Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA825798
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`06/08/2017
`
`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
`91207333
`
`Defendant
`IP Application Development LLC
`
`PHIL HILL
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 LEXINGTON AVE
`NEW YORK, NY 10022
`UNITED STATES
`trademarks@kirkland.com, dale.cendali@kirkland.com,
`claudia.ray@kirkland.com, johanna.schmitt@kirkland.com,
`phil.hill@kirkland.com, alison.buchner@kir
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`
`Dale Cendali
`
`dale.cendali@kirkland.com, claudia.ray@kirkland.com, jo-
`hanna.schmitt@kirkland.com, phil.hill@kirkland.com, erika.dillon@kirkland.com
`
`/Dale Cendali/
`
`06/08/2017
`
`Applicant IP Application Development LLCs Trial Brief - PUBLIC.pdf(2535391
`bytes )
`Appendix A - Evidentiary Objections and Responses - PUB-
`LIC_Part1.pdf(4702340 bytes )
`Appendix A - Evidentiary Objections and Responses - PUB-
`LIC_Part2.pdf(4616388 bytes )
`Appendix A - Evidentiary Objections and Responses - PUB-
`LIC_Part3.pdf(2959041 bytes )
`Appendix B - Compendium of Unreported and Non-Precedental
`Cases.pdf(1589278 bytes )
`Certificate of Service.pdf(6913 bytes )
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Opposition Nos. 91207333
`
`
`91207598
`
`
`
`: : : : : : : : : : :
`
`
`
`RXD MEDIA, LLC,
`
`
`Opposer,
`
`
`v.
`
`IP APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Applicant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT IP APPLICATION
`DEVELOPMENT LLC’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................................... 7
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD............................................................................................................. 8
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`IPAD Was Associated With Apple Even Before Apple Announced The
`Tablet ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Apple Considers IPAD As A Mark And Begins Trademark Clearance ................. 9
`
`RxD Selects ipad.mobi To Describe Its “Mobile Internet Notepad” .................... 10
`
`RxD’s ipad.mobi Launched In September 2007 And Was Never
`Successful ............................................................................................................. 13
`
`IPAD LLC Files Applications To Register IPAD For Various Goods And
`Services, And Apple Releases The iPad Device ................................................... 18
`
`After Learning About Apple’s iPad, RxD Tries To Fabricate Trademark
`Rights .................................................................................................................... 20
`
`The PTO Refused RxD’s Application On Descriptiveness Grounds ................... 23
`
`The Board Denies RxD Leave To Amend Its Notice Of Opposition ................... 23
`
`RxD Radically Redesigns ipad.mobi, Attempting To Cause Confusion
`With Apple ............................................................................................................ 24
`
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 25
`
`I.
`
`RXD HAS NOT PROVEN IT HAD TRADEMARK RIGHTS PRIOR TO IPAD LLC .............. 25
`
`A.
`
`RxD’s Use Of “ipad” For Its Internet Notepad Is Descriptive, Not
`Suggestive ............................................................................................................. 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Only Service RxD Has Offered Is A “Mobile Internet Notepad” ................ 25
`
`“ipad” Describes The Function And Purpose Of RxD’s Internet Notepad .......... 27
`
`RxD Has Not Proven That Consumers Perceive “ipad” To Mean “My
`Home” Or “Landing Spot” .................................................................................. 33
`
`B.
`
`RxD Cannot Prove It Had Secondary Meaning As Of IPAD LLC’s
`Priority Dates ........................................................................................................ 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`RxD Must Prove It Had Secondary Meaning In “IPAD” Before The
`Effective Filing Dates Of IPAD LLC’s Applications .......................................... 35
`
`RxD Must Show Acquired Distinctiveness Among A Substantial
`Number Of Its Target Market (18–65 Year-Olds) In The United States ............. 37
`
`None Of RxD’s Evidence Supports A Finding Of Secondary Meaning .............. 38
`
`II.
