Douglas Wood

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2021

88388875 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2021)

Mailed: January 28, 2021
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Douglas Wood
_____
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
_____
Hillary A. Brooks of Brooks Quinn, LLC
for Douglas Wood.

Brian Pino, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114,
Laurie Kaufman, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Kuczma, Adlin and English, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Douglas Wood seeks Principal Register registrations for the proposed
mark MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE, in standard characters, for:
books in the field of faith-based coaching, personal
development, motivational and inspirational topics; books
in the nature of memoirs; personal development books;
printed matter, namely books, booklets, curricula,
newsletters, magazines, printed periodicals in the field of
personal development, in International Class 16; and

life coaching services in the field of personal development;
faith-based life coaching services in the field of personal
development; arranging and conducting educational
conferences in the field of personal development;
educational and entertainment services, namely, providing
motivational speaking services in the field of self-
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
2
improvement, personal development, and emotional well-
being, in International Class 41.1

The Examining Attorney refused each application on two grounds: (1) Applicant
failed to adequately respond to requests for information under Trademark Rule
2.61(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b); and (2) Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive
of the identified goods and services under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). After the refusals became final, Applicant appealed and
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.
I. Appeals Consolidated
These appeals involve common questions of law and fact and the records are
similar. Accordingly, we consolidate and decide both appeals in this single decision.
See In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (TTAB 2009); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND
APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1214 (2020).2
II. Evidentiary Objection
The Examining Attorney objects to Applicant fully responding, for the first time
in his Appeal Brief, to Request for Information No. 1 in the Class 16 Application.
Specifically, Request for Information No. 1 is “Does MISSIONAL, MILLIONAIRE, or
MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE have any significance as applied to the goods and/or
services other than trademark and/or service mark significance?” July 1, 2019 Office
Action TSDR 5. During prosecution, Applicant responded “No” to this request, but

1 Application Serial Nos. 88388867 (the “Class 16 Application”) and 88388875 (the “Class 41
Application”), respectively, both filed April 16, 2019 under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on an alleged bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
2 Citations are to the record in the Class 16 Application, unless otherwise indicated.
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
3
inaccurately quoted it as “Does MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE have any significance
as applied to the goods and/or services other than trademark and/or service mark
significance?” January 2, 2020 Office Action response TSDR 8. In other words,
Applicant deleted the individual terms MISSIONAL and MILLIONAIRE from the
question, and thus did not fully respond to the portion of the information request
concerning those individual terms. However, in his Appeal Brief, Applicant
reproduced the question accurately, and responded “No.,” 4 TTABVUE 8, thus
addressing for the first time the information request with respect to the two
individual terms MISSIONAL and MILLIONAIRE that Applicant failed to address
during prosecution.
The objection is sustained to the extent that Applicant effectively seeks in its
Appeal Brief to supplement his response to the Request. Trademark Rule 2.142(d),
37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d) (“The record in the application should be complete prior to the
filing of an appeal.”). Furthermore, as explained in more detail below in connection
with the substantive refusal, we draw an adverse inference from Applicant’s failure
to timely respond (during prosecution) to the portion of Request No. 1 regarding the
individual words MISSIONAL and MILLIONAIRE (as opposed to the composite term
MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE).
III. Requests for Information
Under Trademark Rule 2.61(b), “[t]he Office may require the applicant to furnish
such information ... as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the
application.” See TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP)
§ 814 (Oct. 2018) (“TMEP”). Equivocal, vague or evasive responses are unacceptable.
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
4
In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013). In fact, noncompliance with
an information requirement is an independent ground for refusing registration,
separate and apart from any substantive grounds for refusal. In re Cheezwhse.com
Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship. LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699,
1701-02 (TTAB 2003); TMEP § 814. And when an applicant fails to provide requested
information, it may be presumed that had the information been provided, it would
have been unfavorable to the applicant. See In re Cheezshse.com, 85 USPQ2d at 1919,
1921.
Here, in connection with the Class 16 Application, the Examining Attorney
required Applicant to respond to the following four questions about the proposed
mark and the goods to be offered thereunder:
1. Does MISSIONAL, MILLIONAIRE, or MISSIONAL
MILLIONAIRE have any significance as applied to the
goods and/or services other than trademark and/or service
mark significance?

2. Does MISSIONAL, MILLIONAIRE, or MISSIONAL
MILLOIONAIRE have any significance in the relevant
trade or industry other than trademark and/or service
mark significance?

3. If available, the applicant will provide a website address
at which the mark is used. If no website is available, then
the applicant will state this fact for the record.

4. Will any of the goods be about and/or related to a
millionaire that is missional?

July 1, 2019 Office Action TSDR 5.
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
5
As indicated, in responding to these questions, Applicant purported to quote them
prior to answering, but incorrectly quoted the first question, as a result of which
Applicant’s response to Request for Information No. 1 is as follows:
1. Does MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE have any significance
as applied to the goods and/or services other than
trademark and/or service mark significance? No.

January 2, 2020 Office Action response TSDR 8.
The Examining Attorney also takes issue with Applicant’s response to Request for
Information No. 4:
4. Will any of the goods be about and/or related to a
millionaire that is missional? The goods are authored
by and could appeal to someone who is a millionaire,
or aspires to be a millionaire, and someone could
potentially consider the subject matter religious in
some aspects in a very broad sense, however thought
or imagination would be required to arrive at that
conclusion. Applicant adopted the mark to be
source-indicating and to relate to someone doing
something with purpose.

Id.
In connection with the Class 41 Application, the Examining Attorney asked six
similar or analogous questions, only one of which remains at issue. That question,
and Applicant’s response, is as follows:
6. Will any of the services be provided by a person that is
missional? Missional was adopted to be source-
indicating and refer (sic) to someone doing
something with purpose, as though ‘on a mission.’ It
is possible that those receiving the services will find
them to be faith-based and inspirational. However,
as a coined term, there is no understood meaning of
Missional Millionaire.

Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
6
January 2, 2020 Office Action response TSDR 8.
During prosecution, Applicant only partially responded to Request for Information
No. 1 in the Class 16 Application, because he did not answer two parts of the question
posed: (1) whether MISSIONAL (by itself) has “any significance as applied to the
goods and/or services other than trademark and/or service mark significance?”; and
(2) whether MILLIONAIRE (by itself) has “any significance as applied to the goods
and/or services other than trademark and/or service mark significance?” Therefore,
“we deem it appropriate to presume, for purposes of the Section 2(e)[(1)] refusal,” that
MISSIONAL and MILLIONAIRE each have significance as applied to Applicant’s
Class 16 goods, other than trademark and/or service mark significance. See In re
Cheezshse.com, 85 USPQ2d at 1919, 1921. We hasten to add, however, that even if
we did not so presume, the record clearly establishes that both words have
significance, by themselves, as applied to Applicant’s goods and services, and
therefore the presumption arising from Applicant’s incomplete response to Request
for Information No. 1 is merely cumulative. In fact, our ultimate decision on the
substantive refusal would be the same even if we had not drawn an adverse inference
from Applicant’s failure during prosecution to fully answer Request for Information
No. 1 in the Class 16 Application.
As for Request for Information No. 4 in the Class 16 Application, we understand
the Examining Attorney’s frustration with Applicant answering questions that were
not asked. Nevertheless, we find Applicant’s answer acceptable, because Applicant
conceded that its goods are authored or could be provided by a millionaire and could
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
7
appeal to millionaires or those who aspire to be millionaires. Similarly, Applicant
conceded that “missional” conveys “doing something with purpose,” and that the
subject matter of his books and publications could be considered “religious in some
aspects in a very broad sense.”
Applicant did not, however, adequately respond to Request for Information No. 6
in the Class 41 Application. That question as posed is whether the provider of the
Class 41 services is “missional.” Applicant’s concession that the services may be
provided by someone “on a mission,” or acting with purpose, and that the services
may be “faith-based and inspirational,” is not a compete response to the question.
Indeed, the question is about the word “missional,” and specifically whether the
provider of the services is “missional.” We therefore also draw an adverse inference
that the services will be provided by a person “that is missional.” We again hasten to
add, however, that even if we did not draw this adverse inference, our ultimate
decision on the substantive refusal would be the same.
In short, the refusals based on Applicant’s failure to comply with the information
requirements (Request for Information No. 1 in the Class 16 Application and Request
for Information No. 6 in the Class 41 Application) are affirmed.
IV. Descriptiveness
Because the evidence and arguments are substantially the same for both the Class
16 goods and Class 41 services, we consider the two descriptiveness refusals together.
A. Evidence and Arguments
The Examining Attorney relies on the following dictionary definitions of the
proposed mark’s constituent terms:
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
8
MISSIONAL—“related to or connected to a religious
mission”

