Quicklaw America, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2001

No. 75654685 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2001)

9/25/01

Paper No. 16
EJS

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Quicklaw America, Inc.,
By change of name from
Current Legal Resources, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/654,685
_______

Stuart Lewine, Secretary of Quicklaw America Inc., pro se.

Tina L. Snapp, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105
(Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Hohein and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Quicklaw America Inc., by change of name from Current
Legal Resources, Inc., has appealed the final refusal to
register CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ONLINE for “providing
the updated and editorially enhanced text of the Code of
Federal Regulations in an on-line format, via a global
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/654,685
2
computer network.”1 Registration has been refused pursuant
to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(e)(1), on the ground that the mark is merely
descriptive of applicant’s services.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have submitted
briefs, but an oral hearing was not requested.
We affirm the refusal of registration.
A mark is merely descriptive, and therefore prohibited
from registration by Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, if it
immediately conveys information concerning a quality,
characteristic, function, ingredient, attribute or feature
of a product or service. It does not have to describe
every one of these. It is sufficient if it describes a
single, significant quality, feature, function, etc. In re
Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285, 286 (TTAB 1985).
See also In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In
re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Applicant’s services are identified as “providing the
updated and editorially enhanced text of the Code of
Federal Regulations in an on-line format, via a global
computer network.” The identification and specimens make

1 Application Serial No. 75/654,685, filed March 15, 1999,
asserting first use and first use in commerce on January 19,
1999.

Ser. No. 75/654,685
3
clear that applicant provides, in an on-line format, the
text of the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, the
specimen advertising letter states, “Code of Federal
Regulations Online—The most current source of the Code of
Federal Regulations with CLR editors performing daily
updates from the Federal Register.”2
Thus, the term CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS names the
subject matter of applicant’s services. The word ONLINE
also has a readily understood meaning, as the
identification shows. When the words are combined in the
mark CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ONLINE and used in
connection with the identified services, which involve
presenting the Code of Federal Regulations “in an on-line
format,” the mark immediately and directly conveys
information about the subject matter presented by
applicant, and the mode by which it is provided.
Applicant asserts that its mark is not merely
descriptive because it does not present the Code of Federal
Regulations on-line as a static and linear body of text.
Rather, applicant “updates its presentation on a daily
basis and, in addition to other enhancements, provides a
method of performing various types of searches, and a

2 CLR (Current Legal Resources, Inc.) refers to applicant, which
has now changed its name to Quicklaw America, Inc.
Ser. No. 75/654,685
4
system of hyperlinks enabling a user to jump directly from
one place in the text to a related place.” Brief, pp. 2-3.
As a result, applicant contends that the term CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS ONLINE is only suggestive of the full
range of services which applicant offers.
However, as noted above, it is not necessary that a
term describe each of the characteristics of an applicant’s
services in order to be found merely descriptive. In this
case, the mark describes an essential characteristic of
applicant’s on-line services, namely, that the subject
matter includes, and indeed focuses on, the Code of Federal
Regulations. As such, it is merely descriptive of
applicant’s services. The fact that the mark does not also
describe the various enhancements by which a consumer may
search the Code of Federal Regulations does not avoid such
a finding.
Nor are we persuaded by applicant’s argument that the
juxtaposition of CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS and ONLINE in
the mark has an incongruous meaning because the Code of
Federal Regulations originally existed only in a print
format. It is common knowledge that many reference
materials that once were found only in paper form are now
available through computer networks. Indeed, the NEXIS
excerpts submitted by the Examining Attorney refer to the
Ser. No. 75/654,685
5
Code of Federal Regulations being available on-line. See,
for example, the following:
LOIS provides primary law research. It now
includes 17 states’ law online in addition to the
U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and
the Federal Register.
“Corporate Legal Times,” July 1998

People download more than 8 million documents a
month from GPO Access (www.access.gpo.gov), the
office’s online repository of publications such
as the Federal Register, the Code of Federal
Regulations and the federal budget.
“Government Executive,” May 1998

The full text of all 50 titles of the Code of
Federal Regulations is available online through
the LOIS Internet Law Library at www.pita.com.
The site can be searched with Boolean
operators….”
“Illinois Legal Times,” February 1998

U.S. Department of Labor www.dol.gov
You can easily find vital statutory and
regulatory information online through this Web
site. The entire Code of Federal Regulations is
online through an in-depth database.
“National Public Accountant,” September 1996

Accordingly, consumers of the services identified in
applicant’s application will not see any incongruity in the
mark CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ONLINE; rather, they will
immediately understand from the mark that the Code of
Federal Regulations is being presented in an on-line
version.
Applicant’s reliance on In re TBG Inc., 229 USPQ 759
(TTAB 1986) (SHOWROOM ONLINE found not merely descriptive)
Ser. No. 75/654,685
6
is misplaced; as explained in In re Putman Publishing Co.,
39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996), SHOWROOM was suggestive for
that applicant’s services because the applicant did not
sell or lease interior furnishings, or otherwise offer,
through its computer database, leasing service materials
akin to that offered by a showroom. The present case is
more akin to Putman, in which FOOD & BEVERAGE ON-LINE was
found to be merely descriptive of “a news and information
service updated daily for the food processing industry,
contained in a database.” Just as in Putman, applicant’s
mark describes the subject matter it presents and the
method by which it presents it.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.