`
`RxD HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION ............ 48
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`RxD Has Not Proven That The Marks Are Sufficiently Similar .......................... 49
`
`RxD Has Not Proven That The Services Are Sufficiently Similar ....................... 50
`
`RxD Has Not Proven That The Trade Channels Are Sufficiently Similar ........... 51
`
`RxD Has Not Proven That The Services Are Purchased On Impulse .................. 51
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`RxD Cannot Show That Its Use Of “ipad” Is Famous.......................................... 52
`
`RxD Cannot Show It Is The Exclusive User Of The IPAD Mark ........................ 53
`
`RxD Has Not Presented Any Evidence Of Actual Confusion .............................. 53
`
`IPAD LLC Adopted Its IPAD Mark In Good Faith ............................................. 54
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`7-Eleven Inc. v. HEB Grocery Co. L.P., 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1257 (T.T.A.B. 2007) ................34, 50, 54
`
`AcademyOne, Inc. v. CollegeSource, Inc., Civ. No. 08-5707, 2009 WL 5184491
`(E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2009) ..........................................................................................................41
`
`Am. Italian Pasta Co. v. Barilla Alimentare S.P.A.,
`Opp. No. 91161373, 2008 WL 2385971 (T.T.A.B. May 13, 2008) ........................................37
`
`Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Defibrator Aktiebolag,
`208 U.S.P.Q. 954(T.T.A.B. 1980) ...........................................................................................49
`
`Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .......................38, 41, 43, 44
`
`Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Pitts, 107 U.S.P.Q. 2d 2001 (T.T.A.B. 2013) ..............38, 48
`
`Bell Labs, Inc. v. Colonial Prods., Inc., 231 U.S.P.Q. 569 (S.D. Fla. 1986) .................................51
`
`Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016) ..................................39
`
`Blackwall Grp., LLC v. Sick Boy, LLC, 771 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (M.D. Fla. 2011) ..........................51
`
`Boucheron Holding v. Second Wind Consulting, Inc.,
`Opp. No. 91183919, 2009 WL 4075378 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2009)....................................28, 49
`
`Brandwynne v. Combe Int’l, Ltd., 74 F. Supp. 2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) .......................................43
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. McNeil-P.P.C., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161 (2d Cir. 1992) ........................36
`
`Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc.,
`77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1492 (T.T.A.B. 2005) ......................................................................................54
`
`Certified Printers, Inc. v. Crouser & Assoc., Inc.,
`Opp. No. 91167709, 2008 WL 5454158 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2008) ........................................37
`
`Chamber of Comm. of the United States. v. U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Comm.,
`Canc. No. 92045876, 2012 WL 8254590 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2012) .......................................54
`
`Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc.,
`98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2011).......................................................................................54
`
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
`101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...............................................................................31, 36
`
`Columbia Ins. Co. v. Eric J. Delfyette, Opp.
`No. 91177903, 2010 WL 2104143 (T.T.A.B. May 13, 2010) .................................................54
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Cont’l Lab. Prods., Inc. v. Medax Int’l, Inc., 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1548 (S.D. Cal. 2000) ..............42, 43
`
`DeGidio v. W. Grp. Corp., 355 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2004) ..................................................42, 43, 49
`
`Dubliner, Inc. v. The Irish Dairy Board Co-Operative Ltd.,
`Opp. No. 91164315, 2007 WL 2698313 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2007)........................................53
`
`DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.,
`103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012).....................................................................................27
`
`Eglen v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`No. TH 00-135-C-M/H, 2003 WL 21508343 (S.D. Ind. June 12, 2003) ................................41
`
`Gameologist Grp., LLC v. Sci. Games Int’l, Inc.,
`107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1563 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ....................................................................................44
`
`Gen. Foods Corp. v. MGD Partners, 224 U.S.P.Q. 479 (T.T.A.B. 1984) ....................................38
`
`Giersch v. Scripps Networks Inc., 90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1020 (T.T.A.B. 2009) ................................28, 49
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) ...............................................55
`
`Globalaw Ltd. v. Carmon & Carmon Law Office, 452 F. Supp. 1 (D. D.C. 2006) .......................44
`
`Harlem Wizards Entm’t Basketball, Inc. v. NBA Props., Inc.,
`952 F. Supp. 1084 (D. N.J. 1997) ............................................................................................52
`
`Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. v. Business Computer Corp.,
`219 U.S.P.Q. 634 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 1983) ...........................................................................43
`
`Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1720 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .........................26
`
`Ideal World Mktg., Inc. v. Duracell, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 2d 239 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ...........................42
`
`In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 200 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1978) .........................................................26
