This Opinion is not a
`Precedent of the TTAB
`
`
`
`Mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`_____
`
`In re Panasonic Avionics Corp.
`_____
`
`Serial No. 86499954
`_____
`
`Brian Furrer, Panasonic Avionics Corp. Legal Dep’t.,
`for Panasonic Avionics Corp.
`
`
`David Yontef, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 118,
`Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney.
`_____
`
`
`Before Cataldo, Shaw, and Larkin,
`Administrative Trademark Judges.
`
`
`Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`Panasonic Avionics Corp. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
`
`Register of FLIGHTLINK in standard characters as a mark for services identified as
`
`“Meteorological forecasting; providing meteorological information; providing weather
`
`information; weather forecasting; weather information services; weather reporting,”
`
`in International Class 42.1
`
`
`1 Application Serial No. 86499954 was filed on January 9, 2015 under Section 1(a) of the
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), on the basis of Applicant’s claimed use of the mark.
`Applicant subsequently amended its filing basis to seek registration under Section 1(b) of the
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration under Section
`
`2(e)(1) the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that Applicant’s
`
`mark is merely descriptive of the services identified in the application. When the
`
`Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and requested
`
`reconsideration, which was denied. The case is fully briefed. We reverse the refusal
`
`to register.
`
`I. Record on Appeal
`
`The record consists of the following:
`
`● Applicant’s specimen of use;2
`
`● Dictionary definitions of the word “flight” as “a trip made by or in an airplane
`
`or spacecraft” and/or “a group of similar beings or objects flying through the air
`
`together” (April 23, 2015); 3
`
`
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), on the basis of Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide
`intention to use the mark in commerce.
`
` The Examining Attorney rejected the specimen because it did “not show the applied-for
`mark in use in commerce in connection with any of the services specified in International
`Class 42 in the application.” He found that it “merely show[ed] the applied-for mark used to
`identify a technological weather system comprised of, among other things, a ‘patented device
`[that] collects and transmits weather data’ rather than showing the mark used in the sale or
`advertising of the identified services of ‘meteorological forecasting’, ‘providing meteorological
`information’, ‘providing weather information’, ‘weather forecasting’, ‘weather information
`services’ and ‘weather reporting.’” April 23, 2015 Office Action.
`3 Merriam-Webster Dictionary (merriam-webster.com). April 23, 2015 Office Action. We grant
`the Examining Attorney’s request, 10 TTABVUE 7, that we judicially notice additional
`definitions of “flight” from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th
`ed. 2006). 10 TTABVUE 14-16. We may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of
`Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703
`F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), including online dictionaries that exist in printed
`form or regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).
`
` 2
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`● Dictionary definitions of the word “link” in its noun form as “a connecting
`
`element or factor,” “a unit in a communication system,” and “an identifier attached
`
`to an element (as an index term) in a system in order to indicate or permit connection
`
`with other similarly identified elements,”4 as “something that enables communication
`
`between people,”5 and as “anything serving to connect one part or thing with
`
`another;”6 and in its verb form as “to connect computers so that information can be
`
`sent between them” (April 23, 2015 and November 30, 2015 Office Actions);7
`
`● A page from a search of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (merriam-
`
`webster.com) showing no entry for the word “flightlink” (May 23, 2016 Request for
`
`Reconsideration);
`
`● Third-party registrations of the marks AIRFLITE and design, WSI INFLIGHT
`
`(“INFLIGHT” disclaimed), FLIGHT SENTINEL (“FLIGHT” disclaimed), FLIGHT
`
`FOCUS and design (“FLIGHT” disclaimed), and SPIRE FLIGHT SOLUTIONS
`
`(“FLIGHT SOLUTIONS” disclaimed) for various services, and an application to
`
`register TIMEX DATA LINK (“DATA LINK” disclaimed) for a variety of goods and
`
`services, made of record by the Examining Attorney to show the Patent and
`
`
`4 Merriam-Webster Dictionary (merriam-webster.com). April 23, 2015 Office Action.
`5 Oxford Dictionaries (oxforddictionaries.com). November 30, 2015 Office Action.
`6 Dictionary.com (dictionary.com). November 30, 2015 Office Action.
