Doctors on Liens, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 20, 2015

No. 85798043 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2015)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: October 20, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Doctors on Liens, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 85798043
_____

Lee J. Eulgen and Sarah E. Smith of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, LLP,
for Doctors on Liens, Inc.
Barney L. Charlon, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104,
Chris Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Quinn, Zervas and Ritchie,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Doctors on Liens, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the proposed mark “Doctors on Liens” (in standard characters, hereinafter
“DOCTORS ON LIENS”) for “Business marketing services; Marketing services;
Marketing services for the medical services of others; Marketing services, namely,
promoting or advertising the goods and services of others; Providing advertising,
marketing and promotional services, namely, development of advertising campaigns
Serial No. 85798043
- 2 -
for doctor referrals in print media, on web pages, and on promotional articles” in
International Class 35.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark under Trademark Act §2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the basis
that Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services.
Applicant maintains that the Examining Attorney did not establish that the
proposed mark is merely descriptive, and in the alternative submitted evidence to
establish that the proposed mark had acquired distinctiveness under the provisions
of Trademark Act §2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). The Examining Attorney was not
persuaded by Applicant’s showing of acquired distinctiveness and ultimately issued
a final Office action maintaining the Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal
and his finding that Applicant’s Section 2(f) showing is insufficient.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant
appealed to this Board. The case is fully briefed.
1. Refusal under Section 2(e)(1).
We consider first whether Applicant’s proposed mark, as a whole, is merely
descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. Section
2(e)(1) provides for the refusal of registration of “a mark which, (1) when used on or

1 Application Serial No. 85798043 was filed on December 7, 2012, based upon Applicant’s
claim of first use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as August 9, 1995.
Applicant has claimed ownership of Principal Register Registration No. 2920496 for the
mark for “marketing and advertising services in the nature of
doctor referrals” in International Class 35. The term DOCTORS has been disclaimed in
Applicant’s registration.
Serial No. 85798043
- 3 -
in connection with the [services] of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively
misdescriptive of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A term is merely descriptive of
services within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it forthwith conveys an immediate
idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the
services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217,
1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the
services for which registration is sought and the context in which the term is used,
not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224
(TTAB 2002). In other words, we evaluate whether someone who knows what the
services are will understand the mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757
(Fed. Cir. 2012). A mark need not immediately convey an idea of each and every
specific feature of the services in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is
enough if it describes one significant attribute, function or property of the services.
See In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010; In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973). Moreover, the mark need
not describe all of the identified services. Rather, a descriptiveness refusal is proper
with respect to all of the identified services in an International Class if the mark is
descriptive of any of the services in that class. In re Chamber of Commerce of the
U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087,
Serial No. 85798043
- 4 -
1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005). It is the Examining Attorney’s burden to show that a term is
merely descriptive of an applicant’s goods or services. In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at
1010; In re Accelerate s.a.l., 101 USPQ2d 2047, 2052 (TTAB 2012).
The Examining Attorney states that the term “doctor” is defined as “a person
licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian”;2
“lien” is defined as “the legal claim of one person upon the property of another
person to secure the payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation”;3 and
“DOCTORS ON LIENS in connection with the services at issue, would be perceived
by consumers as nothing more than a description of marketing and referral services
concerning persons licensed to practice medicine who are compensated on the basis
of the legal claim of one person upon the property of another person to secure the
payment of a debt or the satisfaction of an obligation.”4 Applicant’s own specimen of
use states, “There is no cost to you, no commissions, no hidden fees and, best of all,
each and every one of these doctors will work for you on a LIEN BASIS!”
(Capitalization in original.) Further, the Examining Attorney relies on the following
third-party uses of “doctors on liens” or variations thereof, submitted with the
Examining Attorney’s Office Actions:
● Powerliens.com - “Built as a free, easy-to-use resource for attorneys
looking for doctors on liens near their clients. Power Liens is the only
place to find specialists like orthopedists, physical therapists,
radiologists, neurologists, and other doctors on liens.”

2 dictionary.com definition submitted with April 1, 2013 Office Action.
3 Id.
4 Applicant’s Brief at 3-4, 4 TTABVUE 4-5.
Serial No. 85798043
- 5 -
● Raxo Drugs - “If you are a doctor on lien we want to offer our services
in providing prescription fill-up for your patients.”

● Physical Therapy On Lien - “Finding a credible doctor on lien can
make or break your case”; “There are added filters to allow attorneys to
select doctors on lien on the directory that have been rigorously
screened and have achieved the Preferred Provider status.”

● ExpertLaw - “I would like to see a pain management doctor on lien,
so that I don’t have to pay up front for injuries suffered by a third
party.”

● Yahoo! Answers – “I went through 2 weeks of terrible pain due to
him till I got on a county health program that allowed me to see a
doctor on lien.”

● Lien Doctors - “We provide listings of doctors on liens, personal
injury contingency fee attorneys, and we provide the latest articles,
news and resources dealing with medical and legal organizations.”

● My Orthopedic Surgery, California Car Crash Attorneys -
“Confederation of California Car Crash Attorneys and Lawyers
working with doctors on liens to help injured victims recover for spinal
cord injuries, broken bone injuries and various orthopedic injuries.”

● LinkedIn - “Have you been in an accident and need a doctor on a
lien?”

● Georgia Injury Attorneys Blog - “Norcross Personal Injury Attorney
Advises How to Find a Doctor on a Lien.”

● Lewitt Hackman, Personal Injury Accident Care: Getting the
Appropriate Treatment - “If they would pay for your care as you get it,
there would be no need to see a doctor on a lien.”

● Santa Clarita Injury Lawyer Robert Mansour discusses Medical
Treatment After an Accident - “If you see a doctor on a lien, which
means the doctor is willing to provide you care and get paid after you
settle your claim.”

● My San Bernardino Personal Injury Attorney - “Come and see if we
can help you locate doctors on liens, a filing court, a place for an MRI,
or CT scan, and beyond.”

Serial No. 85798043
- 6 -
● DTLA Law Group - “This is the job for your attorney and they should
make sure that they have this information in the event they are
working with doctors on lien.”

● Accident Medical Intervention Group, LLC - “Not only will you
receive first rate care from doctors on liens in the greater Phoenix
area, all of the ancillary services will also be covered under your
personal injury claim.”

● AIN American Injury Network Inc. - “We have Board Certified,
highly skilled doctors on lien to treat patient injuries.”

● Health Insurance Claims, “Doctors On Lien Can Help You.”

● Timothy J Ryan & Associates Trial Lawyers - “Doctors on lien should
not charge any more for their services than they do for patients who
are paying their costs as they are treated or who have health
insurance.”

● Dental Insurance - “How Doctors On Lien Can Help You Get Medical
Care.”

Upon careful consideration of the evidence, we conclude that the Applicant’s
proposed mark is merely descriptive of a feature of Applicant’s services, namely,
that it immediately describes without thought or imagination that Applicant’s
marketing services feature doctors who are compensated through liens for their
services. The evidence reflects that a network exists of “qualified medical
professionals who specialize in med[ical]/legal evaluations and treatments for
personal injury and workers’ compensation cases.”5 Such professionals will work on
a lien basis.6 The website evidence introduced by the Examining Attorney
demonstrates that “doctors on liens” or formatives thereof, are commonly used in
the medical industry, and that the meaning noted above immediately comes to mind

5 Applicant’s specimen of use.
6 Id.
Serial No. 85798043
- 7 -
when perceiving the phrase in connection with Applicant’s services. Although
Applicant is the owner of a registration for its DOCTORS ON LIENS and Design
mark, which registered in 2005, we point out that marks which were previously
distinctive, may become non-distinctive and even generic. See for example
Trademark Act Section 14(3); 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). Furthermore, as is often noted by
the Board and the courts, each case must be decided on its own merits. See In re
Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also,
In re Kent-Gamebore Corp., 59 USPQ2d 1373 (TTAB 2001); In re Wilson, 57
USPQ2d 1863 (TTAB 2001). While consistent treatment of marks is a laudable goal,
we are not bound by the actions of examining attorneys with regard to other
applications. In addition, Applicant submitted affidavits from its principal,
competitors and customers who state that the term is not widely used to refer to a
category or type of marketing service.7 One declarant, Applicant’s principal, states
that “widely used” terms for physician referral network services include terms such
as “referral company,” “directory of physicians,” “multi-specialty medical groups,
“network of healthcare professionals” and “doctors network.”8 Under Section 2(e)(1),
however, we look to whether the proposed mark is merely descriptive of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the services,
see In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219, not whether other
terms are merely descriptive. Thus, we are not persuaded by Applicant’s evidence.

7 See, e.g., the affidavits of Carl Rothschild (August 29, 2014 Response at ¶4); Sondra
Sanders (August 29, 2014 Response at ¶3); Jayson Sher (October 22, 2013 Response at ¶4);
and Cindy Hanley (October 22, 2013 Response at ¶5).
8 Samantha Parker-Sedaka October 14, 2013 affidavit at ¶16.
Serial No. 85798043
- 8 -
2. Applicant’s Alternate Claim of Acquired Distinctiveness
It is Applicant’s burden to prove acquired distinctiveness by a preponderance of
the evidence. Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d
1001, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Hollywood Brands, Inc., 214 F.2d 139, 102 USPQ
294, 295 (CCPA 1954) (“[t]here is no doubt that Congress intended that the burden
of proof [under Section 2(f)] should rest upon the applicant for registration”); In re
Noon Hour Food Prods. Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1172, 1181 (TTAB 2008). The amount and
character of evidence required to establish acquired distinctiveness depends on the
facts of each case and the nature of the alleged mark, Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol
Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 166 USPQ 34, 39 (CCPA 1970), and an applicant’s burden
becomes heavier as the mark’s descriptiveness increases. In re Steelbuilding.com,
415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005). More evidence is required
where a mark is so highly descriptive that purchasers seeing the matter in relation
to the goods or services would be less likely to believe that it indicates source in any
one party. See In re Bongrain Int’l (American) Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d
1727 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Yamaha Int’l Corp., 6 USPQ2d at 1008. As the Board has
explained:
[T]he greater the degree of descriptiveness, the greater the
evidentiary burden on the user to establish acquired distinctiveness.
The sufficiency of the evidence offered to prove acquired
distinctiveness should be evaluated in light of the nature of the
designation. Highly descriptive terms, for example, are less likely to be
perceived as trademarks and more likely to be useful to competing
sellers than are less descriptive terms. More substantial evidence of
acquired distinctiveness thus will ordinarily be required to establish
that such terms truly function as source-indicators.

Serial No. 85798043
- 9 -
In re Greenliant Sys. Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1085 (TTAB 2010) (citations omitted).
Our starting point, therefore, is a determination of the level of descriptiveness of
the proposed mark. The evidence in the record and described earlier in this decision
reflects that the proposed mark is a highly descriptive term. The term
unambiguously identities a marketing service featuring doctors who are
compensated by liens for their services. The excerpts in the record show consistent
use of “doctors on liens” or “doctors on a lien,” without explanation of the meaning of
the term, and there is ample evidence from a variety of sources. The proposed mark
therefore is highly descriptive of a feature of Applicant’s services; because the
proposed mark is highly descriptive, “Applicant ha[s] the burden to show a
concomitantly high level of secondary meaning.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 75
USPQ2d at 1424.
In determining whether the applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness, the
following factors are generally considered: (1) length and exclusivity of use of the
mark in the United States by an applicant; (2) the type, expense and amount of
advertising of the mark in the United States; and (3) an applicant’s efforts in the
United States to associate the mark with the source of the goods, such as
unsolicited media coverage and consumer studies. Id.; Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(3),
37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(3).
Applicant has submitted the following evidence in support of its claim of
acquired distinctiveness: (1) a statement of substantially exclusive and continuous
Serial No. 85798043
- 10 -
use in commerce for the prior five years;9 (2) competitor affidavits; (3) statements of
recognition as an indicator of source, including from physicians, a chiropractor and
attorneys; (4) evidence of use for more than 20 years; (5) evidence of copying;
(6) evidence of sales and revenues; (7) evidence of marketing and advertising
expenditures; (8) samples of advertising and promotional materials; and
(9) examples of media coverage.
Turning now to Applicant’s statement of substantially exclusive and continuous
use in commerce for five years, Trademark Rule 2.41(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(b),
authorizes consideration of such a statement, but limits its use to “appropriate”
cases. The rule also states that in certain instances, “further evidence may be
required”; a claim that Applicant has been using the subject matter for a long period
of substantially exclusive use may therefore not be sufficient to demonstrate that
the mark has acquired distinctiveness. See, e.g., In re Gibson Guitar Corp., 61
USPQ2d 1948, 1952-53 (TTAB 2001) (finding no secondary meaning despite 66
years of use). Because we find that the proposed mark is highly descriptive, the
statement of five years’ use is not sufficient for registration under Section 2(f).
We next turn to the affidavits and the declaration submitted in the record, and
the accompanying exhibits. Ms. Parker-Sedaka, Applicant’s principal, stated in her
October 14, 2013 affidavit:
5. For nearly twenty years, Applicant has been an industry leader
in the field of physician referral network services, and during that
time, Applicant has continuously used the Brand [i.e., DOCTORS ON
LIENS] in connection with its Services. … Applicant has consistently

9 See Affidavit of Samantha Parker-Sedaka, dated February 5, 2014.
Serial No. 85798043
- 11 -
used the Brand as a source designator identifying and distinguishing
Applicant and its Services. … The Services provided in connection with
the Brand have generated tens of millions of dollars of revenue over
the course of Applicant’s nearly two decades of operation.

6. … Applicant has invested enormous time, effort and resources
promoting the Brand in connection with the Services, and it has
expended significant resources extensively promoting the Brand and
the Services provided in connection therewith via numerous online
channels (including on its own website and in social media), as well as
through more traditional media such as at trade shows, conferences,
continuing legal education seminars, through sponsorships, in direct
mailings, via online and print advertisements, via press releases and
through other marketing collateral.

7. Applicant owns the domain name, which it
uses to maintain its website as another means to promote the Brand
and Services provided in connection therewith (the “Website”). …
Applicant’s Website promoting the Services under the Brand enjoys
significant internet traffic.

8. Applicant also promotes its DOCTORS ON LIENS-branded
Services via social media on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and
Google+. …

9. To further promote its DOCTORS ON LIENS-branded Services,
Applicant also sponsors various regional plaintiff’s bar associations
and groups, including the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los
Angeles (“CAALA”) and Orange Country Trial Lawyers Association.
Every year since at least 1995, Applicant also has promoted its
DOCTORS ON LIENS-branded Services by sponsoring other
programming catering to its core customer base, such as seminars at
the CAALA, the Consumer Attorneys of California, Consumer
Attorneys of San Diego, the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association,
the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, and the California
Applicants’ Attorneys Association. Applicant also has promoted its
DOCTORS ON LIENS-branded Services by sponsoring legal education
events including the first annual Law and Medicine seminar hosted by
Medical Finance and the Western State College of Law Alumni
Relations. …

10. Over many years, Applicant also has expended significant
resources to extensively market and promote the Brand through online
and print trade publications, including Advocate: Journal of Consumer
Serial No. 85798043
- 12 -
Attorneys Association for Southern California, Valley Lawyer
Magazine, Consumer Attorneys of California Directory, and The Gavel.
…

11. In addition, over approximately the past twenty years,
Applicant has extensively promoted and marketed the Brand and
Services provided thereunder via other print marketing collateral and
materials, including a Quarterly Map sent to over 5,200 attorneys
throughout California since 1993, and promotional merchandise
bearing the DOCTORS ON LIENS marks, including mouse pads, pens,
gumball machines, notepads, bags, popcorn machines, backpacks and
coffee mugs. … Applicant also has promoted and marketed the Brand
and Services provided thereunder via direct mail pieces. …

12. Applicant’s DOCTORS ON LIENS-branded Services also have
received unsolicited press coverage and have been the subject of a
press article published in the popular trade publication Plaintiff
Magazine. …

13. Applicant also has issued press releases to further promote the
Brand and Services provided in connection therewith. …

In her August 28, 2014 declaration, Ms. Parker-Sedaka added:
5. [O]ver the past twenty years, Applicant has invested enormous
time, effort and resources promoting the Brand in connection with the
Services. In that time, Applicant has expended over $500,000
extensively promoting the Brand and the Services provided in
connection therewith via numerous online channels (including on its
own website and in social media), as well as through more traditional
media such as at trade shows, conferences, continuing legal education
seminars, through sponsorships, in direct mailings, via online and
print advertisements, via press releases and through other marketing
collateral. Furthermore, while Applicant has continuously promoted its
Brand in connection with the Services for nearly twenty years,
Applicant’s marketing expenditures continue to grow. Applicant
expects to expend over $100,000 this year and at least as much in each
subsequent year promoting its Brand in connection with the Services.

Other affiants generally state that they do not know of other entities that use
the same term; that they and others know that Applicant is the source of services
under the term DOCTORS ON LIENS; and that they have not heard others in the
Serial No. 85798043
- 13 -
trade use the term DOCTORS ON LIENS to describe a category of directory
services connecting or referring individuals and attorneys to medical professionals
who treat patients on a lien basis.
Affidavits and declarations of industry professionals attesting that they
themselves and/or the industry in general recognize the designation at issue as
Applicant’s mark have limited value; Applicant must present evidence to establish
that the ultimate consumers and end-users of the product or service in question
recognize the designation as Applicant’s source-indicating mark. See In re Meyer &
Wenthe, Inc., 267 F.2d 945, 122 USPQ 372, 376 (CCPA 1959) (“It is incumbent upon
the applicant to submit proof that its mark is distinctive, not only to ‘experts’ in the
field, but to the purchasing public.”). Further, the value of the affidavits or
declarations depends on the statements made and the identity of the affiant or
declarant. See In re Udor U.S.A. Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1978, (TTAB 2009); In re
Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1668 (TTAB 1988). Proof of distinctiveness also
requires more than a small number of people who associate a mark with the
applicant. See In re The Paint Prods. Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988).
Applicant’s evidence is not persuasive for the following reasons:
1. At least two of the affidavits are not from purchasers of Applicant’s services,
namely, the affidavits of Cindie Hanley, a principal of Applicant’s marketing
and design company, and Stuart Zanville, Executive Director of a bar
association of plaintiffs’ attorneys. In In re Candy Bouquet Int’l Inc., 73
USPQ2d 1883, 1890 (TTAB 2004), the Board found that the applicant’s
Serial No. 85798043
- 14 -
declarations from vendors, a former franchisee and a supplier were
insufficient as evidence of acquired distinctiveness because, inter alia, “none
of the letters attests to the perception of [the mark] by the general public, the
ultimate consumers of applicant’s services.” Mr. Hanley and Mr. Zanville’s
statements regarding acquired distinctiveness therefore have limited
probative value.
2. Applicant’s advertising figure covering a period of twenty years is not
impressive, and Ms. Parker-Sedaka’s affidavit and declaration omit key
information regarding the promotion of DOCTOR’S ON LIENS. As noted
earlier in this opinion, Ms. Parker-Sedaka states that Applicant has spent
over $500,000 promoting the proposed mark via online channels (including on
its own website and in social media), and at trade shows, conferences, and
continuing legal education seminars, through sponsorships, in direct
mailings, via online and print advertisements, via press releases and through
other “marketing collateral.” Other than the Quarterly Map she refers to,
which was sent to over 5,200 attorneys throughout California since 1993, we
cannot judge how effective the advertising was. For example, there is no
information about the number of individuals who follow Applicant on social
media, the volume of visitors on Applicant’s website, or the circulation of
magazines and other media in which Applicant has advertised its proposed
mark. Ms. Parker-Sedaka also states that Applicant is a “market leader”10

10 Parker-Sedaka October 14, 2013 affidavit ¶ 2.
Serial No. 85798043
- 15 -
but does not identity the “market” or describe its size. Further, her
statements regarding sums to be spent in the future on advertising are of no
assistance in demonstrating acquired distinctiveness at this time.
3. There is no information about how many consumers have seen Applicant’s
press releases, or even considered them at all.
4. Ms. Parker-Sedaka testified that Applicant gained “tens of millions of dollars
of revenue over the course of Applicant’s nearly two decades of operation.”
The amount she quotes is subject to varying interpretations and allows for
the possibility that the bulk of the revenue was received in a limited time
period, in the past.
5. Ms. Parker-Sedaka’s assertion that Applicant’s website “enjoys significant
internet traffic” does not provide us with specifics to judge what volume of
traffic it has had and therefore determine its impact on the consuming public.
6. Ms. Parker-Sedaka and Cindie Hanley testified that another entity and its
affiliates “recently” have used Applicant’s proposed mark for identical
services in connection with a website and press releases. Ms. Hanley testified
that the infringing website “has been taken down,” and Applicant was
required to “defend its brand name.”11 There is no information, however,
about what Applicant did to defend its brand name, and whether the
unauthorized use continues, despite the website having been “taken down.”
Additionally, “[c]opying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the

11 Hanley affidavit ¶ 5, October 22, 2013 Response.
Serial No. 85798043
- 16 -
defendant’s intent in copying is to confuse consumers and pass off his product
as the plaintiff’s.” Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 65 F.3d 654, 36
USPQ2d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir. 1995). Ms. Hanley and Ms. Parker-Sedaka have
not provided sufficient details or evidence for us to verify their contentions
regarding copying.
Applicant’s proposed mark is highly descriptive, and Applicant therefore has
“the burden of showing a concomitantly high level of secondary meaning.” In re
Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424. The evidence discussed above, and the
remaining evidence submitted by applicant, do not rise to the level needed to
establish acquired distinctiveness of a highly descriptive term. This is especially so,
given the prior-discussed third-party uses of the descriptive term, which show a
lack of Applicant’s “substantially exclusive use.” See In re Franklin Historical
Society, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1093 (TTAB 2012); Nextel Communications Inc. v.
Motorola Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1393, 1408 (TTAB 2009); Quaker State Oil Refining, 172
USPQ at 363.
Applicant urges us to resolve all doubts in its favor.12 We have no doubts as to
our conclusion.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) and the refusal to allow registration
under the provisions of Section 2(f) are affirmed.

12 Applicant’s Brief at 8, 4 TTABVUE 9.