MILLIONAIRE—“a person whose wealth amounts to at
least a million dollars, pounds, or the equivalent in other
currency”
July 1, 2019 Office Action TSDR 8, 10. He also relies on the following third-party
registrations which, he claims, establish the descriptive nature of these individual
terms in the context of Applicant’s goods and services:
Mark/Reg. No. Goods/Services
MILLIONAIRE

Section 2(f)

Reg. No. 1570858
printed publications namely magazines
PARTNERSHIP FOR MISSIONAL
CHURCH

“MISSIONAL CHURCH” disclaimed

Reg. No. 3469435
training manuals, newsletters, brochures,
handouts and journals, all in the field of
religion

providing consulting services and online
information services, all in the field of
religion

MISSIONAL MARKETPLACE
SUMMIT #GREATERWORK

“MISSIONAL MARKETPLACE
SUMMIT” disclaimed

Reg. No. 4816030
religious and spiritual services, namely,
providing gatherings and retreats to
develop and enhance the spiritual lives of
individuals
MISSIONAL INTELLIGENCE

“MISSIONAL” disclaimed

Reg. No. 5829619
Christian ministry services

Id. at 11-14; January 14, 2020 Office Action TSDR 24-27. Where, as in the examples
above, a term is disclaimed or registered with a claim of acquired distinctiveness, that
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
9
is evidence that the term has been found descriptive. See Alcatraz Media Inc. v.
Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1762 (TTAB 2013), aff’d, 565 Fed.
App’x. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Bass Pro Trademarks LLC v. Sportsman’s Warehouse
Inc. 89 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2008) (disclaimers); see also Cold War Museum,
Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (where “an applicant seeks registration on the basis of Section 2(f), the mark’s
descriptiveness is a nonissue; an applicant’s reliance on Section 2(f) during
prosecution presumes that the mark is descriptive”).
The Examining Attorney also relies on evidence about Applicant himself which
shows that he is a religious millionaire. For example, Applicant offers an apparently
autobiographical book entitled Church Boy to Millionaire which helps others to
“liberate their millionaire mindset”:

Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
10
January 14, 2020 Office Action TSDR 7. The promotional material for the book
promises “leaders who want to maximize impact” that they will understand from the
book “why our business IS our ministry.” Id. at 8. Amazon ranks the book as the
2,523rd-ranked title on its list of “Christian Self Help best sellers,” and the 2,827th-
ranked title on its list of “Christian Personal Growth best sellers.” Id. at 18.
Applicant’s Massive Momentum Tour features Applicant and his wife Thea Wood
sharing “their transformation stories of going from struggling in their faith, finances,
and marriage, to thriving in each area.” Id. at 12.3
The Examining Attorney argues, based on this evidence, that the proposed mark
is merely descriptive because Applicant’s goods and services are about or provided by,
or directed to, “a millionaire that is missional.” 6 TTABVUE 11 in Class 16
Application; 6 TTABVUE 9 in Class 41 Application.
Applicant did not introduce any evidence. He argues, however, that MISSIONAL
may be used “in a non-religious context,” and that the evidence about Applicant upon
which the Examining Attorney relies “does not expressly mention religion in any
context, other than the title of his Church Boy to Millionaire book and inclusion of
the word ‘church’ in the URL for the site.” 4 TTABVUE 7-8, 10. More specifically, “[i]n

3 To the extent that Applicant objects to evidence from his own website or third-party
websites related to his other products and services because the evidence does not mention
the involved mark, 4 TTABVUE 6-7, the objection is overruled. Applicant’s background and
related goods and services are directly relevant, because this evidence reveals how consumers
may perceive Applicant’s goods and services and Applicant himself, and because this evidence
depicts Applicant’s use of MILLIONAIRE, one of the elements of Applicant’s involved mark
MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE. See In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709-
10 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 482 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); In re Hunter Fan Co., 78 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 2006) (“applicant’s own use
of the term ERGONOMIC … highlights the descriptive nature of this term ….”).
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
11
no way is a religious connotation the central message of Applicant’s goods and
services, although candidly and as responded, there is a faith-based component at
some level, but it does not have the significance the Examining Attorney suggests.”
Id. at 11. Applicant similarly argues that “the sheer magnitude of the possibility of
meanings for ‘millionaire’ in this context demonstrate the type of multi-stage
reasoning process which precludes the immediacy necessary for holding a mark
merely descriptive.” Id. at 11-12.
Applicant points out that “the Examining Attorney cites no third-party uses of the
combined term MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE, no commonly understood meaning for
the term, and no need for competitors to use the term.” Id. at 13. Applicant argues
that the proposed mark is a double entendre because it could refer to “someone
purposeful in doing something,” which is what Applicant intended, or it could refer to
some type of religious mission. Id. at 19. Finally, Applicant claims that MISSIONAL
MILLIONAIRE is incongruous because the term “combines religious or spiritual
services with great wealth, in a way that is contrary to the commonly understood
notions of both of those terms. Missions are associated with religious-based services
for the poor, while millionaires are traditionally seeking to make money for
themselves.” Id. at 21.
B. Analysis
Here, the record leaves no doubt that MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s goods and services because it “immediately conveys
knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic” of them. In re Chamber of
Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
12
(quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); In re
Abcor Dev., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). Indeed, Applicant, a
millionaire whose books may appeal to millionaires or those aspiring to be
millionaires, is “missional,” either in the religious sense reflected in the dictionary
definition, or in the sense that he is “acting with purpose to help others lead a life of
abundance.” 4 TTABVUE 12. In fact, Applicant’s website indicates that “our mission”
is “Empowering people to live on purpose by creating abundance in their life, family,
and finances.” January 14, 2020 Office Action TSDR 12. In either event, Applicant is
a missional millionaire.
Where, as here, a term identifies the source of goods or services, such as a
MILLIONAIRE or a MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE, it may be found merely
descriptive. See In re Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d 1059 (TTAB 2001) (MAJOR
LEAGUE UMPIRE merely descriptive of clothing, face masks and chest protectors
provided by a company owned and operated by Major League Baseball umpires
because it describes the provider and designer of the goods); In re E.I. Kane, Inc., 221
USPQ 1203 (TTAB 1984) (OFFICE MOVERS, INC. generic for moving services for
offices); In re Career Emp’t. Servs., Inc., 219 USPQ 951, 952 (TTAB 1983) (THE
PROFESSIONAL HEALTHCARE PEOPLE generic for providing temporary
employment services for medical personnel because the term refers to the applicant
and its employees who place temporary workers); In re Old Boone Distillery Co., 172
USPQ 697, 698 (TTAB 1972) (DISTILLER’S LIGHT merely descriptive of scotch
whisky because it “conveys the information that applicant’s product is a distiller’s
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
13
light blended scotch whisky”). Moreover, Applicant essentially concedes the proposed
mark’s descriptiveness in his response to Request for Information No. 4 in the Class
16 Application: “The goods are authored by and could appeal to someone who is a
millionaire, or aspires to be a millionaire ….” January 2, 2020 Office Action response
TSDR 8.
While Applicant’s response to the request goes on to argue that “thought or
imagination would be required to arrive at [the] conclusion” that the subject matter
of Applicant’s goods and services is “religious in some aspects in a very broad sense,”
and Applicant claims in response to the same information request in the Class 41
Application that his “services do not involve providing religious missions,” these
denials are not probative and are of no help to Applicant. The problem is that
Applicant’s identifications of goods and services define them (in Applicant’s own
words) as “faith-based.”4
In descriptiveness cases, “[t]he question is 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 or 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) (quoting In re Tower
Tech Inc., 64 USPQ 2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)). Here, consumers who know that
Applicant’s goods and services are “faith-based” will immediately understand

4 Included among Applicant’s Class 16 goods are “books in the field of faith-based coaching,”
and included among Applicant’s Class 41 services are “faith-based life coaching services in
the field of personal development.”
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
14
MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE to convey information about them (and even if some
consumers perceive MISSIONAL as meaning “acting with purpose,” or “on a [secular]
mission,” the proposed mark would still describe Applicant’s goods and services).
Thus, Applicant’s focus on the “multiple meanings” of “missional” is misplaced. In re
Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984) (“It is well settled that so long as
any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be
merely descriptive.”). See also, In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d 1028,
1034 (TTAB 2007); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
Stated differently, we do not determine descriptiveness in the abstract, but rather
in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in
which it is being used on or in connection with the goods or services, and the possible
significance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods or
services because of the manner of its use. In re Bright-Crest, 204 USPQ at 593.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument that MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE is “incongruous”
fails. In the context of “books in the field of faith-based coaching” and “faith-based life
coaching services in the field of personal development,” there is no incongruity.
“Coaching” products and services would be expected to lead to personal gains of some
type, perhaps including financial gains, and consumers of these products and services
who are interested in improving their financial situations could very well be
interested in “coaching” or advice provided by wealthy individuals such as
millionaires. To these consumers, the meaning of MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE would
be immediately clear. Cf. In re Calphalon 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017) (“For
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
15
purposes of Section 2(e)(1), incongruity exists, for example, where a term evokes an
immediate association with something unrelated to the goods or services.”).
Furthermore, not only are the terms “missional” and “millionaire” each merely
descriptive of Applicant’s goods and services, but when those terms are combined, the
resulting combination MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE does not evoke a new or unique
commercial impression. To the contrary, in Applicant’s proposed mark, each
component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods and
services, and Applicant does not suggest any alternative commercial impression
resulting from the combination of these immediately descriptive terms. The
composite term MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE is therefore merely descriptive.5 See,
e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(PATENTS.COM merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database
of records that could include patents, and for tracking the status of the records by
means of the Internet); In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 2009)
(BATTLECAM merely descriptive for computer game software); In re Carlson, 91
USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009) (URBANHOUZING merely descriptive of real estate
brokerage, real estate consultation and real estate listing services); In re Tower Tech
Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of
commercial and industrial cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d

5 Applicant’s argument that the proposed mark is unitary is not well-taken. In fact, the
elements of a unitary mark are “inseparable,” in that “the mark has a distinct meaning of its
own independent of the meaning of its constituent elements.” Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l,
Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As stated, that is not the case
here.
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
16
1084 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer programs for use
in developing and deploying application programs).
Thus, we are not persuaded that MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE is a double
entendre. Applicant’s proffered secondary meaning of MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE
is “someone purposeful in doing something.” However, as indicated, this alleged
secondary meaning is also descriptive, because “coaching,” “personal development”
and other elements of Applicant’s goods and services necessarily involve being
purposeful in doing something – a coach must be purposeful in order to coax and
model personal development, and individuals may not develop personally without
purposeful action. Thus, “to the extent [Applicant’s proposed mark] does present two
meanings they are both merely descriptive of” his goods and services. In re RiseSmart,
Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931 1934 (TTAB 2012); see also, TMEP § 1213.05(c) (“If all
meanings of a ‘double entendre’ are merely descriptive in relation to the goods, then
the mark comprising the ‘double entendre’ must be refused registration as merely
descriptive.”).6
Finally, the absence of evidence that anyone else is using the proposed mark
MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE is irrelevant. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118
USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2018) (“The fact that Applicant may be the first or only
user of a term does not render that term distinctive ….”); In re Sun Microsystems,

6 Applicant essentially concedes that the proposed mark has multiple descriptive meanings,
as it argued during prosecution that “it is equally probable that Applicant’s goods could be
directed at a group of consumers who are missional and millionaires.” January 2, 2020 Office
Action TSDR 7.
Serial Nos. 88388867 and 88388875
17
Inc., 59 USPQ2d at 1087. Cf. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I,
Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 72 USPQ2d 1833, 1838 (2004) (trademark law does not counte-
nance someone obtaining “a complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply
by grabbing it first”).
V. Conclusion
There is no doubt that MISSIONAL MILLIONAIRE is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s “faith-based” goods and services, which, as Applicant concedes, come from
a millionaire and may appeal to other millionaires. Applicant’s failure to completely
respond to the Examining Attorney’s information requests also warrants refusal of
registration.

Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark on the Principal
Register because Applicant failed to comply with requests for information under
Trademark Rule 2.61(b), and because the proposed mark is merely descriptive under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, is affirmed on both grounds in each application.