Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA164206
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/21/2007
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91158512
`Defendant
`U.B. Foundation Activities, Inc.
`TRICIA T SEMMELHACK
`HODGSON RUSS ANDREWS WOODS, ETAL
`ONE M&T PLZ STE 2000
`BUFFALO, NY 14203
`UNITED STATES
`pperlman@hodgsonruss.com
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`Paul I. Perlman
`pperlman@hodgsonruss.com
`/Paul I. Perlman/
`09/21/2007
`pip-ubf.pdf ( 65 pages )(3259620 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN MEDICAL
`
`REHABILITATION PROVIDERS,
`ASSOCIATION,
`
`Opposer-Petitioner,
`
`Opposition No. 91 158512
`(Consolidating Cancellation No. 92043381)
`Serial No. 75/497,362
`Registration No. 2,647,644
`
`UB FOUNDATION ACTIVITIES, INC.,
`
`Applicant—Respondent
`
` %%/\./\2%%\./\i%\/\&\)\./\J%\/\&%
`
`APPLICANT-RESPONDENT’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`HODGSON RUSS LLP
`
`Attorneysfor Applicant-Respondent
`Paul I. Perlman, of Counsel
`The Guaranty Building
`140 Pearl Street, Suite 100
`Buffalo, NY 14202-4040
`716.856.4000
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`flfifl
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ................................................................................................... ..5
`
`FACTS ........................................................................................................................................... ..5
`
`1. Background .................................................................................................................. ..5
`
`a. Development of the FIMTM Instrument ................................................................... ..5
`
`b. The HCFA License ................................................................................................. ..8
`
`2. Facts Relating to Genericness ...................................................................................... ..9
`
`a. There are many rehabilitation coding tools, only one of which is referred to as the
`FIMTM instrument or functional independence measure. ........................................ ..9
`
`b. Literature cited by AMRPA establishes that FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® are
`not generic. ............................................................................................................ ..10
`
`3. Facts Relating to Acquired Distinctiveness ............................................................... ..ll
`
`a. Number of FIIVITM instrument subscribers, license revenues, and number of
`patients accessed using the instrument .................................................................. ..ll
`
`b. Market penetration ................................................................................................ .. 12
`
`c. Use of FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® marks on UDS website ....................... ..13
`
`d. Trade Shows .......................................................................................................... ..14
`
`e. Promotional Items ................................................................................................. .. 1 5
`
`f. Newsletters ............................................................................................................ ..15
`
`g. Advertisements ...................................................................................................... ..l5
`
`h. Unsolicited Media Coverage ................................................................................. .. 16
`
`i.
`
`The relevant public identifies FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® as source-
`identifying marks. ................................................................................................. .. 17
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... ..23
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... ..24
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - c0nt’d
`
`PAGE
`
`POINT I.
`
`The FIMTM Mark Is Entitled To Registration. THE FIM SYSTEM® Mark
`Should Not Be Cancelled ..................................................................................... ..24
`
`A. Both registration applications were converted into Section 2(t) applications. Therefore,
`the only issues are genericness and acquired distinctiveness. ....................................... ..24
`
`B. FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® are not generic......................................................... ..26
`
`l. The legal standard for genericness............................................................................. ..26
`
`2. There are many rehabilitation coding tools and functional assessment tools and only
`one is referred to as the FIMTM instrument or as a functional independence measure.27
`
`3. The documentary examples cited by AMRPA establish that FIMTM and THE FIIVI
`SYSTEM® are not generic. ....................................................................................... ..32
`
`4. Dr. DeJong’s and Dr. Adams’ testimony that FIM is a generic term is not probatiVe.37
`
`C. The FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® marks have acquired distinctiveness................ ..4l
`
`POINT II.