`7 Macmillan Dictionary (macmillandictionary.com). November 30, 2015 Office Action. We
`grant the Examining Attorney’s request, 10 TTABVUE 7, that we judicially notice additional
`definitions of “link” in its noun and verb forms from The American Heritage Dictionary of the
`English Language (4th ed. 2010), the Dictionary of Aeronautical English (1999), and the
`Dictionary of Computing (6th ed. 2010). 10 TTABVUE 18-25.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`Trademark Office’s past treatment of the words “FLIGHT” and “LINK” in
`
`applications for registration (April 23, 2015);8
`
`● Pages from Applicant’s website at airdate.com (November 30, 2015 Office
`
`Action and June 13, 2016 Denial of Request for Reconsideration); and
`
`● Third-party registrations of
`
`the marks DRIVERLINK, QUIKLINK,
`
`ACULINK, nůLink, FLIGHT BRIEF, FLIGHTGUARDIAN, FLIGHTCAM,
`
`FLIGHTMAX, FLIGHT SENTINEL (“FLIGHT” disclaimed), and SPIRE FLIGHT
`
`SOLUTIONS (“FLIGHT SOLUTIONS” disclaimed), for various goods and services,
`
`and the application to register TIMEX DATA LINK, made of record by Applicant to
`
`show the Patent and Trademark Office’s past treatment of the words “FLIGHT” and
`
`“LINK” in applications for registration (May 23, 2016 Request for Reconsideration).9
`
`II.
`
`Analysis
`
`Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
`
`Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the
`
`applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). “A mark that is
`
`‘suggestive’ may be registered, but a mark that is ‘merely descriptive’ may not be
`
`
`8 The application has become abandoned and we have given it no consideration. Interpayment
`Services Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463 (TTAB 2003) (applications show only that
`they have been filed).
`9 Applicant noted in its Request for Reconsideration that three of the registrations have been
`cancelled. We have given them no consideration. See Action Temporary Services Inc. v. Labor
`Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Time Warner
`Entertainment Co. v. Jones, 65 USPQ2d 1650 (TTAB 2002). Any benefits conferred by the
`registrations, including the evidentiary presumptions afforded by Section 7(b) of the
`Trademark Act were lost when the registrations were cancelled. See, e.g., Anderson, Clayton
`& Co. v. Krier, 478 F.2d 1246, 178 USPQ 46 (CCPA 1973).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`registered without showing that it has acquired secondary meaning.” StonCor Group,
`
`Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 111 USPQ2d 1649, 1652 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014).
`
`“The line between a mark that is merely descriptive and may not be registered
`
`absent secondary meaning, and one that is suggestive and may be registered, is that
`
`a suggestive mark ‘requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a
`
`conclusion as to the nature of the goods,’ while a merely descriptive mark ‘forthwith
`
`conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the
`
`goods.’” Duo ProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103
`
`USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811,
`
`200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978)); see also In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.,
`
`675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The “immediate idea” of a
`
`quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services conveyed by a
`
`descriptive term “must be conveyed forthwith with a ‘degree of particularity.’”
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Continental General Tire Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1067, 1069
`
`(TTAB 2003) (citing In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200 USPQ 57, 59 (TTAB 1978)
`
`and In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750, 1751 (TTAB 1990)).
`
`Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods or
`
`services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract or on the basis of
`
`guesswork. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1512 (TTAB 2016).
`
`“In other words, we evaluate whether someone who knows what the [services] are
`
`will understand the mark to convey information about them.” Id. (citing Duo ProSS,
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`103 USPQ2d at 1757). “The Board resolves doubts as to the mere descriptiveness of
`
`a mark in favor of the applicant.” Id. (citing In re Stroh Brewery, 34 USPQ2d 1796,
`
`1797 (TTAB 1994)).
`
`Applicant’s position is that the Examining Attorney “has relied on various
`
`materials obtained from the internet, including Applicant’s own website, in order to
`
`re-define Applicant’s relevant services based on Applicant’s actual use of the
`
`‘FLIGHTLINK’ mark” from the actual identification of services in the application to
`
`“meteorological and weather services provided to various airplanes and airline fleets
`
`connected to a shared voice and data communications system for safe travel, airspace
`
`management and accurate real-time aviation monitoring, analysis and reporting.” 8
`
`TTABVUE 3. Applicant argues that FLIGHTLINK “is suggestive of the stated
`
`services because it is a unitary, compound mark having at least two readily apparent
`
`meanings from the mark itself, resulting in a double entendre, such that any import
`
`would not be understood without a measure of analysis, imagination and/or mental
`
`pause.” 8 TTABVUE 3.10 Applicant accepts the meanings of the words “flight” and
`
`“link” from the dictionary definitions made of record by the Examining Attorney, but
`
`contends that its compound mark comprised of those words “conveys at least two
`
`different meanings when considered in relation to Applicant’s services of [sic]
`
`Applicant’s services as defined by the Examiner in which one of the meanings is
`
`
`10 For purposes of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, a “double entendre” is “an expression
`that has a double connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services. The mark
`that comprises the ‘double entendre’ will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if
`one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods or services.” Trademark
`Manual of Examining Procedure Section 1213.05(c) (Oct. 2016) (emphasis in original).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`plainly NOT descriptive of such services. In other words, the compound word mark
`
`‘FLIGHTLINK’ comprises a double entendre in that it has multiple interpretations in
`
`the context of Applicant’s services as stated by the Examiner.” 8 TTABVUE 5-6
`
`(emphasis in original).11 Applicant argues that FLIGHTLINK is suggestive, not
`
`merely descriptive, because it “requires imagination, thought or perception to reach
`
`a conclusion as to the nature of the services.” 8 TTABVUE 7. In its reply brief,
`
`Applicant argues more specifically that “[w]hile the mark FLIGHTLINK may suggest
`
`that the related services may have something to do with an airplane due to the term
`
`‘flight’ in the mark, the impression of the overall mark FLIGHTLINK in connection
`
`with providing weather information does NOT immediately convey information
`
`regarding an important feature, function or purpose of the identified services.” 11
`
`TTABVUE 4 (emphasis in original).
`
`The Examining Attorney’s position is that “it is clear that consumers will
`
`immediately recognize and perceive the nature of the identified services when
`
`encountering the mark FLIGHTLINK with meteorological and weather services
`
`provided to various airplanes and airline fleets connected to a shared voice and data
`
`communications system for safe travel, airspace management and accurate real-time
`
`aviation monitoring, analysis and reporting.” 10 TTABVUE 9. The Examining
`
`
`11 The two meanings of FLIGHTLINK argued by Applicant in support of its double entendre
`theory are (1) “connections between flights or airplanes,” and (2) “a unit in a communication
`system related to airplanes or flights.” 8 TTABVUE 6-7. Applicant argues that the first
`meaning is not descriptive because “making connections between flights or airplanes has
`absolutely nothing to do with Applicant’s services.” 8 TTABVUE 6. Applicant states that the
`second meaning “is descriptive of a component or function of the system that provides the
`services.” 8 TTABVUE 7.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`Attorney characterizes “the descriptive impression created by the mark” as
`
`“providing meteorological and weather services to airplanes and airline fleets/carriers
`
`connected to/through a shared datalink for safe travel, airspace management and
`
`accurate real-time aviation monitoring, analysis and reporting.” 10 TTABVUE 11.
