&
`
`«
`v
`
`>*
`:
`
`efiwé
`1:;
`5:
`ma
`~‘
`$
`*
`N:
`
`_;
`°*
`
`2
`
`as
`«S
`
`“
`-*°§-
`‘»
`«a
`1
`,
`
`-as
`
`A9
`
`§
`3
`
`,
`
`~
`M v
`
`3
`
`*~*
`v
`»
`*
`
`N
`
`s
`9 *9
`
`’**~
`
`>‘
`
`,
`
`I
`J»
`
`xv
`
`«
`,
`as
`
`«
`:
`
`s
`
`X
`
`_
`
`'
`w
`
`z
`
`.
`*
`
`4‘
`
`,§
`gs:
`3»
`-,$.
`\
`,
`N
`:3:
`,
`9
`ea
`4
`£3 W
`,
`;§
`$4
`.,
`«,
`§
`/.
`/
`¢.,
`{A vm «.
`».,
`»s
`:
`\:~
`%<
`éfi
`Q
`”
`F
`4
`3
`«£3
`.4
`~
`agar 4‘,
`'u
`4
`¢ 33
`,
`.9.
`,5;
`4»
`{V
`*‘
`9»
`~«
`42»
`var
`'
`wc
`aa
`a
`wax
`»
`er .$ §
`-3»
`$
`42>
`1%
`9
`4
`<
`
`7
`a
`.1
`,
`P
`»a
`,
`.
`..
`-
`H
`W
`,,
`,,, m
`,
`,,
`.,,
`09° y g
`,
`‘
`.\
`,,
`»,
`»
`.,
`.
`,
`~
`,
`3
`)6’
`<
`5». 9 T
`g,
`&
`,
`xx
`,
`\\<
`\
`V‘.
`;
`L»
`N
`.—
`’
`9 '§
`“
`< UNITEDVSQTATES COURT OF’ L
`«a
`V
`~»
`~°'>‘:*»’r=§‘n$“* "~ ~"*"*%-
`‘-“w—-~25‘
`’”"/we:
`W4?
`%
`$
`««
`/ W «k
`‘
`«,
`'
`‘
`3»
`;
`:
`9
`§ s
`.9,
`.
`, APPEALS ran THE Qmclfl?
`w é
`;
`-a
`4,;
`I
`4; as
`Q
`V
`3.
`:>.-
`:39
`_»
`fig
`.,
`;_ w,
`.,
`,5,
`“V V
`,
`3, $4
`$ v§
`I
`.
`,_
`M
`
`
`’$1<5‘;""*°‘@«~*w2*
`>32}
`""§7
`fig
`ant.
`3
`w
`A
`-:>
`.
`
`q
`
`‘
`wig
`
`c
`
`$
`
`'2-'w"v
`
`~
`
`--j
`
`39.
`$
`
`4,;
`:9
`
`»
`
`233%
`-
`§
`1
`~*»
`
`;
`
`-
`
`~
`
`wk
`,
`Q
`
`'1
`
`'~%§$
`»2
`4;
`.
`Y
`s
`‘&<
`
`.,
`»
`.\
`g
`
`wwa
`,
`
`1
`
`,
`
`A}
`
`41:
`
`,
`N
`4,
`5;‘.
`
`.
`
`,
`y,
`I y&
`R.
`
`K
`
`t
`
`5
`
`v
`
`T
`4»;
`
`s
`
`4.
`
`Y,
`
`.§
`‘,
`
`g
`
`'
`a;
`
`4
`5
`
`4,.
`§
`
`9
`,
`
`K
`‘/
`.,
`,§
`., a Q,
`M Q &
`*\»m
`‘
`,
`
`5
`6,
`
`3
`
`6
`
`,
`g,
`,,,
`
`§\
`.5,
`,
`
`5,
`‘
`.
`3
`
`R
`3
`N
`1
`9
`Ȥ
`3 M
`w 5
`
`_‘
`fin; mg
`W “,0
`.
`;
`g]
`» 4»
`Ar w
`g
`as:
`6%
`;g
`as»
`~
`-.
`~.
`»;
`§
`«s
`fiz
`A ‘>
`I
`4%
`é
`/
`$ @ $4
`r
`V
`?‘*MiISSI;®N’TREKL'i*’D.*CO.:«w M
`,
`.$
`Q 3,
`.
`-
`~
`av
`31:
`«
`y
`vs
`V
`4}» g
`<
`»>,~ g as
`,,
`M
`.$
`~»%v&«.‘
`;_%=$
`:9
`s2»»4.;«:~us>a~
`a
`.,
`,
`.
`g
`“Appellagatmetztlonejg .3. g
`at
`V’
`% vfiwag
`5*’ &\ Q»
`r
`~‘~
`'€«
`»=§:
`«.
`«-
`2
`2» m w 5;
`«*5:
`5,
`.,§ W
`>a
`¢
`@
`‘
`45 §;
`s
`3;, $ :9
`2
`3: $7
`\
`/A,
`9
`4%» ® “:9
`~
`$2
`5*.
`-, 1,
`,
`‘
`9%
`
`3;
`
`_
`~23
`3
`-s‘
`INC,’ gx
`{g
`3
`.42‘.
`A.
`r
`
`xs
`Ǥ
`«=
`
`4
`V
`
`.
`
`,
`% u
`§\
`53
`
`v
`av”
`,
`V
`Q9
`v
`
`;
`,,
`4,
`,Q,.,,
`57- 9
`»«
`2
`
`~$
`.3
`-.
`;&
`.§§
`w L
`.~.
`9
`
`-“
`
`>
`
`aw
`w
`-‘°
`
`»
`..6,
`2
`
`52»
`at
`,»
`
`9
`~$
`K
`
`ss
`~<
`h
`@
`,.
`'
`
`‘
`«
`es:
`
`1
`a.
`'5
`
`V
`«
`
`%
`*
`
`2
`°'
`2a
`avg
`
`~
`ésv
`*4,
`
`5
`;.
`
`$
`~
`>.§o
`
`“*e
`a
`»
`
`,
`W \*
`~
`®
`s
`
`V
`4
`««
`
`¢
`a-
`
`A
`~§»
`W .
`*1
`7
`*Ȥ 4
`4;
`I
`
`«
`4.
`/.
`;
`«
`‘*‘
`» § 2.
`a
`:43
`§
`*1“
`
`x
`,,
`
`3 5‘
`e»
`
`#
`
`.
`9
`9
`
`4*
`gk
`
`
`.**\*
`V.
`kg,
`» é
`,
`‘W *4“
`-r’
`>
`:
`%
`»'
`wt?
`s
`
`‘
`
`g 5
`’
`
`~>
`
`~
`s
`r
`¢
`~a»»
`*
`<»
`*‘
`
`xi
`
`;
`
`ie
`
`V
`
`ax
`,«
`V
`§
`.
`
`,
`
`4-
`
`.2;
`$5»
`4;
`-
`
`»
`z<
`4%
`vg
`gn
`
`)7, w ,4?
`g,
`§
`_
`. M
`3
`4
`«V .{
`baggy
`.,
`$9
`,§
`5 §
`4
`»'
`g
`1% $ 99
`,,
`w ,.
`$*
`§
`..
`
`,,
`
`,
`§
`*»=«@
`., &
`,
`>» *g
`
`A @ ¢
`as.
`x
`.;
`(
`§
`
`<
`
`»
`«wag»,
`§ @
`Q
`Q g,
`*
`\
`.
`an
`A
`
`»
`
`w .
`{,3
`K
`-:9
`2.
`>2,
`2,
`r
`,)
`
`§
`.§Q
`.35
`
`<;«
`3
`:
`9?
`
`»
`$ W
`2»
`§<
`,
`
`.§
