The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2021

87445801 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

This Opinion is a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: March 2, 2021
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC
_____

Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
_____

Mindi M. Richter and Jeffrey B. Fabian of Shumaker Loop & Kendrick LLP,
for The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC.
Caroline L. Moran, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 125,
Heather Biddulph, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Cataldo, Lynch and Hudis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hudis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Supplemental Register of the marks THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM (in
standard characters, “Firm” disclaimed) (“Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark”), and

Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 2 -

(“Firm.com” disclaimed) (“Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark”)
(collectively, “Applicant’s Proposed Marks”), both for “legal services” in International
Class 45 (“Applicant’s services”).1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Trademark Act
Sections 23(c) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1091(c) and 1127, on the ground that Applicant’s
Proposed Marks, as applied to the services identified in the applications, are generic
and thus incapable of functioning as source identifiers in commerce. After the
Examining Attorney made the refusals final, Applicant appealed to this Board.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.2 We affirm the refusal to register

1 Application Serial No. 87445801 filed on May 11, 2017, under Trademark Act Section 1(a),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based upon Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and use in commerce
since at least as early as February 8, 2016. During prosecution, Applicant amended the
application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register under Trademark Act Section
23, 15 U.S.C. § 1091.
Application Serial No. 87444846 filed on May 10, 2017, under Trademark Act Section 1(a),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based upon Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and use in commerce
since at least as early as February 8, 2016. During prosecution, Applicant amended the
application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register under Trademark Act Section
23.
In the 87444846 Application, the mark is described as follows: “The color(s) green, navy blue,
red, and yellow is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of a square outlined
in navy blue with the words ‘THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM’ featured inside
the square. The word ‘THE’ is in green and appears above the word ‘CONSUMER’. The word
‘CONSUMER’ is in navy blue and appears above the word ‘PROTECTION’. The word
‘PROTECTION’ is in red and appears above the text ‘FIRM.COM’. The word ‘FIRM’ is
separated from ‘COM’ with a yellow period with ‘FIRM’ in green and ‘COM’ in yellow.”
2 Applicant filed a Supplemental Brief in the appeal involving Application Serial No.
87444846, at 10 TTABVUE, bringing to our attention the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
U. S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S. Ct. 2298, 2020 USPQ2d 10729
(2020). Suffice to say, the Board is aware of this decision. Supplemental briefs are not
permitted unless authorized by the Board. See Trademark Rules 2.142(b)(1) and 2.142(b)(2),
37 C.F.R. §§ 2.142(b)(1) and 2.142(b)(2). We therefore give Applicant’s Supplemental Brief no
consideration. See Westrex Corp. v. New Sensor Corp., 83 USPQ2d 1215, 1216 n.1 (TTAB
2007).
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 3 -

Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM. We
affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark, THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM & Design in the absence of a disclaimer of
“THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM.”
Separate Appeals, Single Opinion
Because these appeals present similar issues, we issue a single opinion for both.
In re Vertex Grp. LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1694, 1695 (TTAB 2009) (“In view of the virtually
identical issues presented, the Board has chosen to issue this single decision.”).
However, each proceeding retains its separate character and will result in the entry
of a separate judgment for each appealed application; a copy of this decision shall be
placed in each proceeding file. In re Hudson News Co., 39 USPQ2d 1915, 1916 n.5
(TTAB 1996) (Board issued a single opinion in the interest of judicial economy, but
each appeal stands on its own merits), aff’d mem., 114 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As these two appeals involve common issues of law and fact, unsurprisingly the
prosecution histories on appeal are nearly identical. For judicial economy, in this
opinion unless otherwise indicated, we cite to the prosecution history and appellate
briefs concerning Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark (of Application Serial No.
87445801, or the “‘801 Application”); where additional issues pertain to Applicant’s
Proposed Word-and-Design Mark (of Application Serial No. 87444846, or the “‘846
Application”), we cite to those briefs.3

3 Page references herein to the application records refer to the online database of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) system. All citations to documents
contained in the TSDR database are to the downloadable .pdf versions of the documents in
the USPTO TSDR Case Viewer. References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 4 -

I. Applicable Law
“At the lowest end of the distinctiveness scale [of marks and terms] is the ‘generic
name for the goods or services. ... The name of the good [or service] itself … is
incapable of ‘distinguish[ing] [one provider’s services …] from the [services] … of
others’ and is therefore ineligible for registration. … Indeed, generic terms are
ordinarily ineligible for protection as trademarks at all.” U. S. Patent & Trademark
Office v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S. Ct. 2298, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *3-4 (2020). Such
terms can never attain trademark status because “[t]o allow trademark protection for
generic terms, i.e., names which describe the genus of goods being sold ... would grant
the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as
what they are.” In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4
USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quoting CES Publ’g Corp. v. St. Regis Publ’ns,
Inc., 531 F.2d 11, 188 USPQ 612, 615 (2d Cir. 1975)).
“A generic term is one that refers to the genus of which the particular product is
a species.” Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 224 USPQ 327,
329 (1985). See also In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57
USPQ2d 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (A designation is generic if it refers to the class or
category of goods or services on or in connection with which it is used.) (citing H.
Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528, 532
(Fed. Cir. 1986)); In re 1800Mattress.com IP LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 92 USPQ2d 1682,

TTABVUE docket system. The number before the designation TTABVUE is the docket entry
number; and the numbers after this designation are the page references, if applicable.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 5 -

1685 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The test is not only whether the relevant public would itself
use the term to describe the genus, but also whether the relevant public would
understand the term to be generic.”).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit additionally has said that “a
term can be generic for a genus of goods or services” if the relevant public
“understands the term to refer to a key aspect of that genus.” In re Cordua Rests.,
Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Royal Crown
Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this
regard, if the proposed mark defines “an integral, if not the paramount, aspect of …
[the] services[,] as [the Applicant] defines … [them,]” the term or phrase sought for
registration may be found generic for those services. See In re Reed Elsevier Props.
Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming refusal of
LAWYERS.COM as generic for an online database featuring an information exchange
of law, legal news, and legal services).
A term does not need to be the name of a specific service (in this case, consumer
protection legal services) to be found generic. See In re 1800Mattress.com, 92 USPQ2d
at 1685 (“We also disagree with Dial-A-Mattress’s assertion that there can only be
one generic term, which is ‘online mattress stores.’ Instead, any term that the
relevant public understands to refer to the genus of ‘online retail store services in the
field of mattresses, beds, and bedding’ is generic.”); Roselux Chem. Co. v. Parsons
Ammonia Co., 299 F.2d 855, 132 USPQ 627, 632 (CCPA 1962) (“[I]n considering
whether ‘sudsy ammonia’ is a common descriptive name of the product we cannot
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 6 -

fail to take into consideration the class of people who will commonly be using it and
what they will commonly call it.”); Clairol, Inc. v. Roux Distrib. Co., 280 F.2d 863,
865, 126 USPQ 397, 398 (CCPA 1960) (“The same merchandise may, and often does,
have more than one generic name.”).
Whether a particular term is generic is a question of fact. In re Hotels.com LP, 573
F.3d 1300, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Resolution of that question
depends on the primary significance of the term to the relevant public. Booking.com,
2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *5 (“[T]he relevant meaning of a term is its meaning to
consumers.”). “The critical issue in genericness cases is whether members of the
relevant public primarily use or understand the term sought to be protected to refer
to the genus of goods or services in question.” Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay
N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Marvin
Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530).
The genericness inquiry is a two-part test: “First, what is the genus of goods or
services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered ... understood by the
relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?” In re Reed
Elsevier, 82 USPQ2d at 1380 (quoting Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530).
A. Genus of the Services
“[A] proper genericness inquiry focuses on the description of services set forth in
the [application or] certificate of registration.” Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d
638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In many instances, as in this case, there
is no dispute that the application’s description of the goods adequately defines the
genus. In re Nordic Naturals, Inc., 755 F.3d 1340, 111 USPQ2d 1495, 1496 (Fed. Cir.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 7 -

2014) (“The Board found that the relevant goods were adequately defined by Nordic’s
description: ‘nutritional supplements containing DHA.’”); In re 1800Mattress.com IP
LLC, 92 USPQ2d at 1684 (“In this case, the parties agree that the genus of services
is “online retail store services in the field of mattresses, beds, and bedding.”).
Compare In re American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 65 USPQ2d 1972,
1981-82 (TTAB 2003) (“The observation [that the definition of the genus can
substantially affect the final determination] seems not to have gone unnoticed by
either applicant or the examining attorney, who argue for different definitions of the
involved class of goods.”). Here, Applicant and the Examining Attorney agree that the
proper genus to be considered for the genericness inquiry is defined by the
identification of services in the applications as “legal services.”4
B. Perception of the Proposed Mark by the Relevant Public
1. The Relevant Public
Once the genus of the services is determined, we next must determine whether
the relevant public understands the proposed mark primarily to refer to “legal
services.” Applicant and the Examining Attorney agree that the relevant public
consists of ordinary consumers of legal services.5 This is consistent with the evidence
made of record.6 In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544, 1548 (TTAB 2017).

4 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 8; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 6.
5 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 11; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 7.
6 Definitions of “Consumer Protection,” “Consumer Rights - Consumer Protection Law” and
“Firm,” provided with Office Action of August 8, 2017 at TSDR 9-31; definition of “Firm,”
provided with Office Action Response of February 7, 2018 at TSDR 25-30; and news article
interviews of lawyers affiliated with Applicant’s law firm, provided with Office Action
Response of February 11, 2019 at TSDR 17-31.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 8 -

2. Assessing the Relevant Public’s Perception
“Evidence informing [the] … inquiry [whether a term is generic] can include not
only consumer surveys, but also dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors,
and any other source of evidence bearing on how consumers perceive a term’s
meaning.” Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *7 n.6; see also In re Cordua, 118
USPQ2d at 1634 (citing Princeton Vanguard, 114 USPQ2d at 1830 (quoting In re
Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961, 963 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(“Evidence of the public’s understanding of the mark may be obtained from ‘any
competent source, such as consumer surveys, dictionaries, newspapers and other
publications.’”)); Cont’l Airlines Inc. v. United Air Lines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385, 1395
(TTAB 1999) (use of term “e-ticket” by media and competitors indicates term is
generic for electronic tickets).
In assessing the primary significance of Applicant’s Proposed Marks to the
relevant public, we also may consider Applicant’s use thereof. In re Gould Paper
Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“Gould’s own
submissions provided the most damaging evidence that its alleged mark is generic
and would be perceived by the purchasing public as merely a common name for its
goods rather than a mark identifying the good’s source.”); In re Empire Tech., 123
USPQ2d at 1553 (“While [Applicant] uses ‘coffee flour’ in prominent stylized lettering,
in the position and manner of a trademark, no separate generic term for the product
accompanies the putative mark.”).
Assessing the relevant public’s perception of Applicant’s Proposed Marks is the
crux of the disagreement between Applicant and the Examining Attorney. On the one
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 9 -

hand, Applicant criticizes the quantity and pertinence of the Examining Attorney’s
evidence of genericness, which includes, among other items, uses of “consumer
protection firm” and “consumer protection law firm” by parties other than Applicant.7
On the other hand, the Examining Attorney asserts Applicant’s evidence of
non-genericness, such as third-party registrations of marks for legal services that
contain the word “firm” and a reference to a type of law, either is irrelevant or
insufficient to overcome the USPTO’s evidence of genericness.8 We thus consider the
evidence and what it demonstrates about the primary significance of Applicant’s
Proposed Marks to the relevant public.
II. Evidence on the Question of Genericness
A. The Examining Attorney’s Evidence
With the First Office Action, the Examining Attorney provided a WIKIPEDIA
definition of “Consumer Protection” as:
[A] group of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of
consumers, as well as fair trade, competition, and accurate information
in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent the businesses
that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an
advantage over competitors. They may also provide additional
protection for those most vulnerable in society. Consumer protection
laws are a form of government regulation that aim to protect the rights
of consumers.9 (Emphasis added).

7 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 8, 10-12; Applicant’s Reply Brief, 7 TTABVUE 3-4.
8 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 12-13.
9 August 8, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 9-15. WIKIPEDIA is an Internet source whose contents
are continuously subject to change via collaborative user-input. See In re Jimmy Moore LLC,
119 USPQ2d 1764, 1768 (TTAB 2016). The Board thus bears in mind the limitations inherent
in this reference work. In the case before us, the WIKIPEDIA evidence was submitted with the
Examining Attorney’s initial Office Action, and Applicant had an opportunity to rebut it. See
In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1032 (TTAB 2007) (“[T]he Board will
consider evidence taken from WIKIPEDIA so long as the non-offering party has an opportunity
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 10 -

From another online resource, the Examining Attorney supplied an explanation
of “Consumer Rights - Consumer Protection Law” as providing “a way for individuals
to fight back against abusive business practices. These laws are designed to hold
sellers of goods and services accountable when they seek to profit by taking advantage
of a consumer’s lack of information or bargaining power.”10 Also made of record is the
definition of “Firm” as “an organization which sells or produces something or which
provides a service which people pay for” and “a business company or partnership of
two or more persons.” A “law firm” is one of the examples given.11
Next, the Examining Attorney made of record pages from Applicant’s website
which states that one of its attorneys, William Howard, is considered a “Superhero in
the Consumer Protection World” and that stories of his “consumer protection
cases ... have gone ‘viral’ on the internet” (emphasis added).12
Further, throughout the prosecution of the refused applications, the Examining
Attorney submitted website examples from third-party consumer protection law
firms (emphasis added):
 Kelly & Crandall, PLLC – a law firm describing itself as a “firm . . . provid[ing]
client-focused counsel in . . . consumer protection matters”
(http://www.kellyandcrandall.com/).

to rebut that evidence by submitting other evidence that may call into question the accuracy
of the particular WIKIPEDIA information.”).
10 Definition of Consumer rights and protection law from HG.ORG LEGAL RESOURCES, Id. at
TSDR 16-19.
11 Definition of “Firm” from COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY, Id. at TSDR 20-31.
12 Id. at TSDR 32-36.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 11 -

 Marshall Law Firm – a law firm describing itself as a “firm ha[ving] extensive
knowledge of the consumer protection laws” (http://www.marshall-law-
firm.com/).
 Francis & Mailman – a law firm describing itself as a “firm . . . that
concentrates in consumer protection litigation”
(https://www.consumerlawfirm.com/).13
 Law Office of Sean E. Underwood – describing the firm’s consumer protection
practice, saying “our office represents consumers in asserting their rights
under a wide variety of state and federal consumer protection laws . . . In
particular, the firm is often involved in actions to enforce individual consumer
rights . . .”) (http://www.seulaw.com/practice-areas/consumer-law).
 Thomas R. Breeden, P.C. – describing the firm as having the “Northern
Virginia Consumer Protection Attorney . . . standing up for the rights of
consumers”) (https://www.tbreedenlaw.com/).
 Consumer Law Group, LLC – describing the law firm as “one of the premier
consumer protection law firms in Connecticut . . . we have served as an
advocate and champion for the rights of consumers”)
(http://www.consumerlawgroup.com/).
 The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A. – describing the firm as “Florida Consumer
Protection Lawyers ... [t]he trial lawyers at The Ferraro Law Firm have a
proven track record of successfully taking on large companies” using “Florida
law [that] provides legal protection for consumers”
(https://www.ferrarolaw.com/product-liability/consumer-protection/).
 Law Offices of Brandon A Block – describing the law firm as “a California
consumer protection and civil litigation law firm that sues banks, finance
companies, debt collectors, repossession agencies and others for collection
abuses, wrongful repossession and other unlawful business practices”
(http://www.bblocklaw.com/).14
 Crowder McGaha, LLP – containing the description title “About Our
Consumer Protection Firm” (https://www.crowdermcgaha.com/).
 Max Story Law – “We are a consumer protection firm litigating individual
and class action lawsuits throughout Florida”
(https://www.maxstorylaw.com/).

13 Kelly & Crandall, PLLC, Marshall Law Firm and Francis & Mailman web pages provided
with August 8, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 37-46.
14 Law Office of Sean E. Underwood, Thomas R. Breeden, P.C., Consumer Law Group, LLC,
The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A. and Law Offices of Brandon A Block web pages provided with
March 6, 2018 Office Action at TSDR 8-22.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 12 -

 Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center, PLC – describing the law firm
as “Michigan’s leading consumer protection firm”
(https://michiganconsumerlaw.com/).
 Charpentier Law – “If you suspect that you have been the victim of fraud, call
on [our] consumer protection firm” (http://gatewaylawyers.com/st-louis-
consumer-protection-lawyer/).
 Jeppson Law Office, LLC – describing the law firm as “a consumer
protection firm. In short, we are here to help”
(http://www.jeppsonlawoffice.com/about/).15
 The Gold Law Firm – Denver Consumer Protection Law Firm,” listing
Consumer Protection” as one of the firm’s practice areas
(https://www.thegoldlawfirm.net/denver-consumer-protection-law-firm/).
 The Goldson Law Office – listing Consumer Protection as one of the firm’s
areas of practice (http://www.goldsonlawoffice.com/consumer-protection/).
 Kazerouni Law Group – described as “A Consumer Protection Law Firm”
and listing Consumer Protection as one of its practice areas
(https://www.kazlg.com/www.kazlg.com/index.html).
 Flitter Milz, P.C. – described as practicing “Consumer Protection Law”
(https://www.consumerslaw.com/).
 Williston Law Firm – described as a “Consumer Protection Law Firm”
(https://willistonlawfirm.com/).
 DeLadurantey Law Office, LLC – described as “A Consumer Protection
Law Firm” (http://dela-law.com/).16
Additionally, the Examining Attorney made of record three different lawyer
search sites in which “Consumer Protection” can be used as a search term or
“filter” allowing consumers seeking legal representation to search for lawyers and
firms in that practice area:

15 Crowder McGaha, LLP, Max Story Law, Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center,
PLC, Charpentier Law and Jeppson Law Office, LLC web pages provided with August 15,
2018 Office Action at TSDR 5-29.
16 The Gold Law Firm, The Goldson Law Office, Kazerouni Law Group, Flitter Milz, P.C.,
Williston Law Firm and DeLadurantey Law Office, LLC web pages provided with March 7,
2019 Office Action at TSDR 7-32.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 13 -

 Super Lawyers
(https://attorneys.superlawyers.com/consumer-
law/pennsylvania/philadelphia/).
 FindLaw
(https://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/firm/consumer-
protection/independence/missouri).
 LawInfo
(https://attorneys.lawinfo.com/consumer-protection/maryland/waldorf/).17
B. Applicant’s Evidence
In support of its contention that Applicant’s Proposed Marks are not generic,
Applicant made of record its own definition of “Firm” as meaning “a partnership of
two or more persons that is not recognized as a legal person distinct from the
members composing it” and “a business unit or enterprise.” As with the Examining
Attorney’s definition, a “law firm” is one of the examples given.18
Applicant also made of record the following third-party registrations issued by the
USPTO (registered on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired
distinctiveness pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), unless
otherwise noted below):
Mark Reg. No. Services
A LAW FIRM CENTERED ON THE CLIENT
(“Law Firm” disclaimed)
5,328,634 Legal services in Class 45
FOUR RIVERS LAW FIRM
(“Law Firm” disclaimed)
5,216,509 Legal services in Class 45

(“Law” and “Your Business Law Firm”
disclaimed)
5,213,537 Legal services in Class 45

17 Super Lawyers, FindLaw and LawInfo web pages provided with March 7, 2019 Office
Action at TSDR 33-48.
18 Office Action Response of February 7, 2018 at TSDR 25-30.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 14 -

Mark Reg. No. Services

(The design of the State of Florida, “Government
Law” and “Law Firm” disclaimed)
5,167,774 Legal services in Class 45
A BRAND NAME LAW FIRM
(“Law Firm” disclaimed, 2(f) claimed)
5,117,062 Legal services in Class 45

(“Law Firm” disclaimed)
5,099,800 Real estate escrow services
in Class 36; Legal services in
Class 45
SONGLAWFIRM 4,988,567 Legal services in Class 45
THE ORIGINAL FATHERS RIGHTS LAW FIRM
BUILT BY A FEMALE LAWYER
(“The Original Fathers Rights Law Firm”
disclaimed)
4,990,102 Legal services in Class 45

(“Family Law Firm, P.L.” disclaimed)
4,962,773 Legal services in Class 45
THE BUSINESS OWNER'S LAW FIRM
(“Law Firm” disclaimed)
4,930,780 Legal services in Class 45

(“Telecom Law Firm PC” disclaimed)
4,798,924 Telecommunications
consultation services
in Class 38; Legal services
in Class 45
THE CONSUMER'S ADVOCATE
(“Consumer’s” disclaimed)
4,481,278 Educational and
entertainment services
in Class 41

CONSUMER RIGHTS ALLIANCE
(“Consumer Rights” disclaimed)
3,810,232 Legal services in Class 45
NATIONAL CONSUMER ASSISTANCE PLAN
(Supplemental Register)
5,061,226 Providing credit information
to consumers; providing
information relating to
credit records for financial
purposes in Class 36
ASSET PROTECTION COUNCIL
(Supplemental Register)
5,102,187 Providing a website
featuring information in the
fields of law including asset
protection, estate planning,
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 15 -

Mark Reg. No. Services
trusts, taxes, and wealth
management in Class 45
THE FAMILY LAW FIRM
(“Law Firm” disclaimed, Supplemental Register)
5,229,806 Legal services in Class 45
INJURY LAW FIRM
(“Law Firm” disclaimed, Supplemental Register)
4,857,099 Legal services in Class 45
THE SMALL BUSINESS LAW FIRM
(“Law Firm” disclaimed, Supplemental Register)
4,394,187 Legal services in Class 45

(“A Business Law Firm L.L.C.” disclaimed)
4,699,588 Legal services in Class 45

(“The Real Estate Firm” disclaimed)
5,354,516 Real estate brokerage
in Class 36

(“Financial” disclaimed, Registration Canceled)
3,061,088 Real estate financing
mortgage brokerage services
in Class 3619

Applicant also made of record the results of a GOOGLE search using the phrase
“The Consumer Protection Firm,” wherein the first two dozen results refer to
Applicant and its lawyers.20 Finally, Applicant submitted copies of the following
articles featuring interviews with lawyers affiliated with Applicant:
 “Don’t pick up (or maybe you should): That annoying robocall could be about
your student loans” (CNBC, Feb. 8, 2018).
 “Documents: Ring preyed on women in parking lots, stole $143K” (NBC, Jun.
7, 2018).
 “Overwhelmed by Robocalls About Student Loans?” (BUSINESS INSIDER, Aug.
10, 2018).

19 Id. at TSDR 37-53 and Office Action Response of February 11, 2019 at TSDR 32-41.
20 Office Action Response of February 11, 2019 at TSDR 12-16.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 16 -

 “Woman in lawsuit says Norfolk debt collector robocalled her 1,500 times”
(SOUTHSIDE DAILY, Feb. 8, 2018).21
III. Discussion and Analysis
A. Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark
As noted and found above, Applicant and the Examining Attorney agree on two
aspects of the genericness test of Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530, as applied to these
appeals. The genus of the services is “legal services” as defined in Applicant’s
identification of services. The relevant public consists of ordinary consumers of legal
services. This leaves us to consider whether ordinary consumers of legal services
understand THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM primarily to refer to those
services rather than a particular source of those services.
As Applicant urges multiple times,22 we must “assess whether the public
understands the mark, as a whole, to refer to [the] … genus” of the services at issue.
Princeton Vanguard, 114 USPQ2d at 1831 (emphasis original). See also Booking.com,
2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *5 (“[F]or a compound term, the distinctiveness inquiry
trains on the term’s meaning as a whole, not its parts in isolation.”) (citing Estate of
P. D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U. S. 538, 545-46 (1920)). We agree
with Applicant’s statement of the law.
However, “[a] compound of generic elements is [also] generic if the combination
yields no additional meaning to consumers capable of distinguishing the goods or
services.” Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *7. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

21 Id. at TSDR 17-31.
22 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 5, 8-11, 13.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 17 -

Federal Circuit more specifically states on this point: “where the [proposed] mark in
its entirety has exactly the same meaning as the individual words, … ‘the [US]PTO
has satisfied its evidentiary burden if … it produces evidence ... that the separate
words joined to form a compound [or a phrase] have a meaning identical to the
meaning common usage would ascribe to those words as a compound [or phrase].’”
Princeton Vanguard, 114 USPQ2d at 1831-32 (citing In re Gould Paper, 5 USPQ2d
at 1111-12, and noting that the genericness test for phrases is the same as for
compound marks). Thus, we may consider the understood meanings of portions of
Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark as a step in the process towards our ultimate finding
of whether the proposed mark, as a whole, is generic for Applicant’s services.
The Examining Attorney has provided a plethora of explanatory uses of “consumer
protection,” “consumer protection firm” and “consumer protection law firm” by
Applicant and competitor law firms that practice “consumer protection law.”
Applicant does not challenge the accuracy of the definitions and uses. Both Applicant
and the Examining Attorney also submitted similar definitions of “firm,” with a “law
firm” noted as an example.
Applicant’s principal argument is that the references made of record by the
Examining Attorney do not show usage of the proposed mark “THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION FIRM” as a whole.23 Rather, Applicant contends, when the entire
phrase THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM (emphasis by Applicant) is searched

23 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 5, 8, 10, 11, 13; Applicant’s Rebuttal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 3.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 18 -

on the Internet, the search results point unmistakably to Applicant.24 In short,
Applicant’s position rests on the notion that adding the definite article “THE” will
make the difference in the understanding of ordinary consumers of legal services that
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM primarily refers to the source of those
services rather than the genus of the services themselves.
However, as noted by the Examining Attorney,25 it is well settled that adding the
definite article “the” to a generic term or phrase generally does not add any
source-indicating significance or otherwise affect the term’s or phrase’s genericness.
See In re The Place Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1468 (TTAB 2005) (holding THE
GREATEST BAR merely descriptive of restaurant and bar services; “the definite
article THE . . . add[s] no source indicating significance to the mark as a whole”);
Conde Nast Publ’ns Inc. v. Redbook Publ’g Co., 217 USPQ 356, 357, 360 (TTAB 1983)
(holding THE MAGAZINE FOR YOUNG WOMEN a “common descriptive or ‘generic’
name of a class or type of magazine” and incapable of indicating source; “[t]he fact
that the slogan also includes the article ‘The’ is insignificant. This word cannot serve
as an indication of origin, even if applicant’s magazine were the only magazine for
young women.”); In re The Comput. Store, Inc., 211 USPQ 72, 74-75 (TTAB 1981)
(“[T]he significance of ‘THE COMPUTER STORE’ as a source indicator would not be
of such a nature as to qualify for the grant of registration rights under the Trademark
Act” for computer-related services. Applicant’s contention that “‘The’ converts the

24 Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 12, 13, 15; Applicant’s Rebuttal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 4, 5.
25 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 10.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 19 -

merely descriptive term into a registrable service mark … is strained”); In re G.D.
Searle & Co., 143 USPQ 220, 222–23 (TTAB 1966), aff’d, 360 F.2d 650, 149 USPQ
619, 623 (CCPA) (“[U]tilization of the article ‘the’ and of quotation marks cannot
convert a simple notation comprising ordinary words of the English language used in
their ordinary sense into a registrable trademark”).
Further, the evidence provided by Applicant does not support its position.
Applicant’s GOOGLE search results on “the consumer protection firm”26 direct the user
to Applicant’s web site, FACEBOOK page, LINKEDIN references, INSTAGRAM postings,
White Page and Yellow Page listings, BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU rating, third-party
law firm and lawyer reviews of Applicant, interviews of Applicant’s lawyers with the
media and its pending service mark applications. These search results speak less to
the source-identifying significance of THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM than
to efforts by Applicant’s lawyers to make their law firm visible in social media and
elsewhere on the Internet, to compete with other “consumer protection law firms.”
Applicant made no evidence of record to support the premise that THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION FIRM functions as a service mark simply because it appears higher
within a list of GOOGLE search results. We are not privy to GOOGLE’s page ranking
algorithm, and we cannot simply assume that the order of appearance in search
results is an indicator of the trademark significance of Applicant’s Proposed Marks.

26 Office Action Response of February 11, 2019 at TSDR 12-16.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 20 -

Moreover, the references to THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM in interviews
of Applicant’s lawyers in news articles27 do not necessarily demonstrate that ordinary
consumers of legal services primarily understand Applicant’s Proposed Marks to refer
to the source of those services. The nature of these references to THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION FIRM in the news articles merely demonstrates that the reporters of
these articles are reprinting the name provided by the lawyers, e.g., from the lawyers’
business cards, as part of their reporting. Journalists in reporting their interviews
with Applicant’s attorneys naturally would use their firm’s name (although generic),
because that is how Applicant refers to itself. Thus, while media articles generally
can be persuasive evidence of consumer perception, in this case the articles do not
show non-genericness.
In any event none of this evidence assists Applicant, because “no matter how much
money and effort the user of a generic term has poured into promoting the sale of its
[service] ..., it cannot deprive competing [providers] … of the [service] … of the right
to call [a service] by its name.” Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *7 (quoting
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 USPQ 759, 764 (2d
Cir. 1976)); see also Fluid Energy Processing & Equip. Co. v. Fluid Energy, Inc., 212
USPQ 28, 35-36 (TTAB 1981) (citing In re Deister Concentrator Co., Inc., 129 USPQ
314, 322 (CCPA 1961)) (“Although a party may acquire common law or statutory
rights in a descriptive term if it has acquired a secondary meaning signifying a single
source, a generic term cannot be exclusively appropriated as a common law

27 Office Action Response of February 11, 2019 at TSDR 17-31.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 21 -

trademark or as a statutory trademark, regardless of its length of use and
promotion.”).28
By contrast, the Examining Attorney’s evidence shows use by three different
organizations, Super Lawyers, FindLaw and LawInfo, in which “Consumer
Protection” is provided as a “filter” by category of law that consumers can use to
narrow their search for attorneys and law firms that practice in this area of the law.29
In our view, this is the most direct evidence in the record demonstrating an
understanding by ordinary consumers of legal services that “CONSUMER
PROTECTION” is a category of legal practice in which some lawyers and law firms
specialize. See In re Reed Elsevier Props., 82 USPQ2d at 1380 (Generic nature of
LAWYERS.COM “is amply demonstrated by the ubiquitous nature of the ‘search for
lawyers’ and ‘find a lawyer’ functions both on web pages providing information about

28 Moreover, a list of Internet search results generally has little probative value, because
such a list does not show the context in which the term is used on the listed web pages. See
In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (deeming GOOGLE
search results that provided very little context of the use of ASPIRINA to be “of little value
in assessing the consumer public perception of the ASPIRINA mark”). Notwithstanding, both
the Examining Attorney and Applicant introduced Internet search results into the record
(Office Action of March 6, 2018 at TSDR 6-7; Office Action Response of February 11, 2019 at
TSDR 12-16; Office Action of March 7, 2019 at TSDR 33-37) – without objection from the
other. Although it may not be appropriate in other cases, here the search results, which we
consider only for what they show on their face, Safer, Inc. v. OMS Invs., Inc., 94 USPQ2d
1031, 1039 (TTAB 2010) (Documents obtained from the Internet normally are accepted “for
the limited purpose of demonstrating what the documents show on their face.”), provide
sufficient context such that we afford this evidence a modicum of probative value regarding
the positions for which they were cited. In re Hotels.com L.P., 87 USPQ2d 1100, 1105 n.7
(TTAB 2008) (although websites referenced in summary format, sufficient information was
included in the summary to understand the context of usage), aff’d, 573 F.3d 1300, 91
USPQ2d 1532 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
29 Office Action of March 7, 2019 at TSDR 33-48.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 22 -

legal services generally and on pages providing information about specific legal
practice areas.”).
Applicant also relies upon third-party service mark registrations of purportedly
“similar marks … without finding that such marks are generic ….”30 However, many
of these registered marks present dissimilar circumstances, such as those that
include design elements, or have the relevant wording disclaimed. Regardless, the
fact that third-party registrations exist for marks allegedly similar to Applicant’s
Proposed Marks is not conclusive on the issue of descriptiveness or genericness. See
In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even
if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to … [Applicant’s mark],
the [US]PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or … [the
Federal Circuit].”). Marks that are merely descriptive or generic do not become
registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register. In
re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977).
The question of whether a proposed mark is merely descriptive or generic is
determined based on the evidence of record at the time each registration is sought.
In re the Dot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1062, 1064 (TTAB 2011). Each
case must be decided on its own facts, and the Board is not bound by prior decisions
involving different records. See In re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB
2014) (“Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office strives for

30 Office Action Response of February 7, 2018 at TSDR 37-53; Office Action Response of
February 11, 2019 at TSDR 32-41; Applicant’s Brief, 4 TTABVUE 14-15; Applicant’s Rebuttal
Brief, 7 TTABVUE 6.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 23 -

consistency, each application must be examined on its own merits. Neither the
Trademark Examining Attorney nor the Board is bound to approve for registration
an Applicant’s mark based solely upon the registration of other assertedly similar
marks for other goods or services having unique evidentiary records.”).
Evaluating the record as a whole, we find that the Examining Attorney has proven
that Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark “THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM”
refers to a “class or category” of “legal services,” namely, legal services concerning the
laws related to consumer protection, and is understood by the relevant public
primarily to refer to that subgenus of legal services. Based on this record, we have no
doubt as to the question of genericness of this proposed mark. We therefore affirm
the finding of genericness for Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark.
B. Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark
This brings us to the issues unique to Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design
Mark, which is the subject of the ‘846 Application. In addition to the generic wording
“THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM” from Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark,
Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark includes the addition of the generic top
level domain (“gTLD”) “.COM,” stylization, color, vertical word stacking, and a square
design element.
As we noted at the beginning of this decision, Applicant disclaimed FIRM.COM
on the Supplemental Register and therefore has conceded it is generic. In re Volvo
White Truck Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1417, 1420 (TTAB 1990) (“Applicant has … conceded
that the generic term for an over-the-highway tractor equipped with sleeping
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 24 -

compartment is “sleeper”, and has disclaimed that term.”); see also TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1213.03(b) (October 2018) (“If a mark
is comprised in part of matter that, as applied to the … services, is generic …, the
matter must be disclaimed to permit registration on … the Supplemental Register.”).
Even though we found above that the wording THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
FIRM is generic, and Applicant has disclaimed FIRM.COM, we still must make our
determination regarding the Word-and-Design Mark as a whole. This includes
considering the literal elements and the design elements taken together. As we
discuss in greater detail below, the Examining Attorney did not make evidence of
record that Applicant’s Word-and-Design Mark as a whole is generic for Applicant’s
legal services.
Relying on the various design elements in support of registration, Applicant
argues:
Applicant’s [Proposed Word-and-Design Mark] … includes word
elements having a particular placement relative to one another in that
Applicant’s word elements are left justified and vertically aligned one on
top of the other. The word elements of Applicant’s mark are entirely
enclosed by a blue square where color is claimed as part of the mark.
Each word alternates in color from green, to blue, to red, to green again.
The last line includes the text “Firm.com” with “Firm” in green and
“.com” in yellow. … [T]he commercial impression conveyed by the mark
as a whole … must necessarily account for the placement of the word
elements relative to one another and within the square as well as the
colors of the design. … Applicant’s mark includes multiple design
elements that convey a distinct commercial impression. There is simply
no way that a consumer viewing the design would consider it to be
generic for a particular genus of goods or service, and the design
elements of Applicant’s mark cannot be so easily dismissed.31

31 Applicant’s Brief regarding the ‘846 Application, 4 TTABVUE 17.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 25 -

As noted, Applicant’s Word-and-Design Mark includes stylized wording identical
to the generic wording in Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark with the addition of the
gTLD “.COM.” We therefore must consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Booking.com. There, the Court held that “[w]hether any given
‘generic.com’ term[32] is generic … depends on whether consumers in fact perceive
that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing
among members of the class.” Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *7. In so holding,
the Court rejected a categorical rule that combining a generic term with the gTLD
“.COM” automatically yields a generic composite. Id. at *8-9. By this approach,
although noting Booking.com B.V.’s concessions that BOOKING.COM was
descriptive, weak and difficult to enforce as a mark, id. at *8, the Court observed the
determinations made by the lower tribunals that consumers do not perceive the term,
taken as a whole, signals a class or category of online hotel-reservation services. In
the Court’s words: “[t]hat should resolve this case: Because ‘Booking.com’ is not a
generic name to consumers, it is not generic.” Id. at *5.
As we found above, the Examining Attorney has established that the relevant
public understands the wording THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM refers to
legal services concerning the laws related to consumer protection. With respect to the
Word-and-Design Mark, Applicant accepted a disclaimer of the generic matter

32 We understand the Court’s use of the term “generic.com” to mean a domain name address
on the Internet sought for protection as a mark that comprises: (i) a generic term or terms as
the leftmost component, which is the second-level name, and (ii) a rightmost component
which is the top-level domain (i.e., “.COM”). See Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *4 n.1.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 26 -

FIRM.COM on the Supplemental Register, and did not preserve that question for
appeal (or request remand on that issue). That FIRM.COM is generic with respect to
Applicant’s services is no longer in question and we take it as generic. Moreover, the
record as a whole, including generic use of very similar terms as second level domain
names by third-party competitors,33 supports a finding that “THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION FIRM.COM” is incapable of designating a single source of consumer
protection legal services.
However, the Examining Attorney only relied on an argument that “the addition
of the gTLD [.COM] does not create a witty double entendre or add any other
significance capable of identifying source or acquiring distinctiveness.”34 The
Examining Attorney did not provide evidence showing that the design elements (i.e.,
the combination of stylization, colors, vertical word stacking, and square border) are
so common as to be incapable of protection; thus, there is insufficient evidence that,
together, the combined elements of Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark are
generic and incapable of identifying Applicant as the source of its services.
To refuse registration on the Supplemental Register, we must have evidence in
the record supporting a finding that the proposed mark as a whole would be
perceived as incapable of functioning as a mark. In the absence of sufficient evidence
demonstrating that the composite mark is incapable of identifying the source of

33 See the URLs https://www.consumerlawfirm.com/, http://www.consumerlawgroup.com/,
https://michiganconsumerlaw.com/ and https://www.consumerslaw.com/, set out above,
provided with the Office Actions of August 8, 2017 (at TSDR 45-46), March 6, 2018 (at TSDR
10-15), August 15, 2018 (at TSDR 18-24) and March 7, 2019 (at TSDR 19-21).
34 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 11.
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 27 -

Applicant’s services, we are constrained to find that the Examining Attorney failed
to show that the mark as a whole is generic. In re Haden, 2019 USPQ2d 467424, at
*6 (TTAB 2019) (“On this record, we cannot say that the combination of colors,
borders, and stylization found in Applicant’s mark are commonly used or so lacking
in creativity that it could never serve to distinguish Applicant’s services from similar
services offered by others. We thus find that the combination of colors, borders, and
stylization in Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark are capable of
distinguishing the source of Applicant’s services.”).
IV. Summary
In these appeals, the evidentiary record contains numerous generic uses of
“consumer protection,” “consumer protection firm” and “consumer protection law
firm” by Applicant, competitor law firms that practice in the area of consumer
protection law, and online attorney search engines – all of which readily use the
wording to refer to a category of legal services. Applicant’s evidence does not rebut
the evidentiary showing made by the Examining Attorney.
While the record thus shows that Applicant’s Proposed Word Mark (i.e., THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM) is generic for Applicant’s services, and the literal
portion of Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark (i.e., THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION FIRM.COM) is generic, the same cannot be said of Applicant’s
Proposed Word-and-Design Mark (i.e., “THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
FIRM.COM & Design”) as a whole. The record lacks sufficient evidence to support a
finding that Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark, taken as a whole, is
incapable of designating the source of Applicant’s services. However, in view of our
Serial Nos. 87445801 and 87444846
- 28 -

findings on the literal elements of Applicant’s Proposed Word-and-Design Mark, it
cannot register absent a disclaimer of the wording “THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION FIRM.COM.” In re Haden, 2019 USPQ2d 467424, at *5-7 (TTAB
2019).
Decision
We affirm the refusal to register on the Supplemental Register Applicant’s
Proposed Word Mark, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, the subject of
Application Serial No. 87445801, on the ground that it is generic for Applicant’s
services.
We affirm the refusal to register on the Supplemental Register Applicant’s
Proposed Word-and-Design Mark, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM &
Design, , the subject of Application Serial No. 87444846, in the absence of the
entry of a disclaimer of “THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM.” However, if
Applicant submits a properly worded disclaimer to the Board within 30 days from the
date of this decision, the requirement for the disclaimer will have been met.
Trademark Rule 2.142(g), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(g). The disclaimer should read as follows:
“No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
FIRM.COM’ apart from the mark as shown.” TMEP § 1213.08(a)(i).