NPGMC was shut down the day that an opposition 2 it's trademark was filed. The opposing company HM Publishing filed trademark 4 everything under the sun... AFTER NPGMC and NPG records filed 4 trademark twice. It hasn't been said, but the club shut down the day the opposition was filed.


[Link http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/...=OPP&eno=1 - luv4u]

I am just posting quotes of what I researched and posted on another website, read 4 yourself.

Synergy said:

Yup... probably...

I posted this yesterday on the NPG folks check in thread...

(words only): NPG MUSIC CLUB

Standard Character claim: No

Current Status: An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Date of Status: 2006-07-03..... hmmmmm..

Synergy said:

It also looks as if 3121 is

words only): 3121

Standard Character claim: Yes

Current Status: A non-final refusal of the Statement of Use filed for this application has been mailed.

Date of Status: 2006-05-19


words only): 3121

Standard Character claim: Yes

Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.

Date of Status: 2006-03-29
[Edited 7/7/06 14:36pm]

and the lesson iz

never fuck with a smart woman


" he would have done better to remain my guest "

sacredwarrior said:

karma, anyone???

HoneymoonXpress said:

Synergy said:

You don't like generalizations about the Club right? Don't like it here either.

Ofcourse I'm interested and want to help! Whatcha got.
[Edited 7/7/06 16:46pm]

It was time for Prince to get rid of that silly name anyhow, its beyond dated.

pwned!!!!!

Tom said:

I have to agree. it's overstayed it's welcome for about 10 years now. it's time for a change.

purplecam said:

too true.

Mailed: July 3, 2006
Opposition No 91171672
Serial No. 78586515, 78586548

DAVID G. SCHELZEL
BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
225 S 6TH ST STE 4000
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-4690
dschelzel@bestlaw.com

HM PUBLISHERS HOLDINGS LIMITED
v.
Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc.
Gary J. Pitzer
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO LLP
1300 EAST NINTH STREET SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44147
gpitzer@tarolli.com

ESTTA88258
A notice of opposition to the registration sought in the aboveidentified
application has been filed. The notice of opposition can be
viewed and printed at
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qs= 91171672
ANSWER IS DUE FORTY DAYS after the transmission date hereof. (See
Trademark Rule 2.196 for expiration date falling on Saturday, Sunday or
a holiday).

Proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the Trademark Rules of
Practice, set forth in Title 37, part 2, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The parties are reminded of the recent amendments to the Trademark Rules that
affect the rules of practice before the TTAB. See Rules of Practice for
Trademark-Related Filings Under the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, 68
Fed. R. 55,748 (September 26, 2003) (effective November 2, 2003);
Reorganization of Correspondence and Other Provisions, 68 Fed. Reg. 48,286
(August 13, 2003) (effective September 12, 2003). Notices concerning the
rules changes, as well as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of
Procedure (TBMP), are available at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/ttab/.
The parties are particularly referred to Trademark Rule 2.126
pertaining to the form of submissions. Paper submissions, including
but not limited to exhibits and depositions, not filed in accordance
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
with Trademark Rule 2.126 may not be given consideration or entered
into the case file.
Discovery and testimony periods are set as follows:

Discovery period to open: July 23, 2006
Discovery period to close: January 19, 2007
30-day testimony period for party
in position of plaintiff to close: April 19, 2007
30-day testimony period for party
in position of defendant to close: June 18, 2007
15-day rebuttal testimony period
for plaintiff to close: August 02, 2007
A party must serve on the adverse party a copy of the transcript of any
testimony taken during the party's testimony period, together with
copies of documentary exhibits, within 30 days after completion of the
taking of such testimony. See Trademark Rule 2.l25.
Briefs shall be filed in accordance with Trademark Rule 2.l28(a) and
(b). An oral hearing will be set only upon request filed as provided
by Trademark Rule 2.l29.
NOTE: The Board allows parties to utilize telephone conferences to
discuss or resolve many interlocutory matters that arise in inter
partes cases. See the Official Gazette notice titled “Permanent
Expansion of Telephone Conferencing on Interlocutory Matters in Inter
Partes Cases Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board,” 1235 TMOG 68
(June 20, 2000). The notice is available at http://www.uspto.gov.
Interlocutory matters which the Board agrees to discuss or decide by
phone conference may be decided adversely to any party which fails to
participate.

If the parties to this proceeding are also parties to other Board
proceedings involving related marks or, during the pendency of this
proceeding, they become parties to such proceedings, they should notify
the Board immediately, so that the Board can consider consolidation of
proceedings.

New Developments at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
TTAB forms for electronic filing of extensions of time to oppose, notices of
opposition, and inter partes filings are now available at
http://estta.uspto.gov. Images of TTAB proceeding files can be viewed using
TTABVue at http://ttabvue.uspto.gov.

wow, *thats* what this is all about? once again, why not just come clean?


oh wait, that would have been too easy.

I wonder if this explains why the gray NPGMC logo has disappeared from the blank website, leaving just a black void now.

avah12 said:

Yes, it more than likely is the reason, because according 2 the above letter sent 2 the lawyers representing Prince and PPE, the "NPG" more than likely cannot b used until the very least August 2, 2007 - when all testimony and Discovery must b submitted. I seriously doubt that it would b that soon as they would have 2 await a judgement from the governing committee.

I am wondering, if "we" as the members of The "NPG" can throw some salt into Nature's game, in the 4m of a class action suit, if 4 nothing else, 2 tie their hands up as they have tied Prince's hands.

They have, by their lawsuit, infringed upon r memberships, causing undo stress 2 many members, loss of friendships, loss of access 2 music and merchandise and perks that as NPG members, we are entitled too.

I am serious, I don't expect it 2 go anywhere, but nothing will choke a lawsuit like another lawsuit? Get me... Prince/ has been calling fam NPG since the early 90's - we can claim that as a "community" HM is causing harm.

So, is this possible? Or am I just evil?

Oh and U're welcome on thanks 4 my research... Cool

sosgemini said:

Maybe he thought that *we* would think he was an incompentent business man? Or that it wouldn't have gone this far and it would have been gone b4 having 2 close the club? There r a million reasons.

Synergy said:

we think? change that--we know that he's an incompetent businessman. if he weren't, the majority of us definitely wouldn't be bitching about stuff he's done in the past.

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

For anyone who's interested, there's lots more discussion about this on a thread at HQ!

http://www.housequake.com...adid=69364

so who gets the webby award now ?

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

all he had to say was that due to pending letigation all future prince corresponandance would be handled via 3121...


but nooooo....he had to close things down without any warning or explenation.