New Life Treatment Centers, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 1999

No. 75171503 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 1999)

Paper No. 17
BAC
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB OCT. 6,99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re New Life Treatment Centers, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/171,503
_______
Kay Lyn Schwartz of Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P. for New Life
Treatment Centers, Inc.
Stacey J. Johnson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Meryl Hershkowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hohein, Hairston and Chapman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Chapman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by New Life Treatment
Centers, Inc. to register the mark WOMEN OF FAITH for
“audio tapes and video tapes featuring inspirational and
religious presentations for women” in Class 9; “stationery,
brochures about inspirational topics, posters and religious
books” in Class 16; and “arranging and conducting religious
Ser. No. 75/171503
2
conferences for women featuring inspirational and
motivational women speakers” in Class 41.1
The Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration for all three classes of goods and services
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1), on the basis that the mark WOMEN OF FAITH,
when applied to the goods and services of the applicant, is
merely descriptive of them.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We reverse.
The Examining Attorney contends that the mark WOMEN OF
FAITH “describes the subject matter and the intended
consumer of applicant’s goods and services” (brief, p. 2);
that applicant’s goods and services “contain ‘women of
faith’ stories as a subject matter and are additionally
directed at ‘women of faith’ as an intended audience”
(brief, p. 4); and that “the whole phrase, ‘WOMEN OF
FAITH,’ is used in common parlance to describe religious
women or women who share religious faith.” (brief, p. 4).
Applicant argues that its mark is suggestive rather

1 Application Serial No. 75/171,503, filed September 11, 1996.
The claimed dates of first use are January 19, 1996 for the Class
9 goods; August 15, 1995 for the Class 16 goods; and June 15,
1994 for the Class 41 services.
Ser. No. 75/171503
3
than merely descriptive because the mark does not
immediately convey information to prospective purchasers
about applicant’s goods and services, but instead requires
imagination and thought to make a connection between the
mark WOMEN of FAITH and applicant’s goods and services;
that the term “faith,” as defined in dictionaries, has many
meanings and connotations, beyond religious faith; that
several third-party registrations show that the term
“faith” is a commonly used portion of registered marks
which cover a variety of goods and services, (such as
monthly magazines, greeting cards, fine art prints,
prerecorded audio and video tapes, educational services,
and producing radio and television programs); and that any
doubt as to the question of whether a mark is merely
descriptive should be resolved in applicant’s favor.
Both the Examining Attorney and applicant submitted
dictionary definitions of the term “faith.” In addition,
the Examining Attorney submitted a few stories reprinted
from the Nexis database; and applicant submitted a list of
third-party registrations2. Applicant’s specimens of use
are also of record.

2 Applicant submitted the third-party registrations by including
a typed list of the registrations in its July 21, 1997 response
to an Office action. Generally, mere listings of third-party
registrations are insufficient to make them of record. See In re
Consolidated Cigar Corp., 35 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1995); and In re
Ser. No. 75/171503
4
It has long been acknowledged that there is often a
very narrow line between terms which are merely descriptive
and those which are suggestive, and the borderline between
the two is hardly a clear one. See In re Atavio Inc., 25
USPQ2d 1361 (TTAB 1992).
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the mark 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. See In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200
USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978); and In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204
USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979). Whereas, a mark is suggestive if
imagination, thought or perception is required to reach a
conclusion on the nature of the goods or services. See In
re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 205 USPQ2d 505
(CCPA 1980).
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

Duofold, 184 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1974). However, the Examining
Attorney did not object to the evidence and, in fact, treated it
as of record. Therefore, we will consider the listing for
whatever probative value it may have. (We note that the listing
includes no information as to matters such as registration dates,
registrants, or disclaimers.)
Ser. No. 75/171503
5
services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the term or phrase is being used on or in connection
with those goods or services, and the impact that it is
likely to make on the average purchaser of such goods or
services. See Consolidated Cigar, supra; and In re
Pennzoil Products Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991).
In the present case, we conclude that the mark WOMEN
OF FAITH requires a degree of imagination or perception to
determine the nature of the audience or prospective
purchasers to whom applicant’s goods and services are
directed. The mark is a unitary phrase with a very
generalized meaning referring to females and “faith.” The
latter term is one with a myriad of meanings and
connotations as evidenced by a perusal of the common
dictionary definitions thereof (e.g., “belief,” “trust,”
“loyalty,” “religious conviction,” “fidelity,”
“allegiance,” “sincerity”).
The mark WOMEN OF FAITH does not readily and
immediately evoke an impression and an understanding of the
subject matter or intended consumers of applicant’s audio
and video tapes, publications or services of arranging and
conducting religious conferences. Specifically, while the
broad subject matter of applicant’s goods and services is
inspirational and directed to women, strictly speaking the
Ser. No. 75/171503
6
subject matter is not “women of faith.” The Nexis stories
of record do not evidence use of the words, “WOMEN OF
FAITH,” descriptively in relation to the goods or services
which are the subject of this application. Rather, the
stories include the words “women of faith” in the broadest
general context referring to a portion of the population.
For example, see the excerpts below:
This past summer men and women of
faith were dismayed by the fires which
destroyed predominantly Southern black
churches. The Providence Journal-
Bulletin, December 7, 1996;
Church Women United is [a]
worldwide ecumenical group for women of
faith. The Columbian (Vancouver, WA.),
January 13,1 997; and
As North Korea’s food crisis has
worsened, men and women of faith have
been among the few U.S. citizens
allowed into the country. USA Today,
February 26, 1997.
We also disagree with the Examining Attorney’s
contention that applicant’s specimens of record show
descriptive uses of the phrase “women of faith.” (For
example, one of the statements quoted by the Examining
Attorney does not include the words “women of faith,” and
one statement reads as follows: “A weekend that assembles
some of today’s most inspirational and influential
Ser. No. 75/171503
7
women...women of profound and enduring faith, sparkling
wit, and infectious joy.”)
Upon a careful review of this record, we find that the
mark WOMEN OF FAITH is not merely descriptive as applied to
the involved goods and services, but is at best only
suggestive of them.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) is reversed.
G. D. Hohein
P. T. Hairston
B. A. Chapman
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board