Expo Communications, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2008

No. 78654480 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2008)

Mailed:
February 1, 2008

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Expo Communications, Inc.
________

Serial Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
_______

Joseph F. Nicholson and Michael J. Freno of Kenyon & Kenyon
LLP for Expo Communications, Inc.

Steven Foster, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106
(Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Quinn and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Expo Communications, Inc. filed a single application,
Serial No. 78654480, to register the mark VIDEOPINIONS for
the following services, as amended:
Providing information on consumer
products and services by way of a
global computer network (Class 35);

Television broadcasting, cable
television broadcasting, satellite
television broadcasting, and
interactive video-on-demand
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
2
transmission services, all in the field
of information on consumer products and
services (Class 38); and

Entertainment services in the nature of
on-going television programs in the
field of information about consumer
products and services (Class 41).

The application was filed on June 20, 2005, and was based
on Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act (intent-to-use).
After the Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of
registration pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive of the identified services,
applicant filed a notice of appeal, a request for
reconsideration, and a request to divide the application
into the separate classes.1 Accordingly, the Class 35
services remain in the parent application, Serial No.
78654480, while the Class 38 services were placed in child
application Serial No. 78978112, and the Class 41 services
were placed in child application Serial No. 78978113. The
Examining Attorney considered the request for
reconsideration after the application was divided, and

1 In point of fact, the request for reconsideration was filed
more than six months after the issuance of the final refusal, and
therefore was technically a request for remand. However, as the
Board pointed out in its March 13, 2007 order, because applicant
had indicated in its notice of appeal that it was simultaneously
filing a request for reconsideration, and the Board remanded the
application to the Examining Attorney based on that statement,
the Board chose not to disturb that decision.
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
3
issued a combined Office action with respect to all three
classes, denying the request.
The appeals for all three applications have been fully
briefed.2 Because the applications are identical in terms
of the evidence that has been submitted, and because they
involve similar questions of law and fact, we hereby
consolidate the appeals and decide them in this single
opinion. Because the evidence in the file was submitted
prior to the division of the application, our references to
statements made in Office actions and responses, and
evidence submitted with such correspondence, is the same
for all three applications. Separate briefs were filed for
each application, but because the language/arguments in
both applicant’s and the Examining Attorney’s briefs are
largely the same, we will cite the briefs in the parent
application in this opinion unless an argument is specific
to one of the child applications. Thus, in our discussion
of the services of the individual applications, we have
cited to the brief filed in the individual application.

2 It is noted that with its appeal briefs applicant has submitted
as exhibits Office actions and responses that are in each file,
resulting in attachments of almost 300 pages. Applicant is
advised that, while occasionally it is helpful to attach a single
page as an exhibit to a brief, there is no need to resubmit
copies of correspondence and evidence in their entirety. In
deciding an appeal, the Board reviews the entire application
file.
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
4
Applicant has explained the nature of its services as
follows:
The Applicant solicits consumer
information about products and services
and allows people to upload homemade
digital audiovisual works describing
and demonstrating those products or
services. Although several websites
allow consumers to review products by
writing out descriptions of the product
(see, e.g., www.epinions.com and
www.amazon.com), the Applicant’s
service does not strictly solicit
written reviews of products. Rather,
the Applicant’s services allow people
to upload audiovisual demonstrations of
products (or services) and also allow
people to view and listen to the
audiovisual demonstrations of others.

Applicant has further explained:

The Applicant itself does not provide
opinions about the products or services
of others per se, but rather, the
Applicant solicits, collects,
organizes, and shares objective third-
party demonstrations, commentary, and
reviews of consumer products and
services of others with others. … The
demonstrations of and information on
consumer products and services is
shared amongst consumers in the form of
homemade digital audiovisual works,
i.e., videos with an audio component.
…The product (or service)
demonstrations and information offered
by the Applicant cover the gamut of
products and services. … The
Applicant’s services include
soliciting, collecting, and sharing
audiovisual demonstrations and
information about consumer products and
services. Such audiovisual works may
or may not include or involve a
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
5
consumer’s opinion about a particular
product or service, and may instead
involve the demonstration of a
particular product or service and
useful information about it.

Response filed July 13, 2006, pp. 2, 3.

The Examining Attorney has refused registration on the
basis that VIDEOPINIONS is merely a telescoped version of
the words VIDEO OPINIONS, and would be immediately
recognized as this term, and that VIDEO OPINIONS describes
a significant feature of the services as identified in each
application.
In support of his position the Examining Attorney has
made of record dictionary definitions of “video” and
“opinions,” including the following:
Video: (adj.) 1. relating to visual
image reproduction: relating to the
recording or broadcasting of visual
information or entertainment by means
of videotape or television3

Opinion: 2. a personal view, attitude
or appraisal;4
1a. a view, judgment or appraisal
formed in the mind about a particular
matter.5

The Examining Attorney has also made of record articles
taken from the NEXIS database, and website pages. Excerpts

3 http//Encarta.msn.com.
4 Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © 1997.
5 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.m-w.com.
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
6
from some of these articles and webpages are set forth
below:
Headline: Media Morph: Videopinions
… While written user reviews have
become a powerful tool for consumers
looking to buy, a few firms are betting
video opinions will be the next driver.
ExpoTV [applicant] has built a business
on aggregating videos of its users
reviewing products--so far they have
more than 13,000 on the website. …
Where you’ll find it: Expo TV
syndicates its reviews to places such
as GoogleVideo and AOL Video and on VOD
with cable operators such as Comcast,
Time Warner and Charter. …But the big
growth opportunity for video reviews
lies in the search engines integrating
video and text--something largely
considered inevitable. …
The ad angle: Video opinion sites will
be mostly ad-supported on a cost-per-
click basis.
“Advertising Age,” October 23, 2006

Gorson… recently entered an online
contest to post a video opinion and
found himself one of the grand-prize
winners.
“I thought I’d try my hand at
reviewing,” said Gorson of his decision
to enter the ExpoTV contest with his
thoughts on “Prey,” a personal computer
game.
As a result of Gorson’s win, his video
opinion also will be featured on the
Comcast On Demand network.
“Chicago Daily Herald,” October 15,
2006

[article on “Survivor” plan to separate
contestants into ethnic groups]
The show has played up its racial
politics both through TV ads and
online, asking fans on the “Survivor”
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
7
Web site to submit video opinions on
the upcoming season.
“The Boston Herald,” September 8, 2006

A recent article recounted how a
consortium of peace groups became
frustrated with network news coverage
of the Gulf War. They solicited video
opinions from groups nationwide,
received 100 responses and then culled
them, broadcasting four short programs
on cable and PBS stations.
“Los Angeles Times,” July 25, 1991

Watch video opinions from regular
citizens, community leaders,
politicians.
[Webpage headed Buck the System]
www.latinosfor89.org

Make a “free speech” opinion video for
Katie Couric [title]
Katie Couric just instituted a segment
on the CBS news called “Free Speech.”
…She should involve us regular folks in
the conversation by creating a website
where we can upload our own video
opinions, we can vote and comment on
each others’ opinions, and CBS can use
selected opinions from the website in
their free speech segment. If you want
Katie to open up the conversation,
upload a video expressing your opinion
about any issue….
http://wearethemedia.com

Sports Video Sharing Site Launches with
NCAA Tournament
Fans can upload video opinions or
record webcam comments directly to the
site.
www.prnewswire.com
[same article at http://be.sys-con.com]

Another cable network, ExpoTV has
gained traction as a video-on-demand
service featuring high-quality
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
8
infomercials and user-generated
consumer video opinions on various
products.
www.mediavillage.com

A new way to communicate health,
www.3four50.com, has been launched by
the Oxford Health Alliance….
All of the content on this open space
will be user-generated, and currently
falls under a number of categories….
…Blogs and v-blogs—text and video
opinions from anyone wanting to share
their views text or video
www.medicalnewstoday.com

Video opinions allow our viewers to
share their own unbiased, personalized
experiences with Keen shoes and to
share with our community. Vide [sic]
opinions are another way keenmart.com
wants to make you a wiser shopper. But
we need your Help! Upload your video
opinion to YouTube.com and then email
us the link. We’ll post it here for
others to see.
www.keenmart.com

Play The Voting GAME—Use Voting (Not
Guns) And Swing The Sword Your Way With
a Vote!!! [headline]
…Step 3—We encourage UNCENSORED video
opinions and debates on various topics
at http://www.youtube.com/group/WeThe
PeopleVideos to allow yourself to tell
people about your own identity or
persuade them to VOTE the way you want
them to in some upcoming online vote.
www.newtechnologyadvantage.com

A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), if it forthwith
conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient, quality,
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
9
characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the
goods or services. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d
811, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not
immediately convey an idea of each and every specific
feature of the applicant’s goods or services in order to be
considered to be merely descriptive; rather, it is
sufficient that the term describes one significant
attribute, function or property of the goods or services.
In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re
MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973). Whether a term 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 the goods or services, and the possible
significance that the term would have to the average
purchaser of the goods or services because of the manner of
its use; that a term may have other meanings in different
contexts is not controlling. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204
USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). Moreover, if the mark is
descriptive of any of the goods or services for which
registration is sought, it is proper to refuse registration
as to the entire class. In re Analog Devices Inc., 6
USPQ2d 1808 (TTAB 1988), aff’d without pub. op., 871 F.2d
1097, 10 USPQ2d 1879 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
10
The evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney shows
that “video opinions” is a term that has been used in both
newspaper articles and websites to refer to videos in which
people give their opinions on a subject. This meaning is
also supported by the dictionary definitions the Examining
Attorney made of record.
Applicant has asserted that “video” and “opinion” have
various definitions (which applicant has made of record),
including, for “video,” music videos and video recorders,
and, for “opinion,” favorable esteem and a formal statement
by a judge. Because these words have many meanings, it is
applicant’s position that “consumers cannot come to any
clear understanding as to what ‘videopinions’ (or ‘video
opinions’) could possibly mean.” Brief, p. 15.
Rather, applicant states that because of the different
meanings of the words “video” and “opinion,” “there are
hundreds of permutations and possibilities, many of which
make no sense (e.g., combining the noun ‘video’ with
‘opinion’ creates nonsense, similar to ‘cat dog’).” Brief,
pp. 15-16. These include “video recordings of court
proceeding or court ‘opinions’” and “written movie reviews,
i.e., reviews of videos.” Brief, p. 16.
We are not persuaded by this argument. As stated
above, the determination of whether a mark is merely
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
11
descriptive is not made in the abstract, but in relation to
the services for which registration is sought. In
particular, that a term may have other meanings in
different contexts is not controlling. We must be
concerned with how potential consumers would view the mark
as it is used in connection with applicant’s services. In
the context of applicant’s services, consumers would not,
for example, view the word “opinion” as a court decision or
view “video” as a video recorder. See In re Polo
International Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (DOC-CONTROL
is merely descriptive of document management software; in
view of the goods, DOC would be viewed as “document” rather
than “doctor”).
Nor are we persuaded by applicant’s argument that the
combination of “video” and “opinions” “has no meaning
whatsoever in the English language or in the minds of
consumers.” Brief, p. 16. The uses of the term “video
opinions” in the above-quoted articles and websites show
that the term is viewed as having a readily understood
meaning. It would make no sense for an author to use a
term that readers would not understand. The fact that the
entire phrase “video opinions” is not defined in a
dictionary does not prove otherwise. Many descriptive
terms result from a combination of two words that are
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
12
defined separately in a dictionary, but are not listed as a
combined term. See In re National Basketball Association,
180 USPQ 480 (TTAB 1973) (DRIBBLE AND SHOOT merely
descriptive of service of conducting contests to develop
basketball skills; “the mere fact that this combination of
words is not found in any dictionary is not controlling on
the question of descriptiveness”). In fact, we would not
expect to see a specific dictionary listing for “video
opinion” unless the term were generic, and that is not the
basis for the Examining Attorney’s refusal of registration.
In its brief applicant claims that the Office has
conceded that there is little descriptive usage of “video
opinions.” p. 12. In fact, the Examining Attorney has
stated in his brief that “the evidence of third-party use
is not extensive.” However, the Examining Attorney’s
statement was not a concession that there is little
descriptive usage of “video opinions,” only that there is
limited evidence that third parties are using the phrase in
their own businesses. It is clear from the articles and
website evidence set forth in this opinion that “video
opinions” is a recognized term for videos in which people
give their opinions on a topic or product. We also agree
with the Examining Attorney that it is not necessary to
show descriptive use of a term by competitors in order to
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
13
support a finding of mere descriptiveness. The cases are
legion that the first and only user may not appropriate a
descriptive term. See In re Polo International Inc.,
supra; In re Pennzoil Products Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB
1991); In re National Basketball Association, supra.6 Here,
the limited evidence of third-party use could be explained
by the fact that third parties are not currently offering
these services. See applicant’s response filed July 13,
2006. (“The Applicant is not aware of any third party
offering services of the same type.”)7
Having found that “video opinions” is a recognized
term, we consider whether applicant’s mark, VIDEOPINIONS,
would be recognized as “video opinions.” Although
applicant’s mark is telescoped, such that the letter “O”
services as the last letter of “video” and the first letter
of “opinions,” we have no doubt that consumers would
perceive VIDEOPINIONS as being the equivalent of “video

6 In its brief applicant says that a subissue is “whether the
Office failed to make out a prima facie case of obviousness when
it concedes that there is little evidence of descriptive use of
the proposed mark. p. 3. “Obviousness” is, of course, a concept
in patent law, not trademark law, and it has no relevance to the
issue of descriptiveness.
7 In its appeal briefs applicant has stated that it has since
learned about “several quasi-competitor type companies.” We have
given this statement no consideration. No evidence of
competitors’ activities is of record, and applicant cannot
attempt to make such evidence of record by an untimely statement
made in its briefs. See TBMP §704.06(b) (2d ed. rev. 2004).

Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
14
opinions.” In this respect, it is similar to other cases
in which telescoped marks have been found descriptive.
See, for example, In re Omaha National, 819 F.2d 1117, 2
USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987 (FIRSTIER, the equivalent of
“first tier,” is merely descriptive of banking services); In
re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95 (TTAB 1986)
(EXPRESSERVICE merely descriptive of banking and trust
services); In re BankAmerica Corp., 229 USPQ 852 (TTAB
1986) PERSONALINE merely descriptive of consumer loan
services in which a personal line of credit is provided);
In re U.S. Steel Corp., 225 USPQ 750 (TTAB 1985) (SUPEROPE
merely descriptive of wire rope); In re Gagliardi Bros,
Inc., 218 USPQ 181 (TTAB 1983) (BEEFLAKES merely
descriptive of thinly sliced beef). As in those cases,
consumers will merely fill in the missing letter without
thinking. Thus, despite the telescoping of the words,
consumers will readily perceive the mark as being “video
opinions.” VIDEOPINIONS does not, contrary to applicant’s
argument, evoke “a new and unique commercial impression.”
Brief, p. 17. This case is different from Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 186 USPQ 557
(TTAB 1975), cited by applicant, in which BIASTEEL was
found not descriptive of tires. It was not the telescoping
of the two descriptive words BIASTEEL that resulted in this
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
15
finding, but the fact that there was no evidence that
“bias steel” or “biased steel” was a descriptive term.
When VIDEOPINIONS is used in connection with
applicant’s identified Class 35 services-- providing
information on consumer products and services by way of a
global computer network--it immediately tells consumers a
characteristic of those services, namely, that the
information that is provided are opinions that are conveyed
in the form of videos. The computer disc submitted by
applicant in response to the Examining Attorney’s request
for information confirms that this is, at least in part,
the subject matter of the videos. People featured on the
video state that they are reviewing a product, and they
point out features of the product and give their opinions
about the product, e.g., an electric shaver gives a “pretty
clean shave.” We agree with applicant that the mark does
not convey the fact that the information appears on a
global computer network, but that does not take away from
its descriptiveness. As we stated above, a mark need not
describe each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered to be merely
descriptive. As for the fact that the videos are not
limited to people’s opinions, and that some videos may
contain product demonstrations, this does not obviate the
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
16
mark’s descriptiveness. Applicant has acknowledged that
the videos may include or involve a consumer’s opinion
about a particular product or service. Again, as we stated
above, a mark is descriptive if it describes any of the
identified goods or services.
Applicant has also asserted that it does not actually
create the videos or provide opinions on products.
However, applicant’s service is to provide or make
available the information by way of a global computer
network, and it is not germane that applicant itself does
not create the content of the video opinions. VIDEOPINIONS
describes the nature of the information that is provided
through applicant’s services, and therefore describes a
characteristic of the services. In re TBG Inc., 229 USPQ
759 (TTAB 1986), on which applicant relies, is readily
distinguishable from the present situation. That case
involved the mark SHOWROOM ONLINE for leasing computer
databases and video disks in the field of interior
furnishings and related products of others. The mark was
found to be not merely descriptive because the word
SHOWROOM had “no direct significance in relation to
appellant's leasing or information service.” Id. at 760.
Simply put, the subject matter of the leasing and
information service was not a “showroom.” Compare, In re
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
17
Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996), in which
FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE was found merely descriptive for “a
news and information service updated daily for the food
processing industry, contained in a database.” Here, in
contrast to SHOWROOM ONLINE, VIDEOPINIONS directly conveys
information about a characteristic of the information
service applicant provides, i.e., the information consists
of opinions in the form of videos.
Applicant states that it “has never claimed use of its
mark in connection with a service involving ‘the provision
of opinions by means of video.’” Brief, p. 3. Applicant
appears to take the position that because those specific
words are not in its identification of services, it is
immaterial whether VIDEOPINIONS describes that service.
However, in order for a mark to be found descriptive it is
not necessary that the words that are found in the mark
appear in the identification. Here, applicant’s services
as identified, “providing information on consumer products
and services by way of a global computer network,”
encompass providing information that consists of opinions
in the form of videos on consumer products and services by
way of a global computer network. Applicant acknowledges
that its services include soliciting, collecting and
sharing audiovisual information about consumer products and
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
18
services, and these audiovisual works may include a
consumer’s opinion about a particular product or services.
Response filed July 13, 2006.8 It appears that applicant
may be arguing that this service is separate from its
identified services. “Any descriptiveness refusal must be
tied to the actual identified goods or services for which
an applicant seeks registration and not based on whether
the mark could describe any aspect of the applicant’s
business.” Brief, p. 6 (emphasis in original). However,
as discussed, applicant’s identified services encompass
providing information in the form of video opinions.
Therefore, “video opinions” describes a characteristic of
applicant’s identified services.9

8 In its brief, at p. 9, applicant points out that it stated
that the audiovisual works it presents “may or may not” include a
consumer’s opinion, and may instead involve the demonstration of
a product or service. Although applicant may choose to focus on
the “may not” part of its statement, it has said that the
audiovisual works it presents may include a consumer’s opinion on
a product or service, and the CD it filed in response to the
Examining Attorney’s information request in fact shows that the
videos it makes available are of consumer opinions. Its
identification of services, as we have discussed, encompasses
providing videos of consumer’s opinions of products and services.
The fact that some of the videos applicant shows as part of its
service do not contain consumer opinions does not obviate the
descriptiveness of its mark. As we have previously stated, a
mark need not describe each and every specific feature of the
applicant’s goods or services in order to be considered to be
merely descriptive.
9 In footnote 3 of its brief applicant asserts that it does not
intend to provide information on opinions of videos or
information on videos of opinions. That is beside the point,
however, since, as the identification is written, it encompasses
providing information in the form of video opinions, and the
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
19
Applicant has also argued that it is incorrect for the
Board (or the Examining Attorney) to “rewrite” applicant’s
identified services by relying on third-party websites
which referred to applicant’s services, and in which the
third parties misused “videopinions” or “video opinions” or
mischaracterized applicant’s services. We have not done
so. This evidence, quoted at length above, is not being
used to show what applicant’s services are, but to
demonstrate how others view the terms “videopinions” and
“video opinions.” For example, the “Advertising Age”
excerpt (“While written user reviews have become a powerful
tool for consumers looking to buy, a few firms are betting
video opinions will be the next driver. ExpoTV has built a
business on aggregating videos of its users reviewing
products”) shows that the reporter not only refers to the
format of the information applicant provides as “video
opinions,” but believes that readers will have this
understanding of the term. Similarly, the
www.mediavillage.com website, stating that “ExpoTV has
gained traction as a video-on-demand service featuring
…user-generated consumer video opinions on various

