Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. 3935
`
`ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA15782
`
`Filing date3
`
`09/27/2004
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`91160134
`
`Defendant
`Cirrus Capital S.A.
`Cirrus Capital S.A.
`§63/65 rue de Merl LUX
`Luxembourg, L-2164
`
`CIRRUS CAPITAL S.A.
`Correspondence 63/65 RUE DE MERL
`Address
`LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG, L -2164
`
`Signature
`Date
`
`/CLucas/
`09/270004
`
`Attachments
`
`CirrusCapita1Seria17820979interogat0ries.PDF ( 2 pages )
`
`

`
`
`
`The United States Trademark and Patent Office
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Cirrus Capital SA
`Luxembourg
`
`September 26th 2004
`
`Re Serial # 78/209 795 File 91160134
`
`Further to the communication by the opposer claiming that interrogatory questions were not
`answered I wish to remind him of the following:
`
`The initial approach from Mastercard was through Gevers, a law firm in Belgium.
`0 Ms Chen, the Mastercard representative there was given clear information stating that this
`was a simple matter, that we had a copyright on the logo and that the particular matter of
`investment companies with the name Cirrus (especially in the UK is clear). Cirrus
`Investments (UK) Ltd. has existed for 28 years in the UK. They are aware of Cirrus Capital
`and deemed not to oppose — in fact we have been in conversation with them. If any
`organisation had a valid basis to oppose, it would be this one.
`0 Answer to questions about the form and purpose of Cirrus Capital were fully answered
`verbally — with both the US and the Belgian legal representatives for MasterCard.
`0 They further requested all brochures and publicity material: They were informed that none
`had been produced (as would be expected given that we are a new company operating in
`non—retai| financial sector) and therefore none were available.
`
`In an attempt to cloud the real issue here, we believe the US attorneys representing MasterCard
`decided to continue with a opposition that is unjustified. They attempt to back this up by producing a
`list of largely superfluous exhibits and irrelevant yet onerous questions in an attempt to forcefully
`procure information about our company and business strategies — that largely do not exist.
`
`However for completeness we list responses to the items in the interrogatory notices mentioned by
`The Opposer in his recent communication with the TTAB.
`
`1. Cirrus is the classic latin term for a particular kind of cloud formation. We believe that our
`process has association with the higher order of cloud formations in nature due to our
`extensive use of chaos theory, originally developed to model such natural phenomenon.
`Since we run a sophisticated investment product suitable only for high net worth individuals
`it seemed appropriate to use such a classic name as it would provide a clear link between
`the models of the natural world and those of the various financial markets.
`
`2. The opposer has been clearly notified that Cirrus Capital is a hedge fund, based offshore.
`The product and service is self explanatory as hedge funds have been brought into public
`awareness, notably by US Attorney General Spitzer in recent years.
`
`3. The design, copyright and selection of the logo, as granted copyright by the USPTO is the
`sole basis for the mark. The mark is identical. I am responsible for initiating the copyright
`(information clearly available from the USPTO site on the internet) in its entirety.
`
`4. With reference to interrogatory number 5: The Opposer made a telephone call and was
`given a simple, concise explanation of the original notification to Ms Chen. Despite this, he
`felt it necessary to compile a superfluous item such as this. The simple fact is that for a
`hedge fund there are no purchasers or consumers. There are partners in the investment
`fund. Any subscriber to the fund is in fact a partner in the fund and holds shares within it.
`This is very different to the idea of consumers purchasing a product. It makes the further
`items relating to product or service inappropriate. The Opposer would be better asking about
`the definitions of partnership and researching the structure of hedge funds so that he may
`formulate relevant questions.
`
`

`
`
`
`For the record, the growth of hedge—funds is highly restricted, it usually involves the
`introduction of new partners through word of mouth, performance databases, private
`bankers or other funds. Geographical issues are usually i||—defined. This is not a commodity,
`service or technology business in the same way that MasterCard / Cirrus Systems
`businesses are. It is a mistake to think of hedgefund in traditional marketing terms.
`
`I would request that the TATB dismiss the remaining interrogatories based on the clear
`answers given above and in previous correspondence.
`
`Remind the opposer that the only relevant public information is clearly available on the
`internet and that no amount of legal compulsion from him can create new or additional facts
`or further details out of thin air (in so much as Cirrus relates to a cloud).
`
`Cirrus is also used as part of the trademark for a number of highly visible companies
`worldwide, some in the technology area, more closely related to Cirrus Systems LLC core
`business.
`
`Further remind the opposer that hedge fund partnerships are not available to the public
`unless a public offering is made. A public offering has a legal definition and form specific to
`different geographies — however Cirrus Capital has not been involved in any public offering
`and there are no public offering documents in the pipeline.
`
`Should we decide to enter the retail banking technology or ATM systems supply business
`we shall no doubt embark on a different marketing strategy. However, for obvious reasons
`this remains a remote possibility.
`
`Mastercard has reacted in a pre—emptive manner to our application. If in the future
`Mastercard can prove that Cirrus Capital contravenes some aspect of the trademark act and
`actually violates their mark they would have grounds. Their interrogatories are designed to
`construct some proof of violation where none has occurred. In our opinion none is likely to
`occur.
`
`We object to continued pursuit of this matter by the opposer and ask for the TATB to support
`our completed copyright of the logo, which is identical to the Trademark application graphic
`— the logical conclusion of the Trademark application and above all, to question the
`reasonableness of MasterCard / Cirrus Systems LLC in blowing this matter out of all
`proportion.
`
`We attach a pleading for summary judgement of this matter separately which in many
`respects re—hashes issues that were commented on in the US District Court of Southern
`New York’s judgement against MasterCard in MasterCard vs Nader (2004).
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Christopher Lucas, Director
`For and on behalf of Cirrus Capital SA