Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA856177 Filing date: 11/03/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91237441 Party Defendant Mad Dog Software Corp. Correspondence MAD DOG SOFTWARE CORP. Address MAD DOG SOFTWARE CORP. 1261 ALBION LANE SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 Email: [email protected] Submission Answer and Counterclaim Filer's Name Danielle Fujii Filer's email [email protected] Signature /Danielle Fujii/ Date 11/03/2017 Attachments Answer_11032017.pdf(4306321 bytes ) Registration Subject to the filing

Registration No. 4971934 Registration date 06/07/2016 Registrant SNAP INC. 63 MARKET STREET VENICE, CA 90291 UNITED STATES Goods/Services Subject to the filing

Class 009. First Use: 2011/09/00 First Use In Commerce: 2011/09/00 All goods and services in the class are requested, namely: Software for modifying the appearance and enabling transmission of photographs and videos; software for use in taking and editing photo- graphs and recording andediting videos; software to enable the transmission of photographs and videos to mobile telephones; software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; computer software for use as an application program- ming interface (API); software to enable uploading, downloading, accessing, posting, displaying, tag- ging, streaming, linking, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or information via computer and communication networks; software for streaming audio-visual media content via a global com- puter network and to mobile and digital electronic devices; computer software which allows users to build and access social network information including address book, friend lists, profiles, preferences and personal data; software for managing contact information in mobile device address books; elec- tronic database in the field of entertainment recorded on computer media IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

SNAP, INC., ) ) Opposer, ) ) v. ) Opposition No. 91237441 ) Serial No. 87344309 MAD DOG SOFTWARE CORP., ) ) Applicant. ) ) ______)

ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION

MAD DOG SOFTWARE CORP., with an address at 1261 Albion Lane, Sunnyvale,

California 94087 (“Applicant”) hereby replies to the numbered grounds for opposition set forth in the Notice of Opposition of SNAP, INC., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 63 Market Street, Venice, California 90291 (“Opposer”) as follows:

1. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in paragraph 1, and therefore denies those allegations.

2. Applicant admits that Opposer used marks incorporating “snap” in Opposer’s snapchat

application. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 2, and therefore denies those

allegations.

3. Applicant admits that Opposer owns numerous federal registrations, collectively the

“SNAP Registrations.” Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 3, and therefore denies

those allegations.

4. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in paragraph 4, and therefore denies those allegations.

5. Applicant denies that Oppressor’s efforts to promote and distribute the snapchat mobile

application and related goods and services have been extraordinarily successful.

Numerous websites record the disappointing quarterly results and slowing active daily

user growth. The recent stock price, well below its IPO price, seems to reflect that. See

Exhibit A. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 5, and therefore denies those allegations.

6. Applicant submits that paragraph 6 helps prove Applicant’s position with regard to

Applicant’s answer to paragraph 5. Applicant admits only a minor segment of the

population (ages 18-24) seems interested in the snapchat application, and such an

outcome cannot be deemed “extraordinarily successful.” Applicant lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in

paragraph 5, and therefore denies those allegations.

7. Applicant denies that “Snap’s SNAPCHAT application growth and development have

skyrocketed.” Indeed, recent news reports suggest the opposite. See Exhibit A.

Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

remaining allegations in paragraph 7, and therefore denies those allegations.

8. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in paragraph 8, and therefore denies those allegations.

9. Applicant denies that Opposer has extensively used and promoted all of the SNAP marks. Many of the marks have been purchased by Opposer recently, and these marks are not

extensively used or promoted by Opposer. Similarly, Applicant denies that there is a

high degree of consumer recognition of all the SNAP marks. Indeed, Opposer’s own

Form S-1 lists Opposer’s products as 1) snapchat, 2) “publisher tools,” to the extent that

can be understood from such an unintelligible description, and 3) spectacles. Aside from

snapchat, Opposer makes no mention of any of the SNAP Marks in its list of products on

its own Form S-1. See Exhibit B. Wikipedia, a community maintained encyclopedia,

further states that “[Opposer] has four products: Snapchat, Spectacles, Bitmoji, and

Zenly.” See Exhibit C. A lack of mentioning on a community maintained encyclopedia

would strongly suggest that there is no consumer recognition of the SNAP marks, aside

from snapchat. Applicant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 as those

allegations state legal conclusions rather than facts.

10. Applicant admits that it Applicant filed an intent-to-use Application with the USPTO to

register the MAPSNAPS mark on the Principal Register, for “Computer software for

communicating with users of hand-held computers; Computer software for organizing

and viewing digital images and photographs; Downloadable cloud-based software for

taking photos of locations, sharing said photos with other users, and identifying locations

of photos taken by other users; Downloadable mobile applications for taking photos of

locations, sharing said photos with other users, and identifying locations of photos taken

by other users” in Class 9. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 10, and therefore denies

those allegations.

11. Applicant admits there is no issue as to priority. 12. Applicant denies the allegations in paragraph 12, as those allegations state legal

conclusions rather than facts.

13. Applicant admits that MAPSNAPS includes the letters S, N, A, and P in sequence.

Applicant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 13, as those allegations state

legal conclusions rather than facts.

14. Applicant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in paragraph 14, and therefore denies those allegations.

15. Applicant denies the allegations in paragraph 15, as those allegations state legal

conclusions rather than facts.

16. Applicant denies that consumers exclusively identify the SNAP marks with Opposer.

There are numerous notorious uses of the “snap” mark that, one would hope (see below

Applicant’s answer to paragraph 17), Opposer does not wish to be identified with. These

include www.snapsex.co, www.snapfuck.me, www.snapfuck.nl , the SNAPFUCK App,

and the Twitter handle SNAPFUCK, among others. These notorious uses of the “snap”

mark can be easily found by doing a google search with the search terms “snap sexting,”

followed by the next and obvious search term “snapfuck.” These appear on the first page

of search results. See Exhibits D and E. Such prominent search results would seem to

suggest that consumers do not exclusively identify the “snap” mark with Opposer.

Applicant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 16, as those allegations state

legal conclusions rather than facts.

17. Applicant denies that there is invaluable goodwill and reputation symbolized in the

SNAP marks. “For better or worse, Snapchat has changed sexting forever.” See Exhibit

F. As stated in the article in Exhibit F, “Snapchat’s launch has taken sexting – the consensual act of sharing intimate photos – from a stigmatized and seedy activity, to a

mainstream and widely-accepted practice.” There are several further “sinister”

consequences described in the article. Furthermore, the emails sent from Opposer’s CEO

and Co-Founder, Evan Spiegel, near the time the snapchat application was created,

cement the impression that Opposer is associated with unwholesome and base

characteristics. See Exhibit G. This does not strike Applicant as having “invaluable

goodwill and reputation.” Indeed, Applicant’s goodwill and reputation will likely be

tarnished if consumers were to associate Applicant with Opposer’s seedy and immoral

business, via Opposer’s confusingly similar Snap Map feature or other products and

services. See Exhibit H. Applicant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17, as

those allegations state legal conclusions rather than facts.

18. Applicant denies that Opposer will be damaged by the registration of the MAPSNAPS

mark, or that Opposer is entitled to any relief requested in the Notice of Opposition.

19. Admit.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Applicant asserts that the following affirmative defenses bar Opposer’s requested relief in its

Notice of Opposition.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Estoppel

20. During prosecution of its SNAP mark (Serial No. 86/526,355), Opposer argued that its

application should be allowed to proceed over a likelihood of confusion rejection because

“a likelihood of confusion cannot be assumed solely on the ground that [Opposer’s] Mark

and the Hand Mark both contain the term ‘snap’.” See Exhibit I. 21. In support of its argument, Opposer cites numerous instances where the “use of an

identical word, even a dominant word, does not automatically mean that two marks are

similar,” such as TEEN and TEEN PEOPLE, FIRST BANK and FIRST BANK

SYSTEM, PARENTS and PARENT’S DIGEST, TIC TAC and TIC TAC TOE,

SERVOSPEED and SERVO, UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY and UNITED

STATES TRUST COMPANY OF BOSTON, IN ADVANCE and ADVANCE.

22. Opposer represented to the USPTO that consumers would not be confused by the two

marks which both contained the word “snap.”

23. The USPTO ultimately registered Opposer’s SNAP mark (Registration No. 4,925,206),

relying on Opposer’s arguments.

24. During prosecution of its SNAPCHAT mark (Serial No. 86/619,184), Opposer argued

that its application should be allowed to proceed over a likelihood of confusion rejection

because “[the SNAPCHAT mark] performs the function of a house mark, appearing as

the name of its famous mobile application, [Opposer’s] domain name (snapchat.com) as

well as its corporate name (Snapchat, Inc.). This use as a house mark also powerfully

overcomes any risk of confusion with [other snap marks]. The presence of a house mark

can be sufficient to mitigate confusion.” See Exhibit J.

25. The USPTO ultimately registered Opposer’s SNAPCHAT mark (Registration No.

4,971,934), relying on Opposer’s arguments.

26. In direct contradiction of its previous positions before the USPTO, Opposer now asserts

that Applicant’s MAPSNAPS mark, a composite map and snaps mark, should be denied

registration because of likelihood of confusion with Opposer’s SNAP Registrations.

27. Based on the equitable doctrine of estoppel, Opposer is barred from taking this contradictory and inconsistent position.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. Applicant hereby gives notice that it may rely on any other defenses that may become

available or appear proper during discovery, and hereby reserves its right to amend this

Answer to assert any such defenses.

COUNTER CLAIM TO CANCEL OPPOSER’S REGISTRATION NO. 4,971,934 IN CLASS 9 Fraud

29. During prosecution of its SNAPCHAT mark (Serial No. 86/619,184), Opposer argued in

its December 16, 2015 response that its application should be allowed to proceed over a

likelihood of confusion rejection because “[the SNAPCHAT mark] performs the function

of a house mark, appearing as the name of its famous mobile application, [Opposer’s]

domain name (snapchat.com) as well as its corporate name (Snapchat, Inc.). This use as

a house mark also powerfully overcomes any risk of confusion with [other snap marks].

The presence of a house mark can be sufficient to mitigate confusion.” See Exhibit J.

30. The USPTO ultimately registered Opposer’s SNAPCHAT mark (Registration No.

4,971,934) on June 7, 2016, relying on Opposer’s arguments.

31. Opposer rebranded itself as Snap, Inc. on September 24, 2016. See Exhibit C.

32. As part of its rebranding, Opposer claimed it is a “camera company.” See Exhibit B.

33. Given the very close time proximity between publicly rebranding and Opposer’s

December 16, 2015 response, Opposer knew that it was rebranding itself when making

the arguments in its December 16, 2015 response.

34. SNAP was not a house mark as of December 16, 2015. 35. At the time of the December 16, 2015 response, Opposer knew that SNAP was not a

house mark.

36. Despite knowing that it was soon rebranding itself to a non-house mark name, and

placing much less emphasis on “its famous mobile application, ” Opposer willingly made

statements it knew would be false in a matter of months.

37. The name of the company, and the very nature of the company (i.e. a camera company)

are material information when it comes to house mark recognition.

38. Opposer knowingly and willfully withheld material information to the Examiner handling

the Serial No. 86/619,184 application, and presented misleading statements to secure

registration.

39. Lanham Act Section 14(3) permits cancellation of a U.S. trademark registration, at any

time, if the registration was obtained fraudulently.

40. Opposer’s withholding of material information and Opposer’s misleading statements in

its December 16, 2015 response constitute fraud under Section 14(3) of the Lanham act.

41. Applicant has been damaged by the fraudulent registration of Opposer’s Registered No.

4,971,934 in class 9.

42. Applicant therefore requests that Opposer’s Registered No. 4,971,934 in class 9 be

cancelled.

WHEREFORE, Applicant respectfully requests that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismiss the Notice of Opposition and grant all other appropriate relief to Applicant as it deems just.

