Classic Media, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2006

No. 78278235 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2006)

Mailed: 3/8/06

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Classic Media, Inc.
________

Serial No. 78278235
_______

Sonja Keith, Esq. for Classic Media, Inc.

Charles L. Jenkins, Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 105 (Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Quinn and Walters, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:

An application was filed by Classic Media, Inc. to
register the mark SATURDAY MORNING T.V. for “entertainment
in the nature of on-going television programs in the field
of comedy.”1
The trademark examining attorney refused registration
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.

1 Application Serial No. 78278235, filed July 24, 2003, based on
an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.
THIS DECISION IS CITABLE
AS PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Ser No. 78278235
2
§1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely
descriptive of the services.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney filed briefs. An oral
hearing was not requested.
Applicant argues that its mark
is intended for use on a compilation of
classic television programs which may
include such famous television shows as
“Mr. Magoo,” “Casper & Friends,” “The
Lone Ranger,” “Lassie,” “Sgt. Preston
of the Yukon,” and “Shari Lewis &
Friends” (Lambchop). Such product is
intended to appeal to the older viewer
and evoke the memory of a time during
the 1950’s and 1960’s when extensive
children’s programming appeared
exclusively on Saturday mornings. The
mark will not be used to describe goods
that are aired on television on
Saturday mornings. Instead, the mark
suggests the nostalgic nature of the
programming offered in the intended
product.

(Appeal Brief, unnumbered p. 2). Thus, applicant contends
the mark is not merely descriptive of the services.
The examining attorney maintains that the mark merely
describes entertainment services in the nature of
television programs that were once shown on Saturday
mornings. According to the examining attorney, “it has
become accepted in the television industry through the
years that classic comedy programs that were once shown on
Ser No. 78278235
3
Saturday morning whether they are cartoons or regular
television shows are referred to as ‘Saturday Morning
T.V.’” (Brief, unnumbered p. 3). The examining attorney
contends that, because the matter sought to be registered
has a specific meaning in television parlance, the matter
is merely descriptive of entertainment services featuring
television programs that have been broadcast on Saturday
mornings. In support of the refusal, the examining
attorney submitted numerous excerpts of articles retrieved
from the NEXIS database, as well as a dictionary listing
showing “TV” as an abbreviation for “television.” The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3d
ed. 1992).
Before turning to the merits of the refusal, an
evidentiary point requires our attention. Applicant, in
its brief, referred to two third-party registrations issued
on the Principal Register, asserting that these marks are
similar to applicant’s mark, and that, accordingly,
applicant’s mark should be allowed to register. The
examining attorney objected to this late submission.
Trademark Rule 2.142(d) provides that the record in an
application should be complete prior to the filing of an
appeal. Additional evidence filed after appeal normally
will be given no consideration. TBMP §1207.01 (2d ed. rev.
Ser No. 78278235
4
2004). Further, applicant merely referred to the
registrations in its brief; no copies of the registrations
were submitted and a mere listing is insufficient to make
such evidence of record. In re Dos Padres Inc., 49 USPQ2d
1860, 1861 n. 2 (TTAB 1998). Accordingly, the third-party
registrations were neither timely nor properly made of
record, and they have not been considered in our
determination of mere descriptiveness. We hasten to add
that the two third-party registrations, even if considered,
would not compel a different result in this case. In re
Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPq2d 1564, 1566
(Fed. Cir. 2001) [“Even if prior registrations had some
characteristics similar to [applicant’s] application, the
PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind
the Board or this court.”]; and In re Best Software Inc.,
58 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2001).
We now turn to the merits of the refusal. A term is
merely descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning
of Trademark Act 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. See, e.g., In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216,
3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re Abcor Development
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A
Ser No. 78278235
5
term 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; it is enough
that the term describes one significant attribute, function
or property of the goods or services. See In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); and In re
MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Whether a term 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 or is intended to be used on or in connection
with those goods or services, and the possible significance
that the term would have to the average purchaser of the
goods or services because of the manner of its use or
intended use. That a term may have other meanings in
different contexts is not controlling. In re Polo
International Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999); and In re
Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). It is
settled that:
....the question of whether a mark is
merely descriptive must be determined
not in the abstract, that is, not by
asking whether one can guess, from the
mark itself, considered in a vacuum,
what the goods or services are, but
rather in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is
sought, that is, by asking whether,
Ser No. 78278235
6
when the mark is seen on the goods or
services, it immediately conveys
information about their nature.

In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537,
1539 (TTAB 1998).
The examining attorney, in support of the refusal,
introduced several excerpts of articles retrieved from the
NEXIS database showing descriptive uses of the phrase
“Saturday morning television.”2 The excerpts fall within
two main categories. The first category pertains to
contemporary Saturday morning television programming. A
sample is shown below.
RECESS: SCHOOL’S OUT. It’s not
terrible, but this Saturday-morning-TV-
to-big-screen comedy seemed more like
“Ho-hum. Another 30-minute Cartoon
Expanded to 90 Minutes.”
(Deseret News, March 11, 2001)

Disney is even pulling Mickey Mouse,
Goofy and Donald Duck out of retirement
to create a series of “MouseWorks”
cartoons for Saturday morning
television and theaters.
(Fresno Bee, March 11, 1999)

Daniel is best known for his starring
role on the Saturday morning television
situation comedy, “City Guys.”
(Hartford Courant, February 23, 1998)

2 One of the printouts is taken from United Press International,
a wire service. There is nothing in the record to indicate that
this wire report was distributed; thus, it is entitled to only
minimal probative value in that we cannot judge the public’s
exposure to the use of the phrase in the wire report. See In re
Cell Therapeutics Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1795, 1798 (TTAB 2003).
Ser No. 78278235
7
...it’s pretty hopeless, either as
vaudeville nouveau, comedy, social
comment or even a Saturday morning TV
cartoon, which it half resembles.
(The San Francisco Chronicle, April 9,
1992)

The animation barely approaches the
level of contemporary Saturday morning
TV.
(Los Angles Times, December 16, 1991)

They watch it the way they watch
Saturday morning television.
(The Boston Globe, September 18, 1988)

Attempts to license toys based upon
electronic game characters or Saturday
morning television shows have met with
only limited success.
(Lancaster New Era, January 29, 2004)

Those of us who are not frequent
viewers of Saturday morning television
shows, and their accompanying
commercials, had some difficulty
recognizing the toys the children
wanted, such as Bob the Builder.
(Tri-Valley Herald, December 14, 2003)

A second group of the excerpts involves use of the
phrase “Saturday morning T.V.” (or television) in
connection with classic television shows dating back to the
1950s-1960s. A sample is shown below.
Baby boomers grew up watching “Little
Rascals” comedies on Saturday morning
television.
(Daily Oklahoman, April 15, 1994)

“I will forever cherish my Saturday
morning TV viewing.”
(The News-Press, September 13, 2004)

Ser No. 78278235
8
Will today’s tender youth ever know the
cheap thrill of a Saturday morning TV
series populated entirely by marionette
action figures, with the strings
clearly attached?
(The Pantagraph, July 29, 2004)

The folks at Rhino Home Video are
partnering with TV Land to bring H.R.
Pufnstuf, a mainstay of Saturday
morning television in the 1970s and
1980s...
(USA Today, February 3, 2004)

The exact lineup escapes me, but the
usual Saturday morning television fare
when I was growing up included “Sky
King,” Mighty Mouse,” “The Lone Ranger”
and “Fury.”
(Topeka Capital-Journal, January 25,
2004)

For a child of the ’50s, Saturday
morning television was a rite of
passage. A recitation of titles from
that era is enough to give a boomer
chills...
(Promo, January 1, 2004)

Based on the record before us, we find that the phrase
SATURDAY MORNING T.V., if used in connection with
applicant’s “entertainment in the nature of on-going
television programs in the field of comedy,” would be
merely descriptive thereof. Applicant states that it
intends to use the mark for a compilation of classic
programs that appeared on Saturday morning television,
specifically mentioning “Mr. Magoo,” “Casper & Friends,”
“The Lone Ranger,” “Lassie,” “Sgt. Preston of the Yukon,”
Ser No. 78278235
9
and “Shari Lewis & Friends.” The NEXIS evidence shows use
of “Saturday morning T.V.” (or television) to describe this
particular type or genre of television programming.
Although the phrase may evoke nostalgic feelings among baby
boomers who watched the shows as children, more importantly
the phrase immediately describes, without conjecture or
speculation, a significant characteristic of the services,
namely, that applicant’s on-going television programs
comprise shows of the type or genre that once appeared on
Saturday morning television.
We also note that applicant’s recitation
“entertainment in the nature of on-going television
programs in the field of comedy” is broad enough to
encompass contemporary television programming. The
evidence shows that the applied-for mark would be
descriptive of such services, also, in that it describes a
recognized type of television program, namely, television
programs shown on Saturday mornings.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.