Fullscreen, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

No. 85951468 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Hearing: February 23, 2016 Mailed: March 31, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Fullscreen, Inc.
_____

Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
_____

Julia Spoor Gard, Olivia M. Fleming, Caitlin R. Brandon and Felicia J. Boyd of
Barnes & Thornburg LLP for Fullscreen, Inc.

Khanh M. Le, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116, Christine Cooper,
Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wellington, Shaw and Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Fullscreen, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks Principal Register registrations for the mark
FULLSCREEN, in standard characters and the form shown below

for the following services:
promotional and distribution services in the field of audio,
video, digital, and multimedia entertainment content;
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
2

production and creation of advertising materials in the
nature of films, videos, movies, audio recordings, and music
recordings; electronic advertising media production
services, namely, film, video, music, and digital content
production; online advertising services; talent
management; talent development services, namely,
providing networking opportunities for persons seeking
careers in the field of entertainment in International Class
35;

entertainment services in the nature of the development,
creation, design, production, postproduction, and
distribution of audio, video, digital, and multimedia
entertainment content; entertainment services, namely,
multimedia program series in a variety of genres, namely
sports, fashion, food comedy, action, adventure, dance,
music, gaming, and popular culture, distributed via
various platforms across multiple forms of transmission
media; production and creation of entertainment in the
nature of films, videos, movies, audio recordings and music
recordings; electronic entertainment media production
services, namely, film, video, music, and digital content
production; online digital video, audio and multimedia
entertainment publishing services; talent development
services, namely, providing training and mentorship in the
fields of singing and acting for persons seeking careers in
the field of entertainment in International Class 41; and

design of multi-channel computer networks for delivery via
the internet, wireless networks and mobile networks in
International Class 42.1

Because she found that the term FULLSCREEN is merely descriptive of Applicant’s
services, the Examining Attorney refused registration of the standard character mark
in the ‘468 Application under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.

1 Application Serial Nos. 85951468 (the “‘468 Application”) and 85951513 (the “‘513
Application”), respectively, each filed June 5, 2013 based on first use dates of April 2011. The
‘513 Application includes this description of Applicant’s design mark: “The mark consists of
a shaded rectangle with a small rectangle unshaded in the lower left quadrant, followed by
the word FULLSCREEN.” As explained below, the Examining Attorney ultimately withdrew
the refusals with respect to the services listed in strikethrough text.
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
3

§ 1052(e)(1), and refused registration of the design mark in the ‘513 Application
absent a disclaimer of the term FULLSCREEN. After the refusals became final,
Applicant appealed, Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs and the
appeals were consolidated.
In her Appeal Brief, the Examining Attorney withdrew the refusals in part,
specifically with respect to: (1) “talent development services, namely, providing
training and mentorship in the fields of singing and acting for persons seeking careers
in the field of entertainment” in Class 35; (2) “talent development services, namely,
providing training and mentorship in the fields of singing and acting for persons
seeking careers in the field of entertainment” in Class 41; and (3) the services in Class
42. The services to which the refusals still apply, and which remain subject to this
appeal, are set forth in plain text above (the “Refused Services”), while the services
for which the refusals were withdrawn are presented in strikethrough text.
The Record
The Examining Attorney relies on a Wiktionary definition of the composite term
FULL SCREEN as meaning “Of a window occupying all the available displayable
surface of a screen.” Office Action of September 19, 2013 (printout from
“Wiktionary.org”).2 She also relies on third-party and media uses of the term “full-
screen” (or “full screen”) in the context of advertising, entertainment and distribution
services, including:
A December 13, 2013 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article
states: “They’ll offer businesses the chance to test tTap’s

2 Citations are to the record in the ‘468 Application.
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
4

effectiveness with free minicampaigns of 10,000
impressions. The regular rate will be $6 per thousand
impressions, or viewings – a premium price for mobile but
one tTap thinks is justified by full-screen advertising
that will be the first thing users see on their phone.”

A October 8, 2013 Pittsburg Post-Gazette article entitled
“Pros and Cons of Chromecast” states “IF you go to a TV
network website and play a program and then try to cast
that image, it might work. But you might also get a
message saying you do not have permission to cast this
content or when you switch the image to full screen on
your computer, the TV picture disappears.”

A July 25, 2013 Columbus Ledger-Enquirer (Georgia) live
video link states “Watch the game in the video box below
or click here to watch the game in full screen mode.”

A July 16, 2013 New York Business Journal article entitled
“Will Online Advertisers Be Happy in Vox Media’s
‘Fishtank’?” states “Vox, which publishes SB Nation,
Polygon and The Verge, recently engineered ‘Fishtank,’
which presents readers with full-screen advertisements
as they scroll through content.”

A May 13, 2013 Denver Post article states “The toughest
thing about Perfect Dog is the relentless stream of
advertising, including full-screen pop-ups.”

A February 3, 2012 San Francisco Chronicle article
entitled “New App ShowYou Shows Up YouTube” states
“Any time you see something that looks interesting, just
tap and the video will enlarge and begin to play. Tap one
button to make the video run full screen, and another to
stream it to an Apple TV using AirPlay.”

An April 26, 2011 USA Today article states “Be aware of
some full-screen advertisements – from the likes of
Citrix and America’s Natural Gas Alliance –that’ll pop up
when you first stream audio.”

An April 20, 2011 Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City)
article states “The department website, along with BYU-
TV’s Internet product, will feature full screen, high
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
5

definition streaming, along with already documented
worldwide broadcasting capability via satellite and cable
companies.”

An April 23, 2010 Salt Lake Tribune article states “The
new site … features interactive user interfaces, content
ratings, social sharing, multiple paths to access content,
full-screen videos, immersive maps, large backgrounds
and booking and planning tools.”

An April 9, 2010 DMNews article entitled “Apple Unveils
iAd Mobile Advertising Platform” states “It will give
advertisers the ability to run full-screen video and
interactive ad content without requiring the user to
navigate away from an app.”

An April 9, 2010 Investor’s Business Daily article states
“With the iAd platform, advertising can show off
interactive ad content and full-screen video without ever
leaving the application.”

A March 31, 2010 Providence Journal article states
“Imagine being able to stream full-screen, high-definition
movies to your computer or mobile device on demand
without the stops and starts or the fuzzy picture that
plague Internet video today.”

A November 12, 2009 Philadelphia Daily News article
states “In any case, the reputation of his ‘Prisoner,’ which
is currently available for full-screen streaming at
amctv.com, remains safe.”

A June 18, 2009 Kansas City Star article states “Simmons
told me she has been experimenting with video encoding of
KCPT programs so that the picture is optimal for the Web.
It looks sharp even in full-screen mode.”

An April 7, 2009 Grand Rapid Press article states “Users
can stream full-screen, nearly commercial-free episodes
of such shows as ‘24’ and ‘Prison Break’ without hiccups,
even with slower speeds of DSL, after downloading a small
browser add-on.”

Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
6

A December 8, 2008 RCR Wireless News article states “The
company’s AdWrap technology takes full-screen images,
video content and scrolling banners and automatically
inserts them into mobile video games and applications.”

An October 21, 2008 Daily Variety article states “The New
York Times reviewed the film both in print and online; A.O.
Scott praised the full-screen high-def streaming
available on the site.”

An April 10, 2008 Los Angeles Times article states “Payne
said the tournament is reaching out to a younger audience
by televising the par-three contest for the first time and
expanding its online content to include full-screen
streaming video, photo sharing and blogs.”

A January 7, 2008 Seattle Times article states “The
Olympics site, www.nbcolympics.com, is expected to offer
some 2,200 hours of live event coverage from the games
with up to 30 streams of full-screen content to choose
from.”

An August 24, 2007 San Diego Union-Tribune article states
“The company uses peer-to-peer software to deliver video,
which it says it allows it to stream and download full-
screen, high quality shows.”

A May 18, 2007 Hollywood Reporter article states “The new
programming alliances … further the company’s strategy
to provide full-screen video content from Hollywood
studios, TV networks and independent producers directly
to consumers.”

A March 3, 2007 Chicago Sun Times article entitled “TV
On Cells Has Come Long Way: MobiTV Offers a Fun And
Simple Solution For People Seeking TV On the Run” states
“I often opted to view content in full-screen mode,
which, in 10 seconds, alters the image to take over the
whole screen in horizontal view.”

A January 25, 2007 Orange County Register article quotes
an interviewee as stating “What we’re doing uniquely is to
focus on high-definition content – full screen, not just
iPod screens.”
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
7

A December 28, 2006 Brandenton Herald article states
“The site features a gallery of full-screen, high-
resolution images and streaming, full-screen, on-
demand video.”

A November 1, 2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article
entitled “Internet Closer to TV with Startup” states
“GridNetworks, a two-year old Seattle startup led by
Internet veterans Jeff Payne and Bo Wandell, today plans
to unveil a new content delivery service that streams full-
screen ‘DVD-quality’ video on behalf of
entertainment companies.”

