20054271,
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.,
`
`Appeilant/Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ONFOLIO, INC,
`
`Appeilee/Respondent
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE TRADEMARK TRIAL
`
`AND APPEALS BOARD IN CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION NO.
`
`91165315 AND CANCELLATION NO. 92044538
`
`CORRECTED BRIEF
`
`OF APPELLANT, MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.
`
`Sherman D. Pemia, Ph.D., JD
`
`1110 NASA Parkway Suite 450
`Houston, Texas 77058-3346
`
`Phone: 28] -3330880
`
`Fax: 281 -333-9144
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`April 25, .2006
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`'1
`
`
`
`' UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL crncurr
`
`
`
`MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.,
`
`Appellant/Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ONFOLIO, INC.,
`
`Appellee/Respondent
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE TRADEMARK TRIAL
`
`AND APPEALS BOARD IN CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION NO.
`
`91165315 AND CANCELLATION NO. 9204-4538
`
`
`
`CORRECTED BRIEF
`
`OF PETITIONER MISSIOI\’TREK LTD. CO.
`
`Sherman D. Pemia, Ph.D., ID
`
`1110 NASA Parkway Suite 450
`Houston, Texas 77058-3346
`
`Phone.‘ 281-333-0880
`Fax: 281-33 -9144
`
`Attorney for Petifioner
`
`April 2i 2006
`
`

`
`FORM 9. Certificate of lnteresi
`
`Form 9
`
`%.
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THL FEDER.-tL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`MISSIONTREK LTD: CO:v_ ONFOLIO;
`INC:
`
`?\'o.2006~12‘71
`
`A
`3
`1
`
`3
`
`z 3
`
`Counsel for the (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (auxicus) (name of party)
`Appg] 1am;
`__ certifies the following (use “None" if applicable; use extra sheets
`if necessary):
`
`CERTIFICATE01?INIEREST
`
`l.
`
`The full name of every parzy or amicus represented by me is
`
`
`
`MESS IDNTREK LTD : CO 2
`
`Tue name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is:
`
` 4m¢a<
`
` aos§_ wu m»»».....-»..o....-....—...—.—...-...-...».
`Sherman D. Pernia » ««‘ 2“;<x w
`
`
`
`
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own ll} peicem or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`NONE
`A,”
`
`
`
`4. Q There is no as eh corporaticn as listed in paragraph 3.
`5.
`The names of all ‘law firms and the partners or associates“ that appeared for the party I
`or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear In thxs
`COLIIT ZICI
`
`
`2342:1122, 2006
`'-
`-
`.~»
`~/
`Signature of c unsel
`Date
`
`Primed name of counsel
`
`
`‘.31...
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`3
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ........
`
`....................
`
`............... .. 4
`
`Statement of Related Cases
`
`.......................................... .. 6
`
`Jurisdictional Statement ...............
`
`.............
`
`Statement of the Issues ................
`
`....................
`
`6
`
`6
`
`Statement of theCase 7
`
`VI.
`
`Statement of the Facts .............................
`
`............................ .. 7
`
`VII.
`
`Summary of the Argument.......................
`
`.................. .. 8
`
`. Argument & Statement of the Standard of Review ............
`
`9
`
`Conclusion & Statement of Relief Sought
`
`.......................... .. 15
`
`Judgment, Order or Decision in Question .......................
`
`16
`
`Proof of Service
`
`......................
`
`..........
`
`..................
`
`Annex
`
`Certificate of Compliance....... ......
`
`........................................ Annex
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`-'1
`
`I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 216
`
`(1986) ..................................................................................................... ..p. 9
`
`AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcrafi Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 350 (9th Cir. 1979) ......... ..p. 10
`
`Bell v. Commercial Insurance Co., 3 Cir., 280 F.2d 514........................ ..p. 10
`
`Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc, Hardman & Holden, Ltd, 58 CCPA 751, 434
`
`F. 2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110 (1970) ......................................................... ..p. 10
`
`Conroy v. Reeboklnfl, Ltal, 14 F.3d 1570, 1575,29 USPQ2d 1373, 1377 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994) ............................... .; .......................................... ..p. 9
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US. 317, 326 (1986) ........................ ..p. 14
`
`Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc, 251 F.3d 1251, 1265 (9"’ Cir. 2001)
`
`....................................................................................... ..p. 13
`
`Federal Practice & Procedure
`
`§
`
`2726,
`
`at
`
`446
`
`(3d
`
`ed.
`
`1998)
`
`............................................................................................................ ..p. 12
`
`In re Citizens Loan & Sav. C0,, 621 F.2d 911, 9913 (am Cir. 1980)
`
`(acknowledging that specific facts tending to discredit a key witness could
`
`create a genuine issue for trial). ............................................................. ..p. 12
`
`Lodge Music Hall, Inc. v. Waco Wrangler Club, Inc., 831 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir.
