Gregory Gowasack

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2008

No. 78721011 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2008)

Mailed: September 29, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_______

In re Gregory Gowasack
_______

Application Serial No. 78721011
_______

Albert A. Chapar, Jr. of The Chapar Firm for Gregory
Gowasack.

Anne Farrell, Examining Attorney, Law Office 105, Thomas G.
Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Walsh, Taylor, and Mermelstein, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Mermelstein, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration of the mark CASACREOLE (in
standard characters) for “restaurant services, namely,
providing food and drink” in International Class 43.1
Registration has been finally refused under Trademark Act
§ 2(e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that the
proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods.
We affirm.
I. Applicable Law
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys
knowledge of a significant quality, characteristic,

1 Filed September 27, 2005, based on the allegation of a bona
fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Application Serial No. 78721011
2
function, feature or purpose of the goods with which it is
used. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Whether a particular term is merely descriptive is
determined in relation to the products for which
registration is sought and the context in which the term is
used, not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In
re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). In
other words, the issue is whether someone who knows what the
products are will understand the mark to convey information
about them. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-
1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent & Trademark Serv. Inc., 49
USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Ass’n of
Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (TTAB 1990); In re Am.
Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
“On the other hand, if one must exercise mature thought
or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to
determine what product or service characteristics the term
indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely
descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ
496, 497 (TTAB 1978); see also In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363,
364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Sys., Inc., 209
USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980). Even where individual terms are
descriptive, combining them may evoke a new and unique
commercial impression. If each component retains its merely
Application Serial No. 78721011
3
descriptive significance in relation to the goods, without
the combination of terms creating a unique or incongruous
meaning, then the resulting combination is also merely
descriptive. In re Tower Tech., 64 USPQ2d at 1317-1318.
II. Discussion
We begin by considering the meaning of the words
comprising applicant’s mark. The examining attorney
contends that “casa” means “house,” a term that can describe
a restaurant, and that “creole” is a type of cuisine. The
examining attorney submitted the following definitions with
the first Office action:
house
. . .
5.a. A facility, such as a theater or restaurant
that provides entertainment or food for the
public....

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(4th ed. 2000)(online ed. www.yourdictionary.com (March 30,
2006).
Creole
. . .
n.
1. A person or European descent born in the West
Indies or Spanish America.
. . .
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the
Creoles.

Id.
In addition, the examining attorney submitted a
translation indicating that the word “casa” in Spanish means
Application Serial No. 78721011
4
“house” in English, Babel Fish Translation, http://world.-
altavista.com/tr (March 30, 2006), and several third-party
registrations, all including “restaurant services,” and a
disclaimer of “casa” (six registrations2) or “creole” (four
registrations).
Applicant admits that “‘casa’ translates literally to
‘house...,’” Req. for Recon. at 1-2, but argues that the
Babel Fish translation does not capture the nuance of the
word “casa,” citing a definition from a Spanish dictionary
found at www.diccionarios.com. Applicant submitted a copy
of this definition, which is all in Spanish and more than a
page long, comprising what appears to be eleven different
meanings or senses of the word. Applicant also submitted
its own Babel Fish translation of a small portion of the
Spanish definition of “casa.” From this evidence, applicant
argues that “casa” means “set of the members of a family,
specially those that the same address or the most direct
relatives lives in [sic].”
We attach little probative weight to applicant’s
definition of “casa.” As is common with words in English,

2 We have not considered Registration No. 2212119. This
registration was issued under the provisions of Trademark Act
§ 44, which does not require use of the mark in U.S. commerce
prior to registration. Such registrations may normally be relied
upon for these purposes once the registrant files an allegation
of use pursuant to Trademark Act § 8. However, although a
Section 8 filing has been made and accepted with respect to the
‘119 Registration, it was based on an allegation of excusable
nonuse. Because there is no indication that the mark has been
used in U.S. commerce, we do not consider it probative of the
Application Serial No. 78721011
5
it appears that the word “casa” has a number of meanings or
senses in Spanish. When considering whether a mark is
descriptive, we are not concerned with what a word may mean
in the abstract or in relation to other goods or services.
Instead, we must determine whether the mark has a
descriptive meaning in relation to the identified goods or
services. Applicant’s submission of a translation of only a
small part of a Spanish dictionary entry for the word does
not undercut the examining attorney’s argument, because we
cannot determine whether this particular part of the
definition is most relevant to applicant’s services.
We agree with the examining attorney that “casa” would
readily be understood to mean “house,” and in particular,
that it has the same meaning as the English word “house”
when used in relation to a restaurant. It can hardly be
disputed that “casa” is an extremely common Spanish word
that would be immediately familiar to and understood by
those with even a minimal grasp of that language. Indeed,
it is arguable that the word has become a part of the
English language, and needs no translation at all.3

meaning of “casa” in the United States.
3 See Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), based on RANDOM HOUSE
UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, (2006)(online ed. http://dictionary.-
reference.com/browse/casa)(“casa ... –noun Southwestern U.S. a
house”); WEBSTER'S REVISED UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY (1998) (online ed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/casa)(“A house or
mansion”). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary
definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imp.
Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505
(Fed. Cir. 1983), including online dictionaries that exist in
Application Serial No. 78721011
6
Moreover, the third-party registrations submitted by the
examining attorney make clear that like the word “house,”
“casa” is descriptive of restaurant services.4
Applicant does not dispute that “creole” is a type of
cuisine, and has in fact submitted its own evidence about
creole cuisine. Applicant’s disagreement with the examining
attorney centers around just what creole cuisine is, and
whether it is the same as the cuisine served in applicant’s
restaurant. While the examining attorney argues that
Caribbean food can be considered “creole,” applicant
contends that American consumers are more likely understand
“creole” food to be that of the French-Louisiana tradition.
Applicant’s chief argument is that its restaurant serves
Caribbean, not French or French-Louisiana cuisine, and that
the mark is therefore not descriptive of applicant’s
restaurant services. App. Br. at 6. As stated in
applicant’s request for reconsideration:
If one imagines an American consumer looking through
the phone book and seeing an entry for CaSaCreole, the
consumer will not know if it is a restaurant, hotel, or
a furniture store or the type of goods or services it
provides. The consumer will think “Creole House, what
could that be?” Since the test requires that one
understands what the goods and services are, the

printed format or have regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull
GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (TTAB 2006).
4 Applicant has submitted one pending application and one
registration seeking registration of the word CRIOLLO, one for
“wine” and one for “entertainment services. These records for a
different mark and different goods and services have no bearing
on whether applicant’s mark is descriptive of applicant’s
restaurant services.
Application Serial No. 78721011
7
American consumer now flips through the Yellow Pages
and sees and entry under restaurants for CaSaCreole.
Applicant has included evidence that Americans
understand Creole to be French Creole generally from
Louisiana. Therefore, even the consumer who knows that
CaSaCreole is a restaurant will likely think that it is
a Louisiana French Creole restaurant. The consumer
would be wrong. Creole in CaSaCreole conveys the rich
ethnic roots associated with all parts of the
Caribbean. This uncertainty and strong American
association of French influences with Creole leave no
doubt that CaSaCreole is a suggestive mark.

Req. for Recon. At 2-3.
We think that the examining attorney and applicant both
miss the point. As applicant acknowledges, descriptiveness
must be determined in relation to the identified services,
and not in the abstract. App. Br. at 2-3; see In re Abcor
Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); In
re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). The proper
test thus looks to the services recited in the application,
and not to whatever applicant’s actual services may prove to
be.5 By the same token, when services are broadly stated in
an application, they must be construed to include all such
services, and not just those which applicant actually
offers. E.g., In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953
(TTAB 2006)(“If the cited registration describes goods or
services broadly, ... it is presumed that the registration

5 We note that applicant has applied for registration under the
“intent to use” provisions of the Trademark Act, and has not yet
filed an allegation of use. Nonetheless, we gather from
applicant’s argument and evidence that applicant is in fact using
its mark.

Application Serial No. 78721011
8
encompasses all goods or services of the type described...,”
citing In re Linkvest S.A., 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB 1992)).
Considered in the correct legal perspective,
applicant’s argument about whether “creole” describes the
type of food actually served in its restaurant is of no
relevance. Applicant’s services are broadly described as
“restaurant services, namely, providing food and drink.”
Because applicant’s services are not limited to any
particular cuisine, we must construe them to involve
providing all types of food and drink, including creole.
Accordingly, we need not decide whether Caribbean cuisine is
“creole” or not. Applicant does not dispute that “creole”
is a type of cuisine which is served in restaurants, and we
must consider it to be within the scope of applicant’s
services for purposes of our descriptiveness analysis.
III. Conclusion
After careful consideration, we find that applicant’s
mark, CASACREOLE, is merely descriptive of the restaurant
services recited in its application. Although not
specifically addressed by applicant, we agree with the
examining attorney that the combination of merely
descriptive terms in applicant’s mark does not create a non-
descriptive composite. Instead, the evidence of record
establishes that potential purchasers would immediately, and
without further conjecture, understand applicant’s mark to
Application Serial No. 78721011
9
refer to a restaurant serving creole cuisine. That
applicant’s restaurant does not actually serve creole
cuisine is not relevant because the subject application is
not limited to any particular type of restaurant services.
Applicant correctly points out that in a
descriptiveness case, it is entitled to the benefit of any
doubt. Nonetheless, we have no doubt that applicant’s mark
is merely descriptive of the recited services. Registration
is accordingly barred under Trademark Act § 2(e)(1).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.