Licensing IP International S.àr.l.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2021

87526196 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2021)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: February 16, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Licensing IP International S.àr.l.
_____

Serial No. 87526196
_____

Alesha M. Dominique of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP,
for Licensing IP Int’l S.àr.l.
Bridgett G. Smith, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Zervas, Wolfson and Lebow,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Licensing IP International S.àr.l., applied to register the mark
LIVEHUB, in standard characters, on the Principal Register for
“Video-on-demand transmission services; video broadcasting;
transmission of voice, data, and images by wireless communication
networks and the Internet all in the field of adult entertainment” in
Class 38;

“Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring non-
downloadable video, photographs, images, audio, and text in the field of
adult entertainment via a global computer network” in Class 41; and

“Providing a website allowing users to download videos in the field of
Serial No. 87526196
- 2 -
adult entertainment” in Class 42.1

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e), on the ground that the mark is merely
descriptive of the identified services. When the refusal was made final, Applicant
requested reconsideration, which was denied. Applicant then filed an appeal to this
Board. The appeal is fully briefed.
We affirm the refusal.
I. Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods [or
services] of the applicant is merely descriptive … of them,” unless the mark has been
shown to have acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1052(f). 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)).
“A mark need not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature
of the [services] in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it
describes one significant attribute, function or property of the [services].” In re Fat

1 Application Serial No. 87526196 was filed on July 12, 2017 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based upon Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce.

Serial No. 87526196
- 3 -
Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Gyulay,
820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
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 of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(quoting Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831), and “not in the abstract or on the basis of
guesswork.” Fat Boys, 118 USPQ2d at 1513 (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d
811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978)).
We ask “whether someone who knows what the goods and services are will
understand the mark to convey information about them.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-
Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d
1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted)). A mark is suggestive, and
not merely descriptive, if it requires imagination, thought, and perception on the part
of someone who knows what the goods or services are to reach a conclusion about
their nature from the mark. See, e.g., Fat Boys, 118 USPQ2d at 1515.
We “must consider the commercial impression of a mark as a whole.” Real Foods,
128 USPQ2d at 1374 (quoting DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1757 (citation omitted)).
“In considering [a] mark as a whole, [we] ‘may not dissect the mark into isolated
elements,’ without ‘consider[ing] … the entire mark.’” Id. (quoting DuoProSS, 103
Serial No. 87526196
- 4 -
USPQ2d at 1757). But we “may weigh the individual components of the mark to
determine the overall impression or the descriptiveness of the mark and its various
components.” Id. (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d
1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Indeed, we are “required to examine the meaning of each
component individually, and then determine whether the mark as a whole is merely
descriptive.” DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1758.
Where the proposed mark is comprised of two words that are presented as a
unitary term, and the words are individually descriptive of the identified services, we
must then determine whether their combination “conveys any distinctive source-
identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.” Fat
Boys, 118 USPQ2d at 1515-16 (quoting Oppedahl & Larson, 71 USPQ2d at 1372). If
each word instead “retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the
[services], the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.”
Id. at 1516 (citing In re Tower Tech., Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB 2002));
see also In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1950, 1953-55 (TTAB 2018).
“Evidence of the public’s understanding of [a] term . . . may be obtained from any
competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.” Real Foods, 128
USPQ2d at 1374 (quoting Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127
USPQ2d 1041, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These sources may include [w]ebsites,
publications and use ‘in labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the
[services].’” N.C. Lottery, 123 USPQ2d at 1710 (quoting Abcor Dev., 200 USPQ at 218).
Serial No. 87526196
- 5 -
II. The Examining Attorney’s Evidence and Argument
The Examining Attorney relies on the following definitions to support her
argument that the individual words “LIVE” and “HUB” are descriptive of Applicant’s
services:2
 Live: “An event that is broadcast or recorded as it happens.”3

 Hub: “A hub, also called a network hub, is a common connection point
for devices in a network. Hubs are devices commonly used to connect
segments of a LAN [Local Area Network].”4

 USB Hub: “a device that allows multiple peripherals to connect through
a single USB port. It is designed to increase the number of USB devices
you can connect to a computer.”5

Based on these definitions, the Examining Attorney argues that “LIVE clearly
indicates the fact that applicant provides broadcasting and entertainment services
that are either live or were recorded from live performances.”6 She notes that
Applicant acknowledged the same by entering a voluntary disclaimer of that term,