`
`1987) .................... .L ................................................................................ ..p. 12
`
`LoralFa1'rcl2z‘la.' Corp. v. Matsuslzita Elec Indus. Co., 266 F.3d 1358, 1363
`
`(Fed; Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory cornm1'ttee’s note (1963
`
`Amendment) ........................................................................................... ..p. 13
`
`Minnesota Specialty Crops, Inc. v. Minn Wild Hockey Club, LP, Civ. No. 00-
`
`2317 (D. Minn. O7/26/O2) ....................................................................... ..p. 14
`
`Tzflany v. National Gypsum Co. , 59 CCPA 1063, 459 F. 2d 527, 173 USPQ 793
`
`(1972) ...................................................................................................... ..p. 10
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`U:
`
`Type:-ight Keyboard Corporazion v. Microsoft Corporation, O3—1197,-
`
`1255 (Fed. Cir. July 6,2004)
`
`13
`
`Sartor
`
`v. Ark. Natural Gas Corp.,
`
`321 US. 620, 628-29 (1944)
`
`................................................................................................................ ..p. 1..
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`6
`
`II. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES UNDER RULE 47.5
`
`Attorney for Petitioner states that no other appeal in or from the same
`
`proceeding was previously before this Court. Further. no other case is known
`
`to counsel to be pending in this or any other court that will directly affect or be
`
`directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal.
`
`III. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The Court has jurisdiction in this case under Title 15 U.S.C. §1071(a),
`
`as the Court for appeal from a final decision of the Trademark Trial and
`
`Appeals Board.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`The issue is whether the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB)
`
`erred in applying the law when it granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment. More specifically, did Appellant’s survey evidence raise a fact issue
`
`that preclude summary judgment, particularly at this point in the proceedings
`
`prior to discovery having been allowed. Alternatively, does survey evidence
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`7
`
`supporting actual confusion trumps speculative assessments of no likelihood
`
`of confusion so as to preclude granting of summary judgment. If either of the
`
`above is so, the Court must reverse the decision on grant of summary judgment
`
`and remand the case to the TTAB for further proceedings.
`
`V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`In consolidated Opposition No. 91165315 and Cancellation No.
`
`92044538, the TTAB granted Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
`
`dismissing the case with prejudice.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`In consolidated Opposition No. 91165315 and Cancellation No.
`
`92044538, Appellant/Petitioner is the senior user. Appellee/Respondent has
`
`admitted the similarity/identity of the goods. Appellant has submitted evidence
`
`of actual confusion by way of an informal survey. This survey indicated that
`
`25% of those surveyed were confused as to the source of the goods.
`
`Nevertheless, the TTAB dismissed such survey as not being “credible.” The
`
`TTAB then applied the Du Porzr factors to determine that there is no likelihood
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`8
`
`of confusion. and then granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
`
`dismissing the case with prejudice. Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
`
`and subsequently this Brief on Appeal.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`The TTAB granted Appel1ee‘s Motion for Summary Judgment on the
`
`grounds that it appears there is no likelihood of confusion and because the
`
`evidence of actual confusion proffered by Appellant was not “credible. ” Under
`
`these facts, in which the similarity of the products is admitted and the Appellant
`
`is the senior user and therefore entitled to deference on the issue of likelihood
`
`of confusion. the case law of the Federal Circuit should be interpreted in favor
`
`of Appellant. The case law at issue here is whether credibility of the evidence
`
`of actual confusion is a proper grounds for granting summary judgment in favor
`
`of Appeliee. Appellant asserts that such grounds are not sufficient under the
`
`case law of the Federal Circuit. Consequently. the grant of summary judgment
`
`should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings before the
`
`TTAB.
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`9
`
`VIII. ARGUMENT AND STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF
`
`REVIEW
`
`A. Standard of Review
`
`Appellant asserts that the TTAB erred in applying the law. The Federal
`
`Circuit reviews questions of law under the de novo standard of review. Conroy
`
`v. Reebok Im’l, Ltd, 14 F.3d 1570, 1575, 29 USPQ2d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1 994}.
