Synapsis Gaming Systems, Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 1999

No. 75081829 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 1999)

Hearing: Paper No. 12
August 19, 1998 JQ
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JUNE 3, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Synapsis Gaming Systems, Ltd.
________
Serial No. 75/081,829
_______
Tobey B. Marzouk of Marzouk & Parry for applicant.
Wanda Kay Price, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
103 (Michael Szoke, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Quinn and Walters, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Synapsis Gaming
Systems, Ltd. to register the mark MILLION DOLLAR BLACK
JACK for “network of electronically interfaced games
comprised of computer hardware and software located at two
Ser No. 75/081,829
2
or more licensed gaming establishments linked to conduct
gaming activities.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act on
the ground that applicant’s mark, if applied to applicant’s
goods, would be merely descriptive thereof.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs, and both
were present at an oral hearing held before the Board.2
Applicant contends, in urging that the refusal be
reversed, that the mark is only suggestive. More
specifically, applicant maintains that the mark suggests
that winning players of applicant’s black jack game will
receive a large amount of money. Applicant goes on to
state that “[i]n almost every case, the amount received
will not be a million dollars, but will be significantly
less [$50,000-$200,000] or significantly more [up to $30
million].” Applicant does acknowledge, however, that “the
first million is paid instantly, i.e., that is [sic] if the

1 Application Serial No. 75/081,829, filed April 1, 1996,
alleging a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. The
words “Black Jack” are disclaimed apart from the mark.
2 Attached to applicant’s brief is an information sheet
describing applicant’s game. Generally, evidence accompanying an
appeal brief is untimely submitted. Trademark Rule 2.142(d). In
the present case, however, the Examining Attorney made no such
objection, but rather, in her appeal brief, considered the
Ser No. 75/081,829
3
consumer wins, they will be paid $1,000,000 on the spot
with any amounts over one million dollars to be paid in
annual installments.”
The Examining Attorney argues that the mark, when
considered as a whole, merely describes applicant’s
specific type of black jack game which provides a monetary
payoff of $1 million or more. The Examining Attorney has
submitted a dictionary definition of the term “gaming,” and
excerpts retrieved from the NEXIS data base which show that
blackjack is a gaming (i.e., gambling) activity.
It is well settled that a term is considered to be
merely descriptive of goods, within the meaning of Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it immediately describes
an ingredient, quality, characteristic or feature thereof
or if it directly conveys information regarding the nature,
function, purpose or use of the goods. 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 goods 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

evidence as if properly of record. We likewise have considered
this evidence in reaching our decision.
Ser No. 75/081,829
4
descriptive is determined not in the abstract but in
relation to the goods for which registration is sought. In
re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
There is no question, as established by applicant’s
information sheet, that applicant’s game is an electronic
version of black jack played by gamblers. Further,
applicant’s black jack game offers players a chance to win
$1 million instantly. The fact that players may win more
or less than that specific amount does not, in our view,
diminish the descriptiveness of the mark. The simple fact
is that a significant characteristic or feature of
applicant’s black jack game is that $1 million is paid
instantly to certain winners. Thus, when MILLION DOLLAR
BLACK JACK is applied to applicant’s game, the mark is
merely descriptive as contemplated by Section 2(e)(1) of
the Act.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
E. J. Seeherman
T. J. Quinn
Ser No. 75/081,829
5
C. E. Walters
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/081,829
6