PTO Form 1966 (Rev 9/2002)
`
`OMB Control #0651-0050 (Exp. 04/30/2006)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Input Field
`
`Entered
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`78401816
`
`MARK SECTION (no change)
`
`ARGUMENT(S)
`
`In response to the Office Action dated August 26, 2004, from the Trademark Attorney, Applicant states as
`
`follows:
`
`Registration of Applicant's mark, SPIRAL ("Applicant's Mark"), should not have been refused under Trademark
`Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), because there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's Mark and the mark in
`U.S. Registration No. 2194722, SPIRAL PRODUCTIONS (and Design) ("Registrant's Mark") owned by the individual, Steven
`Ayromlooi.
`
`Applying the factors set out in In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973), there
`should be no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's Mark and Registrant's Mark.
`
`Factor 1.  Dissimilarity of the Marks.
`
`Although Applicant's Mark and Registrant's mark share the common element SPIRAL, the existence of a
`common word element between two marks does not, in and of itself, create a likelihood of confusion.  See La Cibeles, Inc. v.
`Adipar, Ltd., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12676 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (notwithstanding the existence of common word elements, the
`addition of the letter "e" at the end of the mark "Petite Cherie" for a fragrance for adult women created "a significant difference"
`with the mark "Petit Cheri" for baby cologne); Michael Caruso & Co. v. Estefan Enters., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 1454, 1460 (S.D.
`Fla. 1998) (the fact that "Bongo" for clothing and "Bongos Cuban Café" for restaurant services both incorporated "a form of the
`common word 'bongo' [did] not render the marks similar.") (citing cases).  Rather, in determining whether a likelihood of
`confusion exists between two trademarks, each mark must be considered in the way it is perceived by the public - namely, in its
`entirety.  See Opryland USA Inc. v. Great American Music Show, Inc., 970 F.2d 847, 851 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing cases).  When
`viewed as a whole, Applicant's Mark and Registrant's Mark are sufficiently dissimilar in appearance, sound and commercial
`impression so as not to be confusing.  
`
`First, Applicant's Mark does not look or sound like Registrant's Mark.  Applicant's Mark is comprised of the
`single, six-letter word SPIRAL.   Registrant's mark, on the other hand, is a composite mark, comprised of three elements - the
`word SPIRAL, the word PRODUCTIONS (each presented in stylized lettering), and a prominent design element.[1]   These two
`additional elements in Registrant's Mark - the word PRODUCTIONS and the design - create significant dissimilarities between
`the marks so as to render them non-confusing.
`
`First, the addition of the word element, PRODUCTIONS, in Registrant's Mark distinguishes Registrant's Mark
`from Applicant's Mark.  While this element may be descriptive of Registrant's services, it adds an additional three syllables to
`Registrant's Mark, creating an appearance and cadence distinctive from the single word element in Applicant's Mark.
`
`Beyond the marks' distinctive appearances and sounds, the use of the word PRODUCTIONS in Registrant's
`Mark also conveys a specific commercial impression to consumers - one entirely absent from Applicant's Mark.  A consumer,
`knowing nothing about Registrant's services, can tell from the trademark alone that Registrant is in the production business. 
`Not so for Applicant's Mark, where the word SPIRAL is unaccompanied by any descriptive terms, and requires consumer
`inquiry to understand the nature of Applicant's services.  Indeed, Applicant's Mark does not suggest any type of goods or
`service.  Applicant's use of the word SPIRAL as the title of its animated television series is entirely arbitrary.
`
`Second, the inclusion of the design element in Registrant's Mark serves to distinguish it from Applicant's Mark. 
`Dominant design elements weigh heavily in the overall impression of a mark and should be considered in making a likelihood
`of confusion analysis.  Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Human Performance Measurement, Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1390 (T.T.A.B. 1991).
`
`In Hewlett-Packard, the TTAB dismissed an opposition to the registration of the mark HPM (and Design) based
`
`

