estta tracking number: estta1107427 01/12/2021

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

ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1107427

Filing date: 01/12/2021

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Proceeding 91252883

Party PlaintiffRoyal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

CorrespondenceAddress

NICOLE R TOWNESKNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP2040 MAIN STREET, 14TH FLOORIRVINE, CA 92614UNITED STATESPrimary Email: [email protected]

Submission Opposition/Response to Motion

Filer's Name Nicole R. Townes

Filer's email [email protected], [email protected]

Signature /Nicole R. Townes/

Date 01/12/2021

Attachments 2021-01-12 Opposer_s Opposition to Motion to Reopen and Extend - RCC.014M.pdf(739968 bytes )2021-01-12 NAR Declaration ISO Opposer_s Opposition to Motion to Reop enand Extend - RCC.014M.pdf(714001 bytes )NAR Exhibits 1-7 - RCC.014M.pdf(1134305 bytes )

http://estta.uspto.gov

-1-

RCC.014M TTAB



ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,

Opposer, v. INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, Applicant.

)))))))))))

Opposition No.: 91252883

Serial No.: 88/374505

Mark: ROYAL AIR CARIBBEAN

OPPOSER’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY AND THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES,

DISCOVERY, AND RESET/TOLL SCHEDULE

Pursuant to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (“T.B.M.P.”)

§ 509.01, Opposer Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Opposer”) respectfully requests that the

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) deny Applicant International Integrated

Transportation Logistics Systems’ (“Applicant”) Motion to Re-Open Discovery. Applicant has

failed to show excusable neglect to reopen the discovery period. The requested relief is

necessitated only by Applicant’s repeated lack of diligence in engaging in discovery in this

proceeding.

Applicant’s only excuse for failing to engage in discovery or timely seeking to extend the

discovery period is a general reference to the ongoing pandemic. While Opposer remains

sympathetic to the business disruptions caused by the pandemic, Applicant has failed to

articulate how the pandemic has prevented Applicant from engaging in activities such as serving

Initial Disclosures or discovery requests in this proceeding. Further, the Board has already

provided Applicant with several extensions of the deadlines.

The tone of Applicant’s Motion lacks civility and much of the Motion is focused on false

statements or issues wholly irrelevant to Applicant’s request to reopen discovery. For example,

-2-

Applicant falsely accuses Opposer of “systematically harassing” Applicant and “unlawfully”

attempting to seek additional discovery. However, Opposer merely requested that Applicant

meet and confer with Opposer regarding Applicant’s failure to serve responses to Opposer’s

timely served discovery requests and Applicant’s refusal to appear for a remote deposition.

Opposer has not engaged in any kind of harassment of Applicant.

Applicant has failed to show the required excusable neglect to reopen the discovery

period, and thus Opposer respectfully requests that the Board deny Applicant’s Motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Discovery in this proceeding was originally set to close on August 18, 2020. Dkt. No. 2.

On March 19, 2020, Applicant filed an unconsented motion to extend the deadlines in this

proceeding by one hundred and twenty (120) days. Dkt. No. 7. On May 4, 2020, the Board

extended the deadlines in this proceeding by ninety (90) days and set the deadline for service of

Initial Disclosures for June 19, 2020 and the close of discovery for December 16, 2020. Dkt.

No. 12. On June 19, 2020, Applicant filed a second unconsented motion to extend the

deadlines in the proceeding by an additional one hundred and twenty (120) days. Dkt. No. 13.

On August 3, 2020, the Board granted a ninety (90) day extension of the Initial Disclosures

deadline and the close of discovery remained as December 16, 2020. Dkt. No. 15.

On November 11, 2020, more than thirty (30) days prior to the close of discovery,

Opposer timely served its First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests

for Admission (collectively, “Discovery Requests”) on Applicant. Townes Decl. Exs. 1-3.

Applicant’s deadline to serve responses to these Discovery Requests was December 11, 2020.

Id. at ¶ 5. However, Applicant failed to provide responses to Opposer’s Discovery Requests or

produce responsive documents on December 11, 2020. Id. at ¶ 6. Applicant served belated

responses to Opposer’s Requests for Admission on December 22, 2020, and, to date, Applicant

has failed to respond to Opposer’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production or produce

documents responsive to Opposer’s Requests for Production. Id.

-3-

Further, on November 18, 2020, Opposer served a notice of deposition of Robert Kemp

identifying the date of deposition as December 15, 2020 and the method of taking the deposition

as Zoom given the ongoing pandemic. Townes Decl. Ex. 4. That same day, Mr. Kemp

responded and refused to make himself available for a deposition via Zoom due to alleged

“Security and Collected Data Verification/Manipulation opportunities.” Id. at Ex. 5. Mr. Kemp

further represented that he would only appear before a licensed court reporter. Id. On

December 8, 2020, Opposer responded to Mr. Kemp and assured him that the deposition would

be taken before a court reporter. Id. Opposer further explained that Zoom depositions have

become standard practice during the pandemic. Id. Applicant did not respond to Opposer’s

email dated December 8, 2020. Id. at ¶ 9.

On December 16, 2020, Opposer requested Applicant’s availability for a meet and

confer to discuss Applicant’s failure to respond to Opposer’s Discovery Requests and refusal to

appear for a deposition via Zoom. Townes Decl. Ex. 6. On December 18, 2020, Applicant

responded to Opposer’s request for a meet and confer. Id. However, instead of providing a

time that Applicant was available for a meet and confer or a date certain by which Applicant

would serve its responses, Applicant’s response was uncooperative and falsely accused

Opposer of “lying.” Id. That same day, Opposer reiterated its request for a meet and confer

and reminded Applicant of the Board’s request that the “parties appearing before it [] behave

civilly in all matters and to cooperate with one another in the discovery process.” Id.; Dkt. No.

12.

On December 22, 2020, Applicant agreed to meet and confer with Opposer. Townes

Decl. Ex. 7. During the meet and confer held on December 22, Applicant refused to provide a

date certain by which Applicant would respond to Opposer’s Requests for Production and

Interrogatories or produce responsive documents. Id. at ¶ 12. Mr. Kemp also refused to make

himself available for a deposition via remote means and insisted on an in-person deposition. Id.

-4-

Contrary to Applicant’s allegations, Opposer has not “unlawfully” sought to obtain

additional discovery after the close of discovery. Opposer has merely sought to obtain

responses to its timely served requests and a deposition in response to its timely served notice.1

Applicant failed to engage in any discovery during the discovery period. On December

22, 2020, five days after the close of discovery, Applicant served its First Set of Requests for

Admission on Opposer. Townes Decl. ¶ 13. That same day, during the parties’ meet and

confer, Opposer informed Applicant that Applicant’s Requests for Admission were improper

because Applicant had not yet served initial disclosures. Id.; T.B.M.P. § 403.02 (a party may

not serve discovery until it has made its initial disclosures); Dkt. No. 15.2 Moreover, Applicant’s

Requests for Admission were served five days after the close of discovery, and thus, the

requests were untimely. See T.B.M.P. § 403.01. Contrary to the allegations in Applicant’s

Motion, Applicant has not served any notices of deposition on Opposer, and discovery closed

on December 16, 2020. Townes Decl. ¶ 14.3

1 Opposer still intends to file a motion to compel Applicant to provide responses to

Opposer’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production, produce documents responsive to Opposer’s Requests for Production, and appear for a deposition. However, Applicant did not make himself available for a meet and confer until December 22, 2020, and then proceeded to file its Motion to Reopen Discovery the following day on December 23, 2020, before Opposer had the chance to prepare and file its motion to compel. Townes Decl. Ex. 7; Dkt. No. 16.

2 It was not until after the parties’ meet and confer that Applicant served its Initial Disclosures even though Initial Disclosures were due on September 17, 2020. Townes Decl.

