North American Publishing Co.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2000

No. 75341642 (T.T.A.B. May. 31, 2000)

Hearing: Paper No. 16
November 3, 1999 RLS/hlj
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MAY 31, 00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re North American Publishing Company
________
Serial No. 75/341,642
_______
Timothy D. Pecsenye of Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley LLP
for North American Publishing Company
Edward Nelson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 107
(Margaret Le, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Wendel and Holtzman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
North American Publishing Company (applicant), a
Pennsylvania corporation, has appealed from the final
refusal to register the mark shown below
Ser. No. 75/341,642
2
for the services of conducting trade shows in the field of
magazine production.1 The Examining Attorney has issued a
final requirement that applicant disclaim the words
“MAGAZINE TECH” under Section 6 of the Trademark Act.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have submitted briefs
and an oral hearing was held.
Relying upon dictionary definitions, the Examining
Attorney argues that the words in applicant’s mark are
merely descriptive of the subject matter of its trade show
services (magazines) and the use of technology,
technological information or technical issues in magazine
production. In other words, applicant’s trade shows
involve magazine production and the word “tech” is a
recognized abbreviation for “technical” or “technology.”
The Examining Attorney has also pointed to a statement in
applicant’s specimen brochure that “Anyone interested in
learning all the latest technological advances in the
industry enabling publishers to work more efficiently and
profitably will benefit from this event!” It is the
Examining Attorney’s position that information one may

1 Application Ser. No. 75/341,642, filed August 15, 1997, based
upon applicant’s bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
During the course of this proceeding, applicant filed an
amendment to allege use on October 29, 1998, asserting use and
use in commerce since April 1997. The Examining Attorney
accepted that amendment. Pursuant to request, applicant has also
Ser. No. 75/341,642
3
glean from applicant’s trade shows may include
technological improvements and/or technical equipment in
connection with the production of magazines.
Applicant, on the other hand, argues that, while such
goals as magazine design, artwork, increasing revenues,
optimizing advertising space, etc., can be accomplished
generally through technology, it cannot be said that
applicant’s trade shows pertain mainly to the use of
technology in magazine production. Further, applicant
notes that the Examining Attorney has introduced no
evidence of the use of “magazine tech” in common parlance
or any dictionary definition of this phrase, or any use by
competitors or third parties. Applicant’s attorney
indicates that a search of the terms “magazine technology”
and “magazine tech” in the index of articles published in
Tradeshow Week reveals that there is no entry for either of
these terms. According to applicant, “MAGAZINE TECH” does
not remotely describe the theme or topic of its trade
shows. Applicant argues that its mark is only suggestive
of the fact that its trade show services are new, exciting
and modern. Applicant also contends that its mark is a
unitary one which is not descriptive as a whole and that,

entered a description of its mark indicating that the graphical
element is a stylized representation of pages turning.
Ser. No. 75/341,642
4
therefore, it is not appropriate to dissect the words from
its mark. Finally, applicant argues that we should resolve
doubt in favor of applicant and publish its mark for
opposition.2
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we agree with applicant that
its mark is not merely descriptive of its services.
“Magazine tech” (or “magazine technology”) on this record,
convey only indirect or vague information about applicant’s
trade show services and cannot be said to merely describe
applicant’s trade shows in the field of magazine
production. Rather, we believe that applicant’s mark is
correctly described as a suggestive one. Accordingly, the
requirement for a disclaimer of the words “MAGAZINE TECH”
is reversed.
However, we agree with the Examining Attorney that the
prominent word “MAGAZINE” shown in applicant’s mark is
clearly descriptive of applicant’s trade show services in
the field of magazine production. We also note that
applicant’s attorney, at the oral hearing, conceded that
this part of applicant’s mark is descriptive and indicated

2 In a reply brief, applicant has raised a general objection to
material attached to the Examining Attorney’s appeal brief. To
the extent that this evidence includes dictionary definitions
(some of which have previously been made of record), of which we
may take judicial notice, the objection is overruled.
Ser. No. 75/341,642
5
a willingness to disclaim this word in applicant’s mark.
Accordingly, the following disclaimer will be entered in
this application:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to
use “MAGAZINE” apart from the mark as
shown.
DECISION: The requirement for a disclaimer of the words
“MAGAZINE TECH” is reversed. However, a disclaimer of the
word “MAGAZINE” is hereby entered.
R. L. Simms
H. R. Wendel
T. E. Holtzman
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser. No. 75/341,642
6