`

`upon the opposer's family of HP marks.  The TTAB found that the design element in the HPM mark distinguished it from the
`HP marks.  It reasoned:
`
`[C]onsidering the marks in their entireties, we believe that applicant's mark is not confusingly similar to any
`of opposer's marks.  The design elements of applicant's mark, which include a horizontal bar graph
`superimposed on a profile of a human face enclosed within a square block, are significant features of
`applicant's mark which are at least as prominent as, if not more prominent than, the letters "HPM".
`
`Id. at 1396.  Accordingly, the court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks and allowed the HPM
`mark to proceed to registration.  See also In re TSI Brands, Inc., 2002 TTAB LEXIS 270 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2002)
`(confusion was not likely between registrant's AK marks for "athletic clothing" and applicant's AK AMERICAN KHAKIS
`for "sportswear" because, when considered in their entireties, the marks contained stylized elements significant enough to
`distinguish them from one another).[2]
`
`As in Hewlett-Packard, Registrant's Mark contains a stylized design element that dominates the mark.  The
`design appears on top of the word elements and is much larger than the other two elements.  The design injects the mark with a
`strong visual commercial impression entirely absent from Applicant's Mark.  Accordingly, the design element eliminates any
`likelihood of confusion between the marks.
`
`Based upon the different appearances, sounds, and meanings of Registrant's Mark and Applicant's Mark, the
`commercial impressions created by the marks are entirely distinctive, and there is no likelihood of confusion between the two.
`
`Factor 2.  Dissimilarity and Nature of the Goods and Services.   
`
`Registrant's use of its mark is not likely to cause confusion with Applicant's because the nature of the services
`offered under the two marks is dissimilar.  Registrant is engaged in the business of producing motion pictures and uses its mark
`to designate these services.  It does not, however, claim trademark protection in its use of the mark as the title of any of the
`motion pictures that it produces.
`
`Applicant, on the other hand, is seeking to register its mark as the title of its television series.  It does not,
`however, claim trademark protection in its use of the mark in connection with the production of this series.
`
`The nature of Registrant's production services and Applicant's television series are entirely dissimilar. 
`Accordingly, there is no likelihood of confusion.
`
`Factor 3.   Dissimilarity of Trade Channels and Buyers.
`
`The trade channels through which Registrant's motion picture production services and Applicant's television series are sold are
`also dissimilar.  Registrant produces motion pictures.  Registrant will be seeking to sell its production services to holders of
`intellectual property rights (who may be interested in selling that intellectual property to Registrant for use in a motion picture),
`to investors (who may be interested in financing the production of the motion picture), and to entertainment industry talent
`(who may be interested in appearing in or rendering services in connection with motion pictures to be produced by Registrant). 
`
`Applicant, on the other hand, is dealing with a series that has already been produced.  It will not be seeking to sell the series to
`rights holders, investors or talent.  Rather, its consumers will be potential distribution outlets for its television series, such as
`cable networks and television stations.
`
`Accordingly, the channels of trade through which Registrant's production services and Applicant's television
`series are sold militate against any likelihood of confusion between the marks.
`
`Factor 4.  Dissimilarity of Conditions of Purchase.
`
`The conditions under which Registrant's motion picture production services and Applicant's television series are sold are also
`dissimilar.
`
`In the case of Registrant's motion picture production services, Registrant will be dealing with consumers who are sophisticated
`and are not likely to confuse the name of a production company with the name of an animated television series.  Each of the
`likely consumers of Registrant's services will bring a high level of sophistication to the table in dealing with Registrant. 
`Independent motion pictures are generally produced with six-figure budgets, and even some of the more famously
`inexpensive productions still had budgets of around $30,000.[3]  In addition, an individual's association with a failed or poorly
`received motion picture could have a dramatically negative effect on his or her career.  Accordingly, decisions as to whether to
`license intellectual property, invest in a motion picture production, or render services for use in such a production will not be
`made lightly, but rather will entail a great deal of thought and investigation.  Accordingly, there is no likelihood that any of these
`decision makers will confuse the name of the production company and the name of the motion picture being produced.
`
`A similarly high level of investigation is involved before a distribution outlet such as a cable network or television station
`purchases an animated series.  A number of considerations will factor into the decision as to whether to purchase the series. 
`These include the nature of the series (e.g., an animated series will be more likely to find a home on Cartoon Network than it
`will on Lifetime), the demographic to which the series will appeal (e.g., most animated series contain family-oriented
`
`

