PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`Input Field
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED
`
`MARK SECTION
`
`MARK
`
`LITERAL ELEMENT
`
`STANDARD CHARACTERS
`
`USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE
`
`MARK STATEMENT
`
`EVIDENCE SECTION
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)EVIDENCE FILE NAME(S)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)ORIGINAL PDF FILE
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)CONVERTED PDF FILE(S)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(15 pages)
`
`DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE
`
`NEW ATTORNEY SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`The table below presents the data as entered.
`
`Entered
`
`86192468
`
`LAW OFFICE 113
`
`http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86192468/large
`
`PHARMVISTA
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style,
`size or color.
`
`evi_701095314-132542160_._PHARMVISTA__86192468__-_OA_Response.pdf
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0002.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0003.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0004.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0005.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0006.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0007.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0008.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0009.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0010.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0011.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0012.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0013.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0014.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0015.JPG
`
`\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT16\861\924\86192468\xml6\ROA0016.JPG
`
`Response to May 28, 2014 Office Action
`
`Tom Dunlap
`
`DunlapWeaver PLLC
`
`(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)(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)(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)
`

`

`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`211 Church St., SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`7037777319
`
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`NEW CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
`
`NAME
`
`FIRM NAME
`
`STREET
`
`CITY
`
`STATE
`
`ZIP/POSTAL CODE
`
`COUNTRY
`
`PHONE
`
`EMAIL
`
`Tom Dunlap
`
`DunlapWeaver PLLC
`
`211 Church St., SE
`
`Leesburg
`
`Virginia
`
`20175
`
`United States
`
`7037777319
`
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`
`AUTHORIZED EMAIL COMMUNICATION
`
`Yes
`
`SIGNATURE SECTION
`
`RESPONSE SIGNATURE
`
`SIGNATORY'S NAME
`
`SIGNATORY'S POSITION
`
`SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER
`
`DATE SIGNED
`
`AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
`
`FILING INFORMATION SECTION
`
`SUBMIT DATE
`
`TEAS STAMP
`
`/Seth Willig Chadab/
`
`Seth Willig Chadab
`
`Associate Attorney, DunlapWeaver PLLC, Maryland Bar Member
`
`7037777319
`
`08/15/2014
`
`YES
`
`Fri Aug 15 13:31:43 EDT 2014
`
`USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20
`140815133143344486-861924
`68-5004e22d2f458e7fa3e0eb
`22a9b0c6567db4c49e453258d
`eaaf57e7cfb0375e3b-N/A-N/
`A-20140815132542160824
`
`PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005)
`
`OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 07/31/2017)
`
`Response to Office Action
`
`

`

`To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Application serial no. 86192468(cid:160)PHARMVISTA(Standard Characters, see http://tsdr.uspto.gov/img/86192468/large) has been amended as
`follows:
`
`EVIDENCE
`Evidence in the nature of Response to May 28, 2014 Office Action has been attached.
`Original PDF file:
`evi_701095314-132542160_._PHARMVISTA__86192468__-_OA_Response.pdf
`Converted PDF file(s) ( 15 pages)
`Evidence-1
`Evidence-2
`Evidence-3
`Evidence-4
`Evidence-5
`Evidence-6
`Evidence-7
`Evidence-8
`Evidence-9
`Evidence-10
`Evidence-11
`Evidence-12
`Evidence-13
`Evidence-14
`Evidence-15
`
`ATTORNEY ADDRESS
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`Tom Dunlap of DunlapWeaver PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church St., SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`7037777319
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS CHANGE
`Applicant proposes to amend the following:
`Proposed:
`Tom Dunlap of DunlapWeaver PLLC, having an address of
`211 Church St., SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`United States
`ip@dunlapweaver.com
`7037777319
`
`SIGNATURE(S)
`Response Signature
`Signature: /Seth Willig Chadab/(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Date: 08/15/2014
`Signatory's Name: Seth Willig Chadab
`Signatory's Position: Associate Attorney, DunlapWeaver PLLC, Maryland Bar Member
`
`Signatory's Phone Number: 7037777319
`
`The signatory has confirmed that he/she is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state, which
`includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other federal territories and possessions; and he/she is currently the applicant's attorney or an
`associate thereof; and to the best of his/her knowledge, if prior to his/her appointment another U.S. attorney or a Canadian attorney/agent not
`currently associated with his/her company/firm previously represented the applicant in this matter: (1) the applicant has filed or is concurrently
`filing a signed revocation of or substitute power of attorney with the USPTO; (2) the USPTO has granted the request of the prior representative to
`
`

