Logispire Technologies, LLC.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2015

No. 85954223 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2015)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 25, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Logispire Technologies, LLC.
________

Serial No. 85954223
_______

Carver Clark Farrow II of The Farrow Law Firm for Logispire Technologies, LLC.

Barbara Brown, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116 (Michael W.
Baird, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Cataldo and Taylor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Logispire Technologies, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark PUZZLE PIX (in standard characters) for the following goods,
as amended:
Computer game programs; Computer game software; Computer game
software for personal computers and home video game consoles;
Computer game software for use on mobile and cellular phones;
Computer game software for use with personal computers, home video
game consoles used with televisions and arcade-based video game
consoles; Computer programs for video and computer games;
Downloadable electronic game programs

Serial No. 85954223

- 2 -
in International Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on
the ground that PUZZLE PIX merely describes a function, feature or characteristic
of the identified goods. When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed. Both
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.
A term is merely descriptive of goods (or services) within the meaning of Section
2(e)(1) if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient, quality,
characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use thereof. In re Chamber of Commerce
of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also, In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Whether a mark is merely
descriptive is determined in relation to the goods 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 Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978);
In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). A term need not immediately
convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the goods in order to be
considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it describes one significant attribute,
function or property of them. See In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010; In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338
(TTAB 1973). This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used
or intended to be used in connection with those goods, and the possible significance

1 Application Serial No. 85954223 was filed on June 7, 2013, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of its bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act.
Serial No. 85954223

- 3 -
that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods in the relevant
marketplace. See In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In
re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 200 USPQ at 218; In re Venture Lending Assocs., 226 USPQ
285 (TTAB 1985).
In other words, the question is whether someone who knows what the goods are
will understand the mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech
Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002); In re
Patent & Trademark Servs. Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998). “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.” Coach Servs. Inc.
v. Triumph Learning LLC, 96 USPQ2d 1600, 1616 (TTAB 2010) (quoting In re
Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 497 (TTAB 1978)), vacated-in-part on
other grounds, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Where marks are comprised of multiple words, it is generally held that if the
individual components of a mark retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the
goods, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive and not
registrable. In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012). See
also, e.g., In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052 (TTAB 2006)
(holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses,
Serial No. 85954223

- 4 -
box springs, and pillows where the evidence showed that the term “BREATHABLE”
retained its ordinary dictionary meaning when combined with the term
“MATTRESS” and the resulting combination was used in the relevant industry in a
descriptive sense). Only where the combination of descriptive terms creates a
unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in
relation to the goods is the combined mark registrable. See In re Colonial Stores,
Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 551, 157 USPQ 382, 384 (CCPA 1968); In re Positec Grp. Ltd.,
108 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013).
The Examining Attorney argues that
PUZZLE is defined as “a toy, problem or other contrivance designed to
amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient
effort” and the word PIX is the plural of the word “pic” meaning “a
photograph.” [internal citations omitted] Each of these terms identifies
features of the applicant’s goods, specifically the nature and the subject
matter of game software featuring pictures or photographs designed to
amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved.2

The Examining Attorney further argues that

In this case, both the individual components and the composite result
are descriptive of applicant's goods and do not create a unique,
incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.
Specifically, the combination of these terms is widely used in a merely
descriptive manner to identify game software featuring virtual jigsaw
puzzles featuring photographs or pictures and the wording “picture
puzzle” is defined in the dictionary as jigsaw puzzle.3

2 10 TTABVUE 5. Record citations are to TTABVUE, the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board’s publically available docket history system. See Turdin v. Trilobite, Ltd., 109
USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014).
3 10 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 85954223

- 5 -
In support of the refusal to register, the Examining Attorney made of record
with her September 23, 2013 Office Action, the following definitions of the terms
comprising the mark:
“puzzle” – “a toy, problem, or other contrivance designed to amuse by
presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient effort”;4
“pix” – “informal photographs; prints”.5
The Examining Attorney further made of record the following definition of “picture
puzzle” – “jigsaw puzzle”.6 In addition, the Examining Attorney made of record with
her September 23, 2013 Office Action copies of the following pages from
informational and commercial Internet websites displaying the term PUZZLE PIX
used in connection with various puzzles:

4 Dictionary.com, based on the Random House Dictionary (2013).

5 Id., based on Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th ed. (2009).

6 Merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
Serial No. 85954223

- 6 -

(a puzzle book for children available from Barnesandnoble.com);
Serial No. 85954223

- 7 -

(a sliding photo puzzle game from BlackBerry reviewed on GameFAQs.com); and

Serial No. 85954223

- 8 -
(a free telephone app. picture puzzle game available from download.cnet.com).
The Examining Attorney further made of record with her September 23, 2013
Office Action copies of pages from informational and commercial Internet websites
displaying the term “pix puzzle” or “picture puzzle” used in connection with various
puzzles, of which the following is illustrative:

Serial No. 85954223

- 9 -

While the Examining Attorney’s evidence is somewhat limited, it nevertheless
establishes that the term “puzzle” is defined as a toy or other contrivance designed
to amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or effort, and “pix” is
defined as an informal term for a photograph. These definitions establish, and
Applicant acknowledges, that PUZZLE PIX describes a game consisting of a puzzle
in the form of a picture. The Examining Attorney’s Internet evidence is consistent
with these dictionary definitions and demonstrates that consumers are exposed to
third parties using the term “puzzle pix” to identify puzzles in the form of pictures.
Applicant argues that
A Puzzle is of course a toy, problem of other contrivance designed to
amuse by presenting difficulties to be solved by ingenuity or patient
effort. A Pix is a colloquial abbreviation for Picture. Accordingly to the
Serial No. 85954223

- 10 -
extent that a Puzzle Pix refers to the actual game wherein a user must
solve a puzzle picture, Applicant concurs with the Examining Attorney.

Applicant’s mark however is directed, not to the gaming software
wherein a user solves a puzzle picture (i.e. the end product), but the
developer software for creating the puzzle picture. Specifically,
Applicant’[s] game software permits one to take any picture, digitize it,
and create [a] puzzle picture, rather than using the ones that were
generated by someone else.

Applicant notes that in the supporting evidence cited by the
Examining Attorney, none of the described goods relate to the
generating of the puzzle pictures, but merely the game play.7

Applicant further contends that
The fact that a term is not found in a dictionary is not controlling on
the question of registrability if the examining attorney can show that
the term has a well understood and recognized meaning. See In re
Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977). However, the
examining attorney has been unable to present any evidence that the
term PUZZLE PIX has any generally well understood meaning or
recognized meaning other than as a game. More specifically, the
examining attorney has presented no evidence that a consumer would
believe that PUZZLE PIX would be used to create rather than play a
puzzle.8

However, Applicant’s broadly-worded identification of goods includes “computer
game programs” and “computer game software” for use on various platforms (e.g.,
mobile or cellular phones, personal computers, video game consoles and arcade
consoles), which clearly encompass games including puzzle pictures. Applicant may
not seek to restrict by argument the goods recited in its involved application. Cf. In
re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986). As a result, the
Examining Attorney’s evidence that PUZZLE PIX merely describes puzzles in the

7 8 TTABVUE 9.

8 8 TTABVUE 10.
Serial No. 85954223

- 11 -
form of pictures clearly supports her position that the mark merely describes the
identified goods. Furthermore, we observe that Applicant’s identification of goods
includes “computer programs for video and computer games” which may include
computer game programs themselves and also computer programs allowing a user
to digitize one’s own picture and create a puzzle picture from it rather than from a
picture generated by someone else. Indeed, the Internet webpage from
download.cnet.com reproduced above indicates that the “Puzzle Pix” game discussed
therein allows a player to solve puzzles from supplied pictures or from one’s own
pictures. As a result, PUZZLE PIX merely describes Applicant’s broadly-worded
computer game programs and software used for playing puzzle picture games and
also for digitizing and creating them for immediate or future play.
Applicant is correct that the mere fact that a term does not appear in a
dictionary is not controlling on our determination of mere descriptiveness. We also
note that the mere fact that “picture puzzle” appears in a dictionary does not compel
a finding that PUZZLE PIX merely describes the identified goods. Nonetheless, the
evidence of record establishes that PUZZLE PIX merely describes computer
programs and software for use on various platforms allowing a user to create and
solve puzzles consisting of pictures. Accordingly, based on the arguments and
evidence of record, including any evidence not discussed herein, we find PUZZLE
PIX describes an important feature, function or characteristic of the goods.
DECISION: The refusal of registration under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is
affirmed.