‘TTRB
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`H"!!!lfllllllllllillflllfllflHIIIHIIIIIIHIII
`
`05-03-2004
`_
`U.S. Patant Q 1-
`MOWTM "W Rent 01. 1-“
`
`In re Application of
`
`Direct Response Corporation
`
`Mark: TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN
`
`Serial No.: 76/121,702
`
`Filing Date: August 31, 2000
`
`Trademark Attorney:
`Amos T. Matthews
`
`Law Office 108
`
`%€'%%%/%%%I’%f‘-:I'V-/‘-udV:Vi'V-é'\&\i\-i‘hi‘V-i
`
`APPEAL BRIEF FOR APPLICANT
`
`William R. Hansen, Esq.
`Bridget A. Short, Esq.
`Duane Morris LLP
`
`380 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10168
`
`NY'\2-19633.1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ ..1
`
`APPLICANT’S MARK ............................................................................................................... ..l
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................ ..2
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ ..5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Examining Attorney Has Not Met His Burden ........................................ .. 5
`
`The Primary Significance of Applicant’s Mark to the Relevant Public
`Is Source Designation ....................................................................................... .. 10
`
`Ill.
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN Informs the Relevant Consumers
`
`Where the Services Come From, Not What They Are .................................. .. 11
`
`IV.
`
`Doubts of a Term’s Genericness Are Resolved in Favor of Applicant ........ .. 12
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... ..13
`
`NY'\2-19638.1
`
`

`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`llllflllllllllflllllllHillHlllllflllllllllllllll
`
`05-03-2004
`
`_
`U.S. P :3
`3. D35 TMOfC/TM Maul Hcpt [)t_ ‘:2
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`In re Application of
`
`Direct Response Corporation
`
`Mark: TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN
`
`Serial N 0.: 76/ 1 2 1 ,702
`
`Filing Date: August 31, 2000
`
`Trademark Attorney:
`Amos T. Matthews
`
`Law Office 108
`
`APPEAL BRIEF FOR APPLICANT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Applicant hereby appeals from the Examining Attorney’s Final Refusal to register the
`
`above-identified mark dated March 2, 2004, and respectfiilly requests the Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeal Board reverse the Examining Attorney’s decision.
`
`APPLICANT’S MARK
`
`Applicant seeks registration on the Supplemental Register of its mark TEACHERS’
`
`INSURANCE PLAN for “insurance services, namely underwriting insurance in the fields of
`
`property, casualty and automobile insurance; insurance claims administration and processing;
`
`insurance consultation and insurance brokerage services” in International Class 36.
`
`NY\2496J8.l
`
`

`
`
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Applicant filed its application to register its mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN on
`
`August 31, 2000. Office Action No. 1 was mailed on March 6, 2001 in which the Examining
`
`Attorney found that the mark was likely to be confused with Reg. No. 2,331,524 for
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN SPECIAL RATES FOR A SPECIAL CLASS OF PEOPLE
`
`AUTO HOMEOWNERS UMBRELLA‘ in the name of Lancer Insurance Corporation, a
`
`registration to which Applicant had previously acquired rights and was in the process of
`
`recording the assignment therefor. In addition to the refusal based on likelihood of confusion,
`
`the Examining Attorney took the position that App1icant’s mark merely described a feature of the
`
`identified services, and refiised registration. In support of his position, the Examining Attorney
`
`attached Lexis/Nexis stories in an effort to establish that the mark was merely descriptive. The
`
`database printout, which was the only evidence relied on by the Examining Attorney in Office
`
`Action No. 1, revealed only 45 stories, 14 of which the Examining Attorney found relevant to his
`
`finding.
`
`Applicant filed a response to Office Action No. 1 on September 4, 2001. In its response,
`
`Applicant explained that the cited registration had been assigned to Applicant and presented
`
`arguments against the asserted descriptiveness of the mark. To this end, Applicant agreed to
`
`disclaim the term “INSURANCE PLAN” in order to overcome the Examining Attorney’s
`
`objection of descriptiveness. Applicant fiirther submitted that the mark as a whole was
`
`suggestive of the services, rather than merely descriptive.
`
`On January 17, 2002, action on the application was suspended pending the recordation of
`
`the assignment of Reg. No. 2,331,524. In response to the suspension, on July 12, 2002,
`
`NY\24963S.1
`
`

