From: Chery, Jeffrey
`
`
`
`Sent: 5/8/2017 12:48:09 PM
`
`
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`
`
`CC:
`
`
`
`Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 86954782 - MUTUAL SOLUTIONS - N/A - Request for
`Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB - Message 1 of 4
`
`
`
`*************************************************
`
`Attachment Information:
`
`Count: 14
`
`Files: AHMUTUAL-1.jpg, AHMUTUAL-2.jpg, AHMUTUAL-3.jpg, MW MUTUAL.jpg, Lammico.jpg,
`Nationwide Mutual Insurance.jpg, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance 2.jpg, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance
`1.jpg, Mutual Benefits Inc..jpg, Keystone Mutual.jpg, Medical Mutual.jpg, LWCC.jpg, Illinois Mutual.jpg,
`86954782.doc
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
`
`U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86954782
`
`
`
`MARK: MUTUAL SOLUTIONS
`
`
`
`CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
` MARTHA ZAJICEK
`
`
`
`*86954782*
`
`
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`
` MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
`
` MUTUAL OF OMAHA PLAZALAW OPERATION - FLO
`
`
`
` OR 3
`
` OMAHA, NE 68175-1008
`
`APPLICANT: Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
`
`
`
`CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
`
` N/A
`
`CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
`
` martha.zajicek@mutualofomaha.com
`
`VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 5/8/2017
`
`
`
`The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for reconsideration and is
`denying the request for the reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B),
`715.04(a). The following refusal made final in the Office action dated November 9, 2016 are maintained
`and continue to be final: Section 2(e)(1) Merely Descriptive Refusal. See TMEP §§715.03(a)(ii)(B),
`715.04(a).
`
`
`
`