`
`The Examining Attorney bases his conclusion of mere descriptiveness upon the
`
`dictionary definitions of “flight” and “link” set forth above, statements in Applicant’s
`
`specimen of use that “connected aircraft benefit from a wide range of aviation
`
`applications that enhance the operating of partnering airlines, including automatic,
`
`global real-time aircraft position reports” and that “[t]he shared satellite datalink
`
`provides carriers with improved air-ground and ground-air communications,
`
`including both voice & text during each flight,” 10 TTABVUE 8 (emphasis supplied
`
`by the Examining Attorney), and the following statements on Applicant’s website:
`
`1. “FlightLink is a complete ‘end-to-end’ solution that
`includes a multi-function atmospheric and GPS sensors,
`dedicated two-way satellite communication system, and
`ground-based data management and quality assurance.”;
`2. “FlightLink is compatible with all aircraft types, and the
`communication architecture provides real-time two way
`information exchange at any altitude, everywhere aircraft
`fly, even over the poles.”;
`3. “The FlightLink system includes a dedicated Iridium
`satellite datalink and operates automatically, requiring no
`crew involvement.”; and
`4. “The patented TAMDAR sensor collects sophisticated
`weather data through the upper atmosphere during the
`flight of an aircraft, and transmits the information via
`Iridium satellites in real-time for analysis and assimilation
`into high-resolution weather forecasting models.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`10 TTABVUE 8 (emphasis supplied by the Examining Attorney).12
`
`We disagree with the Examining Attorney’s conclusion that Applicant’s mark is
`
`merely descriptive, and find that FLIGHTLINK does not forthwith convey an
`
`immediate idea of the qualities or characteristics of Applicant’s identified services,
`
`with any degree of particularity.13 A consumer of the meteorological services
`
`identified in the application would not immediately understand them to involve
`
`“airplanes and airline fleets/carriers connected to/through a shared datalink for safe
`
`travel, airspace management and accurate real-time aviation monitoring, analysis
`
`and reporting,” as the Examining Attorney contends. 10 TTABVUE 11. If a consumer
`
`could ever glean that understanding from the mark as applied to the identified
`
`services, which we doubt, it would only be after the sort of painstaking analysis of
`
`extrinsic materials undertaken by the Examining Attorney. If “one must exercise
`
`mature thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to determine what
`
`product or service characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather
`
`than merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB
`
`1978).
`
`
`12 We find that Applicant’s specimen has limited probative value on the issue of whether
`FLIGHTLINK is merely descriptive of the services identified in the application given the
`Examining Attorney’s position that the specimen did not show the mark in use in commerce
`for any of those services. Because Applicant’s website essentially describes the same
`“technological weather system” that the Examining Attorney found was described in the
`specimen, we find that the website also has limited probative value.
`13 At the same time, we reject Applicant’s double entendre theory because we find that neither
`of the two meanings of the mark argued by Applicant, “connections between flights or
`airplanes” and “a unit in a communication system related to airplanes or flights,” 8
`TTABVUE 6-7, conveys meaningful information about the services identified in the
`application with any degree of particularity. As discussed below, the mark is vague as to its
`meaning in the context of the identified services, making it at least suggestive.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 86499954
`
`While the word “flight” means “a trip made by or in an airplane or spacecraft” and
`
`the word “link” means “a connecting element or factor,” “a unit in a communication
`
`system,” and “something that enables communication between people,” we find that
`
`the combination of the words in Applicant’s unitary mark does not immediately make
`
`clear a specific feature, function, or characteristics of the services of “meteorological
`
`forecasting; providing meteorological information; providing weather information;
`
`weather forecasting; weather information services; weather reporting” identified in
`
`the application.14 We find that FLIGHTLINK, as applied to the identified
`
`meteorological services, is vague as to who and what are linked, why they are linked,
`
`and in what manner they are linked, rendering it at least suggestive of some sort of
`
`weather-related communications connection involving aircraft.
`
`Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
`
`
`14 As noted above, both Applicant and the Examining Attorney offered third-party
`registrations in support of their respective positions. Third-party registrations are not
`conclusive on the question of mere descriptiveness, and neither the Examining Attorney nor
`the Board is bound by prior registration decisions involving different marks and records. In
`re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although one
`of the registrations made of record by Applicant, Registration No. 3257799 of DRIVERLINK
`for “providing weather conditions updates for the transportation industry via a website on a
`global computer network,” is for a mark that is similar in nature to Applicant’s mark and
`covers services that are similar in nature to the services that the Examining Attorney
`references in support of the refusal, the record as a whole does not reflect a pattern of
`treatment by the Patent and Trademark Office of similar marks that is probative of the issue
`of the descriptiveness of Applicant’s particular mark. Cf. In re Waverly, Inc., 27 USPQ2d
`1620, 1623 (TTAB 1993) (third-party registrations probative where they illustrated
`inconsistent past treatment of marks similar to the applicant’s mark).
`
`- 10 -
`
`