Global Patent Solutions, LLC v. Global Competitiveness, Inc.

Filing 1

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 1 of 23

1

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 700 2375 EAST CAMELBACK ROAD PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016 [phone]

2
3

4
5

Kimberly A. Warshawsky, SBN 022083
W arshawskyK~gtlaw.com

6 7
8

John E. Cummerford, SBN 021039
CummerfordJ ~gtlaw.com

Katherine L. Pappas, SBN 27284 PappasK(fgtlaw.com
Attorneys lor Plaintif

9
10

IN THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARZONA
Case No. CIV 09-2445

11 GLOBAL PATENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Arizona limited liabilty company.
12

Plaintiff,
13

v.

COMPLAINT
Declaratory Judgment
(Trademark Non-Infringement)

14
15

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, INC., d//a! GLOBAL PRIOR ART, a Maine corporation.
Defendant.

16 17
18

19

Global Patent Solutions, LLC ("Plaintiff') by its attorney alleges as follows:

20
21
1.

PARTIES. JURISDICTION. AND VENUE

Plaintiff is a limited liabilty company organized under the laws of the

22
23

state of Arizona, with offices in Scottsdale, Arizona.
2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Global Competitiveness, Inc.

24
25

("Defendant") is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Maine,
with offices in Boston, Massachusetts.

26

PHX 329071121v4

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 2 of 23

1

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 15 U.S.C.

2
3

§ 1121(a), and 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1338(a), as this Complaint requests a declaratory
judgment of

non-infringement under federal trademark law, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.
4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

4
5

BACKGROUND
5. Plaintiff provides intellectual propert research and consulting services,

6 7
8

including patent and non-patent literature research, disclosure drafting, and patent
engineering.
6. Plaintiff uses the name "Global Patent Solutions" to identify Plaintiffs

9
0 0 r~ ..
c. S 'C ;; Q 00

10
11

services.
7. Plaintiff s customers know Plaintiff s business by its "Global Patent

.. U)i: .~

en~ ~Zo o: i: 04;0

~ 4; 0

12
13

Solutions" name.
8. Plaintiff promotes its services through its website, accessible at the

~ ~o~

ˇ: i: 4; ~:: o c. u~'" ~ J; i: 4; ~ .( =.. .N

~ Jz~~~ ; 4; Z

14
15

..ww.globalpatentsolutions.com? Internet domain name (the "Domain Name").
9. Plaintiff

~~i:
i:.. ::

J; u~
~
'" r'" N

registered the Domain Name in 2005.

16 17
18

10. Defendant states on its website that it provides "international prior art
searches."
11. Defendant refers to itself as "Global" on its website.

19

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant fied its Aricles of Incorporation

20
21

in Maine in 1987 under the legal name "Global Competitiveness, Inc."

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant does business using the name
"Global Prior Ar."

22
23

THE CONTROVERSY
14. Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff a letter dated July 22, 2006

24
25

("Defendant's July 22 Letter").

26

2
PHX 329,071, 121

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 3 of 23

1

15. Defendant's July 22 Letter states that Defendant provides "international

2
3

prior art searches."
16. Defendant's July 22 Letter asserts that Defendant has trademark rights in

4
5

the name "Global Prior Ar."
17. Defendant's July 22 Letter asserts that Plaintiffs use of

the name "Global

6 7
8

Patent Solutions" infringes on Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name.
18. Defendant's July 22 Letter demands that Plaintiff discontinue using its

"Global Patent Solutions" name.
19. Plaintiff s counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel dated July 27, 2009
("Plaintiffs July 27 Letter").

9
0 0 r~ ..
c. S 'C

10
11

20. Plaintiffs July 27 Letter states that the only similarity between

.. U)i: .~
;; Q 00

en~ ~Zo o: i: 04;0 8 ~ o~ ˇ c. u~'" o: i: 4; ~::
~ .( J; ti .~ = i:..~ ~Z;;.:Ze, ~ J; u~ J. i:.. ::

~ 4; 0

12
13

Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name and Plaintiffs "Global Patent Solutions" name is
the use of

the word "GlobaL."
21. Plaintiffs July 27 Letter also states that Defendant's use of the word

14
15

~~i:
~
'" r'"

"Global" is merely descriptive of

Defendant's services involving "international prior art

16 17
18

searches."
22. On November 10, 2009, Defendant fied a trademark application with the

N

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to register the "Global Prior Ar" name as a
trademark on the Principal Register.

19

20
21

23. On the same day, Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a second
letter ("Defendant's November 10 Letter") asserting that Defendant's "Global Prior

22
23

Ar" name has acquired secondary meaning and again demanding that Plaintiff
discontinue using Plaintiffs "Global Patent Solutions" name.
24. Defendant enclosed with Defendant's November 10 Letter a draft

24
25

complaint, attached herein as Exhibit 1, in which Defendant alleges, among other
claims, that Plaintiff

26

infringed upon Defendant's trademark "Global Prior Ar."

3
PHX 329,071, 121

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 4 of 23

1

25. Defendant's November 10 Letter explicitly threatens Plaintiff that
Defendant is "prepared to fie (the complaint) shortly in US District Court."

2
3

DECLARATORY RELIEF is APPROPRIATE
26. Defendant has left Plaintiff with the choice either to surrender Plaintiffs

4
5

"Global Patent Solutions" name and give up Plaintiffs right to its use, or to defend that
right in a lawsuit brought by Defendant.
27. Plaintiff has no option but to seek relief from this Court. The damage that

6

7
8

Plaintiff would suffer if Defendant were to bring its baseless lawsuit against Plaintiff is
precisely what a declaratory action is designed to prevent.

9
0 0 r-

10
11

28. Defendant's use of the word "Global" is to refer to itself, not to its
services.

~ ..
c. S 'C

.. U)i: .~

;; Q 00

"':~ ~Zo o i:04;:5

~ 4;

12
13

29. "Global Prior Ar" is a generic term referring to prior art that exists
globally.

8c. u~'" ::o,, ˇ:
o i:..~::
~ .( J; ti .~ = i:..~ ~Z;4;~e, : J; Z J; u~

14
15

30. Defendant uses "Global Prior Ar" in its generic meaning to identify
Defendant's services involving searches for prior art on a global basis.

~~i:
~
'" r'"

i:.. ::

16

31. "Global Prior Ar" is a term that answers the question: what service does
Defendant provide?

N

17
18

32. Consumers do not understand the term "Global Prior Ar" to indicate only
one source of

19

that service.

20
21

33. At a minimum, Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name is merely

descriptive.
34. Merely descriptive marks, by definition, are neither distinctive nor source

22
23

identifying. Accordingly, consumers are not likely to be confused.
35. Defendant admits in its own PTO Application, attached herein as Exhibit

24
25

2, that its "Global Prior Ar" name is descriptive.

26

4
PHX 329,071, 121

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 5 of 23

1

36. Defendant states in its PTO Application that its "Global Prior Ar" name

2
3

"has become distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant's substantially
exclusive and continuous use."
3 7 . Defendant's statement regarding acquired distinctiveness recognizes that

4
5

the name "Global Prior Ar" has a primary descriptive meaning separate and apart from
any asserted secondary meaning.

6
7
8

38. A judgment from this Court exercising its discretion wil serve an
invaluable purpose by clarifying the legal rights of the parties, while simultaneously
affording Plaintiff relief from the uncertainty and anxiety perpetuated by Defendant that
gave rise to this action.

9
0 0 r~ ..
c. S 'C

10
11

39. Refusal by this Court to exercise its discretion and resolve the dispute
between the parties would force Plaintiff to choose between either ( a) abandoning

.. U)i: .~
;; Q 00

12
13

o ~Zo 8:~~o~
ˇ: i:..~:: c. u~'" o
~ .( J; i:..~ =.. .N

'" i: 0":0

~.. 0

Plaintiff s "Global Patent Solutions" name and disrupting Plaintiff s legitimate business

~z;~~~ J 4; Z
~~i:
i:.. ::

14
15

objectives, or (b) continue using Plaintiffs "Global Patent Solutions" name and risk

J; u~
~
'" r'"

substantial future damages and harm to Plaintiff s business when Defendant fies a
trademark infringement suit against Plaintiff.
40. Federal action on this matter wil advance the resolution of the entire

16
17
18

N

controversy between the parties.

19

COUNT ONE
Declaratory Judf!ment
41. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations in the above

20
21

22
23

paragraphs.
42. Defendant asserts an exclusive trademark right in the name "Global Prior
Ar. "

24
25

43. Defendant's use of the "Global Prior Ar" name is generic.

26

5
PHX 329,071, 121

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 6 of 23

1

44. Defendant's use of the "Global Prior Ar" name is merely descriptive of

2
3

Defendant's services.
45. Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name has not acquired secondary

4
5

meaning.

46. Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name is not entitled to trademark
protection.

6 7
8

47. Even if Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name is protected as a trademark,
Plaintiffs "Global Patent Solutions" name does not infringe on Defendant's "Global
Prior Ar" name.
48. Defendant has demanded that Plaintiff cease using Plaintiffs "Global
Patent Solutions" name.
49. Defendant refuses to withdraw its demand.

9 0 0 r~ .. c. S 'C .. U)i: .~
;; Q 00

10
11

en ~~zo o: i: 0":0

~ 4; 0

12
13

8c. u~'" ::o,, ˇ:
~~i:
~
'" r'" N

50. By reason of the foregoing, a controversy exists between Plaintiff and

o i:..~:: ~ J;i:..~

.( =.. .N
J; u~
i:.. ::

~z;~~~ J 4; Z

14
15

Defendant and a declaratory judgment is both necessary and proper in order to
determine the rights between Plaintiff and Defendant.

16 17
18

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against Defendant as
follows:

19

A. Declaring that Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name is generic and/or that
Defendant does not have enforceable trademark rights in the name "Global Prior Ar."
B. Declaring that Plaintiffs use of its "Global Patent Solutions" name does

20
21

22
23

not infringe Defendant's "Global Prior Ar" name.

C. Awarding Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
connection with this action, plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the date judgment
is entered until paid; and

24
25

26

D. Awarding Plaintiff other such further relief as the Court deems just.
6
PHX 329,071, 121

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 7 of 23

1

DATED this 2D~ay of

November 2009.

2
3

GREENBERG TRAURG, LLP

4
5

6

7
8

9
0 0 r~ ..
c. S 'C

By: /s/ Kimberlv A. Warshawsky Kimberly A. Warshawsky John E. Cummerford Katherine L. Pappas 2375 East Camelback Road Suite 700 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Attorneys for Plaintif

10
11

.. U)i: .~
;; Q 00

8c. u~'" ::o,, ˇ:
o i:..~::

en~ ~Zo o: i: 0":0

~ 4; 0

12
13

~ J; ~..~ .( = ~ x~

14
15

~ Z;:-e,

~~i:
~
'" r'"

J; .u~ ; .Z J

i:.. ::

16 17
18

N

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26

7
PHX 329,071, 121

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 8 of 23

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 9 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

DISTRICT OF MA
GLOBAL COMPETITIVNESS, INC. d//a GLOBAL PRIOR ART
)
)

)

Plaintiff
v.

)
) )

Civil No.

)
GLOBAL PATENT SOLUTIONS, LLC
Defendant.
) )
)-

COMPLAINT AN JURY TRAL DEMAD
The plaitiff, Global Competitiveness, me.. d//a Global Prior Ar ("Plaintiff')
seeks injunctive relief and damages against the defendant, Global Patent Solutions, LLC

("Defendant") based on the latter's provision of competing services under a confusingly
similar trade name.

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a Maie corporation with a pnncipal place of business in

Boston, Massachusetts.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant, a competitor to Plaintiff, is an
Anzona corporation with a principal place of

business in Scottsdale, Arona.

3: Upon information and belief, Defendant is qualified to do business, and is
doing business, in this judicial district.

JURSDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has federal question jurisdiction of ths action under 28 U.S.c.

