Rural Media Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2012

No. 85042534 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2012)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.

Mailed: September 13, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Rural Media Group, Inc.
________

Serial Nos. 85042534 and 850425841
_______

Jennifer L. Elgin of Wiley Rein LLP for Rural Media Group,
Inc.

Jaclyn Kidwell Walker, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 112 (Angela Bishop Wilson, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Cataldo and Greenbaum,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant, Rural Media Group, Inc., has filed
applications to register as trademarks on the Principal
Register the mark RFD TV THE THEATRE (in standard
characters) and the mark displayed below

1 Because the appeals in both cases involve common issues of law
and fact, we will determine both in this decision.
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
2

both reciting “entertainment in the nature of theater
productions” in International Class 41.2
The examining attorney required applicant to disclaim
the wording “TV” and “THE THEATRE” in both applications,
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1056(a), on the ground that such wording is merely
descriptive of applicant’s services within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1).
In response, applicant disclaimed “THE THEATRE” but not
“TV” in both cases. When the requirement for a disclaimer
of “TV” was made final, applicant appealed. In each
application, applicant and the examining attorney filed
main briefs on the issue under appeal, and applicant filed
a reply brief.

2 Application Serial Nos. 85042534 and 85042584 both were filed
on May 19, 2010 asserting March 2007 as a date of first use of
the marks anywhere and in commerce under Trademark Act Section
1(a), 15 U.S.C. §1051(a).
In application Serial No. 85042584, applicant states as
follows: “Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.” “The
mark consists of a stylized RFD TV (a windmill with a circle) The
Theatre.”
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
3
We reverse the refusal of registration in the absence
of a disclaimer of “TV” in each application.
An examining attorney may require an applicant to
disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise
registrable. Trademark Act Section 6(a). Merely
descriptive terms are unregistrable, under Trademark Act
Section 2(e)(1) and, therefore, are subject to disclaimer
if the mark is otherwise registrable. Failure to comply
with a disclaimer requirement is a ground for refusal of
registration. See In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d
1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Richardson Ink
Co., 511 F.2d 559, 185 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1975); In re Ginc UK
Ltd., 90 USPQ2d 1472 (TTAB 2007); In re National Presto
Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977); and In re
Pendleton Tool Industries, Inc., 157 USPQ 114 (TTAB 1968).
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, e.g., In re Gyulay, 820
F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
A term need not immediately convey an idea of each and
every specific feature of the applicant’s goods or services
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
4
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. See In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); and In re
MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
In this case, the examining attorney argues that “TV”
merely describes the services because applicant owns a
television network (RFD-TV) and applicant’s “theater
productions are broadcast over applicant’s network and the
theatre productions are also in fact televised.”3 The
examining attorney further argues that “the term ‘TV’ is
also descriptive of the entertainment services in that they
feature special appearances by RFD-TV stars.”4 In support
of her position, the examining attorney relies upon the
following evidence: “a dictionary definition, applicant’s
specimen of record, and a copy of applicant’s program guide
and print outs from applicant’s website.”5 According to the
dictionary definition submitted by the examining attorney,
“television” is defined as:
(abbreviation TV)
- an electronic system that is used to convert
moving images and sound into electrical
signals, which are then transmitted by radio

3 Examining attorney’s brief, unnumbered page 6.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 5.
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
5
waves or by cable to a distant receiver that
converts the signals back to images and sound;
- (also television set) a device with a picture
tube and loudspeakers that is used to receive
picture and sound signals transmitted in this
way;
- television broadcasting in general.6
Perusal of applicant’s specimen of record (reproduced
below) reveals that applicant utilizes several RFD TV-
formative marks, including RFD TV RURAL AMERICA’S MOST
IMPORTANT NETWORK and design; RFD HD and design; RFD TV THE
MAGAZINE and design, and the marks at issue herein.
Applicant’s internet program guide and other pages from its
internet website made of record by the examining attorney
corroborate that applicant operates a television station
under the mark RFD TV RURAL AMERICA’S MOST IMPORTANT
NETWORK and design, featuring programming directed toward
rural America such as “Hee Haw,” “This Week in
Agribusiness,” “Farmers Almanac TV,” “National Tractor
Pulling,” “The Marty Stuart Show,” and “Roy Rogers Happy
Trails Theatre.” Certain of these programs are available
in high definition, and presumably may be viewed on
applicant’s RFD HD channel. The marks at issue herein are
used in connection with theater productions performed at
applicant’s theater located in Branson, Missouri.

