ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1460528
`Filing date: 09/03/2025
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Notice of Opposition
`Notice is hereby given that the following party opposes registration of the indicated application.
`Opposer information
`Name Dismuke Law, PLLC
`Granted to date
`of previous ex-
`tension
`09/07/2025
`Address 1920 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE
`LAKELAND, FL 33803
`UNITED STATES
`Attorney informa-
`tion
`ERICA ALLEN
`DIANGELO LAW
`1112 CHANNELSIDE DR SUITE 3
`TAMPA, FL 33602
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: erica@diangelolaw.com
`Secondary email(s): jessica@diangelolaw.com, jared@diangelolaw.com
`8135512484
`Docket no.
`Applicant information
`Application no. 98668434 Publication date 03/11/2025
`Opposition filing
`date
`09/03/2025 Opposition period
`ends
`09/07/2025
`Applicant Shiner Law Group, P.A.
`7800 CONGRESS AVE., SUITE 108
`BOCA RATON, FL 33487
`United States
`Goods/services affected by opposition
`Class 045. First Use: None First Use In Commerce: None
`All goods and services in the class are opposed, namely: Attorney services; Legal services
`Grounds for opposition
`Priority and likelihood of confusion Trademark Act Section 2(d)
`False suggestion of a connection with persons,
`living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national
`symbols
`Trademark Act Section 2(a)
`Marks cited by opposer as basis for opposition
`U.S. registration
`no.
`5170604 Application date 08/15/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Register Principal
`Registration date 03/28/2017 Foreign priority
`date
`NONE
`Word mark ASK DAVE
`Design mark
`Description of
`mark
`Goods/services Class 045. First use: First Use: Jun 14, 2004 First Use In Commerce: Jun 14,
`2004
`Legal services
`U.S. registration
`no.
`5170603 Application date 08/15/2016
`Register Principal
`Registration date 03/28/2017 Foreign priority
`date
`NONE
`Word mark 1-800-ASK DAVE
`Design mark
`Description of
`mark
`Goods/services Class 045. First use: First Use: Jun 14, 2004 First Use In Commerce: Jun 14,
`2004
`Legal services
`U.S. application/ registration
`no.
`NONE Application date NONE
`Register NONE
`Registration date NONE
`Mark DAVE
`Goods/services Legal Services
`Related proceed-
`ings
`91301352
`Attachments 87138731#TMSN.png( bytes )
`87138721#TMSN.png( bytes )
`Notice of Opposition - DAVE GOT ME... Serial no. 98668434.pdf(135223 bytes )
`Signature /Erica Allen/
`Name Erica Allen
`Date 09/03/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`In the Matter of Trademark Application Serial No. 98/668,434
`Mark: DAVE GOT ME…
`Filing Date: September 3, 2025
`
`
` )
` Dismuke Law, PLLC )
` )
` Opposer, )
` ) Opposition No.
` v. )
` )
` Shiner Law Group, P.A. )
` )
` Applicant. )
` )
` )
`
`NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
`Opposer Dismuke Law, PLLC (“Opposer”), a Florida professional limited liability company with
`a place of business at 1920 South Florida Avenue, Lakeland, Florida, 33803 , believes it will be
`damaged by the registration of the mark DA VE GOT ME… shown in Application Serial No.
`98668434, and hereby opposes the same.
`As grounds for opposition, Opposer, by and through its undersigned counsel, alleges that:
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`1. Opposer is a professional limited liability company in the business of providing legal
`services, with a particular focus on the provision of legal services in the field of personal injury
`law in the Central Florida (“Opposer’s Services”).
`2. Opposer and its predecessors in interest have used the marks ASK DA VE and 1-800-
`ASK DA VE in the provision of Opposer’s Services continuously since at least June 2004.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Opposer is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5170604 for the mark ASK
`DA VE covering “legal services” in International Class 45 (the “ASK DA VE Mark”).
`4. Opposer is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 517060 3 for the mark 1-
`800-ASK DA VE covering “legal services” in International Class 45 (the “ 1-800-ASK DA VE
`Mark”).
`5. The registrations for the ASK DA VE Mark and the 1 -800-ASK DA VE Mark
`(collectively, the “Opposer’s Marks”) are valid and subsisting. They are also incontestable under
`15 U.S.C. § 1065. Attached as Exhibit A is a printout of the USPTO TSDR record showing the
`current status and title of the Opposer’s Marks.
`6. Opposer is the owner of valid and subsisting Florida State Trademark Registration No.
`T24000001051 for the mark ASK DA VE covering “legal services,” filed on September 9, 2024,
`and claiming a date of first use in Florida as June 14, 2004, and a date of first use anywhe re of
`June 14, 2004.
`7. Opposer is the owner of valid and subsisting Florida State Trademark Registration No.
`T24000001167 for the mark 1.800.ASK.DA VE for “legal services,” filed on October 9, 2024, and
`claiming a date of first use in Florida as June 14, 2004, and a date of first us e anywhere of June
`14, 2004.
`8. In addition to its registered marks, Opposer has established common law rights in the
`use of “DA VE” by itself as a source identifier for Opposer’s personal injury legal services in
`Central Florida . Through longstanding use and extensive advertising, consumers in Florida
`associate “DA VE” alone with Opposer’s provision of personal injury legal services.
`9. Opposer’s Marks are inherently distinctive.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Opposer has prominently and extensively used Opposer’s Marks and has sold and
`continues to sell substantial quantities of legal services in the United States, particularly in Florida.
