Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1172564
`
`Filing date:
`
`11/15/2021
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`92077524
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Plaintiff
`Arash Homampour
`
`KIA KAMRAN
`KIA KAMRAN PC
`1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS 25TH FLOOR
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4301
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: kia@tunelaw.com
`Secondary Email(s): desiree@tunelaw.com, assistant@tunelaw.com
`310-284-8600
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`
`Milord A. Keshishian
`
`milord@milordlaw.com, jordan@milordlaw.com, stephanie@milordlaw.com
`
`/Milord A. Keshishian/
`
`11/15/2021
`
`001 - Opp to MTD - FINAL.pdf(339166 bytes )
`002 - NOR - Exhs FINAL.pdf(2694979 bytes )
`003 - Zim Decl FINAL.pdf(115019 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARASH HOMAMPOUR,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ARASH KHORSANDI,
`
`Registrant/Respondent.
`
`Cancellation No. 92077524
`
`Registration No. 6,407,070
`Mark: ARASH LAW
`Registration Date: July 6, 2021
`
`
`Registration No. 6,407,071
`
`
`Mark:
`(AK ARASH LAW stylized wording and
`design)
`Registration Date: July 6, 2021
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO REGISTRANT’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED PETITION FOR CANCELLATION
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Since at least as early as 1993, Petitioner Arash Homampour (cid:894)(cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:863)(cid:895) has
`
`(cid:272)o(cid:374)ti(cid:374)uously pro(cid:448)ided legal ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es i(cid:374) the U(cid:374)ited “tates u(cid:374)der the (cid:373)arks (cid:862)A‘A“H
`
`HOMAMPOU‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) (cid:894)(cid:272)olle(cid:272)ti(cid:448)ely, (cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s Marks(cid:863)(cid:895) a(cid:374)d is
`
`known throughout the legal industry, including the catastrophic injury and wrongful
`
`death pra(cid:272)ti(cid:272)e areas, as (cid:862)A‘A“H THE LAWYE‘,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H THE ATTO‘NEY,(cid:863) (cid:862)A‘A“H THE PI
`
`LAWYE‘,(cid:863) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)A‘A“H THE PI ATTO‘NEY.(cid:863) (Amended Petition for Cancellation
`
`(cid:894)(cid:862)Petitio(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895), ¶¶ (cid:1008).(cid:895). ‘egistra(cid:374)t Arash Khorsa(cid:374)di (cid:894)(cid:862)‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:863)(cid:895) does (cid:374)ot dispute
`
`Petitioner(cid:859)s superior rights to use Arash i(cid:374) the legal i(cid:374)dustry. In or around 2020,
`
`Petitioner became aware of Registrant(cid:859)s use of the afore(cid:373)e(cid:374)tio(cid:374)ed (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) (cid:373)o(cid:374)ikers,
`
`1
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`through U.“. ‘egistratio(cid:374) Nos. (cid:1010),(cid:1008)(cid:1004)(cid:1011),(cid:1004)(cid:1011)(cid:1004) for (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) i(cid:374) sta(cid:374)dard (cid:272)hara(cid:272)ters, a(cid:374)d
`
`6,407,071 for the desig(cid:374) (cid:373)ark (cid:862)AK A‘A“H LAW(cid:863) (cid:894)(cid:272)olle(cid:272)ti(cid:448)ely, the (cid:862)‘egistratio(cid:374)s(cid:863) or
`
`(cid:862)‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks(cid:863)(cid:895), and learned of individuals contacting Registrant while intending
`
`to contact Petitioner in the practice area in which they both serve, personal injury.
