Conservative Institute, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 8, 2019

87658084 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: October 8, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Conservative Institute, LLC
_____

Serial No. 87658084
_____

Richard Gora of Gora LLC
for Conservative Institute, LLC.
Steven W. Jackson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 107,
J. Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wellington, Kuczma, and Larkin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Conservative Institute, LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an application to register the
mark CONSERVATIVE INSTITUTE (in standard characters, with a disclaimer of
INSTITUTE) on the Principal Register for the following services:1
Providing on-line information in the field of politics via a global
communications network, in International Class 35;

Providing on-line information relating to entertainment via a global
communications network, International Class 41; and

1 Applications Serial No. 87658084 was filed on October 24, 2017, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on a claim of first use anywhere and in commerce
on July 30, 2014, for all three classes of services.
Serial No. 87658084
- 2 -

Providing on-line information in the field of religion via a global
communications network, in International Class 45.

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that the proposed mark is
merely descriptive of the identified services in each class.
Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration of the refusal. After the
Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal was resumed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs. We affirm the refusal to
register.
Merely descriptive terms are unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
A term is “merely descriptive” within the meaning of § 2(e)(1) “if it immediately
conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the goods or
services for which registration is sought.” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123
USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d
960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). A term “need not immediately convey
an idea of each and every specific feature of the goods [or services] in order to be
considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it describes one significant attribute,
function or property of the goods [or services].” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118
USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d
1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). The determination of whether a mark is merely
descriptive must be made in relation to the goods or services for which registration is
sought. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217,
Serial No. 87658084
- 3 -

1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978) (determination of mere descriptiveness must be made not in the abstract, but
in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the mark is used, and the impact that it is likely to make on the average
purchaser of such goods or services).
When each component word in a mark is descriptive of the services, we necessarily
need to decide whether their combination “‘conveys any distinctive source-identifying
impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.”’ Fat Boys, 118
USPQ2d at 1515-16 (quoting Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d
1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On the other hand, if each word “retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to the [services], the combination results in a
composite that is itself merely descriptive.” Id. at 1516 (citing In re Tower Tech., Inc.,
64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002)).
“‘Evidence of the public’s understanding of [a] term . . . may be obtained from any
competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listing in
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.’” Real Foods Pty
Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Royal Crown Co. v. The Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127 USPQ2d 1041,
1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These sources may include [w]ebsites, publications and use
‘in labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods [or services].’”
N.C. Lottery, 123 USPQ2d at 1710 (quoting Abcor Dev., 200 USPQ at 218).
Serial No. 87658084
- 4 -

With the initial Office Action, the Examining Attorney attached definitions of the
proposed mark’s composite terms:2
CONSERVATIVE
“1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. ... 4. a. Of
or belonging to the political philosophy of conservatism. b. Belonging to a
conservative party, group or movement.”
INSTITUTE
“1. An organization founded to promote a cause … 2. a. An educational
institution, especially one for the instruction of technical subjects.”

We agree with the Examining Attorney that the mark CONSERVATIVE
INSTITUTE is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services -- providing on-line
information via a global communications network in the fields of politics (Class 35),
entertainment (Class 41) and religion (Class 45). Specifically, the mark describes both
the source (an “institute” or organization),3 and the content (“conservative” or
traditional values) of the information being provided.
The Examining Attorney attached printouts from Applicant’s website
(www.conservativeinstitute.com) demonstrating the plain meaning of each term in
the proposed mark and the manner in which they combine to convey important
information about Applicant’s services, including the following excerpted images:4

2 Office Action issued on February 9, 2018, TSDR 10-15; printouts from THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE website (www.ahdictionary.com).
3 Applicant acknowledges that “the term ‘INSTITUTE’ may have an arguably descriptive
meaning when defined as ‘An organization founded to promote a cause,’” August 9, 2018
Response to Office Action at TSDR 7, and Applicant disclaimed the right to its exclusive use
in connection with the identified services.
4 Id., TSDR 2-9.
Serial No. 87658084
- 5 -

Serial No. 87658084
- 6 -

As Applicant itself states, it is an “organization” that prides itself on providing
“principled defenses of conservatism with daily content” on its website. In the context
of the services recited in the application, consumers will immediately understand the
proposed mark to convey information about the content of the services, namely, that
the on-line information provided via a global communications network in the fields of
politics, entertainment and religion will reflect conservative beliefs or a conservative
perspective as part of Applicant’s effort to “help people understand the conservative
narrative.” As Applicant puts it, it provides “news and analysis from a conservative
worldview.”
Serial No. 87658084
- 7 -

Applicant points to the existence of two other registrations with the term
CONSERVATIVE in the mark and argues that these “are probative evidence on the
issue that the term CONSERVATIVE does not count as a specific attribute in relation
to relevant services and does not further conservative ideologies.”5 However, in one
registration (Reg. No. 5327743, CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE), the term
CONSERVATIVE is disclaimed, while the other registration (Reg. No. 4607560,
CONSERVATIVE REVIEW), is on the Supplemental Register and thus is an
acknowledgement that said mark is not inherently distinctive. Quaker State Oil
Refining Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 453 F.2d 1296, 172 USPQ 361, 363 (CCPA 1972)
(“when appellant sought registration of SUPER BLEND on the Supplemental
Register, it admitted that the term was merely descriptive of its goods ... and
acknowledged that it did not have an exclusive right therein at the that time.”); Otter
Prods. LLC v. BaseOneLabs LLC, 105 USPQ2d 1252, 1255 (TTAB 2012) citing Perma
Ceram Enters. Inc. v. Preco Indus., Ltd., 23 USPQ2d 1134, 1137, n.11 (TTAB 1992)
(mark registered on the Supplemental Register constitutes an implied admission that
the term is descriptive, at least at the time of registration).
Applicant also argues that its mark “does not promote conservatism.”6 This
contention misses the point. The sole question here is whether the mark is merely
descriptive of the recited services. For the aforementioned reasons, we find the mark
clearly is.

5 7 TTABVUE 13
6 Id.
Serial No. 87658084
- 8 -

Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is affirmed.