Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`ESTTA1270502
`03/07/2023
`
`Filing date:
`
`Proceeding no.
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`Filer's name
`Filer's email
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91246977
`Defendant
`Games Park Worldwide Ltd.
`AL VAN KAMPEN
`VAN KAMPEN & CROWE PLLC
`P.O. BOX 33632
`SEATTLE, WA 98133
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: AVanKampen@VKClaw.com
`Secondary email(s): bfrost@vkclaw.com
`206-386-7353
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`Al Van Kampen
`avankampen@vkclaw.com, bfrost@vkclaw.com
`/Al Van Kampen/
`03/07/2023
`Games Park Trial Brief.pdf(332192 bytes )
`Applicant Appendix.pdf(305555 bytes )
`Cases Compiled - Part 1.pdf(5151324 bytes )
`Cases Compiled - Part 2.pdf(4007903 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GAMES PARK WORLDWIDE LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Opposer,
`
`v.
`
` Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91246977
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICANT’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ................................................................................. 7
`
`A. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT .............................................................................. 7
`
`B. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY OPPOSER ................................................................................. 8
`
`C. OTHER EVIDENCE .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ........................................................................................ 9
`
`III. RECITATION OF THE FACTS ...................................................................................... 10
`
`A. THE PARTIES .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`B. APPLICANT’S ‘684 APPLICATION ..................................................................................... 12
`
`C. APPLICANT’S ‘794 APPLICATION ..................................................................................... 13
`
`D. OPPOSER’S APPLICATIONS............................................................................................... 14
`
`E. DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................... 15
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 17
`
`A. GAMESPARK IS INHERENTLY DISTINCTIVE ................................................................ 17
`
`1. Opposer has Admitted that GAMESPARK is Inherently Distinctive................... 18
`
`2. The Evidence Demonstrates that GAMESPARK is Not “Merely Descriptive” ... 19
`
`a. The Lack of Dictionary Definitions Shows GAMESPARK is Not Used in
`Common Parlance .................................................................................................. 20
`
`b. Amazon’s Reliance Upon Third-Party Websites is Misplaced .......................... 22
`
`i. Any relevant U.S. websites were terminated long ago ........................................ 22
`
`ii. The foreign websites have no evidentiary value ................................................. 24
`
`iii. Opposer’s evidence falls far short of the “ubiquitous” necessary to demonstrate
`GAMESPARK is merely descriptive .................................................................. 26
`
`c. GAMESPARK is Distinctive when viewed in its Entirety ................................. 27
`
`B. ALTERNATIVELY, GAMESPARK HAS ACQUIRED SECONDARY MEANING .................. 30
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 1
`
`
`
`

`

`1. Only a Minimal Showing of Secondary Meaning is Required ............................... 30
`
`2. Applicant has Demonstrated Five Years’ Substantially Exclusive and Continuous
`Use ................................................................................................................................ 31
`
`a. Applicant’s Use Has Been Substantially Exclusive ............................................... 32
`
`b. Applicant’s Use Has Been Continuous .................................................................. 33
`
`c. GAMESPARK is Not Highly Descriptive ............................................................... 34
`
`3. Evidence of Copying Supports a Finding of Secondary Meaning ......................... 35
`
`4. Evidence of Actual Confusion Further Supports Acquired Distinctiveness ......... 40
`
`5. Other Evidence Supports Acquired Distinctiveness ............................................... 46
`
`C. SEARCH ENGINE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT GAMESPARK IS NOT MERELY
`DESCRIPTIVE .................................................................................................................... 47
`
`D. APPLICANT’S SECTION 2(f) CLAIM FOR CERTAIN SERVICES IN THE ‘684 APPLICATION
`IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ‘794 APPLICATION ..................................................................... 48
`
`1. Applicant’s Section 2(f) Claim in the ‘684 Application .......................................... 49
`
`2. Any Concession in the ‘684 Application Does Not Impact the ‘794 Application . 50
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 2
`
`
`
`

`

`INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`20th Century Wear, Inc. v. Sanmark-Stardust, Inc., 815 F.2d 8; 2 USPQ2d 1283 (2d Cir. 1987) ............. 35
`
`24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24/7 Tribeca Fitness, LLC, 277 F.Supp.2d 356; 68 USPQ2d 1031 (S.D.N.Y.
`2003) ........................................................................................................................................................... 48
`
`Adidas America v Skechers USA, 890 F.3d 747; 126 USPQ2d 1769 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................ 36
`
`Adray v. Adry-Mart, Inc., 76 F.3d 984; 37 USPQ2d 1872 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................. 40
`
`American Eagle Outfitters v. American Eagle Furniture, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180912 (N.D. Ill. 2013)
` .................................................................................................................................................................... 48
`
`American Home Products Corp. v. Johnson Chemical Co., 589 F.2d 103; 200 USPQ 417 (2d Cir. 1978)
` .................................................................................................................................................................... 29
`
`American Scientific Chem., Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp., 690 F.2d 791; 216 USPQ 1080 (9th Cir.
`1982) ........................................................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Art Attacks Ink v. MGA Entertainment, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16238 (S.D. Cal. 2007) .......................... 31
`
`Brookfield Commc’ns v. West Coast Entm’t Co., 174 F.3d 1036; 50 USPQ2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1999) ........ 36
`
`Cards Against Humanity, LLC v. Vampire Squid Cards, LLC, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 187 (TTAB 2019) .... 44
`
`Carling Technologies, Inc., 2021 WL 252683 (TTAB 2021) ..................................................................... 39
`
`Centaur Communs., Ltd. v. A/S/M Communs., Inc., 830 F.2d 1217; 4 USPQ2d 1541 (2d Cir. 1987) ....... 35
`
`Citizens Financial Group v. Citizens National Bank of Evans City, 383 F.3d 110; 72 USPQ2d 1389 (3d
`Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................................................................... 44
`
`Coach Leatherware Co. v. AnnTaylor, Inc., 933 F.2d 162; 18 USPQ2d 1907 (2d Cir. 1991) ................... 35
`
`Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F3d 1356; 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............ 31, 46
`
`Coca-Cola Co. v. Seven-Up Co., 497 F.2d 1351; 182 USPQ 207 (CCPA 1974) ................................. 27, 28
`
`Codename Enters. v. Fremantlemedia North Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110284 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ....... 48
`
`Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837; 61 USPQ2d 1688 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................. 31
`
`Commerce National Insurance Services v. Commerce Insurance Agency, 214 F.3d 432; 55 USPQ2d 1098
`(3d Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................................................................. 31
`
`Creel Abogados, S.C. v. Creel, García-Cuéllar, Aiza y Enríquez, S.C., 2022 TTAB LEXIS 226 (TTAB
`2022) ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
`
`Cullman Ventures v. Columbian Art Works Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1257 (SDNY 1989) ............................. 33, 40
`
`Cutlery & More, LLC v. Dasalla Trading Co., 2014 TTAB LEXIS 445 (TTAB 2014) ............................ 45
`
`Dalton v. Honda Motor Co., 425 Fed.Appx. 886 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................. 27
`
`Danish Dairy Bd., Inc. v. Ministry of Commerce & Indus. of the Republic of Cyprus, 1999 TTAB LEXIS
`412 (TTAB 1999) ....................................................................................................................................... 32
`
`Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Melia, Inc., 728 F.3d 55; 108 USPQ2d 1093 (1st Cir. 2013) ................................... 43
`
`Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company, Inc. v. Annick Goutal, 673 F. Supp. 1238; 5 USPQ2d 1305
`(S.D.N.Y. 1987) .................................................................................................................................... 31, 32
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Estate of P. D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents, 252 U.S. 538 (1920) ...................................... 27
`