`'3;
`.;
`,
`
`,
`-
`
`,
`
`,
`
`§
`5
`
`X
`
`4
`._
`A;
`
`sw
`,
`3
`;,
`,9 E
`_
`,
`
`§
`
`g
`%
`
`Q
`fii
`
`A
`aw
`~>
`
`2
`.,
`((
`\\
`
`.
`e‘
`.
`
`.
`
`§
`
`‘
`
`%{v
`
`2%
`
`®
`
`\.
`9
`.
`w
`"~
`,
`,
`,
`,
`9,
`as w ,
`«:2
`A
`E
`g,
`9
`\
`2,.
`35 &
`,
`2
`.»
`,,
`w .1
`$ ® =
`$}
`r
`'
`§
`A §
`4§..% .,b
`3;
`.
`r§§
`,7
`W _
`% §,,.,_§,
`ny 4%
`sg
`_,
`‘$2
`; § 2
`§ :
`14
`,3
`” g Q ;
`«
`w
`$2 § é
`«v
`\
`fisfi
`at»:
`>
`~
`»-
`§>
`'»9§-gs»
`fizz
`~>av§%,
`%$$ '1
`sf;
`>
`*
`$'‘%<»=a
`‘
`*
`.«
`$~
`as
`»»,
`§ %
`4
`gv
`§<
`<~
`a $« w$
`,
`X-
`a;
`»g
`a &
`3;
`g?
`-
`A,
`I.
`,
`
`,.a
`.,
`iv,‘
`$&
`,
`»
`.3
`§
`N.
`9%‘;
`afigg
`>1
`§»eé»
`y v
`*3
`gr
`x
`-g ;,
`ea
`£- a
`/
`is
`fix
`»
`'
`t
`H
`I
`.;,,
`\O~(/r
`V, V
`V W «
`Se
`‘
`v
`x:
`in W
`.
`<>
`.
`,
`as‘:
`’
`~
`~
`V %
`9/
`§
`<3
`‘*~ §
`§z
`as
`:3? 4
`*/a,
`32-
`92- V‘
`i PETF1‘I@N FOR ‘REVIEW 0F2DECIS1£)N.~OEs\'1?}IE
`’*w«»§«é
`ww
`’%&%
`“N?
`‘
`34$-¢«
`**@z*r
`5‘‘%~''
`- $4?
`’ \‘~~»= ‘»~®«~
`,
`.
`_
`~;
`g,
`Q
`&
`4;» ~$
`5»
`a
`»«
`6
`:3
`=9
`VJ
`.
`§
`.
`’>
`:,
`;,
`,1
`,
`,
`—\
`5 % ,
`Aeymx s EOARD E1 CQ1:3SQLI)A’I ,,D‘;Q,?P:@§1:1‘K?TS 3“ 1»
`’€°
`'
`x
`9
`J,
`. w gm
`«
`ax
`«$3
`<
`a
`—
`‘s
`4
`&°
`»
`~ wage
`45
`‘
`e»
`3%
`g
`«
`4
`o
`.~
`A
`.
`Q
`¢
`’
`~
`L
`Q
`~
`*9’116‘58i5
`CANQELLATION 1~a..92@44538,»
`» k § a
`I
`is?
`an
`5?
`.<
`-<
`3
`~
`~
`$3
`ea
`«
`é»
`yr
`,«
`a «
`‘
`&
`ze
`s§
`-31
`.5;
`«
`x
`V‘
`..
`V
`.
`.
`;a
`va.
`as
`.3;
`«x
`a;
`.;
`~
`fix -.§.
`4
`s
`% ¢
`>
`3.
`V
`‘§°
`,»
`av W
`,»
`2
`3;: §,
`,
`e
`§;
`;§
`~
`‘
`«
`..
`.
`~’Q
`-=.
`5
`,
`,
`I:
`/V.
`N
`'4 W
`y
`
`/I»««%
`x8}:
`»«$~$\*.é«:z
`§§¢§
`,,
`a
`;»
`g
`..~
`»»\§\.
`»~a
`2*»
`*9
`%-AQ
`aw-age.
`&§.»§;
`489%,
`5“.
`£9
`» V
`‘s
`,.
`.93.
`y «
`s'g°
`ax
`\
`a
`«
`2
`'«
`‘*
`96'
`'
`$3“ "Q
`&~
`§%-%
`as
`”" ‘iv
`*8
`w .
`as
`é
`<% V we
`-»
`9
`x»
`,1
`-\ Q
`»
`xqfi
`—
`'3;
`$5
`ax <§- V
`I»
`32,, W /
`«fix
`.-
`/,
`1:
`y 3
`;‘
`,
`‘& ‘age
`,«
`-
`3
`§
`“*
`2 W W \
`43%.
`V
`»
`(
`25
`-‘£4
`‘E
`g
`fig,
`24
`%<wv'~~-‘wwv
`iwée/¢%§»r.$§§~
`2&9‘
`*
`W
`0F%APP:E:L«L»AN#F; MISSIONTREIQ L'i’B.~ c.«y
`A
`.§
`y
`»‘
`-
`N‘
`»»<
`is
`;g:
`‘€\
`2-
`war
`.
`*‘
`—y
`‘
`‘*4
`A
`,,
`§
`1
`ea
`& 4
`365
`t:
`§ .
`,§
`Q’,
`;
`4;’
`é=
`¢ W wg ..
`~
`»%~
`*3 «
`29%
`” m M‘
`v
`_
`wz
`av
`,
`$ “,2
`,.
`,,
`»,
`,
`,
`_, w.
`2» § 3
`I
`,% W .4
`,5
`.;
`.
`‘I, “ ,».
`M» g ,
`3 Q
`;_
`ig
`$ ‘*5
`~ W *«
`3»
`'
`~
`“*‘
`$
`‘
`‘«
`42*
`‘
`‘<7 $
`*
`§
`‘
`‘
`<
`‘£3?
`*3?
`*
`g,
`35
`,
`Ph.D{’.JDw .5?
`~$ we
`.e % «
`.
`5:
`«
`\-
`rs.S}ferm’a2n,Df
`$4
`;
`1* K \
`,
`,;
`‘
`)_
`.,
`4
`5,. .® g,
`;% 1;,
`45'
`., §
`/, §
`\\.
`%
`,5, Q
`.§,,,
`.
`» hm ,
`, w W .M1@1]Q,gar,é;34gg3;,,Suz£e,,3,450 ., W fig
`3» ,2
`;
`xuafi
`%*&v%
`j
`,
`as
`s, {I
`X.’
`»&
`V
`.
`w
`E
`,g,
`2-
`w
`3?
`$ y._
`*/ $ was
`4,
`'
`@ *$?
`‘v
`92
`x‘
`53
`2%
`>:
`‘
`“$1 Ph"Xofze".n Q5.
`2 w ,3
`3,
`-’v~%
`»~
`»
`is;
`“%-Xw
`g
`.
`$4,
`91 §,,,
`xmg
`~ » w ~
`aw 1ECé'.1C328J*333-*9!-4:4&»»&«
`.»
`was
`“J2?-av
`'~"$’&¢~‘&«> ‘st«~
`“W »'<"a<
`~
`«gg
`Q
`v.
`;
`$7
`«vs:
`«\
`=.
`.5»
`~w)<..
`.4
`:% g
`Cr
`2:
`-
`’
`,3.
`'«
`3
`aés
`;« §. gs
`m a.
`r
`-
`2% K5,
`- ®
`..
`«-
`§\
`..
`‘“
`‘
`y M M Q‘
`‘
`V Atrorneyf0‘r**Petitioner§
`*'
`'%®
`' @ ~
`fig.
`33?»
`~»
`32.
`~
`r
`a°
`2
`gy
`xs
`§§;
`’
`«#9
`aw
`,
`;
`Q % ,1,» a M
`;
`:2;
`,»,,
`\
`~,&
`K
`»
`§,
`—
`ét $= .1;
`.
`V V;
`§»=
`~,
`= 2},
`q} 3;
`g.
`J $' $ ,
`.x
`4
`*8‘
`V
`,3
`./,.
`.
`& g
`»; $4‘
`.
`g:
`«e
`,.
`.
`,«
`,
`»
`,5.
`.;
`V
`.A>>>~«
`«~§§~&'
`-
`3
`z2.«»~.
`sag.
`'§
`. N
`A\
`7% fix
`.9?
`,§-
`Y
`?
`-@
`’?
`2:
`5*
`:2»
`r
`4%
`
`Q ~
`2.4%
`>
`,% 5
`_@ g
`3,.
`,
`1% Q,
`»
`$24,
`.
`
`-'
`
`,_
`,»
`‘
`‘,
`
`4*
`,
`
`»
`
`-.
`as
`
`»
`H
`‘
`;;y-
`$9
`,;7
`g
`w
`
`°'
`
`«K W’
`
`§
`cs
`~‘
`$4
`aa
`2
`
`V
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`,z
`
`x~
`"
`
`A
`
`“S
`
`~
`*‘
`
`W
`
`»..W..,._...._...,
`
`,. ,.
`
`,,
`
`.,
`
`I‘
`
`._.
`
`~
`‘V -
`
`M
`
`V} V
`_*%—~&
`.
`. m
`0”
`#~
`M
`g:
`V
`»,
`at
`<a=
`
`,2
`
`** §
`
`ae
`
`~
`Q
`
`2
`gs?
`
`,
`«<
`a
`3%
`
`»
`3.
`
`a
`g,
`‘~
`
`;
`.9;
`x‘
`2 $
`
`0
`
`§
`
`h
`...
`~& =e<«
`é
`»
`
`9
`».
`
`___‘
`
`'2’
`w
`fix
`.
`.
`»e
`,, W
`9%
`"
`
`39
`
`««
`
`/<
`I?
`
`sfivrgs
`5
`.
`w
`
`>
`
`3*
`2
`oz
`
`A‘
`
`_
`48
`
`*3:
`sap
`48'
`
`J
`13;
`
`§«
`»>
`
`,
`
`}
`y
`
`3:
`A‘
`
`1
`
`,,,
`.$,a ,
`-gv
`.
`
`=5
`
`«av
`
`Q
`*‘
`
`a
`é
`
`as
`9:91
`
`”
`
`a«
`9»
`
`>3;
`-
`
`‘
`
`4
`
`g
`.9
`o.
`
`\,
`
`.,,,
`%
`g‘
`aw
`
`»<
`
`.v.
`/
`
`""'“
`
`§,
`,
`
`«
`
`.2
`'”'
`
`V
`
`g
`
`<
`*
`5*
`I’? v
`*
`3
`‘
`
`,
`”
`“Q
`> §
`.}
`
`8‘
`3;‘
`y
`,,
`
`'
`‘fif
`
`~"-
`*5‘ $ '
`'
`\*
`
`w
`~*
`~*
`
`.~s
`V»
`
`~
`
`*’
`
`‘
`v««
`
`~
`
`-
`V
`x
`
`y
`»
`
`:
`*5‘
`v
`%*4‘
`&
`3
`
`v
`Q
`,
`g
`’§‘ Q
`4;
`@;
`
`:4
`“
`9
`
`-3
`¢
`
`3
`2»
`
`V
`*3
`
`‘.
`w
`
`*
`92
`if
`§
`«-
`%
`
`a
`»
`
`«
`5
`>5
`»;
`P»
`% ‘@ ‘
`3
`&
`§-
`m #3;
`-)6Q
`,
`.
`g
`&
`aw
`vm
`.
`4
`Q5
`.
`*
`g
`*<
`*3
`'~
`5‘
`9 «f;
`axm-«4
`~
`fiwa
`%v§sv
`~
`fie »« * M ~
`°v’&«x
`fix?
`‘
`‘Q 134-
`’§ % 3;
`4
`rév
`% §
`‘
`
`~
`«W J
`’
`
`«.6
`>%
`-¢
`
`'
`
`"
`
`® «
`» $
`L
`
`«
`.;®
`*-
`
`” V
`»
`$-
`»
`~;
`
`*'
`»;
`
`f
`@~««4
`r
`$
`“
`
`«
`4;,
`
`,5,
`
`\
`
`1:
`
`I
`
`:»
`4‘
`
`,1
`
`at
`£4
`~*“
`
`N$<
`3
`
`o
`
`1
`:§
`a
`
`.
`
`w 4*
`
`,
`.—
`
`Q
`
`V
`«s
`&&
`in
`Q
`
`0,2
`Q
`\
`,
`§
`3“
`...
`«$sa
`_
`*9.
`
`5
`
`_
`V
`
`§
`.,
`
`,1;
`:
`~*
`
`’
`,
`
`.1
`
`,9;
`.
`
`1g»
`3,
`
`5
`
`§
`,,
`*”
`e
`as
`$
`.3
`,
`V
`
`: 9
`/gwa
`.
`,
`1
`)(-)
`‘E, 6
`*
`;
`
`g
`A
`
`,_g
`£1 w
`;x
`
`,.
`»
`
`7,
`
`$23
`A
`,V
`K
`r
`%
`Q‘,
`
`,
`&,
`,2
`
`>3-g
`9
`a
`
`K5
`
`§
`§
`
`W
`,3
`
`g
`
`
`‘
`E
`
`4
`xe
`
`V
`
`H
`
`y
`
`Q?
`
`R
`
`fig
`fia
`_»v
`$3 §
`
`—v
`a, ¢
`x
`Q».
`
`,9
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`1
`
`' UNITED STATES COURT OF
`
`APPEALS FOR mm FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.,
`
`Appeilant/Petitioner,
`V.
`
`ON‘FOLlO, INC,
`
`Appe1Iee{R_esponde.nt
`
`3
`;
`
`PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE TRAD TRIAL
`
`AND APPEALS BOARD IN CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION NO.
`
`931653.15 AND CANCELLATION NO. 92044538
`
`CORRECTED BRIEF
`
`OF PETITIONER MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.
`
`Sherman D. Pemia, Ph.D., JD
`1110 NASA Parkway Suite 450
`Houston, Texas 77058-3346
`
`Phone: 281-333-0880
`Fax: .281-333-9.7 44
`
`Aztorrzeyfor Peziriorzer
`
`Apr£125, 2006
`
`

