Lifemasters Supported Selfcare, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2000

No. 75378636 (T.T.A.B. May. 31, 2000)

Paper No. 9
JQ
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MAY 31, 2000
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Lifemasters Supported Selfcare, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/378,636
_______
Lisa T. Simpson and Peter Bucci of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe for applicant.
Ann E. Sappenfield, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 113 (Meryl Hershkowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Quinn and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Lifemasters Supported
Selfcare, Inc., by change of name from HiLife Incorporated,
to register the mark SUPPORTED SELFCARE for “health
information and monitoring services by which health care
professionals can monitor and track through remote and non-
Ser No. 75/378,636
2
remote means the current status of patients.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act on the ground
that applicant’s mark, when applied to applicant’s
services, is merely descriptive thereof.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs. An
oral hearing was not requested.
Applicant “does not dispute the Examiner’s conclusion,
which is supported by citations to various excerpted
articles, that the separate terms ‘supported care’ and
‘selfcare’ are individually descriptive of two different
types of health care services.” (response, October 2,
1998) In urging that the refusal be reversed, applicant
argues, however, that its mark is just suggestive. More
specifically, applicant contends that there is an inherent
contradiction in the terms comprising its mark which
renders the mark incongruous. Applicant argues that
“[w]hile supported care suggests a controlled and dependent
health care environment, selfcare implies autonomy and
independent decision-making.” Applicant goes on to assert

1 Application Serial No. 75/378,636, filed October 24, 1997,
alleging first use in December 1994. Applicant’s change of name
has been recorded in the Assignment Branch records of the Office.
Ser No. 75/378,636
3
that given the “contradictory” nature of these terms as
combined, “the exercise of imagination or mental perception
is certainly necessary to make any connection between the
fully assisted and constantly-in-touch, yet independent,
health monitoring services offered by Applicant.” (brief,
p. 6) Applicant also points to the fact that the NEXIS
evidence of record does not include any references to the
term “supported selfcare.” Applicant finally asserts that
any doubt as to the mere descriptiveness of its mark must
be resolved in applicant’s favor.
The Examining Attorney maintains that applicant’s
services support the selfcare of patients, that is, the
purpose of applicant’s services is supported selfcare. In
connection with the refusal, the Examining Attorney
submitted dictionary definitions of the terms “support” and
“selfcare”; excerpts retrieved from the NEXIS database
showing uses of the terms “supported care” and “selfcare”;
a NEXIS article about applicant’s services; and two third-
party registrations of marks (THE SELF-CARE ADVISOR and
SELF-MANAGED CARE) issued on the Supplemental Register.
It is well settled that a term is considered to be
merely descriptive of services, within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it immediately
describes a quality, characteristic or feature thereof or
Ser No. 75/378,636
4
if it directly conveys information regarding the nature,
function, purpose or use of the services. In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA
1978). It is not necessary that a term describe all of the
properties or functions of the services in order for it to
be considered to be merely descriptive thereof; rather, it
is sufficient if the term describes a significant attribute
or feature about them. Moreover, whether a term is merely
descriptive is determined not in the abstract but in
relation to the services for which registration is sought.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
In order to better understand the specific nature of
applicant’s services, we turn to the following description
(brief, p. 2):
Applicant has been using the mark to
identify its technologically advanced
health monitoring system whereby
chronically ill patients who need
constant medical care can avoid
repeated daily trips to their health
care providers by accessing and using
Applicant’s services. Through beepers,
pagers, computers, telephone question
and answering services and other
methods of communication, Applicant’s
services allow patients to in essence
monitor and care for their own health,
but to do so with the full involvement
of a physician or other health care
provider. Applicant’s system reminds
patients to take medication and monitor
their vital signs and also allows the
patient to report back those vital
Ser No. 75/378,636
5
signs for review by health care
professionals. The system, therefore,
not only allows patients some autonomy
in their health care plan, it also
frees time on physicians’ and health
clinics’ schedules for appointments
with those who actually must come in
for a personal visit, as opposed to
those who simply need to check vital
statistics, and gives physicians more
assurance of constant contact with
their chronically ill patients.
Through these services, patients also
can be confident that they are being
monitored as necessary without the
constant and intrusive hassle of having
to make and keep appointments for
routine tests.
A NEXIS excerpt introduced by the Examining Attorney states
that applicant’s “telephone-based system relies on a series
of question prompts that patients answer at home” and that
the “patients’ answers are input into the system and
situations requiring action are immediately flagged.”
(Healthcare PR & Marketing News, October 16, 1997)
As shown by the dictionary evidence, the term
“support” means “to provide for, by supplying with money or
necessities.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
The term “selfcare” is defined as follows:
A concept central to Dorothea Orem’s
theory of nursing, self-care includes
actions directed toward the self and
toward the environment with the
specific purpose of regulating one’s
functioning and well-being. The
nurse’s central function is to enhance
the self-care of patients through the
Ser No. 75/378,636
6
nursing process of assessment,
planning, intervention, and evaluation.
Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary
(1993)
The NEXIS articles show that the terms “supported
care” and “selfcare” are descriptive terms used in the
field of health care.
The terms comprising applicant’s mark have readily
understood meanings as shown by the dictionary listings and
the NEXIS articles. Based on the evidence of record, we
find that the mark SUPPORTED SELFCARE, when used in
connection with applicant’s services, immediately describes
the essence of the services, namely, that applicant’s
services support the selfcare of patients.
We fail to see the incongruity in the mark emphasized
by applicant in its arguments. As shown by the dictionary
listing of “selfcare,” the regulation of one’s functioning
and well-being may be enhanced (i.e., supported) by others
in the health care field (nurses being given as an example
in the dictionary listing). Indeed, by using applicant’s
services, patients are able to care for themselves while
being supported with medical attention. Patients, upon
encountering applicant’s mark and the services rendered
thereunder, would immediately understand that applicant’s
services provide support for their selfcare.
Ser No. 75/378,636
7
The cases relied upon by applicant simply are
distinguishable from the case at hand where nothing is left
for speculation or conjecture when applicant’s mark is
applied to applicant’s services.
With respect to the absence of any third-party uses of
the term “supported selfcare,” the fact that applicant may
be the first and/or only user of the term is not
determinative where the term sought to be registered has a
merely descriptive connotation. In re Eden Foods Inc., 24
USPQ2d 1757, 1761 (TTAB 1992).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
T. J. Quinn
G. F. Rogers
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/378,636
8