`

`content, appealing to children, but some animated series contain darker content and are aimed towards a more mature
`audience), the time of day in which the series can be shown (e.g., an animated series that will be shown late-night will cost
`less to license than a series that will be shown in prime time), and the producer of the series (e.g., certain producers have proven
`track records of success and deference may be given to this fact in making a purchasing decision).  This type of analysis is
`highly sophisticated and particular to each network.  It is therefore extremely unlikely that a distribution outlet will be confused
`between the name of the production company that has produced a series it is thinking about buying and the name of the series
`itself.
`
`As Registrant's motion picture production services and Applicant's television series will be sold to different types of
`sophisticated consumers, there will be no likelihood of confusion between the marks.
`
`Factor 5.  Fame of Applicant's Mark.
`
`There is no evidence that Registrant's Mark is a famous mark.[4]  
`
`Factor 6.  The Number and Nature of Similar Marks in Use on Similar Goods.
`
`The word SPIRAL is not an invented word and it is used in a number of different trademarks in connection with a
`variety of types of goods and services, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating, any possibility of confusion between
`Applicant's mark and Registrant's mark.  In fact, an online search of the records of the USPTO shows at least 108 live
`applications incorporating the word SPIRAL, eighty-four of which have matured into registration.  At least ten of these eighty-
`four registrations were filed in International Class 041 for entertainment or education services.
`
`Due to this extensive use, the mark SPIRAL is not particularly strong.  Accordingly, there should be no likelihood
`of confusion between Applicant's mark and Registrant's mark.  
`
`The Remaining Factors.
`
`The other DuPont factors are simply inapplicable to a determination of the likelihood of confusion between
`Registrant's Mark and Applicant's Mark or have been discussed in the context of the other factors.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, there is no likelihood of confusion between Registrant's Mark and Applicant's Mark.  Accordingly,
`Applicant's Mark should be published for opposition in due course.
`
`For convenience, the following image, obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")
`[1]    
`website, depicts Registrant's composite mark:
`
`So as to not mislead the Trademark Attorney, because the TSI Brands disposition was not officially reported, it is
`[2]    
`not citable as precedent of the T.T.A.B.  It is cited in this Response as Applicant believes its reasoning is instructive.
`
`For example, the film The Blair Witch Project was produced for an estimated $35,000, and Clerks was produced for
`[3]    
`an estimated $27,000 (though after post-production, the budget had increased to $230,000).  See The Internet Movie Database,
`at www.imdb.com.
`
`Indeed, a Google search using the terms "Spiral Productions" and "Ayromlooi" (Registrant's name), results in a single
`[4]    
`"hit", a reference to a 1999 production of a thirty-minute film called Nathan Grimm, which was entered into The Third Annual
`Hollywood Film Festival.  (Copies of the applicable pages from the search results are attached to this Response as Exhibit A.)
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`EVIDENCE FILE NAME
`
`\\ticrs\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT 11\784\018\78401816\xml4\
`ROA0002.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Exhibit A Cover Sheet
`
`EVIDENCE FILE NAME
`
`\\ticrs\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT 11\784\018\78401816\xml4\
`ROA0003.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Google Search results
`
`EVIDENCE FILE NAME
`
`\\ticrs\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT 11\784\018\78401816\xml4\
`ROA0004.JPG
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Hollywood Film Festival results 1 of 2
`
`EVIDENCE FILE NAME
`
`\\ticrs\EXPORT11\IMAGEOUT 11\784\018\78401816\xml4\
`ROA0005.JPG
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`

