The Amend Group, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2009

No. 77129950 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2009)

Mailed: 8/31/09

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re The Amend Group, Inc.
________

Serial No. 77129950
_______

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

Julie M. Guttadauro, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 106 (Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Kuhlke and Walsh, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The Amend Group, Inc. filed, on March 13, 2007, an
intent-to-use application to register the mark MAJOR LEAGUE
BOWLING for “entertainment, education and information
services, namely, bowling competitions and exhibitions
rendered live, through broadcast media including television
and radio and via a global computer network, webcasts or a
commercial on-line service; providing information in the
field of sports, bowling, entertainment and related topics
and providing pre-recorded informational messages relating
THIS OPINION
IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 77129950
2
thereto, all via a global computer network, webcasts or the
internet; physical fitness and bowling training,
instruction and consultation; physical fitness centers.”
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
used in connection with the services, is merely descriptive
thereof.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney filed briefs.1
Applicant argues that the mark is, at worst, only
suggestive, and that the examining attorney’s evidence does
not establish that the mark is merely descriptive. More
specifically, applicant asserts that its mark suggests that
its services are in some way connected with the sport of
bowling without conveying a significant characteristic or
feature of the services. Further, applicant contends,
competitors do not have a need to use the proposed mark to
describe their competing services. In support of its
arguments applicant submitted dictionary definitions of
“major” and “league,” as well as third-party registrations

1 Applicant’s reply brief is accompanied by “Exhibit A,” a printout
retrieved from the USPTO’s TARR database. The submission is untimely,
and the exhibit has not been considered in reaching our determination.
Trademark Rule 2.142(d). Even if considered, the exhibit would not
mandate a different result in this appeal.
Serial No. 77129950
3
of marks that include the term “MAJOR LEAGUE.” The record
also includes a GOOGLE search summary of “major league
bowling,” and a list retrieved from Wikipedia showing that
many professional sports leagues do not use the term “Major
League.”2
The examining attorney maintains that the proposed
mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s bowling-related
services that allegedly are superior to other amateur
levels of participation. In support of the refusal, the
examining attorney introduced dictionary definitions of
“major league” and “bowling”; third-party registrations of
marks that include the term “MAJOR LEAGUE” wherein the term
is disclaimed, or the registration issued under Section
2(f) or on the Supplemental Register; and excerpts of
third-party websites showing uses of “major league
bowling.”3
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

2 Applicant submitted the Wikipedia list with its appeal brief. This
submission is technically untimely. Trademark Rule 2.142(d). In the
present case, however, the examining attorney made no such objection,
but rather she considered the merits of the evidence in her appeal
brief. Accordingly, we consider the evidence to be stipulated into the
record.
3 These uses are not probative of the descriptiveness issue herein.
Serial No. 77129950
4
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
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
Serial No. 77129950
5
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 as “top sports
league.” (Encarta World English Dictionary (2007)). We
also take judicial notice of other definitions of the term
“major league”: “broadly: a league of major importance in
any of various sports.” (Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary);4 “Informal Prominent or important; Informal
Impressive, as in extent or quantity” (The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 2006));
and “belonging to or among the best or most important of
its kind.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006)).
The term “bowling” is defined as “rolling ball at
pins; a game played by rolling a ball so that it knocks
down pins.” Encarta World English Dictionary (2007)).
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 services are among the best or most important

4 “The Board may take judicial notice of online reference works which
exist in printed format or have regular fixed editions.” In re
Dietrich, ___ USPQ2d ____, ___ (TTAB July 16, 2009), slip op. at 8 n.15
(Board took judicial notice of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
See also Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP v. Sherman, 88 USPQ2d 1581,
1590 n.8 (TTAB 2008) (same).

Serial No. 77129950
6
of their kind in the industry. The term “major league” is,
without question, a term of art that has a particular
meaning in the sports industry, namely as a laudatory term
to describe the best in any sport. The term would retain
this merely descriptive meaning when combined with the name
of a sport, in this case, bowling. The mark is laudatorily
descriptive of services related to bowling that are of a
high quality.
Applicant relies on the fact that there is no such
organization called “Major League Bowling.” However, the
fact that applicant may be the first and only user of a
merely descriptive designation does not justify
registration if the only significance conveyed by the term
is merely descriptive. See In re National Shooting Sports
Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983). In this
connection, the Google search summary is of no moment.
“Search engine results – which provide little context to
discern how a term is actually used on the webpage that can
be accessed through the search result link – may be
insufficient to determine the nature of the use of a term
or the relevance of the search results to registration
considerations.” In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d
960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, the
list showing that many professional sports leagues do not
Serial No. 77129950
7
use the term “major league” is not persuasive of a
different result.
Applicant and the examining attorney have submitted
competing evidence of third-party registrations of marks
comprising, in part, the term “MAJOR LEAGUE.” In most
cases, but not all, the registration includes a disclaimer
of “MAJOR LEAGUE,” the registration issued under Section
2(f), or the registration issued on the Supplemental
Register.
We have reached our decision without giving any
probative weight to the competing evidence of third-party
registrations. As often stated, each case must stand on
its own record and, in any event, the Board is not bound by
the actions of prior examining attorneys. 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.”].
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.