Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA801456
`
`Filing date:
`
`02/14/2017
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`Applicant
`
`86455558
`
`Iris Data Services, Inc.
`
`Applied for Mark
`
`ARC
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Attachments
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`CARLA CALCAGNO
`CALCAGNO LAW PLLC
`2101 L STREET NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20037
`UNITED STATES
`cccalcagno@gmail.com
`
`Reply Brief
`
`Applicant ARC reply brief.pdf(95992 bytes )
`Exhibit A to Applicant ARC Reply Brief.pdf(84985 bytes )
`
`Carla C. Calcagno
`
`cccalcagno@gmail.com, trademarks@canopyparalegal.com
`
`/Carla C. Calcagno/
`
`02/14/2017
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`In re Application:
`SN: 86-455558
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant: Iris Data Services Inc.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`Examining Attorney: Andrea Hack, Esq.
`
`Law Office: 108
`
`REPLY TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`Applicant wishes to make a brief statement in response to a few points raised by the
`
`newly appointed Examining Attorney in her Appeal Brief. Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`the Examiner’s Statement misstates the evidence, the applicable facts, the procedural history, and
`
`the legal standards on which this Appeal is based. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Board consider and reverse the refusal to register.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`In light of the unusual nature of the prosecution history, Applicant wishes to clarify the
`
`events leading to the amendment of goods between the filing of Applicant’s brief and the current
`
`Examiner’s Statement.
`
`Applicant did not sua sponte amend the identification of services. Instead, the
`
`undersigned added the bolded language upon a proposal by the former Examiner to resolve the
`
`ex parte appeal. Specifically, in September 2016, after he read Applicant’s Appeal Brief, the
`
`first examiner in this case called the undersigned attorney. He proposed the amendment to the
`
`Applicant, as a means of resolving the appeal and allowing Applicant’s mark to proceed to
`
`publication. After consideration, as it narrowed the identification, Applicant agreed to amend its
`
`

`

`description of services as proposed by the Examiner, if, and only if, as he proposed, he would
`
`withdraw the refusal to register. To that end, on September 22, 2016, Applicant amended its
`
`originally filed identification to add the language provided exclusively to law firms, so that it
`
`reads as follows: “Litigation support services provided exclusively to law firms, namely,
`
`conducting electronic legal discovery in the nature of reviewing e-mails and other electronically
`
`stored information that could be relevant evidence in a lawsuit”.
`
`An Examiner’s Amendment was duly issued on September 23, 2016. However, on
`
`September 28, 2016, the undersigned was advised that a PTO supervisor rejected the agreement
`
`and refused to pass the mark to publication.
`
`On that same date, in light of the fact that the amendment had been entered into upon
`
`reliance in the Examiner’s and Applicant’s agreement and after the prosecution of the application
`
`had been closed, the Board issued an order noting that no new evidence could be filed. Despite
`
`this, Examiner Hack has relied on dictionary definitions in support of her Argument.
`
`To the extent that this is a violation of the Board’s order, Applicant objects. However,
`
`even with this new evidence, Applicant respectfully submits that the refusal to register is
`
`improper.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Applicant wishes to clarify and stress that the present identification is “Litigation support
`
`services provided exclusively to law firms, namely, conducting electronic legal discovery in
`
`the nature of reviewing e-mails and other electronically stored information that could be
`
`relevant evidence in a lawsuit”.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`By virtue of this identification, the law presumes conclusively that (1) Applicant
`
`provides electronic legal discovery services, as that term is commonly understood and (2) these
`
`electronic discovery services are offered and provided exclusively to law firms.
`
`The Examiner’s Statement rests on the mistaken conclusion that “legal services”
`
`comprises “electronic legal discovery.” No evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion.
`
`Numerous dictionaries define the phrase “legal services” as the services provided by a
`
`“lawyer to his or her client.” See, e.g. Exhibit B to Applicant’s Appeal Brief and attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A.1
`
`Given these definitions of the phrase “legal services” one need not engage in the
`
`Examiner’s multi-staged tortured ontological analysis derived from the meaning of the term
`
`“law” to derive at a meaning of the phrase. The Cambridge Dictionary and others reflect that
`
`“Legal Services” is a defined phrase. This meaning differs materially from that proposed by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`Moreover, Applicant respectfully invites the Board’s attention to the fact that even in the
`
`Examiner’s definition, Number 6, which Applicant recommends as the most relevant, defines
`
`“legal” as “applicable to attorneys.” Further when carried to its logical and Applicant
`
`respectfully submits, improper conclusion, the Examiner’s proposed ontological definition of
`
`legal services would encompass such materially differing services as a process server, a judge in
`
`a courtroom, a mail room clerk in a law firm. This definition conflicts with the precise clear
`
`definition of the phrase “legal services” offered by two standard dictionaries as what consumers
`
`understand by the phrase.
`
`
`
`1
`
` While Applicant maintains its objection to the Examiner’s evidence, nonetheless, only to the
`extent that the Board permits the Examiner to submit the dictionary definitions attached to her
`brief, in fairness, Applicant requests that the Board take judicial notice of the additional
`definition attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Most importantly, no evidence in the record exists that lawyers typically offer electronic
`
`legal discovery services. In fact, the record shows the exact opposite. As the Committee Notes
`
`Committee Notes and Applicant’s specimens cited in Applicant’s Main Brief has shown,
`
`discovery and electronic discovery are defined as entirely different concepts. Lawyers conduct
`
`discovery. Computerized technology companies, like Applicant’s, conduct electronic discovery.
`
`As stated in Applicant’s opening brief, this is because both the knowledge and the technology to
`
`conduct each differ.
`
`Electronic legal discovery requires the use of computers to locate, analyze documents for
`
`metadata and other electronically stored information (ESI) that humans cannot even perceive.
`
`As Judge Faciolla held, in one of the most famous cases first defining the rules on
`
`electronic discovery, appropriate searching of electronic data is too complicated for lawyers, but
`
`instead required the use of computerized solutions experts. U.S. v O’Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14
`
`(D. D.C.2008). As that court stated, ediscovery involves “the interplay at least of the sciences of
`
`computer technology, statistics and linguistics… Given this complexity, for lawyers and judges
`
`to opine is truly to go where angels dare to tread.” Id. Subsequent cases therefore have
`
`affirmatively sanctioned counsel for failing to retain such companies to perform ediscovery. See
`
`e.g., Mosley v. Conte, 110623/2008 (8-17-2010), 2010 NY Slip Op 32424(U), 14 (N.Y. Misc.
`
`2010), explaining the problems of attempting to analyze ESI without a computer forensic expert
`
`and ordering party to retain and search and analyze documents through a computer forensic
`
`expert. [“The affidavit of a computer expert following his or her examination of and search
`
`through Conte's computers, email databases, and the like, also might have alleviated these
`
`problems. In their absence, the Court does not find the Conte affidavit sufficiently
`
`comprehensive or persuasive about the existence of ESI.]
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Thus, nothing is this record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that “legal Services” is
`
`broad enough to encompass electronic discovery services, such as Applicant’s. These services,
`
`“electronic discovery services in the nature of reviewing ESI” and the like are computerized
`
`technology based solutions. As Judge Faciolla held, due to the mass of documents typically
`
`involved and the complex nature of the search required, knowledge of the sciences of computer
`
`technology, statistics and linguistics are integral to the services required.
`
`Second, the classes of customers involved in the case at bar differ completely. As
`
`conclusively shown by Applicant’s amendment, Applicant is higher in the distribution chain than
`
`Registrant. Applicant sells exclusively to “law firms.” The Registrant is a law firm. And the
`
`Examiner has failed to introduce any evidence that law firms are a typical purchaser class for
`
`other firm’s “legal services.” Instead, as the Examiner has noted, law firms sell to corporations
`
`and individuals including the poor, immigrants and the like. for Applicant’s services. As the
`
`purchaser classes differ completely, consumer confusion cannot occur. In re Nexgen Resources,
`
`2006 WL 2557987 (TTAB 2006) [“although coal is supplied to companies that generate
`
`electricity, electricity is bought and sold in entirely different markets and channels of trade than
`
`coal”].