§ 1331 in that the claims herein arse under federal trademark law (15 U.S.C. § 1121 et

seq.). This Court has jurisdiction orrelated state claims under 28 D.S.C. § 1367. This

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 10 of 23

Court additionally has diversity jursdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 D.S.C. §

1332, in that this is a civil action between citizens of different states in which the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.
5. This distrct is the proper venue for this action, as a substantial par of

the

events and omissions giving rise to the claims herein occured in ths distrct, and the

Defendant is subject to personal jursdiction in the Distrct of

Maine.

BACKGROUND
6. . Plaitiff is a firm engaged in, among other thngs, intellectual property

analysis and prior ar search analyses. Plaintiff conducts business in the Amencas,
throughout Europe and Asia, with nearly 50 techncal expert located around the world.
7. Plaintiff

was founded in 1982 and has been using the name "Global Prior

Ar" since at least as early as 1985.
8. Since the mid-1980s, Plaintiff

has promoted, and continues to promote, its

intellectual property analysis and prior ar search analyses throughout the United States
under the name "GLOBAL PRIOR ART." It has invested substantial time and money in

establishing and maintaining "GLOBAL PRIOR ART" as its trademark related to the
goods and serices it offers.
9. As a result of Plaintiffs successful promotion of its high-quality search
analyses, the mark "GLOBAL PRlOR ART" has come to signfy the intellectual property

services offered by Plaintiffin the minds ofthe consuming public.

10. Plaintifts mark has thus become, and is, a valuable asset of Plaintiff
. symbolizing Plaitiff, its high quality services, and its goodwil.

2

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 11 of 23

11. Upon information and bčlief, Defendant first began providing prior ar
searches in 2005, wider the name "GLOBAL PATENT SOLUTIONS."

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant, having recognized the consumer
awareness, name recognition and goodwill associated with Plaitiff, attempted to usur

that goodwil for itself

by providing prior ar searches under the intentionally and

confsingly similar trade name "GLOBAL PATENT SOLUTIONS."

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant has received a direct financial
benefit from providing prior ar searches under a name confsingly similar to Plaintiffs

mark, in an amount unown to Plaintiff
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant's marketing, sale and distrbution

of competing services under a name confsingly similar to Plaintiffs mark has damaged
Plaintiff in the form of lost sales and profits.
15. Defendant's actions have caused and wil continue to cause irreparable

har and injury to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
Accordingly, Defendant should be enjoined and restrained dunng the pendency of this

action and permanently thereafer, from using the name "GLOBAL PATENT
SOLUTIONS."

FIT CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Trademark-Infringement, 15 D.S.C. § 1125(a))
16. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the statements and allegations contained in

the preceding paragraphs ofit:ˇ complaint.

17. Plaintiff has established and maintained "GLOBAL PRIOR ART" as its
trademark.

3

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 12 of 23

18. "GLOBAL PRlOR ART" is a valid, protectable mark, which has acquired
secondary meaning in the marketplace.

19. Plaintiff has been marketing its services under the mark "GLOBAL
PRIOR ART" since the mid eighties and has spent substantial time and money in
establishing the trade name. As a result, the mark "GLOBAL PRIOR ART" has
developed name recogntion amongst the consumer marketplace as a source identifier for
Plaintiffs goods and services.

20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been marketing and/or selling

simlar intellectual propert analysis and pnor ar search servces under a name
incorporating Plaintiffs mark.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendant has adopted the confuingly

similar "GLOBAL PATENT SOLUTIONS'; trade name specifically to usurp the
consuer awareness, name recognition and goodwill associated with Plaintiff and its
similar service offerings.

22. Defendant is not now, and has never been, authorized by Plaintiff to use

Plaintiff s trademark in connection with the marketing and/or sale of Defendant's goods
and services.

