Logicon, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2002

No. 76138081 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2002)

Mailed:
December 17, 2002
Paper No. 10
DEB
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Logicon, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/138,081
_______
Bruce B. Brunda of Stetina Brunda Garred & Bruckner for
Logicon, Inc.
Khanh M. Le, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104
(Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Bucher and Drost, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Logicon, Inc. seeks registration of the mark LogicHelp
in the stylized letters shown, on the Principal Register in
connection with services recited, as amended, as “technical
consulting and research in the fields of systems
engineering, design engineering, website development,
computer networks, computer software and computer hardware;
assistance in the nature of troubleshooting of software
applications, tracking and resolving systems failures, and
remote diagnosis and treatment of communications and
systems failures; providing for the remote monitoring of
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76/138,081
- 2 -
system status and service requests via the global computer
network,” in International Class 42.1
This case is now before the Board on appeal from the
final refusal to register based upon the Trademark
Examining Attorney's finding that the mark is merely
descriptive of the specified services under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Lanham Act. Both applicant and the Trademark
Examining Attorney filed briefs on this issue, but
applicant but did not request an oral hearing before the
Board.
Based upon careful consideration of the record in this
application and the written arguments on appeal, we hold
that the Trademark Examining Attorney has not met her
burden of establishing that the mark is merely descriptive
of the services recited in the application. Accordingly,
we reverse the refusal to register.
It is well settled that a term is considered to be
merely descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning
of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it forthwith
conveys information concerning any significant ingredient,
quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use
of the goods or services. See In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216,
1 Application Serial No. 76/138,081, was filed on September
29, 2000, based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce.
Serial No. 76/138,081
- 3 -
3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Abcor Development
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). It
is not necessary that a term describe all of the properties
or functions of the goods or services in order for it to be
considered to be merely descriptive thereof; rather, it is
sufficient if the term describes a significant attribute of
them. Moreover, 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. See In re Bright-Crest,
Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). Thus, "[w]hether
consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from
consideration of the mark alone is not the test." In re
American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
However, a mark is suggestive if, when the goods or
services are encountered under the mark, a multistage
reasoning process, or the utilization of imagination,
thought or perception, is required in order to determine
what attributes of the goods or services the mark indicates.
See In re Abcor Development Corp., supra at 218, and In re
Mayer-Beaton Corp., 223 USPQ 1347, 1349 (TTAB 1984).
In support of her refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Act, the Trademark Examining Attorney
Serial No. 76/138,081
- 4 -
submitted dictionary entries for the words “logic”2 and
“help,”3 as well as excerpts of articles from various
printed publications retrieved from the Lexis/Nexis
database. These articles do reflect the fact that
information technology consultants like applicant provide a
variety of services designed to help their customers.
Typically, as reflected in the Nexis stories, these end-
users have distributed systems environments and they
contract with a service provider like applicant to receive
comprehensive help desk support solutions. Among the types
of such help being provided, the articles reflect online
assistance debugging problems in computer software codes
(i.e., computer application logic). However, in none of
these examples is the combined term sought to be
registered, “logic help,” ever used. Nonetheless, the
Trademark Examining Attorney argues that this evidence
supports her conclusion that “troubleshooting includes the
debugging of hardware and software logic,” and “[t]hus, the
mark ‘LogicHelp’ is descriptive of the recited services.”
(Trademark Examining Attorney’s appeal brief, p. 5).
2 Logic: The sequence of operations performed by hardware or
software. Hardware logic is made up of circuits that perform an
operations (sic). Software logic (program logic) is the sequence
of instructions in a program. Computer Desktop Encyclopedia.
3 Help: [intransitive verb] To be of service; give
assistance. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (3rd ed. 1992).
Serial No. 76/138,081
- 5 -
By contrast, applicant argues that “due to the many
definitions of the terms ‘LOGIC’ and ‘HELP,’4 as well as the
possible definitions or interpretations of the term
‘LogicHelp,’ Applicant’s mark is not merely descriptive.”
We agree with applicant. None of the various connotations
of the word “logic” describes applicant’s recited services.
While it appears from the recital as if the particular
service module to be offered by applicant under the
“LogicHelp” mark will provide comprehensive help desk
solutions, we cannot conclude that the composite term,
“LogicHelp,” will immediately convey information as to a
significant characteristic or feature of the recited
services. This combined term is somewhat terse and
nebulous, creating a composite more distinctive than the sum
of its parts.
We have no way of knowing exactly what prospective
customers will think of upon seeing applicant’s “LogicHelp”
mark used in connection with the recited services, but do
conclude that some degree of thought or imagination will be
required to reach any understanding about applicant’s
enumerated services.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is reversed.
4 Exhibits A and B, attached to applicant’s response to the
initial Office action, were copies taken from Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) and contained nine entries for
the word “logic” and nineteen for the word “help.”
Serial No. 76/138,081
- 6 -