`

`withdraw; (3) the applicant has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her in this matter; or (4) the applicant's appointed U.S. attorney or
`Canadian attorney/agent has filed a power of attorney appointing him/her as an associate attorney in this matter.
`
`Mailing Address: (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Tom Dunlap
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)DunlapWeaver PLLC
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)211 Church St., SE
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)Leesburg, Virginia 20175
`
`Serial Number: 86192468
`Internet Transmission Date: Fri Aug 15 13:31:43 EDT 2014
`TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.XXX.XX.XX-20140815133143344
`486-86192468-5004e22d2f458e7fa3e0eb22a9b
`0c6567db4c49e453258deaaf57e7cfb0375e3b-N
`/A-N/A-20140815132542160824
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Serial No.:
`Mark:
`
`86192468
`PHARMVISTA
`
`Pharrnvista Inc.
`Applicant:
`Office Action Date: May 28, 2014
`
`RESPONSE TO MAY 28, 2014 OFFICE ACTION
`
`This Response is filed in reply to the Office Action e—mailed on May 28, 2014. The Applicant
`respectlully submits the following response. Applicant submits that the above-identified
`trademark application for PHARMVISTA is in condition for allowance to publication.
`
`Potential Section 21d! Refusal: Likelihood of Confusion
`
`Applicant submits a preliminary response to the potential section 2(d) refusal; however,
`Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response if Examining
`Attorney Jennifer D. Richardson raises a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action.
`
`Preliminary Response with Reservation ofRights
`
`The USPTO has refused registration of the Applicant’s mark, PHARMVISTA, “because of a
`likelihood of confusion with the mark in US. Registration No. 2550308.” “[T]he question of
`confusion is related not to the nature of the mark but to its effect ‘when applied to the
`applicant?” In re El du Pont de Nemous & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1360-61 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The
`United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals listed thirteen factors to weigh in the
`likelihood of confusion analysis and stated that all of the factors must be considered “when of
`record.” Id. at 1361. The Examining Attorney has indicated that similarity of the marks and
`similarity or relatedness of the goods and/or services weigh against the Applicant’s mark.
`However, Applicant respectfully asserts that when all factors are weighed, the majority weighs
`against the existence of a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(I) Similarity of Conflicting Designations
`
`The first factor is the similarity of the conflicting designations, including in their appearance,
`sound, meaning or connotation, and commercial impression. In re E. I du Pont de Nemours &
`Ca, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). A similar phrase found in two
`marks is not dispositive of a confusing similarity between the marks when the marks give off
`different commercial expressions. See Kellogg Co. v. Pack ’em Enterprises, Inc, 951 F.2d 330
`(Fed. Cir. 1991). When Applicant’s mark PHARMVISTA, and Registrant’s mark
`VISTAPHARM are compared, the appearance is similar but not identical.
`
`

