Dikran M. Iskenderian

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2009

No. 77266461 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2009)

Mailed: September 1, 2009

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Dikran M. Iskenderian
________

Serial No. 77266461
Filed: August 28, 2007
_______

Benjamin Aydindzhyan, Ourfalian & Ourfalian for Dikran M.
Iskenderian.

Angela Gaw, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104,
Michael Baird, Managing Attorney.
_______

Before Rogers, Cataldo, and Mermelstein, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Mermelstein, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration of TRADITIONAL ARMENIAN
(in standard characters) for “sandwiches; panini” in
International Class 30.1
Registration has been finally refused pursuant to
Trademark Act § 2(e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that applicant’s mark is primarily merely
descriptive of the identified goods.
We reverse.
I. Descriptiveness
THIS DECISION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 77266461
2
A. Applicable Law
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys
knowledge of a significant quality, characteristic,
function, feature or purpose of the goods with which it is
used. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Whether a particular term is merely
descriptive is determined in relation to the products for
which registration is sought and the context in which the
term is used, not in the abstract or on the basis of
guesswork. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ
215, 218 (CCPA 1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224
(TTAB 2002). In other words, the issue is whether someone
who knows what the products are will understand the mark to
convey information about them. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64
USPQ2d 1314, 1316-1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent &
Trademark Serv. Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In
re Home Builders Ass’n of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317
(TTAB 1990); In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366
(TTAB 1985).
“On the other hand, if one must exercise mature
thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order
to determine what product or service characteristics the

1 Based upon the allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark
in commerce.
Serial No. 77266461
3
term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely
descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ
496, 497 (TTAB 1978); see also In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363,
364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Sys., Inc., 209
USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980). Even where individual terms are
descriptive, combining them may evoke a new and unique
commercial impression. If each component retains its
merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods,
without the combination of terms creating a unique or
incongruous meaning, then the resulting combination is also
merely descriptive. In re Tower Tech., 64 USPQ2d at 1317-
1318.
B. Discussion
Applicant’s mark is TRADITIONAL ARMENIAN for
“sandwiches; panini.” In response to the examining
attorney’s request for information about the identified
goods, applicant indicates that
Traditional Armenian is a sandwich which consists
of its primary ingredient the “soudjouk.”
Soudjouk is a type of sausage eaten in many
different countries aside from Armenia, including
countries such as Turkey, Croatia, Iraq, and
Bulgaria. It consists of ground meat, with
various spices including cumin, garlic, salt, and
red pepper fed into a sausage casing and allowed
to dry for several weeks.

Serial No. 77266461
4
The Examining Attorney argues that TRADITIONAL
ARMENIAN is merely descriptive of applicant’s identified
goods:
As a singular term, “TRADITIONAL” is defined as
“in accordance with the practice of following
behavior and beliefs that have been so
established.” When used in association with
food, third parties often use the term
“TRADITIONAL” to describe types of food that
adhere to cultural standards or reflect
particular customs, including the use of specific
ingredients. Furthermore, third parties often
use the term “TRADITIONAL” in combination with a
particular nationality in order to identify a
class of food, such as “traditional Mexican Food”
or “Traditional Japanese Food.” ....

In light of the marketplace use of the term
“TRADITIONAL” in relation to food and the
definition of “ARMENIAN,” the Applicant’s mark is
merely descriptive of the identified goods
because potential purchasers of the Applicant’s
goods would associate the terms “TRADITIONAL
ARMENIAN” as descriptive of a food item
incorporating customary ingredients from Armenia.

