It's Easy, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2021

87782213 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2021)

Oral Hearing: January 23, 2020 Mailed: June 14, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re It’s Easy, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 87782213
_____

Dorothy R. Whitney of Cowan Liebowitz & Latman PC for It’s Easy, Inc.
Andrew Leaser, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 117,
Hellen M. Bryan-Johnson, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Zervas, Wolfson, and Lykos,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
It’s Easy, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark depicted below:

for:
This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 87782213

- 2 -
Arranging for and facilitating the obtaining of travel visas,
passports and travel documents for persons traveling
abroad; arranging for and facilitating the obtaining of
replacement visas, passports and travel documents that
have been lost, inadvertently destroyed and/or stolen, in
International Class 39.1
The Examining Attorney refused registration under Trademark Act Sections 1,
2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-53 and 1127, on the ground that the phrase IT’S EASY
is a commonplace widely used slogan that does not function as a service mark to
indicate the source of Applicant’s services and to identify and distinguish them from
others, and that the design elements of the mark are not sufficiently “striking,
unique, or distinctive so as to create a commercial impression separate and apart
from the unregistrable components of the mark.” May 23, 2018 Office Action,
TSDR 1.2 Applicant, in traversing the refusal, argued that IT’S EASY had acquired
distinctiveness, that the design elements were inherently distinctive, and that
registration was proper under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).
When the refusal was made final, the Examining Attorney explained that
Applicant could not overcome the failure to function refusal by asserting a claim of
acquired distinctiveness. Applicant then appealed and requested reconsideration.
After Applicant’s request was denied, the appeal resumed. Both Applicant and the

1 Application Serial No. 87782213 was filed February 2, 2018, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s alleged use of the mark in
commerce since at least as early as November 15, 2004. The description of the mark reads:
“The mark consists of the words ‘it’s easy’ in a dark circle background encircled by a ring.”
Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
2 All citations in this opinion to the appeal record are to TTABVUE, the docket history system
for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Citations to the prosecution history of the
application are to pages from the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”)
database of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Serial No. 87782213

- 3 -
Examining Attorney filed briefs and appeared at an oral hearing. Following the oral
hearing, the Board remanded the case to the Examining Attorney for further
examination, resulting in an additional refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that the term IT’S EASY is
merely descriptive of Applicant’s services, that the design features did not make the
mark registrable, and that Applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under
Section 2(f) is insufficient. Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed supplemental
briefs addressing the descriptiveness refusal and issue of acquired distinctiveness.
I. Evidence and Arguments
A. Examining Attorney
The Examining Attorney argues that the term IT’S EASY is a “commonplace
message or expression widely used by a variety of sources that merely conveys an
ordinary, familiar, well-recognized concept or sentiment.” Examining Attorney’s
Brief, 18 TTABVUE 5. The Examining Attorney further contends that IT’S EASY is
widely used in a variety of situations to convey this message. In the alternative, the
Examining Attorney argues that IT’S EASY is descriptive of a feature or
characteristic of Applicant’s services, and that Applicant has failed to establish that
this descriptive designation has acquired distinctiveness. 39 TTABVUE 3. The
Examining Attorney supports his arguments with definitions of the word “easy”;
excerpts from third-party Internet websites and news articles (showing third-party
use of “it’s easy” and expressions derived therefrom); Applicant’s specimen of use and
excerpts from Applicant’s website.
Serial No. 87782213

- 4 -
Examples of dictionary usage include THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2016), which defines “easy” as “requiring or
exhibiting little effort or endeavor; undemanding.”3 An online usage guide,
“Education First,” lists English idioms and expressions and gives their meaning and
usage; the guide states that “It’s a piece of cake” means “It’s easy” and that the
expression is used by itself.4
Evidence of use by businesses in Applicant’s field or closely related fields of the
same or substantially the same wording as the mark may be probative of consumer
perception. The following are representative excerpts from the Internet materials
submitted by the Examining Attorney showing third-party use of IT’S EASY:
 From Travel.State.Gov:5

