DNI Holdings Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2005

No. 76330650 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2005)

Hearing: Mailed:
August 2, 2005 December 6, 2005
Bucher

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re DNI Holdings Ltd.
(by assignment from Nortech Investments Ltd.)1
________

Serial Nos. 76330650
_______

Steven A. Gibson of Santoro Driggs Walch Kearney Johnson &
Thompson for DNI Holdings Ltd.

Michael P. Keating, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Hairston and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
DNI Holdings Ltd. seeks registration on the Principal
Register, or in the alternative, on the Supplemental
Register, of the mark SPORTSBETTING INFO (standard
character drawing) for services recited in the application
as follows:

1 This application was assigned from Nortech Investments
Ltd., the original applicant at the time of filing, to
DNI Holdings Ltd., a corporation of Antigua and Barbuda, as of
August 2005. This assignment was recorded with the Assignment
Division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
Reel 3147, Frame 0465.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76330650
- 2 -
“Provision of casino games on and through a
global computer network wherein there are no
actual monetary wagers; provision of
contests and sweepstakes on and through a
global computer network; providing a web
site on and through a global computer
network featuring information in the fields
of gaming, athletic competition and
entertainment” in International Class 41.2
This case is now before the Board on appeal from the
final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to
register this designation based upon the ground that the
proposed mark is generic for the identified services. In
the alternative, the Trademark Examining Attorney contends
that in the event this term should be found not to be
generic for the identified services, it is certainly merely
descriptive, and hence unregistrable on the Principal
Register.
Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney have
fully briefed this appeal, and at applicant’s request, a
hearing was held before this panel of the Board on
August 2, 2005.
We affirm the refusal to register.
The record includes printouts of portions of online
websites that offer a peak into the world of online

2 Application Serial No. 76330650 was filed on October 25,
2001 based upon applicant’s allegation of first use anywhere and
first use in commerce at least as early as February 1, 2001.
Serial No. 76330650
- 3 -
gambling, or, in applicant’s parlance, “gaming.” Along
with poker tournaments and casino games, many of these
gambling websites feature prominently their professional
sportsbooks – providing information regarding betting and
sports, and offering online wagering services. Through such
sites, every Internet user has ready access to, inter alia,
online sportsbook betting lines on a wide array of
collegiate and professional sports.
As seen in this record, applicant, on its own website,
identifies itself as follows:
“We are your gateway to the Internet’s
premier casino and sports wagering sites.

“With the help of our sponsor,
SPORTSBETTING.COM, we give you the latest
sports news, schedules, stats and more.
Simply click on your favorite sport below.

“If you prefer you can check out the latest
offshore sports betting odds on all major
North American and many European sporting
events.” [emphasis supplied]

In his brief, the Trademark Examining Attorney summarizes
the balance of applicant’s website as follows:
Moreover, the applicant’s website contains a
section that provides definitions of common
terms used in the gaming field …. The
website contains specific information on
various sports, such as professional
football, professional basketball, tennis,
golf and horse racing, and the betting odds
for those wishing to place a bet on a
particular sporting event or athletic
Serial No. 76330650
- 4 -
competition. Applicant also offers a
“sports betting newsletter” that is
available via electronic mail.

As to the involved designation, the Trademark
Examining Attorney takes the position that inasmuch as a
term such as “sportsbetting” is a collapsed term (i.e., two
words combined without a space between the words), and
because the evidence of record demonstrates that each of
the constituent words is generic, and because the separate
words, when joined, form a combined term having a meaning
identical to the meaning common usage would ascribe to
those separate words when joined, the Office has
established that the term “sportsbetting” is incapable of
functioning as a mark for these services. The Trademark
Examining Attorney argues correctly that the absence of an
entry for a compound term in the dictionary is not
controlling on the question of registrability if the Office
has demonstrated that the term has a well understood and
recognized meaning. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d
1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed Cir. 1987) [SCREENWIPE generic for
cleaning wipes for television and computer screens].
The Trademark Examining Attorney has placed into the
record multiple examples from the Internet where these two
words are joined together (e.g., “sports betting” or
Serial No. 76330650
- 5 -
“sportsbetting”) and used generically by applicant and by
its competitors, for both sports wagering and for providing
information regarding sports and betting. The Trademark
Examining Attorney argues that the addition of the term
“info,” a shortened form or a variant of the generic term,
“information,” does not create source-identifying
significance when appended to the generic term,
“sportsbetting.” The Trademark Examining Attorney also
points out that applicant, in Reg. No. 2940405, disclaimed
the terms SPORTSBETTING and INFO apart from the special
form mark as shown.3 Finally, even if the applied-for term
is found to be not generic, the Trademark Examining
Attorney argues that it is merely descriptive and, thus, is
barred from registration on the Principal Register.
By contrast, applicant argues that even if it is true
that applicant is providing services through its website
wherein consumers are actually able to wager money on
sports, applicant is not seeking registration for these

3 Reg. No. 2940405 issued to Nortech Investments Ltd. on the
Principal Register on April 12, 2005, for services recited as
“Broadcasting and netcasting services on and through a global
computer network featuring sports events, contests, casino
events, athletic events and entertainment
events.” According to the registration,
applicant makes no claim to the terms
SPORTSBETTING and INFO apart from the mark
as shown.

Serial No. 76330650
- 6 -
services. In fact, it specifically limited the claimed
services so as to exclude monetary wagering. As a result,
applicant argues that the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
refusal to register its mark cannot stand inasmuch as the
refusal is based upon genericness of the term for services
not claimed by applicant.
It has been repeatedly stated that “[d]etermining
whether a mark is generic … involves a two-step inquiry:
First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue?
Second, is the term sought to be registered or retained on
the register understood by the relevant public primarily to
refer to that genus of goods or services?” H. Marvin Ginn
v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. 782 F.2d
987, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In a proceeding
such as this, the genus of the services at issue is
determined by focusing on the recital of services in the
application itself. Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d
638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991) [“Thus, a proper
genericness inquiry focuses on the description of services
set forth in [the application or] certificate of
registration.”].
Moreover, the burden rests with the Trademark
Examining Attorney to establish that the mark sought to be
Serial No. 76330650
- 7 -
registered is generic for the services. In re Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567,
4 USPQ2d 1141, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must be
able to satisfy both elements of the test as set forth in
the controlling precedent of Marvin Ginn, bearing in mind
that “[a]ptness is insufficient to prove genericness.” See
In re American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341, 51 USPQ2d
1832, 1836 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is incumbent upon the
Trademark Examining Attorney to make a “substantial showing
… that the matter is in fact generic.” Indeed, this
substantial showing “must be based on clear evidence of
generic use.” Merrill Lynch, 4 USPQ2d at 1143. Thus, it
is beyond dispute that “a strong showing is required when
the Office seeks to establish that a term is generic.” In
re K-T Zoe Furniture Inc., 16 F.3d 390, 29 USPQ2d 1787,
1788 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, doubt on the issue of
genericness is resolved in favor of the applicant. In re
Waverly Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1620, 1624 (TTAB 1993).
Addressing the first part of the Marvin Ginn
genericness inquiry, applicant argues that a proper
genericness inquiry focuses on the description of services
as recited in the application – not on whether or not
applicant’s website actually offers sports betting
Serial No. 76330650
- 8 -
services. However, even if, for the sake of argument, we
were to accept this position, applicant’s recitation of
services includes providing a website “featuring
information in the fields of gaming, athletic competition
and entertainment.” Hence, the class or category of
services described in the application still clearly
includes that of providing information regarding sports and
betting. See In re DNI Holdings Ltd., ___ USPQ2d ___
(November __, 2005, TTAB) [SPORTSBETTING.COM generic for,
inter alia, providing an Internet website featuring
information regarding sports and betting]; and In re
CyberFinancial.Net Inc., 65 USPQ2d 1789 (TTAB 2002)
[BONDS.COM generic for identified information services
related to investment securities even where applicant does
not buy or sell bonds].
We turn then to the second part of the Ginn inquiry,
namely, whether the term sought to be registered is
understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to
that genus of services.
Not surprisingly, the Trademark Examining Attorney did
not find the combined terms “sportsbetting” or
“sportsbetting info” as a single entry in a dictionary.
Nonetheless, the Trademark Examining Attorney, in his
Serial No. 76330650
- 9 -
appeal brief, analyzes the meaning of the constituent
components making up the term “sportsbetting info”:
The term “sport” is defined in part as
"[p]hysical activity that is governed by a
set of rules or customs and often engaged in
competitively; a particular form of this
activity; an activity involving physical
exertion and skill that is governed by a set
of rules or customs and often undertaken
competitively." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4 ed.
2000) (attached to Final Office Action of
August 29, 2002). The term “sports” is
simply a variant of the term, and may be
defined in part as “of, relating to, or
appropriate for sports: sport fishing;
sports equipment.” Id. (italics in
original). The term “betting” is a variant
of the term “bet,” which is defined in part
as “an agreement usually between two parties
that the one who has made an incorrect
prediction about an uncertain outcome will
forfeit something stipulated to the other, a
wager. 2. An amount or object risked in a
wager; a stake. 3. One on which a stake is
or can be placed: Our team is a sure bet to
win. Id. (italics in original). Further,
[the] term “info” is a shortened form or
variant of [the] term “information,” which
is defined as “news, facts, or knowledge.”
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH
(attached to Office Action of September 29,
2003).

We find that these dictionary definitions show that
“sports betting” is the equivalent of “sports wagering” or
“wagering on sports.” We have no doubt but that joining
the separate words “sports” and “betting” creates a term
that, in context, would be generic for a service that
Serial No. 76330650
- 10 -
permits one to wager on sporting events. In this case, the
combined term, “sportsbetting,” is not greater than the sum
of its parts. See Gould, supra.
In defining the “relevant public” whose understanding
and perception of SPORTSBETTING INFO is critical to our
analysis (see Magic Wand Inc., supra at 1553), we must
include all persons having access to the Internet who might
potentially wager on sports. With that definition of
“relevant public” in mind, the Trademark Examining Attorney
has demonstrated, supra, that members of the relevant
public see the term, “sports betting” (without the term
“info”) used in lower-case letters in a generic fashion on
applicant’s own Internet website [“ … check out the latest
offshore sports betting odds on all major North American
and many European sporting events”].
Moreover, as to the combined term “sports betting” (or
its variant, “sportsbetting”), we have no doubt but that
the record shows conclusively that members of the relevant
public see these terms used interchangeably,4 and view both
of them as generic, not only for the actual wagering, but
also in connection with books and websites providing
information about wagering on sports. For example, in the

4 “Sports betting odds at the #1 sportsbetting destination on
the internet …” http://www.1stsportsbetting.com/
Serial No. 76330650
- 11 -
attachments to applicant’s response to the fourth Office
action (October 21, 2004), one sees the following uses,
including usage within book titles:
“Click on a Sportsbetting Book below for a
detailed Description.” [Among the titles
featured, one sees listed:]
Insights into Sports Betting, by Bob
McCune
Sharp Sports Betting, by Stanford Wong
The Basics of Winning Sports Betting, by
Avery Cardoza”5

Books about …
Sportsbetting6

Sportsbetting Advice
FormBet.com is a no-nonsense
sportsbetting site

Sports Betting Resources:
Sports Betting Articles
Sports Betting Terms7
[emphasis supplied]
We note that some websites above use variations on
this term with and without a space (e.g., “sports betting”
and “sportsbetting”), and sometimes both ways within the
same web page.8 As a matter of trademark law, “sports
betting” is equivalent to “sportsbetting” which in its
combined or collapsed form is not greater than the sum of
its parts. See In re Gould Paper, supra; In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978)

