Donald A. Vall (AtizonaBar No. 007522) [email protected] David E. Rogers(AtizonaBar No. 019274) [email protected] L.L.P. Sandets Dempsey & Squire, Squate Two Renaissance 40 Notth Cental Avenue,Suite2700 Phoenir,Atizona 85004-4498 Tel +1.602.528.4000 Fax +1.602.253.8129 Attorneys fot Defendants Centuty Insurance Group and Ceatuy SuretyCo. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CENTURY 21 RL{L ESTATE LLC, Plaintiff, vs. CENTURY SURETY CO., Defendant. No. CIV 03-0053PHX SMM Case
t'7
l8 t9 20 2l 22
CENTURYS R.EPLYIN SUPPORTOF MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT ON THE REMAINING COUNTS AND TO AMEND CENTURYS REGISTRATIONS AND ISB REGISTRATION TO CANCEL OR AMEND C21'S
24 25
27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 1 of 13
I
L
lntroduction
2 3 4 5
6 1 8
Tradema-tklaw is meant to leflect the realitiesof the matketplace. NIcFll' Inc v' Univetsal Ciq' Studios-Inc.,228 USPQ 153, 159 (C D Cal. 1985); tn te Quadtam,228 USI,Q 863,865 GTAB 1985). Hete again,as with Counts MII, no one perceivcsany
othel insurancebusioesscsnor the USPTO,l and conflict, not consumets, C21's franchisees, C21's ovetrcaching attempt to monopoLizethe commonly-uscd wotd "Ccntury" should be tejected. C21 does not dispute the caselaw or ptocedure set forth in Century's MSJltC'z It descriPtion in Century's Registrationss does oot deny tlat the Cowt can tcstlict the serwices
l0 lt 12 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24
. 1J
aod/or cancel ot tcsttict C21's ISB Registation ifnecessary. C21 attcmpts to ^\'old summaty judgment aod final disposition of thc Remaioing Counts by (1) tepeating argumentsthat were alreadyconsideredand tejected in the Couit's Malch 16, 2006 Otdet ("Ordet"), and (2) presenting ncw aigumcnts and facts that are late, incorrect, conttadict positions pteviously taken b,vC21 and/ot contradict the findings in the Ordet C2l rlso mentions that the fedetal tradematk dilutioo statutewas amended,but does not explain how aftet Century's that rvould affect thc outcome hete The statutervas amcnded four da,vs N{SJRCwas filed, but summary judgment is still mandated under the nev "likelihood of dilution" standatd in the amendcd statutebecause,amoog othet teasons,the Court has already found that the parties' tespectrvemarks ale dissimilat as a matter of l'\v znd thele is no mental associatrofl. In summary, there is no likelihood ofconfusion ('LOC") or no likelihood ofdilution ("LOD') aod summary judgment should bc gtaoted fol Cennty on the ltemaining Counts'
II.
ofthe Remaining optionsrvhichwould dispose The Cout hasthreeptocedural
j "USITO" mems United States PatentandTradematkOf6ce; "C21" meansCenruty21 Re'l F'st'te LLC md "Ccntury" meansCentury Surety Company. , "MSTRC" meansCenhfy's i{otion for SummaryJudgment on the Remainng Counis "Remaning Counts" meani Count IX and C21'scounteJclim for l "Centutyt Registations"mcansU.S.SewiceN{atkApplicationNo 751357,803 "CenturvSurelv for by *"" allorved the USPTO)and U.S.ScwiceNtatkRegisttation-No2,582,518 C'""p' 1-r'i.l"r,* mansU S Serice Nfark ot "Centuty Insurrne Gtoup." "C21t ISB Registration" "ISB Regisnarion" " services btokerage foi "Century21" for "insurance No. 1,,{29,531 Resistration
26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 2 of 13
I 2 3 4 5 o '7 8
