estta tracking number: estta1096349 11/18/2020
Post on 19-Jan-2022
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1096349
Filing date: 11/18/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Proceeding 91246685
Party DefendantGoose Country, LLC
CorrespondenceAddress
AISHA POSTELLPOWELL & ROMAN, LLC131 WHITE OAK LANEOLD BRIDGE, NJ 08857UNITED STATESPrimary Email: apostell@lawppl.comSecondary Email(s): madams@lawppl.com, wkugelman@lawppl.com732-679-3777
Submission Motion to Amend/Amended Answer or Counterclaim
Filer's Name Aisha Postell
Filer's email apostell@lawppl.com, madams@lawppl.com
Signature /AISHA POSTELL/
Date 11/18/2020
Attachments Motion for Leave to File Amended Answers .pdf(914544 bytes )
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND APPLICANT’S ANSWERS TO ASSERT ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Applicant, Goose Country, LLC (“Applicant”), through counsel and pursuant to TBMP
§ 507.01 and USCS Fed Rules Civ Proc R 15(a), respectfully moves the Board for leave to amend
its Answers to the Notice of Opposition filed by Canada Goose, Inc. (“Opposer”), Opposition No.
91246685 (“Opposition”), to include the affirmative defenses of estoppel (sixth affirmative
defense), contractual estoppel (seventh affirmative defense), unclean hands (eighth affirmative
defense), and acquiescence (ninth affirmative defense).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. On November 29, 2018 Opposer filed a request for a 30-day Extension to Oppose
Applicant’s applications filed under Serial No. 87/788277 for GOOSE COUNTRY and Serial No.
87/788663 for ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY, which was granted.
2. The parties began settlement negotiations in December of 2018.
3. On December 28, 2018 Opposer requested an additional 60-day Extension to Oppose,
which was granted.
Canada Goose Inc., ) ) ) )
Opposition No. 91246685
Opposer, Mark: GOOSE COUNTRY
) Serial No. 87/788277
v. )
) Mark: ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Goose Country, LLC, )
) )
Serial No. 87/788663
Filing Date: February 7, 2018
Applicant. )
) Publication Date: October 30, 2018
2
4. Opposer filed its Opposition on February 27, 2019.
5. After over a year of settlement negotiations, on February 18, 2020 Opposer agreed to
withdraw its Opposition to the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY application Serial No. 87/788663
so long as Applicant agreed to certain limitations, which Applicant agreed, and so long as
Applicant withdrew its application for the GOOSE COUNTRY mark Serial No. 87/788277, of
which Applicant also agreed.
6. On May 11, 2020 Opposer’s counsel prepared the formal settlement agreement. A true
and accurate copy of the settlement agreement prepared by Opposer’s counsel is attached to the
Declaration of Aisha Postell (“Postell Declaration”) as Exhibit A.
7. No changes were made to the agreed upon material terms of the settlement agreement
by Applicant.
8. In reliance on Opposer’s agreement to no longer oppose the registration of ORIGINAL
GOOSE COUNTRY, Applicant, inter alia, ordered new inventory with the ORIGINAL GOOSE
COUNTRY mark, expended costs to change branding, and settled with third-parties (which
Opposer was advised of same on June 22, 2020) based on the agreement with Opposer.
9. On July 6, 2020, Opposer advised that it was backing out of its agreement as set forth
above, apparently due to a change in corporate counsel.
10. Applicant put Opposer on notice that it considered the agreement to be binding.
11. Opposer advised that as of November 9, 2020 it is unwilling to honor its agreement.
12. Applicant now respectfully moves to add the affirmative defenses of Estoppel,
Contractual Estoppel, Unclean Hands, and Acquiescence based on its position that the parties
entered into a binding settlement agreement of which Applicant relied upon.
13. Applicant has not previously requested leave to amend its pleadings in this matter.
3
14. The affirmative defenses of Estoppel, Contractual Estoppel, Unclean Hands, and
Acquiescence are valid defenses under the Board’s rules. See TBMP § 311.02(b)(1).
15. Pursuant to TBMP § 507.01, a red-lined copy showing the proposed changes to the
Amended Answers are attached to the Postell Declaration as Exhibit B.
16. Copies of Applicant’s proposed First Amended Answers are attached to the Postell
Declaration as Exhibit C.
LEGAL STANDARD
Trademark Rule 2.107(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.107(a), provides that “pleadings in an opposition
proceeding may be amended in the same manner and to the same extent as in a civil action in a
United States district court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), applicable to this proceeding pursuant to
Trademark Rule 2.116(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a), encourages the Board to look favorably on
motions to amend, stating that the Board “should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
“Ordinarily, the Court should grant leave to amend whenever doing so will not unduly
delay trial of the case or prejudice the other party.” Microsoft Corp. v. Qantel Business Systems
Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1732, 1733 (TTAB 1990) (citing Flatley v. Trump, 11 USPQ2d 1284, 1286
(TTAB 1989)). Furthermore, a proposed amendment may serve simply to amplify allegations
already included in the moving party’s pleading. See Avedis Zildjian Co. v. D. H. Baldwin Co.,
180 USPQ 539, 541 (TTAB 1973) (allegations amplified); TBMP § 507.02. The granting of a
motion for leave to amend a pleading is within the discretion of the Board and is allowed when
justice so requires. Trek Bicycle Corp. v. StyleTrek Ltd., 64 USPQ2d 1540, 1541 (TTAB 2001).