`
`In re Am. Forever Prods. LLC, 2014 WL 3686873 (T.T.A.B. July 7, 2014) ................................52
`
`In re Audio Book Club Inc., 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1042 (T.T.A.B. 1999) ...............................................40
`
`In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..........................................29
`
`In re Brouwerij Nacional Balashi NV, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1820 (T.T.A.B. 2006) ..............................38
`
`In re Charter One Bank,
`Ser. No. 75/048,394, 1999 WL 1043927 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 1999) .........................................52
`
`In re Christian Happenings Acquisition Corp.,
`Ser. No. 77926930, 2013 WL 2365000 (T.T.A.B. Jan 25, 2013) ............................................29
`
`In re Doctors on Liens, Inc., 2015 WL 7273015 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2015) ..................................49
`
`In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) .......................49, 51, 53
`
`In re F+ Media, Inc., 2013 WL 4635975 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2013) ............................................39
`
`In re Gibson Guitar Corp., 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1948 (T.T.A.B. 2001) ................................................46
`
`In re Gospel Music Channel, LLC, 2008 WL 5454152 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2008) .......................30
`
`In re Hamilton Bank, 222 U.S.P.Q. 174 (T.T.A.B. 1984) .............................................................51
`
`In re Indigo Bay Seafoods, Inc., 2013 WL 5467020 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2013) .............................30
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. 917 (T.T.A.B. 1984) ..............................42, 43, 46
`
`In re Parisi, 2004 WL 2368410 (T.T.A.B. May 28, 2004) ...........................................................41
`
`In re Professional Apparel Co., 2009 WL 1068770 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2009)...............................38
`
`In re Steelbuilding.com, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .....................................................36
`
`In re TriVita, Inc., 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................28
`
`In re White Rock Distilleries, 92 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1284 ..............................................................51, 52
`
`In re Zanova, Inc., 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1300 (T.T.A.B. 2000) .............................................................29
`
`Int’l Bancorp LLC v. Societe de Bains de Mer et Du Cercle Des Etrangers A Monaco,
`66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (4th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................38, 39
`
`J.T. Colby & Co., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL 1903883 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013) ...........29, 50, 55
`
`Jewish Sephardic Yellow Pages, Ltd. v. DAG Media, Inc.,
`478 F. Supp. 2d 340 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2007) .......................................................................40
`
`Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC,
`No. 2016-1089, 2017 WL 2259634 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2017) ................................................53
`
`Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,
`150 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................................50, 56
`
`Kohler v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1100 (T.T.A.B. 2007) ...........................27, 49
`
`Lang v. Retirement Living Publ’g Co., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1041 (2d Cir. 1991) .................................51
`
`Levi Strauss & Co. v. Blue Bell, Inc., 228 U.S.P.Q. 346 (9th Cir. 1985) ......................................38
`
`Lewis Mgmt. Co. v. Corel Corp., 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 1995) ........................42
`
`McCormick & Co., Inc. v. Summers, 148 U.S.P.Q. 272 (C.C.P.A. 1966) .....................................38
`
`Mejia & Assocs. v. IBM Corp., 920 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ..............................................51
`
`Miguel Torres, S.A. v. Bodegas Muga, S.A., 176 F. App’x 124 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..........................53
`
`Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................52
`
`O’Keefe v. Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, Inc.,
`590 F. Supp. 2d 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ......................................................................................50
`
`Order Sons of Italy in Am. v. Memphis Mafia Inc.,
`52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1364 (T.T.A.B. 1999) ......................................................................................34
`
`Otto Roth & Co. v. Univ. Foods Corp., 209 U.S.P.Q. 40 (C.C.P.A. 1991) .............................26, 34
`
`Outdoor Kids, Inc. v. Parris Mfg. Co., 385 F. App’x. 992 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................51
`
`Perma Ceram Enters., Inc. v. Preco Indus. Ltd.,
`23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1134 (T.T.A.B. 1992) ......................................................................................38
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc., 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ...........................34
`
`Prugen IP Holdings, Inc. v. Sawgrass Servs., LLC, Canc. No. 92088354,
`2014 WL 11033181(T.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2014) ......................................................................28, 49
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Republic Tobacco, L.P. v. Newman,
`Canc. No. 92049348, 2013 WL 3168092 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2013) .......................................35
`
`Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. B.E. Windows Corp.,
`44 U.S.P.Q.2d 1455 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ......................................................................................55
`
`Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Auto. Serv. Providers of N.J., 894 F.
