Cellular Sales Management Group, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2021

88470232 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2021)

Hearing: June 16, 2021 Mailed: June 17, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Cellular Sales Management Group, LLC
_____

Application Serial No. 88470232
_____

Wade R. Orr of Luedeka Neely Group, P.C.
for Cellular Sales Management Group, LLC.

Alexandra El-Bayeh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 130,
John Lincoski, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Cataldo, Bergsman and Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Cellular Sales Management Group, LLC (Applicant) seeks registration on the
Principal Register under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), of the
mark CELLULARSALES and design, reproduced below, for “online and physical
retail store services in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for
cell phones and tablets,” in International Class 35.1

1 Serial No. 88470232 filed June 12, 2019, under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(a), claiming first use of the mark anywhere and in commerce as of December 31, 2012.
This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Serial No. 88470232

- 2 -

The description of the mark reads as follows:
The mark consists of CELLULARSALES in all capital
letters. A horizontal bar is above CELLULARSALES and a
V shaped connector joins the A in SALES to the bar.
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
The Examining Attorney issued a final requirement for Applicant to disclaim the
exclusive right to use the term “Cellular Sales,” failing which registration will be
refused because the term “Cellular Sales” is generic when used in connection with
the applied-for services. In the alternative, the Examining Attorney refused to
register Applicant’s mark without a disclaimer of the exclusive right to use the term
“Cellular Sales” on the ground that “Cellular Sales” is merely descriptive under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), and Applicant has not
made a sufficient showing of acquired distinctiveness pursuant to Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).
I. Preliminary Issues
Applicant, in its March 12, 2020 Response to an Office Action, submitted a screen
shot of its “About Us” webpage,2 the Google search results for uses of the compound
term “cellularsales”3 and the phrase “cellular sales,”4 as well as Twitter search results

2 TSDR 20-22.
References to the examination record are to the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval
system (TSDR) by page number in the downloadable .pdf format.
3 TSDR 63-108.
4 TSDR 28-61.
Serial No. 88470232

- 3 -

for the compound term “cellularsales”5 and the phrase “cellular sales.”6 In addition,
Applicant submitted a “sampling of website home pages of [its] largest third-party
competitors.”7 Subsequently, in its October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration,
Applicant submitted the same evidence a second time,8 and suffice it to say, the
probative value of the documentary evidence did not increase with repetition.9
As Exhibit H to the Orr declaration attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for
Reconsideration, Applicant attempted to submit screenshots of websites of specific
competitors that incorporate the term “Cellular” in their house marks.10 However,
because the pages of the purported exhibit are blank, the exhibit has no probative
value. Applicant is responsible for ensuring that the documents it files are legible.
See In re Loggerhead Tools, LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 n.5 (TTAB 2016) (filers are
responsible for ensuring that all submissions are legible).
II. Whether “Cellularsales” is generic.
As noted above, the Examining Attorney required Applicant to disclaim the
exclusive right to use the term “Cellular Sales” because it is generic when used in
connection with “online and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones,

5 TSDR 122-134.
6 TSDR 110-120.
7 TSDR 136-189.
8 TSDR 27-239.
9 When appropriate, Applicant (or the Examining Attorney) may explain that he/she
introduced a second excerpt from a website previously made of record because he/she found
additional probative evidence in a later search that was not available initially. Nevertheless,
there is no reason to resubmit the entire evidentiary submission.
10 Orr Decl. ¶9 and Exhibit H (TSDR 25 and 240-272).
Serial No. 88470232

- 4 -

electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets.” Applicant must provide
a disclaimer of the unregistrable parts of the applied-for mark even though the mark
as a whole appears to be registrable. Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1056(a). See also In re Am. Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 65 USPQ2d 1972,
1984 (TTAB 2003) (affirming the requirement to disclaim “CPA EXAMINATION” in
the mark “UNIFORM CPA EXAMINATION” because it is a generic term).
“A generic name—the name of a class of products or services—is ineligible for
federal trademark registration.” Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729 at *1. A generic
term “is the common descriptive name of a class of goods or services.” Royal Crown
Co., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228
USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “The critical issue in genericness cases is whether
members of the relevant public primarily use or understand the term to be protected
to refer to the genus of goods or services in question.” Royal Crown, 127 USPQ2d at
1046 (quoting Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530).
The Federal Circuit has set forth a two-step inquiry to determine whether a mark
is generic: First, what is the genus (category or class) of goods or services at issue?
Second, does the relevant public understand the term sought to be registered
primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services? Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530.
The relevant public’s perception is the chief consideration in determining whether a
term is generic. See Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960,
114 USPQ2d 1827, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We may obtain evidence of the public’s
Serial No. 88470232

- 5 -

understanding of a term from “any competent source, such as consumer surveys,
dictionaries, newspapers and other publications.” Id. at 1830 (quoting In re
Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961, 963 (Fed. Cir.
1985)).
With respect to the first part of the Marvin Ginn inquiry, we may define the genus
by the services identified in the application: “online and physical retail store services
in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and
tablets.” See In re Reed Elsevier Props. Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding the description of services properly defined the genus of the
services); Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (a proper genericness inquiry focuses on the identification set forth in the
application or certificate of registration).11 In this appeal, “online and physical retail
store services in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell
phones and tablets” is an accurate description of the genus of services.
The second part of the Marvin Ginn test is does the relevant public understand
the term sought to be registered primarily to refer to that genus of services? The
relevant public is the purchasing public for the identified services. Sheetz of Del., Inc.
v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1351 (TTAB 2013). In this case, the

11 The Examining Attorney agrees the description of services defines the genus of the services.
Examining Attorney’s Brief (8 TTABVUE 5). Applicant does not address the genus of the
services at issue in its brief or reply brief.
Serial No. 88470232

- 6 -

relevant public consists of ordinary consumers who purchase cell phones, electronic
tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets online or in retail stores.12
We now turn to how the relevant public perceives the term CELLULARSALES
when they see it used in connection with “online and physical retail store services in
the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets.”
We start our analysis by defining the constituent terms of the composite term at issue
CELLULARSALES (i.e., Cellular and Sales). “In considering a mark as a whole, the
Board may weigh the individual components of the mark to determine the overall
impression or the [genericness or] descriptiveness of the mark and its various
components.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
The AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(ahdictionary.com) defines “cellular,” inter alia, as “Of or relating to a cellular
telephone.”13 It defines “sale,” inter alia, as “The exchange of goods or services for an
amount of money or its equivalent; the act of selling.”14 Thus, term “Cellular Sales”
means the transfer of cellular telephones for a price.

