To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Public Communications Inc. (trademarks@schiffhardin.com)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 77491921 - E-DENTITY - 07399
`
`10/7/2008 10:34:32 AM
`
`ECOM112@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`Attachment - 5
`Attachment - 6
`Attachment - 7
`Attachment - 8
`Attachment - 9
`Attachment - 10
`Attachment - 11
`Attachment - 12
`Attachment - 13
`Attachment - 14
`Attachment - 15
`Attachment - 16
`Attachment - 17
`Attachment - 18
`Attachment - 19
`Attachment - 20
`Attachment - 21
`Attachment - 22
`Attachment - 23
`Attachment - 24
`Attachment - 25
`Attachment - 26
`Attachment - 27
`Attachment - 28
`Attachment - 29
`Attachment - 30
`Attachment - 31
`Attachment - 32
`Attachment - 33
`Attachment - 34
`Attachment - 35
`Attachment - 36
`Attachment - 37
`Attachment - 38
`Attachment - 39
`Attachment - 40
`Attachment - 41
`Attachment - 42
`Attachment - 43
`Attachment - 44
`
`

`
`Attachment - 45
`Attachment - 46
`Attachment - 47
`Attachment - 48
`Attachment - 49
`Attachment - 50
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SERIAL NO:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK: E-DENTITY(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`CLAY A. TILLACK(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`CHICAGO, IL 60606-0079(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) Public Communications Inc.(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`07399(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`trademarks@schiffhardin.com
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`O AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS
`OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`SSUE/MAILING DATE: 10/7/2008
`
`The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.(cid:160) Applicant must respond timely and completely to
`the issues below.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3418761.(cid:160) Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.(cid:160) See the enclosed registration.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`rademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely that a potential consumer
`would be confused or mistaken or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160)
`The court in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973) listed the principal factors to be considered
`when determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d).(cid:160) See TMEP §1207.01.(cid:160) However, not all of the factors are
`necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one factor may be dominant in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record.(cid:160) In re
`Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont, 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at
`567.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the following factors are the most relevant:(cid:160) similarity of the marks, similarity of the services, and similarity of trade channels of the
`services.(cid:160) See In re Opus One, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1812 (TTAB 2001); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc. , 59 USPQ2d 1593 (TTAB 1999); In re
`Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applicant has applied to register E-DENTITY in International Class 035 for “Business consulting and auditing services related to
`monitoring and auditing the performance and effectiveness of the websites and online presence of others.” (cid:160) The registered mark is E-DENTITY
`
`*77491921*
`
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`ENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`77/491921
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`PO BOX 06079
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`in International Class 042 for “Computer services, namely, designing, implementing and maintaining web sites for others.”
`
`A.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Comparison of the Marks
`
`In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks are compared for similarities in their appearance, sound, meaning or connotation and
`commercial impression.(cid:160) In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b).(cid:160)
`Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB
`1988); In re Lamson Oil Co., 6 USPQ2d 1041, 1043 (TTAB 1987); see TMEP §1207.01(b).
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ere, the marks are identical in appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.(cid:160) The applicant’s mark E-DENTITY is the exact
`replica of the registrant’s mark E-DENTITY.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f the marks of the respective parties are identical, the relationship between the goods and/or services of the respective parties need not be as
`close to support a finding of likelihood of confusion as might apply where differences exist between the marks.(cid:160) In re Opus One Inc., 60 USPQ2d
`1812, 1815 (TTAB 2001); Amcor, Inc. v. Amcor Indus., Inc., 210 USPQ 70, 78 (TTAB 1981); TMEP §1207.01(a).
`
`B.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Comparison of the Services
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or directly competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.(cid:160) See Safety-Kleen Corp. v.
`Dresser Indus., Inc., 518 F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).(cid:160) Rather, they need only be related in
`some manner, or the conditions surrounding their marketing are such that they would be encountered by the same purchasers under
`circumstances that would give rise to the mistaken belief that the goods and/or services come from a common source.(cid:160) In re Total Quality Group,
`Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i); see, e.g., On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086-87,
`56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475-76 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc. , 748 F.2d 1565, 1566-68, 223 USPQ 1289, 1290 (Fed.
`Cir. 1984).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n this case, the applicant’s services of monitoring and auditing the performance and effectiveness of the websites and online presence of others
`are closely related to the registrant’s services of designing, implementing and maintaining websites for others. (cid:160) Third-parties that offer the
`registrant’s services of creating and maintaining websites also offer the applicant’s monitoring and auditing services pertaining to the websites.
`Thus, it is highly likely that these services will be marketed in the same channels of commerce and provided to the same group of consumers
`under circumstances that would lead the consumers to erroneously believe that the services emanate from a common source.
`As evidence of the relatedness of the services, attached are copies of printouts from the USPTO X-Search database, which show at least eight (8)
`third-party registrations of marks used in connection with the same or similar services as those of applicant and registrant in this case.(cid:160) These
`printouts have probative value to the extent that they serve to suggest that the services listed therein, namely monitoring and auditing the
`performance and effectiveness of the websites and online presence of others and designing, implementing and maintaining websites for others,
`are of a kind that may emanate from a single source.(cid:160) In re Infinity Broad. Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1214, 1217-18 (TTAB 2001); In re Albert Trostel
`& Sons Co., 29 USPQ2d 1783, 1785-86 (TTAB 1993); In re Mucky Duck Mustard Co., 6 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 n.6 (TTAB 1988); TMEP
`§1207.01(d)(iii).
`Therefore, since the marks are identical and the services have been shown to be closely related, the potential for confusion in the marketplace is
`very likely.(cid:160) Accordingly, registration must be denied on the Principal Register under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.
`PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`nformation regarding pending Application Serial No. 78512834 is enclosed.(cid:160) The filing date of the referenced application precedes applicant’s
`filing date.(cid:160) There may be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).(cid:160) If the
`referenced application registers, registration may be refused in this case under Section 2(d).(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.(cid:160) Therefore,
`upon entry of a response to this Office action, action on this case may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed application.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant believes there is no potential conflict between this application and the earlier-filed application, then applicant may present arguments
`relevant to the issue in a response to this Office action.(cid:160) The election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to
`address this issue at a later point.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`egistration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a purpose, feature and function of applicant’s services. (cid:160) Trademark Act
`Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or
`services.(cid:160) TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820
`F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987).(cid:160) Moreover, a mark that identifies a group of users to whom an applicant directs its
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`goods and/or services is also merely descriptive.(cid:160) TMEP §1209.03(i); see In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1454 (TTAB 2004).
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract.(cid:160)
`In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (C.C.P.A. 1978); TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc. , 51 USPQ2d
`1061 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not
`“doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (finding CONCURRENT PC-DOS
`merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a
`particular type of operating system).(cid:160) “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” (cid:160)
`In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant has applied to register E-DENTITY for “Business consulting and auditing services related to monitoring and auditing the
`performance and effectiveness of the websites and online presence of others.”
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`here is evidence that the general public is using the term E-DENTITY to refer to one’s “identity on the Internet.” (cid:160) Please see the attached
`dictionary evidence.(cid:160) In addition, the trademark examining attorney has attached six (6) articles from the LEXISNEXIS® computerized
`database in which this term is frequently used in the business and social context to refer to someone’s, oftentimes a business’s, “electronic
`identity,” “virtual identity” and/or “cyber-brand. ” (cid:160) As such, when the term E-DENTITY is considered in relation to applicant’s services, it
`merely describes a purpose, feature and function of the applicant’s business consulting and auditing services. (cid:160) Applicant is monitoring and
`auditing the performance and effectiveness of the websites and online presence of others, i.e. their e-dentities.(cid:160) In other words, the subject matter
`and main focus of applicant’s services is a client’s e-dentity.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or the above reasons, the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the services, and registration must be denied under Section 2(e)(1) of the
`Trademark Act.
`
`Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusals by submitting evidence and arguments in support
`of registration.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`pplicant must respond to the requirement set forth below.
