Georgia Intellectual Property Alliance, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2020

88013883 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 14, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Georgia Intellectual Property Alliance, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 88013883
_____

Sean Bedford of Alston & Bird LLP,
for Georgia Intellectual Property Alliance, Inc.
Sahar Nasserghodsi, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Kuczma and Hudis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hudis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Georgia Intellectual Property Alliance, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark GIPA (in standard characters) for:
Business services, namely, assisting the owners of intellectual property
and intangible assets in finding investors; Organizing business
networking events in the field of intellectual property; Promoting public
interest and awareness of intellectual property in International Class
035;
Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars,
conferences, and workshops in the field of intellectual property and
distribution of educational materials in connection therewith;
Educational services, namely, providing educational speakers in the
field of intellectual property in International Class 041; and
Serial No. 88013883
- 2 -
Advisory services relating to intellectual property rights; Providing
information about intellectual and industrial property rights; Providing
information in the field of intellectual property; Providing information
in the field of business law, litigation and intellectual property;
Providing on-line information in the field of intellectual property;
Providing on-line information in the field of intellectual property legal
services in International Class 045.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Trademark Act
Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, as applied to
the services identified in the application, falsely suggests a connection with the
Global Intellectual Property Academy (the “Academy”), also known as “GIPA”, of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
filed briefs. We reverse the refusal to register.
I. False Suggestion of a Connection: Applicable Law
Trademark Act Section 2(a), in relevant part, provides that “[n]o trademark by
which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall
be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it —
(a) … falsely suggest a connection with persons … [or] institutions …. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(a). Trademark Act Section 3, 15 U.S.C. § 1053, in pertinent part, states that
“[s]ubject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they

1 Application Serial No. 88013883 filed on June 25, 2018, under Trademark Act Section 1(b),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based upon Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce.
Serial No. 88013883
- 3 -
are applicable, service marks shall be registrable, in the same manner and with the
same effect as are trademarks ….”
To establish that a proposed mark falsely suggests a connection with a person or
an institution, it is the Examining Attorney’s burden to show:
(1) the mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity
previously used by another person or institution;
(2) the mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and
unmistakably to that person or institution;
(3) the person or institution named by the mark is not connected with the
activities performed by the applicant under the mark; and
(4) the fame or reputation of the person or institution is such that, when the
mark is used with the applicant’s goods or services, a connection with the
person or institution would be presumed.
In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d 1185, 1188-89 (TTAB 2013); see also Univ. of Notre Dame
du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505, 507-09 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) (providing foundational principles for the current four-part test used by
the Board to determine the existence of a false connection).
II. Discussion
Applicant and the Examining Attorney agree that Pedersen states the applicable
test for determining whether an applied-for mark should be refused registration on
false suggestion of connection grounds under Trademark Act Section 2(a).2 Applicant

2 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 8; Examiner’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 4. Page references herein
to the application record refer to the online database of the USPTO’s Trademark Status &
Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) system. All citations to documents contained in the TSDR
database are to the downloadable .pdf versions of the documents in the USPTO TSDR Case
Viewer. See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1402 n.4 (TTAB 2018).
References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Before the
TTABVUE designation is the docket entry number; and after this designation are the
electronic page references, if applicable.
Serial No. 88013883
- 4 -
and the Examining Attorney disagree how factors (1), (2) and (4) should be applied
under the circumstances of this appeal and the evidence of record.
A. Whether GIPA is the same as, or a Close
Approximation of, the name or identity previously
used by the Academy as a Person or Institution
While the Trademark Act provides a definition of a “Person” to include
government agencies and their instrumentalities,3 the term “Institution” is not
defined in the Act. The Examining Attorney does not argue that the Academy is a
“Person” within the meaning of Trademark Act Section 2(a) or the Act generally.
Rather, the Examining Attorney contends that prior decisions interpreting
Trademark Act Section 2(a) construe “Institution” in a sufficiently broad manner so
as to include entities like the Academy.4
Applicant, while not disputing that the USPTO qualifies as an “Institution” under
Trademark Act Section 2(a), argues that the Examining Attorney conflates the
USPTO and the Academy, the USPTO has never been named or identified as “GIPA,”
the Academy does not qualify as a “Person” under the statute, the Examining
Attorney has not presented evidence sufficient to conclude that the Academy meets
the liberal definition of “Institution,” and that “GIPA” is no more than an acronym

