Beverly A. Dougherty

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2005

No. 76454775 (T.T.A.B. May. 23, 2005)

Hearing: Mailed:
23 MAR 2005 23 May 2005

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Beverly A. Dougherty
________

Serial No. 76454775
_______

David E. Dougherty of Dennison, Schultz, Dougherty &
MacDonald for Beverly A. Dougherty.

Jeri Fickes, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108
(David Shallant, Managing Attorney).1
_______

Before Hohein, Bucher, and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On September 26, 2002, Beverly A. Dougherty
(applicant) applied under the intent-to-use provisions of
the Trademark Act to register the mark FINE LETTERS, in
standard character form, on the Principal Register for
“custom writing services” in Class 41.

1 Trademark Examining Attorney Nicholas Altree argued the appeal.
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Ser. No. 76454775
2
The examining attorney refused registration on the
ground that the mark was merely descriptive under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1),
because applicant’s proposed mark is “a laudatory phrase
[that] describes a potential likely product of applicant’s
services – letters. The term ‘fine’ is frequently used to
describe the high quality of products, such as ‘fine wine’
and ‘fine jewelry,’ and might equally as well be used to
describe the product of writing, such as ‘a fine essay,’ ‘a
fine letter,’ [or] ‘a fine brief.’” Brief at 3.
In response, applicant argues that FINE LETTERS “does
not tell the potential customer only what the
goods/services are.” Brief at 2 (emphasis added).
Applicant also argues that there are numerous individual
meanings of the words “Fine” and “Letters” and the words
“as a whole create certain ambiguities.” Brief at 6.
Furthermore, applicant maintains that the mark is a double
entendre.
When the examining attorney made the refusal final,
applicant appealed to this board. An oral hearing was held
March 23, 2005.
A “mark is merely descriptive if the ultimate
consumers immediately associate it with a quality or
characteristic of the product or service.” In re MBNA
Ser. No. 76454775
3
America Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778, 1780
(Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Quik-Print Copy
Shops, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 205 USPQ 505, 507 (CCPA 1980).
Applicant argues that there are eleven definitions
each of the terms “Fine” and “Letters” resulting in 121
possible combined meanings of the combined terms, “and no
single meaning for the phrase is immediately apparent.”
Brief at 5. However, descriptiveness of a mark is not
considered in the abstract, but in relation to the
particular goods or services for which registration is
sought. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ
215, 218 (CCPA 1978). Common words often have multiple
meanings but just as the terms “gas” and “badge” could have
numerous meanings, in Abcor, the court looked at the
meaning of the term in relation to the goods in that case.
For a mark to be merely descriptive, a term need only
describe a single significant quality or property of the
goods. Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1009; Meehanite Metal Corp. v.
International Nickel Co., 262 F.2d 806, 120 USPQ 293, 294
(CCPA 1959). The examining attorney relies on the
following definitions of the terms “Fine” and “Letters” to
establish that applicant’s term describes the services.

Ser. No. 76454775
4

As the case law indicates, we must consider the
definitions in relation to the goods or services for which
Ser. No. 76454775
5
applicant seeks registration. In this case, the services
are “custom writing services” and, therefore, we must
determine whether the term FINE LETTERS describes a feature
or characteristics of custom writing services.
The first definition2 of “fine” is “of superior
quality, skill, or appearance: a fine day; a fine writer.”
A “letter” is defined as “a written or printed
communication directed to a person or an organization.”
The examining attorney argues (Brief at 3) that “Fine” is a
laudatory term and “[l]audatory terms, those which
attribute quality or excellence to goods or services, are
equivalent to other descriptive terms.” The Federal
Circuit has held that “[l]audatory marks that describe the
alleged merit of the goods are descriptive because they
simply describe the characteristics or quality of the goods
in a condensed form.” In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Applicant acknowledges the laudatory nature of two of
the definitions: “Clearly, of the eleven definitions
listed only two could be construed as being laudatory with
respect to Applicant’s custom writing services.” Response

