Revolver Media, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2019

EX (T.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2019)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: January 17, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Revolver Media, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 87223693
_____

Joseph P. Kincart and Trace H. Jackson of Rogers Towers P.A.,
for Revolver Media, Inc.
Patty Evanko, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 119,
Brett J. Golden, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wellington, Kuczma and Lynch,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Revolver Media, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark LIVESTAGE (in standard characters) for:
Audio and video broadcasting services over the Internet, in
International Class 38.1

1 Application Serial No. 87223693 was filed on November 2, 2016, based upon 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. 87223693

- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s applied-
for mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that the proposed mark is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant
appealed to this Board. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Descriptiveness under Section 2(e)(1)
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the services of the
applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). For a term to be
merely descriptive within the meaning of § 2(e)(1), it is not necessary that the term
describe each feature of the services, only that it “immediately conveys knowledge of
a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is
used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217,
1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82
USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114
USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d
1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Determining the descriptiveness of a mark
under § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is done in relation to an applicant’s goods or
services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance
the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or
Serial No. 87223693

- 3 -
intended use. See In re Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (citing In re
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 82 USPQ2d at 1831).
When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the combined mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on
whether the combination of terms evokes a non-descriptive commercial impression.
In re Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d at 1372 (quoting Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc.
v. Commr., 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). However, in considering a mark as a whole, the
Board may weigh the individual components of the mark to determine the overall
impression or the descriptiveness of the mark and its various components. In re
Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d at 1372 citing In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056,
224 USPQ 749, 752 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, we may consider the significance of each
element separately in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole. See DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757
(Fed. Cir. 2012). We look first to the meaning of the components of Applicant’s
applied-for mark LIVESTAGE.
The Examining Attorney contends that Applicant’s proposed mark LIVESTAGE
is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of Applicant’s services because the
individual terms and the combined wording merely describe a feature or
characteristic of Applicant’s services identified as “audio and video broadcasting
services over the Internet.”2

2 Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief at 6 TTABVUE 4. References to the briefs refer to the
Board’s downloadable TTABVUE docket system. Page references herein to the application
Serial No. 87223693

- 4 -
In support of the descriptiveness of the applied-for mark, the Examining Attorney
cites to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defining “live” as
“broadcast while actually being performed; not taped, filmed or recorded” and “stage”
as “a raised platform on which theatrical performances are presented.”3
The Examining Attorney submits a printout from an equity funding page that
identifies Applicant and describes its services:
• Overview
Livestage is a 360º digital platform for live music
that streams concerts live and on-demand with a
spectrum of interactive features.
…
Company Details
LIVESTAGE is a 360° digital venue for live music
that will stream concerts live and on-demand with
a spectrum of interactive features. Leveraging our
groundbreaking 360HD° live streaming workflow,
fans can swipe, pinch and tilt between 360° and HD
angles in the crowd and onstage. LIVESTAGE will
enable fans to get closer to their favorite artists on
the largest stage in the world.
(emphasis added), February 10, 2017 Office Action
at TSDR 4.

record refer to the downloadable .pdf version of the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (TSDR) system.
3 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (printout from the Internet),
February 10, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 5-6. We note that the Internet evidence submitted
by the Examining Attorney does not contain the website URL’s from which the evidence was
obtained. Inasmuch as Applicant has not raised an objection to such evidence on that ground,
the Board has considered the Internet evidence. See In re I-Coat Company, LLC, 126 USPQ2d
1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018); In re Mueller Sports Medicine, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1586 (TTAB
2018).
Serial No. 87223693

- 5 -
The Examining Attorney contends that this printout about Applicant’s services
confirms the descriptive meaning of LIVESTAGE because it describes the services as
being a digital platform for live music that streams concerts live.4
The Examining Attorney also submits evidence5 from the Internet showing that
the wording “Live Stage” has a readily understood descriptive meaning in the
entertainment industry, referring to live stage performances, including the following:
• A printout from Playbill providing a Schedule of
Upcoming Live Theatre Broadcasts in Movie
Theatres and on Television stating that “[t]he
following is a list of live stage productions
announced to be shown in movie theaters and on
television.”
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 5.
• An advertisement from Chicago Comic &
Entertainment Expo advertising OZ COMIC CON
on “Live Stage Channel.”
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 7.
• A printout from the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) referencing its “NADA100 Live
Stage” broadcast with the option to “Watch Again.”
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 8.
• A printout from the VCS Radio FM 100.9 webpage
referring to its involvement in training services for
“live stage concert production” as well as visual and
performing arts for students at Vacaville Christian
Schools.
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 9.

4 February 10, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 2.
5 The bolded and underscored font was not featured in the evidence submitted but has been
added in this decision to highlight the uses of “live stage,” “live” and “stage.”
Serial No. 87223693

- 6 -
• A printout from the B&C website advertising
upcoming programming, describing Hairspray Live
as “NBC’s fourth consecutive annual live stage
musical.”
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 11.
• An advertisement for the Live Musician’s Co-Op
performance center describing its venue that
includes a stage as the perfect place to record live
shows under the heading LIVE STAGE.
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 12.
• An article from PORTLAND Interview Magazine
referring to the “live stage” as the place where
spontaneous and unexpected moments have
happened.
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 13.
The Examining Attorney argues that the foregoing evidence shows that “LIVE
STAGE” has a readily understood descriptive meaning in the entertainment
industry.6 Applicant’s mark, according to the Examining Attorney, is a combination

6 We excluded a few of the website images submitted by the Examining Attorney. One of the
website images was an online advertisement for a seminar entitled “Broadcasting the Live
Stage Picture” from the ALD# (The Association of Lighting Designers) stating that
“increasingly shows and events are being broadcast live and recorded for future presentation
and exploitation” referencing the increasing trend live broadcasts and the resulting change
to the stage caused by broadcasting technology. Although noting a trend for live broadcasts
that are recorded for “future presentation and exploitation,” i.e., livestreaming of stage
productions, it is a website from a “Company registered in England & Wales no. 10079797.”
August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 6. This evidence was not considered as it is not
clear whether The Association of Lighting Designers which appears to be a company
registered in England & Wales does business in the U.S. Similarly, a printout from the BAJT
Video Architecture website entitled “Live Stage Augmented Reality” was also excluded as it
is not clear that it is a website of a U.S. company or whether it interfaces with the U.S.
market. August 25, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 10.
Lastly, the Examining Attorney submitted a copy of a promotion on the AOL Entertainment
website entitled Watch Live: Stage 2 of Outside Lands Music Festival, about an upcoming
live broadcast from a particular music festival. This was excluded as the uses of “Live” and
Serial No. 87223693

- 7 -
of the terms “LIVE” and “STAGE,” and the deletion of the space between them does
not obviate the descriptiveness of the wording.
Applicant argues that its proposed mark LIVESTAGE is not descriptive because
its audio and broadcast services are not “live,” but are typically provided “on demand.”
Applicant asserts that in most instances, the transmissions are pre-recorded, archival
footage of old concerts, not a live broadcast, and therefore cannot be said to be “live”
because archived footage available on demand “cannot be live as a matter of physics
given the current state of technology, but instead rely on an artificial index matching
imaging data and audio.”7 In other instances, however, Applicant explains that
sometimes its transmissions of concerts are delayed to allow for time indexing
necessary to facilitate Applicant’s editing tools due to the speed of data travel over
the Internet and the time-indexing algorithms that must be performed on the
transmissions.
Applicant also argues that “stage” is not sufficiently descriptive. In view of the
number of definitions of “stage” identified in the Examining Attorney’s evidence,
Applicant asserts that when used in connection with its audio and broadcasting
services over the Internet, there is no reason to presume that consumers would arrive
at the Examining Attorney’s chosen definition of stage as “a raised platform on which
theatrical performances are presented.” According to Applicant, the word “stage”
“plays too many parts to be considered ‘narrowly tailored’ to ‘audio and broadcasting

“Stage” are independent of each other and are not used to refer to a “live stage” performance.
See February 10, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 7.
7 Applicant’s Brief pp. 8-9 (4 TTABVUE 9-10).
Serial No. 87223693

- 8 -
services over the Internet’” and therefore “in choosing a narrow definition of ‘stage’
[the Examining Attorney] has not met her burden of showing ‘stage’ is descriptive of
Applicant’s services.”8 Applicant asserts that LIVESTAGE is a fanciful term that is
no more than suggestive of its recited services.9
The fact that a term may have different meanings in other contexts is not
controlling on the question of descriptiveness. It is well settled that so long as any
one of the meanings of a term is descriptive of the services at issue, the term may be
considered to be merely descriptive. “That a term may have other meanings in
different contexts is not controlling.” In re Franklin County Historical Soc’y, 104
USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593
(TTAB 1979)). Thus, in the context of the mark LIVESTAGE for the recited services,
we agree with the Examining Attorney that consumers would perceive STAGE as a
reference to “a raised platform on which theatrical performances [i.e., stage
productions] are presented.”
As to the LIVE component of the mark, the performances that Applicant
broadcasts, even if there is a time delay for the broadcast, are live stage performances.
As the evidence shows, “live stage” has a readily understood descriptive meaning in
the entertainment industry referring to the nature of the performance that is being
broadcast, not the nature of the broadcast itself. Applicant’s customers encountering
its proposed mark LIVESTAGE in connection with Applicant’s audio and video

8 Applicant’s Brief p. 9 (4 TTABVUE 10).
9 Applicant’s Brief p. 13 (4 TTABVUE 14).
Serial No. 87223693

- 9 -
broadcasting services will understand that Applicant’s broadcast features a live stage
performance that is available to them via streaming a recorded broadcast. Thus,
customers viewing LIVESTAGE in relation to audio and video broadcasting services
will immediately know the nature of the content that is being broadcast. That the
broadcast was previously recorded does not change the descriptiveness of the wording
in relation to the services because such services are distinguishable from a
performance that is produced in a studio, i.e., one that is not a recording of an on-
stage performance before a live audience. Whether the broadcast is delayed for
editing, or even for longer periods of time, the term LIVESTAGE describes a feature
or characteristic of the performance itself.
The individual components of the proposed mark retain their descriptive meaning
in relation to Applicant’s services, and their combination also results in a composite
term that is itself descriptive and not registrable. Nothing about the combination of
LIVE and STAGE changes the meaning of these words or evokes a non-descriptive
commercial impression. Thus, “LIVESTAGE” is merely descriptive of a feature or
characteristic of Applicant’s services because it has a readily understood meaning in
relation to performances, referring to a performance that is broadcast while it is
actually being performed on stage. The deletion of the space between the terms LIVE
and STAGE in Applicant’s proposed mark does not obviate the descriptiveness of the
wording. It is well recognized that joining two words which are merely descriptive of
the goods or services into a single term by the deletion of a space does not avoid a
finding of mere descriptiveness for the combined term. See In re Iolo Techs. LLC, 95
Serial No. 87223693

- 10 -
USPQ2d 1498, 1499 (TTAB 2010); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198 1200 (TTAB 2009);
In re Cox Enterprises Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040, 1043 (TTAB 2007).
Applicant further asserts that the Examining Attorney “appears to ignore the
online nature of Applicant’s services.”10 In support, Applicant cites to In re Driven
Innovations, Inc., 674 Fed. Appx. 996 (Fed. Cir. 2017)11 where in a non-precedential
opinion the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Board’s decision, noting “at
most, . . . the mark DOTBLOG likely would have some relation to online blogs. Mere
relation, however, does not mean that a mark is descriptive. In this case, there is no
instantaneous ‘mental leap between the word and the [service]’s attribute’ of using
proprietary search techniques to find relevant and current blog posts relating to a
given search query . . . . The lack of this instantaneous mental leap ‘strongly indicates
suggestiveness, not direct descriptiveness.” 674 Fed. Appx. at 999-1000 (alteration in
original) (citing Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 71
USPQ2d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Relying on In re Driven Innovations, Applicant
argues its applied-for mark LIVESTAGE as a whole does not induce an instantaneous
mental leap to any attribute of Applicant’s services, especially their online nature.12
However, Applicant’s proposed mark differs in from Driven Innovations’
DOTBLOG mark. As recognized by the Federal Circuit in that case “[d]escriptiveness
is not analyzed in the abstract and must be evaluated ‘in relation to the particular

10 Applicant’s Brief p. 9 (4 TTABVUE 10).
11 In re Driven Innovations, Inc., 674 Fed. Appx. 996 (Fed. Cir. 2017) which reversed and
remanded the Board’s decision in In re Driven Innovations, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1261 (TTAB
2015).
12 Applicant’s Brief p. 10 (4 TTABVUE 11).
Serial No. 87223693

- 11 -
goods for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the
possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods
because of the manner of its use or intended use.’” 674 Fed. Appx. at 998 citing In re
Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting Bayer, 82 USPQ2d 1831). Here,
Applicant’s proposed mark is used for providing a digital platform for live music that
streams on-stage concerts live and on-demand with a range of interactive features.
As confirmed in the printout from the equity funding page describing Applicant’s
services, “LIVESTAGE will enable fans to get closer to their favorite artists on the
largest stage in the world.” See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d
1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (examining the subject website in order to understand the
meaning of terms for which coverage was sought and thereby define the genus of
covered services). Thus, unlike the vague and nondescript mark DOTBLOG in Driven
Innovations, Applicant’s proposed mark immediately describes an essential feature
of Applicant’s services.
Applicant’s proposed mark need not immediately convey an idea of each and every
specific feature of Applicant’s services in order to be considered merely descriptive; it
is enough that the term describes one significant attribute, function or characteristic
of the services. In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831; In re Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d
at 1371 citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d
1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, a descriptiveness refusal is proper, “if the
mark is descriptive of any of the [services] for which registration is sought.” In re
Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d
Serial No. 87223693

- 12 -
1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). As addressed above, Applicant’s
applied-for mark is descriptive of a significant feature of its audio and video
broadcasting services. Thus, the mark is merely descriptive and without proof of
acquired distinctiveness, is not entitled to registration.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s applied-for mark LIVESTAGE
under § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.