`
`“Policing” And “Abandonment” Are Not Issues In This Proceeding. ................ ..45
`
`A. Policing the Marks ......................................................................................................... ..45
`
`B. Abandonment ................................................................................................................. ..47
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ ..47
`
`APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. ..49
`
`I. Description of the Trial Record ..................................................................................... ..49
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Federal Cases
`
`A.J. Canfield Co. V. Honickman, 1 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1364, 808 F.2d 291 (3d Cir. 1986) ................. .. 33
`
`Capital Project Management, Inc. V. Il\/IDSIS, Inc., 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1172 (TTAB 2003) ........... .. 38
`
`Colt Defense LLC V. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1759, 486 F.3d 701 ( 1st Cir.
`2007) ......................................................................................................................................... .. 8
`
`Engineered Mechanical Services, Inc. V. Applied Medical Technology, Inc., 223 U.S.P.Q 324,
`584 F. Supp. 1149 (M.D. La. 1984) ........................................................................................ .. 46
`
`General Electric Company, Inc. V. The Chase—Schawmut Company, 133 U.S.P.Q. 341 (TTAB
`1962) ....................................................................................................................................... .. 40
`
`H. Marvin Ginn Corp. V. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ
`528 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................................ .. 26
`
`Harsco Corp. V. Electrical Sciences, Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1570 (TTAB 1988) ............................ .. 41
`
`Hoover Company V. Royal Appliance Mg. Co., 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1720, 238 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) ....................................................................................................................................... .. 41
`
`In re First National Bank of Canton, 152 U.S.P.Q. 293 (TTAB 1967) ...................................... .. 40
`
`In re Hehr Manufacturing Company, 126 U.S.P.Q. 381, 279 F.2d 526 (CCPA 1960) .............. .. 41
`
`In re Owens‘ Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 227 U.S.P.Q. 417, 774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`................................................................................................................................................ .. 41
`
`In re Polar Music Intern AB, 221 U.S.P.Q. 315, 714 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..................... .. 41
`
`In re The Council on Certification of Nurse Anesthetists, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 49, n. 2 (TTAB
`2007) ....................................................................................................................................... .. 25
`
`Magic Wand, Inc. V. RDB, Inc., 19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1551, 940 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............. .. 26
`
`McCormick & Co. V. Summers, 148 U.S.P.Q. 272, 354 F.2d 668 (CCPA 1966) ..................... .. 41
`
`Midwest Plastic Fabricators, Inc. V. Underwriters Labs, Inc., 15 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1359, 906 F.2d
`1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................................. .. 46
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - cont’d
`
`PAGE
`Modern Optics, Inc. V. Univis Lens Co., 110 U.S.P.Q. 293, 234 F.2d 504 (CCPA 1956) ......... .. 40
`
`Property Damage Appraisers, Inc. V. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., 177 U.S.P.Q. 792
`(TTAB 1973) .......................................................................................................................... .. 40
`
`Racine Industries, Inc. V. Bane-Clene Corp., 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1832 (TTAB 1995) ..................... .. 40
`
`Tea Board of India V. The Republic of Tea, Inc., 80 U.S.P.Q. 1881 (TTAB 2006) ............. .. 26, 46
`
`University Book Store V. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 33 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1385
`(TTAB 1994) .......................................................................................................................... .. 46
`
`Yamaha International Corporation V. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd., 6 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1001, 840 F.2d
`1572 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................... .. 25, 42
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 ......................................................................................................................... .. 33
`
`15 U.S.C. §1052(f) ...................................................................................................................... .. 41
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`34 CFR 74 ..................................................................................................................................... .. 7
`
`34 CFR 74.145(a) ...................................................................................................................... .. 7, 8
`
`Miscellaneous
`
`Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations (3 8th ed. 2007) ............................................................. .. 39
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §15:8 (2007 ed.) ..................................... .. 33, 41
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §15:71 (2007 ed.) ......................................... .. 41
`
`McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §18:58 (2007 ed.) ......................................... .. 46
`
`OMB Circular No. A-110, Sections 1, 2 and Attachment N(8)(b) ............................................ .. 7-8
`
`

`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`(1)
`
`FIMTM is the trademark of one of many assessment tools used in
`
`measuring and categorizing the condition of medical-rehabilitation patients. No other
`
`assessment tool is referred to as FIM or as a “functional independence measure” or as the
`
`“fimctional independence measure”. No one other than Applicant-Respondent uses THE FIM
`
`SYSTEM in conjunction with its goods or services. Under these circumstances, are FIMTM and
`
`THE FIM SYSTEM® generic?
`
`(2)
`
`As reflected in license agreements and industry literature, the relevant
`
`public —~ i.e. researchers and practitioners in the medical-rehabilitation field — recognizes FIMTM
`
`and THE FIM SYSTEM® as source-identifying marks. Applicant-Respondent has advertised
`
`the marks, promoted them at trade shows, entered into licenses with more than 1000 facilities
`
`representing 65% to 80% of the inpatient-rehabilitation market, distributed promotional items
`
`bearing the marks, and been the recipient of unsolicited media coverage using the brands as
`
`trademarks over a period of many years. Have FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® thereby
`
`acquired distinctiveness?
`
`FACTS
`
`1.
`
`Background
`
`a.
`
`Development of the FIMTM Instrument
`
`Dr. Carl Granger, the Director of Uniform Data System for Medical
`
`Rehabilitation (“UDS” or “UDSMR”)‘ and a physician with an extensive background and
`
`1
`
`Granger Test. at p. 106.
`
`

`
`experience in rehabilitation medicinez, began to develop a medical-rehabilitation-assessment tool
`
`in 1970.3 In early 1984, Dr. Granger became a member of a task force to look at rehabilitation
`
`tools.4
`
`Three months later, in May 1984, the Research Foundation of the State University
`
`of New York applied for a grant to the National Institute of Handicapped Research Within the
`
`U.S. Department of Education.5 The grant’s purpose was to develop a uniform national-data
`
`system for medical rehabilitation. Dr. Granger was the grant’s Project Director.6 Contrary to the
`
`repeated statements in AMRPA’s Brief, the Task Force did not apply for or receive the grant;
`
`indeed, the Task Force is explicitly identified in the grant application as nothing more than a
`
`consultant.7 As Dr. Granger testified, the Task Force played an advisory ro1e.8 In 1985, the
`
`Research Foundation of the State University of New York filed a further application to continue
`
`the grant.9
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Granger Test. at p. 101-105.
`
`Granger Test. at p. 106-07.
`
`AMRPA Ex. 3.
`
`Granger Test. at p. 108-109 and AMRPA APP l.
`
`AMRPA APP. 1 (grant application), page 2 (AMP 00062).
`
`AMRPA APP. 1 (grant application), pages 5, 9, 10 (AMP 00065, 00069, 00070).
`
`Granger Test. at p. 110.
`
`Sggrggpr Test. at pp. 109-110 and AMRPA APP 2 (second grand application), page 1 (AMP
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`The FHVITM instrument was developed as part of the work under the grant; it was
`
`not completed before the grant was completed. 1° All rights in the FIMTM instrument were owned
`
`by the Research Foundation of the State University of New York, and were assigned to
`
`University at Buffalo Foundation Activities, Inc. (“UBFA”).“
`
`UDS, a division ofUBFA,12 was formed on October 1, 1987.13 It offers tools to
`
`the medical-rehabilitation field.” UBFA is a New York not-for-profit corporation.”
`
`Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-110, dated July 1, 1976 and in
`
`effect to the present time, provides that nonprofit organizations (such as the Research Foundation
`
`and UBFA) that receive grants from federal-government agencies are free to copyright any
`
`books or publications developed under the federal grant. OMB Circular No. A-110, Sections 1,
`
`2 and Attachment N(8)(b). As such, the Research Foundation, and its assignee, UBFA, were
`
`entitled to copyright the materials developed under the government grant. The OMB Circular
`
`was codified by the Department of Education in 34 CFR 74. 34 CFR 74.145(a) states: “Works
`
`under grants. Unless otherwise provided by the terms of the grant, where copyrightable material
`
`is developed in the course of or under a grant, the grantee is free to copyright the material or
`
`1°
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`15
`
`Granger Test. at p. 110.
