TeamBonding, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

No. 86803594 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Hearing: June 6, 2017 Mailed: September 25, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re TeamBonding, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86803594
_____

Jeffrey Sonnabend of SonnabendLaw,
for TeamBonding, Inc.
Claudia Garcia, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Robert L. Lorenzo, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Greenbaum, Goodman and Pologeorgis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judge:
TeamBonding, Inc. (“Applicant”) filed an application to register TEAMBONDING
(in standard characters) on the Principal Register for “corporate entertainment,
educational and training services, namely, motivational and team building
presentations, seminars and workshops” in International Class 41.1 Applicant claims

1 Application Serial No. 86803594 was filed on October 29, 2015, based upon Applicant’s claim
of first use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as January 31, 2000.
Serial No. 86803594
- 2 -

that the mark has become distinctive of its services in commerce pursuant to
Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration on the ground that
TEAMBONDING is generic under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, 1053, and 1127, and therefore incapable of distinguishing the
identified services, and, alternatively, that TEAMBONDING is merely descriptive
and Applicant has not demonstrated that it has acquired distinctiveness under
Section 2(f).
After the Examining Attorney made the refusals final, Applicant appealed to this
Board. Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed their briefs, and an oral
hearing was held on June 6, 2017. We AFFIRM the refusals to register.
I. Evidentiary Issue
Before proceeding to the merits of the refusal, we address an evidentiary matter.
Applicant attached to its reply brief a March 31, 2017 declaration from David
Goldstein, Applicant’s President and CEO. Only evidence filed during examination is
timely, Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d), and it should not be submitted
on appeal. Accordingly, we have given no consideration to Mr. Goldstein’s declaration
attached to Applicant’s reply brief in our determination herein.
II. Genericness
A term is generic if it refers to the class or category of goods or services on or in
connection with which it is used. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d
1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of
Serial No. 86803594
- 3 -

Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). See In re Cordua
Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Princeton
Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir.
2015). The test for determining whether a mark is generic is its primary significance
to the relevant public. In re. Am. Fertility Soc’y, 188 F.3d 1341, 51 USPQ2d 1832 (Fed.
Cir. 1999); Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551 (Fed. Cir.
1991); Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530. Making this determination “involves a two-
step inquiry: First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term
sought to be registered … understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that
genus of goods or services?” Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530. The Examining Attorney
must establish with “clear evidence” that a proposed mark is generic. In re La. Fish
Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1264 (citing Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Evidence of the public’s understanding of a term may be obtained from “any
competent source, such as consumer surveys, dictionaries, newspapers and other
publications.” Princeton Vanguard, 114 USPQ2d at 1830 (quoting In re Northland
Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (BUNDT
is not registrable for “ring cake mix,” citing numerous cookbook recipes and
newspaper articles).
A. The genus of Applicant’s services
Because the identification of services in an application defines the scope of rights
that will be accorded the owner of any resulting registration under Section 7(b) of the
Serial No. 86803594
- 4 -

Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), an applicant’s identification of services generally
defines the genus of the services. See Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1636 (citing
Magic Wand, 19 USPQ2d at 1552 (“a proper genericness inquiry focuses on the
description of services set forth in the [application or] certificate of registration.”)). In
this case, the identification of services, “corporate entertainment, educational and
training services, namely, motivational and team building presentations, seminars
and workshops,” is clear in meaning and is an appropriate expression of the genus of
services at issue.
B. Primary Significance of TEAMBUILDING to the Relevant Public
We next consider whether the relevant public understands TEAMBONDING
primarily to refer to the genus of the involved services. Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d
at 1637 (quoting In re 1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 92 USPQ2d 1682,
1684 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The “relevant public” for services is limited to actual or
potential purchasers of the services. Magic Wand, 19 USPQ2d at 1552-53. We agree
with the Examining Attorney and find the relevant public are ordinary consumers
who are part of any workplace group. There is no evidence or argument to the
contrary.
The Examining Attorney maintains that TEAMBONDING identifies “a type of
training, event, seminar or workshop where individuals are building bonds,” and that
the “public at large across multiple industries” would understand that
TEAMBONDING refers to “motivational, team building services.” In support of the
Serial No. 86803594
- 5 -

refusal, the Examining Attorney submitted a number of printouts from the Internet,
the most probative of which are summarized below.
1. A January 28, 2014 article by Holly Woolard on the smartmeetings.com
website titled “Team Building: Building and Bonding”2 asks the reader to
“Raise your hand if you know the difference between team building and team
bonding. Is there really a difference? It seems reasonable to assume that some
bonding will occur during team building activities, but, conversely, bonding
alone can hardly be counted on to build a productive, winning team.” The
article quotes Ms. Comaford, a columnist for Forbes.com and “leadership guru”
who has appeared on several cable and television networks:
“Team bonding is an opportunity to build deeper
relationships, play and let off steam. Here we are investing
in the team’s understanding of and connection to one
another via a shared experience.” … “My preference is that
team building and bonding are joined,” Comaford says.
“For example, when we train a team in the neuroscience of
leadership, participants are all learning new skills to
enhance their ability to perform both together and solo.
And since we know that connection between human beings
fosters improved performance, health, happiness and
emotional engagement, we simultaneously incorporate
team bonding. Team members bond powerfully when they
create safety, belonging and mattering with one another,
and when they have an emotionally engaging shared
mission, vision and set of values.” …
Comaford addresses team bonding in Chapter 2 of [her
book], pointing out that the key is creating a safe
environment in which team members feel a sense of
belonging, that they matter to the team and begin to

2 February 23, 2016 First Office Action, TSDR pp. 2-4.
Serial No. 86803594
- 6 -

develop trust in coworkers. “Sometimes bonding is what we
need. We’ve worked hard all day and it’s time for R&R.”
Comaford typically pushes for a combination of team
building and team bonding to help businesses and
organizations achieve their ultimate goals. She says this
one-two punch is ideal “when you want to design the future
together; forge a leadership code of conduct; refine mission,
vision and values; or do any sort of
learning/brainstorming/creation where helping the team to
connect as human beings is essential for a positive business
result.”
The last paragraph of Ms. Woolard’s article discusses “[a]n emotionally charged
team-bonding opportunity offered by Songs of Love Experience, which sets up mobile
recording studios so groups can create “songs of love” for sick children.”
2. A March 17, 2014 post by Lindsay Patton-Carson in the “Course Categories”
section of the udemy blog titled “6 Team Bonding Games that are Fun and
Productive”3 discusses the purpose of team bonding and various team bonding
games:
When you’re working with a group of people – whether it
be at your job, on a sports team, as part of a support group
and move – it’s important for you to know and trust the
people you are working with. Team bonding games can not
only strengthen the bonds between you and people you are
working with, but they are fun. These activities offer an
opportunity to get to know your teammates better, as well
as develop trust to make for a stronger team overall.
For effective team bonding, we offer this course that will
show you the importance of a team, how to strengthen the
relationships within the team, how you can contribute as a
leader or follower (depending on your personality) and
more.

3 Id., TSDR pp. 5-9.
Serial No. 86803594
- 7 -

Under the heading “Team Bonding Games,” the author lists “a few examples of
team bonding games that might be successful with your team” including “Two Truths
and a Lie” which “is not just for team bonding” and “has important team-building
qualities to it. The most important being getting to know your teammates better.”,
and “The Bad and the Good” which is a “team bonding game [that] helps put things
into perspective for anyone who has had something bad happen to them….” The post
concludes: “Regardless of working with a team in a workplace, a sport or like-minded
group, it is important to know and strengthen the bonds between your teammates.
Team bonding games are not only fun for the group, but helps [sic] the team grow
together. They are not only easy and quick to have everyone do, but builds [sic] lasting
impressions on your team.”
3. An article by Luanne Kelchner on the Houston Chronicle smallbusiness.chron
website titled “What Are Some Team Bonding Exercises to Develop Trust &
Unity”4 discusses various games, and under the heading “Related Searches” on
the right side of the landing page, it lists “Team Building Games,” “Fun
Activities Games,” “Teamwork Games,” “Leadership Games,” “Team Bonding,”
and “Team Exercises.”
4. The “Team Bonding Ideas” webpage on the Firefly Events website5 offers
various “team bonding ideas”: “Our team bonding ideas for events focus on
shared experience rather than training or overwhelming messages. We’re not