`Finance Express LLC v. Nowcom Corp., 564 F.Supp. 1160 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................... 36-37
`
`Fisons Horticulture v. Vigoro Industries, 30 F.3d 466; 31 USPQ2d 1592 (3d Cir. 1994) ......................... 39
`
`Fleet Feet, Inc. v. Nike Inc., 419 F. Supp. 3d 919; 2019 USPQ2d 460563 (M.D.N.C. 2019) .................... 50
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Continental Gen. Tire Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1067 (TTAB 2003) ................. 24
`
`HLR Assocs. v. Weiss Assocs., 12 USPQ2d 1819 (TTAB 1989) ................................................................ 45
`
`In re American Furniture Warehouse Co., 126 USPQ2d 1400 (TTAB 2018) ...................................... 50-51
`
`In re Application of Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983) .................................................................. 27
`
`In re Application of Synergistics Research Corp., 218 USPQ 165 (TTAB 1983) ...................................... 34
`
`In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960; 82 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................... 18
`
`In re The Biltmore Co., 2014 TTAB LEXIS 481 (TTAB 2014) ................................................................. 50
`
`In re Canine Caviar Pet Foods, 126 USPQ2d 1590 (TTAB 2018) ............................................................ 25
`
`In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549; 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968) .................................................. 24
`
`In re Corporate Fuel Partners, LLC, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 368 (TTAB 2010) ........................................... 29
`
`In re Doctors on Liens, 2015 WL 7273015 (TTAB 2015) ......................................................................... 27
`
`In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315; 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................ 26
`
`In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 127 USPQ2d 1627 (TTAB 2018) ......................................................................... 25
`
`In re Intelligent Medical Systems, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1674 (TTAB 1987)..................................................... 19
`
`In re J.T. Posey Co., Ser. No. 85206911, Slip Opinion (TTAB 2015) ....................................................... 34
`
`In re Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1455 (TTAB 1987) ........................................................ 21
`
`In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367; 31 USPQ2d 1923 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................. 21
`
`In re MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 340 F.3d 1328; 67 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................... 20
`
`In re Monsterops LLC, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 157 (TTAB 2017) ................................................................. 21
`
`In re Omniome, Inc., 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414; 2020 USPQ2d 3222 (TTAB 2019) .................................. 28
`
`In re Parasoft Corp., 2002 TTAB LEXIS 513 (TTAB 2002) .................................................................... 18
`
`In re PTM Guard, SIA, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 323 (TTAB 2022) ................................................................. 25
`
`In re Quicksilver, Inc., 2012 TTAB LEXIS 203 (TTAB 2012) .................................................................. 29
`
`In re Recover Life Brands, LLC, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 464 (TTAB 2018) ............................................. 25-26
`
`In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222 (TTAB 2002) ......................................................................................... 25
`
`In re ROC USA, LLC , 2010 TTAB LEXIS 433 (TTAB 2010) .................................................................. 34
`
`In re Sausser Summers, PC, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 204; 2021 USPQ2d 618 (TTAB 2021) ......................... 27
`
`In re Serial Podcast, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 2018) .................................................................... 39
`
`In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`In re Strategic Weather Servs., L.P., 2000 TTAB LEXIS 639 (TTAB 2000) ............................................ 25
`
`In re Tennis in the Round Inc., 199 USPQ 496 (TTAB 1978) .................................................................... 29
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 4
`
`
`
`

`

`In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1978) ................................................................. 19
`
`In re United States Well Servs., 2017 TTAB LEXIS 422 (TTAB 2017) .................................................... 18
`
`In re Urbano, 51 USPQ2d 1776 (TTAB 1999) ..................................................................................... 24-25
`
`In re Vanity Fair, Inc., 2007 TTAB LEXIS 348 (TTAB 2007) .................................................................. 21
`
`In re Whitetail Inst. of N. Am., Inc., 2014 TTAB LEXIS 106 (TTAB 2014) ............................................. 34
`
`Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Assoc. v. Corrigan Sport Enters., 2020 USPQ2d 10832, 2020
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130746 (M.D.N.C. 2020) ......................................................................................... 47, 48
`
`Int’l Kennel Club of Chicago v. Mighty Star, Inc., 846 F2d 1079; 6 USPQ2d 1977 (7th Cir. 1988) .......... 43
`
`Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc., 576 F.2d 926; 198 USPQ 151 (CCPA 1978) ........ 50
`
`InTrust Fin. Co. v. nTrust Co., 2016 TTABLEXIS 528 (TTAB 2016) ................................................. 44-45
`
`Invisible Fences, Inc. v. Fido’s Fences, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16663 (E.D. Tenn. 2014) ............... 25
`
`Ironhawk Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., 2 F.4th 1150 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................ 39
`
`Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363;
`116 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1119 (2016) .................................................. 26
`
`Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. Angel L. Reyes & Assocs. PC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157847 (N.D. Tex. 2020) .... 37
`
`Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, 10 F.4th 422; 2021 USPQ2d 849 (5th Cir. 2021) ............ 46
`
`Johnson & Johnson v. Salve S.A., 183 USPQ 375 (TTAB 1974) ............................................................... 32
`
`Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334; 115 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............... 26
`
`L.D. Kichler Co. v. Davoil, Inc., 192 F.3d 1349; 52 USPQ2d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ 32
`
`Lahoti v. Vericheck, 586 F.3d 1190; 92 USPQ2d 1641 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 19
`
`Learning Internet v. Learn.com, Inc., 2009 LEXIS 126180 (D. Or. 2009) ................................................ 19
`
`Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Co., 31 F.4th 1228; 2022 USPQ2d 389 (9th Cir. 2022) ............................ 39
`
`Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922; 33 USPQ2d 1481 (4th Cir. 1995)
` .................................................................................................................................................................... 44
`
`Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C., 121 USPQ2d 1477 (TTAB 2017) ............................ 25
`
`Martha Elizabeth, Inc. v. Scripps Networks Interactive, LLC, 100 USPQ2d 1799 (W.D. Mich. 2011)
` .............................................................................................................................................................. 37, 47
`
`Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC , 118 USPQ2d 1464 (TTAB 2016) .......................................... 30
`
`Mophie, Inc. v. Shah, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185196 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................. 47, 48
`
`Natura Foods, LLC v. Cordoba Foods LLC, 2020 WL 1492533 (TTAB 2020) ........................................ 33
`
`Obe, Inc. v. InSassy, Inc., 2018 TTABLEXIS 487 (TTAB 2018) .............................................................. 43
`
`Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., 953 F.2d 500; 21 USPQ2d 1493 (9th Cir. 1991) ........................... 43
`
`Parrot Jungle, Inc. v. Parrot Jungle, Inc., 512 F.Supp. 266; 213 USPQ 49 (SDNY 1981) ....................... 35
`
`P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2021 TTAB LEXIS 453 (TTAB
`2021) ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Playboy Enters. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020; 69 USPQ2d 1417 (9th Cir. 2004) . 37
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965; 128 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .... 17, 19
`
`Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190; 103 USPQ2d 1161 (9th Cir. 2012) ................. 45
`
`Robinson v. Hot Grabba Leaf, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 96 (TTAB 2019)............................................. 25, 26-27
`
`Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. West Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215; 2 USPQ2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1987) ................... 20, 29
`
`Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc. v. Assara I LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133839 (S.D.N.Y.
`2014) ........................................................................................................................................................... 37
`
`Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144; 102 USPQ2d 1473 (4th Cir. 2012) ................................ 37
