Lacretia R. Charlton

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2005

No. 76463959 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2005)

Mailed:
1 February 2005
AD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Lacretia R. Charlton
________

Serial No. 76463959
_______

Michael I. Santucci, Esq. for Lacretia R. Charlton.

Verna Beth Ririe, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
105 (Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hanak, Hohein, and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On August 5, 2002, Lacretia R. Charlton (applicant)
applied to register on the Principal Register the mark
MARAJ, in typed form, for “entertainment and performing
arts services in the nature [of] audio-visual performances,
namely, live performances by a musical artist, dance
performances and theater productions; and song writing
services” in International Class 41.1

1 Serial No. 76463959. The application alleges a date of first
use and a date of first use in commerce of June 1, 1999.
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser No. 76463959
2
The examining attorney refused to register applicant’s
mark on the ground that the mark is primarily merely a
surname under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act. 15
U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4).
After the examining attorney made the refusal final,
applicant filed a notice of appeal.
Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act prohibits the
registration on the Principal Register of a mark that “is
primarily merely a surname.” Our principal reviewing
Court’s predecessor has held that we must determine the
impact the term has or would have on the purchasing public
because “it is that impact or impression which should be
evaluated in determining whether or not the primary
significance of a word when applied to a product is a
surname significance. If it is, and it is only that, then
it is primarily merely a surname.” In re Harris-Intertype
Corp., 518 F.2d 629, 186 USPQ 238, 239 (CCPA 1975),
quoting, Ex parte Rivera Watch Corp., 106 USPQ 145 (Comm’r
1955) (emphasis in original).
“Among the factors to be considered in determining
whether a term is primarily merely a surname are the
following: (i) whether the surname is rare; (ii) whether
anyone connected with applicant has the involved term as a
surname; (iii) whether the term has any other recognized
Ser No. 76463959
3
meaning; and (iv) whether the term has the “look and feel”
of a surname.” In re United Distillers plc, 56 USPQ2d
1220, 1221 (TTAB 2000).2
We begin our analysis by reviewing the evidence of
whether the term MARAJ is a rare surname.3 The examining
attorney has submitted the results of a NEXIS database
search that shows there were 308 hits for the last name
“Maraj” in the database “USFIND Person Locator –
Nationwide.” The examining attorney attached the first one
hundred results that show entries for various individuals
with the last name “Maraj” located throughout the United
States. In addition, the examining attorney introduced the
results of a search of the NEXIS database of Florida
publications that showed more than 200 stories involving
individuals identified by the last name “Maraj,” of which
more than fifteen were submitted. Subsequently, the
examining attorney conducted a broader search of U.S.
newspapers with the result that more than four hundred

2 If the mark is depicted in stylized form, we would also
consider the stylization because if it is “distinctive enough,
this would cause the mark not to be perceived as primarily merely
a surname.” See In re Benthin Management GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332,
1334 (TTAB 1995).
3 The examining attorney does not have the burden of proving a
term is a “common American surname” as applicant argues. Brief,
second page. We agree with the examining attorney that a
surname’s rarity is a factor to consider, but the examining
attorney does not need to establish that a surname is common.
Ser No. 76463959
4
stories were retrieved, of which more than 30 were
submitted. Several of the results are set out below.
Championship Racing owner Dave Maraj said: “We
experienced some minor problems…”
St. Petersburg Times (Florida), June 17, 2003.

In the first match played March 15, Silver Whip hosted
the visitors. Batting first, the combined Ernest and
Vikings [cricket] team scored 105 all-out. Amjad Khan
top scored with 20, Jimmy Maraj and Antonio Balman got
11 each…
Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL), March 23, 2003.

Singles winners for Orange Park included Chris Dilley,
Rajiv Maraj, Tim Walton, and Tyler Greer.
Florida Times-Union, March 12, 2003.

Real Estate Transactions
To Deodat & Nandrini Deodat Maraj by Jerry A. & Irene
Bednarski
St. Petersburg Times, October 2, 2002.

“People who are buying Ybor’s condos are the same
exact people at Camden,” said Sudesh “Max” Maraj, a
general contractor and broker for Ybor Realty.
Tampa Tribune, August 1, 2002.

Shiva Maraj, the son of Tota and Krishendai Maraj and
Rohan Punit, the son of Kamala and Loak Punit, each
received $500 scholarships. Both Maraj and Punit will
attend the University of Florida.
Sun-Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale, FL), July 14, 2002.

“The carnival is a good place to show up for Caribbean
cooking,” said Tara Maraj, the owner of Tara’s Roti in
Tampa.
Tampa Tribune, June 8, 2002.

The following students received first-place awards:
Piano evaluation: … Angele Maraj, Chris Williams,
Andrew Reid…
St. Petersburg Times, June 5, 2002.

He advanced to the 125-pound wrestlebacks before being
stopped by Dean Maraj of Long Branch.
Ser No. 76463959
5
Asbury Park Press, December 26, 2003.

Siva Maraj, who works at Pet Barn in Worcester, says
few customers ask for the more outlandish items.
Worcester Telegram & Gazette, July 22, 2003.

When we consider the evidence of the use of the name
“Maraj” as a surname, we agree that it is somewhat rare.
However, despite the fact that Maraj is not a common
surname, the Federal Circuit has held that “the examiner
made of record evidence that others in a number of cities
in this country bear the surname DARTY. Thus, as a
surname, DARTY is not so unusual that such significance
would not be recognized by a substantial number of
persons.” In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15,
225 USPQ 652, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The next factor we consider is whether anyone
associated with applicant is named “Maraj.” Applicant has
submitted her declaration that maintains that “MARAJ is not
used as a surname to identify any particular person.”
Response dated July 7, 2003, Ex. C.4 We add that the fact
that “a proposed mark is not the applicant's surname, or
the surname of an officer or employee, does not tend to
establish one way or the other whether the proposed mark

4 We note that the specimen contains a picture of a women with
the word “Maraj” superimposed on the picture. While applicant
may not intend to use the term as a surname to identify a
particular individual, prospective customers encountering this
specimen may draw a different conclusion.
Ser No. 76463959
6
would be perceived as a surname.” In re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d
1792, 1795 (TTAB 2004).
The third factor we address is whether there is
evidence that there is another recognized meaning of the
term MARAJ. Applicant’s declaration asserts that “I want
the public to connect my services and my groups of
performers with, and suggestive of the word “Mirage.”
Response dated July 7, 2003, Ex. C. Applicant has
submitted a definition of the word “mirage” (Ex. A). The
examining attorney pointed out that the fact that a surname
may be phonetically equivalent to a common word does not
overcome the surname significance of the term. In re
Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760, 761 (TTAB 1986)
(“‘Pickett’ and ‘picket’ are not interchangeable in
appearance or meaning”). It is even less likely that
“mirage” and “maraj” would be viewed as essentially the
same. Except for its phonetic similarity to the word
“mirage” and applicant’s suggestion that it might be
recognized “as if it were her given name”5 (Brief, fourth

5 The fact that a surname is also sometimes used as first name
does not prevent it from being primarily merely a surname. See
Gregory, 70 USPQ2d at 1796 (While “Rogan” was applicant’s first
name, “applicant has not put anything in the record to show how
commonly ROGAN is used as a first name rather than a surname,
while we have a good deal of evidence of its use as a surname”).
Ser No. 76463959
7
page), there is no other recognized meaning for the term
Maraj.
The fourth factor concerns whether the term has the
“look and feel” of a surname. In this case, the evidence
of record shows that there are numerous references to
individuals named “Maraj.” The term has no other meaning
and it does not appear to be simply an arbitrary term.
Therefore, we agree with the examining attorney that the
term has the “look and feel” of a surname. See Gregory, 70
USPQ2d at 1796 (“We conclude that ROGAN has the look and
sound of a surname. It would not be perceived as an
initialism or acronym, and does not have the appearance of
having been coined by combining a root element that has a
readily understood meaning in its own right with either a
prefix or a suffix. Rather, ROGAN appears to be a cohesive
term with no meaning other than as a surname”) (footnote
omitted).
Thus, when we consider all the evidence in this case,
the examining attorney has met her initial burden of
showing that the term MARAJ would primarily be viewed as a
surname, and applicant has not rebutted the examining
attorney’s prima facie case. There is evidence that the
term is, in fact, a surname, even if not a common one.
There is no evidence that the term has any other meaning
Ser No. 76463959
8
besides applicant’s use and, based on its “look and feel,”
the public would have no reason to conclude that it was not
a surname.
Decision: The refusal to register applicant’s mark
MARAJ on the ground that it is primarily merely a surname
is affirmed.