PTO Form 1930 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 4/30/2009)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`77963483
`
`LAW OFFICE
`ASSIGNED
`
`LAW OFFICE 115
`
`MARK SECTION (no change)
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`(cid:160) A
`
`ttention: Box Response - No Fee
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, Virginia(cid:160) 22313-1451
`
`Dear Trademark Commissioner:
`
`(cid:160)This responds to the Final Office Action issued September 15, 2011. (cid:160) Applicant respectfully realleges
`
`and incorporates its arguments from August 24, 2011.
`
`(cid:160) I.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`2(d) Refusal
`
`The Office has continued its refusal to register Applicant’s PROTECTIVE RE mark on the grounds of
`
`a likelihood of confusion with prior U.S. Registration Nos. 3217560, 3270260, 3042849, 2979731,
`
`2974318, 3759199, 3755646, 3313300, 2776227, 2279368, 2522963, 2011673, 0694701, and 2922248.
`
`Protective Life Corporation (“PLC Registrant”) is the owner of the following registrations, cited
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`against Applicant’s mark:
`
`Registration No. 3217560, PROTECTIVE, “Providing and administering
`1.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`discount consumer membership programs to enable participants to obtain discounts,
`savings and rebates on healthcare services and products,” in Class 35, and
`“Insurance and financial services, namely, life insurance underwriting and
`administration services, annuities, guaranteed investment contracts, and mortgage
`securitization; providing limited warranties and extended service contracts for
`vehicles; providing information in the field of insurance over a global
`communications network,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3270260, PROTECTIVE MULTITERM, for “Financial
`2.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`services, namely, underwriting life insurance,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3042849, PROTECTIVEACCESS, Registration No. (cid:160)
`3.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2979731, PROTECTIVEREWARDS, and Registration No. 2974318,
`PROTECTIVEVALUES for “life insurance underwriting, namely, variable
`annuities,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3313300, PROTECTIVE HERITAGEGUARD SPWL,
`4.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`for “life insurance underwriting services, namely, single premium whole life
`policies,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 2776227, PROTECTIVE PREMIERE PROVIDER, for
`5.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`“ Life insurance services, namely the underwriting of variable life insurance
`products,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 2279368, YOU CAN DEPEND ON PROTECTIVE, for
`6.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`“life insurance underwriting services,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 2522963, FIRST PROTECTIVE & design, for “Life,
`7.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`health, dental, cancer, credit and disability insurance underwriting services;
`underwriting annuity and guaranteed investment contracts,” in Class 36, and;
`
`Registration No. 0694701, PROTECTIVE LIFE, for “underwriting life,
`8.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`health, and accident insurance and annuities,” in Class 36.
`
`(cid:160)The Medical Protective Company (“MPC Registrant”) is the owner of the following registrations, cited
`
`against Applicant’s mark:
`
`Registration No. 3759199, ATTORNEY PROTECTIVE AAA PROTECTION
`1.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`FOR THE NATION'S ADVOCATES, for “Insurance services, namely, underwriting,
`issuing and administration of professional liability insurance,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3755646, ATTORNEY PROTECTIVE, for “Insurance services,
`2.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`namely, underwriting, issuing and administration of professional liability insurance,” in
`Class 36, and;
`
`

`
`Registration No. 2011673, THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY, for
`3.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`“underwriting insurance in the fields of general liability and professional liability,
`including medical malpractice; and insurance claims processing and claims
`administration services.”
`
`(cid:160)Finally, Protection Reinsurance Intermediaries AG (“PRI Registrant”) is the owner of Registration No.
`
`2922248, PROTECTION RE & design, for “reinsurance and insurance consulting services; reinsurance
`
`administration,” in Class 36. (cid:160)
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this objection in light of the submissions and reasons
`
`set forth in this Response. As discussed in detail below, and in Applicant’s response of August 24,
`
`2011, Applicant respectfully disagrees that any confusion is likely between the respective marks
`
`because: 1) the highly educated and sophisticated nature of the relevant purchasers weighs against a
`
`finding of a likelihood of confusion; 2) there is no evidence of actual confusion over a significant period
`
`of concurrent use, and; 3) the Office has not met its burden of proof.
`
`As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office’s objection to registration be withdrawn and the
`
`application be allowed to publish.
`
`The Highly Educated and Sophisticated Nature of the Relevant Purchasers
`A.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Weighs Against a Finding of a Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`(cid:160)If the consumer of a particular good or service tends to be sophisticated, or if the consumer is inclined
`
`to think carefully before purchasing a product or service, this may be sufficient to dispel any confusion,
`
`even between similar marks.(cid:160) See, e.g., In re Software Design, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 662 (T.T.A.B. 1983).(cid:160)
`
`In the case at hand, the nature of Applicant’s respective services almost assures that their customers
`
`would put a great deal of thought into a purchase, and would therefore be sophisticated purchasers.(cid:160)
`
`The Examining Attorney, in the Final Office Action issued September 15, 2011, stated that “ When the
`
`relevant consumer includes both professionals and the general public, the standard of care for
`
`purchasing the goods is that of the least sophisticated purchaser.” See Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer, Inc.,
`
`71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1301, 1306 (T.T.A.B. 2004). However, TMEP Section 1207.01(d)(vii) also states that
`
`“circumstances suggesting care in purchasing may tend to minimize the likelihood of confusion.” See,
`
`e.g., In re N.A.D., Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 999-1000, 224 U.S.P.Q. 969, 971 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (concluding
`
`

`
`that, because only sophisticated purchasers exercising great care would purchase the relevant goods,
`
`there would be no likelihood of confusion merely because of the similarity between the marks NARCO
`
`and NARKOMED); In re Homeland Vinyl Prods., Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1378, 1380, 1383 (TTAB 2006).
`
`Furthermore, courts have found that “ there is always less likelihood of confusion where goods are
`
`expensive and purchased after careful consideration.” (cid:160) See Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Beckman
`
`Instruments, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 786, 790 (1st Cir. 1983).
`
`The general public seeking insurance coverage is not the purchaser of Applicant’s insurance, and
`
`purchasers will be exercising great care when purchasing reinsurance services. Reinsurance is a contract
`
`under which a company, the reinsurer, agrees to indemnify an insurance company, the ceding company,
`
`against all or part of the primary insurance risks underwritten by the ceding company under one or more
`
`insurance contracts.(cid:160) “Reinsurance is a very specific sector in the sphere of insurance. A complex
`
`business, it allows insurers to cover their risks by ceding them to a reinsurer. In this context, the
`
`reinsurer is obliged to indemnify the ‘ceding company’ in the event of a claim.” ( See Exhibit A:(cid:160)
`
`Printout of Scor.com webpage explaining reinsurance services) (emphasis added). Therefore,
`
`Applicant’s services are marketed to insurers seeking the risk sharing benefits of insurance pooling, and
`
`both the reinsurer and insured parties must be extremely knowledgeable about their respective fields.(cid:160)
`
`Moreover, “[t]he intent of reinsurance is for an insurance company to reduce the risks associated with
`
`underwritten policies by spreading risks across alternative institutions.” (See Exhibit B:(cid:160)(cid:160) Printout of
`
`Investopedia webpage discussion the definition of reinsurance).(cid:160) As such, Insurance companies work
`
`with an agent to determine the terms, conditions, and costs of a reinsurance contract.(cid:160) (See Exhibit C:(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Printout of Reinsurance.org, discussing the fundamentals of reinsurance).(cid:160) Because a reinsurance
`
`contract can potentially be for large sums of money, reinsurance contracts help limit liability to the
`
`insurer, and because the purchaser is likely working with a reinsurance agent, this dispels any chance
`
`that there will be confusion as to who is providing the reinsurance services.
`
`As a general matter, the decision to purchase insurance is an important one that is not made on impulse,
`
`but rather involves careful consideration given its risk management purpose and high cost.(cid:160) See
`
`generally Carefirst of Maryland v. Firsthealth of the Carolinas, 77 U.S.P.Q. 1492, 1504 (T.T.A.B.
`
`2005) (purchasing healthcare insurance is a very important decision and involve substantial financial
`
`

`
`commitment).(cid:160) The consumers of Applicant’s services are insurance companies looking to create a
`
`legally binding contract with another insurance company to protect itself against losses.(cid:160) An assuming
`
`reinsurer is paid a reinsurance premium by the ceding insurer. In most cases, a primary insurer will not
`
`put an insurance service on the market to the public without first having adequate reinsurance in place.(cid:160)
`
`Thus, an insurance company’s decision to purchase reinsurance to protect itself against liability under
`
`the insurance policies it issues clearly requires that the transaction is made with care and deliberation.
`
`Therefore, the purchase of Applicant’s services is not made spontaneously or without concerted
`
`thought; the insurer must carefully research the products and services and confirm that the reinsurance
`
`treaty is negotiated so that it will adequately protect the company from extraordinary loss results.(cid:160)
`
`Accordingly, the research and negotiation involved helps assure that any purchaser of Applicant’s
`
`services is going to be highly sophisticated.
`
`In sum, since reinsurance services are rendered sophisticated purchasers, and the purchaser will likely
`
`work with an agent to determine the terms and conditions of the reinsurance contract, confusion is not
`
`likely.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`There is No Evidence of Actual Confusion over a Significant Period of
`B.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Concurrent Use
`
`Although it is unnecessary to show actual confusion to establish a likelihood of confusion, the lack of
`
`any actual confusion may also be considered in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists.(cid:160)
`
`See TMEP 1207.01(c)(iii), citing Weiss Associates Inc. v. HRL Associates Inc., 902 F.2d 1546, 1549
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1990).(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Courts have held that where the parties have engaged in a significant period of competition during
`
`which the defendant has used the allegedly-infringing mark, the absence of evidence of “actual”
`
`consumer confusion, i.e., evidence that specific, individual consumers have been confused, is a factor
`
`weighing against a finding of a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) See, e.g., Plus Prods. v. Plus Disc. Foods, Inc.,
`
`722 F.2d 999, 1005 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[N]o evidence of confusion for over a three-year period, during
`
`which substantial sales occurred, is a strong indicator that the likelihood of confusion is minimal.”);
`
`M&G Elecs. Sales Corp. v.Sonly Kabushiki Kaisha, 250 F.Supp.2d 91, 104 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (“A
`
`plaintiff need not show actual confusion; however, the complete absence of confusion after a lengthy
`
`

`
`period of time creates an inference that future consumers will not be confused.”). (cid:160)
`
`Furthermore, although it is true that evidence of actual confusion is not necessary to prove a likelihood
`
`of confusion, “absent evidence of actual confusion, when the marks have been in the same market, side
`
`by side, for a substantial period of time, there is a strong presumption that there is little likelihood of
`
`confusion.” Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 487 (1st
`
`Cir.1981) (four years is a substantial period of time) (quoting 3 R. Callman, The Law of Unfair
`
`Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies § 82.3(a), at 849 (3d ed. 1969) (emphasis added). Other
`
`courts have followed Pignons or have otherwise likewise acknowledged that a lack of actual confusion
`
`evidence over a substantial period of time creates a presumption or inference, or at least strongly
`
`supports, a finding that confusion is unlikely. See, e.g., NEC Elecs., Inc. v. New England Circuit Sales,
`
`Inc., 722 F. Supp 861, 865 (D. Mass. 1989) (five years); Greentree Labs., Inc. v. G.G. Bean, Inc., 718 F.
`
`Supp. 998, 1002 (D. Me. 1989) (four years).
`
`In this instance, PLC Registrant claims use of its marks since as early as 1908, MPC Registrant claims
`
`use of its marks since as early as 1907, and Protection Reinsurance Intermediaries AG claims use of its
`
`mark since August 2003.(cid:160) Applicant has been using its PROTECTIVE RE mark since at least as early as
`
`October 2009, has been using the Protective Insurance Company name since 1954, and has been
`
`offering reinsurance services since 1992.(cid:160) (See Exhibit D:(cid:160) Declaration of the Applicant, at para. 4).(cid:160)
`
`Accordingly, Protection Reinsurance Intermediaries AG’s mark and Applicant’s mark have been in
`
`concurrent use in interstate commerce for over seven years, and Applicant, PLC Registrant, and MPC
`
`Registrant’s respective marks have been in concurrent use in interstate commerce for nearly sixty years.
`
`To the best of Applicant’s knowledge, this concurrent use of the respective marks has been without any
`
`actual confusion.(cid:160) (See Exhibit D, Declaration of the Applicant, at paras. (cid:160) 5 & 6).
`
`The concurrent use of Applicant’s and Registrants’ marks presented “a reasonable opportunity for
`
`confusion to have occurred.” (cid:160) See Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group, Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1354
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011).(cid:160) Considering Registrants’ marks and Applicant’s mark have coexisted in the
`
`marketplace for a significant period of time, if the marks were similar then it is likely that(cid:160)there would
`
`be some reported instances of confusion or mistake as to source, “such as misdirected telephone calls,
`
`visits, or requests for information or other indicia of confusion in the marketplace.” (cid:160) Id.(cid:160) As stated
`
`

`
`above, to the best of Applicant’s knowledge, the concurrent use of the respective marks has been
`
`without any actual confusion.(cid:160) (See Exhibit D, Declaration of the Applicant, at para. 5 & 6).
`
`The best evidence of likely confusion is actual confusion. See 3 McCarthy § 23:13.(cid:160) In this case, lack of
`
`actual confusion over a significant period of time is strong evidence that no likelihood of confusion
`
`exists, and the absence of any confusion demonstrates that consumers will likely not be confused in the
`
`future.
`
`C.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The Office has not met its Burden of Proof.
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The burden of proof is on the Office to establish the likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) A refusal should
`
`be based on an understanding of the industries and an analysis of the marketplace and the likely reaction
`
`of prospective purchasers.(cid:160) Substantial evidence is now before the Office to show that the Applicant’s
`
`mark should be allowed to register as no likelihood of confusions exists.(cid:160) Not only do the majority of the
`
`du Pont factors weigh in Applicant’s favor (i.e. sophisticated purchasers, and lack of any actual
`
`confusion), but those in its favor weigh heavily in support of Applicant.(cid:160) Therefore, the evidence now of
`
`record, taken as a whole, establishes that confusion is not likely.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The standard to be applied is the likelihood of confusion, not the mere possibility of confusion.(cid:160)
`
`The cumulative effect of the differences shown by the marketplace practicalities in this case is, at the
`
`very least, prima facie evidence sufficient to cause a serious doubt as to the likelihood of confusion, and
`
`therefore warrants publishing Applicant’s mark for purposes of opposition.(cid:160) See In re Rodix, Inc., 187
`
`U.S.P.Q. 255, 256 (T.T.A.B. 1975).(cid:160)
`
`III.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Conclusion
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`For the foregoing reasons and authorities, Applicant prays that the refusal to register Applicant's
`
`mark on the basis that a likelihood of confusion may exist with the cited U.S. Registration Nos.
`
`3217560, 3270260, 3042849, 2979731, 2974318, 3759199, 3755646, 3313300, 2776227, 2279368,
`
`2522963, 2011673, 0694701, and 2922248 be withdrawn.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Applicant has responded to all matters in the Office Action and should the Office have any
`
`

`
`questions with regard to this Response or to any matter relating to this Application, in general, a
`
`telephone call to Applicant’s undersigned representative at the telephone number listed below would be
`
`greatly appreciated.
`
`(cid:160)Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ ofleming___
`
`Olivia M. Fleming
`
`BARNES & THORNBURG
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`11 South Meridian Street
`
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`
`317-231-6444
`
`ofleming@btlaw.com
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`evi_209436781-172739690_._20120314164019.pdf
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF
`FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(11 pages)
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT11\779\634\77963483\xml8\RFR0012.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF
`
`Exhibits accompanying response to office action
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`EVIDENCE FILE
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`/ofleming/
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`Olivia M. Fleming
`
`SIGNATORY'S
`POSITION
`
`Attorney of Record, Indiana bar member
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE
`NUMBER
`
`317-231-6444
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED
`SIGNATORY
`
`CONCURRENT APPEAL
`NOTICE FILED
`
`03/14/2012
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`Wed Mar 14 17:55:57 EDT 2012
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`USPTO/RFR-209.43.67.81-20
`120314175557076890-779634
`83-490c2dd191adbd05fdfd5e
`852bf65d262e3-N/A-N/A-201
`20314172739690724
`
`PTO Form 1930 (Rev 9/2007)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 4/30/2009)
`
`Request for Reconsideration after Final Action
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 77963483 has been amended as follows:
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`(cid:160) A
`
`ttention: Box Response - No Fee
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`

`
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, Virginia(cid:160) 22313-1451
`
`Dear Trademark Commissioner:
`
`(cid:160)This responds to the Final Office Action issued September 15, 2011. (cid:160) Applicant respectfully realleges
`
`and incorporates its arguments from August 24, 2011.
`
`(cid:160) I.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`2(d) Refusal
`
`The Office has continued its refusal to register Applicant’s PROTECTIVE RE mark on the grounds of a
`
`likelihood of confusion with prior U.S. Registration Nos. 3217560, 3270260, 3042849, 2979731,
`
`2974318, 3759199, 3755646, 3313300, 2776227, 2279368, 2522963, 2011673, 0694701, and 2922248.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Protective Life Corporation (“PLC Registrant”) is the owner of the following registrations, cited against
`
`Applicant’s mark:
`
`Registration No. 3217560, PROTECTIVE, “Providing and administering
`1.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`discount consumer membership programs to enable participants to obtain discounts,
`savings and rebates on healthcare services and products,” in Class 35, and “Insurance
`and financial services, namely, life insurance underwriting and administration services,
`annuities, guaranteed investment contracts, and mortgage securitization; providing
`limited warranties and extended service contracts for vehicles; providing information
`in the field of insurance over a global communications network,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3270260, PROTECTIVE MULTITERM, for “Financial
`2.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`services, namely, underwriting life insurance,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3042849, PROTECTIVEACCESS, Registration No. (cid:160)
`3.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2979731, PROTECTIVEREWARDS, and Registration No. 2974318,
`PROTECTIVEVALUES for “life insurance underwriting, namely, variable annuities,”
`in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3313300, PROTECTIVE HERITAGEGUARD SPWL, for
`4.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`“life insurance underwriting services, namely, single premium whole life policies,” in
`Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 2776227, PROTECTIVE PREMIERE PROVIDER, for “
`5.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Life insurance services, namely the underwriting of variable life insurance products,”
`in Class 36;
`
`6.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Registration No. 2279368, YOU CAN DEPEND ON PROTECTIVE, for
`
`

`
`“life insurance underwriting services,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 2522963, FIRST PROTECTIVE & design, for “Life,
`7.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`health, dental, cancer, credit and disability insurance underwriting services;
`underwriting annuity and guaranteed investment contracts,” in Class 36, and;
`
`Registration No. 0694701, PROTECTIVE LIFE, for “underwriting life,
`8.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`health, and accident insurance and annuities,” in Class 36.
`
`(cid:160)The Medical Protective Company (“MPC Registrant”) is the owner of the following registrations, cited
`
`against Applicant’s mark:
`
`Registration No. 3759199, ATTORNEY PROTECTIVE AAA PROTECTION FOR
`1.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`THE NATION'S ADVOCATES, for “Insurance services, namely, underwriting, issuing
`and administration of professional liability insurance,” in Class 36;
`
`Registration No. 3755646, ATTORNEY PROTECTIVE, for “Insurance services,
`2.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`namely, underwriting, issuing and administration of professional liability insurance,” in
`Class 36, and;
`
`Registration No. 2011673, THE MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY, for
`3.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`“underwriting insurance in the fields of general liability and professional liability,
`including medical malpractice; and insurance claims processing and claims administration
`services.”
`
`(cid:160)Finally, Protection Reinsurance Intermediaries AG (“PRI Registrant”) is the owner of Registration No.
`
`2922248, PROTECTION RE & design, for “reinsurance and insurance consulting services; reinsurance
`
`administration,” in Class 36. (cid:160)
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of this objection in light of the submissions and reasons set
`
`forth in this Response. As discussed in detail below, and in Applicant’s response of August 24, 2011,
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees that any confusion is likely between the respective marks because: 1) the
`
`highly educated and sophisticated nature of the relevant purchasers weighs against a finding of a
`
`likelihood of confusion; 2) there is no evidence of actual confusion over a significant period of concurrent
`
`use, and; 3) the Office has not met its burden of proof.
`
`As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office’s objection to registration be withdrawn and the
`
`application be allowed to publish.
`
`The Highly Educated and Sophisticated Nature of the Relevant Purchasers
`A.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`Weighs Against a Finding of a Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`

`
`(cid:160)If the consumer of a particular good or service tends to be sophisticated, or if the consumer is inclined to
`
`think carefully before purchasing a product or service, this may be sufficient to dispel any confusion, even
`
`between similar marks.(cid:160) See, e.g., In re Software Design, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 662 (T.T.A.B. 1983).(cid:160) In the
`
`case at hand, the nature of Applicant’s respective services almost assures that their customers would put a
`
`great deal of thought into a purchase, and would therefore be sophisticated purchasers.(cid:160)
`
`The Examining Attorney, in the Final Office Action issued September 15, 2011, stated that “ When the
`
`relevant consumer includes both professionals and the general public, the standard of care for purchasing
`
`the goods is that of the least sophisticated purchaser.” See Alfacell Corp. v. Anticancer, Inc., 71
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1301, 1306 (T.T.A.B. 2004). However, TMEP Section 1207.01(d)(vii) also states that
`
`“circumstances suggesting care in purchasing may tend to minimize the likelihood of confusion.” See,
`
`e.g., In re N.A.D., Inc., 754 F.2d 996, 999-1000, 224 U.S.P.Q. 969, 971 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (concluding that,
`
`because only sophisticated purchasers exercising great care would purchase the relevant goods, there
`
`would be no likelihood of confusion merely because of the similarity between the marks NARCO and
`
`NARKOMED); In re Homeland Vinyl Prods., Inc., 81 USPQ2d 1378, 1380, 1383 (TTAB 2006).
`
`Furthermore, courts have found that “ there is always less likelihood of confusion where goods are
`
`expensive and purchased after careful consideration.” (cid:160) See Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc. v. Beckman
`
`Instruments, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 786, 790 (1st Cir. 1983).
`
`The general public seeking insurance coverage is not the purchaser of Applicant’s insurance, and
`
`purchasers will be exercising great care when purchasing reinsurance services. Reinsurance is a contract
`
`under which a company, the reinsurer, agrees to indemnify an insurance company, the ceding company,
`
`against all or part of the primary insurance risks underwritten by the ceding company under one or more
`
`insurance contracts.(cid:160) “Reinsurance is a very specific sector in the sphere of insurance. A complex
`
`business, it allows insurers to cover their risks by ceding them to a reinsurer. In this context, the reinsurer
`
`is obliged to indemnify the ‘ceding company’ in the event of a claim.” ( See Exhibit A:(cid:160) Printout of
`
`Scor.com webpage explaining reinsurance services) (emphasis added). Therefore, Applicant’s services
`
`are marketed to insurers seeking the risk sharing benefits of insurance pooling, and both the reinsurer and
`
`insured parties must be extremely knowledgeable about their respective fields.(cid:160)
`
`

`
`Moreover, “[t]he intent of reinsurance is for an insurance company to reduce the risks associated with
`
`underwritten policies by spreading risks across alternative institutions.” (See Exhibit B:(cid:160)(cid:160) Printout of
`
`Investopedia webpage discussion the definition of reinsurance).(cid:160) As such, Insurance companies work with
`
`an agent to determine the terms, conditions, and costs of a reinsurance contract.(cid:160) (See Exhibit C:(cid:160)(cid:160) Printout
`
`of Reinsurance.org, discussing the fundamentals of reinsurance).(cid:160) Because a reinsurance contract can
`
`potentially be for large sums of money, reinsurance contracts help limit liability to the insurer, and
`
`because the purchaser is likely working with a reinsurance agent, this di