¶°13. Applicant falsely accuses Opposer of “attempting to lure Applicant into a Security Breach” because Opposer merely notified Applicant on December 22, 2020 that Applicant had failed to serve initial disclosures. Further, it is unclear to Opposer how Applicant’s identification of categories of documents that may be relevant to this proceeding as required in initial disclosures would cause Applicant to have a “Security Breach.”

3 During the parties’ meet and confer on December 22, 2020, Applicant represented that he would not make himself available for deposition until he had the opportunity to depose Opposer’s Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officers. Townes Decl. ¶ 12. Opposer informed Applicant that any notices of deposition would be untimely and that it would object to such depositions. Id. Opposer is a public company with over 70,000 employees, and its Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officers have numerous obligations relating to Opposer’s business operations. Further, Applicant has failed to identify any reasons why it would need to depose Opposer’s Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officers,

-5-

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party who seeks to reopen the time for taking action must show that its failure to act

during the time allotted for action was the result of excusable neglect. T.B.M.P. § 509.01(b).

“[T]he excusable neglect determination must take into account all relevant circumstances

surrounding the party’s omission or delay, including (1) the danger of prejudice to the

nonmovant, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the

reason for the delay, including whether it was within reasonable control of the movant, and (4)

whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id.

III. ARGUMENT

Applicant cannot show excusable neglect to reopen the discovery period. T.B.M.P.

§ 509.01. Applicant has failed to explain why it did not seek an extension of the close of

discovery prior to December 16, 2020. Applicant’s lack of an explanation for this oversight

weighs against finding excusable neglect. Dating DNA, LLC v. Imagini Holdings, Ltd., 94

U.S.P.Q.2d 1889 (T.T.A.B. 2010).

Applicant makes general references to the pandemic and its disruption to Applicant’s

business operations as its excuse for failing to act in a timely manner. Applicant argues that he

could not establish contact with “Consultants focusing on Air Transportation Operations, as well

as Consultants focusing on Cruise Line Operations at Sea.” However, Applicant has failed to

explain how the pandemic prohibited Applicant from establishing contact with these persons via

telephone or e-mail. Further, it is unclear to Opposer why contact with such persons would be

necessary for Applicant to prepare its Initial Disclosures or discovery requests to Opposer.

Applicant has made the same generalized excuse in its last two motions to extend.

particularly given that Applicant has not even sought to depose Opposer’s Director of Brand Marketing, who Opposer identified in its Initial Disclosures as having knowledge regarding the use of Opposer’s ROYAL CARIBBEAN marks. Applicant’s sole purpose in seeking to depose Opposer’s executives appears to be harassment.

-6-

The majority of Applicant’s arguments in its Motion have no bearing on whether

Applicant’s delay was the result of excusable neglect. Applicant makes wholly unsupported

allegations that Opposer has sought to “unlawfully” obtain discovery after the December 16,

2020 close of discovery and that Opposer has been “systematically harassing” Applicant. The

sole basis for these accusations is that Opposer requested a meet and confer with Applicant to

discuss Applicant’s failure to respond to Opposer’s Discovery Requests or appear for a

deposition. Applicant’s accusations regarding Opposer’s conduct are wholly unsupported and

irrelevant.

Further, Opposer will be prejudiced by the delay. Applicant is requesting a six-month

delay of the proceeding. This proceeding has been pending for over a year and will not reach

the trial briefing stage until 2022 if Applicant’s requested extension is granted. Applicant’s

ROYAL AIR CARIBBEAN mark is essentially identical to Opposer’s well-known ROYAL

CARIBBEAN marks. Dkt. No. 1. Further, Opposer has used its ROYAL CARIBBEAN marks in

connection with arranging transportation of passengers by air, rail, bus, and shuttle, and

Applicant has applied for the ROYAL AIR CARIBBEAN mark in connection with the highly

related services of air transportation. Id. Further delay of these proceedings will prejudice

Opposer’s ability to efficiently obtain a resolution of this matter within a reasonable amount of

time.

Finally, Applicant is failing to act in good faith. Applicant has engaged and continues to

engage in unprofessional behavior and does not act with civility. Applicant has repeatedly failed

to cooperate with Opposer in discovery in this matter and has not heeded the Board’s warning

that it “expects the parties appearing before it to behave civilly in all matters and to cooperate

with one another in the discovery process.” Dkt. No. 12. Instead, Applicant has sent Opposer’s

counsel emails making unprofessional and false statements (such as “will you ever learn how to

STOP LYING??”) and accusing Opposer’s counsel and Opposer of being a “Criminal

ENTERPRISE.” Townes Decl. Ex. 6. In its motion, Applicant makes similar wholly unsupported

-7-

accusations (such as that Opposer is “systematically harassing” and “harassing, deceiving and

lying to Applicant’s CEO”) merely because Opposer requested to meet and confer with

Applicant, given its failure to timely respond to Opposer’s Discovery Requests and refusal to

appear for a deposition. Further, without any support, Applicant calls Opposer’s behavior

“disgusting” in its Motion. These actions demonstrate that Applicant is not acting in good faith.

Accordingly, Applicant has failed to show the required excusable neglect to reopen the

discovery period.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s motion to reopen the discovery period should be

denied.

Respectfully submitted,

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP Dated: July 8, 2020 By: /Nicole R. Townes/ Nicole R. Townes Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen Marissa Rosenbaum 2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 760-0404 [email protected] Attorneys for Opposer, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.

-8-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S

OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES, DISCOVERY, AND

RESET/TOLL SCHEDULE has been served on Applicant, International Integrated

Transportation Logistics Systems, by forwarding said copy on July 8, 2020 via electronic mail to:

JOHN T DIGILIO JR

INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SYSTEMS [email protected]

Doreen P. Buluran 34129341

-1-

RCC.014M TTAB



ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,

Opposer, v. INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, Applicant.

)))))))))))


Serial No.: 88/374505


DECLARATION OF NICOLE R. TOWNES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT’S MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES, DISCOVERY, AND RESET/TOLL SCHEDULE

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. I am a partner

with the law firm of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP, counsel for Opposer, Monster Energy

Company (“Opposer”) in the above-identified Opposition proceeding. I have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth below. If called upon and sworn as a witness, I could and would

competently testify as set forth below.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Opposer’s First Set of

Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Nos. 1-49) served on November 11, 2020 in

this opposition proceeding.


Interrogatories (Nos. 1-42) served on November 11, 2020 in this opposition proceeding.


Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-21) served on November 11, 2020 in this opposition

proceeding.

-2-

5. Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s First Set of Requests for Production, First

Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests for Admission were due on December 11,

2020.

6. To date, Applicant has failed to respond to Opposer’s First Set of Requests for

Production and First Set of Interrogatories or produce documents responsive to Opposer’s First

Set of Requests for Production. Applicant did not serve responses to Opposer’s First Set of

Requests for Admission until December 22, 2020.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Opposer’s Notice of

Deposition of Robert Kemp served on November 18, 2020.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

between myself and Mr. Kemp dated November 18, 2020-December 8, 2020.

9. Mr. Kemp did not respond to my email dated December 8, 2020.


between myself and Mr. Kemp dated December 16-18, 2020.


between myself and Mr. Kemp dated December 22, 2020.

12. The parties held a meet and confer regarding Applicant’s failure to respond to

Opposer’s discovery requests and refusal to make himself available for a deposition on

December 22, 2020. During the meet and confer, Mr. Kemp refused to provide a date certain

by which Applicant would respond to Opposer’s Requests for Production and Interrogatories or

produce responsive documents. Mr. Kemp also refused to make himself available for a

deposition via remote means and insisted on an in-person deposition. Mr. Kemp also

represented that he would not make himself available for deposition until he had the opportunity

to depose Opposer’s Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officers. I informed Mr. Kemp

that any notices of deposition would be untimely and that it would object to such depositions.

