Interim Planning Committee, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2001

No. 75467650 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2001)

2/9/01
Paper No. 10
DEB
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Interim Planning Committee, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/467,650
_______
Donald R. Piper, Jr. of Dann Dorfman Herrell and Skillman
for Interim Planning Committee, Inc.
Esther A. Belenker, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
111 (Craig D. Taylor, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hanak, Hairston and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Interim Planning
Committee, Inc. to register the mark CULT.INFO for services
which were subsequently identified as “educational services,
namely, providing seminars, conferences, workshops,
lectures, and educational programs in the field of cults,”
in International Class 41.1
1 Serial No. 75/467,650, filed April 14, 1998, based upon
applicant’s bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/467,650
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act on
the ground that applicant’s mark, when used in connection
with its services, is merely descriptive thereof. When the
refusal was made final, applicants appealed. Applicant and
the Trademark Examining Attorney have filed briefs.
In support of her position that CULT.INFO is merely
descriptive of applicant’s services, the Trademark Examining
Attorney relies primarily upon dictionary definitions of
“cult”2 and “info.”3
Applicants, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contend that the mark is not merely descriptive of
its services because “‘.INFO’ is not presently a top level
2 cult (kùlt) noun
1. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
extremist or false, with its followers often living in an
unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or
sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious
ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its
originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a
particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for
a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually
artistic or intellectual interest.
noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.
3 in·fo (în¹fo) noun
Informal.
Information.
Serial No. 75/467,650
3
domain name. … CULT.INFO is a coined, imaginary domain name
which creates incongruity and requires circuitous reasoning
in the mind of the reader.” Furthermore, applicants argue
that CULT.INFO is not a term competitors would need in
describing similar services.
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately conveys
information concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of the product or service.
See In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In
re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986). In
order to find a mark merely descriptive, it is not necessary
that the mark describe each feature of the goods or
services, only that it describes a single, significant
quality, feature, etc. In re Venture Lending Associates,
226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). Further, it is well established
that the determination of mere descriptiveness must be made
not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork, but in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is
sought and the impact that it is likely to make on the
average purchaser of such goods or services. In re
Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1977).
In addition to the plain meaning of the recitation of
services, applicant clarifies its purpose as follows:
Serial No. 75/467,650
4
Applicant intends to provide services under
the “CULT.INFO” service mark to educate and
warn the public about the danger of cults.
Applicant intends to educate the public as to
the tactics cults use to lure and control
followers, ways to identify cults, and how to
resist the persuasion cults exert to entice
people to join. Applicant’s service is
especially directed to those who are
particularly susceptible to influence by
cults, such as younger members of society.
(applicant’s appeal brief, p. 2).
Accordingly, under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act,
the word “cult” is merely descriptive of applicant’s
services. Furthermore, the essence of applicant’s services
is to educate – i.e., to provide information – about cults
to those most “susceptible to influence by cults.” The
dictionary entry placed into the record by the Trademark
Examining Attorney supports our experience that “info” will
be readily perceived as an informal, shortened form of the
word “information.” Hence, as argued by the Trademark
Examining Attorney in her several Office actions, these two
words together meet the test for being merely descriptive of
services designed to provide information about cults, or
“cult info.”
Applicant argues competitors would have no need to use
this designation. However, given the degree to which these
two words readily bring to mind information on cults, we
suspect other groups who share applicant’s mission would
Serial No. 75/467,650
5
find it quite natural to use “Cult Info” on the Internet
(e.g., as meta-tags, on tabs and hot links and bracketed in
site maps), and on-line and elsewhere would be touting
services like a cult information telephone line.
In briefing this case for appeal, the applicant and the
Trademark Examining Attorney have focused less on the
individual words CULT and INFO, and more on the exact
formulation, CULT.INFO. This presentation looks like a
domain name on the Internet, and so suggests that the owner
of the mark provides services over the Internet.
Nonetheless, this combined form still contains the key words
that we have determined to be merely descriptive, and
presents them in the exact same order. The mere addition of
the period, or “dot,” does not take away from the
descriptiveness of this two-word combination. Hence,
despite the fact that CULT and INFO are now separated (or
joined) by a punctuation mark, we still find “CULT.INFO” to
be merely descriptive.
Finally, much of applicant’s argumentation centers on
the fact that this is not currently a top-level domain (TLD)
available on the Internet. Applicant argues as follows:
The fact remains that “.INFO” is not
presently a TLD, nor are there any known
plans for it to become a TLD. Thus applicant
maintains that “CULT.INFO” is a coined
imaginary domain name which creates
Serial No. 75/467,650
6
incongruity and requires circuitious
reasoning in the mind of the reader. As
such, the term “CULT.INFO” is suggestive
rather than merely descriptive. (applicant’s
reply brief, p. 4).
Applicant argues that because the “.INFO” TLD is not
yet actually available to those setting up web sites on the
Internet, the examination guidance provided by the United
States Patent & Trademark Office does not apply to the
examination of applicant’s instant mark.
However, we should understand the underlying rationale
for the policies of the United States Patent & Trademark
Office in examining the registrability of domain names qua
service marks. Matter like web protocols (e.g., http:// and
www), generic TLD’s (.com, org, .gov, and the like) and
country TLD’s (.jp, .uk) cannot provide any source-
indicating significance. This is not unlike the addition of
something like “Inc.” or “Co.” to a company’s trademark,
service mark or trade name, or even “1-(800) ” at the
beginning of a vanity telephone number.
Under current trademark examination guidance, if merely
descriptive matter is combined with an existing top level
domain name like “.ORG,” the Trademark Examining Attorney is
instructed to refuse registration of this combination as
still being merely descriptive. Accordingly, to the extent
that potential consumers view the mark CULT.INFO as a domain
Serial No. 75/467,650
7
name, CULT will be seen as the second level domain and the
matter following the “dot,” INFO, will be seen as the TLD.
In a trademark sense, it serves this function whether or not
there is a computer server available on the web having this
particular URL. In other words, under trademark law,
because this looks like a descriptive word followed by a TLD
(unavailable, as it may currently be), it will be treated in
the United States Patent & Trademark Office just like a
descriptive designation followed by an actual TLD (e.g.,
CULT-INFO.ORG).
Nonetheless, during the course of prosecution, in
support of her refusal to register, the Trademark Examining
Attorney noted the possibility that INFO might indeed become
a new global top level domain (gTLD) name. Applicant argues
that her speculation on this point is inappropriate in
reaching our decision herein.
We find that although the current record does not
support the proposition put forward by the Trademark
Examining Attorney in August 2000 that “it is well-known
that the term ‘.INFO’ will be an additional TLD in the near
future,” neither does the record appear to support the
position of applicant that “nor are there any known plans
for [.INFO] to become a TLD.” Irrespective of when, or even
if, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Serial No. 75/467,650
8
(ICANN) completes negotiations with a registry operators for
a new, unrestricted gTLD known as “dot INFO,” we find this
matter to be just as violative of Section 2(e)(1) of the
Lanham Act prior to such an occurrence as it would be at any
time after such a new gTLD is approved by ICANN.
Decision: The refusal based upon Section 2(e)(1) of
the Act is affirmed.