23414609v2

255954.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------- X

KENWOOD APPLIANCES LUXEMBOURG,

S.A.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., CHINA SINGFUN

ELECTRIC GROUP CO., LTD., KENWORLD

INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 2:10-cv-06356-SRC-MAS

Hon. Stanley R. Chesler

PROPOSED JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN

----------------------------------------------------------- X

1. Set forth the name of each attorney appearing, the firm name, address and telephone

number and facsimile number of each, designating the party represented.

Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg, S.A.

JOHH R. ALTIERI

Attorney at Law

25 East Salem Street

P.O. Box 279

Hackensack, New Jersey 07602-0279

Telephone: (201) 343-6525

Facsimile: (201) 343-5614

email: jaltieri@verizon.net

and

RUDOLPH V. PINO, JR.

MATTHEW D. KENNEDY

BRIAN P. MITCHELL

PINO & ASSOCIATES, LLP

Westchester Financial Center

50 Main Street

White Plains, New York 10606

Telephone: (914) 946-0600

Facsimile: (914) 946-0650

email: rpino@pinolaw.com

email: mkennedy@pinolaw.com

email: bmitchell@pinolaw.com

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

Bruce P. Keller

Michael R. Potenza

919 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10019

Telephone: (212) 909-6000

Facsimile: (212) 909-6836

email: bpkeller@debevoise.com

email: mpotenza@debevoise.com

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 15 Filed 04/19/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 109
23414609v2

255954.1 2

2. Set forth a factual description of the case, include the causes of action and affirmative

defenses asserted.

This case arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127, for

trademark infringement. In sum, Plaintiff, Kenwood Appliances

Luxembourg, S.A. (hereinafter, “Kenwood”), alleges that Defendants, Home

Depot U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter, “Home Depot”), China Singfun Electric

Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, “China Singfun”), and Kenworld International

Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, “Kenworld”) intentionally engaged in infringing

conduct upon the “KENWOOD” trademark by the alleged infringing use of

the alleged “KENWORLD” trademark.

In sum, Kenwood alleges the following causes of action: (1) Defendants’ use

of the “KENWORLD” mark intentionally causes confusion, mistake, and

deception among the general public rendering Defendants liable under 15

U.S.C. § 1125(a) and renders this an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. §

1117(a); (2) Defendants’ use of the “KENWORLD” mark causes dilution of

the famous “KENWOOD” trademark as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

decreasing the distinctiveness, value, reputation, and goodwill; (3)

Defendants’ use of the “KENWORLD” mark and trade name constitutes an

intentional and unlawful infringement of the “KENWOOD” trademark under

N.J.S.A. § 56:3-13.16 and unlawful dilution under N.J.S.A. § 56:3-13.20; (4)

Defendants’ acts constitute unfair trade practices, unfair competition, and

trademark infringement pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 56:4-1 et seq. and New Jersey

common law.

Home Depot asserts the following affirmative defenses: (1) the Complaint

fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted; (2) Plaintiff has suffered

no damages; (3) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any likelihood that the public

has been confused as to source or affiliation; (4) the public does not associate

Kenworld-branded space heaters with Plaintiff; (5) Plaintiff cannot

demonstrate that Home Depot’s use of the Kenworld Mark is likely to cause

dilution by blurring or tarnishment; (6) Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the

Kenwood Mark used on space heaters is famous within the meaning of 15

U.S.C. § 1125(c); (7) Plaintiff is estopped from claiming any harm or

damages; (8) Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches; (9)

Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the doctrine of acquiescence. Defendant

Home Depot also adopts and incorporates by reference any and all other

defenses asserted or to be asserted by any other defendant to the extent that

Home Depot may share in or be entitled to assert such defense.

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 15 Filed 04/19/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 110
23414609v2

255954.1 3

3. Has this action been: Settled: ____No______ Discontinued: _____No______

If so, has there been a Stipulation/Dismissal filed?

Yes __________ No __________

4. Have settlement discussions taken place? Yes No X

If so, when? _________________

(a) What was the plaintiff’s last demand?

(1) Monetary demand: $ _____________

(2) Non-monetary demand: ______________

(b) What was defendant’s last offer?

(1) Monetary demand: $ _______________

(2) Non-monetary demand: ______________

5. The parties [have X have not ] exchanged the information required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. (26)(a)(1). If not, state the reason therefore.

6. Explain any problems in connection with completing the disclosures required by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).

None.

7. The parties [have have not X ] conducted discovery other than the

above disclosures. If so describe.

8. The parties [have X have not ] met pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

(a) If not, state the reason therefore.

Not applicable.

(b) If so, state the date of the meeting and persons in attendance.

Mike Potenza and Rudolph Pino met on April 18, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 15 Filed 04/19/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 111
23414609v2

255954.1 4

9. The following [is X is not ________] a proposed joint discovery plan.

(a) Discovery is needed on the following subjects:

Use of the “KENWORLD” mark by Home Depot and the promotion,

advertising, and sale of space heaters sold under the “KENWORLD” mark.

The level of recognition and goodwill enjoyed by Plaintiff’s mark. The

purported likelihood of confusion between Plaintiff’s space heaters and

“KENWORLD”-branded space heaters. Damages or lost sales as a result of

space heaters sold under the “KENWORLD” mark.

(b) Discovery [_______ should not X ] be conducted in phases or

be limited to particular issues. If so, explain.

No.

(c) Maximum of 25 Interrogatories by each party to each other party.

(d) Maximum of 10 depositions to be taken by each party.

(e) Plaintiff’s expert report due on February 15, 2012.

(f) Defendant’s expert report due on March 15, 2012.

(g) Motions to amend or to add parties to be filed by September 15, 2011.

(h) Dispositive motions to be served within 60 days of completion of

discovery.

(i) Factual discovery to be completed by December 15, 2011.

(j) Expert discovery to be completed by May 1, 2012.

(k) Set forth any special discovery mechanism or procedure requested,

including data preservation orders or protective orders.

Plaintiff and Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. may request

confidentiality orders.

(l) A pretrial conference may take place on June 15, 2012

(m) Trial date: July 16, 2012 ( X Jury Trial; ____Non-Jury Trial).

10. Do you anticipate any special discovery needs (i.e., videotape/telephone depositions,

problems with out-of state witnesses or documents, etc.)? Yes______ No X .

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 15 Filed 04/19/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 112
23414609v2

255954.1 5

11. Do you anticipate any issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored

information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced?

Yes ________ No X .

If so how will electronic discovery or data be disclosed or produced? Describe any

agreements reached by the parties regarding the same, including costs of discovery,

production, related software, licensing agreements, etc.

12. Do you anticipate any discovery problem(s) not listed above? Describe.

Yes ________ No X .

13. State whether this case is appropriate for voluntary arbitration (pursuant to L. Civ.R.

201.1 or otherwise), mediation (pursuant to L. Civ.R. 301.1 or otherwise), appointment of a

special master or other special procedure. If not, explain why and state whether any such

procedure may be appropriate at a later time (i.e., after exchange of pretrial disclosures, after

completion of depositions, after disposition of dispositive motions, etc).

This case may be appropriate for mediation.

14. Is this case appropriate for bifurcation? Yes _____ No X

15. An interim status/settlement conference (with clients in attendance), should be

held in April 16, 2012 .

16. We [do do not X ] consent to the trial being conducted by

a Magistrate Judge.

s/ Brian P. Mitchell / April 19, 2011

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff

s/ Michael R. Potenza / April 19, 2011

Attorney(s) for Defendant,

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Case 2:10-cv-06356-SRC -MAS Document 15 Filed 04/19/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 113