6 Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, retrieved from
credoreference.com.
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
6

Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
7
In support of registrability of its marks without a
disclaimer of “TV,” applicant submitted the following
definition of television: “the image, sound, or content of
a combined audio and video broadcast.”7 Applicant argues
that “TV” does not merely describe an ingredient, quality
or characteristic of its services, “as there is no
‘combined audio and video broadcast’ inherent in live
‘theater productions.’”8 Applicant further argues that any
connection between “TV” and its services “is not immediate
and would require mature thought and multi-stage
reasoning.”9 Applicant argues in addition that the mere
fact that entertainers who have appeared on television may
also perform in its theaters “is certainly far-flung, and
would take multi-step reasoning by a consumer of
Applicant’s services”10 to conclude that “TV” merely
describes such services.
Based on the record before us, we find that relevant
purchasers will not perceive the term “TV” in applicant’s
marks as merely describing applicant’s “entertainment in
the nature of theater productions.” First, the evidence of
record clearly indicates that applicant operates a

7 Encarta.msn.com.
8 Applicant’s brief, p. 3.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 4.

Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
8
television network directed toward the rural market, and is
adding a high definition channel as well. Thus, there is
no question that applicant broadcasts entertainment on
television. The evidence of record further makes clear
that the marks at issue herein are used in connection with
theater productions performed live at applicant’s theater
located in Branson, Missouri, and not television
broadcasting or programming services. Applicant and the
examining attorney appear to agree on these points. Based
upon the above definitions, there is nothing inherent in
the term “TV” or “television” that merely describes a
function, feature or characteristic of the recited
services. So the definitions themselves do not support the
requirement.
Turning to applicant’s specimen and informational
pages from its internet web site, we find insufficient
support for the examining attorney’s contention that
applicant’s live theater productions are broadcast on
applicant’s television station(s). That is to say, the
programs appearing at applicant’s theater do not appear to
be the same as the programs aired by applicant on
television. The program “Roy Rogers Happy Trails Theater”
noted by the examining attorney appears to be a television
program, notwithstanding the presence of “Theater” in its
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
9
title, and in any event there is no evidence that this
program is a theater production appearing at applicant’s
theater under the marks at issue. Simply put, the evidence
relied upon by the examining attorney does not appear to
support her position that applicant airs the live theater
productions under the involved marks on television such
that “TV” describes a feature or characteristic thereof.
The mere fact that applicant’s specimen and web site
display marks used in connection with both applicant’s
television station(s) and its theater productions does not
permit us to infer that they share common programming or
otherwise conflate such programming.
Moreover, the examining attorney fails to cite
authority for her position that because certain performers
(e.g., Marty Stuart) appear on applicant’s television
programming and also appear live at applicant’s theater,
the term “TV” is descriptive of a feature or characteristic
of its theater productions. As noted above, the evidence
of record does not support a finding that the live
performances at applicant’s theater are broadcast on its
television station(s), and the fact that some performers
may appear on both does not support the requirement for a
disclaimer of “TV.”
Ser. Nos. 85042534 and 85042584
10
In summary, we find that based upon the evidence of
record, the examining attorney has failed to make a prima
facie showing that “TV” merely describes a function,
feature or characteristic of applicant’s “entertainment in
the nature of theater productions” such that applicant must
disclaim the term as it appears in its involved marks.
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed in each
case.