`
`(Petition, ¶¶ 4, 13.). After lear(cid:374)i(cid:374)g of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks, Petitioner
`
`(cid:271)rought the i(cid:374)sta(cid:374)t Petitio(cid:374) to Ca(cid:374)(cid:272)el ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks, (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h ‘egistra(cid:374)t (cid:374)o(cid:449) seeks to
`
`dis(cid:373)iss. ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s argu(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts fail to address the sta(cid:374)dard re(cid:395)uired to plead
`
`can(cid:272)ellatio(cid:374) a(cid:374)d therefore, ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss should (cid:271)e denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`(cid:862)To (cid:449)ithsta(cid:374)d a (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss for failure to state a (cid:272)lai(cid:373) o(cid:374) (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h relief (cid:272)a(cid:374)
`
`be granted, a plaintiff need only allege sufficient factual matter that, if proved, would
`
`allow the Board to conclude, or to draw a reasonable inference, that (1) the plaintiff has
`
`standing to maintain the proceeding, and (2) a valid ground exists for opposing or
`
`(cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:272)elli(cid:374)g the (cid:373)ark.(cid:863) Nike, Inc. v. Palm Beach Crossfit Inc., 116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1025, 1028
`
`(TTAB 2015) (citing Doyle (cid:448). Al Johnson’s S(cid:449)ed. Rest. & Butik In(cid:272)., 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1780,
`
`1782 (TTAB 2012)). The standing requirement is based on the statutory requirement
`
`that a petitio(cid:374)er i(cid:374) a (cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:272)ellatio(cid:374) (cid:373)ust (cid:271)elie(cid:448)e that (cid:862)[it] is or (cid:449)ill (cid:271)e da(cid:373)aged (cid:271)y the
`
`registratio(cid:374).(cid:863) Young v. AGB Corp., 152 F.3d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The valid
`
`statutory grounds for canceling a registration are set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1064.
`
`Registrant mistakenly believes that at a pleading stage, a petitioner must meet
`
`2
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`the same standard – without the benefit of discovery – as a summary judgment motion.
`
`Registrant is incorrect. Whether a petitioner can actually prove its allegations is a
`
`matter not appropriate for determination upon motion to dismiss, but rather at the final
`
`hearing or upon motion for summary judgment, after each of the parties have had the
`
`occasion to submit evidence in support of their respective positions. TBMP § 503.02;
`
`see also Flatley v. Trump, 11 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 1989) (granting leave to amend over
`
`objection that there was no evidence to prove the ground to be added).
`
`A complaint, or here a petition, (cid:862)(cid:373)ust (cid:272)o(cid:374)tai(cid:374) suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t fa(cid:272)tual (cid:373)atter, a(cid:272)(cid:272)epted
`
`as true, to (cid:858)state a (cid:272)lai(cid:373) to relief that is plausi(cid:271)le o(cid:374) its fa(cid:272)e.(cid:863)(cid:859) Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`(cid:1009)(cid:1008)(cid:1008), (cid:1009)(cid:1011)(cid:1004) (cid:894)(cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1011)(cid:895)(cid:895). (cid:862)I(cid:374) parti(cid:272)ular, the (cid:272)lai(cid:373)a(cid:374)t (cid:373)ust allege (cid:449)ell-pleaded factual matter
`
`a(cid:374)d (cid:373)ore tha(cid:374) (cid:858)[t]hread(cid:271)are re(cid:272)itals of the ele(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts of a (cid:272)ause of a(cid:272)tio(cid:374), supported (cid:271)y
`
`(cid:373)ere (cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:272)lusory state(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts,(cid:859) to state a (cid:272)lai(cid:373) plausi(cid:271)le o(cid:374) its fa(cid:272)e.(cid:863) Caymus Vineyards
`
`v. Caymus Medical Inc., 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1519 (TTAB 2013) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
`
`129 S. Ct. at 1949). Dis(cid:373)issal is appropriate o(cid:374)ly (cid:862)if it is (cid:272)lear that (cid:374)o relief (cid:272)ould (cid:271)e
`
`granted under any set of facts that could be proved co(cid:374)siste(cid:374)t (cid:449)ith the allegatio(cid:374)s.(cid:863)
`
`Young, 152 F.3d at 1379 (citing Abbott Labs. v. Brennan, 952 F.2d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991)).
`
`In determining whether the complaint includes any allegations, which, if proved,
`
`would entitle petitioner to the relief sought, the Board is obligated to examine the
`
`complaint in its entirety while construing the allegations therein liberally, as required by
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f). TBMP § 503.02; Intellimedia Sports Inc. v. Intellimedia Corp., 43
`
`3
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`USPQ2d 1203 (TTAB 1997).
`
`Here, Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s fa(cid:272)tual allegatio(cid:374), (cid:272)o(cid:374)strued i(cid:374) the light (cid:373)ost fa(cid:448)ora(cid:271)le to
`
`Petitioner, provides valid statutory grounds consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3), to
`
`cancel the registrations.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. Petitioner Has Alleged More Than Sufficient Facts To Support Cancellation
`
`1.