5 The URL for this website was not apparent from the record.
6 http://www.gambling-Literature.com
7 http://www.FormBet.com
8 For example, in the text supra at footnotes 4, 5 and 7.
Serial No. 76330650
- 12 -
[GASBADGE at least descriptive for gas monitoring badges;
three judges concurred in finding that term was the name of
the goods]; In re Planalytics Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453 (TTAB
2004) [GASBUYER merely descriptive of “on-line risk
management services in the field of pricing and purchasing
decisions for natural gas”]; In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196
USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977) [BREADSPRED descriptive for jams and
jellies that would be a spread for bread]; and In re
Perkin-Elmer Corp., 174 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1972) [LASERGAGE
merely descriptive for interferometers utilizing lasers].
It is instructive to compare this set of circumstances
(i.e., in the instant record, as to the combined term
“sportsbetting”) with the third-party use of
“steelbuilding” in In re Steelbuilding.com, supra. By
contrast with the instant case, our principal reviewing
Court in Steelbuilding.com found an absence of any evidence
of use of “steelbuilding” as one word.9 In the case at

9 The Court in Steelbuilding.com also found that joinder of
the separate words “steel” and “building” with the TLD “.com”
created a “formulation” that, in context, could be perceived by
the relevant public as meaning either “steel buildings”
available via the Internet or “the building of steel structures”
via an Internet website. While not using the term “double
entendre,” the Court’s reasoning in Steelbuilding.com suggests a
non-descriptive connotation (perhaps not unlike SUGAR & SPICE
for bakery products, THE SOFT PUNCH for noncarbonated soft
drink, and NO BONES ABOUT IT for fresh pre-cooked ham). The
Court found that simply joining the separate words “steel” and
“building” and the TLD “.com” does not necessarily create a
Serial No. 76330650
- 13 -
hand, assessed under American Fertility, supra, we have
ample evidence of use of the designations “sports betting”
and “sportsbetting” by applicant and by its third-party
competitors. All of this evidence persuades us that
members of the relevant public, i.e., persons with Internet
access who might wager on sports, primarily perceive
“sports betting” and “sportsbetting,10” usually set forth in
lower case letters, as generic. This is true even if
applicant should be able to demonstrate (which it has not)
that a growing subset of the gaming public may draw an
association between applicant and the services offered at
one of its website. In re American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants, 65 USPQ2d 1972 (TTAB 2003) [the term
CPA EXAMINATION is generic for “printed matter, namely,
practice accounting examinations; accounting exams;
accounting exam information booklets; and prior accounting
examination questions and answers,” even if a sizable
subset of that public draws an association between the

compound term that would be generic for “computerized online
retail services in the field of pre-engineered metal buildings
and roofing systems.” Specifically, given the interactive
design feature of that applicant’s goods and services, the Court
concluded that STEELBUILDING could also refer to “the building
of steel structures.”
10 The Trademark Examining Attorney’s evidence of record also
shows that the term “sportsbetting” is used by a number of
third-party competitors in combination with other words, alpha-
numerics, names and symbols within their respective domain
names.
Serial No. 76330650
- 14 -
AICPA and the UNIFORM CPA EXAMINATION.]. Hence, if the
genus of services is construed to include providing for
wagering on sports, “sports betting” (and “sportsbetting”)
is clearly generic for such services.
However, if, as applicant argues, we explicitly
exclude applicant’s “sports betting services” from the
genus of services in the first part of the Marvin Ginn
genericness inquiry, we note that whether one looks closely
at applicant’s website or the websites of third-party
competitors, much of the discussion about “sports betting”
(or “sportsbetting”) focuses on the need to gather and
analyze as much information as one can to become
knowledgeable about the particular sport on which one is
wagering. Hence, when it comes to the activity of “sports
betting,” we find that the information piece of applicant’s
recited services is inextricably tied into the actual
betting. This linkage is not unique to the field of
gaming. This tying together of information and the
underlying activity is analogous, for example, to our
finding that the word “bonds” (and hence the mark
BONDS.COM) is generic for information services related to
debt instruments and other related investment securities.
CyberFinancial.Net, supra.
Serial No. 76330650
- 15 -
We turn then to the evidence in this record of usage
of the entire term, “sportsbetting info.” The Trademark
Examining Attorney argues that based upon a Google search
report placed into the record, he has demonstrated that it
is not at all unusual for other sportsbook entities
competing with applicant to use the terms “sports betting
info” or “sportsbetting info” in a generic fashion on their
web pages in describing their respective information
services. The Trademark Examining Attorney’s Google search
of the exact term, “sportsbetting info,” retrieved more
than five-thousand hits, of which he printed out for the
record four pages of summary hits for results #1 through
#40.
However, as pointed out by applicant, the evidence
actually placed into the record includes only the four-line
summary hits from the first forty hits of this Google
search – not copies of any of the actual web pages. In
response to this showing, applicant noted that by the time
it filed its responses and/or briefs, many of these forty
referenced websites were inactive, or automatically
redirected one to a new and different website. In several
cases of extant websites, applicant did provide the
associated web pages. Applicant is correct in noting that
Serial No. 76330650
- 16 -
in some cases, the entire term, “sportsbetting info,”
appears nowhere on the referenced pages of the cited
websites:
An explanation of sports betting including
money line wagers … the Sports Betting
Tutorial discusses money line wagers … 11

Welcome to Basketball Sports Betting Online
…
LIVE SPORTS BETTING LINES AND ODDS …
Advantage Sports Betting - …
Sports Betting Football - …
Sports Betting Football Online - …
Sports Betting Basketball - …
Las Vegas Sports Betting Online - …
Sports Betting Links … 12
[emphasis supplied]

Although these actual web pages, as submitted by
applicant, do not contain the entire term
“sportsbetting info,” the highlighted portions demonstrate
again the usage of the term “sports betting” in its generic
sense.
On the other hand, in at least one website summarized
by the Trademark Examining Attorney and then printed out by
applicant, a variation of the term “sportsbetting info”
(e.g., as three different words, “Sports Betting Info”) did

11 http://www.gambling.ctr.co.uk
12 http://www.basketballsportsbettingonline.com, which was
subsequently transferred to
http://www.lasvegassportsbetting.com, both of which also have
“sportsbetting” within their domain name.
Serial No. 76330650
- 17 -
appear on the web page as submitted, and we have no reason
to believe this is a reference to applicant’s services:
Sports Betting Info can help anyone who is
curious about laying money down on sports.13
[emphasis supplied]
Otherwise, however, we agree with applicant that the
one-line heading in a Google hit summary, and the following
two lines containing a smattering of broken text drawn from
somewhere within a website are not persuasive evidence of
third-party usage:
Rate Sportsbetting info at Ultimatecapper …
14

This site has a lot of good Sportsbetting
info … 15
[emphasis supplied]
This is true because it is not clear to us exactly how
Google generates these headings and accompanying summary
text. Inasmuch as this term may well be taken from
metatags, embedded links or other HTML sources for the
associated web pages, these headings and summaries do not
provide probative evidence that these terms actually appear
in readable text in the pages referenced therein.
Despite this dearth of usage by third parties of this
entire term, we agree with the Trademark Examining Attorney

13 www.apexsportsbook.com/nfc
14 http://www.casino-sportsbetting-directory.com
15 http://www.nflbestline.com
Serial No. 76330650
- 18 -
that the several dictionary entries in the record
demonstrate that “info” is clearly a shortened form of the
term “information.” The term “info” is without a doubt
generic for a website featuring information services. The
term “info” is disclaimed in a variety of third-party
registrations for services similar to those offered by
applicant. Moreover, in the ordinary course of
interpreting the English-language construction of
“sportsbetting info,” the term, “sportsbetting” is a
generic adjectival term clarifying exactly what type of
information one can anticipate gleaning from this online
service. The record shows that each of these constituent
terms is generic, and together this compound term has a
meaning identical to the meaning common usage would ascribe
to those words as a whole. Specifically, we find that
“sportsbetting info” is generic for an online service that
provides information on sports wagering. Hence, we find
that the Office has established that the term
“sportsbetting info”16 is incapable of functioning as a mark
for these services. See In re Gould Paper, supra.

