European American Bank

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 1998

No. 75200800 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 1998)

Paper No. 9
CEW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB SEPT 14, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re European American Bank
___________
Serial No. 75/200,800
___________
Stewart J. Bellus of Collard & Roe for applicant.
Ann E. Sappenfield, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 107 (Thomas Lamone, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Seeherman, Walters and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
European American Bank has filed an application to
register the mark shown below for “automated telephone
banking services.”1

1 Serial No. 75/200,800, in International Class 36, filed November 20,
1996, based on an allegation of use of the mark in commerce, alleging
first use and use in commerce as of August, 1996.
Serial No. 75/200,800
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally required,
under Section 6 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1056, a
disclaimer of ACCESSLINE apart from the mark as a whole on
the ground, under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), that this portion of applicant’s mark is
merely descriptive in connection with its services.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
The Examining Attorney contends that, as evidenced by
the specimens of record, the term ACCESSLINE merely
describes to applicant’s customers a telephone line access
to bank accounts; and that the meanings of the individual
terms “ACCESS” and “LINE” support the conclusion that the
term ACCESSLINE is merely descriptive in connection with
applicant's identified services. In support of her
position, the Examining Attorney has submitted copies of
four third-party registrations for marks incorporating the
term ACCESSLINE or ACCESS LINE in connection with the same
or related services and including a disclaimer of this
term. The Examining Attorney contends that these
Serial No. 75/200,800
3
registrations are probative of the descriptive significance
of this term in the relevant industry.2
Conceding that ACCESSLINE suggests that “a consumer
will gain ‘access’ and will be able to use a telephone
‘line’,” and that “customers of applicant’s automated
banking services ultimately may realize that they are going
to obtain increased access to something having to do with
their bank accounts,” applicant contends that, ACCESSLINE,
considered in connection with the identified services, is a
vague term; that the meaning of the term is not immediately
conveyed to customers; and that, therefore, ACCESSLINE is
suggestive rather than merely descriptive. Applicant
argues that any doubt on the issue of descriptiveness
should be resolved in its favor.
Turning to the issue of whether ACCESSLINE is merely
descriptive in connection with applicant’s services, we
consider whether ACCESSLINE immediately conveys information

2 While applicant correctly points out that third-party registrations
are not evidence of use of the term nor “do they explain why a
registrant agreed to a disclaimer,” such registrations are of some
probative value in considering the issue of descriptiveness. The
appearance of the term in a significant number of third-party
registrations for marks identifying the same or closely related
services would tend to indicate, at least, that the term is of little
trademark significance. This is particularly true where the term is
disclaimed in each such registration. We note that applicant has not
submitted copies of other third-party registrations containing the term
ACCESSLINE without a disclaimer. While we do not rest our conclusion
in this case on the four third-party registrations of record, this
evidence increases our comfort with our decision herein that ACCESSLINE
is merely descriptive in connection with the identified services.
Serial No. 75/200,800
4
concerning a quality, characteristic, function, ingredient,
attribute or feature of applicant’s product. In re Bright-
Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re Engineering
Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986). We determine
this question on the basis of the identification of
services in the application before us. See, In re Allen
Electric and Equipment Co., 458 F.2d 1404, 173 USPQ 689
(CCPA 1972); In re Vehicle Information Network Inc., 32
USPQ2d 1377 (TTAB 1994); and In re Cryomedical Sciences
Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1377 (TTAB 1994).
We take judicial notice of the dictionary definitions3
submitted by the Examining Attorney with her brief defining
“line” as “26. Telecommunications. a telephone connection”
and defining “access” as “1. … admittance: They have access
to the files” and “10. Computers. To locate (data) for
transfer from one part of a computer system to another,
generally between an external storage device and main
storage.” We take notice, also, of the definitions in the
Computer Desktop Dictionary (1998) of “access” as “to store
data on and retrieve data from a disk or other peripheral
device.”

3 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, 1987.
Serial No. 75/200,800
5
Considering applicant’s promotional flyer submitted as
a specimen, we note applicant’s language in describing its
services under the mark: “In addition to receiving our
current services, now you can also access your accounts to
transfer money and make EAB payments” and “Once you become
familiar with AccessLine, you can speed dial the numbers to
get faster access to the services you need.” The flyer
makes clear that the services include the ability to
“transfer funds between accounts” and “make EAB payments.”
As identified in the application and described in its
promotional material, applicant’s services permit a banking
customer, via telephone, to gain computerized “access” to
that customer’s account to conduct banking business such as
transferring funds and making payments to the bank. As
applicant acknowledges, “line” unquestionably refers to a
telephone line. In view of the clear significance and
definitions of the terms access and access line, we find
nothing vague about the use of ACCESSLINE in connection
with applicant’s identified services. Rather we find that
ACCESSLINE, considered in connection with the services as
identified, immediately conveys, without conjecture, to
customers that they have automated access to their accounts
via telephone to conduct banking business. As the
Examining Attorney notes, merging the words ACCESS and LINE
Serial No. 75/200,800
6
into a single word ACCESSLINE, especially since applicant’s
design continues to emphasize the individual words, does
not change the descriptive significance of the term in
connection with applicant’s identified services.
In conclusion, we find that ACCESSLINE is merely
descriptive in connection with automated telephone banking
services, the services identified herein.
Decision: The requirement for a disclaimer of
ACCESSLINE is affirmed. Applicant is allowed until thirty
days from the mailing date of this decision to submit a
proper disclaimer, failing which registration will be
refused. See, Trademark Rule 2.142(g).
E. J. Seeherman
C. E. Walters
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board