`
`Without The State Bar’s Appro(cid:448)al To Use Registrant’s Marks,
`
`Registrant’s Use Of The Marks Constitutes Unla(cid:449)ful Use.
`
`Petitio(cid:374)er seeks (cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:272)ellatio(cid:374) of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks based on unlawful use
`
`because Registrant failed to properly register ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks with the State Bar of
`
`California prior to use. Petitioner has alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s use (cid:449)as therefore unlawful and in violation of California statutes.
`
`To establish a claim for unlawful use, the TTAB standard finds unlawful use
`
`(cid:449)he(cid:374): (cid:894)(cid:1005)(cid:895) (cid:862)(cid:449)he(cid:374) the issue of (cid:272)o(cid:373)plia(cid:374)(cid:272)e has pre(cid:448)iously (cid:271)ee(cid:374) deter(cid:373)i(cid:374)ed (cid:894)(cid:449)ith a fi(cid:374)di(cid:374)g
`
`of noncompliance) by an entity, such as a court or government agency, having
`
`competent jurisdiction under the statute i(cid:374) (cid:395)uestio(cid:374),(cid:863) or (cid:894)(cid:1006)(cid:895) (cid:449)he(cid:374) there has (cid:271)ee(cid:374) a per
`
`se (cid:448)iolatio(cid:374) of a statute regulati(cid:374)g the sale of a party(cid:859)s goods, or the re(cid:374)deri(cid:374)g of his
`
`ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es, i(cid:374) (cid:272)o(cid:373)(cid:373)er(cid:272)e. . . .(cid:863) Satinine Societa in Nome Collectivo Di S.A. E M. Usellini v.
`
`P.A.B. Produits Et Appareils de Beaute, 209 U.S.P.Q. 958 (TTAB 1981). In Califor(cid:374)ia, (cid:862)[a]
`
`law corporation may practice law only under the name registered with the Secretary of
`
`State and approved by the State Bar.(cid:863) Cal. St. Bar Rules, Rule 3.154 (emphasis added).
`
`4
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`Only where a law corporation has a currently effective certificate of registration from
`
`the State Bar pursuant to the Professional Corporation Act, is it eligible to practice law.
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6160; Cappiello, Hofmann & Katz, P.C. v. Boyle, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d
`
`147, 151-52 (Ct. App. 1st 2001) (holding that a law corporation not registered with the
`
`State Bar committed unauthorized practice of law and the fee agreement was illegal,
`
`even though its individual lawyers were admitted to California) (unpublished). (cid:862)A(cid:374)
`
`applicant for registration as a law corporation shall supply to the State Bar all necessary
`
`and pertinent documents and information requested by the State Bar concerning the
`
`appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)s pla(cid:374) of operatio(cid:374), i(cid:374)(cid:272)ludi(cid:374)g, (cid:271)ut (cid:374)ot li(cid:373)ited to...any fictitious name or names
`
`which the corporation intends to use.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6161 (emphasis added).
`
`Here, Petitio(cid:374)er has alleged suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t fa(cid:272)ts to support its (cid:272)lai(cid:373) that ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s
`
`per se (cid:448)iolatio(cid:374) of Califor(cid:374)ia “tatutes a(cid:374)d ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s use of its Marks constitutes
`
`unlawful use. First, Petitioner alleges that ‘egistra(cid:374)t (cid:862)falsely (cid:272)lai(cid:373)[ed] a Fe(cid:271)ruary (cid:1013),
`
`(cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1013) date of first use(cid:863) o(cid:374) the appli(cid:272)atio(cid:374) for (cid:271)oth of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks. (cid:894)Petitio(cid:374), ¶
`
`16.). Petitio(cid:374)er further alleges that (cid:862)‘egistrant was not using either of the marks in the
`
`Registrations as of the date of first use, but began instead using the following years after
`
`the purported date of first use:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (cid:863)
`
`(Petition, ¶
`
`17.). Petitioner also cites the various statutes and case law that supports a finding that
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks (cid:449)ithout prior appro(cid:448)al (cid:271)y the “tate Bar of
`
`California constitutes a per se violation of statute. (Petition, ¶¶ 20-22.).
