Kenneth H. Allman II

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2001

No. 75762517 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2001)

10/5/01

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
____________

In re Kenneth H. Allman II
____________

Serial No. 75/762,517
____________

Andrew B. Mayfield for Kenneth H. Allman II.

Jessie W. Billings, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 103 (Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Hanak, Hairston and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge.

Kenneth H. Allman II (applicant) seeks to register
in typed drawing form WEB-CV for “consulting services,
namely, providing information about employment
opportunities in the health care field by means of a web
site and electronic mail.” The application was filed on
July 28, 1999 with a claimed first use date of March 30,
1999.
The Examining Attorney has refused registration on
the basis that applicant’s mark, as applied to
applicant’s services, is merely descriptive pursuant to
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
When the refusal to register was made final,
applicant appealed to this Board. Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs. Applicant did not
request a hearing.
Ser. No. 75/762,517

A mark is merely descriptive pursuant to Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act if it immediately conveys
information about a significant quality or characteristic
of the relevant goods or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d
1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Bed &
Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818, 819 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
The Examining Attorney argues that applicant’s mark
WEB-CV is merely descriptive of applicant’s services in
the following manner: “The term ‘web’ refers to the
applicant’s web site and the acronym CV means ‘curriculum
vitae’ ... The mark WEB-CV describes the nature of
applicant’s services, which is to distribute CVs via the
web.” (Examining Attorney’s brief page 2).
Applicant argues that the initialism CV has many
meanings, and that the Examining Attorney has not
established that users of applicant’s services would
understand the initialism CV to mean “curriculum vitae.”
Obviously, applicant is not seeking to register WEB-
CURRICULUM VITAE. If he were, then we would find this
“mark” to be merely descriptive of applicant’s services.
Rather, applicant seeks to register WEB-CV. Thus, the
issue before us is whether the initialism CV is generally
2
Ser. No. 75/762,517

understood as representing the descriptive words
“curriculum vitae” so as to be substantially synonymous
therewith. This test for determining whether an
initialism is merely descriptive was established by the
predecessor to our primary reviewing Court in Modern
Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F. 2d 504, 110 USPQ
293 (CCPA 1956). This test is as follows:
It does not follow, however, that all initials of
combinations of descriptive words are ipso facto
unregisterable. While each case must be decided
on the basis of the particular facts involved,
it would seem that, 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. 110 USPQ at 295 (emphasis added).

The Modern Optics rule for determining whether
initials
are merely descriptive has been favorably received by
other Courts of Appeal. See Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v.
Stroh Brewery Co., 750 F.2d 631, 224 USPQ 657, 659 (8
Cir. 1984) (“We find the reasoning of Modern Optics
persuasive.”); G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch
Inc., 873 F.2d 985, 10 USPQ2d 1801, 1808 (7 Cir. 1989).
Of course, this Board would be bound to follow the rule
of Modern Optics regardless of its favorable reception by
other Circuits.
In an effort to establish that the initialism CV is
so
3
Ser. No. 75/762,517

generally understood as representing the words
“curriculum vitae” so as to be substantially synonymous
therewith, the Examining Attorney has made of record only
two pieces of evidence. The first is a page from the
Acronym Finder which shows that there are 23 definitions
for the initialism CV, one of which is “curriculum
vitae.” The second piece of evidence is from the AND
Concise Dictionary which is published in the United
Kingdom. This foreign dictionary, in defining the word
“curriculum,” makes reference to the term “curricula
vitae” and the abbreviation CV.
Based upon this extremely limited evidence, we find
that the Examining Attorney has simply failed to
establish that the initialism CV is so generally
understood as meaning “curriculum vitae” so as to be
substantially synonymous therewith. At the outset, we
note that it is the policy of this Board to give very
little, if any, evidentiary weight to foreign
publications. The fact that the Examining Attorney
apparently could find only a foreign dictionary to equate
the initialism CV with the term “curricula vitae” (not
“curriculum vitae”) is quite telling. This panel has
consulted over ten dictionaries published in the United
States, and not one of these dictionaries defines the
4
Ser. No. 75/762,517

initialism CV (if it defines it at all) as meaning
“curriculum vitae.” Moreover, under the listing for
“curriculum vitae,” none of these ten dictionaries
includes any reference to the initialism CV.
As for the Examining Attorney’s reliance on the
Acronym Finder, we simply note that this is a very
comprehensive work in that it lists 23 different meanings
for the initialism CV. These meanings are extremely
varied in nature as demonstrated by the following
examples: calorific value, cargo variant, cash value,
clandestine vulnerability, computer virus, multipurpose
aircraft carrier and Republic of Cape Verde. Given the
extremely in-depth nature of this Acronym Finder, the
fact that an initialism appears in this work and is
defined in numerous varied manners does not establish
that purchasers of applicant’s services would be familiar
with any particular meaning of CV.
Finally, we note that the Examining Attorney has
failed to make of record any newspaper or magazine
articles where the initialism CV appears, let alone any
article which uses CV to mean curriculum vitae.
Examining Attorneys have easy access to the vast NEXIS
data base, and this failure of proof is telling.
5
Ser. No. 75/762,517

We hasten to add that our decision that the
Examining Attorney has failed to prove that the mark WEB-
CV is merely descriptive of applicant’s services is, of
course, based upon this extremely limited evidentiary
record. A different, more comprehensive record could
well have resulted in a different result. Finally, we
note that it is the practice of this Board in determining
whether a mark is merely descriptive to resolve doubts in
favor of the applicant. In re Gourmet Bakers, Inc., 173
USPQ 565 (TTAB 1972).
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.

6