Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 1998

No. 74703465 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 1998)

Paper No. 9
HRW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB 10/6/98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union
________
Serial No. 74/703,465
_______
Simor L. Moskowitz of Jacobson, Price, Holman & Stern PLLC
for applicant.
G. T. Glynn, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union has filed an
application to register the mark CU@HOME for “home banking
services accessible via computer, namely, fund transfers,
deposits, withdrawals, balance inquiries, check requests,
new accounts, bill paying, loan applications, loan
payments, payment estimates, rate and yield information,
Ser No. 74/703465
2
prior year dividend/interest for tax purposes, credit union
announcements.” 1
Registration has been finally refused on the ground
that the mark, when used in connection with these services,
is merely descriptive within the meaning of Section
2(e)(1)of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs, but an oral hearing was not requested.
A term is merely descriptive within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys information
regarding a characteristic, function, purpose or feature of
the goods or services with which it is being used. See In
re Abcor Development Corp. 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218
(CCPA 1978); In re Bright-Crest Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB
1979).
The Examining Attorney has submitted a page from the
Acronyms, Initialisms & Abbreviations Dictionary (1994) to
show that CU is a recognized acronym for “credit union” and
a page from the PC User’s Pocket Dictionary to show that
“@” is the standard computer “at” symbol. He points to the
identification of the services themselves to show the

1 Ser. No. 74/703,465, filed July 19, 1995 based on a bona fide
intent to use. An amendment to allege use was later filed
setting forth first use dates of August 16, 1996.
Ser No. 74/703465
3
descriptive nature of the word “home”. In addition, he
submits an article from the Lexis/Nexis database describing
the entrance of credit unions into home banking which
refers to the setting up by a third-party of the “Windows-
based CU at Home” computer banking service. (The American
Banker, Jan. 9, 1995). This evidence is said to
demonstrate recognition of the phrase “CU at home” as a
“descriptive appellation within the relevant home banking
industry... .” On this basis, the Examining Attorney
maintains that CU@HOME would immediately inform the
prospective purchaser of “the salient feature of these
computerized credit union banking services utilized in at
home banking transactions... .”
Applicant argues that it is obvious from the multi-
stage reasoning process used by the Examining Attorney to
combine the various elements of applicant’s mark that
CU@HOME is suggestive of applicant’s home banking services,
rather than merely descriptive. As for the use of the
designation “CU at home” in a single article, applicant
insists that this is neither evidence that that designation
is currently being used by others or that there is a need
for others in the field to use the terms as combined by
applicant. Applicant further contends that the mark has a
double entendre in that it may just as easily be
Ser No. 74/703465
4
interpreted as “See you at home”, a non-descriptive phrase
connoting the ease of banking with applicant.
We agree that applicant’s mark, CU@HOME, may well be
perceived by potential customers as an abbreviated form of
the words “Credit Union at Home”. The brochure submitted
by applicant as a specimen demonstrates applicant’s
promotion of its CU@HOME services as allowing customers to
have “online access to your ... FCU accounts from your home
or office computer.”
Our problem is that we find no evidence of record that
“Credit Union at Home” (the full phrase of which
applicant’s mark is an abbreviated form) is a phrase used
by others in a descriptive manner in connection with a home
banking service of this nature. It is true that in the
solitary article introduced by the Examining Attorney, the
reference is made to a “CU at Home” computer program. But
there is nothing to infer that this is other than a service
mark adopted by a specific credit union to identify its
particular program used in connection with a home banking
service. There clearly is no evidence to support the
Examining Attorney’s argument that this reference shows
“the descriptive notoriety of the expression CU at Home
within the relevant banking industry and trade.”
Ser No. 74/703465
5
In the absence of such evidence, we believe that
although applicant’s mark may be interpreted as “Credit
Union at Home”, it does no more than suggest that a
customer is able to access his credit union account at
home. While there is often a fine line between suggestive
marks and those which are merely descriptive, we find no
information which is immediately conveyed to the customer
by the words ”Credit Union at Home” (or by CU@HOME). The
credit union obviously is not in the customer’s home, but
simply can be accessed at home by means of the customer’s
computer. See In re Wakefern Food Corp., 222 USPQ 76 (TTAB
1984) [WHY PAY MORE! only suggestive that applicant’s
supermarket prices are lower, not descriptive of
supermarket services per se]; In re Sottile, 156 USPQ 655
(TTAB 1968) [YOUR FINANCIAL SECURITY IS OUR BUSINESS only
suggestive of applicant’s insurance underwriting services].
Not only is this equally true for applicant’s more fanciful
rendition of the phrase, CU@HOME, but the phrase presented
in this manner also lends itself to the second
interpretation, “See You at Home”, which cannot be viewed
as merely descriptive of applicant’s services. See Henry
Siegel Co. v. M & R International Mfg. Co., 4 USPQ2d 1154
(TTAB 1987), and the cases cited therein. Thus, in view
both of the imagination needed to grasp the significance of
Ser No. 74/703465
6
the applicant’s mark, if interpreted as “Credit Union at
Home,” as well as the double entendre projected by the
short-hand rendition, CU@HOME, applicant’s mark cannot be
considered merely descriptive of the identified home
banking services.
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
R. L. Simms
B. A. Chapman
H. R. Wendel
Trademark Administrative Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/703465
7