-
`
`~
`
`.it
`
`nnmuniluuuunmliuimnuulnm 9
`
`//4%
`
`JESSER.O02M
`
`”'“"‘°"‘“”°'°’“‘ ”“"“°"‘°“"2
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`06-17-2002
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BLUE BOX, LLC,
`
`Opposer,
`
`) Opposition No. 124,729
`)
`) Mark: ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY
`
`V
`
`'
`
`KNO
`
`ALMSPRINGS, INC.’
`
`Applicant.
`
`g
`;
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`are.be_ing deposited with the United States Postal Service as . rst-c ass
`
`l hereby certify that this correspondence and all marked attzchmilznts
`:2z3'z::,;?‘:;:S::“A::,,,,:,
`0,. "
`
`June 14, 2002
`Date
`
`%,_,\_,__,,$
`
`Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear
`
`APPLICANT KNOWNPALMSPRINGS INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`OPPOSER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`ATTN: BOX TTAB - NO FEE
`
`I?
`31:» 3
`‘:1
`“:3 _f._,,
`
`:5
`l
`r___
`C:
`'1»:
`
`3.,
`;
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a trademark opposition brought by Opposer, Blue Box, LLC (“Opposer”), against
`
`Applicant, knownpalmsprings,
`
`inc.
`
`(“Applicant”).
`
`Opposer claims that Applicant’s mark
`
`ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY, when used on or in connection with Applicant’s goods, as
`
`identified in U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 78/057,809, namely, cosmetics, namely,
`
`foundation, concealer,
`
`loose powder, pressed powder, cheek color, bronzer, eye pencils,
`
`lip
`
`pencils, mascara,
`
`lipstick,
`
`lip gloss, perfume, toilette water, cologne, body lotion, body oil,
`
`WW/3
`
`

`
`
`
`shaving lotion (hereinafier referred to as “Applicant’s Goods”), is likely to cause confusion or
`
`mistake as to source with Opposer’s mark shown in Application Serial No. 78/044,358 for the
`
`mark ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE in connection with essential oils for personal use,
`
`perfume, cologne, after shave lotion and balm, skin and body cleansers, skin and body
`
`moisturizing and conditioning lotions and creams, cuticle creams, facial scrubs, hand and foot
`
`lotions and creams, facial masks for cosmetic use, bubble bath, lipstick and lip gloss, nail enamel
`
`and top and base coats, sunscreens, suntanning creams and lotions and gels, mascara, eyeliners,
`
`blusher, rouge, makeup, makeup remover, hair conditioners and shampoos, scalp moisturizers,
`
`nonmedicated topically creams and lotions to protect
`
`the skin from wind and sun and
`
`enviromnental pollution, aromatherapy oils and lotions and creams, cosmetic serums for the face,
`
`pore refining creams and lotions, skin firming creams and lotions, wrinkle smoothing creams and
`
`lotions, creams and lotions topically applied to diminish the appearance of fine lines and
`
`wrinkles on the face and skin, breast firming creams and lotions, skin toning creams and lotions,
`
`and creams and lotion to improve the elasticity of the skin (hereinafier referred to as “Opposer’s
`
`Goods”).
`
`Opposer’s assertion that there is no material fact as to a of likelihood of confusion is
`
`unfounded; it is clear that the parties’ respective marks are so significantly different in overall
`
`appearance and commercial impression as to create an issue of fact. Moreover, the consumers of
`
`both parties’ goods are likely to be discerning and careful consumers. Accordingly, there is a
`
`genuine issue of material fact as to a likelihood of confusion, and a grant of summary judgment for
`
`Opposer is not appropriate in this action.
`
`

`
`
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Applicant filed an intent-to-use application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) on April 11, 2001 seeking registration of the mark ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY
`
`(in block letters) for Applicant’s Goods based upon its intention to use the mark in the United
`
`States. The application was assigned Serial No. 78/057,809 and was published for opposition on
`
`October 16, 2001. There were Q Office Actions issued against this application. Accordingly, no
`
`prior-pending applications or registrations,
`
`including Opposer’s application, were cited as a
`
`reference or a bar to registration by the USPTO Examining Attorney.
`
`On November 4, 2001, Opposer filed a Notice of Opposition with the Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (the “Board”), claiming that Applicant’s Goods are identical to Opposer’s Goods and
`
`that Applicant’s mark incorporates “Opposer’s mark ARCHITECTURE, which is distinctive and
`
`unique to Opposer.” Applicant’s mark is ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY. Opposer’s mark
`
`applied for is Q “ARCHITECTURE.” Opposer’s application is for the mark ARCHITECTURE
`
`FOR THE FACE.
`
`III. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Opposer’s assertion that there is no material issue of material fact that a likelihood of
`
`confiasion must necessarily exist due to the common component “architecture” is unfounded.
`
`Opposer’s only allegation in its Notice of. Opposition as to how the marks could be considered
`
`confusingly similar is that “Applicant’s mark incorporates Opposer’s mark ARCHITECTURE.”
`
`Notice of Opposition 11 6. However, it is clear that Opposer’s mark is @ ARCHITECTURE, as
`
`Opposer continuously states, but is ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE. As argued in more detail
`
`