`
`A(cid:272)(cid:272)ordi(cid:374)g to Ar(cid:272)hi(cid:448)e.org(cid:859)s WayBa(cid:272)k Ma(cid:272)hi(cid:374)e, the do(cid:373)ai(cid:374) <arashlaw.com>,
`
`currently owned and operated by Registrant, was for sale as of March 7, 2009 and did
`
`5
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`not show any of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks i(cid:374) use. (cid:894)Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s Noti(cid:272)e of ‘elia(cid:374)(cid:272)e i(cid:374) “upport of
`
`Oppositio(cid:374) to Motio(cid:374) to Dis(cid:373)iss (cid:894)(cid:862)NO‘(cid:863)(cid:895), Ex. 1.). It was not until at least March 22,
`
`2010 that Registrant began use of
`
`, which is not the subject of the Registrations.
`
`(NOR, Ex. 2.). Years later, on or about April 30, 2011, Registrant began using the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` logo, which is also not the subject of the
`
`Registrations. (Petition, ¶ 17; NOR, Ex. 3.).
`
`
`
`As discussed above and as alleged by Petitioner, Registrant claims that he first
`
`(cid:271)ega(cid:374) use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks o(cid:374) Fe(cid:271)ruary (cid:1013), (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1013), (cid:272)oi(cid:374)(cid:272)ide(cid:374)tally the sa(cid:373)e date o(cid:374)
`
`(cid:449)hi(cid:272)h ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s la(cid:449) fir(cid:373), La(cid:449) Offi(cid:272)e of Arash Khorsandi, P.C., was registered with the
`
`California Secretary of State. (Petition, ¶ 16; NOR, Ex. 4.). Assuming, arguendo, that
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s date of i(cid:374)(cid:272)orporatio(cid:374) is Fe(cid:271)ruary (cid:1013), (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1013) as stated, ‘egistra(cid:374)t failed to
`
`(cid:862)supply to the “tate Bar all (cid:374)ecessary and pertinent documents . . . concerning the
`
`appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)s pla(cid:374) of operatio(cid:374), i(cid:374)(cid:272)ludi(cid:374)g (cid:271)ut (cid:374)ot li(cid:373)ited to . . . a(cid:374)y fi(cid:272)titious (cid:374)a(cid:373)e or
`
`(cid:374)a(cid:373)es (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h the (cid:272)orporatio(cid:374) i(cid:374)te(cid:374)ds to use[,](cid:863) (cid:374)a(cid:373)ely, ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks. Cal. Bus. &
`
`Prof. Code § 6161. The evidence shows that either (1) Registrant did not properly
`
`i(cid:374)for(cid:373) the “tate Bar of Califor(cid:374)ia of his i(cid:374)te(cid:374)t to use ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks; or (cid:894)(cid:1006)(cid:895)
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t falsely (cid:272)lai(cid:373)ed the date of first use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks o(cid:374) his trade(cid:373)ark
`
`applications. In either case, Registrant has per se (cid:448)iolated (cid:862)a statute regulating the sale
`
`of a party(cid:859)s goods, or the re(cid:374)deri(cid:374)g of his ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es, i(cid:374) (cid:272)o(cid:373)(cid:373)er(cid:272)e. . . .(cid:863) Satinine Societa,
`
`209 U.S.P.Q. 958.
`
`Therefore, Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s allegatio(cid:374)s are suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t to state a proper ground for
`
`cancellation for u(cid:374)la(cid:449)ful use, a(cid:374)d ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss should (cid:271)e de(cid:374)ied.
`
`6
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`Registrant attempts to conflate the issue by arguing (1) that a licensed attorney
`
`is permitted to use a trademark for his individual practice of law, (cid:862)the (cid:272)ited statutes
`
`ha(cid:448)e to do (cid:449)ith a (cid:858)la(cid:449) (cid:272)orporatio(cid:374)(cid:859) registeri(cid:374)g a(cid:374)d pra(cid:272)ti(cid:272)i(cid:374)g la(cid:449) i(cid:374) Califor(cid:374)ia—not a
`
`li(cid:272)e(cid:374)sed attor(cid:374)ey(cid:859)s use of a trade(cid:373)ark(cid:863), and (2) that there is a differe(cid:374)(cid:272)e (cid:271)et(cid:449)ee(cid:374) (cid:862)the
`
`business name of a law corporation registering to practice law versus the trademark of
`
`a(cid:374) attor(cid:374)ey or la(cid:449) (cid:272)orporatio(cid:374).(cid:863) (Motion to Dismiss, at 9.). Nonetheless, at the time of
`
`the purported first use, Fe(cid:271)ruary (cid:1013), (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1013), ‘egistra(cid:374)t (cid:272)reated a la(cid:449) (cid:272)orporatio(cid:374) (cid:862)to
`
`e(cid:374)gage i(cid:374) the Professio(cid:374) of La(cid:449).(cid:863) (cid:894)NOR, Ex. 4). Registrant cannot logically claim that he
`
`was using the mark in his practice of law as an individual while separately practicing law
`
`under The Law Office of Arash Khorsandi. In fact, such a claim is directly contradicted by
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s (cid:272)urre(cid:374)t use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks:
`
`
`
`
`
` (NOR, Ex. 5.).
