Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.Download PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardApr 24, 2017No. 86423496 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2017) Copy Citation Mailed: April 24, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ________ In re Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. ________ Serial No. 86423496 _______ Drew T. Palmer of Crowe & Dunlevy, for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. Kathy Wang, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108 Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney. _______ Before Ritchie, Lykos, and Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judge: Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (“Applicant”) filed an application to register on the Principal Register the mark PPL, in standard character format, for services identified as “underwriting insurance against incurring legal fees, namely providing underwriting insurance for pre-paid legal services,” in THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Ser. No. 86423496 2 International Class 36.1 The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the services pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). The Examining Attorney also requested information under Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b). When the refusals were made final, Applicant filed this appeal, which is fully briefed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the refusals to register. Mere Descriptiveness A term is deemed to be 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 of the goods or services. See In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); see also In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). 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. That a term may have other meanings in 1 Serial No. 86423496, filed on October 14, 2014, under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s assertion of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. Ser. No. 86423496 3 different contexts is not controlling. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). Moreover, it is settled that “[t]he question is not whether someone presented with only the mark could guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002). See also In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313 (TTAB 1990); and In re American Greetings Corporation, 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985). On the other hand, if a mark requires imagination, thought and perception to ascertain the nature of the goods or services, then the mark is suggestive. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd, 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp. 200 USPQ 215). The Examining Attorney asserts that the term PPL is an acronym for “pre-paid legal” which describes a feature or characteristic of Applicant’s services, namely that Applicant offers underwriting insurance for “pre-paid legal services.” We note that an acronym is considered merely descriptive under the following circumstances: 1. The applied-for mark is an abbreviation or acronym for specific wording; 2. The specific wording is merely descriptive of the applied-for goods or services; and 3. The relevant consumers will recognize the abbreviation or acronym as the merely descriptive wording it represents. Ser. No. 86423496 4 See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1715-16 (TTAB 2011). A. Whether PPL is an abbreviation or acronym for “pre-paid legal”? The Examining Attorney has submitted evidence from AcronymFinder, AllAcronyms, and TheFreeDictionary.com that PPL is an acronym for “Pre- Paid Legal.”2 The record also contains webpages that reference PPL as an acronym or abbreviation for “pre-paid legal,” including the following: PPL Steve’s Blog: Listing of Pre-Paid Legal Provider Law Firms: https://pplsteve.wordpress.com.3 EMMAcal: EmmaCal Prepaid Legal Plan: EMMACAL PPL is a prepaid legal plan specifically designed to protect the rights of medical marijuana patients in the State of California and protect their legal use of MMJ as recommended by a physician. http://emmacal.org.4 The LEAF online: I want my PPL (pre-paid legal): http://theleafonline.com.5 Brooklyn College: Tax Information: Box 14 – Other: Amounts to be reported: PPL – Prepaid Legal Expense. Pre-paid legal service: A pre-paid legal service is an individual or group low-cost insurance provider for specific, limited legal services (usually basic, but sometimes specialized) from participating law firms and attorneys at costs considerably less than independently hiring these providers. PPL services may be provided on an ‘open’ basis, with a subscriber selecting specialists relatively freely from a pool of participating providers, . . . Brooklyn.cuny.edu.6 We thus find that PPL is a recognized acronym for “pre-paid legal.” 2 February 9, 2015 Office Action, at 2 (acronymfinder.com), 8 (allacronyms.com); March 24, 2016 Final Office Action at 14-15 (thefreedictionary.com). 3 September 1, 2015 Office Action, at 2. 4 September 1, 2015 Office Action, at 5. 5 September 1, 2015 Office Action, at 8. Ser. No. 86423496 5 B. Whether “pre-paid legal” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services? Applicant argues that “pre-paid legal” will not be understood as identifying its insurance services. However, the identification of services specifies the provision of underwriting insurance for “pre-paid legal services.” The Examining Attorney has also submitted a third-party webpage that advertises PPL or “Prepaid Legal” as an insurance option: Corporate Services: Employee Benefits Services: Prepaid Legal (PPL/PPLS): Protect yourself, your business and your employees against unforeseen litigious action at a fraction of the potential cost. Pickering can consult with you to help you decide whether you need minimal, general or specialized coverage, and find the right partner. http://pickeringinsurance.com.7 We thus find that “pre-paid legal” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services because it immediately conveys to prospective consumers a significant feature of its underwriting insurance services. C. Whether relevant consumers viewing PPL in connection with the services would recognize it as an abbreviation of the term “pre-paid legal”? Applicant argues that the relevant consumers will not view PPL as referring to “pre-paid legal” since there are other possible definitions of the abbreviation or acronym. In particular, Applicant notes that there are 71 other meanings given for PPL on acronymfinder.com and 360 other meanings 6 March 24, 2016 Final Office Action, at 2-6. 7 March 24, 2016 Final Office Action, at 10-13. Ser. No. 86423496 6 given for PPL on allacronyms.com.8 Applicant analogizes this to the case of Baroness Small Estates, Inc. v. American Wine Trade, Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1224, 1230 (TTAB 2012 (CMS not merely descriptive of wine). In that case, however, the Board found that in addition to the fact that a number of other possible meanings were given for the acronym CMS, the letters did “not directly and immediately convey the meaning of the three varietals” cabernet, merlot, and syrah. Rather, “the process of recognizing that derivation requires some thought, and that is the very essence of a suggestive mark.” It is axiomatic that we must consider the applied-for mark in relation to the services, and not in a vacuum. See In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ at 593. In this regard, we find that the term PPL, when considered in relation to the applied-for services, “underwriting insurance against incurring legal fees, namely providing underwriting insurance for pre-paid legal services,” conveys information about the services, namely that Applicant’s underwriting insurance includes coverage for PPL or pre-paid legal services. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd, 103 USPQ2d at 1755. Therefore, we find that the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified services, and we affirm this refusal to register. Information Requirement With the September 1, 2015 Office Action, the Examining Attorney issued an information requirement, stating the following: 8 March 1, 2016 Response to Office Action, at 2, 10. Ser. No. 86423496 7 Due to the descriptive nature of the applied-for mark, applicant must provide the following information regarding the services and wording appearing in the mark: (1) Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services. Merely stating that information about the services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record. If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ. If the services feature new technology and information regarding competing services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the services. Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement; and (2) Applicant must respond to the following questions: are applicant’s identified services offered in connection with a pre- paid legal service? If so, please explain. Applicant responded in the March 1, 2016 Response to Office Action as follows: Applicant believes that the examining attorney’s request for information is advisory in nature and thus does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Applicant states that the request is pre-mature as the applicant has not yet filed an acceptable statement of use. At such time as a statement of use becomes due, Applicant will provide any required information. Ser. No. 86423496 8 Additionally, Applicant submits that the goods and services provided in this application are underwriting insurance against incurring legal fees, namely providing underwriting insurance for pre-paid legal services, not legal expense services. The information requirement was made final with the final office action. Applicant reiterated in its appeal brief that it considered the information requirement to be “advisory” and “pre-mature.”9 We note that “[t]he Office may require the applicant to furnish such information … as may be reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the application.” Trademark Rule 2.61(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b). Applicant was thus required to respond to the Examining Attorney’s proper request for information under 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b). See In re AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1650 (TTAB 2013); See also In re Cheezwhse.com Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008) (information requirement proper in intent to use case); In re DTI Partnership LLP, 67 USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003). Instead, Applicant’s response to the information requirement was insufficient and evasive at best. This is an additional ground for refusal of the Application. Id. at 1651 (information requirement not satisfied); cf. In re Emergency Alert Sols. Grp., LLC., 122 USPQ2d 1088 (TTAB 2017) (information requirement satisfied). Decision: The Board affirms both refusals to register. 9 4 TTABVUE 16. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation