Madison Connections

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2015

No. 86107693 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: April 15, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Madison Connections
_____

Serial No. 86107693
_____

Stephen D. Wilson and Kevin J. Haskins of Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios,
LLP for Madison Connections.

Margery A. Tierney, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Robert L. Lorenzo, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Adlin, Masiello, and Hightower,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hightower, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Madison Connections (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark BALLOTSNAPSHOT.COM (in standard characters) for the following
services, as amended, in International Class 35:1
Providing information about political elections; public
opinion surveys; public opinion polling; conducting public
opinion polls; providing information regarding political
issues; voter services, namely, public opinion surveys,
public opinion polling, conducting public opinion polls,

1 Application Serial No. 86107693 was filed on November 1, 2013, based on Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 86107693
- 2 -

providing information regarding political issues, voter
reporting services, compiling and analyzing statistics,
data and other sources of information for business
purposes, providing a website featuring content on news
relating to public opinion polling, elections, and voter
preferences and choices, compilation of statistics for
business or commercial purposes, providing a website
featuring information about politics, political candidates,
political campaigns, political parties, political issues,
referenda, and ballot initiatives, providing an on-line
searchable database featuring information on political
campaigns, providing ballot tracking, reporting,
communication, and information services, and providing
information about political elections and election results;
voter reporting services; compiling and analyzing
statistics, data and other sources of information for
business purposes; providing a website featuring content
on news relating to public opinion polling, elections, and
voter preferences and choices; compilation of statistics for
business or commercial purposes; providing a website
featuring information about politics, political candidates,
political campaigns, political parties, political issues,
referenda, and ballot initiatives; providing an on-line
searchable database featuring information on political
campaigns; providing ballot tracking, reporting,
communication, and information services; providing
information about political elections and election results.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive, in that it describes features of
Applicant’s services.
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and
filed a response to Office action that was construed as a request for reconsideration
and denied. We affirm the refusal to register.
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality,
feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services it identifies. See In re
Serial No. 86107693
- 3 -

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Descriptiveness determinations are made in relation to an applicant’s identified
goods or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible
significance the mark would have to the average consumer because of the manner of
its use or intended use. See In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at
1219. Descriptiveness is not considered in the abstract. In re Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In other
words, we evaluate whether someone who knows what the goods or services are will
understand the mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp.
v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
We begin by finding that, although the terms “ballot” and “snapshot” in
Applicant’s mark BALLOTSNAPSHOT.COM are presented without a space as part
of an Internet address, consumers are highly likely to view and verbalize these
terms as “ballot snapshot.” As we have held in numerous cases, combining two
words which as a whole are merely descriptive of the services into a single term
does not avoid a finding of mere descriptiveness for the combined term. See, e.g., In
re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198, 1200 (TTAB 2009) (finding URBANHOUZING merely
descriptive); In re Cox Enters. Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040, 1044 (TTAB 2007) (finding
THEATL merely descriptive); In re Planalytics Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (TTAB
2004) (finding GASBUYER merely descriptive); In re A La Vieille Russie Inc., 60
USPQ2d 1895, 1897 n.2 (TTAB 2001) (finding RUSSIANART merely descriptive).
Serial No. 86107693
- 4 -

We also note that .COM is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) used to designate a
web address rather than to identify source. See, e.g., In re 1800Mattress.com IP
LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 92 USPQ2d 1682, 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting it was
undisputed that “.com” was generic). Adding a gTLD to a merely descriptive term or
terms typically will not render registrable an otherwise unregistrable mark. See In
re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1423-24 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(affirming that STEELBUILDING.COM was merely descriptive for “computerized
on-line retail services in the field of pre-engineered metal buildings and roofing
systems”); In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (affirming that PATENTS.COM was merely descriptive for software
for tracking patent applications and issued patents by means of the Internet).
Here, Applicant’s identified services include “voter reporting services” and
“providing ballot tracking, reporting, communication, and information services.”
The Examining Attorney made of record a screen capture of the home page of
Applicant’s website, as seen in the following excerpt:2

2 February 17, 2014 Office Action at 7.
Serial No. 86107693
- 5 -

The first two paragraphs state:
BallotSnapshot.com is the visual alternative to exit polls
for the 2012 U.S. Federal Presidential Election.
No ballot snapshots from contributors were posted. We
received very humorous submissions – business cards,
prayers, religious icons, pictures of family but no actual
ballot snapshots. Maybe we’ll have better luck next
time. (emphasis added).
Applicant’s website indicates that Applicant’s services are intended to provide an
“alternative to exit polls,” and that Applicant has solicited users to post “ballot
snapshots.”
Applicant itself uses the term “ballot” descriptively in its identification and on
its website. Two definitions of “snapshot” submitted by the Examining Attorney are
also relevant in association with Applicant’s recited services:
• an informal photograph, especially one taken quickly by a hand-held
camera; and
• Informal. a brief appraisal, summary or profile.3
We find that these terms retain their descriptive meanings when combined in
Applicant’s mark BALLOTSNAPSHOT.COM. The mark as a whole is not
ambiguous or incongruous; nor does it present a double entendre such that “the
merely descriptive significance of the term [ ] is lost in the mark as a whole.” In re
RiseSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, 1934 (TTAB 2012) (quotation omitted). Cf., e.g.,
In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968) (SUGAR &
SPICE a double entendre for bakery products); In re Nat’l Tea Co., 144 USPQ 286
(TTAB 1965) (NO BONES ABOUT IT a double entendre for fresh pre-cooked ham).

3 February 17, 2014 Office Action at 5 (from Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on the
Random House Dictionary (2013)).
Serial No. 86107693
- 6 -

To the extent that Applicant’s mark presents two meanings, as either a ballot photo
or ballot summary, both are merely descriptive of certain of Applicant’s services,
including at least “voter reporting services” and “providing ballot tracking,
reporting, communication, and information services.”4 A consumer familiar with
Applicant’s services would immediately recognize BALLOTSNAPSHOT.COM to
convey information about Applicant’s “voter reporting services” and “providing
ballot tracking, reporting, communication, and information services” through a
website featuring ballot snapshots.
Applicant argues that its mark is not merely descriptive but distinctive,
contending that “each rationale for finding Applicant’s mark to be merely
descriptive has been based on a mistaken assessment of Applicant’s services.”5
Pointing out that its application was filed on an intent-to-use basis, Applicant
argues that its website “may or may not be fully developed for use in connection
with the designated goods in the application during any point in time between
inception and full development of the website,” and that there is no evidence
“indicat[ing] that photographs of paper ballots have, in fact, been posted to
Applicant’s website either by users (even if the website had that functionality) or by
Applicant, or that Applicant has even received any such photographs.”6 Even if
Applicant re-posted any submitted ballot photos, Applicant argues, the Examining

4 See September 26, 2014 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 2 (article discussing
posting photos of ballots on social media using term “ballot snapshot”), 7 (referencing article
titled “Northeast Ohio Ballot Snapshot,” with abstract stating that the article “presents a
list of state and federal candidates and issues, to be considered for voting”).
5 Reply Brief at 5, 8 TTABVUE at 7.
6 Appeal Brief at 5-6, 5 TTABVUE at 10-11.
Serial No. 86107693
- 7 -

Attorney has not established this would be a “primary” or even a “significant”
service associated with the mark:
Rather, the primary purpose would be extracting any
information contained in the ballot, which could then be
compiled, analyzed, and conveyed in any available format
together with any and all other available information
gleaned from any and all other available sources.
Consequently, the distillation of Applicant’s services to
merely providing a “photograph” or “brief summary or
analysis” of a “slip or sheet of paper, cardboard, or the
like” is not supported by the Examiner’s evidence. The
definitions relied upon by the Examiner do not establish
that the Mark is descriptive of its numerous and
extensive services unrelated to providing photographs or
summaries of a customer’s individual ballot.7
Applicant’s arguments disregard that our determination must be based on
Applicant’s identification of services, and that a mark need not describe all of
Applicant’s identified services to be refused registration under Section 2(e)(1). It is
enough if the term describes a single feature or attribute of the recited services. In
re Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 71
USPQ2d 1370 at 1371 (“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not
describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”) (quoting In
re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed.
Cir. 2001)); In re Positec Group Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (TTAB 2013) (“[I]f the
mark is descriptive of some identified items – or even just one – the whole class of
goods still may be refused by the examiner.”).

7 Id. at 6-7, 5 TTABVUE at 11-12.
Serial No. 86107693
- 8 -

We find the proposed mark BALLOTSNAPSHOT.COM immediately and directly
informs purchasers of features of Applicant’s services, namely, that they include
voter reporting services and ballot tracking, reporting, communication, and
information services. Therefore, it is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.