Brian S. Gladden

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2001

No. 75711655 (T.T.A.B. May. 11, 2001)

8/9/01

Paper No. 16
HRW

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Brian S. Gladden
________

Serial No. 75/711,655
_______

Request for Reconsideration

Lori M. Stockton of Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman for
Brian S. Gladden.

Brendan Regan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113
(Meryl Hershkowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hanak, Wendel and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The Board, in its decision of May 11, 2001, affirmed
the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) to register EOUTDOORS, on
the ground that the term, if used in connection with the
various on-line ordering, communication and information
services identified in the application, would be merely
descriptive thereof.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/711,655
2
Applicant, on June 11, 2001, has filed a request for
reconsideration of the decision.
Applicant’s request is focused on the Board’s comment
in footnote 3 of its decision that
[w]e find no need to make any distinction between
the two forms of the word “outdoors” and “outdoor.”
The terms are used interchangeably and project the
same connotation.

Applicant contends that this statement is incorrect “as to
form and substance” and that as a consequence the actual
mark for which registration was sought was never
considered.
We do not agree. Although it is true that “outdoor”
is the adjective form of the word and “outdoors” is either
the adverb or noun form, the connotation is the same. As
shown by the dictionary definitions attached by applicant
to its request, both terms connote being in the open air,
or, in other words, being outside. The commercial
impression is the same and we strongly believe that the
ordinary purchasers would make no distinction in meaning
between the two forms of the word.
Moreover, we stand by our statement that the two terms
are used interchangeably. This is not an unsupported
assumption on the part of the Examining Attorney and the
Board, but rather is substantiated by evidence made of
Ser No. 75/711,655
3
record by the Examining Attorney. In particular, we note
the references made by the Examining Attorney in her appeal
brief to excerpts from the Nexis database showing usages of
both expressions “outdoors stores” and “outdoor stores” in
the trade. (See page 5 of brief and the Office actions
referenced therein). Similarly, she also refers to
examples of the use of both the term “outdoors information”
and “outdoor information” in Nexis evidence of record. The
Board, in its decision, also noted the evidence of record
of the interchangeable use by others of the terms
“outdoors” and “outdoor” in connection with stores and/or
information. (Page 3). Even in the dictionary definitions
submitted by applicant, we find evidence of the use of the
adverb or noun form “outdoors” rather than the more proper
adjective form “outdoor” in the words “outdoorsman” and
“outdoorswoman.”
Thus, no clear-cut distinction may be made between the
words “outdoors” and “outdoor” sufficient to support
applicant’s argument that it continually uses the word
“outdoor” to describe the various products and types of
information and activities involved in its services, but
uses the word OUTDOORS in its mark, which may, therefore,
be viewed as other than merely descriptive. The mark
Ser No. 75/711,655
4
sought to be registered has been fully considered by both
the Examining Attorney and the Board.
Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied
and the decision of the Board affirming the refusal under
Sections 2(e)(1) stands.