`
`Granger Test. at p. 110, lines 1 1-16.
`
`Dann Test. at p. 8, lines 22-23.
`
`Granger Test. at p. 105, lines 22-23.
`
`Dann Test. at p. 8, lines 23-9, line 1.
`
`AMRPA App. 3 (HCFA License Agreement), p. 1.
`
`_ 7 -
`
`

`
`permit others to do so.” Copies of the OMB Circular and 34 CFR 74.l45(a) are attached in a
`
`separate Appendix.”
`
`b.
`
`The HCFA License
`
`In September 1995, UDS entered into a License Agreement with the U.S.
`
`Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration (“HCFA”).17
`
`Among other things, the HCFA License Agreement gives HCFA a right to use the FIM
`
`instrument and related materials and to license one or more third—parties to use UDS system “in
`
`connection with the development, design, implementation, maintenance, operation, and
`
`evaluation of the [Medicare] Payment System.”18 Specifically, the License Agreement permits
`
`HCFA to sublicense hospitals to use the FIMTM instrument and related materials “without fee or
`
`obligation to UDSmr” as part of the Medicare-payment system.” There is, therefore, no merit
`
`to AMRPA’s assertion that UDS has monopolized rehabilitation assessment by virtue of HCFA’s
`
`adoption of the FIMTM instrument for use in its Medicare-payment systems. When used for that
`
`purpose, hospitals and other facilities have a cost-free license to use the FIMTM instrument.
`
`16
`
`”
`
`18
`
`19
`
`AMRPA’s citation to Colt Defense LLC v. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1759, 486
`F.3d 701 ( 1“ Cir. 2007) is inapposite. See AMRPA Brief, pp. 30-31. The M4 weapon, unlike
`the FIMTM instrument, was not developed under a government grant. Colt, unlike the Research
`Foundation and UBFA, is not a not—for-profit corporation and therefore not subject to OMB
`Circular No. A-1 10. And Colt did not coin the M4 name; that was part of the govemment-
`created weapons—classification system. Here, both the FIIVITM instrument and “FIM” as a name
`for the instrument were developed under the Research Foundation’s government grant.
`
`AMRPA APP 3 (HCFA License Agreement).
`
`AMRPA APP 3 (HCFA License Agreement), Introductory Statement and Section 2(b (bracketed
`inset supplied)).
`
`AMRPA APP 3 (HCFA License Agreement), Section 2(b)(iii).
`
`_ 3 _
`
`

`
`The HCFA License Agreement contains an acknowledgement by HCFA that
`
`UBFA owns the FIMTM mark.” Similarly, the rehabilitation assessment tool (IRF-PAI) issued
`
`by the government for its Medicare prospective-payment system contains an acknowledgment
`
`that “[t]he FIM mark is owned by UBFA, Inc.”21 Carolyn Zollar, currently an AMRPA
`
`lobbyist”, who, at the time the HCFA License Agreement was signed was employed by the
`
`National Association of Rehabilitation Facilities”, reviewed this language in the HCFA License
`
`Agreement but never wrote to the government to object that it was incorrect.” She also saw the
`
`acknowledgment on the IRF-PAI form but does not recall having voiced any complaints or
`
`objections to the government.”
`
`2.
`
`Facts Relating to Genericness
`
`a.
`
`There are many rehabilitation coding tools, only one of which is
`referred to as the FIMTM instrument or functional independence
`measure.
`
`There are many rehabilitation coding tools, only one of which is referred to as the
`
`FIMTM instrument or the functional independence measure or a functional independence
`
`2°
`
`2‘
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`AMRPA APP 3 (HCFA License Agreement), Section 5 (b). AMRPA incorrectly states that
`UBFA is arguing that UBFA has service mark rights because the government acknowledged
`those rights, thereby bestowing those rights on UBFA. AMRPA Brief, pp. 29-31. UBFA is not
`making that argument. The government’s acknowledgment is simply one more piece of
`evidence, taken together with acknowledgments in journal articles, in license agreements, and in
`unsolicited media coverage, to establish that the relevant public identifies FIMTM instruments
`with a single source.