4 Id., TSDR p. 10.
5 Id., TSDR p. 14.
Serial No. 86803594
- 8 -

going to ask anyone to trust fall or talk about feelings. We ARE going to
challenge your group with fun physical and mental puzzles and obstacles. You
WILL find out more about your coworkers or group members. … Call us to plan
your next … team building event….”
5. A November 14, 2013 post by Julie Winkle Giulioni on the smartblogs website
titled “From team building to team bonding”6 explains that
Most organizations invest heavily in activities designed to
build teams and support the results they are capable of
delivering. But team-building is just a stop on the road to
your ultimate endgame. Consistently delivering superior
results, quarter after quarter and client after client,
demands going farther. It demands team-bonding.
Teams that are “built” may work effectively –
understanding and complying with up- and down-stream
requirements and responding to customer expectations – in
a broad-based spirit of cooperation. But teams that are
“bonded” kick it up another notch. They’re the ones whose
members have internalized the complete process, who have
a shared and visceral vision of success, and who know and
care deeply about the customer, organization, and each
other.
Team-bonding isn’t the result of elegant experiences in
hotel conference rooms, solving imaginary, simulated
problems designed to diagnose team members, swinging
from vines, or falling (filled with trust) into the open arms
of others. Team-bonding is something more fundamental –
and more boring … and it occurs right within the cadence
of the work being done. Team-bonding occurs when people:
●Decide together
●Look forward together
●Accomplish together …

6 Id., TSDR p. 21.
Serial No. 86803594
- 9 -

So, your team might well benefit from a little fun time
together away from the office…but if you’re looking for
genuine and sustainable results, don’t settle for mere
team-building; support the joint decision making,
visioning, and accomplishment that leads to genuine team-
bonding.
6. Adventureworks,7 which identifies itself as “a nationally recognized leader in
experience-based training and development,” offers team activities such as
scavenger hunts and ropes courses under the heading “Team Bonding for
Professionals”: “Adventureworks offers a variety of team bonding programs
that are designed for professional adults to step outside of their everyday roles
and routines and have fun while strengthening relationships and improving
morale. Participants will work together to overcome obstacles and accomplish
goals, while having fun and building relationships!”
7. The Team Bonding webpage on the Paya Beach Resort on Tioman Island
website8 states:
At the Tioman Island Resort, you can make reservations
for your corporate team bonding activities. Various
activities are in store for those who wish to promote team
work and cooperation among all participants. By signing
up for an exhilarating, exciting and meaningful team
bonding event at the resorts in Tioman, you can expect to
have a renewed bond and deeper understanding of each
other for greater productivity in your workplace.

7 Id., TSDR p. 30.
8 Id., TSDR p. 31.
Serial No. 86803594
- 10 -

8. The Drum Café Experience webpage on the DrumCafeSouth.com website9
advertises “educational and corporate drumming events [that] help each
executive, each employee and each student understand and appreciate
chemistry, teamwork and their role in promoting a health and functioning
corporate or academic community.” The section touting the Drum Café’s
“unforgettable” “educational and corporate drumming events” states:
The smiles that spread around the room during our team
bonding activities will stay on your group’s faces long after
Drum Café South has left the building. Our clients talk
about us for days and book us again and again. When we
bring our hands on team building activities to your group,
we’re not just filling time – we’re entertaining your group,
we’re provoking thought and we’re leaving a lasting
impression.
The bottom of the webpage includes a link inviting the user to “See for yourself!
Click here to watch videos of our team bonding activities.”
9. The Schooner Woodwind Annapolis Sailing Cruises “Team Bonding” webpage10
advertises “The Best Team Bonding Experience for High Performance Teams”:
Schooner Woodwind specializes in providing your group
with the best and most unique team bonding sailing
experience in Annapolis or anywhere!... Our signature,
team bonding program is highlighted below. If you require
a less intense or more intense team program tailored to
your group’s specific needs, please visit our team building
programs page or call our helpful, experienced team
building staff …

9 Id., TSDR p. 39-40.
10 August 31, 2016 Second Office Action, TSDR pp. 3-4.
Serial No. 86803594
- 11 -

10. A blog post on Repsly11 by Richard April titled “5 Strategies for Dispersed Field
Team Bonding” recognizes that an increasing number of companies are
“adopting dispersed field teams,” causing an “increasing need for efficient
team-building exercises which lend themselves specifically to such groups.”
The article lists several strategies such as use of instant messaging and setting
up coffee dates to help virtual teams develop bonds similar to the “bonds that
employees form in the office,” which “often are made around the water cooler,
or on a lunch break.”
11. An article posted on buzzle.com titled “5 Fun and Effective Team Bonding
Activities for Employees,”12 tagged under “Team Building,” discusses activities
to help create effective teams by ensuring that all team members build rapport
with each other:
To ensure this happens, team bonding activities can be of
great help! …For a team to perform as a whole, it needs a
common vision to work towards. A team that consists of
people from diverse backgrounds will also have conflicting
ideas and opinions. This is why, strengthening the bond
between members is very important in order to achieve a
common goal. Team bonding activities are essential to
bring this sense of unity.
The article then lists “5 Extremely Effective Team Bonding Activities for
Employees” such as art competitions, cooking contests, and “[s]cavenger hunts[,
which] have always proved to be great team bonding games. Such an activity brings