`
`EQUEST FOR INFORMATION
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`o permit proper examination of the application, applicant must submit additional information about the services.(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); In re
`Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-58 (TTAB 2004); TMEP §814.(cid:160) The requested information should include fact sheets, brochures,
`and/or advertisements.(cid:160) If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for services of the same type,
`explaining how its own services will differ.(cid:160) If the services feature new technology and no information regarding competing services is available,
`
`applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the services.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The submitted factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, their salient features, and their prospective
`customers and channels of trade.(cid:160) Conclusory statements regarding the services will not satisfy this requirement for information.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`ailure to respond to a request for information is an additional ground for refusing registration.(cid:160) See In re DTI P’ship LLP , 67 USPQ2d 1699,
`1701-02 (TTAB 2003).(cid:160) Merely stating that information about the services is available on applicant’s website is an inappropriate response to a
`
`request for additional information and is insufficient to make the relevant information of record.(cid:160) See In re Planalytics, 70 USPQ2d at 1457-58.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`OPTION – SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER ADVISORY
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he applied-for mark has been refused registration on the Principal Register.(cid:160) Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and
`arguments in support of registration and/or by amending the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.(cid:160) See 15 U.S.C. §1091;
`37 C.F.R. §§2.47, 2.75(a); TMEP §§801.02(b), 816.(cid:160) Amending to the Supplemental Register does not preclude applicant from submitting
`evidence and arguments against the refusals.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`lthough registration on the Supplemental Register does not afford all the benefits of registration on the Principal Register, it does provide the
`following advantages:
`
`The registrant may use the registration symbol ®;
`The registration is protected against registration of a confusingly similar mark under Trademark Act Section 2(d);
`The registrant may bring suit for infringement in federal court; and
`The registration may serve as the basis for a filing in a foreign country under the Paris Convention and other international agreements.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`ee 15 U.S.C. §§1052(d), 1091, 1094; TMEP §815.
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`PLEASE NOTE: Amending to the Supplemental Register WILL NOT overcome the likelihood of confusion refusal under Section 2(d).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned trademark
`examining attorney.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Hai-Ly H. Lam/
`Trademark Attorney
`Law Office 112
`Office: 571-272-3354
`Fax: 571-273-9112
`
`RESPOND TO THIS ACTION:(cid:160)Applicant should file a response to this Office action(cid:160)online using the form at
`http://www.uspto.gov/teas/eTEASpageD.htm, waiting 48-72 hours if applicant received notification of the Office action via e-mail.(cid:160)(cid:160)For
`technical assistance with the form, please e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.(cid:160) For(cid:160)questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned
`examining attorney.(cid:160)(cid:160) Do not respond to this Office action by e-mail;(cid:160)the USPTO does not accept e-mailed responses .
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f responding by paper mail, please include the following information: the application serial number, the mark, the filing date and the name,
`title/position, telephone number and e-mail address of the person signing the response.(cid:160) Please use the following address: Commissioner for
`Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`TATUS CHECK: Check the status of the application at least once every six months from the initial filing date using the USPTO Trademark
`Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) online system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.(cid:160) When conducting an online status check, print and
`maintain a copy of the complete TARR screen.(cid:160) If the status of your application has not changed for more than six months, please contact the
`assigned examining attorney.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`htt_p:i"i"\-wvw.lexis_comfresearchfretrieve? m=3r1E52l23Ea9bDbeDfd9??911?'l‘3112DF"I:l& browseTy_pe=TEXTONL‘r'&docnum=5D& fmt
`str=FULL& ster1I:|oc=1&wchn=dGLzVtz—zSkAt& md5=955c?9aE9aEld3l35a1?'fece9?'l3993‘l834
`El9a"18I2DD8 09:29:05 AM
`
`You win some, you lose some Breaking News from gfobeandmarlcom January 4, 2006 10:05 AM EST
`
`Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors.
`All Rights Reserved
`Breaking News from globeandmail.com
`
`January 4, 2005 10:05 AM EST
`
`SECTION: C.AT8,C; einsider; Technology
`
`LENGTH: ?98 words
`
`HEADLINE: You win some, you lose some
`
`BYLINE: ijohnson: Naseem Javed: Special to Globe and Mail Update
`HIGHLIGHT:
`
`Corporations that develop clear messages are the real players, Naseem Javed writes
`
`BODY:
`
`Front Lines is a guest viewpoint section offering perspectives on current issues and events from people working on the front lines of Canada's
`technology industry. Naseem Javed is author of Naming for Power, and a specialist in global name e-dentities, image, cyber-branding and
`domain issues.
`
`Corporations that develop clear messages and clearly communicate their stories to both the internal organizations and the external forces are
`the real players. The rest are either still discovering who they are orjust making stories as they go along or periodically falling flat on their
`faces.
`
`Who are the real winners and losers of the corporate image in 2005, which corporation had the best identity, which was most famous, hated or
`most profitable? All these responses depend on where you stand, as a loyal customer, the general public, employee or competitor.
`
`In a study conducted by ABC Namebank International, 5,000 major corporations around the world were surveyed and results were compiled to
`measure the impact of their image on customers, profitability and overall market positioning. There was also a strong emphasis on their cyber-
`branding platforms and e-commerce presence.
`
`Most corporations passed the acid test 54 per cent in all with a 3+ ranking. But the real big winners were very few 3.9 per cent and the losers
`stood at 42.1 per cent.
`
`"he big winners had the Right Story with the Right Image: the others had The Right Story but a very poor Image and struggled to make it
`work. The losers were almost without a Story, with a bunch of ideas thrown together and some randomly picked up image. They were spinning,
`but going nowhere.
`
`"he Story
`
`Corporate image demands a very clear strategy, a mission, a game plan and a story. All that needs to be enunciated in a few simple sentences
`or a paragraph or two. What is the corporation all about, what does it do, and where it is going and why?
`
`Corporations that develop these clear messages and clearly communicate their stories to both internal organizations and external forces are
`the real players. The rest are either still discovering who they are, they're just making stories as they go along, or they are periodically falling
`
`

`
`http:fi"\-wv-N.|exis_comfresearchfretrieve? m=3r1E52f23Ea9hDbeDfd9i'i'911i'1‘3112DF"I:|& browseTy_pe=TEXTONL‘r'&docnum=5D& fmt
`str=FULL& stam:|oo=1&wohn=dGLzVtz—zSkAt& mI:|5=955o?9aE9aEh:|385a1?'feoe9?'E993‘l834
`El9i"18i'2DD8 09:29:05 AM
`..vn.. n..uu ..nu,-x..n.u.
`I'I}\.¢ «mu; an. \.¢IIl!\.¢J
`..n.m tum...-nu-...1n.«3 unu ..u«..-_.- u“... un..-_.- u.. Juan urunn-5 1J|.|.rar\.n.| u... man.’ 3-: un-n-I}_-fr va um.-_; um. ‘.l1..v1-u\.|7n..|4Irg I‘ulvM<!._f
`fiat on their faces.
`
`It is blue that most corporations are usuafly wrapped up in some big generic business concepts. It is akso a very common probierri these days
`that most find themseives in the rnidfie of q-u-icksaed when action is needed, whife the markets are rnovi-nag too fast in too many directions. Stifi,
`the issue of ciadty and directions must be fixed. The correct messages must be built and the reat stories need to be told.
`
`The image
`
`There is a tot to be said for the right image to fit the right story.
`
`The most common protflem is that the image has no relationship whatsoever with the corporate obgectives. Stilt, senior teams reguiarty send
`out very corifi.isi-rig messages to intemat Fayers of staff arid ask them to band around the existing image and sing aforag with out having any
`sofid base or substance. This very often makes it a chicizen-or-Ithe-egg .
`
`the issues about image-bui-iding aiso require a deeper Lm-derstaming and professional guidance. the right image to fit the right story is criticai.
`
`Basic Ruies
`
`No matter what the corporation does, it must profect a sharper personaiity, something that requires profession-ai and objective assessments
`not just randomiy picked, trendy ideas.
`
`when it comes to corporate image, corporations must atso try to have images of honesty and respectabiiity. Therefore they have no room For
`faise claims or ovetfy sifiy, wikdiy humorous image campaigns. Money and business both are serious issues. Customers and sharehoiders aféke
`want to do business with the sober teams, and not the beer- co1rImercia¥-happy bunch.
`
`Lasliy, whatever the corporate image and brand name identity the corporation adopts, it must be secured under proper tra-demarking so that it
`can be buiit as somethi-ng t.fl'|viqIJ-E and not something shared by thousands of others. Cyber-branding is now the backbone of any business. Oniy
`good name identities wifi survive on the search engines.
`
`in Summary
`
`it's very easy to figure a# this out. A quick review of aii your corporate com-muriications materiai and your coflaterai will ciearty tefl you what
`are the severa! stories that are being profected by your corporation today. A quick search of your own corporate name identity in Googe wiii
`tel? you in seconds where your corporate brand stands in in;
`visibility and how easy or difficuit is it to Find on e-commerce.
