Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA778967
`
`Filing date:
`
`10/25/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`Applicant
`
`86499954
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`
`Applied for Mark
`
`FLIGHTLINK
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Attachments
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`BRIAN FURRER
`PANASONIC AVIONICS CORPORATION
`26200 ENTERPRISE WAY
`LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-8400
`UNITED STATES
`brian.furrer@gmail.com
`
`Reply Brief
`
`Reply_Brief_10-25-2016.pdf(907584 bytes )
`
`Brian Furrer
`
`brian.furrer@panasonic.aero, brian.furrer@gmail.com
`
`/Brian Furrer #37627/
`
`10/25/2016
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`004T “FLIGHTLINK”
`
`Before the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board on Appeal
`
`Examining Attorney: David Yontef
`
`Trademark Law Office 118
`
`Reply Brief filed: October 25, 2016
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`)
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`
`Serial No.:
`
`86/499,954
`
`Filed:
`
`January 9, 2015
`
`Mark:
`
`FLIGHTLINK
`
`REPLY BRIEF
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 145 1
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313 -1451
`
`Honorable Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Applicant submits this Reply Brief in response to the Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief
`
`issued October 12, 2016. This Reply Brief is filed in further support of App1icant’s appeal of the
`
`Final Office Action issued November 30, 2015 (“the Final Action”), and the denial of
`
`Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration issued June 13, 2016, in which the Examining Attorney
`
`refused to register the mark FLIGHTLINK. This Reply Brief is being timely filed within 20 days
`
`of the Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief.
`
`In the Final Action, the Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant's proposed
`
`mark, FLIGHTLINK under Section 2(e)(1), as being merely descriptive of App1icant’s relevant
`
`services, namely “Meteorological forecasting; providing meteorological information; providing
`
`l hereby certify that this paper (along with any item(s) referred to as being attached or enclosed) is being
`electronically submitted through the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals to the Commissioner of
`Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 on the date indicated below:
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION
`
`Date of Transmission:
`
`October 25, 2016
`
`/Brian Furrer #37627/
`Brian Furrer
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`Weather information; weather forecasting; weather information services; weather reporting.”
`
`In its Appeal Brief, Applicant asserted that the mark FLIGHTLINK is NOT merely
`
`descriptive because the term “flightlink” has absolutely nothing to do with any of the identified
`
`services of meteorological forecasting, providing meteorological information, providing weather
`
`information; weather forecasting; Weather information services; and weather reporting. As
`
`explained in Applicant’s previous responses in this application, the mark FLIGHTLINK does not
`
`convey or describe an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of
`
`weather—related services. Nor does the mark FLIGHTLINK immediately convey to an average
`
`prospective purchaser that Applicant offers services in meteorological forecasting, weather
`
`information reporting, or weather—related services.
`
`Based on the principle that a determination of descriptiveness is made in relation to an
`
`applicant’s services and not in the abstract, the Examining Attorney re-defined Applicant’s
`
`relevant services based on information from Applicant’s website. Specifically, the Examining
`
`Attorney re-defined Applicant’s services as “meteorological and weather services provided to
`
`various airplanes and airline fleets connected to a shared voice and data communications system
`
`for safe travel, airspace management and accurate real-time aviation monitoring, analysis and
`
`reporting.”
`
`However, the additional features added by the Examining Attorney are not important or
`
`significant aspects of the identified services in the present application. The feature of providing
`
`meteorological and weather services via a connection to a shared voice and data
`
`communications system is simply NOT a significant or important feature of the identified
`
`services of meteorological forecasting, and providing meteorological and weather information
`
`and forecasting. Thus, an ordinary consumer would not consider the mark FLIGHLINK to be
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`conveying a feature of Applicant’s identified services of providing meteorological and weather
`
`information simply because it includes the term “LINK” even knowing that the term “LINK”
`
`relates to a “connection.” An ordinary consumer would understand that providing weather
`
`information and forecasting would have to be accomplished by some form of communication
`
`connection, and the particular form of connection would not be a significant or important feature
`
`of providing weather information or forecasting. While the mark FLIGHTLINK may suggest
`
`that the related services may have something to do with an airplane due to the term “flight” in the
`
`mark, the impression of the overall mark FLIGHTLINK in connection with providing weather
`
`information does NOT immediately convey information regarding an important feature , function
`
`or purpose of the identified services. Accordingly, the term “FLIGHTLINK”, even when
`
`considered in connection with the services as redefined by the Examining Attorney, is NOT
`
`merely descriptive of the services.
