Michael Maynard, M.D.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2000

No. 75165418 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2000)

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB APRIL 11, 00
Paper No. 14
HRW
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Michael Maynard, M.D.
Serial No. 75/165,418
_______
Lawrence E. Abelman of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
for applicant.
K. Margaret Le, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
103 (Michael Szoke, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Hairston, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Michael Maynard, M.D. has filed an application to
register the mark JOCKDOC1 for the following goods and
services:
Class 9: Pre-recorded computer disks, pre-recorded
video tapes and disks, pre-recorded audio
disks, tapes, and cassettes, and CD ROM,
all featuring educational information

1 Serial No. 75/165,418, filed September 13, 1996, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 75/165,418
2
relating to sports and sports injuries.
Class 16: Books, magazines, printed educational
materials, brochures, pamphlets, newsletters
all relating to sports and sports injuries.
Class 41: Educational services, namely, conducting
classes, seminars, conferences, and workshops
in the field of sports and sports injuries;
Programming and scheduling of programs in the
field of sports and sports injuries on a
global computer network;
Entertainment in the nature of ball,
racket, swimming and other games;
Providing sports information and information
concerning sports injuries via a
computer network;
Providing entertainment services relating to
sports and sports injuries; and providing
audio visual and multimedia interactive and
non-interactive programming and informational
services concerning sports and sports
injuries over computer networks.
Class 42: Computer programming for others in the field
of sports and sports injuries; providing
medical information in the field of sports
medicine and sports injuries.2
Registration has been finally refused on the ground
that the mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
have filed briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
The Examining Attorney takes the position that
applicant’s mark JOCKDOC creates the same commercial
impression as the term JOCK DOC, which from the evidence of

2 It appears from the briefs that certain changes have been
agreed upon with respect to the identification of goods and
services submitted by applicant on November 23, 1998, although no
paper to this effect is found in the record.
Ser No. 75/165,418
3
record has been shown to be a slang term used to refer to a
physician specializing in the field of sports medicine. As
such, the Examining Attorney maintains that the mark merely
describes a feature of the Class 9 and 16 goods, namely,
that the goods are sponsored by or produced by a doctor
specializing in sports medicine or sports injuries, i.e., a
JOCK DOC. She argues similarly with respect to the
services involved, that is, applicant’s mark would be
merely descriptive of the person or persons rendering or
sponsoring applicant’s educational and information
services. As a second basis for finding the mark
descriptive, she argues that if the Class 16 publications
are in fact intended to be sold to physicians in the field
of sports medicine, the mark would be merely descriptive of
the class of purchasers to whom the publications are
directed.
Applicant argues that the evidence produced by the
Examining Attorney is insufficient to establish that the
average consumer would understand applicant’s mark JOCKDOC
as having a specific meaning; that the few Nexis articles
relied upon the Examining Attorney show use only of the two
word combination “jock doc”; that most excerpts use this
combination in quotation marks, suggesting acknowledgment

Ser No. 75/165,418
4
by the authors that the wording is not widely recognized or
commonly used; that most of the excerpts appear to use
“jock doc” as a synonym for a doctor treating professional
athletes and not a doctor of sports medicine; and that none
of these excerpts show use of the term JOCKDOC in
connection with goods or services similar to applicant’s.
As for its mark, applicant argues that JOCKDOC is, at
most, suggestive of its goods and services; and that it is
a clever alliterative word combination which creates a
commercial impression beyond a mere description of the
goods and services. Applicant further argues that its mark
incorporates a double entendre, in that there are other
meanings for both the word “jock” and “doc,” particularly
“document” for “doc,” which would give rise to other
plausible interpretations of the mark. Applicant also
contends that the “personification” in the mark would cause
consumers some mental pause so as to determine the
relationship between a doctor and the inanimate objects
with which the mark is being used. In addition, applicant
states that its goods and services are not intended to
target sports medicine doctors.
A term or phrase is merely descriptive within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys
information about a characteristic or feature of the goods
Ser No. 75/165,418
5
or services with which it is being used. 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 a significant attribute thereof.
See In re H.U.D.D.L.E, 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982).
We first turn to the evidence made of record by the
Examining Attorney to support her contention that the term
“jock doc” is a slang term used to refer to a physician
specializing in the field of sports medicine. While
applicant refers only to the eight Nexis database excerpts
made of record in the first Office action, we note that the
evidence was expanded by thirty-seven excerpts in the
Examining Attorney’s response to applicant’s request for
reconsideration, although with considerable duplication.
The following are representative of the excerpts:
Hughes, who specializes in treating sports injuries,
like many other “jock docs” in the bay area, including
Koco Eaton.... St. Petersburg Times (Mar. 12, 1997);

The will to win has served Andrews well. At 54, he is
America’s “top jock doc,” as Newsweek recently dubbed
him, the orthopedic surgeon who fixed Bo Jackson’s
hip, Scottie Pippen’s ankle, Troy Aikman’s... The
Washington Post (Jan. 28, 1997);
...general population in the same way that we have
made it on those more athletically inclined. It was
Ser No. 75/165,418
6
never intended that we should only be “jock docs.” We
are physicians, and we must continue to be interested
in the broad arena of sports medicine and health.
The American Journal of Sports Medicine (July 1992);
and
With the large number of injuries and a burgeoning
business for surgeons and “jock docs,” it is
surprising how little is known about the natural
history of even the most common sports injuries.
Science (Aug. 21, 1987).
From this Nexis evidence we are convinced that “jock
doc” is a recognized term, albeit slang, used to refer to a
physician specializing in sports medicine and sports
injuries. The fact that it is a slang term and often used
in quotation marks does not detract from the public’s
understanding of the meaning of the term. Furthermore,
although it appears that the term is most frequently used
when referring to a doctor who treats professional
athletes, we fail to see how this creates a meaningful
distinction. These doctors are also practicing sports
medicine and treating sports injuries.
While the slang term normally used is the two word
combination “jock doc,” we are without any doubt that
applicant’s mark JOCKDOC would be perceived by the public
to be the equivalent of “jock doc.” Although applicant
argues that its mark is a “clever alliterative word
combination,” it remains a word combination that already
has a recognized meaning. Furthermore, even a slight
Ser No. 75/165,418
7
misspelling of a descriptive term, which is clearly a
greater variance than the mere joinder of two words, is
insufficient to avoid the proscription of Section 2(e)(1),
so long as the term is likely to be perceived by the public
as the equivalent of the descriptive term. See In re State
Chemical Manufacturing Co., 225 USPQ 687 (TTAB 1985) and
the cases cited therein.
Here the subject matter of applicant’s various goods
in Class 9 and 16 covers educational information relating
to sports injuries. Applicant’s services in Class 41 and
42 are similarly directed. Thus, we find that applicant’s
mark JOCKDOC, when encountered by potential purchasers in
connection with these goods and/or services, would
immediately convey the information to these purchasers that
the goods and/or services originate from, or are sponsored
by, a physician specializing in sports medicine. We cannot
agree with applicant that making the correlation between a
person, a JOCKDOC, and the inanimate objects with which the
mark is intended to be used, would require any amount of
mental gymnastics or imagination. The descriptive
significance of the term JOCKDOC as referring to the author
Ser No. 75/165,418
8
or sponsor of goods and/or services relating to sports
injuries is clear. 3
Finally, we fail to see that any double entendre is
projected by applicant’s mark JOCKDOC. The mere fact that
the individual words "jock” and “doc” are capable of more
than one interpretation does not create a double meaning
for the combined terms. Although applicant stresses that
“doc” might well be perceived as an abbreviation for
“document,” applicant has provided no evidence which would
support such an interpretation when “doc” is used in
combination with the word “jock.”
Accordingly, we find applicant’s mark JOCKDOC to be
merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of
applicant’s recited goods and services.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston

3 The Examining Attorney is equally correct in stating that if
the publications were intended to be sold to physicians in the
field of sports medicine, the mark JOCKDOC would be merely
descriptive of the class of purchasers to whom the publications
are directed. Since, however, applicant has flatly stated that
its goods and services are not intended to target sports medicine
doctors, we find no need to consider this further potential for
descriptiveness.
Ser No. 75/165,418
9
B. A. Chapman
H. R. Wendel
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Ser No. 75/165,418
10