2 11 TTABVUE 5 (Examining Attorney’s Brief). 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”).
3 Although the Examining Attorney did not provide a printout of her definition of the word
“live,” we take judicial notice of that definition from Webster’s New World College Dictionary,
available online at yourdictionary.com (https://www.yourdictionary.com/live), accessed
November 4, 2020. The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions from online
sources when the definitions themselves are derived from dictionaries that exist in printed
form or have regular fixed editions. See In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1392
n.23 (TTAB 2013); In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2006).
4 September 7, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 10-10. The Examining Attorney’s printout of the
definition of “hub” from webopedia.com in her office action is partially obscured by a pop-up
add, so we cannot use it as evidence.
5 Id. at 5-6.
6 11 TTABVUE 5-6 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
Serial No. 87526196
- 6 -
and confirming that its services include transmission, videos, or websites featuring
live content in response to an office action inquiry.7 “HUB” is also descriptive of
Applicant’s services, she argues, “because a consumer would believe that the
applicant’s services provide a hub for its transmitting and broadcasting services as
well as where the videos are shown and/or uploaded.”8 Hence, “the words LIVE and
HUB immediately describe that applicant provides voice, data, images, and video
transmission of live performances through a hub and/or that is uploaded to a hub in
order to be disseminated.”9
The Examining Attorney also made of record excerpts from several third-party
webpages using the term LIVE HUB in connection with the transmission of both live
broadcasts and broadcasts recorded live for subsequent viewing:

7 February 12, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 2; August 12, 2019 Response to Office Action, TSDR
1. As discussed more fully below, entry of a disclaimer is inappropriate because Applicant’s
mark is unitary. However, Applicant’s voluntary disclaimer of LIVE tends to corroborate our
finding that LIVE is merely descriptive, based on the meaning of the word itself as applied
to Applicant’s services. In re Franklin Press, Inc., 201 USPQ 662, 665 (CCPA 1979)).
8 11 TTABVUE 6 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
9 Id.
Serial No. 87526196
- 7 -
--deathbycoffee.net (providing live broadcasts of a musical group)10

--media.crea8t.com (recorded live videos)11

--youtube.com (recorded live videos)12

10 September 7, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 13.
11 Id. at 15-18.
12 Id. at 19-26.
Serial No. 87526196
- 8 -
The Examining Attorney argues that the individual words “LIVE” and “HUB”
retain their descriptive significance when combined as “LIVEHUB,” pointing to the
foregoing website evidence showing using of the term LIVE HUB “to identify a place
where … a network can be utilized to show live performances,”13 as well as the below-
shown (redacted) excerpt from Applicant’s website14 showing Applicant’s mark and
services featuring “a platform where one can view live cam models online,” including
the ability to chat with them live:15

13 11 TTABVUE 6 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
14 Id. at 8.
15 August 12, 2019 Response to Office Action, TSDR 7.
Serial No. 87526196
- 9 -
III. Applicant’s Evidence and Argument
Applicant argues that in addition to being “‘a common connection point for devices
in a network,’ also called a ‘network hub,’ which ‘receives [] data from a connected
device’ and then ‘broadcasts that data [] to all other connected devices,’”16 “‘hub’ also
means a device that allows multiple peripherals to connect through a single USB
port.”17 Applicant further asserts that the “Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘hub’
as meaning or relating to, inter alia, a heart, locus, mecca, nerve center, nexus,
nucleus, base, capital, center, core, epicenter, eye, focus, ground zero.”18 Applicant
thus argues that LIVEHUB is susceptible to multiple meanings and thus not merely
descriptive.19
Applicant did not make of record the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition it
refers to for the meaning of “hub” as a “heart, locus, mecca, nerve center, nexus,
nucleus, base, capital, center, core, epicenter, eye, focus, [or] ground zero,” providing
only a link to the online source.20 However, we will take judicial notice of the
definition of “hub” from Meriam-Webster relied on by Applicant (as we did with the
Examining Attorney’s dictionary evidence), which defines “hub” inter alia as “a center

16 9 TTABVUE 10-11 (Applicant’s Brief).
17 Id. at 11.
18 Id.
19 9 TTABVUE 11 (Applicant’
20 See In re Olin Corp., 124 USPQ2d 1327, 1332 n.15 (TTAB 2017) (“Because the information
displayed at a link’s Internet address can be changed or deleted, merely providing a link to a
website is insufficient to make information from that site of record.”); In re Change Wind
Corp., 123 USPQ2d 1453, 1462 n.8 (TTAB2017) (providing only a web address or hyperlink
is insufficient to make such materials of record).
Serial No. 87526196
- 10 -
of activity: FOCAL POINT.”21
Notably, the meanings attributed to Merriam-Webster by Applicant as definitions
for “hub”—“heart, locus, mecca, nerve center, nexus, nucleus, base, capital, center,
core, epicenter, eye, focus, [or] ground zero” of something—are actually synonyms for
hub. “Synonym” is defined as “one of two or more words or expressions of the same
language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.”22
Using these synonyms, Applicant contends that LIVEHUB “carries double entendre
connotations for Applicant’s services” because the term
embodies numerous interpretation [sic], including the “nerve center of
acting out,” “the mecca of experiencing first hand,” and “the heart of
living vividly and brightly.” Because the composite phrase projects
multiple meanings, it will require at least a modicum of imagination,
perception, or thought in order for consumers to understand the nature
of Applicant’s service offered under the applied-for LIVEHUB mark.23

We take further judicial notice of the following definitions of three synonyms
identified by Applicant:24
 Heart: “the central or innermost part: CENTER” and “the essential or
most vital part of something”;25

 Mecca: “a place regarded as a center for a specified group, activity, or
interest”;26 and

21 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hub (accessed November 9, 2020).
22 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym (accessed November 10, 2020).
23 9 TTABVUE 15 (Applicant’s Brief).
24 Id.
25 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heart (accessed November 9, 2020).
26 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mecca (accessed November 9, 2020).
Serial No. 87526196
- 11 -
 Nerve center: “CENTER.”27

Applicant also argues that “the definition of ‘hub’ applied by the Examining
Attorney—in short, ‘a common connection point for devices in a network’—is simply
too broad to immediately convey information about the nature of Applicant’s service
with the required degree of particularity.”28 As such, Applicant contends, LIVEHUB
cannot be properly characterized as merely descriptive “when it is so general that the
consumer will not know the nature of the services from the mark.”29 “Indeed,”
Applicant concludes, “the term is so broad in meaning that it would encompass all
services broadcast through a network, regardless of the specific type or nature of
those services.”30
Finally, Applicant argues that “[t]he Examining Attorney’s conclusion that the
term ‘HUB’ is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services cannot be reconciled with the
USPTO’s approval of numerous ‘HUB’ marks for registrations for similar goods
and/or services without a disclaimer of such term.”31 In support, Applicant points to
(1) its ownership of “more than a dozen marks approved by the USPTO for
registration without a disclaimer of the term ‘HUB,’ even when used in combination
with a descriptive term and for the same services as the subject application,”32 and

27 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nerve%20center (accessed November 9,
2020).
28 9 TTABVUE 11 (Applicant’s Brief).
29 Id.
30 Id. at 12.
31 Id. at 12.
32 Id. at 12-13 (emphasis omitted).
Serial No. 87526196
- 12 -
(2) “multiple third-party marks containing the term ‘HUB’ [that] have similarly been
approved for registration for use in conjunction with similar services without
disclaimer, further evidencing that the term is not descriptive here.”33
IV. Discussion
Applicant’s argument that LIVEHUB is not merely descriptive because the term
“hub” is susceptible to multiple interpretations is unpersuasive. “That a term may
have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.” Robinson v. Hot Grabba
Leaf, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 149089, at *5 (TTAB 2019) (citing In re Canine Caviar Pet
Foods, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1590, 1598 (TTAB 2018)). “It is well settled that so long as
any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be
merely descriptive.” In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB
2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)). In this case,
we find that the definition of “HUB” as “center of activity: FOCAL POINT” relied on
by Applicant (with synonyms of “heart,” locus,” “mecca,” “base,” etc.) clearly describes
a feature of Applicant’s services, and supports the Examining Attorney’s contention
that “a consumer would believe that the applicant’s services provide a hub for its
transmitting and broadcasting services as well as where the videos are shown and/or
uploaded.”34
Applicant’s argument that the “combination of ‘live’ and ‘hub’ results in a unified
phrase that, at most, tells consumers something general or ambiguous about

