Booking.com B.V.Download PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardNov 16, 2017No. 79122365 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2017) Copy Citation THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: November 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ In re Booking.com B.V. _____ Serial No. 79122365 Serial No. 79122366 _____ ORDER OF REMAND _____ Jonathan E. Moskin and Katherine Califa of Foley & Lardner LLP for Booking.com B.V. Caitlin Watts-Fitzgerald, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111 (Robert L. Lorenzo, Managing Attorney). _____ Before Shaw, Adlin and Masiello, Administrative Trademark Judges. By the Board: Booking.com B.V. (“Applicant”) filed two applications for extension of protection to the United States of two International Registrations for the marks shown below: U.S. Serial No. 79122365: Serial Nos. 79122365 and 79122366 2 U.S. Serial No. 79122366: The services identified in the two applications are the same and are in Class 43. In each case, the Examining Attorney refused the requested extension of protection on the ground that the mark is generic as applied to the services; and on the alternative ground that the mark is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services, under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), and that Applicant’s showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), was insufficient. In each case, we affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal on both grounds. (25 TTABVUE). Applicant sought review of our decision under Trademark Act § 21(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b), by way of a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Booking.com B.V. v. Matal, No. 1:16-cv-425. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court issued a decision holding that the word mark BOOKING.COM is a descriptive mark eligible for registration upon a showing of secondary meaning, and that Applicant had “carried its burden of demonstrating the mark’s secondary meaning as to the hotel reservation services described in Class 43 ….”1 In its Amended Judgment Order, the Court remanded both applications to the USPTO for further administrative proceedings “to determine whether the design 1 Booking.com B.V. v. Matal, No. 1:16-cv-425, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126320 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2017). Serial Nos. 79122365 and 79122366 3 and color elements in those two applications, in combination with the protectable word mark, are eligible for protection as to the Class 43 services.”2 The applications are REMANDED to the Examining Attorney to determine, in light of the Court’s finding that the wording BOOKING.COM is registrable under Section 2(f), whether the two marks as a whole are registrable.3 Further action by the Examining Attorney should be consistent with the Court’s judgment and in accordance with USPTO procedures. 2 Booking.com B.V. v. Matal, No. 1:16-cv-425 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2017) (ECF No. 112) (amended order) at 1. 3 Normally, the Board would wait to act on a court order in a § 21(b) civil action until after the period to appeal the district court’s judgment expires or, if an appeal is taken, until after the appeal and any remands are decided. However, the amended judgment Memorandum Opinion makes clear that the Office may not suspend proceedings here unless and until a notice of appeal is filed. Booking.com B.V. v. Matal, No. 1:16-cv-425 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2017) (ECF No. 110) (mem. op.). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation