U-Haul International, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2017

No. 86757575 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2017)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: November 17, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re U-Haul International, Inc.
_____

Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

_____
Stephen R. Winkelman, Esq. for U-Haul International, Inc.

Michael J. Souders, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115
(Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney).
_____

Before Zervas, Adlin and Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
These five consolidated appeals all present the same basic issue: is
TRAILERSHARE and variations thereof merely descriptive of trailer rental services?
More specifically, U-Haul International, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks Principal Register
registrations for five standard character marks comprising or including
TRAILERSHARE or a variation thereof (TRAILERSHARING, U-HAUL TRAILER
SHARING, U-HAUL TRAILERSHARING, U-HAUL TRAILER SHARE and U-
HAUL TRAILERSHARE), all for “Rental services, namely, rental of trucks, trailers,
vans, automobile freight trailers, vehicles, moving vans; Rental of moving equipment
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

2

in the nature of portable moving and storage units, pads, tow bars, dollies, carriers
and hand trucks” in International Class 39.1
The Examining Attorney refused registration of the ‘544 Application for
TRAILERSHARING on the ground that the proposed mark is merely descriptive of
the identified services under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, and refused registration of the
other marks under Sections 2(e)(1) and 6(a) of the Act absent disclaimers of
“TRAILER SHARING” in the ‘575 and ‘589 Applications and “TRAILER SHARE” in
the ‘631 and ‘635 Applications.2 After the refusals became final, Applicant appealed
and filed requests for reconsideration which were denied; Applicant later filed a
motion to consolidate all five appeals, which was granted. 11 TTABVUE.3 Applicant
and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.
The Record
The Examining Attorney relies on the following dictionary definitions of the
words comprising the compound terms at issue:
TRAILER—“a nonmotorized vehicle designed to be pulled
behind a motor vehicle”4

1 Application Serial Nos. 86757544 (the “‘544 Application”), 86757575 (the “‘575 Application”),
86757589 (the “‘589 Application”), 86757631 (the “‘631 Application”) and 86757635 (the “‘635
Application”), respectively, each filed September 15, 2015. Applicant filed the ‘544
Application for TRAILERSHARING under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, based on first
use dates of August 29, 2012, and filed the other applications under Section 1(b) of the Act,
based on an alleged intent to use the marks in commerce.
2 Where, as here, telescoped terms are found to be descriptive, “the correct spelling must be
disclaimed.” TMEP § 1215.07 (October 2017).
3 Citations are to the record in the ‘544 Application.
4 http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=trailer
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

3

SHARE—“To allow someone to use or enjoy something
that one possesses: Being in daycare taught the child to
share.”5

Office Action of January 5, 2016.
He also relies on a web post about Applicant which states that “Truck and trailer
sharing refers to rental services intended to substitute for private truck ownership,”
echoing the dictionary definitions. Office Action of July 29, 2016 (printout from
“myuhaulstory.com”) (emphasis added). In fact, Applicant, on the same website,
states that it “is built on a model of sharing, where customers move each rental from
one area to another to be shared continuously. Sharing rental trucks and trailers is
at the foundation of our rental products ….” Id. Applicant’s specimen uses the term
“Trailer Sharing,” which, while depicted in initial capital letters, is nonetheless used
to describe trailer rental services:

5 http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q-share
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

4

The specimen indicates that “inexpensive rentals” of trailers enable people to “move
to new homes, new jobs, new opportunities” and that “[s]hared use of U-Haul trailers
reduces the cost for users and reduces the need to build new trailers, which makes
for a win-win-win situation environmentally, socially and economically.”
While Applicant may be the first user of “trailer sharing” and variations thereof,
it is not the only one. An article entitled “5 Tips for Moving Cross-Country on a
Budget” states “[c]onsider hiring a service, renting a truck, a trailer, a big SUV,
paying friends, shipping your crap, ride sharing, trailer sharing, you name it.”
Denial of Request for Reconsideration of February 27, 2017 (printout from
“terradrift.com”) (emphasis added). 6 TTABVUE 20.
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