`
`
`
`Applicant submitted evidence of the recordal of the assignment and requested removal of the
`
`application from suspended status. At that time, Applicant also sought to amend the application
`
`to the Supplemental Register and supplied the requisite Amendment to Allege Use and specimen
`
`under 15 U.S.C. §l05l(c).
`
`In response to Applicant’s request for amendment to the Supplemental Register, the
`
`Examining Attorney issued another Office Action dated October 3, 2002 refusing registration on
`
`the Supplemental Register and taking the position that the mark is incapable of identifying the
`
`Applicant’s services and distinguishing them from those of others. In support of his position, the
`
`Examining Attorney submitted a sampling of Lexis/Nexis articles which he believed referenced
`
`various formatives of the phrase “teachers insurance plan” in a descriptive manner. On April 3,
`
`2003, Applicant responded to the Examining Attorney’s refusal submitting that the mark is not
`
`merely descriptive or generic of Applicant’s services. Applicant respectfully argued that the
`
`mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN does not convey the exact nature of the services and
`
`that consumers view TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN as identifying a brand and not a
`
`category of services. In support of its arguments, Applicant attached excerpts from the
`
`Lexis/Nexis database which recognize the relevance and prominence of the mark in the relevant
`
`community of purchasers.
`
`The Examining Attorney issued another office action dated July 16, 2003, maintaining
`
`his refusal of registration on the Supplemental Register and making the refusal Final. The
`
`Examining Attorney continued to draw reference to articles from the Lexis/Nexis research
`
`database in which others use the phrase “teachers’ insurance plan” in a highly descriptive
`
`(Continued. . .)
`
`I This registration is valid and subsisting.
`
`NY\24963 8.1
`
`

`
`
`
`manner. In addition to the research results, the Examining Attorney pointed to Applicant’s
`
`advertising literature and the results of a search on the search engine www.google.com as
`
`showing the genericness of the mark when used in connection with Applicant’s services.
`
`Applicant filed its Notice of Appeal and a request for reconsideration of the Examining
`
`Attomey’s Final refusal on January 16, 2004. An Order dated February 6, 2004 suspended
`
`action on the appeal and remanded the application to the Examining Attorney to allow for the
`
`review of Applicant’s request for reconsideration. In its request for reconsideration, Applicant
`
`again argued that its mark is capable of identifying and distinguishing Applicant’s services from
`
`those of others, and is eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register. Applicant
`
`presented evidence that a substantial number of publications, and most importantly the relevant
`
`consumers, recognize that the primary significance of the TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN is
`
`an indication of source of origin. Further, Applicant provided additional information from
`
`Applicant’s web site and Internet searches to establish the ability of Applicant's Mark to function
`
`as a source identifier.
`
`On March 2, 2004, the Examining Attorney continued and again made Final his refusal of
`
`registration on the Supplemental Register. The Examining Attorney included copies of third-
`
`party registrations that he found supported the refusal to register the Mark on the Supplemental
`
`Register. An Order dated March 3, 2004, allowed Applicant until May 2, 2004 to file its appeal
`
`brief. Applicant respectfully requests the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to reverse the
`
`Examining Attomey’s decision.
`
`NY\249638. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`The Examining Attorney Has Not Met His Burden
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`It is well settled that the Examining Attorney has the substantial burden of proving that a
`
`term is generic by clear evidence. In re Merrill Lmch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 828 F.2d
`
`1567, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 1987). It is not sufficient for the Examining Attorney to
`
`show that the individual words in a phrase are generic:
`
`the Examining Attorney must show that
`
`primary significance of the phrase as a whole is generic.
`
`In re American Fertility Soc., 188 F.3d
`
`1341, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1832 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(whi1e the Trademark Office proved that individual
`
`words in the phrase SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE were generic, it failed to
`
`prove the phrase as a whole was generic). To determine whether the primary significance of a
`
`designation is generic, there is a two-part test: (1) What is the class of goods or services at
`
`issue? and (2) Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that class
`
`of goods or services? H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.,
`
`782 F.2d 987, 990, 228 U.S.P.Q. 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test turns upon the primgg
`
`significance that the term would have to the relevant public. E T.M.E.P. §1209.0l(c)(i)
`
`(emphasis added). The Board’s determination of the Examining Attomey’s decision “must be
`
`made on a case-by-case basis in light of the particular designation for which registration is
`
`sought and the record in the application which is under consideration.” In re Boston Beer Co.
`
`g, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1914, 1920 (T.T.A.B. 1998). In this case, the Examining Attorney has
`
`failed to present clear evidence that the primary significance of the mark to the relevant public is
`
`Applicant’s services.
`
`NY\2«i9638. I
`
`

`
`
`
`“Evidence of the public’s understanding of the term may be obtained from any competent
`
`source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals,
`
`newspapers, and other publications.” Merrill Lygch, 828 F.2d at 1570, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1143
`
`(Court reversed Board’s finding of the term CASE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT generic) E I_n
`
`re American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1832 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(SOCIETY
`
`FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE not generic for association services in the field of
`
`reproductive medicine). It is Applicant’s position that the Lexis/Nexis articles,
`
`www.google.com search results and miscellaneous third-party registrations presented by the
`
`Examining Attorney are insufficient to sustain the heavy burden of proving that TEACHERS’
`
`INSURANCE PLAN is generic for Applicant’s services.
`
`The Examining Attorney has conducted a search of the Lexis/Nexis database for the
`
`phrase “teachers insurance plan” to establish that the phrase can be used in a highly descriptive
`
`manner. However, a word, or phrase, can have some descriptive connotation without it being the
`
`
`name of a genus of goods. SEQ W.E. Bassett Co. v. Revlon Inc., 435 F.2d 656, 168 U.S.P.Q. 1
`
`(2d Cir. 1970). The Examining Attorney’s search resulted in 127 stories, only 15 of which the
`
`Examining Attorney attached as supporting his finding of genericness. Applicant reviewed those
`
`stories and found that three actually relate to Applicant and its mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE
`
`PLAN. E Nos. 14, 114, 116 of the Lexis/Nexis search results. Five of the fifteen excerpted
`
`stories are “mis-hits” because they do not refer to the exact mark ‘TEACHERS’ INSURANCE
`
`PLAN”, but rather reference variations such as “teacher insurance plans” or “teacher insurance
`
`plan.” Sg Nos. 15, 82, 87, 117, 118. Only seven of the 127 stories found by the Examining
`
`Attomey’s research are “evidence” of descriptive uses of “teachers’ insurance plan” and even
`
`those uses do not describe the precise services for which registration is sought by Applicant.
`
`NY\24963 S. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`Applicant submits that seven of 127 references cannot support a finding of “clear” evidence that
`
`the primary significance of a mark is generic. “. .
`
`. [T]he mixture of usages unearthed by the
`
`NEXIS computerized retrieval service does not show, by clear evidence .
`
`.
`
`. ” that the education
`
`community views and uses the phrase TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN as a generic, common
`
`descriptive term for the services to which Direct Response Corporation first applied the phrase.
`
`Merrill Lmch, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1143.
`
`To the contrary, the evidence presented to the Examining Attorney by Applicant
`
`established recognition of the source designating character of TEACHERS’ INSURANCE
`
`PLAN in a substantial number of publications. On January 15, 2004, Applicant conducted its
`
`own search for TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN in the Lexis/Nexis research database in the
`
`library entitled “ALLNWS”. The search found 141 related stories. Of the 141 hits, Q were
`
`relating to or referring to Applicant and its related companies; 44 were from Canadian news
`
`sources relating to or referring to a Canadian-based insurance company; and 30 were mis-hits.
`
`E Exhibit 1 attached to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration the hits relating to Applicant
`
`and related companies. Applicant’s evidence demonstrated that only fourteen of the 141 hits
`
`were descriptive uses of “teachers’ insurance plan.” As with the Examining Attorney’s
`
`evidence, fourteen hits out of 141 is not “clear” evidence that the primary significance of the
`
`mark is generic. Indeed, there were more than three times as many hits relating to Applicant’s
`
`use of its mark than there were hits which show a descriptive use of “teachers’ insurance plan.”
`
`The 53 excerpted articles support the Mark’s ability to distinguish applicant’s goods from those
`
`of others to relevant consumers.
`
`In addition to the Lexis/Nexis search results, the Examining Attorney presented 2 pages
`
`of results from a search for “teacher insurance plan” conducted via the search engine located at
`
`NY\24-9638. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`www.goog1e.com (“Google”). Applicant submits that the results from this search are not
`
`relevant because the search was not conducted for the subject mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE
`
`PLAN. Further, as performed, the search was not for the unitary phrase “teacher insurance
`
`plan,” but rather for each of the terms separately. Where the matter sought to be registered
`
`consists of a phrase (rather than a compound word), as is the case here, genericness will be found
`
`only where there is evidence of the generic use as a whole. American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d
`
`at 1836. Nonetheless, a review of the results from the Google search indicates that the first “hit”
`
`refers to Applicant’s mark and services. The remaining “hits” are not on point because they only
`
`reveal web sites that contain the words “teacher”, “insurance” and “plan” individually rather than
`
`Applicant's Mark. Applicant respectfully submits that the Google search does not support the
`
`clear finding needed to establish the genericness of Applicant’s Mark.
`
`In contrast, Applicant conducted an independent search on Google for “teachers’
`
`insurance plan” as a unitary phrase as indicated by quotes. E Exhibit 2 to Applicant’s Request
`
`for Reconsideration, a printout of the first twenty hits from App1icant’s search via Google.
`
`Applicant’s search revealed that thirteen of the first twenty “hits” referenced Applicant and
`
`Applicant’s Mark; six related to a Canadian-based company; and only one related to another
`
`matter. Therefore, the Google search results submitted by Applicant support Applicant’s
`
`position that the primary significance of TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN is to identify the
`
`source of App1icant’s services.
`
`In further support of his Final refusal dated March 2, 2004, the Examining Attorney
`
`pointed to an explanation of Applicant’s services offered under TEACHERS’ INSURANCE
`
`PLAN in the story entitled New Insurance Plan for Ohio Teachers; Auto Insurance Analysis
`
`Leads to Unique Educator-Specific Program in Business Wire (February 12, 2002):
`
`NY\24E'638.l
`
`

`
`
`
`Teachers’ Insurance Plan is a direct-to-consumer program tailored to the specific
`needs of educators and their families. It provides an array of programs for
`teachers that are not available from other insurers. Some of the services include
`
`customer services and claims and hours that are accessible to teachers’ schedules,
`an education newsletter, a school calendar, a referral program, scholarship
`progam, and the availability of a state approved defensive driving program
`conducted within their own school.
`
`Teachers’ Insurance Plan was formed in New York in 1992 to provide insurance
`and other services exclusively to teachers. In 2001, the program began to expand
`nationally. It is available to members of the education community, including
`active and retired education employees and their families, employees of schools,
`universities, school districts and other educational institutions.
`
`(emphasis added). This detailed description of Applicant’s services provides no support for the
`
`Examining Attomey’s finding that TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN is generic for Applicant’s
`
`services. Instead, this article supports Applicant’s position that the mark TEACHERS’
`
`INSURANCE PLAN covers a variety of services that are offered to a broad class of consumers
`
`including various non-teaching employees of schools, universities and school districts and their
`
`families, such as cafeteria workers and janitors. (See Lexis/Nexis Article No. 37). The range of
`
`services covers much more than just insurance for teachers as the Examining Attomey suggests
`
`is the case.
`
`Since this is an application for registration on the Supplemental Register, the mark must
`
`be “. .
`
`. capable of distinguishing applicant’s goods or services.” 15 U.S.C. §l091. A merely
`
`descriptive character does not preclude registration on the Supplemental Register. Thus, the
`
`evidence of several copies ofregistrations that consist ofrecitation of services that include the
`
`wording “insurance plans” is not persuasive of the generic finding asserted. Moreover, the
`
`Board has found that third-party registrations are not conclusive on the question of
`
`descriptiveness. See T.M.E.P.§1209.03(a). Therefore, the Board need not consider these
`
`NY\11-4963 S. l
`
`

`
`
`
`registrations in determining whether the Examining Attorney has met his burden of proving the
`
`Mark generic.
`
`The Examining Attorney has failed to present clear evidence of the genericness of
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN, and thus, the Board should reverse his refusal of
`
`registration.
`
`II.
`
`The Primary Significance of Applicant’s Mark to the Relevant Public
`Is Source Designation
`
`In support of Applicant’s argument that its mark indicates the source of Applicant’s
`
`services to relevant consumers rather than indicates the services themselves, Applicant submits
`
`pages from Applicant’s web site located at www.teachers.com. The printouts help to establish
`
`that the mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN does not primarily refer to the Applicant’s
`
`services, but rather denotes an entity which requires membership similar to that discussed in mg
`
`American Fertility Society. 188 F.3d at 1347, S1 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1837-38.
`
`In American Fertility Society, the Court vacated the Board’s holding that the mark
`
`SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE was generic.
`
`I_d. In so finding, the Court
`
`likened the mark SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE to the mark AMERICAN
`
`BAR ASSOCIATION and recognized that “AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’ is certainly an
`
`apt name for a national association of lawyers; however, it is not used as a generic name for
`
`national associations of lawyers.” 188 F.3d at 1347, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1836. Similarly, even
`
`though the Examining Attorney may have found the mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN an
`
`“apt name” for an association of teachers, the mark is not known to the relevant public as a
`
`generic name for an insurance association of teachers. The evidence establishes that the
`
`educational community views TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN as a program in which
`
`membership affords them access to valuable information, resources and services. As discussed
`
`NY\24963B.l
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`above, the services provided under the mark TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN include, besides
`
`casualty insurance, an education newsletter, school calendar, referral program, scholarship
`
`program, and the availability of a state approved defensive driving programs, and are applicable
`
`to employees of schools in general, not simply teachers. The Court’s reasoning in American
`
`Fertility Society that “aptness is insufficient to prove genericness” should prevail in this case.
`
`The Board should reverse the Examining Attorney’s finding of genericness.
`
`III.
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN Informs the Relevant Consumers Where the
`
`Services Come From, Not What They Are
`
`As supported by the Lexis/Nexis articles attached to Applicant’s Request for
`
`Reconsideration and the materials printed from Applicant’s own web site, the Mark has been
`
`used by Applicant in the industry to denote Applicant’s services since 1992. As a result of over
`
`10 years of service, Applicant’s use of TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN to identify and
`
`distinguish its services has become widely known by substantial publications, Applicant’s
`
`competitors and the educational community. See excerpts from Applicant’s website attached
`
`hereto. The educational community recognizes the primary significance of TEACHERS’
`
`INSURANCE PLAN as a designating s_o_g1£e of services rather than a statement of the services
`
`themselves. Applicant’s evidence demonstrates that the mark, TEACHERS’ INSURANCE
`
`PLAN, viewed as a whole means more to consumers than the words “teachers,” “insurance” and
`
`“plan” considered separately. For example, the educational community regularly relies on
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN to sponsor national surveys and research on a variety of
`
`issues related to education, including class sizes, school renovations, parents’ agendas and
`
`education priorities and the national school voucher system. See Article Nos. 25, 27, 43, 45.
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN does not describe to the educational community what
`
`services they will receive once they become a member of the program, but rather the mark
`
`NY\24‘963S. I
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`communicates the source of valuable information and services related to education. Notably, the
`
`Examining Attorney has produced no evidence at all of the public's understanding of the phrase
`
`TEACHERS’ INSURANCE PLAN as it relates to Applicant’s services. The Examining
`
`Attorney has not conducted an inquiry into the meaning of the disputed phrase as a whole among
`
`the relevant consumers, and thus, has clearly failed to carry his burden. E; In re Dia1-A-
`
`Mattress Qperating Cog}, 240 F.3d 1341, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1807, 1811 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(“There is
`
`no record evidence that the relevant public refers to the class of shop-at-home telephone mattress
`
`retailers as ‘ 1-888-MATRESS”).
`
`IV.
`
`Doubts of a Term's Genericness Are Resolved in Favor of Applicant
`
`Any doubts on the matter of genericness are to be resolved in applicant’s favor. In re
`
`Waverlg Inc., 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620, 1624 (T.T.A.B. 1993); In re Bel Paese Sales Co., 1
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1233 (T.T.A.B. 1986)(DOCELATTE held not a generic name for a type of cheese);
`
`Council of Better Business Bureaus Inc. v. Better Business Bureau lnc., 200 U.S.P.Q. 282 (S.D.
`
`Fla. 1978) (BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU for business ethics organizations held not generic);
`
`In re Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., 404 F.2d 1391, 160 U.S.P.Q. 233 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1969)(AUTOMATIC RADIO for automobile radios with automatic controls held not generic);
`
`In re Homes & Land Publishing Com, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (T.T.A.B. l992)(RENTAL GUIDE
`
`for real estate listing magazine held not generic); First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. First
`
`Federal Sav. & Loan, 929 F.2d 382, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1394 (8th Cir. 199l)(FIRST FEDERAL for a
`
`savings and loan association, describes, but is not the generic name of, the best or the first in
`
`time federal chartered savings and loan in a certain area); In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791
`
`F.2d 157, 229 U.S.P.Q. 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY held merely
`
`descriptive of lodging reservations services).
`
`NY\24-9638.1
`
`

`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that the Examining Attomey’s refusal
`
`should be reversed and that the Board allow App1icant’s Mark to proceed to registration on the
`
`Supplemental Register.
`
`Respectfillly submitted,
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`x%2m.
`William . Hansen
`
`Bridget A. Short
`
`380 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10168
`
`(212) 692-1000
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`
`Direct Response Corporation
`
`Evuiaavasiaus
`
`“Express Mail”
`mailing label No.
`
`
`at 3 3 Q9 ‘/
`Date of Deposit:
`I hereby certify that this paper or fee is being deposited
`with the United States Postal Service “Express Mail Post
`Office to Addressee” service under 37 CFR 1.10 on the
`date indicated above and is addressed to the Commissioner
`
`
`
`for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia
`22202-3514.
`
`
`
`
`
`‘ .
`
`"
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`N‘t'\24963 E. I
`
`tednameofper'
`
`.4W9
`
`

`
`
`
`Learn About T.I.P.
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`.4531‘
`
`0
`
`Teachers‘ Insurance Plan
`Spocid mu fir:
`dun ofpooplc 9
`learn about
`why T.I.P.is
`1.I.P.
`right for you ‘
`
`‘
`_
`stories from
`educators
`
`
`
`_
`free rate
`customer
`quote
`service center
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`get to know T.l.P. '
`Press Room
`
`f Iget to know T.l.P.
`
`glossary
`C(|I'l if
`1
`t
`
`“°‘“‘-‘
`
`V
`.
`.
`-
`-
`id you know that auto insurance companies
`view teachers as being above average
`drivers?
`
`It’s true. Statistics show that teachers have fewer auto
`accidents and file fewer claims than other drivers. And
`
`because teachers are more responsible, they cost less
`to insure.
`
`
`
`In an effort to recognize the superior driving habits of teachers, Teachers’
`Insurance Plan was created in 1992. Our goal: to provide low cost auto insura
`exclusively to education employees (active and retired) and their immediate
`families.
`
`Today, Teachers’ Insurance Plan insures thousands of drivers in N<m_Jerse_y,
`New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio, Missouri and Florida. Teachers
`have switched to us not only for our low/er rates, but for our superior custom;
`sierige as well.
`
`Do teachers have fewer accidents and file fewer claims because they spend sc
`much time working in school, after school, and at home? Or is it because the
`and maturity they display as education professionals is also evident when the;
`behind the wheel?
`
`Whatever the reason, we believe that teachers should be rewarded for their
`driving excellence. If you agree, then switch to the auto insurance plan that pl
`teachers in a class of their own: Teachers’ Insurance Plan.
`
`For more information about Teachers’ insurance Plan or for a free rate quote, conftzlctfi toda
`© Copyright 2004. Teachers‘ Insurance Plan.
`
`http://www.teachers.com/learn/index.asp
`
`4/30/2004
`
`

`
`
`
`Educator's Resource Center
`
`Page 1 of2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`customer
`service center
`
`,3;o
`
`Teachers’ Insurance Plan
`Special mm In a special doc ofpeop|e'
`learn about
`why 'I'.l.P. is
`T.|.P.
`right for you
`
`stories from
`educators
`
`free rate
`quote
`
`Press Room
`
`glossary
`Contact
`
`home
`
`' here is a wealth of resources available on the
`
`Internet that can help teachers and education
`professionals both at home and in the
`classroom. TIP has reviewed a number of
`
`these resources and listed them here for you. Most of
`these services are free if you agree to register, or are
`included in your monthly fee for Internet access.
`
`Free Web Site Hosting
`It’s estimated that some 90% of U.S. households have
`
`
`
`computers with access to the Internet. By creating a
`personal or class web site, teachers can give students
`and their parents instant access to lesson plans,
`schedules, notes, homework assignments or anything else you choose to maku
`available. A number of widely used programs like Microsoft Word and Word
`Perfect include simple web authoring functions. The most popular Internet
`Service Providers, like America OnLine, Microsoft Network, Earthlink and
`Mindspring, include web hosting in their monthly service fee. Visit the indivi
`ISP web sites or call their customer service representative to get the details or
`how much space is provided and how to upload your site once you’ve created
`
`Make a Web Site On Line
`
`For those who don’t feel comfortable creating a site off-line, a number of pop
`Search engines and “virtual communities” will not only will host you site but
`have built-in applets that will help you create a customized web site.
`
`Geocities
`
`My Familygm
`
`Message Boards, Calendars and E-Mail Subscription Services
`These preprogrammed and fully featured utility sites are extremely useful for
`disseminating dates and information to groups. You can subscribe to these
`services individually or add them to your web site with a hyperlink.
`
`Message Boards
`
` .Cl
`
`Calendars
`
`SIIIQCA
`
`Super Calendar
`
`http://www.teachers.com/resource/index.asp
`
`4/30/2004
`
`

`
`
`
`Educator's Resource Center
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Localender
`
`M)/Calendar
`
`SmartGroup§
`
`E-Mail Subscription Services
`
`E2-1:o‘ui§
`
`Links to Sites Created Specifically For Teachers And Education
`Professionals
`
`These sites, also called customized “Portal Sites”, are web sites, or subsectior
`web sites, dedicated solely to teachers and education professionals.
`
`Classroomcon
`
`liigChalk.cm
`
`% 1omfO:I1‘laIi0_I1 R§ou_rce_
`Center
`
`flucationw r1d.cgm
`
`For more infonnation about Teachers’ Insurance Plan or for a free rate quote, golfing toda
`© Copyrighl 2004, Teachers‘ Insurance Plan.
`
`http://wwwteachers.com/resource/index.asp
`
`4/30/2004
`
`

`
`
`
`Teachers‘ Insurance Plan - save up to 30% on your auto insurance
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`M
`
`1:800-ZTEACHERS
`
`glib-‘ WBIIIE I
`
`Teachers’ Insurance Plan To an automobile insurance program designeu
`Spoci-Ir-u-for--pe<=‘-Id-uofpeoplfl
`exclusively with the educator in mind.
`learn about
`free rate
`stories from
`customer
`why 'l'.|.P. is
`service center
`1.I.P.
`educators
`quote
`right for you
`
`special
`ofiers
`
`ed-
`1'
`
`Customer Service Center
`
`Find out what thousands of our colleaues have alread d
`
`in Account Online
`
`a Policy Documents Online
`
`in Contact Us
`
`in FAQS
`
`T.I.P. Extras
`
`I Teachers‘ Rewards
`
`I Teachers’ Tenure
`
`I Teachers‘ RoadAssist
`
`_ Scholastic Assistance
`Program
`
`I Teacher of the Year
`
`I Chalk Talk Newsletter
`
`I Ed ucator's_ Resource
`
`I Teacher Agent Network
`
`I Special Offers
`
`I Press Room
`
`Teachers} Insurance Plan could s
`youyp to 30°zeqa_gg:=more cnyour,
`autemblajle insuranafli
`'
`:{l',.-_;-‘.
`'r I}. _
`
`.
`
` 1 Click Here a
`
`for a free‘?iHIo-l-ébligation rite. dilate.
`
`' 353%
`
`TB3l3I|Bl'S' HEM
`
`
`
`Would you like to save 30% or
`more on your automobile
`insurance? If so, change to a
`unique plan that rewards the
`excellent driving habits of members
`of the educational community:
`Teachers‘ Insurance Plan.
`
`Each year, Teachers‘ Insurance
`Plan saves active and retired
`teachers and educational
`
`professionals hundreds of dollars
`on their automobile insurance
`
`premiums annually. And,
`depending on your driving record,
`annual mileage and several other
`factors, you can save even more!
`
`To learn more about Teachers‘
`
`Insurance Plan, including our
`competitive rates, superior
`customer service and exciting
`member benefits, keep clicking.
`
`Privacy Policy
`
`© Copyright 2004, Teachers‘ Insurance Plan.
`
`Underwritten by Response Insurance Company, Response Insurance Company of America, Response Indemnity
`Response Indemnity Company of California, Response Indemnity Company of Delaware, Connecticut Life and
`insurance Company, Warner Insurance Company, and National Merit Insurance Company as authorized b‘
`
`http://'www.teachers.com/index_nfiasp
`
`4/30/2004
`
`

`
`

`
`

`
`

`
`According to Detroit,
`this is the Year ofthe Car.
`
`After years of SUVs and light trucks, the big auto makers have discovered...
`ta-dah...cars. All three of the major manufacturers have placed new emphasis
`on family sedans, coupes and station wagons.They're introducing new models
`in almost every price range, including:
`
`FORD FIVE HUNDRED — a large sedan with high seating for SUV-like visibility.
`
`MERCURY MONTEGO — the Five Hundred's high-tech cousin
`
`PONTIAC GTO — a modern V-8 interpretation of a legend
`
`CHEVROLET IVIALIBU MAXX — a five door sporty hatchback sedan
`
`CHRYSLER 300C — a large sedan with rear wheel drive.
`
`PONTIAC G6 — an aggressively styled mid—size sedan
`
`CHEVROLET CORVETTE — the sixth-generation of America's favorite sports car
`
`FORD MUSTANG — all new mechanicall