Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA519702
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`02/04/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`85374334
`Webb IP Law Group
`WEBB IP LAW GROUP
`JASON P. WEBB
`WEBB IP LAW GROUP, PLLC
`1204 W SOUTH JORDAN PKWY STE B2
`SOUTH JORDAN, UT 84095-4641
`UNITED STATES
`dok@webbiplaw.com
`Appeal Brief
`document2013-02-04-131730 (1).pdf ( 20 pages )(3486453 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-131842.pdf ( 7 pages )(900874 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-131914.pdf ( 16 pages )(1619893 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-132047.pdf ( 4 pages )(758784 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-132109.pdf ( 5 pages )(481533 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-132301.pdf ( 3 pages )(373884 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-132324.pdf ( 11 pages )(1480380 bytes )
`document2013-02-04-132405.pdf ( 16 pages )(3089445 bytes )
`Jason P. Webb
`dok@webbiplaw.com
`/Jason P. Webb/
`02/04/2013
`
`Proceeding
`Applicant
`Applied for Mark
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Attachments
`
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`
`

`
`[N THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICF.
`Bl":FORl"-. THE TRADI“-,l'\/IARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Applicant: Webb [P Law Group, PLI.-C (“Webb IP”)
`
`Serial No.: 85374334
`
`Filing Date: July 18, 20|l
`
`M ark‘
`
`Webbl
`J..-\ W (Ii ?<( H,‘ l’
`
`International Class: 045
`
`Law Offce: 10]
`
`/\PPl"-IAL BRlliF OF /\l’PEL[./\N'l:
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTT:IN'l"S
`
`TABLE OF /\UT[ IORITIES
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ARGUMTZNT
`
`a. The Du Pont Factors Do Not Support A Finding Ofl.-ikelihood Of Confusion
`b. The marks differ‘ in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and
`eommereial impression
`(5. Buyers to whom sales are made are careful and sophisticated
`d. The Wl:‘BBI.AW.COM and THE WEBB LAW FIRM marks are relatively
`unknown
`
`as. The number and nature ofother similar marks in use on similar goods is great
`I". There is no actual confusion
`
`g. The length oftime during and conditions under which there has been concurrent
`use without evidence ofaetual eonfusion is great
`h. Case law regarding the use ofsurnames as trademarks is probative of the effect of
`USE
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`

`
`Cases
`
`"I"/\BI,F*f OF A UTI-IORITIFIS
`
`Afinna Ina’u.s‘., Inc. V. /Iipnn .-S‘{ccf Tnbc & .S‘}?z:pc.s'. :’nc., 616 F.2d 440 (9“’ Cir. 1980) .
`
`/IMF, Inc. v. SIecr’{c'm_'fi' Brmts, 599 F.2d 34], 204 U.S.P.Q. 808 (9th Cir. I979) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .
`
`. . ..I5
`
`.
`
`. . . . ..9
`
`Anmar C.'or;.J.
`Cir. I980) .
`.
`.
`.
`
`1-‘. Dcm:'nc '5 Pizza, Inc, 6| 5 F.2d 252, 259, 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 969, 975 (5th
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ..I2
`
`.
`
`Banscn & Lamb O;m‘cm' (To. 1:. (.')vcr.s-cm.’ !*'fnnnc.'c ('_‘0.,
`
`I I2 U.S.P.Q. 6 (Comm’r. Pat I956) . . . . ..7
`
`Brennan ‘.9, Inc. v. Brennan '3 Rc.s‘Irn.n‘nnf, L,L.(.‘., 360 F.3d 125 (2'“' Cir. 2004) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .. I 3
`
`Cf Tayfcr Wine ('70. v. BnH_v H!!! I/n1cy.m*c’.s‘, Inc.._ 569 F.2d 23!. ?'35—36 (2'"j Cir. I928) ....... ..I4
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..I4
`
`Conagrc, Inc. v.
`
`.S'I'ngIc.*'cn, 743 F.2d I508, ISIS n. 9 (I IN‘ Cir. I984) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`C00pcmI:'vc Qrrcrffr)-* Marketing, Inc. V. Dean .-Mifk (.10.. 3I4 F.2d 552, I36 U.S.P.Q. (BN/\) 644
`(C.C.P.A. I963) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ..4
`
`33,1. dn Pan: dc A-’cmr;1rr.s' 61- (.'f':r)., 476 F.2d I357, 136], I7? U.S.I’.Q_. 563, 567 ((.‘..C.P.A. I9?'3)...2
`
`I/I-’n[y, ?57 F.2d I 176,
`'n v.
`Frccdonr .'.3‘n'.-’."ng.v & Loan xI.s'.s'
`I985) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 845 (I985) . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`I I83, 226 U.S.P.Q. I23, I27 (I 1th Cir.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ..7
`
`Gcner'a{:'I«1(iN.s'. Inc, 12. Kg.’IrJg__g (.'rJ:n;n.:n_V, 824 F.2d 622, 626, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d I442, 1445 (8th Cir.
`1987) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . ..7
`
`G00rfr:N—.S'c:nf£n'a'. Inc. v.
`I90 (C.C.I’.A. I960) . . . . .
`
`'1}‘o;nca! Grmne.n.'
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`:1/1_’}‘,'q,, 275 F.2d 736, 237, I25 U.S.P.Q_. (RNA) I89,
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . ..S
`
`.
`
`Grccnncc l_,nb,s‘., Inc.
`II65(D.Me.I989) .
`
`.
`
`1).
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`(}‘.(.}'. Benn. ;'nc., 718 F. Supp. 998, 1002. I3 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) I I6],
`.
`. . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ..I3
`
`In re Hccnxs! C..‘rJ:}J., 982 F.2d 493, 4.94, 25 U.S.I’.Q.2d (BNA) I238. I239 (Fed. Cir. I992) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..6
`
`J0.s'cpI'7 Scm! C0.
`
`1-‘. Scan Siwnmrrng Prmi.s'. Inc., 764 F.2d 62 (2mE Cir. I985) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .. I 5
`
`I I U.S.P.Q. I05 (C.C.P.A.
`Kfcknrngfcr Corp. 1:. Wr‘H_V.s'-()1rcI'z'nnd Mr_n(n*.s‘. Inc, 236 F.2d 423, I
`1956) .......................................................................................................... ..9
`
`King C.'anafI,> Co. v. Eunice Kingiv K1'fchcn, hm, I78 U.S.P.Q. (BN/\) I2], I24 (_T.T.A.B. I973),
`aff’d_. 496 F.2d I400, 182 LI.S.P.Q. (RNA) I08 (C.C.I’./‘~.. I974) ..................................... ..3
`
`

`
`LJ. Muefler Furnace Co. v. Un.='{ea’ CL'rmc2’:'n'r)n:'ng (,'m'p.. 222 I".2d 755. I06 U.S.P.Q.
`(C.C.P.A. I955) .
`. . . . .
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`. . .
`
`I I2
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..9
`
`r;_If"7":2c'7zn()!r)g1.-', 492 F.2d I399, I402, I8] U.S.I’.Q.
`.r‘I4‘a.s‘s.ey.;’z:m’0r Cr.u’z'ege, [ma 1:. Frr.s'hr'on1'n.s'I'.
`(BNA) 272. 273-74 (_C.C.P./\. I974) ...................................................................... ..6
`
`New E1?gIcIncf Ff.s‘h (.70. v. Hem-‘I'M (:.‘o.. 5|
`
`I F.2d 562, I84 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 8 I 7 (C.C.|’.A. I975)..6
`
`Palm Bay.:'m;Jorr5. Inc. v. I/ewe C.'!'fc:qu0f Prm.s‘cn'dr'n .-I/1m‘.s'onF0ndee can I .772, 396 F.3d I369,
`I374, 73 USP 2d I689. 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. ..I0
`
`Pfgnrms‘ S./1. dc Mec'an:'q1re de Pr*cc:'.sur'on v. P.9.=.’rm)fd (..'mp., 657 1-’.2d 482, 490, 2 I 2 U.S.P.Q.
`(BN/\)246,2S3 (I.<;tCi1'. I981) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . .
`.
`. . . . .
`.
`.
`. .
`. .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`. . ..l2
`
`R9001, Inc. v. Becrrm, 2I4 F.3d 1322,54 U.S.P.Q.2d I894 (Fed. Cir‘. 2000) .
`
`.
`
`. . . . . . . .
`
`.S'aHy}s‘m1r£yC.'r). v. Bmz.nyc?r:.
`
`.I'm:.'., 304 F.3d 964, 974 ('I0”‘ Cir. 2002) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..9
`
`. ..l2
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .. I 5
`
`Sf. ..I'o)'m.s'rm & Srm, Inc.
`
`1-: Jo!m.s'on.
`
`I I6 F.2d 427. 430 (2’“I Cir. I940) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Scan Pram?!‘ Co. v. Scoir Liquid Goth’, ;'m',, 589 F.2d 1225, 123] (3rd Cir. 1978) ................ ..I2
`
`Show (_'():'p. of‘/Im.:2n'm v. .}'mrenh’e Shm: C‘0r,0., 266 F.2d 793.
`(_C.C.I".A. I959) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`|2I U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 510
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . .
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..4
`
`('.‘a..£s‘er.=1'er F:'z'.s' Afnc (‘Br (.70 v.
`.'tf0c.’:'c.’e ;Imm_1.’.-‘nce do I’.-a Cfrrmrfi: [):'.s'n'Hcr:'e E.
`C'0., I6I I’.Supp. 545 (D.N.Y. I958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.;’u.’.='u.s‘ Wife S‘0rr.s' &
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`. . . . . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..9
`
`.'>‘.'e.r'h’ng Drug, Inc. v. M—/I Phc;rr:1rcrcea;Ifc(:f (."r2rp., 343 F.2d I016. I0|7. I45 U.S.I’.Q_ (RNA)
`287. 287 (C.‘_C.P.A. I965) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`
`. ..4
`
`.S‘r..*r'e—!*'r}’ Pma'.s'. Co. v. S‘m’.*z.s‘on I_Jm;J.:*Ij1-’ (.19.. 254 F.2d I58. I60.
`(C.CT.I’.A. I958) . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`
`I I7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 295, 297
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. . ..3
`
`.
`
`Texas Dmlvy §_)uc.rm 0;Jw'(.'IrN'.s' £‘r)unc’f! v. 1"}-3e.:r’S‘.*r)r‘e,
`(ND. Tex. I986) .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`. . .
`
`.
`
`1"}?!/_I,1
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`I U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) I804, I807
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. .3
`
`We3.='.s‘.s' A.s'.s‘0c., Inc. v. NHL ,~’I.s'.s'0:.'.. Inc’.. 902 F.2d I546, I4 U.S.P.Q_.2d I840 (Fed. Cir. I990)......9
`
`Rules
`
`2 J. Thomas McCarthy, MCC/\R'I'HY ON 'I"R/-\I)I£;\/IARKS & UNFAIR COMPETITION §
`11,88,211 I I-I48 (4th ed. I998) . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`. . . . . . . .
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..I I
`
`R£".S'f(i!(.’I??(.’H( {7"!:f:'r1) rgfUr_rfé'r:':' C'()r:-rpcifrfon § 20 cmt. g. at 2T? (I995) .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. . . . .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. ..I5
`
`iv
`
`

`
`[N'l‘ROI)UC.‘.T|ON
`
`On July 18, 201 I, Webb IP filed a use-based application for the stylized WEBB [P LAW
`
`GROUP design mark for services consisting oF"‘L.cgal services” in international class 045
`
`(“Webb's Application). The Examining Attorney’s first office action on November I4, 20|
`
`I
`
`stated that the Iixarniner had found no conflicting marks and requested that a disclaimer ofthe
`
`words “IP Lax-v Group” be made.
`
`Webb IP responded on November IS._ 20] l by authorizing the Examiner to amend the
`
`application to include a disclaimer of the words “IP Law Group.”
`
`On November 22. 20|
`
`I a “l,I;‘TTF,R OF Pl{0'I"ES"l" MEMORANDUM”
`
`("'memorandurn") was sent to the Examiner. The memorandum stated the letter of protest had
`
`been accepted and instructed the Ifixaininel‘ to consider the memorandum and make an
`
`independent determination based on the objections raised in the letter
`
`On December 8, 2011 the Examiner issued a second office action. The Examiner’s
`
`second office action refused registration based upon two prior registrations:
`
`5
`I. WI'iBBl_.AW.COIV1 "For “legal services in international class 042' and
`
`2. Tl-IF. WEBB LAW FIRM for “legal services” in international class 042.
`
`Appellant responded to the F,xaminer’s second office action on May 2 I , 2012 and on
`
`June 6, 2012 the lixaminer issued a Iinal o'l'Iice action finding a likelihood of confusion between
`
`the Webb [P mark and the WEBB]-/\W.COM and TI-[Ii WEBIS LAW FIRM marks.
`
`In response to the Ii nal oliice action, on December 5, 20 I 2, Appellant timely noticed its
`
`appeaL
`
`

`
`As explained in more detail below. in refusing registration, the Examiner failed to accord
`
`sufficient weight to the broad use of the surname Webb in connection with legal services. Such
`
`vvidespread third party use and registrations narrows the scope of protection properly afforded
`
`the WEBBLAW.COM and TI [13 WEBB LAW FIRM marks.
`
`Further. the Examiner failed to properly account for the sophistication of the associated
`
`consumers and the differences in the over-all appearance ofthe marks and case law precedent
`
`which teaches the significance ofsurnames as trademarks and special rules pertaining to them.
`
`Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests that the Board reverse the Final Refusal and
`
`pass Appellant's Application to publication.
`
`ARGL}Ml£NT
`
`l. The Du Pont Factors Do Not Support A Finding Of Likelihood Ol‘Confusion
`
`ln Du Pont, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals listed thirteen factors to be considered
`
`in determining ifa likelihood ofconfusion exists under Section 2(d) ofthe Lanharn Act. In re
`
`EI. du Prmr de Nemours & C0,, 476 F.2d I357. I36]. 1?? U.S.l’.Q. 563. 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`
`Relevant factors in this case:
`
`0
`
`The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entiretics as to appearance, sound.
`
`connotation and commercial impression:
`
`0
`
`The conditions under which and buyers to vvhom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs.
`
`careful. sophisticated purchasing;
`
`0 The farnc ofthe prior mark;
`
`0
`
`The number and nature ofsimilar marks in use on similar goods;
`
`0 The nature and extent of any actual confusion:
`
`

`
`0
`
`The length oftime during and conditions under which there has been concurrent use
`
`without evidence of actual confusion; [and]
`
`I Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.
`
`Applying the DH Pom factors here. Appellant believes that the Examiner erroneously
`
`found a likelihood oticonfusion where none exists.
`
`a. The WEBBl.,AW.COM and TH]-_L WEBB LAW FIRM marks are weak and are
`
`entitled only to a narrow scope otproteetion.
`
`The threshold issue is the degree ofproteetion that should be afforded the
`
`WEBBLAW.COM and TH E. WEBB LAW l'~‘[Rl\/l marks. See, e.g.._ King ('."anr{v Co. v. I?um't:e
`
`K'1‘ng’s Kilehr.-?n, Inc, 178 U.S.P.Q. (RNA) I21. I24 ('l“.'|".A.B. I973), a'l'l"d, 496 F.2d I400, [82
`
`U.S.P.Q. (RNA) I08 (C.C.P.A. l9?'4) (MISS KlNG’S For cake not confusingly similar to
`
`KING'S For candy). “lT]he strength and distinctiveness of [a] mark is a vital consideration in
`
`deterrnining the scope of protection it should be accorded." _»4rn.s‘mr (..'(»',n. v. Domi‘mJ ‘s Pfzzcr.
`
`Ina, 615 F.2d 251259.205 U.S.P.Q. (RNA) 969. 9?5 (5th Cir.
`
`l98U] (DOMlNO’S PIZZA not
`
`confusingly similar to DOMINO sL1ga1'). As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals expressed
`
`this principle. “[w]here a party uses a weak mark. his competitors may come closer to his mark
`
`than would be the ease with a strong ntark without violating his rights." S.*,.v'e-!'r'."t Prr)rz'.s'. Co. v.
`
`Sa!rz.s'0n Drctpery ('10.. 254 l-12d I58. I60.
`
`I I? U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 295, 29? (C.C.P.A. I958)
`
`(SURE-FIT and RlTE—Fl'l‘ not confusingly similar). Indeed. it is a “black letter" principle that
`
`eonfusion as to source For a product or service bearing a weak mark is unlikely because
`
`“consumers do not associate weak marks with a particular producer." "I 'ex(.*.s' Dairy Queen
`
`t’)_1J:3rc.u’or.s' (_.‘mmc’it' v. Feea’.'§‘rr)re,
`
`;’m':..
`
`I U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) I804. I807 (l\|.D. Tex. 1986)
`
`

`
`(TEXAS COUNTRY COOKIN’ for cafeteria—stv|e restaurant not confusingly similar to TEXAS
`
`COUNTRY for fast food restaurant). Appellant submits that it is clear that the word “the" is a
`
`weak term as used with any services, “.corn” is weak with any services provided in association
`
`with a website and that the words “"|a\v” and "‘firrn” are weak as used with legal services.
`
`Appellant submits the following arguments and evidence that the word "Webb" is aiso weak as
`
`used with legal services.
`
`Beginning, with tS'ht)c ("'orp. of‘Ainc:rica v. Jm-'erii'}t2 Shoe ('oi';).. 266 F.2d 793, I21
`
`U.S.P.Q. (DNA) 510 (C.C.[’.A. I959"), courts and the Board repeatedly have recognized that third
`
`party use or even registration ofsimilar marks is evidence of the strength or weakness of the
`
`mark. Thus._ \-vhere._ as here. a cited mark (or portion thereof) is subject to extensive third party
`
`use or registration. that mark (or portion thereof) is not a strong, distinctive mark entitled to
`
`broad protection. but a re|ativel_v weak indicator of source that can be protected only under
`
`limited circumstances. 2 .|. Thomas .VlcCarth_v. MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS & UNFAIR
`
`COMPI--I"l"lTlON § l 1.88, at
`
`1 I-148 (4th ed. l998)(citi11g eases) (hereinafter
`
`“MCC/\RTl IY”).
`
`Third part_v' trademark use can constitute “evidence entitled to consideration that [the
`
`cited mark] is a weak mark." See (.‘mJ;)ei'm'i‘ve Qrta!i'1_1»‘ .-l/f(iJ‘.l'eH'ng, Inc. v. Decm M.=':'k Co., 314
`
`F.2d 552. I36 U.S.P.Q. (BN/\) 644 (C.C.P.A. I963); see also Shoe Corp.._ 266 F.2d at ?'96-"E97,
`
`l2l U.S.|’.Q. at 513 (“The registration oflive such marks can scarcely be attributed to mere
`
`coincidence, but at‘t‘ords delinite evidence that the word ‘Lazy’ has a suggestive significance as
`
`applied to shoes... .") (finding no likelihood ofcontiision between l.A7.Y BONE-S and LAZY
`
`PALS. both for shoes); SIen’1'rig Drug, hick.
`
`1-‘. M—.4 Phtirii-ir'icceutftm' t’_'.'oi'p., 343 F.2d I016,
`
`l{}[?,
`
`

`
`145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 287. 287 (C.C.P./-\. I965) (linding no likelihood ofconfusion where a party
`
`“placed numerous third party registrations in the record to support its position that letter
`
`combinations including the initial letter ‘M’ are common in the pharmaceutical field"); Goodall-
`
`Sar.jfr)I'd, Inc‘. v.
`
`'1'"rrJp.i(:az' Gc'a‘mem .»".a_l}‘g'.. 2?5 F.2d 736. ?3?. 125 U.S.l’.Q. (RNA) 189. l90
`
`(C.C.P./\. I960) (finding of no likely contusion was “supported by the fact that the word ‘palm’
`
`is lacking‘ in distinctiveness as a part of trademarks in the textile field
`
`[as] shown in the record
`
`here by ten registrations of third parties in which the word ‘palm’ appears as a part ofthesc
`
`marks For clothing and related goods... ."). Generally such use is evidenced by trademark
`
`registrations. but Appellant submits that common-law trademark rights should be considered as
`
`well. especially in the case where the term is a surname in a professional services industry. such
`
`as with attorneys, accountants. and etc. where it is rare for applications for registration to be filed
`
`with the USPTO.
`
`A review ofonline records For trade names in use confirms “Webb” as a common name
`
`used with services. See ljxliibits
`
`—
`
`In particular. there are twenty-live patent attorneys registered with the USPTO having the
`
`surname "Webb." It is the prevailing practice For attorneys to personally brand themselves under
`
`their own surname._ especially when practicing alone. but also even it‘ they practice at a law ti rm
`
`that does not include their name in its branding. 1"-urther._ it is also a common practice for law
`
`firms to change their brand to include surnames o I‘ new partners.
`
`Also. a search of‘ the internet shows almost twelve million pages including the terms
`
`“webb" and “attorney,” showing a strong presence o l" those paired terms. Searching the terms
`
`“‘webb” and "lawyer" (or other similar terms) produces a similar number of results. More
`
`

`
`specifically, Appellant has found over sixty law firms that include the word “Webb” in their
`
`brand, including WEBB LAW FIRM Found at fl’\_«'j\r_\-'.WCl'}_l}_;@[l_t:}-".C0|'I1_,
`
`'l"l IE WEBB FAMILY
`
`LAW FIRM found at wt-vw.wchhlaniilvlzm-'.con1_. Tl-IE LAW OFF-lCl:'S OF MATTHEW J.
`
`WEBB found at _www.Iniwebbl:-m-.con1, WEBB AND CO. l"ATlT,N'[‘S found at
`
`vv\vw=.\«\-'L1_;g:_i1t;s.eon_1_ (lsreal Patent Attorneys. but include attorneys registered to practice before
`
`the USPTO). and etc.
`
`Under the law ofthc Federal Circuit, these references establish “what appears on their
`
`faces" — that each registrant has claimed to adopt and use {or intend to use) the mark shown in
`
`commerce. As in Shoe L'.‘rJrp., 266 F.2d at 797. I2 I U.S.l".(,_). at 5 l 3. the presence of the word
`
`“Webb” in common~l-aw trademarks for legal services “can scare-c|_v be attributed to mere
`
`coincidence, but affords definite evidence" that the word “Webh" when used with legal services
`
`is weak and should only be afforded limited protection commensurate with the widespread use of
`
`that word in the relevant field.
`
`b. The marks dit't'cr in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and
`
`commercial impression
`
`""'l"hat marks must be considered in their entircties in determining whether there is a
`
`likelihood ol‘cont‘usion or mistake is a basic rule in comparison ot'marks.”’ Ma.s'.s‘ey.fum'r)r
`
`(.‘oNege, Inc. v. 1“'r.*.s'h:‘r)n In.s'!. of"ft’c’!:nr)lr)g_L=, 492 l*'.2d l3‘)0. 1402, Hit U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 2?2,
`
`273-74 (C.C.P.A.
`
`l‘)?'4); see also In re Hcar'.s't (_‘r)r‘p., 982 F.2d 493. 494, 25 U.S.l’.Q.2d (BNA)
`
`I238, I239 (Fed. Cir. I993) (“Marks tend to be perceived in their cntirctics. and all components
`
`thereof" must be given appropriate weight"; VARGA GIRL not contltsingly similar to
`
`VARGAS); New Engfaim’ Frsh ('0. v. Herman ("'o.._ 5| I F.2d 562, I84 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 817
`
`

`
`(C.C.P./\. I975) (BLUE MOUN'i'AlN KITTY Us for cat food not confusingly similar to
`
`KITTY for same).
`
`It follows. then. that a mark should not be dissected for purposes 0|‘ comparing the
`
`component parts of that mark against another to determine whether there is confusing similarity.
`
`See Brm.s'c'h .52 f,omb ()ptic'(JI Co.
`
`‘I’.
`
`(_)l«’[?!'.§'(3t’.J'.§‘F1'!’I(i'}i'£’(;’ (.'o.,
`
`I I2 U.S.P.Q. 6 (Comnt’r. Pat I956).
`
`“The L1se ot‘an identical word. even a dominant word, does not autornatieally mean that two
`
`marks are [so] similar” as to make eonfttsion likely. F:'ec.4o'om S'aw'ng.s' cl’: Loan Ass "32- v. Way, T5?
`
`F.2d I I76,
`
`I I83, 226 U.S.P.()_. I23. I27 (I 1th Cir. I985) cert. denied. 474 U.S. 845 (1985).
`
`There is no reason why the same principle would not apply to shared design elements as well.
`
`Furthermore, when there are extensive third party uses oI‘a eommon component in marks
`
`for relevant goods and services, courts have concluded that consumers will not rely on that
`
`Com ponent in determining the source of the goods and services.
`
`Instead. under such
`
`circumstances. the public can easily perceive and distinguisli slight dit't'erenees in the marks.
`
`even ifthe goods and services are related, to determine the source of‘ the product. Gemrzraf fl/fi£i.s'.
`
`Inc. v, Kefirigg (.."rJmpany. 824 F.2d 622. 626, 3 L.|.S.P.Q.2d I442. I445 {Sm Cir. I987).
`
`Here. the registered marks are WEBB]./\W.Cf()M and 'l"l--[E WIELBIS LAW FIRM.
`
`Appe||ant"s mark is dit‘1"ercnt from the marks in that the only similarities are the weak words
`
`“Webb” and ‘‘Law.'‘ However. the dit't‘erences include: the letters "IP" and word "Group" in
`
`Appeilantfs mark while Appellanfis marl; is lacking the words “Tlte,” "‘I7'irm."’ and the ‘“.com”
`
`signification. Further. both WI-LBBL/\W.COI\J'I and Tl-llf. WEBB l./\ W FIRM include WEBB
`
`LAW as a coherent and unified phrase and do not include any acronyms. However. Appellant’s
`
`mark interrupts the continuity of WICBB LAW with the ac-ron_vm “lP.“ This acronym is
`
`

`
`particuiarly distinctive because it is not immediately recognizable except by those very closely
`
`associated with the business of intellectual property and therefore to some members ofthe
`
`relevant consuming public is not immediately comprehended. thus generating a very different
`
`overall commercial impression.
`
`See below for visual examples of the marks in question:
`
`THE WEBB LAW FIRM
`
`V‘JEBBLfiafW.COl'i:l
`
`!...=\ as (.3 W") U
`
`Stylization distinctions include coloring, font, the italicization of IP._ the positioning of IP
`
`and LAW GROUP on the page in relation to WEBB, and the size of the letters LAW GROUP in
`
`relation to the rest ofthe mark.
`
`c. Buyers to whom sales are made are careful and sophisticated
`
`Determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists requires an examination of the
`
`sophistication and discrimination ofthose who will be purchasing the goods. Ordinarily. the
`
`

`
`issue is examined with respect to the btiyilig habits ofthe reasonably prudent buyer. AMF, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`t'S‘.*.'ee2'rc'i‘:.'gfi Beam 599 F.2d 34!, 204 U.S.P.Q. 808 (9th Cir. l9?9).
`
`Under a variety ofcircumstanc-es, however. the relevant purchaser will bring to the
`
`transaction more discrimination, with the result that a greater degree ofsimilarity is needed
`
`between the marks for there to he a likelihood oi'eont‘usion. Such a heightened standard is
`
`appropriate, for example, where consumers evaluate expensive goods. See Wei1s'.s' A.rsoc., Inc. v.
`
`HRL As.s0c'.,
`
`lnc.._ 902 F.2d I546, I4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1840 (Fed. Cir. I990); see also Recot, Inc. v.
`
`Becton, 214 I-'.3d 1322, 54 I..|.S.|‘.Q.2tl I894 (Fed. Cir. 2000). When goods and services are
`
`expensive, the likelihood of con Fusion analysis expects the buyer to be disc-rirninating and to give
`
`the goods and services careful consideration. LJ. .-twncffer Fm-nttt‘e Co. v. Urnlted Condr'!font'ng
`
`Cr)rp., 222 F.2d ?'55, We U.S.P.Q.
`
`I I2 (C.C.P./-'\. I955); KieHiriefci* (.'.'orp. v. Wi't'tj2.s'-()ver:’r:nc.?
`
`Mtnors, 1'nc., 236 F.2d 423, Ill U.S.l’.Q. 105 ((."..(f.‘_P./\. I956). Similarly, a higher threshold for
`
`similarity may also apply when the goods are not expensive but are nevertheless typically
`
`purchased with a greater degree ol‘sophistication and care. See Socr'ete /lnr)nr__vurne de La Grana'e
`
`Di.s't.='t'z'c1'ie E. (.‘nseniei' Fi'I'.s /line & (‘re 1-‘. Jn.:’i'u.s‘ Wife .S‘on.s' (E (''.‘o.._ I6] F.SUp]3- 545 (D-N-Y‘
`
`I958).
`
`To the chagrin of many clients, attorneys fees are typically very expensive, especially
`
`among speciaiist such as intellectual property attorneys. For exampie. according to the 201 I
`
`edition ofthe AIPL/\ Report oi‘ the 1",‘.-leonomie Survey law firm partners charge on average
`
`between $325 per hour to $550 per hour, and an average trademark litigation lawsuit costs
`
`approximately $200,000. (lixhibit “'t_-Z"). Typical costs for even very basic intellectual property
`
`services run in the thousands otdollars. Purchasers are typically C-ievel executives with
`
`business experience andfor education, business owners. inventors with extensive education and
`
`

`
`experience, and the like. These individuals generally require a higher level ofsophistieation to
`
`perform their responsibilities. Due to the high price of legal services many consumers, including
`
`businesses, are necessarily more sophisticated and use great discretion when choosing a lawyer
`
`or law firm to represent them. and are less likely to be confused.
`
`Further. from experience. many attorneys build a personal relationship with a prospect
`
`before they become a client. This means the client typically knows Frorn personal connection
`
`exactly what firm the attorney works for. where their office is located, and how to contact them.
`
`Accordingly. the typical process ol‘eustomer acquisition is one that is highly resistant to brand
`
`confusion.
`
`Accordingly. due to the natural sophistication ofthe purchasers, the high cost of the
`
`services rendered and personal nature or" legal services. buyers are not likely to be eortftlsed.
`
`d. The W['iBBLAW.COE\/1 and Tl-[E W EBB LAW FIRM marks are relatively
`
`unknown
`
`The fame ol"a registered mark is a factor to be considered in determining likelihood of
`
`confusion. In re Ii". 1. dz: Pom dc .-’\-"erm)urs cl} C'.0., 476 F.2d I357. I361, I7? USPQ 563, 56?‘
`
`(C.C.l”.A. I973}. Famous marks enjoy a wide latitude of‘ legal protection because they are more
`
`likely to be rernembered and associated in the public mind than a weaker mark. Pcrirn Bay
`
`1m;JoJ'.*s. Eric:
`
`12. I/euve ('.*'r'eq.=m! I-’cJr2.s'c.rr'dr':1 .-1/1‘cu'.s'mr :‘”o1-Idea en E ’??"2, 396 F.3d 1369. I374, 73
`
`USPQ2d l689._ I694 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`[n the present ease. '|‘l-IE WI"-EBB LAW FIRM is a law
`
`firm that is relatively small. one olliee and approxirnately 40 "Pro lessionals", compared to those
`
`firms that are llunous in legal services e.o1nmL1nity. Exhibit “C”.
`
`10
`
`

`
`In particular, a recent review of the Top IUU Patent Firms by the Avery Index
`
`(http;..*';’\s-"ix-'\-\-gr;vervjndex.eorn.-’top_pa1ci1t
`
`i'irn__is.php) that ranks law firms by the number of patent
`
`professionals emp|o_ved with each firm does not list The Webb Law Firm. See Exhibit “A”.
`
`Accordingly, there are at least one hundred law firms “more 1°amous"" than The Webb Law Firm
`
`according to that metric.
`
`Intellectual Property Toclay
`
`(http:.«’I'w\\-'\-v.iptodav.ctiinjisst:t*_s5-Qt) I 2:013‘.;'top—gi1§ei_it—|ii‘1n§_.a_sp) lists the top twenty-live law firms
`
`online based on the number ofapplieations filed in the previous year. The Webb Law Firm is
`
`not mentioned on that list either. Accordingly Appellant submits that the marks owned by The
`
`Webb Law Firm should not be al'l‘orded wide latitude since those niarks are not Famous.
`
`e. The number and nature of other similar marks in use on similar goods is great
`
`As stated above. courts and the Board repeatedly have recognized that third party use or
`
`even registration ofsimilar marks is evidence ofthe strength or weakness of the mark. Sfme
`
`C'orp. of'/1mei'i'c'a v. Juvemile .S'J'ioe (f‘r)rp.. 266 :'.2d 793, l2| U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 5 l 0 (C.C.P.A.
`
`I959). Thus. where, as here. a cited mark (or portion thereof) is subject to extensive third party
`
`use or registration, that mark (or portion thereol) is not a strong. distinctive mark entitled to
`
`broad protection. but a relatively weak indicator of sou ree that can be protected only under
`
`limited eircumstances. 2 J. Thomas McCarthy. MC(',‘z\RTl-IY ON TRADEMARKS & UN]:/\lR
`
`COMl’l:‘TlTlON § 11.88. at I I-148 (4th ed. 1998) (citing cases) (hei‘eint1Tter “MCCARTHY”).
`
`Appellant has Found over sixty" instances of‘ third party use ofthe surname Webb by legal
`
`professionals. (Exhibit "'1-3"’). A search of the internet for the surname Webb associated with a
`
`variation ol"dil‘t'ei‘ent services shows more than sixty professionals associating their businesses
`
`11
`
`