`
`Once you have a! the data, it is atso very easy to have a conference can with your senior management on this issue. You wifi quickty come up
`with a game plan to foe: the probiems you have. After all, it is very easy to do.
`
`Remember
`
`the Craeatnsriers are waiting.
`
`LOAD-DATE: Apfii 12, 29!]?
`
`Source: Legal >1. ..J>3I|'e'If5,.hfl'{£lI;§5II.FllTeJl1}[,;i
`Terms: e4:Ien1ity {Edit Search | SuqoestTerms for I‘-i11i Search)
`View: Fuii
`Ua.teilTiI"I'Ie_' Thursday. &p1ember 13, 2008 — 928 M! EDT
`
`Terms Si Conditions Contact Us
`.,_ About LexisNexis
`'
`*
`-'
`W LEXISNEXISK Com-{right Q 2033 Lexishlexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
`
`

`
`httpflwww.lexiscomiresearchfretrieve? m=9b9hEb8e851a?dci12?5dd'l1a1E3fic5cr1& browseTy_pe=TEXTONL‘i'&docnum=E3& fmt
`str=FULL& stam:|oc=51&wohp=dGLz\i’tz—zSkAt& mI:l5=Eli"lb53bi'2afBeEll33E2I:|013e.7b4e2c820
`09.i1Elf200El 09:30:20 AM
`
`E-portfiaiios, Webfoiicl, and E-dentity: promises and chailenges; Emerging Technpiogies Center Nursing Education Perspectives July 1, 2005
`
`Copyright 2005 Gale Group, Inc.
`All Rights Reserved
`ASAP
`Copyright 2005 National League for Nursing, Inc.
`Nursing Education Perspectives
`
`July 1, 2005
`
`SECTION: Pg. 24-6(2) Vol. 25 No. 4- ISSN: 1535-5025
`ACC-ND: 134-38?290
`
`LENGTH: 1506 words
`
`HEADLINE: E-portfolios, webfolio, and E—dentity: promises and challenges:
`Emerging Technologies Center
`
`BYLINE: Skiba, Diane J.
`
`BODY:
`
`FOR DECADES, artists have used portfolios to collect and organize their work. Portfolios are seen as an essential medium to document creative
`development over time and allow fellow students and instructors to provide feedback and guidance. Many artists develop portfolios throughout
`their careers. Recently, the portfolio model has been adopted by many disciplines, especially in higher education circles. According to
`Cambridge, "portfolios have features that make them powerful tools of learning and assessment" (1, p. 1). They contribute to student learning
`and allow multiple audiences, including faculty, administration, and potential employers, to assess that learning.
`
`Portfolios are also used to assess one's performance as an employee. This is particularly true in the field of education, where many educators
`maintain teaching portfolios. In nursing, professional portfolios are used in the clinical arena as a means to collect visible documentation of
`contributions to practice for the purpose of credentialing (2). For example, in the United States, applicants for advanced practice credentialing
`in genetics must submit a professional portfolio (3). Professional portfolios are also used as a means to assess continued professional
`development. Driscoll reports that they are used to assess orthopedic nursing practice in the United Kingdom (4). In New Zealand, they are
`used demons-trate competence in practice (5).
`
`The current trend in higher education is to use electronic portfolios and electronic identity or virtual identity collections--e-portfolios,
`webfolios, e—dentity. The American Association for Higher Education states that e-portfolios, whether produced by a student or a faculty
`member, are for collection, reflection and assessment (1).
`
`What do these terms mean? A webfolio is defined as a "tightly integrated collection of web-based multimedia documents that include curriculum
`standards, course assignments and corresponding student artifacts in response to the assignments and reviewer feedback to the student's
`work." (6, p. 29). Ittelson (7') describes a universal academic electronic identity (e—dentity} clearinghouse to maintain a composite of a
`student's performance. He uses the analogy of a credit bureau toexplain how e—dentity extends beyond the traditional transcript in providing
`valuable information about students and their performance. with the movement toward competency-based curricula, an increasing number of
`higher education institutions require electronic portfolios for students.
`
`Promises No matter what you call it--e-portfolio, virtual identitx/(8)--this growing phenomenon is a powerful tool for learning and assessment.
`Long recognized as a tool for marketing and seeking employment, e-portfolios are turning information into knowledge and are considered
`knowledge builders (1). Cambridge, heavily influenced by Brown and Duguid's work on the social life of information (9), suggests that a portfolio
`
`

`
`http:fi"\-wv-N.|exis_comfresearchfretrieve? m=9b9hEbl3e851a?dc:12?5dd11a1E3x1c5cr1& browseTy_pe=TEXTONL‘r'&docnum=E3& fmt
`str=FULL& stam:|oc=51&wchp=dGLzVtz—zSkAt& mI:|5=El?"l|353|3i"2afBeEll33E2I:|D13e?b4e2cl32D
`D9.l1Eh*2DD8 D9:3D:2D AM
`.-_n.r-3-55-.-.n...-.r Lllcli. a pug uuuu
`h1MJfIIGu3G uuwucra K1’. L.auu_nru9c, n-cavity nnrucr-u_.cu uy Lnuun CIITLI uugxnua 'I'I\.lt'!\ ‘U11 us-c aurora: inc um WlIIJI'fIlClI.lLlfl' L7},
`“offers ways of making meaning of information through two important practices, reflection and social‘ construction“ [1, p. 3).
`
`Others echo Cambridge and state that e-portfolios borid students inthree distinct learning processes: coltection, seiection, arid refiection.
`Students must actively coiiect rriateria!s that demonstrate theircompetencies. They must seiect the best representations of their works. And,
`finaily, they must refierct criticafly on their work irri orderto iearn. Refiection augments their learning. According to Yancey (10), students can
`demonstrate reflection in marry ways: for exampie, attaching a ietter that expiains die purpose of the work, providing annotations to the work,
`or preparing an essay or a separate document that reviews and summarizes their tho-ug-‘nos about their learning.
`
`Through e-portfoiios, students can participate activeiy in assessing their own. fearni-rig, in singfe courses and across courses. These toois help
`students assess their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their growth and deveiopnient, over time. They ail-ow students to tell their stories
`and make connections between format coursework and informal, experiential iearning.
`
`These toois offer other benefits. They foster creative thinking and coiiaboration. They allow easier integration of content across courses. And
`they affect hcuity and students roies (5). Students are no ion-ger mere recipients of information; rather, they construct rrieaningfrom
`information arid transform it to knowiedge. Faculty, no ionger mere dissemiriators of information, are guides who facilitate student iearning. E-
`portfolios promote the concept of iifeiong ‘learning and aliow for both formative and sutnmative self-eval-uatioris (B).
`
`Criticai Elements of Etectronic Portfoiios
`
`Despite their growing popularity, many criticai factors influence the successfui inipi-ementation of e-portfofios. First and foremost, itis essential
`to create a culture where Iaculty understand and support their rote in the portfoiro process. "Successh.i\‘ I-mpierrientation requires tacuity
`appreciation of the benefits of a tight integration of curncuiar standards, course assigrlrnents, student responses to assignments and mentor
`feedback about the students’ work--benefits that justify the cost" (6, p. 30).
`
`The portfofio cuiture requires student participation and hcutty corrlmilment for review and feedback. Fundamentaily, there must be a vision
`within the irrstituliurr that serves as d fmxniatiuri for the process. This vision must be iedriiei-cerrtered with currespurrdiug standards or d
`cor:ipetericy- based curricuiutri.
`
`Foliowi-rig are other common criticai elements for the use of eiectroriic portfolios:
`
`* Administrative mt and agreement on :1 common visicrrr, along with corremding firI.::n<:iai mt.
`
`* A technoiogy infrastructure that provides sufficient access to toois and a pace for storage.
`
`* Student and facuity support for both technoiogicai and pedagogicat skifl-‘s. The assessment of techrioiogicat readiness as wefi as ongoing
`terihnirfzif .r.uf'.-fmrt are important factms that rnqriitn the in\.rr:h.r9rnr=.nt of many snruitins: in acadeulia, smih as ilifnermatinn te4‘.hn-nbngy, nuritirneriia,
`centers for teaching, and assessment centers.
`
`Treuer and Jensen (8) propose a cornnion set of standards for entering information, storing information, and s