UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON, PORTLAND DIVISION

ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., ADIDAS AG, ADIDAS 

INTERNATIONAL MARKETING B.V., REEBOK 

INTERNATIONAL LTD., REEBOK INTERNATIONAL 

LIMITED,

Plaintiffs,

-againstTRB ACQUISITIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 3:15-cv-02113 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant TRB Acquisitions, 

LLC (“Defendant”) hereby objects to and responds to the First Set of Interrogatories, including 

all applicable instructions and definitions (collectively, the “Interrogatories”) served by Plaintiffs 

in the above-referenced action. These objections and responses are based on information 

currently known by, and reasonably available to, Defendant. Defendant will supplement these 

objections and responses if it learns of additional or different responsive information. The 

information supplied in these responses and objections is not based solely upon the knowledge of 

the executing party; it may also be based on the knowledge of the party’s agents, representatives, 

and attorneys (unless privileged), and on information contained in Defendant’s records.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Defendant makes the following general objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories,

which Defendant expressly incorporates by reference into each of its Responses to Plaintiffs’ 

Interrogatories, regardless of whether the general objections are specifically incorporated into the 

Exhibit D - Page 1 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 21
2

specific objections and responses below. By providing a specific objection to any Interrogatory, 

or any of the “Definitions” and “General Instructions,” Defendant does not waive or otherwise 

limit these general objections. Furthermore, reference to these general objections in any specific 

response, or with regard to specific “Definitions” and “Instructions,” shall not waive or 

otherwise limit the applicability of these general objections to each and every Interrogatory and 

each “Definition” and “General Instruction.” Defendant is responding to each Interrogatory as it 

interprets and understands each Interrogatory. If Plaintiffs assert a different interpretation of any 

Interrogatory, Defendant reserves the right to supplement or amend their responses and 

objections.

2. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they incorporate terms that 

are undefined, vague, ambiguous, or otherwise impermissibly imprecise.

3. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information 

beyond Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, and/or that is publicly available or is 

uniquely or equally available to Plaintiffs.

4. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek the disclosure of 

information protected by the attorney client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other 

applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limit, common interest or joint 

defense.

5. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek to impose burdens 

or obligations beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local 

Rules.

6. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek to require 

production of documents or information prohibited from disclosure by federal statutory and 

Exhibit D - Page 2 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 21
3

regulatory requirements, state privacy laws, and any other provision of law prohibiting the 

disclosure of information.

7. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are overly broad 

(including without limitation as a result of the absence of reasonable temporal or geographic 

limitations), overly inclusive, cumulative or unreasonably duplicative, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, vague or ambiguous, and/or to the extent they seek information that is neither 

relevant to the subject matter of the pending action nor proportional to the needs of the case, 

and/or to the extent that the burden imposed by production would be unreasonable in view of the 

amount in controversy or the sources available to Defendant.

8. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek expert opinion 

testimony or related materials that is protected from disclosure under Rule 26 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure or applicable Local Rules, and/or to the extent they call for legal 

conclusions, legal analysis, and/or trial theories.

9. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they contain incorrect 

factual assumptions or assertions.

10. Defendant objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they fail to specify a 

relevant time period. The absence of a limited time period makes these Interrogatories overly 

broad, not proportional to the needs of this proceeding, and unduly burdensome in scope.

11. Defendant objects to the term “Disputed Three Stripe Mark” on the ground that it 

falsely implies that the design depicted in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint filed in this action in fact 

contains three stripes and/or falsely implies ownership of trademarks incorporating two or four 

parallel or substantially parallel stripes for use on apparel and footwear.

Exhibit D - Page 3 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 21
4

12. Defendant objects to the definition of “TRB” as unduly burdensome and 

overbroad to the extent that they propose to cover entities and persons other than the Defendant 

TRB Acquisitions LLC.

13. Defendant objects to the definition of “Plaintiffs’ Marks” on the grounds that it 

falsely suggests that Plaintiffs own rights in those marks as described in the Complaint and as 

shown in the registration certificates attached to the Complaint when in fact a number of these 

registration rights have been abandoned and/or limited in scope.