`
`with the surname Webb. Exhibit “D”. Appellant submits that [lie use ofthe word “T.../\ W"
`
`associated with legal services is piethoric and obviously widespread.
`
`Due to the extensive use ofthe surname Webb. the WEBBLA W.COM and TI IE WEBB
`
`LAW FIRM marks are weak, which indicates no likelihood ofconfusion.
`
`F. There is no actual cont'usion
`
`Actual confusion is probative of whether a likelihood ol’confusion exists.
`
`Isolated
`
`instances of actual confusion are not persuasive. /im'.s'tar (_..'0i';;r. v. Dominri it Pizza, ]nc., 615 F.2d
`
`252, 263 (Sm Cir.); Smliy Becmty Cr).
`
`12. Beaiiiyco. .’m:.__ 304 F.3d 964, ‘N4 (I Um Cir. 2002)
`
`(“Evidence of actual confusion does not create a genuine issue of Fact regarding likelihood of
`
`C-0nt'usion if it is de mi‘m'mr'.s'.“).
`
`l:l1I‘[l‘lCt‘._ owners of weak marks can expect a certain amount of
`
`confusion. Seen Pnrpcr Co. v.
`
`.'s'.cori ‘s }'.i'qin‘ri’ Gram’, Inc. 589 F.2d I225, I231 (3'd Cir. l9?8).
`
`Here. Appellant has been in business since at least December, 2009 and in those three
`
`years has experienced no instances of actual confusion with the WEBBLAWLOM and THE
`
`WEBB L/\W l-'lRl\/I marks.
`
`This is probative that there is no likelihood of‘con|"usion with the Wlf:'.BBL/\W.C()M and
`
`THE WEBB LAW FIRM marks.
`
`g. The length oftime during and conditions under which there has been
`concurrent use without evidence of actual cont"usion is great
`
`While evidence oi‘ actual confusion is not required to prove. a likelihood ofconfusion_._
`
`“absent evidence of" actual contusion. when the marks have been in the same market. side by
`
`side. for a substantial period oftime, there is a strong presumption that there is little likelihood of
`
`cOnf‘t1siot1." :”.='gmJi'.*.s' S./l. (ft-.= _.-’t»t'r3(?ai'iir;tte dc Prec'i'.s't'(m v.
`
`I’r.'Ji"r'.rm."nl Crirp, 657 F.2d 482, 490, 212
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 246, 253 (lst Cir. 193]); see also (}‘reenrree Lm.5.s.. Inc. v. G.G. Bean, Inc, 7'18
`
`F. Supp. 998, I002, I3 U.-S.l’.Q.2cl (BNA) ll6|, I l65 (D. Me. 1989) (concurrent use for more
`
`than four years without evidence oleonfusion. combined with weakness of mark, creates a
`
`presumption that confusion is unlikely: no inl‘ringen1ent'):_ 3 MCCARTHY § 23: I 8 (citing cases).
`
`Appellant. began use of the Webb mark applied For in April ot"20l l. Appellant began
`
`using the name Webb [P Law Group in December of2009. Mr. Webb has been practicing law
`
`for seven years. There has been concurrent use of the applied For mark for almost two years, of
`
`the Webb ll’ Law mark for over three years, and ot‘Mr. Webb as a practicing attorney for over
`
`eight years.
`
`This concurrent use of;-5t ppel|ee’s mark and the WEBBIA WCOM and THE WEBB
`
`LAW FIRM marks without evidence ot'eonl"usion renders any likelihood of confusion unlikely.
`
`h. Case law regarding the use ofsurnames as trademarks is probative otithe
`effect ol" use
`
`Appellant recognizes that the WEBBLAWCOM and THE. WEBB LAW FIRM are per se
`
`incontestable and therefore at‘l"orded, for some purposes, greater protection. However, pursuant
`
`to Brmmrm is‘. Inc. v. Brenmrn ‘.3’ Rt’.S‘!£fi'.r?’(m!, !..;',.( when common surnames are at issue courts
`
`have directed that rigid rules such as ineontestability' are softened. even finding that ineontestable
`
`marks are “weak". 360 F.3d l2?» ('2'“ Cir. 2004) (“Because the thrust oftradcmark law aims to
`
`avoid confusion as to the product's source it is