The Amend Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 4, 2008

No. 77022128 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2008)

Mailed: 11/4/08

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re The Amend Group, Inc.
________

Serial No. 77022128
_______

Robert D. McCutcheon of Munck Carter for The Amend Group,
Inc.

Tasneem Hussain, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
105 (Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Kuhlke and Walsh, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The Amend Group, Inc. filed, on October 16, 2006, an
intent-to-use application to register the mark MAJOR LEAGUE
BOWLING (“BOWLING” disclaimed) for “bowling equipment,
namely, bowling pins, bowling ball returns, bowling balls,
bowling ball covers, bowling pinsetters and parts
therefore, bowling bags, bowling deflectors, bowling
gloves, bowling pin mats, and masking units to hide the pin
spotters from the bowler’s view” in International Class 28.
THIS OPINION
IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 77022128
2
The trademark examining attorney refused registration
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1), on the ground that the proposed mark, when
applied to the goods, is merely descriptive thereof.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney filed briefs.
Before turning to the merits of the Section 2(e)(1)
refusal, we first direct our attention to a procedural
matter involving the identification of goods. The original
identification included the terminology “masking units to
hide the pin spotters from the bowler’s view.” The
examining attorney asked for clarification of the term
“masking units.” In response, applicant deleted the
terminology “to hide the pin spotters from the bowler’s
view.” The examining attorney, in the final refusal, noted
that this deletion served to broaden the identification
and, therefore, the amendment was unacceptable. The
examining attorney went on to indicate, however, that, upon
further review, the original terminology was acceptable.
Applicant failed to mention the identification issue in its
brief, and referred to the identification as including
“masking units” (i.e., the terminology used in the proposed
amended identification). Likewise, the examining
attorney’s brief failed to mention the identification
Ser No. 77022128
3
issue, and the examining attorney also referred to the
identification as including “masking units.”
Inasmuch as deletion of the terminology “to hide the
pin spotters from the bowler’s view” serves to broaden the
identification of goods, we agree with the examining
attorney, as set forth in the final refusal, that the
proposed amendment is unacceptable. Given that this issue
was specifically raised in the final refusal, it is strange
that both applicant and the examining attorney ignored it
in their briefs, and that both referred in their briefs to
the proposed identification (that is, including the
terminology “masking units” per se) as the operative
identification. Be that as it may, the deletion of the
terminology “to hide the pin setters from the bowler’s
view” served to theoretically broaden the identification
and, thus, the deletion is impermissible. Accordingly, we
will consider the identification to include the goods as
originally identified and now found by the examining
attorney to be acceptable, namely “masking units to hide
the pin setters from the bowler’s view.”
We now turn to the Section 2(e)(1) refusal. The
examining attorney maintains that “[t]o the extent that the
goods are bowling equipment of such high quality as befits
an organization of major league bowlers, the mark is merely
Ser No. 77022128
4
descriptive.” (Brief, p. 2). The “wording MAJOR LEAGUE
BOWLING denotes the quality of the equipment while the
wording BOWLING merely identifies the type of sport for
which the equipment is used.” (Brief, p. 3). In making
the refusal the examining attorney relied upon four third-
party registrations covering sporting goods wherein the
term “MAJOR LEAGUE” is disclaimed, or the registration
issued under Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register.
Applicant argues that the proposed mark does not
describe bowling equipment, but rather is only suggestive
“of the sport of bowling and, perhaps, goods associated
with the sport of bowling.” Applicant also asserts that
“no such organization with the name Major League Bowling”
exists.” (Brief, p. 6). Applicant points to the absence
of any competitors using either “major league” or “major
league bowling” in connection with their goods or services.
Applicant further discounts the third-party registration
evidence submitted by the examining attorney, asserting
that the prior actions of the Office are not binding on the
merits of this case.1

1 To counter the examining attorney’s evidence, applicant, in its
September 7, 2007 response, listed fifty-one registrations,
showing the mark, owner, status and goods/services. Applicant
argues as follows: “[T]here are a significant number of marks
registered on the Principal Register that are similar to
Applicant’s Mark and registered in connection with similar goods
and/or services as those for which Applicant seeks registration.
Ser No. 77022128
5
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. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft,
488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828 (TTAB 2007); and In re Abcor
Development, 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA
1978). A term need not immediately convey an idea of each
and every specific feature of the applicant’s goods or
services in order to be considered merely descriptive;
rather, it is sufficient that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982);
and In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973). Whether
a term is merely descriptive is determined not in the
abstract, but in relation to the goods or services for

