Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA1143371 Filing date: 06/29/2021

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91270129 Party Defendant Blown Falcon Productions LLC Correspondence BLOWN FALCON PRODUCTIONS LLC Address 718 GLENLEA ST LAVERNE, CA 91750 UNITED STATES Primary Email: [email protected] Secondary Email(s): [email protected], pancrasehybridwrest- [email protected] 619-410-7770

Submission Answer Filer's Name Eric Nyenhuis Filer's email [email protected] Signature /Eric Nyenhuis/ Date 06/29/2021 Attachments Smash inc vs Blown Falcon Productions LLC 91270129.pdf(686752 bytes ) USPTO Appeal Brief.pdf(48881 bytes ) Smash inc vs BFP CROSS EXAMINE.pdf(43537 bytes ) Smash inc vs Blown Falcon Productions LLC 91270129

Filing of Answers and Exhibits

1. Opposer is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business at Sanei Building 14F, 1-22-2, Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, , postal code 160-0023, Japan.

Defendant Answer: August 24, 2020 was our (Planiff) filing date. When searching the TESS All but one Trademark was dead. If the Opposer was using the name and logo in any commerce why did they not make that known with and to the USPTO in twelve years?

2. Since at least as early as July 17, 2012, Opposer has used the PANCRASE HYBRID & Design Mark (the “PANCRASE Mark” or “Opposer’s Mark”), consisting of the wording “PANCRASE” within a single lined rectangle crossed over and on top of a shaded rectangle with the wording “HYBRID” on one side and “WRESTLING” on the Opposition No. Application Serial No. 90/133,729 Published in the Official ) Gazette of March 2, 2021

other, that is identical or nearly identical to Applicant’s Mark. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Opposer’s predecessor in interest World Pancrase Create, Inc. began using the PANCRASE Mark at least as early as February 16, 1996. Opposer has used the PANCRASE Mark in interstate commerce in the United States in connection with various entertainment services, namely, wrestling and contests; wrestling and martial arts instructions; and organizing exhibitions of wrestling and martial arts for entertainment purposes. In connection with those services, Opposer has also sold a range of clothing products, including, but not limited to, t-shirts which prominently display the PANCRASE Mark in interstate commerce in the United States (collectively with Opposer’s entertainment services, “Opposer’s Goods and Services”). Defendant Answer: Blown Falcon Productions LLC did in fact file and submit a letter from the Trademark holder of Live Events (and the only trademark that was “live” on the TESS was World Pancrase Create and its owner Masami Ozaki that stated there is no challenge or confliction of interest between the two parties and not Opposer aka Smash Inc who had zero presence on the TESS aka USPTO.GOV trademark database and SMASH had no presence with the trademark registration in Japan.

Exhibit A.1 Defendant Answer : Satisfy Examine attorney request

Jan. 26, 2021 APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER Jan. 26, 2021 EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED 88888 Jan. 26, 2021 NOTIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED 6328 Jan. 26, 2021 EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED 6328 Jan. 26, 2021 EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN 93644 Jan. 21, 2021 TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED 88889 Jan. 21, 2021 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE 88889 Jan. 21, 2021 TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED

Defendant Exhibit A.2 : Trademark Registration in Japan

2. More specifically, Opposed has used the PANCRASE Mark in connection with wrestling and martial arts contests that have been extensively viewed by U.S. audiences via the Internet, including on websites operated by Opposer, Opposer’s licensee of the PANCRASE Mark, and on YouTube. Further, Opposer has organized exhibitions of wrestling and martial arts for entertainment purposes to take place within the United States with one such event taking place in November 2015 in the State of Hawaii where Opposer also sold clothing products bearing the PANCRASE Mark.

Defendant Answer: 2 See Exhibit A.2 November 2015 TESS read that the entity of LIVE events of Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling was that of World Pancrase Create and Masami Ozaki and NOT Smash Inc.

No tax was collected or paid and no application was made by Smash Inc (Opposer) to the USPTO or Japan office in twelve years if ever. See Exhibit A. The Trademark was ruled “dead” over twelve years according to TESS, and the only application and fees were paid by Blown Falcon Productions LLC August 24, 2020. Blown Falcon Productions LLC (Defendant) 3. During its continuous use of the PANCRASE Mark, Opposer has expended considerable time, effort, and money in publicizing the provision of Opposer’s Goods and Services in connection with Opposer’s Marks in the United States.