`
`
`
`below, Opposer’s entire mark is what must be compared with Applicant’s mark, not a single
`
`component of Opposer’s choosing. By simply looking at the two marks, it is clear that the marks
`
`differ in overall appearance and commercial impression. Furthermore, Opposer ignores the fact
`
`that App1icant’s Goods will be purchased by sophisticated consumers afier very carefill
`
`consideration and investigation. Applicant asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact
`
`involved in this determination. Accordingly, this matter is not appropriate for a summary judgment
`
`decision.
`
`IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`Summary judgment should be granted only where it is shown that there is no genuine issue
`
`of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F.R.C.P. Rule
`
`56(c). Summary judgment is only an appropriate method of disposing of an opposition in which
`
`there is no genuine issue of material fact on the question of likelihood of confusion. Kellogg Co. V.
`
`Pack’Em Enterprises, Inc, 14 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1545 (T.T.A.B. 1990). As the Federal Circuit stated in
`
`Pure Gold, Inc. V. Smtex 1U.S.A.), Inc., 222 U.S.P.Q. 741, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1984):
`
`The basic purpose of summary judgment procedure is one ofjudicial economy -- to
`save the time and expense of a full trial when it is urmecessary because the essential
`facts necessary to decision of the issue can be adequately developed by less costly
`procedures, as contemplated by the FRCP rules here involved, with a net benefit to
`society.
`
`As the moving party, Opposer has the clear burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to
`
`surr1rnary judgment. Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). This general principle
`
`of summary judgment applies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 to inter-party proceedings
`
`

`
` i
`
`before the Board. E, gg_., Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 4
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1793, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT ON THE
`
`QUESTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`Likelihood of Confusion Test
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, allows for registration of a mark
`
`unless the mark “so resembles a mark previously used in the United States by another and not
`
`abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause
`
`confusion, or cause mistake, or to deceive.”
`
`There is no rigid test for analyzing likelihood of confusion. However, T.M.E.P. § 1207.01
`
`lists thirteen factors as relevant in determining the registrability of a mark over an allegedly
`
`confusingly similar mark. Of those thirteen factors, the most important factors in this matter at this
`
`time (due to the Motion before the Board) are:
`
`(1) the differences in the marks when viewed in
`
`their entireties as to overall appearance and commercial impression; (2) the dissimilarity and nature
`
`of the goods as described in the applications; and (3) the conditions under which, and the buyers to
`
`whom sales are made, i.e., impulse vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing. Sg Application of E.I.
`
`DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`
`In this matter, Opposer cannot carry its burden to prove that there is no issue of material fact
`9’
`
`to be determined in regard to the elements of “likelihood of confiusion.
`
`In applying the factors
`
`summarized above in this matter, it must be concluded that Opposer is not entitled to summary
`
`judgment.
`
`

`
`
`
`l i
`
`1.
`
`The Marks ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY and ARCHITECTURE FOR THE
`
`FACE are Dissimilar in Overall Appearance and Commercial Impression
`
`Applicant seeks registration for the phrase ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY. Conversely,
`
`Opposer’s mark is for the phrase ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE. A comparison of
`
`Applicant’s mark and Opposer’s mark shows that the parties’ marks are quite dissimilar in overall
`
`appearance and commercial impression, as set forth in more detail herein. Such dissimilarity
`
`proves there is a genuine issue of material fact to be determined, and Applicant should be provided
`
`the opportunity to do so in this proceeding.
`
`a.
`
`The Marks Must be Compared in Their Entireties
`
`It is well founded that in making a determination of likelihood of confusion, marks
`
`must be compared in their entireties and should n_ot be dissected and their parts compared
`
`
`separately. E Estate of P. D. Beckwith Inc. v. Comm. of Patents, 252 U.S. 538 (1920)
`
`(the commercial impression of a composite mark is derived from the mark as a whole, not
`
`its separate elements).
`
`In fact, it has been held that it is a violation of the anti-dissection
`
`rule to ignore elements of a mark in deciding whether confiision is likely. Franklin Mint
`
`Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 1007 (C.C.P.A. 1981). In other words, splitting a
`
`mark into its various components and comparing only certain portions of one mark with
`
`another mark is not proper. Massey Junior College, Inc. v. Fashion Institute of Technology,
`
`492 F.2d 1399, 181 U.S.P.Q. 272 (C.C.P.A. 1974).
`
`Thus, as described below, a proper comparison of Applicant’s entire mark to
`
`Opposer’s entire mark shows that the marks are quite dissimilar i.n overall appearance and
`
`

`
`
`
`commercial impression and therefor this matter is not appropriate for summary judgment.
`
`While Opposer continuously refers to its mark as “ARCHITECTURE,” this is not the mark
`
`Opposer applied for. This is not the appropriate forum for Opposer to seek protection for a
`
`mark it has not established rights to.
`
`b.
`
`The Marks are Different in Overall Appearance and Proffer Different
`
`Commercial Impressions
`
`Although Applicant’s ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY mark and Opposer’s
`
`ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE mark each contain the term “architecture,”
`
`Applicant’s mark also consists of the terms “OF BEAUTY.” These two terms were not
`
`disclaimed in Applicant’s application and are suggestive of its products.
`
`In addition, these
`
`terms should be considered unitary with the term “architecture” in analyzing the mark.
`
`Moreover, as both Applicant’s mark and Opposer’s mark would clearly be
`
`perceived as unitary marks, the argument made by Opposer in comparing the marks based
`
`solely on the common term is contrary to the law and therefore without merit. Consumers
`
`and potential consumers will not View one term of each mark alone. They will View each
`
`mark in its entirety. Thus, when the marks are properly considered in their entireties, they
`
`are clearly dissimilar in overall appearance.
`
`It is also well established that merely because two marks may contain a similar or
`
`identical term, this itself does not establish that there is a likelihood of confusion. Even if
`
`one mark incorporates the entire mark of another,
`
`this does not show a likelihood of
`
`confusion between the two marks. For example, in Fleetwood Co. v. Mende, 132 U.S.P.Q.
`
`

`
`
`
`458 (C.C.P.A. 1962), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (“C.C.P.A.”) affirrned the
`
`Board’s dismissal of a Petition for Cancellation of the mark “TINT ‘N SET” for hair care
`
`preparations brought by the owner of the registration for the mark “TINTZ,” also for hair
`
`care preparations. Li. at 459. In reaching its conclusion, the C.C.P.A. reasoned that merely
`
`because both marks contained the term “TINT” and were used on virtually identical goods,
`
`there was no likelihood of confiision. BL
`
`Likewise, In Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Revlon Consumer Products Corp., 869 F.
`
`Supp. 176, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1465 (S.D.N.Y. 1994),
`
`the court found that there was no
`
`likelihood of confusion between the marks “RED” and “CHARLIE RED,” both for
`
`perfume.
`
`I_d_. at 1467.
`
`The present case is clearly analogous to these two cases. While Applicant’s mark
`
`and Opposer’s mark each contain the term “architecture,” there is no likelihood of
`
`confusion between Applicant’s entire mark ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY and
`
`Opposer’s entire mark ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE. Moreover, unlike these cases
`
`where the goods were identical or closely related, Applicant’s Goods and Opposer’s Goods
`
`may provide differences which impact on the confiision analysis. Opposer’s mark uses the
`7!
`phrase “for the face. As such, Opposer’s mark limits its focus to the face. When one
`
`views Opposer’s mark, one cannot help but picture how the products would interact with
`
`one’s facial features. Applicant’s mark has a very different connotation. Applicant’s mark
`
`is a more vague concept of “designing” or “building” beauty. There is no focus on “facial
`
`architecture.” Van Hoosear Declaration 1] 4.
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Goods Which May be Provided Under the Marks Differ
`
`First, both applications in issue are based on an intent-to-use, so it is difficult to say with
`
`certainty what actual goods will be used in connection with the marks.
`
`In addition, a review of
`
`Opposer’s website does not reveal use of Opposer’s mark in connection with any specific products.
`
`See Declaration of Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear (the “Van Hoosear Declaration”) and Exhibit A attached
`
`thereto. Opposer’s website is also inconsistent as to whether Opposer can consider the mark
`
`ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE one of its trademarks, as the trademark section of its website
`
`omits any reference to this mark. Van Hoosear Declaration 1] 3.
`
`It is clear that Opposer’s Goods, with the possible exception of its body bars, sell in the
`
`price range of $21—$38. Van Hoosear Declaration 1] 5. Applicant submits that these prices would
`
`make consumers and potential consumers more careful in their purchasing decisions.
`
`3.
`
`The Conditions Under Which and the Buyers to Whom Sales are Made
`
`The care exercised by a reasonably prudent buyer, the level of sophistication of the relevant
`
`purchasers and the price of the goods in question are factors used in determining whether likelihood
`
`of confusion exists. T.M.E.P. § 1207.01.
`
`An issue of material fact exists as to the finding of a likelihood of confusion due to the
`
`sophistication and care of the consumers and potential consumers of the goods.
`
`fact, the case at
`
`hand presents itself as one in which there will be no competitive proximity between the parties’
`
`respective goods. “[W]here the goods in question are not identical or competitive, and are not
`
`related or marketed in such a way that they would be encountered by the same people in situations
`
`

`
`
`
`that could create the incorrect assumption that all the goods come from the same source .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`confusion is not likely.” In re Unilever Ltd., 222 U.S.P.Q. 981, 982-83 (T.T.A.B. 1984).
`
`In Remolds & Remolds Company v. I.E. Systems, Inc. (“Reynolds”), 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1749
`
`(T.T.A.B. 1987), the opposer marketed accounting programs, whereas the applicant marketed a
`
`sophisticated highly specialized computer software program. The Board concluded that there was
`
`no likelihood of confusion because the applicant marketed its products to an entirely different set of
`
`consumers than the opposer. Li. at 1752. Applicant has not yet had the opportunity to reveal the
`
`differences in Applicant’s Goods and Opposer’s Goods.
`
`Moreover, neither Applicant’s Goods nor Opposer’s Goods would appear to be in the nature
`
`of “impulse” purchases. A consumer of cosmetic products would not purchase them impulsively,
`
`but would contemplate such a purchase due to the cost involved and the obvious interaction with
`
`one’s own body and the importance of one’s appearance. Therefore, consumers would be inclined
`
`to a great deal more circumspection as a result of their desire to match their own important needs.
`
`The clear fact that consumers and potential consumers of both parties’ goods would likely be
`
`discerning, careful purchasers, further negates any likelihood of confusion.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`On the basis of the facts and the law, as demonstrated above, Applicant has clearly shown
`
`there £6 issues of material fact to be decided as to whether or not Applicant’s ARCHITECTURE
`
`OF BEAUTY mark for Applicant’s Goods and Opposer’s ARCHITECTURE FOR THE FACE
`
`mark for Opposer’s Goods are so “related” that there is by law a likelihood of confirsion between
`
`the marks, or that the trade or purchasing public will be deceived into believing that Applicant’s
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`Goods originate with or are otherwise authorized, licensed or sponsored by Opposer. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant requests that the Board deny summary judgment in response to Opposer’s motion.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`ort Center Drive
`
`Sixteenth Floor
`
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`(949) 760-0404
`Attorney for Applicant,
`KNOWNPALMSPRINGS, INC.
`
`Dated:
`
`[ ’
`
`0 p
`
`I:\DOCS\IVH\.IVH-3497.DOC:s]
`061402
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I
`
`hereby
`
`certify
`
`that
`
`I
`
`served
`
`a
`
`copy of
`
`the
`
`foregoing APPLICANT
`
`KNOWNPALMSPRINGS INC.’S RESPONSE TO 0PPOSER’S MOTION FOR
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT upon Opposer’s counsel by depositing one copy thereof in the
`
`United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on June 14, 2002, addressed as follows:
`
`Jay H. Geller
`JAY H. GELLER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`West Tower, Suite 4000
`
`2425 West Olympic Boulevard
`Santa Monica, CA 90404
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`JESSER.OO2M
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Opposition No. 124,729
`
`Mark: ARCHITECTURE OF BEAUTY
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`) ) )
`
`BLUE BOX, LLC,
`
`Opposer,
`
`V.
`
`KNOWNPALMSPRINGS, INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY L. VAN HOOSEAR
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202-3513
`
`ATTN: BOX TTAB - NO FEE
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`1, Jeffrey L. Van Hoosear, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner with the law firm of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP,
`
`intellectual property counsel for Applicant, knownpalmsprings, inc. (“Applicant”), in the above-
`
`identified opposition proceeding.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.
`
`If
`
`called upon and sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify as set forth below.
`
`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of printouts of seventeen
`
`(17) pages from Opposer, Blue Box, LLC’s (“Opposer”) website www.bodybistro.com printed
`
`May 13, 2002.
`
`3.
`
`Page 4 of Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a printout of Opposer’s website
`
`which shows no product match for a search of “architecture.”
`
`4.
`
`Page 5 of Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a printout of Opposer’s website
`
`which shows only one product match for a search of “face.”
`
`5.
`
`Pages 6-11 of Exhibit A are true and correct copies of printouts of Opposer’s
`
`website which show Opposer’s products and prices.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Page 14 of Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Opposer’s website.
`
`Page 16 of Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Opposer’s website.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and all statements
`
`made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements are
`
`made with the knowledge that willful, false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code and
`
`that such willful, false statements may jeopardize the Validity of the application or document or
`
`any registration resulting therefrom.
`
`Dated: £1 /l/[ [L
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF JEFFREY
`
`L. VAN HOOSEAR upon Opposer’s counsel by depositing one copy thereof in the United
`
`States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, on June 14, 2002, addressed as follows:
`
`Jay H. Geller
`JAY H. GELLER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`West Tower, Suite 4000
`
`2425 West Olympic Boulevard
`Santa Monica, CA 90404
`
`)4» $0.6
`
`
`
`L. Van Hoosear
`
`H:\DOCS\MHM\MHM-2324.DOC:sl
`061402
`
`

`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO | Ayurvedic Apothecary | Architecture for the Face
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO l
`Ayurvedic
`Apothecary | How Are
`You Feeling Today?
`Welcome ljfhe Bistro
`On e
`
`.A_t.>...<2.t..:.tt.t.Ll.,s,.l.§5_r_e_e_e_n.
`Philosoghy
`What is Ayurveda?
`About Vastu
`
`
`E_re.quenIly...A§ls.§9..
`Queries
`Bistro Press
`
`
`
`lNGRt‘-JDIENT lNDEX
`
`Ayurvedic Herbs based
`
`
`
`.Harb§..Igr...t.h.¢...§9a.lp.
`.A.t<_:_n.e_Q_ausitn,9
`lngredients
`
`WHOLESALE
`
`enquiries
`Wholesale Stockist
`Query.
`
`FREE @ BODY
`BISTRO
`
`
`
`.
`
`BODY BISTRO [ Intelligent Skincare | Sacred
`Science: Welcome I The Bistro
`
`BODY BISTRO
`
`l0aI”tiCiPat€S_in
`Charity
`
`
`
`A‘{U%?VEDlC fl.POTHEC»¢J?‘{
`
`rrrr
`
`rrrr
`
`iiiii
`
`BODY BISTRO | Brings Honesty to Life
`
`How Are You Feeling Today?
`
`The NEW and EXCLUSIVE
`
`With good intention, the essence of BODY BISTRO is a combination of ancient Vedic
`beauty rituals and remedies with the highest form of unprocessed botanicals and
`cutting edge technology in state of the art formulations to create products that actually
`do work!
`
`BODY BISTRO: Mantra
`
`G9H
`
`PURIFY
`BALANCE
`REJUVENA TE
`0 NURTURE
`BODY BlSTRO has gathered the wisdom and ingredients from the Village Pharmacy -
`fresh herbal extracts in their least processed form whose origins lie in Burma, Nepal.
`Tibet, Mongolia and indie. The products have been formulated according to the bylaws
`of the Ancient science of Ayurveda and combined with additional state of the art
`functional ingredients found in nature, and with good intention, to help purify, balance
`and nurture.
`
`The word Ayurveda, is formed from two Sanskrit words: “Ayur” ~ Longevity and
`
`Exhibit A Pa9e_Lof_’?C
`
`.
`
`_
`
`‘- http://www.bodybistro.com/sys-tmpl/door/
`
`5/13/02
`
`

`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO I Ayurvedic Apothecary I Architecture for the Face
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`"Knowledge of Longevity"
`
`JOIN OUR BODY BISTRO VIP GUEST LIST
`
`UP!
`
`** (Please include , mailing address, telephone
`number, email address AND also how you heard about
`us!)
`
`"Herbs and plants are medical jewels gracing the woods, fields and
`lanes which few eyes see, and few minds understand. Through this
`want of observation and knowledge the world suffers immense |oss." -
`Linnaeus 1707-‘I778
`
`BODY BISTRO is a trademark of BLUE BOX, LLC For more information contact BODY
`BISTRO Bistro Relations at 1-877-7-Bistro
`
`Vastu Skin System, Sacred Science, Architecture for the Face, Village Pharmacy are all
`trademarks of BODY BISTRO and BLUE BOX, LLC BODY BISTRO respects your
`privacy. Please review our policy. Please report technical problems
`
`BODY BISTRO I Ayurvedic Apothecary ~ 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
`trademark of Blue Box, LLC
`I
`I QflII,!1§,,§1Q[§ I At:.g.ut._.LJ.§...l..£5.reen.Ph.i19s9r2hy.
`Weiccme I The..B.is.t:9.
`About Vastu I Contact Us I Freguently Asked Queries | Bistro Press I Customer‘s
`
`
`I
`.
`ity.I.A
`I
`..G
`‘
`ervice I
`.\li.ta
`‘
`I
`’ ping.
`I A
`d‘
`
`
`
`.91:
`§.[.$ I Herbs
`I
`Ingredients I Wholesale I StockIstQuery I Calendar of Events I Download Files
`
`I
`
`http://www.bodybistro.com/sys-tmpl/door/
`
`5/13/02
`
`Exhibit I4 Pa9e.3__of...I.3:
`
`

`
`
`
`Movin' around the Bistro
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Sitemap
`
`
`BODY BISTRO I Ayurvedic Apothecary I How Are You Feeiing Today?
`Weircrome 1 The.Bi§:.tq
`Online Store
`
`About Us Green Phiiosophv
`Recyc|ing_] Helping the Environment
`
`
`isWAy.u.ryed.a
`What is my Dosha?
`Ayurveda |,UfQ[!Il.§I.iQ.[1...L.i!)}S§.
`.i_i<al..r..f>..sr..ex nude Pregnancy
`
`.l~\;|‘.éNBCVNews Article : Ayurveda
`Article: Ayurveda
`
` y...E..oI.icy.
`
`Qgpyright information
`ELe.g.uen1Jv.....A§..
`
`Bistro ‘-‘Press
`Custoiner's Comments
`.ri1y..ieAwr es
`’G'fir§earvic.e.
`
`_<.3_r.e.
`
`
`
`INGREDIENT INDEX
`
`Ayurvedic Herbs based on Disorder
`E.f_<2.r.Skin Disordaersu
`i
`{for the Scalp.
`..€,di.€n1S,
`Roie of Preservatives
`
`
`
`WHOLESALE enquiries
`I s.a.!e J.Stockist Queiy.
`Abbut our Brands
`a!rnfqr.m .i9.r.i.
`
`
`
`FRE§ @ BODY BISTRO
`Calendar of Events
`Download Files
`
`sc.ra.p.!2.9.9.is
`rlotiyreaist
`Sign our Guestbook!
`
`:
`
`; ‘http://wvvw.bodybistro.com/sys-tmp1/look/sitemap.nhtml-
`
`5/13/02
`
`Exhibit A page_5_or_’_~;i
`
`

`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO I Ayurvedic Apothecary I Architecture for the Face: Search
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
` z@
`
`Search For The Following Word
`
`larchitecture
`
`
`No products matched your search criteria
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Exhaust
`
`:4 ?age.__Lo€..,..'..3r
`
`1-
`
`_ «http://bodybistro.com/miva?/Merchant2/merchant.mv+
`
`_N
`
`5/13/02
`
`

`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO 1 Ayurvedic Apothecary 1 Architecture for the Face: Search
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
` Store Front
`
`Search For The Following Word
`
`iface
`
`
`Basket Contents
`
`Caheckuaut.
`
`Code Name
`
`ANFRE Apricot + Neem I Facial Rejuvenating Elixir
`
`Price
`
`$21.00 3
`
`:
`
`' http://bodybistro.com/miVa?/Merchant2/merchant.mv+
`
`5/13/02
`
`mama A Pageiotfi
`
`

`
`
`BODY BISTRO I Ayurvedic Apothecary | Architecture for the Face: Product List
`Page 1 of 6
`
` Pfoéufii L551
`
`Pineapple + Lime I Cleansing Wash
`Code: PLCW
`
`Price: $23.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Crhecliwl
`
`Feeling Mixed? Combination - Normal Skin / Tridosha Try this luscious treat; the perfect solution for those days when your skin is
`a little oily, a little dry and a little sensitive. An exclusive blend of Neem, Kelp, Yucca and Lime Oil helps cleanse and balance the
`skin. Key Ingredients: 0 Basil Leaf — Protects and soothes o Coriander Seed - Diminishes redness and irritation o Cucumber —
`Cleanses and softens 0 Lemon Peel — Purifies and detoxifies o Kelp — Rich in anti—oxidants and vitamins which help to protect and
`moisturize
`
`
`~i: .
`
`Orange + Sandalwood | Cleansing Milk
`Code: OSCM '
`
`Price: $23.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Feeling Mixed? Combination - Normal Skin / Tridoshic Combines luscious organic botanicals to remove makeup and pollutants
`that have penetrated the skin. This ancient recipe is carefully formulated for skins that exhibit sign of being oily and dehydrated.
`Soothing soybean, emollient Avocado and Sunflower oils mixed with Orange Blossom and Coriander Seed together cleanse,
`nourish, and restore the complexion, leaving skin luminous. Key Ingredients: 0 Orange Blossom — Stimulates cell renewal o
`Coriander Seed - Combats irritation o Sandalwood Oil — Improves skin tone 0 Soybean Oil — Loaded with Vitamins A, E and K o
`Sesame Oil - Detoxifies and removes impurities
`i ‘(K .
`«-= »=:»,'-f
`
`Tomato + Amla 1 Cleansing Creme
`Code: TACC
`
`Price: $23.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Feeling Dehydrated? VATA (Va-ta) for Dry Skin Tomato + Amla Cleansing Creme draws on ancient ayurvedic tradition to
`replenish moisture to the skin. Hydrating seed oils of Avocado, Sesame, Sunflower, Jojoba and Apricot Kernel add moisture while
`the nutritive combination of soothing Soybean, astringent Holy Basil, Lemon Peel and Vitamins A & E feed the skin, enhance the
`complexion and promote overall well—being. This unique recipe helps to fight free radicals and speed up cell regeneration to keep
`skin healthy and young. Key Ingredients: 0 Amla Fruit — Contains natural AHA and Vitamin C o Neem Leaf — Fights bacteria and
`heals wounds 0 Sesame Oil - Detoxifies and gently removes impurities o Kelp — nature's skin softener 0 Soy Bean - Anti—aging
`
`Exhibit Q Page_lg_0f__l3_L_
`http ://bodybistro.corn/miva?/Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PLST&Store_Code=BBAAAFTF
`
`5/ 1 3/02
`
`

`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO I Ayurvedic Apothecary | Architecture for the Face: Product List
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`
`1* Add One To Basket
`
`I
`
`.1:
`
`
`
`
`g
`
`Orange + Lemongrass [Foaming Cleansing Lotion
`Code: OLFCL
`
`Price: $23.00
`1
`Quantity in Basket: none
`Feeling Irritated? PITTA (Pit-tha) for Sensitive or Acneic Skin Orange + Lemongrass Foaming Cleansing Emulsion originates from
`a traditional avurvedic recipe, known to bring instant relief and comfort to sensitive skin. This exquisite foaming emulsion fuses
`calming Lemongrass Oil, purifying Neem Leaf and anti—aging Gotu Kola with vitamin rich Orange Oil and Soybean to relax and
`' pacify the skin. Key Ingredients: 0 Gotu Kola — Helps reduce visible signs of aging o Oat Kernel — Promotes renewal of skin cells 0
`..m...,m_.,...........e....,W....~,Lz.____.... r...«e-.._.
`' Kelp - Softens and protects o Soybean Protein - Helps boost elasticity o Lemongrass — Cleansing agent that stimulates circulation
`
`
`
`Apricot + Clove I CleansingGe|le_
`Code: ACCG
`‘
`
`Price: $23.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Feeling Sluggish? KAPHA (Cuff-ah) for Oily Skin Apricot + Clove Cleansing Gelle blends pure botanicals and extracts to free the
`skin of pollutants, makeup andyother impurities. The wholesome combination of Gotu Kola, Lemon Peel and Neem, firm, revitalize
`and moisturize the skin, while normalizing oil levels, therefore reducing blemishes. Key Ingredients: 0 Lemon Peel — Purifies o
`Turmeric - Fights against free radicals o Clove - Calms skin irritations o Yucca — Reduces redness and swelling
`:AdafLon§TToMBa3ékét‘ U’
`
`
`
`Cucumber + Basil l Facial Toning E_l_ixir
`Code: CBFTE
`“
`Price: $21.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Feeling Mixed? TRIDOSHIC (Tri-dho-shic) for Combination / Normal Skin Cucumber + Basil Facial Toning Elixir tones and
`balances combination skins with tantalizing Avurvedic herbs of Basil, Turmeric and Neem. Key Ingredients: 0 Basil Leaf - Soothes
`and heals o Coriander - Reduces redness and irritation o Cucumber — Softens and refreshes skin 0 Liposome - Targeted Vitamin A
`& E Complex delivery system
`§..,.,, ,
`Q
`L
`L.
`3”
`,
`
`
`7
`-t~Adq_Qne To Ba§ket_
`
`Tomato + Sage] Facial Hydrating Elixir
`Code: TSFHE
`;;
`Price: $21.00
`'
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Feeling Dehydrated? VATA (Va—ta) for Dry Skin Tomato + Sage Facial Hydrating Elixir utilizes fresh fruit AHAs and luscious plant
`Exhibit Q Page? a§__l_3f:_
`
`http ://bodybistro.com/miVa?/Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PLST&Store_Code=BBAAAFTF
`
`5/1 3/02
`
`

`
`
`
`BODY BISTRO l Ayurvedic Apothecary 1 Architecture for the Face: Product List
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`oils to hydrate, remove dead skin cells and renew parched skin. Essential organic plant extracts leave skin refreshed and glowing.
`Key Ingredients: 0 Neem Leaf - antibacterial and antiseptic 0 Sage Leaf Oil - Stimulates and tones 0 Tomato Fruit Extract - Anti-
`oxidant o Amla Fruit - AHAs and Vitamin C
`S».
`u_.._... we
`A
`..~t._c.
`
` Aug One-‘ToliBasketM
`
`
`
`_Qtange_t...Layender_l@aLRefini.ngflixi.:
`Code: OLFRE
`
`Price: $21.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Feeling Irritated? PITTA (Pit-tha) for Sensitive or Acneic Skin Orange + Lavender Facial Refining Elixir purifies and calms sensitive
`and acne prone skin with oils of Lavender and Orange, natural plant-derived BHA from Willow Bark, Green Tea Extract and Gotu
`Kola_ join forces to fight pesky free radicals, diminish redness and reduce the visible signs of early aging. Key Ingredients: 0
`- Antibacterial and anti-inflammatory o Gotu Kola - Refines skin texture and anti—aging 0 Willow Bark - Skin smoother with natural
`Salicylic Acid 0 Coriander Extract — Helps to remove blackheads and sebum
`3”‘
`.., ,w,,.., W,
`_Add¢O}ne To,B;asket:“ I
`
`
`‘
`?
`
`.
`
`Apricot + Neem LFacial Rejuvenating Elixir
`Code: ANFRE
`
`Price: $21.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`Feeling Swollen? KAPHA (Cuff-ah) for Oily Skin Apricot + Neem Facial Rejuvenating Elixir hydrates and renews oily prone skin by
`balancing the levels of sebum and removing dead surface skin cells. Neem, the mother of all ayurvedic herbs, has unprecedented
`healing power. All held together by a sophisticated complex of ingredients proven in scientific studies to greatly diminish the
`visible signs of aging. Key Ingredients: 0 Turmeric - Antibacterial o Neem - Antiviral, antibacterial and antifungal o Soybean
`
`Protein - Boost elasticity o Gotu Kola - Refines skin texture
`'_"W
`""3
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`,
`
`l
`
`l
`
`Ia.n.9.e_r.ibe.fi AH.A...Lig.h_ten.ir19..Remedx
`Code: TSALR
`
`Price: $38.00
`Quantity in Basket: none
`
`Tangerine + Sandalwood AHA Lightening Remedy is a magical antidote to a dull day! Oil-free and hydroquinone-free formula,
`this brightening formula with ancient food grade herbs and Kojic Acid, Vitamin C and Licorice Root work in tandem to renew,
`. refresh, clarify and enhance the skin's natural glow. Ideal for those Kapha (Oily) and Vata (Dry) moments. Key Ingredients: 0
`Kojic Acid and Licorice Root ~ helps fade dark spots and improves texture 0 Tangerine ~ Restores, rec