`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Inieresi
`
`Form 9
`
`UNITED STATES (fOUR"I" OF APPEALS FOR THE i?ED£RAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`MISSIONTREK LTD: CO:v_ ONFOLIO;
`INC‘?
`
`..'o. 2006-‘! 2?’!
`
`CERTIFICATE OF m"rEREs*’r
`
`Counsel for the (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appeflee) (erfiicus) (name of party)
` , __ certifies the foilowing (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets
`if necessary):
`
`The full name of every pany or amicus represented by me is.
`I<§
`MISS ZOWTREK LTD : CO 1
`
`,
`
`
`
`The name of the real. party in interest (if the party named £11 the caption is not me real
`2.
`: party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`
`
`All parent corporations and any publiciy heid companies that own 50 percent or more
`3.
`. af fire stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`NONE
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`corporation as listed in paragaph 3.
`E] There is no
`The names ofaail ‘law firms and the partners or associa2e§’th'ef ‘appeared for the party ‘
`.
`or amicus new ‘represented by me in the trial court or agency or areexpected to appear m tins
`court are:
`
`sags;
`
`2393:1122, 2006 V
`Date
`
`
`
`iii
`
`'
`-
`
`,
`
`-—
`
`.»...
`Signature of counsel
`-/
`
`Sherman ‘ D . Persia
`Printed name of counsel
`
`