`

`Visually and in sound, the phrase PHARMVISTA is distinguished from the phrase
`VISTAPHARM. The structure and format are unique to the commercial impression of the
`Registrant’s mark. These terms further create a distinct commercial impression that is different
`from the Applicant’s mark. Confusion is not likely if a transposed mark creates a distinctly
`different commercial impression. This is especially the case when one party is providing
`services and other is selling goods. See In re Best Products Co., Inc, 231 USPQ 988 (T.T.A.B.
`1986) (BEST JEWELRY and design (With "JEWELRY" disclaimed) for retail jewelry store
`services held not likely to be confused with JEWELERS' BEST forjewelry). Consumers are
`also less likely to make mistaken purchases in cases involving services and goods, because
`consumers would not look to purchase a product when looking for a service. Id. See also,
`Murphy, Brill and Sahner, Inc. v. New Jersey Rubber Company, 102 USPQ 420 (Cornmr. Pat.
`1954) (finding that TOPFLITE for shoe soles conveys a different meaning than FLITE TOP for
`hosiery) and In re Akzona Inc., 219 USPQ 94 (T.T.A.B. 1983) (SILKY TOUCH for “synthetic
`yarn” not likely to be confused with TOUCH ‘O SILK for clothing). PHARMVISTA creates a
`distinct commercial impression based on providing only services, while VISTAPHARM only
`provides goods. Consumers seeking PHARMVISTA’s services are not likely to be confused by
`VISTAPHARM’s offer of goods.
`
`The Examining Attorney has dissected the marks to find similar appearance. The mark
`PHARMVISTA is different than the mark VISTAPHARM in appearance, sound, and
`commercial impression. Therefore, this factor weighs against finding a likelihood of confilsion.
`
`(2) Similarity or Dissimilarity and the Nature of the Goods or Services
`
`The second factor is the similarity or dissimilarity and the nature of the goods or services as
`described in an application or registration or in connection with a prior use of the mark. In re E.
`I. du Pont de Nemours & Co, 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
`Where the goods of the Applicant and Registrant are different, the Examining Attorney bears the
`burden of showing that different goods would commonly be provided by the same source. See
`e.g., In re Shipp, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1174, 1176 (TTAB 1987) (Examining Attorney's refusal reversed
`because Applicant's use of PURITAN in connection with dry cleaning services and Registrants‘
`uses of PURITAN in connection with dry cleaning equipment and dry cleaning chemicals lack of
`proof of trade practices and fail to show likelihood, rather than possibility, of confusion).
`
`

`

`Applicant’ s Word Mark
`
`Cited Registered Mark
`
`PHARMVISTA
`
`VI STAPHARM
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS 045
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS 005
`
`Regulatory compliance consulting in the field of
`pharmaceuticals
`
`Pharmaceutical preparations; Health care
`products; Namely, high calcium, vitamin rich
`supplements
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASS 035
`
`W/holesale distributorship and retail store service,
`both featuring high calorie, low volume
`supplements and antibiotics and high calcium,
`vitamin rich supplements
`
`The Examining Attorney has provided third-party websites with similar goods and services as
`those offered under the Applicant’s and the cited Registrant’s marks in order to claim that both
`goods and services commonly emanate from the same source. However, third-party Websites are
`not conclusive evidence on the issue of a likelihood of confusion. There are numerous third-
`
`party Websites of companies that, like the Applicant, only engage in regulatory compliance
`consulting. See Exhibit A.
`
`The issue is not whether the goods will be confused with each other, but rather Whether the
`public will be confiised about their source. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Indus, Inc., 518
`F.2d 1399, 1404, 186 USPQ 476, 480 (C.C.P.A. 1975). Ifthe goods or services in question are
`not related or marketed in such a way that they would be encountered by the same persons in
`situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source,
`then, even if the marks are identical, confusion is not likely. See, e.g., Sheri Manufacturing Co. v.
`Ritz Hotel Ltd, 393 F.3d 1238, 73 USPQ2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Quartz Radiation Corp. v.
`Comm/Scope Co, 1 USPQ2d 1668 (TTAB 1986).
`
`In the present case, the third—party Websites submitted by the Examining Attorney make no
`statement as to the relatedness or marketing of the goods and services of the marks.
`It is not
`enough to suggest that pharmaceutical preparations and regulatory compliance consulting are
`related. The Examining Attorney must show that the public will be confused as to the source of
`the Applicant’s services. See Paula Payne Prods. Co. 12. Johnson ’s Pub ’g Co, 473 F.2d 901,
`902, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“[T]he question is not Whether people will confuse the
`marks, but rather Whether the marks will confuse people into believing that the goods they
`identify emanate from the same source”), In re White Rock Distilleries Inc. , 92 USPQ2d 1282,
`1285 (TTAB 2009) (failing to establish that wine and vodka infused With caffeine are related
`goods because there was no evidence that vodka and wine emanate from a single source under a
`
`