`

`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`Hollywood Film Festival results 2 of 2
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY NAME
`
`SIGNATORY POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY DATE
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`/Eric P. Bergner/
`
`Eric P. Bergner
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`11/02/2004
`
`Tue Nov 02 11:19:38 EST 2004
`
`USPTO/OA-XXXXXXXXXXXX-200
`41102111938168024-7840181
`6-2001461c3685baa1e9d5ec2
`f41c82a3b4-N-N-2004110211
`1843475204
`
`PTO Form 1966 (Rev 9/2002)
`
`OMB Control #0651-0050 (Exp. 04/30/2006)
`
`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Application serial no. 78401816 is amended as follows:
`           
`Argument(s)
`In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:
`In response to the Office Action dated August 26, 2004, from the Trademark Attorney, Applicant states as follows:
`
`Registration of Applicant's mark, SPIRAL ("Applicant's Mark"), should not have been refused under Trademark Act Section
`2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), because there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's Mark and the mark in U.S. Registration No.
`2194722, SPIRAL PRODUCTIONS (and Design) ("Registrant's Mark") owned by the individual, Steven Ayromlooi.
`
`Applying the factors set out in In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (C.C.P.A. 1973), there should be no
`likelihood of confusion between Applicant's Mark and Registrant's Mark.
`
`Factor 1.  Dissimilarity of the Marks.
`
`Although Applicant's Mark and Registrant's mark share the common element SPIRAL, the existence of a common word
`element between two marks does not, in and of itself, create a likelihood of confusion.  See La Cibeles, Inc. v. Adipar, Ltd., 2000 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 12676 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (notwithstanding the existence of common word elements, the addition of the letter "e" at the end of the mark
`"Petite Cherie" for a fragrance for adult women created "a significant difference" with the mark "Petit Cheri" for baby cologne); Michael
`Caruso & Co. v. Estefan Enters., Inc., 994 F. Supp. 1454, 1460 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (the fact that "Bongo" for clothing and "Bongos Cuban Café"
`for restaurant services both incorporated "a form of the common word 'bongo' [did] not render the marks similar.") (citing cases).  Rather, in
`determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists between two trademarks, each mark must be considered in the way it is perceived by the
`public - namely, in its entirety.  See Opryland USA Inc. v. Great American Music Show, Inc., 970 F.2d 847, 851 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing
`cases).  When viewed as a whole, Applicant's Mark and Registrant's Mark are sufficiently dissimilar in appearance, sound and commercial
`impression so as not to be confusing.  
`
`First, Applicant's Mark does not look or sound like Registrant's Mark.  Applicant's Mark is comprised of the single, six-letter
`word SPIRAL.   Registrant's mark, on the other hand, is a composite mark, comprised of three elements - the word SPIRAL, the word
`PRODUCTIONS (each presented in stylized lettering), and a prominent design element.[1]   These two additional elements in Registrant's
`Mark - the word PRODUCTIONS and the design - create significant dissimilarities between the marks so as to render them non-confusing.
`
`First, the addition of the word element, PRODUCTIONS, in Registrant's Mark distinguishes Registrant's Mark from
`
`

`

`Applicant's Mark.  While this element may be descriptive of Registrant's services, it adds an additional three syllables to Registrant's Mark,
`creating an appearance and cadence distinctive from the single word element in Applicant's Mark.
`
`Beyond the marks' distinctive appearances and sounds, the use of the word PRODUCTIONS in Registrant's Mark also
`conveys a specific commercial impression to consumers - one entirely absent from Applicant's Mark.  A consumer, knowing nothing about
`Registrant's services, can tell from the trademark alone that Registrant is in the production business.  Not so for Applicant's Mark, where the
`word SPIRAL is unaccompanied by any descriptive terms, and requires consumer inquiry to understand the nature of Applicant's services. 
`Indeed, Applicant's Mark does not suggest any type of goods or service.  Applicant's use of the word SPIRAL as the title of its animated
`television series is entirely arbitrary.
`
`Second, the inclusion of the design element in Registrant's Mark serves to distinguish it from Applicant's Mark.  Dominant
`design elements weigh heavily in the overall impression of a mark and should be considered in making a likelihood of confusion analysis. 
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Human Performance Measurement, Inc., 23 U.S.P.Q.2d 1390 (T.T.A.B. 1991).
`
`In Hewlett-Packard, the TTAB dismissed an opposition to the registration of the mark HPM (and Design) based upon the
`opposer's family of HP marks.  The TTAB found that the design element in the HPM mark distinguished it from the HP marks.  It reasoned:
`
`[C]onsidering the marks in their entireties, we believe that applicant's mark is not confusingly similar to any of opposer's
`marks.  The design elements of applicant's mark, which include a horizontal bar graph superimposed on a profile of a
`human face enclosed within a square block, are significant features of applicant's mark which are at least as prominent as,
`if not more prominent than, the letters "HPM".
`
`Id. at 1396.  Accordingly, the court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks and allowed the HPM mark to proceed
`to registration.  See also In re TSI Brands, Inc., 2002 TTAB LEXIS 270 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2002) (confusion was not likely between
`registrant's AK marks for "athletic clothing" and applicant's AK AMERICAN KHAKIS for "sportswear" because, when considered in their
`entireties, the marks contained stylized elements significant enough to distinguish them from one another).[2]
`
`As in Hewlett-Packard, Registrant's Mark contains a stylized design element that dominates the mark.  The design appears on
`top of the word elements and is much larger than the other two elements.  The design injects the mark with a strong visual commercial
`impression entirely absent from Applicant's Mark.  Accordingly, the design element eliminates any likelihood of confusion between the
`marks.
`
`Based upon the different appearances, sounds, and meanings of Registrant's Mark and Applicant's Mark, the commercial
`impressions created by the marks are entirely distinctive, and there is no likelihood of confusion between the two.
`
`Factor 2.  Dissimilarity and Nature of the Goods and Services.   
`
`Registrant's use of its mark is not likely to cause confusion with Applicant's because the nature of the services offered under
`the two marks is dissimilar.  Registrant is engaged in the business of producing motion pictures and uses its mark to designate these services. 
`It does not, however, claim trademark protection in its use of the mark as the title of any of the motion pictures that it produces.
`
`Applicant, on the other hand, is seeking to register its mark as the title of its television series.  It does not, however, claim
`trademark protection in its use of the mark in connection with the production of this series.
`
`The nature of Registrant's production services and Applicant's television series are entirely dissimilar.  Accordingly, there is no
`likelihood of confusion.
`
`Factor 3.   Dissimilarity of Trade Channels and Buyers.
`
`The trade channels through which Registrant's motion picture production services and Applicant's television series are sold are also
`dissimilar.  Registrant produces motion pictures.  Registrant will be seeking to sell its production services to holders of intellectual property
`rights (who may be interested in selling that intellectual property to Registrant for use in a motion picture), to investors (who may be
`interested in financing the production of the motion picture), and to entertainment industry talent (who may be interested in appearing in or
`rendering services in connection with motion pictures to be produced by Registrant). 
`
`Applicant, on the other hand, is dealing with a series that has already been produced.  It will not be seeking to sell the series to rights holders,
`investors or talent.  Rather, its consumers will be potential distribution outlets for its television series, such as cable networks and television
`stations.
`
`Accordingly, the channels of trade through which Registrant's production services and Applicant's television series are sold
`militate against any likelihood of confusion between the marks.
`
`Factor 4.  Dissimilarity of Conditions of Purchase.
`
`The conditions under which Registrant's motion picture production services and Applicant's television series are sold are also dissimilar.
`
`In the case of Registrant's motion picture production services, Registrant will be dealing with consumers who are sophisticated and are not
`likely to confuse the name of a production company with the name of an animated television series.  Each of the likely consumers of
`
`