`
`Moreover, the specimens of use submitted in the applications contradict
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s newly created argument because the only use reflected therein are
`
`attri(cid:271)uta(cid:271)le to ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s (cid:272)orporate (cid:449)e(cid:271)site, (cid:374)ot his o(cid:449)(cid:374) i(cid:374)di(cid:448)idual (cid:449)e(cid:271)site.
`
`California law requires that (cid:862)any fictitious name or names which the [law]
`
`(cid:272)orporatio(cid:374) i(cid:374)te(cid:374)ds to use(cid:863) (cid:271)e pro(cid:448)ided to the “tate Bar. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § (cid:1010)(cid:1005)(cid:1010)(cid:1005).
`
`A(cid:374)d a (cid:272)orporatio(cid:374)(cid:859)s fi(cid:272)titious (cid:374)a(cid:373)e is still su(cid:271)je(cid:272)t to the trade(cid:373)ark rights of others. Am.
`
`Petrofina, Inc. v. Petrofina of California, Inc., No. CV 74-3330, 1975 WL 21190, at *20
`
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 1975), aff'd, 596 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1979) (collecting cases); Nielsen v.
`
`Am. Oil Co., 203 F. Supp. 473, 477-78, 133 USPQ 188 (D. Utah 1962). Here, Registrant
`
`failed to register ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks (cid:449)ith the “tate Bar. As alleged i(cid:374) the petitio(cid:374), (cid:862)upo(cid:374)
`
`i(cid:374)for(cid:373)atio(cid:374) a(cid:374)d (cid:271)elief, [the “tate Bar of Califor(cid:374)ia] o(cid:374)ly appro(cid:448)ed the use of (cid:858)The La(cid:449)
`
`7
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`Offices of Arash Khorsandi.(cid:859)(cid:863) (cid:894)Petitio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1006)(cid:1005).). Thus, ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s
`
`Marks, constitutes per se violation of California statutes, a(cid:374)d ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s use (cid:449)as
`
`unlawful. Therefore, Petitioner has alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible claim
`
`for (cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:272)ellatio(cid:374) of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks o(cid:374) the grou(cid:374)ds of unlawful use under Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 8(a), Iqbal, and Twombly, and ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss should
`
`be denied.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Registrant Has Not, And Cannot, Use Registrant’s Marks In
`
`Commerce Because He is Not Licensed To Practice Law Outside
`
`of California.
`
`For purposes of (cid:1005)(cid:1009) U.“.C. § (cid:1005)(cid:1005)(cid:1006)(cid:1011), (cid:862)a mark shall be deemed to be in use in
`
`commerce ... on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of
`
`services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in
`
`more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person
`
`rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.(cid:863) (cid:1005)(cid:1009)
`
`U.S.C. § 1127.
`
`
`
`Here, Registrant concedes that he is neither licensed to practice law in any state
`
`other than California, nor appeared in any case outside the State of California. (Petition,
`
`¶¶ 13, 25.). Registrant, in moving to dismiss the Petition, fails to dispute Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s
`
`allegation and instead argues, hypotheti(cid:272)ally, that (cid:862)‘egistra(cid:374)t (cid:272)ould ha(cid:448)e pro(cid:448)ided legal
`
`services in California (including transactional services, with no official court record) to
`
`out-of-state (cid:272)lie(cid:374)ts.(cid:863) (cid:894)Motio(cid:374) to Dis(cid:373)iss, at (cid:1005)(cid:1006).). Such unsupported arguments by
`
`8
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`counsel are inappropriate at the pleading stage and do not establish use in interstate
`
`commerce. See Do(cid:272)tor’s Asso(cid:272)s. In(cid:272). (cid:448). Jan(cid:272)o, LLC, 2016 WL 247200, at *4 (TTAB, Jan. 7,
`
`2016) (not precedential); Book(cid:271)inder’s Restaurant, 240 F. 2d 365, 368 (CCPA 1957).