Respectfully submitted, this 3rd day of November, 2017,

/Danielle Fujii/ ______Danielle Fujii CEO Mad Dog Software Corp. 1261 Albion Lane Sunnyvale, CA 94087 [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the on this 3rd day of November, 2017, a true and complete copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND COUNTERCLAIM TO CANCEL OPPOSER’S REGISTRATION NO. 4,971,934 IN CLASS 9 was served on Jessica A. Pratt, and Dennis L. Wilson, Counsel for Opposer Snap, Inc. by forwarding said copy on November 3rd, 2017 via email at the address below:

Jessica A. Pratt Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528 [email protected]

Dennis L. Wilson Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 9720 Wilshire Boulevard PH Beverly Hills, California 90212-2018 [email protected]

/Danielle Fujii/

______Danielle Fujii CEO Mad Dog Software Corp. [email protected]

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

S-1 Page 6 of 243

Table of Contents

Snap Inc. is a camera company. We believe that reinventing the camera represents our greatest opportunity to improve the way people live and communicate. Our products empower people to express themselves, live in the moment, learn about the world, and have fun together. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517029199/d270216ds1.htm 11/1/2017 S-1 Page 11 of 243

Table of Contents

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this prospectus. This summary does not contain all of the information you should consider before investing in our Class A common stock. You should read this entire prospectus carefully, including “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus, before making an investment decision.

Unless otherwise stated, statistical information regarding our users and their activities is determined by calculating the daily average of the selected activity for the most recently completed quarter included in this prospectus.

SNAP INC.

Snap Inc. is a camera company.

We believe that reinventing the camera represents our greatest opportunity to improve the way that people live and communicate. Our products empower people to express themselves, live in the moment, learn about the world, and have fun together.

In the way that the flashing cursor became the starting point for most products on desktop computers, we believe that the camera screen will be the starting point for most products on smartphones. This is because images created by smartphone cameras contain more context and richer information than other forms of input like text entered on a keyboard. This means that we are willing to take risks in an attempt to create innovative and different camera products that are better able to reflect and improve our life experiences.

Our Products

Snapchat Our flagship product, Snapchat, is a camera application that was created to help people communicate through short videos and images. We call each of those short videos or images a Snap. On average, 158 million people use Snapchat daily, and over 2.5 billion Snaps are created every day.

Camera. Snapchat opens directly into the Camera, making it easy to create a Snap and send it to friends. Snaps are deleted by default, so there is a lot less pressure to look pretty or perfect when creating and sending images on Snapchat. We offer lots of fun Creative Tools like Lenses, Geofilters, and Bitmojis that allow our community to express themselves through Snaps. Lenses are interactive animations that are overlaid on a person’s face or the world around them. Geofilters are artistic filters that can be applied after a Snap is taken at pre- defined times and locations. Bitmojis are cartoon likenesses of a user that are created in the Bitmoji application. On average, more than 60% of our Daily Active Users create Snaps with our Camera every day. This means that our Chat Service and Storytelling Platform products are always full of new, unique, and expressive Snaps.

Chat Service. The first version of our application was a Chat Service made that it easy to send Snaps back and forth with friends—hence the name “Snapchat.” Our Chat Service has sinceeen b reimagined to include text-based Chat, video and voice calling, stickers, Bitmojis, and Group Chat. On average, more than 60%f our o Daily Active Users use our Chat Service every day to Snapssend and talk with friends. We benefit from the frequency with which our user base communicates with one another because each message invites a user back to the application when they receive a push notification. On average, our Daily Active Users visit Snapchat more than 18 times each day.

1

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517029199/d270216ds1.htm 11/1/2017 S-1 Page 12 of 243

Table of Contents

Storytelling Platform. Stories are collections of Snaps that play in chronological rdero and are deleted within 24 hours. Different types of Stories are told from different perspectives. We started with My Story for each individual user, expanded to community Live Stories, and then introduced Publisher Stories created by ourperienced ex publisher partners. On average, over 25% of our DailyActive Users post to their Story every day. Our Storytelling Platformprovides a unique variety of personal and professional content for our community to enjoy. Our community spends an average of 25 to 30 minutes on Snapchat every day.

Memories. We introduced Memories to giveeach user the option of savingtheir Snaps in a personal collection. Users can send Snaps from Memories to friends and create new Stories from saved Snaps. We also developedour own search and privacy tools to help sersu find the Snaps they are looking for and store them securely.

Publisher Tools We offer a growing suite of content tools for partners to build, edit, and publish Snaps and attachments based on unique editorial content. These Publisher Tools give our publishers and advertisers creative opportunities to engage with our community every day.

Spectacles Our latest effort to reinvent the camera is Spectacles, our sunglasses that make Snaps. Spectacles connect seamlessly with Snapchat and are the best way to make Memories because they capture video from a human perspective.

Our Strategy and Opportunity Our strategy is to invest in product innovation and take risks to improve our camera platform. We do this in an effort to drive user engagement, which we can then monetize through advertising. We use the revenue we generate to fund future product innovation to grow our business.

We believe that the best way to compete in a world of widely distributed mobile applications is innovating to create the most engaging products. New mobile software is available to everyone immediately, and usually for free. While not all of our investments will pay off in the long run, we are willing to take risks in an attempt to create the best and most differentiated products on the market.

Due to the nature of our products and business, our ability to succeed in any given country is largely dependent on its mobile infrastructure and its advertising market. These factors influence our product performance, our hosting costs, and our monetization opportunity in each market.

Our products often require intensive processing and generate high bandwidth consumption by our users. As a result, our users tend to come from developed countries with high-end mobile devices and high-speed cellular internet. These markets also tend to have cheaper bandwidth costs, meaning that it is less expensive to serve our community in these countries.

Substantially all of our revenue comes from advertising, so our ability to generate revenue in a particular country depends on the size of its advertising market. Global advertising spend—especially mobile advertising spend—is extremely concentrated, with over 70% of overall advertising spend and nearly 85% of mobile advertising spend coming from the top ten advertising markets, according to International Data Corporation, or IDC. On average, over 60% of our Daily Active Users come from countries on this list.

2

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517029199/d270216ds1.htm 11/1/2017

EXHIBIT C

Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 1 of 8

Snap Inc.

Snap Inc. is an American technology and social media company, founded on September 16, 2011 Snap Inc. by Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy and based in Venice, Los Angeles. It has four products: Snapchat, Spectacles, Bitmoji, and Zenly. The company was originally named Snapchat Inc. Current logo, unveiled on September 24, 2016 during the upon its inception, but it was rebranded on company's rebrand. September 24, 2016 as Snap Inc. in order to Formerly Snapchat Inc. (2011–2016) include the Spectacles product under a single called company. Type Public Traded as NYSE: SNAP (https://www.nyse.com/quote/XNYS:SNAP) Industry Technology Contents Social media Founded September 16, 2011[1] (as Snapchat Inc.) 1History Evan Spiegel 2 Products Founders Bobby Murphy 3 Funding and shares [2] 3.1 2017 Initial Public Offering Headquarters Venice, Los Angeles, California, U.S. 4 Controversy Area served Worldwide 4.1 Reggie Brown lawsuit Key people Michael Lynton 4.2 FTC (Chairman) 5 References Evan Spiegel (CEO) 6 External links Bobby Murphy (CTO) Products Snapchat History Spectacles The company was founded on September 16, 2011 Bitmoji by Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy, Zenly [3] simultaneously on the initial relaunch of Picaboo Number of 1,859 (2017) as Snapchat. On December 31, 2013, the employees [4][5] application was hacked and 4.6 million usernames Subsidiaries Snap Group Limited and phone numbers were leaked to the Internet.[6] Website snap.com (https://snap.com) Also in December 2013, Emily White, who had formerly been a high-profile executive with Facebook, Instagram, and Google, was hired as COO. Her tenure with the company ended in March 2015.[7]

By January 2014, the company had refused offers of acquisition, including overtures from Mark Zuckerberg to buy Snapchat and its assets, with Spiegel commenting that "trading that for some short-term gain isn’t very interesting".[8] In May 2014, the company acquired the software company AddLive and reached an agreement with the Federal Trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 2 of 8

Commission (FTC) following the leak, citing misinterpretations on storage of user data and the fact that "snaps" can still be accessed regardless of its expiration.[9][10] In December, the company acquired Vergence Labs for $15 million in cash and stock, who were the developers of Epiphany Eyewear, and mobile app Scan for $50 million, which was revealed during the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack.[11][12]

In May 2015, the company moved from its original headquarters to a 47,000 ft2 (4,366 m2) office complex near Venice Beach and signed a 10-year lease.[13] They were one of the first prominent social media companies to establish themselves there, alongside others such as Whisper and Tinder, giving Venice the new title of "Silicon Beach."[14][15] In February 2017, two weeks before the company's IPO, The New York Times published a feature about Snap's role in turning the area into a technology hub, noting that Snap, with a total of 1,900 employees, had "already changed the face of Venice."[16]

In September 2015, Snapchat acquired Looksery to develop Lenses for its mobile app, a feature based on Looksery's facial recognition software.[17]

In March, July and August 2016, the company acquired Bitstrips for $100 million, Obvious Engineering, the developers of Seene, for an undisclosed amount and Vurb for $100 million.[18][19][20] Vurb formerly developed the eponymous mobile search engine. The Vurb card-based engine removed the need to switch through multiple other applications on the device to perform a task.[21]

In September, the company officially named itself Snap Inc., and unveiled smartglasses known as Spectacles.[22][23][24] In November 2016, the company filed documents for an initial public offering (IPO) with an estimated market value of $25–35 billion.[25][26][27] In December 2016, the company opened research and development in Shenzhen and acquired advertising and technology company Flite and Israel-based augumented reality startup Cimagine Media for $30–40 million.[28][29][30][31] A partnership issued in December 2016 with Turner Broadcasting System will allow integration of Turner properties on Snapchat, while cooperating with Snap Inc. to develop original content.[32]

In January 2017 the company announced that it had established an international headquarters in Soho, London.[33] In early February 2017, the company officially confirmed their plans for an IPO in 2017 and its expectation to raise $3 billion.[34] In early March 2017, the company officially went public under the trading symbol SNAP, and raised almost $30 billion in market capitalization on the first day of trading.[35]

In late-May 2017, the company acquired the location sharing app Zenly in a cash and stock deal. The Zenly app will remain functional, but its concepts were incorporated into a Snapchat feature added in June 2017.[36][37]

In August 2017, Business Insider reported that Google discussed an offer to buy the company for $30 billion in early 2016.[38]

Products

The company develops and maintains the image messaging and multimedia mobile app Snapchat, as well as develops and manufacturers the wearable camera called Spectacles, a pair of smartglasses that connect to the user's Snapchat account and records videos in a circular video format adjustable in any orientation.[39] On February 20, 2017, Snap Spectacles became available for purchase online.[40]

Funding and shares

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 3 of 8

Snapchat raised $485,000 in its seed round and an undisclosed amount of bridge funding from Lightspeed Ventures. [41] By February 2013, Snapchat confirmed a $13.5 million Series A funding round led by Benchmark Capital, which valued the company at between $60 million and $70 million.[42] In June 2013, Snapchat raised $60 million in a funding round led by venture-capital firm Institutional Venture Partners,[43] and the firm also appointed a new high- profile board member, Michael Lynton of Sony's American division.[44] By mid-July 2013, a media report valued the company at $860 million.[45] On November 14, 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook offered to acquire Snapchat for $3 billion, but Spiegel declined the cash offer.[46] Tech writer Om Malik then claimed on November 15, 2013 that Google had offered $4 billion, but Spiegel again declined.[47] On December 11, 2013, Snapchat confirmed $50 million in Series C funding from Coatue Management.[48] Four more funding rounds, from December 2014 to March 2016, amounted to approximately $1.2 billion and totaled funding at $1.36 billion.[49] Beyond 2014, the company had achieved a valuation of $10–$20 billion, depending on the source.[50] According to reports in May 2016, the company's estimated worth was said to be approaching $22 billion in the event of a new round of investment.[51] Further reports in 2016 suggested that funding was almost at $3 billion and that Snapchat was targeting yearly revenues of a billion dollars.[52]

2017 Initial Public Offering In January 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that "people familiar with the matter" stated that Snap Inc. would share 2.5% of the money raised in an upcoming initial public offering (IPO) with the banks managing the IPO. It also reported that after the predicted March 2017 IPO, the two Snap co-founders would hold over "70% of the voting power" in the company, and own around 45% of the total stock.[53] On January 29, 2017, it was reported that the Snap Inc. IPO would likely take place on the New York Stock Exchange. As both the NYSE and Nasdaq had been "aggressively courting the listing for more than a year," the Wall Street Journal called it "a big competitive victory for the Big Board." Snap's IPO was estimated to value the company at between $20 billion and $25 billion, the largest IPO on a US exchange since Alibaba debuted in 2014 at a value of $168 billion.[54] Beyond the two founders, the two biggest shareholders for the planned early 2017 Snap IPO were Benchmark and Lightspeed Venture Partners, both prior investors and venture-capital firms from Silicon Valley. They held a combined stake of about 20%.[55] On March 1, 2017, it was reported that Snap Inc. "values itself at nearly $24B with its IPO pricing".[56] Snap Inc.'s stock started trading on March 2, 2017 under the symbol SNAP, on the New York Stock Exchange.[57]

When Snap reported earnings for the first time in May, 2017 they reported a $2.2 billion quarterly loss and the stock fell more than 20%, erasing most of the gains since the IPO.[58]

Google reportedly offered Snap $30 billion in 2016 for acquisition, which Snap turned down.[59]

Controversy

Reggie Brown lawsuit In February 2013, Reggie Brown sued Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy. Early investors also were eventually named in the lawsuit. Brown said that he had once been the chief marketing officer for the initial selfie app used to launch Snapchat, offering evidence of contacts with publications such as Cosmopolitan, claimed that he had come up with the original concept, which he had ultimately called Picaboo, and that he had created the mascot logo for the product while working with Spiegel to promote and market the idea. Originally titled Toyopa Group, LLC, Brown said that he had named the newly formed company as well. Brown's lawyers offered documentation of a collaboration with Spiegel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 4 of 8

Murphy, which included the filing of an original patent by the three Stanford classmates, but Snapchat described the lawsuit as meritless and called Brown's tactics a shakedown. During April's depositions, Brown testified that he had believed he was an equal partner, and that he had agreed to share costs and profits. Spiegel instead described Brown as an unpaid intern who had been provided valuable experience, and although Murphy claimed that he had not fully understood what Brown's role was supposed to have been, he too characterized Brown's involvement as having been that of an internship. Months later, Spiegel dismissed the lawsuit as an example of opportunists who seek out rapidly successful companies in an attempt "to also profit from the hard work of others".[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]

On September 9, 2014, the company announced that they had settled the lawsuit filed by fellow student and former friend Reggie Brown for an initially undisclosed amount. The settlement amount was revealed on February 2, 2017 in Snap's SEC public filling to be $157.5 million.[68][69] As part of the settlement, they credited Brown with the conceptual idea for Snapchat.[70]

The press release published by Snapchat's communication department quoted Spiegel:

"We are pleased that we have been able to resolve this matter in a manner that is satisfactory to Mr. Brown and the Company. We acknowledge Reggie's contribution to the creation of Snapchat and appreciate his work in getting the application off the ground."[70]

FTC The Federal Trade Commission alleged that the company had exaggerated to the public the degree to which mobile app images and photos could actually be made to disappear. Following a settlement in 2014, Snapchat was not fined, but the app service agreed to have its claims and policies monitored by an independent party for a period of 20 years.[71]

References

1. "Picaboo: How to send naughty photos without getting caught" (http://www.shinyshiny.tv/2011/09/how-to-send- naughty-photos-without-getting-caught.html). Shinyshiny.tv. 16 September 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 2. "Snap Inc." (https://www.snap.com/news/). Snap Inc. 3. Spangler, Todd (16 February 2017). "Snapchat IPO: Share Pricing Values Company at Up to $22 Billion" (http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/snapchat-snap-ipo-share-pricing-valuation-1201990058/). 4. "SNAP GROUP LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House)" (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09763672). 5. "Terms of Service – Snap Inc." (https://www.snap.com/en-GB/terms/). 6. Yueng, Ken (31 December 2013). "Confirmed: Hackers exploit Snapchat’s security hole, leak 4.6m usernames and phone numbers online" (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/01/01/hackers-allegedly-exploit-snapchat- security-hole-leak-4-6m-usernames-phone-numbers-online/). TheNextWeb. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 7. Eadicicco, Lisa (2015-03-13). "Snapchat loses its very experienced COO" (http://uk.businessinsider.com/snapchat-coo-emily-white-leaving-2015-3?r=US). 'Business Insider'. Retrieved 2015-03-15. 8. Fiegerman, Seth (6 January 2014). "Snapchat CEO Reveals Why He Rejected Facebook's $3 Billion Offer" (http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition-2/#6vAZ2evsskqX). Mashable. Retrieved 15 November 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 5 of 8

9. Hamburger, Ellis (2 May 2014). "Snapchat made a secret acquisition to power its new video chat" (https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/2/5676196/snapchat-acquires-addlive-video-chat). The Verge. Retrieved 15 November 2016 – via Vox Media. 10. "Snapchat Settles FTC Charges That Promises of Disappearing Messages Were False" (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/05/snapchat-settles-ftc-charges-promises-disappearing- messages-were). Federal Trade Commission. 8 May 2014. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 11. Yarow, Jay; Shontell, Alyson; Cook, James (16 December 2015). "It Looks Like Snapchat Paid $15 Million To Buy A Google Glass-Like Startup" (http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-acquires-vergence-labs-2014-12). Business Insider. Retrieved 14 November 2016. 12. Constine, Josh (16 December 2014). "Snapchat Plans Music Feature, Acquired QR Scan.me For $50M And Vergence Eyeglass Cam For $15M" (https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/16/snapchat-emails-not-so-ephemeral/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 15 November 2016 – via AOL. 13. Stone, Madeline (1 May 2015). "Snapchat gobbles up big office complex near Venice Beach with 10-year lease" (http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-has-signed-a-10-year-lease-at-a-venice-office-complex-displacing- roughly-40-small-businesses-2015-5). Business Insider. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 14. Kendall, Marisa (January 7, 2017). "Snap's IPO may make Silicon Beach a worthy Silicon Valley rival" (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/07/snaps-ipo-may-make-silicon-beach-worthy-silicon-valley-rival/). The Mercury News. Retrieved February 23, 2017. 15. Graham, Jefferson (January 18, 2017). "How Snapchat has changed its hometown of Venice" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/01/18/how-snapchat-has-changed-its-hometown- venice/96740566/). USA Today. Retrieved February 23, 2017. 16. Benner, Katie (February 20, 2017). "With Snap's I.P.O., Los Angeles Prepares to Embrace New Tech Millionaires" (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/technology/snap-ipo-los-angeles-real-estate.html). The New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2017. 17. Shontell, Alyson (15 September 2015). "Snapchat buys Looksery, a 2-year-old startup that lets you Photoshop your face while you video chat" (http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-buys-looksery-2015-9). Business Insider. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 18. Novet, Jordan (25 July 2016). "Seene shutting down 3D photo app following reported acquisition by Snapchat" (https://venturebeat.com/2016/07/25/seene-shutting-down/). VentureBeat. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 19. "Exclusive: Snapchat Buys Bitmoji Maker" (http://fortune.com/2016/03/24/exclusive-snapchat-buys-bitmoji- maker/). Fortune. 24 March 2016. Retrieved 15 November 2016 – via Time Inc. 20. E. Lessin, Jessica; Dotan, Tom (15 August 2016). "Snapchat to Buy Vurb for More Than $100 Million" (https://www.theinformation.com/snapchat-to-buy-vurb-for-more-than-100-million). The Information. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 21. "About Verb" (http://vurb.com/about). vurb.com. Retrieved March 2, 2015. 22. Stevenson, Seth (24 September 2016). "Snapchat Releases First Hardware Product, Spectacles" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/snapchat-releases-first-hardware-product-spectacles-1474682719). The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 23. Chaykowski, Kathleen (24 September 2016). "Snapchat Leaps Into Hardware, Rebrands As 'Snap Inc.' " (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenchaykowski/2016/09/24/snapchat-leaps-into-hardware-rebrands-as-snap- inc/#2c2005974de8). Forbes. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 24. Newton, Casey (23 September 2016). "Snapchat unveils $130 connected sunglasses and rebrands as Snap, Inc." (https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13039184/snapchat-spectacles-price-release-date-snap-inc). The Verge. Retrieved 15 November 2016. 25. Statt, Nick (15 November 2016). "Snapchat just filed for its IPO" (https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/15/13642612/snapchat-snap-inc-ipo-filing-valuation). The Verge. Retrieved 15 November 2016 – via Vox Media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 6 of 8

26. Burgess, Matt (17 October 2016). "Snapchat reportedly gearing up for £20 billion IPO" (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/snapchat-ipo-amount). Wired. Retrieved 15 November 2016 – via Condé Nast. 27. "Snap’s IPO Will Test How Much Unicorn CEOs Are Actually Worth" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/snap-ipo-to-test-unicorn-founder-fortunes-tallied-at-31- billion). Bloomberg, Tom Metcalf November 17, 2016 28. "Snap reportedly acquired augmented reality startup Cimagine Media for up to $40 million" (https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/24/snap-reportedly-acquired-augmented-reality-startup-cimagine-media-for-up- to-40-million/). VentureBeat. Retrieved 2016-12-25. 29. Wagner, Kurt (19 December 2016). "Snap has acquired an ad tech company called Flite" (http://www.recode.net/2016/12/19/14010630/snap-flite-ad-tech-aquisition). Recode. Retrieved 21 December 2016 – via Vox Media. 30. Lee, Cyrus (19 December 2016). "Snap Inc looks to land in China: Report" (http://www.zdnet.com/article/snap-inc- looks-to-land-in-china-report/). ZDNet. Retrieved 21 December 2016 – via CBS Interactive. 31. Etherington, Darrell (21 December 2016). "Snap Inc. has a new China tech R&D office focused on Spectacles" (https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/snap-inc-has-a-new-china-tech-rd-office-focused-on-spectacles/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 21 December 2016 – via AOL. 32. Schwindt, Oriana (7 December 2016). "Turner Inks Deal With Snap, Inc. to Create Original Series, Launch Bleacher Report on Snapchat Discover" (http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/turner-snapchat-adult-swim-original- series-1201936027/). Variety. Retrieved 21 December 2016 – via Penske Media Corporation. 33. Shieber, Jonathan (2017-01-10). "Snap crosses the pond and makes a home in the UK" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/10/snap-crosses-the-pond-and-makes-a-home-in-the-uk/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-01-10. 34. Kastrenakes, Jacob (2017-02-02). "Snapchat files for a $3 billion IPO" (https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/2/14451972/snap-ipo). The Verge. Retrieved 2017-02-03. 35. Hirsch, Lauren; Somerville, Heather; Baker, Liana B. (March 2, 2017). "Snap pulls off biggest tech debut since Alibaba, rising almost 50% to $30 billion marketcap" (http://business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/snapchats- parent-snap-inc-rockets-higher-in-biggest-wall-street-debut-since-2014). Financial Post. Retrieved March 2, 2017. 36. Constine, Josh. "Snapchat launches location-sharing feature Snap Map" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/21/snap-map/). TechCrunch. AOL. Retrieved 2017-06-23. 37. Constine, Josh. "Snapchat acquires social map app Zenly for $250M to $350M" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/21/snapchat-buys-zenly/). TechCrunch. AOL. Retrieved 2017-06-23. 38. "Insiders say Google was interested in buying Snap for at least $30 billion last year" (http://www.businessinsider.com/google-offered-to-buy-snapchat-for-at-least-30-in-early-2016-insiders-say- 2017-8). Business Insider. Retrieved 2017-08-04. 39. "Think Wearables are cool - Digital Trends" (https://www.resolutiondigital.com.au/hub/trend/wearables-just-cool- digital-trend/). Resolution Media. Retrieved December 9, 2016. 40. Savvides, Lexy (February 20, 2017). "Finally! Spectacles are available online" (https://www.cnet.com/news/finally- snap-snapchat-spectacles-are-sold-online/). Adweek. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved February 20, 2017. 41. Gallagher, Billy (October 29, 2012). "You Know What's Cool? A Billion Snapchats: App Sees Over 20 Million Photos Shared Per Day, Releases On Android" (https://techcrunch.com/2012/10/29/billion-snapchats/). TechCrunch. Retrieved December 22, 2012. 42. Primack, Dan. (June 26, 2013) Snapchat's liquidity trap – The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blogTerm Sheet (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/26/snapchats-liquidity-trap/). Finance.fortune.cnn.com. Retrieved on December 9, 2013. 43. "Snapchat Snaps Up A$80M Series B Led By IVP at An $800M Valuation" (https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/22/source-snapchat-snaps-up-80m-from-ivp-at-a-800m-valuation/).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 7 of 8

44. McBride, Sarah (June 24, 2013). "Snapchat lands $60 million and new board member Michael Lynton" (https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-venture-funding-snapchat-idUSBRE95N12W20130624). Reuters. 45. Large, Bithia (July 19, 2013). "Snapchat pivots from privacy to publicity" (http://www.newstatesman.com/sci- tech/2013/07/snapchat-pivots-privacy-publicity). New Statesman. New Statesman. Retrieved July 20, 2013. 46. "Snapchat Spurned $3 Billion Acquisition Offer from Facebook" (https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/13/snapchat- spurned-3-billion-acquisition-offer-from-facebook). Retrieved November 14, 2013. 47. "Snapchat Allegedly Rejected $4B Buyout Offer From Google" (http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/11/15/snapchat-4-billion-google-offer). Retrieved November 15, 2013. 48. "Snapchat Raises $50 Million in Series C From Coatue Management" (https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/11/snapchat-series-c-50-million). Retrieved December 11, 2013. 49. Snapchat Overview, "Snapchat" (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/snapchat), Crunchbase.com, March, 2016. Retrieved May 9, 2016. 50. Ingrid. As of May 24th, 2016, Snapchat was estimated to be worth $22 billion.Lunden. "Snapchat Has Raised $485 More From 23 Investors, At Valuation Of Up To $20" (https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/31/snapchat-485m/). TechCrunch. AOL. Retrieved May 16, 2015. 51. Katie Roof, "Snapchat is raising more money $20 billion" (https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/23/sources-snapchat-is- raising-more-money-at-about-a-20-billion-valuation/), techcrunch, May 24, 2013. Retrieved May 24, 2016. 52. Ingrid Lunden Katie Roof, "Snapchat raised $1.8B in a Series F round; leaked deck reveals revenues, user numbers" (https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/snapchat-series-f/), Techcrunch, May 26, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016. 53. Farrell, Maureen (January 20, 2017), Snapchat Parent Plans to Pay Banks 2.5% of IPO Proceeds (https://www.wsj.com/articles/snapchat-parent-plans-to-pay-banks-2-5-of-ipo-proceeds-1484950998), New York: The Wall Street Journal, retrieved January 22, 2017 54. Farrell, Maureen (January 29, 2017), NYSE to Win IPO Prize: Listing of Snap (https://www.wsj.com/articles/snap- plans-to-list-shares-on-the-nyse-1485791561), New York City: Wall Street Journal, retrieved January 31, 2017 55. Winkler, Rolfe (February 3, 2017), Snap IPO Will Mint Fortunes for Founders, Two Big Investors (https://www.wsj.com/articles/snap-ipo-will-mint-fortunes-for-founders-two-big-investors-1486117806?tesla=y), New York City: Wall Street Journal, retrieved January 4, 2017 56. Lynley, Matthew (March 1, 2017), Snap values itself at nearly $24B with its IPO pricing (https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/snap-values-itself-at-nearly-24b-with-its-ipo-pricing/), TechCrunch by Verizon (AOL), retrieved March 1, 2017 57. Barinka, Alex; Frier, Sarah (March 1, 2017). "Snap IPO Values Fading-Photo App Maker at Twice Facebook's Worth" (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-01/snap-said-to-raise-3-4-billion-pricing-ipo-shares- above-range). Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 1, 2017. 58. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/technology/snap-public-company-start-ups.html?_r=0 59. "Google tried to buy Snap" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/03/google-buy-snap/). 60. Karl Taro Greenfield,"The Billion Dollar Battle for Snapchat" (https://www.playboy.com/articles/snapchat-billion- dollar-battle), Playboy, February 25, 2014. Retrieved March 31, 2016. 61. Jim Edwards,"Photos Texts And Emails Show The Alleged Betrayal At The Heart Of Snapchat" (http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-lawsuit-photos-texts-and-emails-2013-8), Business Insider, August 11, 2013. Retrieved March 27, 2016. 62. Billy Gallagher, "The Snapchat Lawsuit, Or How To Lose Your Best Friend Over $70 Million" (https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/07/snapchat-lawsui/.), Techcrunch, March 7, 2013. Retrieved March 27, 2016. 63. Alyson Shontell, "These Leaked Videos Could Lead To A Huge Payday For Ousted Snapchat Co-Founder" (http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-lawsuit-video-depositions-2013-11), Business Insider, Nov 6, 2013. Retrieved May 18, 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017 Snap Inc. - Wikipedia Page 8 of 8

64. Alyson Shontell, "SNAPCHAT LAWSUIT VIDEOS: After A 37-Second Pause, Snapchat's CEO Describes Regrets About The Friend He Ousted" (http://www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-lawsuit-videos-2013-11), Business Insider, Nov 25, 2013. Retrieved March 3, 2016. 65. sfg,"3 Must-Watch Videos Show Why The Guy Suing Snapchat Could Win Millions Of Dollars (http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/3-Must-Watch-Videos-Show-Why-The-Guy-Suing- 5022178.php) 66. Etan Smallman, "How Metro Was Ushered From Snapchat" (http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/28/how-metro-was- ushered-from-the-court-of-3bn-snapchat-king-evan-spiegel-4204790/), metro.co.uk, Nov 28, 2013. Retrieved March 3, 2016. 67. "News – Page 7 – Snap Inc." (https://snap.com/news/page/7). 68. Lynley, Matthew. "Snap has finally filed publicly for its massive IPO" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/02/snap- has-finally-filed-publicly-for-its-massive-ipo/). TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-02-02. 69. "S-1" (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517029199/d270216ds1.htm). www.sec.gov. Retrieved 2017-02-02. 70. Mary Ritti (9 September 2014). "Snapchat and Reggie Brown Resolve Dispute" (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140909006378/en/Snapchat-Reggie-Brown-Resolve- Disput#.VFDYSYf5nwx) (Press release). Business Wire. Business Wire. Retrieved 29 October 2014. 71. Andrea Peterson , "Snapchat agrees to settle FTC charges that it deceived users" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/05/08/snapchat-agrees-to-settle-ftc-charges-that-it- deceived-users/), The Washington Post, May 8, 2014. Retrieved August 16, 2016. External links

◾ Official website (https://snap.com)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snap_Inc.&oldid=808273087"

This page was last edited on 1 November 2017, at 22:15. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_Inc. 11/1/2017

EXHIBIT D snap sexting - Google Search Page 1 of 2

snap sexting Sign in

All Images Shopping Videos News More Settings Tools

About 470,000 results (0.28 seconds)

Snapchat users that love sexting - GhostCodes https://www.ghostcodes.com/interest/363995487/sexting Get snapchat followers that are interested in sexting. Find Snapchat users that enjoy sexting.

HOTTEST Snapchat Sexting & Nudes | KikSnapMe.com www.kiksnapme.com/category/snapchat/snapchat-sexting/ THOUSANDS of snapchat usernames that are interested in dirty snapchat chat & swapping Nudes. Meet new people and SHARE your fantasies!

Sexting Username - Snapchat Usernames sexting-username.com/ If you're looking for your sexting friend, this is the right place to be.

Snapchat Sexting Usernames List 2017: Dirty Talk With Real People! snapnamesfinder.com/sexting A free list of snapchat users who want to talk dirty and SEXT with you! Submit your own or just browse the list!

Snapchat Sexting - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Snapchatsexting/ Sep 24, 2016 - 21 [F4M] - Trading and posting nudes/videos on snap story - @GoGabbyx3 (self. Snapchatsexting). submitted 20 hours ago by Gabbyx3.

#1 Snapfuck App | Send Snaps, Get laid. https://snapsex.co/ Getting sex with snap chat made simple. Join for free, snap local girls, and meet for snapchat sex tonight - it's never been this ... Start sexting now on SnapSex

Snap Sexting Guide | SnapSex.co https://snapsex.co/sexting.html Navigating the new world of sexting, nude snaps, and sexy selfies doesn't have to be a nightmare - see these do's and don'ts (you won't believe.

BEST Sexting on Snapchat | KKusernames.com https://www.kkusernames.com/snapchat-sexting/ You're viewing all SNAPCHAT users interested in sexting: ... I am looking for someone who likes to fuck to kiss my body and lick my *kitty*᳻᳼᳽ My snap: yaamydi ...

Dirty Snapchat Usernames | Find dirty snapchat girls ! snapchat-usernames.com/usernames/dirty Snapchat Usernames Find now snapchat girls and guys ! All Usernames · Dirty Usernames · Snapchat Sexting · Kik Friends ...

For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever - Mashable mashable.com/2017/02/07/snapchat-sexting-revolution/ Feb 7, 2017 - Snapchat's launch has taken sexting — the consensual act of sharing intimate ... SEE ALSO: The 13 most interesting parts of Snap's IPO filing.

2345678910 Next

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=i5L6Wcr3LMGWjwPDmaDIAw&q=snap+sextin…11/1/2017 snap sexting - Google Search Page 2 of 2

Los Altos, California - From your Internet address - Use precise location - Learn more

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=i5L6Wcr3LMGWjwPDmaDIAw&q=snap+sextin…11/1/2017

EXHIBIT E snapfuck - Google Search Page 1 of 1

snapfuck Sign in

All Videos Images News Books More Settings Tools

About 377,000 results (0.28 seconds)

#1 Snapfuck App | Send Snaps, Get laid. https://snapsex.co/ Getting sex with snap chat made simple. Join for free, snap local girls, and meet for snapchat sex tonight - it's never been this easy! Log In · Blog · Snap Sexting Guide · 9 Shocking Snapchat ...

#snapfuck - Twitter Search https://twitter.com/search?q=%23snapfuck&lang=en Sending out free nudes Snap me: tightpantiess #snapfuck #snapgirls #snapslut #snapboys #snaptrade #trade #sext #snaphorny #snapsext pic.twitter.com/yIdbz8brbW.... Another #thongthursday picture #Pawg #FatAss #thick #porn #snapfuck #horny #curvy add my teaser snap for more info ...

SnapFuck: Trade Naked Selfies and Hookup Now https://snapfuck.me/ SnapFuck is an adult dating site to sext with singles from your area. Join now free to browse selfies, sext and find dates. Trade Naked Selfies and ... · Photos · FAQ · Members

SnapFuck: Sexting App for Casual Sex & Hookup Seekers snapfuck.co/ The SnapFuck app is deservedly deemed the #1 online platform for casual sex and hookup seekers through Sexting and Snapchats. You've surely always ...

Snap Fuck Porn Videos | Pornhub.com https://www.pornhub.com/video/search?search=snap+fuck Watch Snap Fuck porn videos for free, here on Pornhub.com. Sort movies by Most Relevant and catch the best Snap Fuck movies now!

Snapfuck Porn Videos | Pornhub.com https://www.pornhub.com/video/search?search=snapfuck Watch Snapfuck porn videos for free, here on Pornhub.com. Sort movies by Most Relevant and catch the best Snapfuck movies now!

Snapfuck.me Review Watch This Review Of SnapFuck.me - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBgQ7idbbZg May 4, 2016 - My recommended site: http://j.mp/1rocKCc Snapfuck.me Review Watch This Review Of SnapFuck.me Watch this honest review of Snapfuck.me ...

SNAPFUCK.mp4 - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY2yO9L5AFI Jun 24, 2017 - WARNING: SOME OF THIS VIDEO IS KINDA OFFENSIVE GET OVER IT So basically I looked through my snapchat memories and found some ...

Find Snapchat Girls Looking For Sex snap-sex.co/ Join our select online community now, and enjoy 100% free lifetime access, to the single hookup app, which works for real. Do not hesitate to join SnapFuck.

Snapsex Porn Photos: Free Sex Pictures & Short Looping Videos ... https://uplust.com/tags/snapsex For a huge selection of FREE porn categories with the best snapsex videos with filters and much more!

2345678910 Next

Los Altos, California - From your Internet address - Use precise location - Learn more

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/search?ei=nJL6WeTqBoWUjwO3-JawDg&q=snapfuck&oq=snapfuck&…11/1/2017

EXHIBIT F

For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever Page 1 of 8

FOLLOW Mashable Like Follow Follow MASHABLE We're using cookies to improve your experience. Click Here to find out more. > •

• Mashable Mashable AsiaMashable AustraliaMashable FranceMashable IndiaMashable UK • Sign in • ◦Like ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 4HZOHISL ◦ see more > • Search

Search • Video • Entertainment • Culture • Tech • Science • Business • Social Good • More ◦ ◾ Channels ◾ Video ◾ Entertainment ◾ Culture ◾ Tech ◾ Science ◾ Business ◾ Social Good ◦ ◾ Company ◾ About Us ◾ Licensing & Reprints ◾ Archive ◾ Mashable Careers ◦ ◾ Contact ◾ Contact Us ◾ Submit News ◦ ◾ Advertise ◾ Advertise ◦ ◾ Legal ◾ Privacy Policy ◾ Terms of Use ◾ Cookie Policy ◾ Copyright Policy ◦ ◾ Apps ◾ iPhone / iPad ◾ Android ◦ ◾ Resources ◾ Subscriptions ◦ ◾ Sites ◾ Job Board ◾ Social Good Summit

http://mashable.com/2017/02/07/snapchat-sexting-revolution/ 11/1/2017 For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever Page 2 of 8

Share on Facebook Share Tweet on Twitter Share Share

Lifestyle

For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever

Share on Facebook Share Tweet on Twitter Share Share 

IMAGE: GETTY IMAGES

BY RACHEL THOMPSON FEB 07, 2017 Analysis

When Stanford University student Reggie Brown told his classmate in 2011 that he wanted photos he'd sent to a girl to disappear, he uttered aloud a thought that had crossed the minds of countless others. But this time, his assertion would lead to the creation of an app that would change the nature of photo messaging and — crucially — sexting, forever. That app became Snapchat.

SEE ALSO: The 13 most interesting parts of Snap's IPO filing

Snapchat's launch has taken sexting — the consensual act of sharing intimate photos — from a stigmatised and seedy activity, to a mainstream and widely- accepted practice. The company has grown significantly since those early dorm- http://mashable.com/2017/02/07/snapchat-sexting-revolution/ 11/1/2017 For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever Page 3 of 8

room days — and will soon be a massive public company — thanks in part to its legacy in the world of sexting.

The sexting game

Before Snapchat launched in September 2011, sexting was very different.

The exchange of erotic imagery isn't a phenomenon that's unique to the 21st century. Paleolithic cave paintings depicting human sex acts are some of the first known examples of erotic imagery, but only when the mass adoption of smartphones happened in the late 2000s did the sexting game really heat up.

Using cameraphones, sexters could send explicit images via MMS. But the age- old problem persisted. Photos, once sent, were permanently outside the sender's control and impossible to delete. 

IMAGE: GETTY IMAGES

Consequence-free sexting?

At the time of Snapchat's launch, the app's ephemeral nature presented a much- desired solution for people wanting to get their kicks by sending sexually explicit photos that would disappear in a matter of seconds.

Gone — it seemed — were the worries about what would happen to your naked selfie once your relationship ended. Your Snapchat sext would evaporate into the ether, and if your relationships met the same fate, your trail of naked selfies would be of little concern to you.

Despite its reputation, Snapchat was not — and never set out to be — a sexting app. And, it was by no means devoid of consequences or safety issues. This honeymoon period of consequence-free sexting ended when third-party apps like Snapchat Hack came onto the scene, circumventing Snapchat's protection and allowing users to share images sent via the app.

Sexting goes mainstream

Blaise Grimes-Viort, a social media expert at the agency The Social Element says that Snapchat has had a colossal impact on the normalisation of sexting; a direct result of the sense of security afforded by the auto-deletion of images. Sex and relationships YouTuber Hannah Witton believes Snapchat's perceived "low risk factor" gives people the courage to experiment with sexting on the condition you have "a mutual agreement not to screenshot."

"Sexting on Snapchat is so normalised that if you tell your mate that you were sending some cheeky nudes back and forth the other night on Snapchat, it's unlikely they're going to judge you," says Witton.

The stats show that sexting has become commonplace. In the UK, 42 percent of 18-24 year olds have sexted, and 13 percent have sent intimate photos to total strangers, according to Intel Security.

http://mashable.com/2017/02/07/snapchat-sexting-revolution/ 11/1/2017 For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever Page 4 of 8



IMAGE: SHUTTERSTOCK / NITO

A risk for teens

The normalisation of sexting is a double-edged sword. For consenting adults, removing the stigma and judgement around sexual expression is a positive thing. But for younger people, it poses a risk. That risk is augmented by the fact that almost a quarter of Snapchat users are still in high school.

Sexting is "dangerous" for young people, particularly when it comes to the possibility of revenge porn, according to the NSPCC.

"Snapchat deletes images once they have been viewed but users of the app can screenshot images to keep for later," a spokesperson said.

"The risk is always there that the no-saving, no-sharing rules will not be respected, that a loving partner may not remain that way, and that a friendly stranger may not be what they seem," says social media expert Grimes- Viort.

The state of sexting today

For millennials, Snapchat is almost entirely synonymous with sexting. According to Match.com data, millennials are 290 percent more likely than Gen Xers to use Snapchat for sexual reasons.

This normalisation of sexting on Snapchat has led to a whole host of not-so-great consequences. On Reddit, there are myriad threads by users who've found out their partners are sending sexy snaps to former lovers. Others joining these threads post that they're overcome with worry that their partners might be engaged in Snapchat sexting.

While infidelity and the fear thereof are unpleasant side-effects of the Snapchat sexting phenomenon, there are also some more sinister consequences. There are sites dedicated to the non-consensual sharing of screenshotted images and — according to Grimes-Viort — there is an "underbelly" on the internet dedicated to sharing the usernames of Snapchat users who are active on the app and "willing to sext with strangers".

The use of third-party apps to retrieve Snaps that have disappeared also carries a massive risk. In 2014, 98,000 hacked Snapchat photos and videos were reportedly posted online. At the time, Snapchat was keen to point out that its servers hadn't been hacked, but the prevalence of third-party apps means that intimate photos and videos can easily fall into the wrong hands if these apps are hacked.

Snapchat's sexting culture has also created a pressure for young people to participate in sexting. Six out of 10 teens say they've been asked for sexual images or videos, according to an NSPCC survey. And, a 2015 study by the University of Indiana found that one fifth of university undergraduates had engaged in sexting when they didn't want to.

The question remains: Should we be thanking Snapchat, or blaming it?

http://mashable.com/2017/02/07/snapchat-sexting-revolution/ 11/1/2017 For better or worse, Snapchat changed sexting forever Page 5 of 8

BONUS: Snapchat Spectacles have a wind noise problem — here's how to fix it



TOPICS: APPS AND SOFTWARE, BUSINESS, LIFESTYLE, SEX & LOVE, SNAP INC, SNAPCHAT IPO

http://mashable.com/2017/02/07/snapchat-sexting-revolution/ 11/1/2017

EXHIBIT G

"Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO Page 1 of 6

"Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO

Sam Biddle ႞႟ႠႡ 753.77K 05/28/14 11:10AM Filed to: SNAPCHAT

Evan Spiegel, the boyish cofounder and CEO of Snapchat, is dying to be taken seriously. He rejected Mark Zuckerberg, opines like Steve Jobs, and hobnobs with media titans. But Spiegel's undergrad emails—when he began his path to Snapchat—show a different Evan. Did Steve Jobs ever joke about peeing on girls?

Snapchat's Creator: Another Spoiled L.A. Brat This is the face of the New Meritocracy: Snapchat founder and CEO Evan Spiegel is atop a startup…

During his time at Stanford, Spiegel (now 23 years old) was a prominent brother of the university's Kappa Sigma chapter—a fraternity with a fraught record, temporarily kicked off campus for violating the school's "Controlled Substances and Alcohol Policy." The house was also a tiny tech incubator, and brought together the three boys whose fratty bond would eventually lead to the creation of Snapchat (after one was betrayed and screwed out of the deal, of course). Emails obtained by Valleywag show a slightly younger Spiegel shifting seamlessly from entrepreneur to a guy trying very hard to get girls so drunk, they might have sex with his friends. Who needs Y Combinator when you've got a stripper pole, your dad's swanky house in L.A., and some cocaine?

How To Screw a Friend Out of an $800 Million Idea There are some forces so powerful, not even the wrought iron bonds of frat friendship can withstand …

The screenshots below are cropped but otherwise unedited, except for phone numbers and the names of some Stanford alumni, which have been redacted at their request.

"Hope at least six girls sucked your dicks last night."

http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy-frat-emails-of-snap-1582604137 11/1/2017 "Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO Page 2 of 6

Fwd: Stripper Pole

"ACTION NEEDED... TO GET PI PHIS FUCKED UP"

Remember how we captured memories before Snapchat?

http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy-frat-emails-of-snap-1582604137 11/1/2017 "Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO Page 3 of 6

"Have some girl put your large kappa sigma dick down her throat."

"sigma nu decided to stop being gay"

"Papa Spiegel is liable for underage drinking, he's cool with it but probably not a good idea to take handles to the face." This same elder Spiegel lent his home to the Snapchat team as an improvised office during its early days.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy-frat-emails-of-snap-1582604137 11/1/2017 "Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO Page 4 of 6

Nothing like a fun Sally Hemmings theme for a party.

"Bobby is really high now." That would be Bobby Murphy, the co-founder who didn't get kicked out of the company.

"Sororisluts"

http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy-frat-emails-of-snap-1582604137 11/1/2017 "Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO Page 5 of 6

In the midst of all this, here's a professional email from Spiegel, without any talk of sucked dicks or blacking out, as he looks for help with FutureFreshman. This endeavor would soon fail, turn into Picaboo, and transform into the mega- valued Snapchat of today.

And then, back to talking about shooting "lazers at fat girls."

What "gaytitties" means is anyone's guess, but "Dean Julie" is Julie Lythcott- Haims, who at the time served as associate vice provost for undergraduate education and dean of freshmen and undergraduate advising. Snapchat has long shared a close, almost affectionate relationship with Stanford.

Maybe you can chalk this up to youthful indiscretion—but you can't discard it as such. Silicon Valley worships youthfulness, adores the scofflaw, the pirate, the reckless kid. Investors and Valley pundits seek out boys like Spiegel, "where's my bong?" emails and all, on the assumption that the same lightning that zapped Zuckerberg will continue to strike, and strike, and strike. But if the bazillions swirling around tech companies and their boy-king founders is going to continue to flow, we need to remind ourselves who exactly these kids are. And maybe, upon reflection, maybe, offering billions of dollars to children is not always prudent.

Ageism Turned Silicon Valley Into a Hotbed for Male Plastic Surgery If I had $1 million for every time a founder told me "It's impossible to raise funding if …

Image by Sam Woolley

http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy-frat-emails-of-snap-1582604137 11/1/2017 "Fuck Bitches Get Leid," the Sleazy Frat Emails of Snapchat's CEO Page 6 of 6

To contact the author of this post, write to [email protected]

Terms of Service Privacy Policy

http://valleywag.gawker.com/fuck-bitches-get-leid-the-sleazy-frat-emails-of-snap-1582604137 11/1/2017

EXHIBIT H

News – Introducing Snap Map! – Snap Inc. Page 1 of 1

Jobs News Investors

JUN Introducing Snap Map! 21 2017

We've built a whole new way to explore the world! See what's happening, find your friends, and get inspired to go on an adventure!

It's easy to get started — just pinch to zoom out and view the Map! You decide if you want to share your location with friends, or simply keep it to yourself with Ghost Mode.

If your friends are sharing their location with you, their Actionmoji will appear on the Map. Actionmojis only update when you open Snapchat.

We hope you enjoy the new Map as much as we do!

Happy Snapping!

Team Snap

Posted at 8:00 am

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Other Terms & Policies

English (US)

© 2017 Snap Inc.

https://www.snap.com/en-US/news/post/introducing-the-snap-map/ 11/1/2017

EXHIBIT I

AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

Snapchat, Inc. (“Applicant”) has received and reviewed the Office Action mailed March

16, 2015, regarding U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86/526,355 (the “Application”) to

register the mark SNAP (and Ghost Design) (“Applicant’s Mark”) in Classes 9, 38, 41,

42 and 45. Applicant submits the following Amendments and Response regarding the

Application.

I. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSALS

The Examining Attorney initially has refused registration of the above-referenced mark for Class 38 based on a perceived likelihood of confusion with the mark SNAP with hand design,

, U.S. Reg. No. 3,395,605 (the “Hand Mark”). The Examining Attorney also has initially refused registration for Class 9 based on a perceived likelihood of confusion with the marks SNAP, U.S. Reg. No. 4,345,533 (the “Snap Mark”) and SNAP with pinwheel design,

, U.S. Reg. No. 4,602,541 (the “Pinwheel Mark”) (together, the Hand Mark, the

Snap Mark and the Pinwheel Mark are the “Cited Marks”). Applicant respectfully submits that no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Marks as set forth in greater detail below.

A. Applicant’s Mark is Not Confusingly Similar to the Cited Marks

In preliminarily refusing registration based on the Cited Marks, the Examining Attorney has addressed only the similarity of the marks and a perceived relationship between Applicant’s goods and services and the goods and services offered under the Cited Marks. A full evaluation of relevant factors, however, confirms no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s

Mark and the Cited Marks.

- 1 -

In In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the Court of

Customs and Patent Appeals listed thirteen factors to be considered in determining if a likelihood of confusion exists under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. According to that court, these factors must be considered when of record, and include the following factors pertinent to this

Response:

1. the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties;

2. the similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels; and

3. any other established fact probative of the effect of use.

476 F.2d at 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567 (RALLY for polishing and cleaning agent not likely to be confused with RALLY for all-purpose detergent). The question of likelihood of confusion turns

“not [on] the nature of the mark, but [on] its effect when applied to the goods of the applicant.”

Id., 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567 (emphasis added). “The words ‘when applied’ do not refer to a mental exercise, but to all of the known circumstances surrounding use of the mark” in the marketplace.

Id. A careful consideration of relevant Du Pont factors instructs that no likelihood of confusion exists between the Cited Marks and Applicant's Mark.

In particular, no likelihood of confusion exists in Class 38 because the parties’ respective marks and channels of trade are sufficiently different. Further, no likelihood of confusion exists in Class 9 because the Hand Mark, the Pinwheel Mark, and Applicant’s SNAPCHAT mark are each already registered and there is no reason Applicant’s Mark cannot also be registered.

Finally, Applicant lacks any intent to trade off the goodwill of the owners of the Cited Marks. In view of the absence of a likelihood of confusion with any of the Cited Marks, Applicant respectfully requests that the refusals to register be withdrawn and the Application be passed to publication without further delay.

- 2 -

1. Applicant’s Mark and the Hand Mark are Distinguishable and Not Likely to be Confused

“That marks must be considered in their entireties in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion or mistake is a basic rule in comparison of marks.” Massey Jr. Coll., Inc. v. Fashion Inst. Of Tech., 492 F.2d 1399, 1402 (C.C.P.A. 1974). As the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he commercial impression of a trade-mark is derived from it as a whole, not from its elements separated and considered in detail. For this reason it should be considered in its entirety.” Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 545-46 (1920); see also In re Hearst Corp., 982 F.2d 493, 494 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“Marks tend to be perceived in their entireties, and all components thereof must be given appropriate weight.”). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) has further explained that “it is the entire mark which is perceived by the purchasing public, and, therefore, it is the entire mark that must be compared to any other mark. It is the impression created by the involved marks, each considered as a whole, that is important.” Genesco Inc. v. Martz, 66 U.S.P.Q.2d 1260, 1269 (T.T.A.B. 2003); accord

Franklin Mint Corp. v. Master Mfg. Co., 667 F.2d 1005, 1007 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (MM design not confusingly similar to FM design); New England Fish Co. v. Hervin Co., 511 F.2d 562, 563

(C.C.P.A. 1975) (BLUE MOUNTAIN KITTY O’s for cat food not confusingly similar to

KITTY for same); B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action Design, Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1719 (Fed.

Cir. 1988) (B.V.D. not confusingly similar to B.A.D., both for clothing).

A likelihood of confusion cannot be assumed solely on the ground that Applicant’s Mark and the Hand Mark both contain the term “snap.” Even when marks are used on similar goods and services, the mere presence of shared elements within the marks does not necessarily make confusion likely. Freedom Savs. & Loan Ass’n, 757 F.2d at 1183 (“[T]he use of an identical word, even a dominant word, does not automatically mean that two marks are similar.”); see also

Time Inc. v. Peterson Publ’g Co., 173 F.3d 113, 119, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1474, 1478 (2d Cir. 1999)

- 3 -

(no likelihood of confusion between TEEN and TEEN PEOPLE, both for magazines); First

Savs. Bank, 101 F.3d at 653 (no likelihood of confusion between FIRST BANK and FIRST

BANK SYSTEM marks); Gruner + Jahr USA Publ’g v. Meredith Corp., 991 F.2d 1072, 1080,

26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1583, 1588 (2d Cir. 1993) (no likelihood of confusion between PARENTS and

PARENT’S DIGEST, both for magazines); In re Ferrero, 479 F.2d 1395, 1398 (C.C.P.A. 1973)

(no likelihood of confusion between TIC TAC for candy and TIC TAC TOE for ice cream);

Servo Corp. of Am. v. Servo-Tek Prod. Co., 289 F.2d 955, 981, 129 U.S.P.Q. 352, 353 (C.C.P.A.

1961) (no likelihood of confusion between SERVOSPEED for electronic motor speed control system and SERVO for electrical connectors and control equipment); USTrust v. U.S. Trust Co.,

210 F. Supp. 2d 9, 27-28 (D. Mass. 2002) (no likelihood of confusion between UNITED

STATES TRUST COMPANY and UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF BOSTON, both for financial services); In re Lancer Orthodontics, Inc., 1998 WL 377664, *2 (T.T.A.B. 1998)

(no likelihood of confusion between IN ADVANCE and ADVANCE, both for dental products).

When viewed in their entireties, it is readily apparent that the Hand Mark is distinguishable from Applicant’s Mark.

Although both marks contain the word “snap,” each mark also contains a design element, which differently influences the way consumers will perceive the SNAP word as used by the two owners. The Hand Mark contains a simple design of what appears to be a hand snapping to the right of the word “SNAP”, which design seems only to reinforce the meaning of the word “snap” as used by this registrant. Applicant’s Mark, by contrast, contains “SNAP” plus a highly distinctive design element, which bestows substantially more complexity and dimension on

Applicant’s Mark. Notably, the “SNAP” in Applicant’s Mark is the first element of

- 4 -

SNAPCHAT. SNAPCHAT is Applicant’s famous compound word mark registered under U.S.

Reg. No. 4,375,712 (the “SNAPCHAT Registration”), primary brand identifier, domain name

(snapchat.com), and corporate name (Snapchat, Inc.). The design element of Applicant’s Mark

is a variation on Applicant’s famous Ghost Design shown here, , a design that Applicant

separately uses and has registered under U.S. Reg. No. 4,573,338 (the “Ghost Design

Registration”). Indeed, by incorporating elements of the two main source identifiers of

Applicant’s famous SNAPCHAT brand, Applicant has assured that consumers perceiving

Applicant’s Mark will automatically associate Applicant’s Mark with Applicant, and not with the

owner of the Hand Mark. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are copies of the U.S. certificates of registration that have issued to date for the SNAPCHAT Registration and the Ghost Design

Registration, along with screenshots of both of those registered marks in use. This crucial difference in commercial impression between Applicant’s Mark and the Hand Mark is sufficient to prevent consumer confusion. Moreover, Applicant’s distinctive design as featured in

Applicant’s Mark is not even remotely similar to the design in the Hand Mark and consumers would not in any event be confused.

Indeed, the T.T.A.B. has noted that “[t]o ignore the role of the design elements and interpret only the word portions of the mark would fly in the face of the well-known rule that in assessing the likelihood of confusion, marks should be considered in their entireties.” In re

Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 218 U.S.P.Q. 956, 956 (T.T.A.B. 1983) (DISTINCT BY HERITAGE &

Design not likely to be confused with HERITAGE, both for cigarettes); see also In re TSI

Brands Inc., 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1657, 1661 (T.T.A.B. 2002) (rejecting examiner’s reliance on perceived dominant verbal element in light of “significant distinguishing design elements” of marks in question). By focusing only on the verbal similarities between Applicant’s Mark and

- 5 -

the Hand Mark, the Office Action does not account for the markedly different visual design

elements that obviate any risk of consumer confusion.

Even identical marks used in connection with the same type of goods and services may

coexist without creating a likelihood of confusion. See, e.g., In re Mars, Inc., 741 F.2d 395 (Fed.

Cir. 1984) (CANYON for fruit not confusingly similar to CANYON for candy bars); Kiekhaefer

Corp. v. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., 236 F.2d 423 (C.C.P.A. 1956) (HURRICANE for

outboard motors not confusingly similar to HURRICANE for auto engines); IDV N. Am., Inc. v.

S & M Brands, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Va 1998) (BAILEY’S for liqueurs not confusingly

similar to BAILEY’S for cigarettes); Modular Cinemas of Am., Inc. v. Mini Cinemas Corp., 348

F. Supp. 578 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (MINI CINEMA for family movie theaters not confusingly similar to MINI CINEMA for an erotic movie theater); In re British Bulldog, Ltd, 224 U.S.P.Q. 854

(T.T.A.B. 1984) (PLAYERS for shoes not confusingly similar to PLAYERS for men’s underwear); In re Sears Roebuck & Co., 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1312, 1314 (T.T.A.B. 1987) (CROSS-

OVER for bras not confusingly similar to CROSSOVER for ladies’ sportswear). Where, as here,

Applicant’s Mark and the Hand Mark are not identical, the visual differences between them, as

well as the differences in the parties’ respective channels of trade (discussed in the next section

of this Response) are manifestly sufficient to prevent a likelihood of confusion.

2. Applicant’s Customers and Channels of Trade Differ Significantly from the Customers and Channels of Trade of the Hand Mark

Applicant’s Mark is not likely to be confused with the Hand Mark because the contexts in

which Applicant and the owner of the Hand Mark offer their respective services are substantially different. The mobile application and features offered by Applicant under Applicant’s Mark are aimed toward individuals sharing with and seeking content from others on their mobile devices.

More specifically, within the “Discover” feature of Applicant’s SNAPCHAT mobile application,

Applicant hosts several content providers (e.g., ESPN, CNN, Comedy Central, Food Network - 6 -

and National Geographic), each with its own “channel” offering content that changes on a daily basis. In addition to third party channels, Applicant offers its own channel within the Discover feature. Applicant’s channel is known as the SNAP CHANNEL. Users encounter Applicant’s

Mark as the access point for content provided directly by Applicant through the SNAP

CHANNEL within the Discover feature of the SNAPCHAT branded mobile application. By

contrast, the services offered under the Hand Mark are specifically aimed toward consumers

seeking telecommunications utility services – specifically those looking for a bundled “triple

play” package of services for in-home telephone, Internet and television. See Exhibit B. The

owner of the Hand Mark specifically holds itself out to be a utility company, whereas Applicant

is a provider of a digital platform for sharing content, including content generated by Applicant.

As a result, potential purchasers are not likely to confuse such services based on the vastly

different contexts in which they are offered.

Thus, the different channels of trade for services offered under Applicant’s Mark and the

Hand Mark—and the diverse classes of consumers for these services—favor a finding of no

likelihood of consumer confusion. See Oxford Indus, Inc. v. JBJ Fabrics, Inc., 6 U.S.P.Q.2d

1756 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (no likelihood of confusion where plaintiff sells JBJ garments through

retail channels to consumers, defendant, a fabric printer, doing business under the JBJ mark, sells

its converted fabric to garment manufacturers; the parties’ products are “marketed through

distinctly different channels of commerce”).

3. Given that the USPTO Has Already Permitted Registration of the Snap Mark, the Pinwheel Mark and Applicant’s SNAPCHAT Mark in Class 9, Applicant’s Mark Should also be Permitted to Register in Class 9.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already spoken to the ability of Applicant’s

Mark to register in Class 9 with the Snap Mark and the Pinwheel Mark. First, the Snap Mark for

“Computer application software for smartphones, cell phones, pda devices, and tablet computers,

- 7 -

namely, software for accessing, viewing, interacting with and downloading content from

electronic magazines and websites” and the Pinwheel Mark for “Computer application software for sharing, exchanging, uploading, downloading, backing-up, modifying, viewing, tagging and

printing photos, videos, mixed-media content including audio, and other customized digital content, for use with mobile phones and other cellular electronic devices, wireless and wired internet enabled consumer electronic devices, plug-in applets for third party applications and content delivery devices” have both been permitted by the USPTO to register in Class 9. By the

USPTO’s own determination as between these two marks, there is no reason to exclude

Applicant from likewise registering Applicant’s Mark in Class 9 and the Examiner has not

offered any explanation for allowing these two to register but not allowing Applicant to register also.

Second, the Snap Mark and the Pinwheel Mark are both also registered in Class 9 along

with Applicant’s SNAPCHAT Registration and with Applicant’s Ghost Design Registration, both for “Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, and handheld computers, namely, software for sending digital photos, videos, images, and text to others via the global computer network”. The Application covers (in pertinent part): “Computer

software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of

data and information; computer software for streaming audio-visual media content via a global computer network and to mobile and digital electronic devices.” These goods sought under the

Application are identical and/or highly related to those Class 9 goods for which Applicant’s

SNAPCHAT and Ghost Design marks are already registered. Moreover, Applicant’s Mark, a composite mark, is a hybrid – a true wedding - of Applicant’s two earlier registered marks, combining “SNAP”, the initial four letters of SNAPCHAT, with an angled and open version of

Applicant’s highly distinctive and famous Ghost Design. Indeed, the word and design elements of Applicant’s Mark are not separate elements simply stuck next to each other together to form a - 8 -

mark. Instead, the word and design elements of Applicant’s Mark are closely intertwined and visually inseparable, with the design element carefully encapsulating part of the word element in a highly unique and distinctive manner. The Examining Attorney has offered no reason why the

USPTO would permit registration of Applicant’s SNAPCHAT mark, the Snap Mark, and the

Pinwheel Mark in Class 9 but not permit registration of Applicant’s Snap & Ghost Design Mark.

Accordingly, the Snap Mark and the Pinwheel Mark should not bar registration of

Applicant’s Mark in Class 9.

4. Applicant Lacks Intent to Trade Off of the Goodwill of the Cited Marks

Relevant case law indicates that “courts regularly include intent as one of the factors to be assessed in evaluating likelihood of confusion.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR

COMPETITION § 22 rptr. note to cmt. b, at 246 (1995). In this instance, Applicant had no intent to trade upon anyone’s reputation by applying to register Applicant’s Mark, including the reputations of the owners of the Cited Marks. Thus, this factor also supports registration of

Applicant’s Mark. Omaha Nat’l Bank v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 633 F. Supp. 231, 234, 229

U.S.P.Q. 51, 52 (D. Neb. 1986).

B. After Consideration of all Relevant Factors, Confusion is Not Likely

When determining whether Applicant’s Mark creates a likelihood of confusion with a mark covered by a cited registration or application, “[a] showing of mere possibility of confusion is not enough; a substantial likelihood that the public will be confused must be shown.” Omaha

Nat’l Bank v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 229 U.S.P.Q. 51, 52 (D. Neb. 1986) (emphasis added).

Applicant submits that the factors set forth in Du Pont for which there is record evidence support registration of Applicant’s Mark and do not raise a substantial likelihood of confusion. Under these circumstances, the Application should be approved for publication.

- 9 -

II. ADVISORY REGARDING PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION

Applicant understands that U.S. Application Serial No. 86/439,703 for the mark SNAP in

Class 38 (the “Second Snap Mark”) was filed earlier than the Application. Although not expressly stated in the Office Action, Applicant assumes that the Examining Attorney has raised this prior pending application due to a potential conflict with the Class 38 services in the

Application, and not with respect to any goods in Class 9 or services in Classes 41, 42 or 45.

Pursuant to the option presented in the Office Action (see Office Action at 7), Applicant reserves the right to proffer specific arguments against a finding of a likelihood of confusion if the earlier application proceeds to registration and the Application is refused based on the Second Snap

Mark. Nevertheless, Applicant notes that Application Serial No. 86/439,703 is facing an Office

Action that issued on February 23, 2015. The response was due by August 23, 2015, which date has already passed. As of the date of this Response there is no indication in the TSDR records of the USPTO that a timely response was filed in connection with Application Serial No.

86/439,703. Accordingly, it appears that Application Serial No. 86/439,703 will become abandoned in due course for failure to respond to the February 23, 2015 Office Action.

III. AMENDMENT TO THE RECITATION OF SERVICES

In response to the Office Action, Applicant hereby requests that the recitation of services in the Application be amended (1) to delete all services in Class 45, and (2) to revise the wording of the specifications of services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 as shown below (additions in bold):

Class 38: Telecommunication services, namely, electronic transmission of data, messages, graphics, images and information; providing access to computer, electronic and online databases; broadcasting services over computer or other communication networks, namely, uploading, posting, displaying, tagging and electronically transmitting data, information, messages, graphics and images, where the aforesaid content has been uploaded, posted and tagged by others; telecommunication services, namely, electronic transmission of data, photos, music and videos; broadcasting and streaming of audio-visual media content; transmission of downloadable audio-visual media content. - 10 -

Class 41: Providing online audio-visual entertainment information via a global computer network in the fields of motion pictures, television programming, videos, music videos and music; providing information via a global computer network in the field of entertainment; creation, development, production and distribution of entertainment content, namely, multimedia content, animations, video footage, text, still images, videos, and ongoing series featuring comedy, drama, musical entertainment, sports, health and wellness, and news broadcast online or distributed to mobile electronic devices.

Class 42: Hosting of digital content on the internet; hosting online web facilities for others for managing and sharing online content; application service provider (ASP) services, namely, hosting computer software applications of others; application service provider (ASP) featuring software to enable or facilitate the uploading, downloading, streaming, posting, displaying, linking, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or information over communication networks.

The Class 9 goods set forth in the Application should remain as filed, with no revisions, as the Examining Attorney determined they were acceptable as filed.

IV. SUBSTITUTE SPECIMEN

The Office Action objects to Applicant’s specimen of use in Class 45 because it shows the mark used for providing access to news and video content. Applicant has herewith amended the Application to delete Class 45. As a result, this objection is moot and should be withdrawn.

V. CONCLUSION

Having addressed all of the issues raised by the Examining Attorney, Applicant respectfully requests that the objections raised in the Office Action be withdrawn and that the

Applicant’s Application be approved for publication in due course.

- 11 -

EXHIBIT J

AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

Snapchat, Inc. (“Applicant”) has received and reviewed the Office Action mailed June

17, 2015, regarding U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 86/619,184 (the “Application”) to

register the mark SNAPCHAT (“Applicant’s Mark”) in Classes 9, 38, 41, 42 and 45. Applicant

submits the following Amendment and Response regarding the Application.

I. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION REFUSALS

The Examining Attorney initially has refused registration of Applicant’s Mark in Classes

9, 38 and 42 based on a perceived likelihood of confusion with (1) the mark SNAP with hand

design, , U.S. Reg. No. 3,395,605, in Class 38 (the “Hand Mark”), the mark

SNAP, U.S. Reg. No. 4,345,533, in Class 9 (the “Snap Mark”), and SNAP with pinwheel design,

, U.S. Reg. No. 4,602,541, in Class 9 (the “Pinwheel Mark”) (together, the

Hand Mark, the Snap Mark, and the Pinwheel Mark are the “Cited Marks”). Applicant

respectfully submits that no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s Mark and the

Cited Marks as set forth in greater detail below.

A. Applicant’s Mark is Not Confusingly Similar to the Cited Marks

In preliminarily refusing registration based on the Cited Marks, the Examining Attorney

has addressed only the similarity of the marks and a perceived relationship between Applicant’s

goods and services and the goods and services offered under the Cited Marks. A full evaluation

of relevant factors, however, confirms that no likelihood of confusion exists between Applicant’s

Mark and the Cited Marks.

In In re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 177 U.S.P.Q. 563 (C.C.P.A. 1973), the Court of

Customs and Patent Appeals listed thirteen factors to be considered in determining if a likelihood

- 1 -

of confusion exists under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. According to that court, these

factors must be considered when of record, and include any established fact probative of the

effect of use. 476 F.2d at 1361, 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567 (RALLY for polishing and cleaning agent

not likely to be confused with RALLY for all-purpose detergent). The question of likelihood of confusion turns “not [on] the nature of the mark, but [on] its effect when applied to the goods of the applicant.” Id., 177 U.S.P.Q. at 567 (emphasis added). “The words ‘when applied’ do not refer to a mental exercise, but to all of the known circumstances surrounding use of the mark” in the marketplace. Id. A careful consideration of relevant Du Pont factors instructs that no likelihood of confusion exists between the Cited Marks and Applicant's Mark.

In particular, no likelihood of confusion exists in Class 9 because the Snap Mark, the

Pinwheel Mark, and Applicant’s SNAPCHAT mark, U.S. Reg. No. 4,375,712 are each already registered in Class 9, and the Class 9 goods in the Application are highly related to Applicant’s previously-registered Class 9 goods. See Exhibit A for a copy of the TSDR record for

Registration No. 4,375,712 for SNAPCHAT in Class 9 (the “SNAPCHAT Registration”) and evidence of use of the same. If the Applicant’s SNAPCHAT mark can coexist with the Snap

Mark and the Pinwheel Mark in Class 9, there is no reason the same SNAPCHAT mark cannot register in Class 42, a class in which neither of these two Cited Marks is registered, for services that are essentially a non-downloadable version of Applicant’s registered Class 9 goods. Further, no likelihood of confusion exists in Class 38 because Applicant’s Mark is a famous house brand, which obviates a likelihood of confusion. Finally, Applicant lacks any intent to trade off the goodwill of the owners of the Cited Marks. In view of the absence of a likelihood of confusion with any of the Cited Marks, Applicant respectfully requests that the refusals to register be withdrawn and the Application be passed to publication in due course.

- 2 -

1. Given that the Snap Mark in Class 9 and the Pinwheel Mark in Class 9 already Coexist with Applicant’s Mark in Class 9, They Should Not Bar Registration of Applicant’s Mark in Class 9 or in Class 42

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already spoken to the ability of Applicant’s

Mark to coexist on the Principal Register in Class 9 with the Snap Mark and the Pinwheel Mark and by extension, Applicant’s Mark should be able to register in Class 42 for related services.

Applicant owns the SNAPCHAT Registration for Applicant’s Mark in Class 9 for “Computer application software for mobile phones, portable media players, and handheld computers, namely, software for sending digital photos, videos, images, and text to others via the global computer network”. The Snap Mark is registered in Class 9 for “Computer application software for smartphones, cell phones, pda devices, and tablet computers, namely, software for accessing, viewing, interacting with and downloading content from electronic magazines and websites.”

The Pinwheel Mark is registered in Class 9 for “Computer application software for sharing, exchanging, uploading, downloading, backing-up, modifying, viewing, tagging and printing photos, videos, mixed-media content including audio, and other customized digital content, for use with mobile phones and other cellular electronic devices, wireless and wired internet enabled consumer electronic devices, plug-in applets for third party applications and content delivery devices.” All three marks coexist on the register in Class 9, and have coexisted in use without any evidence of confusion known to Applicant since May 19, 2014, the latest claimed date of first use for the three marks.

The Application covers (in pertinent part): “Software for modifying the appearance and enabling transmission of photographs and videos; software for use in taking and editing photographs and recording and editing videos; software to enable the transmission of photographs and videos to mobile telephones; software for the collection, editing, organizing,

- 3 -

modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; software for use as an

application programming interface (API); software to enable uploading, downloading, accessing,

posting, displaying, tagging, streaming, linking, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media

or information via computer and communication networks; software for streaming audio-visual media content via a global computer network and to mobile and digital electronic devices; computer software which allow users to build and access social network information including address book, friend lists, profiles, preferences and personal data; software for managing contact information in mobile device address books” in Class 9, and “Hosting of digital content; providing information from searchable indexes and databases of information; computer services, namely, creating virtual communities for registered users to participate in discussions and engage

in social, business and community networking; application service provider (ASP) featuring

software to enable or facilitate the uploading, downloading, streaming, posting, displaying,

linking, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or information over communication

networks” in Class 42. These Class 9 goods and Class 42 services from the Application are very

closely related to the goods previously registered in Applicant’s SNAPCHAT Registration. As such, by the USPTO’s own determination as between Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Marks in

Class 9, there is no reason to exclude Applicant from registering Applicant’s Mark again in Class

9.

There is also no reason to exclude Applicant from registering Applicant’s Mark in Class

42 in view of Applicant’s prior and ongoing coexistence in use and on the register with the Cited

Marks in Class 9, the fact that neither of the Cited Marks is registered in Class 42, and the fact

that Applicant’s Class 42 goods are closely related to the goods in Applicant’s SNAPCHAT

Registration. Indeed, the Examining Attorney has not offered any explanation for allowing

- 4 -

Applicant’s Mark and the Cited Marks to register and coexist in Class 9 but not allowing the

Application for Applicant’s Mark to register in Class 9 and Class 42. Accordingly, the Cited

Marks represent no bar to registration for Applicant’s Mark in Class 9 or in Class 42.

2. Applicant’s Mark is a Famous House Brand, Which Obviates a Likelihood of Confusion in Classes 9, 38 and 42

Applicant is using its famous SNAPCHAT brand identifier in seeking to register

Applicant’s Mark. As used, SNAPCHAT performs the function of a house mark, appearing as the name of its famous mobile application, Applicant’s domain name (snapchat.com) as well as its corporate name (Snapchat, Inc.). This use as a house mark also powerfully overcomes any risk of confusion with the Cited Marks. The presence of a house mark can be sufficient to mitigate confusion. See In re Amco Int’l Ed. Servs., S.A.P.I. de C.V., Serial No. 85601701

(T.T.A.B. May 7, 2015) (finding that HARRY WINSTON BRILLIANT FUTURES not confusingly similar to BRIGHT IDEAS, BRILLIANT FUTURES, and concluding that

“[c]onsidering [the house mark’s] position as the initial element in Registrant’s mark, we agree that customers are likely to perceive it as the dominant source-indicating element in Registrant’s mark”); see also In re Deutsche Telekom AG, Serial No. 7842246 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2007)

(holding that T-MOBILE NEWS EXPRESS and NEWSEXPRESS were not confusingly similar, and finding that “although the word NEWSEXPRESS is the entirety of the commercial impression created by registrant’s mark, in applicant’s mark, the words ‘news express’ contribute less to the composite mark’s commercial impression than does the house mark T-Mobile.

Significantly, for our analysis, this term is the first portion of applicant’s composite mark”);

Knight Textile Corp. v. Jones Investment Co., 75 USPQ2d 1313 (T.T.A.B. 2005) (finding

NORTON MCNAUGHTON ESSENTIALS not confusingly similar to ESSENTIALS, and

- 5 -

concluding that “[i]n terms of overall commercial impression, we find that although the word

ESSENTIALS is the entirety of the commercial impression created by opposer’s mark, in applicant’s mark it contributes relatively less to the mark’s commercial impression than does the house mark NORTON MCNAUGHTON”). Similarly here, the well-known and distinctive house mark SNAPCHAT is the subject of the Application. Accordingly, consumers encountering Applicant’s Mark will take note of the famous, unitary house mark and utilize it to identify the source of the services offered under the Application.

As a result, there is no likelihood of confusion with any of the Cited Marks and the refusal to register under Section 2(d) in Classes 9, 38 and 42 and should be withdrawn.

3. Applicant Lacks Intent to Trade Off the Goodwill of the Cited Marks’ Registrants

Relevant case law indicates that “courts regularly include intent as one of the factors to be assessed in evaluating likelihood of confusion.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR

COMPETITION § 22 rptr. note to cmt. b, at 246 (1995). In this instance, Applicant had no intent to trade upon anyone’s reputation by applying to register Applicant’s Mark, including the reputations of the owners of the Cited Marks. Thus, this factor also supports registration of

Applicant’s Mark. Omaha Nat’l Bank v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 633 F. Supp. 231, 234, 229

U.S.P.Q. 51, 52 (D. Neb. 1986).

B. After Consideration of all Relevant Factors, Confusion is Unlikely

When determining whether Applicant’s Mark creates a likelihood of confusion with a mark covered by a cited registration or application, “[a] showing of mere possibility of confusion is not enough; a substantial likelihood that the public will be confused must be shown.” Omaha

Nat’l Bank v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 229 U.S.P.Q. 51, 52 (D. Neb. 1986) (emphasis added).

Applicant submits that the factors set forth in Du Pont for which there is record evidence support

- 6 -

registration of Applicant’s Mark and do not raise a substantial likelihood of confusion with the

Cited Marks. Under these circumstances, the Application should be approved for publication.

II. ADVISORY REGARDING PRIOR PENDING APPLICATION

The Office Action noted that U.S. Application Serial No. 86/439,703 for the mark SNAP in Class 38 (the “Prior Application”) was filed earlier than the Application. The Examining

Attorney asserted that, “[i]f the mark referenced in the application registers, applicant’s mark may be refused registration . . . because of a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.”

(Office Action at 4.) On October 1, 2015, the USPTO mailed a notice of abandonment for failure to respond to an Office Action in connection with the Prior Application. As of the date of this response, the records publicly available via TSDR show no petition to revive the Prior

Application has been filed. Since more than two months have elapsed since the mailing date of the notice of abandonment, the abandonment of the Prior Application is now final. Accordingly, the advisory should be withdrawn as moot.

III. AMENDMENT TO THE RECITATION OF SERVICES

In response to the Office Action, Applicant hereby requests that the recitation of services in the Application be amended as shown below (additions in bold):

Class 9: Software for modifying the appearance and enabling transmission of photographs and videos; software for use in taking and editing photographs and recording and editing videos; software to enable the transmission of photographs and videos to mobile telephones; software for the collection, editing, organizing, modifying, transmission, storage and sharing of data and information; computer software for use as an application programming interface (API); software to enable uploading, downloading, accessing, posting, displaying, tagging, streaming, linking, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or information via computer and communication networks; software for streaming audio-visual media content via a global computer network and to mobile and digital electronic devices; computer software which allows users to build and access social network information including address book, friend lists, profiles, preferences and personal data; software for managing contact information in mobile device address books; electronic database in the field of entertainment recorded on computer media; online databases in the field of entertainment.

- 7 -

Class 38: Telecommunications services, namely, electronic transmission of data, messages, graphics, animations, images, videos, multimedia content, and information in the field of entertainment; peer-to-peer photo sharing services, namely, electronic transmission of digital photo, video, and multimedia files; providing access to computer, electronic and online databases; broadcasting services over computer or other communication networks, namely, uploading, posting, displaying, tagging, and electronically transmitting data, information, messages, graphics, animations, videos, multimedia content, and images; telecommunication services, namely, electronic transmission of data, photos, music and videos; broadcasting and streaming of audio-visual media content; transmission of downloadable audio-visual media content.

Class 41: Publishing services, namely, publishing of electronic publications for others; creation, development, production and distribution of entertainment content, namely, multimedia content, animations, video footage, text, still images, videos, and ongoing series featuring comedy, drama, musical entertainment, sports, health and wellness, and news broadcast online or distributed to mobile electronic devices; providing online audio-visual entertainment information via a global computer network; providing information via a global computer network in the field of entertainment.

Class 42: Hosting of digital content on the internet; providing information from searchable indexes and databases of information, including text, electronic documents, databases, graphics, photographic images and audio visual information, by means of computer and communication networks; computer services, namely, creating virtual communities for registered users to participate in discussions and engage in social, business and community networking; application service provider (ASP) featuring software to enable or facilitate the uploading, downloading, streaming, posting, displaying, linking, sharing or otherwise providing electronic media or information over communication networks.

Class 45: Global computer network-based social introduction and networking; providing computer databases via a global computer network in the fields of social networking and social introduction; providing information and advice in the field of providing secure electronic communication.

Applicant does not believe that a field of services is required in Class 42 for computer services, namely, creating virtual communities for registered users to participate in discussions and engage in social, business and community networking, because the USPTO has frequently and very recently permitted registration of such language without a field of services limitation, including in Registration No. 4843496 issued on November 3, 2015, Registration No. 4759151 issued on June 23, 2015, Registration No. 4853743 issued on November 17, 2015, Registration

No. 4852293 issued on November 10, 2015, Registration No. 4834696 issued on October 20,

- 8 -

2015, and Registration No. 4802294 issued on September 2, 2015, to name just a few. See

Exhibit B for printouts of the TSDR records for each of these registrations. Accordingly,

Applicant believes it should receive equal treatment and the objection be withdrawn.

IV. CONCLUSION

Having addressed all of the issues raised by the Examining Attorney, Applicant respectfully requests that the objections raised in the Office Action be withdrawn and that the

Applicant’s Application be approved for publication in due course.

- 9 -