11 Id., TSDR p. 5.
12 Id., TSDR pp. 9-13.
Serial No. 86803594
- 12 -

people together and encourages them to build a rapport with each other to solve each
riddle.”
12. An article by Nancy Mann Jackson posted on Leadership webpage of the
Entrepeneur.com website,13 titled “Team-Building With a Purpose” and
subtitled “Savvy entrepreneurs design team bonding programs that keep their
employees motivated,” discusses various team building activities, such as a
wine-blending competition at a local vineyard, designed to improve employee
engagement, morale and communication, and to reinforce company values.
13. The webpage for Colorado Teambuilding Events
(www.coloradoteambuildingevents.com)14 advertises the company as
“Colorado’s leading team bonding authority,” providing custom designed
“team-building event[s] [that] could be the most strategic thing you do for
business this year.”
14. The “Corporate Team Building Events” webpage on the coolbeansmedia.com
website15 offers customized corporate team building programs in the
demonstration kitchen at Cool Beans Café. “Our program can focus on a
variety of areas including: team bonding, strategic planning, communication,
sales training….”

13 November 11, 2016 Final Office Action, TSDR pp. 10-13.
14 Id., TSDR pp. 18-19.
15 Id., TSDR p. 36.
Serial No. 86803594
- 13 -

The Examining Attorney also submitted several webpages from Applicant’s
website16 showing Applicant’s use of the term “TEAM BONDING” as a category of
team building services. In particular, Applicant’s website has a “TEAM BONDING
IDEAS” link on the banner between links to “HOW IT WORKS” and “FAQS.”
Likewise, in the section at the end that provides links to “ABOUT US,” “FEATURED
LOCATIONS,” “FEATURED PROGRAMS,” “PARTNERS,” Applicant provides a link
to “TEAM BONDING IDEAS’ with sub links to “Make Team Bonding Work,” “Avoid
New Employee Bore-ientation” and “How to Engage Employees.”
Applicant questions the probative value of the Examining Attorney’s evidence,
arguing that the articles are brief and from mostly obscure websites. However,
approximately half of the uses listed above are from other companies that offer the
same type of services as Applicant (e.g., Colorado Team Building Events, Schooner
Windward Annapolis Sailing Cruises, Adventureworks, Cool Beans Café), and we see
no reason why prospective customers would not be familiar with this usage. Nor do
we have any evidence that websites such as Smart Meetings, entrepreneur, udemy
and Firefly are so obscure as to diminish their evidentiary value.
Applicant also maintains that none of the articles use the designation TEAM
BONDING as the name of the identified services. In particular, Applicant contends
that several of the articles refer to sports teams and events or activities designed to
foster bonding among the members of the sports teams. Applicant further contends

16 Id., TSDR pp. 2-5 and TSDR pp. 37-42.
Serial No. 86803594
- 14 -

that none of the articles merely refer to the services as “team bonding,” instead using
the phrase to describe an aspect of the events.
We share Applicant’s concerns regarding the stories about sports teams, and have
not considered them probative evidence. As to Applicant’s second point, however, our
primary reviewing court repeatedly has treated the generic name of a “key aspect” of
a service as generic also for the service itself. Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1637-38
(citing with approval 1800Mattress.com, 92 USPQ2d at 1684; In re Hotels.com LP,
573 F.3d 1300, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Reed Elsevier Props.
Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). See In re Emergency
Alert Sols. Grp., 122 USPQ2d 1088, 1091-1092 (TTAB 2017) (recounting prior case
law from the Federal Circuit and the Board on this issue). Many of the articles
summarized above use the term “team bonding” to refer to activities that foster bonds
among members of a team, often as a result of participating in team building events
and activities (e.g., scavenger hunts, cooking contests, two truths and a lie), and most
of the articles use the terms “team bonding” and “team building” interchangeably to
refer to games and activities designed to build teams. Thus, to the extent the evidence
uses the term “team bonding” to refer to a key aspect of “team building” exercises, the
evidence supports a finding that “team bonding” also is generic for the “team
building” service. Applicant’s use on its website of the term “team bonding” as a
category of team building services provides additional support for this finding.
Finally, Applicant mentions in a footnote that its ownership of a cancelled
registration for the same mark and the same services as now sought confirms that
Serial No. 86803594
- 15 -

the USPTO previously determined that TEAMBONDING was “non-descriptive/non-
generic.”17 Applicant did not make this registration of record, and therefore the
specifics of such (i.e., whether the registration issued on the Principal or
Supplemental Register, and if on the Principal Register, under the provisions of
Section 2(f)) are unknown.18 In any event, ownership of a now-expired registration is
not probative evidence of the public’s understanding of the significance of
TEAMBONDING today, when we must determine the question of genericness. See In
re Thunderbird Prods. Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 160 USPQ 730, 732 (CCPA 1969). As we
often have said, cancelled and expired registrations are not evidence of any presently
existing rights in the mark shown, or that the mark ever was used. See Action Temp.
Servs. Inc. v. Labor Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(cancelled or expired registration “does not provide constructive notice of anything”);
Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1949, 1956 n.9
(TTAB 2014) (“cancelled and expired registrations are not probative”), vacated and
remanded on other grounds, Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786
F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

17 App. Br., 4 TTABVUE 20.
18 During prosecution and in its brief, Applicant included a USPTO TSDR link to the
underlying application serial number. Providing a link, however, does not equate to
submitting the application file, and the Board does not take judicial notice of USPTO records.
See, e.g., In re House Beer, LLC, 114 USPQ2d 1073, 1075 (TTAB 2015) (Board does not take
judicial notice of files of applications or registrations residing in the Office, including entries
in file of cited registration). Nor will the Board click on an Internet link to consider content
that may appear on the accessed website. See In re HSB Solomon Assoc. LLC, 102 USPQ2d
1269, 1274 (TTAB 2012) (Board will not utilize web address to access site and consider
whatever content appears). See generally TBMP § 1208.03, and cases cited in nn.8 and 9.
Serial No. 86803594
- 16 -

In view of the foregoing, we find that the term TEAMBONDING would be
perceived by the relevant public as generic for “corporate entertainment, educational
and training services, namely, motivational and team building presentations,
seminars and workshops.”
III. Acquired Distinctiveness
We now address the alternative refusal that TEAMBONDING is merely
descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness. Where, as here, an applicant
requests registration under Section 2(f), the Examining Attorney need not prove that
the proposed mark is merely descriptive. Rather, the descriptiveness of the proposed
mark “is a nonissue; an applicant’s reliance on Section 2(f) during prosecution
presumes that the mark is descriptive.” Cold War Museum Inc. v. Cold War Air
Museum Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The only
remaining issue is whether Applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness for
TEAMBONDING is sufficient. See La. Fish Fry Prods., 116 USPQ2d at 1264;
Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
“In general, to establish that a term has acquired distinctiveness, ‘an applicant
must show that in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product
feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.’”
La. Fish Fry Prods., 116 USPQ2d at 1265 (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Whether
acquired distinctiveness has been established is a question of fact, see In re Loew’s
Serial No. 86803594
- 17 -

Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 226 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and the burden of
proving that a proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness is on the applicant. See
Yamaha, 6 USPQ2d at 1006.
In determining whether an applied-for mark has acquired distinctiveness, the
Board generally considers the following factors: (1) length and exclusivity of use of
the proposed mark in the United States by an applicant; (2) the type, expense and
amount of advertising of the proposed mark in the United States; and (3) and
applicant’s efforts in the United States to associate the proposed mark with the source
of the goods or services, such as unsolicited media coverage and consumer studies. In
re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(3). No single factor is determinative.
In re Tires, Tires, Tires Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1153, 1157 (TTAB 2009). See also Cordua
Rests., 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1233 (TTAB 2014), aff’d on other grounds, 823 F.3d 594,
118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The amount and character of evidence required to establish acquired
distinctiveness depends on the facts of each case. Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427
F.2d 823, 166 USPQ 34 (CCPA 1970). More evidence is required where a proposed
mark is so highly descriptive that purchasers who see the matter in relation to the
named services would be less likely to believe that it indicates source in any one party.
See, e.g., In re Bongrain Int’l Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1729 (Fed. Cir.
1990). The evidence of record discussed above clearly establishes that the term “team
bonding” is, at minimum, highly descriptive of the identified “corporate
Serial No. 86803594
- 18 -

entertainment, educational and training services, namely, motivational and team
building presentations, seminars and workshops.”
To establish acquired distinctiveness, Applicant filed the following materials:
1. a verified declaration of its attorney averring that TEAMBONDING had
become distinctive through Applicant’s substantially exclusive and
continuous use in commerce for at least five years;19
2. the Declaration of David Goldstein,20 Applicant’s President and CEO,
stressing use by Applicant and others of TEAMBONDING as a mark, with:
a. printouts of Applicant’s website from the Wayback Machine (Exhibit
1);21
b. articles from various publications (Exhibit 2);22
c. a printout from Inc. Magazine (Exhibit 3);23
d. printouts of approximately 100 Google searches (Exhibit 4); 24 and
e. emails between Applicant and several clients (Exhibit 5);25 and
3. five declarations from Applicant’s clients in which each declarant attests to
his or her familiarity with Applicant and its services and his or her personal
experience with Applicant’s consistent use of TEAMBONDING as a mark

19 Application, TSDR p.1.
20 August 8, 2016 Response to Office Action, TSDR pp. 12-16.
21 Id., TSDR pp. 17-344.
22 Id., TSDR pp. 345-445.
23 Id., TSDR pp. 446-448.
24 Id., TSDR pp. 449-582.
25 Id., TSDR pp. 583-687.
Serial No. 86803594
- 19 -

to identify Applicant as the source of the services and not to describe the
services.26
According to Mr. Goldstein, Applicant has used TEAMBONDING as a mark in
connection with team building services since January 2000.27 With respect to
Applicant’s use of TEAMBONDING as a mark on its website, Mr. Goldstein testified
that Applicant acquired the teambonding.com domain in May 2000, and since May
2000, Applicant continuously has operated a “TEAMBONDING branded website
under that domain,” in which Applicant advertises, and identifies itself as the source
of, its team building services.28 More than 1.5 million unique visitors have visited
Applicant’s TEAMBONDING website since Applicant began to collect visitor
statistics in 2011.29
Mr. Goldstein also testified about Applicant’s use of the Google AdWords platform.
In particular, Applicant has spent more than $1 million to purchase Google AdWords
(keyword based advertising on Google)” since May 2002.30 From October 2010
through March 2016, Applicant’s Google AdWords have been placed on consumers’
search result web pages more than 14 million times, with approximately 2.6% of such
consumers, on average, following links in the advertisement to Applicant’s website.31

26 Id., TSDR pp. 688-697.
27 Id., TSDR p. 12, Goldstein Dec. ¶ 1.
28 Id., TSDR p. 13, Goldstein Dec. ¶¶ 5-6
29 Id., TSDR p. 13, Goldstein Dec. ¶ 5.
30 Id., TSDR pp. 14-15, Goldstein Dec. ¶¶ 11-12.
31 Id., TSDR p. 15, Goldstein Dec. ¶ 12.
Serial No. 86803594
- 20 -

In addition, Mr. Goldstein testified about the nature and number of Applicant’s
customers. Since 2010, Applicant has provided its team building services to more
than 2100 customers (covering more than 178,000 participants) including large
corporations and government agencies such as Apple, Coca Cola, Disney, and U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, with all associated advertisements and
marketing materials referring to TEAMBONDING as a source identifier and not a
description of the services.32
Mr. Goldstein also testified as to “consistent, repeated unsolicited coverage in the
press” including articles in the Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, Inc. Magazine,
and Newsweek Magazine.33 He further testified that all media coverage (from large
and small publications) “have referred to [Applicant] TeamBonding using the
TEAMBODING mark as a trademark and not to describe the services provided by
TeamBonding.”34
After a careful review of the record, we find that Applicant has not shown that the
primary significance of TEAMBONDING, in the minds of the public, “is to identify
the source of the product rather than the product itself.” La. Fish Fry Prods., 116
USPQ2d at 1265. First, Applicant’s use since 2000, while indicative of a degree of
commercial success, is not conclusive or persuasive considering both the nature of the
proposed mark and the widespread use of “team bonding” by others (e.g.,

32 Id., TSDR pp. 13-14, Goldstein Dec. ¶¶ 7-8.
33 Id., TSDR p. 14, Goldstein Dec. ¶¶ 9-10.
34 Id., TSDR p. 14, Goldstein Dec. ¶ 9.
Serial No. 86803594
- 21 -

adventureworks.com, payabeach.com and coloradoteambuildingevents.com).35 See
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 222 USPQ 939, 940-41 (Fed. Cir.
1984) (“When the record shows that purchasers are confronted with more than one
(let alone numerous) independent users of a term or device, an application for
registration under Section 2(f) cannot be successful, for distinctiveness on which
purchasers may rely is lacking under such circumstances.”).
Next, Applicant’s advertising expenditures appear to be limited to its purchase of
Google’s AdWords since 2002, for which it has “invested more than $1 million.”36 But
this effort to advertise and promote Applicant’s team building services is extremely
modest over the given time frame. In addition, as the Examining Attorney points out,
just because Applicant paid for its name to appear first in response to searches that
utilize certain key words, such as “team bonding” and “team building,” does not mean
Applicant has acquired distinctiveness in the term TEAMBONDING as a source
indicator for its services. And the number of people (“2.59%”37) who, on average,
clicked through to Applicant’s website from these Google searches also appears to be
quite modest, although this figure also lacks context.
Similarly, Applicant failed to provide any information about its market share from
which we could judge Applicant’s success in promoting its services. Moreover, the

35 Applicant’s initial claim of acquired distinctiveness, which was based solely on a claim of
Applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use of TEAMBONDING as a mark for the
identified services for at least five years, fails because Applicant’s use is not “substantially
exclusive,” as demonstrated by the evidence of record.
36 August 8, 2016 Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 13, Goldstein Dec., ¶ 7.
37 Id., TSDR p. 15, Goldstein Dec. ¶ 12.
Serial No. 86803594
- 22 -

only “sales” figure provided by Applicant is that listed on the two page printout from
the Inc. Magazine webpage about Applicant (i.e., “2014 Revenue: $3.9 M,” which
represents “3-Year Growth” of “48%.”).38 Mr. Goldstein did not mention this (or any)
figure, let alone confirm its accuracy or explain how it compares to the volume of sales
by other team building companies. The figure thus lacks context. But even if the
figure proves to be substantial, it is not in itself necessarily enough to prove secondary
meaning. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(claim based on annual sales under the mark of approximately eighty-five million
dollars, and annual advertising expenditures in excess of ten million dollars, not
sufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness in view of highly descriptive nature of
mark).
On a related point, according to Mr. Goldstein and an excerpt from Inc. Magazine,
Inc. Magazine named Applicant “to the Inc. 5000 list of fastest growing companies
five times,” most recently in 2015, and now includes Applicant “on the Inc. Magazine
“Hall of Fame” (an honor roll of companies).”39 While the excerpt demonstrates that
Inc. Magazine recognizes Applicant as successful in “[h]elp[ing] companies foster
professional relationships between employees using activities[,] events, and ice
breakers to encourage the development of skills such as problem solving,
communication and conflict resolution,”40 there is no evidence that anyone other than

38 Id., TSDR p. 447, Goldstein Dec., Exhibit 3, p. 447.
39 Id., TSDR p. 14, Goldstein Dec., ¶10, and TSDR pp. 446-448, Goldstein Dec., Exhibit 3.
40 Id., TSDR p. 447, Goldstein Dec., Exhibit 3, p. 447.
Serial No. 86803594
- 23 -

Applicant viewed this webpage. This evidence is of limited probative value in the
absence of information regarding public exposure.
Applicant also has introduced declarations from five customers who state they
have had repeated experiences with Applicant and they recognize Applicant as the
source of the services.41 However, five declarations is a rather small sample size,
especially given Mr. Goldstein’s testimony concerning “over 178,000 participants” in
Applicant’s various events.42 Additionally, none of the five declarants indicate
whether they have received any incentive from Applicant for supplying their
declarations, such as a discount on future services, which could color their views
towards Applicant.
As for the email exchanges between Applicant and various customers,43 they do
show that Applicant is trying to use the term “TeamBonding” as a source identifier,
and that at least some of its customers understand the term as such. Again, however,
the number of such customers is extremely limited compared to the 178,000 figure to
which Mr. Goldstein testified.
Finally, the approximately 50 news articles, excerpts, and blog posts submitted as
Exhibit 2 to the Goldstein Declaration do not persuade us that the relevant public
recognizes Applicant as the source of the identified services. The vast majority of
articles and posts only mention Applicant in passing, for example, as a vendor at The

41 Id., TSDR pp. 688-697.
42 Id., TSDR p. 13, Goldstein Dec. ¶ 7.
43 Id., TSDR pp. 583-687, Goldstein Dec., Exhibit 5.
Serial No. 86803594
- 24 -

Connors Center,44 Hampshire House45 and CheersBoston;46 as one of several
companies engaging in team building activities such as Bizbash’s listing of
Applicant’s “Make A Movie” under the heading “7 Tech-Based Teambuilding
Activities;”47 as a company run by Mr. Goldstein, where Mr. Goldstein or one of his
other companies is the subject (e.g., bizjournals.com profile of Mr. Goldstein and
another of his ventures).48 Others appear to be simply business information listings
for Applicant, with Applicant’s name and contact information, and sometimes a brief
description of the company, but little else (e.g., norfolkcountybusinesslist.com).49
Several other articles and posts are sponsored or authored by Applicant, including a
number of press releases on prweb.com,50 and therefore cannot be considered
“unsolicited media coverage.”
As for the five excerpts from Newsweek Magazine, Inc. Magazine, the Wall Street
Journal, and The Boston Globe, which Mr. Goldstein highlights in his Declaration51
and Applicant emphasizes in its brief,52 four suffer from evidentiary infirmities
similar or identical to those discussed above. The excerpt from Newsweek Magazine

44 Id., TSDR p. 362.
45 Id., TSDR p. 384.
46 Id., TSDR p. 381.
47 Id., TSDR p. 371.
48 Id., TSDR p. 354 and TSDR pp. 358-359.
49 Id., TSDR p. 409.
50 Id., TSDR pp. 420, 424, 426-433.
51 Id., TSDR p. 14, Goldstein Dec., ¶ 9.
52 App. Br., 4 TTABVUE 24, 26.
Serial No. 86803594
- 25 -

merely includes a quote from Mr. Goldstein and identifies him as the “chief executive
of TeamBonding Inc.”53 The first of two excerpts from Inc. Magazine appears to be
more about Mr. Goldstein than Applicant: “David Goldstein is the founder of
TeamBonding, an Inc. 5000 company and innovator in the team building industry.
Recently, he launched a spin-off company, YoYo Events, aimed specifically at
startups. He says that team building activities are no longer reserved for corporations
with the big bucks.”54 The second is the above-discussed excerpt listing Applicant as
a member of the Inc. 5000 and its “Hall of Fame.”55 The Wall Street Journal excerpt56
names Applicant only as the source of a graph of Applicant’s activities in 2013,
provided by Applicant and reproduced in the excerpt, and this sole reference to
Applicant appears in small print below the graph. The remainder of the excerpt
appears to discuss a particular team building experience, presumably provided by
Applicant, but does not mention Applicant. Moreover, as previously mentioned, there
is no evidence that anyone other than Applicant has viewed this excerpt. The
remaining article, from the Boston Globe,57 profiles Applicant through a brief
interview with Mr. Goldstein in which he also mentions “YoYo.” Although this article
demonstrates some public recognition of “TeamBonding” as a company that offers

53 August 8, 2016 Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 404.
54 Id., TSDR p. 394.
55 Id., TSDR p. 395.
56 Id., TSDR pp. 346-350 and TSDR p. 444. TSDR p. 444 appears to be a partial duplicate of
TSDR 346-347, and is not considered a sixth excerpt.
57 Id., TSDR pp. 352-353 and TSDR p. 378. As with the Wall Street Journal evidence, we do
not consider TSDR p. 378 to be a sixth excerpt, as it appears to be a duplicate of part of the
first page of TSDR p. 352.
Serial No. 86803594
- 26 -

team-building programs, the record lacks sufficient other evidence to persuade us
that TEAMBONDING has acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator.
In sum, substantially more evidence bearing directly on the degree of public
recognition of Applicant’s proposed mark TEAMBONDING would be required to
demonstrate that it has acquired distinctiveness. Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at
1424. Considering all of the evidence of record, we find that Applicant has failed to
demonstrate that its proposed mark TEAMBONDING has become distinctive of the
identified services, namely, “corporate entertainment, educational and training
services, namely, motivational and team building presentations, seminars and
workshops.”
Decision: The refusal to register the proposed mark TEAMBONDING on the
ground that it is generic is AFFIRMED; and the alternative refusal to register the
proposed mark TEAMBONDING on the ground that it is merely descriptive and that
the evidence is insufficient to show that the proposed mark has acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f) also is AFFIRMED.