Social Shopping Network

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2017

No. 85722660 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2017)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Hearing: October 10, 2017

Mailed: November 8, 2017
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Social Shopping Network
_____

Serial No. 85722660
_____

Social Shopping Network, pro se.

Deborah Meiners, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110
(Chris A.F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).

_____

Before Greenbaum, Adlin and Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Social Shopping Network (“Applicant”) seeks a Principal Register registration for
the proposed mark SOCIAL SHOPPING NETWORK, in standard characters (with
SOCIAL SHOPPING disclaimed), for:
Advertising and retail services, namely, promoting the
goods and services of others through a web site featuring
links to pre-funded pay to bid auction sites, social media
platform and e-blasts e-mail blast campaigns for others
that advertise, promote and distribute discount offers,
special pricing promotions, coupons and rebates;
promoting the goods and services of others by providing a
web site featuring links to the retail web sites of others,
Serial No. 85722660

2

and discount information; advertising and commercial
information services via the Internet; advertising services,
namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services
of others in the field of 1 click bidding auctions via
electronic media and specifically the Internet, radio
broadcasts on television, online and mobile streaming;
providing advertising space on the Internet; Auctioning via
telecommunication networks; On-line auction services;
retail shopping store services in the field of general
merchandise by means of mobile phone and portable and
hand-held digital and electronic devices; Providing home
shopping services in the field of general merchandise by
means of television; retail store services available through
interactive television featuring general merchandise; and
retail shopping store services in the field of general
merchandise by means of internet, mobile phone and
portable and hand-held digital and electronic devices;
Home shopping services in the field of general merchandise
by means of television, telephone and the Internet;
Providing an online retail store services (sic) featuring a
wide variety of consumer goods by others where users can
purchase goods offered by others; Providing a website for
connecting sellers with buyers; Advertising, including
promotion relating to the sale of articles and services for
third parties by the transmission of advertising material
and the dissemination of advertising messages on
computer networks; Online advertising and promotional
services; On-line retail gift shops; Retail gift shops;
Operating on-line marketplaces for sellers of goods and/or
services; Promoting and showcasing the goods of others in
the field of pre-funded pay to bid auctions by means of an
on-line shopping site with links to the retail
advertisements of others; Promoting the goods and services
of others via a global computer network; Computerized on-
line ordering featuring general merchandise and general
consumer goods; Providing an on-line commercial
information directory; providing a searchable database in
the field of business information available via a global
computer network. Providing a searchable on-line
advertising guide featuring the goods and services of other
on-line vendors via the internet; Advertising services,
namely, providing advertising in the nature of on-line and
electronic classified business directories compiling of
information into computer databases; marketing,
Serial No. 85722660

3

advertising and promotion services; market research
services, namely, research in the fields of collegiate life,
virtual community and social networking; advertising
services, namely, promoting the goods and services of
others via computer and communication networks;
operating on-line marketplaces for sellers of goods and/or
services; online retail store services featuring digital
media, namely, pre-recorded digital sound, video and data
recordings featuring music, text, video, games, comedy,
drama, action, adventure or animation.1

The Examining Attorney refused registration on the grounds that: (1) Applicant’s
proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified services under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e); (2) the United Kingdom registration
certificate which Applicant submitted with its November 26, 2015 response to a letter
of suspension does not support Applicant’s apparent assertion of Section 44(e) of the
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1126(e), as an additional filing basis for the involved application; and
(3) the involved application’s identification of Applicant as an “organization” is
indefinite and Applicant has not clarified its juristic entity type or proved that the
entity identified in the application exists under a state statute or foreign country law.
After the refusals became final, Applicant appealed, and Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs and appeared at an oral hearing.2

1 Application Serial No. 85722660, filed September 6, 2012 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, based on Applicant’s alleged bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce,
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), and later amended to allege first use dates of January 1, 2012. It is not
entirely clear whether Applicant is claiming that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. See
Office Action response of May 8, 2016 (asserting acquired distinctiveness as to the entire
mark but simultaneously stating in an accompanying document that “Applicant wishes to
withdraw Section 2(f) Claim of Acquired Distinctiveness claim”). In any event, Applicant did
not further address, and therefore waived, the Section 2(f) claim in its Appeal Brief.
2 We have not considered any of the evidence Applicant submitted after its November 4, 2016
notice of appeal. Trademark Rule 2.142(d); see also In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110
Serial No. 85722660

4

The Application’s Tortured Prosecution History
and Its Impact on the Record

The five-year old application file includes well over 200 entries, mostly
Applicant’s Office Action responses. A number of them were properly not considered,
because Applicant filed them itself despite being represented by counsel (before its
counsel withdrew). Many other responses utterly ignored questions and issues raised
in prior Office Actions, and a number were abusive towards the Examining Attorney,
who displayed great patience with Applicant, carefully explained the applicable laws
and rules, and suggested how Applicant could meet the requirements for registration.
There were many days during prosecution when Applicant filed multiple Office
Action responses, and Applicant often filed multiple responses to a single Office
Action before receiving the next Office Action, adding to the confusion. As a result,
since the application was filed there has been confusion surrounding, among many
other things: the identity, citizenship and entity designation of the mark’s owner;
whether Applicant claims that the mark has acquired distinctiveness; whether
Applicant was represented by counsel; whether the mark or application was assigned;
and what is Applicant’s legal name. Suffice it to say, Applicant’s efforts to meet the
requirements for registration were hampered by its failure to respond to the specific
issues raised, or to heed the Examining Attorney’s suggestions, in the Office Actions.

USPQ2d 1852, 1856-67 (TTAB 2014) (refusing to consider new evidence attached to brief).
Even if we considered the new evidence, it would not change our ultimate decision.
Serial No. 85722660

5

Descriptiveness
A mark is merely descriptive, within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1), if it
immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, characteristic or
purpose of the services for which it is used. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d
960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); In re Abcor Development, 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ
215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A mark need not immediately convey an idea of each and
every specific feature of the services in order to be considered merely descriptive;
rather, it is sufficient that the mark describes one significant attribute, function or
property of the services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216
USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973). Whether
a mark is merely descriptive is determined not in the abstract, but in relation to the
services for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used in
connection with the services, and the possible significance that the mark would have
to the average purchaser of the services because of the manner of its use. In re Bright-
Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). 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).
Serial No. 85722660

6

When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on
whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression.
If each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the
services, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See
e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(PATENTS.COM merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database
of records that could include patents, and for tracking the status of the records by
means of the Internet); In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 2009)
(BATTLECAM merely descriptive for computer game software); In re Carlson, 91
USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009) (URBANHOUZING merely descriptive of real estate
brokerage, real estate consultation and real estate listing services); In re Tower Tech,
64 USPQ2d at 1314 (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of commercial and industrial
cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001)
(AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer programs for use in developing and
deploying application programs); In re Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021
(TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ONLINE merely descriptive of news and
information services in the food processing industry).
Here, the Examining Attorney relies on the following dictionary definitions of the
proposed mark’s constituent terms:
SOCIAL SHOPPING—“Social Shopping is a method of e-
commerce where shoppers’ friends become involved in the
shopping experience. Social shopping attempts to use
Serial No. 85722660

7

technology to mimic the social interactions found in
physical malls and stores.”3

NETWORK—“a system, as in a business or university,
consisting of a computer, or computers, and connected
terminals, printers, etc.;” and “to develop contacts or
exchange information with others, as to further a career.”4

Office Action of January 4, 2013. The Wikipedia entry for “social shopping” goes on
to identify “five categories” thereof, one of which is “social shopping marketplaces
which bring sellers and buyers together to connect and transact. The offline analogy
for this category is a farmers market or bazaar.” Id. (printout from “wikipedia.org”).
This “category” of “social shopping” is obviously exceedingly similar to portions of
Applicant’s identification of services, perhaps especially “providing a website for
connecting sellers with buyers.” In fact, we are hard-pressed to identify a difference
between Applicant’s identification of “providing a website for connecting sellers with
buyers” and the “category” of “social shopping” known as online “social shopping
marketplaces which bring sellers and buyers together to connect and transact.”
The Examining Attorney also relies on media and third-party descriptive uses of
the terms SOCIAL SHOPPING or SOCIAL SHOPPING NETWORK. For example
(emphasis added):
An InventorSpot article entitled “Top Ten Social
Shopping Networks (Just in Time) For the Holidays!”
states “the social networking niche gaining the most
traction in this area is social shopping network sites,”
which “claim to provide great bargain (sic) in addition
to sound shopping tips.” Office Action of January 4, 2013
(printout from “inventorspot.com”).

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_shopping
4 http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/network?showCookiePolicy=true
Serial No. 85722660

8

In a Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Shopping
Social Network,” the author states that “my notion of
social shopping is totally 20th century. Several new
fashion websites … are today’s social pioneers, taking the
‘trusted girlfriend doubling as personal shopper’ idea and
embedding it onto the digital shopping experience, through
photo sharing and real-time commentary from other
shoppers ….” The article quotes a founder of one online
social shopping site as stating: “I wanted to create a cooler
marketplace for individual sellers.” Office Action of
January 4, 2013 (printout from “wsj.com”).

An Adweek article entitled “Can Social Shopping Finally
Take Off? Some companies still trying to integrate social
networking and e-commerce” states: “But e-commerce,
a category that’s expected to reach $200 billion this year,
has yet to reap the full benefits of the social networking
revolution.” Office Action of January 4, 2013 (printout from
“adweek.com”).

A Fashion Week Daily article entitled “Rent the Runway
Launches Social Shopping” states that “Rent the
Runway’s first-ever online social shopping platform …
shook up how women share, shop, and think about luxury
fashion ….” Office Action of January 4, 2013 (printout from
“fashionweekdaily.com”).

The Gifts for One Gifts for All website includes a link to
“Social Shopping Networks,” and indicates that “Social
Shopping Sites are FREE sites that help their members
save money at hundreds to thousands of online
retail stores using … listings of coupon codes and deals,”
and that they allow “members to share great deals and
cash back offers with family, friends and followers using
social networks ….” Office Action of July 24, 2013 (printout
from giftsforonegiftsforall.com”).5

5 These services are obviously similar to Applicant’s “promoting the goods and services of
others by providing a web site featuring links to the retail web sites of others, and discount
information.”

Serial No. 85722660

9

A press release entitled “Giftem LLC Announces the
Launch of Innovative Social Shopping Network
Giftem.com” states that the “social shopping network”
allows users to “view items suggested by Giftem that
users may be interested in buying for themselves”
and “check special offers or deals offered by the
hundreds of retailers in the Giftem network.” Office
Action of July 24, 2013 (printout from “prweb.com”).6

The Zavee website bills itself as “South Florida’s exciting
new social shopping network,” and states “whether you
are a shopper, a merchant or a cause, see what makes
Zavee simple, local and social.” Office Action of July 24,
2013 (printout from “zavee.com”).7

An Internet post entitled “Shop with your friends online
with newly launched Strongbark” indicates that
Strongbark is a “social shopping site in beta” which
“allows users to pass along deals to their friends ….”
Office Action response of January 24, 2015 (printout from
“builtinchicago.org”).8

An Entrepreneur article entitled “The Power of Social
Shopping Networks” refers to “social shopping” as “the
intriguing offspring of social networking and online
shopping” which may “consist of product listings from site
users who recommend their favorites.” Office Action of
January 28, 2015 (printout from”entrepreneur.com”).9

6 These services are obviously similar to if not encompassed by Applicant’s “advertising and
commercial information services via the Internet,” “providing a website for connecting sellers
with buyers,” “operating on-line marketplaces for sellers of goods and/or services” and
“promoting the goods and services of others by providing a web site featuring links to the
retail web sites of others, and discount information.”
7 In other words, the “social shopping network” brings together “shoppers” and “merchants.”
This is essentially the same as Applicant’s identified service of “providing a website for
connecting sellers with buyers.”
8 This functionality is essentially the same as “providing a web site featuring links to …
discount information.”
9 The article indicates that one site, “kaboodle.com,” includes user created wishlists with
“links to products for sale online,” which is obviously similar to if not encompassed by
Applicant’s services identified as “promoting the goods and services of others by providing a
web site featuring links to the retail web sites of others ….”

Serial No. 85722660

10

A HubPages article entitled “Evolution of Online Shopping:
The Social Shopping Network” states that “online
shopping has taken a new turn. It is not only
independent stores offering their goods online but a
variety of aggregated shopping networks. There is a
rise in the number of Social Shopping Networks and a
growing interest in the idea of the ‘online mall’.” Office
Action of June 23, 2016 (printout from “hubpages.com”).10

An article entitled “Net-A-Porter launches its own social
shopping network: review” states that the network’s
features “include being able to shop any item directly
from the app.” Office Action of June 23, 2016 (printout
from “econsultancy.com”).11

An article entitled “The Social Shopping Network Based
on Body Doubles” concerns Fitbay, “a new fashion-centric
social network,” and indicates that the company will
provide customers with “body doubles” having similar
shapes and sizes to assist in determining how clothes will
fit. The goal is to lower the “risk associated with buying the
wrong size,” which “scares people away from purchasing
clothing online.” Office Action of June 23, 2016 (printout
from “racked.com”).12

