Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA762338
`
`Filing date:
`
`08/03/2016
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding
`
`Applicant
`
`86499954
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`
`Applied for Mark
`
`FLIGHTLINK
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`
`Attachments
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`BRIAN FURRER
`PANASONIC AVIONICS CORPORATION
`26200 ENTERPRISE WAY
`LAKE FOREST, CA 92630-8400
`UNITED STATES
`brian.furrer@gmail.com
`
`Appeal Brief
`
`Appeal_Brief_004T.pdf(1192725 bytes )
`
`Brian Furrer
`
`brian.furrer@panasonic.aero
`
`/Brian Furrer #37627/
`
`08/03/2016
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`004T “FLIGHTLINK”
`
`Before the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board on Appeal
`
`Examining Attorney: David Yontef
`
`Trademark Law Office 118
`
`Brief filed: August 3, 2016
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`)
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`
`Serial No.:
`
`86/499,954
`
`Filed:
`
`January 9, 2015
`
`Mark:
`
`FLIGHTLINK
`
`APPEAL BRIEF
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`P.O. Box 145 1
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Honorable Commissioner for Trademarks:
`
`Applicant submits this Appeal Brief in support of its appeal of the Final Office Action
`
`issued November 30, 2015 (“the Final Action”), and the denial of Applicant’s Request for
`
`Reconsideration issued June 13, 2016, in which the Examining Attorney has refused to register
`
`the mark “FLIGHTLINK.” Applicant timely filed the Notice of Appeal on May 23, 2016,
`
`concurrently with a Request for Reconsideration, suspending the proceedings before this Board.
`
`This Appeal was resumed pursuant to a “Proceedings Resumed” notice issued June 14, 2016,
`
`which allowed Applicant sixty days therefrom in which to file its Appeal Brief. Accordingly,
`
`this Appeal Brief is being timely filed within such deadline.
`
`I hereby certify that this paper (along with any item(s) referred to as being attached or enclosed) is being
`electronically submitted through the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals to the Commissioner of
`Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 on the date indicated below:
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION
`
`Date of Transmission:
`
`August 3, 2016
`
`/Brian Furrer #37627/
`Brian Furrer
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Applicant appeals the Examining Attorney’s final refusal to register the mark
`
`“FLIGHTLTNK” on the ground that it is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(l).
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection should be reversed because the mark
`
`“FLIGHTLINK” is not merely descriptive of Applicant’s relevant services for which registration
`
`is sought, namely, “Meteorological forecasting; providing meteorological information; providing
`
`weather information; weather forecasting; weather information services; weather reporting.” The
`
`Examiner 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. As a result, in making a determination that the mark is merely
`
`descriptive, the Examiner defined Applicant’s services as “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.”
`
`However, even under the Examiner’s re-defined scope of Applicant’s services, the mark
`
`“FLIGHTLINK” is not merely descriptive because it does not immediately convey or describe a
`
`quality, characteristic, function, or feature of the stated services. At most, the mark
`
`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. Thus, the mark “FLIGHTLINK” is not merely descriptive of Applicant’s services,
`
`and the refusal should be reversed.
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`I.
`
`Substantive Refusal — Section_;(e)(1)
`
`In the Final Action the Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant's proposed
`
`mark, "FLIGHTLINK" under Section 2(e)(1), as being merely descriptive of Applicant’s relevant
`
`services. Because Applicant's mark is at most suggestive of Applicant’s services, and not merely
`
`description, Applicant respectfully requests that the refilsal be reversed.
`
`Applicant’s services identified in the service mark application filed on January 9, 2015,
`
`are as follows: “Meteorological forecasting; providing meteorological information; providing
`
`weather information; weather forecasting; weather information services; weather reporting.” A
`
`mark is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of, or describes, an ingredient,
`
`quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the specified goods or services. See
`
`TMEP§ 1209.01(b); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (APPLE PIE
`
`held merely descriptive of potpourri); In re Bed & Brealg’ast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ
`
`818 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY held merely descriptive of lodging
`
`reservations services); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984) (MALE-P.A.P. TEST
`
`held merely descriptive of clinical pathological immunoassay testing services for detecting and
`
`monitoring prostatic cancer); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd. , 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979) (COASTER-
`
`CARDS held merely descriptive of a coaster suitable for direct mailing). Similarly, a mark is
`
`considered merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature,
`
`function, or characteristic of an applicant’s goods or services. In re Chamber ofCommerce of
`
`the US, 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Bayer
`
`Aktiengesellschafi, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition,
`
`the determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive must be made in relation to the goods
`
`or services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract. In re Chamber ofCommerce, 675
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`F.3d at 1300, 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
`
`Clearly, the mark “FLIGHTLINK” is NOT merely descriptive of any of these recited
`
`services, as there is nothing in the identification of goods related to a “flightlink” (if any such
`
`thing exists, and Applicant is not aware of anything referred to as a “flightlink”, or to any portion
`
`of the compound word mark such as a “flight” or a “link.”
`
`However, the Examiner has re-defined the scope of Applicant’s services in the
`
`Examiner’s analysis of Whether Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive based on various
`
`materials available on the internet which describe Applicant’s system and services promoted
`
`under the mark “FLIGHTLINK.” More specifically, the Examiner has defined Applicant’s
`
`services as “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.”
`
`Based on the Examiner’s identification of the scope of Applicant’s services in his
`
`analysis, the Examiner found FLIGHTLINK to be merely descriptive. The Examiner first
`
`dissected the compound word mark into the separate words, “FLIGHT” and “LINK.” The
`
`Examiner then concluded that the term “FLIGHT” is descriptive of Applicant’s services because
`
`the term “flight” means “a trip made by or in an airplane or spacecraft” and the term “LINK”
`
`means “a connecting element,” a unit in a communication system” and/or “an identifier attached
`
`to an element (as an index term) in a system in order indicate or permit connection with other
`
`similarly identified elements.”
`
`Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, however, the mark “FLIGHTLINK” is not merely
`
`descriptive, because the compound word conveys at least two different meanings when
`
`considered in relation to Applicant’s services of Applicant’s services as defined by the Examiner
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`in which one of the meanings is 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. A mark having a
`
`double entendre in the context of the Applicant’s goods or services is not merely descriptive, and
`
`is instead unitary and registrable. See TMEP § 1213.05(c); In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d
`
`549, 157 USPQ 382 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE for bakery products); In re Tea and
`
`Sympathy, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1062 (TTAB 2008) (holding THE FARMACY registrable for retail
`
`store services featuring natural herbs and organic products and related health and information
`
`services relating to dietary supplements and nutrition); In re Simmons Co., 189 USPQ 352
`
`(TTAB 1976) (THE HARD LINE for mattresses and bed springs); In re Del. Punch Co., 186
`
`USPQ 63 (TTAB 1975) (THE SOFT PUNCH for noncarbonatcd soft drink); In re National Tea
`
`Co., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB 1965) (NO BONES ABOUT IT for fresh pre—cooked ham). It is
`
`understood that the multiple interpretations that make an expression a "double entendre" must be
`
`associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparentfrom the
`
`mark itself. See In re Rz'seSmart Inc I 04 USPQ2d I93], I 934 (TTAB 2012).
`
`In the present case, the term “FLIGHTLINK” in the context of providing meteorological
`
`and weather services to various airplanes and airline fleets connected to a shared voice and data
`
`communications system.” As the Examiner states, the term “LINK” in relation to Applicant’s
`
`services may mean (a) a connecting element of factor, or (b) a unit in a communication system.
`
`Accordingly, in the context of the stated services, the public would readily associate the
`
`compound word “FLIGHTLINK” as meaning connections between flights or airplanes. But even
`
`under the Examiner’s expanded scope of App1icant’s services, making connections between
`
`flights or airplanes has absolutely nothing to do with Applicant’s services. The “shared datalink”
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`described in the internet materials cited by the Examiner does NOT link flights or airplanes, but
`
`as stated in the materials, it “provides carriers with improved air—ground and ground—air
`
`communication, including both voice & text during each flight.” There is no connection or link
`
`between flights or airplanes. Still, in View of the services providing communication, the public
`
`would fairly readily associate this meaning with the mark, although it is not descriptive of the
`
`services. The other meaning of “FLIGHTLINK” which would be readily apparent to the public
`
`is a unit in a communication system related to airplanes or flights. In this case, the meaning is
`
`descriptive of a component or function of the system that provides the services. Thus, the term
`
`“FLIGHTLINK” comprises a compound word mark readily associated by the public with
`
`multiple meanings in the context of Applicant’s services in which at least one of the meanings is
`
`not merely descriptive of the services. Accordingly, the mark “FLIGHLINK” when used in
`
`connection with Applicant’s services requires imagination, thought or perception to reach a
`
`conclusion as to the nature of the services, and therefore, is not merely descriptive. Suggestive
`
`marks, like fanciful and arbitrary marks, are registrable on the Principal Register without proof of
`
`secondary meaning. See Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 1340,
`
`71 USPQ2d 1173, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`This is not a situation in which a term simply has multiple meanings in different contexts.
`
`The fact that a term may have a different meaning(s) in a different context is not controlling.
`
`See In re Rz'seSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, 1933 (TTAB 2012); In re Chopper Indus, 222
`
`USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright—Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979); In re
`
`Champion Int 7 Corp, 183 USPQ 318, 320 (TTAB 1974). For instance, if a term has a primary
`
`significance that is descriptive in relation to at least one of the recited goods/services, and does
`
`not create any double entendre or incongruity, then the term is merely descriptive. See TMEP §
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`l209.03(e). In the present case, however, as explained above, the mark “FLIGHTLINK” does
`
`not simply have multiple meanings of which each would be applicable in different contexts, but
`
`actually comprises multiple meanings in the context of Applicant’s services.
`
`Furthermore, Applicant respectfully points out that the Trademark Office has registered a
`
`number of third—party marks, including the term “FLIGHT” or “LINK” for similar services
`
`without finding such terms to be merely descriptive. As one particular relevant case, the
`
`Trademark Office registered the mark “DRIVERLINK” for “providing weather conditions
`
`updates for the transportation industry via a website on a global computer network.”
`
`Apparently, the term “DRIVER” was not found to be merely descriptive for services in the
`
`“transportation industry” and the term “LINK” was not found to be merely descriptive of a
`
`communication connection via a “global computer network.” Applicant submits that the mark
`
`“FLIGHTLINK” is even less suggestive of Applicant’s services than the mark “DRIVERLINK”
`
`is for its related services.
`
`Therefore, Applicant’s applied-for mark “FLIGHTLINK” is not merely descriptive of the
`
`Applicant’s services, considering either the services recited in the application or the Applicant’s
`
`actual usage. Thus, the refusal under Section 2(e)(l) should be reversed.
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the double entendre embodied in Applicant’s mark, the mark is not merely
`
`descriptive, even under the Examiner’s re—defined scope of Applicant’s services, as it does not
`
`immediately convey or describe a quality, characteristic, function, or feature of the stated
`
`services. At most, the mark FLIGHTLINK is suggestive of the Applicant’s services because any
`
`descriptive aspect would not be understood without a measure of analysis, imagination and/or
`
`mental pause. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the refusal to register should be
`
`reversed.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: August 4, 2016
`
`By:
`
`/Brian Furrer #37627/
`Brian Furrer
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corporation
`26200 Enterprise Way
`Lake Forest, California 92630
`Telephone: (949) 462-1285
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 004T
`
`INDEX OF CITED REFERENCES
`
`In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`In re Bed & Brealgizst Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`
`In re Bright-Crest, Ltd, 204 USPQ 591 U‘TAB 1979)
`
`In re Chamber ofCommerce ofthe US, 675 F.3d 1297, I02 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir.
`
`In re Champion Int ’l Corp, 183 USPQ 318, 320 UTAB 1974)
`
`In re Chopper Indus, 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)
`
`In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (C. C.P.A. 1968)
`
`In re Del. Punch Co., 186 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1975)
`
`In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (YTAB I984)
`
`11.
`
`In re National Tea Co., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB I965)
`
`12
`
`Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 3 72 F.3d 1330, I 3 40, 71 USPQ2d
`
`II 73, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`13.
`
`In re RiseSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, I933 (TTAB 2012)
`
`14.
`
`In re Simmons Co., 189 USPQ 352 (TTAB I976)
`
`15.
`
`In re Tea and Sympathy, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1062 (TTAB 2008)