Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2021

88396820 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

Mailed: March 29, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 88396820
_____

James David Johnson of Johnson & Martin, P.A. for Consolidated Credit
Counseling Services, Inc.
Tina Brown, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 118,
Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wolfson, Lynch, and Larkin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on
the Principal Register of the mark CONSOLIDATED CREDIT (in standard
characters) for
Providing financial information to others, namely,
information concerning how to budget, save, and plan for
college, having children, marriage, divorce, disasters,
medical emergencies, aging parents, retirement, and other
life events; providing financial retirement planning
information to others; providing financial saving and
investing advice to others; providing financial information
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 88396820

- 2 -
for service members in the military, namely, advice and
strategies for financial savings before, during, and after
deployment and information concerning affordable housing
options; providing financial information for veterans,
namely, information and advice concerning finding
benefits available to veterans, tax advice, and college
programs for veterans; housing counseling services,
namely, providing information relating to how to budget,
save, and plan for home ownership and real property
acquisition. in International Class 36; and
Housing counseling services, namely, homebuyer
education in the nature of classes, workshops, seminars,
training, and interactive online courses and materials for
use with the foregoing including videos, printed materials,
pamphlets, books, booklets, newsletters, and websites, all
of the foregoing related to finding a home to purchase and
making a purchase offer for a home, in International Class
41.1
The Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that CONSOLIDATED CREDIT
is merely descriptive of Applicant’s financial information services, housing
counseling, and homebuyer education services. After the Examining Attorney issued
a final descriptiveness refusal, Applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, which
was denied. The appeal then proceeded, and has been briefed. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm the refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law
A mark is “merely descriptive” within the meaning of Trademark Act
Section 2(e)(1) “if it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality,

1 Application Serial No. 88396820 was filed April 22, 2019, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s alleged use of the mark in
commerce since at least as early as July 31, 2007.
Serial No. 88396820

- 3 -
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
A.G., 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); In re Yarnell Ice Cream,
LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 265039, 5 (TTAB 2019). “A mark need not recite each feature of
the relevant goods or services in detail to be descriptive, it need only describe a single
feature or attribute.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102
USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation omitted). See
also In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope
and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress
Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Whether the proposed mark is merely descriptive is evaluated “in relation to the
particular goods [or services] for which registration is sought, the context in which it
is being used, and the possible significance that the term would have to the average
purchaser of the goods because of the manner of its use or intended use,” In re
Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at
1831), and “not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork.” In re Fat Boys Water
Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200
USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978)). Thus, we ask “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 and services are will understand the
mark to convey information about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.
Serial No. 88396820

- 4 -
Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation and
internal quotation omitted). That a term has different meanings in different contexts
is not controlling. In re Omniome, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 3222, *10 (TTAB 2020).
Our determination as to whether CONSOLIDATED CREDIT is merely
descriptive is based on an analysis of the proposed mark as a whole. DuoProSS
Meditech, 103 USPQ2d at 1756 (“When determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive, the Board must consider the commercial impression of a mark as a
whole.”). On the other hand, we may consider the significance of each element
separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole. DuoProSS Meditech, 103
USPQ2d at 1757 (noting that “[t]he Board to be sure, can ascertain the meaning and
weight of each of the components that makes up the mark.”). Because the mark
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT consists of two words, we may examine each word for its
significance, provided our final analysis is grounded on an evaluation of the mark as
a whole. If we find that each component “retains its merely descriptive significance
in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is
itself merely descriptive.” In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB
2012).
II. Evidence and Arguments
A. The Examining Attorney’s Evidence and Arguments
The Examining Attorney relies on the following Merriam-Webster Dictionary
definitions of the proposed mark’s constituent terms:
 CONSOLIDATED - “joined together in a coherent, compact or
unified whole”
Serial No. 88396820

