Invia Robotics, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2020

88160392 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2020)

This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: February 24, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

Invia Robotics, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 88160392
_____

Arman Katiraei of Ansari Katiraei LLP for Invia Robotics, Inc.

Susan Leslie DuBois, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Christopher Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Thurmon, Deputy Chief Administrative Trademark Judge, Wellington and
Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Thurmon, Deputy Chief Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register of the mark ROC (in
standard characters) for “Technical support, namely, monitoring functions of
different robots; Technical support services, namely, 24/7 monitoring of robots and
notification of related events and alerts” in International Class 42.1 The Examining

1 Application Serial Number 88160392, filed on October 18, 2018 based on an alleged use of
the mark in commerce in the United States, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(a).
Page references to the application record are to the downloadable .pdf version of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs, motions
and orders on appeal are to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Coming before the
designation TTABVUE is the docket entry number; and coming after this designation are the
page references, if applicable.
Serial No. 88160392

- 2 -

Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1), finding ROC was merely descriptive of the services. This appeal has been
fully briefed and the sole issue before the Board is whether the applied-for mark is
merely descriptive. We find that it is and affirm the refusal to register.
I. The Record and the Prosecution History
The record includes Internet evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney and
by Applicant.2 The Examining Attorney submitted evidence showing third parties
have used the phrase “Robotics Operations Center”3 and the acronym ROC to identify
services similar to those identified in the application.4 The Examining Attorney also
submitted evidence from Applicant’s Internet site demonstrating Applicant’s own
descriptive use of these terms.5 The Examining Attorney submitted a dictionary
definition of an “operations center.”6

2 The evidence submitted by Applicant does not meet the requirements for Internet evidence
because it does not show the date the materials were accessed. Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 1208.03. For reasons given below, we find Applicant’s
evidence of limited probative value, but we will include it in the record here because no
objection to the evidence was presented by the Examining Attorney.
3 The record shows minor variations in the phrase, including singular and plural versions of
the words “robotic” and “operation.” One use includes the word “operating” rather than
“operation” and another uses “centre” instead of “center.” We find these slight variations of
no consequence.
4 Office Action dated January 29, 2019 at 4-9; Office Action dated May 3, 2019 at 4-15; Office
Action dated July 22, 2019 at 7-30.
5 Office Action dated July 22, 2019 at 4-6.
6 Id. at 31 (“The facility or location on an installation, base, or facility used by the commander
to command, control and coordinate all crisis activities.”) (Free Dictionary). This definition
was taken from the Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, US Department of Defense
2005. A more general definition would have been more appropriate.
Serial No. 88160392

- 3 -

Applicant submitted evidence of the results of a Google search for “‘ROC’ robot”
which included a hit on the use by Applicant identified above.7 The search results
also include an entry for a Robotics Outpatient Center in Los Angeles.8 Applicant
later submitted results of searches for ROC on acronym finder and on
abbreviation.com. Each search produced over 100 results, but none that include the
words “robot” or “robotics.”9 Finally, Applicant submitted evidence of two uses of ROC
as an acronym for “remote operations center.”10
II. Applicable Law
Merely descriptive terms are unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).11 A term is merely descriptive within the meaning of Section
2(e)(1) “if it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or
characteristic of the goods or services for which registration is sought.” In re N.C.
Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A term “need not
immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the goods [or
services] in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods [or services].” In re Fat Boys

7 Response to Office Action dated April 24, 2019 at 7-8.
8 Id.
9 Request for Reconsideration dated June 19, 2019 at 5, 7-16.
10 Id. at 25-30. Applicant also submitted evidence in a document relating to a French research
institute document with the phrase, “The Robotics and Cobotics (ROC) team …” Id. at 22-23.
11 A descriptive term that has acquired distinctiveness may be registered under Section 2(f),
15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). Acquired distinctiveness is not an issue in this appeal.
Serial No. 88160392

- 4 -

Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Gyulay, 820
F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
“Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. Rather, it is
considered in relation to the particular goods [or services] for which registration is
sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible significance that the
term would have to the average purchaser of the goods [or services] because of the
manner of its use or intended use.” In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82
USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That a term may have different meanings in
different contexts is not controlling. Id. The question is whether someone who is
familiar with Applicant’s services will understand the applied-for mark to directly
convey information about those services. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.
Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re MBNA
Am. Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Mecca
Grade Growers, LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1950, 1953 (TTAB 2018).
“Evidence of the public’s understanding of [a] term . . . may be obtained from any
competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listing in
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers and other publications.” Royal Crown Co. v.
The Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “These
sources may include [w]ebsites, publications and use ‘in labels, packages, or in
advertising material directed to the goods [or services].’” N.C. Lottery, 123 USPQ2d
at 1710 (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
Serial No. 88160392

- 5 -

1978)). “Evidence that a term is merely descriptive similarly may come from an
applicant’s own usage …” In re Omniome, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 3222, *4 (TTAB 2020).
When the applied-for mark is alleged to be a merely descriptive acronym, we
follow a three-step inquiry:
1. Is the applied-for mark an acronym for a phrase?
2. Is the phrase merely descriptive? and,
3. Is a relevant consumer seeing the applied-for mark in connection with the
identified goods or services likely to recognize it as an acronym of the
merely descriptive phrase?
See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1715-16 (TTAB 2011).12
III. Analysis
A. Is ROC an Acronym for “Robotics Operations Center”?
This issue is conceded by Applicant, as shown by the following statement from its
Appeal Brief, “The applied-for mark is ROC, and Applicant uses the mark as an
acronym for ‘Robotics Operations Center’.”13 The third party evidence discussed below
also shows use of ROC as an acronym for Robotics Operations Center.

12 The Nelson decision uses the term “abbreviation,” in its three-part test, but concerned the
initialism NKJV for “New Kings James Version” of the bible. In the present case, the applied-
for mark ROC is allegedly an acronym for “Robotics Operation Center.” The Nelson three-
step approach is the correct analysis where the applied-for mark is alleged to be an
abbreviation, initialism or an acronym for an allegedly merely descriptive word or phrase.
13 7 TTABVUE 10.
Serial No. 88160392

- 6 -

B. Is “Robotics Operations Center” Merely Descriptive of the Identified
Services?
“Robotics Operations Center” is merely descriptive because a relevant consumer
seeing this phrase used in connection with Applicant’s robot monitoring services14
would immediately understand something about the services. The evidence shows
that relevant consumers would immediately understand that certain robot
monitoring functions are carried out at the Robotics Operations Center, namely that
this Center is a place where technicians and others perform some or all of the services
identified in the Application. The connection between the phrase and the services
could not be more direct.
We must determine descriptiveness from the perspective of a relevant consumer
who is familiar with the services. See, e.g., In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831
(descriptiveness evaluated from perspective of “average purchaser of the goods [or
services]”). The services identified in the application are “Technical support, namely,
monitoring functions of different robots; Technical support services, namely, 24/7

14 We use “robot monitoring services” in much of the remaining discussion as shorthand for
the services identified in the Application. We do this for two reasons. First, and perhaps most
obviously, it eliminates the need to repeatedly recite the full identification of services. Second,
and more importantly, “robot monitoring services” accurately captures two specific services
recited in the Application, and if the applied-for mark ROC is merely descriptive of those
services, the Section 2(e)(1) refusal must be affirmed. In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039,
1041, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he Trademark Office may require a
disclaimer as a condition of registration if the mark is merely descriptive for at least one of
the products or services involved.”); In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71
USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not
describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services,”); In re Positec Group
Ltd., 108 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (TTAB 2013) (“[I]f the mark is descriptive of some identified
items – or even just one – the whole class of goods still may be refused by the examiner.”).
Serial No. 88160392

- 7 -

monitoring of robots and notification of related events and alerts.”15 We find that
relevant consumers would be persons with technical knowledge, experience, or
background working with robots and robotics or automated systems and processes.
Relevant consumers will be familiar with this type of technology, what it can do, how
it is and might be used, and the challenges of implementing, monitoring, or
controlling the use of robotic and automated technology.
The Board’s decision in In re Mecca Grade Growers, 125 USPQ2d 1950, provides
a good example of the analysis needed when the goods or services are technical or
specialized in nature. The mark at issue in Mecca Grade Growers was
MECHANICALLY FLOOR-MALTED and the application identified “‘[m]alt for
brewing and distilling’ in International Class 31 and ‘[p]rocessing of agricultural
grain’ in International Class 40.” Id. at 1951. The evidence showed that floor malting
was a process used primarily in artisanal malting operations. Id. at 1953-54. “In
addition, the record shows that it is not uncommon for artisan brewers to market
their beer as ‘floor malted’ …” Id. at 1954. To relevant consumers, which included
artisan brewers and artisan malting companies, the phrase “mechanically floor-
malted” would “immediately convey[], without conjecture or speculation, an attribute
of Applicant’s malt and the mechanical nature of Applicant’s processing services.” Id.
at 1955. Thus, from the perspective of a relevant consumer “who knows what the
goods and services are” the mark was merely descriptive, the Board found. Id.

15 Application Serial Number 88160392.
Serial No. 88160392

- 8 -

We take the same approach here. We begin with the evidence of Applicant’s use
of the phrase “Robotics Operations Center.” The specimen Applicant submitted with
its application includes the following:

The Examining Attorney submitted evidence from Applicant’s website that included
the following:
16
The Google search results submitted by Applicant include this result for Applicant’s
services:

16 Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated July 22, 2019 at 4-6.
Serial No. 88160392

- 9 -

17
These examples of Applicant’s use support two conclusions relevant to this part of our
inquiry. First, Applicant consistently uses Robotics Operations Center in a
descriptive or generic manner. This Center is the subject or object of each phrase in
which it is used. It is never used as a modifier of other words or phrases. This usage
is evidence that the phrase “Robotics Operations Center” is at least merely
descriptive.
Second, these uses help us understand who the relevant consumers are. The
Robotics Operations Center has “engineers,” “technicians,” and “expert operators”
who monitor and send commands to robots. These materials are used to market
Applicant’s services, so it follows that the actual and prospective customers would
understand what these materials are saying. This evidence supports our finding that
the relevant consumers are familiar with the type of services provided by Applicant,
namely monitoring robots and robotic operations.
The third party evidence leads to the same two conclusions. The NASA use
includes the following:
18
The article about Kraft Heinz Company has the following use:

17 Response to Office Action dated April 24, 2019 at 7-8.
18 Office Action dated January 29, 2019 at 4-5.
Serial No. 88160392

- 10 -

19
The blog post mentioned above used ROC and the phrase in the following manner:
20
The use by TransformationAI includes the following:
21
The use by UiPath includes this sample:

19 Id. at 6-7.
20 Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated July 22, 2019 at 7-12.
21 Id. at 19-20.
Serial No. 88160392

- 11 -

22
This evidence shows that a relevant consumer who sees the phrase “Robotics
Operations Center” used with Applicant’s robot monitoring services, will immediately
understand that the robots are monitored at the Center. In re N.C. Lottery, 123
USPQ2d at 1709. No other conclusion is possible here because “the question is not
whether someone presented only with the [phrase ‘Robotics Operations Center’] could
guess the goods and services listed in the identification. Rather, the question is
whether someone who knows what the goods and services are will understand the
mark to convey information about them.” In re Mecca Grade Growers, 125 USPQ2d
at 1955.
Applicant gets the analysis backwards when it argues “some thought or a multi-
stage reasoning process would be required to associate ‘Robotics Operations Center’
with the listed services for ‘Technical support, namely, monitoring functions of
different robots; Technical support services, namely, 24/7 monitoring of robots and
notification of related events and alerts.’”23 The question is, when relevant consumers
see this phrase used with these services, would the consumers immediately

22 Id. at 25.
23 7 TTABVUE 15.
Serial No. 88160392

- 12 -

understand something about the services based on the phrase? We believe they
would, because the services—monitoring robots—are provided at or through the
Robotics Operations Center. The phrase tells relevant consumers where, and to an
extent how, the services are provided. No imagination is required to make such a
connection. The phrase “Robotics Operations Center” is merely descriptive.
C. Is a Typical Relevant Consumer Seeing ROC Used in Connection
with the Identified Services Likely to Recognize ROC as an Acronym
for “Robotics Operations Center”?
A relevant consumer who sees ROC used with Applicant’s robot monitoring
services will recognize that ROC is an acronym for Robotics Operations Center. The
evidence reviewed in the preceding section leaves no doubt on this point. One need
only notice how Applicant and third parties directly link the acronym ROC with the
phrase Robotics Operations Center. Again, no other conclusion is possible given the
evidence of record.
Applicant argues that ROC is not “substantially synonymous with ‘Robotics
Operations Center.’”24 Applicant’s argument misses the point. A word, phrase or
acronym may have different meanings in different contexts, but the question before
the Board is what ROC means to relevant consumers who see it used in connection
with Applicant’s robot monitoring services. In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831. And
within that context, the evidence is clear that ROC is used and understood as an
acronym for a Robotics Operations Center.

24 7 TTABVUE 13.
Serial No. 88160392

- 13 -

The evidence relied upon by Applicant does not undermine this conclusion. Much
of the evidence relied upon by Applicant is irrelevant because it does not relate to
robot monitoring or related services. For example, Applicant cites to searches it
conducted on the websites acronymfinder.com and abbreviations.com for ROC.25 Each
search produced over 100 results, but none of the results include the “Robotics
Operations Center” or the word robot or robotics.26 These were conducted within a
global universe. It is irrelevant that ROC is an acronym or abbreviation for many
other things.
The most probative evidence submitted by Applicant shows use of ROC as an
acronym for a Remote Operations Center used by an Arizona company that controls
drones in Australia from a “Remote Operations Center (ROC) …”27 The drones may
be a type of robot and this use does appear to show a party monitoring the functions
of the drones (i.e., robots) and using ROC to mean Remote Operations Center, rather
than Robotics Operations Center. This evidence, however, is of limited value for at
least two reasons.
First, it is a single use by a single party. There is no indication that this type of
use is common. The uses by Applicant (repeated at least three times in the record)
and the third party uses noted above are consistent and suggest a pattern of use
within the relevant technical sector. Second, it is not clear that drones are widely

25 Id. at 12.
26 Id.; Request for Reconsideration dated June 19, 2019 at 7-15 (submitting the search
results).
27 Id. at 25-26.
Serial No. 88160392

- 14 -

viewed as robots of the same kind mentioned in Applicant’s materials. Perhaps they
are, but we lack the evidence needed to draw such a conclusion. We simply cannot
take the leap from this isolated use of ROC for a Remote Operations Center to the
conclusion that relevant consumers do not recognize ROC, when used with robot
monitoring services, as an acronym for Robotics Operations Center.
The rest of Applicant’s evidence is even less probative. There is evidence of a
Robotics Outpatient Center in Los Angeles that uses ROC-LA to identify its
services.28 The evidence shows this party in 2018 began offering robotic surgical
procedures. Because this use involves robotics, it could be relevant. But to establish
relevancy, Applicant would need to show that this third party offers services similar
or related to those identified in the Application. The ROC-LA acronym is being used
by a health care provider to identify a particular type of surgical process. That is not
the relevant market segment. The services in the Application involve monitoring
robots and providing notifications of events and alerts relating to robots. The
Examining Attorney’s evidence related to similar services. Outpatient robotic surgery
is a different service. And there is no evidence these two segments overlap.
Applicant also submitted evidence of a French research institute that uses ROC
as an acronym or abbreviation for its Robotics and Cobotics team.29 There is a single
page from a cover page of a technical paper from an unknown source that states in
the abstract, “A tank robot was continuously teleoperated from ROC (remote operate

28 Request for Reconsideration dated June 19, 2019 at 19-20.
29 Id. at 22-23.
Serial No. 88160392

- 15 -

center); thereby condition of network was proven to be stable.”30 And there is a single
page showing use by a third party of “ROC Remote Operations Center,” but the
evidence does not show any robot monitoring services.31 Instead, it states, “ROC
connects your asset data to qualified personnel that can remotely monitor, analyze
and operate your facilities from our best-in-class control room and data centers.”32
None of this evidence is probative.33 It does not relate to the relevant services, does
not show what relevant consumers in the United States would understand ROC to
mean, and does not indicate whether any of these are more than isolated uses of ROC
as a convenient acronym or abbreviation rather than industry-wide practices.
Applicant also argues that the uses directly linking ROC and Robotics Operations
Center show that the acronym ROC is not widely understood.34 The probative
evidence of record leads to only one conclusion: A relevant consumer seeing ROC used
in connection with “Technical support, namely, monitoring functions of different
robots; Technical support services, namely, 24/7 monitoring of robots and notification
of related events and alerts” would recognize that ROC is an acronym for Robotics
Operations Center, a phrase that merely describes a feature of the services. We have

30 Id. at 28.
31 Id. at 24.
32 Id.
33 Applicant submitted two other pieces of evidence. One shows SciRoc as an abbreviation for
a “Smart City Robotic Challenge.” Id. at 29. The other shows Rock used as an abbreviation
for Robot Construction Kit. Id. at 31. This evidence involves different abbreviations and
different services and is not probative on the issues before the Board.
34 7 TTABVUE 14.
Serial No. 88160392

- 16 -

evaluated the three prongs of the In re Nelson inquiry and find ROC is merely
descriptive for Applicant’s services.
Decision: The refusal to register based on Section 2(e)(1) is affirmed.