Alcatel Lucent

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2008

No. 79010903 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2008)

Mailed: February 25, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________

In re Alcatel Lucent
___________

Serial No. 79010903
___________

K. Bradford Adolphson of Ware, Fressola, Van Der Sluys &
Adolphson for Alcatel Lucent.

Michael Tanner, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117
(Loretta C. Beck, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Hairston, Walters and Bucher, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Alcatel Lucent has filed an application to register the
standard character mark USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND on the
Principal Register for the goods and services listed below.1
The application includes a disclaimer of BROADBAND apart
from the mark as a whole.

1 Serial No. 79010903 has a filing date of November 10, 2004, is based
on an International Registration under Section 66(a) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. §1141f(a), and includes an allegation of a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce.

THIS OPINION
IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 79010903

2
International Class 9:
Telephones; cellular and wireless telephones; satellite
telephones; telephone headsets; carrying cases for cellular
telephones; antennas for cellular telephones; microphones
and loudspeakers for hand free use of cellular telephones;
telecommunication management software for managing USB
connections between cellular telephones and computers;
removable covers for telephone receivers not made of paper;
prepaid magnetically encoded telephone calling cards;
intercoms; telephone answering machines; facsimile machines;
pagers; portable media players; telecommunication routers,
switches, multiplexers, demultiplexers, gateway hardware,
and servers; LAN (local area network), MAN (metropolitan
area network), WAN (wide area network), SAN (storage area
network) and VPN (virtual private network) hardware and
operating software; digital subscriber line access nodes;
digital subscriber line access multiplexers; modems for
transmitting and receiving voice and data in digital form
over telecommunications networks; Telecommunications lines
management software for transmitting and receiving voice and
data in digital form over telecommunications networks;
adapters, interface cards and electronic boxes for accessing
telecommunications networks; digital loop carrier units;
telecommunication switches, namely, packet switches, frame
relay switches, time division multiplex (TDM) switches,
asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switches, voice switches,
cell-based switches, frame-based switches; time division
multiplexers; telecommunication service switches for
receiving and routing telecommunications signals and
initiating advanced network services; intelligent network
application software that facilitates advanced
telecommunication network services, namely telecommunication
software providing local number portability;
telecommunication software for accessing, managing,
securing, operating and monitoring telecommunications
networks and telephony systems; telecommunication software
for quality control and detection of defaults and incidents
in telecommunications networks; telecommunication software
for facilitating electronic mail; software for facilitating
voice messaging; computer e-commerce software to allow users
to perform electronic business transactions via a global
computer network; software for accounting and for billing
telecommunications costs; software for analyzing
telecommunications flow, time and costs; software for
managing telephone directories; software for maintaining
confidentiality of computer communications by using personal
user identifications, access control, and encryption;
telecommunications hardware and software for the
transmission of digital signals over a fiber optic cable
system; telecommunication network hardware and software,
namely, optical gateway managers, optical amplifiers and
optical cross-connects, and computer operating software
therefor; high capacity cross-connect telecommunications
switching devices for use in the transport of voice, data,
video and imaging information; electronic and optical
communications instruments and components, namely, optical
transmitters, optical receivers,optical data links, optical
transceivers, cable television transmitters, digital
transmitters, and communication link testers for testing
communication links; fiber optics; fiber optic connectors;
Serial No. 79010903

3
fiber optic cables; optical fibers sold as a component of
fiber optic cables; optical signal communication cables and
conductors; fiber optic couplers, filters and terminating
devices; lasers not for medical use; electrical connectors;
telecommunications and computer connection cables;
transceiver base stations for use with cellular radio
communications network; electronic controllers for
transceiver base stations for use with cellular radio
communications network; electronic switches for cellular
radio communications network; software for controlling,
monitoring and maintaining cellular radio communications
network; satellites; satellite monitoring stations;
satellite surveillance stations; software for facilitating
and monitoring satellite telecommunications; unmanned
spacecraft with onboard equipment, namely, complete
satellites; on-board satellite equipment, namely, radio and
television transmitters and receivers; satellite equipment,
namely, photoelectric solar arrays, batteries, and computer
hardware and software for altitude and orbit control,
temperature control, data processing, and satellite
monitoring; computer hardware and software for satellite
telemetry and mission control communications; satellite
payload equipment, namely, antennas and pointing apparatus
therefor, and computer hardware and software for controlling
satellite antenna, and transponders.

International Class 37:
Installation, maintenance and repair of electronic
communication and telecommunications networks, systems,
equipment, apparatus, and devices; installation, maintenance
and repair of electronic telematic communication and
telecommunications networks, systems, equipment, apparatus,
and devices.

International Class 38:
Telecommunications services, namely, electronic, electric,
and digital transmission of voice, data, images, signals,
and messages; electronic mail services; rental of equipment
for telecommunications; computer aided transmission of
messages and images; providing multiple-user
telecommunications connections to the Internet.

The examining attorney has issued a final refusal to
register on two grounds. First, he has refused registration
under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d),
on the ground that applicant’s mark so resembles the mark
USERCENTRIC, previously registered for “engineering and
design services for data processing systems; computer
consultation services; computer software design and updating
Serial No. 79010903

4
for others”2 that, if used on or in connection with
applicant’s goods and services, it would be likely to cause
confusion or mistake or to deceive.
Second, the examining attorney has refused registration
under 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 in connection with its goods and services.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
examining attorney have filed briefs and submitted evidence.
Likelihood of Confusion
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an
analysis of all of the probative facts in evidence that are
relevant to the factors bearing on the likelihood of
confusion issue. See In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). See also Palm
Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee
En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73 USPQ2d 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In
re Majestic Distilling Company, Inc., 315 F.3d 1311, 65
USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003); and In re Dixie Restaurants
Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 41 USPQ2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In considering the evidence of record on these factors,
we keep in mind that “[t]he fundamental inquiry mandated by
Section 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in

2 Registration No. 2675482 issued January 14, 2003, to Kim, Yong K., in
International Class 42.

Serial No. 79010903

5
the essential characteristics of the goods and differences
in the marks.” Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper
Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (CCPA 1976); and In re
Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB
1999) and the cases cited therein.
We turn, first, to a determination of whether
applicant’s mark and the registered mark, when viewed in
their entireties, are similar in terms of appearance, sound,
connotation and commercial impression. The test is not
whether the marks can be distinguished when subjected to a
side-by-side comparison, but rather whether the marks are
sufficiently similar in terms of their overall commercial
impressions that confusion as to the source of the goods or
services offered under the respective marks is likely to
result. The focus is on the recollection of the average
purchaser, who normally retains a general rather than a
specific impression of trademarks. See Sealed Air Corp. v.
Scott Paper Co., 190 USPQ 106 (TTAB 1975).
The examining attorney contends that the marks are
substantially similar, arguing that USER-CENTRIC is the
dominant portion of applicant’s mark; that the hyphen in
this portion of applicant’s mark is immaterial and, thus,
the dominant portion of applicant’s mark is identical to the
registered mark in its entirety; and that, while the
individual terms USER and CENTRIC may be weak, the record
Serial No. 79010903

6
contains insufficient evidence to indicate that the
registered mark, USERCENTRIC, is weak, noting that evidence
of extensive use by applicant of its mark does not establish
that the registered mark is weak.
Applicant references evidence it submitted, infra,
showing numerous uses of the terms USER CENTRIC and
USERCENTRIC in Google search results, as well as CENTRIC or
USER formative marks in third-party applications and
registrations, as evidence that the cited registered mark is
not arbitrary, that the terms USER and CENTRIC are in common
use, and that the cited registered mark is a weak mark.
Applicant concludes that its use of a hyphen between USER
and CENTRIC and the addition of the term BROADBAND is
sufficient to distinguish its mark from the mark in the
cited registration.
The evidence of record submitted by applicant includes
the following:
• Lists of Google search results for the searches “user
centric broadband” (27,600 hits); and “user centric
broadband” “not including alcatel” (185 hits).
Applicant alleges this demonstrates that the vast
majority of uses of the phrase refer to applicant.
• Lists of Google search results for the searches “user
centric (500,000 hits); and “usercentric” (35,000
Serial No. 79010903