`
`Applicant explained in its Appeal Brief that the mark FLIGHTLINK is at most suggestive
`
`of the services because it is a unitary, compound mark having at least two readily apparent
`
`meanings from the mark itself, resulting in a double entendre, such that any import would not be
`
`understood without a measure of analysis, imagination and/or mental pause. Applicant explained
`
`that in the context of the services, the public would readily associate the compound word
`
`“FLIGHTLINK” as meaning a connecting element (i.e., something constituting a connegfifi)
`
`between flights or airplanes. According to the Examining Attorney’s definitions for the terms
`
`making up the compound word FLIGHTLINK, the term “flight” refers to an airplane or
`
`spacecraft and the term “link” means “a connecting element.” As such, in the context of
`
`Applicant’s actual services, the consuming public would readily associate the compound word
`
`“FLIGHTLINK” as meaning a connecting element between airplanes, such as a communication
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`network between one airplane and another airplane. But Applicant’s services, even under the
`
`Examining Attorney’s expanded definition, does NOT provide any “shared datalink” or other
`
`connection between airplanes. As explicitly stated in the materials relied on by the Examining
`
`Attorney, Applicant’s service “provides carriers with improved air-ground and ground-air
`
`communications.” There is no air-air communication or communication link between flights or
`
`airplanes provided by Applicant.
`
`In reply to Applicant’s double entendre position, the Examining Attorney asserted in the
`
`Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief that the “this theory is speculative and misplaced.” The
`
`Examining Attorney then asserted that the “both double entendre interpretations suggested by
`
`Applicant are descriptive in relation to the services.” First, the alternative interpretation of the
`
`term FLIGHTLINK is not at all speculative, and to the contrary, is arguably more consistent with
`
`the meanings of the terms making up the compound word “FLIGHTLINK” than the
`
`interpretation the Examining Attorney asserts to be descriptive of App1icant’s services.
`
`Furthermore, it is clear that the alternative interpretation is NOT descriptive in relation to
`
`Applicant’s services as redefined by the Examining Attorney. As explained above, Applicant’s
`
`services do NOT connect or provide communication between flights or airplanes, and therefore,
`
`do not provide a “link” between “flights,” as the consuming public would immediately associate
`
`as at least one meaning of the compound word “FLIGHTLINK.”
`
`Finally, in response to Applicant drawing attention to third-party marks including the
`
`term “FLIGHT” or “LINK” for similar services registered by the Trademark Office without
`
`finding such terms to be merely descriptive, the Examining Attorney stated that the arguments
`
`are “not compelling because (1) the word “FLIGHT” is disclaimed from the third-party marks,
`
`(2) some third-party marks were registered on the Supplemental Register, and (3) the majority of
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`third-party marks create vastly different, non-descriptive, commercial impression than the
`
`applied-for mar .”
`
`The Examining Attorney, however, does not address the most relevant case highlighted
`
`by the Applicant in its Appeal Brief, namely the registered mark DRIVERLINK for “providing
`
`weather conditions updates for the transportation industry via a website on a global computer
`
`network.” (U.S. Reg. No. 3,257,799). Although the term “DRIVER” clearly relates to
`
`transportation, and the term “LINK” relates to connection and communication, the mark
`
`DRIVERLINK was not found to be merely descriptive of providing weather in the transportation
`
`industry, which plainly has “drivers,” via the intemet, which is a well-known communication
`
`connection.
`
`Furthermore, the registration for the mark DRIVERLINK does not include ANY
`
`disclaimers, nor was it registered on the Supplemental Register. The mark DRIVERLINK was
`
`registered for providing weather reports via a communication connection, similar to the present
`
`application. While Applicant understands that third-party registrations for marks having
`
`similarities to Applicant’s mark are not conclusive on the issue of descriptiveness, the symmetry
`
`of the respective compound marks and the similarity of the identified services, and the lack of
`
`even a rejection on the basis of descriptiveness for DRIVERLINK, weigh heavily in favor of a
`
`similar finding with respect to Applicant’s mark FLIGHLINK.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Examining Attomey’s counterarguments are therefore not persuasive and the refusal
`
`to register should be reversed. Furthermore, the evidence of record supports a finding that the
`
`applied-for mark is NOT £13; descriptive of a significant feature of the identified services. The
`
`mark embodies a double entendre, even under the Examining Attorney’s re-defined scope of
`
`5
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`Applicant’s services. At most, the mark FLIGHTLINK is suggestive of the Applicant’s services
`
`because any descriptive aspect would not be understood without a measure of analysis,
`
`imagination and/or mental pause. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the refusal to
`
`register should be reversed.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: October 25, 2016
`
`By:
`
`/Brian Furrer #3 7627/
`Brian Furrer
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`26200 Enterprise Way
`Lake Forest, California 92630
`Telephone: (949) 462-1285
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`INDEX OF CITED REFERENCES
`
`In re Bayer Aktiengesellschafl, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`
`In re Bright—Crest, Ltd, 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979)
`
`In re Chamber 0fC0mmerce ofthe US, 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir.
`
`In re Champion Int 7 Corp., 183 USPQ 318, 320 (TTAB 1974)
`
`In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)
`
`In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (C. C.P.A. 1968)
`
`In re Del. Punch C0., 186 USPQ 63 UT/1B 1975)
`
`In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d I 009 (Fed. Cir. I 987)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984)
`
`11.
`
`In re National Tea C0., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB I965)
`
`12
`
`Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d I 33 0, I 340, 71 USPQ2d
`
`II 73, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`13.
`
`In re RiseSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, I933 (TTAB 2012)
`
`14.
`
`In re Simmons C0., 189 USPQ 352 (TTAB I976)
`
`15.
`
`In re Tea and Sympathy, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1062 (TTAB 2008)