- 5 -
 CREDIT - “the provision of money, goods, or services with the
expectation of future payment.”2
In addition, the Examining Attorney relies on excerpts from the Internet to show
that “consolidated credit” and “consolidated debt,” which is commonly used to
describe consolidated credit card debt, are interchangeable. For example:
 BadCredit.org posts an article stating that “credit consolidation
is also referred to as debt consolidation” and invites readers to
read the reviews of the “top credit consolidation firms” that are
listed in the article. It explains that both credit and debt
consolidation are “ways to describe the process of paying off
debts with a new debt.”3
 ConsumerCredit.com advises: “Consolidated credit, debt
consolidation, debt management . . . . Sometimes these terms
have different meanings, but other times they’re used
interchangeably.” The website continues: “Often consolidated
credit means getting a loan to pay off your bills. [People] use
these loans to consolidate credit card debt and other kinds of
bills so that they can make only one monthly payment. . . .
Consolidated credit and debt management work together when
you use a consolidated debt program that does not incur more
debt.”4
 CreditAssociates.com also uses “debt consolidation” and
“consolidated credit” interchangeably:5

2 At https://www.merriam-webster.com, attached to June 30, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 16-
18.
Citations to the briefs refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. See Turdin
v. Trilobite, Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014). Specifically, the number
preceding “TTABVUE” corresponds to the docket entry number, and any number(s) following
“TTABVUE” refer to the page number(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear.
Citations to the examination record refer to the entries in the USPTO Trademark Status and
Document Retrieval system (TSDR), by document, date and page number
3 At https://www.badcredit.org, attached to August 24, 2020 Denial of Request for
Reconsideration, TSDR 251-252, 254, and 261.
4 At https://www.consumercredit.com/consolidated-credit, Id., TSDR 266-67.
5 At https://www.creditassociates.com/what-is-debt-consolidation/, Id., TSDR 275 (emphasis
added).
Serial No. 88396820

- 6 -

The Examining Attorney further relies on two third-party uses of the phrase
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT. National Debt Relief uses the phrase to identify
companies that assist persons in coming up with a financial plan to settle and pay off
outstanding debts:6

6 At https://www.nationaldebtrelief.com/consolidated-credit/, Id., TSDR 268-69
(emphasis added by the Examining Attorney).
Serial No. 88396820

- 7 -

Discover.com employs the phrase to describe a new loan or transfer credit card that
one obtains in order to consolidate one’s bills (i.e., debt): 7

7 At https://www.discover.com/credit-cards/resources/how-to-consolidate-bills, Id., TSDR 279
(emphasis added by the Examining Attorney).
Serial No. 88396820

- 8 -

Further reliance is placed on Applicant’s website, wherein Applicant offers debt
consolidation services at its website, www.consolidatedcredit.org. For example,
Applicant provides financial information concerning how to budget, save, and plan
for college, how to save for retirement, and how to reduce debt payments for members
of the military.
For students, Applicant offers information regarding “consolidated debt” and
“consolidated credit card debt”: 8

For retirees: 9

8 August 24, 2020 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 17 (emphasis added).
9 Id., TSDR 28 (emphasis added by the Examining Attorney).
Serial No. 88396820

- 9 -

For service members and veterans: 10

10 Id., TSDR 47-50 (emphasis added by the Examining Attorney).
Serial No. 88396820

- 10 -

Applicant owns prior registrations for marks containing the term
“CONSOLIDATED CREDIT,” copies of which were attached to the January 21, 2020,
Office Action at TSDR 56-68. The Examining Attorney argues that the registrations
are strong evidence that the term is merely descriptive of Applicant’s financial
services in International Class 36. 29 TTABVUE 11. The marks are registered on the
Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f)
based on acquired distinctiveness, and “Consolidated Credit” is disclaimed in one of
the Principal Register registrations:
Serial No. 88396820

- 11 -
1. U.S. Reg. No. 3111610, CONSOLIDATED CREDIT
COUNSELING SERVICES (standard characters) for
“Consultation and financial counseling services in the field of
credit and debt management” in International Class 36.
Registered on the Principal Register 2(f) with a disclaimer of
“CREDIT COUNSELING SERVICES”;
2. U.S. Reg. No. 4310777, CONSOLIDATED CREDIT
SOLUTIONS (standard characters) for “Consultation and
financial counseling services in the field of credit and debt
management; debt counseling services; credit counseling
services; debt management services; housing counseling
services, namely, services related to home and mortgage-related
debt management; housing counseling services related to home
owners experiencing financial difficulties” in International
Class 36. Registered on the Supplemental Register;
3. U.S. Reg. No. 4872717, CONSOLIDATED CREDIT (stylized
and design) for “Consultation and financial counseling services
in the field of credit and debt management; debt counseling
services; credit counseling services; debt management services;
housing counseling services, namely, foreclosure prevention
counseling, mortgage payment assistance counseling, reverse
mortgage counseling, pre-purchase homebuyer counseling, and
counseling to others experiencing mortgage payment
difficulties” in International Class 36. Registered on the
Principal Register with a disclaimer of “CONSOLIDATED
CREDIT”; and
4. U.S. Reg. No. 4876684, CONSOLIDATED CREDIT (standard
characters) for “Consultation and financial counseling services
in the field of credit and debt management; debt counseling
services; credit counseling services; debt management services;
housing counseling services, namely, foreclosure prevention
counseling, mortgage payment assistance counseling, reverse
mortgage counseling, pre-purchase homebuyer counseling, and
counseling to others experiencing mortgage payment
difficulties” in International Class 36. Registered on the
Principal Register 2(f) with a disclaimer of “CREDIT.”
Based on this evidence, the Examining Attorney argues that each of the individual
terms in the proposed mark retains its dictionary meaning in the composite
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT, such that the entire phrase is nothing more than the
Serial No. 88396820

- 12 -
sum of its constituent parts. Specifically, the Examining Attorney argues that
consumers will immediately view CONSOLIDATED CREDIT as referring to “credit
or amounts of money that are joined together with the expectation of future
payment.” 29 TTABVUE 5. Continuing, she argues that “Applicant’s information and
education services all focus on the benefits of consolidating credit as a tool to improve
one’s personal financial situation” and that Applicant’s mark “immediately identifies
a financial tool the Applicant promotes as a solution to various credit and debt issues.”
Examining Attorney’s Brief, 29 TTABVUE 5, 9.
B. Applicant’s Evidence and Arguments
Applicant relies on copies of 34 third-party registrations to show that the Board
regularly finds marks that “did not describe the characteristic or nature of the goods
or services, but rather, suggested what goods and services were used in association
with the mark.” 27 TTABVUE 10-11. None of the marks are for financial or
counseling services except Reg. No. 0691815 for CITIBANK for “banking services”
and Reg. No. 4040057 for VERICHECK for “financial transaction verification
services.” The remainder are for unrelated goods or services, such as foodstuffs and
clothing.11
Applicant further relies on pages from its website offering “homebuyer education
and counseling” to assist potential homebuyers in “navigat[ing] through the home
buying process.” Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 61. The webpages include course

11 The registrations were filed with Applicant’s July 21, 2020 Request for Reconsideration,
TSDR 8-60. Reg. No. 0691815 for CITIBANK is at TSDR 24; Reg. No. 4040057 for
VERICHECK is at TSDR 17.
Serial No. 88396820

- 13 -
modules in topics such as “how to make an offer on a home,” “basic understanding of
mortgages,” and “avoiding predatory lending practices.” Id., TSDR 62-65. There is no
mention of consolidation of debt or credit in these pages.
Applicant agrees that the terms “debt consolidation” and “consolidated debt” are
terms that “have meaning in connection with certain financial services.” Reply Brief,
30 TTABVUE 3. However, Applicant argues that “credit is not consolidated and the
term ‘consolidated credit’ has no meaning at all” and that the third parties using
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT are “infringers of Applicant’s Mark.” Id. Even if
“consolidated credit” were an identifiable service, Applicant reasons, “[n]one of
Applicant’s identified services describe credit consolidation services (which do not
exist as explained above) and/or debt consolidation services. Instead, Applicant
provides financial strategies and information regarding housing and major life events
for individuals.” Id. Accordingly, Applicant concludes its mark is suggestive:
While CONSOLIDATED CREDIT may be descriptive for
“consolidated credit” services (which, once again, is a term
without meaning used by the Examiner in connection with
a service that does not exist) and debt consolidation, it is
suggestive when used in connection with financial
strategies and information regarding housing and major
life events for individuals. Because the Mark requires
imagination, thought, and perception to arrive at the
qualities or characteristics of the services, the Mark must
be considered suggestive.
30 TTABVUE 4.
With regard to Applicant’s prior registrations, Applicant argues that the Board
should disregard the registrations because “the services described in Applicant’s prior
Serial No. 88396820

- 14 -
registrations are different than those identified in the current application.” 30
TTABVUE 3-4.
III. Analysis
In considering the evidence, we find the dictionary definitions of the component
words inadequate, standing alone, to show that the mark as a whole is merely
descriptive, as they fail to demonstrate that relevant consumers are likely to
immediately understand “credit” as capable of being “consolidated.” However, we
agree with the Examining Attorney that the phrase “consolidated debt” is commonly
used to describe methods of combining a person’s outstanding obligations into a
single, consolidated payment. Further, the excerpts from the Internet show that
“consolidated credit” and “consolidated debt” are used interchangeably and that third
parties use the phrase “consolidated credit” for similar descriptive purposes.
Thus, CONSOLIDATED CREDIT, without requiring thought or imagination,
immediately identifies a characteristic of Applicant’s financial information and
housing counseling services, namely, that as part of assisting others in budgeting,
saving, and planning for life events, including home ownership, Applicant provides
advice on how to consolidate credit.
Applicant’s prior registrations are consistent with this conclusion. Three of them
include Class 36 housing counseling services identical to those in the subject
application and were either registered on the Supplemental Register (Reg.
No. 4310777 for the mark CONSOLIDATED CREDIT SOLUTIONS); registered with
a disclaimer of “Consolidated Credit” (Reg. No. 4872717 for the mark
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT and design); or registered under Section 2(f) with a
Serial No. 88396820

- 15 -
disclaimer of “Credit” (Reg. No. 4876684 for the mark CONSOLIDATED CREDIT).
At least with respect to these services, prior examining attorneys have concluded that
the phrase is merely descriptive of housing counseling services. Of course, we make
our own findings of fact case-by-case, and may not abrogate that duty by adopting the
conclusions reached by prior examining attorneys. In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had
some characteristics similar to Nett Designs’ application, the PTO’s allowance of such
prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”). Nonetheless, Applicant’s
prior registrations are of some probative value as they are for similar marks and
services.
On the other hand, the third-party registrations adduced by Applicant are of little
probative value. The only two arguably relevant marks are for “banking services” and
“verification services,” neither of which are the same as those identified in the
application. The marks, CITIBANK and VERICHECK, are entirely different from
Applicant’s mark and have no bearing on the alleged descriptiveness of
CONSOLIDATED CREDIT. See In re Miller Int’l Co., 312 F.2d 819, 136 USPQ 445,
447 (CCPA 1963) (refusal to register mark as merely descriptive reversed; “as we
have had occasion to observe many times in the past, prior decisions in trademark
cases are of little help in deciding cases involving different marks and different facts.
Each case must be decided on its own facts and issues”) (citation omitted).
“In addition to considering the applied-for mark in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the proper test for descriptiveness also
Serial No. 88396820

- 16 -
considers the context in which the mark is used and the significance that the mark is
likely to have on the average purchaser encountering the goods or services in the
marketplace.” In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d 2091, 2092 (TTAB 2008). Because
Applicant’s services are directed to adults interested in improving their financial
situation or purchasing a home, the average consumer is an ordinary consumer. We
disagree with Applicant that none of its identified services describe credit
consolidation services. We also assign little weight to Applicant’s unsupported
statement that the third-party users of “consolidated credit” are infringing
Applicant’s rights in its mark.
The third-party website evidence shows that consumers have become accustomed
to seeing the phrases “consolidated credit” and “consolidated debt” used
interchangeably, and will immediately perceive the phrase “consolidated credit” as
referring to financial information and homebuyer education services that include
debt consolidation techniques to use in planning for life events, retirement planning,
saving and investing or purchasing a home.
We therefore find that the proposed mark CONSOLIDATED CREDIT is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s identified services.
Decision: The refusal of Applicant’s mark under Section 2(e)(1) is affirmed.