14. Defendant objects to the definition of “Disputed Products” on the grounds that it 

is overly broad and indefinite. 

15. Defendant objects to the definition of “Identify” on the grounds that it is overly

broad, not proportional to the needs of this proceeding, and are unduly burdensome.

16. Defendant’s responses to the Interrogatories are made to the best of Defendant’s 

present knowledge, information, and belief. Said responses are at all times subject to such 

additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while 

based on the present state of Defendant’s recollection, are subject to such refreshing of 

recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from Defendant’s further 

discovery or investigation. Defendant reserves the right to make use of, or to introduce at any

hearing or trial, information responsive to the Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the 

date of these responses, including, but not limited to, any such information obtained in discovery

herein.

17. Defendant’s responses to the Interrogatories shall not be interpreted to concede 

the truth of any factual assertion or implication contained in the Interrogatories.

Exhibit D - Page 4 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 21
5

18. Defendant intends to incorporate each of the foregoing objections into, and as part 

of, its specific objections and responses to the Interrogatories. By responding to the 

Interrogatories, Defendant does not intend to waive any objections as to relevancy, competency, 

authenticity, admissibility, materiality, and/or privilege (in this or any other proceeding) 

concerning the topics of the Interrogatories or any of the information provided in response 

thereto. Defendant expressly reserves the right to raise those objections in the future and/or to 

object to further discovery requests related to the subjects of any of the Interrogatories. No 

implied, incidental, or unintended admissions are intended as a result of responding to the 

Interrogatories.

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify each Person involved in TRB’s design, selection, 

and adoption of each Disputed Three-Stripe Design, describing each Person’s involvement.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Further, to the extent this Interrogatory calls for the identification of 

individuals employed or known by TRB Acquisitions LLC’s predecessors-in-interest or any 

Third Party, Defendant objects on the basis that it seeks information outside of Defendant’s 

possession, custody, or control. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that 

certain terms, including the “Disputed Three-Stripe Design,” and “adoption,” are vague and 

ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 

falsely implies Plaintiffs’ ownership of trademarks incorporating two or four parallel or 

substantially parallel stripes for use on apparel and footwear. 

Exhibit D - Page 5 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 21
6

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify each Person involved in TRB’s design, selection, 

and adoption of the RBX Logo, describing each Person’s involvement.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “adoption,” are vague and ambiguous 

as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information 

subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limit, common interest or joint defense. 

Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside 

of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving any of the 

foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in 

its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the 

answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify each Person involved in TRB’s design, selection, 

and adoption of each RBX Mark, describing each Person’s involvement.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as though fully 

set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, 

unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the needs 

Exhibit D - Page 6 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 21
7

of the case. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, 

including “adoption,” are vague and ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work 

product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without 

limit, common interest or joint defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject 

to and without waiving any of the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will 

produce non-privileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe the typical or target consumers (i.e., end users) 

of each Disputed Product, including the demographic and psychograhic profiles of such 

consumers.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 

contains multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” “end users,” 

“demographic,” and “psychographic profiles,” are vague and ambiguous as used therein. Further, 

to the extent this Interrogatory calls for information outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, 

or control. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general and specific objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be 

Exhibit D - Page 7 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 21
8

determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each Person who has been responsible for the 

creation, preparation, development, or placement of advertising or promotional materials for any 

Disputed Product, describing each Person’s responsibility.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” are vague and 

ambiguous as used therein. Further, Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it 

seeks information outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without 

waiving any of the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce nonprivileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State by month (if available, or, if not, for each separate 

period reflected in TRB’s books and records) TRB’s expenditures for each advertising or 

promotional medium used to promote each Disputed Product.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

Exhibit D - Page 8 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 21
9

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” are vague and 

ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 

seeks information outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without 

waiving any of the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce nonprivileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be determined. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Identify each Person who has been responsible for the 

distribution and sale of each Disputed Product, describing each Person’s responsibility

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” are vague and 

ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 

seeks information outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without 

waiving any of the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce nonExhibit D - Page 9 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 21
10

privileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Identify each store, website, or other outlet through 

which each Disputed Product has been sold or offered for sale.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” are vague and 

ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 

seeks information outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Further, to the extent 

this Interrogatory seeks identification of “each store, website, or other outlet,” Defendant also 

objects that the burden imposed by answering would be unreasonable in view of the amount in 

controversy, the resources available to Defendant, and the relevance of the answers to the issues 

of this case. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general and specific objections, 

Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be 

determined. 

