Florida State University Credit Union

Trademark Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 2010

No. 77415033re (T.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2010)

Mailed: 9/29/10 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ________ In re Florida State University Credit Union ________ Serial No. 77415033 _______ Request for Reconsideration _______ Theodore A. Breiner of Breiner & Breiner for Florida State University Credit Union. Matt Einstein, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115 (Tomas V. Vlcek, Managing Attorney). _______ Before Quinn, Zervas and Walsh, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge: Florida State University Credit Union filed, on March 6, 2008, an intent-to-use application to register the mark COLLEGIATE COMMUNITY FINANCIAL for “credit union services.” The Board, on July 12, 2010, affirmed the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark, as THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Serial No. 77415033 2 proposed to be used in connection with applicant’s services, is merely descriptive thereof. Applicant now has filed, on August 12, 2010, a request for reconsideration.1 Applicant complains that the Board reached its “conclusory opinion without any evidence.” (Request, p. 6). Applicant asserts that the “sole basis for this decision is the three dictionary definitions [“collegiate,” “community” and “financial”] and the Board’s own opinion.” (Request, p. 7). Contrary to the gist of applicant’s statement that “[c]learly, some degree of imagination is required to determine that COLLEGIATE COMMUNITY FINANCIAL is for credit union services,” (Brief, p. 11), 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). We remain convinced that the mark sought to be registered conveys information about applicant’s credit union services, namely that these financial services 1 The request is accompanied by excerpts from the Office’s Trademark ID Manual. Although the submission of new evidence with a request for reconsideration is impermissible, we have considered this evidence. Serial No. 77415033 3 are directed or targeted to a college community, in this case, Florida State University. When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on the question of whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression. If each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See, e.g., In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) [AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer programs for use in development and deployment of application programs]. All of the terms “collegiate,” “community” and “financial” comprising the mark are definite terms and not nebulous, and the terms “collegiate community” and “financial” describe an aspect of applicant’s services. While each of the terms describes applicant’s credit union services, in order to be merely descriptive, we must consider the mark in its entirety. However, “[i]t is perfectly acceptable to separate a compound mark and discuss the implications of each part thereof...provided that the ultimate determination is made on the basis of the Serial No. 77415033 4 mark in its entirety.” In re Hester Industries, Inc., 230 USPQ 797, 798 n.5 (TTAB 1986). Based on the meanings of the individual components “collegiate community” and “financial” as they would be understood in the context of credit union services, we find that the combination COLLEGIATE COMMUNITY FINANCIAL, when viewed in its entirety, is merely descriptive. The individual merely descriptive components retain their descriptive character when combined to form the entirety of applicant’s mark. The mark immediately informs prospective customers that applicant’s credit union services are financial services directed to a college community (in this case, Florida State University). No imagination is required to discern this feature or purpose of the services. As we indicated in the original decision, the competing evidence of third-party registrations submitted by applicant and the examining attorney is of little probative value in determining whether the present mark is merely descriptive. What we can say, however, is that the clear majority of the registrations of marks that include any of the terms “collegiate,” “community” or “financial” shows a disclaimer of the term. Serial No. 77415033 5 The request for reconsideration is denied. The final decision affirming the refusal to register stands.