Nevin Wayne Fouts

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2002

No. 75868741 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2002)

6/26/02

Paper No. 13
PTH

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Nevin Wayne Fouts
________

Serial No. 75/868,741
_______

Marianne Fuierer of Intellectual Property/Technology Law
for applicant.

Howard Smiga, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Thomas V. Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Wendel and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Nevin Wayne Fouts has filed an application to register
GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM as a mark for goods and services
identified as:
Computer network and communication facilities
equipment for interactive communications relating
to business administration degrees, certifications
and accreditation programs, involving linking
persons in different locations physically

THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/868,741
2
remote from one another, namely data communications
equipment, namely, data storage, processing and
communication units; portable wired and wireless
modem-equipped digital processing and display
units; and audio and video input and display units
in class 9, and

Interactive telecommunications services for
interactive communications relating to business
administration degrees, certifications and
accreditation programs, namely, providing and
operating networks and facilities for linking
persons in different locations physically remote
from one another in class 38.1

The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused to
register the phrase GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM on the ground
that, when applied to the identified goods and services, it
is merely descriptive thereof. 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1).2
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final,
applicant filed a notice of appeal. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs, but applicant did not
request an oral hearing.
We affirm the Examining Attorney’s refusal to
register.
The Examining Attorney’s position is that the phrase
GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM is merely descriptive of
applicant’s goods and services because it immediately

1 Serial No. 75/868,741, filed December 11, 1999, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce
in connection with the identified goods and services.
2 We note that three different Examining Attorneys have handled
this case.
Ser No. 75/868,741
3
conveys to users of the goods and services that they are
“worldwide” in scope and “relate to a structured
communication system, which enables users to hold
interactive meetings.” (Brief, pp. 7-8). The Examining
Attorney relies on dictionary definitions of the individual
words “global,” “conference” and “system.” The dictionary
definitions show that “global” means “worldwide;”3
“conference” means “an event, sometimes lasting a few days,
at which there are a group of talks on a particular
subject, or a meeting in which esp. business matters are
discussed formally;” and “system” means “a set of connected
items or devices which operate together.”4 In addition, the
Examining Attorney submitted excerpts of articles from the
NEXIS database wherein the terms “global conferencing” and
“conference(ing) system” are used; and copies of third-
party registrations wherein terms that consist of “global”
and other descriptive wording have been disclaimed.
In response to this refusal, applicant argues that its
mark “is suggestive in character because the meaning of
‘GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM’ would be understood by users

3 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition (1992).
4 The latter two definitions are taken from the online version of
the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language (2001).
Ser No. 75/868,741
4
only after a multi-stage reasoning process.” (Brief, p.
5). Applicant asserts that “it is self-evident [from the
description of applicant’s goods and services] that the
‘entire earth’ is not involved, but rather [that such goods
and services] are restricted to MBA students and faculty in
interconnected rooms containing telecommunications
equipment.” [emphasis in original] (Brief, p. 4.)
Applicant maintains that the mark GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM
“conveys a more expansive air or reach when in fact the
interconnection may be limited to two rooms on separate
continents.” (Brief, p. 4). Further, applicant argues
that the NEXIS excerpts submitted by the Examining Attorney
do not support a finding of mere descriptiveness because
“global conference system has been used in several
different contexts without a clear definition for the
meaning of same.” (Brief, p. 6). Finally, according to
applicant, no other entities are using GLOBAL CONFERENCE
SYSTEM to identify like goods and services.
A term is merely descriptive of goods or services,
within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act,
if it immediately conveys knowledge of an ingredient,
quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use
of the goods or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Abcor Development
Ser No. 75/868,741
5
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A
term need not immediately convey an idea of each and every
specific feature of the applicant’s goods or services in
order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough
that the term describes one significant attribute, function
or property of the goods or services. In re H.U.D.D.L.E.,
216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982), and In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ
338 (TTAB 1973). 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. In re
Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
The NEXIS evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney
shows that the term “global conferencing” is used in
connection with audio and videoconferencing services that
link persons in different locations who are physically
remote from one another.
Xerox, which uses video-, audio, and
document-conferencing services from
World-Com in its offices around the
world, went from approximately 10-15

Ser No. 75/868,741
6
videoconferences per month to about
20-30 in recent weeks, says Gary Foley,
manager of global conferencing services.
Network World, October 1, 2001;