sample videos, as shown on the CD submitted by applicant, show
that the videos made available through applicant’s services give
consumers’ opinions on products.
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
20
products” shows that the writer views “video opinions” as a
recognized term for video reviews of products.
In conclusion, we find that applicant’s mark,
VIDEOPINIONS, is merely descriptive for “providing
information on consumer products and services by way of a
global computer network,” its identified services in Class
35.
As for applicant’s services in Class 38---television
broadcasting, cable television broadcasting, satellite
television broadcasting, and interactive video-on-demand
transmission services, all in the field of information on
consumer products and services--many of the same comments
we made in connection with the Class 35 services apply.
Therefore, we will not burden this opinion by repeating and
addressing the arguments that applicant made in its brief
in connection with its services in Class 35. With respect
to the Class 38 services, VIDEOPINIONS describes the
subject matter of the various types of television
broadcasting services and of the video-on-demand
transmission services. Again, although applicant’s
identification does not contain the term “videopinions” or
its equivalent, “video opinions,” the very nature of
television broadcasting and video-on-demand transmission is
that they broadcast or transmit video. And “opinions” are
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
21
a type of information for consumer products and services.
When the mark is used in connection with the identified
services, consumers will immediately understand that the
information provided by the different methods of
television broadcast and video-on-demand transmission is
opinions presented in a video format about consumer
products and services.
We note in footnote 3 of its brief applicant’s
statement that it “intends to use the mark on, inter alia,
‘interactive video-on-demand transmission services,’ not on
opinions of videos or videos of opinions.” However, in its
response filed July 13, 2006 applicant said that it
solicits consumer information about products and services
and allows people to upload homemade digital audiovisual
works describing and demonstrating those products or
services, and its services also allow people to view and
listen to the audiovisual demonstrations of others.
Further, it stated that the audiovisual works may … include
or involve a consumer’s opinion about a particular product
or service. These statements in the response are borne out
by the CD showing portions of the informational videos. We
can reconcile the statements made in the footnote and
response only by assuming that applicant is taking the
position that because its identified services are
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
22
transmission services, its services are not opinion
videos.10 We accept that applicant is not actually selling
videos of opinions. However, a mark may be merely
descriptive of services if it identifies a characteristic
of those services. See In re Pencils Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1410
(TTAB 1988) (PENCILS merely descriptive of retail
stationery and office supply services). Thus, because
applicant makes or intends to make available video opinions
through its broadcasting and transmission services, and its
services, as identified, encompass making available video
opinions, “video opinions” or its equivalent, the applied-
for mark VIDEOPINIONS, is merely descriptive of the
services in Class 38.
The third application in this appeal is for services
in Class 41, identified as “entertainment services in the

10 Applicant has provided the following explanation in its brief,
at pp. 9-10:
In response to one of the Examining Attorney’s
questions, the Applicant responded: “The Applicant’s
services include soliciting, collecting, and sharing
audiovisual demonstrations and information about
products and services.” First, this is not a
statement of class 38 communications services.
(emphasis in original)
The second point applicant makes is mere sophistry. Applicant
says that it “explained that such works ‘may not’ include a
consumer opinion about a particular product or service.”
Obviously, the videos may contain consumer opinions, something
that applicant acknowledged in its original response. As we have
stated previously in this opinion, a mark need not convey an idea
of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s goods or
services in order to be considered to be merely descriptive.

Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
23
nature of on-going television programs in the field of
information about consumer products and services.” Again,
in its brief applicant makes essentially the same arguments
it made in its briefs in the other two applications, so we
will not repeat them here, or address them again. We find
that VIDEOPINIONS is merely descriptive of these services
as well, because the mark describes the subject matter of
the television programs which comprise applicant’s
entertainment services. Although applicant’s
identification does not contain the term “videopinions” or
its equivalent, “video opinions,” as we have already said,
this is not a necessary prerequisite for a finding of mere
descriptiveness. This Class 41 application presents a
situation very similar to that in In re Ethnic Home
Lifestyles Corp., 70 USPQ2d 1156 (TTAB 2003), in which the
mark ETHNIC ACCENTS was found to be merely descriptive of
“entertainment in the nature of television programs in the
field of home décor.” The Board, after determining the
term “ethnic accents” refers to items of home décor, found
that ETHNIC ACCENTS was merely descriptive of applicant's
entertainment services “because ETHNIC ACCENTS indicates
that ethnic accents are significant features or the subject
matters of such programs.” Id. at 1158.
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
24
Applicant’s own statements about the nature of its
services, and the CD it submitted, show that the television
programs will include video reviews in which customers give
their opinions about various products and services. Thus,
when the mark is used in connection with the identified
services, consumers will immediately understand that
applicant’s entertainment services are television programs
presenting reviews about products and services in a video
format, i.e., video opinions. The mark is merely
descriptive of the services in Class 41.
As a final argument, made in all of its briefs,
applicant asserts that VIDEOPINIONS is less descriptive
than other marks which have been found registrable.
Applicant has cited certain cases involving marks which
have been found to be suggestive, and has submitted various
third-party registrations for marks which include VIDEO or
OPINIONS as an element. We need hardly point out that we
must decide the present case on the record provided herein.
The cases cited by applicant involve facts that differ
markedly from the facts in the present case and thus, do
not compel a finding that the mark herein is not
descriptive. See In re Cox Enterprises Inc., 82 USPQ2d
1040, 1045 (TTAB 2007). Nor does the allowance by
Examining Attorneys of different marks for different goods
Ser Nos. 78654480, 78978112 and 78978113
25
or services bind the Board. In re Nett Designs Inc., 236
F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Decision: The refusals of registration with respect
to all three applications are affirmed.