HelpDocs LTD

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2020

79247852 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 2, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re HelpDocs Ltd.
_____

Serial No. 79247852
_____

Avraham S. Z. Cohn of Cohn Legal, PLLC,
for HelpDocs Ltd.
Christopher Hoffman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 128,1
Travis Wheatley, Managing Attorney, Law Office 128.
_____

Before Cataldo, Wolfson and Hudis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hudis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
HelpDocs Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark HELPDOCS (in standard characters) for, inter alia, computer hardware design
and computer software programming and design services in International Class 42,
and computer software licensing and the legal administration of software licenses in
International Class 45.2 The services recited in the application are so extensive that,

1 Heather A. Sales was the Examining Attorney during the prosecution of the application.
2 Application Serial No. 79247852, filed as a Request for Extension of Protection of
International Registration No. 1440144, pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid
Serial No. 79247852

- 2 -
for organizational efficiency, the full identification of services is provided in an
Appendix at the end of this opinion. Before proceeding to the merits, we review the
prosecution of this application for a better understanding of Applicant’s appeal and
our decision.
I. Prosecution of the Application
In the first Office Action of January 2, 2019, the Trademark Examining Attorney
refused registration of the proposed HELPDOCS mark under Trademark Act Section
2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark was likely to cause
confusion, mistake, or deception with respect to the registered mark DOCHELP.3 The
Examining Attorney also required a more definite recitation of services in the
application.
In its response of February 24, 2019, Applicant expressed disagreement with the
likelihood of confusion refusal, stating:
In regards to the DOCHELP trademark, I do not think consumers will
become confused. The DOC and DOCS relate to different goods or
services, and in my opinion, are very unlikely to be confused for one
another. - In the HELPDOCS case, the DOCS relates to the word
“documentation”. We chose this name because it is short for “help
documentation”. - I believe the DOC in DOCHELP relates to the word
“doctor” and it is about helping doctors. (Emphasis added).
Applicant also sought to comply with the Examining Attorney’s request for a more
definite recitation of services.

Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, implemented in the United
States under Trademark Act Section 66(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a). The application has an
effective filing date of August 9, 2018.
3 Registration No. 5309901, issued on October 17, 2017.
Serial No. 79247852

- 3 -
In the second Office Action of March 1, 2019, based on Applicant’s response, the
Examining Attorney withdrew the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(d),
continued and maintained the requirement for an acceptable identification of
services, and issued a new refusal to register the HELPDOCS mark as merely
describing a feature/purpose/function of Applicant’s services in derogation of
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1).
In its response of June 19, 2019, Applicant conveyed its disagreement with the
merely descriptive refusal, stating:
While I agree that Help Documentation is merely descriptive, I
disagree that HelpDocs as a trademark is descriptive of Help
Documentation. The supporting evidence submitted [by the Examining
Attorney] from other companies mention[s] the terms “Knowledge
Base”, “Help Documentation”, and “Help Authoring”, but none of them
specifically mention “HelpDocs” as something they offer to customers.
(Emphasis added).
Applicant again sought to comply with the Examining Attorney’s request for a more
definite recitation of services.
Although determining that the requirement for a more definite identification of
services had been satisfied, the Trademark Examining Attorney made the mere
descriptiveness refusal final on June 21, 2019. Applicant then appealed to this Board.
We affirm the refusal to register as to the services in Class 42. We reverse the refusal
to register as to the services in Class 45.
Serial No. 79247852

- 4 -
II. Applicable Law
In the absence of a showing of acquired distinctiveness,4 Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1) precludes registration of a mark on the Principal Register which, when used
in connection with the applicant’s services, is merely descriptive of them. A mark is
“merely descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) “if it immediately conveys
information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the goods or services
for which registration is sought.” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123 USPQ2d 1707,
1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831
(Fed. Cir. 2007)). The underlying concern is whether businesses and competitors will
have the freedom to use descriptive language when merely describing their own goods
or services to the public in advertising and marketing materials. In re Abcor Dev.
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA 1978); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 58
USPQ2d 1523, 1527 (TTAB 2001).
“A word, term, or letters that are a recognized abbreviation for the goods or
services in the application also is merely descriptive.” In re BetaBatt, Inc., 89 USPQ2d
1152, 1155 (TTAB 2008). However, not all abbreviations are necessarily merely
descriptive.
While each case must be decided on the basis of the particular facts
involved, … as a general rule, initials cannot be considered descriptive
unless they have become so generally understood as representing
descriptive words as to be accepted as substantially synonymous
therewith.

4 In the Office Action of March 1, 2019, the Examining Attorney invited Applicant to submit
evidence that the proposed HELPDOCS mark had acquired distinctiveness. Applicant did
not take up the Examining Attorney’s invitation to amend the application to seek registration
under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 2(f), and no evidence of acquired
distinctiveness was submitted.
Serial No. 79247852

- 5 -

Modern Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 110 USPQ 293, 295 (CCPA
1956).
Accordingly, for an abbreviation to be merely descriptive of an applicant’s goods
or services, the Board has to find the following:
1. The abbreviation is generally understood to be a shortened form for certain
words in the relevant field;
2. The words represented by the abbreviation are merely descriptive of the goods
or services listed in the application; and
3. A relevant consumer viewing the abbreviation in connection with the
applicant’s goods or services would recognize it as such.
BetaBatt, Inc., 89 USPQ2d at 1154 (citing In re Harco Corp., 220 USPQ 1075, 1076
(TTAB 1984)).
“A mark need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail to
be descriptive, it need only describe a single feature or attribute.” In re Chamber of
Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citation and internal quotation omitted); see also In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373
F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A mark may be merely
descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s
goods or services.” (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57
USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Conversely, a mark is suggestive if it “requires
imagination, thought, and perception to arrive at the qualities or characteristics of
the goods or services.” In re Franklin Cty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087
(TTAB 2012).
Serial No. 79247852

- 6 -
Whether a mark is merely descriptive is evaluated “in relation to the particular
[services] … for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used,
and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of
the [services] … because of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re Chamber of
Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831) and “not
in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118
USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Abcor, 200 USPQ at 218).
We ask “not whether someone presented with only the mark could guess what the
goods or services are. Rather, the question is ‘whether someone who knows what the
goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”
DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d
1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation omitted). That a term
has different meanings in different contexts is not controlling. In re Bright-Crest Ltd.,
204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
“When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the composite also has a merely descriptive significance turns on the
question of whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial
impression.” In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012). A mark
comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the
combination creates an incongruous expression having the characteristics of a coined
or fanciful mark, see In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382, 384
(CCPA 1968) (citing Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694, 131
Serial No. 79247852

- 7 -
U.S.P.Q. 55, 59-60 (2d Cir. 1961)), or “whose import would not be grasped without
some measure of imagination and ‘mental pause.’” In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-
65 (TTAB 1983).
However, if each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation
to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely
descriptive. See, e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d at 1374 (PATENTS.COM
merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database of records that
could include patents and for tracking the status of the records by means of the
Internet); see also In re Phoseon Tech., 103 USPQ2d at 1823 (“When two or more
merely descriptive terms are combined, ... [i]f each component retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results
in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.”). Where the combination of the
descriptive words creates no incongruity, no imagination is required to understand
the nature of the goods or services, and the mark remains merely descriptive. In re
Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540, 1542 (TTAB 1994).
We may consider the significance of each element separately in the course of
evaluating the mark as a whole. See DuoProSS Meditech, 103 USPQ2d at 1757
(noting that “[t]he Board to be sure, can ascertain the meaning and weight of each of
the components that makes up the mark.”).
Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant purchasing public may
be obtained from any competent source, In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57
USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001), such as dictionaries, newspapers, or surveys. In
Serial No. 79247852

- 8 -
re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831. It also may be obtained from websites and publications.
In re N.C. Lottery, 123 USPQ2d at 1710. In short, “the [US]PTO has satisfied its
evidentiary burden if … it produces evidence including dictionary definitions that the
separate words joined to form a compound have a meaning identical to the meaning
common usage would ascribe to those words as a compound.” In re Gould Paper Corp.,
834 F.2d 1017, 1018, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1111-12 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Once the Examining Attorney establishes a prima facie case of mere
descriptiveness, the burden of rebuttal shifts to Applicant. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d
1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Board resolves doubts as to the
mere descriptiveness of a proposed mark in favor of the applicant. In re Fat Boys, 118
USPQ2d at 1513.
III. Evidence Provided by the Examining Attorney
We here discuss only the evidence provided by the Examining Attorney, because
Applicant did not submit any evidence during the prosecution of the HELPDOCS
application. However, the Examining Attorney made of record the following
dictionary and other reference materials:5
• Definitions of HELP from THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE – To give assistance to (someone); make it easier for

5 The definitions of HELP and DOCUMENT, and the abbreviation of DOCS, were submitted
with the Office Action of March 1, 2019 at TSDR 7-9. The further abbreviations of DOC and
DOCS were submitted with the Office Action of June 21, 2019 at TSDR 4-5. 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. References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.
Coming before the designation TTABVUE is the docket entry number; and coming after this
designation are the page references, if applicable.
Serial No. 79247852

- 9 -
(someone) to do something; To contribute to the effectiveness or improvement
of (something); improve or advance: To be of service; give assistance.
• Definitions of DOCUMENT from THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE – A writing that contains information; Computers: A piece
of work created with an application, as with a word processor; Computers: A
computer file that is not an executable file and contains data for use by
applications; To methodically record the details of.
• Definition of DOC from the MERRIAM-WEBSTER Dictionary – Abbreviation [for]
document.
• Abbreviation of DOCS from ACRONYM FINDER – “DOCS” stands for
“Documents”; “this definition appears very frequently and is found in the
following Acronym Finder categories: … Information technology (IT) and
computers.”
• Abbreviation of DOCS from ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS – Term: DOCS;
Definition: Documents.
The Examining Attorney also appended the following American English definition of
DOCUMENTATION from COLLINS DICTIONARY to the Examiner’s Brief: “the
supplying of documents or supporting references; use of documentary evidence.”6
To buttress the argument that consumers use the terminology “help
documentation” and “HELP DOCS” synonymously, and understand them to refer
specifically to documents or supporting references that make it easier for someone to
do something, the Examining Attorney made of record the following additional
references (emphasis added throughout):
• PROPROFS KNOWLEDGE BASE software is a one-stop solution for businesses
looking to reduce customer tickets and manage company knowledge. In
providing such service, ProProfs provides “Help Documentation” solutions
wherein users may “[c]reate professional-looking help documents in minutes

6 We grant the Examining Attorney’s request that we take judicial notice of this dictionary
definition. The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online
dictionaries, definitions in technical dictionaries and translation dictionaries that exist in
printed format, and we elect to do so here. See In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385,
1392 n.23 (TTAB 2013).
Serial No. 79247852

- 10 -
[and e]mbed images, infographics & videos to let . . . customers understand
content in a better way.”
• The article titled “What is a Help Authoring Tool” from the STEPSHOT website
notes “[w]riting help documentation is hard work. The documentation needs
to be written for a wide range of product users [and] . . . [it needs to be
formatted] so that it is accessible and easy to read in a variety of formats”. The
article continues by noting that “[a] Help Authoring Tool or HAT is a software
program used by technical writers to create online help systems.”
• The article titled “Best Help Authoring Tool (HAT) Software” from G2 CROWD
GRID website notes “[h]elp authoring tools are programs designed to assist
technical writers in designing, publishing, and maintaining software help
documentation. The resulting text is used in explanation guides, manuals,
and help files.”
• The “online help documentation software” provided by ZENDESK indicates
that “[r]educ[ing] the manual effort required to get help and create great
customer service [is] an integral part of the product”.
• The “Online / Web help documentation” provided on the WHATFIX website is
among the “technical writing tools for documenting information,” including a
User’s Guide for information on using the company’s wiki software.
• The “end-user help documentation” on the DEVEXPRESS website provides
assistance to consumers to better understand the provisions of the company’s
end-user license agreement.7
• KUMU, a company in the data mapping field, provides “HELP DOCS” for
persons “looking to learn how to use Kumu.”
• SHOWIT, a website design company, provides “HELP DOCS” whereby users
are encouraged to “[v]isit our library of HELP DOCS to quickly find the help
you need to build your site.”
• TEAMWORK DESK provides a Knowledge Base on its website that includes an
article for “Creating Private HELP DOCS”, which allow users to keep the
“HELP DOC articles [they] created to remain as an internal source of
information.”
• TIMELY, a company providing appointment booking software, provides “HELP
DOCS on using SMS messages in the iOS app”.8

7 The website materials from PROPROFS KNOWLEDGE BASE, STEPSHOT, G2 CROWD GRID,
ZENDESK, WHATFIX and DEVEXPRESS were provided with the Office Action of March 1, 2019
at TSDR 10-22.
8 The website materials from KUMU, SHOWIT, TEAMWORK DESK and TIMELY were provided
with the Office Action of June 21, 2019 at TSDR 6-9.
Serial No. 79247852

- 11 -
IV. Discussion
Before arguing the merits of the appeal, Applicant first lodges a complaint that
the Examining Attorney, in the first Office Action, did not issue a mere
descriptiveness refusal. Applicant contends that, by not raising the mere
descriptiveness refusal until the second Office Action, this was somehow an improper
examination of the Application.9 We disagree.
As noted in the TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 706
(October 2018), “[s]ometimes, the examining attorney must issue a new refusal or
requirement because the applicant submits information that raises a new issue.”
That is precisely what happened here. As shown in the Appendix below, in complying
with the Examining Attorney’s request for a more definite recitation of services
within the February 24, 2019 Office Action Response, Applicant nine times inserted
the term “help documentation” in the Class 42 identification of services. As Applicant
then said in this same Response, “[i]n the HELPDOCS case, the [term] DOCS relates
to the word ‘documentation’. We chose this name because it is short for ‘help
documentation’.” We therefore find it entirely appropriate that, in the second Office
Action of March 1, 2019, based on Applicant’s response, the Examining Attorney
issued a new refusal to register the HELPDOCS mark as being merely descriptive
under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
Applicant next argues that:
Applicant’s mark is HELPDOCS. The goods/services provided for in the
Application … can be summed up as the Design and Development of

9 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 8-9.
Serial No. 79247852

- 12 -
Computer Software and Software Services. While it is true that the
computer software described in the Application can, but will not
necessarily, be used by consumers to develop help documentation and
templates for their own respective businesses, Applicant’s goods are
decidedly much different than merely “Help Documentation” …. [The
Examining Attorney, with all due respect, mistakenly and …
fundamentally, has mischaracterized the nature of Applicant’s
goods/services to reduce only to “Help Documentation”. (emphasis
original).10
For a number of reasons, we find this argument without merit. To begin, the
Examining Attorney did not “mischaracterize[] the nature of Applicant’s
goods/services to reduce only to ‘Help Documentation’” as Applicant contends. Rather,
we find the Examining Attorney, referring to the amended identification of services
in Class 42 (see Appendix below), appropriately characterized them as follows:
[A]pplicant’s identification of services, as amended, explicitly indicates
a significant purpose, feature and use of the services rendered.
Specifically, applicant’s services comprise a variety of software and
software related services “in the field of help documentation”, “for the
purpose of creating online help documentation”, and “for the use of
creating help documentation”. … A significant purpose, feature and use
of the specified services are therefore explicitly defined as being for the
creation of online “help documentation”.11
Moreover, Applicant fails to recognize that “A mark need not recite each feature
of the relevant goods or services in detail to be descriptive, it need only describe a
single feature or attribute,” In re Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219, which
Applicant concedes the mark does as to the Class 42 services. In other words, “[a]
mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’

10 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 8-9.
11 Examiner’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 5; Office Action Response of February 24, 2019 at TSDR
1-6.
Serial No. 79247852

- 13 -
of the applicant’s goods or services,” In re Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d at 1371.
Here, the Examining Attorney made of record a plethora of evidence demonstrating
that HELPDOCS is merely descriptive of the services (as amended) recited in
International Class 42.
To support the mere descriptiveness refusal, the Examining Attorney provided: (i)
dictionary definitions of HELP, DOCUMENT and DOCUMENTATION, (ii) reference
materials showing that DOC is the generally understood shortened form of
DOCUMENT, and (iii) another reference showing that DOCS is the generally
understood shortened form of DOCUMENTS. The Examining Attorney did not stop
there, but also made of record captures of numerous company websites within the
computer software industry (as illustrated above). These websites demonstrate that,
in this context, “HELP DOCUMENTATION” and “HELP DOCS” refer to a knowledge
base, online system, user guide, manual, help file, library or information source
provided to assist software developers and users in navigating the functionality of
their software products.12 Such uses of HELPDOCS are precisely those contemplated
by Applicant’s recitation of services in Class 42, for example:
providing temporary use of non-downloadable business software for the
use of creating help documentation…
providing temporary use of non-downloadable software applications
accessible via a web site for creating help documentation …
providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable computer software
for creating help documentation …
providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software for
creating help documentation …

12 As noted above, in its Office Action Response of June 19, 2019 at TSDR 1, Applicant
conceded that “Help Documentation is merely descriptive” of Applicant’s services.
Serial No. 79247852

- 14 -
providing temporary use of web-based software application for creating
help documentation …
Thus, the record demonstrates that HELPDOCS “immediately conveys
information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the [Class 42] services
for which registration is sought.” In re N.C. Lottery, 123 USPQ2d at 1709. As
described in Applicant’s recitation of Class 42 services, HELP retains its ordinary,
dictionary meaning and connotation, that is, “to give assistance to (someone); make
it easier for (someone) to do something.” As intended for use by Applicant, DOCS is a
recognized abbreviation for a significant portion of the Class 42 services in the
application (providing documents or documentation). Modern Optics, 110 USPQ at
295; In re BetaBatt, 89 USPQ2d at 1155; see also In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d
1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL would refer to the
“documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown
in a dictionary definition).
When the common term HELP and the recognized abbreviation DOCS are
combined in Applicant’s proposed mark, they do not “create[] an incongruous
expression having the characteristics of a coined or fanciful mark”, In re Colonial
Stores, 157 USPQ at 384, or an expression “whose import would not be grasped
without some measure of imagination and ‘mental pause.’” In re Shutts, 217 USPQ
at 364-65. Rather, each component of HELPDOCS retains its merely descriptive
significance in relation to Applicant’s Class 42 services, such that the combination
results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See In re Oppedahl & Larson,
Serial No. 79247852

- 15 -
71 USPQ2d at 1374. Thus, we find that Applicant’s proposed mark HELPDOCS is
merely descriptive of Applicant’s Class 42 services.
Applicant makes a very brief, unsupported argument that “‘HELPDOCS’, is
simply, far too ambiguous and open-ended to reasonably claim that it ‘immediately
conveys knowledge’ of the goods/services provided by Applicant … [and that] a
sufficient amount of thought and imagination is required to understand the nature
of Applicant’s goods and therefore the mark should be viewed as suggestive and
registrable on the principle register.”13 No evidence was cited for either proposition.
See In re Simulations Publ’ns, Inc., 521 F.2d 797, 187 USPQ 147, 148 (CCPA 1975)
(“Statements in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); Galen Med. Assocs., Inc.
v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Statements of counsel ... are
not evidence.”). Moreover, Applicant’s arguments also are contrary to the
considerable weight of the evidence of the mere descriptiveness of the proposed
HELPDOCS mark in connection with the Class 42 services.
On the other hand, however, the Examining Attorney made no effort, either
during prosecution or on appeal, to provide evidence or argument supporting the
refusal to register HELPDOCS as being merely descriptive of Applicant’s Class 45
services (as amended): “computer software licensing; granting of software licenses,
namely, legal administration of software licenses; licensing of computer software.”
Because the Examining Attorney did not establish a prima facie case of mere
descriptiveness, In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010, and we resolve doubts as to the

13 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 10-11.
Serial No. 79247852

- 16 -
mere descriptiveness of a proposed mark in favor of the applicant, In re Fat Boys, 118
USPQ2d at 1513, the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed HELPDOCS mark for
the services in Class 45 must be reversed.
Decision
We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark HELPDOCS as to the
services in Class 42. We reverse the refusal to register HELPDOCS as to the services
in Class 45. Applicant’s mark will proceed to publication for potential opposition as
to the services in Class 45 only.

Serial No. 79247852

- 17 -
Appendix
Application Serial No. 79247852 Recitation of Services
Services in International Class 42: Computer hardware and software design;
computer programming and software design; design of computer software; updating
of computer software; computer software design; computer software design and
development; computer software design and updating; computer software
development; computer software installation; computer software installation and
maintenance; computer software integration to multiple systems and networks;
computer software maintenance; computer software rental computer software
research; computer software technical support services, namely, troubleshooting of
computer software problems; configuration of computers software, namely, computer
programmings services for others in the field of software configuration management;
creating, maintaining, and modernizing computer software; creating, maintaining,
and updating computer software; creation and maintenance of computer software for
blog; creation, maintenance and adaptation in the nature of design of software;
custom design of computers software packages; customized design of computers
software; design and development of computers software; design and development of
computers software architecture; design and development of computers software for
evaluation and calculation of data; design and development of computers software for
reading, transmitting, and organising data; design and development of data
processing software; design and development of data retrieval software; design and
development of operating software for accessing and using a cloud computer network;
design and development of operating software for cloud computer networks; design
and development of operating software for computer networks and servers; design
and development of operating system software; design and development of software
for database management; design and development of software for importing and
managing data; design and development of software for instant messaging; design
and development of software for website development; design and development of
software in the field of mobile applications; design and development of word
processing software; design and writing of computer software; design of computer
database software; design of computer machine and computer software for
commercial analysis and reporting; design of computer software; design of operating
system software; design of software; design of software for embedded devices; design
of software for multimedia data storing and recalling; design of word processing
software; design, development and implementation of software; design, development
and programming of computer software; design, drawing in the nature of the
designing and commissioned writing of computer software; design, maintenance and
updating of computer software; design, maintenance, development and updating of
computer software; design, maintenance, rental and updating of computer software;
design, updating and maintenance of computer software; developing and updating
computer software; developing computer software; development and maintenance of
computer software; development and testing of computer software; development of
applications software for delivery of multimedia content; development of computer
software; development of computer software application solutions, namely,
Serial No. 79247852

- 18 -
development of computer software applications; development of operating system
software; development of computer software; development of software for
communication systems; development of software for compression and decompression
of multimedia contents; development of software for data and multimedia content
conversion from and to different protocols; development of software for multimedia
data storing and recalling; development of software solutions for internet providers
and internet users for the purpose of creating online help documentation;
development of word processing software; diagnosis of faults in computer software in
the nature of troubleshooting of computer software programs; Application service
provider, namely, hosting software of others in the field of help documentation and
software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for the use of creating help
documentation and rental of computer software; installation and maintenance
services for software; installation of computer software; installation of software;
installation, maintenance and repair of computer software; installation, maintenance
and updating of computer software; installation, maintenance and updating of
database software; installation, maintenance, repair and servicing in the nature
maintenance of computer software; installation, maintenance, updating and
upgrading of computer software; installation, repair and maintenance of computer
software; installation, setting up and maintenance of computer software; installation,
updating and maintenance of computer software; maintenance and repair of
software; maintenance and updating of computer software; maintenance and
upgrading of computer software; maintenance of and updating of computer software;
maintenance of computer software; maintenance of data processing software;
maintenance of software; maintenance of software used in the field of e-commerce;
programming of computer game software; programming of computer software for
electronic language translation dictionaries and databases; programming of
computer software for evaluation and calculation of data; programming of computer
software for reading, transmitting and organising data; programming of educational
software; programming of software for internet platform; programming of software
for internet portals, chatrooms, chat lines and internet forum; programming of
software for database management; programming of software for e-commerce
platform; programming of software for importing and managing data; programming
of software for information platform on the internet; programming of software for
website development; providing information about the design and development of
computer hardware and software; providing information about the design and
development of computer software; providing information about the design and
development of computer software, systems and computer networks; providing
information in the field of computer software design; providing information in the
field of computer software development; providing information, advice and
consultancy services in the field of computer software; providing online non-
downloadable computer software for use in communication; providing online
nondownloadable computer software for word processing; providing technical advice
in the nature of technical consulting in the field of computer hardware and software;
providing temporary use of non-downloadable business software for the use of
Serial No. 79247852

- 19 -
creating help documentation; providing temporary use of non-downloadable
computer software for use in the creation and publication of on-line journals and
blogs; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software applications accessible
via a web site for creating help documentation; providing temporary use of non-
downloadable software for analyzing financial data and generating reports; providing
temporary use of non-downloadable software to enable content providers to track
multimedia content; providing temporary use of non-downloadable software to enable
sharing of multimedia content and comments among users; providing temporary use
of online non-downloadable operating software for accessing and using a cloud
computing network; providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable computer
software for creating help documentation; providing temporary use of on-line non-
downloadable software for importing and managing data; providing temporary use of
on-line non-downloadable software for the management of data; providing temporary
use of on-line non-downloadable software for the management of information;
providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for the transmission
of data; providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for the
transmission of information; providing temporary use of on-line, non-downloadable
software for use in publishing and printing; providing temporary use of online non-
downloadable software for creating help documentation; providing temporary use
of online non-downloadable software for word processing; providing temporary use of
online, non-downloadable computer software for language translation; providing
temporary use of web-based software application for creating help documentation;
rental and maintenance of computer software; rental of application software; rental
of computer database software; rental of computer hardware and computer software;
rental of computer hardware and software; rental of computer software; rental of
computer software and programs; rental of computers and computer software; rental
of computers and software; rental of database management software; rental of
operating software for accessing and using a cloud computing network; rental of
software; rental of software for computers; rental of software for data processing;
rental of software for importing and managing data; renting computer software;
maintenance, updating and repair of software; repair of computer software; research
and development of computer software; research in the field of computer programs
and software; research relating to the development of computer programs and
software; research relating to the development of computer software; research,
development, design and upgrading of computer software; smartphone software
design; software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for creating help
documentation; computer software authoring; software creation, namely, computer
software design; software design and development.

Services in International Class 45: Computer software licensing; granting of software
licenses, namely, legal administration of software licenses; licensing of computer
software.

The term help documentation is highlighted in bold for the convenience of the reader.