23. Defendant's marketing and/or sale of intellectual property analysis
services under the Defendant's name is .

/'

likely to cause confuion, mistake, and or
Defendant's services,

deception among consumers as to the source, quality, and natue of

partičularly in light of the close similanties between the services offered by Defendant
and by Plaintiff

4

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 13 of 23

24. Upon information and belief, as a proximate result of the unair advantage
accrug to Defendant's business from deceptively trading on Plaintiffs consumer

recogntion, Defendant has made substantial saes and profits in an amount to be

established according to proof.
25. Upon information and belief, as a proximate result of

the unfair advantage

accruing to Defendant's business from deceptively trading on Plaintiffs consumer

recogntion, Plaintiffhas been damaged and deprived of sales of its services and has been

depnved of the value of its trademark as a commercial asset, in an amount to be
established according to proof.
26. Upon information and belief, in the absence of

injunctive relief, Defendant

wil continue to infrnge Plaitiffs trademark. Pecunar compensation will not afford

Plaintiff adequate relief for the damage to its .trademark in the public perception. Further,

Plaintiff is informed and believes that in the absence of injunctive relief, customers are
likely to continue being mistaken as to the tre source, origi, spqnsorship, and affliation

of Defendant's services.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(False Designation ofOrigiD, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)1
27. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the statements and allegations contained in

the preceding paragraphs of its complaint.
28. Defendant has caused to enter into interstate commerce goods and services

sold under a trade name wruch copies Plaintiffs trademark. Plaintiffs trademark, and

each copied element thereof, has become associated in the minds of consumers with
Plaintiff and its goods and servces.

5

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 14 of 23

29. The mark~ting and sale of Defendant's goods and services as descnbed

above consitutes false designations and ongi which are likely to cause confusion,
mistake, and or deception among consumers as to the source or ongin of such goods or
sponsorship or approval of such goods by Plaintiff.
30. Upon information and belief. as a proximate result ofthe unfair advantage
accruing to Defendant's false designation of the origi of their goods, Defendant has

made substantial sales and profits.in an amount to be established according to proof.

31. Upon information and belief, as a proximate result of Defendant's false
designation of the ongin of their goods, Plaintiff has been damaged and depnved of

sales

of its goods and servces and has been çleprived of the value of its trademark as a

commercial asset, in an amount to be established according to proof.
32. Upon information and belief, in the absence of injunctive relief, Defendant

will continue to designate falsely the ongin of its goods. Pecuniar compensation wil

not afford Plaintiff adequate relief for the damage to its trademark in the public
perception. Furher, Plaintiff is informed and believes that in the absence of injunctive

relief, customers are likely to continue being mistaken as to the true source, ongin,
sponsorship, and affliation ofDefendants services.
THIRD CLAIM FÓR RELIEF (Common Law Unfair Competitionl
33. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the statements and allegations contained in

the preceding paragraphs of its complaint.
34. Plaintifrs trademark is a valid, protectable mark, and has acquired a

secondar meaning, as established herein.

6

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 15 of 23

35. Plaintifts interest arose prior to the Defendant's use of

marks confusingly

similar to Plaintifts trademark in connection with its similar products and servces.
36. Plaintiff and Defendant are business competitors.

37. By reason of the similarty between the products and servic~s offered by
Plaintiff and by Defendant, the public is likely to identify Defendant's products and
services as those of Plaintiff, or to conclude that Plaintiff has some connection with the
production of

Defendant s products and services.

38. Defendant's conduct, as alleged herein, is unfair and unlawfuL.

39. Upon information and belief, Defendant's acts have caused Plaintif to

lose profits and. caused additional daage to Plaintifts reputation and goodwilL. The

precise amount of Plaintifts daages is presently unown but wil be established
according to proof.

40. Upon information and belief, as. a diect and proximate result of
Defendant's wrongful conduct as described above, Defendant has gained revenue and
profits.
41. Plaintiff

has no adequate remedy at law for the injury that wil be caused

by Defendant's acts of unfair competition and/or fraudulent business practices.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminar and permanent injunction restraining

Defendant, its offcers, agents, and employees, and all persons acting in concert with

them, from fuer in engaging in acts of unair competition against Plaintiff and its
products and services.

7

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 16 of 23

FOURTH CLAI FOR RELIEF
(Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 10 M.R.S. § 1211)
42. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the statements and allegations contained in

the preceding paragraphs of its complaint.

43. As descnbed above, Defendant's use of a similar trade name in the
offering of competing intellectual property analysis and prior ar search services causes a
likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding that Plaintiff sponsors, approves, or certifes
- such services. il fact, Plaintiff has no such relationship with Defendant and/or
Defendant's goods and servces.

44. As descnbed above, Defendant's use of a similar trade name in the
offering of competing intellectual property analysis and prior ar search services causes a

likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding that Plaintiff is affliated, connected, or
associated with Defendant. In fact, Plaintiff has no affiliation or connection with the
production or dIstnbution of

Defendant' s goods and services.

45. Such activities and statements violate the Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade

Practices Act ("UDTPA"), 10 M.R.S. § 1211, et seq.
46. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the damages that wil be

caused by Defendant's deceptive trade practices. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a

preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendant, its officers, agents, and
employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, from furter in engaging in acts
of

unfair competition against Plaintiff and its products and services.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a tral by jury of all issues so triable in this action.

8

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 17 of 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Based upon the foregoing, Plainti seeks r~lief and requests tht the Cour enter

judgment against the Defendant as follows:
A. Enterng a prelimary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from

using any trade name confuingly similar to Plaintiff s mark.

B. Awardig statutory and compensatory damages reasonably calculated to
. compensate Plaitiff for its losses, including lost profits due to diverted sales, lost goodwill, and cheapeng ofPlaintifls reputation;

C. Awardig Plaintiff the amount of the benefit conferred on the Defendant as a
result of

their unjust enrchment;

D. Awarding Plaintiff its attorneys' fees and costs; and

E. . Awarding such other and fuher relief as the Cour deems just and proper.
Dated: November 10, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

Isl Kevin R. Haley

Isl Stacy O. Stitham
Kevin R. Haley

khalev~brannlaw.com
Stacy O. Stitham

sstitham(abranaw.com BRA & ISAACSON, LLP
184 Main Street P. O. Box 3070 Lewiston, ME 04243-3070
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintif

.9

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 18 of 23

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 19 of 23

pocument Description: Application Mail I Create Date: 10-Nov-2009
n. '.
.

0.."",
."")Q"

I

Next Pag~

I

You are currently on page 11

ofP

~

PTO Form 14ď8 (Rev 9/2006) OMS No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2008)

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
Serial Number: 77869243

Input Field

Filng Date: 11/10/2009

The table below presents the data as entered.
Entered 77869243

SERIAL NUMBER

MARK INFORMATION
*MARK
STANDARD CHARACTERS

GLOBAL PRIOR ART
YES YES
GLOBAL PRIOR ART

USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE

LITERAL ELEMENT
MARK STATEMENT

The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
Principal

REGISTER
APPLICANT INFORMATION
*OWNER OF MARK

Global Competitiveness, Inc.

*STREET
INTERNAL ADDRESS
*CITY
*ST A TE

21 Milk Street
6th Floor

Boston

(Required for U.S. applicants)
*COUNTRY

Massachusetts
United States
02109

*ZIP/POST AL CODE (Required for U.S. applicants only)

LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
i

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 20 of 23

TYPE
STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION

corporation
Maine

GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
*INTERNA TIONAL CLASS

042

*IDENTlFICATlON

Intellectual property services, namely, validity searches, patent due diligence, freedom to operate searches, licensing, patentability searches, acquisition due diligence, intellectual property portfolio analysis, intellectual property management and landscape, technology trend analysis, business opportunity assessment, competitive positioning and product planning

FILING BASIS

SECTION l(a)
At least as early as 01/01/1985
At least as early as 01/01/1985

FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE

FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE
SPECIMEN FILE NAME(S)

\\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \778
\692\ 77869243\xml 1 \AP POO03.JPG

SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION

Digital image from Owner's website showing the mark with the services and hyperlinks for purchasing the services

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SECTION
The mark has become distinctive of the
goods/services through the applicant's
SECTION 2(f)

substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.

ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME

Kevin R. Haley, Esq.

FIRM NAME

Brann & Isaacson
1 84 Main Street

STREET
CITY
STATE
COUNTRY

Lewiston
Maine

United States
04240

ZIP/POSTAL CODE

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 21 of 23

PHONE
FAX

207 -786-3566
207 -783-9325

EMAIL ADDRESS

khaley(gbrannlaw.com
Yes

AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL

CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
NAME

Kevin R. Haley, Esq.

FIRM NAME

Brann & Isaacson
184 Main Street

STREET
CITY
STATE

Lewiston
Maine

COUNTRY
ZIPIPOST AL CODE

United States
04240

PHONE
FAX

207-786-3566
207-783-9325

EMAIL ADDRESS

khaley(gbrannlaw.com
Yes

AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL

FEE INFORMATION
NUMBER OF CLASSES
FEE PER CLASS
1

325 325 325

*TOT AL FEE DUE

*TOT AL FEE PAID

SIGNATURE INFORMATION
SIGNA TURE

/Kevin R. Haley/
Kevin R. Haley

SIGNATORY'S NAME
SIGNA TORY'S POSITION
DA TE SIGNED

Attorney of record, Maine bar member
11/1 0/2009

PTü Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 22 of 23

OMS No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2008)

Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register
Serial Number: 77869243
Filng Date: 11/10/2009

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
MARK: GLOBAL PRIOR ART (Standard Characters, see mark) GLOBAL PRIOR ART. the mark consists of The literal element of The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
The applicant, Global Competitiveness, Inc., a corporation of

Maine, having an address of

6th Floor, 21 Milk Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 United States the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and requests registration of Trademark Office on the Principal Register established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:

International Class 042: Intellectual property services, namely, validity searches, patent due diligence, freedom to operate searches, licensing, patentability searches, acquisition due diligence, intellectual propert portfolio analysis, intellectual propert management and landscape, technology trend analysis, business opportunity assessment, competitive positioning and product planning
Use in Commerce: The applicant is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's related company or licensee is using the mark in commerce, or the applicant's predecessor in interest used the mark in commerce, on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(a), as amended.

In International Class 042, the mark was first used at least as early as 01/01/1985, and first used in commerce at least as early as 01/01/1985, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed goods and/or services, consisting of a(n) Digital image from Owner's website showing the mark with the services and hyperlinks for purchasing the services.
Sp~çjm~n_E il~l

The mark has become distinctive of

the goods/services through the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.
The applicant hereby appoints Kevin R. Haley, Esq. of

Brann & Isaacson

184 Main Street Lewiston, Maine 04240 United States to submit this application on behalf of the applicant.

Case 2:09-cv-02445-NVW Document 1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 23 of 23

Correspondence Information: Kevin R. Haley, Esq. Brann & Isaacson 184 Main Street Lewiston, Maine 04240 207-786-3566(phone) 207-783-9325(fax) khaley(ibrannlaw.com (authorized)

A fee payment in the amount of $325 has been submitted with the application, representing payment
for 1 class(es).

Declaration
The undersigned, being hereby warned that wilful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 D.S.C. Section 1001, and that such wilful false statements, and the like, may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting registration, the applicant; he/she declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of
believes the applicant to be the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, or, if 1

the

application is being fied under 15 D.S.C. Section 105 (b), he/she believes applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

Signature: /Kevin R. Haley/ Date Signed: 11/10/2009 Signatory's Name: Kevin R. Haley Signatory's Position: Attorney of record, Maine bar member

RAM Sale Number: 416 RAM Accounting Date: 11/12/2009
Serial Number: 77869243 Internet Transmission Date: Tue Nov 10 14:14:38 EST 2009 TEAS Stamp: DSPTO/BAS-216.220.233.99-2009111014l4382 19395-77869243-460327f9066db6593e3b583aa 1 10140757867213 929f3d594-CC-4l6-20091

TDR Home

This document may be displayed as a PDF file containing images without text. You may view online or save the entire document by clicking on the fie download icon in the upper right corner of this page.