-3-

13. On December 22, 2020, Applicant served its First Set of Requests for Admission.

I informed Mr. Kemp during the parties’ meet and confer held on December 22, 2020 that

Applicant’s First Set of Requests for Admission were improper because Applicant had not yet

served initial disclosures. After the parties’ meet and confer, Applicant served its initial

disclosures.

14. To date, Applicant has not served any notices of deposition on Opposer.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: By: /Nicole R. Townes/ Nicole R. Townes

-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF

NICOLE R. TOWNES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSER’S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT’S

MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

PROVIDE INITIAL DISCLOSURES, DISCOVERY, AND RESET/TOLL SCHEDULE has been

served on Applicant, International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems, by forwarding

said copy on July 8, 2020 via electronic mail to:

JOHN T DIGILIO JR


Doreen P. Buluran 34129383

TTAB Opposition No. 91252883

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems

Declaration of Nicole R. Townes in Support of

Opposition to Motion to Reopen and Extend Discovery

EXHIBIT 1

-1-

RCC.014M TTAB



Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Opposer, v. International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems, Applicant.

)))))))) )

Opposition No.: 91252883 Mark: ROYAL AIR CARIBBEAN

OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (NOS. 1–49)

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a) and (e) and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“FRCP”), Opposer Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Opposer”) hereby requests that

Applicant International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems (“Applicant”) produce the

following documents and things for inspection and copying at the offices of Knobbe, Martens,

Olson & Bear LLP, 2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor, Irvine, California 92614, or such other

place as may be agreed between the parties, within thirty (30) days of service hereof.

DEFINITIONS

Opposer incorporates by reference the Definitions set forth in Opposer’s First Set of

Interrogatories served concurrently herewith.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. If You claim that any documents or things requested are privileged, please

provide all documents and things falling within the scope of the Document Request which are

not privileged, and identify with sufficient particularity for purposes of a Motion to Compel each

item, document, or thing, separately, with respect to which You claim a privilege, and state:

a. the basis on which the privilege is claimed;



Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 10 Declaration of Nicole R. Townes in Support of


-2-

b. the author of the document, if applicable;

c. each individual or other person to whom the document or copy thereof

was sent or otherwise disclosed;

d. the date of the document;

e. the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, etc.); and

f. the general subject matter of the document.

You are not requested to provide privileged information, documents, or things for which

You claim privilege, but only to identify such information, documents, or things.

2. Applicant’s responses to the following Document Requests are to be promptly

supplemented to include subsequently acquired information in accordance with the

requirements of Rule 26(e) of the FRCP.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:

All documents and things referring or relating to the conception, creation, development,

derivation, selection, and/or adoption of Applicant’s Mark.


Documents and things sufficient to identify all individuals who assisted with or were

otherwise involved in the conception, creation, development, derivation, selection, or adoption of

Applicant’s Mark.


All documents and things referring or relating to all variations and versions of Applicant’s

Mark, whether final or not and whether used or not, which were considered or developed for

Applicant’s Services.


All communications regarding the design, development, creation, conception, derivation,

selection, adoption, or approval of Applicant’s Mark, including, but not limited to, the date of





-3-

such communications.


All documents referring or relating to the reasons Applicant selected Applicant’s Mark.


All documents and things referring or relating to any searches (including trademark

searches), research, inquiries, or investigations relating to Applicant’s Mark.


All documents and things referring or relating to any searches (including trademark

searches), research, inquiries, or investigations relating to Opposer’s Marks.


All documents and things relating to the first use in commerce of Applicant’s Mark in the

U.S., including, but not limited to, samples, purchase orders, invoices, advertisements, or

marketing plans.


For any services not yet in use, all documents referring or relating to the projected first use

in commerce date of Applicant’s Mark.


All documents referring or relating to Your bona fide intent to use Applicant’s Mark.


Documents sufficient to show the U.S. sales (in units and dollars) of Applicant’s Services

by month and year from the date of first use of Applicant’s Mark to the present by geographic

area.


Documents sufficient to show anticipated U.S. sales of Applicant’s Services.


Documents and things sufficient to show all goods and/or services that have been sold,





-4-

rendered, or offered in connection with Applicant’s Mark.


Documents and things referring or relating to advertising, marketing, and/or promotion of

Applicant’s Mark or Applicant’s Services, including, but not limited to, media in which Applicant’s

Mark appears, labels, boxes, packaging, stickers, advertisements, brochures, flyers, pamphlets,

promotional materials, magazines, articles, Internet advertisements, or other printed or electronic

publications, websites, or domain names.


Documents sufficient to show Applicant’s annual expenditures or anticipated annual

expenditures in connection with marketing and/or promoting Applicant’s Mark and/or Applicant’s

Services in the U.S.


All documents referring or relating to business plans, marketing plans, advertising plans,

and/or business forecasts for Applicant’s Services and/or Applicant’s Mark.


All documents referring or relating to any advertising agencies or other person(s) which

Applicant has used or intends to use in advertising or promoting any of Applicant’s Services or

Applicant’s Mark.


All documents relating to market research conducted by Applicant in connection with

Applicant’s Mark or Applicant’s Services.


Documents sufficient to identify any marks that are used by You in connection with



All documents relating to plans or steps toward expansion by Applicant of the types of





-5-

products and/or services in connection with which Applicant’s Mark is used or will be used.


Documents sufficient to identify each state within the United States where You have

sold, offered for sale, or rendered Applicant’s Services or where You intend to sell, offer for sale,

or render Applicant’s Services.


All documents relating to plans or steps to alter or expand the present channels of

trade/distribution for Applicant’s Services.


All documents relating to plans or steps to alter or expand the geographic areas where

Applicant’s Services are sold, offered, or rendered.


All documents relating to plans or steps to expand the customer base for Applicant’s

Services or to sell to persons other than Applicant’s present purchasers of Applicant’s Services.


Documents sufficient to identify the types of stores or channels of trade/distribution

through which Applicant’s Services have been sold, offered for sale, or rendered, are sold,

offered for sale, or rendered, or will be sold, offered for sale, or rendered.


All documents and things referring or relating to plans to alter the present channels of

trade/distribution for Applicant’s Services.


All documents relating to the types, characteristics, demographics, geographic markets,

or classes of persons who purchase or obtain Applicant’s Services.


Documents sufficient to identify the level of sophistication/degree of care of the average





-6-

consumer of Applicant’s Services.


All documents and things referring or relating to the types, characteristics,

demographics, geographic markets, classes or types of persons who purchase or obtain

Applicant’s Services or who You intend to purchase or obtain Applicant’s Services.


All documents relating to Your target market for Applicant’s Services.


All documents referring or relating to plans to expand the customer base for Applicant’s

Services or to sell Applicant’s Services to persons other than the present purchasers of



Documents sufficient to show the actual or anticipated prices for Applicant’s Services,

including, but not limited to, price lists for Applicant’s Services.


All documents relating to any analysis or investigation conducted by Applicant regarding

Applicant’s Mark or Opposer’s Marks.


All documents relating to the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s first awareness of

Opposer, Opposer’s Marks, and/or Opposer’s Services.


All documents relating to Opposer, Opposer’s Marks, and/or Opposer’s Services,

including, but not limited to, documents in connection with the design and development of

Applicant’s Mark.


All documents relating to any possible or actual confusion between Applicant,





-7-

Applicant’s Mark, or Applicant’s Services, on the one hand, and Opposer, Opposer’s Marks, or

Opposer’s Services, on the other hand.


All communications between Applicant and any third-party referring or relating to

Opposer, Opposer’s Marks, and/or Opposer’s Services.


Documents sufficient to show Applicant’s efforts to enforce its rights in Applicant’s Mark

against any third party.


