throbber
THIS DISPOSITION IS
`NOT CITABLE AS
`PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`AD
`
`3/7/02
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`________
`
`In re Sterling Software, Inc.
`________
`
`Serial Nos. 75/788,509;
`75/788,510; 75/788,855;
`75/788,856; 75/788,860;
`and 75/788,861
`
`
`
`_______
`
`Anita Nesser of Baker Botts L.L.P. for Sterling Software,
`Inc.
`
`Ronald L. Fairbanks, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
`Office 112 (Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
`_______
`
`Before Cissel, Seeherman and Drost, Administrative
`Trademark Judges.
`
`Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
`
`On August 30, 1999, Sterling Software, Inc.
`
`(applicant) filed six intent-to-use applications to
`
`register the following marks (in typed form) on the
`
`Principal Register for the following goods, all in
`
`International Class 9:
`
` (1) EUREKA:INTELLIGENCE
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`
`For: Computer software for use in connection with
`enterprise information portals, namely, software for
`personalized, browser-based, integrated searching,
`analyzing and creating a wide variety of reports using
`an organization's internal information and
`intelligence over computer networks. (Ser. No.
`75/788,509)
`
`(2) EUREKA:STRATEGY
`
`For: Computer software for use in connection with
`enterprise information portals, namely, software for
`creating and managing large databases and performing
`calculations on, and generating a wide variety of
`reports from, such databases, using an organization's
`internal information over computer networks. (Ser.
`No. 75/788,510)
`
`(3) EUREKA:ANALYST
`
`For: Computer software for use in connection with
`enterprise information portals, namely, software that
`performs high-speed multidimensional analysis on an
`organization's internal information over computer
`networks. (Ser. No. 75/788,855)
`
`(4) EUREKA:PORTAL
`
`For: Computer software for use in connection with
`enterprise information portals, namely, software for
`providing a single point of network entry for
`accessing and viewing an organization's internal
`information and intelligence over computer networks.
`(Ser. No. 75/788,856).
`
`(5) EUREKA:SUITE
`
`For: Computer software for use in connection with
`enterprise information portals, namely, software that
`enables organizations to organize, manage and
`distribute internally and externally stored
`information via a global communication network. (Ser.
`No. 75/788,860)
`
`(6) EUREKA:REPORTER
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`
`For: Computer software for use in connection with
`enterprise information portals, namely, software for
`producing production reports based on an
`organization's internal information over computer
`networks. (App. No. 75/788,861).
`
`In each case, the Examining Attorney1 ultimately
`
`
`
`refused to register the marks because of the following
`
`registration of the mark shown below for “software
`
`development and consulting services” in International Class
`
`42:
`
`
`
`
`
`The registration contains a disclaimer of the word
`
`”software” and a statement that the stippling is a feature
`
`of the mark and does not represent color. Additionally, we
`
`note that affidavits under Section 8 and 15 pertaining to
`
`this registration have been accepted and acknowledged,
`
`respectively, by the Office. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1058 and 1065.2
`
`
`
`After the Examining Attorney made the refusals final,
`
`these appeals followed. Both applicant and the Examining
`
`Attorney filed briefs. Oral hearings were not requested.
`
`
`1 The present Examining Attorney was not the original Examining
`Attorney in these cases.
`2 Registration No. 1,913,902, issued August 22, 1995.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`
`Inasmuch as the records and the issue in all six
`
`
`
`applications are similar, we will consolidate the appeals
`
`and issue a single opinion for all marks on appeal. In
`
`this opinion, when we refer to portions of the record that
`
`are common to all the applications, we will refer to
`
`Application No. 75/788,509.
`
`According to the Examining Attorney, “eureka” is a
`
`“unique/arbitrary term” (Examining Attorney’s Br. at 9).
`
`The Examining Attorney argues that it is the dominant
`
`portion of applicant’s mark, which is identical to the
`
`dominant portion of the registered mark. The Examining
`
`Attorney points out that the word “software” is disclaimed.
`
`He also maintains that the words in applicant’s mark are
`
`suggestive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic,
`
`function, feature, purpose, or use of the relevant goods,
`
`and these words do not distinguish the marks in those
`
`applications from the cited registration.
`
`
`
`The Examining Attorney also found that the goods and
`
`services are “highly related.” Examining Attorney’s Br. at
`
`9. As evidence of this relatedness, the Examining Attorney
`
`made of record numerous copies of registrations for the
`
`purpose of showing that “one mark [was] used for both the
`
`goods of computer software/computer programs and the
`
`4
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`services of development and/or consulting of computer
`
`software.” Office Action dated December 6, 2000, p. 3 n.1.