12 Examining Attorney’s Brief (8 TTABVUE 5). Applicant does not address the composition
of the relevant public in its brief or reply brief.
13 September 12, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 5). See also MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY
(merriam-webster.com) attached to the April 9, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 5) defining
“cellular” as “of, or relating to, or being a radio telephone system in which a geographical area
(such as a city) is divided into small sections each served by a transmitter of limited range //
cellular phones,” or “cell phone”); Dictionary.com based on the RANDOM HOUSE UNABRIDGED
DICTIONARY attached to the April 9, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 8) defining “cellular,” inter
alia, as “of or relating to cellular phones.”).
14 September 12, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 6).
Serial No. 88470232

- 7 -

Where the mark sought to be registered is a compound term “formed by the union
of words,” we may find the term generic if the evidence of record shows that “the
public understands the individual terms to be generic for a genus of goods or services,
and the joining of the individual terms into one compound word lends ‘no additional
meaning to the term.’” In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341,
57 USPQ2d 1807, 1810 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting In re American Fertility Society,
188 F.3d 1341, 51 USPQ2d 1832, 1837 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As long as we consider the
mark in its entirety, and all evidence of relevant consumer perception,
… if the compound word would plainly have no different
meaning from its constituent words, and dictionaries, or
other evidentiary sources, establish the meaning of those
words to be generic, then the compound word too has been
proved generic. No additional proof of the genericness of
the compound word is required.
In re American Fertility Society, 51 USPQ2d at 1836. See also In re Gould Paper Corp.,
834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE, a compound
term composed of generic words SCREEN and WIPE, itself is generic for
“premoistened, anti-static cloth for cleaning computer and television screens” because
applicant “has simply joined the two most pertinent and individually generic terms
applicable to its product, and then attempts to appropriate the ordinary compound
thus created as its trademark.”) (citing Cummins Engine Co. v. Continental Motors
Corp., 359 F.2d 892, 149 USPQ 559 (CCPA 1966) (TURBODIESEL generic for
engines having exhaust driven turbine superchargers); and In re Abcor Dev. Corp.,
588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1978) (Judge Rich, concurring)
(GASBADGE generic for a gas monitoring badge)).
Serial No. 88470232

- 8 -

Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, we find that
CELLULARSALES, the term Applicant seeks to register, is a “compound term[]
formed by the union of words,” (i.e., by the union of the words CELLULAR and
SALES).15 We further find that the compound term CELLULARSALES does not have
a different meaning from its constituent words (i.e., CELLULAR and SALES). That
is, the term “Cellular Sales” does not have any additional meaning simply by virtue
of the words “Cellular” and “Sales” being combined into the compound term
CELLULARSALES. Applicant has suggested no such other or additional meaning
that results from the compression of the two words into one, and we are aware of
none.16
In this regard, Applicant’s corporate name is Cellular Sales Management Group,
LLC and Applicant refers to itself as Cellular Sales on its website (e.g., “We are
Cellular Sales, one of the largest Verizon Wireless retailers.”).17 In addition,
Applicant displays the word “Sales” in the compound mark CELLULARSALES in a
bolder font than the word “Cellular” creating the commercial impression of separate
words (i.e., Cellular and Sales). Therefore, we find that the composite term
CELLULARSALES means the transfer of cellular telephones for a price.

15 See TMEP § 1213.05(a) (Oct. 2018), which refers to two or more distinct words represented
as one word as a “compound word mark.”
16 However, as discussed below, Applicant argues that “cellular” is ambiguous and, therefore,
does not provide specific information regarding the services. Applicant’s Brief, p. 7 (6
TTABVUE 8).
17 March 12, 2020 Response to an Office Action (TSDR 20).
Serial No. 88470232

- 9 -

Pursuant to the authorities discussed above, if the evidence of record establishes
that “Cellular Sales,” as applied to Applicant’s services, is generic under Marvin
Ginn’s two-step inquiry, and the record does not show any different consumer
understanding of the compound wording in the mark, then the evidence also suffices
to establish that the compound term CELLULARSALES is generic. See In re A La
Vielle Russie, Inc., 60 USPQ 1895, 1899-1900 (TTAB 2001).
Having defined the terms “Cellular,” “Sales,” and the consumer perception of
“Cellularsales” above, we now turn to additional evidence of how Applicant uses
“Cellularsales” and “Cellular Sales.” We reproduce below an excerpt from Applicant’s
specimen of use that it identified as a webpage.

Serial No. 88470232

- 10 -

We reproduce below an excerpt from Applicant’s “About Us” webpage from its
website .18

Next we turn to the evidence the Examining Attorney submitted to show that the
term “Cellular Sales” or “Cellularsales” is generic. The Examining Attorney
submitted five news articles from the LEXIS/NEXIS database using the term
“cellular sales” for the sale of cellular telephones.19 The Examining Attorney also
listed three news article from third-party websites. We list the news articles below
(emphasis added):
● “Audiovox Reports Second Quarter Loss,” The New York Times (July 8, 2001).
This news article reports that Audiovox delayed the release of the company’s new
digital products because of “an industry-wide slump in cellular sales.”20

18 March 12, 2020 Response to an Office Action (TSDR 20).
19 September 19, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 8-14). The Examining Attorney also submitted
three news articles where the term “Cellular Sales” refers to Applicant. Id. at TSDR 15-21.
20 Id. at TSDR 10.
Serial No. 88470232

- 11 -

● “RadioShack; Store to remain in business,” Coldwater Daily Reporter (Michigan)
(February 12, 2015).
General Wireless has agreed to buy between 1,500 and
2,400 of the remaining [RadioShack] stores to turn them
into a cellular sales center for Sprint, as well as continue
to sell other electronic parts and devices.21
● “GameStop ends year with more than 1,000 technology-branded stores,” Dallas
Business Journal (December 28, 2015). This news article reports “GameStop also
inked an agreement with AT&T subsidiary Cricket Wireless to offer cellular sales
and service.”22
● “Local business briefs,” The Marshfield News (Wisconsin).
Formerly part of Element Mobile, and a successor to PC
Doctors wireless, E-Wireless has been serving customers at
its current location at 203A West Upham, Marshfield, for
years. The staff has cellular sales and service experience
going back to the mid-1990s. As an AT&T authorized
dealer, the business is now able to offer Marshfield and the
surrounding area a greatly expanded product line and the
power of the nation’s most reliable 4G LTE network.23
● Salisbury Post (North Carolina) (October 12, 2008)
Coates Communications is a 28 year-old company with
more than $2 million in sales annually. It has three
divisions, retail cellular sales and accessories,
commercial two-way radio sales and service and Lakeview
Oil Co., which was acquired over a year ago.24

21 Id. at TSDR 11.
22 Id. at TSDR 12.
23 Id. at TSDR 13.
24 Id. at TSDR 14.
Serial No. 88470232

- 12 -

● “Black Buying Power By The Numbers: History In The Making,” NewsOne
website (newsone.com) (February 20, 2020). The article reports “African Americans
make up 23% of the total market for U.S. cellular sales, while only accounting for
14% of the overall population.”25
● “Georgia Southern alumna fulfills lifelong dream, helps children struggling to
read,” AllOnGeorgia website (allongeorgia.com). This news article reports that Robin
Perry, the subject of the news article “worked part time in cellular sales.”26
● “Shout Out: Alyson Lynch-Roland, owner of new UBreakiFix in Norridge –
‘anything with a power button,” Chicago Tribune (chicagotribune.com) (April 18,
2018). This news article reports that Alyson Lynch-Roland, the subject of the news
article has a background in cellular sales and she used to do cellular sales and
repair.27
The Examining Attorney also submitted excerpts from two third-party websites
using the term “Cellular Sales.” We list the third-party websites below (emphasis
added):
● Profiting From Your Passion website (thewinnerinstituteblog.com)
How To Turn Work Into Prosperity
Arouse in the Other Person an Eager Want
___
Arousing that eager want is sometimes trickier than we
may think. We have to actually know the person we are

25 November 2, 2020 Denial of the Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 7).
26 Id. at TSDR 8.
27 Id. at TSDR 9.
Serial No. 88470232

- 13 -

trying to inspire so we have to be a good listener. This week
Felipe Pinzon talks about his experiences with this
principle and how it has impacted him in the world of
cellular sales.28
● The Think Curiouser website (thinkcuriouser.com). This is an advertisement for
a market study in the RF SOI and SOS Switches Market. One of the chapters is
“Cellular Sales, Revenues and Growth Rate (2015-2020).”29
The Examining Attorney submitted two third-party websites displaying the use
of the term “Cellular Phone Sales,”30 and three news articles referring to the term
“Cell Phone Sales.”31
In addition, the Examining Attorney submitted webpages from Cellular Freedom
(cellularfreedom.com),32 Consumer Cellular (consumercellular.com),33 US Cellular
(uscellurlar.com),34 and Cellular Country (cellularcountry.com)35 to show that third
parties use “cellular” by itself to refer to the cellular phones or cell phones.
Applicant submitted the evidence reviewed below to prove that “Cellular Sales” is
not a generic term:

28 Id. at TSDR 5.
29 Id. at TSDR 6.
30 April 9, 2020 Office Action (TSDR 9-10).
31 Id. at TSDR 14-16.
32 Id. at TSDR 9.
33 Id. at TSDR 12.
34 Id. at TSDR 11.
35 Id. at TSDR 13.
Serial No. 88470232

- 14 -

● Wikipedia.org entry for “Cellular Sales” referring to Applicant, not online or
retail sales of cellular telephones.36 The Wikipedia.org entry provides, in part,
Cellular Sales is an American wireless retailer based in
Knoxville, Tennessee. It is an authorized agent for Verizon
Wireless and recognized as its largest retailer in the United
States.37
● Google search results for the terms “cellular sales” and “cellularsales.”38 The
results refer to Applicant.
● Twitter search results for the terms “cellular sales” and “cellularsales.”39 The
results refer to Applicant.
● “Sampling of website home pages of Applicant’s largest third-party competitors”
to show that they do not use the terms “cellular sales” or “cellularsales” to refer to
their services.40 We list the third-party websites below:
● T-Mobile.com;41
● AT&T Wireless (no URL);42
● Xfinity Mobile (no URL);43
● Sprint.com;44

36 March 12, 2020 Response to an Office Action (TSDR 24-26).
37 Id. at TSDR 24.
38 Id. at TSDR 28-108.
39 Id. at TSDR 110-134.
40 Id. at TSDR 136-189.
41 Id. at TSDR 136.
42 Id. at TSDR 139.
43 Id. at TSDR 154.
44 Id. at TSDR 163.
Serial No. 88470232

- 15 -

● Cricket Wireless (no URL);45
● Metro by T-Mobile (no URL);46 and
● Straight Talk Wireless (shop.straighttalk.com).47
● Copies of 25 third-party registrations from the USPTO TSDR database for
marks that include the word “cellular” in connection with cell phones and wireless
related goods and services.48 We list below the third-party registrations:
● Registrations registered on the Principal Register without disclaiming the
exclusive right to use “cellular.”
Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
CELLULARONE
(stylized)
2031598 Wireless telecommunications services
CELLULARVILLA 4217740 Cell phone accessories, namely, cell phone
covers and carrying cases
CELLULARHEROES 4536077 Online retail store services featuring used
cellular phones, smartphones, mobile
phones, tablet computers, personal digital
assistants, and accessories, namely,
headsets, battery chargers, protective
screen covers and cases
CELLULAR VAPING 4990029 Retail store services featuring cell phones,
electronic cigarettes, and oral vaporizers
for smoking purposes

● Registrations registered on the Principal Register with a disclaimer of the
exclusive right to use “cellular.”
Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
CELLULAR
SOLUTIONS
1594160 Mail order catalog services for cellular
telephone accessories

45 Id. at TSDR 170.
46 Id. at TSDR 177.
47 Id. at TSDR 184.
48 October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 274-359).
Serial No. 88470232

- 16 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
CELLULAR WORLD 1798336 Wholesale and retail store services in the
field of cellular telephones, accessories
and equipment therefor
CELLULAR ONE 1983566 Cellular telephones and parts and
accessories, namely antennas and
vehicular chargers therefor
CELLULARSOUTH and
design
2313241 Retail telephone store services;
Telephone communication services
INLAND CELLULAR 2903531 Telephone communication services and
electronic messaging services
CLUB CELLULAR 4741794 Communication services, namely,
transmission of voice, audio, visual
images and data by telecommunications
networks, wireless communication
networks, the internet, information
services networks and data networks
CELLULAR CITI and
design
4826140 Installation, maintenance and repair of
cell phone related hardware
CELLULAR CITY 4940410 Retail store services featuring cell phone
accessories
KINGS CELLULAR 5374441 Cell phone cases
CELLULAR 360 (stylized) 5600540 Protective covers and cases for cell
phones, laptops and portable media
players

● Registered on the Principal Register under the provision of Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), without disclaiming the exclusive right to use
“cellular.”
Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
CELLULAROUTFITTER 5524525 Online retail store services featuring cell
phone accessories

● Registered on the Principal Register under the provision of Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), with a disclaimer of the exclusive right to use
“cellular.”
Serial No. 88470232

- 17 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
UNITED STATES
CELLULAR
1911161 Telephones, antennas and parts therefor
U.S. CELLULAR 3289818 Cellular telephones, cellular telephone
accessories, namely batteries and
electrical battery chargers, and radio
pagers
U.S. CELLULAR 3289821 Wireless communication services, namely,
cellular telephone communications
services, paging services, and satellite
transmission
U.S. CELLULAR and
design
3511029 Cellular telephones, cellular telephone
accessories, namely batteries and
electrical battery chargers, and radio
pagers
CELLULAR SOUTH 3633779 Cellular telephone communication;
wireless telephone telecommunications
services, namely, wireless mobile
telephone calling plans
U.S. CELLULAR
PREPAID
6030035
6030036
Retail store services featuring a full line of
cellular and wireless devices and
accessories

● Registered on the Supplemental Register without disclaiming the exclusive
right to use “cellular.”
Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
METRUM CELLULAR 4661195 Telecommunications services, namely,
providing seamless, two-way, point-to-
point, high-speed communications of
electric, gas, and water utility data over
wireless, cellular networks

● Registered on the Supplemental Register with a disclaimer of the exclusive
right to use “cellular.”
Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
ONSITE CELLULAR
REPAIR
3776526 Installation, maintenance and repair of
cell phone related hardware; installation,
maintenance and repair of computer
hardware
Serial No. 88470232

- 18 -

Mark Reg. No. Goods/Services
BEST CELLULAR 5331706 Wireless telephone telecommunications
services, namely, wireless mobile
telephone calling plans; wireless voice
mail services; telecommunication
services, namely, wireless telephone
services, wireless telephony and wireless
broadband communication services for the
transmission of voice and data.

As noted above, CELLULARSALES is generic if the people who patronize “online
and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and
accessories for cell phones and tablets” perceive CELLULARSALES as a class of
services when used in connection with “online and physical retail store services in the
field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets.”
“An inquiry into the public’s understanding of a mark
requires consideration of the mark as a whole. Even if each
of the constituent words in a combination mark is generic,
the combination is not generic unless the entire
formulation does not add any meaning to the otherwise
generic mark.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293,
1297 [75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421] (Fed. Cir. 2005); see In re
Am. Fertility Soc’y, 188 F.3d 1341, 1347 [51 USPQ2d 1832,
1837] (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the compound word would
plainly have no different meaning from its constituent
words, and dictionaries, or other evidentiary sources,
establish the meaning of those words to be generic, then
the compound word too has been proved generic. No
additional proof of the genericness of the compound word
is required.”).
In re 1800Mattress.com IP LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 92 USPQ2d 1682, 1684 (Fed. Cir.
2009). See also Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729 at *2 (“A term styled ‘generic.com’
is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to
consumers.”).
Serial No. 88470232

- 19 -

We find the terms “Cellular Sales” and, therefore, “Cellularsales,” to be generic.
As discussed above, based on the dictionary definitions for those terms, the “cellular
sales” or “cellularsales” means the transfer of cellular telephones for a price. Thus,
the terms are the name of the service: that is, “Cellular Sales” and “Cellularsales” are
“online and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets
and accessories for cell phones and tablets.”
A mark answers the buyer’s questions “Who are you?
Where do you come from?” “Who vouches for you?” But the
name of the product answers the question “What are you?”
2 MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 12:1 (5th ed. 2021). See also
Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 372 F.3d 1330, 71 USPQ2d 1173,
1182 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (applying the “who-are-you/what-are-you” test).
The eight news articles from the LEXIS/NEXIS database and third-party
websites, and two other third-party websites using the term “cellular sales” in lieu of
the term “sale of cellular telephones” corroborate the dictionary definitions.49
Likewise, the third-party registrations, which we may use in the manner of a
dictionary,50 corroborate finding “Cellular Sales” or “Cellularsales” are generic, by

49 Thus, we do not rely solely on the dictionary definitions. See Applicant’s Brief, p. 10
(6 TTABVUE 11).
50 The Institut National des Appellations D’Origine v. Vintners International Co. Inc.,
958 F.2d 1574, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (third-party registrations show the
sense in which a word is used in ordinary parlance and that a particular term has descriptive
significance as applied to certain goods or services); Interstate Brands Corp. v. Celestial
Seasonings, Inc., 576 F.2d 926, 198 USPQ 151, 153 (CCPA 1978) (“we find no error in the
citation of nine third-party registrations ‘primarily to show the meaning of * * * [‘zing’] in the
same way that dictionaries are used.’”); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955
(TTAB 2006) (“[T]hird-party registrations can be used in the manner of a dictionary definition
to illustrate how a term is perceived in the trade or industry”).
Serial No. 88470232

- 20 -

providing evidence that third-party registrants have considered “Cellular” to be a
generic term in connection with cellular telephones. For example, of the 25 third-
party registrations Applicant submitted, registrants in two of the three registrations
on the Supplemental Register disclaimed the exclusive right to use “Cellular,” and
registrants on seven of the eight registrations registered under Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act disclaimed the exclusive right to use “Cellular.”51
Applicant contends that the evidence of record is insufficient to prove “Cellular
Sales” or “Cellularsales” is generic.
However, there is virtually zero evidence in the record that
the combination of these two terms is used or understood
by the relevant public to generically to refer to the genus of
Applicant’s Services. Considering Applicant competes in a
highly competitive market with many different competitors
that advertise and sell products online, Applicant believes
it is first important for the Board to carefully consider why
there is virtually zero evidence of the phrase “cellular
sales” being used generically by Applicant’s customers or
competitors?52
To the contrary, as discussed above, the dictionary definitions corroborated by the
eight news articles and third-party registrations are sufficient to prove that “Cellular
Sales” and “Cellularsales” is generic for “online and physical retail store services in
the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets.”

