In which Tim Langdell files a motion complaining about delays and insisting that a case be heard swiftly. Told you it was hilarious. Details of this are further down.
Thanks to BluWacky for reminding me of this case, which I hadnt been paying much attention to.
Why are there two cases?
The main case we have been discussing (the cancellation case) is EAs petition to get five of Langdells existing trademarks cancelled on the grounds of fraud and/or abandonment.
This other one (the opposition case) is EA objecting to (opposing) Langdell getting a
new one registered.
Why is the opposition case important?
It is about the EDGE trademark as applied to video games etc etc. Whereas in the cancellation case the two EDGE trademarks are for printed matter, magazines, books etc etc.
I had totally missed that point before means we (and a whole lot of other people too!) have been looking in the wrong place. The cancellation case does not itself apply to the EDGE mark for video games. Not yet.
This raises the rather obvious question as to why EA did not apply to cancel the EDGE mark as applied to games. Did EAs lawyers screw up?
No.
The bizarre answer appears to be that Langdell did not (and still doesnt) have a registered trademark for EDGE as applied to games!
His previous registration (#1853705) for this was
cancelled in 2005.
Ive highlighted that because it is both surprising and important but for now, take it with a pinch of salt, as there is only so much rummaging that I can do in a day, and theres another registration that I havent been able to track down yet.
It seems as though he has been relying on this pending application, rather than an actual registration, in disputes with other parties.
Background to the case
Langdell applied for this trademark in 2006, soon after his last one was cancelled.
EA filed opposition last November on the grounds of fraud and abandonment same as in the cancellation case.
Langdell filed an answer on 19th March. It is a very boring answer in which he straight out denies everything, requiring EA to prove their case.
On 31st March EA applied to consolidate this case with the cancellation case, as they both cover the same legal ground on the same evidence.
Yesterday Langdell filed a rather strange motion opposing the cases being consolidated.
Langdells motion
Here it is:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193736&pty=OPP&eno=1
Summarising brutally within the course of a few pages Langdell
(a) complains about the delays in the cancellation case caused by a series of motions (all his!) and says that consolidating the cases would deny him swift justice in this one, and
(b) threatens to file a series of motions in this case for dismissal/summary judgment and so on
Ah, sweet irony. Especially since in this case, as Langdell says discovery was about to commence.
Why is he doing this?
Partly, it seems, that because EA has not particularised fraud in the opposition filing and he thinks he can use this as a lever to get the case dismissed, claim victory and then use this case as a lever to dismiss the other one.
Partly to bolster his justification for further delaying the cancellation case on the grounds that EA will have to submit an amended petition. (Which seems very dodgy indeed to me, since EA have already done so, though it was after Langdell filed his second motion to dismiss).
Thats as much as I have time for today. There are more interesting quirks in this that I will come to on a later post.