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

`
`2006-1271
`
`4
`
`I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Anderson. v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 216
`
`(1986) ................................................................................
`................... ..p. 9
`AMP} Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 350 (9th Cir. 1979) ...........p. 10
`
`Bell v. Commercial Insurance Co., 3 Cir., 280 F.2d 514........................ ..p. 10
`
`Carlisle Chemical Works, Inc., Hardmcm & Holden, ‘Ltd, :38 CCPA 751, 434
`
`F. 2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110 (1970) ......................................................... ..p. 10
`
`Conroy v. ReebokIn.t’l, Ltd , 14 F.3d 1570, 1575, 29 USPQ2d 1373, 1377 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994) ............................... .; .......................................... ..p. 9
`
`Celotex cap. 1!. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) ........................ ..p. 14
`
`Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixskooters Inc, 251 F.3d 1251, 1265 (9"' Cir. 2001)
`
`....................................................................................... ..p. 13
`
`Federal Practice & Procedure
`
`§
`
`2726,
`
`at
`
`446
`
`(3d
`
`ed.
`
`1998)
`
`............................................................................................................ ..p. 12
`
`In re Citizens Loan & Sav. Co., 621 F.2d 911,
`
`.913 (8th Cir. 1980)
`
`(acknowledging that specific facts tending to discredit a key witness couicl
`
`create a genuine issue for trial). . ............................................................ ..p. 12
`
`Lodge Music Hall, Inc. v. Waco Wrangler Club, Inc. , 831 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir.
`
`1987) .................... ..' ...................................................... .;........................ ..p. '12
`
`Loral Fairc/zild Corp. v. Mazsus/zita Elec. Indus. Co, 266 F.3d 1358, 1363
`
`(Fed; Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory commi.ttee’s note (1963
`
`Amendment) ........................................................................................... ..p. 13
`
`Minnesota Specialty Crops, Inc. v. Minn Wild Hockey Club, LP, Civ. No. 00-
`
`2317 (D. Minn. O7/26/02) ....................................................................... ..p. 14
`Tifi'an_y v. National Gy_psum Co. _, 59 CCPA 1063, 459 F. 2d 527, 173 USPQ 793
`
`(1972) ...................................................................................................... ..p. 10
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`‘on
`
`Typeright Keyboard Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, 03-1197,-
`
`1255 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2004)
`
`13
`
`Sartor
`
`v. Ark. Natural Gas Corp,
`
`321 US. 620, 628-29 (1944)
`
`................................................................................................................ ..p. 12
`
`

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

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

`
`2006»! 271
`
`8
`
`of confusion, and then granted Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
`
`dismissing the case with prejudice. Appeliant filed a timely Notice of Appeal,
`
`and subsequently this Brief on Appeal.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`The TTAB granted Appeiiees Motion for Summary Judgment on the
`
`grounds that it appears there is no likelihood of Confusion and because the
`
`evidence of actual confusion proffered by Appellant was not “credible.” Under
`
`these facts, in which the similarity of the products is admitted and the Appeilant
`
`I
`
`is the senior user and therefore entitled to deference on the issue of likelihood
`
`of confusion, the case law of the Federal. Circuit should be interpreted in favor
`
`of Appellant. The case law at issue here is whether credibility of the evidence
`
`of actual confusion is a proper grounds for granting summary judgment in favor
`
`of Appellee. Appeilant asserts that such grounds are not sufficient under the
`
`case law of the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the grant of summary judgment _
`
`should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings before the
`
`TTAB.
`
`