A September 6, 2006 Knight-Ridder Tribune Business
News article entitled “A-B Will Launch Online
Entertainment Network,” states “The material will include
both original and mainstream programming, and Bud TV’s
desktop application will allow users to view the content in
full-screen DVD quality, the company said Tuesday.”

A December 5, 2005 Florida Time-Union article states “The
software (called Veoh) is available for Macs and PCs and
enables those with high-speed connections to watch full
screen video content on a virtual television network.”

A September 23, 2002 Network World article states
“Whether the original content is displayed full-screen
or in a single pixel depends on how much the content
provider or subscriber is willing to pay.”

A January 22, 2001 Daily Variety article states “On2’s
software allows users to view high-resolution, full-
screen video streamed over the Internet.”

A September 25, 2000 Network World article states
“Digital Pipe uses its own servers and some proprietary
technology to ease the bandwidth burden of video
streaming and claims to deliver full-screen, TV-style
video to users.”

A September 4, 2000 Network World article states “But the
highlight is billed to be the end-all be-all of streaming:
full-screen, full-motion video.”
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
8

A November 24, 1999 Boston Herald article states
“Gamesville is pushing the Internet advertising
envelope with full-screen commercials that often
include video.”

A February 22, 1999 Computerworld article quotes a
marketing director as stating “They have taken Web
advertising to the next level – the full-screen format
lets an advertiser do much more.”

A January 2, 1999 New York Post article states “Game
players on the site (www.gamesville.com) get to play eight
minutes of games for free and then receive two minutes of
full-screen web advertisements.”

An October 18, 1998 Atlanta Journal and Constitution
article states And while you’re waiting, you have to look at
a full-screen advertisement for Dep hair care products.
Yuck.”

A June 1, 1998 Network World article states “Hard as it is
to believe, you may someday come to miss those Internet
banner ads. That’s because a start-up is about to inflict
upon cyberspace new technology that enables advertisers
to run full-screen Internet ads.”

A June 2, 1997 New York Times article states “As a result,
the reckless surfer who types micorsoft.com will connect to
a Web page that is programmed to splash a 15-second full-
screen advertisement in the browser window before
referring him to Microsoft’s web site.”

A May 11, 2011 Kansas City Star article states “In
revealing the acquisition by Microsoft, Skype executives
said they were developing full-screen advertising to be
shown either during calls or before connections are made.
In fact, analysts see it as a way to draw more customers to
its various advertising platforms, like the Bing search
engine that still trails far behind Google.”

A June 1, 2008 San Antonio Express-News article states
“There are a few details missing, mostly nerd stuff, such as
the fact that since Pixar films are entirely digital, they can
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
9

easily create widescreen and full-screen versions
without losing (as much) detail as conventional films do for
home video release.”

An August 7, 2000 Washington Times article quotes the
senior vice president of KMGI.com as stating “Producing
video using animation allows us to create engaging full-
screen video that is cheaper to produce than video for
television.”

An April 8, 1999 New York Times article entitled “A
Graphics Card is Putting the Home DVD Into Range”
states “What makes the $170 card noteworthy is that it is
the first retail product to include new technology that
makes it much more affordable to compress digital video
into MPEG form, the standard for such files. That has been
a very expensive process; the cost of creating full-motion,
full screen digital video images has been thousands of
dollars.”

An April 13, 1998 Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) article
entitled “Internet Advertising Tripled in ’97, Nears Billion
Dollar Mark,” states “Intel’s Intercast technology allows
television programmers to create full-screen interactive
programming by combining TV with digital
enhancements.”

A June 24, 1993 San Francisco Chronicle article states “For
example, Radius Inc., a San Jose-maker of computer
graphics equipment introduced yesterday a product that
will make it possible to produce full-motion, full-screen,
digital video movies on Macintosh computers
comparable in quality to any shot on film or video tape.”

A May 22, 2008 hollywoodreporter.com article entitled
“ABC Upgrades Online Video Player” states “Among the
bells and whistles for the broadcaster’s online destination
are full-screen viewing, closed captioning and the ability
to send video links that can be embedded on blogs and
social networks.”

A January 7, 2008 Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, MA)
article states “VSM Cinema presents films (short
documentaries, dramas, comedies and animation) that are
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
10

streamed online in high-resolution and full-screen
format.”

An October 21, 1999 Dallas Morning News article states
“The concert promotes the launch of pixelon.com, billed as
the first online broadcast network with full-screen,
TV-quality video and audio.”

A September 21, 1999 Daily Variety article states
“Kankaris, which broadcasts more than 60 full-screen,
full-length films online for free, will retain its current
corporate and hardware/technical division offices in nearby
Costa Mesa.”

Office Actions of July 29, 2014 and September 19, 2013.
Applicable Law
A mark is deemed to be merely descriptive, within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1),
if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, characteristic or
purpose of the services for which it is 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)); and In re Abcor Development, 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18
(CCPA 1978). A mark need not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific
feature of the services in order to be considered merely descriptive; rather, it is
sufficient that the mark describes one significant attribute, function or property of
the services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, 675 F.3d
1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358
(TTAB 1982); and In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973). Whether a mark
is merely descriptive is determined not in the abstract, but in relation to the services
for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used on or in
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
11

connection with the services, and the possible significance that the mark would have
to the average purchaser of the services because of the manner of its use. In re Bright-
Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). It is settled that “[t]he question is not
whether someone presented with only the mark could guess what the goods or
services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows what the goods or
services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.” In re Tower
Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on
whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression.
If each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the
services, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See
e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370 (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); In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 2009)
(BATTLECAM merely descriptive for computer game software); In re Carlson, 91
USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009) (URBANHOUZING merely descriptive of real estate
brokerage, real estate consultation and real estate listing services); In re Tower Tech,
64 USPQ2d at 1314 (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of commercial and industrial
cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001)
(AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer programs for use in developing and
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
12

deploying application programs); In re Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021
(TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ONLINE merely descriptive of news and
information services in the food processing industry).
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).
Analysis
The evidence of record establishes that the term FULLSCREEN is merely
descriptive of the Refused Services. In fact, with respect to the distribution of video,
digital and multimedia entertainment content in Class 35 and the development,
creation, production and distribution of video, digital and multimedia entertainment
content in Class 41, the record reveals that being viewable in “full screen” format is
a common, desirable feature. For example, the April 7, 2009 Grand Rapid Press
article indicates that features of a browser add-on include the ability to stream
episodes of television shows (which are forms of video and digital entertainment such
as Applicant develops and distributes) in “full-screen” format, commercial-free.
Several articles address the desirability of streaming sports content (a type of video
and digital entertainment such as Applicant develops and distributes) in “full-screen”
format. And the May 22, 2008 hollywoodreporter.com article includes “full-screen
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
13

viewing” of television shows as among the “bells and whistles” of a broadcast
network’s online destination.
Similarly, the evidence reveals that a common feature of advertising materials in
the nature of films, videos and digital content, such as Applicant claims to produce
and create in its Class 35 identification of services, is that the advertising content is
viewable in “full screen.” This feature is revealed to be highly desirable for
advertisers, even if sometimes off-putting to the intended audience.3 For example,
the December 13, 2013 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article indicates that tTap will
charge a “premium price for mobile” advertising, which it believes is “justified by full-
screen advertising ….” Multiple articles about Apple’s iAd advertising platform
reveal that one of its features is its ability to “run full-screen video” (such as the
advertising video Applicant produces and creates), without leaving an app.
Furthermore, according to the September 23, 2002 Network World article, content
displayed in “full-screen” format commands a higher price than content displayed on
less than a “full screen,” which reveals that being displayed in “full screen” is a
valuable quality or characteristic of content such as the entertainment and
advertising content Applicant produces, creates and distributes. In fact, another
Network World article, from September 4, 2000, indicates that “full-screen, full-
motion video” is the “end-all be-all” of streaming, with streaming being a method of

3 October 18, 1998 Atlanta Journal and Constitution article (including this description of a
full-screen advertisement: “Yuck.”); June 1, 1998 Network World article (indicating that as a
result of full-screen advertisements “you may someday come to miss those Internet banner
ads.”).
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
14

distributing video and digital content, which is encompassed by Applicant’s Refused
Services. Similarly, a marketing director interviewed in the February 22, 1999
Computerworld article refers to “full-screen” advertising as the “next level” of Web
advertising.
Applicant effectively concedes the point. It introduced a printout from “cnbc.com”
which includes a quote from its Chief Executive Officer, who stated “When you watch
a video in full screen, it expands to fill the screen and receive your undivided
attention. Our mission at Fullscreen is to empower the next generation of video
creators.” Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration Ex. G; Applicant’s Reply Brief at
5. Obviously, when video, digital or other types of content, and perhaps especially
advertising content, is able to “receive your undivided attention,” it becomes more
valuable to the producers, creators and distributors of the content.
Where, as here, a proposed mark is descriptive of a desirable characteristic of the
goods or services for which it is used, it may be found merely descriptive. In re
National Rent A Fence, Inc., 220 USPQ 479, 480 (TTAB 1983) (finding NATIONAL
RENT A FENCE, with RENT A FENCE disclaimed, to be merely descriptive of fence
rental services because “the national scope of applicant’s services is a desirable
characteristic of them. Another national corporation renting fences … could find it
greatly advantageous to deal with one nationwide fence rental company … Applicant
itself emphasizes the significance of the national aspect of its business …”); In re Allen
Hollander Co., Inc., 170 USPQ 422 (TTAB 1971) (finding EASY-PEEL merely
descriptive of labels, tags, including labels and tags bearing adhesive, because it
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
15

“immediately describes a desirable characteristic of the goods to which it is applied).
See also, In re Boston Beer Co., L.P., 47 USPQ2d 1914, 1920-21 (TTAB 1998), aff’d,
198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
The record also reveals that Applicant’s competitors need to use the term “full
screen.” For example, the February 3, 2012 San Francisco Chronicle article entitled
“New App ShowYou Shows Up YouTube” is apparently about a YouTube competitor,
and indicates that by tapping a single button the YouTube competitor’s app will play
a video in “full screen” format. Applicant’s original specimen makes clear how closely
Applicant’s services are tied to YouTube, as it bears the heading “We are building the
global video network of the future. On YouTube.” In other words, just as the ShowYou
app is a YouTube competitor, it is, by extension, also one of Applicant’s competitors.
A number of Applicant’s other competitors also use “full screen” in connection with
Applicant’s Refused Services, such as producing and distributing entertainment and
advertising content in video and digital formats. See e.g., July 25, 2013 Columbus
Ledger-Enquirer article; April 10, 2008 Los Angeles Times article; January 25, 2007
Orange County Register article; August 7, 2000 Washington Times article. Where, as
here, an applicant’s competitors have a need to use the term in question to describe
their similar goods or services, a mark may be found to be merely descriptive. In re
Boston Beer, 47 USPQ2d at 1920-21 (“These words, as well as such other expressions
as ‘Best Car in America,’ ‘Best Hotel in the State’ and ‘Best Restaurant in Town,’ for
example, are slogans which can be referred to as mere ‘puffery.’ Such claims of
superiority should be freely available to all competitors in any given field to refer to
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
16

their products or services ….”); In re Abcor Development, 200 USPQ at 217 (“The
major reasons for not protecting [merely descriptive] marks are … to maintain
freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of
harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when
advertising or describing their own products.”); see also, Saint-Gobain Corp. v. 3M
Co., 90 USPQ2d 1425 (TTAB 2007).
This case is in some ways analogous to In re Tokutake Industry Co., 87 USPQ2d
1697 (TTAB 2008). There, we affirmed a refusal to register AYUMI & Design for
footwear, because AYUMI means “walking, a step” in Japanese, and the applicant’s
goods, footwear, could encompass footwear designed for walking. In Tokutake, we
stated that “[n]othing prevents the term ‘ayumi’ from being viewed as a noun that
merely describes the activity for which the shoes are particularly designed, such as
walking, running, soccer, basketball, etc.” Id. at 1701. Similarly, in this case,
consumers could view the term “fullscreen” as describing the format in which
Applicant’s video/digital/multimedia entertainment and advertising content is
displayed.
Conclusion
Applicant is correct that doubt must be resolved in its favor. However, we have no
doubt. The term “fullscreen” is merely descriptive of a desirable feature of the
entertainment and advertising content which Applicant creates, produces and/or
distributes. Accordingly, the refusal to register Applicant’s standard character mark
Serial Nos. 85951468 and 85951513
17

and the disclaimer requirement imposed on the application to register Applicant’s
design mark are both affirmed.

Decision: The refusal to register the standard character mark in the ‘468
Application for the Refused Services is affirmed. The refusal to register the design
mark in the ‘513 Application for the Refused Services in the absence of a disclaimer
of FULLSCREEN is affirmed. This decision with respect to the ‘513 Application will
be set aside if, within thirty days of the mailing date of this order, Applicant submits
to the Board a proper disclaimer of FULLSCREEN. Trademark Rule 2.142(g). The
disclaimer should be worded as follows: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to
use FULLSCREEN apart from the mark as shown.”
Both applications will proceed to registration with respect to “talent management;
talent development services, namely, providing networking opportunities for persons
seeking careers in the field of entertainment” in Class 35; “talent development
services, namely, providing training and mentorship in the fields of singing and
acting for persons seeking careers in the field of entertainment” in Class 41; and the
services in Class 42.