 From the United States Postal Service:6

3 At http://www.yourdictionary.com/easy, attached to May 23, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 2.
4 At https://www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-idioms/, June 12, 2019 Denial of Request
for Reconsideration, TSDR 6.
5 At https://travel.state.gov, attached to May 23, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 3.
6 At https://about.usps.com, attached to May 23, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 4.
Serial No. 87782213

- 5 -
 From Baby Bonanza:7

 From HomeTeam Pest Defense:8

In addition, the Examining Attorney submitted excerpts from Applicant ’s
website, https://www.itseasy.com/, wherein Applicant uses “easy” as follows:9
 “Traveling for vacation, tourism or business trips, ItsEasy can
secure Chinese visas quickly and easily!”
 “Brazilian tourist and business visas can be made simple and
easy - get your Brazil visa today!
 “Going the extra mile to make it Easy!”
 “We have been expediting US passports for over 40 years and
make obtaining your new passport, well... Easy.”
With regard to the design features of the mark, the Examining Attorney argues
that “[a]t most, Applicant’s circular background is a mere refinement of this

7 At http://www.babybonanza.org, December 5, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 7.
8 At https://pestdefense.com, December 5, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 13.
9 June 12, 2019 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 133-136.
Serial No. 87782213

- 6 -
commonly-adopted and well-known type of background.” 39 TTABVUE 12-13. In
support, he submitted copies of third-party registrations,10 website pages of five other
entities’ using “circle-in-a-circle” marks,11 and three websites offering free
downloadable clipart of the word EASY inside a circle-within-a-circle design.12 The
third-party registrations include Reg. No. 5052446 for the mark for, inter alia,
installation of computer hardware, technical support, telecommunication services
and computer networking services; Reg. No. 3079205 for the mark for
“automobile dealerships;” and Reg. No. 3967952 for the mark for “credit union
services.” The five third-party uses are depicted below:

An example of the clipart is:13

10 June 12, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 145-274.
11 August 3, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 61-65.
12 November 21, 2010 Office Action, TSDR 113- 27.
13 Id. at 123.
Serial No. 87782213

- 7 -
.
B. Applicant
Applicant maintains that the phrase IT’S EASY is not “so ubiquitous that [it] can
effectively be equated with generic terms that are incapable of acting as source
identifiers.” Reply Brief, 19 TTABVUE 7. Applicant contends that a “more probing
analysis of the relevant cases, as well as Applicant’s supporting evidence, shows that
“It’s Easy” is appropriately classified as a descriptive term that has acquired the
requisite degree of distinctiveness to function as a valid service mark.” Id. at 8.
With regard to the design features of its mark, Applicant disputes the Examining
Attorney’s finding that the design component of Applicant’s mark is comprised of
common basic shapes used as a mere background carrier for the wording in the mark.
Applicant argues that the design features elevate the mark as a whole to a protectable
service mark:
[E]ven if the word mark component of Applicant’s Mark
were not registrable, the design mark as a whole should be
permitted to register. As demonstrated in Applicant’s
opening brief, the mark features numerous elements that
contribute to an overall distinctive button design. The
Examining Attorney’s reduction of these artistic features
to the simple label “circular background” fails to do justice
to the various creative choices reflected in Applicant’s
design.
19 TTABVUE 13.
Serial No. 87782213

- 8 -
Applicant supports its argument with copies of its prior, now cancelled,
registrations for the marks IT’S EASY and IT’S EASY and design;14 15 third-party
registrations for the mark IT’S EASY and for similar marks such as IT’S SO EASY,
IT’S THAT EASY, and WE MAKE IT EASY;15 and the Declaration of David Alwadish,
Applicant’s President, in support of Applicant’s claim to acquired distinctiveness
based on 35 years of use of the term IT’S EASY.16
The third-party registrations, based on use and for which specimens of use were
submitted, include Reg. No. 5311332 for IT’S EASY for legal services (registered
October 17, 2017); several registrations for the mark ITS SO EASY, such as Reg. No.
2152739 for ITS SO EASY for retail store services in the field of window coverings
(registered April 21, 1998, renewed); Reg. No. 5120764 for WE MAKE IT EASY for
providing an online marketplace and for advertising services (registered January 10,

14 Reg. Nos. 3118810 and 3125429, attached to November 14, 2018 Response to Office Action,
TSDR 11-12. The cancelled registrations have no probative value other than as evidence that
they issued. Once a federal registration is cancelled or expires, all presumptions, rights, and
privileges associated with that registration terminate. In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594,
118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330,
1336 n.11 (TTAB 2014) (“We have long held that cancelled or expired registrations are not
evidence of anything except that they issued.”).
15 November 14, 2018 Response to Office Action, TSDR 14-29. The specimens of use from each
file are attached at TSDR 31-44. We accord little weight to the third-party registrations
attached to Applicant’s May 22, 2019 Request for Reconsideration for the mark WE
DELIVER, and for marks containing the word “simple,” such as IT’S SIMPLE and IT’S A
SIMPLE THING. These have little probative value as they project different connotations and
overall commercial impressions than does Applicant’s mark.
16 May 22, 2019, Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 101-106. Mr. Alwadish attests to
continuous use of the word mark from “as early as December 1985,” and continuous use of
the design mark beginning on November 15, 2004, in association with the recited services.
Id. at 100-01.
Serial No. 87782213

- 9 -
2017); and Reg. No. 5146696 for for moving company services (registered
February 21, 2017).17
II. Mere Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinctiveness
We begin with the Examining Attorney’s mere descriptiveness refusal and
finding that Applicant’s showing of acquired distinctiveness is insufficient.
A mark is “merely descriptive” within the meaning of Trademark Act 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
A.G., 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); Yarnell Ice Cream, 2019
USPQ2d 265039 at *5 (TTAB 2019). A merely descriptive mark can be registered on
the Principal Register only upon a showing that it has acquired distinctiveness.
Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) (“nothing herein shall prevent the
registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the
applicant’s goods in commerce”).
When an applicant responds to a refusal based on mere descriptiveness of a mark,
or portion of a mark, by claiming acquired distinctiveness, such amendment to seek
registration under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act is considered an admission that
the proposed mark is not inherently distinctive. See Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold
War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an

17 November 14, 2018 Response to Office Action, TSDR 15 (Reg. No. 5146696), TSDR 16 (Reg.
No. 5311332), TSDR 17 (Reg. No. 2152739) and TSDR 23 (Reg. No. 5120764).
Serial No. 87782213

- 10 -
applicant’s reliance on Section 2(f) during prosecution presumes that the mark is
descriptive”); Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d
1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Hikari Sales USA, Inc., 2019 USPQ2d 111514
(TTAB 2019); cf. Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours, Inc., 107 USPQ2d
1750, 1753 (TTAB 2013) (registration of respondent’s involved registration under
Section 2(f) constitutes a concession that its mark is not inherently distinctive).
The evidence supports this finding, and Applicant does not dispute that the
wording in the proposed mark is merely descriptive, but even states, as noted above,
that “’It’s Easy’ is appropriately classified as a descriptive term.” 19 TTABVUE 8.
With regard to the design features of the mark, given Applicant’s contention that they
are inherently distinctive, we construe Applicant’s claim under Section 2(f) as one in
part applying only to the literal portion of its mark, i.e., the phrase IT’S EASY.
Applicant’s mark may be registered on the Principal Register upon proof that
either (1) the phrase IT’S EASY has acquired distinctiveness; or (2) the design
renders the mark as a whole registrable, with a disclaimer to the phrase IT’S EASY.
See In re Clutter Control Inc., 231 USPQ 588, 589 (TTAB 1986) (“When words which
are merely descriptive, and hence unregistrable, are presented in a distinctive design,
the design may render the mark as a whole registrable, provided that the words are
disclaimed, under Section 6 of the Trademark Act.”); In re Miller Brewing Co. 226
USPQ 666, 668 (TTAB 1985) (display of “Lite” for beer held not inherently distinctive,
but composite mark registrable on the basis of acquired distinctiveness).
Serial No. 87782213

- 11 -
A. Has the phrase IT’S EASY acquired distinctiveness?
Applicant bears the burden of proving that IT’S EASY has acquired
distinctiveness. In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1335, 116 USPQ2d
1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75
USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “To show that a mark has acquired
distinctiveness, an applicant must demonstrate that the relevant public understands
the primary significance of the mark as identifying the source of a … service rather
than the … service itself.” Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1422.
An applicant’s evidentiary burden of showing acquired distinctiveness increases
with the level of descriptiveness of the mark sought to be registered; a more
descriptive term requires more evidence. In re Nat’l Ass’n of Veterinary Technicians
in Am., 2019 USPQ2d 269108 (TTAB 2019) (citing Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co.,
892 F.3d 1358, 1365, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing
Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424)). In other words, “the greater the degree of
descriptiveness the term has, the heavier the burden to prove it has attained
secondary meaning.” In re Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 13 USPQ2d
1727 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Yamaha, 6 USPQ2d at 1008). See also In re Hollywood
Brands, Inc., 214 F.2d 139, 102 USPQ 294, 295 (CCPA 1954) (“[T]here is no doubt
that Congress intended that the burden of proof [under Section 2(f)] should rest upon
the applicant”). “[L]ogically that standard becomes more difficult as the mark’s
descriptiveness increases.” Yamaha, 6 USPQ2d at 1008.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney are at odds regarding the mark’s degree
of descriptiveness and the concomitant level of proof required to show acquired
Serial No. 87782213

- 12 -
distinctiveness. Applicant contends that its mark is merely descriptive, not highly
descriptive: “Applicant is not disputing that Applicant’s Mark18 is descriptive; it is
merely stating that on the spectrum going from generic to descriptive to highly
suggestive, Applicant’s Mark is much closer to the highly suggestive side and thus
should not be treated as a highly descriptive mark bordering on generic.” Applicant’s
Supplemental Brief, 37 TTABVUE 7. The Examining Attorney argues that the phrase
IT’S EASY “is not just descriptive but highly descriptive of a feature or characteristic
of Applicant’s services.” Examining Attorney’s Supplemental Brief, 29 TTABVUE 9.
1. Degree of Descriptiveness
Based on the entirety of the record, we find that the phrase “IT’S EASY” is not
just descriptive but highly descriptive as a laudatory term that clearly informs the
relevant public that Applicant touts its services as being without difficulty or effort.
It is well established that laudatory terms, those that attribute quality or excellence
to goods or services, generally are deemed to be merely descriptive under Trademark
Act Section 2(e)(1). See, e.g., In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564,
1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK is “a laudatory descriptive
phrase that touts the superiority of Nett Designs’ bike racks”); In re The Place Inc.,
76 USPQ2d 1467, 1468 (TTAB 2005) (THE GREATEST BAR found merely
descriptive as a laudatory term for bar and restaurant services).

18 As noted, we do not construe Applicant’s claim under Section 2(f) to extend to the design
portions of its mark, despite Applicant’s having defined “Applicant’s Mark” as the IT’S EASY
and design mark.
Serial No. 87782213

- 13 -
2. Acquired Distinctiveness
To establish that a term has acquired distinctiveness, “an applicant must show
that in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term
is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” See In re La.
Fish Fry Prods., 116 USPQ2d at 1265 (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1729 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Depending
on the nature of the mark and the facts in the record, an applicant may meet this
burden by offering three basic types of evidence:
1. A claim of ownership of one or more active prior
registrations on the Principal Register of the same mark
for goods or services that are sufficiently similar to those
identified in the pending application. Trademark Rule
2.41(a)(1) , 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(1).
2. A verified statement that the mark has become
distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services by reason of
the applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use
of the mark in commerce for five years before the date on
which the claim of distinctiveness is made. Trademark
Rule 2.41(a)(2) , 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(2).
3. Other appropriate evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(3) , 27 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(3).
An applicant may submit one or any combination of these types of evidence.
In any given case, the examining attorney may determine that a claim of
ownership of a prior registration(s), or a claim of five years’ substantially exclusive
and continuous use in commerce, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
acquired distinctiveness, in which case, “other appropriate evidence” of acquired
distinctiveness shall be considered. “Other appropriate evidence” includes “direct
and/or circumstantial evidence.’” Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo K.K., 125 USPQ2d
Serial No. 87782213

