NGD Homesharing, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2021

88454104 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

Mailed: March 18, 2021
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re NGD Homesharing, LLC
_____
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
_____
Sherry Flax of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
for NGD Homesharing, LLC.

Jacob Vigil, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103,
Stacy Wahlberg, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wolfson, Adlin and Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant NGD Homesharing, LLC seeks Principal Register registrations for two
proposed marks: HOSTIING GROUP, in standard characters (GROUP disclaimed),
for:
downloadable mobile applications for travel
recommendations and reservation and booking services for
temporary lodging and short-term rentals, in International
Class 9;

real estate management of short-term rental properties;
real estate management services; real estate services,
namely, condominium management services; real estate
services, namely, leasing and management for others of
residential condominiums located within hotel
developments; real estate service, namely, rental property
management; real estate services, namely, property
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
2
management services for condominium associations,
homeowner associations and apartment buildings, in
International Class 36; and

making reservations and bookings for restaurants and
meals; making reservations and bookings for temporary
lodging, in International Class 43;1

and HOSTIING, in standard characters, for:

real estate management of short-term rental properties;
real estate management services; real estate service,
namely, rental property management; real estate services,
namely, condominium management services; real estate
services, namely, leasing and management for others of
residential condominiums located within hotel
developments; real estate services, namely, property
management services for condominium associations,
homeowner associations and apartment buildings, in
International Class 36; and

making reservations and bookings for restaurants and
meals; making reservations and bookings for temporary
lodging, in International Class 43.2

The Examining Attorney refused both applications on the ground that the proposed
marks are merely descriptive of the identified goods and services under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). After the refusals became final,
Applicant appealed and filed requests for reconsideration which were denied.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.

1 Application Serial No. 88452729 (the “’729 Application”), filed May 30, 2019 under Section
1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on an alleged intent to use the mark in
commerce.
2 Application Serial No. 88454104 (the “’104 Application”), filed May 31, 2019 under Section
1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on an alleged intent to use the mark in
commerce.
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
3
I. Appeals Consolidated
These appeals involve common questions of law and fact and the records are quite
similar. Accordingly, we consolidate and decide both appeals in this single decision.
See In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (TTAB 2009); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND
APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1214 (2020).3
II. Evidence and Arguments
The Examining Attorney relies on Applicant’s own uses of “hosting” (i.e., correctly
spelled with a single “i” rather than the two “i”s in the proposed mark) in connection
with its identified real estate rental/management services, and its temporary lodging
reservations-related goods and services. Specifically, the “Homesharing” page on
Applicant’s website (“niido.com/homesharing”) explains that, in partnership with
Airbnb, Applicant “supplies the technology and services that enhance the hosting
experience, such as keyless entry locks, linen services ….” August 28, 2019 Office
Action TSDR 6 (emphasis added). The site goes on to state that “[e]veryone has a
different style of hosting” and to promise that “[i]f this is your first time hosting or
traveling with Airbnb, our MasterHost will help you get set up and answer any
questions that you may have throughout the process.” Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added). In
other words, Applicant uses the term “hosting” to describe sharing a home with, or
renting a home to, those desiring lodging.
Others use the term similarly. For example, “plushyhost.com” appears to be in the
same general field as Applicant, and is perhaps one of Applicant’s direct competitors.

3 Citations are to the record in the ’729 Application.
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
4
The site’s headline is “We Make Airbnb Hosting Easy.” It states “Our team of
professional hosts provide a comprehensive solution to all of your short-term rental
property management and hosting needs.” Id. at 18-21 (emphasis added).
Plushyhost.com does not limit its services to Airbnb users, however. It provides the
same services to users of Booking.com and VRBO, which, like Airbnb, also allow
homeowners to “host” travelers or other guests via a rental or sharing arrangement.
Similarly, Xpert Home Services provides “Vacation Hosting” services, “to manage
your vacation rental home,” including “Full Airbnb hosting services” and “Full
VRBO hosting services,” which include “Check In/Out,” “Local Contact,” “Linens,”
“House Keeping,” “24/7 Emergency” and “Turnover Inspection.” Id. at 28-29.
The media uses “hosting” and “host” similarly. A Forbes article entitled “Putting
Your House on Airbnb? What to Know Before Hosting As a Homeowner” repeatedly
refers to those who rent their homes to Airbnb users as “hosts.” Id. at 8-10 (emphasis
added). The “balance.com” article “How to Get Affordable Airbnb or Home-Sharing
Host Insurance” uses the terms “hosting” and “host” in the exact same way, making
clear that “hosting” is used in Applicant’s field to refer to renting temporary lodging
to others. Id. at 11-17. A Washington Post article entitled “What You Need to Know
Before Hosting Short-Term Renters in Your Home” states “After your guests leave
and before hosting new guests, most hosts will hire a cleaning service, laundry
service or a team to manage their home before guests arrive.” Id. at 22-27 (emphasis
added). An Entrepreneur article entitled “10 Hosting Options Beyond Airbnb”
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
5
identifies 10 of Airbnb’s competitors which allow “hosts” to offer and book rental or
sharing accommodations. Id. at 30-32 (emphasis added).
Based on this and similar evidence, the Examining Attorney argues that
HOSTIING is nothing more than a minor misspelling, and will be understood as the
equivalent of “hosting,” which in turn has “particular significance in the homesharing
industry.” 8 TTABVUE 6-7. Specifically, “a property owner participating in
homesharing is called a host and is engaged in hosting.” Id. at 7.
For its part, Applicant relies on Google search results which indicate that
“hosting” has several meanings unrelated to lodging rentals or homesharing. For
example, depending on the context, the term may mean storing or providing access
to information on the Internet, or moderating or being the master of ceremonies for a
radio or television program. February 26, 2020 Office Action response TSDR 12-13.4
In fact, the “techtarget.com” website defines “hosting” as “the business of housing,
serving, and maintaining files for one or more Web sites.” Id. at 15. Applicant also
relies on third-party Principal Register registrations for marks which include forms

4 Generally, a list of excerpts from Internet search results has little probative value. Here,
however, while Applicant relies on mere search result excerpts rather than entire articles or
websites, it is clear from the excerpts provided and the context how the terms in question are
used or defined. Thus, this evidence is probative, even without the rest of the information
revealed through the search. Cf. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d
1828, 1833-34 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding Google search result summaries of “lesser” and “little”
probative value where there was “very little context of the use of ASPIRINA on the webpages
linked to the search report”).
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
6
of the term “host,” in which the term is not disclaimed or registered under Section
2(f) of the Act. Id. at 16-30.5
Applicant argues based on this evidence that “hosting” has “several meanings and
is most frequently associated with website services which are entirety irrelevant to
Applicant’s services.” 6 TTABVUE 5. In fact, according to Applicant, the term “is so
broad that no specific and precise meaning can be attached to it in connection with
Applicant’s services.” Id. at 8. Furthermore, “Applicant has purposefully
implemented the double ‘ii,’ lending to different pronunciations that relevant
consumers could apply and evoking a distinctive commercial impression.” Id. at 5-6.
Applicant contends, based on the third-party registration evidence, that “the USPTO
does not consider the term ‘host’ as merely descriptive … of the relevant goods or
services.” Id. at 9. Finally, the term “hosting” is “different than ‘host’ as it evokes a
transitive, more active service.” Id.
III. Analysis
Here, the record leaves no doubt that HOSTIING and HOSTIING GROUP are
both merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods and services because these terms
“immediately conve[y] knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic” of
those goods and services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102
USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 82 USPQ2d at 1831; In

5 We decline Applicant’s request to take judicial notice of three of Applicant’s pending
applications, 6 TTABVUE 10, for two reasons. First, it is now too late to introduce evidence.
Trademark Rule 2.142(d). Second, the Board does not take judicial notice of trademark
applications or registrations. TBMP § 704.03(b)(1)(A).
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
7
re Abcor Dev., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). Specifically, third
parties that provide goods or services such as Applicant’s, and the media, use the
terms “host” and “hosting” in connection with offering, reserving and managing
temporary lodging, including rental and other homesharing arrangements. Applicant
uses the term the exact same way, for its identified rental property management and
reservations/booking services, as well as its identified reservation and booking mobile
app for short term rentals. Adding the disclaimed and thus admittedly descriptive
term GROUP to the mark in the ’729 Application does not make that mark inherently
distinctive, as GROUP merely describes “a number of individuals assembled together
or having some unifying relationship.” August 28, 2019 Office Action TSDR 34
(Merriam-Webster.com). In other words, HOSTIING GROUP conveys an entity
involved in hosting.
Applicant’s focus on its use of a double “i” (“ii”) is misplaced, because this minor
misspelling does not change the term’s meaning (or much of anything else in the
term). In fact, “HOSTIING” with two “i”s differs from “HOSTING” with one by only
one letter in the middle of the term. It thus looks almost the same as, and would be
pronounced similarly or identically to, “hosting,” a term commonly used and with a
well-recognized meaning in connection with Applicant’s identified goods and services.
See e.g., Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Co., 220 U.S. 446, 455 (1911) (“The
word [“rubberoid”], therefore, is descriptive, not indicative of the origin or the
ownership of the goods; and, being of that quality, we cannot admit that it loses such
quality and becomes arbitrary by being misspelled [as RUBEROID]. Bad orthography
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
8
has not yet become so rare or so easily detected as to make a word the arbitrary sign
of something else than its conventional meaning ….”); Nupla Corp. v. IXL Mfg. Co.,
114 F.3d 191, 42 USPQ2d 1711, 1716 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nupla’s mark [CUSH-N-
GRIP], which is merely a misspelling of CUSHION-GRIP, is also generic as a matter
of law”); In re Quik-Print, 616 F.2d 523, 205 USPQ 505, 507 n.9 (CCPA 1980) (finding
QUIK-PRINT merely descriptive of printing and copying services, stating “[t]here is
no legally significant difference here between ‘quik’ and ‘quick.’”); In re Carlson, 91
USPQ2d 1198, 1203 (TTAB 2009) (“applicant’s applied-for mark, URBANHOUZING
in standard character form, will be immediately and directly perceived by consumers
as the equivalent of the admittedly descriptive term URBAN HOUSING, rather than
as including the separate word ZING”); In re Ginc UK Ltd., 90 USPQ2d 1472, 1475
(TTAB 2007) (“The generic meaning of ‘togs’ is not overcome by the misspelling of the
term as TOGGS in applicant’s mark. A slight misspelling is not sufficient to change
a descriptive or generic word into a suggestive word.”).
While Applicant is correct that “host”/”hosting” has other meanings in other
contexts, including storing or providing access to Internet information, this does not
impact the term’s descriptiveness for Applicant’s identified goods and services.6
Indeed, Applicant itself recognizes that descriptiveness is considered “in relation to

6 We need only find that one meaning of “host”/”hosting” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s
identified goods and services. In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984) (“It is
well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be
considered to be merely descriptive.”). See also, In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d
1028, 1034 (TTAB 2007); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).

Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
9
the [goods and] services for which registration is sought, the context in which it is
used, the possible significance of the term[s] in relation to the [goods and] services,
and the likely reaction thereto by the average purchaser.” 7 TTABVUE 6. See also
DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d
1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The 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.”) (quoting In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ 2d 1314,
1316-17 (TTAB 2002)). Someone who knows that Applicant provides real
estate/management services and temporary lodging reservations-related goods and
services will immediately understand HOSTIING as conveying that Applicant’s goods
and services are intended to help those “hosting” renters and others seeking
temporary lodging.
Applicant’s own use of “hosting” makes this meaning clear. For example, in
discussing its Siight operating platform, Applicant’s website states: “Residents get a
robust resident portal that allows them to sync their hosting calendar ….” February
26, 2020 Office Action response TSDR 33 (emphasis added). On the “Homesharing”
section of its website, Applicant states:
“Niido supplies the technology and services that enhance
the hosting experience, such as keyless entry locks, linen
services, a bike-sharing program, and a supporting team of
staff who are always ready to assist Niido residents and
Niido guests.” August 28, 2019 Office Action TSDR 6
(emphasis added).

Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
10
“If this is your first time hosting or traveling with Airbnb,
our MasterHost will help you get set up and answer any
questions that you may have throughout the process.” Id.
(emphasis added).

“Everyone has a different style of hosting, but you can find
great tips and tricks to make your place the perfect spot for
travelers.” Id. at 7 (emphasis added).

“Airbnb Plus is a new selection of only the highest quality
homes with hosts known for great reviews and attention
to detail.” Id.

Thus, Applicant’s own use of the term “host”/“hosting,” with its traditional spelling,
reveals the descriptiveness of the virtually identical proposed mark HOSTIING. See
In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709-10 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re
Hunter Fan Co., 78 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (TTAB 2006) (“applicant’s own use of the
term ERGONOMIC … highlights the descriptive nature of this term ….”).
We agree with Applicant that several of the third-party registrations upon which
it relies may show that the Office has not always treated the term HOST as
descriptive in connection with services arguably related to those Applicant offers.
February 26, 2020 Office Action response TSDR 19-22 (Registration Nos. 5156092,
5302722, 5303388 and 5339397).7 However, we are not privy to relevant evidence
concerning those marks or the records in those cases, Applicant has not demonstrated
how those registered terms are used or perceived, and neither the existence of these
third-party registrations nor any of the evidence in their prosecution records (even if
it were of record) compels a specific result in later, allegedly analogous cases. See,

7 We have not considered third-party registrations for Internet “hosting,” entertainment or
other apparently unrelated goods or services.
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
11
e.g., Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“these prior registrations do not compel registration of
[Applicant’s] proposed mar[k]”) (citing In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The [US]PTO is required to examine all trademark applications for
compliance with each and every eligibility requirement, . . . even if the [US]PTO
earlier mistakenly registered a similar or identical mark suffering the same defect.”));
In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 91 USPQ2d 1218, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(“Even if all of the third-party registrations should have been refused registration
under section 1052(a), such errors do not bind the USPTO to improperly register
Applicant’s marks.”); In re Cooper, 254 F.2d 611, 117 USPQ 396, 401 (CCPA 1958)
(“the decision of this case in accordance with sound law is not governed by possibly
erroneous past decisions by the Patent Office”). As we recently stated in an analogous
situation, to the extent that our decision here is inconsistent with the third-party
registrations, “it is the decision required under the statute on the record before us.”
In re Ala. Tourism Dept., 2020 USPQ2d 10485, *11 (TTAB 2020).8
Finally, with respect to the application to register HOSTIING GROUP, not only
are “hostiing” and the disclaimed term “group” each merely descriptive of Applicant’s
goods and services, but when those terms are combined, the resulting combination
HOSTIING GROUP does not evoke a non-descriptive commercial impression. To the

8 While Applicant is of course correct that “host” and “hosting” are not the same term, the
record reveals that both are used in connection with goods and services encompassed by
Applicant’s identifications of goods and services, and that both are merely descriptive of
Applicant’s identified goods and services.
Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
12
contrary, in Applicant’s proposed mark, each component retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to the goods and services, and Applicant does not
suggest any alternative commercial impression resulting from the combination of
these immediately descriptive terms. The composite term HOSTIING GROUP is
therefore 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 Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002)
(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 deploying application
programs).
IV. Conclusion
The record leaves no doubt that HOSTIING GROUP is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s goods and services, which all pertain to the rental or sharing of lodging,
i.e. “hosting.”

Serial Nos. 88452729 and 88454104
13
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark on the Principal
Register because it is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
is affirmed in each application.