`

`In the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved the outstanding issue, nor does it raise a new
`issue or provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the outstanding issue in the final Office
`action. In addition, applicant’s analysis and arguments are not persuasive nor do they shed new light on
`the issues.
`
`
`
`It should be noted that the examining attorney has attached three registrations containing the word
`“MUTUAL” owned by the applicant and registered with claims of acquired distinctiveness pursuant to
`Trademark Act Section 2(f) for insurance services. This is an admission that the word “MUTUAL” is
`inherently descriptive in relation to the services. See Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum,
`Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Where an applicant seeks registration on
`the basis of Section 2(f), the mark's descriptiveness is a nonissue; an applicant’s reliance on Section 2(f)
`during prosecution presumes that the mark is descriptive."). Additionally, the applicant filed the instant
`application with a disclaimer of the word “SOLUTIONS” and attached canceled Registration No.
`3583968, which also contained a disclaimer of the word “SOLUTIONS”. Thus, the arguments put forth by
`the applicant that the words “MUTUAL” and “SOLUTIONS” are not descriptive are undermined by
`registrations and applications once or currently owned by the applicant.
`
`
`
`The applicant argues that the words “MUTUAL” and “SOLUTIONS” have multiple meanings and provides
`dictionary evidence to support this argument. However, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the
`relevant services. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103
`USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not
`controlling.” In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re
`Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e). It is universally understood that
`words may have multiple meanings, and thus, the applicant’s argument is not dispositive. Notably, the
`applicant does not deny that the word “MUTUAL” refers to insurance companies and services and
`“SOLUTIONS” refers to services designed to meet a particular need, but avers that the examining
`attorney should consider the alternative meanings.
`
`
`
`Importantly, in the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant puts forth alternative meanings of the
`applied-for mark, which are also descriptive. Specifically, the applicant states:
`
`The “Mutual” portion of the Applicant’s mark, however, refers to the benefits shared
`in common by policy owners. Additionally, the ‘Solutions’ portion of the mark’s
`services does not refer to a solution to a problem or a solution to insurance needs,
`but rather, the Applicant’s ‘Solution’ portion of the mark’s services refers to the
`value-added benefits available to policy owners, based on their status as a policy
`owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Keeping in line with the applicant’s argument that the words in the applied-for mark have
`multiple meanings, the examining attorney has attached the following dictionary definitions:
`
`MUTUAL
`
`•
`•
`
`“Of, relating to, or in the form of mutual insurance.”
`“of or relating to a plan whereby the members of an organization share in the
`profits and expenses; specifically : of, relating to, or taking the form of an
`insurance method in which the policyholders constitute the members of the
`insuring company”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The applicant’s argument above combined with the various definitions of the words “MUTUAL” and
`“SOLUTIONS” only strengthens the Section 2(e)(1) refusal because the applicant provides an additional
`descriptive explanation of the applied-for mark in relation to the services being offered. The applicant
`offers “Insurance procurement services, namely, providing and arranging for value-added benefits
`available for life and health insurance.” It is practically impossible to ignore the most pertinent meaning
`of the word “SOLUTIONS,” namely, “services designed to meet a particular need.” The word “need”
`means something essential or a thing that is wanted. See attached evidence. Thus, accepting the
`applicant’s argument quoted above means that the applicant offers services designed to provide
`something essential or wanted by policy owners or policyholders, namely, insurance value-added
`benefits.
`
`
`
`Indeed, the applicant states that the “SOLUTIONS” portion of the mark refers to value-added benefits
`available to policy owners. Thus, the value-added benefits are designed to meet a particular need
`(something essential or wanted) of consumers, policy owners, and/or policyholders, namely, those who
`are looking for or want essential or enhanced insurance benefits. The attached evidence from the
`Insurance Journal specifically states that “value added services can be anything that insurance