Exhibit D - Page 10 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 21
11

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State how and when TRB first learned of each of 

Plaintiff’s Marks. 

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is 

compound, and that it contains multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. 

Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including 

“learned” and “Plaintiff’s Marks,” are vague and ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also 

objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to theattorney-client 

privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, 

including, without limit, common interest or joint defense. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Defendant’s possession, 

custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general and specific 

objections, Defendant responds to this Interrogatory as follows: 

The members of TRB Acquisitions LLC were generally aware of most national brands of 

athletic clothing upon their formation.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify each instance of which TRB has actual or 

hearsay knowledge, directly or indirectly, of any inquiry regarding or suggestion of any

connection of any type between TRB and Plaintiffs or any Disputed Product and any of 

Plaintiffs’ products. For illustrative purposes only and without limiting the foregoing, such 

Exhibit D - Page 11 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 21
12

instances would include misdirected inquiries, orders, cancellations, or returns, misassumptions 

as to source or origin, and comments, complaints, or expressions by any person indicating an 

assumption or belief as to association or connection between TRB or any of its products and 

Plaintiffs or any other apparel or footwear company.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” are vague and 

ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other 

applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limit, common interest or joint 

defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is 

outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving any of 

the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents 

in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the 

answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Identify each Third Party that has offered for sale or sold 

products incorporating a design that TRB contends is similar to adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark (see, 

e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 20‒33, Exs. 1‒13) or the Disputed Three-Stripe Design. 

Exhibit D - Page 12 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 21
13

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Three-Stripe Mark” and “Disputed 

Three-Stripe Design,” are vague and ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work 

product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without 

limit, common interest or joint defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks a legal conclusion, is 

compound, and seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs or in Plaintiffs’ possession, 

custody or control. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it falsely

implies Plaintiffs’ ownership of trademarks incorporating two or four parallel or substantially

parallel stripes for use on apparel and footwear. Subject to and without waiving any of the 

foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in 

its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the 

answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each Third Party that has offered for sale or sold 

products incorporating a design that TRB contends is similar to adidas’s Badge of Sport (see, 

e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 34‒35, Ex. 14), or the RBX Logo. 

Exhibit D - Page 13 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 21
14

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this

Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains multiple subparts and is therefore vague and 

ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information 

subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limit, common interest or joint defense. 

Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside 

of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on 

the grounds that it seeks a legal conclusion, is compound, and seeks information equally

available to Plaintiffs. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general and specific 

objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 

33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the answer to this Interrogatory may

be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify each Third Party that has offered for sale or sold 

products incorporating a design that TRB contends is similar to Reebok’s RBK Mark (see, e.g., 

Complaint ¶¶ 48‒55, Exs. 19‒21), or the RBX Mark. 

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

Exhibit D - Page 14 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 14 of 21
15

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work 

product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without 

limit, common interest or joint defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks a legal conclusion, is 

compound, and seeks information equally available to Plaintiffs. Subject to and without waiving 

any of the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged 

documents in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

from which the answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify each Person who has been responsible for wear 

testing or conducting any other quality control with regard any Disputed Product, describing 

each Person’s responsibility.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including “Disputed Product,” are vague and 

Exhibit D - Page 15 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 15 of 21
16

ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other 

applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limit, common interest or joint 

defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is 

outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving any of 

the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents 

in its possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the 

answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify each Third Party that, within the past five (5) 

years, has communicated to TRB a claim, objection, demand, or other assertion regarding 

alleged trademark or trade dress infringement, whether or not such communication resulted in a 

lawsuit.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information outside of Defendant’s possession, 

custody, or control. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general and specific 

objections, Defendant responds to this Interrogatory as follows: 

(1) Cougar Sport Inc., 55 West 39th Street, Suite # 305, New York, NY 10018, 212-947-

Exhibit D - Page 16 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 16 of 21
17

3054 (Raymond Dayan, CEO and President), this communication did not result in a lawsuit; 

(2) Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., 15130 Concord Circle, Morgan Hill, CA 

95037, this communication did not result in a lawsuit.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Identify each Person (including any Third Party) to 

whom TRB has licensed the RBX Logo, the RBX Mark, or any Disputed Three-Stripe Design.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory on the grounds that certain terms, including the Disputed Three-Stripe Design, are 

vague and ambiguous as used therein. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any

other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without limit, common interest or 

joint defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it falsely implies 

Plaintiffs’ ownership of trademarks incorporating two or four parallel or substantially parallel 

stripes for use on apparel and footwear. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the 

grounds that it seeks information outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Defendant further objects that this Interrogatory is irrelevant in part because Defendant does not 

license any Disputed Three-Stripe Design. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing 

general and specific objections, Defendant will produce non-privileged documents in its 

Exhibit D - Page 17 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 17 of 21
18

possession, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the 

answer to this Interrogatory may be determined.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify any royalty rate(s) TRB has paid or has offered 

to pay, whether formally or informally, to license or use the trademarks or trade dress of a Third 

Party.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work 

product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without 

limit, common interest or joint defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. Defendant 

further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential business information 

that is irrelevant to this civil action. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing general 

and specific objections, Defendant responds to this Interrogatory as follows: 

TRB has not paid or offered to pay, a royalty rate to license or use the trademarks or trade 

dress of a Third Party.

Exhibit D - Page 18 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 18 of 21
19

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Identify the royalty rate(s) any Third Party has paid or 

has offered to pay TRB, whether formally or informally, to license or use any trademarks or 

trade dress, including the RBX Logo and RBX Mark.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as 

though fully set forth herein. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly 

broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and that the information sought is not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it contains 

multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work 

product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without 

limit, common interest or joint defense. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent 

that it seeks information that is outside of Defendant’s possession, custody, or control. 

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks confidential business 

information that is irrelevant to this civil action. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: For each of the interrogatories, identify each Person, 

other than counsel, who was consulted or who otherwise provided information in connection 

with the response, and identify the interrogatory or interrogatories for which each such Person 

provided information.

RESPONSE: Defendant incorporates by reference its General Objections above, as

though fully set forth herein. Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it 

contains multiple subparts and is therefore vague and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this 

Exhibit D - Page 19 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 19 of 21
20

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work 

product doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity, including, without 

limit, common interest or joint defense. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing 

general and specific objections, Defendant responds to this Interrogatory as follows: 

Eli Yedid, as to all above interrogatories.

Dated: New York, New York ARENT FOX LLP

February 26, 2016

By: ________________________________________

Michelle Mancino Marsh, pro hac vice

Allen G. Reiter, pro hac vice

Eric Roman, pro hac vice

1675 Broadway

New York, New York 10019

(212) 484-3900

LANE POWELL PC

Kenneth R. Davis II, OSB No. 971132

Parna A. Mehrbani, OSB No. 053235

Telephone: 503-778-2100

Facsimile: 503-778-2200

Attorneys for Defendant TRB Acquisitions LLC

Exhibit D - Page 20 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 20 of 21
21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 26th day of February, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy of 

Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to be delivered 

by email to the following:

Stephen M. Feldman

Perkins Coie, LLP 

1120 NW Couch Street 

10th Floor 

Portland, OR 97209-4128 

Tel: 503-727-2058 

Email: feldm@perkinscoie.com

R. Charles Henn, Jr.

Charles H. Hooker, III

Nicki Chollet

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP 

1100 Peachtree Street 

Suite 2800 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Tel: 404-815-6500 

Email: CHenn@kilpatricktownsend.com

Chooker@kilpatricktownsend.com

NChollet@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Michelle Mancino Marsh

Exhibit D - Page 21 of 21

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-4 Filed 10/11/16 Page 21 of 21