Teloquent Communications Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 1999

No. 75130296 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 1999)

Paper No. 8
GDH/gdh
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JULY 23, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Teloquent Communications Corporation
________
Serial No. 75/130,296
_______
Timothy A. French and Donna M. Weinstein of Fish & Richardson,
P.C. for Teloquent Communications Corporation.
Barbara Gold Herman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109
(Chris Petersen, Acting Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Hohein and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hohein, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Teloquent Communications Corporation has filed an
application to register the term "VIDEO CALL CENTER" as a
trademark for "telecommunications software for use in video
teleconferencing."1
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the basis
that, when used in connection with applicant's goods, the term
"VIDEO CALL CENTER" is merely descriptive of them.

1 Ser. No. 75/130,296, filed on July 5, 1996, which alleges a bona fide
intention to use such term in commerce.
Ser. No. 75/130,296
2
Applicant has appealed. Briefs have been filed, but an
oral hearing was not requested. We affirm the refusal to
register.
Applicant argues that "[t]he term VIDEO CALL CENTER
does not immediately convey any real information about the goods
to which it is [to be] applied." Instead, applicant insists
that, "[t]aken at face value, the mark denotes a center from
which one can call videos, an incongruous concept." In view
thereof, applicant contends that the term "VIDEO CALL CENTER" is
suggestive rather than merely descriptive of its goods.
The Examining Attorney, on the other hand, asserts that
applicant’s argument "is not germane because the mark must be
viewed in relation to the identified goods, not in the abstract,"
and that, when so considered, "[p]urchasers encountering the mark
in connection with the applicant’s ’telecommunications software
for use in video teleconferencing’ would conclude that the mark
describes a feature or function of the applicant’s software ...."
In support of her position, the Examining Attorney, in addition
to various dictionary definitions of the words, "video," "call"
and "center,"2 relies in particular upon excerpts she made of
record from her search of the "NEXIS" database concerning the
phrase "video call center".

2 For instance, Webster’s New World Dictionary (2d coll. ed.)
respectively identifies "video" at 1583 as meaning "1. of or used in
television 2. designating or of the picture portion of a telecast, as
distinguished from the audio (or sound) portion 3. designating or of
the display of data on a computer terminal"; lists "call" at 201 as
signifying, among other things, "8. to communicate with by telephone";
and "center" at 230 as connoting, inter alia, "3. a place at which an
activity or complex of activities is carried on ...."
Ser. No. 75/130,296
3
According to the Examining Attorney, "[t]he NEXIS
evidence," of which the following (emphasis added) are especially
pertinent, "shows that the phrase VIDEO CALL CENTER has become a
term of art in the telecommunication teleconferencing industry to
refer to software systems that provide face-to-face telephonic
communications between network users[,] thereby enabling combined
voice and visual communication":
"NetLive’s unique video call center
systems allow businesses to provide
customized web content, sales support and
product information to customers’ desktops."
-- Telephone IP News, March 1997;
"Casino customers will be able to link
visually to concierges at a video call center
and [be] able to make dinner reservations,
order show tickets or extend hotel stays." --
Interactive Video News, February 17, 1997;
"’There are more and more ways people
can reach their suppliers--via phone, E-mail,
voice or fax back, video call center , and
Web call center,’ said Jeff Fried, director
of product management and founder of
Teloquent, in Billerica, Mass." -- PC Week,
October 14, 1996;
"’So we’ve joined forces with Incite to
provide our customers with a video call
center solution using Incite’s multimedia
product." -- ISDN News, September 24, 1996;
"Teloquent ... and Bell Atlantic have
teamed up to create a video call center.
This means face-to-face agent/customer
contact ...." -- Teleconnect, September 1996
(article headlined in part: "A guide to
videoconferencing");
"[M]any analysts predict video call
centers will be used for services such as
approving automobile loans instantly while
customers are at the car dealership ....
....

