim

by Salon Styling prior to the bankruptcy petition being filed. Those marks were then

abandoned by Salon Styling. There was nothing fraudulent about David Kim using the

marks as president and CEO of Applicant. Once David Kim, as president and CEO of

One Styling, L.L.C, began using the marks, he could assign his rights to the marks to

FMK.

In a subterfuge to distance herself from the Opposer, Tina Kim had her mother,

Yuk Bin Park, file the incorporation papers for Applicant on September 11, 2015, in the

State of Illinois, with the same name as the company started by Lester Haverty in Ohio.

In truth, Tina Kim’s mother has nothing to do with the new company or the marks. Tina

Kim, as manager of Applicant, has control over the company and is now using. the same

marks, “EPIC,” “LEGACY,” and “LEGACY” as Lester Haverty’s company. Those

- 6 -

marks as well as “ONE” and “ONE STYLING” became available when Salon Styling

abandoned them prior to the bankruptcy. Tina Kim copied the name of the company from

Opposer and started using some of the same marks as Opposer on her products. It is quite

clear that Tina Kim was capitalizing on Opposer’s good name and reputation. Her

applications for the marks “EPIC” and “LEGACY” show a first date of use as September

15, 2015, and for “VERGE” as October 1, 2015, for “EPIC” Both “ONE” and “ONE

STYLING” were filed under 1(b) and at the time of the filing of the application for

trademark had never been used on any of Applicant’s goods. Opposer began using the

marks April 22, 2015, before Applicant.

Opposer had every right to use the abandoned marks, and after using the marks

for over a year, to assign those marks to Dongguan Fumeikang Electrical Technology

CO., LTD. (“FMK”) on September 30, 2016. Applicant accuses Opposer of fraudulent

transfers because Opposer began using the marks prior to the conclusion of the

bankruptcy in April, 2016. Yet, Applicant admits to having the mother of Tina Kim file

incorporation papers for a company using the same name Salon Styling was using to do

business, managing Applicant company, and using the marks “VERGE,” “EPIC,” and

“LEGACY”, the same marks used by Salon Styling. All this was done prior to the

bankruptcy of Salon Styling being finalized in April, 2016. Somehow Applicant believes

in a double standard. It is perfectly alright for Applicant to use the marks prior to the

bankruptcy of Salon Styling being finalized, but fraudulent for Opposer to use the marks.

Applicant has tried to deceive this Board with complete falsehoods. Opposer had

a right to use the abandoned marks and to assign those marks to FMK. Opposer

- 7 -

legitimately used the marks prior to Applicant, and the Oppositions filed by Opposer

should not be dismissed.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated August 27, 2018 /gail tuler friedman/

Gail Tuler Friedman

Member of the Illinois bar

Friedman & Friedman, Ltd.

Printers Square – Suite 710

780 South Federal Street

Chicago, Illinois 60605

(312) 922-8882

Attorney for Opposer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing documents were

transmitted via the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (“ESTTA”) on

August 27, 2018, via electronic mail to Richard S. Finkelstein, counsel for Applicant,

at the following email address: rick@rctrademark.com.

/gail tuler friedman/

Gail Tuler Friedman

Attorney for Opposer

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner

Scanned by CamScanner