All documents referring or relating to Applicant’s policies regarding retention, storage,

filing and/or destruction of documents.


All documents and things identified in Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s Interrogatories

or that were reviewed or relied upon in the preparation of Applicant’s responses to Opposer’s

Interrogatories.


All documents and things relied upon in preparing Your responses to Opposer’s

Requests for Admission.


Documents sufficient to show any mention in the press of Applicant’s Mark, including

any Internet web pages, magazines, newspapers, or other printed publications that contain an

article or other story relating to services sold or offered for sale in connection with Applicant’s

Mark.


All documents referring or relating to any promotional activities Applicant has undertaken

in connection with Applicant’s Mark.





-8-


Documents and things sufficient to show Your continuous use of Applicant’s Mark in

connection with Applicant’s Services since the date of first use in commerce to present.


Documents and things referring or relating to all federal or state trademark registrations,

applications, or common law marks owned or used by Applicant, or any third party, upon which

Applicant will rely for any purpose in connection with the opposition filed against Applicant’s

Mark.


Documents and things that Applicant will rely on in support of any defense Applicant has

or will assert in this Opposition proceeding.


Documents sufficient to identify all retailers and distributors or anticipated retailers or

distributors for Applicant’s Services.


All documents relating to any objections made by Applicant to the use by others of

marks believed by Applicant to be confusingly similar to Applicant’s Mark or otherwise relating to

Applicant’s efforts to enforce its rights in Applicant’s Mark against any third-party.


All documents referring or relating to any contract or agreement, whether formal or

informal, that concern Applicant’s Mark or any variation thereof.

Respectfully submitted,

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP





-9-

Dated: November 11, 2020 By: /Nicole R. Townes/ Nicole R. Townes 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 760-0404 [email protected] Attorneys for Opposer, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.





-10-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS upon Applicant via email on

November 11, 2020, addressed as follows.

JOHN T DIGILIO JR INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SYSTEMS

[email protected] /Sarah Couvillion/

Sarah Beno Couvillion 33822492









EXHIBIT 2

-1-

RCC.014M TTAB




)))))))) )


OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1–42)

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 2.120(a) and (d) and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“FRCP”), Opposer Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Opposer”), hereby requests that

Applicant International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems (“Applicant”), answer

separately and fully, in writing and under oath, each of the following Interrogatories, within thirty

(30) days of service hereof.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions shall apply to each of the Interrogatories herein:

1. The term “Applicant” shall refer to International Integrated Transportation

Logistics Systems and any present or former owner, officer, director, employee, servant, agent,

attorney or other representative acting on behalf of it, and shall include any related entity, parent

corporation, or wholly-owned or partially-owned subsidiary, predecessor, successor, or affiliate.

2. The term “Opposer” shall refer to Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and any present

or former owner, officer, director, employee, servant, agent, attorney or other representative

acting on behalf of it, and shall include any parent corporation, or wholly-owned or partially-

owned subsidiary, predecessor, successor, or affiliate.

3. The terms “You” or “Your” shall mean Applicant.





-2-

4. The term “document” shall mean all writings, recordings, photographs, or other

documents within the scope of Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or Rule 34 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including without limitation written, printed, typed,

electronically stored, magnetically stored, optically stored, and visually or aurally reproduced

material of any kind, whether or not privileged. The term “document” shall include both the

original of a document and all distinct copies thereof, including, without limitation, copies that

are distinct due to the presence of notes made on or attached to the document.

5. The terms “all” and “each” shall be construed to include all and each.

6. The term “and” shall be construed to include “or” and vice versa, and shall be the

logical equivalent of “and/or,” as necessary in order to bring within the scope of the Interrogatory

all responses which might otherwise be construed as outside its scope.

7. The use of the singular form of any word also includes the plural and vice versa.

8. The phrases “use in commerce,” “use in United States commerce,” “used in

commerce” and “used in United States commerce,” and similar phrases, shall mean and refer to

the definition provided under 15 U.S.C. § 1127.

9. The term “person” shall include both natural persons and corporate or other

business entities, whether or not in the employ of Applicant, and the acts and knowledge of a

person are defined to include the acts and knowledge of that person’s directors, officers,

members, employees, representatives, agents and attorneys.

10. The term “date” means the exact day, month and year, if ascertainable and, if

not, the best approximation thereof.

11. The terms “trademark” or “mark” shall include trademarks, service marks,

collective marks, certification marks, and trade names as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1127.

12. The term “Applicant’s Mark” shall mean and refer to the mark ROYAL AIR

CARIBBEAN as shown in U.S. Trademark Application Serial Number 88/374505.





-3-

13. The term “Applicant’s Application” shall mean U.S. Trademark Application Serial

Number 88/374505.

14. The term “Applicant’s Services” shall mean and refer to the services Applicant

offers, distributes or sells, has offered, distributed or sold, or intends to offer, distribute or sell, in

connection with Applicant’s Mark, including, but not limited to, Applicant’s services identified in

Applicant’s Application, namely, “Air transport; Air transportation; Fully integrated global

transportation of passengers and cargo, namely, baggage, documents, packages, finished and

unfinished materials and letters by air, rail, or truck; Supply chain logistics and reverse logistics

services, namely, storage, transportation and delivery of documents, packages, finished and

raw materials and other cargo for others by air, rail, or truck; shipping and delivery services,

namely, pickup, transportation and delivery of cargo, packages and letters, by air, rail, or truck;

Re-packaging, namely, packaging goods and products of others for transportation; Product

palletization services for transportation purposes; Cargo handling, namely, handling the goods

and products of others for transportation purposes; Providing a web site and web site links to

geographic information, map images, and trip routing; Product container consolidation for

transportation purposes; Air transportation services featuring a frequent flyer and alliance

membership programs; Airline reservation services, namely, making reservations and bookings

for transportation by air; Airline and travel agency services, namely, making reservations and

bookings for scheduled and charter transportation services; Airport baggage check-in services;

Airport passenger check-in services; Providing flight arrival and departure information; Airport

services; Chauffeur, limousine, bus chartering, transport services essential to the transport of

persons and goods by air; Transportation services, namely, providing shuttle services by air,

bus, truck, or train; Coordinating travel arrangements for individuals and groups; Courier

services; Messenger services; Providing air transport for excursions and day trips for tourists by

air connecting to related transport by rail and ground; Providing air transport for sightseeing

travel tours by air, connecting to related transport by rail and ground” in International Class 39.





-4-

15. The term “Opposer’s Marks” shall collectively refer to all of Opposer’s marks

alleged in Opposer’s Notice of Opposition No. 91252883.

16. The term “Opposer’s Services” shall mean and refer to all of the services sold,

rendered, or offered for sale or intended to be sold, rendered, or offered for sale under

Opposer’s Marks or as alleged in Opposer’s Notice of Opposition No. 91252883.


1. All requests contained in the following Interrogatories to identify a person are to

be answered by providing sufficient information to enable the undersigned to contact the person

by telephone and mail and to serve legal documents on such person. If such person is a natural

person, please state his or her full name and current business (including employer name) and

residence addresses and telephone numbers. If such person is other than a natural person,

please state its full name and designation (i.e. corporation, LLC, etc.), principal business

address, and telephone number.

2. All requests contained in the following Interrogatories to identify a document

means to provide a description in terms sufficient that the document can be readily and

unambiguously sought in a Request for Production of Documents under Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. In lieu of such identification, Opposer will accept a clear and legible

copy of the document at the time Applicant answers this set of Interrogatories with a correlation

of the produced document to the Interrogatory number.

3. Applicant’s obligation to respond to these Interrogatories is continuing, and the

responses to the following Interrogatories are to be promptly supplemented to include

subsequently acquired information in accordance with the requirements of Rule 26(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.