`
`AMRPA Ex. 16, and Zoller 4/24/07 Test at pp. 50-51.
`
`Zollar 4/24/O7 Test. at p. 25, lines 1-25.
`
`Zollar 4/24/07 Test. at p. 63, line 25 - p. 64, line 4.
`
`Zoller 4/24/O7 Test. at p. 70, lines 9-14.
`
`Zoller 4/24/07 Test. at p. 50.2.
`
`

`
`measure. A chart identifying eighteen of these tools, and citations to testimony from both UBFA
`
`and AMRPA witnesses confirming that these other tools are not referred to as “FIM” or
`
`functional independence measure, are set forth at pages 29 — 30 of this Brief.
`
`The literature in the rehabilitation field confirms this. Elizabeth Eisenhauer,
`
`UDS’s Information Resource Specialist, performed a literature search for the period 1987 — 1998.
`
`Her search found dozens of articles identifying UDS as a source of the FIMTM instrument and
`
`THE FIM SYSTEM® services. Many of these documents discuss other rehabilitation
`
`assessment tools, most of them with coined names of their own, in addition to the FIMTM
`
`instrument but none of these articles refers to any of the other assessment tools as the “FIM”
`
`or a “FIM” or as a functional independence measure. Those articles are described in detail in
`
`Section 3(i) of the Facts section of this Brief, at pages 17 - 22.
`
`b.
`
`Literature cited by AMRPA establishes that FIMTM and THE FIM
`SYSTEM® are not generic.
`
`In its Brief, AMRPA cites to seventeen documents that it claims prove that FIMTM
`
`is a generic term. These documents prove the polar opposite — i.e. that FIMTM is the source-
`
`identifier of a specific rehabilitation assessment tool and that the authors of those documents
`
`know that they are referring to the UDS instrument when they use the term. These seventeen
`
`documents are described in detail in Point I(B)(3) of this Brief, at pages 33 - 36.
`
`-10..
`
`

`
`3.
`
`Facts Relating to Acquired Distinctiveness
`
`a.
`
`Number of FIMTM instrument subscribers, license revenues, and
`number of patients accessed using the instrument
`
`In 1994, there were 622 subscribers to the FIMTM instrument and THE FIM
`
`SYSTEM® goods and services. These subscribers were facilities with written-license
`
`agreements with UDS, such as subacute-nursing facilities, inpatient-rehabilitation facilities, and
`
`Veterans Affairs. The number of subscribers was 751 in 1995; 893 in 1996; 1029 in 1997; 1128
`
`in 1998; 1011 in 1999; 1075 in 2000; 1053 in 2001; 1021 in 2002; 1017 in 2003; 1004 in 2004;
`
`1078 in 2005; and 1130 in 2006.26
`
`The license revenues between 1994 and 2006 for use of the FIMTM instrument and
`
`THE FIM SYSTEM® goods and services increased as follows.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`27
`
`App. Ex. 6 and Dam Test. at p. 9, line 18 - p. 10, line 21.
`
`App. Ex. 6 and Dann Test. at p. 11, lines 3-15.
`
`-11..
`
`

`
`The FIMTM instrument has been used to assess hundreds of thousands of patients
`
`each year”:
`
`YEAR
`
`PRO® Patients Assessed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`368,073 (through portion of
`4th quarter)
`4,380,830
`
`Total FIMTM Patients
`
`Assessed
`391,684
`402,570
`
`
`519,833
`546,630
`60,288
`53,056
`47,049
`41,693
`26,350
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`l\)OO[Q
`
`2006
`
`
`
`The first column represents patients assessed using the FIMTM instrument outside the Medicare-
`
`reimbursement context. The second column adds to the first column those patients assessed
`
`using the FIMTM instrument that is incorporated into the [RF-PAI in a Medicare context. The
`
`facilities doing the Medicare assessments are licensed to use the FIMTM instrument for Medicare
`
`assessments under the govemment’s royalty-free license with UDSMR.29
`
`b.
