Logicon, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2003

No. 76137905 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2003)

Mailed:
January 22, 2003
Paper No. 10
DEB
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Logicon, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/137,905
_______
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 LogicEd
in the stylized letters shown, on the Principal Register in
connection with services recited, as amended, as
“educational services, namely, providing seminars and
training in the use and operation of computer systems,
computer networks, information systems, and business
machinery and equipment,” in International Class 41.1
1 Application Serial No. 76/137,905, was filed on September
29, 2000, based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76/137,905
- 2 -
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,
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
Serial No. 76/137,905
- 3 -
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 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
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). As has often been stated, there is
a thin line of demarcation between a suggestive mark and a
merely descriptive one, with the determination of which
category a mark falls into frequently being a difficult
matter involving a good measure of subjective judgment. See
In re Atavio, 25 USPQ2d 1361 (TTAB 1992) and In re TMS Corp.
of the Americas, 200 USPQ 57, 58 (TTAB 1978). The
distinction, furthermore, is often made on an intuitive
basis rather than as a result of precisely logical analysis
Serial No. 76/137,905
- 4 -
susceptible of articulation. See In re George Weston Ltd.,
228 USPQ 57, 58 (TTAB 1985).
In support of her refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Act, the Trademark Examining Attorney
submitted dictionary entries for the words “logic”2 and
“ed,”3 as well as excerpts of articles from various printed
publications retrieved from the Lexis/Nexis database.
These articles do reflect the fact that “ed” is often used
as a shortened form of the word “education,” and that
various institutions provide instruction in computer
programming logic.
By contrast, applicant argues that “due to the many
definitions or interpretations of the term ‘LogicEd,’
Applicant’s mark is not merely descriptive.” (Applicant’s
appeal brief, p. 7).
In the present case, we are constrained to 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 “LogicEd” mark
will provide educational services in the use and operation
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.
Serial No. 76/137,905
- 5 -
of computer systems, possibly including instruction in
computer programming logic, we cannot conclude that the
composite term, “LogicEd,” 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 “LogicEd”
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.
3 ED: Education Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations
Dictionary (28th ed.)