7
hits). Applicant alleges this evidence demonstrates
that the cited registered mark is not arbitrary.
• Three third-party registrations for, respectively,
USER-CENTERED SOLUTIONS, USERCENTRIC and CENTRICS, each
for goods and/or services pertaining to computer
hardware or software or design; a list of 143 third-
party applications and registrations of CENTRIC
formative marks for a wide variety of goods and
services; a list of 150 third-party applications and
registrations of USER formative marks for a wide
variety of goods and services; and copies of three
cancelled third-party registrations for USERFRIENDLY
marks for computer related services; and one live
third-party registration for the mark USER FRIENDLY
CONSULTING for computer software systems analysis, with
a disclaimer of CONSULTING. Applicant alleges that
this evidence demonstrates that USER and CENTRIC
formative marks are weak and common on the register.3
When we compare the marks in their entireties, we
consider them to be more similar than dissimilar. Although,
as applicant correctly notes, we must compare the marks in
their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more
significant than another, and it is not improper to give

3 The third-party applications are of no probative value because they
are evidence only of the fact that they have been filed. Likewise,
expired or cancelled registrations are of no probative value.
Serial No. 79010903

8
more weight to this dominant feature in determining the
commercial impression created by the mark. See In re
National Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 224 USPQ 749 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (“There is nothing improper in stating that, for
rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a
particular feature of a mark, provided the ultimate
conclusion rests on consideration of the marks in their
entireties. Indeed, this type of analysis appears to be
unavoidable.”) The term USER-CENTRIC is the first term in
applicant’s mark and is essentially identical to
registrant’s mark in its entirety. The hyphen separating
USER and CENTRIC in applicant’s mark is immaterial. There
is no indication that USER-CENTRIC has a different meaning
from USERCENTRIC due either to the hyphen, the addition of
the word BROADBAND, or in connection with the respective
goods and services. Based on the definitions of “broadband”
in the record, the additional wording in applicant’s mark,
BROADBAND, is clearly merely descriptive in connection with
the identified telecommunications goods and services and it
is disclaimed. While USER-CENTRIC may be a suggestive term,
it is the dominant term in applicant’s mark.
Therefore, considered in their entireties, we find
applicant’s mark, USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND, to be
substantially similar to the registered mark, USERCENTRIC,
Serial No. 79010903

9
in appearance, sound, connotation and overall commercial
impression.
Turning to consider the goods and services involved in
this case, we note that the question of likelihood of
confusion must be determined based on an analysis of the
goods or services recited in applicant’s application vis-à-
vis the goods or services recited in the registration,
rather than what the evidence shows the goods or services
actually are. Canadian Imperial Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank,
811 F.2d 1490, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1815 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See
also, Octocom Systems, Inc. v. Houston Computer Services,
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and The
Chicago Corp. v. North American Chicago Corp., 20 USPQ2d
1715 (TTAB 1991). Further, it is a general rule that goods
or services need not be identical or even competitive in
order to support a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Rather, it is enough that goods or services are related in
some manner or that some circumstances surrounding their
marketing are such that they would be likely to be seen by
the same persons under circumstances which could give rise,
because of the marks used therewith, to a mistaken belief
that they originate from or are in some way associated with
the same producer or that there is an association between
the producers of each parties’ goods or services. In re
Melville Corp., 18 USPQ2d 1386 (TTAB 1991), and cases cited
Serial No. 79010903

10
therein; and Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Jones, 65
USPQ2d 1650, 1661 (TTAB 2002).
The examining attorney contends that the goods and
services are related; that the evidence of record supports
the conclusion that entities that offer services of the type
identified in the cited registration also offer the types of
goods and services identified in the application. He makes
the following statement in this regard:
The registrant’s engineering and design services,
computer consultation services, and computer
software design and updating services are not
limited as to a particular field or channel of
trade. Thus, the registrant’s services
necessarily include the design and updating of
each different type of software contained in the
application, the design and updating of the data
processing hardware in the application, as well as
computer consulting services concerning not only
the installation of electronic communication and
telecommunications networks, but also, computer
consulting services regarding the computer and
telecommunications products in the application.
(Brief, p. 12.)

The examining attorney states that due to the breadth
of the goods and services identified in the application,
there are no limitations as to channels of trade or classes
of purchasers; that, as such, the classes of purchasers
encompass both sophisticated purchasers and the general
public; and that even sophisticated purchasers exercising a
degree of care are not immune to trademark confusion.
To demonstrate, in connection with his likelihood of
confusion refusal, that the respective goods and services
Serial No. 79010903

11
are related, the examining attorney submitted thirteen
third-party registrations which include, in the
identifications of goods and services, the same or similar
identified services of applicant and the cited registrant.
Applicant argues that it is “one of the largest
telecommunication equipment companies in the world”; that
its identified goods are “intimately related to [its]
telecommunications and telecommunication equipment business”
and its goods and services are “used to establish
communication amongst millions of users”; whereas,
registrant’s identified “custom” services are directed
towards a particular user’s computer and do not have
“anything to do with BROADBAND.” (Brief, pp. 12-13.)
Applicant contends, further, that both applicant’s goods and
services and registrant’s services are highly technical in
nature and will be purchased with care by discriminating,
knowledgeable purchasers.
We agree with the examining attorney and find that
applicant’s goods and services are sufficiently related to
the services in the cited registration that, if identified
by confusingly similar marks, confusion as to source is
likely. Applicant’s goods in International Class 9 include
“telecommunications lines management software,” “intelligent
network application software that facilitates advanced
telecommunication network services …,” accounting and
Serial No. 79010903

12
workflow software for telecommunications businesses, and
software for operating, facilitating and maintaining a wide
variety of telecommunications networks and systems, among
other software products. Applicant’s services include
installation, maintenance and repair of electronic
communication and telecommunications networks and systems,
in International Class 37, and a wide variety of
telecommunications services in International Class 38.
The cited registrant’s services are broadly identified
as “engineering and design services for data processing
systems; computer consultation services; computer software
design and updating for others.”
Clearly, at least some of applicant’s software pertains
to data processing systems in the telecommunications field
and, thus, these goods in International Class 9 are related
to, if not overlapping with, registrant’s identified
engineering and design services for data processing systems.
Similarly, registrant’s broadly worded “computer
consultation services” would encompass applicant’s
“installation, maintenance and repair of electronic
communication and telecommunications networks, systems,”
etc., in International Class 37. Finally, applicant’s
telecommunications services in International Class 38 would
include, for example, services rendered by an Internet
services provider who would both provide transmission of
Serial No. 79010903

13
voice, data, etc., and “Help” advice in the form of
troubleshooting problems for either individual or
institutional customers, which would properly fall within
the category of registrant’s “computer consultation
services.” As previously indicated, our likelihood of
confusion determination must be based on the respective
identifications of goods and services, not what evidence may
show the goods and services to be in the marketplace. In
this case, both applicant’s and registrant’s identifications
are written very broadly. The factor of the similarity or
relationship of the goods and services weighs against
applicant.
We are not convinced otherwise by applicant’s arguments
to the contrary. In particular, registrant’s identification
of services is broadly written and is not limited to
“custom” services, as defined and argued by applicant. The
size of applicant’s company and the scope of its business
does not impact our finding that many of the goods and the
services offered by applicant are related to, or fall within
the scope of, the services in the cited registration.
Likewise, the fact that the respective goods and services
may be highly technical in nature does not thereby limit the
purchasers of those goods and services to discriminating,
knowledgeable purchasers. In fact, both applicant’s and
registrant’s identifications of goods and services are so
Serial No. 79010903

14
broadly written as to encompass selling such goods and
rendering such services to all types of consumers for such
goods and services, which would, with respect to some of the
goods and all of the services, encompass general consumers
as well as technologically-sophisticated consumers.
Therefore, we conclude that in view of the substantial
similarity in the commercial impressions of applicant’s
mark, USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND, and registrant’s mark,
USERCENTRIC, their contemporaneous use on the overlapping
and related goods and services involved in this case is
likely to cause confusion as to the source or sponsorship of
such goods and services.
Mere Descriptiveness
The examining attorney contends that applicant’s mark
merely describes the kinds of telecommunications products
and services it offers. The examining attorney argues that
as it appears in applicant’s mark as a whole, USER-CENTRIC
is merely an adjective modifying the highly descriptive term
BROADBAND and, thus, USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND merely describes
a specific type of telecommunications product or service.
The examining attorney makes the following statement in this
regard:
[T]he term USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND merely
identifies a feature or characteristic of the
applicant’s telecommunications goods and services,
namely, that the applicant’s broadband
telecommunications services and products focus on
the user and are specially designed to fulfill the
Serial No. 79010903

15
particular and unique needs of the person
employing them. Indeed, the applicant’s own
advertising supports this finding.
(Brief, p. 15.)

The evidence of record submitted by the examining
attorney to establish the descriptiveness of the individual
terms in connection with the identified goods and services
includes the following:
• Definitions from various dictionaries of the individual
terms “user” (e.g., “an individual who uses a computer,
program, network, or related service for work or
entertainment,” www.computeruser.com, 2004); “centric”
(e.g., “centered upon or focused upon that named by the
first element,” www.infoplease.com/dictionary 2004);
and “broadband” (e.g., “of, relating to, or being a
communications network in which a frequency range is
divided into multiple independent channels for
simultaneous transmission of signals – as voice, data
or video,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2004).
• Several excerpts from applicant’s website and from
white papers published thereon, for example:
www.alcatel.com, excerpt dated March 29, 2005: In
today’s increasingly competitive environment,
borders between communication, information and
entertainment are becoming blurred.
Nevertheless, telecommunication operators are
striving to deliver differentiable services that
provide them with a sustainable competitive
advantage and help to expand their market share.
… Each of these competitive dynamics affords
operators exciting opportunities to catalyze
Serial No. 79010903

16
revenue and market share growth in a user-centric
broadband world.

www.alcatel.com, webpage entitled “User-Centric
Broadband Networks, includes the following
explanation, in part (emphasis in original):
Broadband service was initially introduced by
operators to deliver high-speed Internet access.
… As the network operators invest in improving
the quality, cost, performance and reliability of
their broadband networks, a new breed of
competitors that have easy access to these
enhanced networks are starting to deliver
innovative services as overlay on top of them ….
. . .
…[W]e have a vision of a future network centered
around a single Open Services Delivery
Environment (OSDE) that not only supports all
services, but also controls a single IP/optical
backbone. … This new network will enable
operators to offer flexible bundles of multiple
services with a level of quality largely superior
to what can be offered with the overlay model.
User-Centric Broadband (UCBS) Services and
Network
Service attributes
A satisfactory experience for users relies on a
number of factors, including:
- Broadband access everywhere with fixed and
wireless options.
- Seamless connectivity …
- User device awareness.
- Single user profile and identity management ….
. . .
Network architecture and service delivery
The UCBS transformation is from a broadband
network built to deliver a single service (High
Speed Internet; HIS) to one capable of providing
multiple services. These include triple play
(voice, high speed Internet access, video) and
will be extended with interactive gaming and home
working, with many combinations and applications
on top. The new model will make the network
provider a significant and differentiating player
in the service delivery value chain.
. . .

Serial No. 79010903

17
www.alcatel.com, webpage entitled “Winning the
Video Consumer with User-Centric Broadband,”
includes the following explanation:
User-Centric Broadband Services are services
centered on the users (consumer and business
user) which simplify their broadband experience.
Users can access them using any device, any
broadband connectivity, with a single sign-on,
consistent personalization and transparent
synchronization across the devices. Services in
which users feel unique and known, and do not
have to think about where to access them.
(emphasis added.)

• Lists of Google search results for the searches “user-
centric broadband” (13,000 hits) and “user centric
broadband” (40,400 hits for both phrases).
• Excerpt from Computerworld (Malaysia),4 March 2005,
article about Alcatel:
At its annual Enterprise Forum in Paris recently,
Alcatel reiterated its vision of a user-centric
broadband service that was first announced late
last year.
. . .
Growth in a user-centric broadband market will
create new opportunities for the
telecommunications service providers, where user-
centric applications can be delivered as premium
services to increase the average revenue per user
for services providers.

• White papers by applicant with the following titles:
1. “User-Centric Broadband Services: Demand Drivers and
Market Opportunities (Exploiting untapped user demand
for next-generation services enables operators to
generate revenue while building a sustainable
competitive advantage)” [Strategy White Paper]

4 We find this excerpt probative despite the fact that it is from a
Malaysian publication due to the global nature of the identified goods
and services.
Serial No. 79010903

18
2. “User-Centric Broadband Networks (Seamless delivery of
profitable new services to residential and business
users requires intelligent quality-aware IP networks)”
[Technology White Paper]

3. “Winning the Video Consumer with User-Centric Broadband
(A user-centric approach enables operators to offer
clearly differentiated services that address changing
consumer demands for video entertainment, thereby
exploiting their competitors weaknesses)” [Customer
Applications]

4. “Making User-Centric Broadband in Access a Reality (A
seamless combination of fixed, mobile and broadcast
access offers users an ‘always best connected’
experience)” [Strategy White Paper]

Also in support of his position, the examining attorney
submitted in his brief an excerpt from The Cambridge
International Dictionary of English (2002), of which we take
judicial notice, defining the suffix “centric” as “having
the stated thing as your main interest, e.g., Eurocentric.”
Applicant contends that the examining attorney has
reached an incorrect conclusion by improperly dissecting its
mark; that its mark as a whole is, at most, suggestive; that
“the compound formative USER-CENTRIC formed by hyphenating
two words should be considered to be unitary since it
creates a commercial impression separate from and apart from
any possible unregistrable component thereof.” (Brief, pp.
15-16.) Applicant argues that “because the lack of
relationship between USER-CENTRIC and BROADBAND creates a
mental pause …, the word BROADBAND has a stronger impact in
the mark than a merely descriptive word normally would.”
(Reply Brief, p. 4.) Applicant challenges the examining
Serial No. 79010903

19
attorney’s evidence of numerous uses of USER-CENTRIC
BROADBAND in Google search results with a follow-up Google
search showing that the vast majority of the references are
to applicant. Applicant disputes the examining attorney’s
contention that its own advertising uses the mark in a
descriptive manner, noting that “the mark [is] used as an
adjective modifying the generic term ‘services’ not as a
noun or verb in a descriptive manner” (brief, pp. 16-17),
adding that as a result of mere oversight, the mark was not
capitalized in applicant’s advertising. Finally, applicant
asks how its mark can be considered merely descriptive when
the cited registered mark is not merely descriptive. In its
reply brief (p. 2), applicant states that “the phrase USER-
CENTRIC is not a delivery means for broadband and there is
no evidence of record indicating that USER-CENTRIC is a
feature or class of broadband goods and services or has any
specific relationship to broadband whatsoever.”
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether it 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. In re Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed.
Cir. 2007); In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075
(TTAB 1986); and In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591
Serial No. 79010903

20
(TTAB 1979). It is not necessary, in order to find that a
mark is merely descriptive, that the mark describe each
feature of the goods or services, only that it describe a
single, significant quality, feature, etc. In re Venture
Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). 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 services
for which registration is sought, the context in which the
mark is used, and the impact that it is likely to make on
the average purchaser of such goods or services. In re
Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1977).
USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND merely identifies a feature or
characteristic of the applicant’s telecommunications goods
and services, namely, as stated by the examining attorney,
that the applicant’s broadband telecommunications services
and products focus on the user and are specially designed to
fulfill the particular and unique needs of the person
employing them. The fact that applicant may be the first to
use USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND does not render the term an
inherently distinctive mark. In re National Shooting Sports
Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1083 (TTAB 1983). Applicant
argues that the term USER-CENTRIC is a unitary term that
creates a commercial impression separate and apart from the
meanings of its individual components. We agree that USER-
Serial No. 79010903

21
CENTRIC is a unitary term. However, applicant has not
established that as a unitary term USER-CENTRIC has a
meaning different from, or incongruous with, the meaning of
the two individual terms, “user” and “centric,” so that
USER-CENTRIC is somehow unique. In fact, we find that USER-
CENTRIC serves merely as an adjective modifying the noun
BROADBAND, so that the mark as a whole merely describes a
broadband communications network that can offer
differentiated services to its users. The term is so used
descriptively in the evidence of record, including the
excerpts from applicant’s own website and the titles of its
White Papers. Thus, we find that USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND is
merely descriptive in connection with the identified
International Class 9 products used to render the services,
as well as in connection with the telecommunications service
itself, in International Class 38, and the installation,
maintenance and repair of this service and its component
parts, in International Class 37. It is immaterial in the
case before us that the term USER-CENTRIC is registered for
services specified herein because we must decide the issue
of mere descriptiveness on the facts before us. Similarly,
third-party registrations for either “user” or “centric”
formative marks are not relevant herein.
In conclusion, when applied to applicant’s goods and
services, the term USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND immediately
Serial No. 79010903

22
describes, without conjecture or speculation, a significant
feature or function of applicant’s goods and services.
Nothing requires the exercise of imagination, cogitation,
mental processing or gathering of further information in
order for purchasers of and prospective customers for
applicant’s services to readily perceive the merely
descriptive significance of the term USER-CENTRIC BROADBAND
as it pertains to applicant’s goods and services.
Decision: The refusals under Sections 2(d) and 2(e)(1)
of the Act are affirmed as to International Classes 9, 37
and 38.