Hi YetiLIVES,
Here's the thing that was sent to POET in the first NON-FINAL action:
"In the present case, the attached evidence shows that applicant’s mark POET is an acronym for the wording “planar opto electronic technology.” The evidence additionally shows that the wording “planar opto electronic technology” refers to the process of integrating optics and electronics on a single semiconductor chip, which results in both optical and electronic elements all on a single semiconductor wafer. For example, the screenshots of the presentation slides presented by the Techcet Group LLC entitled “CMP Consumables 2014 Market Update” provides that POET means “planar opti-electronic technology” and is a type of alternative technology. Therefore, in connection with applicant’s consulting and licensing services, the wording “planar opto electronic technology” merely describes that applicant’s consulting services are in the field of the process for integrating optics and electronics on a single semiconductor chip and that applicant’s licensing services feature the licensing of semiconductor chips which integrate both optical and electronic elements all on a single semiconductor wafer. Lastly, a relevant consumer viewing applicant’s mark in connection with the identified services would recognize it as the equivalent of the descriptive wording it represents because the wording is commonly used in the field of semiconductor technology, which is the field of applicant’s services. Applicant is finally referred to the attached screenshots of the EET Asia website, which provides an article about applicant and indicates that the wording POET in applicant’s name is derived from “planar opto-electronic technology” and that the company’s name describes its own process, which uses gallium arsenide (GaAs) to build electrical, optical, and electro-optical integrated circuits, thus supporting that the applied-for mark is descriptive."