-5-

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Identify each person involved with the design, development, creation, conception,

derivation, selection, adoption, or approval of Applicant’s Mark.


For each person identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, describe the person’s

involvement in the design, development, creation, conception, derivation, selection, adoption, or

approval of Applicant’s Mark.


Describe in detail the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s selection and adoption of

Applicant’s Mark.


Describe the reasons why Applicant’s Mark was selected.


Identify any variations of Applicant’s Mark that were considered, but not adopted or used

by You in connection with Applicant’s Services.


Describe all goods and services that have been promoted, sold, rendered, or offered

under Applicant’s Mark in the U.S.


Describe all goods and services that You plan or intend to offer, render, or sell under

Applicant’s Mark in the U.S.


For each of Applicant’s Services, identify the date that the service was first promoted,

offered, sold, or distributed in connection with Applicant’s Mark in the U.S.





-6-


Describe in detail circumstances surrounding when Applicant ceased using Applicant’s

Mark in connection with any of Applicant’s Services for any period of time.


State the net gross sales or anticipated sales on an annual basis (in units and dollars) of

each of Applicant’s Services in the United States since the first use of Applicant’s Mark in

commerce until present.


Describe the manner in which You advertise or plan to advertise Applicant’s Mark and/or

Applicant’s Services, including identifying the publications, radio stations, television stations,

websites, social media sites, advertising programs, or other media channels through which You

have promoted or plan to promote Applicant’s Mark and/or Applicant’s Services.


Identify the amount You have spent and plan to spend, on an annual basis, in

connection with marketing and advertising Applicant’s Mark and/or Applicant’s Services.


If You have not yet offered or sold certain goods and/or services under Applicant’s Mark

that You intend to offer or sell in the future, describe all steps undertaken by You to offer these

goods and/or services under Applicant’s Mark.


Describe the trade channels, including identifying by name all retail stores, websites, and

other outlets, through which Applicant’s Services have been sold or offered, are currently being

sold or offered, or will be sold or offered.


Describe any plans by You to expand the trade channels through which Applicant’s

Services are sold or offered.





-7-


Identify the geographic locations (by state) where Applicant’s Services have been sold,

offered, or distributed since the first use of Applicant’s Mark in commerce until present.


With respect to each geographic location identified in Interrogatory No. 16, state the

period of time during which Applicant’s Services were offered, rendered, distributed, and/or sold.


Identify any geographic locations (by state) where You intend to sell, offer, or distribute



State the average price or the average anticipated price for each of Applicant’s Services.


Describe any research (including, but not limited to, surveys, polls, market research,

investigations, analyses, studies or searches) conducted by You or on Your behalf involving

Applicant’s Mark and/or Applicant’s Services, including but not limited to, stating the person(s)

who authorized the research, when the research was conducted, the person(s) who conducted

the research, the reason the research was conducted, the results of the research, and

identifying all documents relating to the research.


Describe any research (including, but not limited to, surveys, polls, market research,

investigations, analyses, studies or searches) conducted by You or on Your behalf involving

Opposer’s Marks, including but not limited to, stating the person(s) who authorized the research,

when the research was conducted, the person(s) who conducted the research, the reason the

research was conducted, the results of the research, and identifying all documents relating to

the research.





-8-


Describe the circumstances under which You first became aware of Opposer, including

identifying when You first became aware of Opposer.


Describe the circumstances under which You first became aware of Opposer’s Marks,

including identifying when You first became aware of Opposer’s Marks.


Describe the circumstances under which You first became aware of Opposer’s Services,

including identifying when You first became aware of Opposer’s Services.


Describe in what way any of Opposer’s Marks were considered during the conception,

creation, development, and selection of Applicant’s Mark.


Describe any instances of actual or possible confusion of which You are aware between

Applicant, Applicant’s Mark, or Applicant’s Services, on the one hand, and Opposer, Opposer’s

Marks, or Opposer’s Services, on the other hand.


Identify each person whom You intend to call as a witness or expect will give evidence in

this proceeding and state the subject matter about which each witness is expected to testify.


Describe the target market and/or customer base for Applicant’s Services, including

identifying and describing the type of individual and demographics (such as age and gender) to

which You market or aim to market Applicant’s Services.





-9-


Identify all websites (including social media), online ad agencies, or online search

engines on which Applicant has promoted or intends to promote Applicant’s Mark or Applicant’s

Services.


Identify every person or entity that Applicant has authorized to use Applicant’s Mark.


Describe in detail any license agreement between Applicant and any third party relating

to Applicant’s Mark.


Describe any trademark searches conducted by or on behalf of Applicant in connection

with Applicant’s Mark.


Identify all advertising agencies, public relations agencies, or market research agencies

which Applicant has used, participated with, or cooperated with in connection with advertising,

marketing, or promoting Applicant’s Mark or Applicant’s Services.


Describe all third-party uses of Opposer’s Marks or marks that You contend are similar to

Opposer’s Marks, including identifying the third-party and describing the goods or services in

connection with which the mark was used by the third-party.


Identify any trade shows, conferences, or expositions attended by Applicant at which

Applicant revealed or promoted Applicant’s Mark or Applicant’s Services.


Describe in detail every instance in which Applicant has ever disclaimed any association

with Opposer, Opposer’s Services, and/or Opposer’s Marks.





-10-


Identify all persons who were consulted or participated in preparation of answers to

Opposer’s Interrogatories.


Describe all promotional activities Applicant has undertaken in connection with Applicant’s

Mark.


To the extent You contend that there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s

Mark and Opposer’s Marks, state the basis for Your contention.


Describe in detail the level of sophistication/degree of care of the average consumer of



Identify all opinions, written or oral, You have received relating to Opposer’s Services

and/or Opposer’s Marks, including, but not limited to, identifying the person(s) who sought the

opinion, the date the opinion was sought, the date the opinion was received, the person(s) who

provided the opinion, the person(s) who received the opinion, and the subject matter of the

opinion.


Identify and describe any inquiries or comments You have received from third-parties

relating to Opposer, Opposer’s Services, or Opposer’s Marks, including, but not limited to, stating

who made the inquiry/comment, who received the inquiry/comment, when the inquiry/comment

was received, the content of the inquiry/comment, and any steps taken by You after receiving the

inquiry/comment.





-11-

Respectfully submitted, KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP Dated: November 11, 2020 By: /Nicole R. Townes/ Nicole R. Townes 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 760-0404 [email protected] Attorneys for Opposer, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.





-12-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES upon Applicant via email on November 11, 2020, addressed as follows:


[email protected] /Sarah Couvillion/










EXHIBIT 3

1

RCC.014M TTAB

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD


))))))))))


OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (NOS. 1–21)

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.120 (a) and (i) and Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (“FRCP”), Opposer Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (“Opposer”) hereby requests that

Applicant International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems (“Applicant”) within thirty

(30) days, admit or deny, in writing and under oath, each of the following Requests for

Admissions subject to the following definitions and instructions.

DEFINITIONS

Opposer incorporates by reference the Definitions set forth in Opposer’s First Set of

Interrogatories served concurrently herewith.


1. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the Request for Admission, and when

good faith requires Applicant to qualify its answer or deny only a portion of a Request for

Admission, Applicant shall admit so much of it as true and qualify or deny the remainder.

2. Applicant shall not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to

admit or deny unless it states that it has made a reasonable inquiry and that the information

known or readily obtainable by Applicant is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.





2

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:

Admit that Opposer’s use of Opposer’s Marks predates the filing date of Applicant’s

Application.


Admit that the filing date for each application for Opposer’s Marks predates the filing

date of Applicant’s Application.


Admit that Opposer used Opposer’s Marks before Applicant used Applicant’s Mark.


Admit that prior to selecting Applicant’s Mark, Applicant was aware of Opposer.


