DNI Holdings Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2005

No. 76330663 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2005)

Hearing: Mailed:
August 2, 2005 December 6, 2005
Bucher
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re DNI Holdings Ltd.
(by assignment from Nortech Investments Ltd.)1
________

Serial Nos. 76330663
_______

Steven A. Gibson of Santoro Driggs Walch Kearney Johnson &
Thompson for DNI Holdings Ltd.

Michael P. Keating, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Hairston and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
DNI Holdings Ltd. seeks registration on the Principal
Register, or in the alternative, on the Supplemental
Register, of the mark SPORTSBET INFO (standard character
drawing) for services recited in the application as follows:
“Provision of casino games on and through a
global computer network wherein there are no
actual monetary wagers; provision of contests
and sweepstakes on and through a global
computer network; providing a web site on and
through a global computer network featuring

1 This application was assigned from Nortech Investments Ltd.,
the original applicant at the time of filing, to DNI Holdings
Ltd., a corporation of Antigua and Barbuda, as of August 2005.
This assignment was recorded with the Assignment Division of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel 3147, Frame
0465.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76330663
- 2 -
information in the fields of gaming, athletic
competition and entertainment” in
International Class 41.2
This case is now before the Board on appeal from the
final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to
register this designation based upon the ground that the
proposed mark is generic for the identified services. In
the alternative, the Trademark Examining Attorney contends
that in the event this term should be found not to be
generic for the identified services, it is certainly merely
descriptive, and hence unregistrable on the Principal
Register.
Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney have
briefed this appeal,3 and at applicant’s request, a hearing
was held before this panel of the Board on August 2, 2005.
We affirm the refusal to register.
The record includes printouts of portions of online
websites that offer a peak into the world of online

2 Application Serial No. 76330650 was filed on October 25,
2001 based upon applicant’s allegation of first use anywhere and
first use in commerce at least as early as February 1, 2001.
3 Applicant’s appeal brief (April 29, 2003) and the Trademark
Examining Attorney’s brief (March 1, 2004) are both directed to a
previous final refusal based on the ground of mere
descriptiveness (when the application sought registration on the
Principal Register). Subsequent to the institution of the
appeal, following applicant’s request of March 18, 2004 for an
amendment to the Supplemental Register, the ground for refusal in
this case changed to genericness. While this refusal was
eventually made final, the Trademark Examining Attorney did not
prepare a supplemental brief dealing with the issue of
genericness. Applicant, however, did submit a reply brief
arguing that the term is not generic.
Serial No. 76330663
- 3 -
gambling, or, in applicant’s parlance, “gaming.” Along with
poker tournaments and casino games, many of these gambling
websites feature prominently their professional sportsbooks
– providing information regarding betting and sports, and
offering online wagering services. Through such sites, every
Internet user has ready access to, inter alia, online
sportsbook betting lines on a wide array of collegiate and
professional sports.
As seen in this record, applicant, on its own website,
identifies itself as follows:
“We are your gateway to the Internet’s
premier casino and sports wagering sites.

“With the help of our sponsor,
SPORTSBETTING.COM, we give you the latest
sports news, schedules, stats and more.
Simply click on your favorite sport below.

“If you prefer you can check out the latest
offshore sports betting odds on all major
North American and many European sporting
events.”

