`
`
`
`
`
`This Opinion is not a
`Precedent of the TTAB
`
`Mailed: April 13, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`_____
`
`In re Gulf Breeze Treatment Center, LLC
`_____
`
`Serial No. 88900074
`_____
`
`Tye Biasco of Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A.,
`for Gulf Breeze Treatment Center, LLC.
`
`Jessica Hilliard, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120,
`David Miller, Managing Attorney.
`
`_____
`
`
`Before Lykos, Heasley, and Lebow,
`Administrative Trademark Judges.
`
`
`Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
` Gulf Breeze Treatment Center, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
`
`Principal Register of the proposed mark TRAUMACARE (in standard characters)
`
`for services ultimately identified as “addiction treatment services; addiction
`
`treatment services, namely, alcohol addiction and chemical dependency treatment
`
`services; addiction treatment services, namely, substance abuse treatment services,”
`
`in International Class 44.1
`
`
`1 Application Serial No. 88900074 was filed on May 4, 2020, based on a declared intention to
`use the proposed mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §
`1051(b).
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
`
`proposed mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on
`
`the ground of mere descriptiveness.
`
`I. Background
`
`
` Applicant originally applied to register TRAUMACARE for:
`
`
`Addiction treatment services; alcohol addiction and chemical dependency
`treatment services; substance abuse treatment services; trauma therapy;
`mental health therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD);
`behavioral health services in the nature of treatment of depression, mood
`disorders, pain disorders, chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder
`(PTSD).
`
`
` The Examining Attorney issued a nonfinal refusal on the ground that the proposed
`
`mark was merely descriptive of the identified services, which were indefinite and
`
`required clarification.2 In an effort to circumvent the refusal, Applicant amended its
`
`identified services to:
`
`Addiction treatment services; addiction treatment services, namely,
`alcohol addiction and chemical dependency treatment services; addiction
`treatment services, namely, substance abuse treatment services;
`behavioral health services in the nature of treatment of depression and
`mood disorders.3
`
`
`
`
`In view of this amendment, Applicant argued that “[t]he services to be provided
`
`under the mark will be limited to addiction and behavioral health services, not to
`
`
`
`Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
`Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify the documents by title, date, and page in the
`downloadable .pdf version. References to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record
`refer to the Board’s TTABVUE online docketing system.
`
` 2
`
` Aug. 5, 2020 Office Action.
`
`3 Feb. 5, 2021 Response to Office Action at TSDR 3.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`physical injuries. Therefore, the use of the term ‘trauma’ in the mark will only be
`
`suggestive.”4
`
` The Examining Attorney accepted the amendment of services, but maintained and
`
`made final the mere descriptiveness refusal.5
`
` Applicant appealed and filed a request for reconsideration in which it limited its
`
`identification of services even further, to its present form, “Addiction treatment
`
`services; addiction treatment services, namely, alcohol addiction and chemical
`
`dependency treatment services; addiction treatment services, namely, substance
`
`abuse treatment services.” It argued, once again, that because its services were not
`
`directed specifically to treatment of trauma, it should avoid the mere descriptiveness
`
`refusal.6
`
` The Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration.7 This appeal
`
`resumed, and is now fully briefed.
`
`II. Analysis
`
`
`
`In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
`
`prohibits registration on the Principal Register of “a mark which, . . . when used on
`
`or in connection with the goods [or services] of the applicant is merely descriptive . .
`
`. of them….” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(e)(1), 1053. A proposed mark is merely descriptive if
`
`it immediately conveys information regarding the nature, function, or purpose of
`
`
`4 Feb. 5, 2021 Response to Office Action at TSDR 4.
`
`5 Feb. 26, 2021 Office Action at 2-3.
`
`6 Aug. 26, 2021 Response to Office Action (request for reconsideration) at 3, 5.
`
`7 Sept. 25, 2021 Office Action (response to request for reconsideration).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`goods or services. In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005)). See also DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., 695
`
`F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“a mark is merely descriptive if
`
`it ‘conveys information regarding a function, or purpose, or use of the goods [or
`
`services].’”) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA
`
`1978)).