33 9 TTABVUE 13 (Applicant’s Brief).
34 11 TTABVUE 6 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
Serial No. 87526196
- 13 -
Applicant’s services, without immediately telling consumers anything with the
requisite degree of particularity,” because they “must pause and reflect on the mark,
exercising thought or engaging in multi-step reasoning, to determine what feature
may be identified by the mark—and, even then, may be unlikely to understand any
significant feature of Applicant’s services,”35 is misplaced. The question is not
whether someone presented only with the mark could guess the services listed in the
identification, as Applicant urges. Rather, as noted previously, the question is
whether someone who knows what the services are will understand the mark to
convey information about them. DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1757 (quoting In re Tower
Tech, 64 USPQ2d at 1316-17; In re Patent & Trademark Servs. Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537,
1539 (TTAB 1998)). In the present case, LIVEHUB is not so general or ambiguous a
term that consumers who are familiar with Applicant’s services will fail to
immediately understand that term as meaning that Applicant serves as a center of
activity or focal point for live adult entertainment. See Fat Boys, 118 USPQ2d at 1513
(TTAB 2016) (it is sufficient for a finding of mere descriptiveness that a mark
describes at least one significant attribute, function or property of the [services].”).
For this reason, Applicant’s reliance on In re Hutchinson Technology, Inc. 852 F.2d
552, 7 USPQ2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988) to argue that the term “hub” is “so general that
the consumer will not know the nature of the services from the mark”36 is unavailing.
The definitions of record in this case demonstrate that the meanings of “live” and

35 9 TTABVUE 15 (Applicant’s Brief).
36 Id. at 11-12.
Serial No. 87526196
- 14 -
“hub” are immediately discernable in the context of the identified services and the
terms describe a feature of such services. See DuoProSS 103 USPQ2d at 1757.
Additionally, we find that LIVEHUB, in addition to its plain meaning with regard
to Applicant’s services, does not have a double entendre” that suggests a “nerve center
of acting out,” “the mecca of experiencing first hand,” or “the heart of living
vividly and brightly.”37 The multiple interpretations that make an expression a
“double entendre” must be associations that the public would make fairly readily, and
must be readily apparent from the mark itself. See In re Calphalon Corp., 122
USPQ2d 1153, 1163-64 (TTAB 2017); In re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95, 99
(TTAB 1986) (holding EXPRESSERVICE merely descriptive for banking services
despite applicant’s argument the term also connotes the Pony Express, the Board
finding that, in the relevant context, the public would not make that association); In
re Ethnic Home Lifestyles Corp., 70 USPQ2d 1156, 1158 (TTAB 2003) (holding
ETHNIC ACCENTS merely descriptive of “entertainment in the nature of television
programs in the field of home décor” because the meaning in the context of the
services is home furnishings or decorations that reflect or evoke particular ethnic
traditions or themes, a significant feature of applicant’s programs; viewers of
applicant’s programs deemed unlikely to discern a double entendre referring to a
person who speaks with a foreign accent). The meanings offered by Applicant that
suggest “acting out,” “first-hand experience,” or “vivid or bright living” are not those
that would come fairly readily in the context of Applicant’s services.

37 Id (emphasis added).
Serial No. 87526196
- 15 -
Applicant’s argument that it “has had more than a dozen marks approved by the
USPTO” for marks containing “HUB” for the same services, and that “multiple third-
party marks containing the term ‘HUB’ have similarly been approved for registration
for use in conjunction with similar services without a disclaimer, further evidencing
that the term ‘hub’ is not merely descriptive here,”38 is also unpersuasive.
First, the fact that an application has been “approved” for registration by the
USPTO is not probative, since a pending application is “not evidence of anything
except that the application was filed on a certain date. Wet Seal, Inc. v. FD Mgmt.,
Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1629, 1634 (TTAB 2007); Nike Inc. v. WNBA Enters. LLC, 85
USPQ2d 1187, 1193 n.8 (TTAB 2007). Seven of Applicant’s 13 other HUB-related
marks, and two of the 22 third-party marks relied upon Applicant, are pending.39
Second, of the six registered HUB marks owned by Applicant, three are for
unrelated goods and/or services.40 Notably, one of the marks, , was filed
on the Principal Register.41 However, following a final refusal, Applicant amended

38 Id. at 13 (italics omitted).
39 USPTO status printouts for Application Serial Nos. 86629857 (BRINGHUB and Design),
87600190 (CLOUTHUB), 86676329 (PORNHUB and Design), 87643753 (HUBCASH),
87747702 (HUBCASH and Design), 87747717 (HUBCASH and Design), 87824935
(MODELHUB and Design), 87914678 (MODELHUB and Design), and 87916547
(MODELHUB), provided with Applicant’s January 3, 2019 Response to Office Action, TSDR
194-219.
40 USPTO status printouts for Registration Nos. 5530898 (PORNHUB and Design), 5868801
(PORNHUB), and 5537544 (VPNHUB and Design), provided with Applicant’s January 3,
2019 Response to Office Action, TSDR 184-189, 190-193.
41 Registration No. 5537544, provided with the January 3, 2019 Response to Office Action,
TSDR 187-189.
Serial No. 87526196
- 16 -
the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.42 Applicant’s
amendment to the Supplemental Register was thus a concession that VPNHUB was
merely descriptive of the identified services. See Plus Products v. Star-Kist Foods,
Inc., 220 USPQ 541, 543 (TTAB 1983); Evans Products Co. v. Boise Cascade Corp.,
218 USPQ 160, 162 (TTAB 1983); In re Amerace Corp., 196 USPQ 193, 195 (TTAB
1977).
Third, turning to the 20 remaining third-party registrations, four were canceled.43
Cancelled registrations are evidence of nothing other than the fact that they once
issued. Sunnen Prods. Co. v. Sunex Int’l Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (TTAB 1987).
Fourth, 11 of the third-party registrations are for unrelated goods and services,44
rendering them of limited probative value, if any, in this case. See In re Thor Tech,
Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1639 (TTAB 2009) (citing Key Chems., Inc. v. Kelite Chems.
Corp., 464 F.2d 1040, 175 USPQ 99, 101 (CCPA 1972) (third-party registrations for
unrelated goods of little probative value).
Fifth, the LOTTERYHUB registration is a Supplemental Register registration45
which, as noted previously, is a concession by the registrant that the mark was merely

42 Id.
43 Registration No. 4179849 (MEMORYHUB), 4200462 (POWERHUB), 4291080 (HUBLIFE),
and 4544424 (HUB NETWORK), provided with Applicant’s January 3, 2019 Response to
Office Action, TSDR 116-122, 128-129, 133-135.
44 Registration Nos. 2809773 (TELECOMHUB), 3682664 (STORYHUB), 3989346
(PLAYHUB), 4442173 (TECHHUB), 4584675 (HUBWORLD), 4860969 (HUBWEEK),
4987052 (GRUBHUB), 5089902 (LIFE HUB), 5130348 (SEATHUB), 5225193 (ATPI
TRAVELHUB and Design), and 5419676 (ADVENTURE HUB), id. at 108-115, 130-132, 136-
138, 141-142, 145-154, 157-158, 164-165, 170-173, 177-180.
45 Registration No. 4693607 (LOTTERYHUB), id. at 139-140.
Serial No. 87526196
- 17 -
descriptive of the identified services at the time it registered. Plus Products, 220
USPQ at 543.
Sixth, two of the third-party registrations include disclaimers of the relevant
wording – AUTHOR HUB and Design contains a disclaimer of “AUTHOR HUB” and
“BARÇA INNOVATION HUB” contains a disclaimer of “HUB.”46
We are thus left with the following active Principal Register registrations for
marks having the term HUB that have some probative value (the first two owned by
third parties, the last three owned by Applicant):
Marks Relevant Services
EDMHUB Providing an Internet website portal featuring entertainment
news and information specifically in the field of electronic
music genre.47

HUBCAST

Entertainment services in the nature of non-downloadable
videos and images featuring television programs about
motorsports transmitted via the Internet and wireless
communication networks.48

PORNHUB,
PORNHUB
and Design,
and
PORNHUB
PREMIUM
Video-on-demand transmission services; video broadcasting;
electronic, electric, and digital transmission of voice, data, and
images, all in the field of adult entertainment; entertainment
services, namely, providing a website featuring non-
downloadable video, photographs, images, audio, and text in
the field of adult entertainment via a global computer
network; Providing a website allowing users to download
videos in the field of adult entertainment.49

These registrations do not establish that the term “HUB” is a suggestive element

46 Registration No. 5121706 (AUTHOR HUB and Design) and 5527086 (“BARÇA
INNOVATION HUB”), id. at 159-163, 181-219.
47 Registration No. 4220491, id. at 143-144.
48 Registration No. 5077731, id. at 155-156.
49 Registration No. 4220491, id. at 123-127, 166-169, 174-176.
Serial No. 87526196
- 18 -
of Applicant’s mark LIVEHUB. In contrast, because EDMHUB is a composite mark
that includes the letters “EDM,” which has no apparent meaning, it is not surprising
that the mark is not considered merely descriptive as a whole and that “HUB” is not
disclaimed in the registration. “If a compound word mark consists of an unregistrable
component and a registrable component combined into a single word, no disclaimer
of the unregistrable component of the compound word will be required.” TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1213.05(a) (citing In re EBS Data
Processing, Inc., 212 USPQ 964, 966 (TTAB 1981) (finding that “[a] disclaimer of a
descriptive portion of a composite mark is unnecessary”).
The HUBCAST registration and Applicant’s three PORNHUB registrations
support Applicant’s argument that “HUB” is not merely descriptive.
Notwithstanding, to the extent other prior registered marks may be analogous to
Applicant’s, they cannot change our analysis in this case, as “[t]he PTO is required to
examine all trademark applications for compliance with each and every eligibility
requirement,” without regard to earlier registered marks that may have similar or
even identical features. Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1635; see also In re Shinnecock
Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Applicant’s allegations regarding
similar marks are irrelevant because each application must be considered on its own
merits.”); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some
prior registrations had some characteristics similar to Nett Designs’ application, the
PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”).
Turning now to the Examining Attorney’s counter-evidence, she submitted third-
Serial No. 87526196
- 19 -
party registrations for marks that include the term “HUB” for arguably similar
services that are either on the Supplemental Register, or are on the Principal Register
with “HUB” disclaimed, including for example:
Marks Relevant Services
SAMSUNG
HUB and
Design
(“HUB”
disclaimed)
Electronic transmission of streamed and downloadable
multimedia files and movies via computer and other
communications networks; providing on-line chat rooms,
bulletin boards and community forums for the transmission of
messages among computer users concerning entertainment
information; provision of telecommunication connectivity
services and access to electronic communications networks,
for transmission and reception of audio, video or multimedia
content; broadcasting services, namely, television
broadcasting; provision of access to web pages, namely,
providing Internet access services; transmission and
distribution of data or audio-visual images via a global
computer network of the Internet; providing a web site, via a
global computer network, featuring technology to enable users
to program audio, video, text and other multimedia content,
including music, concerts, videos, radio, television, news,
sports, games, cultural events, and entertainment-related
programs.50

IMAGING
HUB and
Design
(“HUB”
disclaimed)

Providing online chatrooms for the transmission of messages,
comments and multimedia content among users in the field of
embedded vision; providing access to online portals that give
users the ability to upload, modify and share audio, video,
photographic images, text, graphics and data; providing
internet access to databases featuring website content and
portals all in the field of embedded vision; providing online
forums for communication in the nature of the transmission
of messages among computer users concerning embedded
vision; providing access to virtual space in the form of
informational websites and profiles on social portals;
providing internet access to online portals in the field of
embedded vision.51

GEARFIRE
HUB
(“HUB”
Peer-to-peer photo and video sharing services, namely,
electronic transmission of digital photo files, videos and audio
visual content among internet users; telecommunications

50 Reg. No. 4883415, provided with the March 24, 2020 Reconsideration Letter, TSDR 4-7.
51 Reg. No. 5445440, id. at 8-11.
Serial No. 87526196
- 20 -
disclaimed) services, namely, electronic transmission of data, messages,
graphics, images, audio, video and information; Providing
online forums, online chat rooms and electronic bulletin
boards for transmission of messages among users; audio, text
and video broadcasting services over the Internet featuring
the uploaded, posted, displayed, modified, tagged, and
electronically transmitted data, information, audio and video
content of others; hosting an interactive platform for
uploading, posting, showing, displaying, tagging, sharing and
transmitting messages, comments, multimedia content,
photos, pictures, images, text, information, and other user-
generated content.52

Applicant argues that “all but one of the Examining Attorney’s registrations
involve multi-word marks (e.g., GEARFIRE HUB), and thus are particularly
unpersuasive here.”53 We disagree. The issue of whether “HUB” in a mark is merely
descriptive and should be disclaimed, or whether a mark including that term is
registrable, depends on whether it describes a feature or characteristic of a good or
service.
In a mark such as EDMHUB, “HUB” is combined with “EDM,” which has no
apparent meaning, and the mark is registered on the Principal Register without a
showing of acquired distinctiveness. Thus, whether HUB is a single term, or part of
a multi-word mark or term is of no consequence. See TMEP § 1213 (October 2018)
(“The purpose of a disclaimer is to permit the registration of a mark that is registrable
as a whole but contains matter that would not be registrable standing alone, without
creating a false impression of the extent of the registrant’s right with respect to
certain elements in the mark.”). Moreover, the inclusion or absence of a space in the

52 Reg. No. 4774995, id. at 16-20.
53 12 TTABVUE 6 (Applicant’s Reply Brief).
Serial No. 87526196
- 21 -
term “LIVE” and “HUB” is likely to have little effect on consumer perception. “It is
almost too well established to cite cases for the proposition that an otherwise merely
descriptive term is not made any less so by merely omitting spaces between the
words....” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp., 155 USPQ
470, 472 (TTAB 1967).
Applicant also argues that the Examining Attorney’s website evidence “does
little—if anything—to show that the relevant purchasing public understands the
unitary term LIVEHUB as having a descriptive meaning in the context of Applicant’s
services” because the evidence (1) “primarily shows use of the separate terms ‘live
hub’ [or “Live Hub”] in conjunction with entirely unrelated goods and services”; (2) “is
not persuasive to the extent it shows use of the term ‘live hub’ by third parties in
foreign countries,” pointing to a Scottish website that we have not highlighted here
and the Examining Attorney’s YouTube reference having videos with Portuguese
titles; and (3) “is so truncated that it is simply not possible to definitely know whether
the term is being used in a descriptive manner.”54
Although the Scottish website is in English, we have not relied on it in our
decision, because it concerns local Scottish swimming events, a topic of only local
interest. As to the YouTube reference,55 we do not consider it because the video titles
are in Portuguese.
We disagree with Applicant’s contention that the website evidence is too truncated

54 Id. a 7-9.
55 Provided with the September 7, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 19-26.
Serial No. 87526196
- 22 -
to note the descriptive usage of the wording “Live Hub” as describing a focal point for
the referenced third-parties’ live services. The term immediately conveys to visitors
of those websites that the sites are a focal point for viewing live videos, whatever their
content. We acknowledge that the Examining Attorney’s website evidence is, overall,
not extensive, numbering only seven websites. However, it demonstrates that
consumers are exposed to the term, and corroborates the dictionary evidence of record
in demonstrating that Applicant’s LIVEHUB mark immediately conveys features and
characteristics of Applicant’s services.
Finally, Applicant argues that “[t]he Examining Attorney’s evidence of record does
not include a single instance in which a competitor has made a descriptive use of the
term LIVEHUB.” However, such evidence is unnecessary to find that the term is
merely descriptive of Applicant’s services. Even if Applicant were the first user of the
term LIVEHUB for the identified services, that fact would not justify the registration
of an otherwise merely descriptive term. Fat Boys, 118 USPQ2d at 1514. See also KP
Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 122, 72 USPQ2d
1833, 1838 (2004) (trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining “a
complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first”) (citation
omitted).
V. Conclusion
The evidence in this case demonstrates that Applicant’s proposed mark LIVEHUB
immediately informs consumers without conjecture that Applicant provides a center
of activity, or focal point (a hub) offering live or recorded live material. The
combination of the terms LIVE and HUB “retains its merely descriptive significance
Serial No. 87526196
- 23 -
in relation to the [services]” and “results in a composite that is itself merely
descriptive.” Fat Boys, 118 USPQ2d at 1516. Accordingly, we conclude that
Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive of a feature of Applicant’s services.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.