`
`Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, 94 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 2010) .............................................................. 25
`
`Select Comfort Co. v. Baxter, 996 F.3d 925; 2021 USPQ2d 520 (8th Cir. 2021) ........................ 43-44, 45-46
`
`Target Brands, Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676 (TTAB 2007) ............................................................... 31
`
`Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc. v. Denver Mattress Co., LLC, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 32 (TTAB 2010) ........... 23, 26
`
`Tempur-Pedic N. Am., LLC v. Mattress Firm, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106456 (S.D. Tex. 2017) ..... 37
`
`Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623; 63 USPQ2d 1659 (6th Cir. 2002) ......................... 43
`
`Timex Grp. USA, Inc. v. Focarino, 109 USPQ2d 1393 (E.D. Va. 2013) .............................................. 23, 29
`
`Tools USA & Equip. Co. v. Champ Frame Straightening Equip., Inc., 87 F.3d 654; 39 USPQ 2d 1355 (4th
`Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................................................................... 46
`
`Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366; 188 USPQ 623 (7th Cir. 1976) ........................ 24
`
`Unique Motorcars v. Carroll Hall Shelby Trust, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 114 (TTAB 2009) ......................... 33
`
`USPTO v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S. Ct. 2298; 2020 USPQ2d 10729 (2020) ...................................... 21, 27
`
`Vail Assocs., Inc. v. Vend-Tel-Co., 516 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 40
`
`VonRosenberg v. Lawrence, 413 F.Supp.3d 437 (D.S.C. 2019) ................................................................. 48
`
`Wallpaper Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp., 680 F.2d 755; 214 USPQ 327 (CCPA
`1982) ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
`
`Yamaha Int'l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572; 6 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............ 32, 46
`
`Zobmondo Entertainment, LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108; 94 USPQ2d 1491 (9th Cir. 2010) . 20
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`TMEP § 710.01(b) ...................................................................................................................................... 25
`
`TMEP § 1212.05(b) .................................................................................................................................... 32
`
`TMEP § 1212.09(a) .................................................................................................................................... 50
`
`TMEP § 1213.05(d) .................................................................................................................................... 28
`
`TMEP § 1604.13 ......................................................................................................................................... 33
`
`15 U.S.C.§ 1052(f) ...................................................................................................................... 9, 10, 31, 32
`
`OTHER
`
`L. Ouelette, The Google Shortcut to Trademark Law, 102 CALIF. LAW REVIEW 351 (2014) .............. 47, 48
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Amazon”) contends registration should be denied
`
`to Applicant’s ‘794 Application on the grounds that GAMESPARK is merely descriptive and has
`
`not achieved secondary meaning. To the contrary, the Board should rule that GAMESPARK,
`
`with no dictionary significance, and no evidence of third-party use in this country, is a unitary,
`
`distinctive mark, with strong elements of incongruity and, accordingly, is inherently distinctive.
`
`Indeed, in related proceedings, Opposer has conceded that its almost identical mark
`
`GAMESPARKS is “inherently highly distinctive“ for similar or identical services.
`
`Alternatively, the Board should find that Applicant’s GAMESPARK has acquired
`
`distinctiveness, including through its substantially exclusive and continuous use for more than
`
`five years, evidence of intentional copying of Applicant’s mark, and evidence of actual
`
`confusion by users of Applicant’s and Opposer’s services. The opposition should be dismissed.
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`A.
`
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT
`
`1. Applicant’s First Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.122(e) & (g) with
`Exhibits G61-G81. 56 TTABVUE 2-36.
`
`2. Applicant’s Second Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.122(e) with Exhibits
`G82-G85. 56 TTABVUE 37-61.
`
`3. Applicant’s Third Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.120(k) and §2.122(g)
`with Exhibits G86 and G91. 56 TTABVUE 62-113.
`
`4.
`
`[Confidential – Applicant’s Third Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.120(k)
`and §2.122(g) with Exhibits G87-G90. 57 TTABVUE 2-10.]
`
`5. Applicant’s Fourth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.120(k) and §2.122(g)
`with Exhibits G92-G94. 56 TTABVUE 114-125.
`
`6. Applicant’s Fifth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.120(k) and §2.122(g)
`with excerpts of the deposition transcript for Julia Bishop. 56 TTABVUE 126-138.
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 7
`
`
`
`

`

`7.
`
`[Confidential – Applicant’s Fifth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.120(k)
`and §2.122(g) with excerpts of the deposition transcript for Julia Bishop. 57
`TTABVUE 11-21.]
`
`8. Applicant’s Sixth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR §2.120(k) and §2.122(g)
`with excerpts of the deposition transcript for Michael Kelly. 56 TTABVUE 139-
`148.
`
`9.
`
`Testimony Declaration of Jacob Enfield. 58 TTABVUE 2-4.
`
`10. Testimony Declaration of Tabitha Parsons with Exhibit 1. 58 TTABVUE 5-9.
`
`11. Testimony Declaration of Alex Mateesco with Exhibits G1-14, G33, G38-G42,
`G44-G46, G48, G52, G53, G55 and G60. 58 TTABVUE 10-350, 60 TTABVUE.
`
`B.
`
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY OPPOSER
`
`1. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s First Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(d) with Exhibits 18-22. 45 TTABVUE.
`
`2. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Second Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(b) with Exhibits 23-26. 46 TTABVUE.
`
`3. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Third Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(e) with Exhibits 27-31. 47 TTABVUE.
`
`4. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Fourth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(e) with Exhibits 32-35. 48 TTABVUE.
`
`5. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Fifth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(e) with Exhibits 36-62. 49 TTABVUE, 50 TTABVUE.
`
`6. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Sixth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37 CFR
`§2.120(k) and §2.122(g) with Exhibits 63-66. 51 TTABVUE.
`
`7.
`
`Testimony Declaration of Jacob Holt with Exhibits 1-17. 52 TTABVUE.
`
`8. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Seventh Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`CFR §2.120(k) and §2.122(g) with Exhibit 67. 72 TTABVUE.
`
`9. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Eighth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(e) with Exhibit 68. 75 TTABVUE.
`
`10. Opposer Amazon Technologies, Inc.’s Ninth Notice of Reliance Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. §2.122(e) with Exhibits 69-78. 70 TTABVUE, 71 TTABVUE.
`
`11. Testimony Declaration of Griffin Parry. 73 TTABVUE.
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 8
`
`
`
`

`

`12. Opposer’s Notice of Filing of Cross-Examination Testimony of Alex Mateesco by
`Written Questions with Cross-Exhibits 1-10. 76 TTABVUE 2-250.
`
`13. Opposer’s Notice of Filing of Cross-Examination Testimony of Tabitha Parsons by
`Written Questions with Cross-Exhibits 1-6. 76 TTABVUE 251-329.
`
`14. Opposer’s Notice of Filing of Cross-Examination Testimony of Jacob Enfield with
`Cross-Exhibits 1-2. 76 TTABVUE 330-432.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`File history for the U.S. trademark application Serial No. 86/102,684.
`
`File history for the U.S. trademark application Serial No. 87/579,794.
`
`Stipulation for the Admission of Certain Evidence at Trial. 44 TTABVUE.
`
`Second Stipulation for the Admission of Certain Evidence at Trial with Exhibit E.
`54 TTABVUE.
`
`[Confidential – Second Stipulation for the Admission of Certain Evidence at Trial
`with Exhibits A-D. 55 TTABVUE.]
`
`
`Applicant objects to Opposer’s attempt to make of record certain testimony and documents.
`
`In Applicant’s Appendix, pgs. 1-11, Applicant sets forth in detail the reasons for its objections,
`
`and submits that the Board should exclude this proffered evidence from the record. In
`
`Applicant’s Appendix, pgs. 12- 26, Applicant responds to the evidentiary objections of Opposer
`
`in its Appendix A, explaining why Opposer’s objections should be overruled.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Whether the ‘794 Application for GAMESPARK should be denied registration
`
`under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1) as “merely descriptive,” despite Opposer’s admissions in related
`
`proceedings, when the term has no dictionary significance and there are no relevant third-party
`
`users even after long use, but whose incongruity requires a “mental pause” to associate it with
`
`the identified services?
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 9
`
`
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Alternatively, whether GAMESPARK has become distinctive for Applicant’s
`
`services under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) as demonstrated by its long exclusive use, third-party
`
`copying, actual confusion, and other evidence establishing its significance?
`
`III. RECITATION OF THE FACTS
`
`A.
`
` THE PARTIES
`
`Applicant Games Park Worldwide, Ltd. is a small company that provides services and a
`
`platform to facilitate the distribution and production of online computer games, including
`
`software for communications between users, and to serve game players.1 Applicant’s websites
`
`are well-known in the gaming community, and offer online discussion and information on video
`
`games, access to and systems to play games, matchmaking and tournament planning, training
`
`and education services about video games, provisions for and display advertising by third parties,
`
`leaderboards for video games, multiplayer social networking, access to computer software and
`
`programs relating to games, and game development resources.2
`
`While the company is small, the GAMESPARK websites have received more than two
`
`million page views, with more than 150,000 games played.3 These websites enjoy hundreds of
`
`backlinks, the equivalent of citations to an academic article.4 Applicant or its service marks
`
`have been the subject of significant unsolicited coverage in the gaming community.5 Amazon’s
`
`1 58 TTABVUE 13-14 at ¶ 11.
`
`
`
`2 58 TTABVUE 10-11 at ¶ 3, 13-14 at ¶ 11.
`
`3 58 TTABVUE 10 at ¶ 3.
`
`4 58 TTABVUE 10, 46-62
`
`5 58 TTABVUE 79-88.
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 10
`
`
`
`