`

`Registrant's services will bring a high level of sophistication to the table in dealing with Registrant.  Independent motion pictures are
`generally produced with six-figure budgets, and even some of the more famously inexpensive productions still had budgets of around
`$30,000.[3]  In addition, an individual's association with a failed or poorly received motion picture could have a dramatically negative effect
`on his or her career.  Accordingly, decisions as to whether to license intellectual property, invest in a motion picture production, or render
`services for use in such a production will not be made lightly, but rather will entail a great deal of thought and investigation.  Accordingly,
`there is no likelihood that any of these decision makers will confuse the name of the production company and the name of the motion picture
`being produced.
`
`A similarly high level of investigation is involved before a distribution outlet such as a cable network or television station purchases an
`animated series.  A number of considerations will factor into the decision as to whether to purchase the series.  These include the nature of
`the series (e.g., an animated series will be more likely to find a home on Cartoon Network than it will on Lifetime), the demographic to
`which the series will appeal (e.g., most animated series contain family-oriented content, appealing to children, but some animated series
`contain darker content and are aimed towards a more mature audience), the time of day in which the series can be shown (e.g., an
`animated series that will be shown late-night will cost less to license than a series that will be shown in prime time), and the producer of
`the series (e.g., certain producers have proven track records of success and deference may be given to this fact in making a purchasing
`decision).  This type of analysis is highly sophisticated and particular to each network.  It is therefore extremely unlikely that a distribution
`outlet will be confused between the name of the production company that has produced a series it is thinking about buying and the name of the
`series itself.
`
`As Registrant's motion picture production services and Applicant's television series will be sold to different types of sophisticated consumers,
`there will be no likelihood of confusion between the marks.
`
`Factor 5.  Fame of Applicant's Mark.
`
`There is no evidence that Registrant's Mark is a famous mark.[4]  
`
`Factor 6.  The Number and Nature of Similar Marks in Use on Similar Goods.
`
`The word SPIRAL is not an invented word and it is used in a number of different trademarks in connection with a variety of
`types of goods and services, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating, any possibility of confusion between Applicant's mark and
`Registrant's mark.  In fact, an online search of the records of the USPTO shows at least 108 live applications incorporating the word SPIRAL,
`eighty-four of which have matured into registration.  At least ten of these eighty-four registrations were filed in International Class 041 for
`entertainment or education services.
`
`Due to this extensive use, the mark SPIRAL is not particularly strong.  Accordingly, there should be no likelihood of confusion
`between Applicant's mark and Registrant's mark.  
`
`The Remaining Factors.
`
`The other DuPont factors are simply inapplicable to a determination of the likelihood of confusion between Registrant's Mark
`and Applicant's Mark or have been discussed in the context of the other factors.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, there is no likelihood of confusion between Registrant's Mark and Applicant's Mark.  Accordingly, Applicant's
`Mark should be published for opposition in due course.
`
`For convenience, the following image, obtained from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") website, depicts
`[1]    
`Registrant's composite mark:
`
`So as to not mislead the Trademark Attorney, because the TSI Brands disposition was not officially reported, it is not citable as
`[2]    
`precedent of the T.T.A.B.  It is cited in this Response as Applicant believes its reasoning is instructive.
`
`For example, the film The Blair Witch Project was produced for an estimated $35,000, and Clerks was produced for an estimated
`[3]    
`$27,000 (though after post-production, the budget had increased to $230,000).  See The Internet Movie Database, at www.imdb.com.
`
`Indeed, a Google search using the terms "Spiral Productions" and "Ayromlooi" (Registrant's name), results in a single "hit", a
`[4]    
`reference to a 1999 production of a thirty-minute film called Nathan Grimm, which was entered into The Third Annual Hollywood Film
`Festival.  (Copies of the applicable pages from the search results are attached to this Response as Exhibit A.)
`
`Evidence
`Evidence in the nature of Exhibit A Cover Sheet has been attached.
`Evidence-1
`Evidence in the nature of Google Search results has been attached.
`Evidence-2
`Evidence in the nature of Hollywood Film Festival results 1 of 2 has been attached.
`
` 
` 
` 
`         
`