51 The one registration under Section 2(f) where the registrant did not disclaim the exclusive
right to use “Cellular” is for the composite mark CELLULAROUTFITTERS for which a
disclaimer is not required. See TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1213.02
(2018) (“However, if a composite mark (or portion thereof) is ‘unitary,’ an individual
component (or of [sic] the unitary portion) that would otherwise be unregistrable need not be
disclaimed.”).
52 Applicant’s Brief, pp. 6-7 (6TTABVUE 7-8).
Serial No. 88470232

- 21 -

“Cellular Sales” for “online and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones,
electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets” is analogous to
“vehicular sales” for “automobile dealership services, “marine sales” for “retail boat
dealership services,” or “food sales” for “grocery store services.”
Applicant asserts that “cellular” and “sales” are “highly ambiguous” because they
can refer to many different products or services and, therefore, “cellular sales” or
“cellularsales” does not refer to any particular product or service.53
The phrase [cellular sales] as a whole is ambiguous given
that the “cellular” term (or its abbreviation “cell”) is
traditionally used as an adjective in this industry to
describe a particular product or service offering (e.g.,
“cellular phone,” “cellular network;” [sic] “cellular tablet;”
[sic] “cellular phone provider,” “cellular phone plan,” etc.).
In other words, the use of “cellular” as an adjective
immediately preceding the “sales” term does not provide
specific information about the services and/or products
actually being sold without also including a reference to the
particular product or service offering.54
However, we do not analyze whether the subject matter at issue is generic in a
vacuum but rather in relation to the goods or services in connection with which it is
used. See In re Virtual Independent Paralegals, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 111512, *2
(TTAB 2019); In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1581, 1587 (TTAB 2014).
In other words, we analyze how consumers perceive “Cellular Sales” or
“Cellularsales” when Applicant uses its proposed mark in connection with “online and
physical retail store services in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and

53 Applicant’s Brief, p. 7 (6 TTABVUE 8).
54 Thomas Decl. ¶8(c) attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR
356).
Serial No. 88470232

- 22 -

accessories for cell phones and tablets.” Because “cellular” means of or relating to a
cellular telephone, when Applicant uses “cellular sales” or “cellularsales” within its
proposed mark in connection with “online and physical retail store services in the
field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets,”
“cellular sales” or “cellularsales” is the name for such services.
Applicant argues the term “Cellularsales” is not generic because “the phrase is a
short tongue twister given the occurrence of the same ‘s’ sound at the beginning of
two consecutive words followed by a final ‘s’ at the end of the second, one syllable
‘sales’ term.55 In other words, consumers perceive “cellularsales” as a unitary term
with a different meaning than its constituent parts.56 Assuming arguendo that
consumers perceive “cellularsales” to be a unitary term, as discussed above,
“cellularsales” has the same meaning as “cellular sales.” Applicant has not given us
an alternative meaning for the asserted unitary term “cellularsales” when used in
connection with “online and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones,
electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets.” Cf. In re Med.
Disposables Co., 25 USPQ2d 1801, 1804 (TTAB 1992) (for a unitary phrase to avoid
descriptiveness, “it must be shown that in combination the descriptiveness of the
individual words has been diminished, that the combination creates a term so
incongruous or unusual as to possess no definitive meaning or significance other than
that of an identifying mark for the goods.”).

55 Applicant’s Brief, p. 8 (6 TTABVUE 9) (citing Thomas Decl. ¶8(b) attached to the October
9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 356)).
56 Applicant’s Brief, p. 8 (6 TTABVUE 9).
Serial No. 88470232

- 23 -

Applicant argues that “cellular sales” or “cellularsales” is not generic because the
public is accustomed to encountering multiple retailers using the term “cellular” in
connection with the sales of cell phones and, therefore, consumers look to terms other
than “cellular” to differentiate retailers. Applicant cites U.S. Cellular, Consumer
Cellular, CellularOne, Cellular South, and Cellular Plus.57 However, Applicant’s
argument does not address whether “cellular sales” or “cellularsales” is generic. The
gist of the argument is that consumers have learned to distinguish different entities
using “cellular” as a part of their service mark by focusing on other components of
those marks.
In any event, the registrations Applicant cites do not help its cause. As noted
above, U.S. CELLULAR and CELLULAR SOUTH are registered on the Principal
Register under Section 2(f) with a disclaimer of the exclusive right to use “cellular.”
CELLULAR ONE is registered on the Principal Register with a disclaimer of the
exclusive right to use “cellular.” Applicant did not submit copies of registrations for
CONSUMER CELLULAR or CELLULAR PLUS.
Applicant also contends that “cellular sales” and “cellularsales” are not generic
because Applicant’s competitors recognize CELLULAR SALES as Applicant’s service
mark.
In other words, competitors are not competitively
disadvantaged if they do not use the phrase because the
phrase is ambiguous and not generic. Further, they
intentionally would not want to use the phrase because
they understand that the relevant public would likely

57 Applicant’s Brief, p. 9 (6 TTABVUE 10) (citing Thomas Decl. ¶8(d) attached to the October
9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 356)).
Serial No. 88470232

- 24 -

construe any such uses to refer to Applicant instead of the
genus of services being provided by the competitor.58
Again, the thrust of this argument is that CELLULAR SALES or CELLULARSALES
has acquired distinctiveness and, therefore, Applicant’s competitors do not use
“cellular sales” or “cellularsales” to avoid confusion, mistake or deception.
Applicant analogizes the facts in this appeal to the facts in In re Trek 2000 Int’l
Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1106, 1113 (TTAB 2010) where there were no examples of
competitors using the term at issue. In Trek, the applicant submitted excerpts from
competitors’ websites showing the absence of that term and, therefore, the lack of
competitive need. At the oral hearing, Applicant emphasized that it is not the first
company in the field, nor is it the only company in the field, yet it is the only company
that uses the term “Cellular Sales.”
The fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a generic designation
does not justify registration if the only significance conveyed by the term is that of a
category of goods. See In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544, 1549 (TTAB
2017) (citing In re Greenliant Systems Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1083 (TTAB 2010). See
also In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1569,
4 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“To allow trademark protection for generic
terms, i.e., names which describe the genus of goods being sold, even when these have
become identified with a first user, would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly,

58 Applicant’s Brief, p. 9 (6 TTABVUE 10).
Serial No. 88470232

- 25 -

since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are.”).59 In this appeal,
the only meaning for the terms “cellular sales” and “cellularsales” is the transfer of
cellular telephones for a price (i.e., “online and physical retail store services in the
field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets).”
In addition, there may be more than one generic term for a product or service. See
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (TTAB
1999); In re Recorded Books, Inc., 42 USPQ2d 1275, 1281 (TTAB 1997).
Applicant explains that another reason competitors do not use “cellular sales” or
“cellularsales” when describing their services is because “the public has effectively
come to understand the source of the identifying function of ‘Cellular Sales’ as
identifying Applicant in view of the longstanding activities and tremendous
commercial success of Applicant.”60
Further, [competitors] would not want to use the phrase
[Cellular Sales] because they understand that the relevant
public would likely construe any such uses to refer to
Applicant instead of the genus of services being provided
by the competitor.61

59 We do not read Trek as requiring “competitive need” to find a term is generic. The Board’s
finding in Trek that “the evidence does not ‘demonstrate a competitive need for others to use’
this term [THUMB DRIVE],” 97 USPQ2d at 1113, is based on In re Hotels.com, LP, 573 F.3d
1300, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1536 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Federal Circuit found competitors have a
need to use “hotels.com” as part of their own domain names and trademarks and that finding
of fact supported the court finding there is a prima facie case that HOTELS.COM is generic.
While competitive need to use a term may be probative of whether the term is generic, the
correct inquiry is whether the relevant public understands the term to be generic.
1800Mattress.com, 92 USPQ2d at 1685.
60 Applicant’s Brief, p. 9 (6 TTABVUE 10).
61 Id.
Serial No. 88470232

- 26 -

Applicant offers no evidence to support this alleged competitor understanding of
the wording at issue, and “[a]ttorney argument is no substitute for evidence.” Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1799 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 76 USPQ2d 1616, 1622 (Fed.
Cir. 2005)). Regardless, essentially, Applicant argues that “Cellular Sales” and
“Cellularsales” are not generic because they have acquired distinctiveness based on
Applicant’s “longstanding activities and tremendous commercial success.” Applicant’s
longstanding activities and commercial success prove only a de facto secondary
meaning.
In finding that the designation RECORDED BOOKS is
incapable of identifying applicant’s goods and
distinguishing them from similar goods of others, we have
considered, of course, all of the evidence touching on the
public perception of this designation, including the
evidence of acquired distinctiveness. … Applicant’s
evidence of acquired distinctiveness suggests that at least
some purchasers view RECORDED BOOKS as a
trademark. Nonetheless, if the evidence as a whole
establishes—as it does to our satisfaction—that the term is
primarily perceived as a generic term, the recognition of
the term as a trademark by a subset of applicant's
customers must be deemed no more than a de facto
secondary meaning that, in legal effect, can neither confer
nor maintain trademark rights in the designation sought
to be registered.
Recorded Books, 42 USPQ2d at 1282. The record includes clear evidence of
genericness, and Applicant’s evidence of commercial success or acquired
distinctiveness does not overcome it. See In re Analog Devices, 871 F.2d 1097, 10
USPQ2d 1879, 1879 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Applicant’s “evidence shows only that the
relevant public may also have come to associate [applicant] with the term ‘analog
Serial No. 88470232

- 27 -

devices’ even though it is generic. Such evidence does not, indeed cannot, rebut
genericness.”) (citing Northland Aluminum Prods., 227 USPQ at 964 (“Bundt”
common descriptive name for type of cake and evidence of de facto secondary meaning
cannot change that result)).
Following full consideration of all the evidence and arguments, we find that
consumers perceive the terms “Cellular Sales” and “Cellularsales” used in connection
with “online and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones, electronic
tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets” as an apt descriptive name for the
services. Therefore, “Cellular Sales” is a generic term for the identified services. For
the preceding reasons, we affirm the requirement that Applicant disclaim the
exclusive right to use the term “Cellular Sales.”
III. Acquired Distinctiveness
For completeness, we now address the alternative ground for refusing to register
CELLULARSALES and design without a disclaimer of the term “Cellular Sales” —
that, if “Cellular Sales” is not generic, it nonetheless is merely descriptive and has
not acquired distinctiveness. Although we have found “Cellular Sales” to be generic
for “online and physical retail store services in the field of cell phones, electronic
tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets,” we analyze this alternative
ground in the event a reviewing court finds on appeal that “Cellular Sales” is not
generic. For this analysis, we therefore treat “Cellular Sales” as being merely
descriptive rather than generic. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Princeton Vanguard, LLC,
124 USPQ2d at 1204 (citing Sheetz, 108 USPQ2d at 1367).
Serial No. 88470232