`Supp. 2d 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .................................................................................................43
`
`Shade’s Landing, Inc. v. Williams,
`76 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D. Minn. 1999) ..................................................................................41, 44
`
`SLY Magazine, LLC v. Weider Publ’ns LLC,
`86 U.S.P.Q.2d 1243 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ......................................................................................56
`
`Swatch AG v. Amy T. Bernard & Beehive Wholesale, LLC,
`Opp. No. 91169312, 2011 WL 810220 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2011) ..........................................53
`
`Swatch Grp. (U.S.) v. Movado Corp.,
`No. 01-cv-0286, 2003 WL 1872656 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2003) ..............................................53
`
`Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannil Knitting Co., 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1793 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .....................49
`
`Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC,
`90 U.S.P.Q.2d 1112 (T.T.A.B. 2009) ......................................................................................37
`
`Threshold.TV, Inc. v. Metronome Enters., Inc.,
`96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031 (T.T.A.B. 2010) ....................................................................36, 37, 46, 48
`
`Towers v. Advent Software, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................26
`
`Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) .........................................................26
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Franklin Loufrani,
`Opp. No. 91150278, 2009 WL 873129 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2009) ..........................................37
`
`White of Dublin, LLC v. After the Ring, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-120, 2013 WL
`1399337 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2013)...........................................................................................44
`
`Zirco Corp. v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
`21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1542 (T.T.A.B. 1991) ......................................................................................37
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1126(d) .......................................................................................................................37
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 ............................................................................................................................39
`
`Rules
`
`TMEP § 1003 .................................................................................................................................37
`
`TMEP § 1209.01(b) .................................................................................................................27, 28
`
`TMEP § 1209.03(d) .............................................................................................................7, 24, 29
`
`TMEP § 1212 .............................................................................................................................7, 36
`
`TMEP § 710.01(b) .........................................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`RxD Media, LLC (“RxD”) has opposed two of IP Application Development LLC’s (“IPAD
`
`LLC”) applications for IPAD under Section 2(d). Thus, the only issue is whether RxD can meet its
`
`burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) it had trademark rights before IPAD LLC’s
`
`priority dates, which are July 16, 2009 for App. No. 77/913,563 (“the ’563 Application”) and January 25,
`
`2010 for App. No. 77/927,446 (“the ’446 Application”), and (2) there is a likelihood of confusion. RxD
`
`cannot meet its burden for either of these two elements and thus its Opposition should be dismissed.
`
`First, RxD cannot show that it had trademark rights as of IPAD LLC’s priority dates. RxD’s use
`
`is descriptive, not suggestive. All contemporaneous evidence shows that RxD used the term “ipad.mobi”
`
`(and later, after IPAD LLC’s priority dates, “IPAD”) to describe an Internet notepad. In fact, after IPAD
`
`LLC’s priority dates, RxD applied to register IPAD and submitted a specimen that described its service as
`
`an “Internet Notepad.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rejected RxD’s application for
`
`that very reason, consistent with its rule that “i”-formative terms are descriptive when used with a service
`
`delivered over the Internet (like RxD’s Internet notepad). See TMEP § 1209.03(d).
`
`Because its use of “ipad” is descriptive, RxD must prove that it had secondary meaning before
`
`IPAD LLC’s priority dates. It has not met this burden. In other words, RxD cannot show that, as of those
`
`dates, “the primary significance of the term [‘ipad’]” among a significant portion of the consuming public
`
`in the United States was as a source identifier for RxD’s Internet notepad. TMEP § 1212 (emphasis in
`
`original). Not a single secondary meaning factor weighs in favor of a finding that RxD had secondary
`
`meaning. RxD’s ipad.mobi Internet notepad had, at most, a few hundred subscribers, and RxD has no
`
`idea whether these subscribers were located in the United States or whether any of them used the notepad
`
`after signing up. RxD’s revenues have been “very minimal”—only “around a hundred dollars.” RxD
`
`barely advertised “ipad.mobi,” spending only a few hundred dollars on limited online advertisements.