16 In its response to the fourth Office Action (October 21,
2004), applicant argues that another possible interpretation of
the term “info” in this composite mark is that of “a new top
level domain name.” Given that applicant filed on the same day
for four different “biz” marks drawn similarly to its four
companion “info” marks [Serial Nos. 76330657 – 663], one might
Serial No. 76330650
- 19 -
Having found the applied-for matter (the term
“sportsbetting info”) generic for the third portion of the
recitation of services in International Class 41 herein,
namely, ‘providing information regarding sports and
betting,’ we hold that registration is appropriately denied
for the entire class of goods if the term is generic for
any of the services for which registration is sought. See
In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 525, 205 USPQ
505, 507 (CCPA 1980). Accordingly, it should not be
necessary to discuss further whether the term
“sportsbetting info” is generic as used in connection with
the first two services recited in this application, e.g.,
casino games for fun, contests and sweepstakes, etc.
Nonetheless, we turn briefly to applicant’s
“alternative position” requested in its appeal brief,
namely, that in the event we should find SPORTSBETTING INFO
generic for the third portion of the recitation of
services, applicant should be permitted at such a late
stage of this proceeding to amend the recitation to delete

assume that in 2001 applicant was desirous of Lanham Act
protection for composite marks suspiciously similar to
anticipated domain names (i.e., without the “dot”) employing
what were then newly-announced top level domain names, e.g.,
<< www.sportsbetting.info >> or << www.sportsbetting.biz >> .
However, even if the record demonstrated that this were the
dominant perception of the relevant public, under extant Board
precedent, this would still not remove the genericness bar to
registration herein. See In re DNI Holdings Ltd., supra.
Serial No. 76330650
- 20 -
this portion. Applicant cites no authority for our
accepting this position, and we know of none. An applicant
may, of course, continue to pursue registration on the
Principal Register with an alternative amendment to the
Supplemental Register (as applicant has done herein), or by
arguing that a term is not merely descriptive under Section
2(e)(1) while also, in the alternative, demonstrating
acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Lanham
Act. However, if the Board were to allow alternative
positions on various permutations of listed goods and/or
recitations of services within International Classes that
may run afoul of one or more sections of the statute, the
Board would essentially be reduced to panels of super-
examiners, issuing advisory opinions in an unmanageable
volume of appealed cases.
As to the arguments by the Trademark Examining
Attorney that applicant has admitted to the fact that these
individual components are not registrable by disclaiming
them in an earlier registration (see footnote 3, supra), we
recognize that §6 of the Lanham Act permits an applicant to
disclaim matter voluntarily – regardless of whether the
matter is registrable or unregistrable. See In re MCI
Communications Corp., 21 USPQ2d 1534 (Comm’r Pats. 1991).
Serial No. 76330650
- 21 -
Applicant’s earlier statement that it made no claim to the
exclusive right to use the terms SPORTSBETTING INFO apart
from the composite mark as shown means that insofar as that
particular registration is concerned, no rights are being
asserted in the disclaimed component of the mark standing
alone. It is clear that a disclaimer does not preclude
registrant, as a matter of law, from later demonstrating in
another application, for example, rights in the disclaimed
matter if it can show that the disclaimed words have, with
time and use, become distinctive of such goods or services.
See Section 6(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1056(b);
See also, In re K-T Zoe Furniture Inc., supra at 1789.
However, it has long been held that the disclaimer of a
term constitutes an admission of the merely descriptive
nature of that term, as applied to the goods or services in
connection with which it is used, and an acknowledgment of
the lack of an exclusive right therein at the time of the
disclaimer. See Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Quaker
Oil Corp., 453 F.2d 1296, 172 USPQ 361, 363 (CCPA 1972).
See also, In re Interco Inc., 29 USPQ2d 2037, 2038 (TTAB
1993).
Finally, we agree with the Trademark Examining
Attorney that in the event SPORTSBETTING INFO should be
Serial No. 76330650
- 22 -
found not to be generic for the identified services, it is
certainly merely descriptive. By definition, if merely
descriptive, it is not inherently distinctive, and
applicant has made no attempt to demonstrate acquired
distinctiveness for this matter, so as to permit
registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(f)
of the Act.
Decision: The refusal to register the designation
SPORTSBETTING INFO as incapable of registration under
Section 23 of the Lanham Act is hereby affirmed, and
registration to applicant is denied. In the alternative,
should the applied-for term be found not to be generic for
the identified services, it is merely descriptive. Hence,
in the absence of a showing of acquired distinctiveness,
the refusal to register on the Principal Register based
upon Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act is hereby affirmed.