- 28 -

Implicit in our holding that the evidence before us establishes that “Cellular
Sales” is generic for “online and physical retail store services in the field of cell
phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones and tablets” is a finding that
“Cellular Sales” is not only merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified services, but
is highly descriptive of the services under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 2(e)(1). “The generic name of a thing is in fact the ultimate in
descriptiveness.” Bellsouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp. 60 F.3d 1564, 35 USPQ2d
1554, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530); Weiss Noodle,
129 USPQ at 413 (“The name of a thing is the ultimate in descriptiveness. … It is
immaterial that the name is in a foreign language.”). See also In re Automated Mktg.
Sys., Inc., 873 F.2d 1451, 11 USPQ2d 1319, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (after finding
SALES FOLLOW-UP for soliciting repeat and referral business for automobile
dealership services generic, “the highly descriptive nature of ‘SALES FOLLOW-UP’
outweighed [applicant’s] evidence of acquired distinctiveness.”); In re Noon Hour
Food Prods., Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1172 (TTAB 2008) (finding, despite applicant’s claim
of use in commerce for almost one hundred years, as well as an “inadvertently
cancelled” seventy-year-old registration for the mark BOND-OST for cheese, current
evidence clearly showed the mark was generic for the goods, and assuming arguendo
that BOND-OST is not generic, that applicant had failed to establish acquired
distinctiveness of the highly descriptive mark); In re Waverly Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1620,
1623 (TTAB 1993) (finding MEDICINE not generic, but a highly descriptive term that
had acquired distinctiveness, for medical journals).
Serial No. 88470232

- 29 -

Pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), matter that is
descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) may nonetheless be registered on the Principal
Register if it “has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods [or services] in
commerce.” Thus, assuming that “Cellular Sales” is not generic, Applicant may
register its mark on the Principal Register without disclaiming the exclusive right to
use “Cellular Sales” if Applicant proves that “Cellular Sales” has acquired
distinctiveness (also known as “secondary meaning”) as used in connection with
Applicant’s services in commerce. See Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC,
668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1728-30 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Apollo Med. Extrusion
Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Tech., Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1848 (TTAB 2017).
We generally understand acquired distinctiveness to mean an acquired “mental
association in buyers’ minds between the alleged mark and a single source of the
product.” Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., 123 USPQ2d at 1848 (quoting 2 MCCARTHY
ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 15:5 (4th ed., June 2017 Update)). In
analyzing genericness or descriptiveness of “Cellular Sales”, we considered all of the
evidence of record touching on the public perception of that term as discussed above
and below.
An applicant seeking registration of a mark under Section 2(f) bears the ultimate
burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness. See In re Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
675 F.3d 1368, 102 USPQ2d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Yamaha Int’l Corp. v.
Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 1577, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1005-06 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
As noted above, Applicant’s burden increases with the level of descriptiveness.
Serial No. 88470232

- 30 -

Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also
In re Bos. Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(“[C]onsidering the highly descriptive nature of the proposed mark, [Applicant] has
not met its burden to show that the proposed mark has acquired secondary
meaning.”).
Because we have found that the term “Cellular Sales” is highly descriptive of
Applicant’s services, Applicant’s burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness
under Section 2(f) is commensurately high. See Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at
1424; In re Bongrain Int’l Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1729 (Fed. Cir.
1990); Greenliant Sys., 97 USPQ2d at 1085.
To establish acquired distinctiveness, Applicant must demonstrate that relevant
consumers perceive the term “Cellular Sales” as identifying the producer or source of
the services (i.e., Applicant). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205,
54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000) (acquired distinctiveness exists “when, in the minds of
the public, the primary significance of a [proposed mark] is to identify the source of
the product rather than the product itself”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); Stuart Spector Designs Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp.,
94 USPQ2d 1549, 1554 (TTAB 2009) (“An applicant must show that the primary
significance of the product configuration in the minds of consumers is not the product
but the source of that product in order to establish acquired distinctiveness.”).
Applicants may show acquired distinctiveness by direct or circumstantial
evidence. Schlafly v. Saint Louis Brewery, LLC, 909 F.3d 420, 128 USPQ2d 1739,
Serial No. 88470232

- 31 -

1743 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The Board and courts have recognized that both direct and
circumstantial evidence may show secondary meaning.”) (citation omitted); In re
Ennco Display Sys., 56 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (TTAB 2000). Direct evidence includes
testimony, declarations or surveys of consumers as to their state of mind. Ennco
Display Sys., 56 USPQ2d at 1283. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is
evidence from which we may infer a consumer association, such as years of use, prior
registrations, extensive sales and advertising, unsolicited media coverage, and any
similar evidence showing wide exposure of the mark to consumers. Id.; see also Tone
Bros. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 31 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (listing, as
examples of circumstantial evidence, advertising, sales figures, and intentional
copying by competitors).
In particular, the Federal Circuit set out factors to consider in assessing whether
a mark has acquired distinctiveness, stating as follows:
[T]he considerations to be assessed in determining whether
a mark has acquired secondary meaning can be described
by the following six factors: (1) association of the
trade[mark] with a particular source by actual purchasers
(typically measured by customer surveys); (2) length,
degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of
advertising; (4) amount of sales and number of customers;
(5) intentional copying; and (6) unsolicited media coverage
of the product embodying the mark.
Converse, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 909 F.3d 1110, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). See also In re SnoWizard, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1001, 1004-05 (TTAB 2018).
On this list, no single factor is determinative and “[a]ll six factors are to be weighed
together in determining the existence of secondary meaning.” In re Guaranteed Rate,
Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 10869, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (quoting Converse, 128 USPQ2d at
Serial No. 88470232

- 32 -

1546); In re Tires, Tires, Tires Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1153, 1157 (TTAB 2009). See also
Ennco Display Sys., 56 USPQ2d at 1283 (“Direct evidence [of acquired
distinctiveness] includes actual testimony, declarations or surveys of consumers as
their state of mind. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is evidence from
which consumer association might be inferred, such as years of use, extensive amount
of sales and advertising, and any similar evidence showing wide exposure of the mark
to consumers.”).
A. Association of the proposed trademark with a particular source
by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys).
Applicant did not submit any evidence regarding whether actual purchasers
associate the term “Cellular Sales” with Applicant. This factor is neutral.
B. Length, degree, and exclusivity of use.
Reese K. Thomas, Applicant’s Vice President, declared that Applicant has used
“Cellular Sales” “substantially exclusively and continuously in interstate commerce
in connection with its retail store services in the field of cell phones (and later tablets)
and related accessories since at least 1993.”62 In addition, there is no evidence that
any of Applicant’s competitors use the term “Cellular Sales” in advertising or selling
their goods or services. In this regard, Mr. Thomas testified that he is “not aware of
any instances of our competitors using the phrase ‘cellular sales’ to generically
describe their services.”63