`
`RxD used ipad.mobi for less than two years before IPAD LLC’s earliest priority date, and its use was not
`
`exclusive because many third parties were using “ipad” in connection with notepad software and related
`
`services at the time. RxD produced no evidence or survey showing that any consumer perceived “ipad”
`
`as a source identifier for RxD. On this record, RxD cannot prove that it had trademark rights.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Second, RxD’s Opposition fails for the independent reason that RxD has not met its burden of
`
`proving likelihood of confusion. Because RxD does not have a registration, its claim can only be based
`
`on common law rights in the term “ipad.” Thus, the analysis focuses on RxD’s actual use of its purported
`
`mark. Under the relevant DuPont factors, RxD has not proven that IPAD LLC’s applied-for IPAD marks
`
`are likely to cause confusion with RxD’s use. RxD used “ipad” with the term “.mobi” and as part of a
`
`distinctive logo design, which is different from the applied-for word marks. Further, IPAD LLC’s
`
`applications do not cover Internet notepads like RxD’s “ipad.mobi.” RxD presented no evidence that any
`
`consumers would view the respective marks side-by-side or even use both parties’ services. RxD has not
`
`shown that its mark is famous. Other parties use the term “ipad,” and RxD has no evidence of actual
`
`confusion (survey or otherwise). Thus, RxD has not proven a likelihood of confusion.
`
`Faced with the fact that its Section 2(d) claim is meritless, RxD raises other arguments to confuse
`
`the issues, such as that IPAD LLC lacked a bona-fide intent to use, it was “willfully blind” to RxD’s
`
`rights, and IPAD LLC’s applied-for IPAD marks are descriptive and do not have secondary meaning. But
`
`these grounds were not pled in RxD’s Notice of Opposition and RxD cannot sidestep the elements that it
`
`must prove. Because RxD has not (and cannot) meet its burden of proving either that it had trademark
`
`rights or that confusion based on its common law use is likely, IPAD LLC respectfully requests the Board
`
`to dismiss the Opposition.
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Whether RxD can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had common-law
`
`rights to the term “ipad” as of IPAD LLC’s priority dates (July 16, 2009 and January 25, 2010) either
`
`because (a) its use was inherently distinctive despite RxD using the term to describe its Internet notepad,
`
`or (b) it acquired secondary meaning despite RxD not being the substantially exclusive user of the term,
`
`having minimal revenue, web traffic, and subscribers, engaging in almost no advertising efforts, and
`
`having no evidence that any consumers perceived “ipad” as a source identifier of RxD’s services; and
`
`2.
`
`Whether RxD can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that consumers are likely to
`
`confuse IPAD LLC’s applied-for IPAD marks with RxD’s use of the term “ipad” where, prior to IPAD
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`LLC’s priority dates, RxD consistently used the term as part of the name “ipad.mobi” along with a
`
`distinctive logo design, RxD’s actual services differ from IPAD LLC’s applied-for services, RxD
`
`presented insufficient evidence of fame, RxD is not the exclusive user of the “ipad” term, RxD has no
`
`evidence of actual confusion, and IPAD LLC did not intentionally copy RxD.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`The record consists of the bulleted materials in RxD’s Brief at pages 5–6, but RxD did not list all
`
`of the relevant TTABVUE numbers, including TTABVUE 69–70, 72, 90–103, 107–08, and 112.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`IPAD Was Associated With Apple Even Before Apple Announced The Tablet
`
`Over many years, IPAD LLC’s parent and licensee, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), has developed strong
`
`trademark rights in its family of “i”-formative marks, including IMAC, IPOD, IPHONE, ITUNES,
`
`IMESSAGE, ICLOUD, and IBOOKS. See, e.g., La Perle Tr. 14:2–15:23, 50:4–53:11; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex.
`
`71. Consumers associate these “i”-formative marks with Apple, and Apple owns many registrations for
`
`these marks. See, e.g., TTABVUE Nos. 76–89 (confidential) & 90–103 (public) (collectively, “IPAD
`
`LLC NOR”) ¶ 4 & Exs. 4–27. Given this association, there had been widespread public speculation that
`
`Apple would select “iPad” for a new device. La Perle Tr. 53:20–54:11. In fact, such speculation started
`
`at least 10 years before Apple publicly announced the tablet in January 2010. See, e.g., La Perle Tr.
`
`54:12–64:15; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 72. Examples of such speculation in the media include the following:
`
`• On April 1, 2000, MacRumors, a well-known site discussing Apple and its products, had a
`
`forum thread entitled “iPad? A full mac?,” discussing “the future direction of the rumor[ed]
`
`iPad,” noting “[t]his name has been used to describe the rumored Apple/Palm handheld.”
`
`IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 72 at IPADLLC_0049902; La Perle Tr. 55:6–24.
`
`
`1 “La Perle Tr.” refers to the trial testimony of Thomas La Perle, TTABVUE Nos. 104–06 (confidential)
`
`and 107–08 (public), which also contains IPAD LLC Tr. Exs. 57–73 and RxD Tr. Exs. 39–44.
`
`2 All emphasis in this brief is added unless otherwise specified.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`• On April 17, 2000, The Times reported on a “new Apple device - possibly to be called the
`
`iPad, although there are other Macintosh-related products called this already[.]” Id. at
`
`IPADLLC_004984.
`
`• On January 31, 2002, MacRumors had a forum thread entitled “iPad?,” which discussed “a
`
`rumored PDA/MP3 Player from Apple.” Id. at IPADLLC_005036.
`
`• On April 6, 2002, The Courier Mail reported that “speculation has been rife that [Apple]
`
`would release an iPalm or iPad[.]” Id. at IPADLLC_005064.
`
`• On December 1, 2002, Macworld, a magazine which covers Apple, reported on “Tablets the
`
`Apple Way,” and stating it “should be an extension of the iPod. Think ‘iPad.’ It’s just one
`
`letter off, for heaven’s sake.” Id. at IPADLLC_005107; see also La Perle Tr. 56:6–57:2.
`
`• On February 1, 2003, Macworld panelists discussed, among other things, the potential release
`
`of “The ‘iPad’.” IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 72 at IPADLLC_005128.
`
`• Since at least as early as June 14, 2006, MacRumors had a forum category entitled “iPhone,
`
`iPod and iPad.” Id. at IPADLLC_005113.
`
`
`
`Speculation about Apple’s iPad even prompted a famous 2005 sketch on Mad TV, which
`
`lampooned a fictitious Apple product for women called the “iPad.” La Perle Tr. 57:5–58:23; IPAD LLC
`
`Tr. Ex. 73 at IPADLLC_5056.
`
`La Perle Tr. 59:15–61:23; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 58 at IPADLLC_005758–59, IPADLLC_005763–66.
`
`B.
`
`Apple Considers IPAD As A Mark And Begins Trademark Clearance
`
`Perle Tr. 12:16–14:1; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 57.
`
`In the summer of 2006,
`
` La Perle Tr. 15:19–16:3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. La
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`_3 La Perle Tr. 16:4-24:8; IPAD LLC Tr. Exs. 58. -
`
`La Perle Tr. 16:4-24:8; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 60.
`
`La Perle Tr. 67:8- 20; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 58.
`
`C.
`
`RxD Selects ipad.mobi To Describe Its "Mobile Internet Notepad"
`
`RxD was foWlded by Brian Clements, who was its only employee and officer. KC Tr. 6:7- 17.4
`
`3 Confidential material has been highlighted in this brief for ease of reference.
`
`4 "KC Tr." refers to the trial testimony of Keith Clements, TTABVUE Nos. 73 (confidential) and 72
`
`(public), which also contains IPAD LLC Tr. Exs. 54-56.