WorldCom offered impacted businesses
toll-free service and nationwide and
global conferencing tools.
e-Week, September 10, 2001;

The one bright spot analyst Alex
Trofimoff of investment house Sanford
Bernstein sees on the horizon is tele-
and videoconferencing. “When people
are traveling less, these services are
going to be used more,” he says. The
global conferencing market, which is
negligible today, will grow to
$11 billion by 2003 . . .
Business Week Online, October 2, 2001;
and

Construction of the 50,000-square-foot
Wireless Cyber Center began in March
Of 2000 and ended in December. Dr.
Rodney Pasch, vice president – human
resources, information technology and
facilities expects the Center to “be
able to downlink global conferencing
into high resolution screens for both
business and industry and our students.
Marketplace, September 11, 2001.

There is also NEXIS evidence, which shows that the
term “conference[ing] system” is used in connection with
computer and related equipment for interactive
communication for linking persons in different locations
who are physically remote from one another.

Ser No. 75/868,741
7
Its desktop conferencing system, starts at
$900 each, while its group conference systems,
which are designed for conference rooms, start
at $5,500 each.
Austin American-Statesman, December 6, 1999;

Working with the local phone company, Foshee
got an interactive multimedia conference
system installed in Matthew’s home and
first grade class.
Charleston Daily Mail, September 2, 1998; and

. . . conference was arranged by teacher Janet
Tyler, and was made possible by equipment on
loan from INET. The integrated video conference
system was equipped with a microphone and a
camera controlled by a remote.
The Hartford Courant, March 28, 1998.

Further, the dictionary entries of record evidence the
descriptiveness of the individual words in applicant’s
proposed mark. Applicant’s goods and services are “global”
in the sense that they link persons who are located in
different parts of the world; and they are used to transmit
programs on specific subjects, i.e., “conferences,” by
means of a set of connected computer and communications
equipment, i.e., a “system.”
A review of all of the Examining Attorney’s evidence
clearly shows that the individual words in applicant’s
mark, as well as the terms “global conferencing” and
“conference[ing] system” are descriptive of applicant’s
goods and services. When the terms are combined to form
GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM, they remain descriptive.
Ser No. 75/868,741
8
While applicant argues that it would require a multi-
stage reasoning process to reach a conclusion as to the
nature of its goods and services, the test of whether a
mark is descriptive is not conducted in the abstract. We
must consider descriptiveness in relation to the particular
goods or services for which registration is sought. In re
Abcor, supra, 588 F.2d at 814, 200 USPQ at 218. Therefore,
the question is whether the term GLOBAL CONFERENCE SYSTEM
is descriptive for computer network and communication
facilities equipment and interactive communication
services, both for interactive communications relating to
business administration degrees, certifications and
accreditation programs, involving linking persons in
different locations physically remote from one another.
In this case, it is clear from the description of
applicant’s goods and services that a salient feature
thereof is to link persons in different parts of the world.
The literature submitted by applicant describes the program
that applicant’s goods and services support. It is named
the “Duke MBA – Cross Continent Program,” and the
literature states that in the inaugural program, two
sections of students were enrolled concurrently; one
section was based at the Durham, North Carolina campus and
another section at the Frankfurt, Germany Fuqua School of
Ser No. 75/868,741
9
Business. Further, the literature states that: “The DUKE
MBA WORKS . . . Around the clock. Around the world.
Around your business.” Contrary to applicant’s argument,
the word GLOBAL as used in connection with applicant’s
goods and services would not be understood to mean that
such goods and services involved the “entire earth,” but
rather that the goods and services may be used to connect
persons at different locations around the world. In this
regard, we note that the third-party registrations
submitted by the Examining attorney show that the Office
has considered the word GLOBAL to be descriptive of goods
and services that are worldwide in potential application,
which is precisely the case before us.
In view of the foregoing, we find that GLOBAL
CONFERENCE SYSTEM immediately informs the user/purchaser of
applicant’s goods and services that a salient feature
thereof is that they allow persons at different locations
in the world to access conferences or programs via a set of
connected computer and communications equipment.
As for applicant’s statement that no competitor is
using this term to describe like goods and/or services, it
is well settled that the fact that an applicant may be the
first or only user of a term does not justify registration
of the term where the only significance projected by the
Ser No. 75/868,741
10
term is merely descriptive, as we find to be the case here.
In re National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ
1018 (TTAB 1983).
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is affirmed with respect to
the involved goods and services.