Motient Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2002

No. 75772705 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2002)

Oral Hearing:
June 19, 2002

Mailed: August 16, 2002
Paper No. 12/13
CEW

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________

In re Motient Corporation1
___________

Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982,
75/693,991 and 75/772,705
___________

James T. Walsh and Carol Lally of Arnold & Porter for
Motient Corporation.

Paula B. Mays, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
102 (Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Walters, Chapman and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Motient Corporation has filed four applications to
register on the Principal Register the marks shown below
for the goods and services identified below.

1 Motient Corporation is the applicant by assignment, recorded with the
USPTO, from the original applicant, ARDIS Company.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
2

2

3
The identification of goods and services in the
applications for the two marks shown above is
“telecommunications equipment, namely, a combination
pager and email device,” in International Class 9;
“publications, namely pamphlets, booklets, printed
instructional materials, printed instruction sheets,
brochures, manuals, leaflets, flyers, books and
newsletters regarding telecommunications and related

2 Serial No. 75/688,691, filed April 22, 1999, based on an allegation
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. The application
includes a disclaimer of WIRELESS E-MAIL SERVICES apart from the mark as
a whole.

3 Serial No. 75/772,705, filed August 11, 1999, based on an allegation
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
3
subjects,” in International Class 16; and
“telecommunications services, namely, email and paging
services,” in International Class 38.
In the two additional applications that are subjects
of this consolidated appeal, applicant seeks registration
of the marks ELINK MESSENGER4 and ELINK AGENT.5 The
identification of goods and services listed in these two
applications is identical to the listing of goods in
International Class 9 and services in International Class
38 in the other two applications, but does not include
the goods in International Class 16.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
requirement, under Section 6 of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. 1056, for a disclaimer of ELINK (or E-LINK) apart
from each mark as a whole on the ground that the ELINK
portion of each of applicant’s marks is merely
descriptive in connection with the identified goods and
services.
Applicant has appealed. The Board granted
applicant’s request to consider the appeals in these four
applications in a single consolidated appeal because the

4 Serial No. 75/693,991, filed April 30, 1999, based on an allegation of
a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

5 Serial No. 75/693,982, filed April 30, 1999, based on an allegation of
a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
4
issue on appeal is the same in each application. Both
applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs,
and an oral hearing was held.
The Examining Attorney contends that the term “e-
link” is an abbreviation of the term “electronic link”;
that both “electronic link” and “e-link” are commonly
used in the telecommunications and related industries;
that “e-link” or “electronic link” describes an integral
feature of applicant’s email and paging goods and
services, and the subject matter of its publications. In
support of her position, the Examining Attorney submitted
the following dictionary definitions:
Electronic mail – noun, Computer Science.
Messages sent and received electronically via
telecommunication links, as between
microcomputers of terminals. Also called E-
Mail.6

Paging – noun, Computer Science. The transfer of
pages of data between a computer’s main memory
and an auxiliary memory.7

e- (Electronic-) The “e-dash” prefix may be
attached to anything that has moved from paper
to its electronic alternative, such as e-mail,
e-cash, etc.8

6 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd ed.,
1992.

7 Ibid. We take judicial notice of this definition submitted for the
first time with the Examining Attorney’s brief.

8 The Computer Glossary, 8th ed.

Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
5

Link - (1) In communications, a line, channel or
circuit over which data is transmitted.9

In addition, the Examining Attorney submitted
excerpts of articles retrieved from the Lexis/Nexis
database. There are five uses of the term “elink,”
however, each occurrence appears to be as a mark
referring to applicant or a third-party. There is one
use in a domestic publication of the term “electronic
link,” in the title of a reference, “Telecommunications:
Hospitals explore new electronic links to reduce costs,
increase access” [Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal
Nursing, March 1, 1999].10
Applicant contends that ELINK merely “suggests to
potential consumers that the products and services will
somehow connect or bring people together and that
electronic technology will facilitate this connection”;
and that the Examining Attorney has not met her burden of
proving that ELINK is merely descriptive in connection
with the identified goods and services. In this regard,
applicant argues that the proffered definition of “link”

9 Ibid.
10 There are approximately 12 uses of the term “electronic link” in
connection with email and other goods and services related to the
Internet and wireless communication. However, each reference is in
either a foreign publication or a newswire service. As such, this
evidence is of little probative value in determining the alleged
descriptive connotation of the term to consumers in the United States.
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
6
is inapposite; that the Lexis/Nexis evidence is
inadequate; and that the record contains no evidence of a
public perception, or third party use, of ELINK in a
merely descriptive manner.
Applicant submitted a definition of “link” as, inter
alia, “a unit in a transportation or communications
system” and “a connecting element; a tie or bond.”11 In
support of its position that its mark is registrable,
applicant also submitted a number of third-party
registrations for marks that begin with “e,” primarily in
connection with software products; and for marks that end
with “link,” again, primarily in connection with software
products, although three of the registrations pertain to
telecommunications products.
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether it immediately conveys information
concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of the product or
service in connection with which it is used, or intended
to be used. In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d
1075 (TTAB 1986); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591
(TTAB 1979). It is not necessary, in order to find that

11 The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1997.
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
7
a mark is merely descriptive, that the mark describe each
feature of the goods or services, only that it describe a
single, significant quality, feature, etc. In re Venture
Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). Further,
it is well-established that the determination of mere
descriptiveness must be made not in the abstract or on
the basis of guesswork, but in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the mark is used, and the impact that it is likely
to make on the average purchaser of such goods or
services. In re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1977).
We take judicial notice of the following dictionary
definitions from telecommunications dictionaries:
Link – 1. The communications facilities between
adjacent nodes of a network. 4. In
communications, a general term used to indicate
the existence of communications facilities
between two points. 5. A conceptual circuit,
i.e., logical circuit, between two users of a
network, that enables the users to communicate,
even when different physical paths are used. In
all cases, the type of link, such as a data
link, downlink, duplex link, fiber-optic link,
line-of-sight link, point-to-point link, radio
link, satellite link, should be identified. A
link may be simplex, half-duplex, or duplex.
Telecom & Networking Glossary, Understanding
Communications Technology 137, Aegis Publishing
Group, Ltd., 2nd ed., 2001.

Link - n. 1. In its broadest sense, a
communications circuit or channel. 2. A specific
leg in a circuit, as between two nodes, or two
networks, or two users. … 3. A communications
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
8
medium over which nodes can communicate at the
link layer. Data Telecommunications Dictionary
447, CRC Press, 1999.

E Link - Extended Link. A Signaling System 7
(SS7) connection. This protocol controls all
transfers between COs in North America.
Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, The Official
Dictionary of Telecommunications & the Internet
272, 1999.

Link – A connection, logical or physical, that
connects two communications entities and allows
them to exchange information. The entities can
be either hardware devices (such as a
workstation or microwave dish) or software
applications (such as an Internet Web browser or
software accounting program). McGraw-Hill
Illustrated Telecom Dictionary 355, McGraw-Hill,
2nd ed., 2000.

E Link (Extended Link) – An SS7 (Signaling
System 7) signaling connection between a
signaling-end point translator and a signal-
transfer point. SS7 is the protocol that
controls call transfers between central offices
in North America. Id. at 219.

Link - 1. Another name for a communications
channel or circuit. Id. at 459.

Link Attached - Describing devices that are
connected to a network, a communications data
link, or telecommunications circuit; compare
with channel-attached. Id.

Link Protocol – The set of rules by which a
logical data link is set up and by which data
transfers across the link. It includes
formatting of the data. Id. at 461.

Link Set – A group of signaling links directly
connecting two signaling points. Id.

First, we note that a number of the
telecommunications dictionaries include entries for the
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
9
term “e link” as an abbreviation for “extended link,”
which has a very specific technical meaning which may, or
may not, be applicable to the goods and services
described in this application. However, the Examining
Attorney neither asked questions nor provided evidence in
this regard. Therefore, we draw no conclusions with
respect to this particular technical definition of “e
link.”
We do, however, accept the Examining Attorney’s and
applicant’s acknowledgement that “e” is a prefix which is
generally recognized as meaning "electronic" in
connection with computers and the Internet. In re
Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000).
Additionally, there is no question that electronics,
i.e., computers and the Internet, play a large role in
the telecommunications industry, particularly in
connection with those goods and services in International
Classes 9 and 38 in the applications herein. Therefore,
the “e” portion of applicant’s mark is merely descriptive
in connection with those identified goods and services.
Looking at the “link” portion of the term ELINK
herein, we agree that “link” has a commonly understood
meaning in ordinary language as “a connecting element,”
as stated in the submitted dictionary definitions. We
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
10
also find strong support in the telecommunications
dictionaries for the conclusion that this meaning of
“link” in ordinary language has migrated into the
electronics and telecommunications fields, where it
retains the general connotation of “a connecting
element,” and also has an apparent multiplicity of
specific meanings. As stated in the above-quoted Data
Telecommunications Dictionary, “link” is “in its broadest
sense, a communications circuit or channel.”
Clearly, this general meaning of “link,” both in
ordinary language and as it is defined in the
telecommunications dictionaries, merely describes the
many “links” or “connecting elements” involved in
applicant’s pager and email devices and the services
related thereto. To name a few obvious “links,” we point
to the link between the pager and e-mail components of
applicant’s device; to the link between the devices and
the Internet or other local network; and to the link that
the services provide between the devices, and between the
devices and other electronics as used by consumers. The
term “link” merely describes all of these various
significant, if not essential, characteristics of
applicant’s goods in Class 9 and services in Class 38.
The prefix “e,” meaning “electronic,” is equally
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
11
descriptive in relation thereto, because each of these
links is electronic in nature.
Thus, considering the term ELINK in applicant’s
marks, we find that the combination of the two merely
descriptive terms, “e,” as a prefix, and “link,” results
in a term that, in its entirety, is merely descriptive in
connection with applicant’s goods in Class 9 and its
services in Class 38, as described herein. Applicant has
not presented persuasive evidence or argument that ELINK,
considered in the context of these goods and services in
the telecommunications field, is incongruous, a double
entendre, or so ambiguous as to be only suggestive.
Further, we find ELINK to be merely descriptive of
applicant’s identified publications in Class 16, in
applications Serial Nos. 75/693,991 and 75/693,982.12
Because of the significance of the term ELINK in this
field, it is merely descriptive of a significant aspect
of the subject matter of applicant’s publications.
Decision: The requirement in each application,
under Section 6 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1056, for
a disclaimer of ELINK (or E-LINK) apart from each mark as
a whole, is affirmed.

12 In connection with Application Serial No. 75/693,982, ELINK AGENT,
applicant, in its brief, indicated its withdrawal of its offer to
Serial Nos. 75/688,691, 75/693,982, 75/693,991, 75/772,705
12
However, this decision will be set aside and the
marks published for opposition if applicant, no later
than thirty days from the mailing date hereof, submits an
appropriate disclaimer of ELINK or E-LINK in the
applications. See, Trademark Rule 2.142(g).

disclaim AGENT. However, the offer is not in the record and has not
been entered, therefore applicant’s withdrawal is unnecessary.