`

`own records show that consumers specifically search for Applicant’s websites when searching
`
`for websites related to gaming providers.6
`
`Applicant or its predecessor has provided services under its GAMESPARK mark since
`
`1999, and substantively exclusively and continuously since at least 2011.7 Contrary to
`
`Opposer’s contention,8 documentary evidence demonstrates continuous use from November
`
`1999, plus testimonial evidence for the period since 2011.9 Opposer’s claim that there is no
`
`evidence of use from April 2011 to March 22, 2014, ignores direct testimony and documentary
`
`evidence to the contrary.10 At all times – except during website maintenance – Applicant’s full
`
`website was available.11 During times when the website was being revised and was not fully
`
`operational, the website linked to games and continued to offer chatroom features.12
`
`Opposer is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.13 Opposer’s first use of GAMESPARKS
`
`was in 2017.14 But Opposer had been aware of Applicant and its use of GAMESPARK since at
`
`least October 2014.15
`
`Game Sparks Technologies Ltd. (“Game Sparks”) began using GAMESPARKS almost
`
`14 years after the first use by Applicant’s predecessor of GAMESPARK.16 Neither Game
`
`
`6 58 TTABVUE 11-12 at ¶ 7; [57 TTABVUE 7-10].
`
`7 58 TTABVUE 14 at ¶ 12.
`
`8 78 TTABVUE 11.
`
`9 58 TTABVUE 14 at ¶ 12.
`
`10 58 TTABVUE 14-15 at ¶ 13, 171-183.
`
`11 58 TTABVUE 14-15 at ¶ 13.
`
`12 Id.; 76 TTABVUE 54:6-18, 58:1-18.
`
`13 56 TTABVUE 143 at 5:19-6:3, 6:11-24, 129 at 4:8-24, 130 at 5:19 to 131 at 6:3.
`
`14 56 TTABVUE 146 at 30:13-18.
`
`15 56 TTABVUE 145 at 20:9-13.
`
`16 Serial No. 87/579,794 8/22/2017 Application at 3; 73 TTABVUE 3.
`
`Applicant’s Trial Brief - 11
`
`
`
`

`

`Sparks, nor Amazon, produced during discovery any evidence that it performed any trademark
`
`search before adopting GAMESPARKS.17
`
`B. APPLICANT’S ‘684 APPLICATION
`
`Applicant filed U.S. application Serial No. 86/102,684 (the “‘684 Application”) on
`
`October 27, 2013, for the mark GAMESPARK.18 The ‘684 Application was prosecuted by an
`
`employee of Applicant without any trademark training, and without any assistance of counsel.19
`
`This application includes a variety of goods and services, w