Here, it is Applicant’s contention that the parties entered into a binding settlement
agreement and, in view thereof, respectfully requests that the Board allow it to amend its answers
to include the aforesaid affirmative defenses. Justice requires that Applicant be allowed to add
4
estoppel, contractual estoppel, unclean hands, and acquiescence as affirmative defenses because
the agreement between the parties will defeat Opposer’s claims. The motion to amend is timely
and will not result in any prejudice to Opposer.
WHEREFORE, Applicant prays for an Order of the Board granting Applicant leave to
file the First Amended Answers.
Dated: November 18, 2020 By: _______________________________
Aisha Postell (145622015)
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Email: apostell@lawppl.com
Telephone: (732) 679-3777
Facsimile: (732) 679-6433
ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 18, 2020, a copy of Applicant’s MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND APPLICANT’S ANSWERS AND DECLARATION OF AISHA
POSTELL WITH EXHIBITS was sent via electronic mail to counsel for Canada Goose, Inc. at
the following address:
Scott W. Johnston
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2200
P.O. BOX 2910
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
sjohnston@merchantgould.com
slindemeier@merchantgould.com
dockmpls@merchantgould.com
Dated: November 18, 2020 By:
Aisha Postell (145622015)
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, New Jersey 08857
Email: apostell@lawppl.com
Telephone: (732) 679-3777
Facsimile: (732) 679-6433
ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
DECLARATION OF AISHA POSTELL IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND APPLICANT’S ANSWERS
I, Aisha Postell, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Powell & Roman, LLC, counsel for Applicant,
Goose Country, LLC (“Applicant”) in the above-captioned matter. I am fully familiar with this
matter and the facts stated herein.
2. I submit this Declaration in support of Applicant’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Applicant’s Answers to assert additional affirmative defenses.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the settlement agreement
prepared by Opposer, Canada Goose, Inc.’s counsel.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct red-line copy showing Applicant’s
proposed changes to Applicant’s Answers.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct clean copy of Applicant’s proposed First
Amended Answers.
I, AISHA POSTELL, declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States that the foregoing is true and correct.
Canada Goose Inc., )
)
)
)
Opposition No. 91246685
Opposer, Mark: GOOSE COUNTRY ) Serial No. 87/788277
v. )
) Mark: ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Goose Country, LLC, )
)
)
Serial No. 87/788663
Filing Date: February 7, 2018
Applicant. )
) Publication Date: October 30, 2018
Dated: November 18, 2020 By:
Aisha Postell (145622015)
EXHIBIT A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, effective as of the date it is fully executed by all parties (the
“Effective Date”), is made by and between Canada Goose Inc., a Canadian corporation, with its
principal place of business at 250 Bowie Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6E4Y2 (“Canada Goose”), and Goose Country, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, with its principal place of
business at 10 Bramble Lane, Matawan, New Jersey 07747 (“Goose Country”).
WHEREAS, Canada Goose owns, among others, U.S. Registration No. 4,455,111
for the mark CANADA GOOSE for use in connection with “outerwear, namely, coats, parkas,
jackets, vests, pullovers, shirts, headwear, scarves, gloves, and mittens, substantially made of
goose down, where applicable” in International Class 25, U.S. Registration No. 5,558,213 for the
mark CANADA GOOSE for use in connection with “retail store services featuring outerwear,
clothing, apparel, footwear, and headwear and online retail store services featuring outerwear,
clothing, apparel, footwear, and headwear” in International Class 35, U.S. Registration No.
3,254,771 for the mark CANADA GOOSE (& Design) for use in connection with “clothing,
namely, parkas, coats, jackets, pullovers, vests, sweaters, shirts, anoraks, and headwear,
substantially made of goose down, where applicable” in International Class 25, and U.S.
Registration No. 5,598,313 for the mark CANADA GOOSE (& Design) for use in connection
with “retail store services featuring outerwear, clothing, apparel, and headwear and online retail
store services featuring outerwear, clothing, apparel, and headwear” In International Class 35
(together, the “CANADA GOOSE Marks”).
WHEREAS, after Canada Goose first adopted, used, and filed applications to register its
CANADA GOOSE Marks in the United States, Goose Country began to produce and sell certain
outerwear goods and accessories under its GOOSE COUNTRY and ORIGINAL GOOSE
COUNTRY marks and applied to register the mark GOOSE COUNTRY in U.S. Serial No.
87/788,277 for use in connection with “outerwear, namely, coats, hats, and sweatshirts,” in International Class 25 and “on-line retail store services featuring outerwear” in International Class 35 and the mark ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY in U.S. Serial No. 87/788,663 for use in
connection with “outerwear, namely, coats, hats, and sweatshirts,” in International Class 25 (together, the “GOOSE COUNTRY Marks,” and individually, the “GOOSE COUNTRY Mark” and the “ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Mark”);
WHEREAS, on or about February 27, 2019, Canada Goose file a Notice of Opposition
opposing registration of Goose Country’s GOOSE COUNRY Marks with the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Opposition”).
WHEREAS, without either party admitting any fault, the parties mutually agree to settle
the aforementioned Opposition subject to and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual
covenants, promises, and agreements hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
covenant, promise, and agree as follows:
2
1. Incorporation of Prefatory Clauses
All of the foregoing prefatory clauses are incorporated by reference herein.
2. Express Abandonment of GOOSE COUNTRY Trademark Application
Goose Country shall withdraw its application to register the GOOSE COUNTRY Mark in
U.S. Serial No. 87/788,277, by signing concurrently with the execution of this Agreement for
filing with the TTAB, the Withdrawal of Application With Prejudice and Dismissal of
Opposition Without Prejudice attached hereto as Exhibit A, and refrain from filing any new
applications for the GOOSE COUNTRY Mark or any GOOSE mark other than the ORIGINAL
GOOSE COUNTRY Mark of U.S. Serial No. 87/788,663. Goose Country also consents to
Canada Goose’s dismissal of the Opposition without prejudice.
Canada Goose shall dismiss the Opposition without prejudice by signing and filing with
the TTAB the Withdrawal of Application With Prejudice and Dismissal of Opposition Without
Prejudice attached hereto as Exhibit A. Canada Goose consents to Goose Country’s registration of the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Mark in U.S. Serial No. 87/788,663 for the goods
recited therein.
3. Restrictions on Use
a. Goose Country agrees and promises to immediately cease all worldwide use of
the GOOSE COUNTRY Mark, including any advertisement, manufacture or sales of goods or
services under the same, and to never use the GOOSE COUNTRY Mark, or any mark
confusingly similar to Canada Goose’s CANADA GOOSE Marks, in connection with the promotion, marketing or sale of any goods or services, including as a trademark, trade name,
service mark, slogan, logo, domain name, social media name, or advertising keyword. This
applies to use of such marks in text or images on Goose Country’s websites, social media accounts, advertisements, brochures, catalogs, and the like. Notwithstanding the forgoing,
Goose Country may use the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Mark so long as the use complies
with this Agreement.
b. Goose Country also agrees not to use a circular shaped patch on the arms of it
coats, jackets and sweatshirts.
c. Goose Country also agrees not to use a red border as an outline on any patches or
logos that it places its coats, jackets, hats or sweatshirts. This limitation shall not preclude Goose
Country from using the color red within the patch or logo itself.
4. Consent to Register ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Mark and Use Thereof
3
Canada Goose consents to Goose Country’s use and registration of the ORIGINAL
GOOSE COUNTRY Mark in U.S. Serial No. 87/788,663 for “outerwear, namely, coats, hats, and sweatshirts,” in International Class 25, and will dismiss the Opposition by signing and filing
with the TTAB the Withdrawal of Application With Prejudice and Dismissal of Opposition
Without Prejudice attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5. Breach
The parties agree that if Goose Country is found to be in material breach or violation of
this Agreement, Canada Goose will suffer ongoing, irreparable, and actual harm in an amount
that would not be easily calculated. In such event, Goose Country shall be entitled to immediate
and permanent injunctive relief plus its attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses incurred in
enforcing this Agreement. In the event Canada Goose suspects Goose Country to be in breach or
violation of this Agreement, Canada Goose shall first provide written notice thereof to Goose
Country, and Goose Country shall have thirty (30) days to cure said breach before being found to
be in breach or violation.
6. Scope of Agreement
The parties intend the scope of this Agreement to be in full force and effect on a global
basis. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating a joint venture,
partnership, agency, or employment relationship between the parties.
7. Mutual Release of Claims by the Parties
Canada Goose and Goose Country, together with their assigns, predecessors-in-interest,
successors-in-interest, divisions, all affiliated parent or subsidiary corporations or entities,
agents, officers, directors, employees, managers, supervisors, insurers, representatives, attorneys,
partners, joint venturers, and any and all persons or entities who have at any time acted, or
purported to act on their behalf, absolutely and forever, release and discharge each other,
together with each other’s assigns, predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, divisions, all
affiliated, parent or subsidiary corporations or entities, agents, officers, directors, partners,
employees, managers, supervisors, insurers, representatives, attorneys, partners, joint venturers,
and any and all other persons or entities who have at any time acted, or purported to act on their
behalf, from all claims, demands, rights, duties, obligations, liabilities and causes of action,
whether known or unknown, and existing at any time prior to the Effective Date of this
Agreement, which shall be satisfied, acquitted, discharged and released, whether foreseen or
unforeseen, contingent or actual. This release specifically excludes any action to enforce the
terms of this Agreement.