`
`B. 7726 Trademark Trail andAppeals BoardErred z'nAccessz'ng the Elements
`
`supporting a Grant of Summary Judgment
`
`The TTAB granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the
`
`grounds that it appears there is no likelihood of confusion and because the
`
`evidence of actual. confusion proffered by Appellant did not raise an issue of
`
`material fact. Under the facts of this case,
`
`in which the similarity of the
`
`products is admitted‘ and the Appellant is the senior user and therefore entitled
`
`
`Registranfs admission as to the relatedness of the goods, and the fact
`‘
`that, in summary judgment, all legitimate factual inferences must be made in
`favor of the nonmovant, require the Board to consider that the products are
`as identical as asserted by the Petitioner. Anderson v. Libergz Lobby, Inc.,
`477 US. 242, 255, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 216 (1986) In this case. consequently,
`it must be inferred for the sake of this Motion of Summary Judgment that the
`allegations made by the Appellant are true, namely, that the products are not
`merely similar or related, but identical. Now, applying the rule that the more
`
`

`
`20064271
`
`10
`
`to some deference on the issue of likelihood of confusion (as per the Newcomer
`
`Rulez), the case law of the Federal Circuit should be interpreted in favor of
`
`Appellant. The case law at issue here is whether the methodology used in
`
`performing a preliminary survey of actual confusion is a proper grounds for
`
`granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellant asserts that such
`
`grounds are not sufficient under the case law of the Federal Circuit,
`
`in
`
`particular, as supported in C, i, below. Consequently, the grant of summary '
`
`related the goods sold under the respective marks, the more likely that
`confusion may result, requires that the Court reverse the Board’s decision on
`Summary Judgment, because, given that the products are identical, and
`include more than one similarity in the trademark, there is more than a de
`minimus material. fact issue raised as to likelihood of confusion. AMF, Inc.
`v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341. 350 (9th Cir. 1979).
`*
`Regarding the well-established Newcomer Rule, a newcomer or junior
`user should not be surprised when conflict arises with a senior user. “It is
`well-settled that one who adopts a mark similar to the mark of another for
`closely related goods acts at his peril and any doubt there might be must be
`resolved against him” Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc, Hardman & Holden,
`Ltd., 58 CCPA 751, 434 F. 2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110 (1970). See Tiffany 1:.
`Narional Gypsum Co., 59 CCPA 1063, 459 F. 2d 527, 173 USPQ 793
`(1972) (rule applies in opposition proceedings). Applying the Newcomer
`Rule here, where the goods are admittedly identical. a newcomer should be
`required to exercise extreme caution not to infringe the preexisting rights of
`principal competitors. This newcomer, Onfolio, has utterly failed at
`exercising reasonable care. Further, where copying is so obvious, copyright
`and patent infringement issues are raised which further aggravate the
`Appel1ee’s lack of good faith In addition, the determination of good faith is
`_ a fact issue which is material in this case as it will determine the standard of
`good faith here, namely, the efforts the newcomer must take in this case to
`avoid Appellant’s rights. Bell v. Commercial Insurance Co., 3 Cir., 280
`F.2d 514. Consequently, on this ground as well, the T'l‘AB’s holding must
`be reversed.
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`11.
`
`judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings
`
`before the TTAB.
`
`A second issue is Whether any survey evidence of actual confusion
`
`trumps speculative assessments of likelihood of confusion so as to preclude
`
`granting of summary judgment.
`
`In section C, ii, below, it is clear that this is
`
`indeed the case. Consequently, the Court should reverse the decision on grant
`
`of summary judgment and remand the case to the TTAB for
`
`further
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. Controlling Case Law in Support ofReversal
`
`i. Credibilitv of Survev Evidence is Itself a Fact Issue that Precludes Surnmarv
`
`Judgment
`
`In the T'I‘AB’s statement that “the survey does not raise a genuine issue
`
`of material fact with respect to simiiarities of the parties’ respective marks”
`
`nonetheless applies a factual inquiry reviewing the methodology applied to and
`
`credibility of the survey which preclude the grant of summary judgment.
`
`In
`
`other words, summary judgment was improper because genuine issues remain
`
`as to the credibility of the evidence of actual confusion. Tyjuerigkt Keyboard
`
`Corporation 12. Microsoft‘ Corporation, 03-1197, -1255 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2004).
`
`

`
`20064271
`
`12
`
`The TTAB points to a number of facts as supporting its doubts as to the
`
`credib.i1.ifty of the proffered evidence. Under the facts of the instant case, in
`
`whi.ch evidence of actual confusion is submitted, summary judgment. should not
`
`have been granted. Summary judgment is not appropriate where the opposing
`
`party offers specific facts that can into question the credibility of the mova.nt’s
`
`witnesses. See Sartor 12. Ark. Nazura1Gas Corp, 321 as. 620., 628-29 (1944)
`
`(reversing summary judgment where the oniy evidence it: support of the
`
`mevanfs contention was the testimony of its experts and there were specific
`
`bases for doubting the credibility _of that testimony); Charies Adan Wright et a1.,
`
`Federal Practice & Procedure § 2726, at 446 (3d ed. 1998)
`
`(“ [Hf the
`
`credibility of the movanfs witnesses is chalienged by the opposing party and
`
`speeific bases fer possible impeachment are shown, surmnaryjudgtnentsh0u.1d
`be denied and the ease allowed to proceed to trial. . 3‘); see also Lodge Music
`
`Hall, Inc. v. Waco Wrangler Club, 1:20., 831 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1987)
`
`(“While the mere ciaim that an effrdavit is perjured is insufficient where
`
`specific facts are alleged that if proven would cail the credibility of the moving
`
`Aparty“‘s witness into doubt, summary judgment is improper.’’); In. re Cmlzerzs
`
`Lean & Say. Can, 621 F.2d 911, 913 (8th Cir. 1980) {acknowiedging that
`
`specific facts tending to discredit a key witness could create a genuine issue for
`
`triai).
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`13
`
`Here, as in 7};peRight, one party pointed to specific facts that tend to
`
`discredit the testimony of the other party’s witnesses. These facts create a
`
`genuine issue as to the credibility of such witnesses. “The court may not assess
`
`the credibility of testimony when granting summary judgment.” Loral
`
`Fairchild Corp. v. Matsusitz'taE1ec. Indus. C0,, 266 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committees note (1963
`
`Amendment) (“Where an "issue as to a material fact cannot be resolved without
`
`observation of the demeanor of witnesses in order to evaluate their credibility,
`
`summary judgment is not appropriate”).
`
`ii. Survey Evidence Trumps Speculative Assessments of Likelihood of
`
`Confusion
`
`Evidence of actual confusion. “constitutes persuasive proof that future
`
`confusion is likely.” Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Szlzcshooters Inc, 251 F.3d 1251,
`
`1265 (9"’ Cir. 2001). The 8”‘ Circuit District Court denied a moving party’s
`
`motion for summary judgment because a consumer survey created an issue of
`material fact as to whether the non-moving party could prove a likelihood of
`
`confusion. The likelihood-of-confusion test has six parts. The court found in the
`
`' Registranfs favor on five of six of the test parts, including determining that the
`
`two marks are not similar. Nevertheless, the court refused to enter summary
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`14
`
`judgment
`
`in
`
`the
`
`regisrranfs favor
`
`(emphasis
`
`added)
`
`because
`
`the
`
`Appellantfopposant had introduced a consumer survey as evidence of actual
`
`confusion —-
`
`the sixth part of the likelihood-of-confusion test. Mz‘rznesor‘a
`
`Specialty Crops, Inc. v. Minn. Wfld Hockey Club, LP, Civ. No. 00-2317 (D.
`
`Minn. 0726102) (survey was sufficient {O survive summary judgment). Celazer
`
`Corp. v. Cazrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) (stating that summary judgment is
`
`appropriate after adequate rimefor discovery and upon motion, against a party
`
`who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
`
`essential to that party’s case).
`
`By disregarding Appellant's evidence of actual confusion, the
`
`denied the Appellant irnponant grounds for relief under the Federal Anti
`
`Dilution Smtute. The grounds for relief are that there is actual evidence of
`
`confusion which should trump any ad izoc interpretation of the Board that such
`
`evidence should not be considered in a summary judgment hearing as being
`
`without credibility.
`
`Thus. it is clear that survey evidence is considered sufficient to survive
`
`summary judgment. Appellant offered survey evidence of actual confusion
`
`here. Consequently, granting Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment was
`
`not proper and the decision should be reversed.
`
`

`
`20064271
`
`13
`
`IX. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`The credibiiity of Appeliantfs survey data was a genuine issue of
`
`material fact raised in the case. Because a genuine issue of material fact
`
`remained in the case, granting of Appei3ee’s Motion for Summary Judgment by
`
`the TTAB was not proper.
`
`THEREFORE, Appellant hereby prays that
`
`the decision granting‘
`
`Appeiiee’ Motion for Summary Judgment be reversed and the case be
`
`remanded to the TTAB for fimher proceedings.
`
`Appellant: MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.
`
`Date= By fiw:>@
`
`Sherman D. Pemia, Ph.D., JD
`
`Reg. No. 34,404
`Texas State Bar No. 24004856
`
`1110 NASA Parkway, Suite 450
`Houston, Texas 77058-3346
`Phone: 281-333-6880
`Fax: 281-333-9144
`
`'
`
`

`
`20064 271
`
`X. JUDGMENT, ORDER OR DECISION IN QUESTION
`
`

`
`_
`
` THIS OPINION IS MDT CITABLE
`
`Ag gRECEDE;,;T 017
`THF T T 1 B
`‘“ “ “ ‘
`
`'
`
`9
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AN!) TRADE:VI.15.R§\’
`OFFICE
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Baard
`$3.0, Bax 1451
`#dexandfia,\UR22313~i£51
`
`;
`;
`g
`
`Butler
`
`Mailed: Rcvember 29, 2085
`
`0pposition.No. 91165315
`cancellation No. 92044538
`
`Missiontrek Ltd. Co.
`
`v.
`
`Onfolio,
`
`Inc.
`
`Before Eairstcn, Chapman ané Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark
`Judges.
`
`By the Board:
`In
`0
`Plainti f seeks to cancel defendant’s registra;ion of the
`
`mark ORFOLEG far “computer software for capturing, arganizing and
`
`sharing on~3ine csn:ent."‘ Plaintiff apgoses regiszratian of
`
`dafandant’s mark shown bezow
`
` men
`
`
`also for “campater software far capturing, crganizing and sharing
`(J
`In M0£22:21£31»0':
`
`en—1ine cantsnt."
`
`3103
`
`Ht 0N
`
`~r1
`
`:3‘{D
`
`(“J9
`:3 3-3 it) 9. :5r1“ in
`
`‘U g..- {E} &3 (.4 .g, 9")
`
`aileges that defiendant’s marks, when used on the identified
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`d m wmber 23, 2094, claiming use ana
`3934952.
`3 R_g;:tra
`, 2993
`This regiscrazficn is the
`nae De
`use in cam:
`4338.
`‘atitzrs
`sabject
`2
`A -1
`.
`Q
`x
`’
`’
`o
`o
`,
`::-ea January 3%,
`1
`.=:p12:an3;n Sezza; No.
`
`?rademark Ac: §1{a}, claiming *** and use in cammarca
`2
`'0-
`DEE. This apgi cation is :he subject of 0ypcsi;-3u
`
`
`
`

`
`opposition Ho. 31165315 and Cancellation no. 92044538
`
`mark CARTAGIO as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake or to
`
`deceive.
`
`?2eintif‘
`
`H1
`
`further alleges that its CARTAGEO mark is
`
`(0
`registered for “computer scftwaze, namely int rue: navigation
`
`software,
`
`that is,
`
`internet srawsers; computer hardware in the
`
`nature of database and Computer management equipment;
`
`internet
`
`research and cost accounting software; software E r hcsting
`
`comguter servers, and user manuals sold as a unit.”3 More
`
`particularly, plaintiff alleges that the marks are similar
`
`because they both begin with round letters (“C“ and “O"); end in
`
`the same Zettexs “:3”; “have the same number of letters"; ane,
`
`when spoken, have the same number of syllables and the same
`
`accent.
`
`This case new comes up on éefendant'e nearly iéentical
`
`motions for summary judgment, filed in each aroceeéing on Julv S.
`-5
`I
`‘.1
`2005. Defendant's motions were i =ed prior to the due dates {or
`
`its answer in each case. Plaintiff filed nearly identical
`
`responses to she summary juégment motions, and defendant replied
`\-sci
`?*ereto in each case. Before 5 rning to the summary judgment
`
`metions,
`
`the Eoard addresses some preliminary matters.
`
`The Board has reviewed bath of she ebeve~identified
`
`proceedings and finds that consolidation is appropriate inasmuch
`
`as the two proceedings invokve ehe same parties and common
`
`euestione of law and fact. Consolidation may be ordered on the
`
`Board's own initiative.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. 9. 4
`
`B1
`‘{3}; fiegatta
`
` m
`
`issued August 26, ETG3, enfi cleimzng use
`Registratian Na. 2755245.
`anfi use in cemmerce eince Segtembe: 15, bҤl.
`
`

`
`Ogpcsiticn Ho. 51165315 and Cancellation No. 92044538
`
`Sports Ltd. v.
`
`€32”
`
`-Efioneer, 1ac., 28 US?Q2d 1154 {T133 1951);
`
`Estate of Biro V; Sic Ccrp., 18 U$?Q2d 1382 {TTAB 1393}: an‘ TEE?
`
`§S11 {Ed 25. rev. 2304}.
`
`The Board may exercise its diszretion
`
`an ordering ccnsaiiéation grior ac jcinéer 05 issue {i.e., before
`
`an answer has been filed in each case).
`
`see ?3M9 §511 (25 eg.
`
`rev. 200%). Here we l‘iI
`
`ind csnsolidation prior to joinfier of issue
`
`ls approyriaze.
`
`3»("J H0
`
`mzngly. apposition 530. 31255315 arzci Cancellation >30.
`
`9
`. .
`..
`.. ;.L
`...;
`_‘ ..
`-
`‘
`92344538 are berabv ccnsolifiated and may be ovesaqzaé an age sane
`
`records ané brieis.
`
`?he recaré will be maintained in Gpscsition
`
`fie. 91165315 as the “parent” case, but aii papers ‘fixed in fihgse
`
`cases should include both proceeding numbers in tha ovdmr shnym
`
`in :45 capaian of this consaiidateé case.
`
`ff
`Plain iff separately saughc co sgspend bath proceeiings
`pending disposi (‘F
`»~...;...... L“! 3
`'av
`:':._"_‘,.v2.«~-.-a
`
`027..
`
`5.“
`
`,Q!
`
`{:4
`0. 92044855 between plaintifi hezain, as
`
`ion cf a third-party cancellaaion praceefiing
`
`petitioner, and Peaer Cordes, as éefenfian;§. Whig gagtev
`
`proceeding involves a registration for :22 mark §2OVISO.
`
`?lain:iif’s mation to suspexd, filed on Sepfiember 22, 2003 in
`
`Cancellation No. §2044S38, was denied by eras: of the Board dateé
`
`in denying the ma:;on, ~%a Board determined
`Segtemser 23, 2905.
`-
`;
`r
`-
`, -
`.
`_ ,
`_
`a‘ -
`' . f
`W .
`‘ —.;r
`Lfidt giaihtlzw “utterly za;l;e§3 ts iemonstrace znaz Can $225213:
`.4C3
`':~
`
`I «
`
`‘£3 fiJ C3 sFS £3 00 In G»
`
`as anvthiqg as éo with this proceediag, excapt that
`
`petitiancr h*§§an5 to be invoiveé in both cases.”
`in
`in 2.}
`
`the 9::
`
`[H
`
`'n
`
`la;n:iff‘s assign ts suspené, Eilafi an
`
`23 (1)
`
`I 24
`
`{Emphasis *9
`
`l1)
`
`

`
`opposition No. 322553 5 and Cancellatian Ea. 92044538
`
`2005 in Gppesizion No. 91155315 is hereby denied for the same
`
`XE.’ 8.39318 .
`
`For p“rpoees of its summary judgment motions,
`
`4 defendant
`
`cencedes the relatedness.of the parties‘ respective goads.
`
`Defendant clarifies that it seeks judgment in its favor as a
`
`matter of law on the premise that the invclved marks are ac
`
`dissimilar that there is no likelihood of confusion.
`
`in euyport of its motion, defendant argues that as genuine
`
`issues of material fact exist as to Zikelihoed of confusion
`
`becauee the marks are comp}eteEy distinct in sound, appearance,
`
`connotation, and commercial
`
`impression; and that tee
`
`dissi.ilerity of the marks so outwei he the usher 8u?ont feczcrsi
`
`that it is dispesitive. Defendant argues that the invclved marks
`
`do not, as plaintiff alleges, have the same number of letters;
`
`that the only common element in the garties’ respective marks is
`
`the suffix “:0,” which is an crdinary English language suffix
`
`fsund in numerous registered marks for hardware eed software;
`
`that such suffix is derived from Latin, a constituent language 0:
`
`.nglish; and that “I0” is “added to the stem of
`
`the perfect
`
`passive participle 95 a verb to create a verbal noun indicating
`
`an action." Defendant contends the: tee marge, when spoken, are
`
`signfificantly éiffer
`
`(3
`
`at in sronunciation and,
`
`thus. do eat soune
`
`alike or even similar. Defendant argues that the rec: terms 35
`
`
`
`‘ The summary juégmen: motions may be referred is in the singular,
`'§.“'§-;
`..'...4.§.. .
`c
`'1;
`1'3
`,» I’! U1 -J
`
`sh
`
`#31 N CL
`
`177 USPQ 563
`
`See Tn ze E.
`.
`1:2
`
`I. L; ;Cu$ de Nemeure & Cc.,
`
`03>
`
`

`
`Opgosicica KG. 9ll553lS and Cancellation No. 92044538
`
`x
`
`each @arty’e marks differ, with plaintifif aamitzing,
`
`in response
`
`to the Examining Ae:crney’s inquig’ as to any meaning of the term
`
`aramiaezo {at
`
`the time that pleaded Registration 224;. 2755245 was
`
`Qending as an a_§EicatiGn}.
`
`that ahere is no traneietian sfi
`
`the
`
`term ané that “W CAR”AGIG has no knewn meaning, ether than izs
`
`being similar to an old Latin name of the city ef Carthage.
`
`Tunisia.” Eefenfient contenés that the rec: cf its marks. FOLIO,
`
`on the ether heme, means 5a leaf oi pager m,a 1eaf~number of e
`
`bank, a sheet sf paper foiéed ence, making twa Zeavee of a.book,
`
`{or} a book meée of such sheets." Thus, because the marks
`
`suggest fiifferent meanings, éeienéent argues that the marks have
`
`different cammercial
`
`impressions, arguing further that its
`
`ONFGLEO marks are likeiy to be eeea as a variant cf the term
`
`“partfolic.” Defenéant also paints out that the éesign element
`
`f ane if its marks further supports the visual fiiesimilarities
`V"
`n
`
`between §laintiz§’s mark aed defies
`
`in
`
`("YT.
`
`Defenée2t’s moaien is accomgenied by excerp
`
`'3 QNFGLIS ené éeefign mark.
`I
`,.
`.5 item ex 3F‘0-1
`
`line dictienary definition of :he suffix “i0”; e Eisting from
`
`Thcmeon Cempuwerk ef ragiszretians and peading applications 9
`
`I-n
`
`me-ks containirg term
`
`U1
`
`.5
`5; 3111'}.
`
`(I)
`
`in “is”; US?T0's TARR printouts of
`
`registered marks caataini g terms ending in “i0”; a cagy sf
`
`p1ain:iff’e reepcnse to the Examining At:erney’e inquiry as to
`
`whecher CA ?AGIO has any translation or meaning; ené a dictionary
`
`eefiniticn of the term “fclio.”
`
`iii
`in r eponse. giaintiff argues that actual csnfusisn exists
`
`based an a survey it canducted which éemonetrated that
`
`“M 25% cf
`
`U”!
`
`

`
`Opgcsiticn No. 91155315 and Cancellation No. 32044538
`
`the respanéents ieflicated abet the grcéuct names are 23 similar
`
`that it is likeiy that the products come Exam the same ssurce";
`
`and she: defendant's moticn must fail because defendant die net
`
`“M identify the elements of its adversary's case with :-spect to
`
`which i: ceneiéers there to be a deficiency of preci." Plaintiff
`
`further cnntenés that the marks, when wrizten,
`
`lcok eimizar
`
`.because the beginning and.ending letters are reund {Cifl vs. O/O§;
`
`that when spekee alend,
`
`the accents on the wares are similar; and
`
`that, when writien ia lower case,
`
`“M there are tws letters in the
`
`middle goztien cf aha marks having appendages that extend beycnd
`
`the normal limits of a lower—case Eetter. namely the ? aeé G of
`
`Carzegio, and the F ane L ef Onfeiis.” Qlainziffi argues that its
`
`mark is well-established, zheugh it states 1: dees act knew
`
`whether its mark is iamous; and teat de
`
`I‘?!
`
`endant
`
`i
`
`U}
`
`at
`
`he junior
`
`bus
`veer, who eéagzed a similar mark fer closely rezated geeés and
`
`so.
`fiid net exercise gscd faizh in avoiding the rights of ethera,
`
`garticulariy its campetitare' gre~exie:ing grnducte.§
`
`P1a£mti§f’s reepeaee is eccomgegied by the declarative of its
`
`directar concerning the survey conducted and a cegy of the survey
`
`inquiry sent as the recipients by emaél.
`
`2% reply, defendant argues that it éid gresent adequately
`
`the eiemente forming the basis at its summary fiudgmeet motion;
`
`5 Plaintiff, at page S of its resyonse to defen5ant‘s maeian for
`summary juégmenz, requests discovery.
`Te the extent,
`:5 an . aha:
`Q‘
`,
`-
`niaintiif seeks discovery nursuaa; ac Fed. R. Civ. ?. Séif}
`ff resnonded on ale merizs to
`request is éenied inaemuch as plainti
`@
`defendent’s mutien for summary judgment.
`See E92 C*u2dwe21 Jewe’:v,
`Inc‘ v. Cicsbesline Cietbes, 255., 63 US?Q2d 2359 i.?A8 2§0“2.
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Gppositioa No. 91155315 and cancellation No. 92044538
`
`and that plaintiff's arguments concerniug the similarities ef tne
`
`varks are “peculiar” and without suppart.
`
`aefendant ccntends
`
`that plaintiff's survey is not entitied to any consideration
`
`because it is inaxgert and biased in fiesign and a‘ inistration;
`
`it fails to specify or provide any information regarding the
`
`respondeats; it fails to proviée the actuai respanses:
`
`it fails
`
`to approximate actual market fionéitions; it fails :9 present
`
`ée£endaat's design mark; and it makes leading inquiries.
`
`in a_mo;ion for summary jufigment,
`
`the maving party has the
`
`burden of establishing the ahseace sf any genuine issues of
`
`material fact and that it is entitled to judgmes: as a matter oi
`
`law.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. 9. Séic}. A.genuine issue with res§ec£ to
`
`materiaz fact exists if sufficient eviéence is presented that a
`
`reasanable fact finéer ccald decide the question in favor of the
`
`flan-moving party.
`
`see Opryland fifié Inc. V. Greaz American fiuséc
`
`Show, £flC., 9?& F.2d 84?, 23'3S?Q2§ 3471 (363. Cir. 1992?. Thus;
`
`ali éoubta as to wfiather any factuaz issues are genuinely in
`
`dispute must be resolvefi against aha moving party and 3%:
`
`inferences must be viewed in the light mast favcrabie to the man-
`
`moving party.
`
`See fizda Tyme Foods Inc. v. Rou2dy's Inc., $61
`
`F.2d 260, 22 US?Q23 1542 (Fee. Ci
`
`. 19§2§.
`
`En the grgsent case,
`
`the Beard finds aha: iefiendant has
`
`established the absence of any genuine issue cf materiaé fact anfi
`I
`
`W m (‘V
`
`,... rt‘
`
`,4.. In m f3 «'1 fox!o rt N (3! $2.
`
`0 \..J 5 £3.£1}
`
`E{D ..J r!
`
`£11: m in H11: 1*: (‘T (11 H (7 Y"!
`
`[.—.J W
`
`*3‘.1’ m
`
`Ksederer 5.a. V. Eeiicazo Viaeyards; 145 F.3d 23?}, é. USPQ2§
`
`?
`
`

`
`uppcsztzon Kc. 91155315 and Cancellaticn Ne. 92844538
`
`;..: ~98 ‘J1 an *3(3F11
`
`(7 pa. '1
`
`1998) and Ké2}o_g Co. V.
`
`;ack’em Enterprises,
`
`Enc.,
`
`14 USPQ2d 1545 {TTAB i999§, a§§‘d,
`
`95 ‘..)
`
`:11 h w or III)
`
`M |----'
`
`C2}C!) m0 Ix)0,
`
`2.1.22 £?e:i. Cir". 2992;.
`
`in that the single Z3ui3o.2t zacmx of me
`
`dissimilarity of the marks in their cnzireties substantially
`
`outweighs any other relevant factcrs ané is éispasitive of the
`
`issue of iikeiihoaé of canfusion.
`
`Moreaver, we find that plaintiff's survey does not raise a
`
`genuine issue 55 material fact with respect
`
`to the similariti
`
`R1 8
`
`0:
`
`the parties’ respective marks. Accoxding he the statememt of
`
`§laintiff’s diraczor, ha:
`
`M prepareé an email su.7ey of 42 persons who had recently
`éawnloaded aux CARTAGZO safcwara and whe ozherwise were
`
`iée ?e:it:oner wiah am objective
`z
`-cpinian on the issue at Zikelihooé cf ccnfusion.
`
`Cf the 42 ew“i}s sent, 8 respcnses to the quasticn were
`receivefi. Of zhese 8 responses,
`two indicated actual
`coafusion and six indicated no confusion.
`05 those that
`
`indicated actual confusion, one is a manager of a software
`sales comgany and may have already known abou: O§FOLID, so.
`perhags, his respanse indicating no confusion can be
`igncred.
`in any casa, still counting this one likely
`invalid respcnse, a full 25% of those surveyed indicated
`confusion.
`{Emphasis in the arigina1.3
`
`?he inquiry sent by p}aintiff’s directar, asks :
`
`b
`
`fclicwlng:
`
`with iessact to a racentiy released saline
`research/kncwieége management prséuct, calleé SEFGLZO, which
`cf the below atatements is most likely to be true?
`
`a. Becausa the product names are similar, QKFGLEO is
`lzkely a licensee of Missiantrek,
`the developer sf
`CAR?A$E0.
`
`b. Because the profiuct names are similar, Q%§Q:EG is
`“
`a
`.uct of Missioacrek, aéagaed for a
`rket.
`at all.
`
`c
`
`‘
`
`‘hi? between the §rsdu-:s
`
`
`
`-here 25
`
`8
`
`

`
`epposizica.Ro. 91265315 and cancellation No. 92Qێ533
`
`that indicated they may be
`
`The number of respondents {2}
`(10L1 I~l: C’ (II (I) filo ¢
`
`is-é~vis the number of acknowledged inqui
`
`ries sent
`
`(423
`
`mathamatirally ices net amount ta ta inflatefi gercantage
`,.
`calculated by plaintiff {2S%§ 0‘ re5panflents passi