Admit that prior to selecting Applicant’s Mark, Applicant was aware of one or more of

Opposer’s Marks.


Admit that prior to filing Applicant’s Application, Applicant was aware of Opposer.


Admit that prior to filing Applicant’s Application, Applicant was aware of one or more of

Opposer’s Marks.


Admit that Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Marks could be encountered by the same

class of consumers.


Admit that Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Marks are encountered by the same class of

consumers.


Admit that Applicant’s Services and Opposer’s Services travel through the same





3

channels of trade.


Admit that Applicant’s Application does not contain any restrictions as to the channels of

trade.


Admit that use of Applicant’s Mark in connection with Applicant’s Services damages

Opposer’s Marks.


Admit that registration of Applicant’s Mark in connection with Applicant’s Services

damages Opposer’s Marks.


Admit that Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Marks are similar in sound.


Admit that Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Marks are similar in meaning.


Admit that Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Marks are similar in appearance.


Admit that Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s Marks are similar in commercial impression.


Admit that Applicant is aware of instances of confusion between Applicant’s Mark and

Opposer’s Marks.


Admit that Applicant has received inquiries regarding Opposer, Opposer’s Marks or

Opposer’s Services.


Admit that a likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s Mark and Opposer’s

Marks.





4


Admit that Applicant has no bona fide intent to use Applicant’s Mark.

Respectfully submitted, KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP Dated: November 11, 2020 By: /Nicole R. Townes/ Nicole R. Townes 2040 Main Street Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 760-0404 [email protected] Attorneys for Opposer, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.





5


I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S FIRST SET OF

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS upon Applicant via email on November 11, 2020, addressed

as follows:


[email protected]

/Sarah Couvillion/










EXHIBIT 4

-1-

RCC.014M TTAB



Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.,

Opposer, v. International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems, Applicant.

)))))))))))))


Serial No.: 88/374505


OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF ROBERT KEMP

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.120, Chapter 404 of the

T.B.M.P., and Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Opposer Royal

Caribbean Cruises Ltd. will take the deposition upon oral examination of Robert Kemp, CEO for

Applicant International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems, in the matter of Royal

Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. International Integrated Transportation Logistics Systems, Opposition

No. 91252883. The deposition will commence online via Zoom on December 15, 2020 at 9 a.m.

PST, or at such other time and date as the parties may agree.

The deposition will be taken before and transcribed by a court reporter, notary public, or

other person authorized to administer oaths, and will be recorded stenographically. You are

invited to attend and cross-examine if you so desire.

KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP





-2-

Dated: November 18, 2020 By: /Nicole R. Townes/ Nicole R. Townes

Lauren Keller Katzenellenbogen Marissa M. Rosenbaum 2040 Main Street, 14th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 760-0404 [email protected]

Attorneys for Opposer, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.





mailto:[email protected]

-3-


I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing OPPOSER’S NOTICE OF

DEPOSITION OF ROBERT KEMP upon Applicant at the email address below, on November

18, 2020, addressed as follows:

JOHN T DIGILIO JR


/Sarah Couvillion/ Sarah Beno Couvillion 33906343





https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?corr=JOHN%20T%20DIGILIO%20JR

mailto:[email protected]





EXHIBIT 5

1

From: Nicole.Townes

Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:46 PM

To: Federal Dynamics Corporation

Cc: Doreen.Buluran

Subject: RE: DEPOSITIONS of: Richard D. Fain, Michael W. Bayley

Attachments: 2020-11-18 Opposer_s Notice of Deposition of Kemp - RCC.014M.PDF

Bob, I am following up on Royal Caribbean Cruises’ notice for your deposition on December 15, 2020. As set forth in our deposition notice, the deposition will be taken before a court reporter. Specifically, we intend to have a court reporter participate in the Zoom deposition and transcribe the testimony. Remote depositions have become standard during the pandemic to protect the safety of all participants and their families. Please let us know as soon as possible whether you intend to appear for your remote deposition on December 15, 2020. Regards, Nicole Nicole Townes Partner [email protected] 949-721-5261 Direct Knobbe Martens 2040 Main St., 14th Fl. Irvine, CA 92614 www.knobbe.com/nicole-townes From: Federal Dynamics Corporation <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:48 PM To: Nicole.Townes <[email protected]>; Sarah.Couvillion <[email protected]> Subject: DEPOSITIONS of: Richard D. Fain, Michael W. Bayley Nicole, 1. Please Note that: I I T L S, D/B/A: ROYAL AIR GROUP as (Applicant),,, intends to take the Deposition of both: RICHARD D. FAIN and MICHAEL W. BAYLEY. 2. At No Time will ROYAL AIR GROUP, agree to the Utilization of (" ZOOM ") for the purpose of executing any form of DEPOSITION of ROBERT ALAN KEMP due to the Technical Limitations and Specific Software Design(s) that are Natively Integrated within ZOOM that create both Security and Collected Data Verification/Manipulation opportunities. ROYAL AIR GROUP will require an acceptable: State Licensed and Certified " COURT REPORTER " to Record and Complete a Documented Transcript that will subsequently be Verified by any Individual(s) to be Deposed. 3. ROYAL AIR GROUP will File a Motion with the TTAB concerning the Timing and Method/Requirements for DEPOSITIONS, to include MOTIONS for Extensions of Time to conduct Depositions within the scope of COVID‐19. It's obviously important and efficient that the Initial Discovery Requests be completed prior to any Depositions... ROYAL CARIBBBEAN INTERNATIONAL may of course File a Reply to any Motion Filed by APPLICANT, as this is the only manner in which Opposer's Legal Council as ACTORS can Generate CASH for the their ENTERPISE, while they knowingly proceed within the scope of Unlawful Litigation knowingly and deliberately damaging APPLICANT. APPLICANT also intends to File





2

it's MOTION TO DISMISS prior to Any Scheduled Depositions in this case due to the Criminal Nature of the ongoing activities carried out by OPPOSER. 4. Please let me know the very second when OPPOSERS CRIUSE SHIPS have been Fitted with Wings so they can Fly in Earth Atmosphere. If any ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL or ROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP Buoyant Commercial Heavy Cruise Ship(s) designed to Sail with Passengers at SEA can FLY, then APPLICANT will within 24‐Hours of Receipt of Legal Factually Confirmed Verification of Said Buoyant Heavy Commercial Cruise Ship Flight by US‐FAA, proceed to TERMINATE its Valid and Lawful APPLICATION. 5. Please ask the individuals for which you represent as Clients to Round Up their Political Contribution Lists, as well as the Lists of ALL LOBBISTS that have and continue to establish contact for OPPOSER with any Government, International and Local Regulatory Authorities, and Known Associates of any and all Government(s); weather they be Elected, Appointed, and or Employed. We'll talk more about this when we get further into the Initial Discovery Requests. We just want You to warm up the entire ENTERPRISE... and all of the ACTORS so we can save critical time... 6. Finally, ROYAL AIR GROUP starting on January 1st., 2021 will file it's Statement of Use revising the Original Filing Basis for its Unique and Individual MARK: ROYAL AIR CARIBBEAN to (" A ") based on Actual Use in Commerce of it's Lawful MARK. Please be advised that APPLICANT is and has continued to use it's Lawful MARK... Sincerely, R. A. "BOB" KEMP I I T L S D/B/A: ROYAL AIR GROUP (702) 914‐ 7796 CELL: (702) 279‐ 9256 Please let me know when you would like to Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.