Ser. No. 75/130,296
4
Bell Atlantic contributes Integrated
Services Digital Networking (ISDN) and
integration services, while Teloquent
provides video call center equipment and
software. PictureTel lends point-to-point
videoconferencing expertise." -- Voice
Technology & Services News, August 6, 1996;
"The carriers ... are rolling out video
call centers, Web access and a wide variety
of other call center services to meet the
needs of enterprises ...." -- Electronic
Commerce News, August 5, 1996 (article
headlined: "Call Centers Secret Electronic
Commerce Weapon[;] Enterprises Using Centers
To Serve and Sell, Anytime, Anywhere");
"[T]he Billerica company will ... deploy
video call center software systems that will
link video-equipped, interactive kiosks with
call centers." -- Mass High Tech, July 29,
1996 (article headlined: "Teloquent Makes
Virtual Call Centers A Reality");
"Just as automated teller machines are
now open to customers of almost any bank
around the country, video call center
technology is opening up face-to-face
telephonic communication between consumers
and financial services providers anywhere" --
U.S. Banker, April 1996;
"Teloquent Communications Corp. and Bell
Atlantic Corp. have formed an alliance to
develop a video call center application that
runs over ISDN lines." -- PC Week, March 25,
1996
"Companies such as Dallas-based InteCom
are working to bring videoconferencing to
call centers through the Web.. InteCom was
showing its video call center at the show,
with a live video and voice connection to a
customer service representative". -- Voice
Technology & Services News, March 19, 1996;
"Banks such as Citibank in New York and
Royal Bank in Canada are experimenting with
video call center kiosks that use proprietary
systems they’ve developed with various
technology companies. Intecom, however, is
positioning itself as the first video call-
Ser. No. 75/130,296
5
center vendor." -- InformationWeek, March 18,
1996; and
"Huntington plans one day to have a
video call center serving the growing number
of access banks whose customers interact with
centralized banking experts via video-
conference." -- AT&T Technology, Winter
1995/1996.
It is well settled that a term is considered to be
merely descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it immediately describes
an ingredient, quality, characteristic or feature thereof or if
it directly conveys information regarding the nature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. See In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA
1978). It is not necessary that a term describe all of the
properties or functions of the goods or services in order for it
to be considered to be merely descriptive thereof; rather, it is
sufficient if the term describes a significant attribute or idea
about them. Moreover, whether a term is merely descriptive is
determined not in the abstract but in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the context in which
it is being used on or in connection with those goods or services
and the possible significance that the term would have to the
average purchaser of the goods or services because of the manner
of its use. See In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593
(TTAB 1979). Consequently, "[w]hether consumers could guess what
the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone
is not the test." In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365,
366 (TTAB 1985). In addition, "when there is evidence that two
Ser. No. 75/130,296
6
or more words have been used together to form a phrase or term
that forthwith conveys information regarding the goods or
services set forth in the application, it is simply not necessary
to engage in an analysis of each of the individual words in an
effort to ascertain whether, when used together, said words
forthwith convey information concerning the goods or services set
forth in the application." In re Shiva Corp., 48 USPQ2d 1957,
1959 (TTAB 1998).
In the present case, it is our view that, when applied
to applicant’s "telecommunications software for use in video
teleconferencing," the term "VIDEO CALL CENTER" immediately
describes, without conjecture or speculation, a significant
function, purpose or use of applicant’s goods, namely, that they
provide a business or other enterprise call center with video
teleconferencing capacity. The "NEXIS" excerpts furnished by the
Examining Attorney clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that the
term "video call center" has been frequently used as a term of
art in the telecommunications teleconferencing industry to refer
to software and associated equipment which allows face-to-face,
that, is visual or video, telecommunications between customers or
other callers and a call center of a firm. Thus, when considered
in the context of applicant’s software rather than abstractly "at
face value," the term "VIDEO CALL CENTER" is not incongruous;
instead, it merely describes precisely what such goods are
designed to do.
Accordingly, because the term "VIDEO CALL CENTER"
conveys forthwith a significant function, purpose or use of
Ser. No. 75/130,296
7
applicant’s "telecommunications software for use in video
teleconferencing," it is merely descriptive of such goods within
the meaning of the statute. See, e.g., In re Shiva Corp., supra
at 1958 [term "TARIFF MANAGEMENT" held merely descriptive of key
feature or function of "computer programs to control, reduce and
render more efficient wide area network (WAN) usage" by finding
lowest tariff or cost for telephone calls]; In re Intelligent
Instrumentation Inc., 40 USPQ2d 1792, 1794 (TTAB 1996) [term
"VISUAL DESIGNER" held merely descriptive of significant purpose
or function of "computer programs for controlling acquisition of
data from measurement devices for purposes of analysis, display,
testing and automatic control" since such goods permitted new or
custom programming applications to be visually designed]; and In
re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1244 (TTAB 1987) [terms
"CONCURRENT PC-DOS" and "CONCURRENT DOS" found merely descriptive
of computer operating systems in the form of "computer programs
recorded on disk"].
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is
affirmed.
T. J. Quinn
G. D. Hohein
C. E. Walters
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board