• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System.http://estta.uspto.gov 
ESTTA Tracking number:
ESTTA286995
Filing date:
06/01/2009
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEBEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARDProceeding 91189804PartyDefendantCorporacion CIMEX, S.A.CorrespondenceAddressDAVID B. GOLDSTEINRABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY &111 BROADWAY SUITE 1102NEW YORK, NY 10006-1901dgoldstein@rbskl.comSubmission AnswerFiler's Name David B. GoldsteinFiler's e-mail dgoldstein@rbskl.comSignature /David B. Goldstein/ Date 06/01/2009Attachments Cubita.RM Answer.pdf ( 4 pages )(23211 bytes )
 
 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEBEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
 __________________________________________)RUTA MAYA ROYALTY, LTD., ))Opposer, ))v. ) Opposition No. 91189804) Serial No. 77252382CORPORACION CIMEX, S.A., ))Applicant. ))
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Applicant CORPORACION CIMEX, S.A., (“Applicant”), by and through its undersignedcounsel, hereby files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Notice of Opposition(“Opposition”) of Opposer RUTA MAYA ROYALTY, LTD (“Opposer”), and in supportthereof, alleges as follows:1. Applicant denies the allegations in the first and only (unnumbered) paragraph inthe Opposition, except admits that “[t]here is a likelihood of confusion between the mark whichis being published and the opposer’s mark,” and Applicant further alleges that Applicant’sCUBITA Mark is senior to and has priority over Opposer’s junior mark.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. Opposer fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3.
 
Applicant has prior and superior rights in its CUBITA Mark over Opposer’s junior CUBITA mark.
 
 
2
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
 4. Opposer’s identical CUBITA mark for coffee is likely to cause confusion withApplicant’s CUBITA Mark for coffee, which has priority over Opposer’s junior mark.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5.
 
The United States and Cuba are both parties to the General Inter-AmericanConvention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection, 46 Stat. 2907 (“IAC”), which remainsin force between Cuba and the United States as determined by the United States Department of State.6.
 
Applicant’s CUBITA Mark for coffee is protected in Cuba in accordance withCuban law.7.
 
Opposer is applying to register its junior CUBITA mark for coffee on thePrincipal Register at the USPTO.8.
 
Opposer’s identical CUBITA mark for coffee is an “interfering mark” withrespect to Applicant’s attempt to register its CUBITA Mark for coffee in the USPTO, within themeaning of Article 7 of the IAC.9.
 
Opposer had knowledge of the existence and continuous use in Cuba of Applicant’s CUBITA Mark for coffee prior to Opposer’s first use of or application for theCUBITA mark in the United States.10.
 
Pursuant to Article 7 of the IAC, and sections 44(b), (h) of the Lanham Act, 15U.S.C. § 1126(b), (h), Applicant has priority over Opposer to register the mark CUBITA in IC30 for coffee in the United States.11.
 
Applicant has complied with the requirements established by the domesticlegislation of the United States for registration of its CUBITA Mark, and Applicant is entitled to
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...