EXHIBIT 6

1

From: Nicole.Townes

Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:39 PM


Cc: Doreen.Buluran

Subject: RE: DEPOSITIONS of: Richard D. Fain, Michael W. Bayley

Mr. Kemp, Contrary to your assertions, your voicemail made no mention of my request for a meet and confer regarding Opposer’s motion to compel. In your voicemail, you simply requested Royal Caribbean’s consent to reopen discovery. In fact, you claim to have not received my request for a meet and confer until today. However, your voicemail was left yesterday. Please provide me with your availability for a meet and confer on Monday or Tuesday of next week. Alternatively, please immediately provide us with Applicant’s responses to our Interrogatories and Requests for Production and a date for your deposition. We strongly disagree with the allegations in your email. Further, we request that you adhere to the Board’s Order dated May 4, 2020 in your future correspondence. Specifically, “the Board expects the parties appearing before it to behave civilly in all matters and to cooperate with one another in the discovery process.” Regards, Nicole Nicole Townes Partner [email protected] 949-721-5261 Direct Knobbe Martens 2040 Main St., 14th Fl. Irvine, CA 92614 www.knobbe.com/nicole-townes From: Federal Dynamics Corporation <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 4:21 PM To: Nicole.Townes <[email protected]> Subject: RE: DEPOSITIONS of: Richard D. Fain, Michael W. Bayley Nicole... 1. You just can't stop Lying. I've been sitting here waiting for Your Call so we can CONFER, and You REFUSE to MAKE THE CALL... I have already Called You Yesterday at: 1:50‐PM. and left a Message on Your Office Voicemail System. 2. Please proceed to file anything you can possibly think of to the BOARD without Delay, and I will simply Respond with the TRUTH... Can You Imagine That... ! ! ! In the meantime, You can RESPOND to our MOTION for RETROACTIVE Extension of Time to complete Discovery. 3. Watching the ENTERPRISE attempt to use the PANDEMIC as the means to Procedurally Win a TRADEMARK APPEAL is Nothing less then Disgusting, but it appears that this is precisely what and who You and Your Clients are... a Criminal ENTERPRISE. There is NO CASE to be made within the scope of Trademark Law regarding our Legitimate APPLICATION





2

for our own Original Mark: ROYAL AIR CARIBBEAN... (I guess You didn't like the Answers to OPPOSERS ADMISSIONS...) so Now You will Proceed to LIE to the BOARD... R. A. "BOB" KEMP I I T L S (702) 914‐ 7796 CELL: (702) 279‐ 9256 Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, December 18, 2020 2:24 PM, Nicole.Townes <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Kemp,

Royal Caribbean is not agreeable to reopening the discovery period.

We disagree with the numerous misrepresentations in your email. Given your refusal to provide your availability for a meet and confer, make yourself available for a remote deposition (which has become standard practice during the pandemic), or respond to our Requests for Production or Interrogatories, we will be proceeding with a motion to compel.

Regards,

Nicole

Nicole Townes

Partner

[email protected]

949-721-5261 Direct

Knobbe Martens

2040 Main St., 14th Fl.

Irvine, CA 92614

www.knobbe.com/nicole-townes





3

From: Federal Dynamics Corporation <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 11:08 AM To: Nicole.Townes <[email protected]> Subject: RE: DEPOSITIONS of: Richard D. Fain, Michael W. Bayley

Nicole,

1. I just picked up your email this morning: December 18th., 2020. I have been working in the Field to resolve three Concurrent Urgent EMERGENCY Situations as a direct and Proximate Result of COVID‐19 and haven't even seen Your email until just NOW... Time: 9:50‐AM. Pacific... I have already called Your Office Yesterday at: 1:50‐PM. Pacific, and have Not Received any Return Call whatsoever. However, I will Copy and Paste Your current Message to Me dated December 16th., to the Board You Just Sent 2‐Days ago, so the Board clearly understands that You Too Seek additional time to Complete Discovery, and conversely that I I T L S intends to obtain Discovery from Your Firm while Your act within the scope of an ENTERPRISE along with Your Client... You can be assured that ( I I T L S ) will take Any and All Steps available to ensure that Discovery is Completed in this Specific Case... including the Depositions of both: Richard D. Fain, and Michael W. Bayley.

2. As You very well know, I have Not Refused to Appear for ANY Deposition that is Not Recorded by and thru a Third Party using Digital Equipment Technologies. In Fact, I did Respond immediately regarding Your Notice of Electronic Deposition, and You in Fact knowingly and deliberately failed to Respond Ignoring My Specific Completely Justified Reply delivered in the English Text Language. (will you ever learn how to STOP LYING ? ? ?) Why don't You go ahead and LIE to the BOARD right now, and go ahead without delay and File the: Motion to Compel that You are Now Describing in the instant email message that is Part and Parcel to a Documented Stipulation to our forthcoming MOTION FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION of TIME for Discovery.

3. As stated in My Last Two emails and now for the Third Time... I will be Filing a Motion to the Board for a Retro‐Active Extension of Time to complete Discovery. I will also mention the Problematic Issue with the Third Party Electronic Digital Recording Methodology for which I will never agree to nor comply with under any circumstances as this Methodology OPENS THE DOOR AS A MASSIVE SECURITY RISK leading to Catastrophic Damage to I I T L S and its Shareholders, as well as its CEO.

4. I have already transmitted the Preliminary Copy of the I I T L S Answers to ADMISSIONS for Your Review Yesterday, December 17th., 2020. The Final Reformatted Copy of the Same Identical ANSWERS to OPPOSERS ADMISSIONS will be Transmitted to You by email, as well as to the BOARD as an Exhibit, and will be mailed to Your Office as a Hard Copy. You will also be Receiving APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, at the same time that will also be Copied to the Board as an Exhibit...

R. A. "BOB" KEMP





4

I I T L S: D/B/A: ROYAL AIR GROUP

(702) 914‐ 7796

CELL: (702) 279‐ 9256

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:07 PM, Nicole.Townes <[email protected]> wrote:

Bob,

You failed to respond to my email below and refused to appear for your deposition. In addition, you failed to respond to Opposer’s discovery requests by the December 11th deadline. Please provide me with your availability this week for a meet and confer. If we do not hear from you and receive your discovery responses and a date for your deposition, we will have no choice but to proceed with a motion to compel.

Regards,

Nicole

Nicole Townes

Partner

[email protected]

949-721-5261 Direct

Knobbe Martens

2040 Main St., 14th Fl.

Irvine, CA 92614

www.knobbe.com/nicole-townes









EXHIBIT 7

1

From: Nicole.Townes

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 4:11 PM


Cc: Doreen.Buluran

Subject: RE: ADMISSABLE DIARY of Appx: 10-Minute Telephone Discussion at: 11:15-AM. December 22nd.,

2020.

Mr. Kemp, As I explained during our call today, Applicant’s Requests for Admission served via email today are improper. Per T.B.M.P. § 403.02, a party may not serve discovery until it has made its initial disclosures. Applicant has yet to serve initial disclosures in this proceeding. Your representation that you will be the individual “designated under Initial Disclosures as the Point of Contact for Applicant” is insufficient to meet the requirements for initial disclosures. See T.B.M.P. § 401.02. Moreover, Applicant’s Requests for Admission were served after the close of discovery, and thus, they are untimely. See T.B.M.P. § 403.01. Accordingly, Opposer will not be responding to Applicant’s Requests for Admission at this time. Applicant has also failed to serve any notices of deposition and discovery has now closed. Thus, any deposition notices served by Applicant would be untimely. See T.B.M.P. § 403.01. Further, as I explained, we do not believe that it is necessary for Applicant to depose Opposer’s CEO in connection with this proceeding. Applicant’s representation that it intends to depose Opposer’s CEO appears to be for the sole purpose of harassment. Opposer has identified another witness with knowledge relevant to this proceeding in its Initial Disclosures whom Applicant failed to depose. In contrast, based on your representations, it appears that Applicant intends to identify you as having knowledge relevant to this proceeding. During our meet and confer regarding Opposer’s motion to compel, you refused to provide a date certain by which Applicant would serve its responses to Opposer’s Requests for Production and Interrogatories. As we discussed, these requests were served on November 11, 2020, and thus Applicant’s responses were due on December 11, 2020. Further, discovery closed on December 16, 2020. In addition, you represented that you will not be making yourself available for a remote deposition, despite Opposer’s notice of deposition served on November 18, 2020. You insisted that your deposition be conducted in‐person. As I explained, we do not believe in‐person depositions are feasible or safe at this time given the pandemic. Accordingly, Opposer will be proceeding with a motion to compel. Lastly, a party who seeks to reopen the time for taking action must show that its failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. T.B.M.P. § 509.01(b). We do not believe that Applicant has demonstrated excusable neglect. Applicant’s sole reason for its failure to conduct discovery during the discovery period is a general reference to the pandemic. This is insufficient to establish excusable neglect. Thus, as I previously represented, Opposer is not agreeable to Applicant’s request to reopen discovery. Regards, Nicole Nicole Townes Partner [email protected] 949-721-5261 Direct

Knobbe Martens 2040 Main St., 14th Fl. Irvine, CA 92614 www.knobbe.com/nicole-townes





2

From: Federal Dynamics Corporation <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 12:40 PM To: Nicole.Townes <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ADMISSABLE DIARY of Appx: 10‐Minute Telephone Discussion at: 11:15‐AM. December 22nd., 2020. Nicole, 1. This message confirms some of the most Critical Information concerning the Content of our Appx: 10‐Minute Telephone Discussion today. 2. As discussed for the last week with you on and off by email, I am already working to File a MOTION to the BOARD to: RE‐OPEN DISCOVERY, and for RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY effectively RE‐SETTING the TRIAL/CASE SCHEDULE. 3. I just confirmed to You that I am the Individual that will be designated under Initial Disclosures as the Point of Contact for APPLICANT. Now You have this FACT confirmed in Writing, and further this FACT will be Filed with the BOARD. In addition, Please confirm the RULE OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE or BOARD RULE that "BARR'S" APPLICANTS provision/submission/presentation of REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS prior to the Filing of Initial Disclosures as You now ASSERT . ? ? ? As a result of Your Assertion, I will now File a Separate Motion Requesting the ADMISSION of EVIDENSE in the form of APLICANTS FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS retroactive to OPPOSER on the Date and Time of Provision to OPPOSER by APPLICANT ‐Via‐ email. 4. I just confirmed that You do Not Want APPLICANT to Supplement it's ANSWERS to ADMISSIONS, but that in the event that I choose to do so this will be acceptable to OPPOSER. I also asked You if You wanted me to More Precisely EXPLAIN Right Now TODAY,,, "THE BASIS OF ANY OF THE DENIALS" contained in APPLICANT'S ANSWERS to ADMISSIONS as a means to Narrow the Scope of the Case before the BOARD, and You simply Replied in a Single Word: (" NO... "). 5. I just confirmed (while intending to comply with the scope of COOPERATION as Ordered by the BOARD within the SCOPE OF DISCOVERY as You have recently Sited), that I can answer any questions relating to the Provision of APPLICANTS REQUESTS for ADMISSIONS as a means to Narrow the SCOPE of the CASE before the BOARD, and You simply Replied in a Single Word: (" NO... "). 6. I just confirmed that I will make my self available for Contemporaneous Deposition once the Board has made a Decision Regarding the TRIAL/CASE SCHEDULE following the Filing of My Motion to the BOARD to RE‐OPEN and EXTEND DISCOVERY, so both Parties can Complete Discovery once I am capable of Retaining Legal Counsel. You Replied that OPPOSER will Object to the Deposition of OPPOSERS CEO's by APPLICANT, based on the Allegation that such Deposition would be considered by OPPOSER in Your Own Words to be an act of: (" Harassment "). I replied that I am CEO of APPLICANTS Corporation, with words to the effect that based on the Premise for which You are now Alleging Harassment of OPPOSERS CEO, that I Allege HARRASMENT of My‐Self as CEO of our Corporation. The BASIS upon which You now Allege that You REFUSE to Submit Your CEO's to Deposition by APPLICANT is Baseless. I will Mention the FACT that OPPOSER Refuses to SUBMIT to DEPOSITIONS to the BOARD, and will confer with Legal Counsel and proceed with Motion Practice as necessary to protect the Interests of: I I T L S/ROYAL AIR GROUP. 7. In Conclusion, I confirmed that You as Counsel for OPPOSER that will get everything You want with the Scope of Discovery to Include Depositions as long as we have a Level Playing Field. Depositions are Part of Discovery, thus I will confirm to the BOARD that You in FACT continue to seek Discovery in the form of; Depositions, Answers to





3

Disclosures, and Answers to Interrogatories. OBVIOUSLY based on the actual ACTIONS and INTENT of OPPOSER, in FACT both Parties Seek to RE‐OPEN and RETROACTIVELY EXTEND TIME FOR DISCOVERY. 8. APPLICANTS REQUEST: Please immediately document back to me ‐Via‐ email the Legal Factual and Practical Basis and Extent for which OPPOSER will be Damaged from a Mutual Stipulation by both OPPOSER and APPLICANT to: RE‐OPEN and RETROACTIVELY EXTEND TIME FOR DISCOVERY. ? ? ? 9. Finally, If any portion of the instant DIARY is Incorrect, then Please immediately provide Your Objections/Corrections to same so we have an Accurate Record of the Statements Made by both OPPOSER and APPLICANT with regard to TODAY'S Telephone Conversation. Finally, I concluded the Conversation by stating that there is NO RATIONAL NOR PROCEEDURAL BASIS for which You representing OPPOSER are Required to FILE MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WITH DISCOVERY THEREBY providing Answers to Interrogatories, Response to Document Requests, and the Deposition of APPLICANTS CEO, as APPLICANT intends to Fully Comply with Discovery once the BOARD Proceeds to RE‐OPEN and EXTEND TIME FOR DISCOVERY as long as we have a Level Playing Field. If You want to FILE MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY in the form of APPLICANTS Answers to Interrogatories, Response to Document Requests, and the Deposition of APPLICANTS CEO, Please proceed as You deem necessary to protect the interests of the ENTERPRISE... R. A. "BOB" KEMP I I T L S (702) 914‐ 7796 CELL: (702) 279‐ 9256 Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:06 AM, Nicole.Townes <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Kemp,

I just tried calling you back. Can you please call me at 949‐721‐5261?

Thank you,

Nicole

From: Federal Dynamics Corporation <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 10:21 AM To: Nicole.Townes <[email protected]>; Doreen.Buluran <[email protected]>; Sarah.Couvillion <[email protected]> Subject: Preliminary Outline: APPLICANTS FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS





4

Nicole,

1. Please find the attached Preliminary Copy of APPLICANTS FIRST SET OF ADMISSIONS that will be Revised and Re‐Formatted for submission to OPPOSER and the BOARD. I just wanted to ensure that You obtain a Copy of the Same Identical ADMISSIONS REQUESTS that I will be Filing to You and the Board TODAY so You can formulate answers.

2. I'm still working on the MOTION to the BOARD for A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY that will include a MOTION to RE‐OPEN DISCOVERY based on the effects of COVID‐19. I will email You Copies of these Motions as soon as they are Filed with the Board. I hope to be finished TODAY...

3. I have Not emailed the Interlocutory Attorney Yet regarding Objections and Issues such as the Manner and Time in which Depositions will be executed. I will Copy You on this email message so as previously stated, You can Weigh In...

4. I will be here standing by to take Your Call in Appx: 40‐Minutes at: 11:00‐AM. Pacific Time.

Sincerely, R. A. "BOB" KEMP

ROYAL AIR GROUP

(702) 914‐ 7796

CELL: (702) 279‐ 9256

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.



