Vili Group Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2016

No. 86285733 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 14, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Vili Group Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86285733
_____

Sevag Demirjian of Demirjian Law Offices,
for Vili Group Inc.
Sara Benjamin, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Chris A. F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Zervas, Greenbaum and Masiello,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Vili Group Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark for “mineral and carbonated waters” in International Class 32.1

1 Application Serial No. 86285733 was filed on May 14, 2014, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act. The application includes the following description of the mark: “The mark
consists of the wording ‘Bjni’ in red stylized lettering with a white border outline. The mark
sits on top of a blue background.” The application claims the colors red, white, and blue as a
feature of the mark.
Serial No. 86285733
- 2 -

The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark is primarily geographically descriptive of its goods.
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We reverse the refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law
The test for determining whether a term is primarily geographically descriptive
is whether (1) the primary significance of the term in the mark sought to be registered
is the name of a place generally known to the public, (2) the public would make an
association between the goods or services and the place named in the mark, that is,
believe that the goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered
originate in that place, and (3) the source of the goods or services is the geographic
region named in the mark. In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A.,
824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Brouwerij Nacional
Balashi NV, 80 USPQ2d 1820, 1821 (TTAB 2006).
The Examining Attorney argues that the primary significance of the term “Bjni”
is a generally known geographic place, i.e., Bjni, Armenia, the goods originate in Bjni,
and there is a goods/place association because the goods are from Bjni and because it
is common for mineral and sparkling waters to be named after their geographic
source (e.g., Evian). Applicant has never disputed that Bjni is a geographic location
and that the goods will come from there, and its brief is silent on these points. It is
Serial No. 86285733
- 3 -

Applicant’s position, however, that the village of Bjni is “not ‘generally known’ nor
famous by any stretch of the term(s)[,]” and that Bjni is so small and obscure that
purchasers of mineral and sparkling waters in the United States “would not recognize
it as indicating the geographical source of the actual water products to be sold under
the BJNI name.”2
As evidence that Bjni is a generally known geographic place or location, the
Examining Attorney submitted3 a short Wikipedia entry describing Bjni as “a village
in the Kotayk Province of Armenia” with a population in 2008 of just over 3000 people.
The Wikipedia entry discusses the history of Bjni and the ruins of a medieval fortress
and a church located there, but it does not mention mineral water. In addition, the
Examining Attorney submitted screenshots from a number of websites for tour
companies based in Europe or Armenia, and a screenshot from the Armenian
Embassy website. Most of the websites discuss or mention the fortress and church in
Bjni (e.g., garnigeghard.com, traveltoarmenia.am, welcomearmenia.com), and
several also advertise or mention mineral water springs in Bjni (e.g., simatours.com),
usually in a list naming other villages in Armenia (e.g., armeniaemb.org,
barevarmenia.com, newarmenia.travel/en, investinarmenia.am). Only Applicant’s
own website, bjni.am, focuses on Bjni as a village known for its mineral water spring,
with no reference to the fortress or the church.

2 14 TTABVUE 3.
3 With the exception of screenshots from the welcomearmenia.com and bjni.am websites,
which the Examining Attorney submitted only with the September 3, 2014 Office Action, the
Examining Attorney submitted all of this evidence with the April 8, 2015 Final Office Action.
Serial No. 86285733
- 4 -

The Examining Attorney also submitted a 2009 Human Rights Report on Armenia
published by the United States State Department (“State Department Report”).4
Applicant aptly describes this 26 page document as “a lengthy and detailed
description of the Country of Armenia and its human rights record. Not exactly
common reading material for the average American consumer. In this 26 page
government document, there is one paragraph on page 10 which references the Bjni
mineral water company as being involved in a dispute with the government.”5 In
addition, the Examining Attorney submitted three articles from 2009 discussing this
dispute.6
We begin by finding that the relevant purchasing public for the goods at issue
consists of the general public interested in purchasing mineral and sparkling waters.
As noted above, Applicant does not dispute that “Bjni” is a geographic location;
however, the record does not support a finding that “Bjni” is a generally known
geographic location. Virtually all of the evidence detailed above is from obscure
sources outside the United States (e.g., newarmenia.travel/en, investinarmenia.am,
eurasianet.org), and therefore is not probative of whether consumers in the United
States have ever heard the term “Bjni,” let alone understand that Bjni is a small
village in Armenia. As for the State Department Report, we agree with Applicant that

4 Attached to the November 3, 2015 Denial of Request for Reconsideration.
5 14 TTABVUE 7.
6 www.eurasianet.org, armenianow.com (originally posted February 20, 2009, updated April
7, 2015), and en.a1plus.am, all attached to the April 8, 2015 Final Office Action.
Serial No. 86285733
- 5 -

this is not the type of material to which the relevant purchasing public likely has
been exposed.
The remaining evidence consists solely of the short Wikipedia entry. While this
entry has some probative value, absent other evidence to support the proposition that
consumers have been exposed to the term “Bjni” and are aware of its geographic
significance, we cannot find that it is a generally known geographic location. In re
Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 113 USPQ2d 1445, 1450-51 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“The internet (and websites such as Wikipedia) contains enormous amounts of
information: some of it is generally known, and some of it is not. … [T]he mere entry
in a gazetteer or the fact that a location is described on the internet does not
necessarily evidence that a place is known generally to the relevant public.”); See also
In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1032-33 (TTAB 2007) (“The better
practice with respect to Wikipedia evidence is to corroborate the information with
other reliable sources, including Wikipedia’s sources.”).
The facts of this case are distinct from those presented in In re MCO Properties
Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154 (TTAB 1995), in which the Board found the term “Fountain
Hills” primarily geographically descriptive of the real estate development services
identified in the application. In that case, the applicant listed Fountain Hills, Arizona
as its address, and the evidence of record, which included “excerpts of articles
retrieved from the Nexis computer database of publications; excerpts from the
HAMMOND GOLD MEDALLION WORLD ATLAS; and brochures provided by the
Chamber of Commerce of Fountain Hills, Arizona,” as well as applicant’s own
Serial No. 86285733
- 6 -

specimens, which promoted the numerous benefits of living in the town of Fountain
Hills, established that “Fountain Hills” is “the name of the place where the services
are rendered” rather than “an indication of the source of applicant’s real estate
services.” Id. at 1155-56. Similarly, we distinguish In re Spirits of New Merced LLC,
85 USPQ2d 1614 (TTAB 2007), in which the evidence of record, consisting of entries
from multiple websites and reference works, established that Yosemite is the name
of a well-known geographic region that clearly is not obscure or remote.
Inasmuch as the evidence does not support the first factor of the applicable test,
we need not address the goods/place association. In view thereof, we find on this
record that BJNI is not primarily geographically descriptive of Applicant’s goods. See
Newbridge Cutlery, 113 USPQ2d at 1450 (the record must include substantial
evidence to support a conclusion that the mark identifies a place “known generally to
the relevant American public.”).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is reversed.