ATLANTA AUGUSTA CHARLOTTE DALLAS DENVER LOS ANGELES NEW YORK RALEIGH SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO

SEATTLE SHANGHAI SILICON VALLEY STOCKHOLM TOKYO WALNUT CREEK WASHINGTON WINSTON-SALEM

Suite 2800, 1100 Peachtree Street NE

Atlanta, GA 30309-4528

t 404 815 6500 f 404 815 6555

July 18, 2016 direct dial 404 815 6572

direct fax 404 541 3240

CHenn@kilpatricktownsend.com

VIA EMAIL

Honorable District Judge Michael H. Simon 

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

Room 1327 

1000 Southwest Third Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204-2944 

Re: adidas America, Inc. et. al v. TRB Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-02113-SI

Dear Judge Simon: 

We write pursuant to the Court’s request that we respond to counsel for Defendant’s July 

15 letter (the “Discovery Letter”). 

1. Whether Issues are Ripe for the Court’s Involvement

When defense counsel sent the Court the Discovery Letter, Plaintiffs believed that the 

parties were still engaged in the required meet-and-confer process, and Plaintiffs were committed 

to trying to resolve both parties’ outstanding discovery-related issues before burdening the Court. 

It appears TRB unilaterally opted to discontinue meet-and-confer efforts and seek Court 

involvement. 

In addition to the issues raised by Defendant in the Discovery Letter, Plaintiffs long ago

identified numerous deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. And, 

for many weeks, Plaintiffs have been attempting to resolve those deficiencies without Court 

involvement – to no avail. 

Plaintiffs are willing to address these discovery issues with the Court; however, Plaintiffs 

suggest that the Court direct the parties to continue their meet-and-confer efforts through the end 

of this week. Then, any unresolved issues that still remain can be addressed in a telephone 

conference with the Court on July 25 (or another time that is convenient for the Court).

2. Defendant’s Deficient Discovery Responses

Counsel for Defendant’s decision to rush to the Court without continuing in good faith to 

confer is troubling. Nevertheless, if the Court would prefer to address the issues in Defendant’s 

Discovery Letter now, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court also address the following 

deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses: 

Exhibit Q - Page 1 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 14
Honorable District Judge Michael H. Simon

July 18, 2016 

Page 2 

a. Deficient Production of Electronically Stored Information

Six months ago, Plaintiffs served a comprehensive set of 90 document requests on 

Defendant (the “First Requests”). In May, Plaintiffs served another 33 document requests on 

issues relating to adidas’s remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, and disgorgement of 

Defendant’s profits (the “Second Requests”). 

Defendant recently disclosed in publicly filed documents that it achieved $90 million in 

wholesale revenue in the U.S. in 2014. Based on adidas’s investigation, Defendant’s sales have 

increased substantially over the intervening two years. Despite what is clearly a sizeable business 

selling product through major national retailers, with fourteen different licensees that use 

Defendant’s trademark to sell footwear and apparel, Defendant has produced a grand total of 381 

emails.

1

adidas repeatedly has requested Defendant to supplement its production to produce all 

responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”), but Defendant has not done so. 

Accordingly, Defendant should be compelled to produce all ESI responsive to both the First 

Requests and Second Requests 

b. Failure to Produce Any Documents Responsive to 66 Requests

On June 28, Plaintiffs sent Defendant a list of 33 of the specific requests for production 

included in the First Requests for which Defendant had not yet produced any documents 

(including but not limited to ESI).2 In addition, Defendant has still not produced a single

document responsive to the Second Requests.3 In short, Defendant has not produced any 

documents responsive to 66 of Plaintiffs’ document requests. 

Defendant claims broadly that it has produced documents responsive to some of the First

Requests, but refuses to identify a single bates number in support of this claim. Defendant 

claims that no responsive documents exist to some of the First Requests, but has only identified 

one such specific request for production that supposedly falls into this category. Thus, Plaintiffs 

cannot distinguish between the requests for production as to which Defendant has failed to 

produce documents compared to those as to which Defendant purportedly does not have 

responsive documents without Defendant amending its responses. 

In addition, Defendant responded to several of the First Requests by noting that it would 

produce documents from its predecessor-in-interest. But, Defendant has not done so. 

