throbber
This Opinion is a
`Precedent of the TTAB
`
`
`
`Hearing: July 12, 2017
`
`Mailed: March 26, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`_____
`
`In re Serial Podcast, LLC
`_____
`
`Serial Nos.
`86454420
`86454424
`86464485
`_____
`
`Matthew T. Furton, Sean C. Fifield, and David T. Van Der Laan
`
`of Locke Lord LLP, for Serial Podcast, LLC.
`
`Colleen M. Dombrow, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101,
`Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney.
`_____
`
`
`Before Taylor, Shaw and Heasley,
`Administrative Trademark Judges.
`
`
`Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`Serial Podcast, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
`
`three marks:
`
`
`
`
`
`
` SERIAL (in standard characters);1
`
`
`1 Application Serial No. 86454420 was filed on November 14, 2014, based upon a claim of first
`use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as September 19, 2014. 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1051(a).
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (word and design);2 and
`
` (word and design).3
`
` All three marks are for “entertainment in the nature of an ongoing audio program
`
`featuring investigative reporting, interviews, and documentary storytelling” in
`
`International Class 41.
`
`The Examining Attorney has refused registration of all three marks on the
`
`grounds that each is generic for the identified services, or, if not generic, merely
`
`descriptive of the services. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052(e)(1), 1053, and 1127. In each case,
`
`Applicant has responded that the mark is not generic, and has acquired
`
`distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). The
`
`Examining Attorney has nonetheless maintained the genericness refusals and has
`
`found Applicant’s evidence insufficient to prove acquired distinctiveness. When the
`
`refusals were made final, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After
`
`the Examining Attorney denied the requests for reconsideration, the appeals
`
`
`2 Application Serial No. 86454424 was filed on November 14, 2014, based upon a claim of first
`use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as September 19, 2014. 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1051(a). The Application includes the following description of the mark: “The mark consists
`of the word ‘SERIAL’ in outlined letters, with each letter placed in a rectangle with rounded
`corners.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
`3 Application Serial No. 86464485 was filed on November 25, 2014, based upon a claim of first
`use anywhere and use in commerce since at least as early as September 19, 2014. 15 U.S.C.
`§ 1051(a). The Application includes the following description of the mark: “The colors red,
`yellow and black are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the word
`‘SERIAL’ in yellow letters outlined in red, with each letter placed in a black rectangle with
`rounded corners. The color white in the drawing represents background and is not a feature
`of the mark.”
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`resumed and were consolidated.4 Applicant and the Examining Attorney submitted
`
`briefs, and appeared at an oral hearing before the Board.
`
`I. THE STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
`
`
` The Examining Attorney maintains that the proposed standard character mark,
`
`SERIAL, is generic for the services recited in the application. Applicant maintains
`
`that the proposed mark is not generic, but descriptive, and has acquired
`
`distinctiveness under Section 2(f), which states that “nothing in this chapter shall
`
`prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive
`
`of applicant’s goods [or services] in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(f), 1053.
`
`A. The Proposed Standard Character Mark, SERIAL, Is Generic
`
` “A generic term is the common descriptive name of a class of goods or services.”
`
`In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(quoting Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114
`
`USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire
`
`Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (internal punctuation
`
`omitted)). Generic terms are “the ultimate in descriptiveness.” Marvin Ginn, 228
`
`USPQ at 530, quoted in In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 116 USPQ2d
`
`1262, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2015). They are not registrable because “[g]eneric terms, by
`
`definition incapable of indicating source, are the antithesis of trademarks, and can
`
`never attain trademark status.” In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc.,
`
`
`4 14 TTABVUE. Unless otherwise stated, all references to the record and the arguments
`pertain to Application Serial No. 86464485. All references to the Trademark Status &
`Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) database are to the downloadable .pdf version.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987), quoted in Cordua, 118 USPQ2d
`
`at 1634.
`
`“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.” Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530, quoted in Earnhardt
`
`v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 123 USPQ2d 1411, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Making this determination “involves a two-step inquiry: 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?” Marvin
`
`Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530; see Luxco, Inc. v. Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C., 121
`
`USPQ2d 1477, 1483 (TTAB 2017). The Examining Attorney must establish with clear
`
`and convincing evidence that a proposed mark is generic. Cordua, 118 USPQ2d at
`
`1635.
`
`The Examining Attorney and Applicant concur that the genus in this case is set
`
`forth by the recitation of services in each subject application: “entertainment in the
`
`nature of an ongoing audio program featuring investigative reporting, interviews,
`
`and documentary storytelling.” See generally Cordua, 118 USPQ2d at 1636; Magic
`
`Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[A]
`
`proper genericness inquiry focuses on the description of services set forth in the
`
`[application or] certificate of registration.”). The relevant public consists of ordinary
`
`listeners of audio programs.5 Evidence of the relevant public’s understanding of a
`
`
`5 Applicant’s brief p. 7, 7 TTABVUE 10, Examining Attorney’s brief 9 TTABVUE 6.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`term may be obtained from any competent source, including testimony, surveys,
`
`dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers and other publications. See Cordua, 118
`
`USPQ2d at 1634.
`
`The Examining Attorney has adduced dictionary definitions showing that the
`
`word “SERIAL” means something that is published or broadcast in installments at
`
`regular intervals, e.g.:
`
`• MacMillan Dictionary: Serial: “A story that is broadcast or published in a
`
`series of separate parts.”
`
`• Dictionary.com: Serial: “Anything published, broadcast, etc., in short
`
`installments at regular intervals, as a novel appearing in successive issues of
`
`a magazine.”
`
`• Oxford Dictionary: Serial: “A story or play appearing in regular installments
`
`on television or radio or in a periodical.”6
`
`Applicant produces an ongoing audio program, a podcast7 appearing in regular
`
`weekly installments. According to its website:
`
`Serial tells one story – a true story – over the course of an entire season.
`Each season, we’ll follow a plot and characters wherever they take us. And
`we won’t know what happens at the end until we get there, not long before
`you get there with us. Each week we bring you the next chapter in the
`story, so it’s important to listen to the episodes in order, starting with
`Episode 1.8
`
`6 Macmillan Dictionary, 3/20/2016; Dictionary.com, 3/20/2016; OxfordDictionaries.com
`/us/definition/American_english/ serial, 3/20/2016, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR pp.
`29, 30, 34.
`7 “A podcast is a digital audio file about a specific topic that is released in a serial format for
`download to a computer or personal device.” NUIGalway.ie 3/21/2016, March 22, 2016 Office
`Action TSDR p. 70.
`8 SerialPodcast.org 2/9/2015 Feb. 10, 2015 Office Action TSDR p. 10.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`
`
`According to Applicant’s manager and editorial adviser, Ira Glass, “The first
`
`season of the podcast ran for over two months, with a total of twelve episodes
`
`premiering on October 3, 2014 and concluding on December 18, 2014.”9 Applicant’s
`
`Business Operations Manager, Elise Bergerson, echoed this description of Applicant’s
`
`episodic program.10 According to Forbes magazine, “Serial is a season-based podcast
`
`where a single story is discussed in detail over a dozen (or so) episodes.”11 According
`
`to the Examining Attorney, Applicant’s sequential, episodic podcasts meet the
`
`dictionary definition of a serial: “the applicant’s audio program is a serial in that it is
`
`broadcast in separate parts over a period of time.”12
`
`The genus of “ongoing audio program” in Applicant’s identification of services
`
`encompasses both podcasts and radio broadcasts. As a Cincinnati Enquirer article
`
`put it, “Podcasts are reviving a declining radio art form―the serial, fictional or
`
`documentary, with a compelling story and characters so vivid you can almost see
`
`them.”13 The serial has long been a staple of the radio waves. There was, for example:
`
`
`9 Affidavit of Ira Glass, ¶ 5, Aug. 10, 2015 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 21.
`10 Affidavit of Elise Bergerson, ¶ 5, March 1, 2016 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 8.
`11 “Everything You Need to Know About Listening to Podcasts, My Favorite Free Form of
`Entertainment” Forbes.com, Sept. 22, 2016 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 29.
`12 Examining Attorney’s brief 9 TTABVUE 7.
`13 The Cincinnati Enquirer May 10, 2015, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR p.17.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Some popular television programs, like the Lone Ranger, began as radio serials:
`
`Another example is Sky King:
`
`15
`
`
`14 SergeantPreston.com 9/1/2015 Sept. 1, 2015 Office Action TSDR p. 26.
`15 Entertainment.HowStuffWorks.com 3/17/2016, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR p. 48.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`The tradition of radio serials continued through the decades. For example:
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`16 MidAtlanticNostalgiaConvention.com 2/10/2015, Feb. 10, 2015 Office Action TSDR pp. 42-
`45.
`17 Search.credoreference.com 3/17/2016, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR p. 53.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`And the tradition of radio serials continues to this day.18
`
`Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney did not meet her burden of proving
`
`that SERIAL is a term that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as
`
`the common name for ongoing audio programs. The references using the term “serial”
`
`as a noun are antiquated and archaic, Applicant contends, “referring to decades-old
`
`entertainment genres that are unlikely to affect the relevant public’s primary
`
`perception of the term in the podcast era.”19 Applicant appends a table containing
`
`examples of these assertedly antiquated uses from the record:
`
`
`
`
`18 Public AccessTheatre.org 2/10/2015 Feb. 10, 2015 Office Action TSDR p. 16.
`19 Applicant’s brief pp. 11, 7 TTABVUE 14.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
` Applicant admits that there are a few modern examples in the record of generic
`
`usage of “serial” as a noun, but maintains that these few instances pale in comparison
`
`to the “voluminous, recent and prominent” usage of “serial” as an adjective, describing
`
`a characteristic of audio programs, e.g.:21
`
`20
`
`
`20 Applicant’s brief pp. 11-12, 7 TTABVUE 14-15.
`21 Applicant’s brief p. 12, 7 TTABVUE 15, citing Sept. 1, 2015 Office Action TSDR p. 25.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`22
`
`Applicant posits that all of these adjectival uses of the term “serial” are
`
`descriptive, denoting the ongoing narrative nature of generic classes of programs like
`
`“radio drama,” “radio comedy,” “radio episode,” or “drama.” And since the term is
`
`descriptive, Applicant concludes, it can acquire distinctiveness under Section 2(f).23
`
`But Applicant’s distinction between nouns and adjectives is unavailing, as both
`
`can be generic. Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1366
`
`
`22 Applicant’s brief pp. 9-10, 7 TTABVUE 12-13.
`23 Applicant’s brief pp. 11, 13, 7 TTABVUE 14, 16.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`(TTAB 2013) (finding adjective “footlong” generic in connection with sandwiches); see
`
`also In re Cent. Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d 1194, 1199 (TTAB 1998) (“[A]pplicant’s
`
`mark does not present the classic case of a generic noun, but rather a generic
`
`adjective.”).24 For this reason, the TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE
`
`(“TMEP”) states that “The expression ‘generic name for the goods or services’ is not
`
`limited to noun forms but also includes ‘generic adjectives,’ that is, adjectives that
`
`refer to a genus, species, category, or class of goods or services.” See generally TMEP
`
`§ 1209.01(c)(ii) (Oct. 2017) and cases cited therein.
`
`Applicant’s argument that “serial” is an antiquated term that the public no longer
`
`understands is similarly unavailing. Some of the programs discussed above may be
`
`from a bygone era, many decades past, but the term “serial” is frequently used in the
`
`present day, with no need to explain to contemporary readers or listeners what a
`
`serial is. Further, current dictionary definitions define “serial” as both a noun and an
`
`adjective, e.g.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`American Heritage Dictionary
`adj. “Published or produced in installments, as a novel or television drama.”
`n. “A literary or dramatic work published or produced in installments.”
`
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary
`adj. “appearing in successive parts or numbers.”
`n. “a story that is broadcast on television or radio or that is published in a
`
`
`24 See also Rudolph Int’l., Inc. v. Realys Inc., 482 F.3d 1195, 82 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.
`2007) (“Adjectives, as well as nouns, can be generic marks.”) (citation omitted); Mil-Mar Shoe
`Co. v. Shonac Corp., 75 F.3d 1153, 37 USPQ2d 1633, 1639 (7th Cir. 1996) (“An easy ‘noun
`versus adjective’ test to signify a mark as either generic or descriptive, respectively, does not,
`however, adequately characterize the law of this circuit, nor would such a simplistic approach
`adequately embody fundamental principles of trademark law.”) (footnote omitted).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`magazine in separate parts over a period of time.”25
`
`
` Recent online articles also use the term “serial” as both a noun and adjective,
`
`generically denoting episodic broadcasts or podcasts:
`
`• Brooklyn College, City University of New York website announces that
`“students and faculty have conceived, written, and produced a serial radio
`drama about AIDS….” A photo shows “A student ‘on the air’ in Brooklyn
`College’s radio serial….”26
`
`• The Atlanta Radio Theatre Company website presents a story “as a 1-hour
`standalone adventure and as a 12-part expanded serial!”27
`
`• The Granite City Radio Theatre presents “a radio drama serial….”28
`
`• The Detroit News reports on “Welcome to Night Vale,” “a hugely successful
`podcast about supernatural goings-on in a fictional Southwest town, that is
`best described as ‘A Prairie Home Companion’ meets ‘Twin Peaks.’” Narrator
`Cecil Baldwin “spoke with The Detroit News about the origins of the show and
`the surprise return of the traditional radio serial: …
`Q: What do you think about the resurgence of the classic radio serial format
`in the podcast era?”29
`
`• The Columbia College Chicago radio station website states that “With the
`advent of podcasting, a resurgence of Theater of the Mind has led students of
`Columbia College Chicago to create contemporary tales in this traditional
`medium.” It describes “a 15-part audio serial, written, directed and produced
`by Columbia College Chicago Radio students.” “Judge for yourself as Columbia
`College Chicago students bring you a nine-part serial….”30
`
`• The Chattanooga Times Free Press states, “Judged solely by its opening
`monologue, locally produced radio serial ‘Horace Kentucky’s Chronal
`
`
`25 American Heritage Dictionary AHDictionary.com, Feb. 10, 2015 Office Action TSDR p. 5;
`Merriam-Webster.com, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR pp. 37-38.
`26 www.Brooklyn.cuny.edu Feb. 10, 2015 Office Action TSDR pp. 14-15.
`27 Artc.org 9/1/2015 Sept. 1, 2015 Office Action TSDR pp. 12-13.
`28 Ppfive.com 9/1/2015 Sept. 1, 2015 Office Action TSDR pp. 21-22.
`29 DetroitNews.com 5/8/2016, downloaded 3/21/2016, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR p.
`71.
`30 Colum.edu 3/21/2016, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR p. 73.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`Detective Agency’ sounds like just another boilerplate noir drama stapled
`together by a series of cliches.” “Thanks to the ease of digital recording and self-
`publishable podcasts, the conditions are ripe for a resurgence of serials like
`‘Horace Kentucky,’ says WUTC radio personality Richard Winham.”31
`
`These and other Internet articles and websites of record show that the term
`
`“serial,” whether it is used as a noun or an adjective, refers categorically to ongoing
`
`audio programs―programs that may emanate from multiple sources, not just a single
`
`source. These examples of producers and commentators using the term to refer to a
`
`category of services is persuasive evidence that the term would be perceived by the
`
`relevant public, listeners of audio programs, as a generic designation of those
`
`services. See In re Northland Alum. Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985) (cookbooks and newspaper articles show “bundt” generic for a kind of
`
`cake); In re Noon Hour Food Prods. Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1172 (TTAB 2008) (use of “Bond-
`
`ost” in books, government and trade publications, on the Internet, and in newspapers
`
`and magazines available to members of the general public shows term is generic for
`
`a type of cheese); Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385
`
`(TTAB 1999) (use of term “e-ticket” by media and competitors indicates term is
`
`generic for electronic tickets).
`
`Applicant, relying on In re Northland, argues that since its debut in October 2014,
`
`over 12,000 media stories have referred to its SERIAL podcast. These media stories
`
`appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street
`
`
`31 www.timesfreepress.com 3/21/2016, March 22, 2016 Office Action TSDR pp. 74, 77.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`Journal, LA Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, Rolling Stone,
`
`and USA Today.32 For example:
`
`
`
`33
`
`As Applicant notes, other podcasts’ success came to be measured by comparison
`
`with “SERIAL”; media coverage termed successful programs “Serial-like” or
`
`“Serialesque.” Due to its mainstream popularity, many online lists of the best
`
`podcasts expressly excluded it, e.g. “8 of the Best Podcasts Out there (Other Than
`
`‘Serial’).”34
`
`“If the SERIAL mark were primarily perceived as a generic term,” Applicant
`
`urges, “it would be natural—even necessary—for such publications to include some
`
`
`32 Affidavit of Elise Bergerson ¶ 7, Sept. 22, 2016 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 11;
`Applicant’s brief p. 13, 7 TTABVUE 16; Affidavit of Ira Glass ¶ 13, Aug. 10, 2015 Response
`to Office Action TSDR p. 21.
`33 Aug. 10, 2015 Response to Office Action TSDR pp. 48, 52.
`34 Affidavit of Ira Glass ¶¶ 15-16, Aug. 10, 2015 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 25;
`Affidavit of Elise Bergerson ¶ 9, Sept. 22, 2016 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 11.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`explanation that their use of the term SERIAL is intended as a reference to the
`
`SERIAL podcast rather than as a generic reference to a certain type of audio
`
`program.” “Otherwise, the reader would understand ‘Serial-like’ and ‘Serialesque’ to
`
`describe any audio program that is published at regular intervals….” Yet Applicant
`
`is unaware of any instances in which such an explanation has been included in the
`
`extensive media coverage.35
`
`The media stories to which Applicant refers, however, use capitalization, italics,
`
`quotation marks and/or context, rather than explanations, to indicate that the
`
`“Serial” to which they refer is one particular serial. For example:
`
`• “SERIAL”: THE PODCAST WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`‘Serial,’ Podcasting’s First Breakout Hit, Sets Stage for More
`
`‘Serial’ Podcast Catches Fire
`
`
`
`‘Serial’ podcast makes Thursdays a Must-Listen event
`
`• Serial Is Like Nothing I’ve Heard or Watched Before36
`
`And these exist along with the previously cited articles, websites, and Internet stories
`
`referring to serials produced by others who have used the term in its generic sense,
`
`meaning a work that is published or produced in installments. See In re Northland,
`
`227 USPQ 961.
`
`
`
`
`35 Applicant’s brief p. 13, 7 TTABVUE 16; Applicant’s reply brief p. 5, 10 TTABVUE 8.
`36 The New Yorker Oct. 9, 2014, The New York Times Nov. 23, 2014, The Wall Street Journal
`Nov. 13, 2014, Entertainment Weekly, EW.com, Oct. 30, 2014, Slate Oct. 3, 2014, Aug. 10,
`2015 Response to Office Action TSDR pp. 42, 48, 52, 64, 68.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
` Applicant nevertheless contends that the mix of generic and non-generic uses in
`
`the record precludes a finding of genericness.37 This is incorrect, however, for two
`
`reasons. First, in this case, the so-called “mix” is of noun and adjective senses of the
`
`word “serial,” both of which are generic. Second, even though some other articles refer
`
`to Applicant’s serial podcast by its given name, “Serial,” that amounts, at most, to “de
`
`facto secondary meaning” in a generic term. See, e.g., In re Northland Aluminum
`
`Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961, 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Having affirmed
`
`the Board’s conclusion that BUNDT is a common descriptive name, neither obsolete
`
`nor obscure, evidence of secondary meaning can not change the result.”) (citations
`
`omitted); Roselux Chem. Co. v. Parsons Ammonia Co., Inc., 299 F.2d 855, 132 USPQ
`
`627, 634 (CCPA 1962) (“To show that a common descriptive name has acquired a de
`
`facto secondary meaning, in the sense that some or even many people have come to
`
`associate it with a particular producer, is not in itself enough to show that it has
`
`become entitled to registration as a trademark.”); see also In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
`
`Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“To
`
`allow trademark protection for generic terms, i.e., names which describe the genus of
`
`goods being sold, even when these have become identified with a first user, would grant
`
`the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as
`
`what they are.”) (emphasis added). As our primary reviewing Court has held:
`
`
`While it is always distressing to contemplate a situation in which money
`has been invested in a promotion in the mistaken belief that trademark
`rights of value are being created, merchants act at their peril in
`
`37 Applicant’s brief p. 14, 7 TTABVUE 17, citing Merrill Lynch, 4 USPQ2d at 1143-44.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`attempting, by advertising, to convert common descriptive names, which
`belong to the public, to their own exclusive use. Even though they succeed
`in the creation of de facto secondary meaning, due to lack of competition or
`other happenstance, the law respecting registration will not give it any
`effect.
`
`In re Pennington Seed Inc., 466 F.3d 1053, 80 USPQ2d 1758, 1762 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(quoting Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel & Specialty Co., 290 F.2d 845, 129
`
`USPQ 411, 414 (CCPA 1961)).
`
`In sum, we find that the word SERIAL is generic for Applicant’s identified
`
`services.
`
`B. The Proposed Standard Character Mark, SERIAL,
` Has Not Acquired Distinctiveness
`
`
`
`
` Despite having held that the term SERIAL is generic for Applicant’s services, for
`
`completeness we turn to the Examining Attorney’s alternative refusal that SERIAL
`
`is merely descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness. As the Examining
`
`Attorney correctly notes, Applicant’s unequivocal claim of acquired distinctiveness
`
`under Section 2(f) tacitly concedes that the applied-for marks are not inherently
`
`distinctive, and must acquire distinctiveness to be registrable. See Cold War Museum,
`
`Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009); Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6 USPQ2d 1001, 1005
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988). “A mark that has acquired secondary meaning may serve as a
`
`trademark and be protected even if the mark was not distinctive at the time of its
`
`adoption.” G.H. Mumm & Cie v. Desnoes & Geddes Ltd., 917 F.2d 1292, 16 USPQ2d
`
`1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
` Applicant has the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness. In re La. Fish Fry
`
`Prods., 116 USPQ2d at 1264. “To establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must
`
`show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or
`
`term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” Inwood
`
`Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982). See
`
`also In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(“To show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness, an applicant must demonstrate
`
`that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the mark as
`
`identifying the source of a product or service rather than the product or service
`
`itself.”) quoted in Apollo Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc. v. Med. Extrusion Techs., Inc.,
`
`123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017). The kind and amount of evidence necessary to
`
`establish that a proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness in relation to goods or
`
`services depends on the nature of the proposed mark and the circumstances
`
`surrounding its use. In re Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424 (“the applicant’s
`
`burden of showing acquired distinctiveness
`
`increases with the
`
`level of
`
`descriptiveness; a more descriptive term requires more evidence of secondary
`
`meaning.”) .
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s standard character mark SERIAL, if
`
`not generic, is at best highly descriptive of its identified services, “entertainment in
`
`the nature of an ongoing audio program featuring investigative reporting, interviews,
`
`and documentary storytelling.” “Highly descriptive terms … are less likely to be
`
`perceived as trademarks and more likely to be useful to competing sellers than are
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`less descriptive terms. More substantial evidence of acquired distinctiveness thus
`
`will ordinarily be required to establish that such terms truly function as source-
`
`indicators.” Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750,
`
`1767 (TTAB 2013), aff’d mem., 565 Fed. Appx. 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
` To prove acquired distinctiveness, an applicant may show not only the length and
`
`exclusivity of its use of its marks, but also its sales success, unsolicited media
`
`coverage, copying, and any similar evidence showing wide exposure of its marks to
`
`consumers in a manner that would educate them to view the marks as source
`
`indicators, coupled with evidence of the effectiveness of these measures in inducing
`
`the purchasing public to identify the marks with their source. See In re
`
`Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424; Apollo Med. Extrusion, 123 USPQ2d at 1851-
`
`52; In re Keep A Breast Found., 123 USPQ2d 1869, 1882 (TTAB 2017); Trademark
`
`Rule 2.41(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(3). “The ultimate test in determining whether a
`
`designation has acquired distinctiveness is Applicant’s success, rather than its
`
`efforts, in educating the public to associate the proposed mark with a single source.”
`
`Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1464, 1480 (TTAB 2016).
`
` Although Applicant has used its logos in commerce for a relatively short period of
`
`time, Section 2(f) is permissive, allowing for proof of acquired distinctiveness by other
`
`means. See In re Fox River Paper Corp., 99 USPQ 173, 174 (Comm’r Pats. 1953) (“A
`
`mark may become distinctive within a period of time much shorter than five
`
`years….”), cited in TMEP § 1212.01 (“The applicant may present any competent
`
`evidence to establish that a mark has acquired distinctiveness. Actual evidence of
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`acquired distinctiveness may be submitted regardless of the length of time the mark
`
`has been used.”).
`
`In this case, Applicant alludes not only to the 12,000 media stories about its
`
`program but to a sharp spike in Google® Internet searches for the phrase “podcast
`
`serial” following the launch of its podcast.38 Applicant also measures its success in
`
`terms of number of downloads, not dollars. Like most podcasts, Applicant’s SERIAL
`
`podcast is available without charge, so in lieu of measuring consumer purchases, it
`
`points to downloads as another way of measuring the acquisition of services by
`
`consumers and the extent of their exposure to the marks. Applicant’s first season, in
`
`the fall of 2014 was, in its words, “an immediate event in pop culture,” with daily
`
`downloads that generally exceeded 200,000 and reached as high as 1.4 million.
`
`During its second season, its daily downloads averaged 570,000 and reached as high
`
`as 1.7 million. As of September 21, 2016, episodes of Applicant’s SERIAL podcast
`
`had been downloaded over 172 million times in the United States. Throughout its
`
`first two seasons, it ranked as the number one podcast on iTunes®, the media source
`
`of Applicant’s downloads.39
`
`The Examining Attorney acknowledges that “Applicant provided evidence of high
`
`sales figures in the form of number of downloads of applicant’s ongoing audio
`
`
`38 Applicant’s brief p. 16, 7 TTABVUE 19, Affidavit of Ira Glass, ¶ 11, Aug. 10, 2015 Response
`to Office Action TSDR p. 20.
`39 Applicant’s brief p. 17, 18 n.3, 7 TTABVUE 20-21; Affidavit of Ira Glass ¶¶ 6-8, Aug. 10,
`2015 Response to Office Action TSDR p. 22; Affidavit of Elise Bergerson ¶¶6-8, March 1, 2016
`Response to Office Action TSDR pp. 8-9; Affidavit of Elise Bergerson ¶ 5, Sept. 22, 2016
`Response to Office Action TSDR p. 10.
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Serial Nos. 86454420, 86454424, 86464485
`
`
`
`program,” but argues that extensive figures of this sort demonstrate the commercial
`
`success of its services, not consumer recognition of its mark for those services.40 With
`
`respect to the standard character mark SERIAL, we agree. Evidence of the
`
`commercial success of a product or service does not necessarily also mean that the
`
`consuming public perceives the mark used in connection with such products or
`
`services as primarily a source-indicator. See, e.g., In re Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp.,
`
`894 F.2d 1316, 3 USPQ2d 1727, 1729 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The Board likewise ruled
`
`correctly that appellant’s evidence as to acquired distinctiveness or secondary
`
`meaning was insufficient

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket