JS 44C/SDNY REV.

1/2008

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the Information contained herein neither replece nor supplement tha filing and service of pleadings orother papers as required by lew, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States In September 1974, Is required for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet.

PLAINTIFFS

SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC,

DEFENDANTS

SPONGETECH, INC.

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

ocr 02 !Xl)

ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) GERSTEN SAVAGE LLP

600 LEXINGTON AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022

CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE) (DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)

15 UCS 1114 (1) Trademark Infringement, 1125 (a) and (c) Unfair Competition and False Description

Has this or a similar case been previously filed in SONY at any time? No? 0 Yes? 0 Judge Previously Assigned

If yes, was this case VoloD Invol. D Dismissed. No [] Yes D If yes, give date

CONTRACT

INSURANCE MARINE

MILLER ACT NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT &

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT MEDICARE ACT RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED

STUDENT LOANS (EXCL VETERANS) RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT

OF VETERAN'S BENEFITS STOCKHOLDERS SUITS

OTHER CONTRACT CONTRACT PRODUCT

LIABILITY [ ]198 FRANCHISE

[ ]110 [ ]120 [ ]130 [ ]140

[ ]150

[ ]151 [ ]152

[ ]153

[ ]160

[ ]190

[ ]195

REAL PROPERTY

[ ]210 LAND

CONDEMNATION

[ ]220 FORECLOSURE

[ ]230 RENT LEASE & EJECTMENT

[ ]240 TORTS TO LAND

[ ]245 TORT PRODUCT LIABILITY

[ ]290 ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY

[ ]310 AIRPLANE

[ ]315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT LIABILITY

[ ]320 ASSAULT, LIBEL & SLANDER

[]330 FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

[ ]340 MARINE

[]345 MARINE PRODUCT LIABILITY

[ ] 350 MOTOR VEHICLE

[ ] 355 MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCT LIABILITY [ ]360 OTHER PERSONAL INJURY

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

CMLRlGHTS

[]441 VOTING []442 EMPLOYMENT [ ]443 HOUSINGI

ACCOMMODATIONS [ ]444 WELFARE

[ ]445 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES - EMPLOYMENT []446 AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES -OTHER []440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS

NATURE OF SUIT

PERSONAL INJURY

(]362 PERSONAL INJURY - []610

MED MALPRACTICE []620

[]365 PERSONAL INJURY

PRODUCT LIABILITY (]625

[]366 ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT

LIABILITY

PERSONAL PROPERTY []370 OTHER FRAUD []371 TRUTH IN LENDING []360 OTHER PERSONAL

PROPERTY DAMAGE [ ] 365 PROPERTY DAMAGE PRODUCT LIABILITY

PRISONER PETITIONS

[ ] 510 MOTIONS TO

VACATE SENTENCE 28 USC 2255

[]530 HABEAS CORPUS []535 DEATH PENALTY []540 MANDAMUS & OTHER []550 CIVIL RIGHTS

[ ] 555 PRISON CONDITION

ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

[ ]422 APPEAL

26 USC 158

[ ]423 WITHDRAWAL 26 USC 157

OTHER STATUTES [ ]400 STATE

REAPPORTIONMENT [ ]410 ANTITRUST

[ ]430 BANKS & BANKING [ ]450 COMMERCE []460 DEPORTATION

[ ]470 RACKETEER INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATION ACT (RICO)

[ ]460 CONSUMER CREDIT

[ ] 490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV [ ]810 SELECTIVE SERVICE [ ]850 SECURITIESI

COMMODITIES! EXCHANGE

[ ]875 CUSTOMER CHALLENGE

12 USC 3410

[ ] 690 OTHER STATUTORY ACTIONS

[ ]891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS [ ] 892 ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT

[ ]893 ENVIRONMENTAL MAnERS

[ ]894 ENERGY ALLOCATION ACT

[ ] 895 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

[ ]900 APPEAL OF FEE DETERMINATION UNDER EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

[ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES

Check if demanded in complaint:

[ ]630 [ ]640 [ ] 650 [ ]660

[ ]690

DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE W PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?

IF SO, STATE:

DEMAND $, OTHER JUDGE _

D CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

Check YES only If demanded in complaint JURY DEMAND: 0 YES D NO

LABOR 9511)

K LUNG (923)

[ J 710 FAIR LABOR DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

STANDARDS ACT [ ]884 SSID TITLE XVI

[]720 LABORlMGMT [ ] 885 RSI (405(g))

RELATIONS

[]730 LABORlMGMT

REPORTING & FEDERAL TAX SUITS

DISCLOSURE ACT

[]740 RAILWAYLABORACT []870 TAXES(U.S.PlalnUtfor

[ ] 790 OTHER LABOR Defendant)

LITIGATION []871 IRS-THIRD PARTY

[]791 EMPL RET INC 26 USC 7809

SECURITY ACT

IMMIGRATION

[]482 NATURALIZATION APPLICATION

[]463 HABEAS CORPUSALIEN DETAINEE []485 OTHER IMMIGRATION ACTIONS

NOTE: Please submit at the time of filing an explanati of why cases are deemed related.

...

ORIGIN

o 2a. Removed from 03 Remanded Irom 0 4 Relnetated or

State Court Appallate Court Reopened

o 2b.Removod Irom State Court AND

at least one party Is pro se.

o 5 Translerred Irom 0 6 Multldlstrlct

(Specl/y District) LItigation

o 7 Appeal to District Judge lrom Magistrate Judge Judgment

(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONL Y) o 1 u.s. PLAINTIFF 02 u.s. DEFENDA T

SIS OF JURISDICTION

ERAL QUESTION 04 DIVERSITY . NOT A PARTY)

IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE CITIZENSHIP BELOW. (28 USC 1322, 1441)

CIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

(Place an [Xl in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)

CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

PTF OEF

[J 1 [J 1

CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY

PTF DEF [ J 3 [ J 3

PTF DEF

INCORPORATEO!!!!!. PRINCIPAL PLACE [J 5 [15

OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [J 2

INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS INTHIS STATE

• [ J 4

FOREIGN NATION

[ J 6 [J 6

PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc., 43 West 33rd STreet, Suite 600, New York, NY 10001

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)

Spongetech, Inc., 5302 West 83rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90045

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN

REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN THE RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:

Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO:

TITION.)

Magisb udge is to be designated by

Magistrate Judge ~_t\J __ \J_~_S is so Designated.

J. Michael McMahon, Clerk of Court by

Deputy Clerk, DATED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)

James D. Fornari, Esq. (JF3433) GERSTEN SA V AGE LLP

600 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 752-9700

Fax: (212) 980-5192 jfornari@gerstensavage.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1 ........ '

SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Versus

COMPLAINT

CIVIL ACTION NO

SPONGETECH, INC.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

Plaintiff, SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. ("SPONGETECH" or

the "COMPANY"), by its attorneys, Gersten Savage LLP, for its Complaint against the

Defendant, SPONGETECH, INC. ("STI") hereby alleges and states as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a complaint for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition and False

Description under §§32 and 43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§1114(1) (Trademark Infringement), §1125(a) (Unfair Competition and False Description) and §1125(c) of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act for dilution, blurring and tamishment, Unfair Business Practices under the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., Unfair Competition under the New York State unfair competition statute which prohibited the dilution of distinctive marks and trade names and injury to business reputation and defamation.

2. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) and 15 U.S.C. §1221. This Court has related claim jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1338(b) and 28 U.S.C. §1367.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over STI in that, upon information and belief, STI

maintains a web site to solicit business in the State of New York, has shipped goods into the State of New York and has otherwise transacted business in the State of New York, a substantial part of the transactions took place within the State of New York and has defamed SPONGETECH in the State of New York.

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and (c) because a substantial part of the eventsor omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district and the defendant committed a tort in this district by defaming SPONGETECH.

II. THE PARTIES

2

5. Plaintiff SPONGETECH is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 43 West 33rd Street, Suite 600, New York, New York, 10001.

6. Upon information and belief, defendant STI is, and at all times mentioned herein

was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 5302 West 83rd Street, Los Angeles, California, 90045.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. SPONGETECH is a pioneer in the invention, sale and marketing of products

which have transformed the way people around the world use sponges and sponge products. SPONGETECH set out to design, develop, and deploy a broad-based series of branded and private label packaging solutions for consumer products and industrial applications. The Company's vision was to offer innovative, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive packaging and product delivery solutions through its exclusive, patented packaging technology. The focus was on earth friendly products.

8. These sponge-based products utilize SPONGETECH's proprietary, patent (and

patent-pending) technologies involving hydrophilic (liquid absorbing) foam and polyurethane matrices. The Company's sponges are specially configured with an outer contact layer and an inner matrix, the latter of which comes pre-loaded with specially formulated soaps and other products that are released when the sponge is soaked and applied to a surface with minimal pressure. The Company's product line is designed for car care, pet care as well as personal use sponge products which include an anti-bacterial,

3

kitchen and bath cleaner and a unique 'foaming' bath sponge for children. SPONGETECH's products are used every day in and outside of the home.

9. SPONGETECH came to its position of technological leadership by hard work,

investment in technology, research and development and through the acquisition of entities with complementary and related technologies. As a result of its endeavors, from as early as 1999, SPONGETECH has created and owns valuable intellectual property in the form of patents, trademarks and trade secrets.

10. SPONGETECH was among the first to see the potential for pre-loaded sponges in

a variety of fields. To identify to its customers its innovative technology and sponges, SPONGETECH created, and on January 23,2007, applied to register the SpongeTech® mark, which it had been using since August 8, 2001, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO"). On October 9,2007, the PTO approved the application and issued a Certificate of Registration, Number 3,306,073. A copy of the PTO records reflecting the registration is attached as Exhibit A.

11. SPONGETECH has expanded its line of pre-loaded sponges, all of which are

distributed under the SpongeTech® mark, to include children's soap filled sponges in various shapes and configurations which are designed to permit children and adults to use the sponges to wash themselves. It has also introduced pet-care sponges which contained shampoo, conditioner, massage bumps and odor neutralizer.

12. Upon information and belief, ST!, in an effort to trade upon SPONGETECH's

concepts and product line, formed a company under the name SPONGETECH, INC. and incorporated it in the State of Delaware in or around April 7, 2003. A copy of the corporate information is attached as Exhibit B.

4

13. Fully aware that SPONGETECH was using and owned the rights to the

SpongeTech® mark and was using that mark on its pre-loaded sponges, STr started to sell soap infused sponges and has continued to expand the sponge types to include children's sponges and pet care sponges, which are in direct competition with, and in an effort to exploit the good will of, SPONGETECH.

14. STI's products will be and are distributed and sold in the same type of retail

channels and to the same class of purchasers as SPONGETECH's family of products and

services,

15. STI's use ofthe name SPONGETECH and any related or similar name is likely

to cause confusion, mistake or deception in the minds of the public.

16. STI's infringement constitutes a willful and malicious violation of

SPONGETECH's trademark rights, aimed at preventing SPONGETECH from continuing to build a business around its mark that is has long used and possessed.

17. Upon information and belief, in or about September 22,2009, as a further part of

STl's efforts to injure SPONGETECH's business reputation, STI, through one or more of its officers, stated to the New York Post that SPONGETECH's sales and projected sales were false and were not possible. Those statements were published by the New York Post and STr knew or had reason to know that they would be so published.

18. Upon information and belief, Michael Popovsky, when asked to comment on SPONGETECH's projected $50 Million in revenue for the fiscal year ended in May 2009, indicated that a sponge company could not sell a sufficient number of sponges with soap in them to generate $50 Million in annual revenue. Upon information and belief, he then went on to state that such revenue figures were:

5

"Impossible," he said. "Categorically not." Popovsky said industry sales tend to be in the $5 million to $10 million range.

19. Such a statement defamed SPONGETECH and tended to, and did, injure its

reputation and expose SPONGETECH to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and/or degradation.

20. The statement defamed SPONGETECH in that it asserted that SPONGETECH

had falsely reported revenue, which constituted an allegation by STI and Popovsky that SPONGETECH had engaged in behavior which could be viewed as fraudulent and perhaps criminal.

COUNT ONE

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

21. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20.

22. STI's use of the SPONGETECH name comprises an infringement of

SPONGETECH's registered mark SpongeTech® and is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception of the public as to the identity and origin of SPONGE TECH's goods, causing irreparable harm to SPONGETECH for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

23. By reason of the foregoing, STI is liable to SPONGETECH for trademark

infringement under 15 U.S.C. §1114.

6

COUNT TWO

UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

24. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 23.

25. STI's use of the SpongeTech® mark or any confusingly similar mark to promote,

market or sell pre-loaded sponge products or services in direct competition with SPONGETECH's products and services constitutes unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125 (a). STI's use of the SpongeTech® mark or any confusingly similar mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among consumers. STI's unfair competition has caused and will continue to cause damage to SPONGETECH.

COUNT THREE

UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER NEW YORK LAWS AND THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq.

26. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25.

27. STI's actions discussed herein constitute unfair competition under the laws ofthe

State of New York.

28. STI's actions discussed herein constitute unfair competition within the meaning of

the California Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq.

29. Pursuant to New York law and the California Business and Professions Code

§ 17203, SPONGETECH is entitled to permanent injunctive relief ordering STI to cease

7

this unfair competition, as well as disgorgement of all of STI's profits associated with this unfair competition.

COUNT FOUR

FALSE DESCRIPTION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT

30. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 29.

31. STI's use of the name SPONGETECH and other similar names is such a

colorable imitation and copy of SPONGE TECH's trademark established in the market for pre-loaded sponges and related products that STI's use thereof in the context of preloaded sponges is likely to create confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers as to the affiliation, connection or association of SPONGE TECH's products, or to deceive consumers as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of SPONGE TECH's products.

32. SPONGETECH avers, on information and belief, that STI's use of the name

SPONGETECH and other similar names is a false description or representation of such business or products under 15 U.S.C.1125(a) (Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act).

COUNT FIVE

COMMON LAW INJURY TO BUSINESS REPUTATION

33. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 32.

8

34. SPONGETECH avers, upon information and belief, that STI's use of

SPONGETECH's trademark, SpongeTech®, and similar names injures and creates the likelihood of injury to SPONGETECH's business reputation because persons encountering SPONGETECH and its products and services will believe that SPONGETECH is affiliated with or related to STI, and any adverse reaction by the public to STI and the quality of its products and the nature of its business will injure the business reputation of SPONGETECH in connection with its products.

COUNT SIX

COMMON LAW UNFAIR cOMPETTION

35. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 34.

36. By reason of the foregoing, STI has engaged, and is continuing to engage, in acts

of unfair competition in violation of the common law.

37. SPONGETECH has been injured and continues to suffer injury for which there is

no adequate remedy at law as a result of STI' s unlawful and inequitable conduct.

38. Such conduct on the part of STI has caused and will continue to cause damages to

SPONGETECH in an amount to be determined.

COUNT SEVEN

NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349

39. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 38.

9

40. Upon information and believe, SPONGETECH avers that STI's activities

constitute deceptive acts and practices directed at consumers in the conduct of their business, in violation of Section 349 of the General Business Laws of the State of New York.

41. SPONGETECH has been injured and continues to suffer injury for which there is

no adequate remedy at law as a result of STI' s conduct.

42. Such conduct on the part of STI has caused and will continue to cause damages to

SPONGETECH in an amount to be determined.

COUNT EIGHT

NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 360-1

43. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 42.

44. Upon information and believe, SPONGETECH avers that STI's activities have

created and continue to create a likelihood of injury to the public image and reputation of SPONGETECH and to dilute the distinctive quality of its trademark and all rights held thereunder, in violation of Section 360-1 of the General Business Laws of the State of New York.

45. SPONGETECH has been injured and continues to suffer injury for which there is

no adequate remedy at law as a result of STI' s conduct.

46. Such conduct on the part of STI has caused and will continue to cause damages to

SPONGETECH in an amount to be determined.

10

COUNT NINE

FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION ACT

47. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46.

48. STI's use of the SpongeTech® mark or any confusingly similar mark to promote,

market or sell pre-loaded sponge products or services in direct competition with SPONGETECH's products and services constitutes dilution, blurring and tarnishment pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125 (c).

49. STI's use of the SpongeTech® mark or any confusingly similar mark is likely to dilute, blur and tarnish SPOPNGTECH's trademark and name among consumers. STI's action has caused and will continue to cause damage to SPONGETECH.

COUNT TEN DEFAMATION

50. SPONGETECH repeats and incorporates by reference, as though specifically

pleaded herein, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49.

51. Upon information and belief, STI's statements regarding SPONGETECH's

revenues were false when made and were designed, intended to, and did, injure its reputation and expose SPONGETECH to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, andlor degradation.

52. Upon information and belief, STI knew or had reason to know that its statements

would be published by the New York Post.

11

WHEREFORE, SPONGETECH demands judgment against the Defendant:

A. That Defendant STI and its agents, officer, employees, representative, successors, assigns, attorneys and all other persons acting for, with, by, through or under the authority from STI, and each of them be permanently enjoined from: (1) using SPONGETECH's trademark depicted in Exhibit A, or any colorable imitation thereof; (2) using any trademark that imitates or is confusingly similar to or in any way similar to SPONGETECH's trademark SpongeTech®, or that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, deception or public misunderstanding as to the origin of SPONGETECH's products or its connectedness to STI;

B. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, STI be held liable for all damages suffered by SPONGETECH for the acts alleged herein;

C. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, STI be compelled to account to SPONGETECH for any and all profits derived from its illegal actions complained of herein;

D. That, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, STI be ordered to deliver up for destruction all containers, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, advertising, promotional material or the like in possession, custody or control of STI bearing a trademark, name or likeness found to infringe SPONGETECH's trademark SpongeTech®, as well as all plates, matrices and other means of making the same;

12

E. That the Court declare this to be an exceptional case and award

SPONGETECH its full costs and reasonable attorneys' fees;

F. That the Court order STI to disgorge any gains, profits and advantages

derived from STI's unlawful and inequitable activities;

G. That the Court award damages to compensate SPONGETECH for the

injury to its reputation caused by STI's defamatory statements;

H. That the Court award punitive or enhanced damages for STI's willful

behavior;

1. That the Court grant SPONGETECH any other remedy to which it

may be entitled as provided for under federal or state law; and,

J. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 2, 2009

ari (JF3433)

600 Lexi n Avenue

New Yor ,New York 10022 Tel: (212) 752-9700

Fax: (212)980-5192

13

Page 1 of2

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

®

,

,

IHelp

Trademarks> Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

TESS was last updated on Thu Oct 1 03:59:20 EDT 2009

[ Logout j Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.

[ Start I List At:

OR [ Jump j to record:

Record 2 out of 6

ASSIGN StMua

( Use the "Back" button of the Internet

TTAB StatUti

Browser to return to TESS)

SPONGETECH

Word Mark SPONGETECH

Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004006050051 052. G & S: Cleaning agents and preparations

Standard Characters

Claimed

Mark Drawing Code Serial Number Filing Date

Current Filing Basis Original Filing Basis Owner

Attorney of Record Prior Registrations Type of Mark Register

Live/Dead Indicator

(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK 77799416

August 7, 2009

1B

1B

(APPLICANT) Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 10 W33rd Street, Suite 518 New York NEW YORK 10001

William C. Wright

3306073;3608338

TRADEMARK

PRINCIPAL

LIVE

http://tess2.uspto.govlbin/showfield?f=doc&state=4005:ahikag.2.2

101112009

i Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

. .

Page 2 of2

I HOME I SITE INDEX I SEARCH I eBUSINESS I HELP I PRIVACY POLICY

http://tess2 . uspto. gOY /bin/ showfield ?f=doc&state=400 5 :ahikag.2.2

101112009

,

• - ~'.lrk Electronic Search System (TESS)

Page 1 of2

Trademarks> Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

TESS was last updated on Thu Oct 1 03:59:20 EDT 2009

I Logout 1 Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.

I Start I List At:

TARRStllltus

Record 4 out of 6

ASSIGN stiltus

( Use the "Back" button of the Internet

TTABStatus

Browser to return to TESS)

SPONGETECH

Word Mark

Goods and Services

Standard Characters Claimed

Mark Drawing Code Serial Number Filing Date

Current Filing Basis

SPONGETECH

IC 021. US 002 013 023 029 030 033 040 050. G & S: Cleaning sponges. FIRST USE: 20010808. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010808

(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK 77455981

April 23, 2008

1A

Original Filing Basis 1 A

Published for Opposition February 3, 2009 Registration Number 3608338 International Registration 0982224 Number

Registration Date April 21, 2009

Owner

Attorney of Record Prior Registrations Type of Mark Register

(REGISTRANT) Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 43 W33rd Street, Suite 600 New York NEW YORK 10001

William C. Wright

3306073

TRADEMARK

PRINCIPAL

http://tess2 . uspto. gOY Ihinl showfie ld ?f=doc&state=4005: ahikag.2.4

10/1/2009

~ "----,rel~~rk Electronic Search System (TESS)

Page 2 of2

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

I HOME I SITE INDEX I SEARCH I eBUSINESS I HELP I PRIVACY POLICY

http://tess2 . uspto, gOY /bin/ showfield ?f::::doc&state=4005: ahikag.2. 4

10/1/2009

J

l

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

-;; /' .. '

Page 1 of2

vi

Trademarks> Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

TESS was last updated on Thu Oct 1 03:59:20 EDT 2009

[ Logout I Please logout when you are done to release system resources allocated for you.

I Start I List At:

TARRstatus

OR [ Jump I to record:

Record 5 out of 6

ASSIGN stetus

( Use the "Back" button of the Internet

HABStatus

Browser to return to TESS)

SPONGETECH

Word Mark SPONGETECH

Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004006050051 052. G & S: Sponges impregnated with marine and automotive waxes and washes. FIRST USE: 20010808. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010808

Standard Characters Claimed

Mark Drawing Code Serial Number Filing Date

Current Filing Basis Original Filing Basis Published for Opposition

(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK 77089244

January 23, 2007

1A

1A

July 24, 2007

Registration Number 3306073 International 0982224 Registration Number

Registration Date Owner

Attorney of Record Type of Mark Register

October 9, 2007

(REGISTRANT) SPONGETECH DELIVERY SYSTEMS INC. CORPORATION DELAWARE clo A & N Enterprises LLC 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 2204 NEW YORK 10118

William C. Wright

TRADEMARK

PRINCIPAL

http://tess2. uspto. gOY /bin/ showfield?f=doc&state=4005: ahikag. 2. 5

10/1/2009

J

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) ~ ',. .. '

-

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

r... .J ,. liaR";' h.S'$,II;ld IUNg·hal t1G'Mlc.a.,.

· ~ ';nth,Hi MI~ ifIIjliiiiiiil "46'+5

Page 2 of2

I HOME I SITE INDEX I SEARCH I eBUSINESS I HELP I PRIVACY POLICY

http://tess2.llspto.goy/bin/showfield?f=doc&state==4005:ahikag.2.5

10/1/2009

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful