IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`’Applicant:
`
`Touch—N-Buy,
`
`Inc.
`
`Serial No.:
`
`76/607,687
`
`Mark:
`
`TOUCH-N—BUY
`
`Law Office 111
`Hannah Fisher, Examiner
`
`2800 S.W. Third Avenue
`Historic Coral Way
`Miami, Florida 33129
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Responsive to the Office Action dated November 14,
`
`2005,
`
`Applicant submits the following,
`
`in conjunction with the Notice of
`
`Appeal submitted simultaneously herewith:
`
`REQUEST TO SUSPEND AND FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`The Examiner has objected to registration of Applicant's mark
`
`on the Principal Register on the grounds that the mark “TOUCH—N—
`
`BUY” is descriptive of “point-of—sale terminal for pre-paid gift
`
`cards and telephone calling cards” under Section 2(e) of the Lanham
`
`Act.
`
`Applicant
`
`strongly disputes said objectionsv and hereby
`
`requests that
`
`the Examiner reconsider Applicant's arguments and
`
`withdraw said objection. Moreover,
`
`the mark does not describe the
`
`1
`
`||ll|l|||l|l|l||ll||llllflllllllllllllllflllllllll
`
`05-1 9-2006
`U.S. Patent I TMOTa/TM Mall Rcpt Dt. W34
`
`

`
`goods of a “point-of-sale terminal." Further,
`
`the mark does not
`
`require a “touch screen”, nor does it require “touching” at all.
`
`To that end,
`
`the mark should be deemed at
`
`least suggestive and
`
`entitled to registration on the Principal Register. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the application be moved to
`
`publication.
`
`_
`
`In the alternative, Applicant
`
`requests that
`
`the Examiner
`
`suspend the application pending a federal
`
`lawsuit
`
`involving the
`
`issue of whether Applicant's mark is descriptive.
`
`Specifically,
`
`Applicant Touch—N-Buy,
`
`Inc. has sued Radiant Telecom,
`
`Inc. et al.
`
`in federal court
`
`(Case No. O4—CIV—22141) for, amongst other things,
`
`trademark infringement
`
`involving the mark
`
`“TOUCH-N—BUY”
`
`for
`
`Defendant's point-of-sale terminal.
`In defending against said
`allegations,
`the Defendants have argued that the mark “TOUCH—N-BUY”
`
`is descriptive.
`
`To that end,
`
`the Defendants have specifically
`
`requested that
`
`the District Court
`
`for the Southern District of
`
`Florida make
`
`a determination that
`
`the mark is generic and/or
`
`descriptive and that
`
`their usage is non—infringing.
`
`To avoid
`
`contradictory findings, Applicant requests that this application be
`suspended pending a finding from the District Court.
`
`Title 37 C.F.R. §2.67 provides that an “[a]ction by the Patent
`
`and Trademark Office may be suspended for a reasonable time for
`
`good and sufficient cause. The fact that a proceeding is pending
`
`before the Patent and Trademark Office or a court which is relevant
`
`

`
`to the issue of registrability of the applicant's markm will be
`
`considered prima facie good and sufficient cause” (emphasis added).
`
`The
`
`"pending
`
`federal
`
`litigation is directly related to»
`
`the
`
`registerability of Applicant's mark on the Principal Register
`
`making suspension appropriate.
`
`Pursuant to TMEP 716.02(d), Applicant submits a copy of the
`
`following documents addressing the issue of whether Applicant's
`
`mark is descriptive:
`
`,
`
`1.
`
`Judgment Against
`for Summary
`Plaintiffs Motion
`Defendants Radiant Telecom,
`Inc.,
`IPrepay,
`Inc.
`Issa Asad and Johnny Rodriguez on Its Claims of
`Trademark
`and Copyright
`Infringement,
`False
`Designation of Origin, False Advertising and Unfair
`Competition (pp. 4-7);
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
`Summary Judgment
`(pp. 6-10);
`
`Plaintiff's" Reply Memorandum .in Support of
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`(PP. 7-9);
`
`Its
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`(PP. 6-10);
`
`Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for
`Summary Judgment
`(PP. 5-10); and
`
`Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion_
`for
`Summary
`Judgment
`(pp.
`5-10)
`(collectively
`Exhibit A).
`
`Portions
`
`of Exhibit
`
`A
`
`have
`
`been
`
`redacted
`
`to delete
`
`confidential
`
`information.
`
`The un—redacted. portions,
`
`however,
`
`sufficiently demonstrate the prevalence of
`
`this issue at hand.
`
`Should the Examiner require un-redacted copies, said documents can
`
`be made available and filed under seal with the PTO.
`
`

`
`There are no other outstanding issues raised in the Examiner's
`
`Office Action that'are not
`
`related to the proceeding and the
`
`application is condition for final action.
`
`§§e TMEP 716.02(d).
`
`In conclusion, Applicant requests that the objections by the
`
`Examiner be reconsidered and withdrawn, and that the application be
`
`moved to publication.
`
`In the alternative, Applicant requests that
`
`the application be suspended pending the federal litigation.
`
`In
`
`the event the Examiner does not suspend the application, Applicant
`
`simultaneously submits its Notice of Appeal.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MALLOY & MALLOY, P.A.
`2800 S.W. Third Avenue
`
`Historic Coral Way
`Miami, Florida 33129
`Telephone:(305) 858-8000
`Facsimile:(305) 858-0008
`E—mail: dgast@malloylaw.com
`
`
`
`David A. Gast
`
`Date: May 15, 2006
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`_
`
`_;
`
`’_
`
`. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`....—... -..... ............ _._..-. an-..-
`
`TOUCH-N-BU‘.Y, INCL,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RADU‘J\I'I‘ T'E?1.F£COM, INC.,
`IP12_EP.1S.Y; .iN(.‘..,
`'
`NTERA HOLDINGS, INC.,
`WORLDQUEST NETWORKS, INC.,
`ENGIN YE,-:;1L(an individual),
`-
`ISSA ASA.[.'>_(an individual),
`JOHNNY RODRIGUEZ, (an individual)
`.
`Defendants.
`‘
`W.....-......_._..._._._.._.._
`
`>¢\J\J\Jé%§/\J\/\/\./\/\./\/\/\./N
`
`Case No.: 04-CV-22141 _
`
`Judge: Lenard (Klein)
`
`NIGHT BOX
`F ' '- 5 9 Q
`JAN “ 8 ms
`.
`.
`. aux
`a&%I".%%u..;.
`
`
`
`
`
`I..;....-....uu..u....4....
`
`PI..AI?\‘TIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
`. DE111”’ENIi}'.!%.1‘¥’I‘S RADIANT TELECOM, lNC.,‘IPREPAY, INC., ISSA
`JOBNINW" RODRIGUEZ ON ITS CLAl1\rIS OF TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT
`IN75'RTN(I'r§=_‘.1VIE3JT, FALSE DESIGNATION OFORIGIN, FALSE ADVERTISING
`AND QEEAIR COIQETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`~¢‘.-u..—»..a.:..—....1-2-u..;..........-ur,o...a..)—.--..:...~..n44~.»u-....—;..—._:-.—,.........u........._....A.....
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`o o - v o o t o o cue o o n o o o n o o c o o ¢ u n I o J one u o A u u o u u o o u I ~ c o o c n 0000060 o o o u u Q n n Q v Q A c nun n I I I o Ion i
`
`TABLE 0FéUTHQRITIfi_....
`
`.........
`
`.............. .,. .................
`
`............
`
`iii
`
`1.
`
`Preliminary Statement........... ...................................................................
`
`4
`
`II.
`
`Standard of Reviem .....
`
`..........
`
`...........
`
`......................................... 3
`
`III. _ Defendants are Liable‘ for Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Qrigin and
`Unfair Competition Under Federal and State Lag.......................................... .. 3
`
`A. It is Undisputed that Plaintiff Owns Priority Rights inthe TOUCH-N-BUY
`Marks................
`.......................
