Strategic Weather Services, L. P.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2000

No. 75196907 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2000)

Hearing: Paper No. 21
May 10, 2000 RLS/AP
9/21/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Strategic Weather Services, L.P.
________
Serial No. 75/196,907
_______
Rachel Brendzel of Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley for
Strategic Weather Services, L.P.
Paula B. Mays, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114
(Margaret Le, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Walters and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Strategic Weather Services, L.P. (applicant), a
Pennsylvania limited partnership, has appealed from the
final refusal to register the asserted mark THE WEATHER
NETWORK for the following services:
Providing short and long range weather
information services particularly for
event planning provided via a global
computer network, television, cable,
fax and telephone and computer
services, namely, providing access to
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/196,907
2
an interactive Web site in the weather
field.1
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have submitted briefs
and an oral hearing was held.
We affirm.
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 USC §1052(e)(1), arguing
that the asserted mark is merely descriptive of a
characteristic, feature or the nature of applicant’s
services.2 Relying upon definitions of the word “weather”
and the word “network,” from Webster’s II New Riverside
University Dictionary (1994 edition),3 the Examining
Attorney contends that applicant’s asserted mark is merely
descriptive because applicant will offer weather
information via various communications networks (the
Internet, television or other media networks). According
to the Examining Attorney, the meaning of applicant’s mark

1 Application Serial No. 75/196,907, filed November 12, 1996,
based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention to use
the mark in commerce.
2 The Examining Attorney also initially refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 USC §1052(d), citing a
registration of the mark THE WEATHER RADIO NETWORK for providing
telephone access to local weather forecasts nationwide. In the
registration, there is a disclaimer of the word “NETWORK” apart
from the mark as shown. The Examining Attorney subsequently
withdrew that refusal.
3 The term “network” is defined as, among other things, “A chain
of interconnected broadcasting stations, usu. sharing a large
proportion of their programs .”
Ser. No. 75/196,907
3
is readily apparent because no imagination, thought, or
perception is required to immediately understand the nature
of applicant’s services. The Examining Attorney argues
that applicant’s mark is a combination of descriptive words
which forms a composite descriptive phrase clearly
indicating that applicant provides weather information via
a network or networks. The Examining Attorney contends
that applicant’s mark is not a source identifier.
The Examining Attorney has relied upon articles from
the Nexis database. However, these excerpts are from
newswire reports and foreign publications. Accordingly,
little weight has been given to them. See In re Urbano, 51
USPQ2d 1776, 1778 fn. 3 (TTAB 1999) and cases cited there.
The Examining Attorney also, in the second Office
action, required a disclaimer of the word “NETWORK” apart
from the mark as shown. When the Examining Attorney made
this requirement final, applicant complied with this
request in its Request for Reconsideration, p. 2.
Applicant’s comment in its reply brief, therefore, that the
Examining Attorney has failed to address the requirement
for a disclaimer is not understood.4

4 It appears that some of the confusion generated by the papers
in this file may be attributed to the fact that both the
Examining Attorney and applicant’s attorney have adapted for this
case submissions originally filed in other cases, with some
modifications. However, some of the statements made in the
Ser. No. 75/196,907
4
Applicant, on the other hand, argues that, while an
argument may be made that the components of its mark are
descriptive, the mark as a whole is a “unique and unitary
phrase” that is not merely descriptive. Response, filed
August 25, 1998, p. 8. Applicant argues that its asserted
mark is subject to several interpretations, including that
it is an organization of meteorological offices or
broadcasting stations. According to applicant, its mark is
sufficiently ambiguous that mental pause, imagination and
thought are needed in order to determine the nature of its
services. Applicant maintains that its mark consists of
the “suggestive” word “WEATHER” and that “[a]pplicant’s
service is a “network” only in a fanciful, broad sense that
it is available through the Internet.” Id., p. 9. Also,
the method through which applicant intends to provide its
services is just a tangential aspect of its service.
Brief, 7. Because applicant’s mark, according to
applicant, does not immediately inform purchasers of the
nature of applicant’s services and because one is not able
to determine the purpose or function of those services from
the mark alone, applicant argues that its mark is not
merely descriptive. Applicant maintains that its use and

papers for the other cases have not been carefully edited for
this case.
Ser. No. 75/196,907
5
registration will not hinder competition, that there is no
evidence of third-party use of a similar mark and argues
that any doubt be resolved in its favor.
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that applicant’s asserted mark THE WEATHER NETWORK
is merely descriptive of applicant’s weather information
services. Of course, and contrary to applicant’s argument,
the Board may look at the individual components of a mark
and discuss their descriptive connotations in the context
of determining the mere descriptiveness of an entire
phrase. See In re Hester Industries, Inc., 230 USPQ 797
(TTAB 1996). We believe that the public, upon seeing
applicant's asserted mark, and considering it in its
entirety in connection with applicant's services, is
immediately apprised of the nature of applicant's services.
The services are provided via an interactive Web site,5 and

5 We take judicial notice of the following dictionary definition,
which illustrates that "Web," in the context in which it is used
by applicant in its identification of services, is a shorthand
reference for the "World Wide Web."
Web See World Wide Web.
The Computer Glossary The Complete Illustrated Dictionary 462 (8th
ed. 1998)
World Wide Web The largest collection of online
information in the World. The Web is an Internet facility that
has become synonymous with the Interent [sic]. Its foundation is
the HTML document, which contains links (URLs) to other documents
Ser. No. 75/196,907
6
the Web site features a "network" or linked collection of
sources of weather information. No imagination or thought
is necessary to determine the nature of applicant's
services.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
C. E. Walters
G. F. Rogers
Administrative
Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and
Appeal

on the same Web server or on servers anywhere in the world. The
Web uses the HTTP protocol to download Web pages to a browser….
…[T]he Web is turning into "the" worldwide information system
for education, research, entertainment and commerce.
The Computer Glossary The Complete Illustrated Dictionary 470 (8th
ed. 1998)