Ex. Att. Br. at 2-3 (citations omitted).
The Examining Attorney submitted a dictionary
definition of the term “tradition:”
tradition ... a way of behaving or a belief that
has been established for a long time, or the
practice of following behavior and beliefs that
have been so established

CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (Jul. 11, 2008) (online
edition). The examining attorney also requested in her
brief that we take judicial notice of the term “ARMENIAN”
as “of or relating to Armenia or its people, language or
Serial No. 77266461
5
culture,” citing THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE (4th ed. 2000) (www.bartleby.com). Ex. Att. Br. at
2-3. While the Board prefers that a copy of the relevant
dictionary definition accompany any request for judicial
notice, applicant did not object to the Examining
Attorney’s request (applicant did not file a reply brief),
or at any point argue that the term “Armenian” has a
different meaning. We find that judicial notice in this
instance is clearly appropriate as the proposed definition
is not subject to reasonable dispute. See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b).
The Examining Attorney also submitted the following
evidence:
1. The review of a restaurant in Arlington, VA,
called Arax Cafe. The review notes that “you can find
traditional Armenian sandwiches, salads, snacks and
pastries deftly prepared....” www.washingtonpost.com (Jul.
11, 2008).
2. A review of Massis Armenian Sandwich Shop in Los
Angeles, CA. This review does not mention a “TRADITIONAL
ARMENIAN” sandwich, nor does it discuss any other
sandwiches which may be available at the restaurant. (A
chicken shwarma plate and chicken skewer are specifically
mentioned. Both come with pita bread on the side.)
Serial No. 77266461
6
www.yelp.com (Jul. 11, 2008).
3. The web page of a restaurant called Rhodes-On-
The-Pawtuxet in Cranston, RI, bearing the banner ARMENIAN
FEST 2003. Among other items, the restaurant is billed as
serving three sandwiches (losh kebab, shish kebab, and
chicken sandwiches). The menu does not describe these
sandwiches as “traditional” or “Armenian.”
www.frenchyspopcorn.com (Dec. 5, 2007).
We find that the evidence of record is insufficient to
clearly establish that the mark TRADITIONAL ARMENIAN is
merely descriptive of applicant’s goods. Other evidence
submitted by the Examining Attorney establishes the
uncontroversial proposition that the term “TRADITIONAL” is
sometimes applied to food (Dutch, African, Mexican, and
Japanese, for example), and that Armenia is noted for its
own (non-sandwich) food traditions. But although
sandwiches are available in Armenia and at some Armenian
restaurants in the United States, it is far from clear that
the relevant consumers would immediately, and without
further conjecture, understand that there is any such thing
as an ARMENIAN sandwich, TRADITIONAL or otherwise.
While one review indicates that a restaurant serves
sandwiches, among other “traditional Armenian” items, it
does not mention the nature of any such food and is – by
Serial No. 77266461
7
its nature as a review – a second-hand account of what the
restaurant serves and what it may be called. And while the
Examining Attorney submitted evidence of the “Massis
Armenian Sandwich Shop,” it is not immediately clear from
this evidence whether the term “Armenian” as used in the
name of the restaurant refers to a type or characteristic
of a sandwich, the nationality of the owners, or is a
reference to non-sandwich food on the menu. Indeed, this
reference actually makes no mention of sandwiches, other
than in the name of the restaurant.
II. Conclusion
In order to conclude that a mark is merely descriptive
within the meaning of Trademark Act § 2(e)(1), we must find
that it immediately describes, without conjecture or
speculation, a significant feature or characteristic of the
identified goods. See, e.g., In re Finisar Corp., 78
USPQ2d 1618, 1623 (TTAB 2006). Moreover, any doubt on the
matter must be resolved in favor of the applicant. In re
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d
1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Box
Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953, 1955 (TTAB 2006).
After careful consideration of the record evidence and
argument, we conclude that applicant’s mark is not merely
descriptive of a feature or characteristic of applicant’s
Serial No. 77266461
8
identified goods. While the mark is no doubt suggestive,
on this record, we are constrained to conclude that it is
nonetheless not merely descriptive. The Examining
Attorney’s strongest evidence – the review of the Arax Cafe
– is simply insufficient to demonstrate that consumers
would immediately ascribe a particular meaning to
applicant’s mark.
Decision: The refusal to register under Trademark Act
§ 2(e)(1) is accordingly REVERSED.