`

`single mark or that such goods are complementary products that would be bought and used
`together). Here, there is no evidence provided by the Examining Attorney that the Registrant
`provides regulatory compliance consulting services. Further review of the Registrant’s website
`provides no evidence of consulting services. Therefore, it is not likely that the public would be
`confused by the source of the Applicant’s services and the Registrant’s goods.
`
`The Examining Attorney stated that the Applicant “provides both the relevant goods and services
`and markets the goods and services under the same mark.” However, Applicant no longer sells
`pharmaceutical goods under PHARMVISTA. Applicant seeks registration PHARMVISTA only
`for the service of regulatory compliance consulting. See Exhibit B.
`
`The similarities between the Applicant’s and Registrant’s trademarks are insufficient to support a
`finding of likelihood of confusion. There is no evidence that the Applicant’ s services and the
`Registrant’s goods are used together or by the same purchasers. Applicant respectfully asserts
`that its services are not related nor marketed in a way that would suggest they emanate from the
`same source. Therefore, this factor weighs strongly against finding likelihood of confusion.
`
`(3) Similarity or Dissimilarity ofEstablished Likely to Continue Trade Channels
`
`The third factor is the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels. In
`re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & C0., 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567. This factor heavily weighs
`against a finding of a likelihood of confusion. Even where two marks are identical, courts and the
`TTAB routinely hold that there is no likelihood of confusion “if the goods or services in question
`are not related in such a way that they would be encountered by the same persons in situations
`that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source.” T.M.E.P. §
`1207.1(a)(1) (citing Local Trademarks, Inc. v. Handy Boys, Inc., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1156 (T.T.A.B.
`1990) (LITTLE PLUMBER for drain opener not confusingly similar to LITTLE PLUMBER and
`Design for advertising services).
`
`Registrant’s trade channels appear to be retail sales through its website and wholesale sales to
`pharmacies. Registrant produces prescription pain medications, such as generic Oxycodone and
`Morphine, and generic Methadone, a drug addiction treatment medication. See Exhibit C. The
`trade channels for the Registrant are clearly defined for a specific pharmaceutical market.
`Pharmacies and pharmaceutical wholesalers would likely identify this trademark only for opioids
`and opioid treatment medications.
`
`The trade channels for the Applicant are limited to businesses seeking consultancy in the field of
`pharmaceutical regulatory compliance. Pharmvista regulatory consultants have twenty-five
`years of collective experience in the pharmaceutical industry and have generated substantial
`goodwill in the Pharrnvista name. While Pharrnvista once sold healthcare products, it now solely
`engages in regulatory compliance consulting for FDA/EMA regulatory affairs, business
`development, clinical affairs, formulation, analytical chemistry, and product licensing. The
`Applicant seeks out clients and referrals through its website, professional contacts, and
`advertising at major industry tradeshows around the world.
`
`Applicant asserts that its customers are not in the normal channels, rather they are sophisticated
`business start-ups seeking consultation for regulatory compliance. Therefore, this factor weighs
`
`4
`
`

`

`against the existence of likelihood of confilsion and in favor of the Applicant.
`
`(4) Conditions Upon Sales Are Made
`
`The fourth factor is the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made (i.e. impulse
`V. careful). In re E. I. da Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567. Consumers
`interested in Applicant’s services will be sophisticated consumers searching the regulatory
`compliance consulting in the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, consumers will carefully
`identify PHARMVISTA when searching for the Applicant’s goods.
`It is well—settled that the
`likelihood of confusion is reduced where purchasers and potential purchasers of the services at
`issue are sophisticated. See Electronic Design & Sales, Inc. V. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 954
`F.2d 713, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (no COIlfi.lSi0Il between identical marks where, inter alia, both
`parties’ goods and services “are usually purchased after careful consideration by persons who are
`highly knowledgeable about the goods or services and their source”); see also T.M.E.P. §
`l207.0l(d)(vii) (care in purchasing tends to minimize likelihood of confusion). Applicant’s
`customers are likely to exercise a high level of care and are not likely to be confused into
`thinking Registrant’s product originates from, or is sponsored by, Applicant or vice Versa. This
`factor weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion between these two marks.
`
`(5) Fame ofthe Prior Mark
`
`The fifth factor is the fame of the prior mark (eg., sales, advertising, length of use, etc). Id.
`There is no evidence that the prior mark is famous. This factor weighs against a likelihood of
`confusion.
`
`(6) Number and Nature ofSimilar Marks in Use on Similar Goods
`
`The sixth factor is the number and nature of similar marks in use in connection with similar
`
`services. Id. In this case, the USPTO has not made any assertions as to the number and nature of
`marks used in connection with regulatory compliance consulting in the pharmaceutical industry.
`
`Therefore, Applicant asserts that this factor weighs against finding a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(7) Nature and Extent ofAny Actual Confusion
`
`The seventh factor concerns the nature and extent of any actual confusion. Id. No evidence exists
`that any consumer has been confused by the use of these two marks. Applicant asserts that this
`factor weighs against finding a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(8) Length of Time During and Conditions under which There Has Been Concurrent Use
`Without Evidence ofActual Confusion
`
`The eighth factor is the length of time during and conditions under which there has been
`concurrent use without evidence of actual confilsion. Id. Applicant’s mark has been in use since
`April 30, 2008. Registrant’s mark has been in use since Feburary 27, 1998. Therefore, there has
`been concurrent use of the mark for six years without evidence of actual COI1fi.1Sl0I1. Therefore,
`this factor weighs in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`

