Douglas E. White, Esq.
Attorney Docket No. 726501

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In re Trademark Appn. of:
Thumper Exploration, L.P. Examining Attorney: Brian Pino, Esq.
Law Office: 114
Serial No. 76710334
Filed: January 23, 2012

For:
PG I RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION

14 Camino Sobrante
Orinda, CA 94563
November 5, 2012
Commissioner for Trademarks
5 P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
To the Examining Attorney:
The following is submitted in response to the Office Action dated May 8, 2012.
Please amend the subject application as follows:
10 Please amend the standard character claim to read
——The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style,
size, or color——.
Please insert amend the identification of Applicant and Applicant’s entity type to read:
——Applicant, Thumper Exploration, L.P., is a Texas limited partnership whose sole
15 general partner is W. Walker Foundation, L.P., a Texas family limited partnership whose general
partner is The Madison Foundation, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company. Applicant has a
post office business address at 11767 Katy Freeway, Suite 410, Houston, TX 77079.——.
Please amend the identification of goods to read:
—— Exposed photographic film, cassette tapes, CDs and DVDs, all containing sono-
20 graphic images for use in oil and gas exploration in International Class 009.——.
REMARKS
Amendment to the identification of the goods of Applicant is entered herewith in accor-
dance with the Examining Attorney’s helpful and accurate suggestion to correct a spelling error.

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION Page 1
Insofar as the amended identification falls entirely within the number of classes for which fees
were originally paid, no additional fee is required.
———
Clarification of the entity type of Applicant is added above, as properly required.
5 ———
The standard character claim has been amended according to the kind suggestion of the
Examining Attorney.
———
Responses to the Examining Attorney’s requests for information are supplied, as follows:
10 Does PGI have any significance as applied to the goods and/or services other than trade-
mark and/or service mark significance? Answer: no.
Does PGI have any significance in the relevant trade or industry other than trademark
and/or service mark significance? Answer: no.
If PGI is an acronym, the applicant will define the acronym PGI for the record. Answer:
15 Professional Geophysics, Inc., a predecessor in interest of Applicant.
Would a customer of the applicant’s products be involved in the extraction of hydrocar-
bon industry? Answer: yes.
Does the applicant manufacture or offer any of the goods and/or services that appear in
the registrant’s identification of goods and/or services? Answer: no.
20 If available, the applicant will provide a website address at which the goods and/or ser-
vices are offered and/or the mark is used. Answer: www.baileyseismic.com.
———
Registration of Applicant’s mark PGI in International Class 9 has been refused under
§2(d) of the Trademark Act. The Examining Attorney initially has maintained that the mark may
25 be confusingly similar to the mark PGI, Ser. No. 77685740, Reg. No. 3809103, for: Services in
the field of efficient extraction of hydrocarbon resources, namely, providing consulting services
to others in the nature of compiling and analyzing critical information covering oil and gas reser-
voirs, namely, formation properties, geologic attributes, production histories, well design details
and production facilities formation, and utilizing reservoir management metrics, analytical tools,
30 and knowledge management instruments to guide the diagnostic and implementation phases of
optimizing the efficient extraction of hydrocarbon resources from reservoirs of others in Interna-
tional Class 042.

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION Page 2
The Applicant and the owner of the cited registration are in agreement that confusion is
unlikely, given their independent consideration of the facts surrounding the use of their respec-
tive marks—most importantly, the fact that their respective goods and services differ inherently,
as do their channels of trade. Such differences make confusion and the like unlikely. Further-
5 more, neither company has ever recorded any instances of actual confusion in the years that the
two marks have been in use together.
Accordingly, Applicant is pleased to present for entry into the record the enclosed Con-
sent and Coexistence Agreement between Applicant and the Registrant of the cited registration
(referred to as Application No. 77685740 in the attached) wherein the parties mutually consent to
10 the use and registration of both marks. As held in In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d
1357, 1363, 177 USPQ 563, 568 (CCPA 1973):
[W]hen those most familiar with use in the marketplace and most inter-
ested in precluding confusion enter agreements designed to avoid it, the scales of
evidence are clearly tilted. It is at least difficult to maintain a subjective view that
15 confusion will occur when those directly concerned say it won’t. A mere assump-
tion that confusion is likely will rarely prevail against uncontroverted evidence
from those on the firing line that it is not.
In addition to the factors listed above, the parties agreed to provisions limiting their scope
of usage of their respective marks, to undertake reasonable measures to safeguard against confu-
20 sion and, in the event either party discovers instances of actual confusion, to cooperate in the
elimination thereof.
The Applicant and the Registrant have entered into a credible and reasoned consent
agreement and, on balance, all other factors do not dictate a finding of likelihood of confusion, as
discussed above. T.M.E.P. §1207.01(d)(viii).
25 Accordingly, the rejection under Section 2(d) is respectfully traversed. For the reasons
listed above, the Applicant requests the reconsideration and reversal of this rejection.

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION Page 3
———
The application now appears to be in condition for publication. Action to that end is re-
spectfully requested. The Examining Attorney is authorized to call Applicant’s undersigned at-
torney collect at (925) 258-8000 if, in the opinion of the Examining Attorney, a telephone con-
5 ference would in any way expedite the prosecution of this application.
Respectfully submitted,

/ /
Douglas E. White
Reg. No. 30,435
10 Attorney of Record for Applicant
Member of the California Bar
DEWtgf
Enclosure
Phone: (925) 258-8000
15 Fax: (925) 258-8080

RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION Page 4