IP Carrier Consulting Group

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2007

No. 78542734 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2007)

Mailed:
June 18, 2007

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re IP Carrier Consulting Group
________

Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734
_______

Louis M. Heidelberger, Esq. of Reed Smith LLP for IP
Carrier Consulting Group.

M. Catherine Faint, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 103 (Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Holtzman, and Bergsman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

IP Carrier Consulting Group filed two intent-to-use
applications for the following marks:1
1. ipPICS (standard character format) for services
ultimately identified as “telecommunications
access services, namely subscription-based access
services featuring a device that allows the user
to access high speed transmission of images and
video via a global computer network, computers
and wireless devices”;2 and,

1 Because the applications were filed by the same applicant,
reviewed by the same examining attorney, and involve common
issues of fact and law, we have consolidated the appeals.

2 Application Serial No. 78542726, filed January 5, 2005.
THIS OPINION IS A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

2
2. ipPIPE (standard character format) for services
ultimately identified as “telecommunications
access services, namely subscription-based access
service featuring a device that allows the user
to access high speed transmission of voice, data,
images, video, and audio via a global computer
network, computers and wireless devices.3

Registration for both applications has been refused on
the ground that the marks are merely descriptive pursuant
to Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1). The examining attorney contends that ipPICS
“is understood to mean an Internet Protocol-based means of
selecting and/or marking Internet content or downloading
pictures, and this immediately describes applicant’s
telecommunications access services featuring a device for
high-speed transmission of images and video via a global
computer network.” (Examining Attorney Brief, p. 2).
With respect to the ipPIPE application, the examining
attorney contends that ipPIPE “is understood to mean an
Internet Protocol-based connection to a communications
network, and this immediately describes applicant’s
telecommunications access services featuring a device for
high-speed access to global computer networks.” (Examining
Attorney Brief, p. 2).
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys
knowledge of a significant quality, characteristic,

3 Application Serial No. 78542734, filed January 5, 2005.
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

3
function, feature or purpose of the services with which it
is used. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Whether a particular term 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, the issue is
whether someone who knows what the services are will
understand the mark to convey information about the
services. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-
1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc.,
49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders
Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (TTAB
1990); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 UPSQ 365, 366
(TTAB 1985).
“On the other hand, if one must exercise mature
thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order
to determine what product or service characteristics the
term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely
descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ
496, 497 (TTAB 1978). See also, In re Shutts, 217 USPQ
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

4
363, 364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Systems,
Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
Finally, in determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive, we must consider the mark in its entirety. As
argued by applicant, common words may be descriptive when
standing alone, but when used together in a composite mark,
they may become a valid trademark. See Concurrent
Technologies Inc. v. Concurrent Technologies Corp., 12
USPQ2d 1054, 1057 (TTAB 1989).
The examining attorney relied on the following
evidence of the meaning of the term “IP” in both
applications to support her descriptiveness refusals:
1. Definition of “IP” from the Acronym Finder at
www.acronymfinder.com identifying one of the
meanings of “IP” as “Internet Provider”;

2. Excerpts from newspaper articles referencing
providers of Internet access as “Internet
Providers”;

3. Definition of “Internet Service Provider” as
“Companies that provide Internet access, email,
etc. for fee. Also called: Point-of-Presence,
ISP, and Internet Providers” from
www.bitpipe.com, an IT information website that
provides a dictionary of terms;

4. Definition of “IP” as an abbreviation for
“Internet Protocol” which is “a connectionless,
best-effort packet switching protocol. It
provides packet routing, fragmentation and re-
assembly through the data link layer.” (FOLDOC
Free Online Dictionary of Computing at
foldoc.org).

Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

5
6. The “About Us” webpage from applicant’s website
(ipcarrier.com) discussing applicant’s “forward
looking concept for marketing advanced
technologies and IP-based services to ordinary
consumers. . . In this online, always-on, soon to
be speech-enabled, personalized world of
communications, the most valuable brand is the
literal word itself, preceded with your, my, and
IP.”; and,

7. The website for the Miami Internet Telephony
Conference & Expo, February 22-25, 2005
(tmc.com), with featured sessions on VoIP.4
Applicant’s Managing Partner made a presentation
entitled “Selling Services: The IP Carrier Agent
Opportunity” including a discussion regarding
“the pace of innovation unfolding in VoIP
services.”