8. Costs and Fees
Each party shall bear its own fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
4
9. Notices
All notices required or permitted to be made or given pursuant to this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be considered as properly given or made when emailed to the respective
addresses set forth below:
If to Canada Goose: Scott W. Johnston
Merchant & Gould P.C
150 South 5th Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
sjohnston@merchantgould.com
If to Goose Country: Aisha Farraj
Powell & Roman, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Oak Bridge, New Jersey 08857
afarraj@lawppl.com
10. Entire Agreement
This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement of the parties and
supersedes any and all oral or written agreements or understandings between the parties as to the
subject matter of this Agreement. It may be changed, waived, or modified only by a writing
signed by the parties. No party to this Agreement is relying upon any warranties, representations,
assurances, or inducements not expressly set forth herein. No waiver of any provision, condition,
or breach of this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any other provision, condition, or
breach.
11. Successors & Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties and their
respective heirs, personal representatives, devisees, successors in trust, successors and assigns,
administrators, officers, directors, shareholders, members, managers, partners, agents,
employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, parent corporations, affiliates, successors in interest,
successors through merger or corporate restructure, and successors through a sale of all or
substantially all of the assets or business, and anyone else acting on their behalf.
12. Authority to Bind Parties
Each party represents and warrants that it has full power to enter into this Agreement, to
carry out the obligations contained herein, and to grant the rights granted herein, and further
represents and warrants that its performance of this Agreement does not and shall not breach any
agreement by which such party is bound.
5
13. Counterparts
For the convenience of the parties, this Agreement may be executed by facsimile
signature and in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all
of which will constitute but one and the same instrument.
14. Construction
All parties acknowledge and agree that they have had the opportunity to be represented by
counsel of their choosing and acknowledge and agree that this Agreement was drafted
collaboratively by the parties. In no event shall the language of this Agreement be construed to
favor one party over another on the basis that such party was the drafter of the provision or
Agreement.
15. No Waiver
The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any obligation of the other
party hereunder, irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, shall not be a
waiver of its right to demand strict compliance in the future. No consent or waiver, expressed or
implied by either party, by either party to or of any breach or default in the performance of
obligation hereunder by the other party shall constitute a consent or waiver to or of any other
breach or default in the performance of the same or any other obligation hereunder.
16. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
17. Validity of Provisions
Any invalidity, in whole or in part, of any provision of this Agreement will not affect the
validity of any other of its provisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this Agreement as of
the date first written above.
CANADA GOOSE INC.
___________________________________
Date: By:
Printed Name:
Title:
6
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC
___________________________________
Date: By:
Printed Name:
Title:
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
) Opposition No. 91246685
Canada Goose Inc., )
) Mark: GOOSE COUNTRY
Opposer, )
) Serial No.: 87/788277
v. )
) Filing Date: February 7, 2018
Goose Country, LLC, )
) Publication Date: October 30, 2018
Applicant. )
) Mark: ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY
Serial No.: 87/788663
Filing Date: February 7, 2018
Publication Date: October 30, 2018
WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION WITH PREJUDICE AND
DISMISSAL OF OPPOSITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Applicant, through counsel, hereby withdraws and abandons with prejudice Application
Serial No. 87/778277 for the mark GOOSE COUNTRY.
Opposer, through counsel, hereby dismisses Opposition No. 91246685 without prejudice.
Applicant, through counsel, hereby consents to the dismissal of Opposition No. 91246685
without prejudice.
CANADA GOOSE INC. GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC By its Attorneys, By its Attorneys,
Date Date
Scott W. Johnston Aisha Farraj
Merchant & Gould P.C Powell & Roman, LLC
150 South 5th Street, Suite 2200 131 White Oak Lane
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Oak Bridge, New Jersey 08857
sjohnston@merchantgould.com afarraj@lawppl.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing WITHDRAWAL OF
APPLICATION WITH PREJUDICE AND DISMISSAL OF OPPOSITION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE was served on the following attorney of record for Applicant by email this __ day
of May, 2020:
Aisha Farraj
Powell & Roman, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Oak Bridge, New Jersey 08857
afarraj@lawppl.com
Scott W. Johnston
EXHIBIT B
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
CANADA GOOSE INC.
Opposer,
v.
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC,
Applicant.
Proceeding No.: 91246685
Application No.: 87/788,277
Trademark: GOOSE COUNTRY Published: October 30, 2018
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Applicant Goose Country, LLC (“Applicant”) sets forth its First Amended Answer to
Opposer Canada Goose Inc.’s (“Opposer”) Notice of Opposition (the “Opposition”) to Application
Serial No. 87/788,277 for GOOSE COUNTRY and asserts its affirmative defenses to the
Opposition.
Applicant denies each allegation in the Opposition unless expressly admitted. Responding
to the individually enumerated paragraphs of the Opposition, Applicant states as follows:
1. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application history and documents filed with the USPTO in
connection with the Application, the Application history and documents speak for themselves and
Applicant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the Application history or documents.
2. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application and documents filed with the USPTO in connection
with the Application, the Application and documents speak for themselves and Applicant denies
the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition to the extent that they are
inconsistent with the Application or documents.
3. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same.
4. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same. The materials
referenced in paragraph 4 of the Opposition speak for themselves, and to the extent the allegations
in paragraph 4 vary therewith, Applicant denies them.
5. The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Opposition.
7. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Opposition.
8. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Opposition.
9. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 9.
10. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Opposition.
11. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Opposition.
12. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Opposition.
13. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Opposition.
14. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Opposition.
15. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Opposition.
16. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Opposition.
17. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Opposition.
18. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Opposition.
19. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Opposition.
20. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Opposition.
21. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Opposition.
OPPOSER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Applicant denies the allegations in the Prayer for Relief and further denies that Opposer
is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Applicant asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert
additional defenses as revealed or suggested by the completion of on-going investigation and
discovery. Applicant does not assume the burden of proof for any issue with respect to which the
relevant law places the burden of proof on Opposer.
First Affirmative Defense
There is no likelihood of confusion, mistake, deception or dilution because, inter alia, there
are significant differences between the parties’ respective marks.
Second Affirmative Defense
Among other reasons, given the significant differences between the parties’ respective
marks, there is no false suggestion of a connection with Opposer.
Third Affirmative Defense
Applicant has been using the Mark and developing consumer recognition and good will
therein since at least February 6, 2018, such use being open, notorious, and known to Opposer.
During this time Opposer failed to take meaningful action to assert the claims on which it bases
this Opposition, on which inaction Applicant has relied to its detriment. Further, the Application
was published on October 30, 2018, with Opposer filing a request for an extension of time to
oppose on the final day of the opposition period. Opposer’s claims are therefore barred by the
doctrines of Laches, Estoppel, and/or Waiver.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
The Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to Opposer.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Opposer’s alleged marks are not famous nor were they famous prior to Applicant’s filing
or first use dates.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
After over a year of settlement negotiations, on February 18, 2020 Opposer agreed to
withdraw its Opposition to the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY application Serial No. 87/788663
so long as Applicant agreed to certain limitations, which Applicant agreed, and so long as
Applicant withdrew its application for the GOOSE COUNTRY mark Serial No. 87/788277, of
which Applicant also agreed. On May 11, 2020 Opposer’s counsel prepared the formal settlement
agreement. No changes were made to the agreed upon material terms of the settlement agreement
by Applicant. In reliance on Opposer’s agreement to no longer oppose the registration of
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY, Applicant, inter alia, ordered new inventory with the
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY mark, expended costs to change branding, and settled with third-
parties (which Opposer was advised of same on June 22, 2020) based on the agreement with
Opposer. On July 6, 2020, Opposer advised that it was backing out of its agreement as set forth
above, apparently due to a change in corporate counsel. Applicant put Opposer on notice that it
considered the agreement to be binding. Opposer advised that as of November 9, 2020 it is
unwilling to honor its agreement. A binding agreement exists between the parties barring Opposer
from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of estoppel.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, a binding agreement exists
between the parties barring Opposer from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of
contractual estoppel.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of unclean hands.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of acquiescence.
Applicant hereby gives notice that it may rely on defenses that may become available or
appear proper during discovery and hereby reserves its right to amend this Answer to assert any
such defenses.
Applicant’s Prayer for Relief
Applicant requests dismissal of the Opposition with prejudice, that the Application proceed
to registration, and such other and further relief that may be just and proper.
Kindly direct all correspondence to:
Aisha FarrajPostell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
afarrajapostell@lawppl.com
madams@lawppl.com
Applicant hereby appoints William R. Kugelman, Joseph M. Powell, Jose D. Roman,
Joanna L. Crosby, Tanner Kingston, and all other attorneys at the law firm of Powell & Roman,
LLC, to handle all matters in the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to this
proceeding with full power of substitution.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Aisha FarrajPostell/
Aisha FarrajPostell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Tel: (732) 679-3777
Fax: (732) 679-6433
Attorneys for Applicant,
Goose Country, LLC
Dated: May 8, 2019 November 18, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 8, 2019November 18, 2020, I served the foregoing FIRST
AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
via e-mail upon the Opposer’s counsel at the following address:
Scott W. Johnston
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3200
Minneapolis, Minnesota150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2200
P.O. BOX 2910
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2215
sjohnston@merchantgould.com
slindemeier@merchantgould.com
dockmpls@merchantgould.com
Dated: May 8, 2019 November 18, 2020
By: /Aisha FarrajPostell/
Aisha FarrajPostell
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
CANADA GOOSE INC.
Opposer,
v.
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC,
Applicant.
Proceeding No.: 91246685
Application No.: 87/788,663
Trademark: ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Published: October 30, 2018
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Applicant Goose Country, LLC (“Applicant”) sets forth its First Amended Answer to
Opposer Canada Goose Inc.’s (“Opposer”) Notice of Opposition (the “Opposition”) to Application
Serial No. 87/788,663 for ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY and asserts its affirmative defenses to
the Opposition.
Applicant denies each allegation in the Opposition unless expressly admitted. Responding
to the individually enumerated paragraphs of the Opposition, Applicant states as follows:
1. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application history and documents filed with the USPTO in
connection with the Application, the Application history and documents speak for themselves and
Applicant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the Application history or documents.
2. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application and documents filed with the USPTO in connection
with the Application, the Application and documents speak for themselves and Applicant denies
the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition to the extent that they are
inconsistent with the Application or documents.
3. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same.
4. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same. The materials
referenced in paragraph 4 of the Opposition speak for themselves, and to the extent the allegations
in paragraph 4 vary therewith, Applicant denies them.
5. The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Opposition.
7. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Opposition.
8. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Opposition.
9. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 9.
10. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Opposition.
11. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Opposition.
12. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Opposition.
13. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Opposition.
14. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Opposition.
15. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Opposition.
16. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Opposition.
17. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Opposition.
18. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Opposition.
19. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Opposition.
20. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Opposition.
21. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Opposition.
OPPOSER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Applicant denies the allegations in the Prayer for Relief and further denies that Opposer
is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Applicant asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert
additional defenses as revealed or suggested by the completion of on-going investigation and
discovery. Applicant does not assume the burden of proof for any issue with respect to which the
relevant law places the burden of proof on Opposer.
First Affirmative Defense
There is no likelihood of confusion, mistake, deception or dilution because, inter alia, there
are significant differences between the parties’ respective marks.
Second Affirmative Defense
Among other reasons, given the significant differences between the parties’ respective
marks, there is no false suggestion of a connection with Opposer.
Third Affirmative Defense
Applicant has been using the Mark and developing consumer recognition and good will
therein since at least February 6, 2018, such use being open, notorious, and known to Opposer.
During this time Opposer failed to take meaningful action to assert the claims on which it bases
this Opposition, on which inaction Applicant has relied to its detriment. Further, the Application
was published on October 30, 2018, with Opposer filing a request for an extension of time to
oppose on the final day of the opposition period. Opposer’s claims are therefore barred by the
doctrines of Laches, Estoppel, and/or Waiver.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
The Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to Opposer.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Opposer’s alleged marks are not famous nor were they famous prior to Applicant’s filing
or first use dates.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
After over a year of settlement negotiations, on February 18, 2020 Opposer agreed to
withdraw its Opposition to the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY application Serial No. 87/788663
so long as Applicant agreed to certain limitations, which Applicant agreed, and so long as
Applicant withdrew its application for the GOOSE COUNTRY mark Serial No. 87/788277, of
which Applicant also agreed. On May 11, 2020 Opposer’s counsel prepared the formal settlement
agreement. No changes were made to the agreed upon material terms of the settlement agreement
by Applicant. In reliance on Opposer’s agreement to no longer oppose the registration of
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY, Applicant, inter alia, ordered new inventory with the
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY mark, expended costs to change branding, and settled with third-
parties (which Opposer was advised of same on June 22, 2020) based on the agreement with
Opposer. On July 6, 2020, Opposer advised that it was backing out of its agreement as set forth
above, apparently due to a change in corporate counsel. Applicant put Opposer on notice that it
considered the agreement to be binding. Opposer advised that as of November 9, 2020 it is
unwilling to honor its agreement. A binding agreement exists between the parties barring Opposer
from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of estoppel.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, a binding agreement exists
between the parties barring Opposer from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of
contractual estoppel.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of unclean hands.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of acquiescence.
Applicant hereby gives notice that it may rely on defenses that may become available or
appear proper during discovery and hereby reserves its right to amend this Answer to assert any
such defenses.
Applicant’s Prayer for Relief
Applicant requests dismissal of the Opposition with prejudice, that the Application proceed
to registration, and such other and further relief that may be just and proper.
Kindly direct all correspondence to:
Aisha FarrajPostell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
afarrajapostell@lawppl.com
madams@lawppl.com
Applicant hereby appoints William R. Kugelman, Joseph M. Powell, Jose D. Roman,
Joanna L. Crosby, Tanner Kingston, and all other attorneys at the law firm of Powell & Roman,
LLC, to handle all matters in the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to this
proceeding with full power of substitution.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Aisha FarrajPostell/
Aisha FarrajPostell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Tel: (732) 679-3777
Fax: (732) 679-6433
Attorneys for Applicant,
Goose Country, LLC
Dated: May 8, 2019November 18, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 8, 2019November 18, 2020, I served the foregoing FIRST
AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
via e-mail upon the Opposer’s counsel at the following address:
Scott W. Johnston
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 3200
Minneapolis, Minnesota150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2200
P.O. BOX 2910
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2215
sjohnston@merchantgould.com
slindemeier@merchantgould.com
dockmpls@merchantgould.com
Dated: May 8, 2019 November 18, 2020
By: /Aisha FarrajPostell/
Aisha FarrajPostell
EXHIBIT C
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
CANADA GOOSE INC.
Opposer,
v.
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC,
Applicant.
Proceeding No.: 91246685
Application No.: 87/788,277
Trademark: GOOSE COUNTRY Published: October 30, 2018
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Applicant Goose Country, LLC (“Applicant”) sets forth its First Amended Answer to
Opposer Canada Goose Inc.’s (“Opposer”) Notice of Opposition (the “Opposition”) to Application
Serial No. 87/788,277 for GOOSE COUNTRY and asserts its affirmative defenses to the
Opposition.
Applicant denies each allegation in the Opposition unless expressly admitted. Responding
to the individually enumerated paragraphs of the Opposition, Applicant states as follows:
1. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application history and documents filed with the USPTO in
connection with the Application, the Application history and documents speak for themselves and
Applicant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the Application history or documents.
2. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application and documents filed with the USPTO in connection
with the Application, the Application and documents speak for themselves and Applicant denies
the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition to the extent that they are
inconsistent with the Application or documents.
3. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same.
4. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same. The materials
referenced in paragraph 4 of the Opposition speak for themselves, and to the extent the allegations
in paragraph 4 vary therewith, Applicant denies them.
5. The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Opposition.
7. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Opposition.
8. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Opposition.
9. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 9.
10. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Opposition.
11. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Opposition.
12. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Opposition.
13. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Opposition.
14. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Opposition.
15. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Opposition.
16. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Opposition.
17. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Opposition.
18. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Opposition.
19. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Opposition.
20. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Opposition.
21. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Opposition.
OPPOSER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Applicant denies the allegations in the Prayer for Relief and further denies that Opposer
is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Applicant asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert
additional defenses as revealed or suggested by the completion of on-going investigation and
discovery. Applicant does not assume the burden of proof for any issue with respect to which the
relevant law places the burden of proof on Opposer.
First Affirmative Defense
There is no likelihood of confusion, mistake, deception or dilution because, inter alia, there
are significant differences between the parties’ respective marks.
Second Affirmative Defense
Among other reasons, given the significant differences between the parties’ respective
marks, there is no false suggestion of a connection with Opposer.
Third Affirmative Defense
Applicant has been using the Mark and developing consumer recognition and good will
therein since at least February 6, 2018, such use being open, notorious, and known to Opposer.
During this time Opposer failed to take meaningful action to assert the claims on which it bases
this Opposition, on which inaction Applicant has relied to its detriment. Further, the Application
was published on October 30, 2018, with Opposer filing a request for an extension of time to
oppose on the final day of the opposition period. Opposer’s claims are therefore barred by the
doctrines of Laches, Estoppel, and/or Waiver.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
The Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to Opposer.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Opposer’s alleged marks are not famous nor were they famous prior to Applicant’s filing
or first use dates.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
After over a year of settlement negotiations, on February 18, 2020 Opposer agreed to
withdraw its Opposition to the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY application Serial No. 87/788663
so long as Applicant agreed to certain limitations, which Applicant agreed, and so long as
Applicant withdrew its application for the GOOSE COUNTRY mark Serial No. 87/788277, of
which Applicant also agreed. On May 11, 2020 Opposer’s counsel prepared the formal settlement
agreement. No changes were made to the agreed upon material terms of the settlement agreement
by Applicant. In reliance on Opposer’s agreement to no longer oppose the registration of
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY, Applicant, inter alia, ordered new inventory with the
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY mark, expended costs to change branding, and settled with third-
parties (which Opposer was advised of same on June 22, 2020) based on the agreement with
Opposer. On July 6, 2020, Opposer advised that it was backing out of its agreement as set forth
above, apparently due to a change in corporate counsel. Applicant put Opposer on notice that it
considered the agreement to be binding. Opposer advised that as of November 9, 2020 it is
unwilling to honor its agreement. A binding agreement exists between the parties barring Opposer
from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of estoppel.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, a binding agreement exists
between the parties barring Opposer from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of
contractual estoppel.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of unclean hands.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of acquiescence.
Applicant hereby gives notice that it may rely on defenses that may become available or
appear proper during discovery and hereby reserves its right to amend this Answer to assert any
such defenses.
Applicant’s Prayer for Relief
Applicant requests dismissal of the Opposition with prejudice, that the Application proceed
to registration, and such other and further relief that may be just and proper.
Kindly direct all correspondence to:
Aisha Postell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
apostell@lawppl.com
madams@lawppl.com
Applicant hereby appoints William R. Kugelman, Joseph M. Powell, Joanna L. Crosby,
Tanner Kingston, and all other attorneys at the law firm of Powell & Roman, LLC, to handle all
matters in the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to this proceeding with full
power of substitution.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Aisha Postell/
Aisha Postell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Tel: (732) 679-3777
Fax: (732) 679-6433
Attorneys for Applicant,
Goose Country, LLC
Dated: November 18, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 18, 2020, I served the foregoing FIRST AMENDED
ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES via e-mail
upon the Opposer’s counsel at the following address:
Scott W. Johnston
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2200
P.O. BOX 2910
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
sjohnston@merchantgould.com
slindemeier@merchantgould.com
dockmpls@merchantgould.com
Dated: November 18, 2020
By: /Aisha Postell/
Aisha Postell
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
CANADA GOOSE INC.
Opposer,
v.
GOOSE COUNTRY, LLC,
Applicant.
Proceeding No.: 91246685
Application No.: 87/788,663
Trademark: ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY Published: October 30, 2018
FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
Applicant Goose Country, LLC (“Applicant”) sets forth its First Amended Answer to
Opposer Canada Goose Inc.’s (“Opposer”) Notice of Opposition (the “Opposition”) to Application
Serial No. 87/788,663 for ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY and asserts its affirmative defenses to
the Opposition.
Applicant denies each allegation in the Opposition unless expressly admitted. Responding
to the individually enumerated paragraphs of the Opposition, Applicant states as follows:
1. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application history and documents filed with the USPTO in
connection with the Application, the Application history and documents speak for themselves and
Applicant denies the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the Opposition to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the Application history or documents.