2 “Any competent source suffices to show the relevant purchasing
public's understanding of a contested term or phrase.” Nett
Designs, 57 USPQ2d at 1566 (Dictionary).
Ser. No. 76454775
6
dated September 24, 2003 at 4. Most of the other
definitions are simply not relevant in this case, e.g.,
“free from impurities,” “very small in size, weight, or
thickness,” “consisting of very small particles,” “trained
to the highest degree of physical efficiency,” “tiny,
slender” and “being in a state of satisfactory health.”
Others are also laudatory like the first definition, e.g.,
“exhibiting careful and delicate artistry” and
“characterized by refinement or elegance.” Therefore, the
definitions are either not relevant to custom writing
services or they create similar descriptive meanings.
Also, while the term “letter” may refer to “an emblem
in the shape of the initial letter of a school awarded for
outstanding performance, especially in varsity athletics,”
“a piece of type that prints a single character,” and
“literal meaning,” in the context of custom writing
services, the term “letters” would mean “written or printed
correspondence directed to a person or an organization.”
Obviously, one utilizing the services of a custom writing
service may be seeking the preparation of letters of a
personal or business nature. Clearly, these services are
included within the identification of her services as
“custom writing services.”
Ser. No. 76454775
7
To the extent that applicant can point to additional,
descriptive meanings of the term “Fine Letters,” such
meanings do not demonstrate that the term is suggestive
rather than merely descriptive. For example, the term
“Hot” would be descriptive for food that is served at a
high temperature even though “hot” may also describe food
that is spicy. Even if a party serves very warm, spicy
food, the term “hot” would remain descriptive of the foods.
While we have found that the terms “fine” and
“letters” describe applicant’s services, in order to be
merely descriptive, we must consider the mark in its
entirety. P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner, 252 U.S.
538, 545-46 (1920). However, “[i]t is perfectly acceptable
to separate a compound mark and discuss the implications of
each part thereof … provided that the ultimate
determination is made on the basis of the mark in its
entirety.” In re Hester Industries, Inc., 230 USPQ 797,
798 n.5 (TTAB 1986).
When we view the mark in its entirety, we conclude
that the term FINE LETTERS would describe a significant
feature of applicant’s custom writing services to the
extent that these services would include helping clients
prepare high quality letters or “fine letters.” The terms
“fine” and “letters” in connection with custom writing
Ser. No. 76454775
8
services are definite terms and not nebulous. The term
“Fine” meaning “of superior quality” immediately informs
purchasers that applicant considers her letter-writing
services to be superior. See Nett Designs, supra (THE
ULTIMATE BIKE RACK found to be merely descriptive); In re
Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA highly laudatory and
descriptive).
Applicant argues (p. 2) that “[w]hen coupled with
letters as in the alphabet, fine would mean a thin, precise
or ornate display such as a sign or printing.”
Specifically, applicant argues (p. 3) that she envisioned:
Those exquisitely illuminated letters that medieval
monks produced, as they toiled in their fingerless
gloves in front of the brightest natural light of the
scriptorium in order to replicate in fine art what the
greatest medieval minds created in thoughts and words.

Quite simply, we find this argument hard to accept.
First, applicant has not submitted any evidence that the
work products of these medieval monks were known as “Fine
Letters” or that prospective purchasers are likely to make
that connection. Second, even if applicant had this
connection in mind when she selected the mark, if
prospective purchasers are not aware of an additional
meaning, it does not establish that the mark is not
descriptive.
Ser. No. 76454775
9
Furthermore, applicant maintains (Brief at 8) that the
term FINE LETTERS is a double entendre.
Applicant recognizes that the multiple interpretations
that make an expression a “double entendre” must be an
association that the public would make fairly readily.
However, in the present case, the public would readily
associate Applicant’s mark with printing and other
services as suggested above, and not with custom
writing services such as marketing letters and the
like.

As discussed above, it is difficult to discern a non-
descriptive meaning that applicant’s mark calls to mind. A
mark that is a double entendre “does not tell the potential
purchaser only what the goods are, their function, their
characteristics or their use, or, of prime concern here,
their ingredients.” In re Colonial Stores Inc., 374 F.2d
549, 157 USPQ 382, 385 (CCPA 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE for
bakery products not merely descriptive). See also In re
Priefert Mfg. Co., 222 USPQ 731, 733 (TTAB 1984) (The “term
HAY DOLLY [is] reminiscent of the famous Broadway hit
“HELLO DOLLY”). Here, FINE LETTERS merely tells
prospective purchasers about the superior quality of the
letters her services would produce. Even if in the
abstract, potential purchasers would associate the term
“Fine Letters” with other services, we must consider the
question of descriptiveness in relationship with
applicant’s identified services. Viewed in this way,
Ser. No. 76454775
10
potential purchasers of custom writing services would
immediately understand the descriptive significance of the
term “Fine Letters” and any other, non-descriptive meaning
of the term would not be readily apparent. Therefore, we
cannot accept applicant’s argument that the presence of a
double entendre means that the mark is registrable on the
Principal Register.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.