`

`(9) Variety of Goods on which a Mark Is or Is Not Used
`
`The ninth factor is the variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used (house mark, “family”
`mark, product mark). In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & C0,, 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 USPQ at 567.
`The Cited Registration is not a part of a family of marks. Consequently, this factor weighs
`against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(10) Market Interface Between Applicant and the Owner ofa Prior Mark
`
`The tenth factor is the market interface between Applicant and the owner of a valid, prior mark.
`Id.
`In this case, there has been no interface between the Applicant and the Registrant, and
`therefore this factor is also in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(II) Extent to which Applicant has a Right to Exclude Others from Use of its Mark on its
`Goods
`
`The eleventh factor is the extent to which Applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its
`mark on its goods. Id. The Applicant cannot claim rights to exclusive use apart from common
`law usage of the mark since 2008. This factor is also in the Applicant’s favor.
`
`(12) Extent ofPotential Confusion
`
`The twelfth factor is the extent of potential confusion, i.e., whether de minimis or substantial. Id.
`Registrant’s use of the trademark does not involve substantial use of the mark in all fifty states.
`Since the Registrant’s mark is used in specific industries for specific clients, the potential for
`conf11sion is not likely to extend across the country through all economic classes. Therefore, the
`potential for confilsion is de minimis and Weighs heavily against a likelihood of confusion.
`
`(13) Whether There Are any Other Established Facts Probative ofthe Eflect of Use
`
`The thirteenth factor looks to whether there are any other established facts probative of the effect
`of use. Applicant reserves all rights to provide a detailed and more descriptive response on this
`factor if the USPTO should raise a Section 2(d) refusal in a subsequent Office Action. Applicant
`further asserts that the USPTO has found a mark capable of registration, even in cases where the
`marks are nearly identical and are covered under the same classification. Furthermore, courts
`have long held that the addition of different terms to a common element appreciably reduces the
`likelihood of confusion between two marks. See US Trust v. US States Trust Co, 210 F. Supp.
`2d 9, 27-28 (D. Mass 2002) (UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY not confiisingly similar to
`UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF BOSTON, both for financial services); Colgate
`Palmolive Co. v. Carter—Wallace, Inc., 432 F.2d 1400, 1402, 167 U.S. P. Q. 529, 530 (C.C.P.A.
`1970) (PEAK PERIOD not confusing similar to PEAK); Servo Corp. Am. V. Servo-Tek Prod.
`Ca, 289 F. 2d 955, 981 129 U.S.P.Q. 352, 353 (C.C.P.A. 1961) (SERVOSPEED not confusingly
`similar to SERVO); Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F. 2d 1560, 1564, 4
`U.S.P.Q. 2d 1793, 1796 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SWEATS not confilsing similar to ULTRA
`SWEATS), both for sportswear); Gen. Mills Inc. v. Kellog Co., 824 F. 2d 622, 627, 3 U.S.P.Q.
`
`

