Ticket.com

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2001

No. 75565598 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2001)

9/25/01
Paper No. 15
DEB

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Ticket.com
________

Serial No. 75/565,598
_______

Michelle D. Kahn and Michelle Howard MacKenzie of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP for Ticket.com .

Scott Baldwin, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112
(Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hanak, Quinn and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Ticket.com seeks to register on the Principal Register

for “online information services, namely, the provision of
information relating to travel via global computer
network,” in International Class 39; “online information
services, namely, the provision of information relating to
shows and other entertainment events via global computer
network,” in International Class 41; and “online travel
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 75/565,598
- 2 -
agency services, namely making reservations and bookings
for temporary lodging via global computer network,” in
International Class 42.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act in
view of applicant’s failure to comply with the requirement
to disclaim TICKETS.COM apart from the composite mark
(including the design) as shown above. Although applicant
has agreed to disclaim .COM, it is the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s position that the TICKETS portion of this
composite mark must also be disclaimed as it is merely
descriptive of the identified services within the meaning
of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(e)(1).2

1 Application Serial No. 75/565,598, filed on October 6,
1998, based upon applicant’s allegation of use in commerce since
August 1, 1997.
2 As filed, applicant’s original recitation of services was
“on-line ticketing services, namely, travel agency services,
ticket agency services and the provision of information relating
to events, travel or tickets via a global computer network, in
International Class 42.” In response to the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s requirement to amend its recitation of services,
applicant amended its recital to “online travel agency and travel
information services, namely, making reservations and bookings
for transportation and the provision of information related to
travel, all via global computer network,” in International Class
39; “online ticketing and information services, namely, arranging
for tickets for shows and other entertainment events and the
provision of information relating to shows and other
entertainment events, all via global computer network,” in
International Class 41; and “online travel agency services,
namely, making reservations and bookings for temporary lodging
Serial No. 75/565,598
- 3 -
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Trademark Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but
applicant did not request an oral hearing. We affirm the
refusal to register.
It is the Trademark Examining Attorney’s position that
the word TICKETS is merely descriptive of a feature or
characteristic of applicant’s on-line services. A copy of
applicant’s home page (http://www.tickets.com/) is included
as a specimen of record, and the words “ticket,” “tickets”
and “ticketing” occur in the ordinary sense of those words
more than a dozen times on applicant’s home page alone.
Applicant, on the other hand, in urging reversal of
the refusal to register, argues that inasmuch as its
amended recital of services excludes all the specific
references to actual ticketing services, the word “Tickets”
is not merely descriptive of its various “online
information services.” In response to this argument, the
Trademark Examining Attorney states the following:

via global computer network,” in International Class 42.
Although the Trademark Examining Attorney appeared to accept this
amended recitation at the time of the final refusal, with the
request for reconsideration on the disclaimer, applicant
submitted the current recitation, which the Trademark Examining
Attorney has also found to be acceptable. With the request for
reconsideration, applicant also voluntarily disclaimed the term
“.com” alone.

Serial No. 75/565,598
- 4 -
[A]pplicant’s current recitation of services
is clearly broad enough to include the
“provision of ticketing information … [in
classes 39 and 41].” (emphasis in
original).

The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately
conveys information concerning a significant quality,
characteristic, function, ingredient, attribute or feature
of the product or service in connection with which it is
used, or intended to be used. In re Engineering Systems
Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd.,
204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979). It is not necessary, in order to
find a mark merely descriptive, that the mark describe each
feature of the goods or services, only that it describe a
single significant quality, feature, etc. of the goods or
services. In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285
(TTAB 1985). Further, it is well-established that the
determination of mere descriptiveness must be made not in
the abstract or on the basis of guesswork, but in relation
to the goods or services for which registration is sought,
the context in which the mark is used, and the impact that
it is likely to make on the average purchaser of such goods
or services. In re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1977).
We begin with the shared proposition that for these
online services, “.com” has no source-indicating
Serial No. 75/565,598
- 5 -
significance, inasmuch as it is merely an indication of a
portion of an address on the Web.
We also find from this record that the evidence is
overwhelming that the word “tickets” is merely descriptive
of applicant’s services, even after all the earlier
“ticket” and “ticketing” language has been scrubbed from
the recitation of services. We agree with the Trademark
Examining Attorney that consumers are likely to understand,
from the term TICKETS.COM, that at the very least,
applicant offers through its Web site information about
various kinds of tickets. Moreover, the specimens of
record demonstrate that applicant indeed provides actual
tickets as well as ticketing news through its Web site.
Hence, we conclude from this record that tickets and ticket
information are a significant characteristic of applicant’s
services. While applicant has amended its recitation of
services to delete reference to the words ticket and
ticketing, applicant had earlier conceded that this is an
aspect of its services:
As applied to actual ticketing services, the
term “TICKETS.COM” arguably may be construed
as descriptive. Accordingly, if deletion of
Applicant’s ticketing services from the
recitation of services would cure the
perceived descriptiveness of that term,
Applicant would be willing to so amend its
application …

Serial No. 75/565,598
- 6 -
(Applicant’s response of January 3, 2000, p. 4, fn 2).
The fact that applicant’s Web site provides ticketing
information and makes tickets available online is certainly
not negated merely because the current recitation of
services no longer specifies this aspect of applicant’s
information services. Moreover, it is clear that at the
very least, the offering of ticketing news is encompassed
within applicant’s services, even as currently identified.
Accordingly, it is our view that, when applied to
applicant’s services, the term TICKETS.COM immediately
describes, without conjecture or speculation, a significant
feature or characteristic of applicant’s services, namely,
that it offers information about the availability of
“tickets” for sporting and other entertainment events.
Nothing requires the exercise of imagination, cogitation,
mental processing or gathering of further information in
order for prospective customers of applicant’s services to
readily perceive the merely descriptive significance of the
term TICKETS.COM as it pertains to applicant’s services.
See In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341,
57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)) [Applicant’s
“1•888•MATRESS” mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s
service offering mattresses by telephone because it
immediately conveys the impression that a service relating
Serial No. 75/565,598
- 7 -
to mattresses is available by calling the telephone
number.]
Finally, late in the appeal process, applicant
submitted thirteen specifically-identified, third-party
registrations it argues are relevant to the merits of this
case.3 As noted by the Trademark Examining Attorney, third-
party registrations are not conclusive on the question of
descriptiveness. We must decide each case on its own
merits. Even if some prior registrations had some
characteristics similar to the present application, the
Office’s allowance of such prior registrations does not
bind the Board or our reviewing Court. In re Nett Designs
Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
and In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116,
1127, 227 USPQ 417, 424(Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, as to the recent issuance of a
registration for the mark, TICKETSNOW.COM, to a third-party
registrant, we also agree with the Trademark Examining
Attorney (emphasis in original):
The term “NOW” in the unitary mark
“TICKETSNOW.COM” is clearly not merely

3 In a companion case (Application Serial No. 75/565,580),
applicant also asked for a suspension of the appeal based on
these newly-issued registrations. In that case, the Trademark
Examining Attorney considered these registrations and was not
persuaded by them. Accordingly, we are proceeding to final
decision in the instant appeal without imposing further delay.
Serial No. 75/565,598
- 8 -
descriptive. As such, the unitary mark
“TICKETSNOW.COM” is not merely descriptive.

Further, the marks “BRAKE.COM,” “1-800-FLOWERS.COM”
and “1-800 GET LOAN,” for example, were all registered
pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. Registrants
in each case have essentially conceded that the matter to
which it pertains was not inherently distinctive (and thus
not registrable absent a showing of acquired
distinctiveness). As to the remaining registrations, as
noted by Trademark Examining Attorney, the other registered
marks referenced by applicant are not merely descriptive in
general or were considered to be part of a larger, unitary
expression.
Decision: The requirement for a disclaimer of the
term TICKETS.COM is affirmed. Nevertheless, in accordance
with Trademark Rule 2.142(g), this decision will be set
aside and applicant's mark will be published for opposition
if applicant, no later than thirty days from the mailing
date hereof, amends its present disclaimer to one which
appropriately disclaims the term TICKETS.COM.4

4 See In re Interco Inc., 29 USPQ2d 2037, 2039 (TTAB 1993).
For the proper format for a disclaimer, attention is directed to
TMEP §§1213.09(a)(i) and 1213.09(b).