`................................ .... .............. 3
`
`I}. There is a Likelihood of Confusion Detween the Parties’ Ues of the TOUCH-N-
`BUY Marks........................................................................................ 4
`
`MarkllOOOOOOOO I I O I I O ICC I U I D C O I C C O I II I IQCII I O Q O I O I C I I O I I O Q ll-IICI 4
`
`a. The TOUCH-N-BUY Mark is‘ Suggestive and Inherently
`Distinctive........................................................................................... 4
`
`b. Plaintiffs Investment and Widespread Use of Its TOUCH-N-
`BUY
`to
`sfle OIfiO O I I O O II O I O I O I I O I O C COO. O O I I I III D I O I CO
`
`"2. Egg Marg are Identical — TOUCH-N-BUY..................... . .. .......... ..
`
`3. Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Products are Virtually Identical.. . ...... . .
`
`.
`
`7
`
`7
`
`9
`
`4. Plaintiff and Defendants’ Sell Their Products Through Idengiggl Sales
`II I I O O I I I I I O I O O I I O I O O O I O IOOOOIOOICIOIIICCIOOC I I I I O I I O I O I O C I I C C I OI I I I I O O I I I ICCCIIIII
`
`5. Plaintiff and Defendants Use Identical Adxegfising Metgggg................. .10
`
`6. The Record Clearly Demonstrates that Defendants’ Misagpropriated -
`FaithIIIOIllOUIIIOOICICIIOIIOIOOIOI I I I I I I O OIOODIOIQUOOIIIIII
`
`IV.
`
`I; is Undisnuted That Dgfengang Huge Engaged in False Advertising ................... 11
`
`A. Defendants’ Advertisements Were False and Misleading................................ 11
`
`
`
`...:..:....n...:.:..-4...s..u...,s...A....
`
`
`
`._._................_...-.....-......«.a...a...x_....................-V...-.......................
`
`

`
`B. Defendants’ Misleading Statements Had the Capacity to Deceive.................... 13
`
`C. Defendants’ False Statements Deception Had a Material Effect on Purchasing
`u u a c oouonoooooooacuuunonnnn00000:oceanIoloonuIsouIn0tono00IIIcon:o0nuuooootoouuaaolnnvoon 13
`
`D. Defendant’s False Advertising Has an Affect on Interstate Commerce.........;.... 14
`
`E. Defendants’ False Advertisements Have Harmed the Plaintiff.;...........t...........;...... 14
`
`Defendants are Liable For lnfringing Plaintiffs Copxrig.hted Marketing
`Mat§rial§OIOOOOOIOIOlODOIIOIIOOI I I I I I I IIOIOOOIIOIIIOIIIOICV O I I O I I IIIIICIIOIillIOIIIIOIIIQIIIOIOIIOIQIOUII
`
`A. Plaintiff 0wnsaValid Copyright....._.................................
`
`................... 15
`
`B.‘ Defendants Copied Original Elements of Plaintiffs Copyrighted Work............ 16
`
`Conclusion...........................t............., .................
`
`............
`
`.... .. 20
`
`ii
`
`--In......a...
`
`
`
`
`
`....-a::....a........,...-._.v.....v:.:...;:.H.;»;.xaa—aq:.-.;.-.;.~....1-J..
`
`
`
`
`
`...a...._...ur..».-...--...»...u..:..A...\..._—._..-.-A..-‘......4-.:..:...--...........a.-u...._a...‘._.L.........-..._.-_.-....-.v_.:L,-...«.....:
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`'
`Adkins v. Cagle Foods-JV, L.L.C.,
`411 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2005) ................................................................ ..3
`
`.
`
`Alliance Metals," Inc. v. Hinely Indus, Inc. ,
`222 F.3d 895 (11th Cir. 2000)..............
`
`...................................................................... ..4
`
`Alphamed Pharms. Corp. v. Arriva Pharms., Inc.,
`391 F. Supp. 2d 1148, (S.D. Fla. 2005);..................................................................... ..11
`
`Am. Council ofCertifiedPodiatric Physicians and Surgeons v. Am. Bd. ofPodiatric Surgery, Inc.,
`185 F.3d 606, 614 (6th Cir.1999) ............................................................. ..
`
`~
`Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`Baxter v. MC4, Inc.,
`812 F.2d 421 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 954, 108 S_. Ct. 346, 98 L. Ed. 2d 372. (1987)
`
`16
`
`u.u,.........-.;._-._s1-.....I......,_...u..
`
`, Bell South Telcoms, v. Hawk Comuns,
`2004 U.S. Dist.‘ LEXIS 9413 (N.D. Ga. 2004)........................
`
`.............. ..14
`
`Blendo, Inc., v. Conagra Foods, Inc., et al,
`132 Fed. Appx. 520, (5th Circ. 2005) ..........................................................
`
`......
`
`.... ..6
`
`.
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). ..............................................2
`
`-
`Champion Golf Club, Inc., v. Champions Golf Club,
`78 F.3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1996)......................................................................................... ..6
`
`Club Mediterranee, S.A. v. For SearchlightPictures, Inc.,
`"2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3543 (S. D. Fla. 2004) ............................................................ ..3
`
`Coach Home Restaurant v. Coach and Six Restaurants,
`934 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1991)................................................................ ..6
`
`Cumulus Media, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communs., Inc.,
`304 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................4
`
`Delmonte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co.
`136 F. Supp. 2d 1271, (S.D. Fla. 2001).........................................
`
`‘
`.... ..14
`
`
`
`
`
`...1...'.......-..o.....«..._.......s.....
`
`

`
`Donald Frederick Evans and Assoc. v. Continental Homes, Inc.,
`785 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1986) .........................................................................................3
`
`ER. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Princeton Pharm., Inc.,
`17 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1447 (S.D. Fla. 1990)......................_ ......................................... ..4
`
`_
`H
`,
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991) .;........................................ ..15
`Fitzpatrick v. City ofAtlanta,
`2 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 1993). ....................................................................................... ..3
`
`-
`
`I
`
`_
`Guideone Elite Ins. Co. v. Old CutlerPresbyterian Church, Inc.,
`420 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005). .................................
`.....
`............................................2
`
`_
`
`,
`Herzog v. Castle Rock Entertainment,
`. 193 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir., 1999) .....................
`
`.
`.......................................................16, 17 '
`
`Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2004) ................................... ..'. ....................................... ..11, 13
`
`In reApplictaion ofReynolds Metals, Co.
`480 F2d 902 (CCPA 1973)....
`........................................................
`
`.... ..6
`
`Investacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Banking Corp. (Investcarp) E.C.,
`931 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1991). ................................................................................. ..3,5
`
`Johnson &Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) .....
`.... .. .................................................. ..13
`
`Kamar International, Inc. 13. Russ Berrie and Co.,
`657 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................................................................................16
`
`‘
`’
`‘ Kentucky Fried Chicken ‘Corp. v. DiversifiedPackaging Corp.,
`549 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1977). ..........................................................................................3
`
`.
`I
`Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc.,
`212 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir., 2000) ...............................'...............................................15, 16
`
`M.G.B. Homes v. Ameron Homes,
`903 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1990) ....................
`
`.
`'
`..............................................................3
`
`.
`.
`Montgomery v. Noga,
`168 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir., 1999) ..............................................................................15, 16
`
`National BasketballAssoc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`:1|.y1..n..1....4...I.
`
`
`
`..:...a-.n....-a.-....a...4..:........;.....
`
`.
`‘I
`
`1 33
`
`105 F.3d. 341 (2d 1997) .................................................. .. .......... ..13
`
`«
`Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Lofi, Inc. ,
`684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir.1982). ................................................................................._16, 17 '
`
`_
`.
`-
`.
`Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`617 F.2d 1178 (5th Ci1'.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 981, 101 S. Ct. 1516, 67 L. Ed. 2d 816
`(1981) ............................................................................................................................ ..5
`
`Sun Banks v. Sun Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n,
`651 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1981) ............. ..;..........................................,.............................. ..5
`
`-
`3 Standard Int’l Corp. v. American Sponge and Chamois Co. Inc.,
`157 U.S.P.Q. 630, (CCPA 1968) .....................................................................6 ..
`
`-
`Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast Community College Dist.,
`889 F.2d 1018 (11th Cir. 1989).................................................................................... ..'.3
`
`Tancogne v. Tomjai Enters. Corp.,
`2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37603 (S. D. Fla. 2005) ........................................................... ..4
`
`Turner Greenberg Assocs. v. C & C Imps. ,
`_ 320 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2004)......................................................................9, 10
`
`Two Pesos, Inc v. Taco Cabana, Inc.,
`505 U.S. 763, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615, 112 S. Ct. 2753 (1992). ......................................
`
`United Industries Corp. v. Clorox Co.,
`140 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................11
`
`Vining Industries, Inc. v. M.B. Walton, Inc.,
`' 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23763 (S.D. Ohio 1997). ...........................................................6
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125 .........................................
`
`..................................................
`
`....................
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (1994). .................................................................................'...................
`
`Rules
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). ..........................................................................................................3 A
`
`.
`
`Other Authorities
`
`3 NIMMER§ l3.01[B] .....
`
`.................................................................................................16
`
`1.3.
`1i
`
`5i1
`
`

`
`uH.
`
`a..:.............|.....u....x'........n.
`
`(“Plaintiff’l hereby files this Motion and Incorporated
`Inc.
`Plaintiff, Touch-N-Buy,
`Memorandum for Summary Judgment against Defendants Radiant Telecom, Inc., iPrepay, Inc., Issa
`
`Asad and Johnny Rodriguez (“Defendants”) on its claims of trademark and copyright infringement,
`false designation of origin, false advertising and unfair competition‘.
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:
`
`_
`
`Plaintiff and Defendants sell point-of-sale terminals which facilitate multiple functions
`including the abilityito browse and compare rates of long distance calling cards, as well as the
`ability to purchase phone cards or to make bill payments. In and around August 2004, Plaintiff
`
`» expended significant resources and expense-in preparation for one of the largest industry
`
`tradeshows, the 2004 Prepa‘id'Expo at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City (the “Javits
`Tradeshow”). In addition to expending significant eflortto promote its newest point-of—sale
`terminal, Plaintiff also invested a considerable amount of time in pitching and inviting numerous
`
`potential investors to visit Plair1tifi"s booth at the tradeshow.
`
`A mere few days before the Javits Tradeshow was to commence, Defendants iPrep_ay,
`‘Radiant, Issa Asad and Johnny Rodriguez decided they were also going to participatein the show
`
`and showcase what they claimed to be their latest point-of-sale device. Defendants invested
`approximatelyand purchased the largest booth at the tradeshow. Defendants also arranged
`for the delivery of two HUMMERQ sport utility vehicles to the Javits Tradeshow to further
`
`advertise their point-of-sale product and to draw potential consumers and investors to their booth.
`
`In Defendants‘ haste to prepare for the Javits Tradeshow, Defendants deliberately copied
`
`substantial portions ofthe P1aintifl‘s copyrighted marketing materials. Defendants used the copied
`materials as part of their own promotional materials to advertise and promote their own point-of-
`sale terminal. Defendants prepared 2,000 copies of a brochure that contained Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrighted materials, and distributed hundreds of copies of the brochure to potential purchasers
`and investors in the pre-paid industry both during and after the Javits Tradeshow.
`
`Defendants’ readily admit that their brochure had material copied directly from Plaintiff?s
`marketing materials, testifying that “some ofthe words were almost identical” and that iPrepay
`employees “must have copied some text.” Bx. D at 62-63?
`
`‘
`
`1 As many of these claims involve similar or identical elements, wherever pomible Plaintiff will discuss common
`elements and claims together.
`2 Plaintiff hereby incorporates the detailed recitation of facts as well as citations to the record found at Plaintifi’s S.D.
`Fla. LR. 7.5C Statement of Material Facts, filed concurrently with this motion.
`‘_’ Reference to Ex. A-AA in this brief refers to Exhibits A through AA attached to Plaintiffs Rule 7.5C Statement of
`Facts, filed concurrently with this brief.
`
`

`
`In addition to copying substantial portions ofPlaintiff’sl copyrighted marketing materials,
`Defendants alsomisappropriated Plaintiffs trademark TOUCH-N.-BUY. Defendants used
`Plaintiffs TOUCH-N-BUY trademark in connection with the advertising of their own point-of-sale
`
`Immediately following the Javits Tradeshow, Defendants filed an application for the
`device.
`trademark TOUCH-‘N-BUY with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in connection with
`
`a “point of sale distribution touch screen terminal.” Defendant iPrepay’s corporate representative,
`testified that iPrepay filed the application “because every product that we develop or sell we register
`as a trademark.” Ex. D at 56.
`A
`'
`S
`During the Javits Tradeshow, Defendants Issa-Asad and Johnny Rodriguez also made certain
`' ‘misrepresentations that their device was fully operational and was better‘ and less expensivcthan '
`
`Plaintiffs. Indeed, Defendants’ device, by their own admission was continuously malfunctioning
`during the Javits Tradeshow and was not capable of full deployment to the consuming market until
`approximately six months after the show had completed.
`.
`‘
`Defendants’ marketing materials also misrepresented that Defendants’ point-of-sale device
`distributed certain pre-paid long
`products, including cards manufactured by IDT and the
`
`“GREEN Florida” card — which it did not. This misrepresentation is important, because as
`
`materials explain “the moreproducts a POS terminal is. able to sell the
`Defendants’
`higher its value proposition to agents, retailers and end consumers.” Ex.
`at 10. Defendants clearly _
`attempted to capitalize on misleading consumers into believing that they can offer popular pre-paid
`
`.
`calling cards which were exclusively available from Plaintiff.
`As a result of Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiffs trademark and substantial portions
`
`ofPlaintiff’s copyrighted marketing materials, as well as their false advertising and
`
`misrepresentations during the Javits Tradeshow and thereafter, Plaintiff suffered significant damage
`in
`.of'lost customers and lost investors. Plaintifi’s credibility in the industry has been forever
`tarnished.
`.
`
`. II.
`
`STANDARD 01-‘ REVIEW
`
`_
`
`' Summary judgment is appropriate “if the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and
`that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Guideone Elite Ins. Co. v. Old
`Cutler Presbyterian Church,
`420 F.3d 1317, 1326 (1 1th Cir. 2005). The moving party “bears
`the initial burden of showing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is
`
`therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91
`
`L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). If the “moving party meets this burden, the non-moving
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`........_.u..nl—...4...\....-.n............
`
`
`
`
`
`.4-.44..._n~'A.an.'-.0.v..........~...
`
`

`
`party must show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that remains to be resolved at
`trial.” Adkins v. Cagle FoodsJV, L.L.C., 411 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); Fitzpatrick v. City
`ofAtlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). The non-moving party “must set forth specific facts
`showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, not merely make a summary denial of the movant's
`
`allegations.” Id.;_Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
`
`'
`
`HI.
`
`DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE Fon TRADEMARK INFRINQEMENT, FALSE DESIGNATION or
`ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER FEDERAL AND Srfln Q31
`
`The Lanham Act protects both registered and unregistered marks. T‘wo Pesos, Inc. v. Taco
`
`Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615, 112 S. Ct. 2753 (1992). To prove infringement
`
`under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant used a tenn in commerce ‘(.2)’ in’
`
`connection with its services (3) which is likely. to be confused with the term (4) in which the
`
`plaintifl possesses the right to designate its services. Irrvestacorp, Inc. v. Arabian Inv. Banking
`
`2 Corp. (Investcorp) E.C., 931 F.2d 1519, 1521-22 (11th Cir. 1991).
`These elements are also common to Plaintiffs claims forunfair.competition under state and
`federal law, and false designation of origin. The only additional element, namely deceptive or
`fraudulent conduct, is clearly met, as discussed below, by Defendants’ infringing‘ activities. Donald
`Frederick Evans andAssoc. v. Continental Homes, Inc., 785 F.2d 897, 914 (11th Cir. 1986).
`
`' order to prevail on a unfair competition claim under Florida common law, a plaintiff must establish
`
`deceptive or fraudulent conduct of a competitor and likelihood of consumer confusion); M.G.B.
`
`Homes v. Ameron Homes, 903 F.2d 1486, 1494 (11th Cir. 1990); Tally-Ho, Inc. v. Coast
`Community College Dist., 889 F.2d 1018, 1026 (11th Cir. 1989). Kentucky Fried Chicken Corp. v.
`Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 1977). (The determinative question is
`
`whether the tortfeasor's practices are likely to mislead customers into believing that the product
`emanates from or has been endorsed by the claimant.
`claimant need not demonstrate that any
`
`customers have suffered actual confusion; the test is likelihood of confusion); see Club
`
`Mediterranee, S.A. v. For Searchlight Pictures, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3543 (S. D. Fla. 2004)
`(A likelihood ofconfusion is also an essential element ofPlaintiffs claim for false designation of
`
`origin).
`
`A. It is Undis uted that Plaintiff 0 ns Priori
`
`' h in the TOU -N-BUY Mark
`
`It is.undisputed that Plaintiff has used the mark TOUCH-N-BUY in connection with its sale I
`
`of point-of-sale transaction processing terminals for pre-paid products and other services since at
`
`least as early as August 2003. Ex. A, L and M. Plaintiff is the owner of Application No.
`
`3
`
`
`
`u..l|.|-..g....-......4...4.
`
`
`
`..u.41.........u.4s..:.a...__.....-.....-.......
`
`
`
`.~.......a..na..:.....n.r.u..............\._I....¢.:.-u_...¢._.-..._»...:...«...4..«.........._..-..
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`76/607,687, dated August 16, 2004 for the‘mark TOUCH-N-BDUY which is now pending before the
`_United States Patent and Trademark Office. Ex. L. Plaintiff also owns a registration for the
`
`TOUCH-N-BUY trademark in the State of Florida. Bx. M.
`
`After Plaintiff began using the TOUCH-N-BUY mark Defendants filed their own
`
`application for the same exact trademark TOUCH~N-BUY in connection with “Point of Sale
`distribution Touch Screen Terminals.” Ex. N. Defendants began using the trademark TOUCH-N-
`BUY when it advertised the mark in connection with one of its point of sale terminals in a brochure
`
`that was distributed at one of the industry’s largest tradeshows, which was held at the Jacob Javits
`
`Center in New York City on August 4-6, 2004. Ex. I.
`
`-
`
`B. There is a Likelihood of Confusion Between the Parties" Uses of the TOUCH-N-"
`BUY Marks.
`
`To determine likelihood of confusion, courts in this Circuit look to seven factors: "(1) the
`strength of the plaintiff's mark; (2) the similarity between the plaintiffs. mark and the allegedly
`
`infringing mark; (3) the similarity between the products and services offered by the plaintiff and
`
`defendant; (4) the similarity of thesales method; (5) the similarity of advertising methods; (6) the
`
`defendant's intent, e.g., does the defendant hope to gain competitive advantage by associating his
`
`product with the plaintiff's established mark; and (7) actual confusion.“ Cumulus Media, Inc. v.,
`Clear Channel Communs, Inc., 304 F.3d 1167, 1172 (11th Cir. 2002); Alliance Metals, Inc. v.
`Hinely Indus, Inc., 222 F.3d 895, 907 (11th Cir. 2000). No single factor is determinative, Tancogne
`v. Tomjai Enters. Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37603 (S. D. Fla. 2005), and "the plaintiff need not
`prevail on all seven factors to support a claim of trademark infringement." E.R. Squibb
`Sons, Inc.
`v. Princeton Pharm., Inc., 17 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1447, 1451 (S.D. Fla. 1990). A proper
`consideration and balancing of these factors dictates that there is a likelihood of confusion between
`
`the parties’ respective marks and that summary judgment should issue. in Plaintiffs favor.
`
`1. Strength of Plaintiff’s Mark
`
`a. The TOUCH-N-BUY Mark is Suggestive and Inherenfly Distinfive
`
`Asian initial matter, Plaintifi‘notes that the strength ofPlaintiffs mark is not an issue in this
`dispute‘ because Defendants have filed their own application for the identical TOUCH-N-BUY
`
`trademark, swearing in a declaration that Defendants’ have the right to use the mark and obtain a
`
`registration for the mark. Ex. N. Thus, Defendants clearly believed the mark TOUCH-N-BUY is
`
`uH4.._q..
`
`.:..;-.:..-...-u..an...\..:........4........u,.......'.
`
`
`
`
`
`.x.._...m:..a_.:'.....J_..~._....._...|.-.....
`
`

`
`entitled to trademark protection. Any argument made to the contrary by Defendants would be
`
`disingenuous, and must fail because it could only be made with unclean hands.
`
`An important consideration in determining the strength of a trademark is whether the mark
`
`is "arbitrary" or "fanciful," "suggestive," or merely "descriptive." An arbitrary or fanciful mark has
`no inherent relationship to the product or service with which it is associated, and is thus entitled to
`the greatest scope of protection. A suggestive mark suggests some characteristic of the product or
`service to which it is applied,‘ but requires the consumer to use his imagination to determine the
`
`‘
`
`nature of the product or service. A descriptive mark merely describes a characteristic or quality of
`
`the product or service. See Sun Banks v. Sun Federal Savings &Laan Ass’n, 651 F.2d 311, 315-16
`-4 (5th-Cir. 1981) (discussing classification of service marks and trademarks); Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil
`
`Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1183-84 (5th Cir.1980) (discussing categories of trademarks), cert. denied, 450
`U.S. 981, 101 S. Ct. 1516, 67 L. Ed. 2d 816 (1981).
`4
`‘
`A
`
`In Investacorp, Inc. .v. Arabian Investment Banking Corp., 931 F.2d 1519, (11th Cir. 1991)
`
`the ‘Eleventh Circuit illustrated the differences between the classes of marks:
`
`The term "Milk Delivery" is an example of a generic service mark for a hypothetical
`milk delivery service. A generic term is typically incapable of achieving service '
`. mark protection because it has no distinctiveness. A descriptive term merely
`identifies a characteristic or quality of a service. An example of a descriptive service
`mark might be 'BarnMilk.' Because a descriptive service mark is not inherently
`'
`distinctive, it may be protected only if it acquires a secondary meaning... A
`suggestive term suggests the characteristics of the service and requires an effort of
`the imagination by the.consumer in order to be understood as descriptive of the
`service. 'Bam-Bam' is an example of a suggestive term. Because a suggestive service
`mark is inherently distinctive, no proof of secondary meaning is required for it to be
`protectable. ‘An arbitrary or fanciful [term] bears no relationship to the service.’
`Arbitrary and fanciful terms are also inherently distinctive, so they are protectable
`without proof of secondary meaning. 'Bambarnfish‘ is an example of an arbitrary or
`fanciful service mark.
`'
`
`_
`
`Id. at 1522-23.
`
`It is undisputed that Plaintiff uses the TOUCH~N-BUY trademark in connection with “point
`of sale transaction processing terminals for pre-paid gift cards and telephone
`cards.” None of
`the formative terms of Plaintiffs trademark describes these goods. However, because the terms may
`suggest possible featu_res ofPlaintiffs products, Plaintiffs TOUCH-N-BUY mark is suggestive,
`
`and therefore, inherently distinctive. While Plaintiff recognizes that suggestive marks, such as
`‘ TOU_CH-N-BUY, are entitled to a more restricted scope of protection than arbitrary marks, the
`mark is certainly entitled to the limited protection sought in this case where Plaintiffs direct
`
`5
`
`
`
`u..p|.|...l
`
`
`
`.:....r....:..a....u......a........x.
`
`
`
`.*..........-..a..,....n.......
`
`

`
`competitor has adopted the exact sme mark on almost i_cl<:_r1tiLal_g&cls, through i_de1_1_ticg trade '
`
`channels, at the industry’s most important tradeshow.
`
`.
`
`This case is highly similar to Vining Industries, Inc. v. M.B. Walton, Inc., "1997 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 23763 (S.D. Ohio 1997). In that case, the court found that the mark TWIST ‘N MOP was
`
`suggestive for a certain type of floor mop. Although, the court concluded the term “MOP” was
`generic for the associated goods, the combination of the other terms in the mark suggested features
`' of the product rather than describing it: “The purchaser must first decide what is to be twisted and,
`
`then, determine what is to be accomplished by performing that act. The purchaser must employ at
`
`-least as much imagination to deduce that the word TWIST signifies that the plaintift’s mop has such
`
`a feature, as the user of pencils wouldhave to app1y"i‘n order to det'errnlrte"that ‘a ‘Goliath; pencil is a '
`
`'
`
`large one.” Id. at * 14 (citing Champion Golf Club, Inc., v. Champions GolfClub, 78 F.3d.111 (6"'
`
`Cir. 1996); see also, Blendco, Co., Inc. v. Conagra Grocery Prod. Co., 132 Fed. Appx. 520 (Sm