`

`Evidence-3
`Evidence in the nature of Hollywood Film Festival results 2 of 2 has been attached.
`Evidence-4
`
`Response Signature
`
`Signature: /Eric P. Bergner/     Date: 11/02/2004
`Signatory's Name: Eric P. Bergner
`Signatory's Position: Attorney for Applicant
`
`Serial Number: 78401816
`Internet Transmission Date: Tue Nov 02 11:19:38 EST 2004
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/OA-XXXXXXXXXXXX-200411021119381680
`24-78401816-2001461c3685baa1e9d5ec2f41c8
`2a3b4-N-N-20041102111843475204
`
`        
`        
`                        
`

`

`Exhibit A
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Google Search: "spiral productions" and Ayromlooi
`
`A
`
`Web
`
`II-r1_age_s Qsmam fins Er_g9_g|§ mam;
`
`‘
`
`‘Web
`
`“spiral productions" andAyromlooi
`
` £mm
`
`The "AND" operator is unnecessary -- we include all search tenns by default. mgjfl]
`
`Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "spiral
`
`and Ayromlool. (0.47 seconds)
`
`Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results.
`
`Hollywood Film Festival® - Hollywood Discovery Awards® Film
`Producers: Ray Chung. Steven Ayromlooi Cast: Voices: Seth Mcfarlane, Sacha Moo.
`Paul Scarlata Print Contact: Eric Kopeloff. Splral Productions, (212) 481-5690.
`wwwrholIywoodawards.com/awards/thefi|ms98.html - 47k - Cached - Similar Pages
`
`Free! Get the Google Toolbar. Domrlgad flow - About loglbar
`: wsearchwas ~ ~Lya49‘Pap-Lpsbdtad anew: finuman 3
`
`"spiral productions" and Ayromlooi
`
`Search
`
`Seargh within results | Languagg Tg;|§| Search Tip§| Dissatisfied? Help us improve
`
`Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Gggle
`
`©2004 Google
`
`http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22spiral+productions%22+and+Ayromlooi&btnG=Sea...
`
`10/'27/2004
`
`