`
`Market penetration
`
`UDS’s market penetration of inpatient-rehabilitation facilities using the FIMTM
`
`instrument under license as a percentage of all such facilities (including those using other
`
`28
`
`29
`
`App. Ex. 11. Dann Test. at p. 19, lines 14 - p. 20, line 20.
`
`Dann. Test. at p. 19, line 14 - p. 20, line 20. The govemment’s license for Medicare assessments
`is discussed at pages 8-9 of this Brief.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`measures of functional assessment) has ranged from 65% to 80% between 1992 and 2006.30
`
`AMRPA witness Gerben DeJong estimates UDS’s market penetration as 70% to 80%.3 1
`
`c.
`
`Use of FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® marks on UDS website
`
`UDS has used FIMTM as a mark on its website, and has identified FIM
`
`SYSTEM® as a mark on its website. Samples of UDS’s website in 1998 and 2006 appear in the
`
`record. FIMTM is identified as a mark on both, and THE FI1V.[ SYSTEM® is identified as a
`
`registered mark on the 2006 website.”
`
`That website has a section describing UDS’s trademarks and service marks. The
`
`record contains a printout of this section from 2006; with periodic revisions, that section has
`
`been on the website for years.” This section of the website describes both the FIMTM and THE
`
`FIM SYSTEM® marks.
`
`In addition, the UDS website has, for a number of years, contained an on-line
`
`brochure describing THE FIM SYSTEM® subscription package.”
`
`3°
`
`32
`33
`
`34
`
`Dann Test. at p. 11, lines 16 — p. 21, line 1. Dann testified that this was the range of market
`penetration during her tenure at UDS, which began in 1992. App. Ex. 5 (establishes when Dann
`began working at UDS).
`
`DeJong Test. at p. 89, line 20 - p. 90, line 1.
`
`App. Ex. 7 (1998 website) and 8 (2006 website). Dann Test. at p. 13, lines 2 - p. 15, line 15.
`
`App. Ex. 9. Dann Test. at p. 16, lines 11 - p. 17, line 4.
`
`App. Ex. 10. Dann Test. at p. 18, lines 19 - p. 19, line 4.
`
`_ 13 _
`
`

`
`d.
`
`Trade Shows
`
`UDS has attended trade shows every year from 1994 to date. These trade shows
`
`have been throughout the United States, including Washington, D.C.; Florida; New York;
`
`California; Georgia; Tenessee; Colorado; Louisiana; Minnesota; Arizona; South Carolina;
`
`Nevada; Pennsylvania; Massachusetts; Washington State; Maryland; Illinois; New Mexico;
`
`Texas; North Carolina; and Hawaii.” At each of these conferences, UDS has displayed literature
`
`or other materials bearing the FIMTM and FIM SYSTEM® marks.36 These materials consist of
`
`literature; exhibit materials (banners, exhibit graphics); sample guides; and promotional
`
`handouts, such as mugs, pens and trinkets.”
`
`At the educational portions of rehabilitation and trade shows, UDS’s Dr. Carl
`
`Granger has given educational presentations concerning the FIMTM instrument. In these
`
`presentations, he has used posters describing the FIMTM instrument, displaying the FIMTM
`
`trademark and noting that “All marks associated with FM. . .are owned by UBFA.”38
`
`At trade shows and educational conferences since 2002, UDS has publicly
`
`displayed an eight foot color banner. The banner displays THE FI1V.[ SYSTEM® mark and
`
`identifies UDS as its source.”
`
`35
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`App. Ex. 19; Hagerty Test. at p. 94, lines 1-12.
`
`Hagerty Test. at p. 94, lines 13 - p. 95, line 4, and p. 96, lines 1-7.