favot: Countsin Cefltury's (1) or Regisftatrons Find that thereis no LOC or LOD, rvithout alteringCefltury's judgmentin Ceotury'sfavot This comports and C21'sISB Registtation, gmnt summary evidencc rvith the findingsin the Otdet, the opinioo ofthe USPTO and the overwhelming IIIA C,p 5,114-p 11'I 9' MSJIIC Sections in occuts thematkeqlace. of rvhatactually pleadings. This option would not requireamended (2) in as Otdet Centtny'sRegstatronsto be ameflded requested the I\{SJRC but to This woul
l0
ll
t2 l3
l4 15 l6
t7 18 19 2{) 2l 22 23 24 25 26
b,v insuanceundenvritingptor'-ided Century)' commctcial 2l" mark (et alonethe specialty, and ioto 2',7 (7) the pattiesate not likelyto exPand eachothcf'smarkeq)lace, (8) the partieshavc
28
a Hereafter sometimes teferted to, tespective\i, as the "CSG" mark and tle "CIG" matk
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 3 of 13
I
of sinceat least1991\\'ith no evidence actualconfusion,even amongC21's coer.isted showthat p. franchisees. Sec,e.g.,N{SJRC 6, l. 16 - p. 7,1.3. Thesefactotsoverwhclminglv citedin MSJRCp 7, 1.9 - p.8, l.5 Additionalll', thereisno confucrand no LOC. Secases the Ordet found that thereareat least4,1drird partyusetsof "Centurv" in the insurancc that C21's freld. Otdet p 16,ll 2-15 It is alsoundisputed iodusty and 126ifl the realestate and hasfrledand of the ffial counsel evenrepresents ow11er "Mid-Cefltury" for insurance C21'scontentionthat "N{idon prosecuted tlademaikapplications its behalfdespite conflict Century"conflictswith its ghts. CRO p. 10,tl. 2-6.5'fhete is simplyno legitimate rvotd "Century." heteand C21 canflotmonoPolie the commonly-uscd that thcreis a factualdisputeovet the similaiityof the matks znd C21 argues Part of its alleged (Opp. pp. 4 6), but its positionsate baseless. of similarit-v the services on disputeis based the matks"21s Cenffy," "Ncw Centsy"o and C21'spurported"family r of mrrks," eachof which hasbeenfound not to be part ofthis case Otder p 2 n.2;p 61, I 21" mark vetsusthe CSC and of 24 - p. 62,I. 6. With tespectto the sirnilarity the "Cenh.riv as CIG matks,the Order found that "Century" and "Century21" ate dissirnilat a mattetof by larv. Otder p. 19,1.20' p.22,L 14. As explained Ccntwy, and ncver refutedby C21' the Gtoup" addcdto the word "Ceotury" mzke the CS(i terms"surety Group" and "Insurance to and CIG matksevcnmote dissirnilat "Centuty21" than the matk "Century" standing to alone.sThus, the CSG and CIG matksate dissimilar "Century21" and this factot aloneis essentiallydispositivc of the RemainingCounts.e Kellggg-eo,-v--PaeE94,E!lc!s-14q, 951 this factor (Fed.Cn. 1991)("Ftoot Loops" and "FrooteeIcc" dissimilar; F.2d 330,332-333 all outweighed othcrs). in desctiption Century'sRegrstations C21'satgument(Opp.p. 4) aboutthe se^'ices
5 "CRO" meansCentury's Combured Reply in Suppolr of Cenhxy Suleq \ N{otron for SuIlmaty Judgment of Motion for Ijkelihood of No LikeiihoodofConfusion md Opposirionto Centu$'2l! Summal]'Judgment 6As mentionednumetoustimes,the maJktrsignedto C21 is not "Nev Celtuty"; it is "Nev CenturyT1tle Company." foi No. 2,178,970 "Ccntury 21." oPp. P 5' l 1 anothetnew nark here- U.S.Regiskarion ' C2i asserts sCRop.7,.2-7;CenrurySuretyCo.tlr{otionfotSummaryJudgmentonCountsI,III'andV-uII(No of Ijkeiihood ofConfusion) and Mernoraodum Pointsand Authotitiesrn Suppott'Ilereof (Court'sDocket ll 20 22. No. 83) p. 7, , Order p. 20,l. 12 - p. 22, l. 14.
2 3
4
5 6 ,7 8 9 10 lt t2 l3 t4 l5 t6
t7
l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 4 of 13
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l
p by beingdiffetent from thosein the Otder hasdreadybeenaddtessed Century. N{SJI{C io abovediscussion this in 4,1.12 p.5, l. 12. As explained the MSJRCand hereio(s9 to neednot be drstutbed Registrations V, Sectionand alsoSection i!fta at P. 7), Century's judgtneotin favot ofCentury but the Court may otde! them ro be iestdcted gtant summary to coflform to tie Otder. that c21 alsoa-tgues thereis a disputeovei the similatiqiofthe uade channels opp' is insutance sold that assertions Century's unsuppotted p. 8,11. 1-10. First,C21'scontinued, OPP.p. 8, ll. 6-8 and p. 12,118-10;Order p. 3'l n.2'1 is agents bascless. throughteal estatc are tradechannels dissimilat, found that the paties' tespective Second, Coutt hasalready the and to which disposcs this factot in favot ofCcnnrry vith rcsPect C21'sRE Registrations of Listed i11 commonJawtights. MSJRCp.6, l. 15 p.8,l.5. !7ith tespectto the services that Centuryhasexplained versusthosein C21's1SBRegistration, Registtatioos Century's in ot applications rcgisuatioos an oppositionor undet the ptoccduteusedto cvaluate ate ptoceediog listedservices plesumedto movc tfuough all customary the cancellatron and docs in oftradc.lo C2l no longetclaimsto operate Century'sttadechanncls channels its not deny that it had nevetheatdofCcnnrry, the tlpes ofinsuranceit sells, ttadechannels, until or advetisingchannels tiade associatloos this dispute. Order p. 35, lL 13-17;CRO P' VI, in Ex.57. As cxplained Section iqfta at p 8,C21'sISB 16,11.,1-16; Centu4;s and Ordet, but this to or Registationmay be cancelled restticted conform to the evidence is Even if fot the putposeofthis Nlotion C21'sISB l{egrsuacion stepis not necessary. in of ser'vices" all channels ttadein rvhichCentury btoketage presumed cover"iflsulance to the (despite C21'shaviogneverheatdof thosechannels) other LOC factoisweigh operatcs so heavilyin favor ofCentury that theteis no LoC. SuplaatP.2,l. 15 - P. 3, l. 8; MSJRCp (D 124F Supp.2d750,759-760 tUe 2001) Co. 8, l. 14 p. 9, l. 9; The Butcher v Bouthot, for (summaryiudg,n-rent defendantwhen thtce factors in its favoi) to Finally,C21 appeais algucthat lack ofLOC must be shownunder ihe standatds from two differentcircuits. Opp p. 10,ll. 8 9. C21 citesno law in supportof of trvo cases
n)NTSJRC 3, ll. 17 17. This is not ffue foi litigationand for CountsI-VIII the Coutt proPerlvconsidered p. thc disparaterade channelsactually employed bv the panies
t2 l3
14 15 16
t'7
18 l9 20 2l 22 23 25 26 2',7 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 5 of 13
I 2 3 4 5
t)
and its thcory,C21 hasnot atguedthat anynew factsneedbe consideted, Ninth Circuit larv Cir' Boats,599 F.2d341,348-49(9th ANIF Inc. v. Sleekctaft e.g., is cootrollinghere. See. Corp , 694 F.2d 1150,1152(9thCt. 1982); PtudentialIns. Co. v. GibraltorFioancial 1979); Inc. v. Procter& GambleCo ,134F.2d794 (9'hCir' 1970);Ordet p 7, 1 20 Canet-Vallace. - p . (),1 .2 1 . Counts In summarv. theteis no LOC betwecnthe marksshowoin the Remaining and the "Century21" marksand summary iudgmentshouldbe grantedio favot of Ceotutl' IV. There is No LOD' 'Irademark On October6, 2006,four daysaftet Centuryfrledits MSJRC,the Federal to rvas Dilution Act, 15 U.S.C.\ 1125(c), amended teguLea Iikelihoodof dilutioo ( LOD") a alsonartowedthe dcfinition ofwh2t constitutes insteadofactual dilutioo.ll The change did N{ostimpotandy, the amcndment not "niche" fame.12 famousmatL and eliminated sirnilar") eLimioate requtementthat matksmust be "neat\ identical"(or "substantially the Therefote,the Order's f,ndings of andit codifiedthe requitement "meotalassociation."r3 as that (1) "Cenruty" and "Century21" aredissirnila.t a mattci of larv,and (2) thetc is no the consideting findingsthat "Century21" maik 1snot strong (espccially mentalassociation summary alone)eachmandate indusry and C21 docsnot use"Cenru1y'' in the insurance -p j u d g rn e n t t C e n tu ry. fo Otd erp. 13,L3- p 15,1 10;p.19,1.20- p.22,1.11;p'46'17 p. 47,1.22; 48)\.8-28; Louis Vitton S.A.v. HauteDiggity Doc, LLC,2006 tJ S Dist LEXIS and gtantrflgsummary 80575*20-23(E.D. VA 2006)(app\ing new LOD standatd judgrncnt for defendant;looking fot guidanceto New Yotk State'sdilution larv, which NlcadData Ccntral-Inc v by now adopted Congtess); thc iflcorporates LOD staodard Nev 1031(2d Cii. 1989)(applyiog TovotaMotor Sales,.U.S=A-L!E F.2d 1026,1030, , 815 LEXIS and LEXUS; dilution betrvecn similarity York Statedilution law; no substantial Inc. LeBook Publishiog- v. BlackBook reqr.rites "mentalassociation"); , of 418 F. Supp.2d 305,313(S.D.N.Y.2005)(the similarity the maiks must be substantial);
rr Arizon2's dilution statute has not changedand the Oder finding no dilution undet that statutc is still direcdyappJicable. r, Houe Report on TtadcmarkDilution Act of 2005,ahached hetcto asExhibit 1, P 8 and P 25 13 15 U.S.C.$ 1125(c), Exhibit 1. attached the end of at See
7 8 9 l0
ll
12 l3
l4
lf
16 t7
l8 l9 20
2l 22 23 24 25 26 21 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 6 of 13
I 2 3
4
'Ihane lnt'l.. Inc. v. Ttek Bicycle Corp., 305 F.3d 89'1,906 07 pr' Cit.2002) ("thc matks must be of sufficient similatity so that, io the mind of the consumer, the iunior matk will conjure an associationwith the senior") (citing Mced). C21 does not claim that ne\'"'facts must be consideredunder the amended statuteand simPlYlePeatsthe same argumentsit made previously (Opp. p. 10, ll. 24-26) thereby tacidy admitting that no new facts need be consideted. Century aglecs that the factual f,ndings in the Otdet ate conttolling herc and Brothets, 931 F 2d mandatc a finding ofno LOD. SgeFedetal Insutance Co. v Scatsella 599, 601 (9th Cil. 1991) (in gtanting defendant'ssummary judgmcnt motion, and deoying larv of the casesufficient to decrdeevcry plaintiffs motion, the distlict cout established causeof action pleadcd). Finally, even ifthe ma.tksat issuevere neat\ identical aod thele $'as mental associationthete is oo LOD given the other findings in Cennrry's fatot, including the long period ofcoexistence between the parties,there is no cvidence of mefltal associationcl'en bv C21's franchisccs,thete is no evideoceof any blurting ot matketPlaceconflict of any n PC' the consumen of Ccnturv's inswance servicesand C21's leal estateserviccsate soPhisticated and careful when making buying decisions,the parties provide dispatate sefvicesin different ma.tkets, usc dlffetent advetising chaooelsand do not attend the same trade shows, thete is no likelihood that eithet will expand into the othet's matket and Centwy had no intent to copy tl1e "Century 21" matL.la New Yotk Stock Exchaoge-Inc. v. Nerv Yotk Hotel I-LC, 293 F.3d 550, 558 QdCi.2002) a mattet of larv Q'JewYotk Statedilution claim dismisscd as basedon infringement factors). Many of the casescited in the pdor btiefings on dilution apply a LOD standatd and none have found dilution undet citcumstancese\-cn remotcly sirnilar to those hete. Fruit ofthe Loom- Inc. v. Gitouard,994 F.2d 1359,1362 (9t" Cn' 1993) (any teasonableconsumer seesFRUIT OF THE LOON'I as a rvhole);![ead, 875 F 2d 7029-30I-EXUS not substantiallysimilar to LEXIS); Accuride Int'I.- Inc v Accutide ^t Corp., 871 F.2d 1531,1539 (9thCn. 1988) (concurrent usc fot 25 yeats ptecluded finding that Dlaintiffs malk could be diluted). l. ,{Ordr,p.46,1.7-p.50,\.26 ; p . 2 3 , Lp .9 1 , 1 . 2 1 . p . 3 2 , 1 . 1 03 3 ,l. 6 i p . 3 3 , 1 1 p . 3 6 , 1 5 ; P4 2 , 1 13 p. ,10, 13- p. '12,1. 7 l. I p. 44,l. 6;p.