2. To the extent the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition seek
to paraphrase or characterize the Application and documents filed with the USPTO in connection
with the Application, the Application and documents speak for themselves and Applicant denies
the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the Opposition to the extent that they are
inconsistent with the Application or documents.
3. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same.
4. Applicant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Opposition, and therefore denies same. The materials
referenced in paragraph 4 of the Opposition speak for themselves, and to the extent the allegations
in paragraph 4 vary therewith, Applicant denies them.
5. The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 5.
6. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Opposition.
7. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Opposition.
8. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Opposition.
9. The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Opposition are legal conclusions to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Applicant denies the
allegations of paragraph 9.
10. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Opposition.
11. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Opposition.
12. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Opposition.
13. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Opposition.
14. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Opposition.
15. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Opposition.
16. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Opposition.
17. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Opposition.
18. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Opposition.
19. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Opposition.
20. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Opposition.
21. Applicant denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Opposition.
OPPOSER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Applicant denies the allegations in the Prayer for Relief and further denies that Opposer
is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Applicant asserts the following affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert
additional defenses as revealed or suggested by the completion of on-going investigation and
discovery. Applicant does not assume the burden of proof for any issue with respect to which the
relevant law places the burden of proof on Opposer.
First Affirmative Defense
There is no likelihood of confusion, mistake, deception or dilution because, inter alia, there
are significant differences between the parties’ respective marks.
Second Affirmative Defense
Among other reasons, given the significant differences between the parties’ respective
marks, there is no false suggestion of a connection with Opposer.
Third Affirmative Defense
Applicant has been using the Mark and developing consumer recognition and good will
therein since at least February 6, 2018, such use being open, notorious, and known to Opposer.
During this time Opposer failed to take meaningful action to assert the claims on which it bases
this Opposition, on which inaction Applicant has relied to its detriment. Further, the Application
was published on October 30, 2018, with Opposer filing a request for an extension of time to
oppose on the final day of the opposition period. Opposer’s claims are therefore barred by the
doctrines of Laches, Estoppel, and/or Waiver.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
The Opposition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to Opposer.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Opposer’s alleged marks are not famous nor were they famous prior to Applicant’s filing
or first use dates.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
After over a year of settlement negotiations, on February 18, 2020 Opposer agreed to
withdraw its Opposition to the ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY application Serial No. 87/788663
so long as Applicant agreed to certain limitations, which Applicant agreed, and so long as
Applicant withdrew its application for the GOOSE COUNTRY mark Serial No. 87/788277, of
which Applicant also agreed. On May 11, 2020 Opposer’s counsel prepared the formal settlement
agreement. No changes were made to the agreed upon material terms of the settlement agreement
by Applicant. In reliance on Opposer’s agreement to no longer oppose the registration of
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY, Applicant, inter alia, ordered new inventory with the
ORIGINAL GOOSE COUNTRY mark, expended costs to change branding, and settled with third-
parties (which Opposer was advised of same on June 22, 2020) based on the agreement with
Opposer. On July 6, 2020, Opposer advised that it was backing out of its agreement as set forth
above, apparently due to a change in corporate counsel. Applicant put Opposer on notice that it
considered the agreement to be binding. Opposer advised that as of November 9, 2020 it is
unwilling to honor its agreement. A binding agreement exists between the parties barring Opposer
from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of estoppel.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, a binding agreement exists
between the parties barring Opposer from maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of
contractual estoppel.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of unclean hands.
Ninth Affirmative Defense
Applicant repeats and re-alleges the facts set forth in Applicant’s Sixth Affirmative
Defense as though set forth at length herein. Based on the foregoing, Opposer is barred from
maintaining the Opposition under the doctrine of acquiescence.
Applicant hereby gives notice that it may rely on defenses that may become available or
appear proper during discovery and hereby reserves its right to amend this Answer to assert any
such defenses.
Applicant’s Prayer for Relief
Applicant requests dismissal of the Opposition with prejudice, that the Application proceed
to registration, and such other and further relief that may be just and proper.
Kindly direct all correspondence to:
Aisha Postell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
apostell@lawppl.com
madams@lawppl.com
Applicant hereby appoints William R. Kugelman, Joseph M. Powell, Joanna L. Crosby,
Tanner Kingston, and all other attorneys at the law firm of Powell & Roman, LLC, to handle all
matters in the United States Patent and Trademark Office relating to this proceeding with full
power of substitution.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Aisha Postell/
Aisha Postell
POWELL & ROMAN, LLC
131 White Oak Lane
Old Bridge, NJ 08857
Tel: (732) 679-3777
Fax: (732) 679-6433
Attorneys for Applicant,
Goose Country, LLC
Dated: November 18, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 18, 2020, I served the foregoing FIRST AMENDED
ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES via e-mail
upon the Opposer’s counsel at the following address:
Scott W. Johnston
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2200
P.O. BOX 2910
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
sjohnston@merchantgould.com
slindemeier@merchantgould.com
dockmpls@merchantgould.com
Dated: November 18, 2020
By: /Aisha Postell/
Aisha Postell
top related