`
`The Examining Attorney concluded that there would be a
`
`likelihood of confusion.
`
` On the other hand, applicant argues that “there are no
`
`visual or aural similarities whatsoever between the marks,
`
`and the commercial impression engendered by each mark is
`
`substantially different.” Applicant’s Br. at 5. Applicant
`
`also maintains that the Examining Attorney “is straining to
`
`create a relationship between the Registrant’s services and
`
`Applicant’s goods, while the record (and common sense)
`
`dictate otherwise.” Applicant’s Br. at 7. Applicant
`
`concludes that its services “simply do not move in the same
`
`channels of trade as Applicant’s goods, and they are not
`
`offered or sold to the same classes of purchasers,” and it
`
`submits that the refusal should be reversed. Applicant’s
`
`Br. at 11.
`
`
`
`After considering the records and the arguments of the
`
`applicant and the Examining Attorney, the Examining
`
`Attorney’s refusals to register applicant’s marks for the
`
`identified goods because they would be likely to cause
`
`confusion with registrant’s mark for its services are
`
`affirmed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`
`
`Evidentiary Issues
`
`
`
`Before we consider the likelihood of confusion issue,
`
`we must first address several evidentiary issues that have
`
`been raised on appeal. When the Examining Attorney
`
`initially refused to register applicant’s marks, the
`
`Examining Attorney relied on 76 third-party registrations
`
`to demonstrate that registrant’s services were related to
`
`applicant’s goods. In its Appeal Brief, applicant points
`
`out that there are only 73 registrations at issue because
`
`two copies of the same registrations were included and two
`
`registrations were issued to the same entity. The
`
`Examining Attorney now apparently accepts this number
`
`because, in his Appeal Brief, he refers to “a
`
`representative sampling of seventy-three (73)
`
`registrations.” Examining Attorney’s Br. at 7 n.3.
`
`However, applicant further requests that we disregard
`
`23 of these registrations because they were issued under
`
`Section 44(e) of the Trademark Act and were not based on
`
`use. Applicant’s Brief at 3. Surprisingly, the Examining
`
`Attorney persists in arguing that all 73 registrations have
`
`probative value. Examining Attorney’s Br. at 7 n.3 (“The
`
`applicant’s request that any of the previously attached
`
`evidence be disregarded is without merit”). While the
`
`6
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`Examining Attorney cites In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc.
`
`for support, we note that this case stands for exactly the
`
`opposite point.
`
`In the instant case, however, 11 of the 15 third-party
`applications and registrations which cover both
`restaurant services and mustard were filed under the
`provisions of Section 44 of the Act, that is, they are
`based on foreign registration rather than on use in
`commerce, and most of their owners appear to have
`simply copied large parts of the title (including, in
`some cases, even the punctuation used therein) of
`International Class 30. Such registrations and
`applications are not even necessarily evidence of a
`serious intent to use the marks shown therein in the
`United States on all of the listed goods and services,
`and they have very little, if any, persuasive value on
`the point for which they were offered.
`
`In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co. Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470
`
`
`
`n.6 (TTAB 1988).
`
`Therefore, we agree with applicant, and we will not
`
`consider the registrations based on Section 44(e) as
`
`evidence of the relatedness of the goods and services.
`
`The Examining Attorney then goes on to attempt to
`
`submit additional evidence in the same footnote in its
`
`brief. Id. at 7-8 n.3 (“Furthermore, as of the date of
`
`this brief, there are 448 registrations of the type
`
`attached by the original examining attorney — 284 of which
`
`did not claim a priority filing date via Section 44(e) of
`
`the Trademark Act”). Not unexpectedly, applicant submits
`
`that this ”’evidence’ cannot be considered by the Board.”
`
`7
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`Reply Br. at 2. The Examining Attorney has not provided
`
`any argument as to how we can consider this evidence on
`
`appeal. The record should be complete prior to appeal. 37
`
`CFR § 2.142(d). Of course, we do not take judicial notice
`
`of registrations in the Office nor, even if timely
`
`submitted, is it sufficient to simply include a list of
`
`marks with registration numbers. In re Hub Distributing,
`
`Inc., 218 USPQ 284, 285 (TTAB 1983) (“[W]e do not consider
`
`a copy of a search report to be credible evidence of the
`
`existence of the registrations and the uses listed
`
`therein”); See also In re Smith and Mehaffey, 31 USPQ2d
`
`1531, 1532 (TTAB 1994); In re Duofold, Inc., 184 USPQ 638,
`
`640 (TTAB 1974). Worse yet is to simply reference a large
`
`number of registrations without providing any other
`
`details. Therefore, we agree with applicant, and we will
`
`not consider this “evidence” in our decision.
`
`Likelihood of Confusion
`
`
`
`Now, we address the main issue in this appeal:
`
`whether applicant’s marks for its goods would be
`
`confusingly similar to the registered mark for the
`
`identified services. Determining whether there is a
`
`likelihood of confusion requires consideration of the
`
`factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`
`476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (CCPA 1973). In
`
`8
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`considering the evidence of record on these factors, we
`
`must keep in mind that “[t]he fundamental inquiry mandated
`
`by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in
`
`the essential characteristics of the goods and differences
`
`in the marks.” Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
`
`Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976).
`
`The first factor we consider is whether the marks are
`
`similar in sound, appearance, meaning or commercial
`
`impression. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567.
`
`Applicant seeks to register the marks EUREKA:INTELLIGENCE;
`
`EUREKA:STRATEGY; EUREKA:ANALYST; EUREKA:PORTAL;
`
`EUREKA:SUITE; and EUREKA:REPORTER in typed form. The cited
`
`registration is for the mark:
`
`
`
`Both marks contain the common term “eureka.” The
`
`Examining Attorney submits that the term is unique and
`
`arbitrary. Applicant, on the other hand, agrees that both
`
`marks contain the same word “eureka,” but it maintains that
`
`because “eureka” is defined as “used to express triumph
`
`upon finding or discovering something,” it is highly
`
`9
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`suggestive when used in connection with computer-related
`
`goods or services because these programs are often used
`
`“for location and/or discovery of something.” Request for
`
`Reconsideration, p. 3. We do not agree with applicant that
`
`the term “eureka” is highly suggestive when used in
`
`connection with computer-related goods or services nor is
`
`there any evidence that the term is widely used in this
`
`field. Therefore, we agree with the Examining Attorney
`
`that the word would not be highly suggestive of applicant’s
`
`or registrant’s goods or services.
`
`Next, we must compare the marks in their entireties to
`
`see if the marks are similar. We agree that the word
`
`“eureka” is the only term common to both applicant’s marks
`
`and the registered mark. Applicant correctly notes that
`
`the cited registration is a composite mark containing a
`
`design element, applicant’s marks contain a colon, and the
`
`other wording in the marks is different.
`
`We acknowledge that the marks are certainly not
`
`identical although that, of course, does not end the
`
`likelihood of confusion analysis. It is well settled that
`
`it is improper to dissect a mark. In re Shell Oil Co., 992
`
`F.2d 1204, 1206, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`However, more or less weight may be given to a particular
`
`feature of a mark for rational reasons. In re National
`
`10
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`Data Corporation, 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985).
`
`The differences in type styles between registrant’s
`
`design mark and applicant’s marks are not significant here
`
`because applicant’s marks are in typed form and, thus, not
`
`limited to any special depiction. Squirtco v. Tomy Corp.,
`
`697 F.2d 1038, 1041, 216 USPQ 937, 939 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
`
`Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943, 55 USPQ2d
`
`1842, 1847-48 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Nor is the fact that the
`
`registrant also has a design in its mark sufficient to
`
`distinguish the marks. The design consists simply of the
`
`stylized letters “ES.” These letters reinforce the
`
`connection with EUREKA SOFTWARE, the first letters of the
`
`two words in the mark. See In re Dixie Restaurants Inc.,
`
`105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(DELTA, the dominant portion of applicant’s THE DELTA CAFE
`
`and design mark, held similar in sound, appearance, and
`
`meaning to registrant’s DELTA mark).
`
`As for the colon in applicant’s mark, we find that the
`
`colon does not serve to distinguish applicant’s marks from
`
`the registrant’s. The CCPA held that the addition of a
`
`hyphen and another digit did not eliminate the similarity
`
`of the marks. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. C.J. Webb,
`
`Inc., 442 F.2d 1376, 170 USPQ 35, 36 (CCPA 1971)(“The
`
`11
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`addition of the extra 6 and the hyphen has already been
`
`held not to avoid likelihood of confusion, and in the
`
`absence of some other apparent significance for the term 6-
`
`66 we find this conclusion inescapable”). Punctuation
`
`often does not significantly change the commercial
`
`impression of marks. In re Burlington Industries, Inc.,
`
`196 USPQ 718, 719 (TTAB 1977) (“[A]n exclamation point does
`
`not serve to identify the source of the goods”). Here, the
`
`colon seems to emphasize the significance of the word
`
`“eureka” and to indicate that the next word is a
`
`subcategory of goods available under the EUREKA trademark.
`
`The only truly significant difference between the
`
`marks is the fact that the word following EUREKA in each
`
`mark is different: “software” in the registered mark and
`
`“intelligence,” “strategy,” “analyst,” “portal,” “suite,”
`
`and “reporter” in applicant’s marks. The term “software”
`
`is disclaimed in the registered mark and it does not
`
`significantly change the commercial impression of the
`
`registrant’s mark. Disclaimed matter is often given less
`
`weight than other elements of a mark. Hilson Research Inc.
`
`v. Society for Human Resource Management, 27 USPQ2d 1423
`
`(TTAB 1993). Here, when applicant’s goods are software and
`
`registrant’s services are “software development and
`
`consulting services,” the word “software” would not
`
`12
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`significantly distinguish the marks because both
`
`applicant’s goods and registrant’s services involve
`
`software.
`
`The words in applicant’s marks also do not serve to
`
`distinguish the marks. These words, “intelligence,”
`
`“strategy,” “analyst,” “portal,” “suite,” and “reporter,”
`
`are highly suggestive of software programs that: use “an
`
`organization’s information and intelligence;” perform
`
`“multidimensional analysis;” are “used in connection with
`
`enterprise information portals;” or produce “production
`
`reports.” The Examining Attorney also pointed out that
`
`“suite” is a descriptive term, and commonly disclaimed, for
`
`computer software. Application No. 75/788,860, Office
`
`Action dated December 6, 2000, p.2 and attached
`
`registrations. The Examining Attorney also argues that
`
`“strategy does little to distinguish these marks. Strategy
`
`is a suggestive term when used in relation to the
`
`applicant’s goods [‘software for performing calculations …
`
`generating reports’]”. Application No. 75/788,510, Office
`
`Action dated December 6, 2000, p. 2 (emphasis omitted).
`
`“Strategy” is defined as “[t]he art or skill of using
`
`13
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`stratagems esp. in politics and business.” Webster’s II
`
`New Riverside University Dictionary (1984).3
`
`When we compare the marks in their entireties, we find
`
`that they are similar. As we previously discussed, we find
`
`that the presence of the colon seems to accentuate the
`
`common word “eureka.” The suggestive meaning of the
`
`additional words in applicant’s marks would simply indicate
`
`different subspecialties of the software.
`
`Next, we turn to the issue of whether applicant’s
`
`goods and registrant’s services are related. “[I]t is well
`
`established that a “relatedness” which speaks to a
`
`likelihood of confusion may occur not only where goods are
`
`involved but can exist between products on one hand and
`
`services dealing with or related to those products on the
`
`other hand.” MSI Data Corp. v. Microprocessor Systems,
`
`Inc., 220 USPQ 655, 658 (TTAB 1983) (Computer hardware
`
`manufacturing services to the order of or specification of
`
`others held related to electronic ordering system for
`
`gathering and transmitting data comprising a recorder-
`
`transmitter and data receiver). See also Safety-Kleen
`
`Corp. v. Dresser Industries, 518 F.2d 1399, 186 USPQ 476
`
`
`3 We take judicial notice of this dictionary definition.
`University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.,
`213 USPQ 594, 596 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505
`(Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`14
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`(CCPA 1975) (Maintenance services found related to parts
`
`for cleaning units). Relatedness may exist even if the
`
`products and services are not competitive “if they could
`
`come to the attention of the same types of customers
`
`suggesting a common origin.” MSI Data, 220 USPQ at 658.
`
`To determine whether the goods and services are
`
`related, we must consider the goods and services as they
`
`are described in the identification of goods and services
`
`in the applications and registration.4 “’Likelihood of
`
`confusion must be determined based on an analysis of the
`
`mark applied to the … services recited in applicant’s
`
`application vis-à-vis the … services recited in [a] …
`
`registration, rather than what the evidence shows the …
`
`services to be.’” Dixie Restaurant, 41 USPQ2d at 1534
`
`(punctuation in original), quoting, Canadian Imperial Bank
`
`of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, 811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d
`
`1813, 1816 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also Octocom Systems Inc.