Defendant Answer: 3: Proof has not been met by a single statement of opposer. As per notice from USPTO applicants are expected to use the Logo and Trademark in commerce and pay tax on said commerce starting first day of application. We (Plantiff) have in fact been in commerce with three live events April 3 2021 Riverside CA May 23 2021 Santa Ana CA August 28 2021 San Diego CA Proof: We have footage of each event and sales orders dating back to August 2020 and Tax Filed with the IRS and the State of California. Blown Falcon Productions LLC

5. As a result of Opposer’s continuous use of Opposer’s Mark throughout the United States, the PANCRASE Mark has become associated uniquely with Opposer to represent the 2 goodwill of Opposer, and to identify and distinguish Opposer’s Goods and Services as being exclusively from, approved by, or authorized by Opposer. Defendant Answer: 5 Several organizations have used the X Logo to represent their brand in merchandise and live events Pancrase London Pancrase Korea Catch as Catch Can league all with no regard to trademark its law or practice because the USPTO ruled the name and logo DEAD. Plaintiff Answer: 5 second page extended Exhibit A.3: Catch As Catch Can Logo

o

6. On information and belief, Applicant is a California limited liability company, located at 718 Glenlea Street, LaVerne, California 91750. 7. According to the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), on August 24, 2020, Applicant filed an intent-to-use application (U.S. Ser. No. 90/133,729) to register Applicant’s Mark for “bandanas; gloves; scarves; shorts; socks; athletic footwear; bottoms as clothing; caps being headwear; tops as clothing; wristbands as clothing” in Class 25. Defendant Answer: True. When did “Smash” file with the USPTO? Answer November 17, 2020 three months after Blown Falcon Productions and according to the Opposer 12 years after using the name and logo without registering it

8. The August 24, 2020 filing date of the Application is after Opposer commenced use of Opposer’s Marks in U.S. commerce in connection with Opposer’s Goods and Services and, upon information and belief, Applicant can claim no rights in or to Applicant’s Mark in connection with the goods set forth in the Application prior to Opposer’s adoption and use of Opposer’s Mark for Opposer’s Goods and Services. CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 2(d) 9. Opposer repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 8 as if fully set forth herein. 10. Opposer’s Mark is associated exclusively with Opposer and has been used continuously by Opposer in the United States since a date prior to any date on which Applicant can rely. 11. Applicant’s Mark is identical to Opposer’s Mark.

Defendant Answer: Opposer filed with the USPTO after The Plaintiff

12. The goods for which Applicant seeks registration overlap with or are closely related to those goods and services in connection with which Opposer uses and has used Opposer’s Mark in the United States.

3 13. Upon information and belief, the goods and services publicized and rendered by Opposer in connection with Opposer’s Mark and the goods set forth in the Application are intended to be directed to similar or identical classes of purchasers and to be distributed through the same or similar channels of trade in the United States.

14. Registration of Applicant’s Mark for the goods set forth in the Application would cause confusion or mistake or deceive the public, and to cause the public to believe that the goods and services offered by Applicant under Applicant’s Mark emanate from or are otherwise sponsored by or endorsed by Opposer, in violation of Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d).

Defendant Answer: From Day One Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling (U.S) has posted a disclaimer that Blown Falcon Productions has no affiliation with Pancrase MMA its affiliates or sponsors on all social media and websites.

Defendant Answer Exhibit B.

15. Registration of Defendant Mark is inconsistent with Opposer’s prior rights in Opposer’s Mark.

Defendant Answer: The Rights apply to First Come First Serve basis Exhibit C: Under the U.S. first-to-use trademark regime, mark owners should still apply to register their marks with the USPTO prior to their actual use in commerce based on their intent to use. Under U.S. law, as explained above, the trademark application filing date is construed as constructive use of the mark. Consequently, if actual use of the mark in commerce follows within the specified amount of time leading to subsequent registration of the mark, the Applicant would prevail over other users that use the mark after their application filing date, even if such use is before the Applicant’s actual use in commerce. Therefore, being the first to file for trademark registration is beneficial under either system, and is a better strategy than to wait to apply for trademark registration after the mark has already been used in commerce. 16. By reason of the foregoing, Opposer would be harmed by the registration of the PANCRASE HYBRID WRESTLING & Design mark shown in Application Serial No. 90/133,729. Rebuttle: In fact Defendant would be harmed by Opponent has following the guidelines set fourth by the USPTO and the U.S Constitution

Defendant Answer: Exhibit D: The U.S. Constitution protects every American's right to economic liberty. 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 14th Amendment was passed in response to the ongoing suppression of economic liberty and other civil rights by southern governments in the wake of the Civil War. CLAIM FOR RELIEF DUE TO APPLICANT’S FRAUD ON THE PTO 17. Opposer repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16 as if fully set forth herein. 18. Applicant fraudulently executed the oath in the Application declaration. At the time that Applicant signed the declaration, which stated in relevant part, “[t]o the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive[,]” that statement was false. In fact, prior to filing the

4 Application, Applicant had been in communication with Opposer because Applicant understood that Opposer had the prior and existing rights to use the PANCRASE Mark.

Defendant Answer As a film maker and the Director of the Pancrase Hybrid History Documentary we were compelled to contact everyone claiming to have association with Pancrase and or Hybrid Wrestling and everyone claiming to have legal rights to logo and trademark. RE: Japan, London, Colorado (U.S) Korea, China and France. They all claimed to have ownership of the Trademark and Logo, and after FACT CHECKING the only legal trademark logo and name was World Pancrase Create and Masami Ozaki of whom a contract and understanding was in place and verbal understanding before taking oath. See Defendant Exhibit A and Defendant Exhibit A.2 19. When Applicant signed the oath in the Application declaration, Opposer was the user of the same or a confusingly similar mark, the PANCRASE Mark. Defendant Answer: Blown Falcon Productions and World Pancrase Create and Masami Ozaki of whom a contract and understanding was in place and verbal understanding of Trademark ownership before taking oath. 20. Opposer had legal rights superior to Applicant’s purported rights in the Applicant’s Mark at the time Applicant signed the application for registration. Defendant Answer There is no legal Trademark or logo registered with the USPTO by Smash. Prior to 2021 21. Applicant knew that Opposer’s rights in the mark were superior to Applicant’s and either believed that a likelihood of confusion would result from Applicant’s use of its mark or had no basis for believing otherwise. 22. Applicant, in failing to disclose these facts to the USPTO, intended to procure a registration to which it was not entitled. Defendant Answer Blown Falcon Productions was told by several sources that several companies have permissions and rights to logo and trademark after fact checking we found out that SMASH had never filed for the trademark nor the name in the U.S until after I the plaintiff did if not for any other reason but to sabotage plantiff and his ability to create and pay Tax to the U.S for his (Plaintiff) efforts. Just because they (Opposer) say something does not make it true. The Fact is they have admitted to (supposedly) doing commerce in the U.S with no trademark registered with the USPTO and No Proof that any taxes were paid to the U.S for those presumed sales. I ask those statements of Fraud by Opposer be stricken from record based on hear say and falsehood based on opinion not fact.

Defendant Answer: 8-22 Your Honor. In July 2020 I started the documentary series of the History of Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling and introduced the project to Smash DBA Pancrasae MMA at this point in July they notified me personally to get the trademarks and permissions in order. I then went to www.USPTO/gov and saw that the trademark and logo was ruled DEAD over twelve years. I paid the fees and did all the paperwork myself and have funded the company with my life savings. I then reproached Smash on several occasions that I would send them footage as I did the other companies and promotions claiming to be a part of Pancrase and or Hybrid Wrestling and set fourth four separate times to meet via zoom to discuss what footage would be used from 1996-2008 only to find out they (Opposer) do not own the footage but UFC fight pass owns the library and under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the Court first ruled that film constituted a form of expression entitled to First Amendment protection. In that decision, the justices ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the censoring of the movie The Miracle as sacrilegious. And also they (Smash) Opposer blatantly ignored all emails. I then had a representative of Blown Falcon Productions go to their Opposer) office to further talks and make them aware that Blown Falcon Productions LLC had in fact acquired the trademark and logo in the United States. From that point on three occasions in 2021 they “Smash” met with World Pancrase Create and trademark holder Masami Ozaki and threatened him with legal action if he did not sign over rights to the trademark, and Mr Ozaki was clear to Smash and their legal that Blown Falcon Productions LLC are the trademark holders. Defendant Answer: Your honor this is all a case of “sour grapes” as Smash has not met the burden of proof. The facts are that Blown Falcon Productions LLC (Plantiff) had in fact filed first the application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Fact 2: Blown Falcon Productions LLC DBA Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling (U.S) has in fact been paying taxes and perpetuating the brand over a year. Fact 3: Blown Falcon Productions LLC extended an Olive Branch on several occasions to Smash and treated with no regard or threats. Fact 4: According to the USPTO Smash has never filed or paid one cent for any application prior to 2021. Fact 5: I’m asking to see proof that Smash has paid any taxes to the U.S government for commerce. Fact 5: in July 2020 a representative of Blown Falcon Production went to the Office of Masa Sakai the President of SMASH to see any and all proof of Trademark ownership. None were presented to Blown Falcon Productions agent. Fact 6: The same representative of Blown Falcon Production went to a live event in Japan and met with Mr Sakai and Mr Fukai to get proof of trademark or name ownership. None was presented to Blown Falcon Productions agent. Fact 7: Mr Sakai asked to meet with Trademark holder Masami Ozaki in Tokyo on three separate occasions in 2020 1nd 2021 and Mr Sakai threatened Mr Ozaki in which Mr Ozaki stated that he along with Blown Falcon Productions are the legal trademark holders. Fact 8: Mr Ozaki[‘s translator Genya Ozaki had in fact relayed a message to Blown Falcon Productions that he (Masami Ozaki DBA World Pancrase Create wants to have Blown Flacon Productions absorb his live events Trademark for Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling

My question to the courts. If I filed in the U.S first and followed up with everything that was asked of me and have been truthful in my response do we as Americans have a right in the pursuit of happiness, and a foreign body with no regard to the laws of the United States and the Patent and Trademark office be rewarded? Your Honors This is a simple case of negligence on the part of Smash. They did not and do not follow proper guidelines they don’t communicate and they had twelve years to file with the USPTO or have any event or one brick or mortar retail outlet or one wholesale agreement in place on U.S soil.

I’m asking not for relief but a fair judgment based on facts 1. Smash never filed for Trademark with the USPTO until a month after Blown Falcon.

2. Blown Falcon was allowed use in commerce with World Pancrase Create ( U.S Trademark Holders) with no conflict of interest.

3. Smash claims that we knew they had the trademark rights. They have made a lot of claims that were not the truth.

4. If they are saying they owned the trademark and I understood that than that is a lie by Smash (Opposer) and to perpetuate a fraud upon Blown Falcon Productions LLC because they (Smash) Opposer knew they did not have a U.S Trademark nor did they have an application, and the pure fact they are admitting that they claimed to Blown Falcon Productions that they (Opposer) owned the trademark when in fact they do not.

That is the first of many lies told by Smash (Opposer) and its representation to the USPTO and the Public of the U.S RE: See 4 below. RE: 4 Application, Applicant (Plaintiff) had been in communication with Opposer because Applicant was made to believe that Opposer had the prior and existing rights to use the PANCRASE Mark in Japan and Plantiff was deliberately lied to by Opposer if they told anyone they had the USPTO registered Trademark.

I Eric R Nyenhuis hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing Smash inc vs Blown Falcon Productions LLC has been served on VINCENT BADOLATO BROWN RUDNICK, LLP 601 THIRTEENTH STREET NW, SUITE 600S WASHINGTON, DC 20005 UNITED STATES) by forwarding said copy on (insert date of mailing), via email (or insert other appropriate method of delivery) to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Phone: 202-536-1700

Signature Eric R Nyenhuis DBA Blown Falcon Productions LLC Date June 29 2021

Eric R Nyenhuis 718 Glenlea St LaVerne CA 91750 Phone# 619-410-7770

USPTO Appeal Brief Smash inc vs Blown Falcon Productions LLC 91270129

Eric R Nyenhuis 718 GlenLea St Laverne CA 91750 (619) 410-7770

Your Honor, You are reviewing a case involving a company (Smash) never registering their name or trademark in the U.S they also claim that I had knowledge and that I was aware that I knew they had some sort of rights.

Your Honor I am an honest hardworking film maker that set out to record the history of the company Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling which history dates back to 840 A.D

I approached several companies that claimed they owned the rights in name and trademark to gather information for my documentary and only World Pancrase Create and Masami Ozaki had filed with the USPTO in 1993 and still holding the trademarks until 2021 in which I have an understanding in place in contract and sent to USPTO examining attorney

Im asking the court to please review all the facts and my ANSWERS in midst the outlandish accusations by the Opposer (Smash)

Signature Eric R Nyenhuis DBA Blown Falcon Prod LLC Date______

Smash inc vs Blown Falcon Productions LLC 91270129

Questions for Smash inc Opposer/Respondent Petitioner: Eric R Nyenhuis/Blown Falcon Productions LLC

RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has ruled that Petitioner Laverne J. Andrusiek must cross-examine, by oral deposition, Respondent Cosmic Crusaders LLC’s witnesses who provided direct testimony via written declaration. Laverne Andrusiek v. Cosmic Crusaders LLC

1. Has Smash ever registered the name Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling in the U.S with the USPTO? 2. Has Smash registered the name Smash Inc with the USPTO? 3. How long have you been using the name Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling in the U.S without registering with the USPTO 4. What is Smash EIN # in the U.S 5. What is Smash taxable yearly revenue in the U.S using Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling 6. What affiliation does Smash have with Pancrase London Pancrase Korea and Pancrase USA? 7. Has Smash filed a U.S tax return ever? 8. Can Smash inc present former U.S tax records for Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling for 2012-2021