The balance of applicant’s website contains a section
that provides definitions of common terms used in the gaming
field; includes specific information on various sports, such
as professional football, professional basketball, tennis,
golf and horse racing, and the betting odds for those
wishing to place a bet on a particular sporting event or
athletic competition; and offers a “sports betting
newsletter” that is available via electronic mail.
Serial No. 76330663
- 4 -
As to the involved designation, the Trademark Examining
Attorney takes the position that inasmuch as a term such as
“sportsbet” is a collapsed term (i.e., two words combined
without a space between the words), and because the evidence
of record demonstrates that each of the constituent words is
generic, and because the separate words, when joined, form a
combined term having a meaning identical to the meaning
common usage would ascribe to those separate words when
joined, the Office has established that the term “sportsbet”
is generic when used in connection with these services. The
Trademark Examining Attorney argues correctly that the
absence of an entry for a compound term in the dictionary is
not controlling on the question of registrability if the
Office has demonstrated that the term has a well understood
and recognized meaning. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d
1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed Cir. 1987) [SCREENWIPE is generic
when used in connection with cleaning wipes for television
and computer screens].
The Trademark Examining Attorney argues that the two
words (i.e., SPORTS and BET) are joined together and used
generically on the Internet, for both sports wagering and
for providing information regarding sports and betting. The
Trademark Examining Attorney argues that the addition of the
term “info,” a shortened form or a variant of the generic
Serial No. 76330663
- 5 -
term, “information,” does not create source-identifying
significance when appended to the generic term, “sportsbet.”
The Trademark Examining Attorney also points out that
applicant, in Reg. No. 2940405, disclaimed the terms
SPORTSBET INFO apart from the special form mark as shown.4
Finally, even if the applied-for term is found to be not
generic, the Trademark Examining Attorney argues that it is
merely descriptive and, thus, is barred from registration on
the Principal Register.
By contrast, applicant argues that even if it is true
that applicant is providing services through its website
wherein consumers are actually able to wager money on
sports, applicant is not seeking registration for these
services. In fact, it specifically limited the claimed
services so as to exclude monetary wagering. As a result,
applicant argues that the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
refusal to register its mark cannot stand inasmuch as the
refusal is based upon genericness of the term for services
not claimed by applicant.

4 Reg. No. 2940407 issued to Nortech Investments Ltd. for
services recited as “broadcasting and netcasting services on and
through a global computer network featuring sports events,
contests, casino events, athletic events and entertainment
events” on the Principal Register on
April 12, 2005. According to the
registration, applicant makes no claim
to the terms SPORTSBET INFO apart from
the mark as shown.

Serial No. 76330663
- 6 -
It has been repeatedly stated that “[d]etermining
whether a mark is generic … involves a two-step inquiry:
First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue?
Second, is the term sought to be registered or retained on
the register understood by the relevant public primarily to
refer to that genus of goods or services?” H. Marvin Ginn
v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. 782 F.2d
987, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In a proceeding
such as this, the genus of the services at issue is
determined by focusing on the recital of services in the
application itself. Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d
638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991) [“Thus, a proper
genericness inquiry focuses on the description of services
set forth in [the application or] certificate of
registration.”].
Moreover, the burden rests with the Trademark Examining
Attorney to establish that the mark sought to be registered
is generic for the services. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1143
(Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must be able to satisfy both
elements of the test as set forth in the controlling
precedent of Marvin Ginn, bearing in mind that “[a]ptness is
insufficient to prove genericness.” See In re American
Fertility Society, 188 F.3d 1341, 51 USPQ2d 1832, 1836 (Fed.
Serial No. 76330663
- 7 -
Cir. 1999). It is incumbent upon the Trademark Examining
Attorney to make a “substantial showing … that the matter is
in fact generic.” Indeed, this substantial showing “must be
based on clear evidence of generic use.” Merrill Lynch, 4
USPQ2d at 1143. Thus, it is beyond dispute that “a strong
showing is required when the Office seeks to establish that
a term is generic.” In re K-T Zoe Furniture Inc., 16 F.3d
390, 29 USPQ2d 1787, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore,
doubt on the issue of genericness is resolved in favor of
the applicant. In re Waverly Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1620, 1624
(TTAB 1993).
Addressing the first part of the Marvin Ginn
genericness inquiry, applicant argues that a proper
genericness inquiry focuses on the description of services
as recited in the application – not on whether or not, for
example, applicant’s website actually take sports wagers.
However, even if, for the sake of argument, we were to
accept this position, applicant’s recitation of services
includes providing a website “featuring information in the
fields of gaming, athletic competition and entertainment.”
Hence, the class or category of services described in the
application still clearly includes that of providing
information regarding sports and betting. See In re
CyberFinancial.Net Inc., 65 USPQ2d 1789 (TTAB 2002)
Serial No. 76330663
- 8 -
[BONDS.COM generic for identified information services
related to investment securities even where applicant does
not buy or sell bonds].
We turn then to the second part of the Marvin Ginn
inquiry, namely, whether the term sought to be registered is
understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that
genus of services.
Not surprisingly, the Trademark Examining Attorney did
not find the combined terms “sportsbet” or “sportsbet info”
as single entries in a dictionary. Nonetheless, he argues
that inasmuch as applicant is seeking registration of the
designation SPORTSBET INFO for services including that of
providing a website featuring information on gambling and
betting on sports, the ordinary meanings of these words show
them to be generic for the recited services. Specifically,
as to the term “sportsbet,” the Trademark Examining Attorney
argues in his appeal brief that:
the words “sports” and “bet,” when combined
into a single term, refer to “an amount or
object risked on a wager” on a competitive
contest or “activity involving physical
exertion and skill that is governed by a set
of rules or customs,” such as sporting events
or athletic competition. THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(3rd ed. 1992). In addition, the term clearly
has significance in the field in which
applicant’s services are rendered. As shown
by the record herein, the term “sportsbet” is
commonly understood and recognized to refer
Serial No. 76330663
- 9 -
to the act of betting on sporting events or
athletic competitions, and providers of such
services commonly use the term “sportsbet” to
describe services and wagers of this nature.
See, e.g., pages from www.sportsbet.com.au,
www.sportsbet.co.za, and
www.sportsbetbookmaker.com, attached to the
Office Action of September 29, 2003. In
addition, the results of a search of the
GOOGLE® database attached to the Final Office
Action of August 30, 2002 for the term
“sportsbet” resulted in approximately 4300
hits ….

We find that the record shows that “sports bet” is the
equivalent of a “sports wager.” We have no doubt but that
joining the separate words “sports” and “bet” creates a term
that, in context, would be generic for a service that
permits one to wager on sporting events. As a matter of
trademark law, “sports bet” is equivalent to “sportsbet,”
which in its combined form is not greater than the sum of
its parts. See In re Gould Paper, supra; In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978)
[GASBADGE at least descriptive for gas monitoring badges;
three judges concurred in finding that term was the name of
the goods]; In re Planalytics Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453 (TTAB
2004) [GASBUYER merely descriptive of “on-line risk
management services in the field of pricing and purchasing
decisions for natural gas”]; In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196
USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977) [BREADSPRED descriptive for jams and
jellies that would be a spread for bread]; and In re Perkin-
Serial No. 76330663
- 10 -
Elmer Corp., 174 USPQ 57 (TTAB 1972) [LASERGAGE merely
descriptive for interferometers utilizing lasers].
As recited above, the second part of the Marvin Ginn
inquiry focuses on the perceptions and understandings of
members of the “relevant public.” In defining the relevant
public whose understanding and perception of the term
“sportsbet info” is critical to our analysis (see
Magic Wand Inc., supra at 1553), we must include all persons
having access to the Internet who might potentially wager on
sports, or who might seek information prior to making such a
wager.
The entire record shows that members of the relevant
public see the terms “sports bet” or its variant,
“sportsbet,” used as a part of trade names as well as domain
names5 within Internet websites. The Trademark Examining
Attorney argues that based upon a Google search report

5 Trademark Examining Attorney provides website references to
a number of third-party competitors incorporating the letter
string “sportsbet” in combination with other words, alpha-
numerics, names and symbols into their respective domain names:
http://www.sportsbet.com.au/
https://www.sportsbet.co.za/Index.asp
http://www.sportsbetbookmaker.com
http://www.tabsportsbet.com.au
http://www.sportsbetgamblingsportsbook.com
http://www.21st-Century-sportsbet.com
http://www.globalsportsbet.com.au
http://www.1casinosportsbet.com
http://www.allprosportsbet.com
http://www.2ksportsbet.com
http://www.makeasportsbet.com
http://www.sportbet.com
Serial No. 76330663
- 11 -
placed into the record, he has demonstrated that it is not
at all unusual for other sportsbook entities competing with
applicant to use the terms “sports bet” or “sportsbet” in a
generic fashion on their web pages in describing their
services. The Trademark Examining Attorney’s Google search
of the term “sportsbet” retrieved more than four thousand
hits, of which he printed out for the record ten pages of
the first one hundred summary hits.6
Moreover, we note that whether one looks closely at
applicant’s website or the websites of third-party
competitors made of record, much of the discussion about a
“sports bet” (or “sportsbet”) focuses on the need to gather
and analyze as much information as one can to become
knowledgeable about the particular sport on which one is
wagering. Hence, when it comes to sports bets, we find that
the information piece of applicant’s recited services is
inextricably tied into the actual wager. Moreover, the
record shows that the term “info” is a shortened, informal
variant of the term “information,” which in turn is defined
as “news, facts, or knowledge.” Cambridge Dictionary of
American English, and The American Heritage Dictionary of

6 See Internet search of August 2002 for “sportsbet” using the
Google search engine that found 4,300 hits, which results
included summary hits of the first hundred hits. Interestingly,
an identical Google search in November 2004 resulted in 232,000
hits.
Serial No. 76330663
- 12 -
the English Language (4th ed. 2000) (attached to Office
Action of September 25, 2003). We agree with the Trademark
Examining Attorney that the several dictionary entries in
the record demonstrate that “info” will definitely be seen
in this context as a shortened form of the term
“information.” Especially given the penchant for using
shorthand expressions on the Internet, the term “info” is
without a doubt generic for a website featuring information
services.7 The term “info” is disclaimed in a variety of
third-party registrations for services similar to those
being offered by applicant.
Accordingly, when members of the relevant public (i.e.,
persons with Internet access who might wager on sports) see
the terms “sports bet info” or “sportsbet info,” they would
view both of these interchangeable terms as generic for
websites providing information about sports wagers.

7 Another possible interpretation of the term “info” in this
composite mark is that of a new top-level domain name (TLD).
Given that applicant filed on the same day for four different
“biz” marks drawn similarly to its four companion “info” marks
[Serial Nos. 76330657 – 663], one might assume that in 2001
applicant was desirous of Lanham Act protection for composite
marks suspiciously similar to anticipated domain names (i.e.,
without the “dot”) employing what were then newly-announced
TLD’s, e.g., << www.sportsbetting.info >> or
<< www.sportsbetting.biz >> . However, even if the record
demonstrated that this were the dominant perception of the
relevant public, under extant Board precedent, this would still
not remove the genericness bar to registration herein. See In re
DNI Holdings Ltd., ___ USPQ2d ___ (November __, 2005, TTAB)
[SPORTSBETTING.COM generic for, inter alia, providing an Internet
website featuring information regarding sports and betting].
Serial No. 76330663
- 13 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney did an Internet search
during November 2004 for the combined term “sportsbet info”
using the Google search engine that found 51 hits, which
results placed into the record included summary hits of the
first twenty hits. In most of these summaries, the term
appeared nowhere in the summary. At least one referenced
website belongs to applicant.8 In other cases where the
combined term “sportsbet info” does appear in the summary,
we find that these summary listings of term do not provide
probative evidence that these terms actually appear in
readable text in the pages referenced therein. This is true
because it is not clear to us exactly how Google generates
this summary text, but it appears likely that these
occurrences may well be taken from metatags, embedded links
(including links to applicant’s websites) or other HTML
sources for the associated web pages.
Despite the failure of the Trademark Examining Attorney
to demonstrate usage by any third parties of the entire term
“sportsbet info,” we note that this is still a relatively
new cyber-service.9 Moreover, in the ordinary course of
interpreting the English-language construction of

8 http://www.sportsbet-info.com/
9 The more than fifty-fold increase in hits for the term
“sportsbet” over a two-year period (i.e., from more than four
thousand in 2002 to 232,000 in 2004) demonstrates the recent,
explosive growth of wagering on sports via the Internet.
Serial No. 76330663
- 14 -
“sportsbet info,” the term, “sportsbet” is a generic
adjectival term clarifying exactly what type of information
one can anticipate gleaning from this online service. The
record shows that each of these constituent terms is
generic, and together this compound term has a meaning
identical to the meaning common usage would ascribe to those
words as a whole. See In re Gould Paper, supra.
Specifically, we find that “sportsbet info” is generic for
an online service that provides information on sports
wagers. Hence, we find that the Office has established that
the combined term “sportsbet info” is incapable of
functioning as a mark for these services.
Having found the applied-for matter (the term
“sportsbet info”) generic for the third portion of the
recitation of services in International Class 41 herein,
namely, ‘providing information regarding sports and
betting,’ we hold that registration is appropriately denied
for the entire class of services if the term is generic for
any of the services for which registration is sought. See
In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 525, 205 USPQ
505, 507 (CCPA 1980). Accordingly, we do not find it
necessary to discuss further whether the term “sportsbet
info” is generic as used in connection with the first two
Serial No. 76330663
- 15 -
services recited in this application, e.g., casino games for
fun, contests and sweepstakes, etc.
As to the arguments by the Trademark Examining Attorney
that applicant has admitted to the fact that these
individual components are not registrable by disclaiming
them in an earlier registration, we recognize that §6 of the
Lanham Act permits an applicant to disclaim matter
voluntarily – regardless of whether the matter is
registrable or unregistrable. See In re MCI Communications
Corp., 21 USPQ2d 1534 (Comm’r Pats. 1991). Applicant’s
earlier statement that it made no claim to the exclusive
right to use the terms SPORTSBET INFO apart from the
composite mark as shown means that insofar as that
particular registration is concerned, no rights are being
asserted in the disclaimed component of the mark standing
alone. It is clear that a disclaimer does not preclude
registrant, as a matter of law, from later demonstrating in
another application, for example, rights in the disclaimed
matter if it can show that the disclaimed words have, with
time and use, become distinctive of such goods or services.
See Section 6(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1056(b);
See also, In re K-T Zoe Furniture Inc., supra at 1789.
However, it has long been held that the disclaimer of a term
constitutes an admission of the merely descriptive nature of
Serial No. 76330663
- 16 -
that term, as applied to the goods or services in connection
with which it is used, and an acknowledgment of the lack of
an exclusive right therein at the time of the disclaimer.
See Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 453
F.2d 1296, 172 USPQ 361, 363 (CCPA 1972). See also, In re
Interco Inc., 29 USPQ2d 2037, 2038 (TTAB 1993).
Finally, we agree with the Trademark Examining Attorney
that in the event SPORTSBET INFO should be found not to be
generic for the identified services, it is certainly merely
descriptive. By definition, if merely descriptive, it is
not inherently distinctive, and applicant has made no
attempt to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness for this
matter, so as to permit registration on the Principal
Register under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Decision: The refusal to register the designation
SPORTSBET INFO as incapable of registration under Section
23 of the Lanham Act is hereby affirmed, and registration to
applicant is denied. In the alternative, should the
applied-for term be found not to be generic for the
identified services, it is merely descriptive. Hence, in
the absence of a showing of acquired distinctiveness, the
refusal to register on the Principal Register based upon
Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act is hereby affirmed.