Plaintiffs request that Defendant be compelled: (a) to amend its responses to indicate 

clearly if responsive documents do not exist; (b) to immediately produce responsive documents, 

 

1 Making matters worse, many of these emails are simply adidas and Reebok marketing emails that Defendant 

receives by subscription. So, many of the very few emails that Defendant has produced are emails that already were 

in adidas and Reebok’s possession. 

2 A copy of this list is attached as Exhibit 1 to this letter. 3 A copy of the Second Requests is attached as Exhibit 2 to this letter.

Exhibit Q - Page 2 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 14
Honorable District Judge Michael H. Simon

July 18, 2016 

Page 3 

including ESI, to all other of the 66 outstanding Requests; and (c) to supplement its production to 

produce responsive documents from Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest. 

c. Failure to Comply With Properly Served Subpoenas

As noted above, Defendant licenses the infringing RBX mark to fourteen (14) third-party 

licensees, which, in turn, advertise and sell a wide range of infringing footwear and apparel. In 

April and early May, Plaintiffs properly served subpoenas on each of these licensees pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.4 Counsel for Defendant (and specifically Ms. Marsh, who authored the 

Discovery Letter) represents each of these licensees. Despite having received the subpoenas 

months ago, none of the licensees has responded to the subpoena served on it, i.e., none of the 

licensees has produced a single document or moved to quash the subpoena. 

Plaintiffs conferred at length with the licensee’s counsel regarding the scope of the 

subpoenas and repeatedly has asked for responsive documents, but counsel has refused. Without 

any legal authority, defense counsel (and counsel for the licensees) has taken the untenable 

position that none of the licensees need respond to the properly served subpoenas because 

Plaintiffs have moved to amend the Complaint to add them as defendants. 

The licensees should be compelled to produce responsive documents and identify dates 

on which representatives are available for depositions.5

3. A Brief Response to Defendant’s Discovery Letter

a. Should Plaintiffs Be Required to Search for and Produce 15-Year-Old 

Documents?

Defendant has objected to Plaintiffs’ five-year temporal limitation on their discovery 

responses, instead asking the Court to compel Plaintiffs to search for and produce all responsive 

documents going back fifteen years. 

At the outset, three issues bear highlighting: 

(1) Plaintiffs already have produced nearly 30,000 documents comprising over 

100,000 pages. Plaintiffs anticipate producing an additional 49,000 responsive 

documents this week and more the following week. This substantial production 

comprises documents within Plaintiffs’ five-year time limitation. Defendant 

repeatedly has complained about the quantity of responsive documents that have 

been produced in response to Defendant’s broad document requests, even 

asserting at one point that it intended to bill Plaintiffs for Defendant’s costs 

 

4 These licensees are the same entities that Plaintiffs seek to add as defendants in Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for 

Leave to File the First Amended Complaint (i.e. the “Licensee Defendants”) (ECF No. 46).

5 As noted in Plaintiffs’ pending motion for leave to amend, if the Court grants the motion and adds the licensees as 

defendants, then Plaintiffs have agreed to treat the subpoenas as requests for production and deposition notices under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 30, respectively

Exhibit Q - Page 3 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 14
Honorable District Judge Michael H. Simon

July 18, 2016 

Page 4 

associated with processing the documents. Now, however, Defendant is 

demanding even more documents? 

(2) Plaintiffs’ document-retention policy provides that very few categories of 

documents are retained beyond six years and even fewer categories are retained 

for ten years. Most of the handful of categories that are retained beyond ten years 

are not relevant or responsive (e.g., human-resources files, merger and acquisition 

documents, and articles about the history of the company). As a practical matter, 

therefore, Defendant essentially is asking Plaintiffs to incur substantial expense to 

search for old documents that likely were destroyed long ago (and well before this

litigation began) pursuant to the companies’ document retention policy, 

presumably in an effort to obtain random documents that were inadvertently 

retained in contravention of the companies’ policy. 

(3) Plaintiffs have produced copies of their product catalogs – showing use of their 

respective trademarks on footwear and apparel – dating back more than ten years. 

adidas has made available to Defendant hard copies of its catalogs going back into 

the 1970s, and Reebok has produced catalogs dating back to 2002. 

