United Systems of Arkansas, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2001

No. 75273447 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2001)

2/28/01
Paper No. 15
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re United Systems of Arkansas, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/273,447
_______
Brian M. Mattson of Patents+TMS for United Systems of
Arkansas, Inc.
Richard S. Donnell, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 106 (Mary Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Hairston and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
United Systems of Arkansas, Inc. has appealed the
refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register the
mark GLOBAL POSTAL SYSTEM for “worldwide business
consultation, namely, assisting in the development of
solutions to problems and needs businesses encounter with
regard to mail requiring delivery of the mail by a special
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/273,447
2
service.”1 Registration has been finally refused pursuant
to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely
descriptive of the identified services.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have submitted
briefs, but an oral hearing was not requested.
The Examining Attorney maintains that applicant’s mark
GLOBAL POSTAL SYSTEM is merely descriptive of the
identified services because it immediately conveys that the
purpose of applicant’s business consulting services is to
develop custom mail or postal systems for global or
international mail delivery. In support of his position
that GLOBAL POSTAL SYSTEM is merely descriptive of the
identified services, the following definitions, taken from
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(3d. ed. 1992), were made of record:
global: of, or relating to, or involving the
entire earth, worldwide
postal: of or relating to a post office or mail
service; and
1 Serial No. 75/273,447, filed April 11, 1997, which alleges a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 75/273,447
3
system: a group of interacting, interrelated,
or interdependent elements forming a complex
whole.
In addition, to show the descriptive nature of the
individual words in the mark, the Examining Attorney
submitted a number of third-party registrations of marks
which include the word GLOBAL, POSTAL, or SYSTEM wherein
such word is disclaimed.
Applicant, in arguing against the refusal to register,
maintains that it is not in the “mail delivery” business.
Rather, according to applicant, the basis of its business
is to provide forms and systems to companies or individuals
to simplify and expedite mail and its delivery by special
service such as certified mail, registered mail, insured
mail, and return receipt. According to applicant, the mark
GLOBAL POSTAL SYSTEM is not merely descriptive of such
services. Applicant has submitted third-party
registrations for marks which include the word GLOBAL or
SYSTEM wherein such word is not disclaimed.
A mark is merely descriptive if it forthwith conveys
an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or
characteristics of the goods or services. In re Abcor
Development Corp., 616 F.2d 525, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
Moreover, in order to be descriptive, the mark must
immediately convey information as to the ingredients,
Ser No. 75/273,447
4
qualities or characteristics of the goods [or services]
with a “degree of particularity.” Plus Products v. Medical
Modalities Associates, Inc., 211 USPQ 1199, 1204-1205 (TTAB
1981).
As evidenced by the dictionary definitions of record,
the individual words, GLOBAL, POSTAL and SYSTEM, each have
a descriptive significance in connection with the services.
We do not believe, however, that the combination of these
words results in a term which, when considered in its
entirety, is merely descriptive of the services. That is
to say, applicant’s mark, as used in connection with
consultation services designed to assist businesses with
delivery of mail by a special service, does not forthwith
convey an immediate idea about the services with any degree
of particularity.
Applicant maintains, and indeed the recitation of
services would indicate, that applicant is in the
consulting business, and not the business of actually
delivering mail. In other words, it does not appear that
applicant’s services are in the nature of a worldwide or
global mail delivery system. Prospective purchasers will
view the mark as perhaps suggesting that applicant’s
consulting services are designed to assist businesses
worldwide in mail delivery, but will not be immediately
Ser No. 75/273,447
5
apprised of the exact nature of the services or any feature
thereof.
We recognize that there is often a thin line
separating merely descriptive from suggestive terms and
that judgments in these cases are frequently subjective.
However, where there is doubt in the matter, the doubt is
to be resolved in applicant’s behalf and the mark should be
published for opposition. See In re Rank Organization
Ltd., 222 USPQ 324, 326 (TTAB 1984) and cases cited
therein.
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
Ser No. 75/273,447
6