The Work Connection, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2002

No. 75869798 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2002)

Mailed: December 20, 2002
Paper No. 12
cl

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re The Work Connection, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/869,798
_______
Sherri L. Rohlf of Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster,
P.A. for The Work Connection, Inc.
Tarah K. Hardy Ludlow, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 110 (Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Cissel and Bottorff, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Work Connection, Inc. (applicant), a Minnesota
corporation, has appealed from the final refusal of the
Trademark Examining Attorney to register the phrase WORK
READINESS PROFILE for “printed instructional materials,
including envelopes to hold such information, featuring
information on temporary employers used to prepare
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 75/869,798
2
prospective candidates for employment.”1 The Examining
Attorney has refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Act, 15 USC §1052(e)(1), on the basis that applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods. Applicant
and the Examining Attorney have submitted briefs, but no
oral hearing was requested.
The Examining Attorney argues that applicant’s mark
merely describes the subject matter of applicant’s
materials in that applicant is providing an informational
profile used to determine an individual’s work readiness.
The Examining Attorney notes that applicant’s specimen of
record, labeled “Work Readiness Profile,” indicates:
The Work Readiness Program is designed
to prepare candidates before they start
working at your facility. Please use
this envelope/checklist to provide us
with the necessary information to
develop a Work Readiness Program.
The Examining Attorney has made of record a number of
excerpts from the Nexis computer database showing use of
the words “work readiness” in a descriptive manner to
indicate the development of an individual’s skills for
employment:
Another state commissioner…said there
were many jobs available for
unemployed, non-professional workers

1 Application Serial No. 75/869,798, filed December 13, 1999, based upon
an allegation of use in commerce since March 1, 1996.
Serial No. 75/869,798
3
who fit the profile of work readiness
recipients…
Star Tribune, January 22, 1992
…Andre House, where homeless can eat
dinner, shower and obtain clothing; St.
Joseph the Worker, job placement and
work readiness programs…
The Arizona Republic, September 18,
2001
Through this collaboration, students
are able to acquire a general
equivalency diploma as well as get
assistance with job training, work
studies, work-readiness skills and job
placement…
The Times-Picayune, August 19, 2001
…Youthworks, a new GED program that
focuses on work readiness and job
placement for teens, had six graduates…
The Boston Globe, July 1, 2001
The seniors, who are involved with the
Jobs for Maine’s Graduates program,
compete in events such as public
speaking, decision-making and
interviewing to test their work
readiness.
Portland Press Herald, May 1, 2000
NOJI officials also reported that
results from a test designed to measure
work readiness show that through March
15, 150 program graduates are scoring
higher than the average entry-level
local workers in construction and
manufacturing jobs…
The Times-Picayune, April 19, 2000
Based upon this evidence, the Examining Attorney
argues that in the workplace the term “work readiness”
immediately brings to mind an individual’s employability or
Serial No. 75/869,798
4
preparedness for work. In addition, the Examining Attorney
contends that the term “profile,” meaning “a formal summary
or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or
table,”2 is merely an additional descriptive term denoting
that applicant’s materials are designed for individuals to
determine their own work readiness or to indicate the
personalized nature of applicant’s goods-—a profile on an
individual’s work readiness. In sum, the Examining
Attorney argues that applicant’s mark merely describes
information provided to assist an individual to prepare for
his or her own employment.
Applicant, on the other hand, argues that the mark
WORK READINESS PROFILE does not convey any information
concerning applicant’s goods, and that imagination must be
used in order to deduce the nature of applicant’s goods,
which, according to applicant, provide information on
temporary employers, that is, they are employer profiles.
Brief, 3.3 Applicant states that its goods are not an
analysis of an employee candidate’s work preparedness.

2 The complete relevant definition is “a formal summary or analysis of
data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive
features or characteristics: a psychological profile of a job
applicant…” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(3rd ed. 1992).
3 In response, the Examining Attorney argues that even if applicant is
providing information on temporary employers to individuals, such
information is nevertheless provided to those individuals to assist
them in preparing for employment (“…used to prepare prospective
candidates for employment”).
Serial No. 75/869,798
5
Applicant has stated its willingness to disclaim the word
“PROFILE” apart from the mark as shown. Response, 3, filed
November 22, 2000.
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we conclude that, as applied to
applicant’s goods, the mark is merely descriptive.
A mark is merely descriptive if it immediately
describes the ingredients, qualities, characteristics or
features of the goods or services, or if it immediately
conveys information regarding a function, purpose or use of
the goods or services. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA 1978). See also In re
Nett Designs, 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). To determine mere descriptiveness, one looks
at the mark in relation to the goods or services, and not
in the abstract. In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d
1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and Abcor, 200 USPQ
at 218. In addition, courts have long held that, to be
“merely descriptive,” a term need only describe a single
significant quality or property of the goods or services.
In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987); Meehanite Metal Corp. v. International Nickel Co.,
262 F.2d 806, 120 USPQ 293, 294 (CCPA 1959); and In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982).
Serial No. 75/869,798
6
Here, according to the description of goods,
applicant’s goods feature information used to prepare
prospective candidates for employment. The Examining
Attorney has demonstrated that the phrase “WORK READINESS
PROFILE” signifies a summary or analysis of information
concerning an employee’s preparedness for employment or
work readiness. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, these
words immediately convey the information that applicant’s
goods are profiles for an employee’s work readiness.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.