`

`Hollywood Film Festival® - Hollywood Discovery Awards® Film Finalists
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`‘_
`I
`""""""“
`
`August 4-9, 1999
`
`Presented by:
`Hollywood Video®
`
`Founding Sponsor:
`The Hollmood
`Network®
`
`DISCOVERY AWARDS
`El.LM_$ - LILIHC3 ~
`EELS
`
` 5
` $
`sgnnounsgevgurs
`FILM MABLEI‘
`
`EESTIVAL PAS§ES
` I
`EILM ENTRIES
`FILM REEN NGS
`
`PR Newswire
`
`sPONs0RsI_-ups
`flwsmm
`HQ1.1.xwQQDM_An1T
`FE§TIVAL mess
`Jim
`
`I‘
`._
`Jfil
`lntgmational
`m
`
`PHOTO Q51; ,ERIE§
`ljf E 1993 ARQHIVES
`HFE I997 ABCHIHES
`
`1=_Q;1NoERs
`CQ-FQLQNDERS
`cm
`
`ADVISORY
`g :5 ;MM ITTEE
`
`K
`
`.
`
`--h 4---»-ow EAPi‘!-Yin“'-sdbillofli-I’-l|fi1$!'N'¢\h<.'si.v~r"'?;z:vi ass‘ uywuc;-wg.-apswrsawa->5-memos».-awwlwmwrn<s»sax-..mzaa'1\:n».2-5"->s=o~».«.«:~»;;...ssea+.c
`
`The Third Annual Hollywood Film FestivaI®
`August 4-9, 1999
`» « n soxv -
`..«-o ',«:-smsw-«m,z~_;m. wen»;vV: r-mm:-ma~:-x»v,v4»:- -X0151‘:-«.e.~-m..i.nuw..w»~a»o-n.»-~»p.rmm».au;a.r..«»~.-«zwwv we \~b.¢e~*,>
` - -AWU EVn
`Hollywood Market - Ticket Info - Screem'ng§- Regisgjatigns
`[ ] [Adxertisinsl [Homeless]
`
`"HOLLYwIJOD
`
`1998 Hollywood Discovery Awards® Finalists
`2nd Annual Hollywood Film Fesfival® - Aug. 5-10, 1998
`
`1998 Hollywood Discovery Awards® Winners
`
`Features - §_l1;;r_t Subjects - ]QQcutnentarie_s - Animated Films
`
`Feature Film Finalists
`
`ARCI-IIBALD THE RAINBOW PAINTER -
`
`-California Premiere
`
`105 mins.
`
`Archibald the Rainbow Painter follows the
`lives of two Vietnam veterans and the lingering
`effects that the unpopular war had on an entire
`generation. Archie and J.P. have each had
`different reactions to their wartime experience.
`Archie has carried on with his life, becoming a
`successful housepainter, but still has problems
`connecting with people emotionally. J.P. has
`become an alcoholic, losing his wife and
`causing his daughter Tory pain. With Archie
`and Tory's help, .l.P. has a chance to change his
`life. A touching and dramatic story of family
`and relationships, Archibald the Rainbow
`Painter also inteiweaves a subtle, but strong
`message regarding the treatment of Vietnam
`vets in our society.
`
`Director: Les Landau
`Writer: Laura Landau
`Executive Producer: M. Mae Schwebel
`Producers: Laura & Les Landau
`
`http2//wwwhollywoodawards.com/awards/thefilms98.htm1
`
`10/27/2004
`
`

`

`Hollywood Film Festival® - Hollywood Discovery Awards® Film Finalists
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`is confronted by a homeless black man. Neither
`will ever forget the encounter.
`
`Director/Writer: Michael Cargile
`Producers: Alvin Durand Mount and Michael
`
`Cargile
`Director of Photography: Carl Bartels
`Editor: Jody Fedele
`
`Cast: Cheryl Lawson, Gregory Storm
`
`Print Contact: Michael Cargile, Big Event
`Pictures, (818) 980-4820
`
`NATHAN GRIMM —World Premiere
`
`30 mins.
`
`It's the second day of the Chinese New Year
`and somebody's killing off Chinatown's most
`powerful family. The cops uptown are baffled
`by the sudden string of kidnap homicides -- all
`victims of the same eerie cause of death. The
`lead investigator on the case is a stoic soldier
`turned detective named Lt. Nathan Grimm. The
`lieutenant follows up on an anonymous tip that
`leads him deep into the heart of 1940's
`Chinatown, and is warned of a phenomenon he
`"cannot possibly comprehend." As his
`investigation draws him deeper into the mystery
`surrounding the murders, he begins to wonder
`whether there is more than myth behind the
`ancient curse of Shao Fang.
`
`Director: Steven