1. Identify with particularity each specific product or service (not just the general description as set forth by ABC in its federal application) which ABC’s ABC Marks are used, intended to be used, associated with or alluded to be associated with.
ANSWER:2. State the date ABC claims is the date of first use by ABC for the ABC Marks for each product or service identified in Interrogatory No. 1.
ANSWER:

3. Describe in full and complete detail what efforts, if any, ABC has made to use the ABC Marks.
ANSWER:

4. What is the meaning or commercial impression of ABC’s ABC Marks?
ANSWER:

5. Describe the channels of distribution and/or intended channels of distribution for each product or service identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1.

26 pages of discovery requests

Sample Trademark Infringement document requests - Attorney Prepared

1. For each product or service identified in Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 of Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, produce each type of label, container, sticker, box, bag, packaging, brochure, advertisement, website screen print out and/or other means by which Plaintiff has applied or used (or intends to apply or use) the ABC Marks to the product or service.2. All documents that report on, describe, refer to, and/or relate to Plaintiff’s use of the ABC Marks.

3. All documents which Plaintiff will rely upon to establish the date(s) stated in Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 2 of Defendant’s Interrogatories.

4. All documents which Plaintiff will rely upon to establish the first display or public use of the ABC Marks by Plaintiff.

5. All documents which Plaintiff will rely upon to establish that the ABC Marks have been in continuous use from the date of first use to the present, including but not limited to any and all documents relating to any periods of non-use of the ABC Marks.

26 pages of discovery requests
——————————————————————————————-

Trademark Infringement Discovery Product Details

e-Legal form in Word format - 26 pagesPublisher - BRW Publishing (July 2007)

——————————————————————————————-

Trademark Infringement Discovery Requests ———————————————- List Price: $19.95 Your Price: $14.97 Availability:Immediate receipt upon payment A download link will be sent to your email address ———————————————-

Inside this Legal Form - Get the complete set of discovery requests today

Sample Interrogatories and Document Requests in a trademark infringement case.
26 pages of sample discovery requests typical in a trademark infringement case.

Interrogatories and Document Requests are tied together so that opposing side must produce documents supporting their interrogatory answers.

In Microsoft word format for easy editing and use.

1. Avoiding unnecessary expense. It costs money to trademark something. There is no point in trying to do so if what you are seeking to use as a trademark has already been trademarked by someone else.

2. As a preliminary step to getting a mark. Something that has already been trademarked cannot be trademarked again, so without a search, there can be no registration of your mark.

3. Revealing the need for an alternate mark. Just because someone else has already trademarked your idea, you needn’t give up. It’s just that now you know that you need to come up with something else and you can promptly start upon that task.

4. Avoiding litigation. If someone else has already registered what you
wish to trademark, your use of it could infringe upon their rights, giving
rise to a costly lawsuit. Knowing where the landmine is has always been
the best way to avoid stepping on it.

5. Policing your mark. Even after you have registered your mark, you must check around from time to time to see if anyone else is trying to use it inappropriately. If you discover someone using your mark without your permission, they may try to defend themselves by arguing that you never tried to protect your mark, thus you have abandoned it. But doing a search every now and then, you can show the court some evidence that you have been vigilant and diligent in protecting your mark.

Request a trademark search

The Court reasoned that: “Any attempt, in such circumstances, to introduce further testimony about those or other facts bearing on the same issues amounts to the type of surprise that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to avoid.”

Under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, upon motion of a party and a showing of good cause, issue a court order protecting a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7). See also, Smith v. Bick Corp., 869 F.2d 194 at 199 (3rd Cir. 1989). Commercial information such as marketing strategies and documents related to corporate structure have been protected by courts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) where “good cause” was demonstrated that a party faced competitive injury should the commercial information be released to competitors. See Metro Auto, Inc. v. American Honday Motor Co., Inc., 1995 WL 222050 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 1995).

“Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.” Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, at 1071 (3rd Cir. 1984). But you have to be specific. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” do not support a showing of “good cause.” Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108 at 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert. denied, 484 U.S. 976, 108 S.Ct. 487 98 L.Ed.2d 485 (1987).

The best practice is to be as specific as possible in identifying what you don’t want disclosed and the reasons why for each such document. The burden of justifying the confidentiality of each and every document sought to be covered by a protective order remains on the party seeking the order. Id. at 1122. However, sometimes, there are just too many documents being argued over. “[I]n cases involving large-scale discovery, the court may construct a broad umbrella protective order upon a threshold showing by the movant of good cause.” Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 at 787 note 17 (3rd Cir. 1994) (citing Cippolone, 785 F.2d at 1122).

“After delivery of the documents, the opposing party would have the opportunity to indicate precisely which documents it believed not to be confidential, and the party seeking to maintain the seal would have the burden of proof with respect to those documents.” Id.

In considering whether “good cause” exists for a protective order, the district court “must balance the requesting party’s need for information against the injury that might result if uncontrolled disclosure is compelled. When the risk of harm to the owner of [a] trade secret or confidential information outweighs the need for discovery, disclosure [through discovery] cannot be compelled …” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787 (quoting Arthur R. Miller, Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts, 105 Harv.L.REv. 427 at 432-33 (1991).

In Pansy, the Third Circuit identified a number of factors to be considered by the district court when it conducts its balancing test, including:

(1) the privacy interests of the party seeking protection;

(2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose;

(3) whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a private litigant or a public entity or official;

(4) whether the case involves issues important to the public;

(5) whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; and

(6) whether the sharing of information among litigants would promote fairness and efficiency. Id. at 787-89.

“The district court has wide discretion in weighing these factors and deciding whether to grant a motion for a protective order.” Farley v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 1994 WL 396479 (E.D. Pa. 1994) at *2 (referencing the standard applied in Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787.) To this end, the court in Pansy noted that, “if a case involves private litigants, and concerns matters of little legitimate public interest, that should be a factor weighing in favor of granting or maintaining an order of confidentiality.” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 788.

The district court also has flexibility in the construct of the protective order itself. “The most common kind of order allowing discovery on conditions is an order limiting the persons who are to have access to the information disclosed and the use to which these persons may put the information.” Id. (quoting 8 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Section 2043 at 205 (1970).