Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA218202
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`06/17/2008
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92049339
`Defendant
`Bookman, Charles, Anthony
`Charles Anthony Thunderhawk
`1085 Commonwealth Ave #273
`Boston, MA 02215
`UNITED STATES
`thunderhaw@thunderhawk.com
`Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)
`Charles Bookman
`thunderhawk@thunderhawk.com
`/Charles Bookman/
`06/17/2008
`Motion to Dismiss 06-17-2008.pdf ( 3 pages )(214745 bytes )
`Court Memorandum and Order 03-31-2005.pdf ( 33 pages )(77269 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`E
`R
`O
`F
`E
`B
`E
`C
`I
`F
`F
`O
`K
`R
`A
`M
`E
`D
`A
`R
`T
`D
`N
`A
`T
`N
`E
`T
`A
`P
`S
`E
`T
`A
`T
`S
`D
`E
`T
`I
`N
`U
`E
`H
`T
`N
`I
`D
`R
`A
`O
`B
`L
`A
`E
`P
`P
`A
`D
`N
`A
`L
`A
`I
`R
`T
`K
`R
`A
`M
`E
`D
`A
`R
`T
`E
`H
`T
`,
`.
`C
`N
`I
`,
`M
`A
`E
`R
`T
`S
`T
`I
`B
`,
`r
`e
`n
`o
`i
`t
`i
`t
`e
`P
`9
`3
`3
`9
`4
`0
`2
`9
`:
`.
`o
`N
`n
`o
`i
`t
`a
`l
`l
`e
`c
`n
`a
`C
`6
`3
`8
`5
`1
`7
`2
`:
`.
`N
`o
`i
`t
`a
`t
`s
`i
`g
`e
`r
`R
`.
`o
`n
`v
`,
`N
`A
`M
`K
`O
`B
`Y
`O
`H
`T
`N
`A
`S
`E
`L
`A
`H
`O
`N
`R
`C
`.
`t
`n
`a
`r
`s
`i
`g
`e
`R
`t
`)
`6
`(
`)
`b
`(
`2
`1
`.
`P
`.
`C
`R
`.
`D
`N
`A
`6
`1
`1
`.
`2
`§
`.
`R
`.
`F
`.
`C
`7
`3
`R
`E
`D
`N
`U
`S
`S
`I
`M
`S
`I
`D
`O
`T
`N
`O
`T
`M
`F
`.
`O
`I
`.
`R
`.
`F
`.
`C
`7
`3
`o
`t
`n
`a
`u
`s
`p
`n
`a
`m
`k
`o
`B
`y
`n
`o
`h
`t
`n
`A
`s
`e
`l
`r
`h
`C
`,
`t
`n
`a
`r
`s
`i
`g
`e
`R
`r
`u
`a
`t
`t
`ふｴW(cid:396)W;a(cid:410)W(cid:396)"さ0ﾗﾗﾆﾏ;ﾐざぶ,
`o
`t
`B
`A
`T
`T
`e
`h
`t
`s
`e
`o
`m
`y
`o
`s
`e
`l
`u
`l
`a
`r
`e
`d
`e
`e
`h
`t
`f
`o
`6
`(
`)
`b
`(
`2
`1
`e
`l
`u
`R
`d
`n
`a
`6
`1
`1
`.
`2
`§
`o
`R
`)
`F
`e
`d
`P
`u
`b
`c
`f
`C
`i
`i
`l
`r
`o
`r
`e
`h
`e
`r
`e
`v
`v
`e
`c
`C
`r
`o
`f
`n
`o
`i
`i
`t
`e
`P
`d
`e
`n
`o
`i
`t
`p
`a
`c
`9
`e
`o
`b
`e
`h
`t
`s
`i
`m
`s
`i
`a
`d
`s
`t
`n
`a
`l
`l
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`.
`v
`:
`s
`w
`o
`l
`l
`o
`f
`s
`t
`a
`l
`l
`e
`a
`C
`o
`f
`n
`o
`i
`t
`t
`e
`P
`s
`t
`i
`r
`o
`f
`d
`u
`o
`r
`g
`s
`c
`n
`n
`r
`A
`s
`i
`s
`a
`l
`m
`i
`o
`n
`,
`B
`i
`t
`s
`t
`r
`e
`a
`a
`l
`e
`g
`e
`1
`. さjﾐ"c;(cid:455)"ヱヲが"ヲヰヰΒが"vW(cid:410)ｷ(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐW(cid:396)"aｷﾉWS";"(cid:410)(cid:396);SWﾏ;(cid:396)ﾆ";(cid:393)(cid:393)ﾉｷI;(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ"ﾗﾐ"(cid:410)ｴW"v(cid:396)ｷﾐIｷ(cid:393);ﾉ"yWｪｷ(cid:400)(cid:410)W(cid:396)"
`N
`U
`H
`T
`r
`o
`f
`C
`s
`f
`W
`s
`H
`n
`r
`o
`m
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`o
`f
`t
`w
`a
`r
`e
`,
`n
`a
`o
`w
`:
`D
`E
`R
`A
`K
`i
`n
`I
`t
`e
`n
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`a
`l
`C
`l
`a
`s
`s
`0
`0
`9
`m
`e
`l
`y
`,
`t
`w
`a
`r
`e
`i
`t
`h
`d
`a
`t
`a
`s
`e
`m
`o
`r
`c
`p
`g
`e
`r
`h
`n
`h
`i
`t
`e
`t
`i
`l
`e
`e
`n
`a
`n
`c
`e
`d
`I
`n
`r
`n
`b
`o
`s
`i
`o
`n
`a
`n
`d
`c
`a
`c
`f
`u
`n
`c
`t
`i
`o
`n
`a
`l
`i
`t
`y
`t
`o
`e
`n
`a
`b
`w
`s
`i
`n
`g
`a
`m
`o
`b
`i
`l
`e
`v
`h
`p
`e
`e
`o
`l
`t
`n
`s
`r
`n
`s
`n
`e
`a
`s
`d
`e
`s
`w
`e
`l
`e
`s
`d
`e
`i
`c
`e
`;
`a
`n
`d
`I
`n
`t
`r
`0
`:
`r
`o
`t
`g
`s
`p
`s
`n
`a
`e
`s
`,
`a
`l
`i
`i
`t
`l
`a
`i
`a
`n
`t
`s
`a
`n
`d
`i
`a
`t
`i
`o
`l
`C
`l
`a
`s
`s
`4
`2
`v
`g
`n
`i
`i
`o
`r
`d
`P
`i
`a
`s
`e
`e
`o
`s
`i
`i
`a
`c
`a
`n
`c
`o
`m
`p
`r
`e
`s
`i
`o
`n
`a
`n
`d
`c
`h
`n
`I
`b
`a
`a
`r
`n
`m
`b
`i
`l
`t
`r
`e
`t
`o
`w
`e
`r
`w
`t
`h
`d
`t
`n
`g
`f
`u
`c
`t
`o
`n
`l
`i
`t
`y
`t
`o
`e
`n
`a
`b
`l
`e
`v
`d
`e
`c
`n
`h
`a
`n
`e
`e
`a
`s
`s
`g
`e
`s
`w
`o
`o
`n
`s
`,
`p
`e
`r
`s
`o
`n
`a
`l
`d
`i
`g
`i
`t
`l
`a
`s
`a
`r
`i
`i
`d
`p
`h
`I
`n
`t
`e
`n
`t
`b
`r
`o
`s
`n
`a
`m
`b
`i
`l
`e
`t
`e
`l
`e
`i
`t
`a
`n
`t
`n
`w
`i
`r
`e
`l
`e
`s
`s
`v
`SW(cid:448)ｷIW(cid:400)く"~ｴｷ(cid:400)";(cid:393)(cid:393)ﾉｷI;(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ"(cid:449);(cid:400)";(cid:400)(cid:400)ｷｪﾐWS"}W(cid:396)ｷ;ﾉ"dﾗく"ΑΑっヴΑヲがヲヲンぐくざ"P
`t
`e
`e
`i
`t
`i
`o
`n
`f
`o
`r
`C
`a
`n
`c
`l
`l
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`a
`t
`¶
`4
`;
`. さO
`n
`e
`a
`l
`9
`0
`p
`l
`2
`s
`i
`c
`a
`t
`i
`o
`S
`r
`i
`N
`o
`.
`7
`8
`/
`s
`J
`2
`n
`u
`n
`e
`5
`,
`2
`0
`2
`,
`R
`e
`g
`i
`t
`r
`a
`n
`t
`f
`i
`l
`e
`d
`a
`p
`1
`3
`3
`,
`0
`f
`o
`r
`r
`e
`g
`i
`t
`r
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`i
`n
`i
`f
`a
`y
`p
`g
`R
`H
`A
`W
`K
`t
`h
`a
`t
`u
`l
`t
`i
`m
`a
`t
`e
`l
`o
`r
`i
`n
`R
`i
`n
`c
`a
`l
`e
`s
`t
`e
`r
`o
`r
`t
`h
`e
`m
`k
`T
`H
`U
`N
`D
`E
`i
`s
`s
`u
`e
`d
`I
`C
`0
`3
`5
`f
`o
`r
`t
`h
`e
`P
`r
`e
`r
`e
`o
`,
`n
`t
`i
`f
`i
`c
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`s
`e
`r
`i
`c
`s
`i
`n
`t
`h
`c
`u
`m
`d
`e
`a
`t
`s
`e
`r
`i
`c
`e
`s
`,
`n
`a
`l
`y
`a
`d
`r
`e
`s
`s
`c
`h
`g
`e
`n
`o
`e
`n
`a
`u
`r
`e
`f
`p
`o
`s
`t
`i
`n
`g
`o
`m
`p
`t
`v
`v
`e
`I
`,
`f
`s
`e
`s
`i
`a
`t
`h
`e
`n
`t
`e
`r
`n
`e
`t
`a
`n
`0
`n
`a
`b
`o
`a
`s
`r
`r
`o
`n
`o
`c
`h
`n
`g
`s
`o
`f
`a
`d
`d
`e
`s
`s
`f
`o
`u
`s
`i
`n
`e
`s
`d
`i
`n
`I
`C
`4
`2
`f
`o
`r
`C
`o
`m
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`i
`t
`f
`i
`c
`t
`i
`v
`m
`t
`i
`o
`n
`;
`c
`o
`m
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`g
`r
`a
`p
`h
`i
`c
`t
`c
`u
`r
`e
`r
`s
`i
`o
`n
`f
`o
`r
`o
`t
`h
`e
`r
`s
`;
`c
`o
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`c
`o
`n
`s
`l
`t
`a
`s
`s
`e
`i
`c
`e
`s
`;
`c
`o
`m
`p
`u
`e
`r
`n
`o
`d
`e
`c
`o
`v
`v
`g
`m
`i
`n
`g
`f
`o
`r
`o
`t
`h
`e
`r
`s
`;
`c
`o
`m
`p
`u
`n
`t
`o
`e
`o
`d
`e
`s
`i
`g
`n
`f
`r
`o
`t
`h
`e
`r
`s
`;
`c
`o
`m
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`p
`r
`r
`a
`m
`t
`e
`r
`p
`r
`o
`j
`e
`c
`t
`m
`a
`n
`a
`g
`e
`m
`e
`n
`t
`o
`r
`w
`k
`s
`e
`t
`e
`m
`h
`c
`o
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`s
`e
`r
`i
`c
`s
`,
`n
`a
`m
`l
`y
`,
`c
`r
`e
`a
`t
`i
`n
`g
`a
`n
`d
`m
`a
`i
`n
`a
`i
`n
`i
`n
`g
`w
`e
`b
`s
`i
`t
`e
`s
`f
`o
`r
`o
`t
`e
`r
`s
`,
`c
`o
`m
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`e
`r
`i
`c
`e
`s
`;
`v
`v
`s
`c
`m
`c
`n
`a
`m
`e
`l
`y
`,
`d
`a
`t
`a
`r
`e
`o
`e
`r
`y
`s
`e
`r
`i
`c
`e
`s
`,
`c
`o
`p
`u
`t
`e
`r
`s
`e
`r
`i
`e
`s
`,
`n
`a
`m
`e
`l
`y
`,
`d
`e
`s
`i
`g
`n
`i
`n
`g
`a
`n
`d
`e
`r
`i
`c
`e
`s
`,
`v
`v
`v
`v
`n
`e
`o
`p
`e
`t
`i
`n
`g
`w
`b
`p
`a
`g
`e
`s
`a
`n
`d
`w
`e
`b
`s
`i
`t
`e
`s
`f
`o
`r
`t
`h
`e
`r
`s
`,
`c
`o
`m
`u
`t
`e
`r
`s
`r
`i
`c
`e
`s
`,
`n
`a
`m
`e
`l
`y
`,
`p
`r
`o
`i
`d
`i
`n
`g
`s
`e
`a
`r
`c
`h
`i
`m
`l
`p
`m
`e
`e
`v
`v
`1
`
`

`
`n
`
`r
`n
`
`ｷ(cid:400)";"ﾉｷﾆWﾉｷｴﾗﾗS"ﾗa"Iﾗﾐa(cid:437)(cid:400)ｷﾗﾐ"HW(cid:410)(cid:449)WWﾐ"(cid:410)ｴW"vW(cid:410)ｷ(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐW(cid:396)げ(cid:400)"ﾏ;(cid:396)ﾆ"~K⁄d7;yK#(cid:116)[";ﾐS"yWｪｷ(cid:400)(cid:410)(cid:396);ﾐ(cid:410)げ(cid:400)"
`
`1ﾗ(cid:437)(cid:396)(cid:410)げ(cid:400)"cWﾏﾗ(cid:396);ﾐS(cid:437)ﾏ";ﾐS"j(cid:396)SW(cid:396)"ｷ(cid:400)";(cid:410)(cid:410);IｴWS"ｴW(cid:396)W(cid:410)ﾗく
`
`g
`
`t
`
`,
`
`i
`t
`a
`e
`r
`c
`,
`y
`l
`e
`m
`a
`n
`,
`s
`e
`c
`i
`v
`r
`e
`s
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`,
`k
`r
`o
`w
`t
`e
`n
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`l
`a
`b
`o
`l
`g
`a
`n
`o
`a
`t
`a
`d
`g
`n
`i
`n
`i
`a
`t
`b
`o
`r
`o
`f
`s
`e
`n
`i
`g
`n
`e
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`,
`s
`k
`r
`o
`w
`t
`e
`n
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`n
`o
`e
`l
`b
`a
`l
`i
`a
`v
`a
`s
`e
`c
`r
`u
`o
`s
`e
`r
`r
`e
`h
`t
`o
`d
`n
`a
`s
`e
`t
`i
`s
`,
`n
`i
`t
`a
`m
`r
`o
`f
`n
`i
`f
`o
`s
`e
`x
`e
`d
`n
`o
`i
`g
`n
`i
`t
`c
`r
`i
`d
`e
`r
`y
`l
`e
`m
`a
`,
`s
`e
`c
`i
`v
`r
`e
`s
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`,
`s
`r
`e
`h
`t
`r
`o
`s
`e
`t
`i
`b
`e
`w
`g
`n
`i
`g
`a
`n
`a
`m
`,
`y
`l
`e
`m
`a
`n
`,
`s
`e
`c
`i
`v
`r
`e
`e
`,
`o
`f
`n
`s
`s
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`n
`g
`s
`e
`d
`e
`t
`i
`s
`r
`e
`t
`u
`m
`o
`c
`,
`s
`e
`s
`s
`e
`r
`d
`d
`a
`i
`n
`o
`r
`t
`e
`l
`e
`l
`a
`n
`o
`s
`r
`e
`p
`d
`e
`g
`n
`a
`h
`c
`o
`t
`l
`i
`a
`m
`c
`i
`n
`r
`t
`e
`o
`c
`,
`i
`p
`c
`c
`l
`e
`e
`m
`p
`l
`v
`e
`d
`r
`a
`w
`t
`f
`o
`s
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`m
`o
`c
`;
`s
`h
`o
`o
`f
`n
`i
`s
`e
`d
`e
`r
`a
`w
`f
`o
`r
`e
`t
`u
`p
`o
`c
`,
`n
`o
`t
`a
`t
`u
`c
`e
`a
`w
`f
`e
`r
`t
`l
`o
`t
`t
`o
`e
`r
`g
`m
`i
`o
`e
`s
`s
`n
`r
`s
`,
`3
`y
`a
`M
`n
`o
`6
`8
`5
`1
`7
`,
`2
`.
`o
`N
`.
`g
`e
`o
`t
`n
`i
`d
`e
`r
`u
`t
`a
`m
`i
`t
`a
`c
`i
`p
`p
`a
`s
`i
`h
`T
`.
`s
`s
`y
`l
`n
`a
`s
`m
`y
`s
`r
`e
`t
`m
`o
`3
`o
`u
`R
`l
`i
`e
`s
`1
`,
`n
`a
`t
`p
`c
`d
`n
`a
`;
`5
`t
`a
`n
`i
`t
`n
`a
`C
`o
`n
`o
`i
`t
`e
`¶
`a
`f
`c
`e
`i
`l
`t
`o
`l
`r
`ヲヰヰンぐざP
`e
`s
`u
`c
`e
`b
`k
`r
`a
`m
`d
`a
`f
`n
`o
`i
`a
`t
`s
`g
`e
`d
`e
`i
`t
`n
`o
`c
`y
`d
`e
`g
`a
`a
`d
`e
`b
`o
`t
`l
`e
`k
`i
`s
`i
`r
`e
`n
`i
`i
`t
`e
`a
`t
`n
`b
`o
`s
`r
`u
`l
`t
`y
`i
`o
`r
`i
`m
`. さP
`3
`.
`N
`l
`r
`e
`S
`r
`a
`e
`o
`i
`t
`i
`g
`n
`a
`b
`a
`n
`i
`o
`(cid:410)ｴW"v~j";(cid:454);ﾏｷﾐｷﾐｪ"#(cid:410)(cid:410)ﾗ(cid:396)ﾐW(cid:455)"(cid:449)ｷﾉﾉ"ﾉｷﾆWﾉ(cid:455)"(cid:396)Wa(cid:437)(cid:400)W"vW(cid:410)ｷ(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐW(cid:396)げ(cid:400)";(cid:393)(cid:393)ﾉｷc
`e
`r
`e
`t
`,
`A
`m
`n
`a
`L
`e
`o
`h
`h
`§
`h
`t
`d
`2
`R
`a
`f
`t
`c
`7
`7
`2
`v
`e
`e
`h
`3
`o
`a
`)
`t
`,
`7
`/
`4
`7
`2
`,
`2
`n
`3
`a
`n
`(
`i
`d
`n
`t
`i
`f
`i
`e
`d
`b
`o
`e
`n
`t
`e
`g
`r
`o
`u
`d
`s
`t
`h
`u
`d
`r
`C
`F
`m
`R
`. ざP
`o
`n
`K
`a
`l
`H
`a
`r
`k
`T
`N
`C
`U
`D
`E
`H
`A
`W
`e
`t
`i
`t
`i
`f
`o
`r
`n
`c
`e
`l
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`a
`t
`¶
`1
`3
`O
`O
`k
`r
`a
`m
`e
`d
`r
`t
`o
`f
`m
`a
`e
`r
`s
`t
`t
`s
`a
`r
`t
`i
`B
`k
`d
`i
`i
`o
`2
`,
`2
`2
`a
`l
`t
`n
`c
`o
`b
`e
`r
`3
`0
`0
`,
`B
`o
`o
`m
`a
`n
`f
`i
`l
`e
`a
`c
`v
`i
`c
`t
`n
`a
`g
`a
`i
`n
`|
`0
`.
`o
`N
`n
`i
`t
`c
`A
`l
`i
`i
`C
`t
`s
`u
`t
`e
`h
`2
`s
`o
`v
`,
`i
`r
`M
`s
`n
`f
`t
`i
`S
`o
`a
`t
`m
`i
`r
`r
`i
`n
`g
`e
`t
`.
`e
`n
`c
`t
`n
`t
`h
`e
`U
`.
`D
`i
`s
`r
`C
`o
`u
`t
`f
`o
`r
`t
`h
`e
`D
`i
`s
`t
`i
`c
`f
`s
`a
`c
`O
`O
`a
`t
`g
`n
`i
`d
`n
`f
`r
`e
`d
`d
`m
`r
`a
`i
`t
`h
`n
`1
`2
`M
`e
`r
`e
`N
`h
`0
`0
`7
`8
`|
`n
`a
`h
`.
`G
`r
`c
`3
`1
`,
`2
`0
`5
`,
`t
`C
`o
`u
`t
`i
`s
`s
`u
`d
`a
`M
`e
`m
`o
`r
`a
`n
`d
`u
`r
`e
`s
`w
`r
`b
`w
`s
`s
`e
`l
`e
`r
`w
`o
`b
`e
`i
`0ｷ(cid:410)(cid:400)(cid:410)(cid:396)W;ﾏげ(cid:400)"(cid:437)(cid:400)W"ﾗa"(cid:410)ｴW"ﾏ;(cid:396)ﾆ"~K⁄d7;yK#(cid:116)["ｷﾐ"IﾗﾐﾐWI(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ"(cid:449)ｷ(cid:410)ｴ"さa
`t ざ"SｷS"ﾐﾗ(cid:410)"I(cid:396)W;(cid:410)W";"ﾉｷﾆWﾉｷｴﾗﾗS"ﾗa"Iﾗﾐa(cid:437)(cid:400)ｷﾗﾐ"(cid:449)ｷ(cid:410)ｴ"0ﾗﾗﾆﾏ;ﾐげ(cid:400)"(cid:437)(cid:400)W"ﾗa"(cid:410)ｴW"ﾏ;(cid:396)ﾆ"
`s
`r
`o
`t
`f
`w
`a
`e
`c
`p
`r
`o
`d
`u
`~K⁄d7;yK#(cid:116)["ｷﾐ"IﾗﾐﾐWI(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ"(cid:449)ｷ(cid:410)ｴ"さa
`o
`d
`r
`a
`o
`g
`i
`t
`v
`a
`e
`t
`y
`o
`f
`c
`u
`s
`t
`m
`|
`i
`l
`r
`e
`n
`o
`r
`m
`i
`n
`f
`o
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`t
`e
`c
`h
`l
`o
`y
`c
`g
`y
`e
`r
`s
`c
`a
`e
`o
`n
`,
`w
`p
`m
`s
`u
`l
`t
`i
`n
`o
`g
`s
`r
`w
`e
`v
`i
`c
`e
`,
`i
`n
`l
`u
`d
`i
`n
`g
`a
`n
`a
`l
`s
`i
`s
`p
`r
`m
`m
`i
`n
`g
`,
`e
`b
`d
`e
`s
`i
`g
`o
`v
`n
`,
`w
`e
`b
`d
`e
`l
`e
`n
`t
`,
`b
`e
`s
`h
`n
`i
`t
`a
`a
`r
`r
`t
`d
`o
`s
`t
`i
`n
`g
`,
`e
`c
`e
`t
`h
`n
`i
`c
`l
`t
`r
`a
`i
`n
`i
`n
`g
`,
`I
`n
`t
`e
`n
`e
`t
`m
`a
`k
`e
`t
`i
`n
`g
`,
`n
`e
`t
`w
`o
`r
`k
`d
`e
`s
`i
`g
`n
`p
`l
`a
`a
`/
`i
`m
`e
`m
`t
`o
`n
`a
`n
`d
`a
`b
`t くざ"~ｴW"1ﾗ(cid:437)(cid:396)(cid:410)げ(cid:400)"aｷﾐSｷﾐｪ"ﾗa"ﾐﾗ"ﾉｷﾆWﾉｷｴﾗﾗS"ﾗa"Iﾗﾐa(cid:437)(cid:400)ｷﾗﾐ"(cid:449);(cid:400)b
`d
`e
`v
`e
`l
`o
`p
`m
`e
`n
`p
`s
`,
`d
`r
`a
`s
`e
`,
`i
`n
`a
`t
`o
`n
`i
`t
`f
`w
`t
`i
`n
`d
`i
`n
`g
`t
`h
`t
`a
`a
`t
`t
`s
`w
`i
`r
`e
`l
`e
`s
`s
`e
`b
`b
`r
`o
`w
`s
`e
`r
`s
`o
`f
`t
`w
`a
`r
`e
`p
`r
`o
`d
`u
`c
`s
`o
`l
`d
`b
`y
`B
`a
`l
`a
`i
`y
`t
`r
`e
`m
`i
`s
`s
`u
`b
`s
`a
`n
`t
`i
`l
`e
`h
`t
`d
`i
`f
`f
`e
`r
`e
`n
`t
`t
`h
`s
`a
`n
`i
`n
`f
`o
`r
`m
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`t
`e
`c
`h
`n
`o
`l
`o
`g
`y
`c
`o
`n
`u
`l
`t
`i
`n
`g
`s
`e
`r
`v
`i
`c
`e
`s
`p
`r
`o
`v
`o
`A
`o
`i
`d
`e
`n
`d
`b
`y
`B
`o
`k
`m
`a
`.
`c
`o
`p
`y
`f
`v
`i
`I
`n
`e
`w
`o
`f
`t
`h
`e
`p
`r
`i
`o
`r
`l
`i
`t
`i
`g
`a
`t
`i
`o
`n
`b
`e
`t
`w
`e
`e
`n
`B
`o
`o
`k
`m
`a
`n
`a
`n
`d
`B
`i
`t
`d
`e 1ﾗ(cid:437)(cid:396)(cid:410)げ(cid:400)"aｷﾐSｷﾐｪ"ﾗa"
`n
`s
`t
`r
`h
`e
`a
`m
`a
`t
`n
`i
`o
`b
`l
`i
`o
`n
`d
`e
`B
`h
`t
`p
`s
`i
`f
`t
`o
`k
`e
`l
`o
`d
`o
`f
`c
`o
`n
`f
`u
`s
`,
`i
`t
`s
`r
`e
`a
`m
`s
`h
`o
`u
`l
`r
`e
`c
`l
`u
`d
`e
`d
`r
`o
`m
`a
`s
`t
`o
`e
`r
`t
`i
`n
`g
`t
`h
`a
`i
`w
`u
`l
`d
`b
`e
`d
`N
`o
`o
`l
`e
`n
`i
`b
`m
`a
`a
`g
`e
`d
`b
`y
`U
`.
`S
`.
`R
`e
`g
`.
`.
`2
`,
`7
`1
`5
`,
`8
`3
`6
`a
`s
`d
`u
`p
`a
`i
`k
`e
`l
`i
`h
`o
`o
`d
`o
`f
`c
`o
`n
`f
`u
`s
`o
`n
`.
`A
`s
`s
`u
`c
`h
`,
`B
`i
`t
`s
`t
`r
`e
`a
`m
`h
`r
`o
`u
`l
`t
`y
`o
`r
`o
`h
`r
`S
`t
`s
`,
`8
`a
`n
`o
`t
`s
`e
`t
`f
`o
`t
`h
`a
`n
`g
`n
`d
`s
`f
`c
`a
`n
`c
`e
`l
`a
`i
`o
`n
`o
`f
`U
`.
`.
`R
`e
`g
`.
`N
`.
`2
`7
`1
`5
`,
`3
`6
`.
`F
`u
`r
`e
`r
`,
`t
`h
`e
`2
`
`~(cid:396);SWﾏ;(cid:396)ﾆ";(cid:454);ﾏｷﾐｷﾐｪ"#(cid:410)(cid:410)ﾗ(cid:396)ﾐW(cid:455)"ｴ;(cid:400)"ﾐﾗ(cid:410)"W(cid:454);ﾏｷﾐWS"0ｷ(cid:410)(cid:400)(cid:410)(cid:396)W;ﾏげ(cid:400)";(cid:393)(cid:393)ﾉｷI;(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ";ﾐS"ﾏ;(cid:455)"ﾐﾗ(cid:410)"(cid:396)Wa(cid:437)(cid:400)W"
`
`

`
`t
`
`e
`
`t
`
`r
`
`a
`
`l
`
`l
`
`a
`
`s
`
`o
`
`g
`
`i
`
`n
`l
`
`i
`
`s
`
`c
`
`s
`
`e
`
`a
`
`a
`
`r
`C
`f
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 17, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:410)ﾗ"(cid:396)Wｪｷ(cid:400)(cid:410)W(cid:396)"0ｷ(cid:410)(cid:400)(cid:410)(cid:396)W;ﾏげ(cid:400)"ﾏ;(cid:396)ﾆ"ｷﾐ"(cid:448)ｷW(cid:449)"ﾗa"⁄く}く"yWｪく"dﾗく"ヲがΑヱヵがΒンヶく
`
`e
`
`y
`
`n
`
`r
`
`e
`
`e
`
`l
`
`f
`
`l
`
`u
`
`a
`
`s
`
`i
`
`t
`
`e
`
`o
`
`c
`
`s
`n
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Charles Anthony Bookman
`Charles Anthony Bookman
`1085 Commonwealth Ave., #273
`Boston, MA 02215
`Tel: 617-244-0988
`E-Mail: thunderhawk@thunderhawk.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t (cid:400)(cid:410)(cid:396)W;ﾏげ(cid:400)"vW(cid:410)ｷ(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ"aﾗ(cid:396)"
`i
`B
`t
`a
`h
`t
`s
`t
`r
`e
`s
`s
`a
`n
`a
`m
`k
`o
`o
`B
`.
`r
`e
`t
`s
`i
`g
`e
`R
`l
`a
`p
`i
`c
`n
`i
`r
`P
`e
`h
`t
`n
`o
`n
`o
`i
`t
`s
`a
`e
`m
`i
`t
`h
`c
`u
`s
`l
`i
`t
`u
`t
`i
`a
`w
`d
`l
`u
`o
`h
`s
`t
`i
`d
`n
`a
`e
`r
`u
`t
`a
`m
`e
`r
`p
`i
`n
`o
`i
`t
`t
`h
`e
`E
`x
`a
`m
`i
`n
`i
`n
`g
`A
`t
`t
`o
`r
`n
`n
`s
`C
`Eﾗ(cid:396)";ﾉﾉ"ﾗa"(cid:410)ｴW";Hﾗ(cid:448)W"(cid:396)W;(cid:400)ﾗﾐ(cid:400)が"0ﾗﾗﾆﾏ;ﾐ";(cid:400)(cid:400)W(cid:396)(cid:410)(cid:400)"(cid:410)ｴ;(cid:410)"0ｷ(cid:410)(cid:400)(cid:410)(cid:396)W;ﾏげ(cid:400)"vW(cid:410)ｷ(cid:410)ｷﾗﾐ"ao
`r
`a
`l
`d
`b
`e
`d
`i
`s
`m
`i
`s
`s
`e
`d
`.
`e
`d
`t
`a
`t
`e
`a
`c
`l
`a
`i
`m
`u
`p
`o
`n
`w
`h
`i
`c
`h
`r
`l
`i
`e
`f
`c
`a
`n
`b
`e
`g
`r
`a
`n
`t
`e
`a
`n
`d
`s
`h
`o
`u
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true copy of this document has been served upon all parties of
`
`record by first class mail, postage pre-paid, to Thomas M. Saunders, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
`Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02210-2028 on June 17, 2008.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Charles Anthony Bookman
`Charles Anthony Bookman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 1 of 33
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`CHARLES BOOKMAN, d/b/a/ THUNDER HAWK
`)
`INTERNET SYSTEMS,
`)
`Plaintiff,
`
`))
`
` Civil No. 02-12078-NG
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`BITSTREAM, INC.,
`Defendant.
`GERTNER, D.J.:
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`PLAINTIFF’S TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND DAMAGES CLAIMS
`March 31, 2005
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Charles Bookman (“Bookman”), the owner of a small
`
`Internet consulting business, contends that he is the senior user
`
`of the service mark “THUNDERHAWK.”1 Pursuant to the federal
`
`Lanham Act and Massachusetts trademark law, he seeks injunctive
`
`relief and damages against defendant Bitstream, Inc.
`
`(“Bitstream”), a much larger software development company,
`
`alleging its infringing use of the trademark “ThunderHawk” in
`
`connection with its wireless web browser software product.
`
`Bookman believes that Bitstream’s use of the mark has resulted in
`
`consumer confusion, causing irreparable harm to his reputation
`
`and goodwill, and to his ability to control his mark and
`
`reasonably expand his services.
`
`1 Since service marks (which “distinguish one’s services from those
`offered by others”) and trademarks (which “distinguish one’s goods from those
`made by others”) are, for the most part, functional equivalents, “the
`distinction between the two types of marks is irrelevant . . . [and] cases
`discussing either apply.” Boston Athletic Ass’n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 23
`n.1 (1st Cir. 1989).
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 2 of 33
`
`Discovery was conducted, and every effort was made to
`
`resolve the claims, but these efforts failed. Bitstream moves
`
`this Court to grant summary judgment on Bookman’s trademark
`
`infringement claims [docket entry # 62] under the theory that he
`
`cannot demonstrate ownership of a protectable mark, much less a
`
`likelihood of confusion. In addition, Bitstream moves for
`
`summary judgment on damages [docket entry # 66], arguing that
`
`Bookman clearly cannot make out a case for monetary damages or
`
`harm to his reputation, even if the facts are deemed less clear
`
`on the infringement claims.
`
`Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Bookman, I
`
`GRANT summary judgment to Bitstream on both motions.
`
`II. RELEVANT FACTS2
`
`Bookman testified that his business, Thunder Hawk Internet
`
`Systems, provides a variety of custom-tailored information
`
`technology consulting services, including analysis, programming,
`
`web design, web development, web hosting, technical training, and
`
`Internet marketing. In addition, he represented that he offers
`
`network design/implementation and database development, that he
`
`is not simply an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), and that he
`
`does not offer a web browser software product.
`
`2 I draw these facts from Bitstream’s Statement of Material Facts and
`Bookman’s Statement of Disputed Material Facts.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 3 of 33
`
`Bookman’s website, located at www.thunderhawk.com, depicts
`
`his alleged mark “THUNDERHAWK” as one word in black, lower case,
`
`block letters. The site lists his contact information and
`
`services, which are enumerated as web hosting, technical
`
`training, and domain registration. It has not substantively
`
`changed in format or content since at least October 2002 (i.e.,
`
`the description of services and amounts charged for them have
`
`remained relatively constant).
`
`Bookman filed his state trademark application for
`
`“THUNDERHAWK” on May 28, 2002. The registration states that his
`
`date of first use anywhere and in Massachusetts was January 2,
`
`1995. Bookman filed his federal trademark application for
`
`“THUNDERHAWK” on June 5, 2002, and the registration issued on May
`
`13, 2003. The federal trademark registration states that his
`
`first use anywhere and in commerce was January 2, 1994.
`
`Bookman claims to have rendered his services to a number of
`
`customers since 1996, though he maintains limited records.
`
`During his deposition, he identified his past or active customers
`
`over the last five years as two local martial arts schools,
`
`Boston College, local entities called Brodeur Interactive and
`
`Project Place, a local individual named Ron Baker, and several
`
`local training centers.3 He substantiated four of these
`
`transactions with invoices for services rendered.
`
`3 The term “local” refers to the Boston area.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 4 of 33
`
`Defendant Bitstream licenses and distributes a wireless web
`
`browser software product under the name “ThunderHawk.” The
`
`product may be downloaded to a customer over the Internet, or
`
`shipped to the customer directly from Bitstream.
`
`Bitstream’s current website displays the word “ThunderHawk”
`
`in red letters, with “T” and “H” in large capital letters and the
`
`remaining letters in small capitals. The word “ThunderHawk” is
`
`sometimes used in conjunction with the phrases “BROWSING FOR THE
`
`WIRELESS INTERNET” or “MOBILE BROWSING ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.”
`
`On June 6, 2001, Bitstream used its website, as well as
`
`press releases, to launch the wireless product under the name
`
`“ThunderHawk.” Since the release of “ThunderHawk,” more than
`
`48,000 end users from across the United States and throughout the
`
`world have downloaded the software onto their wireless devices
`
`and signed up to use the product.
`
`III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Review for Summary Judgment
`
`The First Circuit has held, “[w]hile summary disposition is
`
`usually inappropriate in complex infringement and unfair
`
`competition cases, it is not unheard of.” Pignons S.A. de
`
`Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 486 (1st Cir. 1981).
`
`Summary judgment in a trademark infringement case is proper “‘if
`
`the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
`
`admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 5 of 33
`
`that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
`
`the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”
`
`Pignons, 657 F.2d at 486 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). A
`
`factual dispute is “material” if it impacts the outcome of the
`
`litigation, and “genuine” if manifested by substantial evidence
`
`beyond the allegations of the complaint. See id. In essence,
`
`the guiding question on summary judgment review is: Does the
`
`evidence present a sufficient disagreement to require submission
`
`to a jury, or is it so one-sided that one party must prevail as a
`
`matter of law?
`
`In determining a motion for summary judgment, the court must
`
`view the record and draw inferences in the light most favorable
`
`to the opposing party. See id. Accordingly, I assess the facts
`
`with respect to the legal standards set forth below in the light
`
`most favorable to Bookman.
`
`B.
`
`Trademark Infringement Claims
`
`The purpose of trademark law is to “prevent one seller from
`
`using the same ‘mark’ as –- or one similar to -- that used by
`
`another in such a way that he confuses the public about who
`
`really produced the goods (or service).” DeCosta v. Viacom
`
`Int’l, Inc., 981 F.2d 602, 605 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Star
`
`Financial Services v. Aastar Mortgage Corp., 89 F.3d 5, 9 (1st
`
`Cir. 1996). Accordingly, “the law often permits a person to take
`
`a pre-existing name or mark and use it on a different product in
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 6 of 33
`
`a different market” because these distinctions eliminate the
`
`likelihood of consumer confusion. DeCosta, 981 F.2d at 609.
`
`To prevail, the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case
`
`must show that: 1) he uses, and thereby owns, a mark; 2) the
`
`defendant is using that same, or a similar, mark; and 3) the
`
`defendant’s use is likely to confuse the public about the source
`
`of the goods or services, thereby harming the plaintiff. See
`
`DeCosta, 981 F.2d at 605 (citations omitted); see also Star
`
`Financial, 89 F.3d at 9.
`
`As for the third factor, according to the First Circuit, two
`
`types of consumer confusion -- traditional and reverse -- are
`
`possible and lead to different harms. Bookman specifically
`
`claims only reverse confusion, which is sensible under these
`
`facts. See Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ.
`
`J. at 8 [hereinafter Pl.’s Mem.]. While, in a traditional case,
`
`the plaintiff is concerned that customers will think he makes the
`
`defendant’s product, in a reverse confusion case, the concern is
`
`that customers will think the defendant makes the plaintiff’s
`
`product.4 See DeCosta, 981 F.2d at 607-608. Under the
`
`traditional model, the plaintiff may be harmed in two ways: 1)
`
`customers’ dissatisfaction with the defendant’s products or
`
`services may harm the reputation of the plaintiff’s products or
`
`4 Without the concept of reverse confusion, Bookman would have no case
`at all because it would be virtually impossible to believe, given his small
`consumer base, that people might think he makes Bitstream’s wireless web
`browser.
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 7 of 33
`
`services, or 2) even if the defendant’s product is well-received,
`
`insofar as her customers are encouraged to buy it because they
`
`associate the plaintiff with it, the defendant free-rides on the
`
`plaintiff’s efforts. See id. at 607-608. Under the reverse
`
`confusion model, if the defendant makes a poor product, the
`
`plaintiff’s potential customers may decide that plaintiff’s
`
`products come from a poorly managed company and thereby be
`
`reluctant to buy them. See id. at 608; Star Financial, 89 F.3d
`
`at 9-10.
`
`For success on a trademark infringement claim under both
`
`Massachusetts and federal law, the First Circuit requires a
`
`showing that buyers are substantially likely to confuse the two
`
`marks at issue (mere possibility is not enough). See Star
`
`Financial, 89 F.3d at 10. Courts typically examine eight factors
`
`in making this determination: 1) the marks’ similarity; 2) the
`
`similarity of the underlying goods or services; 3) the relation
`
`of the channels through which the parties trade; 4) the relation
`
`of the parties’ advertising; 5) the kinds of prospective buyers;
`
`6) evidence of actual confusion; 7) the defendant’s reasons for
`
`using the mark; and 8) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark. See
`
`DeCosta, 981 F.2d at 606; Star Financial, 89 F.3d at 10.
`
`Because the requisite analysis involves multiple factors, I
`
`must determine “on the whole whether there is any genuine issue.”
`
`Astra Pharmaceutical Products v. Beckman Instruments, 718 F.2d
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 8 of 33
`
`1201, 1205 (1st Cir. 1983). Each factor must be considered, but
`
`“[n]o one factor is necessarily determinative.” Id.
`
`1.
`
`Ownership of the Mark
`
`Bitstream argues that Bookman does not have priority rights
`
`over the trademark because his federal registration for the mark
`
`did not issue until after Bitstream launched its web browser
`
`product and had already invested substantial resources in
`
`developing recognition of its mark. In addition, Bookman has had
`
`few clients and engaged in limited advertising. See Bitstream’s
`
`Mem. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. on Pl.’s Trademark
`
`Infringement Claims at 8 [hereinafter Bitstream’s Mem.].
`
`Nonetheless, construing the facts in the light most favorable to
`
`Bookman, I find that there remains a genuine issue as to
`
`Bookman’s claim for ownership of the “THUNDERHAWK” mark and
`
`therefore that summary judgment cannot be granted on this
`
`ground.5
`
`Bookman may well be entitled to protection under the Lanham
`
`Act, even if his federal trademark registration does not predate
`
`Bitstream’s use of the mark. As the Supreme Court stated years
`
`ago, “the right to a particular mark grows out of its use, not
`
`its mere adoption . . . .” United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus
`
`Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918). In CCBN.com, Inc. v. c-call.com,
`
`5 Note that this analysis does not take into account the fact that, in
`theory, both Bookman and Bitstream could be owners of the same mark if their
`uses were deemed distinct enough to eliminate the likelihood of consumer
`confusion. See supra Part III.B.
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 9 of 33
`
`Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Mass. 1999), Judge Saris concluded
`
`that the Lanham Act grants trademark protection for marks that
`
`are “‘used in commerce.’” CCBN.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d at 109
`
`(quoting U.S.C. § 1051). “Use in commerce” involves the use or
`
`display of the mark in the sale or advertising of services
`
`rendered in commerce. See id. at 109. “In the emerging world of
`
`the Internet, one court defined ‘use in commerce’ to include
`
`establishing a ‘typical home page on the Internet, for access to
`
`all users.’” Id. at 110 (quoting Planned Parenthood Fed’n of
`
`Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430, 1434 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)).
`
`While advertising and promotional activities alone, unaccompanied
`
`by the rendering of services, have not been deemed sufficient to
`
`constitute “use in commerce,” Bookman contends that he rendered
`
`services under the mark prior to Bitstream’s first use of the
`
`mark. See id. at 110. On summary judgment review, I must give
`
`him the benefit of the doubt.
`
`Bookman has been continuously registered to do business
`
`within Boston under the business name “Thunder Hawk Internet
`
`Systems” since August 25, 1996. See Bookman’s Statement of
`
`Disputed Material Facts, Ex. 6. Shortly after February 14, 1996,
`
`he expanded and promoted his services in commerce under the mark
`
`“Thunder Hawk”6 by registering the domain name
`
`6 Bookman contends that his use of the mark “THUNDERHAWK,” as one word,
`began at least as early as May 2000. See Bookman’s Statement of Disputed
`Material Facts ¶ 29.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 10 of 33
`
`“www.thunderhawk.com“ and launching his own website. According
`
`to publicly archived records, the site was functional and
`
`promoted Bookman’s services as of December 26, 1996. See
`
`Bookman’s Statement of Disputed Material Facts ¶ 30. Bookman
`
`claims to have communicated with potential customers over e-mail
`
`via his website since that date as well. See id. ¶ 105. In
`
`addition, for many years, Bookman has promoted his mark by
`
`handing out business cards at events sponsored by companies such
`
`as Microsoft. See id. ¶ 30.
`
`Furthermore, though Bookman does not appear to maintain
`
`records consistently, he claims to have rendered his services to
`
`a number of customers since 1996.7 See id. ¶ 109. Bitstream
`
`essentially admits that Bookman has used the mark at least since
`
`2000, which is before Bitstream launched its product publicly.
`
`See Bitstream’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 30.
`
`On these facts, there remains a genuine issue as to the
`
`material fact of trademark ownership. Accordingly, I cannot
`
`grant summary judgment on the basis that Bookman does not own a
`
`protectable mark. Nonetheless, Bookman’s failure to demonstrate
`
`7 In his motion, Bookman does not even attempt to rely on his history of
`sales to prove ownership. Instead, he argues that the First Circuit has set
`forth a two-part test establishing prior use in the absence of actual sales:
`1) adoption, and 2) use in a way sufficiently public to identify or
`distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate segment of the public mind as
`those of the adopter of the mark. See New England Duplicating Co. v. Mendes,
`190 F.2d 415, 418 (1st Cir. 1951). He may take this approach due to a lack of
`record-keeping.
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 11 of 33
`
`a substantial likelihood of confusion is enough to grant summary
`
`judgment. See infra Part III.B.3.
`
`2.
`
`Similarity of the Marks
`
`I address this factor in detail under the first prong of the
`
`confusion analysis. See infra Part III.B.3.a.
`
`3.
`
`Confusion about the Marks
`
`The eight criteria used to assess confusion all speak to the
`
`issue of whether a defendant’s use of a mark would lead the
`
`public to confuse, with substantial likelihood, the source of
`
`goods or services. Likelihood of confusion is “‘an essential
`
`element of a claim of trademark infringement,’ whether it arises
`
`under state or federal law.” Astra Pharmaceutical, 718 F.2d at
`
`1205 (quoting Pignons, 657 F.2d at 486-87). In assessing
`
`confusion, the First Circuit has employed a rather exacting
`
`standard that Bookman fails to meet.8
`
`8 For example, the First Circuit found the evidence of confusion
`adequate -- but not overwhelming -- even in Star Financial, where the facts
`favored the plaintiff substantially more than these facts favor Bookman.
`Plaintiff STAR began offering mortgage originating services throughout
`Massachusetts in 1993 and registered its service mark, which consisted of the
`word “STAR” in bold, capital letters, a five-point star symbol in the upper
`portion of the letter “R” and the word “MORTGAGE” in smaller capital letters
`below, in January 1994. See Star Financial, 89 F.3d at 8. In May 1994,
`AASTAR also started offering mortgage originating services in Massachusetts.
`It advertised in the same publication as STAR, using the name “AASTAR MORTGAGE
`CORP.” in bold, capital letters and, initially, a five-point star symbol over
`the first “A.” See id. at 9. Despite the companies’ substantial overlap on
`most of the confusion factors, the Court noted that, “[w]hile the evidence
`supporting a substantial likelihood of confusion may not have been
`overwhelming, it was adequate; the court did not err in denying the motion for
`judgment as a matter of law, and we will not disturb the jury’s verdict.” Id.
`at 11.
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 12 of 33
`
`a.
`
`Similarity of the “ThunderHawk” Marks
`
`
`
`Bitstream argues that, while the “ThunderHawk” marks may
`
`seem similar at first, they are not likely to be confused given
`
`their total effect. See Bitstream’s Mem. at 9. In contrast,
`
`Bookman argues that the marks are virtually identical and
`
`prominently displayed, such that a jury could reasonably infer
`
`that an Internet user who arrives at the parties’ respective
`
`sites would easily notice the marks. See Pl.’s Mem. at 9.
`
`Bookman’s website prominently depicts his alleged mark
`
`“THUNDERHAWK” as one word in black, lower case, block letters.
`
`The word appears underneath a red eye logo and above the phrase
`
`“Internet Systems,” which is in smaller black letters. A thick
`
`red line runs beneath the alleged mark and across the entire
`
`page. Otherwise, the background is white. See Bitstream’s
`
`Statement of Material Facts, Ex. 7.
`
`Bitstream’s website contains the name “ThunderHawk,”
`
`prominently displayed in red alongside descriptions of the
`
`company’s news, products, support services and business partners,
`
`information for developers, and information regarding its font
`
`and software business. The site has a black and green color
`
`motif along the top and side of most of its pages, though a
`
`variety of colors are used throughout the pages. In addition, an
`
`eye logo is positioned adjacent to Bitstream’s purported mark.
`
`See Chagnon Decl., Ex. A. The home page and many of the other
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 13 of 33
`
`pages on Bitstream’s site feature the company name across the top
`
`and display its diamond-shaped logo in the upper left corner.
`
`See id. However, at least one page of Bitstream’s website
`
`prominently displays “ThunderHawk” in red along with an eye logo,
`
`all against a solid white background, without the Bitstream
`
`company name or logo. See Bookman’s Statement of Disputed
`
`Material Facts, Exs. 20-21.
`
`Bitstream focuses on the differences between the marks,
`
`while First Circuit law dictates emphasizing the similarities on
`
`summary judgment review. In Astra Pharmaceutical, like here, the
`
`First Circuit compared a house name trademark against a brand
`
`name trademark. Astra used brand names such as “Xylocaine” to
`
`identify its pharmaceutical preparations and syringes, and “Astra
`
`Pharmaceutical” and “ASTRA” as house names. See Astra
`
`Pharmaceutical, 718 F.2d at 1205. The company brought a
`
`trademark infringement action against Beckman, which used
`
`“ASTRA,” accompanied by the words “Automatic Stat/Routine
`
`Analyzer,” as a brand name on its blood analyzer instrument, and
`
`clearly printed “BECKMAN” on another part of the machine to
`
`indicate its source. See id. at 1205.
`
`In analyzing the similarity of the marks, the Astra
`
`Pharmaceutical Court noted that it is “well settled that under
`
`certain circumstances otherwise similar marks are not likely to
`
`be confused where used in conjunction with the clearly displayed
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Case 1:02-cv-12078-NG Document 85 Filed 03/31/2005 Page 14 of 33
`
`name and/or logo of the manufacturer.” Id. at 1205. Thus,
`
`Bitstream is correct that, generally, the relevant standard for
`
`similarity of marks is the total effect of their designations,
`
`rather than their comparative individual features. See id.
`
`Nonetheless, the Court also recognized that, since the word
`
`“ASTRA” was used by both parties as a trademark, the marks were
`
`identical in terms of spelling and sound. See id. Accordingly,
`
`in considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the
`
`non-moving party, the Court found that the presence of the word
`
`“ASTRA” on both Beckman and Astra products made the marks, while
`
`not identical, at least similar for the purposes of the review.
`
`See id.
`
`Viewing the marks in a light most favorable to Bookman, it
`
`is reasonable to conclude that, if not identical, they are at
`
`least similar, such that a jury could supportably find that their
`
`total effect creates a probability of confusion, particularly
`
`given tha