3 “The term ‘person’ … includes the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the authorization
and consent of the United States. The United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof,
and any individual, firm, or corporation acting for the United States and with the
authorization and consent of the United States, shall be subject to the provisions of this
chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.”
Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
4 Examiner’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 5-7.
Serial No. 88013883
- 5 -
for a training program offered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office which
already has its own identity or persona – the “USPTO.”5
Before reviewing applicable case law, we believe it helpful to consider dictionary
definitions of the terms “Instrumentality” (within the statutory definition of “Person”)
and “Institution,” neither of which have been made of record. THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE defines “Instrumentality” as “[a]
subsidiary branch, as of a government, by means of which functions or policies are
carried out”; and defines “Institution” as “[a]n established organization or foundation,
especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.”6
Prior decisions interpreting Trademark Act Section 2(a) have broadly construed
the terms “Person” and “Institution” to include governmental and quasi-
governmental entities. See e.g. In re Peter S. Herrick, P.A., 91 USPQ2d 1505, 1507-08
(TTAB 2009) (U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE, even though that agency is no longer in
existence, falsely suggests a connection with the United States Customs and Border
Protection as a “person” or “institution” within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(a)); In re N. Am. Free Trade Ass’n, 43 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-86 (TTAB 1997) (finding
that “NAFTA is an institution, in the same way that the United Nations is an

5 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 10.
6 Https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=instrumentality.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=institution.
The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries
that exist in printed format. In re Cordua Rests. LP, 110 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 n.4 (TTAB
2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78
USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006).

Serial No. 88013883
- 6 -
institution,” and noting that the “legislative history ... indicates that the reference to
an ‘institution’ in Section 2(a) was designed to have an expansive scope.”); In re Cotter
& Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204-05 (TTAB 1985) (WEST POINT falsely suggests a
connection with an institution, the United States Military Academy, a military post
in southeastern New York); In re Nat’l Intelligence Academy, 190 USPQ 570, 572
(TTAB 1976) (NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ACADEMY falsely suggests a
connection with the United States government); Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin. v.
Record Chem. Co., 185 USPQ 563, 565 (TTAB 1975) (finding NASA to be a juristic
person within the broad language of the trademark statute, having capacity and
standing to oppose the APOLLO 8 registrations sought by applicant); Fed. Bureau of
Investigation v. Societe: “M. Bril & Co.”, 172 USPQ 310, 313 (TTAB 1971) (finding the
F.B.I. to be a juristic person that has the capacity to oppose registration of a mark
under Section 2(a)).
The Examining Attorney made of record Internet website evidence indicating that
the Academy, under the acronym GIPA, comprises a series of annual training
programs on intellectual property topics managed by the Office of the Administrator
of Policy and International Affairs (“OPIA”) within the USPTO, as “a guiding force in
both national and international IP policy issues.”7 This suggests that the Academy is
merely the title of a program run by OPIA, a subset entity of the USPTO. However,
as noted more comprehensively in the FEDERAL REGISTER:

7 Https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/global-intellectual-property-academy, Office
Action of October 23, 2018 at TSDR 6-8.
Serial No. 88013883
- 7 -
GIPA was established in 2006 to offer training programs on enforcement
of intellectual property rights, patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The
training programs offered by GIPA are designed to meet the specific
needs of foreign government officials … concerning various intellectual
property topics, such as global intellectual property rights protection
and enforcement and strategies to handle the protection and
enforcement issues in their respective countries.8
Although it is a close call, based on the Examining Attorney’s evidence, and the broad
meanings of “Person,” “Instrumentality” and “Institution” as defined by dictionary
definitions, the Trademark Act, and as construed by relevant case law, we find that
the Academy is a “Person” “or “Institution” within the ambit of Trademark Act
Section 2(a).
However, our finding that the Academy is a “Person” or “Institution” for purposes
of Section 2(a) does not end our inquiry of the first Pedersen factor. Where an
organizational entity (not an individual) is concerned, “there clearly must be some
public use or promotion of the asserted identity in a manner that provides a means
of identifying the” entity. Bd. of Tr. of the Univ. of Alabama v. Pitts, 107 USPQ2d
2001, 2026 (TTAB 2013), request to reopen, vacate and dismiss without prejudice
denied, 115 USPQ2d 1099 (TTAB 2015) (HOUNDSTOOTH and HOUNDSTOOTH
MAFIA found not to be the names or identities of the University); but see Bd. of Tr.
of the Univ. of Alabama v. BAMA-Werke Curt Baumann, 231 USPQ 408, 411 (TTAB
1986) (BAMA uniquely identified the University of Alabama, largely because of
national reputation of the University’s football team).

8 Federal Register notice of March 18, 2014, Office Action of October 23, 2018 at TSDR 18.
Serial No. 88013883
- 8 -
Here, the Examining Attorney made the following evidence of record to
demonstrate that GIPA is the name or identity of the Academy:
 A 2011 Washington, D.C. symposium of the Global Network on Intellectual
Property (“IP”) Academies (“GNIPA”), held in collaboration with the Academy,
highlighted on the website of the World Intellectual Property Organization
(“WIPO”).
 A mention of the Academy’s intellectual property training programs on the
StopFakes.gov website.
 A 2016 post describing the Academy’s intellectual property training programs
on the Export.gov website.9
 A notice on the website of the International Trademark Association (“INTA”)
that a trademark roundtable discussion would be held at the Academy within
the USPTO’s Virginia headquarters.
 A 2015 notice on the website of the National Association of Music
Merchants (“NAMM”) that and intellectual property protection program would
be held at the Academy within the USPTO’s Virginia headquarters.
 Promotion of a series of videos about the Academy and its mission on the
Creative Liquid website.
 A 2007 announcement that the Commercial Law Development Program
(“CLDP”) of the Office of General Counsel of the United States Department of
Commerce that it sponsored Bosnia-Herzegovina IP officials to attend an
enforcement program at the Academy.10
 A 2018 description of the Academy’s programs, provided by OPIA attorneys, in
the INTA Bulletin (newsletter).
 A 2012 seminar on Specialized Intellectual Property Rights Courts advertised
on the International Intellectual Property Institute (“IIPI”) website.
 A 2012 USPTO IP Empowerment Summit promoted on the website of the
Institute for Intellectual Property & Social Justice (“IIPSJ”).
 A 2016 Patent Searching Fundamentals course being offered at the Academy
as noted on the website of the Patent Information Users Group (“PIUG”).

9 WIPO, StopFakes.gov and Export.gov web pages provided with the Office Action of October
23, 2018 at TSDR 9-16.
10 INTA, NAMM, Creative Liquid and CLDP web pages provided with the Office Action of
May 10, 2019 at TSDR 6, 7, 13 and 14.
Serial No. 88013883
- 9 -
 A report of the Academy’s 2018 annual conference sponsored by America’s
Small Business Development Centers (“SBDC”) posted on the website of its
Florida chapter.
 A workshop on “Teaching Songwriting to the World Dignitaries” held at the
Academy within the USPTO’s Virginia headquarters, as posted on the Songlife
website.11
We find that these references sufficiently substantiate that GIPA is a name referring
to the USPTO’s Academy for purposes of the false suggestion of a connection prong of
Trademark Act Section 2(a).
B. Whether GIPA would be recognized as such, in that it Points
Uniquely and Unmistakably to the Academy
“[U]nder concepts of the protection of one ’s ‘identity,’ … [a] critical requirement is
that the name (or an equivalent thereof) claimed to be appropriated by another must
be unmistakably associated with a particular personality or ‘persona.’” Univ. of Notre
Dame, 217 USPQ at 509. “[I]t is not sufficient to show merely prior identification with
the name adopted by another.” Id. “The protection afforded a name or its equivalent
under [Trademark Act] Section 2(a) is acquired only when the name claimed to be
appropriated points ‘uniquely and unmistakably’ to the [entity’s] … ‘persona,’ that is
the personal or trade identity of the [entity] ….” Bos. Ath. Ass’n v. Velocity, LLC, 117
USPQ2d 1492, 1497 (TTAB 2015) (citing Buffett v. Chi-Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428,
429 (TTAB 1985)). See also Hornby v. TJX Cos. Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1411, 1424 (TTAB
2008) (“[T]he name claimed to be appropriated by the defendant must point uniquely
to the plaintiff.”). Grounds for reversing a false suggestion of connection refusal to

11 INTA Bulletin, as well as IIPI, IIPSJ, PIUG, SBDC-Florida, and Songlife web postings
provided with the Denial of Reconsideration of December 4, 2019 at TSDR 8 and 14-36.
Serial No. 88013883
- 10 -
register a mark under Trademark Act Section 2(a) include “evidence and arguments
[which] do not persuade us that [the designation] …, as a close approximation to [the
entity’s] … name [or identity], points uniquely and unmistakably to [the entity] ….”
Pierce-Arrow Soc’y v. Spintek Filtration, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 471774, *5 (TTAB 2019).
Applicant made of record numerous examples demonstrating that “GIPA” is used
to refer to many entities other than the Academy. The following illustrations are
representative:
 Global Investment Prospects Assessment;
 German International Parent Association;
 Gulf International Private Academy;
 General Infinite Periodic Array;
 Government Information Public Access;
 Green Island Power Authority;
 Gamma Industry Processing Alliance;
 Georgia Intellectual Property Alliance (Applicant); and
 Georgia Indoor Percussion Association.12
The Examining Attorney dismisses this evidence “because the acronym examples
applicant discusses are associated with entities that are not in the IP field.”13 The
Examining Attorney’s argument misses the point of these examples. Applicant made
the third-party “GIPA” illustrations not to weaken the scope of protection of the
Academy’s acronym as a mark. That would be a consideration for a likelihood of
confusion refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d),

12 April 17, 2019 Office Action Response at TSDR 24-26; November 12, 2019 Request for
Reconsideration at TSDR 19-21, 23-25 and 27-28.
13 Examiner’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 8.
Serial No. 88013883
- 11 -
which is not applicable here. Univ. of Notre Dame, 217 USPQ at 508-09 (“Clearly the
same standard cannot be adopted for § 2(a) as for § 2(d).” … “§ 2(a) was intended to
preclude registration of a mark which conflicted with another ’s rights, even though
not founded on the familiar test of likelihood of confusion.”). Rather, the illustrations
of third-party organizations referred to as “GIPA” were made of record by Applicant
to show the Academy clearly is not the only organization that uses this acronym.
Numerous other organizations do as well. Thus, GIPA does not point uniquely and
unmistakably to the Academy.
C. Whether the Academy is or is not Connected with
the Activities Performed by Applicant under the GIPA Mark
During prosecution14 and on appeal,15 Applicant readily conceded that the
Academy is not connected with the activities performed by Applicant under the GIPA
mark.
D. Whether the Fame or Reputation of the Academy is such that,
when GIPA is used with the Applicant’s Services, a connection
with the Academy would be Presumed
Regarding the reputation of GIPA in connection with the activities sponsored or
performed by the Academy, the Examining Attorney contends:
USPTO’s Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) has established
a reputation of being related in the IP field and that consumers would
assume a connection between the applied-for services and GIPA.
Specifically, if applicant’s services are of the type that the named
institution offers, and the named institution is sufficiently famous, then
it may be inferred that purchasers of the services would be misled into

14 April 17, 2019 Office Action Response at TSDR 16-17.
15 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 7.
Serial No. 88013883
- 12 -
making a false connection of sponsorship, approval, support or the like
with the named party.16
In support of this argument, the Examining Attorney made of record the following
evidence:
 In Fiscal Year 2016, the Academy (as GIPA) provided training to almost 5,000
foreign officials from 114 countries on a variety of intellectual property topics.
In addition, the Academy provided training to over 1,500 people associated
with U.S. small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and 585 members of
academic groups.17
 In Fiscal Year 2019, the Academy (as GIPA) conducted a total of 140 training
activities, serving over 9,800 individuals. Approximately 45 percent of all
individuals served were domestic IP rights owners and users and
approximately 55 percent were patent, trademark, and copyright officials;
prosecutors; police; customs officials; and IP policymakers from 120
countries.18
The Examining Attorney also relies upon the co-sponsored symposia, training and
enforcement programs, roundtable discussions, seminars, summits, courses,
conferences and workshops held in connection with various foreign and domestic
intellectual property related groups, as discussed above.
Applicant responds that “[t]he statistics cited by the Examining Attorney,
however, clearly show that the majority of the training provided by the USPTO’s
Global Intellectual Property Academy is to foreign officials.”19 In fact, the Academy’s
web pages (in 2016 and 2019) state: “The participants in each of the GIPA classes
must be officials of intellectual property offices of their respective governments, or of

16 Examiner’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 9.
17 October 23, 2018 Office Action at TSDR 6-8.
18 December 4, 2019 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 9-13.
19 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 18.
Serial No. 88013883
- 13 -
the agencies of their governments that are responsible for enforcement, patent,
trademark, or copyright policies.”20 A good portion of the evidence additionally made
of record by the Examining Attorney supports Applicant’s contention.21
We agree with Applicant that “most of the Academy participants cited [by the
Examining Attorney] to show fame are irrelevant to the Section 2(a) analysis.”22 See
In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1197 (“[W]e fail to see how a foreign registration bears
on the question whether consumers in the U.S. would view the mark as falsely
suggesting a connection[.]”); In re Urbano, 51 USPQ2d 1776, 1778–79 (TTAB 1999)
(Australian periodicals submitted as evidence were “of minimal evidentiary value
herein, as we have no indication of the extent to which the general public in the
United States may have been exposed to these articles”).
According to evidence made of record by Applicant, in 2014, IP-intensive
industries directly accounted for 27.9 million jobs in the United States, and for the
period 1996 to 2014, a dataset of federal income tax returns demonstrated there were
a total of 1.2 million inventors (patent applicants or recipients) and 1.7 million
patents granted to United States residents.23 Thus, whether or not we consider the

20 Office Action of October 23, 2018 at TSDR 6-7; Denial of Request for Reconsideration of
December 4, 2019 at TSDR 9.
21 Office Action of October 23, 2018 at TSDR 9-12 (WIPO), 15-16 (Export.gov), 17-20 (Federal
Register), 21-22 (USPTO website); Office Action of May 10, 2019 at TSDR 8 (Innovation
Partnership), 9 (Wilkerson biography), 11 (InfoJustice.org), 14 (CLDP); and Denial of
Request for Reconsideration of December 4, 2019 at TSDR 8 (INTA Bulletin), 14-17 (IIPI)
and 27-36 (Songlife).
22 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 18.
23 Request for Reconsideration of November 12, 2019 at TSDR 30-88 (esp. p. 32) and 90-155
(esp. pp. 91, 97).
Serial No. 88013883
- 14 -
Academy’s exposure (as “GIPA”) to foreign and domestic individuals, businesses,
governments and institutions, the universe of persons served by the Academy is
infinitesimal by contrast to the number of domestic intellectual property interests for
the periods cited in Applicant’s evidence . By any comparative measure, particularly
considering the number of other organizations also using the designation “GIPA,” this
does not show that GIPA, as associated with the Academy, has a sufficient reputation
such that when this designation is used with the Applicant’s services, a connection
with the Academy would be presumed.
III. Conclusion: False Suggestion of a Connection
Applicant’s mark, GIPA, is the same as the name used by the Academy as a Person
or Institution within the meaning of Trademark Act Section 2(a). The Academy is not
connected with the activities performed by Applicant under the GIPA mark. However,
GIPA does not point uniquely and unmistakably to the Academy. Also the Academy,
as GIPA, does not have a sufficient reputation such that, when the mark is used with
Applicant’s services, a connection with the Academy would be presumed. Therefore,
the evidence of record does not establish a false suggestion of a connection between
Applicant’s applied-for mark GIPA and the Global Intellectual Property Academy.
Decision:
The refusal to register Applicant’s mark GIPA pursuant to Trademark Act Section
2(a) is reversed.