5 o 7 8 9 t0
ll
t2
l3 t4 15 16 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23
25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 7 of 13
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0
ll
thereis no LOD asa matteroflarv,l5summaryiudgmentshouldbe Consequently, shouldbe denied. Gatbet r'. grantedfor Centuryand C21'sN{otionfot Reconsideration Uoiv., 259 F. Supp.2d 979,981 Q). Atiz. 2003) Embrv tuddle Aeronautical factsor law ofa stronglyconvincingnatuteto inducecoutt to (tcconsidetation requires rcvctseits ptiot decision). V. Century's Registrations Can be Restticted.
desciiptionin Century's C21 doesnot denythat the Court cantesffict the services rbc Rcgistrations confotm to the factualfindingsin the Order, not doesC21 drspute to ploceduJe fotth by Century.While C21 claimsit would be "highly" sct restr:ictron and it (Opp. p. 11,ll. 24-27), providesno specifics this enthe caschasfocused prejudiced and latgelvon the patties'services ffadechannels.$9gOtder p. 22, l. 15 - p. 36, l. 5 l'hete desctiptionto the findingsin the resticting its serviccs to is no prejudice C21 by Cennrty's sinceC21 hasadmittedthat Ccnnuyprovidesthesetypesofinsutance16 Ordet, patticularly it because doesoot confotm to the to C21 alsoappears opposeCcntuw'samendment Manual" ('AGSX'f) usedby the IdcntificationofGoods and Sen'ices "Acceptable TradcmatkOffice. Opp. p.4,ll. 12 14 C21'spositioois againbaseless. in Goods and services a USPTO tegrstationshouldbe idectificd usiogconrnon to understandable the aveiage telms that aregenelally Petsonand may includctermsof att but arc The in a patticularindustry. TMEP S 1402.01.17 AGSM descriptioos not mandatory, of the "standards" sewices desctiptions; exactlaoguagc the AGSM need fot are suggested ofC21's registatioflsalc listedin several Even sen'ices notbeused. TMEP $ 1402.01(a). not amoogthosein the AGSM list. SccExhibit 3, hcteto that tlete is some*ring improper about tie se-rvices C21 now appearsto a.tgue but in description Centuty'sRegistations, providesno suPportfot its argument.OpP. p. 11' to descriPtiofls be emPloyed, ll. 20-23. It is commonin USPTO ptacticefot bload services
15 in The ..Ccnrury 21" matksate rlso not famous this context. Seee.g.,Spots Auth. Inc. v. Abercrombie& 199? (AUTIIORITY not famousb,Nedon thiid-parrvuse Fitch Inc., 965 F. Supp.925,941 @,.D.Nfich Co+ , 964 F Supp.733,750 (SD N Y 1997) alone); Trs. of ColumbiaUniv. v. Columbia/HcA Healthcare use) upon third-party (no distincriveness based solely r6C21'sRespo.scto Defeddant's Statements ofFact ("C21R*SF') 9, al llfl j'TMEP heretoaspatt ofcoleclive E ribit 2. ,lre and 1'102.01(a) attached $$ 1402.01
t2 13 t4 l5 t6 t7
l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 8 of 13
I 2 3 4 5 o 7 8 9 l0 11 t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 l'7 18 19 20 2l 22 23
Cotp r' Wotld Book see which canlatetbe testricted.TMEP \ 1402.03; alsoAties Systems (flAB 1983).13 Centuryobviouslydoesundetwtite Inc., 26 USPQ26 1926,1931-32 commetcial liability and ptoperq' insutanceand C21 admitted dris is cotrect le Thus, the b,v ifdeemed necessary thc Registtations be narrorvcd can in description Century's services C21 andrvould compott with the Order. MSJRC Coutt sincedoing so would not ptejudice p . 4 ,1 .1 2- p . 5 ,1 .1 1 .
