throbber
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA289741
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/15/2009
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91184047
`Defendant
`The TriZetto Group, Inc.
`Daniel A. Crowe, Esq.
`Bryan Cave LLP
`One Metropolitan Square, 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
`St. Louis, MO 63102-2733
`UNITED STATES
`mapaskar@bryancave.com
`Opposition/Response to Motion
`Mark A. Paskar
`mapaskar@bryancave.com, dacrowe@bryancave.com
`/Mark A. Paskar/
`06/15/2009
`Opp MSJ.pdf ( 102 pages )(10224802 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In the Matter of Application Serial Nos. 77/029,672
`Filed on October 26, 2006
`Published in the Trademark Official Gazette on May 29, 2007
`
`FARMACO—LOGlCA B.V.,
`
`Opposer.
`
`VS
`
`THE TRIZETTO GROUP,
`
`Applicant.
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box I451
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 13-145 l
`
`Opposition No. 91 l84047
`
`Serial No. 77/029,672
`
`\y\J\/\y\./\/\/\y\./\J
`
`BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO OPPOSER FARMACO-LOGICA’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`COMES NOW Applicant The TriZetto Group, Inc. (“TriZetto”) and files its Brief in Opposition
`
`to Opposer Farmaco—Logica B.V.’s (“Farmaco”) Motion For Summary Judgment.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Genuine issues of material fact preclude a finding of likelihood of confusion as a matter of law
`under the multi—factor LIPgn_t analysis. The sophistication of the parties’ customers,
`the fame of
`
`TriZetto’s FACETS mark and the complete lack of fame of Farmaco’s PHACET mark, and the absence
`
`of any actual confusion all weigh heavily against the existence of likelihood of confusion. Whether the
`
`marks at issue are confusingly similar, cover similar goods, or share similar trade channels all hinge on
`
`genuine issues of material fact and therefore cannot serve as a basis for summary judgment. Moreover,
`
`contrary to its present position in this Opposition proceeding, Farmaco itself previously asserted to the
`
`Board that there is no likelihood of confusion between its PHACET mark and TriZetto’s FACETS mark
`
`3ll577l
`
`

`
`for the goods at issue here. The Qu_I_’9_n_t analysis is a fact-intensive inquiry, and Farmaco’s changed
`
`position demonstrates that there are genuine issues of material fact in this case and that Farmaco is not
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`
`Furthermore, undisputed facts support TriZetto’s complete
`
`defense against Farmaco’s claim of likelihood of confusion based on TriZetto’s existing registration of
`
`the FACETS mark for substantially identical software.
`
`Accordingly, TriZetto respectfully requests that Farmaco’s motion for summary judgment be
`
`denied.
`
`I.
`
`Use, Market, and Fame of TriZetto’s FACETS Mark.
`
`MATERIAL FACTS
`
`TriZetto and a predecessor-in—interest have used the FACETS mark since at least as early as 1993
`
`for various goods and services in the field of managed health care.
`
`_S_e_e Declaration of J. Sullivan
`
`(“Sullivan Decl.”) 1] 3 (attached as Ex. 1). Among other uses, TriZett0 has used the mark continuously
`
`since at
`
`least as early as July 12, 1993 in connection with computer software for health care plan
`
`management and administration and for computer software for claims and benefits administration for
`
`Medicare and Medicaid managed care.
`
`§e§ fig Declaration of T. Mayer (“Mayer Dec|.”) W 4-7
`
`(attached as Ex. 2). TriZetto distributes its FACETS software to customers in two ways.
`
`_S_e_e_ Q at 1] 9.
`
`First, TriZetto will provide a customer with a copy of the FACETS software, and the customer will
`
`install the software at the customer’s or a third party’s data center.
`
`_S_e_e i_d_. Alternatively, TriZetto will
`
`offer to “host” its FACETS software for the customer at TriZetto’s data center and will provide the
`
`customer with remote access to the software. fl i_<L
`
`jp_eit_l1;c_i‘_<;a_s_e_,_th,e_;1_ser
`
`interface and
`
`functionality of the software_ is identi_<_:_a_l; the alternatives are merely different ways for TriZetto to
`
`distribute, and for the customer to access and use the software.
`
`_S_e_e gl_. at 1]
`
`l l. The “hosted” method
`
`of delivery, involving the installation of the software at TriZetto’s facilities, sometimes is referred to by
`
`TriZetto and others in the industry as “application service provider (ASP)” services, which are reflected
`
`in, among others, TriZetto’s U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,482,938 (the “’938 Registration”), a status and
`
`3ll577l
`
`2
`
`

`
`title copy of which is attached to the Sullivan Declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`_S_e§ Sullivan Decl. 1]6 and Ex.
`
`A thereto.
`
`TriZetto owns several registrations for its FACETS mark (and variations thereof). See Sullivan
`
`Decl. 1] 7 and Ex. B thereto. Among said registrations, TriZetto owns the ’938 Registration for the mark
`
`FACETS in standard characters for “application service provider (ASP) featuring software for health
`
`care plan management and administration;
`
`implementation, maintenance and support of
`
`computer software; application service provider (ASP) featuring software for claims and benefits
`
`administration for Medicare and Medicaid managed care” in International Class 42, claiming a date
`
`of first use ofJuly I2, 1993.
`
`_S_e§ i_d. at 1] 6 and Ex. A thereto.
`
`TriZetto filed U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/029,672 (the ’672 Application) with the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on November 1, 2006 seeking to register the mark FACETS in
`
`standard characters for “computer software for health care plan management and administration;
`
`computer software for claims and benefits administration for Medicare and Medicaid managed
`
`care,” in International Class 9, claiming a date of first use of July 12, 1993. The ’672 Application is the
`
`subject of the present opposition.
`
`TriZetto’s customers include large- and medium-sized health plans and third-party administrators
`
`in the United States. Declaration of Robeit Renzi (“Renzi Decl.”) 1] 9 (attached as Ex. 3).
`
`FACETS is
`
`an enterprise software system that helps TriZetto’s customers automate and manage many of their key
`
`business functions.
`
`I_d. at 1] 8.
`
`In short, the FACETS software is core and critical to the business of
`
`TriZetto’s customers, who are very sophisticated and represent some of the largest companies in the
`
`United States.
`
`lg. at
`
`1] 9. Given the importance of the software to TriZetto’s customers,
`
`these
`
`professional buyers, with the help of their procurement and legal departments, make software purchases
`
`only after conducting extensive research, submitting detailed requests for information and proposals, and
`
`participating in lengthy contractual negotiations.
`
`I_d. at 1] 9; Declaration of David Arnold (“Arnold
`
`Decl.”) 1] 5 (attached as Ex. 4). The sales cycle often can be as long as two years, and in some cases
`
`3ll577l
`
`3
`
`

`
`longer. Renzi Decl. 1] 9. Many customers also engage third—party consultants that advise them during the
`
`negotiation process. E; Arnold Decl. 1] 5. The primary purchasing market for TriZetto’s FACETS
`
`products does not
`
`include medical practitioners who provide direct medical services to individual
`
`patients, a much more fragmented market. Renzi Decl. 1]1] 6-7; Arnold Decl. 1] 3. Moreover, vendors
`
`in the managed health care field such as TriZetto do not typically provide software in the health care field.
`
`Arnold Decl. 1] 4.
`
`TriZetto and a predecessor-in-interest have expended significant amounts of time, money and
`
`effort in advertising and promoting all of the FACETS marks, both registered and common law, and the
`
`goods and services offered under them, and have thus developed substantial goodwill in the marks. Renzi
`
`Decl. 1] 3. Over the past five years, TriZetto has invested approximately $500,000 to $1 million
`
`annually in advertising its FACETS product line, resulting in approximately $600 million in sales. E.
`
`Based on such extensive use and exposure, TriZetto’s customers in the field of managed care recognize
`
`the FACETS marks and associate TriZetto’s FACETS computer software with TriZetto. Arnold Decl.
`
`1]1] 6-7.
`
`II.
`
`The Prior Opposition Between TriZetto and Farmaco.
`
`In 2005, well over a decade after TriZetto began using its FACETS mark in connection with,
`
`inter @, software used in the managed health care field, Farmaco applied to register PHACET on the
`
`basis of Trademark Act Section 66(a) for, among other things, “[c]entral processing units and data
`
`processors for the reproduction, storage and archiving of data in the health care field; computers,
`
`computer peripherals, and computer software for recording patient health data, in the health care field” in
`
`Class 09. g Declaration of P. Kuks in Support of Farmaco-Logica’s Motion For Summary Judgment
`
`and Ex. A thereto; Sullivan Decl. 1]1] 3-5; Mayer Decl. 1]1] 4-7.
`
`Prior to its 2005 filing, Farmaco had
`
`never used the PHACET mark in the United States, in connection with goods or services of any kind.
`
`Sfi Declaration of L. Merritt (“Merritt Decl.”) 1] 7 (attached as Ex. 5) and Ex. C thereto, Response Nos.
`
`36-40 at p. 13-14.
`
`3115771
`
`4
`
`

`
`In January 2007, TriZetto filed Opposition No. 91175355 (the “Prior Opposition”) to the
`
`application that would later become the PHACET registration (the “PHACET Registration”)'/ on the
`
`ground that Farmaco’s PHACET mark so resembled various senior TriZetto FACETS marks, both
`
`registered and at common law (collectively,
`
`the “TriZetto Marks”) as to be likely, when used in
`
`connection with the Farmaco’s goods to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive. E
`
`Merritt Decl. 1l4 and Ex. A thereto. TriZetto opposed the registration of Farmaco’s PHACET mark
`
`based on its initial concerns that Farmaco would use the mark in the field of managed health care and that
`
`the apparent similar pronunciations and appearances of PHACET to the TriZetto Marks were likely to
`
`cause confusion.
`
`§e_e i_d.
`
`Significantly, TriZetto’s opposition to the PHACET Registration was
`
`explicitly based on TriZetto’s priority of use of the FACETS mark in connection with “goods and
`
`services in the field of managed health care, including computer software and services as an application
`
`service provider...”
`
`§e_e Merritt Decl. fil 4 and Ex. A thereto at 1]
`
`l (emphasis added). Accordingly,
`
`one of the primary issues in the Prior Opposition was whether the PHACET Registration caused a
`
`likelihood of confusion with respect to TriZetto’s prior common law rights in its software for the
`
`managed health care industry.
`
`In its Amended Answer in the Prior Opposition, Farmaco flatly denied that any likelihood of
`
`confusion exists between the PHACET Registration and the TriZetto marks, including TriZetto’s prior
`
`use of FACETS in connection with its software products.
`
`fig Merritt Decl.1l 5 and Ex. B thereto at 1] 6.
`
`Moreover, in addition to denying that any likelihood of confusion existed, Farmaco asserted:
`
`The
`-l I. There are important differences between the word marks FACETS and PHACET.
`different letters at the beginning of both marks lead to different visual appearances of the marks.
`Moreover, if [Farmaco’s] and [TriZetto’s] marks were to appear in any alphabetical
`listing,
`it
`would be under “F,” in the one use, and under “P” in the other.
`Finally, the word “facet”
`appears in most English dictionaries (such as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
`Language, 4th ed. 2000) whereas the word “phacet” does not. These differences will prevent
`purchasers and prosp_ective_gL_Irchasers of [Farmaco’s| and |TriZetto’s| goods and services from
`being confused, mistaken, or d_e_ceived._
`
`TriZetto utilizes the defined term “PHACET Registration” herein to refer to both U.S. Trademark Reg. No.
`”
`3,395,039 and the application filed by Farmaco on November 8, 2005 (U.S. Trademark App. Serial No. 79/021,243)
`that would eventually mature into U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,395,039.
`
`3|l577l
`
`5
`
`

`
`l2. The application of of [sic] computer systems in health care processes has a major impact on
`the workflow, efficiency and quality of these processes.
`The costs associated with the
`procurement and implementation of such systems and related services are many thousands of
`dollars and they are not sold at retail.
`For these reasons, purchasers and prg_s_pective purchasers
`of ]Farmac__o’s| services and ]TriZetto’s| goods and services,
`i_.;e_._l1ealth care institutions and
`})LQfeSSl0l1al§, are sq];histicate__d__and highly professional and take gre_m care before purchasji1g
`sucl1_goods and services. Where _s_gpl1isticaj;ioi1,__e:_><pertise and care are involved in the
`
`p1_1_rc_hasing_pr_ocess, there is no likelihood of confusio1_i,_1__1_3_i_stake or deception.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`_Se_e Merritt Decl. 1] 5 and Ex. B thereto at 1]
`
`ll—l2 (emphasis added).
`
`Farmaco
`
`further asserted that FACETS is “not a particularly distinctive mark” therefore “eliminat[ing] any
`
`likelihood of prospective purchasers going [sic] to be misled to believe that goods and services offered
`
`under the PHACET mark emanate from or may otherwise be associated with Opposer.”
`
`See Merritt
`
`Decl. 1] 5 and Ex. B thereto at fil l3.
`
`These statements in Farmaco’s Amended Answer were not Farmaco’s only unequivocal
`
`assertions regarding the supposed lack of a likelihood of confusion during the Prior Opposition.
`
`Farmaco responded to TriZetto’s Request for Admission by stating:
`
`REQ QUEST NO. 32:
`Admit or deny Applicant’s use of Applicant’s Mark [i.e., the PHACET mark] in connection with
`Applicant’s Goods and Services is likely to cause confusion with Opposer’s use of Opposer’s
`FACETS mark.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Applicant denies this allegation.
`
`§e_e_ Merritt Decl. 1l7 and Ex. C thereto at p. 12.
`
`In its Responses to Requests for Admissions, Farmaco
`
`also denied that the TriZetto FACETS mark and Farmaco’s PHACET mark were phonetically similar
`
`(Request No. 21), that they created a similar commercial impression (Request No. 22), that they were
`
`visually similar (Request No. 23), and that the field of health care encompassed the field of managed
`
`health care (Request No. 42).
`
`See Merritt Decl. 1] 7 and Ex. C thereto at pp. 8-9.
`
`In light of Farmaco’s vehement and consistent position of no likelihood of confusion, TriZetto
`
`contacted Farmaco in an attempt to resolve the opposition amicably. E Declaration of K. Thiessen,
`
`(“Thiessen Decl.”) 111] 3-4 (attached as Ex. 6). During such discussions, Farmaco continued its
`
`vehement and consistent denial of any likelihood of confusion between the PHACET Registration and
`
`3ll577l
`
`6
`
`

`
`TriZetto’s FACETS mark.
`
`£1. at 114.
`
`In correspondence with TriZetto in the course of the Prior
`
`Opposition, Farmaco’s managing director, Paul Kuks, gave written and oral assurances that Farmaco saw
`
`no similarity between PHACET and FACETS and maintained there could be no likelihood of confusion
`
`because, among other reasons, the marks were distinguishable and PHACET would not be registered or
`
`used for the same goods and services as TriZetto’s FACETS mark. _S_e§ Q at 111] 4-6.
`
`For example,
`
`during the course of the parties’ discussions, Farmaco stated:
`
`“I continue to believe that a coexistence of your company’s FACETS marks and my company’s
`PHACET (not PHACETS) mark is possible without [any restrictive agreement between the
`parties].” E. at 1l 7 and Ex. A thereto, Email from P. Kuks to K. Thiessen (Jan. 18, 2008).
`
`“I do not think that there is any possible confusion between trademarks used by your company
`and my company’s trademarks.”
`Id.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`in reliance upon Farmaco’s positions and representations in the pleadings,
`
`discovery responses and discussions between the parties in the Prior Opposition, TriZetto withdrew its
`
`opposition stating, “In response to Opposer’s discovery requests, Applicant has represented that (1) it has
`
`not yet used the PHACET mark in the U.S.; (2) that
`
`its intended use of the PHACET mark will
`
`encompass only those goods and services identified in the application, i.e., goods and services ‘in the
`
`field of health care’; and (3) that ‘the field of health care’ does not encompass the ‘field of managed
`
`health care.’ Based on Applicant’s clarification as to its field of intended use, Opposer agrees that the
`
`field of use for its FACETS mark is distinct from App|icant’s intended field of use for the PHACET
`
`mark.”
`
`_S_e_e Merritt Decl. 1] 8 and Ex. D thereto at p. I.
`
`In response to TriZetto’s withdrawal, the
`
`Board dismissed the Prior Opposition with prejudice.
`
`§e_:§ id. at 1] 9 and Ex. E thereto.
`
`III.
`
`The Current Opposition.
`
`Following the dismissal of TriZetto’s opposition to Farmaco’s application for the PHACET mark,
`
`in May 2008, Farmaco amended its notice of opposition to TriZetto’s application for the FACETS mark
`
`for computer software (Application Serial No. 77/029,672) in the present proceeding, adding the very
`
`ground for opposition it had previously so adamantly denied.
`
`In complete contradiction to its prior
`
`statements, Farmaco asserted that “Applicant’s FACETS mark so resembles Opposer’s PHACET mark as
`
`3ll577l
`
`7
`
`

`
`to be likely .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” See Amended Notice of
`
`Opposition in Opposition No. 91184047 (May 14, 2008) at 11 4.
`
`In addition, for the first time in its
`
`Amended Notice of Opposition in the present proceeding, Farmaco alleged that it would be damaged by
`
`the registration of the FACETS mark because “purchasers are likely to attribute the source of
`
`sponsorship of [TriZetto’s] goods to [Farmaco].” ii at 116.
`
`IV.
`
`Farmaco’s PHACET Registration.
`
`Farmaco’s PHACET Registration defines the field of use for the mark PHACET as “the health
`
`care field,” a field distinct from that of managed health care, as Farmaco acknowledges in its motion for
`
`summary judgment, by distinguishing the “fields of both health care and managed health care” and
`
`addressing “software to be used in the field of health care (or the managed health care field .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.).”
`
`Farmaco’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,
`
`15,
`
`19
`
`(“Farmaco
`
`Memorandum”); see also Renzi Decl. 1111 6-7; Arnold Decl. 1111 3-4.
`
`Farmaco does not allege prior use of
`
`its PHACET mark and there is no evidence in the record whatsoever to indicate that Farmaco has ever
`
`used PHACET in the United States.
`
`Farmaco Memorandum, 19; Merritt Decl. 11 7 and Ex. C thereto, at
`
`11 36. There is no evidence of any actual confusion between TriZetto and Farmaco’s respective marks.
`
`Farmaco Memorandum, 19.
`
`Farmaco acknowledges that both TriZetto and Farmaco’s customers are
`
`“prone to be sophisticated.”
`
`Farmaco Memorandum, 18.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard.
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to this proceeding.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.1116(a). A
`
`party is entitled to summaryjudgment under Federal Rule 56(c) only where the record of evidence shows
`
`“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To establish that a factual dispute is genuine, the non-movant
`
`“need only present evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in [its] favor.” Anderson v.
`
`Liberty Lobby,
`
`Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514 (1986).
`
`In reviewing a motion for
`
`3115771
`
`8
`
`

`
`summary judgment, “the Board must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
`
`Since opposing factual inferences may arise from the same set of undisputed subsidiary facts, the Board
`
`must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.” Olde Tyme Foods, Inc. v. Round_x’s_,
`
`3, 961 F.2d 200, 202 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (reversing Board’s grant of summary judgment for drawing
`
`factual inferences in movant’s favor).
`
`II.
`
`Genuine Issues of Material Fact Preclude Summary Judgment on Likelihood of Confusion.
`
`Genuine issues of material fact preclude a finding of likelihood of confusion as a matter of law
`
`under the multi-factor DuPont analysis. Certain undisputed facts show, in fact, that the analysis weighs
`
`against a finding of likelihood of confusion. Whether the marks are confusingly similar, cover similar
`
`goods, or share similar trade channels hinge on genuine issues of disputed material fact and cannot serve
`
`as a basis for summary judgment. Because Farmaco cannot maintain its argument that there are no
`
`genuine issues of disputed material fact as to the existence of likelihood of confusion,
`
`its summary
`
`judgment motion must be denied.
`
`A.
`
`Likelihood of Confusion Test Under DuPont.
`
`The 1973 decision in Apglication of E. l. DuPont DeNemours & Co. laid out thirteen factors to
`
`be considered, when of record, to determine likelihood of confusion under 2(d) of the Lanham Act.
`
`Application of E.
`
`l.
`
`l;L_iP_o_nt__DeNeinours & C__3_(_)_., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1973). Not all thirteen factors are relevant in every case and the Board may give individual factors more
`
`or less weight in making a particulardetermination.
`
`
`In re Dixie Restaurants lQg_._, I05 F.3d 1405, I407,
`
`41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1531, i533 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`In this opposition, at least six DuPont factors are relevant to
`
`the proceeding:
`
`(1) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound,
`connotation and commercial impression.
`
`(2) The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods or services as described in an
`application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
`
`(3) The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely—to—continue trade channels.
`
`3ll577l
`
`9
`
`

`
`(4) The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful,
`sophisticated purchasing.
`
`(5) The fame of the prior mark (sales, advertising, length of use).
`
`(7) The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
`
`_l2u[;x)_nt, 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567.
`
`Likelihood of confusion is a fact-intensive inquiry that is difficult to determine conclusively at
`
`the summaryjudgment stage of proceedings before a full factual record is developed. & Au—Tomotive
`
`Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagejt of America, lnc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1075, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1303 (9th Cir.
`
`2006)(“Because the likelihood of confusion is often a fact-intensive inquiry, courts are generally
`
`reluctant to decide this issue at the summary judgment stage”); Mid-State Aftermarket Bo_c_ly Page
`
`v. MQVP, Inc., 466 F.3d 630, 634, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534, 1537 (8th Cir. 2006)(“likelihood of confusion
`
`and false advertising are fact-intensive inquiries”); Country Floors. Inc. v. Partnership Composed of
`
`Gepner and Ford, 930 F.2d 1056, 1063, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1577, 1583 (3d Cir. 1991)(characterizing
`
`summaryjudgment for likelihood of confusion as “the exception”).
`
`Perhaps the strongest evidence weighing against a finding of likelihood of confusion on summary
`
`judgment is the fact that the PTO never cited the PHACET Registration during the examination of
`
`TriZetto’s ‘672 Application. Farmaco’s assertion that there are no genuine issues of disputed material
`
`fact as to likelihood of confusion is wrong and its motion for summaryjudgment must be denied.
`
`B.
`
`Three DuPont Factors Undisputedly Weigh Against 21 Finding of Likelihood of
`Confusion.
`
`Of the six DuPont factors most relevant to this proceeding, three undisputed factors weigh
`
`against finding an existence of likelihood of confusion.
`
`I.
`
`Customer sophistication weighs against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`The parties agree that TriZetto and Farmaco’s purchasers are sophisticated, as Farmaco
`
`acknowledged in its motion for summary judgment.
`
`Farmaco Memorandum, 18.
`
`“[S]ophisticated
`
`consumers may be expected to exercise greater care.” Electronic Desigji & Sales. Inc. v. Electronic Data
`
`3115771
`
`10
`
`

`
`Systems Corp._, 954 F.2d 713, 718, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir.
`
`l992)(internal quotation
`
`omitted). TriZetto has used its FACETS mark in the managed health care field for over fifteen years.
`
`Its customers make careful purchasing decisions based on research and negotiation, and they associate
`
`FACETS products with TriZetto. Arnold Decl. 1] 5.
`
`“[T]here is always less likelihood of confusion
`
`where goods are expensive and purchased after careful consideration.” ED&S, 954 F.2d at 718, 21
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d at 1392.
`
`In Electronic Design & Sales, the applicant applied for the mark E.D.S. for use in
`
`the medical field; the opposer used the mark EDS also in the medical field. Li. at 714-15. The Federal
`
`Circuit held that likelihood of confusion had not been proven,
`
`in part because most of the relevant
`
`purchasers of the parties’ respective goods were experienced buyers who made purchases after study and
`
`negotiation.
`
`l_d_. at 718-19. The court determined that the Board gave the “near identity of the marks”
`
`“excessive weight .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`in light of the sophistication of purchasers.” Li. at 718 n.2. Here, too, any
`
`similarity between the marks at issue (which are clearly not as similar as those involved in EQ&_S_) would
`
`be counterbalanced by the sophistication and careful purchasing habits of TriZetto and Farmaco’s buyers.
`
`Thus, TriZetto’s sophisticated customers in the field of managed health care would be able to distinguish
`
`without confusion a FACETS product from a PHACET product. Arnold Decl. 1| 8; Renzi Decl. 119.
`
`The sophistication ofthe parties’ customers weighs against a finding of likelihood of confusion.
`
`2.
`
`The lack of fame of PHACET weighs against likelihood of confusion.
`
`It is undisputed that TriZetto and a predecessor in interest have used FACETS and similar marks
`
`in the field of managed health care for over fifteen years. These years of continuous use, as well as
`
`substantial amounts of time, money and effort spent in advertising and promoting the FACETS marks
`
`and the goods and services offered under them have allowed the marks to become famous in the field of
`
`managed health care. Renzi Decl. 11 5; Arnold Decl. 11 6. TriZetto’s customers recognize the FACETS
`
`mark and associate TriZetto’s FACETS computer software with TriZetto. Arnold Decl. {[11 6-8. There is
`
`no evidence of any fame of PHACET in the record.
`
`3115771
`
`11
`
`

`
`“[T]he fame of the mark must always be accorded full weight when determining the likelihood
`
`of confusion.” Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d i322, I328, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1894, l897 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Here, the length of use and fame of FACETS weighs against finding that customers in the managed
`
`health care field would confuse FACETS with Farmaco’s mark as does the complete absence of the fame
`
`of the PHACET mark.
`
`3.
`
`Lack of actual confusion weighs against likelihood of confusion.
`
`The absence of actual confusion is a factor that favors a finding that no likelihood of confusion
`
`exists.
`
`§]:&r_t_s_ Authority Michigan Inc.
`
`v. PC Authority lnc.,
`
`63 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1782,
`
`1798
`
`(T.T.A.B. 2002). Here, Farmaco and TriZetto agree that there is no evidence of actual confusion
`
`between their respective marks.
`
`Farmaco Memorandum,
`
`l9. The lack of actual confusion is not
`
`surprising in light of the undisputed fact that TriZetto’s primary market is in the United States, while
`
`Farmaco has never used its PHACET mark in commerce in the United States. The lack of evidence of
`
`actual confusion weighs against a finding of likelihood of confusion.
`
`C.
`
`Genuine Issues of Disputed Material Fact Underlie the Remaining Three Relevant
`DuPont Factors.
`
`Genuine issues of disputed material fact surround central questions as to the similarity of
`
`TriZetto’s FACETS mark and Farmaco°s PHACET mark, the similarity of the goods that the marks cover,
`
`and the similarity of their respective trade channels. The remaining three DuPont factors relevant to
`
`this proceeding therefore cannot weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.
`
`1.
`
`Similarity or dissimilarity of the marks.
`
`Under DuPont, the appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression of two marks are
`
`compared to determine their similarity or dissimilarity. DuPont, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, I77 U.S.P.Q.
`
`563, 567.
`
`Farmaco’s PHACET and TriZetto’s FACETS have obvious differences in appearance.
`
`The marks begin with different letters, which is the first impression a customer would encounter.
`
`In
`
`fact, as Farmaco pointed out in the Prior Opposition, one of the “important differences between the word
`
`marks FACETS and PHACET” include the fact that “were [they] to appear in any alphabetical listing, it
`
`3ll577l
`
`I2
`
`

`
`would be under ‘F,’ in the one use, and under ‘P’ in the other.” Merritt Decl. 1] 5 and Ex. B thereto.
`
`TriZetto’s FACETS mark is plural where Farmaco’s PHACET mark is singular, again resulting in a
`
`different commercial
`
`impression. There are also differences in the marks’ connotations, because
`
`“facet” is a word in the English language and “phacet” is not. While pronunciations of the two marks
`
`are likely to be similar, “phonetic similarity alone is insufficient in this case to establish as a matter of
`
`law that the uses of the respective marks are likely to cause confusion.” Olde Tyme Foods, lnc., 961
`
`F.2d at 203.
`
`The first I_)_u@ factor cannot weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.
`
`2.
`
`Similarity or dissimilarity of the goods.
`
`The similarity or dissimilarity of goods must be analyzed under _Qu_P@£t by reviewing the goods’
`
`descriptions or their prior use. , 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, I77 U.S.P.Q. 563, 567.
`
`The respective descriptions of Farmaco and TriZetto’s marks are undoubtedly different.
`
`Farmaco’s PHACET Registration describes the goods it covers, in relevant part, as:
`
`[c]entral processing units and data processors for the reproduction, storage and archiving of data
`in the health care field; computers, computer peripherals, and computer software for recording
`patient health data, in the health care field
`
`PHACET Registration, Ex. G. TriZetto’s ’672 Application, on the other hand, describes its goods as
`
`computer software for health care plan management and administration; computer software for
`claims and benefits administration for Medicare and Medicaid managed care
`
`’672 Application, Ex. D.
`
`Though both descriptions incorporate software, Farmaco’s software is used “for recording patient health
`
`data,
`
`in the health care field,” while TriZetto’s software is used “for health care plan management and
`
`administration” and “claims and benefits administration.” Based on the descriptions alone, the two
`
`types of software have distinctly different functions, are provided by different vendors, and are used by
`
`different customers.
`
`Farmaco’s software is used in an individual patient setting. TriZetto’s software,
`
`on the other hand, is used to manage and administer claims, benefits, and health care plans outside the
`
`individual patient setting. Renzi Decl.
`
`111} 6-8. The different functions and uses of the parties’
`
`3ll577l
`
`l3
`
`

`
`respective software products weigh against a finding of likelihood of confusion.
`
`_S_e§_ TMEP §
`
`l402.03(d) (requiring that identifications for computer programs be highly specific in that they must
`
`explicitly set forth both a function/purpose and the field of use of the software).
`
`“The purpose of
`
`requiring specificity in identifying computer programs is to avoid the issuance of unnecessary refusals of
`
`registration under l5 U.S.C. § l502(d) where the actual goods of the parties are not related and there is
`
`no confiict in the market place [citation omitted].”
`
`_S_e§ i_cL The PTO’s well-established position that
`
`the same or similar marks may coexist for different types of computer software is reinforced by its
`
`recognition of “the proliferation of computer programs over recent years and the degree of specification
`
`that these programs have....”
`
`fige Q Farmaco acknowledges, and TriZetto agrees, that the fields of
`
`“health care” and “managed care” are distinct from one another.
`
`_Sfi Farmaco Memorandum,
`
`l5, l9
`
`(distinguishing the “fields of both health care and managed health care” and addressing “software to be
`
`used in the field of health care (or the managed health care field .
`
`.
`
`. .)”; Arnold Decl. 1l2. Moreover, the
`
`types of software recited in TriZetto’s application and the Farmaco registration are not
`
`typically
`
`distributed by the same vendor. Arnold Decl. 1] 4. The factual
`
`inference drawn from these facts in
`
`TriZetto’s favor weighs toward a finding of no likelihood of confusion, and the goods described in the
`
`PHACET Registration and the ’672 Application cannot be said to be confusingly similar as a matter of
`
`law.
`
`The second DuPont factor cannot weigh in favor of likelihood of confusion for purposes of
`
`summaryjudgment.
`
`3.
`
`Similarity or dissimilarity of trade channels.
`
`The facts on the record support a finding that TriZetto and

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket