Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1960 (Rev 10/2011) OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020) Request for Reconsideration after Final Action The table below presents the data as entered. Input Field Entered SERIAL NUMBER 87269766 LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED LAW OFFICE 123 MARK SECTION MARK https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/img/87269766/large LITERAL ELEMENT LOGIDRIVE STANDARD CHARACTERS YES USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES MARK STATEMENT The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size or color. ARGUMENT(S) This is in response to the Office Action dated October 13, 2017. In the Office Action, registration of Applicant’s mark was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d). Applicant herein responds to this refusal. Registration of Applicant’s mark has been refused under Trademark Act Section 2(d) based on an alleged likelihood of confusion between Applicant’s mark and the mark in U.S. Registration No. 4,566,058. In any likelihood of confusion determination, a key consideration is the similarity of the marks. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016); see TMEP §1207.01. In determining the similarity of the marks, the marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). In this case, the registered mark is a design mark that includes the term “logi cdrive.” Applicant is seeking registration for its LOGIDRIVE word mark. In making the refusal, the current Office Action continues to treat the deletion of the letter “C” from Applicant’s mark as being an insignificant change. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The deletion of the letter “C” from Applicant’s mark in this case makes a huge and significant difference in terms of the sight, sound, connotation, and commercial impression between the two marks at issue here. A. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks in Terms of Meaning and Connotation As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the current Office Action continues to state that the term “logic” can be shortened to ‘logi” or alternatively that the term “logi” invokes the word “logic.” In support of this proposition, the current Office Action includes, as evidence, several Internet web pages in addition to the Internet web pages that were attached to the previous Office Action in this application. These Internet web pages, however, do not support the contention that the term “logic” can be shortened to “logi” or alternatively that the term “logi” invokes the word “logic.” The “Gizmodo” and “Catchword” Internet web pages attached to the most recent Office Action each include a third party discussion of Logitech’s decision to change its name from “Logitech” to “Logi.” It should be noted that each of these web pages contain commentary from third parties who are completely unaffiliated with Logitech, and who are completely uninformed about the history of Logitech. The “Gizmodo” web page, for example, in commenting on the name change, states the following: “Logi isn’t a word. It’s not quite “logic,” which was of course the reference in the original name.” The “Catchword” web page similarly states the following in commenting on the name change: “Originally Logitech came from a portmanteau of logic and technology, a name that hearkens back to the days of the company’s founding in 1981.” The problem with each of these statements is that they are wrong. The “logi” portion of Logitech’s name was not derived from the word “logic” and Logitech’s name was not formed from a combination of the words “logic” and “technology.” To the contrary, as evidenced by Logitech’s own history obtained from its company Internet web site at https://www.logitech.com/lang/pdf/logitech_history_200703.pdf and included in Exhibit A attached hereto, the history and origin of Logitech’s name is as follows: “Originally, it was to be named Softech because of the software background of the three founders. Since this name was already registered, the founders chose Logitech, using the root of the French word for software: “logiciel.” As can be seen from this evidence, the term “logi” in Logitech’s name was not derived from the word “logic,” but rather was derived from the French word for software, namely, “logiciel.” With respect to the “Continental Girbau” Internet web page provided as evidence with the most recent Office Action, the word “logic” is only used on this web page as an abbreviation for the term “Logi Control.” Nothing on this web page suggests that the term “logi” is a shortened version of “logic,” or that use of the term “logi” invokes the term “logic,” or that the term “logi” is used in a definitional sense in connection with, or to describe, any of the products discussed on this web page, or that the LOGI marks discussed on this web page are in any way descriptive of the products on which they are allegedly used. With respect to the “Constellation Research” Internet web page also provided as evidence with the most recent Office Action, this page simply states that the “Logi DataHub product is designed to give data professionals as well as analyst types a logical data view for self-service data prep, data access and data enrichment.” This one happenstance occurrence represents the only use of the word “logical” (or any form of the word “logic” for that matter) on the entire web page. This single usage appears to be nothing more than a random arbitrary reference by a third party reviewer of the “Logi DataHub” product. It does not in and of itself demonstrate that the term “logi” is a shortened version of the word “logic,” or that use of the term “logi” invokes the term “logic,” or that the term “logi” is used in a definitional sense in connection with, or to describe, any of the products discussed on this web page, or that the LOGI DATAHUB mark discussed on this web page is in any way descriptive of the product on which it is allegedly used. In fact, as it turns out, LogiAnalytics, the provider of the Logi DataHub product, does not, even use the term “logic” to describe its Logi DataHub product. As evidence to support this, Applicant is submitting herewith, as Exhibit B, the product datasheet web page for the Logi DataHub product from LogiAnalytics’ own web site. This web page can be obtained on the Internet at https://www.logianalytics.com/datasheet/datahub/. A can be seen, nowhere on this data sheet does LogiAnalytics use the term “logic” in connection with, or to describe, its Logi DataHub product. We now turn to a quick review of the evidence provided with the previous Office Action in this application. The “Brain Food” web page attached to the previous Office Action only shows use of the term “logi” as part of the trademark LOGI- NUMBER. Nothing on this web page states or indicates that the term “logi” is a shortened version of the word “logic,” or that use of the term “logi” invokes the term “logic,” nor does anything on this web page show or suggest use of the term “logi” in a descriptive or definitional sense, or that the LOGI-NUMBER mark is in any way descriptive of the puzzles on which it is allegedly used. The ValentF(x) web page attached to the previous Office Action also only shows use of the term “logi” as part of a trademark, namely, the mark LOGI FPGA. Again, nothing on this web page states or indicates that the term “logi” is a shortened version of the word “logic,” or that use of the term “logi” invokes the term “logic,” nor does anything on this web page show or suggest use of the term “logi” in a descriptive or definitional sense, or that the mark LOGI FPGA is descriptive in any way. It should also be noted that to the extent that this web page does use the term “logic,” it does so only in the context of describing a single unrelated third party usage application for ValentF(x)’s LOGI FPGA product that just happens by chance in this case to be a “logic analyzer.” As it turns out, ValentF(x), the manufacturer of the LOGI FPGA product, does not itself use the term ‘logic” in connection with, or to describe, its LOGI FPGA product or its other “LOGI” branded products for that matter. As evidence to support this, Applicant is submitting herewith, as Exhibit C, numerous product web pages from ValentF(x)’s web site. These web pages can be obtained at the following Internet addresses: (1) The web page entitled “LOGI FPGA Development Boards” is located at http://valentfx.com/fpga-logi-family/. (2) The web page entitled “LOGI Pi FPGA Development Board for the Raspberry Pi” is located at http://valentfx.com/logi-pi/. (3) The web page entitled “LOGI Bone – FPGA Development Board Cape for the BeagleBone” is located at http://valentfx.com/logi-bone/. (4) The web page entitled “LOGI EDU Package for the LOGI Pi - FPGA HDL Educational Pathway” is located at http://valentfx.com/logi-edu/. (5) The web page entitled “LOGI Camera Package - Machine Vision with the LOGI Boards” is located at http://valentfx.com/logi-cam/. None of these Internet web pages use the term “logic” in connection with, or to describe, ValentF(x)’s LOGI FPGA product or any of its other “LOGI” branded products.