iLine, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 7, 2002

No. 75621298 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2002)

6/7/02

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
____________

In re iLine, LLC
____________

Serial No. 75/621,298
____________

Samuel Fifer for iLine, LLC.

Kelly A. Choe, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113, (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Hanak, Wendel and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge:

iLine, LLP (applicant) seeks to register ILINE in
typed drawing form for “telecommunications services,
namely, the international electronic transmission of voice
and facsimile data over data lines using the global
computer network.” The intent-to-use application was filed
on January 13, 1999.
Citing Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, the
Examining Attorney has refused registration on the basis
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
that applicant’s mark ILINE is merely descriptive of
applicant’s services.

Serial No. 75/621,298

As has been stated repeatedly, “a term is merely
descriptive if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of
the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods
[or services].” In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d
811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978)(emphasis added).
Moreover, the immediate idea must be conveyed forthwith
with a “degree of particularity.” In re TMS Corp. of the
Americas, 200 USPQ 57, 59 (TTAB 1978); In re Entenmann’s
Inc., 15 USPQ 750, 751 (TTAB 1990), aff’d 90-1495 (Fed.
Cir. February 13, 1991). Finally, the mere descriptiveness
of a mark is determined by considering the mark in its
entirety, and not considering just the component parts of
the mark. Abcor Development, 200 USPQ at 218. See also In
re American Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341, 51 USPQ2d
1832, 1836 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
It is the position of the Examining Attorney that “I
LINE [is] understood to mean INTERNET LINE,” and that the
term INTERNET LINE is clearly descriptive of
“telecommunications services, namely, the international
electronic transmission of voice and facsimile data over
data lines using the global computer network.” (Examining
2
Ser. No. 75/621,298

Attorney’s brief page 8).
In an effort to show that the letter I is synonymous
with the word INTERNET, the Examining Attorney has made of
record only two pieces of evidence. First, the Examining
Attorney has submitted a photocopy of a page from the
Illustrated Computer Dictionary for Dummies (4th ed. 2000)
where the letter “i” is defined as follows: “The prefix for
all things Internet, as in iMac. A second cousin to e,
which is more prominently used, though i is more accurate
because everything e happens on the i, Internet. See also
e.” Second, the Examining Attorney has submitted a press
release dated April 14, 1998 from States News Service which
contains the following sentence: ‘“I lines will not only
carry voice, but also cable, and video,’ said Sarah
Hofstetter, Vice President of Corporate Communications at
IDT Corp.”
We will deal with the Examining Attorney’s second
piece of evidence first. This piece of evidence is not a
news story, but rather is simply a press release put out by
States News Service on behalf of IDT Corp. Because the
Examining Attorney has not established that this press
3
Ser. No. 75/621,298

release was ever carried by any publication and thus was
exposed to the public, it is entitled to no evidentiary
value. Indeed, given the vast expanse of the Nexis data
base, we presume that had this press release been carried
by a publication, that publication using the term “I lines”
would have been picked up in the Examining Attorney’s
search.
With regard to the dictionary definition made of
record by the Examining Attorney, applicant notes that it
could not find one other dictionary which listed the letter
I (in either lower or upper case) or listed the term “I
lines” (whether depicted as one or two words).
This Board has conducted its own independent search of
all available computer dictionaries in the trademark
library of the USPTO. Simply by way of example, some of
the dictionaries consulted include the following: Webster’s
New World Dictionary of Computer Terms (8th ed. 2000);
Barron’s Dictionary of Computer & Internet Terms (7th ed.
2000); The Computer Glossary (2001); Dictionary of Computer
Science Engineering and Technology (2001); The Computer
4

Ser. No. 75/621,298

Dictionary (1998); Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
(1997); and the Dictionary of Personal Computing and the
Internet (1997).
In addition, we have also consulted the Acronyms,
Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary (29th ed. 2001).
This is a massive work comprising seven volumes with over
20,000 pages. The comprehensive nature of this work is
demonstrated by the fact that the letter I is listed as
having over 280 definitions. However, not one of these 280
definitions means “Internet,” or anything like Internet.
To be precise, the term “i-line” appears in this work.
However, this work defines this term as a photo-journalism
expression meaning “identification line.”
Obviously, applicant is not seeking to register
INTERNET LINE. Rather, applicant is seeking to register
ILINE. Thus, as the Examining Attorney agrees, the issue
before us is whether the letter I (whether depicted in
lower or upper case) is so generally understood as
representing the term INTERNET so as to be substantially
synonymous therewith. This test for determining whether a
letter or series of letters is merely descriptive was
5
Ser. No. 75/621,298

established by the predecessor to our primary reviewing
Court in Modern Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d
504, 110 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1956). This test is as follows:
It does not follow, however, that all initials of
combinations of descriptive words are ipso facto
unregisterable. While each case must be decided
on the basis of the particular facts involved,
it would seem that, as a general rule, initials
cannot be considered descriptive unless they have
become so generally understood as representing
descriptive words as to be accepted as substantially
synonymous therewith. 110 USPQ at 295 (emphasis
added).

The Modern Optics rule for determining whether
initials are merely descriptive has been favorably received
by other Courts of Appeal. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v.
Stroh Brewery Co., 750 F.2d 631, 224 USPQ 657, 659 (8 Cir.
1984) (“We find the reasoning of Modern Optics
persuasive.”); G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch
Inc., 873 F.2d 985, 10 USPQ2d 1801, 1808 (7 Cir. 1989). Of
course, this Board would be bound to follow the rule of
Modern Optics regardless of its favorable reception by
other circuits.
Based upon this record, we find that the Examining
Attorney has simply failed to establish that the letter I
6
Ser. No. 75/621,298

is substantially synonymous with the term INTERNET. The
one dictionary definition relied upon by the Examining
Attorney is simply outweighed by the plethora of other
dictionaries consulted by this Board which do not list any
definition for the letter I. Indeed, even the massive
20,000 page Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations
Dictionary (29th ed. 2001) does not define the letter I as
meaning INTERNET, although this work provides over 280
other definitions for the letter I. In short, the
Examining Attorney has simply failed to prove her
contention that the evidence “clearly shows that the
wording ILINE [is] understood to mean INTERNET LINE.”
(Examining Attorney’s brief page 8). Accordingly, we find
that applicant’s mark in its entirety (ILINE) is simply not
descriptive of “telecommunications services, namely, the
international electronic transmission of voice and
facsimile data over data lines using the global computer
network,” and hence reverse the refusal to register.
One final comment is in order. At page 6 of her brief
the Examining Attorney contends that “the Board has
recognized that the letter I is generally understood to
7
Ser. No. 75/621,298

mean Internet.” In support of this proposition she cites
In re Zanova Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1300 (TTAB 2001) wherein the
Board held that the mark ITOOL was merely descriptive for
“computer services, namely, providing custom services for
web sites and design of web sites for others” and for
“computer software for use in creating web pages.”
However, the evidentiary record in Zanova was dramatically
different from the current evidentiary record. Not only
did the record in Zanova include numerous articles wherein
the term “Itool” was used descriptively, but more
importantly, the Board noted that “applicant concedes that
‘I’ or ‘i’ can mean ‘Internet.’” 59 USPQ2d at 1304. In
stark contrast, the current applicant has in no way
conceded that the letter I (whether depicted in upper or
lower case) means Internet.
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.

8