Who is THE REAL National Sportswear?
You don’t have to be a scholar to find out.
We are “National Sportswear Incorporated”
the real National Sportswear!
Webster’s Definition of real(Entry 1 of 5)
Definition of corporation
Those who pretend to be us!
Legal Definition of DBA
Doing business as (DBA) is a term that is used in today’s business industry in regards to the liability and formal actions that are taken by a particular company. Doing business as means that the company is working under a fictitious name, concealing its true identity.
Now for the head banger!
Through the “Freedom of Information Act” we are entitled to share information with you “the public.”
National Sportswear Incorporated, being of sound mind and a “registered corporation” (as stated above) also pays its taxes to the Federal Government and the four states in which it is a registered corporation by the name National Sportswear Inc., where it pays its taxes as well as provides its annual reports as requested by the individual state governments. By doing so, the Federal Government and the Government of these four states recognize “National Sportswear” as our corporate “IDENTITY” and furthermore as the “ONLY” National Sportswear Incorporated in the USA and those states for which it is a corporation. Let it be known that by state law, it is illegal to knowingly register a DBA (doing business as) or register a fictitious name of a corporation knowing that corporation exists. In doing so, this would be knowingly committing an act of fraud and is punishable by state law. It is also known by state law that any DBA or fictitious named company has NO legal rights by state laws to use the identity of an existing corporation in that state. Also, in some states including but not limited to the ones National Sportswear Inc., is incorporated in and in good standing. It is known that DBA and Fictitious names are strictly for foreign corporations doing business within that state when a pre existing corporation of that state already exists with the same identity ( corporate name) as the foreign corporation who wishes to do business in that particular state. DBA and Fictitious names are not reserved for corporations within the state to use as a means to re identify themselves or distinguish themselves of another corporation within the state or foreign corporation doing business within the state.
Several years ago we sent ” a letter of seize and desist” to a company that came online “five years after us” using our name. This other company ignored our request to seize using our name “National Sportswear” and continued using it online. Realizing that our first request failed, we sent them a “second letter of seize and desist,” which they ignored for the second time. Which left us no alternative choice but to file for a judgment to have this other company stop using our name.
In that request, we simply asked for them to refrain from using our name “National Sportswear” and of course reimburse us for the legal fees that it had cost us for having to take this added course of action do to their failure to respond “twice” to our requests. The Federal Judge at the time sent this other company a notice of his opinion (which is standard procedure) and again, this other company ignored the Judge. Therefore an obvious standard of procedure was followed and a Default judgement was entered requesting this other company to immediately stop using our name “National Sportswear” and pay the legal costs for the judgment.
At no point in time did National Sportswear Incorporated try to file suit for extra damages caused or request for anything more than the costs brought on us for legal fees do to the inappropriate actions by this other company for failure to respond to our simple requests to stop using our identity which at the time was “also” our United States non contestable Federal Trademark.
After the default judgement was entered and “ONLY after it was entered” did this other company decide to contact us. They did so by filling a lawsuit of $150,000 requesting our (2) Federal Trademarks ” National Sportswear” which at the time were NON-Contestable, they requested our corporation “National Sportswear Incorporated” which is incorporated with the Federal Government, New Jersey Government, Florida Government and Massachusetts Government all as “C corporations and S corporations. As evidence, this other company provided 1- an altered photograph from it’s original state, 2- an unsigned document of incorporation which they claimed was themselves but was owned by another party whom have no affiliation to them and long being de seized (we have the original copy of certified and stamped document by the issuing government stating this is NOT them), and 3- a copy of DBA registration in their county which was “ONLY registered AFTER” the Federal Judge sent his opinion on the results of Default Judgement should they fail to appear, which makes this act a “fraudulent” one. Because the particular county where this other company registered their DBA for the “first time in history within that county, claims (and so does the State Government) that no one shall register a DBA “knowing another company exists with the same name, especially a registered corporation.”
National Sportswear Incorporated, not knowing at the time of this counter lawsuit, that the evidence provided was altered, entered into a “Settlement Agreement” on good faith with this other company. Even after their law firm (not mentioned) presented “fraudulent material as evidence” to support their case against us.
By state law, NO DBA HAS LEGAL PROTECTION AGAINST A CORPORATION OF THAT IDENTITY. After all, it is the “legal” IDENTITY of the corporation who is legally registered in that name.
I lieu of the facts and fraudulent evidence provided to the court, National Sportswear Incorporated has continuously honored the “Settlement Agreement” even knowing all the facts and carrying all the supported documentation by the individual Governments that issued them.
After entering the “Settlement Agreement” the other company or one of it’s associates emailed our CEO some “Blackmail Threats” demanding National Sportswear Incorporated sell them its portion of the rest of that particular state which was clearly documented in the “Settlement Agreement” as “National Sportswear Incorporated Territory” along with the entire rest of “the United States” or the gloves would come off and they would revisit legal action against us and as they put it “let the lawyers work it out.” With complete disregard for the law and the contracted “Settlement Agreement” signed by both parties and all the law firms representing the case.
National Sportswear Incorporated did what any normal corporation would do and presented these emails and documents to our law firm. Who had in turn reminded us that both parties have a legal binding agreement called the “Settlement Agreement” which was documented with the courts, and all parties agreed to information that was contained within it.
So “don’t worry.” We were told.
A few months later, “with no notification whatsoever to National Sportswear Incorporated or its law firm (as clearly outlined in the Settlement Agreement)” this other company hired a different law firm than the one representing them in the “Settlement Agreement” and “filed a cancellation on BOTH Federal Trademarks belonging to National Sportswear Incorporated (us)” which they admittedly claimed belonged to National Sportswear Incorporated in the signed Settlement Agreement.
By filling this cancellation on National Sportswear Incorporation’s United States Federal Trademarks, this other company and it’s law firm brought a costly and “unnecessary” FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION against National Sportswear Incorporated. One that could have easily cost 1-2 million dollars to defend. Perhaps what they had hoped for.
What Happened Next?…
Some lawyers believe they know more than the rest of us. So they would have you assume. As our Law firm put it in our defense, they are merely like the man behind the curtain in the wizard of Oz.
The law firm who represented the other company in the “Settlement Agreement” claimed in his cancellation to the Federal TTAB that National Sportswear Incorporated was somehow in breach of the “Settlement Agreement” by having a place of business in his client’s territory which was outlined in the “Settlement Agreement,” likewise, this attorney used the “Settlement Agreement” as evidence to support his case and argument.
The Federal TTAB Judges pointed out, 1- The location National Sportswear Incorporated was using, was in fact in it’s own territory outlined in the “Settlement Agreement,” furthermore, if there was any breach of this Settlement Agreement, it was to be brought back to the courts in the State where it was signed and issued. And as the Judges made more clear, the United States Federal Trademark court is not a court where Settlement Agreements are to be decide, but rather a court that decides on ownership and legitimacy of “Federal Trademarks.” The Federal Trademark Judges also pointed out that bringing cancellation on National Sportswear Incorporation’s two Federal Trademarks were “fatally time barred by FIVE YEARS.” As these were non-contestable Federal Trademarks and this cancellation was initiated more then five years afterwards and had already been litigated (by the evidence provided, the “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.”
Another argument brought forward by the other company’s law firm was that National Sportswear Incorporation’s Federal Trademarks “National Sportswear” were causing consumer confusion (interesting). This is a good place for me to jump in and remind “everyone” that a DBA stands for Doing Business As (FICTITIOUS), (Thank you Mr. Frank Baum.)
The Federal TTAB Judges pointed out in response that there could not be consumer confusion as these two Federal Trademarks “National Sportswear” are in fact “IDENTICAL” to the name and identity of the corporation who owns them, National Sportswear Incorporated. And thus, there is absolutely no confusion. (Thank you Judges).
The cancellation brought on National Sportswear Incorporated of its two United States Federal Trademarks are “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.“
The evidence that the party presented to the TTAB court in cancellation of National Sportswear Incorporation’s Federal Trademarks was the very “Settlement Agreement” for which they had entered into.
This Settlement Agreement (like all Settlement Agreements) had some very specific clauses within it.
One of which was a “Confidentiality Agreement” which clearly states that none of this Settlement Agreement could be shared publicly (with the exception of one paragraph that outlined the territories of each party).
By presenting this Settlement Agreement as evidence to cancel the Trademarks of National Sportswear Incorporated, which this other law firm would have understood clearly, was making the entire Settlement Agreement readily and publicly available to all to read and bringing cause of “defamation” of the good character of National Sportswear Incorporated. This would be BREACH Number ONE.
The cancellation of National Sportswear Federal Trademarks was not only unexpected, it was a surprise that left National Sportswear Incorporated with little to no time to prepare a defense of such magnitude.
The Settlement Agreement (as mentioned above) has many clauses (as it should) one was if any Breach had occurred by either party, the other party with its counsel must upon being made aware of such breach should contact the other party “and its counsel” and allow them 5 days to cure such breach or respond with evidence of no breach occurrences. A filling notice of cancellation of ones Federal Trademarks is NOT a notification of breach with opportunity to cure, but rather an attack of another courts decision. Clearly Breach Number Two
And there were many more….
When is a LAWYER above the LAW?…
The answer is never.
All lawyers must act within the confines of ethical conduct. It is for the benefit of all. There are specific ethical conducts every lawyer must follow if he or she are to “represent the people” and represent the institution that our laws were founded on. Or else there would be absolute chaos.
When a lawyer is asked to represent your case, they do not and should not go into it full charge with eyes closed. They must study your case and look at all the evidence and facts you present them with to determine the viability and legitimacy of your case. In other words, blind folds and curtains don’t qualify.
To proceed in a case knowingly that it is frivolous (remember the Settlement Agreement, what court, and the fatally time barred?), is in fact against the very moral and ethical behavior any lawyer should entertain. If a lawyer chooses that dark path, we must all step forward and let the associated body know.
This is exactly what National Sportswear Incorporated did. National Sportswear Incorporated filed an Ethics Complaint with the Ethics Committee of the County and State where this law firm is registered and practices law.
In searching for this Law Firms information to present it properly and accordingly to the Ethics Committee in his/her County and State, National Sportswear Incorporated stumbled across a form by the Ethics Bar Association itself claiming that this Attorney was on their
“Ineligible To Practice Law” list. It was signed by the acting Judge of that specific territory. And clearly said “you are not legible to practice law.”
This attorney has been put under investigation on the allegations brought forth by National Sportswear Incorporated and that investigation has 1- ended and 2- resulted in a hearing.
The Ethics Committee (or Bar Association) has brought allegations on this lawyer for his acts and misconduct against National Sportswear Incorporated while knowing his client had already entered into a Settlement Agreement with National Sportswear Incorporated. While doing so, brought a frivolous lawsuit against National Sportswear Incorporated and numerous other breaches of the very Settlement Agreement. Made no offer of restitution. And no argument to change law.
This hearing has already taken place.
In the last moments, no, last seconds, just prior to entering the hearing, this attorney and his acting defense plea bargained for lesser punishment.
Plea Bargaining on Ethical Conduct?…
The United States of America has one of the most fascinating legal systems in the world. So much so, that many countries watch us, follow us, and even use us as a model and guide to improve their own legal systems. (I love America!)
We are praised around the world for having a legal system that is the best, the most fair and one that changes with the times. A legal system in place to uphold our laws and protect the innocent, while allowing the guilty the benefit of the doubt. “Just in case there is error.” Now that is fair!
However, sometimes we go just a little too far. Plea Bargains are one of them.
National Sportswear Incorporated and it’s founder looks at it from a more common sense approach. And we do this for the benefit of all who are innocent.
We ask this simple questions and let you “our readers” decide the “ethical fairness and moral conduct of Plea Bargains.”
The questions are simple ones. The short analogy…
A man sees a cliff in front of him where several other people are standing. He knows that if he pushes them off the cliff, they will die. Or be hurt badly. So badly, they may never be able to earn a living again, or earn less than they had before. Because they were “injured.”
This is called cause and affect.
Cliff, push, fall, hurt, never the same (and possibly dead).
The man walking up to the cliff is hired by someone else. The other person hands this man a map and shows him exactly where the cliff is and what will happen to the people by the cliff, should he push them off. He even hands this man a notice that clearly points out a hazardous sign by the cliff.
So, this man simply chooses to push them off the cliff, even when there is a sign in plain view stating DO NOT PUSH OFF CLIFF ( AKA – The Settlement Agreement) and now he is faced with prosecution for doing so.
The RESULT OF A “FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT” AND ‘BREACH OF SETTLEMENT”
Who is National Sportswear?
Let these Federal Judges tell you.
Baxley Mailed: March 23, 2017
Cancellation No. 92064690
“We have removed this portion of the dismissal in lieu of the contents can be found on the United States Federal Trademark Board website.
The reason is quite simple.
The other party has “Breached the very Settlement Agreement” by presenting it as evidence in a public domain and by doing so, failed to abide by the Settlement Agreement’s confidentiality clause.”
Their attorney failed to present argument.
And failed to meet our attorney’s requests to NOT file a “FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT” while also further Breaching the Settlement Agreement by bringing litigation
against National Sportswear Incorporated, 1- in a court of non jurisdiction 2- where litigation could not be filed 3- false claims and more.
Hence, we provide our customers (readers) with the last paragraph of the TTAB Dismissal with prejudice in our favor.
The “Respondent” is National Sportswear Incorporated and owner of Trademarks.
The “Plaintiff” is the other company who had prior entered into a Settlement Agreement and filed this frivolous cancellation
by Breaching the very contents of the Settlement Agreement they entered into.
Cancellation No. 92064690
Respondent is us National Sportswear Incorporated
Plaintiff/Petitioner is the “Fictiscious DBA company and their lawyer”
based on activities prior to the dismissal with prejudice of the civil action.
Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.
The Board’s general practice is to allow a plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint after granting a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See TBMP
§ 503.03 (Jan. 2017). However, we note that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars
Petitioner from pursuing any claims that could have been brought as a counterclaim
in the civil action and that Petitioner’s misrepresentation of source claim is
apparently based on a mistaken belief that the settlement agreement in the civil
action gives Petitioner senior rights in the mark NATIONAL SPORTSWEAR in the
entire State of New Jersey, as opposed to the eleven counties identified therein. We
therefore find that granting such leave would be futile in this case. See Embarcadero
Techs., Inc. v. Dephix Corp., 117 USPQ2d 1518, 1523 (TTAB 2016) (motion for leave
to amend denied where proposed claims are untimely and futile). Based on the
foregoing, the petition to cancel is therefore dismissed with prejudice.
View Entire Case HERE
View Our Trademarks HERE
View Our Corporation Identifications HERE
Did you know National Sportswear ®
was one of the very first online
apparel decorating companies?
FIRST ONLINE VIEW HERE
Picture from TTAB United States Federal Trademark Court Database
Who Is National Sportswear ?
When we first came online we introduced
free shipping coast to coast, free artwork services,
no setup fees and the lowest prices in the USA.
We’re still the lowest today!
Who is National Sportswear ?
National Sportswear ®
No middlemen and 100% American owned and operated.
From the very day National Sportswear ® was founded,
we’ve produced everything inhouse.
Who Is National Sportswear ?
Follow Us and find out more.
Who is National Sportswear?… Why not ask the United States Department of Defense?
Department of Defense
CAGE / NCAGE