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

`
`2006-1271
`
`10
`
`to some deference on the issue of likelihood of confusion (as per the Newcomer
`
`Rulez), the case law of the Federal Circuit should be interpreted in favor of
`
`Appellant. The case law at issue here is whether the methodology used in
`
`performing a preliminary survey of actual confusion is a proper grounds for
`
`granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellant asserts that such
`
`grounds are not sufficient under the case law of the Federal Circuit,
`
`particular, as supported in C,
`
`i, below. Consequently, the grant of summary '
`
`related the goods sold under the respective marks, the more likely that
`confusion may result, requires that the Court reverse the Board’s decision on
`Summary Judgment, because, given that the products are identical, and
`include more than one similarity in the trademark, there is more than a ale
`minimus material fact issue raised as to likelihood of confusion. AMF, Inc.
`v. Sieekcraft“ Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 350 (9th Cir. 1979).
`“
`Regarding the Well-established Newcomer Rule, a newcomer or junior
`user should not be surprised when conflict arises with a senior user. “It is
`we'l.l-settled that one who adopts a mark similar to the marl< of another for
`closely related goods acts at his peril and any doubt there might be must. be
`resolved against Carlisle Chemical Works, In.c., Hardman sf: Holden,
`Ltai, 58 CCPA 751, 434 F. 2d 1403, 168 USPQ 110 (1970). See Tzfi'art_y 1:.
`Naziona1'Gypsum C0,, 59 CCPA 1063, 459 F. 2d 527, 173 USPQ 793
`(1972) (rule applies in opposition proceedings). Applying the Newcomer
`Rule here, where the goods are admittedly identical, a newcomer should be
`required to exercise extreme caution not to infringe the preexisting rights of
`principal competitors. This newcomer, Onfolio, has utterly failed at
`exercising reasonable care. Further, where copying is so obvious, copyright
`and patent infringement issues are raised which further aggravate the
`Appellee’s lack of good faith.
`in addition, the determination of good faith is
`_ a fact issue which is rnaterial in this case as it will determine the standard of
`good faith here, namely, the efforts the newcomer must take in this case to
`avoid A.ppellant’s rights. Bell v. Commercial Insurance Co., 3 Cir.. 280
`F.2d 514. Consequently, on this ground as well, the TTAl3‘s "holding must
`be reversed.
`
`

`
`20064 271
`
`11
`
`judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings
`
`before the TTAB.
`
`A second issue is whether any survey evidence of actual confusion
`
`trumps speculative assessments of likelihood of confusion so as to preclude
`
`granting of summary judgment.
`
`In section C, ii, below, it is clear that this is
`
`indeed the case. Consequently, the Court should reverse the decision on grant
`
`of summary judgment and remand the case to the TTAB for
`
`further
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. Controlling Case Law in Support ofReversal
`
`i. Credibilitv of Survev Evidence is Itself a Fact Issue that Precludes Summary
`
`Judgment
`
`In the TTAB’s statement that “the survey‘ does not raise a. genuine issue
`
`of material fact with respect to similarities of the parties’ respective marks”
`
`nonetheless applies a factual inquiry reviewing the methodology applied to and
`
`credibility of the survey which preclude the grant of summary judgment.
`
`In
`
`other words, summary judgment was improper because genuine issues remain
`
`as to the credibility of the evidence of actual confusion. Typeright Keyboard
`
`Corporation 12. Microsoft Corporation, 03-1197, -1255 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2.004).
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`12
`
`The TTAB points to a number of facts as supporting its doubts as to the
`
`credibility of the proffered evidence. Under the facts of the instant case, in
`
`which evidence of actual confusion is submitted, summary judgment. should not
`
`have been granted. Summary judgment is not appropriate where the opposing
`
`party offers specific facts that call into question the credibility of the mova.nt’s
`
`witnesses. See Sartor v. Ari: Natural Gas Corp, 321. US. 620, 628-29 (1944)
`
`(reversing summary judgment where the only evidence in support of the
`
`movant’s contention was the testimony of its experts and there were specific
`
`bases for doubting the credibility of that testimony); Charles Aian Wright et at,
`
`Fedemz Practice & Procedure § 2726, at 446 (3d ed. 1998) (“ilk the
`
`credibility of the movant’s witnesses is challenged by the opposing party and
`
`specific bases for possible impeachment are shown, summary judgment should
`be denied and the case allowed to proceed to trial. . 3’); see also Lodge Music
`
`Hall, Inc. v. Waco Wrangler Club, 1220., 831 F.2d 77, 81 (5th Cir. 1987)
`
`(“While the mere claim that an affidavit is perjured is insufficient, where
`
`specific facts are alleged. that if proven would call the credibility of the moving
`
`‘pa,rty“‘s witness into doubt, summary judgment is improper.’‘); In re Citizens
`
`Loan cit Say. Co., 621 F.2d 911, 913 (8th Cir. 1980) (acknowledging that
`
`specific facts tending to discredit a key witness could create a genuine issue for
`
`trial).
`
`

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

`
`2006-1271
`
`.14
`
`judgment
`
`in the
`
`registranfs favor
`
`(emphasis
`
`added)
`
`because
`
`the
`
`Appe.i1antz’Opposant had introduced a consumer survey as evidence of acxual
`
`confusion —-
`
`the sixth part of the hkeiihood-of-confusion test.
`
`.Mim2e.soz‘a
`
`Speciahjy Crops, Inc. v. Minn. W?Ia’ Hockey Club, LP, Civ. No. 00-2317 (1).
`
`0736102) (survey was sufficient io survive sumrnary judgment). Ceiozex:
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US. 317, 326 (1986) (stating that summary ;'udgment is
`
`appropriate after adequate zimefor discovery and upon motion, against a party
`
`who fails to make a ‘showing sufficient to establish the existence of an eiernent
`
`essential to that party’s case).
`
`‘By disregarding Appellanfs evidence of actual confusion, the
`
`denied the Appellant irnponant grounds for relief under the Federal Anti
`
`Dihnzion Statute. The grounds for relief are that there is actual evidence of
`
`confusion which should trump any ad izoc interpretation of the Board that such
`
`evidence should not be considered in a summary judgment hearing as being
`
`without credibility.
`
`Thus, it is ciear that survey evidence is considered sufficient to survive
`
`summary judgment. Appellant offered survey evidence of ectuai confusion’
`
`here. Consequently, granting Appe11ee’s Motion for Surnrnary Judgment, was
`
`not proper and the decision should be reversed.
`
`

`
`2006-1271
`
`-an U’!
`
`IX. CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`The credibiiity of Appelianfis survey data was a genuine issue of
`
`material fact raised in the case. Because a genuine issue of material fact
`
`remained in the case, granting of Appeiiee’s Motion for Summary Judgment by
`
`the TTAB was not proper.
`
`THEREFORE, Appellant hereby prays that
`
`the decision granting
`
`Appeiiee’ Motion for Summary Judgment be reversed and the case be
`
`remanded to the TTAB for further proceedings.
`
`Appellant: MISSIONTREK LTD. CO.
`
`Date: _ BY.
`
`Sherman D. Pemia, Ph.D.. 113
`
`Reg. No. 34,404
`Texas State Bar No. 24004856
`
`1110 NASA Parkway, Suite 450
`Houston, Texas 7705843346
`Phone: 281-333-0880
`Fax: 281-333-9144
`
`'
`
`
`
`

`
`2006-12?1
`
`X. JUDGMENT, ORDER OR DECISION IN QUESTION
`
`

`
`THIS OPIN'IO?\" IS NOT CITABLE
`
`AS PRECEDE;,=T Op
`THE ,1, T x B
`‘ “ ‘
`
`’
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OF‘F1CE
`Trademark Tria! and Apwl Beard
`PO. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 223‘:3-1-“=51
`
`j
`
`Butler
`
`Mailed: November 29, 2005
`
`Opposition.No. 91165315
`cancellation No. 92044538
`
`Missicntzek Ltd. Co.
`
`v.
`
`Onfolio,
`
`Inc.
`
`Before Hairston, Chapman and Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark
`Judges.
`
`By the Board:
`
`Plaintiff seeks to canes} defendant's registraticn of the
`
`mark OEFOLIG for “computer software for capturing, organizing and
`
`sharing on-line cantent."1 ?laintif£ spposes registration of
`
`defendant‘s mark shown below
`
`
`mu
`
`also for “computer ssftware for capturia , organizing and sharing
`
`on~line cnntent.”3 A3 grounds for the complaints, plaintiff
`
`alleges that defendant's marks, when used on the identified
`
`goods,
`
`so reaamble p1aintifi’s previous_y used and registered
`
`_~__________________w_
`
`issaed 3-Eavemb-er 23, 2004, c1.ai.mé.ng use an-:3
`Registration 260. 2994982,
`use in commerce since December 4,
`G3.
`?his regiscr‘tiQn is the
`§ubjeaz oi Cancel} tien fl
`. 926445
`.
`‘ Appiicatjon Serial N9. ?83§0232, filefi January 3&, 2.
`Trademark Act §1{a}, claiming use and use in cammerce
`4. 2063.
`'§3')ia a§.»p3.ica'r'..2':.m is £219 Subject cf Opposition 52>.
`
`9
`
`

`
`opposition fio. 91163315 and Cancellation No. 9204é538
`
`mark CAR?AGIO as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake er to
`
`deceive.
`
`?;aintéff further alleges that its CART.GIO mark is
`
`registered for “computer software, namely internet navigation
`
`software,
`
`that is,
`
`internet brewsers; computer hardware in the
`
`nature of database and computer management equipment;
`
`interne:
`
`research and cost accounting software; software is: basting
`
`computer servers, and user manuals sold as a uni:."3 More
`
`particularly, plaintiff alleges that the marks are simiiar
`
`L-.3
`because **ey both begin with round letters {“C” 5&5 “O”); and in
`
`the game letters “:0”; “have the same number cf letters"; ane,
`
`when spoken, have the same number 0: syllabies and the same
`
`accent.
`
`This case now comes up an éefendant’s nearly identical
`
`moticns for summary judgment, filed in each proceeding on July 5,
`
`2805. De§endant’s mutions were filed prior to the due dates Ear
`
`its answer in each case. Plaintiff filed nearly identical
`
`responses to the summary judgment mations, and defendant replied
`
`thereto in each case. Before turning to the summary fiudgment
`
`mctions,
`
`the Board addresses some preliminary matters.
`
`The Board has reviewed bath 05 the abcve~identified
`
`grcceefiings and find that consclifiation is apprepriate inasmuch
`
`W(0
`
`(‘V 3{D
`
`ff a0
`
`u0
`
`'0
`
`ceedings involve the same parties and common
`
`%estione of law and fact. Consoiiéation mav be srdereé on the
`
`Board's 3%; ifiiffietive.
`
`See Fee. R. Civ. ?. eiia); Regatta
`
`
`
`K} o\
`
`ix} (3 (J b)
`
`in 3(J.-
`
`1’) ‘.1 I1! I :2 [-31.!xi} Li J! D
`
`

`
`Cgpcsition No. 31165315 and Cancellation Na. 92044538
`
`spurts Ltd. V.
`
`€92”.-;ianeer,
`
`1nc., 29 §8?Q N (I).
`
`3.!
`
`30-‘ UV .4‘.
`
`~4)‘« 1»?pa‘I1:‘b)
`
`5-} H1") U.) I...9
`
`Estate of 32:9 V; Sic Cbrp., 18 §S-Q2d 1382 {TTAB 1991}; and Tam;
`
`ft}:
`
`511 {2d ed. rev. 23043.
`
`The Board may exercise its discreticn
`
`in erdering cansaiiéatiea prior as ficinéer of issue {i.e., befare
`
`an answer has been filed in each case).
`
`see ?3%? §S11 {2d ed.
`
`rev. 2004}. Rare we find csnsolidaticn prior to joinder of issue
`
`is appromriate.
`
`ACC0rfiiD§1Y. figpssiticn fie. 33165315 anfi Cancellation fie.
`
`92044538 are hereby ccnsolidated and may be presented an the game
`
`My
`reccrés anfi.bxie s.
`
`The zeccré will be maintained in Gsoosition
`
`fin. 91165313 as the “parent” case, but aii papers filed in these
`
`cases should ixclude both proceeding numbers is the aria: shcwn
`
`in the cagticn af':2is consclifiatei case.
`
`Fla fed»
`
`ntifé segarately sought to suspend bath praceeéiags
`
`{J
`.3
`§e.§i g fiispasition 05 a third~parzy cancellation mraceeéing
`)
`?‘;!“'a:l
`4.‘...
`1'‘)fax
`3C.I
`up
`tion
`
`‘o. 92Qé§~5§ bezween nlaintzff narein, as
`
`K}!
`
`petitioner. ané Pater Corées, as defenéaat}. This zatter
`
`proceeding invoives a registration for 2h“ mark PEQVZSS
`
`?:ain:if£’s maticn to 5uspen«, §i3e§ an fiepfiemher 21, 2§0S in
`
`Cancellation Na. 32544538, was deniefi by ordex of the Bcard dated
`
`September 23, ZQGS.
`‘a
`that p;a pa.
`
`iQ;waif
`
`En éen_ing the motion, zhe Board determined
`
`“uzzexly failiefi} :3 iem0n£:r“:e
`
`§ %§ §
`
`fie. 93G§¢8S6 h&5 anvthiqg to éo witfi this proceedific, etcapt that
`
`getizianer h‘ peas :0 be invaiveé in both caseé."
`
`”mshasis *3
`
`.} ?lais:iff‘s mstioa to suspenfi,
`
`:i;efi &u,J5: 24
`
`€
`

`
`Opposition Nb. 91155315 and Cancellatien Ea. 92044538
`
`2095 in Opgosition No. 91155315 is hereby denied for the same
`
`reasons.
`
`For purposes of its summary judgment maticns,‘ defendant
`
`cancedes the relatedness.of the parties’ respective gosds.
`
`MsDe
`
`83?
`
`0.
`
`H:
`ant clarizies that it seeks judgment
`
`in its favor as a
`
`matter of iaw on the premise that the involved marks are so
`
`dissimilar that there is no likelihood of ccnfusion.
`
`(ll
`In upport of its motion, defendant argues that as genuine
`
`issues at material fact exist as to Eikelihood of confusion
`
`because the marks are completely distinct in sound, appearance,
`
`cennotation, and commercial
`
`impressinn; and that the
`
`dissimilarity of the marks so autweighs the other au?ont factcre
`
`an
`
`that it is dispesitive. Defendant argues that the‘invc1ved marks
`
`dc not, as plaintiff alleges. have the same number of letters;
`
`that the only common element in the parties’ respective marks is
`
`the suffix “E0,” which is an ordinary English language suffix
`
`found in Jumeroue registered marks for hardware and software;
`
`that such suffix is d rived from Latjfiq a constituent language of
`
`English; and that “I0” is “added to the stem cf the perfect
`
`passive participle sf a verb ta create a verbal noua indicating
`
`an acticn." Defendant contends that the marks, when spoken, are
`
`J‘
`‘ignificantly different in pronunciation and.
`
`tuU5. 30 not sauud
`
`alike or even similar. Defendant argues that the roct.terms sf
`
`
`
`‘ ?Le summazy éudgment matiens may be referred to in the singuier,
`.‘.;..4. 4--
`~'v:Fwa
`«
`I
`See Tn r‘
`I. L: ?~nt de Remours a 03.,
`~,
`{CCPA 1973-.
`
`ah.
`
`$6 F.2d 2357: 1?? US?Q 353
`
`E.
`
`:13
`
`

`
`Oppositicn No. 91165315 and Cancellation No. 92044538
`
`each party's marks éiffsr, with plaintiff admitting,
`
`in response
`
`to the Examining Attorney‘s inquiry as to any meaning of the term
`
`C.‘-.§%'E‘.?§«::Zf() {at
`
`the time that pleaded Registration so. 2756245 was
`
`sending as an a-plication3,
`
`that there is so translation sf the
`
`term and that
`
`“W CARTAGIO has no knswn meaning,
`
`fisher than its
`
`being similar to an old Latin name of the city sf Carthage.
`
`Tunisia.” Esfsndan: contsnés that the root of its marks. FOLIO,
`
`on the other hand, means “a leaf of paper m.a
`
`‘M1
`
`eaf—number sf a
`
`book, a sheet sf paper folded sacs, making twa leaves of a.book.
`
`{or} a book made of such sheets." Thus, because the marks
`
`suggest diffsrsn: meanings, defendant argues that the marks have
`
`different commsrciai
`
`impressions, arguing further that its
`
`..;gQ .
`[*4 W5
`
`Oz
`
`0 marks are liksiy to be seen as a variant of the term
`
`“portfolio.”
`
`-sfsnaant ales points out that the design element
`
`5 one if its marks further supports the visual dissimilaritiss
`
`between plaintiff's mark as& defendant's SHFOLEG asfi design mark.
`
`Defendant’; mosisn is accompanied b" excerpts fram an au-
`
`line dictionary defiaition of she suffix “is”; s iisting from
`
`Thomson Compumark of registratisns and pending app_ications of
`
`marks containiag terms ending in “is”: USPTO's TARR printouts of
`
`registered marks containing terms snéing in “is”; a cayy of
`
`plain:iff’s respcnse to tbs Examining Attorney’s inquir=
`Cl)
`
`whether CARTAGIO has any