`

`2d 1442, 1446 (8th Cir. 1987) (OATMEAL RAISIN CRISP not confusingly similar to APPLE
`RASIN CRISP, both for breakfast cereal); Consol. Cigar v. RJR Tobacco C0,, 491 F.2d 1265,
`1267, 181 U.S.P.Q. 44, 45 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (DUTCH APPLE for pipe tobacco not confiisingly
`similar to DUTCH MASTERS for cigars).
`
`Conclusion
`
`When determining whether an Applicant’s mark creates a likelihood of confusion, With marks
`covered by cited registrations " [a] showing of mere possibility of confiision is not enough; a
`substantial likelihood that the public will be confused must be shown." Omaha Natl. Bank, 633
`F. Supp. at 234, 229 U.S.P.Q. at 52. Applicant’s trademark is dissimilar to the Registrant’s
`trademark Visually, in sound, and in commercial impression. Applicant offers services that are
`not related to Registrant’s goods. Finally, Applicant’s trade channels do not overlap with the
`Registrant. Applying the factors set forth in DuPont, and absent “substantial doubt,” In re Mars,
`Inc., 741 F. 2d 395, 396 222 U.S.P.Q. 938 (Fed. Cir. 1984), registration ofApplicant’s mark is
`appropriate.
`
`For these reasons and others, the majority of these factors weigh against a finding of a likelihood
`of confusion. Applicant respectfully submits that the mark for PHARMVISTA does not create a
`likelihood of confusion with Registration Number 2550308 for VISTAPHARM.
`
`

`

`Exhibit A
`
`SEMMCES
`
`THEMPEUTWAREAS
`
`wcaaeemlmm-e
`PARTIUDATE lN ATRi.AL
`EXPERT CDMMUNFTY
`NEWS 5 EVENTS
`
`9-la: ! sins:
`aiuguwiageme:
`Pnivivvg aiirsariissicn
`9”’3" Wm,”
`Iteglamr/Deiaaclee
`
`!!li'Ma~agE4le‘!.l'El's
` wma
`vuswtalvaloqv:
`
`IJ
`Regulatory Affairs
`
`vk\"!E
`
`3m:v:-
`
`Sima eccmgxi um - I£flll&1ItCa‘B~r~1l’Iti'rl,'!"0Bv:t
`
`minimal Dually!
`All Services
`T sloziamlcaizis
`shun
`Mme
`mm:
`mast-iiinis
`fiegslauri Da£<1il.Vll!‘l
`9335'“
`Cfl"ikal5.;flb
` K$lfPifl$
`cw.
`uleoicasnaltoezn
`5'“““"" V°"“"’3
`D
`Emhgmn
`L’enll:!IWl‘Elg
`Wl95‘'V§3'“5-|''|5W‘i
`3:’
`!
`nsnaeq
`
`D!fllPiPlCJ!'il:
`slsmleri
`gmaiinlngi 5 -«am
`su rteulguz ulimien
`Defiant‘
`slneai.=.ggumi-laain
`
`i‘l'H."f\7C9rZllSEI‘J§ w§
`iaesage-Issue-m
`tterzicmmliwwe
`nvmII3w.Ig|z-1!
`
`Corn rehensive Global Regulatory Intelligence
`and herapeutic Expertise
`LE\‘EIi§lll<§ Pl‘-‘D5 glonal presence, our regulatory lirtelgeilce MD.'ESS)Dfl8E
`access. SUIWFEIBE and assess global regulatory -i-relllg-eiitee In Eris lire
`subrnreslotis ea: ournaflanl writ‘ regional and iciaal re-aillremenls. Our consizliants
`plume oriqolng survclllariyeol iegmai am loizal regiilalioivs, directives‘
`glmielires and léfiulitdly pieizeaeiirs to ensure ereau-lily em rigar lri prodlxzr
`develri-pmeri am regisirerlnn PlEl‘iKll‘J'§l The eribles as ie OEWEI some
`an en
`reqiilatory strategies baseu an elirreiit reglord ;im'elir»es In 2 global Ieglilewy
`Gwregulalmy ililellgtywe pvelrssaonels survey the earnpeuliwa krdscape rm
`bath -ieuelopmenial and approved maples, lemme nmzln; 3olT|p!1'lli'-‘E gap
`il‘&lYSlS iecw‘lques to om ‘roe iegulaixxy iirieligeree max sapwrls pm:um
`beretmarkingi
`
`Worldwide Reach for Proactive Regulatory
`Affairs Strategies
`F'F'D's gbbal legal» are acme regulaloryagemcy Féfibfl pnmse local ixwefege
`in most key markzis, mnlmg as to apply up-locate, mils: regulatory
`lisielllgeiiise ta pioiiinl cleue‘r>pveeiirar;l I'§JE|I3(l€!l) stiateges. Our requlaiioiy
`elfaire group ievebps pi mprlve §Ol|i{lOl'r§ ‘or peieiiilal iegulmry rllml-lee am
`ensure: we quality 0" sum giants in liorlmie sgemes la mixlrrze we
`lfltemaoj cl sue-aees!iil in new
`
`Global Noncllnical Regulatory Services
`PPD s rerlciliucal regii‘army :><:risilliai-is prievlee specielzed eonsultirv; in enable
`pioziircl develevflent iron: discovery gliioligln pi:st—a-pniuiiel li-‘ecycl-.1
`n*3I'599merli Din nor-ellmcel dlel-evbpmer-i. scventels mslir-1: An-ericerl Boat: of
`‘laxlmiogy certified tnxiaolegists ems Elnopear. Regsleied Toxieobglsls «us
`have sxperierix mm a variety er‘ aumpourd rypes {small moleeirfies ai-in
`bl:-logsesii rralewer rergers. rallies oi‘ eziminls
`iinn and rherapmle areas
`
`Expert Guidance on a Broad Range of
`Pharmaceuticals
`Der global reglleioiy airsirs group in:h.1:ee 5:El'rlists and experlenoiaf regulatory
`plates;-onais win: Ire broad aluaai mi reqllural regulatory lmwlesqe mesa to
`elieetilley laefiiaie ecmml.-mname unit ieguutory .ag.er,:les an: Efillfllpalfi mi
`tesclve pmeriilsl cl-allei-.925. Em ileam member WOHG in ixiliebevaiioi: mil
`eolleagaes ='ioIn FFD‘s Efilhcal and D1WI:l2I§EVElDD"‘elll’§BD5Tll'Dil'ii§i easimng
`ef‘i:>a'lt7y at every siege,
`We offer ; aampleie speatrlkrri at eommeesuswe requlatary abrrslllllrg em
`ll‘llEIi\@E7|bE sen-lees iicllldmq:
`‘ Clwl:e! trial aDE|l'.‘ii|Dl\§
`~ uarkem; applsamne
`‘ Medial devices
`' Medical writing
`- Pimiisl-iinn um uiruiniesinns
`
`Source: http://WWW.gQdi.c0m/
`
`

