THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
`CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB APRIL 11, 00
`Paper No. 14
`HRW
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`________
`
`In re Michael Maynard, M.D.
`
`Serial No. 75/165,418
`_______
`
`Lawrence E. Abelman of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
`for applicant.
`
`K. Margaret Le, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
`103 (Michael Szoke, Managing Attorney)
`_______
`
`Before Hairston, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative
`Trademark Judges.
`
`Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
`Michael Maynard, M.D. has filed an application to
`
`register the mark JOCKDOC1 for the following goods and
`
`services:
`
`Class 9: Pre-recorded computer disks, pre-recorded
` video tapes and disks, pre-recorded audio
` disks, tapes, and cassettes, and CD ROM,
` all featuring educational information
`
`
`1 Serial No. 75/165,418, filed September 13, 1996, based on an
`allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
`
`
`CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB APRIL 11, 00
`Paper No. 14
`HRW
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`________
`
`In re Michael Maynard, M.D.
`
`Serial No. 75/165,418
`_______
`
`Lawrence E. Abelman of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
`for applicant.
`
`K. Margaret Le, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
`103 (Michael Szoke, Managing Attorney)
`_______
`
`Before Hairston, Chapman and Wendel, Administrative
`Trademark Judges.
`
`Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
`Michael Maynard, M.D. has filed an application to
`
`register the mark JOCKDOC1 for the following goods and
`
`services:
`
`Class 9: Pre-recorded computer disks, pre-recorded
` video tapes and disks, pre-recorded audio
` disks, tapes, and cassettes, and CD ROM,
` all featuring educational information
`
`
`1 Serial No. 75/165,418, filed September 13, 1996, based on an
`allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
` relating to sports and sports injuries.
`
` Class 16: Books, magazines, printed educational
` materials, brochures, pamphlets, newsletters
` all relating to sports and sports injuries.
`
` Class 41: Educational services, namely, conducting
` classes, seminars, conferences, and workshops
` in the field of sports and sports injuries;
` Programming and scheduling of programs in the
` field of sports and sports injuries on a
` global computer network;
` Entertainment in the nature of ball,
` racket, swimming and other games;
` Providing sports information and information
` concerning sports injuries via a
` computer network;
` Providing entertainment services relating to
` sports and sports injuries; and providing
` audio visual and multimedia interactive and
` non-interactive programming and informational
` services concerning sports and sports
` injuries over computer networks.
`
` Class 42: Computer programming for others in the field
` of sports and sports injuries; providing
` medical information in the field of sports
` medicine and sports injuries.2
`
`Registration has been finally refused on the ground
`
`that the mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1)
`
`of the Trademark Act. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
`
`have filed briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
`
`The Examining Attorney takes the position that
`
`applicant’s mark JOCKDOC creates the same commercial
`
`impression as the term JOCK DOC, which from the evidence of
`
`
`2 It appears from the briefs that certain changes have been
`agreed upon with respect to the identification of goods and
`services submitted by applicant on November 23, 1998, although no
`paper to this effect is found in the record.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`record has been shown to be a slang term used to refer to a
`
`physician specializing in the field of sports medicine. As
`
`such, the Examining Attorney maintains that the mark merely
`
`describes a feature of the Class 9 and 16 goods, namely,
`
`that the goods are sponsored by or produced by a doctor
`
`specializing in sports medicine or sports injuries, i.e., a
`
`JOCK DOC. She argues similarly with respect to the
`
`services involved, that is, applicant’s mark would be
`
`merely descriptive of the person or persons rendering or
`
`sponsoring applicant’s educational and information
`
`services. As a second basis for finding the mark
`
`descriptive, she argues that if the Class 16 publications
`
`are in fact intended to be sold to physicians in the field
`
`of sports medicine, the mark would be merely descriptive of
`
`the class of purchasers to whom the publications are
`
`directed.
`
`Applicant argues that the evidence produced by the
`
`Examining Attorney is insufficient to establish that the
`
`average consumer would understand applicant’s mark JOCKDOC
`
`as having a specific meaning; that the few Nexis articles
`
`relied upon the Examining Attorney show use only of the two
`
`word combination “jock doc”; that most excerpts use this
`
`combination in quotation marks, suggesting acknowledgment
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`by the authors that the wording is not widely recognized or
`
`commonly used; that most of the excerpts appear to use
`
`“jock doc” as a synonym for a doctor treating professional
`
`athletes and not a doctor of sports medicine; and that none
`
`of these excerpts show use of the term JOCKDOC in
`
`connection with goods or services similar to applicant’s.
`
`As for its mark, applicant argues that JOCKDOC is, at
`
`most, suggestive of its goods and services; and that it is
`
`a clever alliterative word combination which creates a
`
`commercial impression beyond a mere description of the
`
`goods and services. Applicant further argues that its mark
`
`incorporates a double entendre, in that there are other
`
`meanings for both the word “jock” and “doc,” particularly
`
`“document” for “doc,” which would give rise to other
`
`plausible interpretations of the mark. Applicant also
`
`contends that the “personification” in the mark would cause
`
`consumers some mental pause so as to determine the
`
`relationship between a doctor and the inanimate objects
`
`with which the mark is being used. In addition, applicant
`
`states that its goods and services are not intended to
`
`target sports medicine doctors.
`
`A term or phrase is merely descriptive within the
`
`meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys
`
`information about a characteristic or feature of the goods
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`or services with which it is being used. In re Abcor
`
`Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
`
`It is not necessary that the term or phrase describe all
`
`the characteristics or features of the goods or services in
`
`order to be merely descriptive; it is sufficient if the
`
`term or phrase describes a significant attribute thereof.
`
`See In re H.U.D.D.L.E, 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982).
`
`We first turn to the evidence made of record by the
`
`Examining Attorney to support her contention that the term
`
`“jock doc” is a slang term used to refer to a physician
`
`specializing in the field of sports medicine. While
`
`applicant refers only to the eight Nexis database excerpts
`
`made of record in the first Office action, we note that the
`
`evidence was expanded by thirty-seven excerpts in the
`
`Examining Attorney’s response to applicant’s request for
`
`reconsideration, although with considerable duplication.
`
`The following are representative of the excerpts:
`
`Hughes, who specializes in treating sports injuries,
`like many other “jock docs” in the bay area, including
`Koco Eaton.... St. Petersburg Times (Mar. 12, 1997);
`
`The will to win has served Andrews well. At 54, he is
`America’s “top jock doc,” as Newsweek recently dubbed
`him, the orthopedic surgeon who fixed Bo Jackson’s
`hip, Scottie Pippen’s ankle, Troy Aikman’s... The
`Washington Post (Jan. 28, 1997);
`
`...general population in the same way that we have
`made it on those more athletically inclined. It was
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`never intended that we should only be “jock docs.” We
`are physicians, and we must continue to be interested
`in the broad arena of sports medicine and health.
`The American Journal of Sports Medicine (July 1992);
`and
`
`With the large number of injuries and a burgeoning
`business for surgeons and “jock docs,” it is
`surprising how little is known about the natural
`history of even the most common sports injuries.
`Science (Aug. 21, 1987).
`
`From this Nexis evidence we are convinced that “jock
`
`doc” is a recognized term, albeit slang, used to refer to a
`
`physician specializing in sports medicine and sports
`
`injuries. The fact that it is a slang term and often used
`
`in quotation marks does not detract from the public’s
`
`understanding of the meaning of the term. Furthermore,
`
`although it appears that the term is most frequently used
`
`when referring to a doctor who treats professional
`
`athletes, we fail to see how this creates a meaningful
`
`distinction. These doctors are also practicing sports
`
`medicine and treating sports injuries.
`
`While the slang term normally used is the two word
`
`combination “jock doc,” we are without any doubt that
`
`applicant’s mark JOCKDOC would be perceived by the public
`
`to be the equivalent of “jock doc.” Although applicant
`
`argues that its mark is a “clever alliterative word
`
`combination,” it remains a word combination that already
`
`has a recognized meaning. Furthermore, even a slight
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`misspelling of a descriptive term, which is clearly a
`
`greater variance than the mere joinder of two words, is
`
`insufficient to avoid the proscription of Section 2(e)(1),
`
`so long as the term is likely to be perceived by the public
`
`as the equivalent of the descriptive term. See In re State
`
`Chemical Manufacturing Co., 225 USPQ 687 (TTAB 1985) and
`
`the cases cited therein.
`
`Here the subject matter of applicant’s various goods
`
`in Class 9 and 16 covers educational information relating
`
`to sports injuries. Applicant’s services in Class 41 and
`
`42 are similarly directed. Thus, we find that applicant’s
`
`mark JOCKDOC, when encountered by potential purchasers in
`
`connection with these goods and/or services, would
`
`immediately convey the information to these purchasers that
`
`the goods and/or services originate from, or are sponsored
`
`by, a physician specializing in sports medicine. We cannot
`
`agree with applicant that making the correlation between a
`
`person, a JOCKDOC, and the inanimate objects with which the
`
`mark is intended to be used, would require any amount of
`
`mental gymnastics or imagination. The descriptive
`
`significance of the term JOCKDOC as referring to the author
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`or sponsor of goods and/or services relating to sports
`
`injuries is clear. 3
`
`Finally, we fail to see that any double entendre is
`
`projected by applicant’s mark JOCKDOC. The mere fact that
`
`the individual words "jock” and “doc” are capable of more
`
`than one interpretation does not create a double meaning
`
`for the combined terms. Although applicant stresses that
`
`“doc” might well be perceived as an abbreviation for
`
`“document,” applicant has provided no evidence which would
`
`support such an interpretation when “doc” is used in
`
`combination with the word “jock.”
`
`Accordingly, we find applicant’s mark JOCKDOC to be
`
`merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of
`
`applicant’s recited goods and services.
`
`Decision: The refusal to register under Section
`
`2(e)(1) is affirmed.
`
`P. T. Hairston
`
`
`3 The Examining Attorney is equally correct in stating that if
`the publications were intended to be sold to physicians in the
`field of sports medicine, the mark JOCKDOC would be merely
`descriptive of the class of purchasers to whom the publications
`are directed. Since, however, applicant has flatly stated that
`its goods and services are not intended to target sports medicine
`doctors, we find no need to consider this further potential for
`descriptiveness.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`B. A. Chapman
`
`H. R. Wendel
`Administrative Trademark Judges,
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ser No. 75/165,418
`
`10
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
