Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Filing 104

Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Doc. 104 Att. 6

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 104-7

Filed 06/08/2006

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT F

Dockets.Justia.com

RPR 10 2006 se 5:03-cv-05340-JF DRYE . WRRREN541Filed 06/08/2006 0538 TO 9141539771882 of 4 Ca 5: 16 PM FR KELLEY Document 104-7 Page

P.02

KELLEY DRYE& WARREN L.L.P
A LIP-ITi:O I.IAFi',"IYv f"AI1TNc:"eHIP

333 WEST WACKER DRIVE
NEW YORK, NY
WASI-INGTON, DC

SUITE: 2800
CHICAGO, IL.L.INOIS 60606
[phone]

FACSIMILE

C:9Ii!) e~7"709~

NSON"; CORNER. VA
STAMFORD. CT
I'A~SIPPANY, N.J

www.kl;ll~yd...ye.com

DIRECT LINE: (312) fl57.2501
rJ-lUSSELS. BELGIUM
,eF"~ILIATE: Ofrl"lC:~S

EMAll: e~lalêri!kall~ydrye.èOm

"'A"ARTA, INOONE!!IA

MUMBAI,INi:IA.

April 10, 2006

VIA FACSIMILE

Ajay S. Krshnan Keker & Van Nest

710 Sanome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
Re: Google Inc, v. Amercan Blind & Wallpaper Factory. Inc.
Dear Ajay:

This responds to your correspondence ofMa¡ch 28,2006 and March 16,2006
regardig Google's disputes over American Blind's responses to Google's First Set of for Production of

Documents and Things.

Requests

First, the documents produced were produced as they are kept in the ordinar
course of

business. American Blid wil be producing additional documents, as referenced

herein, as they are kept in the ordinar course ofbusIness. Unlike Google's production, American Blind's production is not voluminous. Thus, we believed that you would have no diffcultly ascertaining that they were produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and to which of your requests the documents responded. Weare afforded the option to produce our docwnents in this manner under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Google, however, was under a court order to match the Bates range to the specific request. As an accommodation, we wil provide you with similar explanations as to whose fies and/or where the documents came from, consistent with the level of information provided to us by Klaus Ham in the course of Google's production.
Second, with regard to the financial documents requested in your March 16,2006

letter, we will produce responsive, non-privileged documents. .
Third, with regard to documents ilustrating American Blind's first commercial use of any ofthe American Blind marks, American Blind wil produce responsive, nonprivileged documents.

cl io liP! .ATC/2079231

RPR 10 2006 se 5:03-cv-05340-JF DRYE . WRRREN541 Filed 06/08/2006 0538 TO 9141539771883 of 4 Ca 5: 16 PM FR KELLEY Document 104-7 Page

P.03

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLp
Ajay S. Krshnan
April 1 O~ 2006

Page Two

Fourth, with regard to American Blind's selection of

the Amercan Blind mark,

the decision regarding American Blind's name was made many year ago and was not documented at that time. The marks were selected based on the corprate name chosen.
Accordingly, no responsive documents exists as to the selection of the American Blind name and resulting marks. We, however, are producing non-privileged documents relating to the clearance and adoption of each mark.

Fifth, with regard to American Blind's responses to Requests 13 and 14~ Amercan Blind will produce responsive, non-privileged documents regardig its advertising expenditures. The point of the statement that "American Blind's advertising expenditures are not necessarly separated to reflect advertising expenditures for products and services sold though
the American Blind domain name as opposed to tltough other chaiels". was merely to inform
you of

the scope and relevance ofthe information in our possession.

Sixth, with regard to Google's reuest for documents relating to research, analysis, or investigation as to American Blind's decision on how to name its busIIess, as addressed above, no responsive documents exist on name selection.
We are currently in receipt of some, but not all, of the documents that we intend to produce and wil be sending them out for Bates labeling and copying once we have received the full set of the documents. We wil provide you with copies ofthe above-referenced documents as soon as practicable.
Sincerely,

Caroline C. Plater
CCP:ccp
cc: David A. Rammelt

~f¿~

CHU I/prATC/207923.1

** TOTAl PAGF. 1i:1 **

RPR 10 2006 se 5:03-cv-05340-JF DRYE . WRRREN541Filed 06/08/2006 0538 TO 9141539771884 of 4 Ca 5: 15 PM FR KELLEY Document 104-7 Page

P. 0 1

KELLEY DRYE
:FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO
FIRM
CITY

Ajay S. Krshnan

Keker & Van Nest LLP
San Francisco

FAX

[phone]

..LE DRE & w... UP I
333 WE;STWACKER DRIVE

PHONE
NO. OF PAGES

[phone] 3 (including this page)
April 1 O~ 2006

SUITE 26
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
[phone] FAX [phone]

DATE

MESSAGE:

FROM

Caroline C. Plater
[phone]

PHONE
E-MAIL

NEW YORK. NY WASHINGTON, DC TYSONS CORIIER. VA

cplater~kelleydre.com
03971

CHICAGO, IL STAMFORD, CT

TIMEKEEPER 10
CLIENT NO.

PARSpPANY, I' BRUSSELS
AFFILlA.'i OFFICiS

014405.0027

JAAARTA
MUMBAI

IF PROBLEMS OCCUR DURING TRANSMISSION PLEASE CALL [phone].
The infomiation contained in this facsimile message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain
informstion that is privileged, confidentiai i¡rii: exempt from Oisclosure unier applicçble law, If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or aget responsible for delivery to the intended rÐciøíent. you am hereby notified that any use, copying, disclosure or dissemination of this communication may be subject to legai restrction or iianction.

I