`
`v. Houston Computer Services, 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d
`
`1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, the services in the
`
`registration are identified broadly as “software
`
`development and consultation services.” Contrary to
`
`
`4 Applicant’s evidence regarding registrant’s actual services,
`submitted with applicant’s request for reconsideration, does not
`limit the scope of the registration.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`applicant’s argument, the Examining Attorney is not
`
`“straining to create a relationship” between applicant’s
`
`goods and registrant’s services. Applicant’s Br. at 7.
`
`Obviously, these services can involve developing software
`
`and providing consulting services for software involving
`
`enterprise information portals. Canadian Imperial Bank, 1
`
`USPQ2d at 1816 (Board properly considered “whether, in the
`
`entire market for that service (banking services), there
`
`was a likelihood of confusion”).
`
`While the identifications of applicant’s goods in its
`
`six applications are different, they are all for “computer
`
`software for use in connection with enterprise information
`
`portals, namely, software for … on an organization's
`
`internal information over computer networks.”5 In this
`
`case, the Examining Attorney has made of record dozens of
`
`third-party registrations based on use in commerce to show
`
`that the goods of the applicant and the services of
`
`registrant often are marketed under the same marks. See
`
`Mucky Duck Mustard, 6 USPQ2d at 1470 n.6 (Although third-
`
`party registrations “are not evidence that the marks shown
`
`
`5 Application No. 75/788,860 does not use the language “over
`computer networks.” Instead it contains the language “via a
`global communications network” in the identification of goods.
`We do not view this difference to have a significant effect on
`the issue of the relatedness of the goods and services.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`therein are in use on a commercial scale or that the public
`
`is familiar with them, [they] may have some probative value
`
`to the extent that they may serve to suggest that such
`
`goods or services are the type which may emanate from a
`
`single source”). These registrations support the Examining
`
`Attorney’s position that the goods and services are
`
`related. See, e.g., Reg. No. 2,306,921 (“computer software
`
`for use in the field of engineering…” and “consultation
`
`services and computer software development for others in
`
`the field of engineering…”); No. 2,305,105 (“computer
`
`software, namely, inventory tracking software…” and
`
`“computer consultation services, namely, customer software
`
`and development…”); No. 2,303,524 (“computer software for
`
`developing custom-based software applications…” and “design
`
`development installation and maintenance of computer
`
`software…”); and No. 2,302,680 (“computer software, namely,
`
`integrated human resources, payroll, benefits, and job
`
`requisition software packages” and “computer consultation,
`
`namely, consulting services … involving business management
`
`software systems”). Even sophisticated purchasers would be
`
`likely to be confused if applicant’s and registrant’s
`
`services were used on such closely related goods and
`
`services. Octocom Systems, 16 USPQ2d at 1787.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Ser Nos. 75/788,509; 75/788,510; 75/788,855; 75/788,856;
`75/788,860; and 75/788,861
`
`
`
`Applicant cites Reynolds and Reynolds Co. v. I.E.
`
`Systems, Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1749 (TTAB 1987), and argues that
`
`“[n]ot everything involving the use of computers is
`
`necessarily related.” Applicant’s Br. at 7. We agree. In
`
`that case, the very specific and different software of the
`
`applicant and the opposer were not so closely related that
`
`confusion was likely. Unlike the cited case, the goods and
`
`services here are much more closely related.
`
`
`
`In this case, we find that EUREKA is a strong term
`
`that dominates applicant’s and registrant’s marks. There
`
`is no basis to find that the word is weak or highly
`
`suggestive of the goods and services. While there are
`
`differences in the marks, these differences are eclipsed by
`
`the common feature “EUREKA.” The goods and services are
`
`related such that purchasers familiar with registrant’s ES
`
`EUREKA SOFTWARE and design software development and
`
`consultation services would likely believe that there is a
`
`common source for computer software for use in connection
`
`with enterprise information portals offered under the marks
`
`EUREKA:INTELLIGENCE, EUREKA:STRATEGY, EUREKA:ANALYST,
`
`EUREKA:PORTAL, EUREKA:SUITE, and EUREKA:REPORTER.
`
`
`
`Decision: The refusals to register applicant’s marks
`
`under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act are affirmed.
`
`
`
`18

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket