Strategic Weather Services, L. P.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2000

No. 75196405 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2000)

Hearing: Paper No. 18
March 7, 2000 RLS/HER
9/20/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Strategic Weather Services, L.P.
________
Serial No. 75/196,405
_______
Rachel Brendzel of Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley for
Strategic Weather Services, L.P.
Paula Mays, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114
(Conrad Wong, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Simms, Quinn and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Strategic Weather Services, L.P. (applicant), a
Pennsylvania limited partnership, has appealed from the
final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to
register the asserted mark THE WORLD WIDE WEATHER NETWORK
for the following services:
providing short and long range
weather information services
particularly for event planning
provided via a global computer
network, television, cable, fax and
telephone and computer services
namely providing access to an
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/196,405
2
interactive Web site in the weather
field.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 USC §1052(e)(1), arguing
that applicant’s mark merely describes the nature, feature,
or characteristic of applicant’s weather information
services; that is, applicant provides weather information
worldwide by means of computer and other communications
networks. Applicant and the Examining Attorney have
submitted briefs and an oral hearing was held.
We affirm.
Relying upon dictionary definitions of “worldwide” and
“network,”2 the Examining Attorney argues that applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s services because
applicant provides weather information by means of various
media networks. According to the Examining Attorney, the
composite mark does not create a mark with a separate, non-
descriptive meaning, and no imagination or thought is
required to determine the nature of applicant’s services.
The Examining Attorney argues that someone “surfing the

1 Application Serial No. 75/196,405, filed November 12, 1996,
based upon applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention to use
the mark in commerce.
2 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary defines
“worldwide” as “Reaching or extending throughout the world:
UNIVERSAL.” The same dictionary defines “network” as, among
other things, “A chain of interconnected broadcasting stations,
Ser. No. 75/196,405
3
net” or watching television will immediately understand the
nature of applicant’s services by the mark sought to be
registered. The Examining Attorney argues that, whether
one views the word “WORLDWIDE” as indicating that
applicant’s services are available in foreign countries or
views this term as signifying that weather conditions
around the world would be available by use of applicant’s
services, both meanings are descriptive, as is the entire
phrase. The Examining Attorney has submitted some evidence
of descriptive use of “weather network,” such as news
articles referring to the Weather Channel as a “weather
network.”3 The Examining Attorney concludes that
applicant’s mark is merely descriptive because it clearly
indicates that applicant’s services involve the providing
of weather information by television, telecommunications or
computer networks.
Applicant states that it is a leading private weather
company specializing in long-range weather forecasting for
weather-sensitive businesses and industries. Applicant
further states that it is not an organization of

usu. sharing a large proportion of their programs .”
3 We note that much of the Examining Attorney’s material is from
foreign news sources or wire services. This material has been
given little or no weight. In re Urbano, 51 USPQ2d 1776, 1778
fn. 3 (TTAB 1999) and cases cited there.
Ser. No. 75/196,405
4
meteorological offices located around the world, nor a
network of broadcast stations.
Applicant does not run a “network”
of affiliated broadcast stations.
Applicant’s service is a “network”
only in a fanciful broad sense that
it is available through the
Internet, which is sometimes seen
as a “network”.
Response, filed August 25, 1998, p. 4. It is applicant’s
position that its asserted mark is suggestive because it
requires some thought and imagination to determine the
precise nature of applicant’s services. Among other
reasons, applicant argues that its mark has a variety of
meanings. These include that applicant’s services are
available worldwide or that applicant provides information
about weather conditions existing throughout the world.
The latter meaning, according to applicant, does not
describe its information services. Further, applicant
argues that, while an argument may be made that the
individual components of its mark are descriptive, the
entire phrase is “inventive” and evokes a unique commercial
impression. This is enhanced, according to applicant, by
the “alliterative cadence” which causes its mark to possess
a connotation separate and apart from any meaning
attributed to the individual words. As such, applicant’s
asserted mark becomes a source identifier, according to
Ser. No. 75/196,405
5
applicant. Because applicant’s mark does not immediately
convey information that applicant offers weather services
and because competitors do not need to use this phrase to
describe their services, applicant argues for
registrability of its mark.4 Finally, applicant asks us to
resolve any doubt about the descriptiveness of its mark in
its favor and publish the mark for opposition.
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that applicant’s asserted mark THE WORLD WIDE
WEATHER NETWORK is merely descriptive of applicant’s
weather information services. Of course, the Board may
look at the individual components of an asserted mark and
discuss their descriptive connotations in the context of
determining the mere descriptiveness of an entire phrase.
See In re Hester Industries, Inc., 230 USPQ 797 (TTAB
1996). We believe that the public, upon seeing applicant’s
asserted mark in its entirety in connection with
applicant’s services, is immediately apprised of the nature
of applicant’s services, which are either available

4 While the Examining Attorney required a disclaimer, in her
second Office action, applicant maintains that this requirement
should be considered withdrawn. We agree. The Examining
Attorney did not repeat the requirement for a disclaimer of the
word “NETWORK” in the final refusal, nor did the Examining
Attorney discuss the disclaimer requirement at all in her appeal
Ser. No. 75/196,405
6
worldwide or entail the provision of information about
worldwide weather conditions, by means of various
communications networks including television and the
Internet. It seems to us that no imagination or thought is
necessary to determine the nature of applicant’s services.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
T. J. Quinn

C. E. Walters
Administrative
Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board

brief. Applicant considered this requirement withdrawn, as do
we. See TMEP §1105.04(d).