Opinion ID: 181828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Findings

Text: The TTAB found that Wisconsin's software involve[s] using individual workstations in a network to better utilize idle computing resources, while Phoenix's software functions on a mainframe system and ... provides online programming development, library management and systems development. Phoenix Software Int'l, Cancellation No. 92042881, at 10. Before the TTAB was testimony from Wisconsin's mainframe coordinator that an organization that did not have a mainframe or is not involved in developing software application[s] for mainframe computers would have no use for Phoenix's software and testimony from Wisconsin's software creator that established that its software was not used on mainframe computers. ([N]one of the [Wisconsin] Condor users that came back to us and asked any question told us that it's installed on a mainframe.) But Phoenix presented evidence that its software, at least, was usable beyond the mainframe environment. Its sole shareholder, Fred Hoschett, testified in a deposition that effectively we can run our software, unchanged, unaltered on a workstation, on someone's desktop, as if it were on a mainframe and that the software often operates on a network of workstations, which he defined as a LAN, WAN or some other network that allows the interconnection of these workstations. (LAN is an acronym for Local Area Network; WAN is an acronym for Wide Area Network.) He also testified that he has many customers that use Condor that do not have mainframes. In his deposition, Hoschett also read Wisconsin's description of its software from the University's web site: Condor is a specialized workload management system for computer-intensive jobs. Like other full-featured batch systems, Condor provides a job queuing mechanism, scheduling policy, priority scheme, resource monitoring, and resource management. Users submit their serial and parallel jobs to Condor. Condor places them into a queue, chooses when and where to run the jobs based upon a policy, carefully monitors their progress, and ultimately informs the user upon completion. Hoschett testified that this language very much concerned him because when he first read Wisconsin's description of its software he initially thought it was describing his product. Before the TTAB, Phoenix described its software as a toolbox of functionality to be used essentially by anyone who uses a computer to assist them in doing their jobs, whether it be programming software, submitted batch jobs and queuing batch jobs, or managing the environment or managing the resources. Based on this evidence, the TTAB found that there was at least some evidence in the record that the parties' respective software performs the same general functions and the evidence does not demonstrate the goods are used in distinctly different fields, and that there is no clear division between the parties' software that would cause us to conclude that these products are not related. The biggest difference between the products the TTAB found was that Phoenix's software was used in a mainframe environment while [Wisconsin's] goods are used in a network of individual computer workstations. That distinction was not necessarily significant, because as one of Wisconsin's witnesses conceded, there might be some incentive to operate in both environments. The TTAB further found that both programs were downloadable and nothing in Phoenix's registration indicated otherwise, that consumers of either program were not ordinary consumers and had some level of skill and sophistication to the extent that they are programming mainframe computers or networking computer workstations to increase computational resources, and that their purchases would be made with some care. (The TTAB classified consumers of both programs as purchasers, even though Wisconsin distributes its software under an open source, free license. This difference is irrelevant to our analysis.) The TTAB also found that there was no evidence that any consumer was actually confused as to the source of either product despite evidence that Phoenix offered to support its claim to the contrary (including Internet searches for Condor Software that returned results for both products and a Wikipedia entry for Wisconsin's product, with no entry for Phoenix's). The TTAB found that both parties' marketing practices were relatively limited. A Wisconsin witness testified that [w]e don't do any advertising with Condor and Phoenix's controller estimated that Phoenix spent approximately $65,000 in marketing, focused on attending trade shows and printing brochures and other marketing materials. But Wisconsin told the TTAB that it was expanding its operations, which the TTAB found made the chances of confusion more likely. Based on these factual findings and inferences drawn therefrom, and applying relevant law, the TTAB found that Phoenix had met its burden of proving the likelihood of confusion and granted Phoenix's petition to cancel Wisconsin's registration of the CONDOR mark. It noted that the marks are identical in every aspect and that both products perform similar functions. The TTAB concluded that we cannot find that they are used in unrelated fields and that [e]ven sophisticated purchasers would likely believe that there is some relationship or association between the sources of the goods under these circumstances.
At the district court, Phoenix attempted to further supplement the record with evidence that bolstered its case that the Condor software products performed overlapping functions. Wisconsin, according to Phoenix's sole shareholder Fred Hoschett, had struck deals with IBM to make Wisconsin's version of Condor available on PC-based mainframes. Hoschett also provided a list of customers operating Phoenix's version of Condor on PC-based mainframes. But the district court rejected the proffered evidence on the grounds that it was filed with Phoenix's reply brief instead of in its initial proposed findings of fact, in violation of a local rule. Phoenix does not argue that it did, in fact, comply with the local rule. Based on the evidence it did consider, the district court found that it was undisputed that Phoenix's software cannot run on a network of workstations that are not connected to a mainframe system, but that the software may be run on non-mainframe computers through the use of emulation software. The court found that the Phoenix software allows its users to submit batch jobs to local and remote computers through a network of computers to more effectively utilize and balance the available computing cycles, that Phoenix had 100 or fewer active licensees of its software, but that licenses cost anywhere from $30,000 to $300,000 a year (so that 100 licenses can be very profitable), and that Phoenix advertises at trade shows, on the Internet, and through brochures. Phoenix's customers, the court found, must be specialized because mainframe computer systems are generally expensive computing systems that are extremely reliable and secure and capable of enormous throughput, they are centrally managed and maintained, and a choice of software for use on a mainframe requires careful consideration. In other words, customers don't buy mainframe software on a lark. The end-users of software like Phoenix's are mainframe systems administrators and mainframe systems application developers. The community of mainframe administrators and developers is a tight-knit one (in the words of the district court, a niche) that learns about products through word-of-mouth advertising, mainframe trade shows and conferences, and the advice of consulting firms. Phoenix spent approximately $65,000 on marketing in 2000; that number was virtually unchanged in 2003. Phoenix's competitors are IBM and Computer Associates. As for distribution and customer overlap, the district court found that Wisconsin distributes its software under an open software license and links together a network of individually owned computer resources to create a system wherein those computers trade operating capacities. The court determined that Wisconsin's software does not run in mainframe environments, but did not resolve whether a mainframe could be part of the grid on which Wisconsin's software operates. The court found that users of Wisconsin's software are generally systems operators of scientific research groups, but since the software is free and available for download others may use it. Because of this, the court found that users of Wisconsin's software are tough to identify; Wisconsin's estimates place the total number of users in the tens of thousands. They generally must have a systems-level understanding of computers in order to make Wisconsin's Condor program work. Users include the high energy physics community, the DOE [Department of Energy] National labs, biology and computer science departments, and industrial groups. According to the district court, 3738 copies of Wisconsin's software were downloaded in 2000; by 2004, the number of downloads grew to 15,155, an increase of more than 400 percent. A promotional program offered by the University of Wisconsin, Condor Week, showed similar growth from a one-day event attracting twenty participants (presumably it was then called Condor Day) to a four-day event with more than 150 participants.