Wireless Unified Network Systems Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 1999

No. 74528633 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 1999)

Hearing: Paper No. 22
May 4, 1999 ejs
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB DEC. 16, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Wireless Unified Network Systems Corporation
________
Serial No. 74/528,633
_______
Stuart E. Beck for Wireless Unified Network Systems
Corporation
G. T. Glynn, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Seeherman and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Wireless Unified Network Systems Corporation has
appealed from the refusal of the Trademark Examining
Attorney to register WIRELESS UNIFIED NETWORK SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, with the word CORPORATION disclaimed, as a
mark for “telecommunications services, namely, providing
wireless network communications services using a sub-
orbital high altitude communications network that is
Ser. No. 74/528,633
2
integrated with a land based communications network.”1
Registration has been refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), on the ground
that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of its
services.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs
on the case, and an oral hearing was held before the Board.
In support of his refusal the Examining Attorney has
made of record excerpts taken from the NEXIS database which
show that “wireless network system” is a recognized term
used in connection with communications systems, to wit:
Headline: Wireless World: Seiko
Launches first Global Wireless System
for Affordable Everyday Communications
To promote and implement this wireless
network system, the companies have
created a new international subsidiary…
“Edge,” September 19, 1994
Seiko plans to deploy a high speed
global wireless network system that
will use FM radio signals to send
information…
“Computergram International,” September
16, 1994
Ericsson, a provider of wired and
wireless network systems, has signed a
$36 million contract with Intel-Panama,
the national telco of Panama….
“ISDN News,” June 20, 1995

1 Application Serial No. 74/528,633, filed May 24, 1994, and
asserting a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser. No. 74/528,633
3
The company has also indicated its
willingness to install and commission
the wireless network systems in India,
besides marketing GSM and other
wireless and developing “solutions” for
transmission and fixed wireless
networks….
“Newsbytes,” April 10, 1995
The Examining Attorney has also submitted NEXIS
excerpts showing the use of “unified network” in connection
with telecommunications and computers:
Headline: Don’t Overlook Satellites;
Satellites Must Get Involved with ISDN
if They are to Fill in Communications
Gaps Between Developed and Developing
Nations
…the long-term ISDN goal, articulated
by AT&T as a “graceful evolution of
today’s telecommunication network
toward a powerful, unified network
fabric featuring universal ports,
dynamic allocation of bandwidth and
other resources and adaptive, logically
provided services.
“Telephone Engineer & Management,”
March 1, 1987
…high-speed communications lines, such
as T1, switched 56-Kbps and ISDN lines,
bringing together disparate systems
into a unified network.
“Computer Reseller News,” April 3, 1995
…mainframe standard above it, the work
station standard below it, and the
standard for the communications
software that joins corporate computers
together in a unified network.
“Fortune,” February 6, 1984
In addition, the Examining Attorney has shown the
Office has consistently treated various phrases containing
Ser. No. 74/528,633
4
the word WIRELESS as descriptive by their registration on
the Supplemental Register, or on the Principal Register
with a disclaimer, as indicated in the examples below:
WIRELESS DIGITAL ACCESS, (with DIGITAL
ACCESS disclaimed), Supplemental
Register registration for digital
wireless telephone systems…2
WIRELESS SYMPOSIUM AND EXHIBITION (with
SYMPOSIUM AND EXHIBITION disclaimed),
Supplemental Register registration for
the services of arranging and
conducting trade shows or exhibitions
in the wireless communication field3
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FORUM,
Supplemental Register registration for
trade journals in the field of wireless
communications4
WON (WIRELESS OFFICE NETWORKS), (with
WIRELESS NETWORK disclaimed), Principal
Register registration for wireless
office communications services, namely
mobile telephone services, paging
services and voice messages by
telephone5
Applicant does not dispute that “wireless network
system” describes the nature of the services, or that
“‘wireless network systems corporation’ or ‘wireless
unified systems corporation’ might be merely descriptive of
applicant’s services,” brief, p. 4. However, it asserts
that its mark, WIRELESS UNIFIED NETWORK SYSTEMS

2 Registration No. 1,561,663.
3 Registration No. 1,835,052
4 Registration No. 1,869,061
5 Registration No. 1,888,885
Ser. No. 74/528,633
5
CORPORATION, taken in its entirety, creates a unique
impression because of a redundancy and awkwardness of the
word order. According to applicant, the natural order of
these words is “unified wireless network,” not “wireless
unified network.”
A mark is merely descriptive, and therefore prohibited
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if
it immediately conveys information concerning a quality,
characteristic, function, ingredient, attribute or feature
of a product or service. In re Venture Lending Associates,
226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). See also, In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d
1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In this case,
applicant’s services are the provision of wireless network
communications services using a sub-orbital high altitude
communications network that is integrated with a land based
communications network. In other words, applicant provides
a wireless system by means of two networks which are
integrated with each other, i.e., a unified network.
Potential purchasers, viewing applicant’s mark in
connection with its identified services, would immediately
understand what the services are—a wireless unified network
system--and the mark is therefore merely descriptive of a
significant characteristic of applicant’s services and of
Ser. No. 74/528,633
6
applicant, a corporation that renders such services.6 We do
not agree with applicant that the language of the mark is
awkwardly phrased, nor does the fact that a portion of the
mark can form a pronounceable acronym (WUNS) remove the
descriptive nature of the mark as a whole.
As for applicant’s argument that the mark has not been
found in any list, directory or article, it is not
necessary that the Examining Attorney present such evidence
to support a refusal based on mere descriptiveness. The
issue here is not whether the term is generic, but whether,
as applied to the identified services, it immediately
conveys information about them. As discussed above,
applicant’s mark does just that.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
E. J. Seeherman
C. M. Bottorff
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

6 Because applicant has disclaimed exclusive rights to the word
CORPORATION in response to the Examining Attorney’s initial
refusal of descriptiveness, applicant has conceded the
descriptiveness of this word and we therefore need not discuss
this point further.