`
`
`
`Further, offering services on the internet is not the sole factor in determining
`
`whether use occurs in interstate commerce. In fact, the TTAB has found unavailing
`
`argu(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts that the appli(cid:272)a(cid:374)t (cid:862)ad(cid:448)ertises o(cid:374) the We(cid:271), o(cid:374) Fa(cid:272)e(cid:271)ook a(cid:374)d T(cid:449)itter, a(cid:374)d is
`
`frequently rated on Yelp with reviews [from] local and out-of-state patrons, such as
`
`Arizona, New York, Colorado, Singapore, Florida, and Orego(cid:374).(cid:863) Do(cid:272)tor’s Asso(cid:272)s., 2016
`
`WL (cid:1006)(cid:1008)(cid:1011)(cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004), at *(cid:1008) (cid:894)(cid:374)ot pre(cid:272)ede(cid:374)tial(cid:895). The issue of (cid:449)hether ‘egistra(cid:374)t uses ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s
`
`Marks in interstate commerce is a question properly resolved through discovery, not the
`
`(cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dis(cid:373)iss stage, a(cid:374)d Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s allegation that Registrant does not practice law
`
`outside the State of California and that Registrant has not appeared in any cases outside
`
`the State of California, rises to a level of plausibility to survive a motion to dismiss.
`
`Thus, ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s (cid:373)otio(cid:374) to dismiss should be denied.
`
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, (cid:862)[a]n incorrect date of first use is not a material
`
`representation that serves as grounds for cancellation so long as the first use preceded
`
`the application date.(cid:863) Pony Express Courier Corp. v. Pony Express Delivery Serv., 872
`
`F.2d 317, 319 (9th Cir.1989) (emphasis added); see also 6 McCarthy on Trademarks &
`
`Unfair Competition § 31:74 (4th ed.2008) (the Trademark Board has consistently held
`
`that a misstatement of the date of first use is not fraudulent so long as there has been
`
`valid use of the mark prior to the filing date). That is, if ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s date of first use o(cid:374)
`
`his appli(cid:272)atio(cid:374)s is i(cid:374)(cid:272)orre(cid:272)t, the(cid:374) (cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:272)ellatio(cid:374) of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks is o(cid:374)ly (cid:449)arra(cid:374)ted if
`
`9
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s date of first use of the Marks was before the date in the application. Great
`
`Treats, In(cid:272). (cid:448). Bigger Than Bill, In(cid:272). d(cid:271)a Mullen’s Dairy, 2017 WL 4945262, at *4 (TTAB
`
`O(cid:272)t. (cid:1006)(cid:1011), (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1005)(cid:1011)(cid:895) (cid:894)(cid:862)It is well settled that the accuracy of the date of first use in commerce is
`
`not material for purposes of a fraud claim, nor is it otherwise fatal to the securing of a
`
`valid registration, provided that there has been use of the mark in commerce prior to
`
`the filing date of the use-based application.(cid:863)(cid:895) (cid:894)(cid:272)iti(cid:374)g Giant Food, Inc. v. Standard Terry
`
`Mills, Inc., 231 USPQ 626, 630 (TTAB 1986); CarX Service Systems, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.,
`
`215 USPQ 345, 351 (TTAB 1982); Colt Indus. Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo
`
`Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73, 76 (TTAB 1973).
`
`
`
`Not only has Petitioner alleged that the date of first use o(cid:374) ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s
`
`applications was void because it was unlawful (Petition, ¶ 16.), but Petitioner also
`
`alleges that (cid:862)‘egistra(cid:374)ts legal ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es ha(cid:448)e (cid:374)ot (cid:271)ee(cid:374) pro(cid:448)ided i(cid:374) i(cid:374)terstate (cid:272)o(cid:373)(cid:373)er(cid:272)e
`
`since February 9, 2009 because Registrant has not appeared as counsel of record
`
`outside the state of Califor(cid:374)ia.(cid:863) (cid:894)Petitio(cid:374), ¶ (cid:1006)(cid:1009).). As discussed above, Registrant could
`
`not have used the Marks as of the application filing date because the use violated
`
`California statutes. Thus, Registrant(cid:859)s Marks are properly subject to cancellation.
