Jerold J. Samet

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2000

No. 75299744 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2000)

Paper No. 15
11/8/00 HRW
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Jerold J. Samet
________
Serial No. 75/299,744
_______
Warren N. Low for applicant.
Linda E. Blohm, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
110 (Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Wendel and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Jerold J. Samet has filed an application to register
the mark YOUTH LEADERS INTERNATIONAL for “educational
services, namely conducting classes and workshops in civic
responsibility, in business and government, in services to
the local community, in understanding and cooperating with
differing cultures, and in critical thinking, to train
youth in leadership skills.”1

1 Serial No. 75/299,744, filed May 28, 1997, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. An
amendment to allege use was filed November 30, 1999, claiming
first use dates of October 1996.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/299,744
2
Registration has been finally refused on the ground
that the mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act. The refusal was appealed and both
applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs. An
oral hearing was not requested.
The Examining Attorney maintains that the proposed
mark is merely descriptive of the purpose of applicant’s
educational services, which is to instruct the participants
therein to be youth leaders. As an alternative, she argues
that the mark is merely descriptive because it identifies
the intended users of applicant’s services, i.e., youth
leaders who wish to improve their leadership skills. The
term INTERNATIONAL as used in applicant’s mark is argued to
do no more than indicate that the scope of the services is
not geographically limited.
Applicant contends that while YOUTH LEADERS
INTERNATIONAL, in itself, may suggest “some association of
youth” for “some possible purpose,” it does not merely
describe anything, much less applicant’s educational
services. Applicant insists that its mark does not
immediately convey any information or knowledge with
respect to any quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of applicant’s educational services.
Ser No. 75/299,744
3
A term or phrase is merely descriptive within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys
information about a characteristic, function, purpose or
feature of the goods or services with which it is being
used. Whether or not a particular term is merely
descriptive is not determined in the abstract, but rather
in relation to the goods or services for which registration
is sought, the context in which the mark is being used, and
the significance the mark is likely to have, because of the
manner in which it is used, to the average purchaser as he
encounters the goods or services bearing the mark. See In
re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215
(CCPA 1978). It is not necessary that the term or phrase
describe all the characteristics or features of the goods
or services in order to be merely descriptive; it is
sufficient if the term or phrase describes one significant
attribute thereof. See In re Pennzoil Products Co., 20
USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991).
As noted above, the descriptiveness of a term or
phrase must be determined as the mark is viewed in
connection with the involved goods or services, and not in
the abstract. Thus, the question is not what YOUTH LEADERS
INTERNATIONAL describes in itself, but rather whether it is
Ser No. 75/299,744
4
merely descriptive when viewed by the average purchaser in
connection with applicant’s specific services.
Applicant’s educational services, as identified, are
classes and workshops involving various activities, all of
which are directed to training youth in leadership skills.
In other words, the ultimate goal or purpose of applicant’s
classes and workshops is to develop YOUTH LEADERS. The
specimens made of record with the amendment to allege use
describe the potential offered to youth to “expand your
potential and grow as a leader” by participation in
applicant’s program.
Accordingly, we find that the term YOUTH LEADERS, as
used in applicant’s mark, would immediately convey
information to prospective purchasers of applicant’s
educational services as to the ultimate purpose of these
services, i.e., that the services are designed to train or
develop YOUTH LEADERS. See In re Pilgrim Book Society,
Inc., 149 USPQ 658 (TTAB 1966)(GOOD READING FOR YOUTH
merely descriptive of the ultimate aim of applicant’s
services in connection with promoting and organizing book
fairs). We are not looking at educational services in
general, as applicant would appear to suggest is the proper
test, but rather educational services with a particular
goal in mind. Whether considered as the major purpose of
Ser No. 75/299,744
5
applicant’s classes and workshops or as the result which is
hoped to be attained thereby, YOUTH LEADERS is merely
descriptive of the services.2 See In re Officer’s
Organization for Economic Benefits, Limited, 221 USPQ 184
(TTAB 1983)(THE OFFICER’S ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC
BENEFITS readily perceived as describing major desired
result or outcome of applicant’s services).
The additional term INTERNATIONAL in applicant’s mark
is one which is not likely to be viewed by potential
purchasers as other than an indication of the geographic
scope or contemplated scope of applicant’s services. The
term imparts no source-indicating significance to
applicant’s otherwise descriptive mark. See In re National
Rent A Fence, Inc., 220 USPQ 479 (TTAB 1983)(NATIONAL RENT
A FENCE merely descriptive of fence rental services).
Accordingly, we find YOUTH LEADERS INTERNATIONAL as a
whole merely descriptive when used in connection with
applicant’s educational services.

2 We find no basis, however, for concurring with the Examining
Attorney’s alternative holding that the mark is merely
descriptive because it identifies the intended users of
applicant’s services.
Ser No. 75/299,744
6
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
H. R. Wendel
T. E. Holtzman
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board