`
`Hagerty Test. at p. 95, lines 5-16 (general); p. 105, lines 11 — p. 106, line 1 (App. Ex. 28); p. 106,
`lines 19- p. 108, line 21 (App. Ex. 29); p. 108, lines 6-18 (App. Ex. 30). See e.g. App. Exs. 28,
`29, 30.
`
`App. Exs. 25, 26. Hagerty Test. at p. 102, lines 1- p. 103, line 16.
`
`App. Ex. 27. Hagerty Test. at p. 104, lines 1- p. 105, line 3.
`-14-
`
`

`
`e.
`
`Promotional Items
`
`For many years, UDS has given away promotional items bearing the FIMTM
`
`and/or THE FIM SYSTEM® marks. For example, since 1995 UDS has handed out mugs
`
`bearing the FHVITM and THE FIM SYSTEM® marks at trade shows, to guests to its offices, and
`
`to potential subscribers and partners.4° UDS hands out at trade shows and sells in its catalog a
`
`mousepad bearing the FIMTM mark.“
`
`f.
`
`Newsletters
`
`From April 1997 — February 1999, UDS produced a newsletter titled “The F[M
`
`SYSTEMTM Update” for its subscribers and for nonsubscribers on UDS’s mailing list. The
`
`newsletter prominently displayed the FIM and THE FIM SYSTEMTM marks.“
`
`g.
`
`Advertisements
`
`From 1996 to present, UDS has advertised its FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM®
`
`marks in rehabilitation journals. Examples of this advertising from Rehab Management are in
`
`the record.”
`
`Expenditures for FTM-related advertising, including trade shows and other
`
`advertising, has increased from $73,185 in 1994 to $368,466 in 2005;“
`
`4°
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`App. Ex. 20. Hagerty Test. at p. 96, line 16 - p. 97, line 10.
`
`App. Ex. 21. Hagerty Test. at p. 97, line 19 — p. 98, line 14.
`
`App. Ex. 22. Hagerty Test. at p. 99, lines 1-15.
`
`App. Ex. 23-24. Hagerty Test. at p. 99, line 1 ~ p. 100, line 23.
`
`App. Ex. 33. Hagerty Test. at p. 111, line 20 - p. 112, line 22.
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`h.
`
`Unsolicited Media Coverage
`
`The FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® marks have received unsolicited media
`
`coverage.“ The following examples of unsolicited media coverage are in the record:
`
`FIM, Advancefor Physical Therapists, June 5, 1995 (“The FIM was
`developed by researchers at the State University of New York, Buffalo as
`part ofthe Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation (UDS MR SM)”).46
`
`AAP Distinguished Academician Award Presented, Association of
`Academic Physiatrists Journal, March/April 1999 (FIM mark noted).47
`
`The Utility of External Performance Measurement Tools in Program
`Evaluation, Rehabilitation Nursing, Jan/Feb 1998 (identifies FIM
`instrument as a UDS tool; also identifies other assessment tools, such as
`PECS, RIC-FAS, and LoRs).““
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`Hagerty Test. at p. 108, lines 19 - p. 1 1 1, line 12.
`
`App. Ex. 31. Hagerty Test. at p. 109, lines 12-20; p. 110, lines ll-21.
`
`App. Ex. 31. Hagerty Test. at p. 109, lines 12-20; p. 110, lines 11-21.
`
`App. Ex. 32. Hagerty Test. at p. 111, lines 7-12.
`
`.15.
`
`

`
`i.
`
`The relevant public identifies FIMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® as
`source-identifying marks.
`
`The relevant public — i.e. those researchers and practitioners in the medical
`
`rehabilitation field — recognizes FJMTM and THE FIM SYSTEM® as source-identifying marks.
`
`UDS’ Information Resource Specialist” performed a literature search for the period 1987-1998,
`
`finding many articles identifying UDS as the source of the FIMTM instrument and THE FIM
`
`SYSTEM® services.” While many of these documents discuss rehabilitation assessment tools
`
`other than the FIMTM instrument, none of these articles refers to any of those other
`
`assessment tools as E “FIM” or a “FIM” or as a functional independence measure. For
`
`example, the following articles were identified in the search:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Davis CH, Fardanesh, L., Rubner, D., Wanlass, R.L., McDonald, C.M.