Applicant’s Mark should not be refused while other similar marks
are allowed to proceed to registration.” In response, the
examining attorney indicated in the final refusal that merely
listing third-party registrations, without also submitting copies
thereof, was insufficient to make them of record. We agree. The
registrations were not properly introduced and, in reaching our
decision, we have not considered applicant’s listing of them.
See In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1446 n. 2 (TTAB
2000). This evidence, even if considered, would not compel a
different result on the merits herein. As often stated, each
case must stand on its own record. See In re Nett Designs Inc.,
236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) [“Even if
some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to
[applicant’s] application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior
registrations does not bind the board or this court.”].
Ser No. 77022128
6
which registration is sought, the context in which it is
being used on or in connection with the goods or services,
and the possible significance that the term would have to
the average purchaser of the goods or services because of
the manner of its use. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ
591, 593 (TTAB 1979). It is settled that “[t]he question
is not whether someone presented with only the mark could
guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question
is whether someone who knows what the goods or services are
will understand the mark to convey information about them.”
In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
The “average” or “ordinary” consumer is the class or
classes of actual or prospective customers of applicant’s
goods or services. In re Omaha National Corporation, 819
F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The term “major league” is defined, in relevant part,
as “a league of major importance in any of various sports;
big time.” (www.m-w.com). We also take judicial notice of
the following definition: “belonging to or among the best
or most important of its kind: a major-league orchestra.”
(The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2d
ed. unabridged 1987).
Ser No. 77022128
7
The term “bowling” is defined as “any of several games
in which balls are rolled on a green or down an alley at an
object or group of objects.” (www.m-w.com).
The examining attorney also introduced excerpts of the
following articles:
Bowlers in the South Bend/Mishawaka
area have always considered the Classic
League the major league of bowling, the
ultimate destination of bowling
competition. It’s where you went if
you wanted to find out just how good
you really were.
(South Bend Tribune (Indiana), December
14, 2006)

This area is home to many of the
country’s richest tournaments and the
ABC Seniors Masters, but you can’t be a
major league bowling town without the
sport’s major league.
(Las Vegas Review-Journal, October 20,
2004)

Besides, there is precedent here. In
2000, Paul Allen (who founded Microsoft
with Gates and is its second largest
shareholder, behind Gates)...led a
group that bought the Professional
Bowlers Association –- the major league
of bowling.
(USA Today, January 29, 2003)

The examining attorney further submitted copies of the
following registrations, all covering a variety of sporting
goods: Reg. No. 2932002, issued on the Supplemental
Register, of MAJOR LEAGUE LACROSSE (“LACROSSE” disclaimed);
Reg. No. 1057264, issued on the Principal Register, of
Ser No. 77022128
8
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL and design (“MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL”
disclaimed); Reg. No. 1648643, issued on the Principal
Register, of MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL (“BASEBALL” disclaimed)
under Section 2(f) as to the mark for some of the goods;
and Reg. No. 2459891, issued on the Principal Register, of
MLS MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER (“MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER” disclaimed).
Based on the evidence of record, we find that the
proposed mark MAJOR LEAGUE BOWLING is merely descriptive.
The term immediately informs prospective customers that
applicant’s bowling equipment is high quality, that is, it
is equal in quality to that used by the best bowlers in the
world. The term “major league” is, without question, a
term of art that has a particular meaning in the sporting
field, namely as a laudatory term to describe the best in
any sport. As shown by the dictionary definitions and the
manner in which the term “major league” has been used in
connection with bowling, the term refers to top-notch
performance or performers. The term would keep this
descriptive meaning when combined with the name of a sport,
in this case, bowling. The mark is laudatorily descriptive
of bowling equipment that is high quality that may be used
on a professional level.
We have reached our decision without giving any
probative weight to the third-party registrations relied
Ser No. 77022128
9
upon by the examining attorney. As indicated earlier in
this opinion, the Board is not bound by the actions of
prior examining attorneys. In re Nett Designs Inc., 57
USPQ2d at 1566.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.