62 Thomas Decl. ¶3 attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 354).
63 Thomas Decl. ¶7(a) attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration
(TSDR 355).
Serial No. 88470232

- 33 -

“Applicant currently opened 780 stores with over 7,200 team members while
expanding to 41 states across the country.”64
We find that Applicant has made substantially exclusive and extensive use of
“Cellular Sales” since 1993.
C. Amount and manner of advertising.
Applicant’s advertising expenditures exceed $4,500,000 per year.65
[Applicant’s] advertising expenditures have included, but
are not limited to, advertisements distributed through
various means and markets throughout the country such
as via television, radio, Internet, newspaper, and magazine
advertisements; having booths at various home and trade
shows; and sponsoring endless community activities and
events such as 5k runs, youth sports teams, golf
tournaments, etc. The advertising throughout the years
have always prominently depicted our CELLULAR SALES
mark (and variations thereof) because CELLULAR SALES
is our house mark.66
Applicant “is also very active in various charitable efforts” including the Susan G.
Komen Race for the Cure, Habitat for Humanity, Boys and Girls Clubs, American
Cancer Society, Second Harvest Food Bank, etc.67

64 Thomas Decl. ¶3(f) attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration
(TSDR 354).
65 Thomas Decl. ¶5 attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 355).
66 Id.
67 Thomas Decl. ¶6 and Exhibit A attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration
(TSDR 355 and 358-359).
Serial No. 88470232

- 34 -

Nevertheless, we note that the signage on Applicant’s storefronts feature the
VERIZON trademark rather than “Cellular Sales.”68 We reproduce a photograph of
one of Applicant’s storefronts from Applicant’s website
(cellularsales.com/store/stores/).69

Applicant displays “Cellular Sales” on its door as reproduced below:70

68 Applicant’s “About-Us” webpage attached to the March 12, 2020 Response to an Office
Action (TSDR 20); Applicant’s website (cellularsales.com) attached to the September 12, 2019
Office Action (TSDR 22).
69 Applicant’s website (cellularsales.com) attached to the September 12, 2019 Office Action
(TSDR 22).
70 Applicant’s specimen of use accompanying the application.
Serial No. 88470232

- 35 -

The only evidence of record of advertising displaying “Cellular Sales” is
Applicant’s website (cellularsales.com) which displays “Cellular Sales” as reproduced
below:71

If these examples are representative of Applicant’s advertising, Applicant appears
to promote its association as a Verizon authorized retailer at least as much as it does
its “Cellular Sales” service mark. Consumers may mistakenly perceive Verizon as the
source of “cellular sales” services.
We find the amount and manner of Applicant’s advertising to be a neutral factor
because it does not support finding “Cellular Sales” has acquired distinctiveness.
D. Amount of sales and number of customers.
Applicant’s revenues exceed $2 billion per year with approximately 2,000,000
handsets sold per year.72 Applicant’s revenues and units sold (assuming a direct
association with the number of customers) are substantial even without evidence
regarding Applicant’s market share or Applicant rank in terms of sales in the trade,
We find that Applicant’s sales and number of customers supports finding “Cellular
Sales” has acquired distinctiveness.

71 September 12, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 22). See also Thomas Decl. Exhibit A attached to
the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 27).
72 Thomas Decl. ¶4 attached to the October 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration (TSDR 354).
Serial No. 88470232

- 36 -

E. Intentional copying.
There is no evidence of intentional copying.
F. Unsolicited media coverage of the services referring to “Cellular
Sales.”
The Examining Attorney submitted three news articles referring to Applicant.
● “New cellular sales store opens in Oak Harbor,” Whidbey News-Times
(whidbeynewstimes.com) (December 11, 2018).
Cellular Sales, the largest independent Verizon Wireless
retailer by volume, has opened a new store in Oak Harbor
as part of its expansion in Washington state [sic].73
● “Cellular Sales Opens Second Store Location in Fresno, California,” Yahoo!
Finance (yahoo.com) (April 30, 2019).
Cellular Sales, the largest independent Verizon Wireless
retailer by volume, announces their expansion in
California with a new store in Fresno. Over the next year,
the store is expected to add new jobs within the local
community.74
● “Verizon distributor Cellular Sales opens a new store every three days, expects
continued growth,” Knoxville News Sentinel (knoxnews.com) (February 11, 2019).
Dane Scism, CEO of Cellular Sales, spends many of his
days traveling the country scouting real estate for new
Verizon store locations.
Cellular Sales operates 745 Verizon stores in 42 states. The
company operates 28 stores in East Tennessee and has 598
employees. On average, the more than $2 billion-dollar
company opens a new store every three days.75

73 September 12, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 15).
74 September 12, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 16).
75 September 12, 2019 Office Action (TSDR 17).
Serial No. 88470232

- 37 -

There are only three unsolicited news articles of record referring to Applicant and
the articles note Applicant’s association as an independent Verizon Wireless retailer.
The unsolicited media coverage that refers to “Cellular Sales” does not support
finding “Cellular Sales” has acquired distinctiveness.
G. Conclusion
After considering all of the factors for which there is evidence in determining
whether the term “Cellular Sales” has acquired distinctiveness, we find that
Applicant has not met its burden of proving “Cellular Sales” has acquired
distinctiveness. Specifically, the little advertising of record focuses on Applicant’s
relationship as a Verizon retailer, as does the unsolicited media. Analyzing the
evidence in its entirety, Applicant has failed to show that consumers associate the
term “Cellular Sales” as the source of Applicant’s “online and physical retail store
services in the field of cell phones, electronic tablets and accessories for cell phones
and tablets.”
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark based on the
requirement that Applicant disclaim the exclusive right to use “Cellular Sales” under
Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6(a).
However, if Applicant submits a disclaimer of “Cellular Sales” to the Board within
thirty days of the mailing date of this decision, Applicant will have met the
requirement for the disclaimer and the application will proceed. Trademark Rule
2.142(g), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(g); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
MANUAL OF PROCEDURE § 1218 (2020). The disclaimer should read as follows:
Serial No. 88470232

- 38 -

“No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “Cellular Sales” apart from the mark
as shown.”