`Profiles of fimctional recovery in fifty traumatically brain—injured patients
`after acute rehabilitation. American Journal ofPhysical and
`Rehabilitation Medicine. 1997;76(3):213-218 (Compares FIM instrument
`with another assessment tool, the DFSM. “The ‘FIM’ mark is both a
`trademark and a service mark owned by UDSMR .
`. ..” In the article, the
`other tool, the DFSM, is never referred to as a functional independence
`measure or FIM.) (App. Ex. 36:UBF 1924).
`
`Dellarosa DM, Chan, R.S.K., Toglia, J.P., Finkelstein, N. ADL
`assessment in acute care: Simultaneous grading of physical and verbal
`levels of assistance. Occupational Therapy Practice. 1991 ;2(2):38-45
`(Compares FIM instrument with another assessment tool, the New York
`Hospital functional assessment. Attributes FIM instrument to Research
`Foundation of State University of New York. Article never refers to the
`New York Hospital functional assessment as a functional independence
`measure or FIM.) (App. Ex. 36:UBF 1936-1943 and footnote 14).
`
`Disler PB, Roy, C.W., Smith, B.P. Predicting hours of Care needed.
`Archives ofPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
`l993;74:139-143
`
`49
`
`5°
`
`App. Ex. 34, p. 2.
`
`Eisenhauer Test. at p. 148-50.
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`(Discusses two assessment tools, the FIM instrument and the Edinburgh
`Rehabilitation Status Scale, and identifies Research Foundation of State
`University of New York as source of FIM instrument. Also mentions the
`Barthel index. Does not refer to either Barthel or Edinburgh tool as a
`functional independence measure or FIM.) (App. Ex. 36: UBF 1965-69
`and footnote 8).
`
`Greenspan, Al, Wrigley, J.M., Kresnow, M., Branche-Dorsey, C.M., Fine,
`P.R. Factors influencing failure to return to work due to traumatic brain
`injury. Brain Injury.
`l996;10(3):207-218 (Refers to FIM instrument and
`cites to UDS and Dr. Granger. Also refers to another tool, the AIS, but
`does not refer to any other tool as a functional independence measure or
`FIM.) (App. EX. 36: UBF 1978-89 and footnote 21).
`
`Hetherington H, Earlam, R.J., Kirk, C.J.C. The disability status of injured
`patients measured by the functional independence measure (F1M) and
`their use of rehabilitation services. Injury.
`l995;26(2):97-101 (Identifies
`FIM tool as originating from Buffalo, New York and cites to UDS as
`source. Refers to other tools such as the AIS and the Glascow Outcome
`
`Scale but does not refer to any of these other tools as a functional
`independence measure or FIM.) (App. Ex. 36: UBF 1992-96 and footnote
`3).
`
`Lee LA, Eager, K.M., Smith, M.C. Subacute and non-acute casemix in
`Australia. MJA.
`l998;l69:S22-S25 (FIIVI instrument referenced with cite
`to UDS as source. Also refers to another tool — the AN-SNAP system —
`but does not refer to the AN-SNAP system as a functional independence
`measure or FIM.) (App. Ex. 36, UBF 2011-2016 and footnote 22).
`
`Ring H, Feder, M., Schwartz, J., Samuels, G. Functional measures of first
`stroke rehabilitation inpatients: Usefulness of the Functional Independence
`Measure total score with a clinical rationale. Archives ofPhysical
`Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1997; 78:630-635 (“The FIIVI is part of the
`Uniform Data System (UDS). . ..” Also refers to other tools, such as the
`Northwick Park ADL Index, the LOTCA battery, the BIT and the ILAT,
`but does not refer to any of those tools as a functional independence
`measure or FIM.) (App. Ex. 36, 2042-2047 at 2042).
`
`Smith-Knapp K, Corrig