Expand Beyond Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2004

No. 76189419 (T.T.A.B. May. 28, 2004)

Mailed:
May 28, 2004
Paper No. 15
Bottorff
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Expand Beyond Corporation1
________
Serial No. 76189418
Serial No. 76189419
Serial No. 76189421
_______
Darren S. Cahr of Gardner, Carton & Douglas for Expand
Beyond Corporation.
Cynthia Sloan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116
(Meryl Hershkowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Bottorff and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bottorff, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On December 29, 2000, applicant filed the three above-
captioned applications, by which it seeks registration of
the marks POCKET PERFORMANCE VIEWER (Serial No. 76189418),
POCKET OBJECT VIEWER (Serial No. 76189419) and POCKET
1 By change of name from pocketDBA Systems, L.L.C., recorded on
February 14, 2002 at Reel 2451, Frame 0770.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
2
COMMAND CENTER (Serial No. 76189421), all for goods
identified in each of the applications, as amended, as
“computer software to monitor, manage, and troubleshoot
databases via wireless devices such as personal digital
assistants or cellular telephones,” in Class 9. All three
applications are based on applicant’s allegation of a bona
fide intent to use the marks in commerce, under Trademark
Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b).
In each of the applications, the Trademark Examining
Attorney has made final her refusal to register the mark on
the ground that it is merely descriptive of applicant’s
goods. See Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1).2 Applicant has appealed the final refusal in
each case. Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney
have filed briefs in each of the appeals, but applicant did
not request an oral hearing.
2 In each of the applications, the Trademark Examining Attorney
also issued a final requirement, pursuant to Trademark Rule
2.61(b), for submission of information regarding the significance
of the wording in the marks. However, in her briefs, she failed
to make any argument (or mention) of the requirement. We
therefore deem the requirement waived and shall give it no
further consideration. (We note as well that applicant, in its
responses to the first Office actions in each case, appears to
have adequately responded to the requirement by stating that it
is unaware that the wording has any significance in the relevant
trade or industry.)
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
3
Because the three appeals involve common questions of
law and fact, we shall decide them in this single opinion,
which shall be entered in each of the application files.
The evidence of record on appeal consists of various
dictionary definitions submitted by applicant and the
Trademark Examining Attorney, as well as various excerpted
articles from the NEXIS database and various Internet
materials, submitted by the Trademark Examining Attorney.
However, we have not considered the printout from the
Office’s TESS database (purporting to show applications and
registrations involving marks with the word PERFORMANCE)
submitted for the first time with applicant’s appeal brief
in Serial No. 76189418. The Trademark Examining Attorney
properly objected to this evidence as untimely. See
Trademark Rule 2.142(d).
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
4
goods or services in order to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not in
the abstract, but 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 those goods or
services, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services
because of the manner of its use. That a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).3
It is settled that “[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.” In re Tower Tech
Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002); see also In re
3 Thus, we are not persuaded by applicant’s argument, repeated
throughout its briefs, that because the words which comprise its
marks have numerous additional (or more common) meanings which
are not related to computer software in general or to applicant’s
software in particular, the words cannot be deemed to be merely
descriptive of applicant’s software.
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
5
Home Builders Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313
(TTAB 1990); and In re American Greetings Corporation, 226
USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985). Similarly, as the Board has
explained:
…the question of whether a mark is merely
descriptive must be determined not in the
abstract, that is, not by asking whether one
can guess, from the mark itself, considered in
a vacuum, what the goods or services are, but
rather in relation to the goods or services for
which registration is sought, that is, by
asking whether, when the mark is seen on the
goods or services, it immediately conveys
information about their nature.
In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537,
1539 (TTAB 1998).4
The record on appeal in these cases includes a
printout from applicant’s website, in which applicant
describes its goods as follows:5
4 Thus, applicant misstates the law when it argues, at page 5 of
each of its briefs, that “[a] mark is only descriptive if the
consumer is able to immediately determine the nature of
Applicant’s goods from the mark.” (Emphasis in original.)
Similarly, at page 3 of each of its briefs, applicant misstates
the applicable test when it argues that, “[w]hen faced with the
mark [involved in each case], the consumer will not immediately
understand the nature of Applicant’s goods.” (Emphasis added.)
5 The quoted language from applicant’s website also appears in
the record in a printout of an advertisement for applicant’s
product carried on the website of Athena Group Inc, attached to
the Trademark Examining Attorney’s January 9, 2003 supplemental
final action in application Serial No. 76189418.
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
6
PocketDBA™
Bring the wireless revolution to your databases
Imagine the freedom to manage your Oracle
databases from any location, at any time, all
from the palm of your hand. Free your DBA6 and
your company from the limitations of
workstations and dial-up connections.
PocketDBA is the first wireless database
administration tool, offering DBAs complete
control of Oracle databases through a wireless
Palm Pilot device. Far more than offering a
mere snapshot of status information, PocketDBA
offers DBAs much of the same functionality that
could be had working directly on the database
server – it lets the user get inside the
database to perform almost any task. PocketDBA
also incorporates user-friendly graphs and
charts to facilitate ease-of-use.
PocketDBA is a comprehensive wireless solution
for almost every database administration need,
from basic routines to critical procedures.
PocketDBA is divided into four main modules:
Pocket User Manager™
Perform important daily tasks concerning the
management of users. The DBA can see who is
connected to the database, and quickly learn
about the locks, memory, rollback segments,
SQL, sorts and other information on each
connected session. The DBA can also resolve
locking issues and security by selectively
“killing” existing connections to the database.
Users may be added to or removed from the
database, while passwords and default
6 We take judicial notice that DBA is an acronym for “database
administrator.” See Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
at 141, 146. The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary
definitions. See, e.g., University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C.
Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703
F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also TBMP
§704.12(a).
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
7
permissions can be set and adjusted. The
Pocket User Manager can also be used to view
and modify security privileges throughout the
database.
Pocket Object Viewer™
Browse all database objects organized by
schema, or by object type. This includes
constraints, functions, indexes, package
specifications and bodies, procedures, rollback
segments, sequences, tables, triggers, views,
and other data types. Exploration and
navigation among objects is simple – for
example, the DBA can drill-down from a table
into its statistics, storage parameter
information, or table description, among other
options. View extensive details on the
physical attributes of database files,
including size, directory, and status
information. The DBA can also change the
storage sizes of various objects as needed.
Pocket Performance Viewer™
View and analyze vital database performance
issues. Memory usage, disk usage, and
performance statistics can be reviewed in user-
friendly graphs and charts. Using the Pocket
Performance Viewer, the DBA can quickly
identify problematic areas of database
performance, and detect potential problems in a
proactive manner before the impact database and
application productivity. For example,
problematic SQL statements, poorly sized
objects, and hit ratios can be identified.
Dozens of built-in performance measures are
provided.
Pocket Command Center™
Pocket DBA includes the Pocket Command Center
as an all-purpose interface to issue any
command or run any database query. The Pocket
Command Center may be easily customized on a
query-by-query basis to view results clearly,
even on a mobile device’s small screen. The
Pocket Command Center completes the PocketDBA
product, as it allows for any command or query
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
8
not included in the other modules, which may be
necessary for the user’s specific applications.
We reject applicant’s argument that this evidence from
its website is not probative on the issue of mere
descriptiveness. Applicant contends that
[a] mark is only descriptive if the consumer is
able to immediately determine the nature of
Applicant’s goods from the mark. [citations
omitted]. Although Applicant’s website makes
reference to [the words in applicant’s marks,
e.g., PERFORMANCE, OBJECT], it is not until the
consumer accesses this website that he or she
will be able to determine what is meant by the
mark’s reference to [these words]. …
Accordingly, because the consumer must
reference Applicant’s marketing material to
determine the goods at issue, the consumer
cannot, by definition, immediately determine
the nature of Applicant’s goods from the mark
alone; the consumer must turn to external
documentation to truly understand the nature of
Applicant’s goods in connection to the mark.
(Emphasis in original.)
First, applicant’s contention that the consumer cannot
immediately “determine the nature of Applicant’s goods from
the mark alone” misstates the applicable legal test for
mere descriptiveness. As noted above, “[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.”
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
9
In re Tower Tech Inc., supra, 64 USPQ2d at 1317. Second,
it is settled that the applicant’s own usage of the terms
at issue in its marketing materials is highly probative
evidence on the issue of genericness, and by extension, the
issue of mere descriptiveness. See In re Gould Paper
Corp., 835 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re
Westminster International Co. Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1958 (TTAB
1992). Accordingly, we have considered this evidence of
applicant’s own usage of the terms at issue in our
determination of whether applicant’s marks are merely
descriptive.
POCKET PERFORMANCE VIEWER
According to applicant’s identification of goods,
applicant’s software allows the user to monitor, manage and
troubleshoot databases “via wireless devices such as
personal digital assistants or cellular telephones.”
Applicant’s website similarly describes applicant’s
software as “offering DBAs complete control of Oracle
databases through a wireless Palm Pilot device.” The NEXIS
evidence of record shows that these types of devices are
called “pocket” devices. See, for example:
Using a wireless device – such as a tablet
computer, a laptop, or a PDA, which are pocket
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
10
devices – is the way the healthcare workers
want to work.
Healthcare Financial Management (August 1,
2001). (Emphasis added.)
Consider employees at Ericsson’s Berkeley
Wireless Center, where there are no fixed
office connections. Instead employees use
wireless phones, personal digital assistants or
other pocket devices.
Wireless Week (October 16, 2000). (Emphasis
added.)
For those who are Palm-free, there’s another
pocket device that offers wireless Web surfing
and other services – the cellular phone.
Black Enterprise (April 2000). (Emphasis
added.)
We also take judicial notice that in Peter Dyson,
Dictionary of Networking at 291 (3d ed. 1999), “personal
digital assistant” is defined as follows: “Abbreviated
PDA. A tiny, pen-based, battery-powered computer that
combines personal organization software with fax and e-mail
facilities into a unit that fits into your pocket.”
(Emphasis added.) We likewise take judicial notice that in
Dick Pontaine, The New Penguin Dictionary of Computing at
356 (2001), the entry for “Palm” is: “A range of pocket
computers manufactured by Palm Computing Inc. (a division
of 3COM CORPORATION). They are notable for using the
GRAFFITI handwriting recognition system instead of a
keyboard, for their small size (they fit into a shirt
pocket), and for their ability to HOTSYNC with a desktop
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
11
computer by pressing a single button…” (Emphasis added.)
The same dictionary includes (at page 375) the following
definition of “pocket computer”:
A category of computer even smaller than a
hand-held computer, and which can be carried
about the person, in a shirt or jacket pocket.
To qualify as a pocket computer, such a machine
must be able to load and run new software,
unlike a fixed-function POCKET CALCULATOR.
Examples include the PALM range, various models
based on Microsoft’s POCKET PC specification,
and several models from PSION and CASIO.
(Emphasis added.)
Based on this dictionary evidence and on the NEXIS evidence
showing how the term is used in the press, we find that the
word POCKET in applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of a
feature or characteristic of applicant’s software; it
merely describes the type of wireless devices, i.e., pocket
devices, on which the software is designed to be loaded and
via which the software is used to perform its database
monitoring, managing and troubleshooting functions.
We are not persuaded by applicant’s argument that
although POCKET may describe the devices on which the
software runs, it does not describe the software itself. A
significant feature of the software itself is that it may
be loaded and run on pocket devices. POCKET merely
describes this feature of the software. Likewise, we are
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
12
not persuaded by applicant’s argument that because the word
POCKET has other, non-descriptive meanings in different
contexts, it is not merely descriptive of applicant’s
goods. As noted above, we must determine the mere
descriptiveness of applicant’s mark in the context of
applicant’s goods, not in a vacuum or in the abstract. In
re Tower Technology, supra. Persons familiar with the
features of applicant’s software will readily understand
that the word POCKET in applicant’s mark refers to one such
feature of the software, i.e., that it runs on pocket
devices. POCKET therefore is merely descriptive of
applicant’s goods.
We also find that the words PERFORMANCE VIEWER in
applicant’s mark are merely descriptive of applicant’s
software. According to applicant’s own website, a function
or purpose of the software is to allow the user to
[v]iew and analyze vital database performance
issues. Memory usage, disk usage, and
performance statistics can be reviewed in user-
friendly graphs and charts. Using the Pocket
Performance Viewer, the DBA can quickly
identify problematic areas of database
performance, and detect potential problems in a
proactive manner before they impact database
and application productivity. For example,
problematic SQL statements, poorly sized
objects, and hit ratios can be identified.
Dozens of built-in performance measures are
provided. (Emphasis added.)
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
13
Thus, a function or feature of applicant’s software is that
it allows database performance issues to be viewed by the
user; the software functions as a performance viewer.
Persons familiar with the features of applicant’s software
will directly perceive that the words PERFORMANCE VIEWER in
applicant’s mark refer to this feature of the software.
The fact that “performance viewer” might have different
meanings in other contexts (such as binoculars used to view
a concert performance, in applicant’s example), is
irrelevant; the mere descriptiveness of the words must be
determined in the context of applicant’s goods.
In some cases, a mark comprising a combination of
merely descriptive components is registrable if the
combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a unique,
nondescriptive meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or
incongruous meaning as applied to the goods. See, e.g., In
re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382
(C.C.P.A. 1968)(SUGAR & SPICE held not merely descriptive of
bakery products); In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB
1983)(SNO-RAKE held not merely descriptive of a snow removal
hand tool). This is not such a case. Applicant cites this
proposition, but fails to identify any new, unitary or
incongruous commercial impression that is created by the
combination of the words POCKET PERFORMANCE VIEWER. Nor do
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
14
we see anything incongruous or unique which results from
applicant’s combining of these three merely descriptive
terms. Consumers familiar with the features of applicant’s
software will directly and immediately perceive, without
resort to imagination or reflection, that the mark describes
a significant function, and a significant feature, of the
software, i.e., that the software allows the user to view
database performance issues, and that it allows such viewing
of performance issues to be accomplished via wireless pocket
devices such as personal digital assistants and cellular
telephones.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that
POCKET PERFORMANCE VIEWER is merely descriptive of
applicant’s goods, and that the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal is
proper.
POCKET OBJECT VIEWER
We also find that applicant’s mark POCKET OBJECT
VIEWER is merely descriptive of applicant’s software. For
the reasons discussed above, we find that the word POCKET
is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s software,
i.e., that it is designed to run on or via pocket devices.
OBJECT VIEWER likewise is merely descriptive of a function
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
15
of applicant’s software; the words immediately inform the
consumer that the software allows the user to view database
objects. This is apparent from applicant’s own description
of the software (on its website):
Browse all database objects organized by
schema, or by object type. This includes
constraints, functions, indexes, package
specifications and bodies, procedures, rollback
segments, sequences, tables, triggers, views,
and other data types. Exploration and
navigation among objects is simple – for
example, the DBA can drill-down from a table
into its statistics, storage parameter
information, or table description, among other
options. View extensive details on the
physical attributes of database files,
including size, directory, and status
information. The DBA can also change the
storage sizes of various objects as needed.
Likewise, one page of applicant’s website (a printout of
which is attached to the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
December 20, 2001 final action) is entitled “Browse By Type
of Object.” It includes a “sample screen” showing the
software in use, on which is displayed the following
wording: “The database has the following objects. Click
on the object type for more information.” The webpage
text appearing alongside the sample screen reads as
follows:
Shown on the left is a list of all types of
objects in the database. The name of each type
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
16
of object is displayed along with the total
number of objects of that type. Object types
include cache, cluster, constraint, function,
package, table, rollback, sequence, and
synonym, among many others. The DBA can click
on the object type to drill down into more
information on the objects in the database of
that type. (Emphasis added.)
It is clear from this evidence from applicant’s own
marketing materials that a significant function of the
software is that it displays the types of objects in the
database so that they may be viewed by the user. The words
OBJECT VIEWER directly and immediately describe this
function or feature of the software.
Viewing applicant’s mark in its entirety, we find that
POCKET OBJECT VIEWER is merely descriptive of a significant
function, and of a significant feature, of applicant’s
software. The software allows the user to view database
objects, and it allows such viewing of objects to be
accomplished via wireless pocket devices such as personal
digital assistants and cellular telephones. Moreover, the
mere descriptiveness of each of the words in applicant’s
mark is not negated when they are combined into the three-
word composite mark; such combining of the words results in
no new unique, incongruous or otherwise distinctive
commercial impression. The words are as merely descriptive
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
17
when considered together as they are when considered
separately.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that
POCKET PERFORMANCE VIEWER is merely descriptive of
applicant’s goods, and that the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness refusal is
proper.
POCKET COMMAND CENTER
Finally, we find that applicant’s POCKET COMMAND
CENTER mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s software.
As discussed above, the word POCKET merely describes a
feature of the software, i.e., that it is designed to run
on or via wireless pocket devices. The words COMMAND
CENTER also are merely descriptive of a feature or function
of the software, i.e., its capability to function as a
means by which the user can issue necessary commands.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has made of record
the following definition of “command” from the Random House
Computer & Internet Dictionary (3d ed. 1999): “an
instruction to a computer or device to perform a specific
task.” It is apparent from applicant’s description of its
product (on its website) that a significant function or
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
18
feature of the software is that it is used to issue such
commands:
Pocket DBA includes the Pocket Command Center
as an all-purpose interface to issue any
command or run any database query. The Pocket
Command Center may be easily customized on a
query-by-query basis to view results clearly,
even on a mobile device’s small screen. The
Pocket Command Center completes the PocketDBA
product, as it allows for any command or query
not included in the other modules, which may be
necessary for the user’s specific applications.
Applicant argues that COMMAND CENTER is not merely
descriptive of the goods because it is a “metonymy,”
a figure of speech wherein one thing is used to
represent another. Examples of metonymy
include the use of the phrase ‘the bottle’ to
suggest ‘strong alcohol,’ or the use of ‘the
crown’ to suggest ‘the king.’ It is a purely
allusive pattern of speech, which by definition
cannot be descriptive, and is in fact an
unalloyed form of suggestion.
(Brief at 4.) Applicant cites no authority for its
contention that a metonymy (if that indeed is what “command
center” is) by definition cannot be deemed to be merely
descriptive. In any event, the Trademark Examining
Attorney has made of record NEXIS article excerpts and
advertisements from the Internet which show that “command
center” often is used in various areas of the computer
field to describe software that is used to issue commands
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
19
necessary to operate computer products or systems.
Examples are:
Launch’Em 3.1 is the most advanced applications
launcher available for Palm OS(R), allowing you
to organize your files with convenient tabbed
folders, with the simplicity of drag-n-drop
interface. Launch’Em 3.1 boasts several new
improvements, making your favorite Palm OS(R)
command center even better! An improved user
interface, expandable plugin architecture,
enhanced security support, customizable list
view, tab preferences, gadget settings, and
HackMaster extensions top off the list of
features for this must-have update.
(Palm Boulevard website, printout attached to
Trademark Examining Attorney’s January 30, 2003
supplemental final action.)
TeleWare’s program took advantage of graphical
user interface features that made accounting
software easier to use. It introduced a
command center that allowed graphical
navigation through the system.
Accounting Technology (January 1997).
…FiberCycle’s content acceleration
multiprocessor architecture, ultra-dense
server, front-end Web server component
integrator and WebBunker command center
software. The WebBunker 206 software targets
the data center requirements of reduced power
consumption and increased rack density…
Fiber Optics News (March 19, 2001).
…when an e-mail message comes in from their
most strategic customer, which happens to be
General Electric, they would like the command-
center software technology to be able to
discern that and prioritize it.
InfoWorld (November 8, 1999).
That is where Ikonic comes in. The 10-year-old
company has developed interface software to run
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
20
the set-top boxes that are the command centers
of interactive television.
San Francisco Business Times (September 8,
1995).
Based on this evidence of descriptive usage by the
industry and in the press of “command center” in reference
to software, we find that consumers will directly and
immediately perceive that the words COMMAND CENTER in
applicant’s mark refer to this function or feature of
applicant’s software, i.e., that the software provides a
central interface by which the user can effect or control
the software’s issuance of the commands necessary for
performance of its database management functions.
Viewing the mark as a whole, we find that applicant’s
combining of the descriptive word POCKET with the
descriptive words COMMAND CENTER does not result in a
composite which is new, incongruous or otherwise
distinctive. The composite POCKET COMMAND CENTER is as
merely descriptive as the separate words are when
considered individually.
Thus, we find that POCKET COMMAND CENTER is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods, and that the Trademark
Examining Attorney’s Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness
Ser. Nos. 76189418, 76189419 and 76189421
21
refusal accordingly is proper.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we find that the
marks in each of the applications on appeal are merely
descriptive of the goods identified in the applications,
and that registration of the marks accordingly is barred by
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. We have considered
all of applicant’s arguments to the contrary (including
those not specifically addressed in this opinion), but we
find them unpersuasive of a different result.
Decision: The refusal to register in each of the three
involved applications is affirmed.