An article about Applicant’s patent licensee (Exhibia)
states that it “revolutionizes the competitive social
shopping industry.” Office Action of June 23, 2016
(printout from “storify.com”).13

This evidence establishes that SOCIAL SHOPPING NETWORK is merely
descriptive of at least some of Applicant’s identified services. Indeed, it supports the

10 Applicant’s services identified as “promoting the goods and services of others by providing
a web site featuring links to the retail web sites of others, and discount information” and
“providing a website for connecting sellers with buyers” are substantively no different than
“aggregated shopping networks” or an “online mall,” which the article equates with “social
shopping networks.”
11 This is essentially subsumed by Applicant’s identified “providing a website for connecting
sellers with buyers” services.
12 Applicant’s identification of services encompasses the purchase of clothing online.
13 This is encompassed by Applicant’s identified online shopping services.
Serial No. 85722660

11

dictionary evidence, further establishing that “social shopping” identifies a category
of retail websites which allow users to shop with, or receive assistance from, friends.
In fact, the InventorSpot, Entrepreneur, HubPages, econsultancy.com and
racked.com articles, the Gifts for One Gifts for All and Zavee websites and the Giftem
LLC press release all use the exact term Applicant seeks to register -- “social shopping
network” – descriptively if not generically in connection with “social shopping”
websites. The Adweek article explains that “social shopping” involves integrating
“social networking and e-commerce,” while Fashion Week Daily refers to an “online
social shopping platform,” which is essentially the same as a “social shopping
network.” Additional evidence, such as the Gifts for One Gifts for All site,
InventorSpot article and Giftem LLC press release reveal that “social shopping” often
involves “bargains,” “discounts,” “special offers” and “deals,” just as Applicant’s
services include providing “discount information.”
While Applicant focuses on the bidding features of its site, and that does seem to
be Applicant’s primary focus, the dictionary, media and third-party evidence
establishes that SOCIAL SHOPPING NETWORK is merely descriptive of some of
Applicant’s identified services, including “providing a website for connecting sellers
with buyers,” “on-line retail gift shops,” “operating on-line marketplaces for sellers of
goods and/or services,” “promoting the goods and services of others by providing a web
site featuring links to the retail web sites of others, and discount information” and
“advertising and commercial information services via the Internet.” Applicant’s
identification of services goes well beyond just auction and bidding sites, and we must
Serial No. 85722660

12

base our determination on Applicant’s services as identified in the application.14 In
addition, if a mark is descriptive of any of the services in a class for which registration
is sought, it is proper to refuse registration as to the entire class. Chamber of
Commerce of the United States, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (“Moreover, a mark need not be
merely descriptive of all recited goods or services in an application. A descriptiveness
refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of the [services] for which
registration is sought.’”) (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d
1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (TTAB
2013) (“[I]f the mark is descriptive of some identified items – or even just one – the
whole class of goods still may be refused by the examiner.”).
In its Appeal Brief, Applicant claims that it seeks registration of its proposed mark
for “bidding-fee-auction services,” which it claims “are really ‘non-cooperative and
‘war of attrition’ in nature,” i.e. not “social,” and thus, Applicant argues, the mark is
arbitrary. 11 TTABVUE 2. In fact, Applicant points out that several “mainstream

14 Moreover, even if Applicant’s identification of services was limited to auction or bidding
sites, and it is not, the evidence reveals that SOCIAL SHOPPING NETWORK may very well
be descriptive of those services as well. A December 1, 2014 press release, for which
Applicant’s principal is listed as the contact, indicates that “a new 1-click bidding service
with G+ or Facebook bidder authentication” is “a truly ‘Social’ approach to online retail
through competitive bidding.” Office Action response of December 3, 2014 (printouts from
Bloomberg and Yahoo). The service is specifically referred to as “Exhibia social shopping.” In
other words, whether the online “social shopping” is conducted in the traditional way, with
customers linking to an online retailer’s site, clicking an item and paying the retailer directly
and electronically, or through an auction of some type, “social shopping network” is merely
descriptive, because regardless of the method of purchase or exchange of funds, there is still,
as Applicant puts it, “a social approach to online retail.” In fact, Applicant’s CrunchBase
listing describes Applicant as providing “competitive social shopping,” and Applicant claims
that “online shoppers” can “bid with friends for the next online purchase.” Office Action
response of April 9, 2014 (printouts from “crunchbase.com” and “slideshare.net”); see also
Office Action of July 24, 2013 (printout from “socialshoppingnetwork.blogspot.com”).
Serial No. 85722660

13

bidding-fee-auction services” forbid bidding “in the same auction with your family
members, friends or acquaintances.” Id. at 3. One problem with this argument is that
Applicant seeks registration for services which go well beyond “bidding-fee-auction
services.” For example, Applicant seeks registration for “providing a website for
connecting sellers with buyers,” which, as explained in the record and herein, is
exactly how a number of third parties and the media define certain “social shopping”
sites, and certain “social shopping networks.”15
In short, when the terms “social shopping” and “network” are combined “the mark
as a whole, i.e., the combination of the individual parts,” does not convey “any
distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the
individual parts.” In re Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d at 1372. To the contrary,
from “the perspective of a prospective purchaser or user” of Applicant’s online
shopping and retail services, “because … the combination of the terms does not result
in a composite that alters the meaning of [any] of the elements … refusal on the
ground of descriptiveness is appropriate.” In re Petroglyph Games, 91 USPQ2d at
1341. Indeed, the evidence makes clear that consumers who know that Applicant’s
services include “providing a website for connecting sellers with buyers” and “on-line
retail gift shops” will understand the proposed mark to convey information about
them, specifically that there is a social aspect to Applicant’s shopping network or that

15 While we have no reason to doubt Applicant’s claim that “‘bidding’ or ‘auctions’ are not
conducted in any mall or shopping center, anywhere in the world,” 18 TTABVUE 2, that is
beside the point. Applicant’s identification of services goes well beyond just “bidding” and
“auctions,” and includes general online retail services.
Serial No. 85722660

14

Applicant’s social network is focused on shopping. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v.
Invira Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(descriptiveness assessed in the context of the identified services).
Registration Certificate Submitted in Support of Section 44(e) Filing Basis
In its November 26, 2015 response to a letter of suspension, Applicant added
Section 44(e) as a filing basis for the application, based on United Kingdom
Registration No. 3044137. However, that registration is owned by Mikko Lasso, while
Applicant here is identified in the involved application as “Social Shopping Network,”
a United Kingdom “organization.” Despite numerous attempts by the Examining
Attorney to clarify and correct this discrepancy, Applicant has not done so.
An applicant under Section 44(e) must be the owner of the foreign registration on
which the Section 44(e) claim is based, or registration under Section 44(e) must be
refused. See 15 U.S.C. § 1126(e); SARL Corexco v. Webid Consulting Ltd., 110
USPQ2d 1587, 1590-91 (TTAB 2014); TMEP § 1005 (Oct. 2017) (if “the applicant later
amends the application to add or substitute §44 as a basis, the applicant must be the
owner of the foreign application or registration … If the applicant was not the owner
of the foreign registration on the filing date of the amendment adding or substituting
a §44(e) basis, the examining attorney must refuse registration under §44(e).”).
Accordingly the refusal of registration under Section 44(e) is affirmed.
Furthermore, “[i]n a U.S. application filed under section 44 of the Act, the scope
of the goods or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of
the goods or services in the foreign application or registration.” Trademark Rule
Serial No. 85722660

15

2.32(a)(6); TMEP § 1402(b). Here, however, while the U.K. registration identifies a
variety of legal and intellectual property-related services, such as “copyright
protection” and “legal services,” it includes no shopping or bid site services. Therefore,
the involved application exceeds the scope of services in the foreign registration. The
refusal of registration under Section 44(e) is affirmed for this reason as well.
Legal Entity Indefinite
Finally, whereas Applicant originally identified itself as a limited liability
company when it filed the application, after it recorded a “change of name” with the
Office’s Assignment Branch, Applicant was identified as a United Kingdom
“organization.” Because Applicant has not complied with the requirements of
Trademark Rule 2.32(a), is not identified as “a corporation, association, partnership
or other juristic person,” Trademark Rule 2.32(a)(3)(ii), and has failed to respond to
the Examining Attorney’s attempts to clarify its entity status, the refusal on this
basis is also affirmed. TMEP § 803.03(c) (“organization” is “indefinite to identify
juristic entities”).
Conclusion
All three refusals are affirmed, because the record reveals that Applicant’s
proposed mark is merely descriptive of at least some of Applicant’s identified services,
the United Kingdom registration certificate does not support the application’s Section
44(e) filing basis and Applicant’s status as an “organization” is indefinite.

Serial No. 85722660

16

Decision: The refusals to register Applicant’s proposed mark under Sections 2(e)(1)
and 44(e) of the Trademark Act and because Applicant’s entity designation is
indefinite are all affirmed.