`

`Global Expertise and Unprecedented Reputation
`
`Services and Practices
`including but not limited to
`
`TOP STORIES
`-i e
`ll‘
`
`r
`
`Regulatory approval process for product registration
`Compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice regulations
`Audifs, documentation and personnel training
`Supply chain audits and controls
`Quality and risk management
`FDA electronic registration and submissions (eCTD format)
`Project management and support for product devs.-iopment
`
`To summarize my semcea that can be provltled l am an international regulatory constiitanl with global
`expertise in ptiarmaceoticala —R:< and me dlllg pinoucts and active pharmaceul
`ingredients (APls)
`. nutritional supplements and rvieolcal devices and diagnostic products
`l have extensive experience ln the areas dlpnarmaceutical manufacturing operations, quality systems one
`risk management. compliance arid regulatory altairs — roi APls and dosage terms I am very v.ell verses in
`conducting domestic and lnrelgn plenl
`audits lot CGMF compliance and integrity.
`supply chain
`rnanagernent and control and also ql.laIl|y systems evaluation as well a5 in preparing and fillng rer
`approval or Dnlg Master Files and dosage roiiir product teglellallnns in hard copy or electronic iorrnat
`(ECTD) Alung wittrtnece activities.
`I arri experienced in preparing tor and catierying U 5 FDA regulatory
`inspections tor reailities and documentation I am especially experienced in working with people and
`training tlieiii in these actinties My global expertise has tieeii accnmpllshed in companies tnatl nave
`worked tor and witlr — and ll‘l sewing on reriiios cerrirriitrces with regulatory agencies
`including the u s
`FDA. Fiinner l an: experienced in wurklrtg intensively wrttr foreign companies to register pipoocte in the
`U S - such as companies from China lndla Europe and Mexico Other services that l pvuvldo Include due
`diligence and expert witness amivitles
`ln my past experience,
`t worked ror an Indian pnaiinaceirliaal rnaniitactorer (of Active Pliarniaceotical
`lrlgradienls and Drug Products) with corporate headquarters in Miimnai, rurrive years I was tlieir u 5
`haseo person to train people to develop Drug Master Files and AMDAs toward product registrations
`instruct people in prevaraliort for successful regulatory inspections including the U 5 FDA and pieale and
`
`Source: htt
`
`;_//jrb-C c_Qm/
`
`

`

`Exhibit B
`
`' u-no -
`.°':CX|éPMnwiu.um
`- um‘ 59- um
`
`'.
`
`xL_J
`
`F e
`
`‘Q. . _..
`-m-"|l'UNNi!IclIll|
`;‘e"EL:\
`x Gang‘: §t}_rf/\.\.'uIw.phannvis1aa1xrr\/i-ruie:d'IllI\|
`
`Supcriur Qlmlity
`intelligent Economic:
`
`Pharmfista
`mmmumm
`MM
`
`I-‘harmvista - Pharmaceutical Regulatory and Licensing Consultants
`
`mmlusHmwaa,m.Ba$uaywanKamImunqwrwmmamuInenn£hwdregIlm7Ilaszum
`mflnmuhunwarnanmiaflrlnannwaeai
`
`mmmmmmspwimdmufimmmchnmmmflflflrmfluvdfflshflawdewhulutdfldmfls.
`fiJIII.hwLana*/uxidmiwyarsdprmnkasirg.
`
`WWH Mfin8WMmmWWNB
`pruq:mMaq:pfiusuoniu1s.wracapr1mmyrddoarg:rry|::bi:nduuuvchm
`um:w1asay,usA
`
`runzn~urrwmumpIeasermo:mg.1oawequ:aItnav;awurnes
`afurewlauymummmamumemlaamlnnnusfgj.
`
`

`

`.2”
`
`go ‘Xvi: -'
`
`' _." '.--—»~—
`
`bttpcl/www phaIrrNicta.conv‘regu\a1o:ymm\
`http://\Mww.pharrnvista.cmn/indexhtml
`
`,0 v E O X ppm-miggmm
`‘
`Share I M612»
`
`X D
`
`Sllpnrinr Qua] in
`|lI|L'lJ|gI-nl Elnmnnirs
`
`Rfinhbly-Clnlfifivffll-J‘£fldl
`Ilhanwin ansulanslmu spawn in man I:g|IH=ry uyynrdsfar gun: phmuurnk Imus m, an {maps},
`TuIl(Au¢n\n)gnd D631 (Ma) wuifan vamznfngulahry :IMu:.fyI:u anmnpmsuftvnlnphga produfllnd
`wouldlxh to filufuanwnim myolllwaahw-nuruxuxau mama.»-mu asdstynuoocovupimrvvivu anlflbdoumdafim W:
`hm: mania in mIuv:wkANoA's.u:dma5u!(2>)(2) ulwnswm cm rm-1.
`wem.,-mbeabemawajywmmuwamdunapmawmu.uet»u.umuouIr.ya.unAeLsa:mizaI+,.w.aLmn
`muuwrn-rpamsmmr bdahnd awn Hnumnnmmmasmnahayrpmu.
`
`tllltrflflfilllkliflfl .. Wfifllflillmflfllfl
`
`SW1-EIBHIIH
`fi.£|5T1I.Wl’I
`
`COMM“!WM
`IWLATMV WIMIIH
`
`PlW.I7'lMW9Il
`
`

`

`PHARMVISTA INC. 31 Harrier Court, Wayne, N] 07470 973.997.0243 | info@pharn1Vista.con1 | hrtp://www.pI1armVista.con1
`
`PHARMVISTA INC. — PHARMACEUTICAL
`
`REGULATORY 8: LICENSING CONSULTANTS
`
`About Pharmvista
`
`Pharmvista, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical consulting company wit