A. ipPICS
To establish that consumers perceive “Pics” to mean
pictures, video, or images when accessed through the
Internet, the examining attorney submitted the following
evidence in the ipPICS application:
1. Definition of “Pics” as “pictures” from The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (3rd ed. 1992)(electronic version) and as
“photographs” and “motion pictures” from Merriam-
Webster Online (m-w.com); and,

4 VoIP is an acronym for “Voice over Internet Protocol” which is
“a protocol for transmitting the human voice in digital form over
the Internet or other networks as an audio stream, instead of
using traditional telephone lines.” The American Heritage
Science Dictionary (2002) accessed through www.dictionary.com.
The Board may take judicial notice of an online dictionary which
is the electronic equivalent of a print publication that
applicant may easily verify. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 UPSQ 1375,
1378 (TTAB 2006). See also the entries from the following
websites submitted by the examining attorney in both
applications: SearchVoIP.com, Foldoc Free on-Line Dictionary of
Computers (foldoc.org), the Acronym Finder at acronymfinder.com.
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

6
2. Excerpts from websites regarding transmitting
pictures and other images through the Internet.
Those websites include the following:

A. The Dialup Store (thedialupstore.com)
promoting Webshots (webshots.com) for a
“great self-install display program that
gives you flexibility for displaying
pictures”;

B. Points South, “A Full Service Internet
Provider” (psouth.net) advertising Propel
Accelerator, a program for facilitating
Internet use by compressing images during
web surfing. This website also references
sample photographs as “Today’s Picks”;5

C. Cebridge High-Speed Internet (cebridge.net),
a high-speed Internet service, promotes its
ability to download pictures, music and
websites quicker and easier;6 and,

D. “Rewriting the Web for Mobile Phones,” an
article from the July 26, 2006 issue of The
Washington Post regarding the development
and commercialization of Internet access
through mobile telephones, and that
specifically discusses Internet access to
transmit television shows and download
images through cell phones.7

5 In this example, the word “Picks” is a double entendre.
“Picks” can mean either “selections” or “pictures.”
6 In a comparison of the Cebridge service with dial-up Internet,
Cebridge references other providers as “Internet Providers.”
7 The examining attorney also submitted evidence that “Pics” is
an acronym for “platform for Internet content selection,” a
process that uses metadata to label webpages to help parents and
teachers control what children and students can access on the
Internet. The American Dictionary of the English Language (4th
ed. 2000)(electronic version), the W3C website (w3.org), and the
Wikipedia online encyclopedia (wikipedia.org). See the
discussion infra regarding the probative value of Wikipedia
entries. Because applicant’s services involve the high-speed
transmission of images and video, not labeling webpages for
controlling access, the evidence regarding a “platform for
Internet content selection” is not relevant to our decision in
this case.
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

7
We start our analysis of the registrability of ipPICS
by inquiring whether ipPICS describes a function or purpose
of “telecommunications access services, namely
subscription-based access services featuring a device that
allows the user to access high speed transmission of images
and video via a global computer network, computers and
wireless devices,” not whether we can guess what the
services are by looking at the mark.
The evidence shows that “ip” is an abbreviation or
acronym for “Internet Provider” or “Internet Protocol,” and
that when used as a prefix for a mark, “IP” means through
the Internet. The evidence regarding VoIP (Voice over
Internet Protocol) shows that “IP” is understood to mean
through the Internet (i.e., voice communications through
the Internet). In addition, applicant’s website refers to
applicant’s concept for marketing IP-based services and how
“the most valuable brand is the literal word itself,
preceded with your, my, and IP.” In this instance, the
“literal word” is “pics” preceded by “ip.” “Pics” is an
abbreviation for “pictures,” “photographs,” or “motion
pictures.” When combined, ipPICS means pictures,
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

8
photographs, or motion pictures through the Internet.8
Applicant’s services comprise providing high-speed
transmission of images and video through the Internet.
Both components of the mark, “IP” and “Pics,” retain their
descriptive meaning when combined and used in connection
with the high-speed transmission of images and video. The
combination of “IP” and “Pics” does not create a new term
with an incongruous meaning. Thus, the mark ipPICS
directly conveys to consumers that applicant’s services
involve the transmission of pictures (i.e., images and
video) through the Internet.
In responding to the descriptiveness refusals
applicant submitted the Wikipedia entry for “Internet
Service Provider” to show that the most common abbreviation
for “Internet Provider” is “ISP.” This raises the issue as
to whether Internet sources in general, and Wikipedia in
particular, is admissible evidence. There are inherent
problems regarding the reliability of Wikipedia entries
because Wikipedia is a collaborative website that permits
anyone to edit the entries. See in re Total Quality Group,
Inc., 51 UPSQ2d 1474, 1475-1476 (TTAB 1999) (information

8 In the case of ipPIPE, the “literal word” is “pipe” preceded
by “ip” presumably for an Internet communication network. See
the discussion regarding ipPIPE infra.
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

9
retrieved from the Internet is probative to the extent that
it is information available to the public, and of the way
in which a term is used by the public, but the weight given
to such evidence must be carefully evaluated because the
source is often unknown). In fact, the “About Wikipedia”
section of wikipedia.org warns users that articles can be
edited by anyone with access to the Internet. That section
further explains that editors do not need any specialized
qualifications to contribute. As a result, entries,
especially newer entries and recent edits, may contain
significant misinformation, false or debatable information,
“unencyclopedic” content, unexpected oversights and
omissions, vandalism, or unchecked information that
requires removal. At any given time an article may be in
the middle of an edit or controversial rewrite. The
editors provide the following warning: “Therefore, a
common conclusion is that it [Wikipedia] is a valuable
resource and provides a good reference point on its
subjects, but like any online source, unfamiliar
information should be checked before relying on it.”9

9 The history department at Middlebury College banned the
citation of Wikipedia in papers and examinations. It has not,
however, banned its use because Wikipedia “is simply too handy to
expect students never to consult it.” Noam Cohen, A History
Department Bans Citing Wikipedia As a Research Source, N.Y. Times
(February 21, 2007).
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

10
On the other hand, Internet evidence is generally
admissible and may be considered for purposes of evaluating
a trademark. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, ___ 3rd ___,
___ USPQ 2d ___ (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also TMEP §710.01(b)
(4th ed. 2005)(“Articles downloaded from the Internet are
admissible as evidence of information available to the
general public, and of the way in which a term is being
used by the public. However the weight given to this
evidence must be carefully evaluated because the source is
often unknown”). In an analysis of the reliability of
Internet sources in support of an expert opinion, the
district court in the Southern District of New York
determined that “the information provided there [Wikipedia]
is not so inherently unreliable as to render inadmissible
any opinion that references it” especially when the
opposing party may “apply the tools of the adversary system
to his report.” Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank, 475
F.Supp.2d 357, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
In view of the foregoing, the Board will consider
evidence taken from Wikipedia so long as the non-offering
party has an opportunity to rebut that evidence by
submitting other evidence that may call into question the
accuracy of the particular Wikipedia information. Our
consideration of Wikipedia evidence is with the recognition
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

11
of the limitations inherent with Wikipedia (e.g., that
anyone can edit it and submit intentionally false or
erroneous information). In this case, applicant submitted
the Wikipedia information for “Internet Service Provider”
in its requests for reconsideration, and the examining
attorney had an opportunity to rebut that evidence if she
believed that the entry was incorrect. Accordingly, we
have considered the Wikipedia entry.
As a collaborative online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a
secondary source of information or a compilation based on
other sources. As recommended by the editors of Wikipedia,
the information in a particular article should be
corroborated. The better practice with respect to
Wikipedia evidence is to corroborate the information with
other reliable sources, including Wikipedia’s sources. In
this case, there is other evidence of which we can take
judicial notice to corroborate applicant’s Wikipedia
evidence. “Internet Service Provider” is defined as
follows:
A company or organization that provides
access to the Internet through its
servers, usually for a fee.
American Heritage Dictionary of
Cultural Literacy (3rd ed. 2005).

Applicant argues that ipPICS is not descriptive
because it takes a “significant leap of imagination” to
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

12
connect ipPICS with the high-speed transmission of images
and video. Applicant reasons that the most common acronym
for “Internet Provider” is “ISP,” not “IP.” Therefore,
consumers encountering the mark ipPICS would have to
translate “ip” to “ISP,” and “the presumed association
between ‘ip’ and Internet provider would at least require a
step of imagination.” (Applicant’s Brief, pp. 4-5). The
problem with applicant’s analysis is that it starts with
the term “Internet Provider,” a term that is not a
component of the mark, and asks what is the most common
acronym for “Internet Provider.” An analysis of the mark
should start with the mark at issue (ipPICS) and inquire
whether that term describes the high-speed transmission of
images and video, not the inquiry whether “ip” is the most
common acronym for “Internet Provider.” The evidence shows
that “IP” means “Internet Provider” or “Internet Protocol.”
In either case, ipPICS directly engenders the commercial
impression or meaning of pictures transmitted through the
Internet.
In view of the foregoing, we find that ipPICS is
merely descriptive of the purpose or function of
applicant’s services for transmitting images and video
through the Internet.

Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

13
B. ipPIPE
To show that consumers perceive the term “Pipe” to
mean a communications protocol when used in connection with
Internet communications, the examining attorney submitted
the following evidence in the ipPIPE application:
1. Definition of “pipe” as “a technique for passing
information from one program process to another.
Unlike other forms of interprocess communication
(IPC), a pipe is one-way communication only.
Basically, a pipe passes a parameter such as the
output of one process to another process which
accepts it as input. The system temporarily holds
the piped information until it is read by the
receiving process.” SearchEnterpriseLinux.com.
See also SearchOpenSource.com and Folddoc.org
attached to the examining attorney’s response to
applicant’s request for reconsideration.

2. Netlingo.com defines “pipe” as “a way of
stringing two programs together so that the
output of one is fed to the other as input.”
“Pipe” is also used as slang for cable.

3. A discussion regarding Internet Service Providers
at about-the-web.com, “An Internet Guide for
Newcomers to the World Wide Web.” The entry
explains that “most Internet traffic is carried
on large national networks that cross the
country. Individual ISPs connect to this
backbone via data pipes of varying sizes. If the
provider uses too small a pipe, you may face long
waiting periods when accessing other parts of the
Internet. To avoid this problem, check the size
of the data pipes used by the ISP.” This website
also uses the terms “Internet Service Provider”
and “Internet Provider” interchangeably.

4. An article in Washington Technology website
(October 27, 1994)(washingtontechnology.com)
regarding Internet providers in rural areas
referenced the quality of the “pipe”: “In the
most rural areas of the country, there are
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

14
telecommunications problems, usually with
bandwidth or the quality of the pipe that
typically make accessing the Internet more
difficult, slower, and more expensive.”

5. The ISWest Internet Specialties West website,
advertises its Data Center/Colocation services as
providing “Ping, Pipe and Power in a safe, secure
environment to support and maintain your
important applications.” ISWest also identifies
itself as an “Internet Provider”; and,

6. The documentation for the Composite Application
Manager SOA, “IP.PIPE specifies the use of the
TCP protocol for underlying communications.”

As we did with ipPICS supra, we start our analysis of
ipPIPE by inquiring whether ipPIPE describes a function,
purpose, feature or characteristic of “telecommunications
access services, namely subscription-based access services
featuring a device that allows the user to access high
speed transmission of voice, data, images, video, and audio
via a global computer network, computers and wireless
devices,” not whether we can guess what the services are by
looking at the mark.
As noted previously, the evidence shows that “ip” is
an abbreviation or acronym for “Internet Provider” or
“Internet Protocol,” and that when used as a prefix for a
mark, “IP” means through the Internet. When used in
connection with telecommunications services, a “Pipe” is an
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

15
asynchronous connection to a network.10 When combined,
ipPIPE means asynchronous Internet communications or an
Internet communications protocol. Applicant’s services
comprise providing high-speed transmission of voice data,
images, video, and audio through the Internet. Both
components of the mark, “IP” and “Pipe,” retain their
descriptive meaning when combined and used in connection
with the high-speed transmission of data, images, video,
and audio. The combination of “IP” and “Pipe” does not
create a new term with an incongruous meaning. Thus, the
mark ipPIPE directly conveys to consumers that applicant’s
services involve the transmission of data through the
Internet.
Applicant argues that ipPIPE is not descriptive
because “it would take a significant leap of imagination,
thought, and perception to take the meaning of ‘ipPipe’ to
describe a service that allows users to transmit voice,
data, images, video, and audio via a global computer
network, computers and wireless devices.” (Applicant’s

10 “Asynchronous” means without the use of fixed time intervals.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) based on the Random House
Unabridged Dictionary (2006). In other words, a process for one-
way communications.
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

16
Brief, p. 6).11 According to applicant, “Pipe” has multiple
commonly understood meanings, such as “1) ‘a long tube or
hollow body for conducting a liquid, gas, or finely divided
solid or for structural purposes’; 2) ‘a large cask of
varying capacity used especially for wine and oil’; 3) ‘a
device for smoking usually consisting of a tube having a
bowl at one end and a mouthpiece at the other’; and 4) ‘a
tubular wind instrument.’”12 Applicant concludes that
because the word “Pipe” has multiple common meanings, and
because the examining attorney did not provide evidence
that consumers would associate the word “pipe” with one-way
communications, the examining attorney has failed to
establish that consumers would understand “pipe” to mean
the transmission of data. (Applicant’s Brief, p. 5).
As noted above, the issue of descriptiveness is
determined in relation to the services identified in the
application. The fact that “pipe” has multiple meanings,
some of which are not descriptive, is not controlling or
relevant to the descriptiveness analysis. So long as any
one of the meanings of a word is descriptive, the word may

11 Applicant again made the argument that “IP” is not the
commonly recognized abbreviation for “Internet Provider.” For
the reasons set forth in the analysis of ipPICS, we find that
“IP” is readily understood to mean “Internet Provider” and/or
“Internet Protocol.”
12 Merriam-Webster Online, m-w.com. (Applicant’s Brief, p. 5).
Serial No. 78542726
Serial No. 78542734

17
be merely descriptive. In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ
258, 259 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ
591, 593 (TTAB 1979); In re Champion International Corp.,
183 USPQ 318, 320 (TTAB 1974). Accordingly, our focus is
on the definition of “pipe” vis-à-vis a means of
transmitting communications.
In view of the foregoing, we find that ipPIPE is
merely descriptive of applicant’s services for transmitting
voice, data, images, video, and audio through the Internet.
Decision: The refusals to register are affirmed.