`
`Third, the relevant purchaser class undoubtedly consists of only the most sophisticated
`
`purchasers imaginable. As Applicant’s recitation of services is expressly limited to sales to law
`
`firms, the Examiner’s contention that Applicant would sell to the poor, the illiterate, and
`
`immigrants is legally false. Further, it is belied by the identification of services, and the
`
`evidence of record which consists of Applicant’s brochures, pp. 57- 70 at Docket Number 8 of
`
`Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration. As indicated in Applicant’s brochures, pp 57-70
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Docket 8, Request for Reconsideration, discovery solutions cost a good deal of money. Poor
`
`people and immigrants, typically are not the consumers for such services.
`
`To the extent that Registrant sells to persons other than those to whom Registrant sells,
`
`these sales are irrelevant. This is because, as the Board knows, confusion cannot exist, unless a
`
`mark is encountered by the same class of purchaser. In re Nexgen Resources, supra.
`
`Fourth, even assuming without conceding that Registrant ARC IP LAW offers its
`
`services to other law firms, this shared purchaser class constitutes the most sophisticated of
`
`consumers imaginable. Electronic discovery is costly and burdensome. Further, courts award
`
`severe sanctions if the matter is not handled correctly. See, e.g., U.S. v O’Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d
`
`14 (D. D.C.2008) and Mosley v. Conte, 110623/2008 (8-17-2010), 2010 NY Slip Op 32424(U),
`
`14 (N.Y. Misc. 2010). Due to the high costs of electronic discovery and the likely enormous
`
`sanctions for failing to perform those services correctly, law firms can be expected to exercise
`
`the greatest possible care and time in selecting an ediscovery provider.
`
`Fifth, because of the extremely sophisticated nature of the consumer class, the
`
`Examiner’s arguments and cited cases as to the degree of care likely to be exercised by
`
`purchasers in making purchasing decisions are inapplicable. The cases cited by the Examiner,
`
`such as Squirtco, Vitarroz and the like, generally involve consumer products and do not involve
`
`professional purchasing agents as would exist here. As noted in Applicant’s Main Brief, where
`
`as here, the parties are sophisticated, even identical marks have been allowed. See Applicant’s
`
`Main Brief, pp 16-18.
`
`Sixth, the Examiner’ argument as to the weakness of the Registrant’s Mark continues to
`
`misstate the evidence of record, ignores Applicant’s evidence as to the inherent weakness of the
`
`term ARC, and simply ignores the two recent Federal Court cases cited by Applicant in its Main
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Brief, instructing the USPTO on the proper weight to give evidence of third party use and
`
`registrations. For the Board’s convenience, its attention is respectfully directed to Applicant’s
`
`Brief at pp. 5-8, which summarized Applicant’s evidence and pp.11-14 which summarize the
`
`applicable law.
`
`Each of the quoted text listed in Applicant’s Brief at pp. 5-8 has come directly from the
`
`cited web page or published applications/registrations. Applicant respectfully submits that the
`
`parties who advertise and promote their services know how to define their services. Further,
`
`each is either for legal services, or litigation support services, or for services involving the
`
`storage, preservation and retention of ESI, just as Applicant’s.
`
`In this regard, the Examiner’s argument that these third party uses are irrelevant because
`
`they are either not law firms or not the same exact type of services as Applicant is incorrect. If,
`
`as the Examiner contends, legal services is broadly construed, it must be broadly construed to
`
`include all legal services provided by lawyers to clients, whether in a traditional law firm or not.
`
`Further, that those services are classified in Class 45 or not is of no moment in determining
`
`likelihood of confusion, or the relatedness of third party uses.
`
`Finally, the Examiner’s argument that these third party uses and registrant’s may be
`
`dismissed as they contain other wording is incorrect. As indicated above, the evidence reflects
`
`that most of the marks, except LuminArc and ARC STONE add either generic, descriptive or
`
`highly suggestive terms to the word ARC. See Applicant’s Main Brief, pp 16-18. Further, most
`
`of the third parties - including LuminArc and ARC STONE – separate or emphasize “ARC”
`
`apart from the remaining terms through separation, color, highlighting and the like. See, pages
`
`24-92 of Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, Docket No. 8.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Thus, Applicant has shown that at least thirteen different third parties actually use the
`
`term ARC for legal services and litigation support services, which evidence is more than simply
`
`applications. Under the applicable law, this evidence proves that in the real world, the term ARC
`
`and its phonetic equivalents, is inherently and commercial weak in both the Registrant’s and
`
`Applicant’s fields and thus entitled to a narrow scope of protection. See, e.g., Juice Generation
`
`v. GS Enterprises, 794 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and Jack Wolfskin Ausrustring Fur Draussen
`
`v. New Millenium Sport, 797 F.3d 1363 ( Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`As to Applicant’s existing registration for IRIS/ARC and the peaceful coexistence of the
`
`Registrant’s mark with Applicant and the remaining third party registrants’ including, ARC
`
`MAIL for according to its website an “archive email system that reduces discovery costs”, ARC
`
`LOGICS for “computer software in the field of regulatory compliance” and ARC ADVANCED
`
`REGULATORY COMPLIANCE for “legal consulting services”, the Examiner’s argument
`
`misses the point. Applicant does not contend that these prior determinations legally preclude the
`
`Board from finding confusion here. However, given the fact that Applicant is an IP law firm,
`
`one must presume that if Applicant was bothered by the impact of these marks on its rights, it
`
`would have opposed. That this did not happen and at least four other Examiners have allowed
`
`co-existing applications and registrations in the field of litigation support or legal services,
`
`strongly suggests that this Examiner’s unsupported contention that ARC is strong and that
`
`confusion is likely, is simply incorrect. Applicant and Registrant have coexisted for three years.
`
`As instructed by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In re E. I. du Pont de
`
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973), the Board must a) take into
`
`account all evidence when weighing the issue of likelihood of confusion; and b) concern itself
`
`with the real probability of confusion as opposed to speculative or hypothetical possibilities.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`In this instance, Applicant respectfully submits as it is based upon a misunderstanding of
`
`the nature of Applicant’s services, the evidence of record and the applicable law and facts, the
`
`refusal to register is incorrect.
`
`Wherefore, as Applicant has argued consistently throughout this case, because of the
`
`dissimilarity of the services provided by the parties, the dissimilarity of the customers, the
`
`sophistication of the purchasers, the inherent and market weakness of the term ARC, the
`
`dissimilarities between the marks at issue, as well as the peaceful coexistence of the parties – and
`
`other third parties - for at least three years, the Examiner has not met its burden of proving that
`
`confusion is likely. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board reverse the
`
`refusal to register and approve Applicant’s mark for publication.
`
`
`
`Date: February 14, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Carla C Calcagno/
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`Carla C Calcagno, Esq.
`CALCAGNO LAW PLLC
`2101 L Street NW
`Washington DC 20037
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Legal services legal definition of legal services
`(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:14)(cid:17)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:11)
`
`Page 1 of 1
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:6)
`
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)
`Legal services legal definition of legal services
`http://IegaI-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Iegal+services
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:22)
`
`Ads by Google related to: legal services
`(cid:25)(cid:11)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:26)5(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)
`
`0 'awyers'wm '
`(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:20) 8
`
`Legal Services - Find Top Rated Local Lawyers.
`(cid:1)(cid:4)#$(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:7)%
`(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:16)&(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)
`’
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:12)
`(Top Site) Database of 1 MM+ Attorneys. Profiles, Reviews, Ratings & More.
`(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:26)/(cid:26);;(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:26)7(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:26)$(cid:7)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:26)$(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:26)<(cid:26);(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:18)
`(cid:31)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:26)-(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:7)=(cid:26)(cid:24)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:26)
`>
`Trusted Lawyer Reviews - Free Legal Information - #1 Legal Directory
`$(cid:7)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:27)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:26)?(cid:26)"(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:26)’(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)*(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)
`
`(cid:26)?(cid:26)
`@/(cid:26)’(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)
`(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:17)
`(cid:31)(cid:16)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)’(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:26)
`
`Find the Right Lawyer Now
`"(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:26)$(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:26)’(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:26)2(cid:14)(cid:27)
`Personal Injury Lawyers
`7(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)*(cid:15)9(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:26)’(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:22)
`
`Divorce Lawyers
`(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:26)’(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:22)
`Bankruptcy Lawyers
`+(cid:9)(cid:15):(cid:16)(cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:13)(cid:17)(cid:26)’(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:22)
`
`(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:22)
`legal services
`Also found in: Dictionary, Medical, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
`(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:30)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:26)((cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:8)$(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:26))(cid:14)(cid:11)$(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:16)&(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:26)*(cid:10)+(cid:10)&(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:18)
`
`Related to legal services: Legal Services Corporation
`$(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:23)(cid:16)(cid:8)&(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:14)
`
`(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:22)
`legal services
`
`n. the work performed by a lawyer for a client.
`(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:16):(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:18)
`
`Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
`A(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:26)B(cid:26)/CD/(cid:10)3 E(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:26)5(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:26)2(cid:18)(cid:26)1(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:26)F(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:18)(cid:26)1(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:26)$(cid:12)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:18)
`
`Ads by Google related to: legal services
`(cid:25)(cid:11)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:26)5(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:7)
`
`(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:20) 8
`LS legalshield.com v
`
`Le9a| service
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)
`Affordable Legal Help is Available. Protect Your Family or Business Now
`(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:26)
`
`1(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:18)
`7(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:26),(cid:14)(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:26)"(cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:26)+(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:26)2(cid:14)(cid:27)
`Affordable Legal Services - Over 40 Years Experience - 24/7/365 Coverage
`
`(cid:26)?(cid:26)#(cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:26)I (cid:26),(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:26)
`
`
`A(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:7)&H(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:26)?(cid:26)3I(cid:5)4(cid:5)JKE(cid:26)
`
`(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:26)’(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)
`-(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:22)
`
`How It Works
`1(cid:14)(cid:27)(cid:26)*(cid:2)(cid:26)%(cid:14)(cid:16):(cid:22)
`Small Business Plans
`-(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:26)+(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:26)7(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:22)
`
`Personal Legal Plans
`7(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)’(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)7(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:22)
`Why LegalShield?
`%(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:26)’(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)-(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:11)G
`
`SHOP N
`-1#7(cid:26)2#
`
`BUILE
`+)*’(cid:24)
`_
`*More Loan lnfomiatlon
`!(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:13)(cid:16)(cid:8)"(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:14)
`
`
`
`! (cid:17)
`
`0/0
`APR FINANCING
`(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:24)
`FOR UP To 72 MONTHS
`(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:6)(cid:30)(cid:25)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:31)
`FOR WELL-QUALIFIED BUYERSm
`./0
`"#$(cid:26)%&’’(cid:10)()(cid:25)’*"*&(cid:24)(cid:26)+),&$-
`
`
`
`THE NEW 2017
`(cid:31)1&(cid:26)2&%(cid:26)3 /4(cid:26)
`NISSAN
`2*--(cid:25)2
`ROGUE®
`$#5)& 6
`
`Copyright © 2003-2017 Farlex, Inc
`(cid:23)(cid:16)&$(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:3),(cid:15)(cid:6)-(cid:6)(cid:29)../’(cid:29).0(cid:28)(cid:6)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:2)12(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:11)
`
`Disclaimer
`(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:16)
`All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference
`(cid:25)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:28)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:30)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:26)
`data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to
`(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:22)(cid:1)(cid:14)(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:26)
`date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or
`(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:28)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:9)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:30)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:29)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:26)
`any other professional.
`(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:18)
`
`http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.confllegal+services
`(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:18)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:27)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:18)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:12)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:30)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:31)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:11)
`
`2/14/2017
`(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:23)
`
`