`
`No(cid:374)etheless, Petitio(cid:374)er has alleged suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t plausi(cid:271)le fa(cid:272)ts to sur(cid:448)i(cid:448)e ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s
`
`motion to dismiss and therefore, the motion to dismiss should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Priority and Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner’s Use Began Well Before Registrant Could
`
`Possibly Ha(cid:448)e Used Registrant’s Marks.
`
`Petitioner is seeking cancellation of Registrant's marks based on priority of use of
`
`its marks in commerce. Thus, Petitioner(cid:859)s prior use of its marks in commerce would
`
`grant Petitioner common law trademark rights in the marks and render Petitioner the
`
`senior user of the marks over Registrant. S. Calif. Darts Ass’n v. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921,
`
`930, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 2014) (cid:894)(cid:862)A party(cid:859)s ownership of a protectable mark is
`
`determined on the basis of (cid:858)priority of use in commerce.(cid:859) That is, (cid:858)the party claiming
`
`ownership must have been the first to actually use the mark in the sale of goods or
`
`services.(cid:859)(cid:863)(cid:895) (citing Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir.
`
`2012) (quoting Sengoku Works Ltd. v. RMC Int’l, Ltd., 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996));
`
`see also Threeline Imports, Inc. v. Vernikov, 239 F. Supp. 3d 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ((cid:862)First
`
`use in commerce of chicken and egg logo was attributable to alleged infringers, not
`
`registered trademark holder, as would support finding that alleged infringers had
`
`priority of use over logo, despite presumption of validity created by registration of
`
`trademark.(cid:863)(cid:895).
`
`Here, Petitioner has alleged facts sufficient to establish that Petitioner is the
`
`senior user and first to use the marks in the promotion of legal services. Petitioner
`
`alleges that he was admitted to the practice of law in the State of California in 1993 and
`
`that since 1993, Petitioner has (cid:862)(cid:272)o(cid:374)ti(cid:374)uously pro(cid:448)ided legal ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es i(cid:374) the U(cid:374)ited “tates
`
`u(cid:374)der the (cid:373)arks (cid:858)A‘A“H HOMAMPOU‘,(cid:859) (cid:858)A‘A“H,(cid:859) a(cid:374)d (cid:862)A‘A“H LAW.(cid:859)(cid:863) (cid:894)Petitio(cid:374), ¶¶ (cid:1005),
`
`11
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`4.). Petitioner further alleges that Registrant was admitted to the practice of law in the
`
`State of California in 2007. (Petition, ¶ 13.). Thus, taking these facts as true, as the
`
`Board must, Registrant could not have priority over Petitioner with regards to the marks
`
`because the earliest Registrant could have possibly used the marks in commerce is no
`
`earlier than 2007. No(cid:374)etheless, ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s appli(cid:272)atio(cid:374)s falsely state that his date of
`
`first use of ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s Marks (cid:449)as Fe(cid:271)ruary (cid:1013), (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1013) despite (cid:374)ot usi(cid:374)g any mark until
`
`years after said date.
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s argu(cid:373)e(cid:374)t that Petitio(cid:374)er has failed to esta(cid:271)lish priority because
`
`(cid:862)Plai(cid:374)tiff offers (cid:374)o e(cid:454)a(cid:373)ples of ad(cid:448)ertise(cid:373)e(cid:374)t, pro(cid:373)otio(cid:374), or use of his Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s
`
`Co(cid:373)(cid:373)o(cid:374) La(cid:449) Marks or the Arash Mo(cid:374)ikers(cid:863) is inappropriate at this stage of the
`
`proceeding. (Motion to Dismiss at. IV.D.1.). Registrant relies on the incorrect premise
`
`that Petitio(cid:374)er (cid:373)ust (cid:862)pro(cid:448)e(cid:863) its (cid:272)ase i(cid:374) its i(cid:374)itial pleadi(cid:374)g, a(cid:374)d i(cid:373)plies that Petitio(cid:374)er
`
`must provide evidence beyond the factual allegations. Id.; see also Motion to Dismiss at
`
`IV.E. (cid:894)(cid:862)To esta(cid:271)lish his (cid:272)lai(cid:373) for false suggestio(cid:374) of a (cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:374)e(cid:272)tion, Petitioner must plead
`
`and prove. . . .(cid:863)(cid:895). While a plaintiff (cid:862)need not set forth (cid:858)detailed factual allegations,(cid:859) or
`
`(cid:858)specific facts(cid:859) that describe the evidence to be presented, the complaint must include
`
`suffi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)t fa(cid:272)tual allegatio(cid:374)s to pro(cid:448)ide the grou(cid:374)ds o(cid:374) (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h the (cid:272)lai(cid:373) rests.(cid:863) Gregory
`
`(cid:448). Dillard’s, In(cid:272)., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`This is precisely what Petitioner has done here: alleged sufficient factual allegations to
`
`pro(cid:448)ide ‘egistra(cid:374)t (cid:449)ith the grou(cid:374)ds o(cid:374) (cid:449)hi(cid:272)h Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s (cid:272)lai(cid:373)s rest.
`
`Further, fa(cid:272)tual allegatio(cid:374)s that Petitio(cid:374)er (cid:862)ad(cid:448)ertised, pro(cid:373)oted, a(cid:374)d used(cid:863)
`
`Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s Marks are (cid:374)ot (cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:272)lusory, (cid:271)ut (cid:373)ere re(cid:272)itatio(cid:374) of fa(cid:272)t. In re WellPoint, Inc.
`
`12
`PETITIONE‘(cid:859)“ OPPO“ITION TO ‘EGI“T‘ANT(cid:859)“ MOTION TO DI“MI““
`
`

`

`Out-Of-Network UCR Rates Litig., 903 F. Supp. 2d 880, 926-27 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (finding
`
`allegations that defendant advertises, promotes, and sells its health plans conclusory
`
`(cid:449)here the allegatio(cid:374) (cid:449)as (cid:862)(cid:271)ased o(cid:374) false, (cid:449)idely disse(cid:373)i(cid:374)ated represe(cid:374)tatio(cid:374)s. . . .(cid:863)(cid:895).
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s relia(cid:374)(cid:272)e o(cid:374) Geodata Sys. Mgmt. v. Am. Pac. Plastic Fabricators, Inc. is
`
`inapposite because in that case, GeoData(cid:859)s allegatio(cid:374)s of use (cid:449)ere (cid:374)ot spe(cid:272)ifi(cid:272) as to
`
`ti(cid:373)e, parti(cid:272)ularly as it pertai(cid:374)s to GeoData(cid:859)s (cid:272)o(cid:374)ti(cid:374)uous use. No. CV (cid:1005)(cid:1009)-04125 MMM
`
`(JEMx), 2015 WL 12731920, at *8-9 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015). Here, by contrast,
`
`Petitioner has alleged use in describing when and how Petitioner and Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s Marks
`
`have gained national recognition. (See Petition, at ¶ 6.).
`
`Fi(cid:374)ally, a(cid:374)y argu(cid:373)e(cid:374)t that Petitio(cid:374)er a(cid:271)a(cid:374)do(cid:374)ed use of the (cid:449)ord (cid:862)A‘A“H(cid:863) is
`
`misguided. Registrant argues that (cid:862)fro(cid:373) at least (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1004)(cid:1012) u(cid:374)til (cid:1006)(cid:1004)(cid:1005)(cid:1006), Petitio(cid:374)er pu(cid:271)li(cid:272)ly
`
`a(cid:271)a(cid:374)do(cid:374)ed use of (cid:858)A‘A“H(cid:859) i(cid:374) relatio(cid:374) to offeri(cid:374)g legal ser(cid:448)i(cid:272)es(cid:863) a(cid:374)d relies upo(cid:374) the
`
`defi(cid:374)itio(cid:374) of the (cid:449)ord (cid:862)free ti(cid:373)e(cid:863) stated i(cid:374) Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s (cid:271)iography o(cid:374) his (cid:449)e(cid:271)site.
`
`(Motion to Dismiss, at 16.). Yet, i(cid:374) ‘egistra(cid:374)t(cid:859)s o(cid:449)(cid:374) ‘e(cid:395)uests for Judi(cid:272)ial Noti(cid:272)e,
`
`‘egistra(cid:374)t (cid:272)ites to (cid:272)aptures of Petitio(cid:374)er(cid:859)s (cid:449)e(cid:271)site dated (cid:271)et(cid:449)ee(ci