Allegis Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

No. 85802125 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: November 24, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Allegis Group, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 85802125
_____

Sherry Flax of Saul Ewing LLP for Allegis Group, Inc.

Bridgett G. Smith, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
John Lincoski, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wellington, Lykos, and Hightower
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Allegis Group, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP ORGANIZATION for:
Employment agency services, namely, filling the temporary and permanent
staffing needs of businesses; Employment hiring, recruiting, placement, staffing
and career networking services; Human capital management outsourcing
services; Outsourcing in the field of temporary and permanent employment
staffing; Outsourcing services (in International Class 35).1

Applicant has disclaimed exclusive use of the term ORGANIZATION.

1 Application Serial No. 85802125 was filed on December 13, 2012, based on a bona fide
intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1051(b).
Serial No. 85802125
- 2 -

The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that
applicant's proposed mark, when used in connection with the recited services, is
merely descriptive thereof.
Applicant filed a request for reconsideration which was denied by the Examining
Attorney. Applicant then appealed and briefs have been filed by Applicant and the
Examining Attorney.
Based upon the record and the arguments made, we affirm the refusal.
Mere Descriptiveness
A mark is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or services, within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the goods or
services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, 675 F.3d
1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d
960, 82 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and In re Abcor Development, 588 F.2d 811,
200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A mark need not immediately convey an idea
of each and every specific feature of the applicant's goods or services in order to be
considered merely descriptive; rather, it is sufficient that the mark describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or services. In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); and In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338
(TTAB 1973).
Serial No. 85802125
- 3 -

Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined not in the abstract, but in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in
which it is being used on or in connection with the goods or services, and the
possible significance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the
goods or services because of the manner of its use. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204
USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). “The question is not whether someone presented with
only the mark could guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is
whether someone who knows what the goods or services are will understand the
mark to convey information about them.” In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314,
1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
Based on the record, we agree with the Examining Attorney that the applied-for
mark comprises terms that are merely descriptive of the services described in the
application and that the composite of these terms does not create an incongruous or
non-descriptive meaning in relation to the services. See, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech
Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (SNAP SIMPLY SAFER merely descriptive for medical devices); and In re
Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (PATENTS.COM
merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database of records that
could include patents for tracking the status of the records by means of the
Internet). More specifically, RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP ORGANIZATION
merely informs consumers that Applicant is “an organization that works in
partnership to provide recruitment services.” Brief at (unnumbered) p. 4.
Serial No. 85802125
- 4 -

In support of the refusal of registration, the Examining Attorney has made of
record the following dictionary definitions of terms comprising the mark under
consideration:
Recruitment: the act of getting recruits; enlisting people for the army (or for a
job or a cause, etc.);2

Partnership: A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized
by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified
goal: Neighborhood groups formed a partnership to fight crime.3

Organization: A group of persons organized for a particular purpose; an
association: a benevolent organization.4

The Examining Attorney has also submitted evidence demonstrating that the
wording “Recruitment Partnership” (or variations of these two terms) is used to
describe a relationship between two agencies or organizations to better assist
finding employees. For example:
5

2 From www.thefreedictionary.com, attached to Office Action dated October 18, 2013.
Definition taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.
updated 2009).
3 Id.
4 Id. Attached to Office Action dated March 6, 2013.
Serial No. 85802125
- 5 -

6
7
8
Indeed, as highlighted in the Examining Attorney’s brief, Applicant submitted a
“specimen” with its application containing the following description of its services:
AGS RPO [Applicant] will assign a dedicated team of recruitment experts to
support hiring requirements. The RPO team will act in partnership with HR
[presumably “human resources”] to adhere to [ ] regulatory requirements. The
goal of the RPO team will be to fully support the hiring community and human
resources in order to establish and meet hiring goals.

In this case, the evidence of record clearly establishes that Applicant's proposed
mark, comprised of the descriptive terms RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP
ORGANIZATION, merely describes a feature or characteristic of the recited
services in the application. Specifically, the mark immediately informs clients that
Applicant will work in partnership with them (or a human resources department) in

5 Attached to Office Action dated March 6, 2013.
6 Id.
7 Attached to Office Action dated October 18, 2013.
8 Id.
Serial No. 85802125
- 6 -

its employee recruitment efforts. Applicant’s argument that “the combination of the
terms is unique as used in connection with employment services” (Brief, p. 3), is
belied by the evidence. Clearly, others are using the wording “recruitment
partnership” in connection with employee recruitment services. At best, Applicant is
the first to add the generic term “organization” to the end of this wording. Even if
Applicant is the first or only user of RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP
ORGANIZATION in connection with employee recruitment services, it is well
settled that such does not entitle Applicant to the registration thereof where, as
here, the term has been shown to immediately convey only a merely descriptive
significance in the context of Applicant's services. See, e.g., In re National Shooting
Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018, 1020 (TTAB 1983); and In re Mark A.
Gould, M.D., 173 USPQ 243, 245 (TTAB 1972).
Decision: The descriptiveness refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is affirmed.