`
`10
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`While on a trip to the grocery store, Mr. Clements came up with the idea of developing a “mobile Internet
`
`notepad,” which people could use to create shopping lists and access them remotely when away from
`
`home. B. Clements Discovery Dep. (“BC Dep.”) 36:25–37:23.5
`
`Mr. Clements decided to call this Internet notepad “ipad.mobi.” He purchased the domain name
`
`ipad.mobi on October 14, 2006, along with various other .mobi domain names that he hoped to resell. BC
`
`Tr. 193:4–10, 116:11–118:4, 127:3–128:116; KC 30(b)(6) Dep. 368:4–10, 493:12–167; BC Dep. 36:12–
`
`14, 40:12–25, 75:7–20; IPAD LLC Tr. Exs. 3–4; IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 2 at IPADLLC_004949.
`
`As evidenced below, Mr. Clements chose ipad.mobi because it described his planned “Internet
`
`notepad,” which could be used to jot notes and store lists, just like a paper notepad, but on the Internet.
`
`He also expressly acknowledged that the “i” stood for “Internet,” and the “pad” described a notepad:
`
`• On January 31, 2007, Mr. Clements wrote that his “iPad is going to be a [sic] online mobile
`
`notepad . . . you can type your notes on your pc or phone ect [sic.]” IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 4;
`
`BC Tr. 127:3–128:11; BC Dep. 214:12–16.
`
`• On February 2, 2007, he wrote that “‘i’ actuly [sic] stands for internet ect [sic].” IPAD LLC
`
`Tr. Ex. 1 at IPADLLC_004966–67; BC Tr. 111:22–113:6; KC 30(b)(6) Dep. 193:1–6.
`
`• On March 11, 2007, he wrote that “‘i’ stands for Internet” and “iPad.mobi will be simply an
`
`internet capable notepad site . . . .” IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 2 at IPADLLC_004953 (first
`
`emphasis in original); KC 30(b)(6) Dep. 207:18–208:1.
`
`• On May 14, 2007, he wrote that ipad.mobi is a “mobile note pad.” IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 2 at
`
`IPADLLC_004969; BC Tr. 113:15–114–15; KC 30(b)(6) Dep. 209:16–21.
`
`• On August 17, 2007, he wrote “I don’t think ipad interferes with any others for a ‘mobile
`
`
`5 References to “BC Dep.” are noticed in IPAD LLC NOR ¶ 22.
`
`6 “BC Tr.” refers to the trial testimony of Brian Clements, TTABVUE Nos. 71 (confidential) and 70
`
`(public), which also contains IPAD LLC Tr. Exs. 1–53 and RxD Tr. Exs. 1–38.
`
`7 References to “KC 30(b)(6) Dep.” are noticed in IPAD LLC NOR ¶ 23.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`notepad use’.” IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 6 at WILES000071; BC Tr. 132:11–135:7.
`
`• Around August 26, 2007, he described ipad.mobi’s “purpose” as “an easily accessible
`
`notepad on the go” and noted that “[t]oday most cell phones have a notepad, so do
`
`computers, but [ipad.mobi] is unique because, [sic] there is no synchronization involved to
`
`transfer your notes, To-Do List or even a grocery list from your spouse.” IPAD LLC Tr. Ex.
`
`5 at RXD000032; BC Tr. 128:17–131:15.
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPAD LLC Tr. Ex. 8; BC Tr. 147:3–149:8; IPAD LLC NOR ¶ 23 &
`
`Ex. 97 (noticing KC 30(b)(6) Dep. Ex. 17).
`
`• Mr. Clements’ “nickname” for ipad.mobi on the AdMob online ad-placement service was
`
`“Mobile Notepad” because, as he testified, “[t]here was really nothing else to call it.” BC Tr.
`
`122:13–19; BC Dep. 143:8–16.
`
`• Mr. Clements described ipad.mobi in an online posting as a site “to jot your thoughts
`
`wherever you are.” See IPAD LLC NOR ¶ 23 & Ex. 97 (noticing KC 30(b)(6) Dep. Ex. 48).
`
`• David Wiles, who helped develop the site, testified that Mr. Clements
`
`
`
`43:25–44:20, 52:15–21.8 Mr. Wiles also testified that it was
`
` for Mr. Clements
`
`
`
` Wiles Dep.
`
` Id. at 76:2–5.
`
`At the time Mr. Clements decided to use ipad.mobi, he was aware that consumers associated the
`
`term “iPad” with Apple. In an online forum for “domainers” (people, like Mr. Clements, who were
`
`interested in buying and selling domain names), he recognized the association