vI.
that C21'sISB registation needbe above,Centuiydocsnot believe As cxplained disturbed to grarit summaryjudgmeflt on behalf of Century' Simply finding that thete is no LOC andLOD would comportwith the finding of the USPTO, the Order and the realities.MSJRCp. 5, 1.14 - P 8, 1 14;sup:a,p 4, ll. 10-23. marketplacc to C21 doesnot disputethat this Court cantestdctor cancelthe ISB Reglstrxtlon over to and confotm to the evidence Oidet, but attemPts avoideitherby nov Pfesenllng, its ate with print outs alleging franchisecs a t\\,oyeatsafter the closeof discovery, declaration if This new declaration, takenat facevalue,putponedlvshorvs licenscd sellinsurance. to to licenses individualsand trvo licenses sellhomewattanties, to expited)icenses, alleged is to that C21 licenscs franchisccs.2o then a.tgues beinglicensed sellinsulaflce hrelevant to C21'suntimely that uflder the circumstances Opp. p. 5, l. 26 p. 6,1.2. Centuryagtces and too licenses ittelevant. It wasProduced late to be considetcd is concerning declatauon paid to policiessold,or toyalties iosutance C21 still hasnot producedanyactuallicenses, tequiresthe paymentof agteement C21 for the saleofinsuraocc,eventhoughits ftaochise agleement ifthey existed.2l C21'sfranchise suchtoyalties Prohibitsthe useof "Century21" by a absent written addeodum C21' and C2l has busioess in connection v,eth insutance an
z) 26 27 28
1s'IN{EP$ 1102.02.03 rttachedhdeto aspait ofEx. 2; Arks is attached Exhibit 1 to the N{SJRC as is D C21RSFflfl4,19 C21 itself emplols a broad setvices in desctiption its ISB Rcglstntion rh'r vould allegedtycovet all channels of trad; despite C21 having nevet heatd of the qpe of insurance Ccntury sells' its or rd\ channeJ. trrde associ,tr.n' nddr ch.lnnels. erE.Lng a Ncitler ofthese ftanchisees ptoiously identifred C21 asPtovidhg insutance. by was 2rObmpo Transp.Co. v Artain Ins Cos at the Inst oflondon Undcfiaiters' 103F 3d 1, 2 and n 1 (1"'cr' orderp.23,l.21 - P.24,1.8;p 25'1 22 P 2'7'14.P heldto be insuffrcient)i e\idence 1996io;te-produced 28,U.1,15.
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 9 of 13
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0
ll
ploducedno suchaddendum.Ordet p. 21,ll. 4-1'1.22
vII.
A.
C21 taisesthe nerv issueof "trade tame" vetsus "sctvice malk " Opp p 2, Il 17-19 \(/ith tespect to the maik "Century Insulancc Gtoup" this issue was nevel raisedbefole, the USPTO has alreadyacccptedCentury's specimen shorvinguse of the mark and has rcgistered"Century Insurance Gtoup," and C21 admitted that the matk is used as a sewice mark.23\{ith tespcct to the CSG maik, this issuewas ncvet raised bcfote and thc USPTO has alreadyaccePtedCennrry's specimenshorvinguse ofCSG as a sen-icemark Scc C21's F,x.69. C2l sought to add the issueofabandonment ofthe CSG mark fot the first trme on October 2, 2006, nvo ycats after thc close of fact discovery, but even then did not raise the "ttade name" vetsus "sewice madi'issue and it is fat too late to intetject new issuesinto the caseat this junctute.2a Additionalll, thc CSG matL is used as a servicemark. COPP P 3,l-
T2 13
l4 l5 l6
3 - p.6,1.8.
C21 also atguesfot the frst tirne that bccauseCentuty markcts thtough rvholesalc rgents and not to the genctal public or to potential poLicyholders (and it is cortect that Century docs not use the CSG and CIC matks poJicyholdcts tately scc Century's matks25), as scrvice mttks. Opp. p. S, l. 13 - P. 9, 1 13. C21 cites no larv in support ofits thcory and matketing and advertisingto wholesaleagentsis seivice matk use (see15 U-S C' $ 1127 (de8ning servicc matk use)),and C21 has alreadyadmitted that Centuty's matks are used as sen ice marks.26 B. Liquor Liabilitv is Commelcial Insulance. C21 now claims that liquot liability is not commetcial insulancc (so C21 appareodv
,, Nloreovet.Ccnturvneednot show"abandoament"; thereis no widence that C21 evetusedthe marksat ..insutance basedon non-use ot so services,, rheymay be cancelled restricted broketagc issuehereto providi risht obtdned ftaudulendv)' ot incontestable 1s U.S.C.S 1115@)0)Geslstration SOF 1'12and C21'sR$P.nr rhdcto C*t".t't SOp 2't-i+; C21RSF 1 a"d 19. SeealseCentury's lM " Motion fot I-aveto Amend lts (f,ledon October 20, 2006)to C2lt Second Century\ OPPosition '?a Hereafter, "CoI?." p. Comptaint 8,1.1-p. 1'1,1.8. on 6 Poiicvh"id"ts rnayiee Century's lesalDame"CnturySuretyCornPany'' polcies' a C21RSF 1 and 19. Seeabo Centur''s SOF 142andC2lt Response thetcto C2l's arguments '1111 since"Centurv SuretvGlouP" and "Cenrury ate ."ncetning companynames inapposite io anaroglzing cases n2me. entities and not Centun's comPany Insuance Group" 2tc not legal
t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 10 of 13
I 2 3 4 5 6 ,7 8 9 l0 lt 12 l3 l4
tf
Lines insurance sold to the general cofltends that liquor liabilityis personal Public). Opp p business the or that 9, ll. 14-18. This againundetscores C21 knorvsnothing about Cenru:y's upon by C21 show that liquol in business general.The very citationstcJied insutance Liability ftom a genetalcommercral notmallyexcluded insurance liability!! commetcial nonCenuy undehvritcs sPecialtl, policy.27 This is preciscly qpe of insurance the it tisk inswance. Not only doesC21 not ptovide suchinsutance, had neverheatd standatd chaoncls, tade its or of Century,thc ttpe ofinsutanceit ptovides, ttadechannels advettising Elr' Century's 57 13 until associations thislawsuit.Ordetp.35,l1. 17;CROp. 16,11.4-6; listedin Century'sRegrstrations Moreovet,C21 admittedthat Ccnturyptovidcsthe sen'ices
c21RSF u 4.
C. Comments on C21'sOther New Alguments. impliesthat the C21 alsotaises followingnew arguments:(1) C21 incorrecdy thc thatbeats butden bears butdenofproof(Opp. p.2, [ 11-13),butitisC21 the Century shouldbe deniedot bc cancelled.Cewecen'ia of ptoof to showthat Cefltuly'sRegistrations (Fed.Cir' 1989) (2) Ioc.,892F 2d 1021,1023 Jndustr,vCentormedcanS.A.v. Cen'ecervia may bc taisedat any time. Replyp.9,ll 24 25' C2l claimsthat the issucof abandonment can of Wbile abandonment a registration be raisedat anytirne duting the )ife ofthe by is tegistration, this+tececrliog too fat alongto be expanded C21 to iocludeabaodonment' at the of COPP.p.8, l. 1- p.14,1.11.C21cantaise issue abandonment a laterdateifit so to C21 appears arguefot a Frst usedateof "Centuty Sureq'Gtoup" and chooses.(.1) of Insutaoce Gtoup" of 1991instead the actualhrst usedatesof 1997and 2000, "Cefltur-v tois the dateon whichthe Cout dateC21refets Opp. p.7,ll. 1-26.'I'he1991 tespcctively. not telatedto actualcoflfusion,z8 the dateof fitst useofthcsc coexistence beganmeasuring the matks (each ofwhich includes vord "group'). Ordetp.38,ll.4-7. (5) C21 specifrc and to Ceflturyseeks its Regisffatrons to the contradicts amendment claimsthat the e\.idence
t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28
for ,, C21'sReply (r,ledon November6, 2006)in Suppottoflts N{otionfor Summaa'Judgmenr " p. Abandonment, 7, [. 13-22. Heteaftei,'RePly ,s C21 does not dispute that Centuty bepn providing suret-l'boids in 1978, commcflal plopettv msurancen in 'IJ!l proPertyand [abiliq insurancc 1984 C21RSF 3, 1o 11 1981and a tul line of commercial
10
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 11 of 13
I
merely but (Opp.P. 11,[ 15-17), theseoptionalamendments C21'sISB Regrsttatio" 12to c o n fo rm th eOrd e r.MS J RCp.4,l. p.5,1.12;p.8,I 14- p. 10,l. 16. VIII. Conclusion. judgmenthaveeitheralready been to C21'svadousargumeots avoidsummary or ate and consideted rcjected, krelevant, atetoo lateto be considered.The factsalready that in determined the Ordet establish thele is no LOC ot LOD with tespectto any Registtations Sucha holdingwould "Century21" ma.tkaod the matksshownin Century's comportwith (1) the opinion ofthe USPTO,which allowedthe CSG and CIG marksand 2t (2) leastnine othet "Century" marksfot insurance, the findingsin the Order, and (3) thc amongothel things,the numberof third considcting, especially teattiesofthe marLetplace, and ofthe consumers, the now 28 yeatsof partiesusing"Century,"the sophistication rr'ith no evidencc includingscvenofrvhich the particshavebeenin this dispute, coexistencc, the C21'sftanchisees, USPTO' not aoyof the deposcd of confuct: not amoflgconsumers, -p.37,1'12;p' 38,11115' Otdet p. 16,Il. 1-10;p.36,1.21 insurance businesses. thkd-parqr attemptto monopolizethe commonly usedword C21'soveffeaching Consequcntly, judgmentshouldbe gtantedfot Ccnturvon fhe and summary "Cefltury" shouldbe rejected Remaining Counts. DATED 20th dayofNovembet,2006 s/DavtdE. Rogers Donald A. Wall David E. Rogets L & Squite,Sandets DemPsey L.P Square Two Renaissance Noth CentralAvenue,Suite2700 40 4498 Phocnix,Arizona 8500.1 Attotneys fot DefeodantsCentury Insuraoce Group and CenturySuretyCo.
2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 l0
n
12 l3 t4
l)
t6 t7 18 19 20 2l 22 23
25 26 27 28
ll
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 12 of 13
I
2 3 4 5 o 7
8 9 l0 ll
ELECIRONI CALLY FILED this 20th dayofNovembet, 2006,rvith: Clerk of the Court United StatesDistrict Court Disttict ofArizona Sandta Day O'Connot U.S.Courthouse Suite130,SPC1 401 W. Wishinston Stteet, 18 Phoenir,Arizona 85003-21 COPY of rhe foresoingand Nodce of Electronic this Fiting hand-deJ.iveid 20th dayofNovember. 2006.to: n t he HonorableStephe M. Mc\amee Suite625 Day O'Coniot U.S.Counhouse. Sandra StJeet, SPC60 401WestWashington 58 Phoeni\,Arizona-85003-21 and COPY of rhe foregoinA Notice of Electronic this and eleccronicalJy maiJed 20th Filing served dayofNovember. 2006,to: MichaelA. Gtow e&rvla@arelr!fuLello ElizabethH. Cohen [email protected] A. Janine Cadan 'eadaopqae@alcntfox,com Atent Fox PLLC AvenueNW. 1050Connecticut D.C. 20036-5339 Washington, and fuck N. Bryson llick. Brvsoh@fanrlcrsParkscr:m Btent M. Haqet ndctsParl
t2 13
14 l5 l6 l7 l8 t9 20 21 22
24 25 26 27 28
t2
Case 2:03-cv-00053-SMM
Document 233
Filed 11/20/2006
Page 13 of 13
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms