A. H. Training, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2003

No. 76041758 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2003)

Mailed: February 20, 2003
Paper No. 13
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re A. H. Training, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/041,758
_______
Lawrence D. W. Graves of Fierst & Pucci LLP for A. H.
Training, Inc.
Boris Umansky, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103
(Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Chapman and Drost, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
A. H. Training, Inc. has filed an application to
register GUIDED SELF HEALING on the Principal Register as a
mark for “educational services, namely conducting
conferences, seminars and workshops in the field of
personal growth.”1
1 Serial No. 76/041,758, filed on May 8, 2000, alleging first use
and first use in commerce as of September 1997.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76/041,758
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration on the ground that GUIDED SELF HEALING, when
used in connection with the identified services, is merely
descriptive thereof. 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). After the
Examining Attorney made the refusal to register final,
applicant filed a notice of appeal. In addition, applicant
filed an amendment requesting that the application be
amended to seek registration on the Supplemental Register,
in the event the refusal is affirmed. The Examining
Attorney approved the amendment, indicating that the mark
would be acceptable for registration on the Supplemental
Register. Both applicant and the Examining Attorney have
filed briefs.2 No oral hearing was requested.
The Examining Attorney’s position is that the mark
GUIDED SELF HEALING is merely descriptive of applicant’s
services because it:
conveys information about a characteristic,
feature or function of the applicant’s services,
namely that the applicant, through its
conferences, seminars and workshops, ”serves as a
guide for” or “supervises the training or
education of individuals interested in pursuing
the SELF HEALING process.” (Brief, p. 6).
2 This case was assigned to a different Examining Attorney to
write the appeal brief.
Ser No. 76/041,758
3
The Examining Attorney relies on the following
dictionary definitions: (1) “guided” as “to serve as a
guide for; conduct” and “to supervise the training or
education of”; (2) “self” as “the individual”; and
(3) “healing” as “to restore to health or soundness; cure.”
In addition, the Examining Attorney submitted excerpts from
the Nexis database showing uses of the term “self-healing”;
and copies of third-party registrations for marks that
include the disclaimed term “self-healing.” Thus, the
Examining Attorney concluded that GUIDED SELF HEALING is
merely descriptive of applicant’s services.
In urging reversal of the refusal, applicant argues
that the Examining Attorney has dissected applicant’s mark,
rather than considering the mark as a whole; that GUIDED
SELF HEALING is a system applicant developed to enable
individuals to overcome personal and emotional problems;
that the mark creates an incongruity in that GUIDED and
SELF have opposite meanings; i.e., GUIDED means to have
assistance from someone else, whereas SELF means to do
something by one’s self; that the Office has allowed marks
that are similar to applicant’s mark to register on the
Principal Register; and that any doubt on the issue of mere
descriptiveness should be resolved in applicant’s favor.
Ser No. 76/041,758
4
It is well settled that a phrase is considered merely
descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it immediately
describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic of feature
thereof or if it directly conveys information regarding the
nature, function, purpose or use of the goods or services.
See In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ
215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). It is not necessary that a phrase
describe all of the properties or functions of the goods or
services in order for it to be considered merely
descriptive thereof; rather, it is sufficient if the phrase
describes a significant attribute or idea about them.
Moreover, whether a phrase is merely descriptive is
determined not in the abstract but in relation to the goods
or services for which registration is sought, the context
in which it is being used on or in connection with those
goods or services and the possible significance that the
phrase would have to the average purchaser of the goods or
services because of the manner of its use. See In re
Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
The Examining Attorney’s evidence demonstrates that
the phrase GUIDED SELF HEALING is merely descriptive of
applicant’s services. The word “guided” is clearly
descriptive of applicant’s services because, as the
Ser No. 76/041,758
5
recitation of services indicates, applicant is engaged in
conducting conferences, seminars and workshops in the field
of personal growth. In other words, applicant’s services
are designed to offer guidance to persons interested in
some aspect of personal growth. We note, in this regard,
the following excerpt taken from a specimen flyer
announcing an informational session for applicant’s
services:
This lecture-demonstration is appropriate for
anyone in the helping professions or healing
arts who may be interested in learning to use
this method, as well as individuals who may
be interested in the working [sic] with this
technique personally.
In addition, the term SELF HEALING is descriptive of
applicant’s services because a purpose of applicant’s
services is to restore the individual to health or
soundness, and/or to teach others how to achieve personal
growth through applicant’s method. Again, we note the
specimen flyer which states that GUIDED SELF HEALING “has
been remarkably effective in the treatment of chronic
disorders, including anxiety, depression, addictions, and
phobias, as well as physical conditions such as allergies,
pain syndromes, fibromyaglia, and chronic fatigue.”
Ser No. 76/041,758
6
Further, we note the Nexis excerpts submitted by the
Examining Attorney which show uses of the term “self-
healing.” The following are representative examples:
A self-healing and personal empowerment
workshop will be offered 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Fridays starting tonight at James A.
Rutherford Community Center in Patch
Reef Park, 2000 NW 51st St.
. . . .
Participants will learn about the body’s
innate power to heal. Self-healing
techniques such as diaphragmatic breathing,
self-hypnosis, self-acupressure, artwork
and other interventions will be introduced.
(Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, May 11,
2001);
REIKI WORKSHOP: The Stanley Street Treatment
and Resources, Inc. 386 Stanley Street, a
substance abuse and mental health treatment
facility will sponsor a Reiki I workshop for
human service professionals from 8:30 am to
4:30 pm Saturday April 21.
. . . .
The workshop will teach participants the art
of energy medicine for self-healing and how
to use the method on others.
(The Providence Journal-Bulletin, April 2,
2001);
HEALTHFUL LIVING SEMINARS, with Linda Solomon
discussing pressure points and self-healing,
sponsored by . . .
(The Washington Post, January 28, 2001); and
Ser No. 76/041,758
7
Dr. Gray will visit Cincinnati Aug. 12 to
present a one-day workshop on self-healing
at the Alliance Institute for Integrative
Medicine.
. . . .
The seminar is primarily focusing on
self-healing techniques because as we get
older, if we don’t maintain a balance
in our lives, we tend to get sicker and
sicker.
(The Cincinnati Enquirer, August 2, 2000).
The Examining Attorney also submitted copies of two
third-party registrations for marks including the
disclaimed term “SELF-HEALING.” One of the registrations
covers conferences, seminars and workshops in the field of
holistic medicine and the other registration covers courses
and seminars relating to natural healing. Such
registrations suggest that “SELF-HEALING” has been deemed
and/or acknowledged to be not inherently distinctive by the
Office and/or by the prior registrants.
The Examining Attorney’s evidence is clearly
sufficient to establish that “self healing” is a merely
descriptive term in the context of conducting conferences,
seminars and workshops in the field of personal growth.
Further, we find that the merely descriptive terms
which comprise applicant’s mark, i.e., GUIDED and SELF
HEALING are likewise merely descriptive when considered
together. Applicant argues that its combining of GUIDED
and SELF creates an incongruity in the mark GUIDED SELF
Ser No. 76/041,758
8
HEALING. We disagree. As used in applicant’s mark, GUIDED
modifies the term SELF HEALING, not simply the word SELF.
There is nothing incongruous about the combination of
GUIDED and SELF HEALING where that composite is used in
connection with conducting conferences, seminars and
workshops in the field on personal growth. Purchasers and
prospective purchasers of applicant’s services would
readily recognize that the services are designed to guide
or educate individuals with an interest in the specific
personal growth field of self healing.
With respect to applicant’s contention that the Office
has allowed similar marks to register on the Principal
Register, it has often been stated that the Board must
decide each case on its own set of facts. See In re Nett
Designs, Inc., 263 F.3d 1379, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir.
2001). We are not privy to the file records of the third-
party registrations relied upon by applicant and have no
way of knowing the reasons for their allowance. We note,
however, that only one of the seven third-party
registrations covers services of the type involved in this
Ser No. 76/041,758
9
appeal, and it issued on the Principal Register under the
provisions of Section 2(f).3
Finally, we are not persuaded by applicant’s argument
that it developed the GUIDED SELF HEALING “system”, and,
thus the phrase GUIDED SELF HEALING is not descriptive of
its services. It is not dispositive that applicant may be
the first or only user of the term. In re National
Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB
1983).
Decision: The refusal to register on the Principal
Register is affirmed. The application will be forwarded
for issuance on the Supplemental Register.
3 Registration No. 2,349,259 for the mark HEALING THE
EMOTIONAL/SPIRITUAL BODY for “educational services, namely,
seminars related to personal growth and well-being.”