`Opposer has also spent substantial time, effort and money advertising and promoting the sa le of
`its legal services under Opposer’s Marks, and Opposer and its legal services have received and
`continue to receive substantial unsolicited media attention.
`11. By virtue of Opposer's long and continuous use, sales, advertising, and promotion of
`Opposer’s Marks in the United States, and particularly Florida; the publicity and media attention
`accorded the mark ; and the inherently distinctive nature of Opposer’s Marks , Opposer’s Marks
`have become well-known amongst potential consumers of personal injury law services in Central
`Florida.
`12. Despite Opposer's long prior common law and statutory rights in Opposer’s Marks ,
`Shiner Law Group, P.A. (“ Applicant”), with at least construct ive notice of Opposer's federal
`registrations, filed an application to register the mark DA VE GOT ME… on an intent-to-use basis
`for “Attorney services; Legal services” in International Class 45 , as set forth in the Notice of
`Publication.
`13. Applicant’s mark was published for opposition on March 11, 2025. Opposer filed for
`Extensions of Time to Oppose on March 11, 2025, and June 25, 2025, and was granted extensions
`of time to oppose until September 7, 2025.
`14. Opposer's Marks have priority over Applicant’s mark because the filing date of the
`Opposer's Marks is August 15, 2016, and Opposer's date of first use of the Opposer’s Marks is at
`least as early as June 14, 2004, well prior to the July 26, 2024 filing date of Applicant's intent-to-
`use application for Applicant’s mark.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT I – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`Lanham Act, Section 2(d) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(d))
`15. Opposer repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in the above
`paragraphs.
`16. Applicant’s mark is highly similar to Opposer’s Marks in sound, appearance, and
`commercial impression.
`17. Applicant’s mark and Opposer’s Marks share the dominant element DA VE.
`Consumers seeking personal injury legal services are more likely to focus on the DA VE portion of
`each mark because it is the only distinctive element that identifies a specific source . By contrast,
`the accompanying words ASK and GOT ME… merely suggest an action, not a source. As a result,
`both marks create the immediate impression of a personal connection with an individual named
`Dave who provides personal injury legal services.
`18. Opposer’s Marks suggest consumers ask Dave for help with personal injury legal
`matters, while Applicant’s mark suggests that Dave has gotten consumers help with personal injury
`legal matters. Despite the difference in wording, both marks convey the same essential commercial
`message: Dave is the trusted attorney to turn to for help with personal injury legal matters.
`19. Opposer and Applicant both primarily provide and advertise personal injury legal
`services in the State of Florida. Consumers are therefore likely to encounter Opposer’s Marks and
`Applicant’s mark in the same geographic markets and through the same advertising channels,
`further heightening the likelihood of confusion between (i) the Florida- based DA VE personal
`injury law firm that they should ask for help; and (ii) the Florida-based DA VE personal injury law
`firm that gets them help.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. The services set forth in Applicant’s application are identical to those covered by
`Opposer’s marks, as each includes “legal services”. In the actual marketplace, both Applicant and
`Opposer specialize in the identical subfield of personal injury legal services in the State of Florida.
`21. As a result, Applicant’s mark, if used in conjunction with the services set forth in its
`application, is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §
`1052(d).
`COUNT II – FALSE SUGGESTION OF CONNECTION WITH A PERSON
`Lanham Act, Section 2(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a))
`22. Opposer repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in the above
`paragraphs.
`23. Applicant’s mark is the same as, or a close approximation of , Opposer’s name and
`identity. Opposer’s Marks , Florida state registered trademarks, and common -law rights all
`prominently feature the name DA VE, and consumers in Opposer’s market identify DA VE as
`Opposer in connection with personal injury legal services.
`24. When used in connection with personal injury legal services in the geographic markets
`of Opposer, Applicant’s mark would be recognized as pointing uniquely and unmistakably to
`Opposer.
`25. In the legal services industry, firms are typically identified by surnames or initials, not
`by an informal diminutive first name. Opposer’s longstanding and highly visible use of DAV E as
`a source identifier, including through Opposer’s Marks and extensive advertising of DA VE, has
`conditioned consumers to associate D AV E alone with Opposer. Accordingly, consumers
`encountering Applicant’s mark are likely to assume it refers to the same D AV E identified in
`Opposer’s Marks and common law rights.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26. Opposer is not connected with Applicant or any services performed or to-be-performed
`by Applicant under Applicant’s mark , and Opposer has not sponsored, endorsed, or authorized
`Applicant’s use of DA VE in connection with personal injury legal services.
`27. The fame or reputation of Opposer and Opposer’s Marks is such that, when Applicant’s
`mark is used in connection with personal injury legal services in Opposer’s geographic markets, a
`connection with Opposer would be presumed within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
`28. Accordingly, registration of Applicant’s mark should be refused under 15 U.S.C. §
`1052(a) on the ground that it falsely suggests a connection with Opposer.
`29. By reason of the foregoing, Opposer will be irreparably damaged by the registration
`of Applicant’s mark, and Applicant is not entitled to the registration of Applicant’s mark pursuant
`to the Trademark Act.
`WHEREFORE, Opposer respectfully requests its Opposition be sustained and Application Serial
`No. 98668434 be refused.
`The required fee of Six Hundred Dollars (US $600.00) is submitted herewith.
`
`Respectfully Submitted
`Dated: September 3, 2025 By: /s/Erica Allen
`
`Through its attorney,
` Erica Allen
` Attorney for Opposer
` DiAngelo Law
` 1112 Channelside Drive, Suite 3
` Tampa, Florida 33602
` 813-551-2484
` erica@diangelolaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`