`costumers might want or need” (Emphasis added). Utilizing the most basic interpretation of the applied-
`for mark in conjunction with the attached evidence leads to the conclusion that the applicant offers
`insurance services meant to address a particular insurance need of policyholders. Therefore, the
`applicant’s argument as to an alternative meaning of the applied-for mark is itself descriptive pursuant
`to Section 2(e)(1).
`
`
`
`The applicant further argues that the mark is a double entendre, and thus contains a non-descriptive
`alternative meaning that must be considered. However, once again, the alternative meaning is also
`descriptive. Interestingly, the applicant states “[i]n fact, value-added benefits are not a solution solving
`any issue. They are merely an added enhancement associated with Applicant’s life and health insurance
`services.” Thus, the value-added benefits are part of the applicant’s insurance services. The applicant
`essentially concedes the applied-for mark, “MUTUAL SOLUTION”, refers to the insurance services
`offered by the applicant for consumers who need or are looking for enhanced insurance services. Every
`
`

`

`interpretation of the applied-for mark proffered by the applicant is descriptive. “If all meanings of a
`"double entendre" are merely descriptive in relation to the goods [or services], then the mark
`comprising the "double entendre" must be refused registration as merely descriptive. TMEP
`1213.059(c).
`
`
`
`Additionally, the multiple interpretations that make an expression a "double entendre" must be
`associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent from the mark
`itself. See In re RiseSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, 1934 (TTAB 2012) (finding that TALENT ASSURANCE
`does not present a double entendre such that "the merely descriptive significance of the term [TALENT]
`is lost in the mark as a whole"); In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (TTAB 2005) (holding THE
`GREATEST BAR laudatory and merely descriptive of restaurant and bar services; the Board stating that
`"[i]f the alleged second meaning of the mark is apparent to purchasers only after they view the mark in
`the context of the applicant’s trade dress, advertising materials or other matter separate from the mark
`itself, then the mark is not a double entendre"); In re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95, 99 (TTAB 1986)
`(holding EXPRESSERVICE merely descriptive for banking services, despite applicant’s argument that the
`term also connotes the Pony Express, the Board finding that, in the relevant context, the public would
`not make that association). See also In re Ethnic Home Lifestyles Corp., 70 USPQ2d 1156, 1158 (TTAB
`2003) (holding ETHNIC ACCENTS merely descriptive of "entertainment in the nature of television
`programs in the field of home décor," because the meaning in the context of the services is home
`furnishings or decorations which reflect or evoke particular ethnic traditions or themes, which identifies
`a significant feature of applicant’s programs; viewers of applicant’s programs deemed unlikely to discern
`a double entendre referring to a person who speaks with a foreign accent). TMEP 1213.05(c). Here, the
`other interpretations of the applied-for mark are not readily apparent and do not qualify as a double
`entendre as the interpretations asserted by the applicant are also descriptive. The merely descriptive
`significance of the wording MUTUAL SOLUTIONS is not lost when the mark is considered in relation to
`the services.
`
`
`
`The applicant further states a “consumer seeing MUTUAL SOLUTIONS would have no idea what services
`are associated with the mark” and “[t]here is no product or service immediately described or suggested
`by the mark MUTUAL SOLUTIONS.” This is not the standard for determining whether a mark is
`descriptive pursuant to Section 2(e)(1). The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is
`made in relation to an applicant’s services, not in the abstract. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.
`Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re The Chamber of
`Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b);
`see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1062-63 (TTAB 1999) (finding DOC in DOC-CONTROL
`would refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software rather than the term “doctor” shown
`in a dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243-44 (TTAB 1987) (finding
`CONCURRENT PC-DOS and CONCURRENT DOS merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on
`disk” where the relevant trade used the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of a particular type
`of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from
`consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB
`1985).
`
`

`

`
`
`The applicant goes on to state a “consumer must inquire as to what service, or, in this case, value-added
`benefit, is associated with the mark.” Thus, the applicant highlights the important fact that a
`descriptiveness determination must be made after considering the identified services. However,
`consumers do not have to inquire as to the specific nature or type of the value-added benefits as it is
`readily apparent from the identification of services that the value-added benefits are insurance related.
`“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the
`applicant’s goods or services.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370,
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d
`1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b). It is enough if a mark describes only one significant
`function, attribute, or property. In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102
`USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at
`1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371. This point is further underscored by the evidence submitted by the applicant
`in the form of a flyer summarizing the value-added benefits offered by the applicant. It is evident from
`this evidence that the value-added benefits offered by the applicant are enhanced or supplemental
`insurance services offered to employers looking to provide employees with additional insurance
`benefits.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, that applicant argues that the mark is suggestive as it requires imagination, thought, or
`perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the services. As detailed above, the applicant offers
`services designed to meet insurance needs. The applicant concedes that value-added benefits are part
`of its insurance services. Accordingly, the examining attorney has attached evidence demonstrating that
`consumers routinely encounter the term “value-added benefits” within the context of mutual insurance
`companies and services. Thus, consumers readily understand that the word “MUTUAL” when considered
`in relation to value-added benefits refers to insurance services. The examining attorney has also
`attached evidence demonstrating that consumer are also accustomed to encountering the word
`“SOLUTIONS” in reference to insurance services. Within this context, the applied-mark is not vague or
`ambiguous. Without a doubt, “value-added benefits” are insurance services designed to address a need
`as highlighted by this evidence and the flyer submitted by the applicant. Therefore, there is no mental
`leap or imagination needed to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the services.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the applicant is reminded that if the individual components of a mark retain their descriptive
`meaning in relation to the services, the combination results in a composite mark that is itself descriptive
`and not registrable. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1516 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re
`Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1317-18 (TTAB (2002)); TMEP §1209.03(d); see, e.g., In re Cannon
`Safe, Inc., 116 USPQ2d 1348, 1351 (TTAB 2015) (holding SMART SERIES merely descriptive of metal gun
`safes, because “each component term retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods,
`resulting in a mark that is also merely descriptive”); In re King Koil Licensing Co., 79 USPQ2d 1048, 1052
`(TTAB 2006) (holding THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds, mattresses, box springs,
`and pillows where the evidence showed that the term “BREATHABLE” retained its ordinary dictionary
`meaning when combined with the term “MATTRESS” and the resulting combination was used in the
`relevant industry in a descriptive sense); In re Associated Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1663 (TTAB
`
`

`

`1988) (holding GROUP SALES BOX OFFICE merely descriptive of theater ticket sales services, because
`such wording “is nothing more than a combination of the two common descriptive terms most
`applicable to applicant’s services which in combination achieve no different status but remain a
`common descriptive compound expression”).
`
`
`
`The applicant cites a previous registration for the mark MUTUAL SOLUTIONS, which was cancelled on
`October 9, 2015 to support the notion that the current application is consistent with the USPTO prior
`registration of the mark MUTUAL SOLUTIONS for similar services. However, a term that was once
`arbitrary or suggestive may lose its distinguishing and origin-denoting characteristics through use in a
`descriptive sense over a period of time, and may come to be regarded by the purchasing public as
`nothing more than a descriptive designation. In re Digital Research, Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243 (TTAB
`1987); In re Int’l Spike, Inc., 190 USPQ 505, 507 (TTAB 1976). Thus, trademark rights are not static, and
`eligibility for registration must be determined on the basis of the facts and evidence in the record at the
`time registration is sought, which includes during examination and any related appeal. In re
`Chippendales USA Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1354, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Morton-
`Norwich Prods., Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 1344, 213 USPQ 9, 18 (C.C.P.A. 1982); In re Thunderbird Prods.
`Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 1391, 160 USPQ 730, 732 (C.C.P.A. 1969). The attached evidence demonstrates
`that the terms “MUTUAL” and “SOLUTIONS” are routinely used descriptively in the insurance industry,
`and thus have minimal trademark significance. As noted above, the applicant filed the instant
`application with a disclaimer of the word “SOLUTIONS” and currently owns three registrations registered
`pursuant to Section 2(f), which all contain the word “MUTUAL” for insurance services. An indication that
`the wording in the mark is inherently descriptive.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the applicant’s request is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADVISORY: SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER
`
`Although an amendment to the Supplemental Register would normally be an appropriate response to
`this refusal, such a response is not appropriate in the present case. The instant application was filed
`under Trademark Act Section 1(b) and is not eligible for registration on the Supplemental Register until
`an acceptable amendment to allege use meeting the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.76 has been timely
`filed. 37 C.F.R. §2.47(d); TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03.
`
`
`
`If applicant files an acceptable allegation of use and also amends to the Supplemental Register, the
`application effective filing date will be the date applicant met the minimum filing requirements under 37
`C.F.R. §2.76(c) for an amendment to allege use. TMEP §§816.02, 1102.03; see 37 C.F.R. §2.75(b). In
`
`

`

`addition, the undersigned trademark examining attorney will conduct a new search of the USPTO
`records for conflicting marks based on the later application filing date. TMEP §§206.01, 1102.03.
`
`
`
`To amend an intent-to-use application under Trademark Act Section 1(b) to use in commerce, an
`applicant must file, prior to approval of the mark for publication, an acceptable amendment to allege
`use. See 15 U.S.C. §1051(c); 37 C.F.R. §2.76; TMEP §§806.01(b), 1103. An amendment to allege use
`must satisfy the following requirements:
`
`
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`
`
`(2)
`
`
`
`(3)
`
`
`
`(4)
`
`
`
`(5)
`
`
`
`(6)
`
`STATEMENTS: The following statements: “The applicant is the owner of the mark
`sought to be registered.” and “The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in
`connection with all the services in the application or notice of allowance, or as
`subsequently modified.”
`
`DATES OF FIRST USE: The date of first use of the mark anywhere on or in connection
`with the services, and the date of first use of the mark in commerce as a trademark or
`service mark. See more information about dates of use.
`
`SERVICES: The services specified in the application.
`
`SPECIMEN: A specimen showing how applicant uses the mark in commerce for each
`class of services for which use is being asserted. If a single specimen supports multiple
`classes, applicant should indicate which classes the specimen supports rather than
`providing multiple copies of the same specimen. See more information about
`specimens.
`
`FEE: A filing fee for each international class of services for which use is being asserted
`(find current fee information).
`
`VERIFICATION: Verification of (1) through (4) above in an affidavit or signed declaration
`under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See more information about verification.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §2.76(b); TMEP §1104.08.
`
`
`
`

`

`An amendment to allege use may be filed online via the Trademark Electronic Application System
`(TEAS). Filing an amendment to allege use is not considered a response to an Office action. 37 C.F.R.
`§2.76(h); TMEP §1104. An applicant must file a separate response to any outstanding Office action.
`TMEP §1104; see 37 C.F.R. §2.76(h).
`
`
`
`If applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the
`Board will be notified to resume the appeal. See TMEP §715.04(a).
`
`
`
`If no appeal has been filed and time remains in the six-month response period to the final Office action,
`applicant has the remainder of the response period to (1) comply with and/or overcome any
`outstanding final refusal, and/or (2) file a notice of appeal to the Board. TMEP §715.03(a)(ii)(B); see 37
`C.F.R. §2.63(b)(1)-(3). The filing of a request for reconsideration does not stay or extend the time for
`filing an appeal. 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b)(3); see TMEP §§715.03, 715.03(a)(ii)(B), (c).
`
`/Jeffrey Chery/
`
`Jeffrey Chery
`
`Law Office 120
`
`(571) 272-5657
`
`jeffrey.chery@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`httpsflmmwahdiotiOharv.oomiwordisearoh.html?q=mutual
`
`04i2’li201? 10:10:46 AM
`
`
`
`
`Language
`
`English
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`? MERICM
`Ev I-ERITAGE
`[ICTIOHARYAPP
`=
`The net/«American Heritage
`Dictionary app is now
`available foriOS and
`Android.
`
`INDOEUROPEAN &
`SEMITIC ROOTS
`APPEMIICES
`
`Thousands of entries in the
`dictionanrinclude
`etymologies thattraee their
`origins backto
`reconstructed proto—
`|anguages.You can obtain
`more information about
`these forms in ouronline
`appendices
`mm“
`mm
`
`The Indra-European
`appendix covers nearly halt
`ofthe lndo—European roots
`t‘hathave lefttneirmark on
`English words. A more
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 HGNTOUSETI-E
`DICTIONARY
`
`Learn whatthe dictionary
`tells you aboutwords.
`GEIT “Am NW1
`
`Some compound words
`[like bus rapid transit, dog
`whistle, or identrtjrthefi}
`don‘t appear on the drop-
`clown Iistwhen you enter
`them into the search
`window. If acompound
`term doesn'tappear in the
`drop—down list‘ try entering
`the term into the search
`window and then hit the
`search mutton [instead of
`the 'entei’ key).
`Alternatively begin
`searches for compound
`terms with a quotation
`mark
`
`? nEUSAGEPAIiEL
`
`Thn | loonn Elm-ml ll! :1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`httpsflmmwahdiotionarv.oomlwordfsearoh.html?q=mutual
`
`04913201? 10:10:46 AM
`
`The Usage Panel is a
`group ofnearIyQUU
`brominentscholars.
`ore ative writers. journalists.
`diplomatsand othersin
`occupations requiring
`masteryoflanguage.The
`Panelists are surveyed
`annuallth gaugethe
`acceptability of particular
`usages and grammatical
`constructions.
`TEE PAN'EIJSTS
`
`Go to ourCrcssword Puzle
`Solver and type in the letters
`thatyou know. and the
`Soluerwill produce a list or
`possible solutions.
`
`
`
`?‘ INTERESTED IN
`DICTIONARIES?
`
`a
`
`hitijwwflidionan'sociehtcom
`
`Check out the Dictionary
`Society otNorth America at
`
`
`
`
`
`ungusn uluiuu. n mu...
`complete treatment oflndo-
`European roots andtne
`English words derived from
`them is available in our
`Dictionary oflndo-Euroo ean
`Roots
`
`
`
`?‘ OPEN ucrioumr
`PROJECT
`
`a
`
`
` THE 100 WORDS“
`
`
`Share yourioeas fornew
`words and new meanings
`ofold words!
`HART SHARING N'O‘W!
`
`See word lists tromtne
`bestselling 100 Words
`Series!
`FIND OUT MDRE!
`
`mu -tu -al "J (my
`
`ch 41)
`
`Share: meet
`
`adj.
`
`1.
`
`a. Directed andreoeivedby each toward the other, reciprocal:
`mutual respect.
`it. Having the same relationship to each other: 'They were
`cognitive companions, mutual brain—pickers" (Cynthia
`Ozil'k).
`c. Possessed in oommon: mutual interests.
`2. 015, relating to, or in the form ofmutual insurance
`
`A mutual fumt
`
`[French mutual, from Old French, from Latin mfituus, borrowed; see
`met-1 in theAppendix of [min-European mom]
`mu'tu-al
`i-ty(—al
`i—te)n
`mu
`tu-al-Iy adv.
`
`
`
`

`

`httpsflmmwahdlotlonarv.oomrwordfsearoh.html?q=mutual
`
`04f2’lf201? 10:10:46 AM
`
`u— u. ., unor-
`u...
`
`
`The Ameri Heritage® Dictionary ofthe English Language, Fiflh Edition
`copyright ©2017 by Houghton MiJEEIiu Harcourt Publishing Company. All
`rights reserved
`
`- The American Heritage Dictionary Blog
`Checkwtwrnlngmmm regulananrnewmusalm mammal-ls,
`iilea'esfmg Mammemmmflmemdm
`Most Recent posts:
`
`
`
`ABCDEI-‘Gfllimol’QRSTivim
`Grandad, Kempt, and Whelmed
`Did you see the white elephant in the room?
`If Pm not disheveled, am I heveled?
`
`- American Heritage Dictionary Products
`A =
`
`r
`
`
`
`ll
`
`Tammi": 2. 5
`«um-{{-
`i
`3 t.
`.
`........ fl I.
`"1
`if.
`H: I
`The Ament‘an
`Heritage
`Diwonary. 5H1
`Edition
`
`
`
`The Amican
`Herila ge
`Dictionary of
`idioms
`
`The American
`Heritage
`Roget's
`Thesaurus
`
`Curious
`Geo rge'a
`Diciionary
`
`The American
`Herita u-e
`Children's
`Dictionary
`
`This weosfle 15 nesmewed In Chrome, Firefox. M1ctosofiEdge.crsafari.Some characters in pronunuanons and elymomgaes cannot be dismayed properlym JntetnetEprorer.
`
`".
`Hangman
`Mimi"
`Hamull
`
`Privacy Pulicv
`lTenmigCnnfiitimJu‘EUx
`
`The Yam-the Your Wands wwddaudgenuaoor is no longer available.
`Cam-J'ightzexg'lloughmflifilim Hamux't. All rights (wear
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`10:08:31 AM 4J21i'2017
`BRUWSETHESAURUS wcanchTHEDAv
`VIDEcI
`
`GAMES
`
`chRDSATPLA‘.‘
`
`FAVDRlTES
`
`mutua| DICTIONARY
`
`SINCE 182.8
`
`THESAURUS
`
`mutual w
`l mu-tu-al
`l
`\myuechaewal,echalpchueai; my‘dchr
`
`adjective
`
`
`
`.‘
`
`ExampleszmumALin a sentence v
`
`TIME. TO. SHOP.
`
`SHOP NOW
`
`OF SPECIALS
`Mle THROUGH SUN. APR. {)3
`
`Definition of MUTUAL
`1
`a : directed by each toward the other or the others - mutuaiaffection
`
`WORD OF THE DAY
`
`I): having the same feelings one for the other - they had long been
`mutuai‘ enemies
`
`b “C Olic “
`
`c: shared in common - enjoying their mutual hobby
`d :
`iomr - to their mutuaiadvantage
`
`: characterized by intimacy - mutuai contacts
`
`2
`
`3
`
`: of or relating to a plan whereby the members of an organization share in
`the profits and expenses; specificaiiy: of, relating to, or taking the form of
`an insurance method in which the policyholders constitute the members of
`the insuring company
`
`relating to or typical of rural life
`
`Get Word ofthe Day daily email}
`
`Your email address
`
`See mutual defined for kids
`
`—rnutually adverb
`
`See mutuaf defined for Englishelanguage learners
`
`sofe’rv oovs
`
`Examples of MUTUAL in a sentence
`
`Mutual love and respect was the key to their successful marriage.
`The partnership was based on mutual admiration and understanding.
`
`countries relying on mutuai support during difficult times
`
`our mutual hobby of car racing
`It was a mutum‘ effort.
`
`We had a mutual agreement not to tell our secret.
`
`Merria m-Webster Trending Articles
`
` nu
`
`“gamma NOW
`
`1 ncmnuclear
`'Not nuclear‘
`2 armada
`'A “fit of WdrSthS‘
`3 volunteer
`'Someone who does something
`4 operationalize
`Bannon was removed from the
`
`5 fi|ibuster
`'An effort to prevent action in a I...
`
`SEEALL )
`
`BROWSE DICTIONARY
`
`Muttra
`mutua
`
`Q
`
`mutual
`.
`mutual al
`mutual ai< ‘--‘
`
`I
`LEARN MORE FROM M-w )
`
`
`
`“'hal (loos 'otaku'
`really mean?
`
`
`
`
`
`many m
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`

`

`8 55:58 AM 5189017
`
`valueradded benefits
`
`LAMMICO
`
`A Family of Companies :ultl Scnircs
`IAMMICU Complmv ( h’cnit‘iv
`
`Li't M.“ I( '( l is guldvri in' gm t'n Hurt-1' (’Illllpl‘iSE‘li tll::|ll)'si(ialls, lit-:llll li’m'r prlli‘t-ssilll lals,
`nlctliral liabilin tusuraurc prolcssiounls and business oxcculnts.
`LAMMICOt a medical professlnrlal Iiabilliy insurance company IS the parent company oi the subsidiaries
`Endurance Risk Partners, inc. and Medical interactive Community. LLC LAMMICO expands the scope of
`products. SEIVICES and other beneiits through our affiliated company. LAMMllCO Risk Helenlion Group. LLC.
`inrhouse attorneys With Gadofaky t9 Schroeder. and confersrice center. The Meeting FIRED ill LAMMI'CO.
`LAMMICO‘s suasiaiary and alfiltate companies maintaln mairown brand and hoard or directors while leveraging
`the strengths and resources at each iridlvtdual member company tor the benefit ui our clients
`
`Endurance
`Risk
`Partners
`
`Medical
`Interactive
`
`
`
`liclils lrl' i)t\l‘[§l.i_\illt{
`Tilluudl Mt-illllt-l (‘nltlrxllllt-s
`LAMMlCO member companies have the advantage
`of affiliation with the parent company, with shared
`illiorrnaliori and resources that may include
`Fimncial slattiliry and inc-amen mega to capital
`Compreherrsiva policynuluer solutions
`Reduced risk and iowarprarlliurlls
`Cast Sawth lhmugh shared overhead expense
`Optimized utilization of professkmal stair lime
`ODDDfllmilles lo diversity and amine auditional
`service: fEndLrEmz Fisk Partners mmercial
`oneness mvaragas and Madrai Intaaclwa
`Community educalton and software salesi
`Ability to expand ammwicalry. trlus aulmlziria
`opporwnities for increased revenue
`
`.fl‘llflilill(‘ul1lll|0ll(lrlfi|l§
`in their
`Though each member entity is distinct
`gavemanca branding and mission, each Share In
`the common goals cit stability. long‘tarm presence
`and value. Together. all LAMMIGO entities enhance
`the company‘s anmpalttlva strength so that we can
`battarsarva ahystcianst nospttAE, facilities, dentists,
`advanced arid allied healthcare professionals, and
`uthar commercial business ventures. Through
`cur mllactiva am, we serve ii’ia healthaara
`community today and into my luiulia
`
`Mrlllmi Inmuttla I000tr?Fltr
`Hut 1175!- | w tuna;
`
`Medical Interactive
`C o rn m u n i t y
`Medial] In I'ltt1ivt‘ (‘tltlnllulliltz LUL‘
`Matl‘ml
`lnlatatv‘ve Cummun‘ty Wmaiflim
`ml is an online collection or uD-to-date interactive
`and edutzlumal [unis For the medical community.
`Medical Interaclive Community (Ml) offers CME and
`CNE. litigation [reparation videos. risk managemeii
`trashing soltware. Draclice management tools. remote
`mediral practice resouras. and hospital and facility
`education. Expanty devdnpea by physicians, nurses.
`risk management professionals and other seasoned
`proleeaiunais, than products and savings aim to
`augment patient sarer and experiences throughout
`the medlral process - and, ultimately. prevent calms.
`MI is a wholly-owned subsidiary oi LAMMlCO.
`
`Cotlul'sky 8.: Schroeder
`(imiulah' lk Sl'lll'llulcr
`The ill-house attorneys with Godorsky Bl Schroeder
`MWwJammico.cunilgodoisky-sohroederi
`tocus
`an
`medital malpractice delensa and are dedicalad
`exclusively to intending Lnusiana doctors. nurses.
`dentists,
`facilities and other healtncaie providers
`insured by LAMMICO,
`
`'l‘ii,
`
`lu‘lllJL'.
`
`i
`
`ii “an:
`
`t °\l\1l\ii|{li
`'lilr Heeling Plan.- at lAMMIt‘U
`The
`Meeting
`Place
`(waammioocomf
`tl'ia-nastingplaca} is a slate-ol-the-art conference
`center located an the lobby level (7th floor) of The
`Galleria in Matairia. and matures two meeting venues
`Equipped with high-definition two-way audiolwclso
`communication servst Businlss center solutions
`and Dri-sltfi' stafl ensure a prorassional enmmnmarit
`and comfortable wontspaea for rant Monday thmugh
`Thursday 5:00 am. until 5:00 p.rn. at LAMMIOO
`headquarters.
`,‘Lhilil, lmtniutu 701!)
`int 'tjmlmt]
`
`
`
`. Parent Company
`. Wholly-Owned Subsidiary
`. Aflillaled Entity
`. Sertlllze Dmisions
`in 00
`thI-lhlknafihll
`..i.n.lu..i..tinn.
`
`LAMMJCO
`l.\.\l)ii(‘()
`is a poltcyholtler-
`LAMMICO [wwwilarrlrnlccicnmj
`that
`provides
`owned
`insurance
`company
`wrriprehei’islve medical professional and general
`liabllliy cuveraga a'. actuarily sound rates and min
`unparalleled serwce. LAMMlCO is the laroest medical
`malpractice insurance carrier ll'l Louisiana and the
`uniy “A” (Excellenil rated medlcal proiesstonal liability
`insurance carrier in Louisiana insuring hospitals and
`facilities. LAMMlGO is licensed to underwrite medical
`nruieastoriai llabillty insurance in Luuislana. Arkansas.
`MISISSIppi. Texas. arid Tennessee. Offering niqh-
`quailty
`risk-management
`education.
`personalized
`claim handling and aggressive legal delehse is our
`busmess so that our policyholders can focus on what
`matters most: their patients
`
`a.“ uaa'uins
`AEndurance
`ll
`i
`|ll('l' Rial; l'altllcrs. IJIL'.
`(Fur
`Iv l.\_\l.\il('li [llsillllllt't‘ .\l{\.l1tl'. lmJ
`Originally iotrned by the LAMMICO Board of Directors
`in i935 to complement products altered ay LAMMICO.
`we now aperateurldera new name with a le-erlerglzed
`mission to better serve customers. Endurance Flisk
`Partners is dedicated to helping buElnESSeS Succeed
`try taiiuring insurance portiolios With products like
`Property. General Liability. Gommercral Umbrella.
`Inland Marine. Crime
`and Workers Ccmnensatiorl
`lines oi
`insurance. Endurance Risk Partners is a
`wholly-owned suasidlary oi LAMMFCO.
`
`IAMMICO tht‘.
`
`liirrot)
`tn. lanai. uhll
`um. lmunrntnnt
`it
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`

`

`8:52:48 AM 5181201 7
`
`Allied
`Insurance
`IWWMM
`
`Who Is At ed"
`
`ars