Defendant argues that the basis for its fifteen-year demand is related to Defendant’s claim 

that Reebok abandoned its RBK mark in 2007.6

 To understand the flaw in Defendant’s 

argument, one must consider the elements of a trademark-abandonment claim: (1) complete nonuse of the mark; and (2) a subjective intent by Reebok not to resume use of the mark. See Herb 

Reed Enters. v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1247‒48 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that 

abandonment “must be strictly proved” and that “[e]ven a single instance of use is sufficient 

against a claim of abandonment of a mark if such use is made in good faith”); see also 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1127 (noting that a presumption of abandonment does not arise until non-use occurs for three 

consecutive years); Electro Source, LLC v. Brandess-Kalt-Aetna Grp., 458 F.3d 931, 935‒941 

(9th Cir. 2006).

Reebok owns two valid and incontestable trademark registrations covering the RBK mark 

(Reg. Nos. 3,234,100 & 3,074,802). Moreover, Reebok has produced documents (including 

catalogs, photographs, advertisements, etc.) to Defendant showing that Reebok has used the 

RBK mark over the past decade and, indeed, continues to use the mark today. Thus, even if 

Reebok reduced its use of the mark in 2007, its continued use over the intervening decade clearly 

establishes that Reebok did not cease use and did not have the requisite subjective intent not to 

resume its use.

It is also significant that Defendant represented to the Patent & Trademark Office that it 

began using its infringing RBX mark in July 2012. Plaintiffs’ five-year time limitation on 

 

6 Despite Plaintiffs’ difficultly to understand Defendant’s insistence on receiving documents dating back fifteen 

years, Plaintiffs agreed to review a list of documents that Defendant provided and determine if there was a basis for 

compromise on any category. Plaintiffs provided a response to each of the document categories identified by 

Defendant on June 28, but counsel for Defendant never set up a time to discuss the matter further. 

Exhibit Q - Page 4 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 14
Honorable District Judge Michael H. Simon

July 18, 2016 

Page 5 

document production includes documents dating back to early 2011 – more than a year before

Defendant began using the RBX mark. 

For all of these reasons, Defendant’s demand for fifteen-year-old documents is designed 

exclusively to impose an unnecessary burden and expense on Plaintiffs and is not designed to 

acquire relevant information. The fact is that Plaintiffs have set reasonable limitations on the 

temporal scope of their document productions, and Defendant’s proposal is not proportional to 

the needs of the case.

b. Should Plaintiffs Produce European Documents Never Transmitted to 

a U.S. Business Person?

Defendant’s second demand is that Plaintiffs search for responsive documents from 

European-based employees of Plaintiffs. 

This is a trademark infringement case involving only the use of Plaintiffs’ and 

Defendant’s respective marks in the United States. While Defendant is correct that the parent 

company of adidas and Reebok is in Germany, the only documents relevant to the claims and 

defenses in this case would be documents (including emails) sent to someone involved in the 

U.S. business of Reebok or adidas. And, because relevant custodians in the U.S. were identified, 

and their data, documents, and emails were captured, all relevant foreign-originating materials 

were already captured and included in Plaintiffs’ document production. 

A separate and further collection of documents from European-based custodians that 

were not sent to individuals involved in the U.S. business is not calculated to obtain relevant 

information and is not proportional to the needs of the case. 

We appreciate the Court’s time and attention to this matter. 

 Sincerely,

R. Charles Henn Jr. 

cc: Charles. H. Hooker III, Esq. 

Stephen Feldman, Esq. 

Michelle Mancino Marsh, Esq. 

Lindsay Korotkin, Esq. 

Kenneth R. Davis, Esq. 

Parna Mehrbani, Esq. 

Exhibit Q - Page 5 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 14
Exhibit 1 

Exhibit Q - Page 6 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 14
Specific Requests from Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests 

adidas Document Request No. 2: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s design, selection, or 

adoption of any Disputed Three-Stripe Design 

adidas Document Request No. 4: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s design, selection, or 

adoption of the RBX Logo. 

adidas Document Request No. 5: Documents sufficient to identify any alternative designs 

considered by TRB, whether or not adopted, in connection with the process that resulted in the 

adoption of the RBX Logo. 

adidas Document Request No. 6: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s design, selection, or 

adoption of the RBX Mark. 

adidas Document Request No. 7: Documents sufficient to identify any alternative designs 

considered by TRB, whether or not adopted, in connection with the process that resulted in the 

adoption of the RBX Mark. 

adidas Document Request No. 14: Documents sufficient to identify the date of first sale by 

TRB of any product bearing a Disputed Three-Stripe Design. 

adidas Document Request No. 15: Documents sufficient to identify the date of first sale by 

TRB of each Disputed Product. 

adidas Document Request No. 31: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s communications 

with Seduka, LLC concerning any of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ Marks.

adidas Document Request No. 32: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s communications 

with One Step Up, Ltd. or Harry Adjmi concerning any of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ Marks.

adidas Document Request No. 33: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s communications 

with United Legwear Co., LLC concerning any of the Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ Marks.

adidas Document Request No. 34: Documents sufficient to identify the demographic 

characteristics of typical or target consumers (i.e., end users) of each Disputed Product.

adidas Document Request No. 37: Documents that refer or relate to any research (including 

focus groups, polls, surveys, interviews, and market analysis) that TRB conducted or had 

conducted concerning any Disputed Three-Stripe Design.

adidas Document Request No. 38: Documents that refer or relate to any research (including 

focus groups, polls, surveys, interviews, and market analysis) that TRB conducted or had 

conducted concerning the RBX Logo.

Exhibit Q - Page 7 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 7 of 14
adidas Document Request No. 61: Documents that refer or relate to adidas’s Three-Stripe Mark 

(see, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 20‒33, Exs. 1‒13) or stripes on adidas apparel or footwear. 

adidas Document Request No. 62: Documents that refer or relate to adidas’s Badge of Sport 

(see, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 34‒35, Ex. 14.

adidas Document Request No. 63: Documents that refer or relate to Reebok’s RBK Mark (see, 

e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 48‒55, Exs. 19‒21).

adidas Document Request No. 67: Documents sufficient to identify any elements of cost or 

deduction claimed by TRB under 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

adidas Document Request No. 70: Documents that refer or relate to any dispute between TRB 

and Seduka, LLC involving the RBX Logo or the RBX Mark, including any documents 

produced by TRB in discovery in such a dispute.

adidas Document Request No. 71: Documents that refer or relate to any communications 

between Eli Yedid and Joe or Michael Dahan that refer or relate to the RBX Logo, the RBX 

Mark, or any of Plaintiffs’ Marks.

adidas Document Request No. 72: Documents that refer or relate to any loss, destruction, 

deletion, or purging of TRB’s communications or other documents since February 18, 2015.

adidas Document Request No. 75: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable two year statute of limitations 

in the state of Oregon and any other applicable statute of limitations..”

adidas Document Request No. 76: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part due to waiver.”

adidas Document Request No. 77: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part pursuant to the doctrine of laches.”

adidas Document Request No. 78: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part due to their unclean hands.”

adidas Document Request No. 79: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel.”

Adidas Document Request No. 80: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of acquiescence.”

adidas Document Request No. 81: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs’ state law dilution claims are barred because they are preempted by federal law and 

TRB’s ownership of federal trademark registrations.”

Exhibit Q - Page 8 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 8 of 14
adidas Document Request No. 82: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any.”

adidas Document Request No. 83: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs would be unjustly enriched if allowed to recover on their Complaint.”

adidas Document Request No. 84: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s assertion that 

“Plaintiffs have used their trademark registrations to improperly and unfairly promote a 

monopoly and restrict competition, and therefore should be denied enforcement of any purported 

rights therein.”

adidas Document Request No. 85: Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s monitoring of its 

websites for visits, hits, or traffic from users or IP addresses at Plaintiffs or the law firms of 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or Perkins Coie LLP.

adidas Document Request No. 86: Documents that refer or relate to communications between 

TRB and any Third Party regarding this civil action.

adidas Document Request No. 88: Documents sufficient to identify each Person that TRB may 

call as a fact witness at any hearing or at the trial of this civil action.

Exhibit Q - Page 9 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 9 of 14
Exhibit 2 

Exhibit Q - Page 10 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 10 of 14
 

 5- PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor 

Portland, OR 97209-4128 

Phone: 503.727.2222 

Fax: 503.727.2222 

III. DOCUMENT REQUESTS 

91. Documents sufficient to identify the article, style, SKU, or other identifying 

number for each Disputed Product. 

92. Documents sufficient to identify TRB’s competitors with regard to sales of 

Disputed Products. 

93. Documents that refer or relate to any research concerning the U.S. market for 

athletic footwear, including documents that refer or relate to market size, TRB’s market share, 

competitor’s market share, market potential, market segments, and/or current or anticipated 

trends that may impact demand. 

94. Documents that refer or relate to any research concerning the U.S. market for 

athletic apparel, including documents that refer or relate to market size, TRB’s market share, 

competitor’s market share, market potential, market segments, and/or current or anticipated 

trends that may impact demand. 

95. Documents that refer or relate to consumer opinion or perception of athletic 

footwear, including trends, factors that influence purchasing decisions, the role and importance 

of brand names, and desired attributes. 

96. Documents that refer or relate to consumer opinion or perception of athletic 

apparel, including trends, factors that influence purchasing decisions, the role and importance of 

brand names, and desired attributes. 

97. Documents that refer or relate to any research, including studies or surveys, 

concerning the price elasticity of demand for athletic footwear. 

Exhibit Q - Page 11 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 11 of 14
 

 6- PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor 

Portland, OR 97209-4128 

Phone: 503.727.2222 

Fax: 503.727.2222 

98. Documents that refer or relate to any research, including studies or surveys, 

concerning the price elasticity of demand for athletic apparel. 

99. Any strategic business plans that refer or relate to Disputed Products. 

100. Any marketing plans that refer or relate to Disputed Products. 

101. Documents that refer or relate to forecasts or projections of sales, revenue, or 

profit for the Disputed Products. 

102. Documents sufficient to identify all revenues earned by TRB (or any business unit 

of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products. 

103. Documents sufficient to identify all costs or expenses – whether fixed or variable 

– incurred by TRB (or any business unit of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products, 

including profit and loss statements. 

104. Documents sufficient to identify the profit margin realized by TRB (or any 

business unit of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products, including contribution margin 

statements. 

105. Documents sufficient to identify the net profits earned or the net losses suffered 

by TRB (or any business unit of TRB) in connection with the Disputed Products, including 

income statements. 

106. Documents sufficient to show (i) the number of units and (ii) the dollar value of 

Disputed Products returned to TRB. If available, please produce the information by month, by 

year, and by Customer for each Disputed Product. 

Exhibit Q - Page 12 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 12 of 14
 

 7- PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor 

Portland, OR 97209-4128 

Phone: 503.727.2222 

Fax: 503.727.2222 

107. Documents sufficient to show the discounts or allowances applied by TRB to the 

sales price of any of the Disputed Products. If available, please produce the information by 

month, by year, and by Customer for each Disputed Product. 

108. Documents sufficient to identify TRB’s monthly net sales by Customer for each 

Disputed Product. 

109. Documents sufficient to identify TRB’s annual net sales by Customer for each 

Disputed Product. 

110. Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of the RBX Logo. 

111. Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of the RBX Mark. 

112. Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of a Disputed Stripe 

Design. 

113. Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of any intangible asset(s) 

owned or licensed by TRB -- other than the Disputed Marks -- used on the Disputed Products. 

114. Documents that refer or relate to the value or valuation of any of Plaintiffs’ 

Marks. 

115. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value 

of the RBX Logo, including goodwill. 

116. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value 

of the RBX Mark, including goodwill. 

117. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value 

of any Disputed Stripe Design, including goodwill. 

Exhibit Q - Page 13 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 13 of 14
 

 8- PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor 

Portland, OR 97209-4128 

Phone: 503.727.2222 

Fax: 503.727.2222 

118. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to account for the intangible value 

of any of Plaintiffs’ Marks, including goodwill. 

119. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s approval of the appearance, design, or 

placement by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on a Disputed Product. 

120. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s approval of the appearance, design, or 

placement by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on packaging, labels or tags for a 

Disputed Product. 

121. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s disapproval of the appearance, design, or 

placement by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on a Disputed Product. 

122. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s disapproval of the appearance, design, or 

placement by a Licensee of one or more of the Disputed Marks on packaging, labels or tags for a 

Disputed Product. 

123. Documents that refer or relate to TRB’s efforts to review, monitor, or control the 

quality of Disputed Products designed, manufactured, produced, distributed, offered for sale or 

sold by Licensees. 

124. Documents regarding the purchase, transfer of assets, merger, or acquisition of 

Rugged Bear by TRB, including any due diligence concerning the RBX Mark or the RBX Logo. 

Exhibit Q - Page 14 of 14

Case 3:15-cv-02113-SI Document 132-17 Filed 10/11/16 Page 14 of 14