- 14 -
1468, 1506 (TTAB 2017) (quoting Stuart Spector Designs Ltd. v. Fender Musical
Instruments Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1549, 1554 (TTAB 2009)); see also Schlafly v. Saint
Louis Brewery, LLC, 909 F.3d 420, 128 USPQ2d 1739, 1743 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The
Board and courts have recognized that both direct and circumstantial evidence may
show secondary meaning”) (citation omitted).
“‘Direct evidence includes actual testimony, declarations or surveys of consumers
as to their state of mind. Circumstantial evidence is evidence from which consumer
association may be inferred, such as years of use, extensive amounts of sales and
advertising, and any similar evidence showing wide exposure of the mark to
consumers.’” Kohler, 125 USPQ2d at 1506 (quoting Stuart Spector, 94 USPQ2d at
1554). When the evidence comprises indirect evidence such as the applicant ’s length
and manner of use, it is usually expected that such indirect evidence will be
“supplemented by evidence of the effectiveness of such use to cause the purchasing
public to identify the mark with the source of the product.” In re Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417, 422 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Cf. Converse,
Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 128 USPQ2d 1538, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2018); In re
Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (“In determining whether secondary meaning
has been acquired, the Board may examine copying, advertising expenditures, sales
success, length and exclusivity of use, unsolicited media coverage, and consumer
studies (linking the name to a source).”).19

19 Considerations that may be assessed in determining whether a mark has acquired
distinctiveness can be described by the following six factors: (1) association of the [mark] with
a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by customer surveys); (2)
Serial No. 87782213

- 15 -
Because we have found that the term IT’S EASY is highly descriptive of
Applicant’s services, “Applicant’s burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness
under Section 2(f) is commensurately high.” In re Virtual Indep. Paralegals, LLC,
2019 USPQ2d 111512 at *11 (TTAB 2019); see also Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d
at 1424. The key determination remains whether the purchasing public has come to
identify the mark with the source of the goods or services. Our ultimate Section 2(f)
analysis of acquired distinctiveness and determination in this case is based on all of
the evidence considered as a whole.
In support of its claim to acquired distinctiveness, Applicant relies primarily on
the Declaration of David Alwadish, Applicant’s President and founder. May 22, 2019
Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 101-06.
Mr. Alwadish testifies that:
 Applicant began using the word mark IT’S EASY in December
1985 and the design mark on November 15, 2004, in
connection with “DMV Services” and “Travel Services.” DMV
Services involve “arranging and facilitating the obtaining and
surrendering of license plates, vehicle registrations and
obtaining of birth and death certificates.” Travel Services
involve “arranging and facilitating the obtaining of travel
visas, passports and other travel documents for persons
traveling abroad.”

length, degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of
sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying; and (6) unsolicited media coverage of
the product embodying the mark. In re SnoWizard, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (TTAB
2018) (quoting Converse, Inc., 128 USPQ2d at 1546). However, the Section 2(f) considerations
enunciated by the Federal Circuit in Converse do not alter our analysis in any significant
way. The first of the six factors enunciated by the Court inquires into direct evidence, while
the remaining factors describe typical circumstantial evidence.
Serial No. 87782213

- 16 -
 Since then, Applicant has processed over 2 million passport
and visa applications and “a similar number” of motor vehicle
registration requests.
 Applicant uses the mark as part of its corporate name (“It’s
Easy, Inc.”), as its domain name (www.itseasy.com) and in its
telephone number (1-866-ITS-EASY).
 Applicant’s gross revenues from Travel Services rendered
under the IT’S EASY mark from 2011 through 2017 averaged
over ten million ($10,000,000) dollars. During the same period,
the yearly gross revenues received from DMV Services
averaged over thirty-eight million ($38,000,000) dollars, and
Applicant spent an average of $720,000 per year promoting its
Travel Services. Applicant promotes its services online, in
social media (Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), and
through radio and print advertising.
 Applicant’s website received over 600,000 hits each year for
the three years from 2015 through 2018. In 2017, the website
received over 1.2 million hits.
 In 2016 and 2017, Applicant received the Excellence Award
from the NY Times Travel Show for its Travel Services. In
2015, Applicant received the Travel Weekly Magellan Award
and in 2010, the NBTA Award, each time for its Travel
Services.
 Applicant has received unsolicited media coverage. In 2017,
Applicant’s “IT’S EASY app” was featured in the magazine
Travel & Leisure. In 2016, the app was featured online by the
NY Times and Oyster’s websites.20

20 Applicant’s submission with its October 29, 2020 Response to Office Action of pages from
its and five of its alleged principal competitor’s Facebook and Instagram websites cannot be
used to prove the ranking of these companies by number of followers because they were not
authenticated by witness testimony. While Internet materials are admissible in ex parte
proceedings to demonstrate how a term is used and the likely impression it may make upon
viewers, such materials are not admissible for the truth of the matters asserted therein, i.e.,
how many “followers” there are for each website. See In re I-Coat Co., LLC, 126 USPQ2d
1730, 1735 (TTAB 2018) (accepting internet printouts only for what they show “on their
face”); see also In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 129 USPQ2d 1148, 1156 (TTAB 2019) (information
from the Internet, websites and blog posts is admissible “as evidence of information available
to the consuming public and of the way in which a term is being used or would be understood
Serial No. 87782213

- 17 -
Considering all of the Section 2(f) evidence as a whole, we find that Applicant has
failed to meet its burden of establishing that the term IT’S EASY has acquired
distinctiveness as a source identifier for Applicant ’s services. Applicant has not
presented any direct evidence of acquired distinctiveness such as a consumer survey
or customer declarations,21 nor is there evidence of any intentional copying.
Applicant’s prior registrations are now cancelled. Applicant’s circumstantial evidence
of length, degree, and exclusivity of use; amount and manner of advertising; amount
of sales and number of customers; and unsolicited media coverage of the services
embodying the term IT’S EASY is insufficient to show that relevant consumers
recognize IT’S EASY as a service mark. The fact that Applicant “has used its mark
for a long time does not necessarily establish that the mark has acquired
distinctiveness.” In re Tires, Tires, Tires Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1153, 1158 (TTAB 2009)
(20+ years of use insufficient); see Flowers Inds. Inc., v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5
USPQ2d 1580, 1588-89 (TTAB 1987) (51 years of use insufficient); Ayoub, Inc. v. ACS
Ayoub Carpet Serv., 118 USPQ2d 1392, 1402 (TTAB 2016) (35 years use insufficient).

by the relevant public”); In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 n.4 (TTAB 2016)
(stories are probative of the perceptions of the authors and of the content that may have been
received by the readers); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE
(TBMP) § 1208.03 (2020) (“Because website contents and search engine results are accessible
by the consuming public . . ., they constitute evidence of potential public exposure. . . .
although their probative value will vary depending on the facts of the particular case.”). Here,
the evidence of record shows only that the consuming public has been exposed to various
websites that display a numerical figure representing the number of alleged followers of each
site, but the evidence does not prove the accuracy of the number of followers ascribed to each
site.
21 The public postings on Applicant’s social media accounts, and comments from visitors to
Applicant’s website, submitted by Applicant and the Examining Attorney, are not the same
as verified declarations; they are inconclusive as evidence that a reader perceives IT’S EASY
to be Applicant’s service mark for its arranging and facilitation services.
Serial No. 87782213

- 18 -
Applicant provides no industry context for its sales figures ($10M for Travel
Services and $38M for DMV Services over a 7-year period), such as Applicant’s
“relative market share, or its sales position vis-à-vis its competitors, thus diminishing
the probative value of these raw numbers.” MK Diamond Prods., 2020 USPQ2d 10882
at *23 (TTAB 2020) (citing Target Brands Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1681
(TTAB 2007) (holding that it is difficult “to accurately gauge the level of [sales]
success . . . in the absence of additional information such as applicant’s market share
or how [applicant’s] product ranks in terms of sales in the trade”)). Even assuming
that Applicant’s sales activity is substantial in the industry, “[i]t is well established
that compelling sales and advertising figures do not always amount to a finding of
acquired distinctiveness.” Kohler, 125 USPQ2d at 1516 (quoting Stuart Spector, 94
USPQ2d at 1572). Applicant’s expenditures on promotional activities appears
modest, and only those directed to its Travel Services were reported.
While Applicant has garnered some unsolicited media attention and accrued
awards in its field, the evidence pertaining to these is minimal. Accordingly, it is of
limited persuasive value. In toto, the evidence fails to meet the high standard for
showing that the term IT’S EASY has become distinctive of its services and that it
serves to identify these services in commerce. Given the highly descriptive nature of
the designation, we would need substantially more evidence (especially in the form of
direct evidence from customers) than what Applicant has submitted in order to find
that the designation has become distinctive of Applicant’s services.
Serial No. 87782213

- 19 -
Considering the record in its entirety, we find that Applicant has not met its
burden to establish acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), as to the highly descriptive wording IT’S EASY.
Our analysis does not end, however, at this point. Even though the term may be
merely descriptive, a distinctive design may render the mark as a whole registrable,
provided the term is disclaimed. In re Clutter Control, 231 USPQ at 589. If the design
features of the asserted mark do not create an impression on purchasers separate and
apart from the impression made by the term itself, i.e., the design features are not
inherently distinctive, Applicant’s mark is only registrable on the Principal Register
“if it can be shown by evidence that the particular display which the applicant has
adopted has acquired distinctiveness” as a whole. In re Cordua, 118 USPQ2d at
1639 (quoting In re Sadoru Grp., Ltd., 105 USPQ2d 1484, 1486 (TTAB 2012).22
B. Does the design render the mark registrable?
“A display of descriptive or otherwise unregistrable matter is not registrable on
the Principal Register unless the design features of the asserted mark create an

22 In this regard, we find that Applicant’s mark has not acquired distinctiveness as a whole.
Applicant states that its first use of the composite IT’S EASY and design mark was in 2004.
Alwadish Decl., Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 101. The earliest dated evidence bearing
Applicant’s composite mark is an award from 2010 that displays the mark. Request for
Reconsideration, TSDR 127. Applicant’s Twitter account, dated “05/08/2019,” also displays
the mark. Id. at 121-125. However, pages from Applicant’s Facebook and Instagram accounts
display a different version of the design. Based on this sparse evidence, we find that Applicant
has not met its burden to establish acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), as to the composite mark IT’S EASY and design. Cf. In
re Serial Podcast, LLC, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1061, 1073 (TTAB 2018) (although Board considered
typeface and color of letters within rounded backgrounds not inherently distinctive, taken as
a whole, composite logo, , was registrable with disclaimer to generic wording
“SERIAL”).
Serial No. 87782213

- 20 -
impression on the purchasers separate and apart from the impression made by the
words themselves, or if it can be shown by evidence that the particular display which
the applicant has adopted has acquired distinctiveness.” In re Sadoru Grp., Ltd., 105
USPQ2d at 1486 (citing In re Guilford Mills Inc., 33 USPQ2d 1042, 1043 (TTAB
1994). See also In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd., 2020 USPQ2d 11289, *8 (TTAB 2020)
(“for a term otherwise unregistrable to be capable of distinguishing an applicant’s
goods, the presentation of the term must be sufficiently striking, unique or distinctive
so as to overcome its inherent incapacity and render the mark capable of serving as
a source indicator”) (quoting In re Cosmetic Factory, Inc., 220 USPQ 1103 (TTAB
1983)). Moreover, the “determination of whether the stylization of an otherwise
unregistrable designation is sufficiently distinctive in character to ‘rescue’ the
designation as a whole is a necessarily subjective one.” In re Bonni Keller Collections
Ltd., 6 USPQ2d 1224, 1227 (TTAB 1987).
We agree with Applicant that the design features of the mark are
sufficiently striking and unique that the overall design forms its own commercial
impression apart from the wording IT’S EASY. As Applicant explains:
[T]he dark interior of the central circle is shaded in the
upper left and lower right quadrants to create the
impression of reflected light angling against its surface.
Moreover, the shaded, reflective circle is itself surrounded
by three concentric rings of contrasting shade and width,
with the second interior ring depicted in a lighter display
also shaded to suggest a light-based reflection on the lower
right corner. Taken together, these various artistic choices
contribute to an overall distinctive button design that
serves to identify the source of Applicant’s services to the
consuming public.
Serial No. 87782213

- 21 -
16 TTABVUE 18.
The Examining Attorney argues that the third-party registration and use
evidence of “circle-in-a-circle” marks prove that Applicant’s design is commonly used
and therefore would not be perceived as distinctive. We disagree. None of the third-
party marks display the combination of circles and shading in the same manner as in
Applicant’s mark. Moreover, the goods and services cover a wide spectrum; indeed,
none of the marks is registered or used with services similar to those provided by
Applicant. Considering the evidence as a whole, we find Applicant’s design would be
perceived as more than a combination of “ordinary geometric shapes such as circles,
ovals, squares, stars, etc., [which] are generally regarded as nondistinctive and
protectable only upon proof of acquired distinctiveness.” In re Am. Acad. of Facial
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 64 USPQ2d 1748, 1753 (TTAB 2002). See also
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Vasco Metals Corp., 55 CCPA 1141, 394 F.2d 1009, 157 USPQ 627,
630 (CCPA 1968) (when mark is a typographical design, “it is entirely possible to
disclaim all the [word or letter] components of such a design mark . . . and still have
a registrable whole”); In re K-T Zoe Furniture, Inc., 16 F.3d 390, 29 USPQ2d 1787,
1789 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding acquired distinctiveness in mark THE SOFA & CHAIR
COMPANY (stylized) as a whole, with a disclaimer to all the words).
We find the design features of Applicant’s mark to be sufficiently stylized so as to
make an impression on purchasers separate and apart from the phrase IT’S EASY.
Accordingly, the application may be registered with a disclaimer of the wording IT’S
EASY apart from the mark as shown.
Serial No. 87782213

- 22 -
We realize that Applicant will find itself having owned a registration for its
proposed mark for nearly 15 years, and now its application for the same proposed
mark, for virtually the same services, is being refused registration. It
is unfortunate that Applicant’s prior registration was not maintained, and that in the
period since March 10, 2017 when the registration was cancelled, circumstances have
changed. However, such developments do not justify the registration of an
unregistrable mark. As the Federal Circuit has taught, each case must be decided on
its own record and prior decisions are not binding on the Board. In re Cordua, 110
USPQ2d 1227, 1233 (TTAB 2014), aff’d 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (“The
PTO is required to examine all trademark applications for compliance with each and
every eligibility requirement, including non-genericness, even if the PTO earlier
mistakenly registered a similar or identical mark suffering the same defect.”); see also
In re Thunderbird Prods. Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 160 USPQ 730, 732 (CCPA 1969)
(“Trademark rights are not static. A word or group of words not descriptive today
may, through usage, be descriptive tomorrow.”).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark based on mere descriptiveness
under Section 2(e)(1) and lack of acquired distinctiveness of the wording IT’S EASY
under Section 2(f) is affirmed. However, this decision will be set aside and Applicant’s
application allowed to proceed to publication upon the entry of a disclaimer to the
Serial No. 87782213

- 23 -
wording IT’S EASY. Applicant is allowed until twenty days from the date of mailing
of this decision to file an appropriate disclaimer.23
In view of this decision, we do not reach the refusal on the ground that
fails to function as a mark under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45.

23 The disclaimer should be worded as follows: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use
IT’S EASY apart from the mark as shown.”