5

This evidence is consistent with how “sharing” is often used -- as a suffix preceded
by a generic term describing what is shared -- to describe analogous types of rental
services. For example, the Wikipedia entry for “Carsharing” indicates that
“Carsharing or car sharing … is a model of car rental where people rent cars for short
periods of time, often by the hour.” Office Action of July 29, 2016 (printout from
“wikipedia.org”); see also id. (printouts from “eartheasy.com,” “bcgperspectives.com”
and “treehugger.com”) and Denial of Request for Reconsideration of February 27,
2017 (printouts from “autotrader.com,” “enterprise.com,” “getaround.com,”
“latimes.com,” “myfunride.com,” “nytimes.com,” “orlandosentinel.com,”
“reachnow.com” and “rentcentric.com.”). 7-8 TTABVUE. All of this evidence refers not
to sharing cars for free, but instead to renting cars for a fee. The term “truck sharing”
is used the same way to refer to truck rental services. Denial of Request for
Reconsideration of February 27, 2017 (printout from “psenergy.com”). 7 TTABVUE.
Similarly, an article entitled “Airbnb of RVs brings sharing economy to vacationers”
indicates that one recreational vehicle rental service is named “RVshare.com,” and
quotes its co-founder concerning the “RV sharing market.” Denial of Request for
Reconsideration of February 27, 2017 (printouts from “cnbc.com” and “rvshare.com”).
6, 8 TTABVUE. Again, in these examples, the rentals are in exchange for monetary
compensation.
For its part, Applicant introduced third-party registrations and its own
registrations on the Principal Register for marks containing the term SHARE in
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

6

which the term is not disclaimed or subject to a Section 2(f) claim of acquired
distinctiveness, including:6
Reg. No. Mark Pertinent Goods/Services
4938855 BLUESHARE
(Stylized)
“vehicle rental services”
4913567 CRYOSHARE
(Stylized) & Design
“transport and storage of goods”
4802361 DIVIDE & SHARE in
standard characters
“bicycle rental services”
4575533 Have it? Share it.
Park it. in standard
characters
“car rental”
4455378 JUST SHARE IT &
Design
“online rental of land-based and water-based
vehicles featuring a network of members who
share said vehicles”
4312480 miles2share share
rides, save money and
reduce carbon foot
print in standard
characters
“motor vehicle sharing services, namely,
providing temporary use of motor vehicles”
4067311 protect. share.
nurture. in standard
characters
“providing a website for the electronic storage of
medical, training and social records of pets that
also allows the records to be shared with pet
sitters, trainers, dog walkers, veterinarians and
other pet service providers”
42106397 RAPID SHARE in
standard characters
“rental, moving and storage services, namely,
rental of moving trucks, trailers and vans; and
rental, moving and storage of portable storage
units in the nature of storage containers”
4665661 SHARECLOUD in
standard characters
“providing a website for the electronic storage of
letter templates and which includes software
customizations that allows letter templates to be
customized, stored and shared with other end
users”

6 We have not considered registrations which have been cancelled in their entirety, in which
the identified rental or sharing services have been deleted, or which are not for rental or
sharing services, because they have no probative value.
7 Applicant owns this registration.
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

7

5009992 SHARE’NGO &
Design
“rental of means of transportation, namely,
boats, aircraft, vehicles, electric vehicles, cars,
electric cars, motorbikes, electric motorbikes,
electric scooters, bicycles and electric bicycles”
4642904 SHARING
EXCELLENCE in
standard characters
“rental of computers for data processing”
41351968 UHAULCARSHARE.
COM & Design
“motor vehicle rental services”
4793099 share a ride, split the
fare. in standard
characters
“carpooling services, namely, matching drivers
of motor vehicles with individuals needing rides”

However, the Examining Attorney counters with a larger number of registrations
for marks containing SHARE for vehicle rental or related services in which the mark
is registered on the Supplemental Register, or the term containing SHARE is
disclaimed or subject to a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the
Act. It does not escape notice that Applicant owns several of the registrations the
Examining Attorney cites, including the following all for “motor vehicle rental
services” which disclaim “CAR SHARE”: U CAR SHARE in standard characters (Reg.
No. 3648101); U CAR SHARE UHAUL.COM & Design (Reg. No. 3651744); U CAR
SHARE & Design (Reg. No. 3708617); and U CAR SHARE UCARSHARE.COM &
Design (Reg. No. 3712056). Office Action of February 27, 2017.
Analysis
The record leaves no doubt that all five forms of TRAILERSHARING are merely
descriptive, because they all immediately convey knowledge of a quality, feature,

8 Applicant owns this registration.
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

8

function, characteristic or purpose of the services for which they are 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). Indeed, all forms of the term at
issue – TRAILERSHARING, TRAILER SHARING, TRAILERSHARE, and TRAILER
SHARE – convey that Applicant “shares” or rents “trailers.” Accordingly, the refusal
to register the mark in the ‘544 Application, and the disclaimer requirement in the
remaining applications,9 are appropriate.
Applicant vigorously argues that the dictionary definition of “sharing” reveals
that the proposed marks are suggestive rather than descriptive:
When a parent tells his child to share her toys with her
sibling, the parent is not telling the child to charge a fee.
Rather, “sharing” means to allow another to use one’s
possession as part of a non-financial arrangement. When
the United Church of Christ ran a commercial saying, “It’s
nice to share” it was not saying, “It is nice to rent things.
Rather, the term “sharing” means a non-financial,
informal, personal interaction, while the service provided
by Applicant is in fact a financial transaction. Thus,
Applicant is using the word “sharing” as a metaphor,
suggesting a more informal, personal and non-pecuniary
relationship, rather than describing a financial
transaction.

9 Under Section 6(a) of the Act, “[t]he Director may require the applicant to disclaim an
unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable,” such as a component which is
merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1). Failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement is
a basis for refusing registration. See In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 78 USPQ2d 1395, 1399-
1400 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir.
2005).

Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

9

14 TTABVUE 9 (Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 8). We disagree, for two primary reasons.
First, as the Examining Attorney points out, Applicant’s identified services “allow
someone to use or enjoy [trailers] that [Applicant] possesses,” which is the dictionary
definition of “sharing.” Applicant’s position that the dictionary definition does not
apply to allowing others to use something for a fee is not supported by the definition
itself, which makes no mention of whether “sharing” involves the exchange of money.
Applicant is correct that the definition’s example (“Being in daycare taught the child
to share”) strongly suggests that no money is changing hands, because children in
daycare are unlikely to have or charge money, but that does not mean that for-profit
trailer rental services fall outside the definition. Second, and perhaps more
importantly, Applicant’s position is belied by its own specimen of use. Its specimen,
which has the heading “Trailer Sharing,” states that Applicant’s services are “built
on a model of sharing,” but refers to rentals for a fee, and states that “[s]hared use of
U-Haul trailers reduces the cost ….” It is settled that “[e]vidence of the context in
which a mark is used on labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the
goods is probative of the reaction of prospective purchasers to the mark.” In re Abcor
Development, 200 USPQ at 218; In re Promo Ink, 78 USPQ2d 1301, 1303 (TTAB
2006); see also In re Hunter Fan Co., 78 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 2006)
(“applicant’s own use of the term ERGONOMIC … highlights the descriptive nature
of this term ….”). Moreover, the record includes numerous examples of “sharing”
being used by third parties and the media to describe vehicle rentals for monetary
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

10

compensation, including “carsharing,” “truck sharing,” “RV sharing” and, in the case
of the “terradrift.com” website, “trailer sharing.”10
As for the inconsistent third-party registration evidence, it is simply inconclusive.
“Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office strives for consistency,
each application must be examined on its own merits. Neither the Trademark
Examining Attorney nor the Board is bound to approve for registration an Applicant’s
mark based solely upon the registration of other assertedly similar marks for other
goods or services having unique evidentiary records.” In re Datapipe, Inc., 111
USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014); see also In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57
USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The Board must decide each case on its own
merits … Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to Nett
Designs’ application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind
the Board or this court.”).11
In short, when the term “trailer” is combined with forms of the term “share,” 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

10 Applicant’s argument that “trailer sharing” or “trailer share” is not among the identified
services in any trademark application or registration is essentially irrelevant. See In re Sun
Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001) (“Likewise, the fact that applicant
may be the first and/or only entity using the phrase AGENTBEANS is not dispositive where,
as here, the term unequivocally projects a merely descriptive connotation.”).
11 In any event, the majority of the third-party registrations reveal that the term “share” and
variations thereof has more often been treated by the Office as descriptive of vehicle rental
services. Moreover, we agree with the Examining Attorney that in many of the examples
Applicant provided, the marks are unitary, whereas most of the marks in the Examining
Attorney’s examples are not.
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

11

individual parts.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370,
1372 (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). To the contrary, from “the perspective
of a prospective purchaser or user” of Applicant’s trailer rental 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, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332, 1341 (TTAB 2009) (BATTLECAM
merely descriptive for computer game software). Indeed, the evidence makes clear
that consumers who know that Applicant’s services include “rental of … trailers” will
understand the proposed mark to convey information about them, specifically that
Applicant rents trailers. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd.,
695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (descriptiveness assessed in
the context of the identified services).
Conclusion
All five refusals are affirmed, because the record reveals that Applicant’s proposed
mark TRAILERSHARING, and the other forms thereof, is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s identified trailer rental services.

Decision: The refusals to register Applicant’s proposed marks under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act are all affirmed. However, with respect to the ‘575, ‘589, ‘631
and ‘635 Applications, this decision will be set aside if, within thirty days of the
Serial Nos. 86757544, 86757575, 86757589, 86757631 and 86757635

12

mailing date of this order, Applicant submits to the Board a proper disclaimer of, as
appropriate, TRAILER SHARING OR TRAILER SHARE. Trademark Rule 2.142(g).
The disclaimer(s) should be worded as follows: “No claim is made to the exclusive
right to use ‘TRAILER SHARING’ [or ‘TRAILER SHARE’] apart from the mark as
shown.”