`
` By contrast, a mark is suggestive if “imagination, thought, or perception is
`
`required to reach a conclusion on the nature of the goods [or services].” In re Gyulay,
`
`820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Suggestive marks, unlike
`
`merely descriptive terms, are registrable on the Principal Register without proof of
`
`acquired distinctiveness. See Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 372
`
`F.3d 1330, 71 USPQ2d 1173, 1180-81 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
` Applicant’s proposed mark consists of TRAUMA and CARE joined without a space
`
`between them. “It is almost too well established to cite cases for the proposition that
`
`an otherwise merely descriptive term is not made any less so by merely omitting
`
`spaces between the words.” Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Addressograph-
`
`Multigraph Corp., 155 USPQ 470, 472 (TTAB 1967). See, e.g., In re Finisar Corp., 78
`
`USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 2006), aff’d per curiam, 223 Fed. App’x 984 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(SMARTSFP held merely descriptive of optical transceivers).“Trauma” means
`
`“physical injury” or “emotional shock following a stressful event or a physical injury,
`
`which may be associated with physical shock and sometimes leads to long-term
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`neurosis.”8 And “care” means “[t]he provision of what is necessary for the health,
`
`welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone….”9
`
` Applicant argues that in view of its winnowed identification, “[t]he services to be
`
`provided under the mark will be limited to addiction treatment services, not to
`
`physical or psychological injuries. Therefore, the use of the term ‘trauma’ in the mark
`
`will only be suggestive.”10 “The test for whether a mark is descriptive or suggest[ive]
`
`is the mark in relation to the services identified in the application (not other
`
`services that may be provided by the applicant),” it argues (citing Nautilus Grp. v.
`
`ICON, 71 USPQ2d at 1183 (the determination of whether a mark is descriptive or
`
`suggestive demands ‘how immediate and direct ... the thought process [is] from the
`
`mark to the particular product.’) Applicant respectfully maintains that even i[f] a
`
`consumer knew … the services (addiction treatment services) that linking the term
`
`‘trauma’ to the associated services would still require some imagination to connect
`
`the two.”11
`
` Applicant’s argument, however, ignores the context in which it renders its
`
`services. “Descriptiveness must be evaluated ‘in relation to the particular goods or
`
`services for which registration is sought, the context in which the mark is used, and
`
`the possible significance the term would have to the average consumer because of the
`
`
`8 Lexico.com, Aug. 5, 2020 Office Action at 5-6. See also AMERICAN HERITAGE SCIENCE
`DICTIONARY, Trauma: “Severe bodily injury, as from a gunshot wound or a motor vehicle
`accident. Psychological or emotional injury cause by a deeply disturbing experience.”
`Dictionary.com, Aug. 26, 2021 Response to Office Action at 11.
`
`9 Lexico.com, Aug. 5, 2020 Office Action at 9.
`
`10 Applicant’s brief, 6 TTABVUE 5.
`
`11 Id. (boldface substituted for underlining).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`manner of its use or intended use.’” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d
`
`1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(quoting In re Bayer
`
`Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The
`
`question is whether someone who knows what the services are will understand the
`
`proposed mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1757
`
`(citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)).
`
` Here, as the Examining Attorney correctly notes, Applicant’s identified services
`
`are part and parcel of trauma care: they provide care for patients suffering from
`
`addictions caused by trauma.12 Applicant’s website reveals how trauma can lead to
`
`drug or alcohol addiction:
`
`The genesis of addiction is a search for a “better feeling.” This search
`creates motivation for a person to “reach out” for something that will
`generate relief of a “good feeling.” Many suffering with trauma may find
`that relief, albeit temporary, through drugs, alcohol, etc. …
`
`The tragedy is that, slowly over time, drug and alcohol use creates a
`much larger problem and yet greater source of pain. …
`
`Just as the traumatic event and the feelings associated continually
`resurfaces over and over, so does the illusion that a drug and/or alcohol
`can still be a solution. …13
`
`
` Applicant’s website further describes how its services provide care for
`
`patients with trauma-based addictions:
`
`It is now recognized that a multi-faceted, individualized, holistic approach
`using a variety of therapies give those suffering from addiction with
`underlying trauma a much greater chance of finding contentment and
`recovery. …
`
`
`
`12 Examining Attorney’s brief, 8 TTABVUE 5-9.
`
`13 GulfBreezeRecovery.com, Feb. 26, 2021 Office Action at 7-8 (emphases added).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`[Applicant’s] “traumacare” program is designed for those who have
`experienced traumatic events.
`
`The program utilizes a multi-faceted holistic approach in treating those
`suffering with the co-occurring disorders of alcoholism/addiction
`(Substance Use Disorder or SUD) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
`(PTSD). … All of the therapies listed in this track are pieces designed to
`work in conjunction with each other to form the whole.
`The ultimate goal of the program is to help those suffering with trauma
`find relief and start reclaiming their lives. Relief will begin by utilizing
`various therapies to address the underlying cause and reduce the
`negative
`impacts
`that
`started
`and
`further
`the
`alcoholism/addiction problem. Once a person begins to experience
`relief from PTSD, hope for liberation from the alcohol/addiction
`problem follows. …
`
`The entirety of “traumacare” is designed to lessen the impact of
`traumatic memories by using a multifaceted approach of
`therapeutically-sound methods. … It also enables the person to truly
`address the alcohol/drug problem and to insightfully “see” it for what
`it really is, which is an innocent attempt to find relief.14
`
` As Applicant’s website makes clear, trauma and addiction can go hand in hand,
`
`and Applicant treats addiction by addressing the underlying trauma that caused it.
`
`So TRAUMACARE immediately describes the function and purpose of Applicant’s
`
`services, and a potential patient who knows what the services are will understand
`
`the term to convey information about them. DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1757.
`
` Proof that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant consuming public may be
`
`obtained from any competent source, such as websites, publications and advertising
`
`materials. In re Fallon, 2020 USPQ2d 11249, at *7-8 (TTAB 2020). Applicant’s
`
`website, quoted above, is one such source. In re Reed Elsevier Props. Inc., 482 F.3d
`
`1376, 82 USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Board appropriately reviewed
`
`
`14 GulfBreezeRecovery.com, Feb. 26, 2021 Office Action at 9-10 (emphases added).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`applicant’s website for context to understand the generic meaning of the mark); see
`
`also In re Promo Ink, 78 USPQ2d 1301, 1303 (TTAB 2006) (examining attorney may
`
`introduce evidence that applicant’s own website supports descriptiveness of term,
`
`even though application based on intent-to-use). “[A]n applicant’s own website or
`
`marketing materials may be probative, or even … ‘the most damaging evidence,’ in
`
`indicating how the relevant public perceives a term.” In re Mecca Grade Growers,
`
`LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1950, 1958 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Gould Paper Corp., 834
`
`F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
`
` Competing caregivers’ websites are to the same effect. Fallon, 2020 USPQ2d
`
`11249 at *7-8. The Examining Attorney submits evidence of nine websites offering
`
`“trauma care” to relieve addiction.15 For example:
`
`FHEHealth—Trauma in Childhood May Increase Risk of Addiction
`Addicts who’ve experienced childhood traumas and go to an addiction
`treatment center for care will also receive treatment for the symptoms that
`have arisen from those traumas. … The statistics on trauma and addiction
`for men and women consistently show that it dramatically influences their
`drug use. Addiction treatment center now embed childhood trauma
`counseling into treatment plans.16
`
`
`HazeldenBettyFord Foundation—Trauma Informed Care for
`Substance Abuse Counseling: A Brief Summary Considering that
`there is a high co-occurrence between substance use and trauma, it is
`recommended that individuals functioning as substance abuse counselors
`understand the implications of trauma informed care in order to provide
`the highest level of care to their patients.17
`
`
`
`15 Feb. 26, 2021 Office Action at 12-15; Sept. 25, 2021 Office Action (response to request for
`reconsideration) at 2-9.
`
`16 FHERehab.com, Feb. 26, 2021 Office Action at 12 (emphasis added).
`
`17 HazelBettyFord.org, Feb. 26, 2021 Office Action at 13 (emphasis added).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`Anaheim Lighthouse—Trauma & Addiction Often Go Hand In
`Hand Our trauma care is offered to people who are appropriate after
`meeting with licensed staff. Our therapists work with them to recognize
`the trauma and how it can attract sobriety. This therapy is integrated into
`their drug addiction treatment plan. …Clinical Studies Link Addiction and
`Trauma. Several research studies have shown the link between addiction
`and trauma. … Trauma and Addiction Treatment Deals With Core
`Issues.18
`
`BeWellRecovery—Trauma Care Throughout the years, research has
`shown that trauma is often a major contributor to the development of
`addiction and mental health conditions. … Trauma is…Very Common
`Among Those who Struggle with Addictive Behaviors. … Get Trauma Care
`Treatment through BeWell Recovery Residential Inpatient Drug
`Rehabs….19
`
`
` As this third-party evidence shows, “trauma care” is a general term for health care
`
`services intended to treat the effects of physical or emotional trauma in patients.20
`
`Applicant is one of many caregivers offering trauma care to people suffering from
`
`trauma-based addiction. “The commercial context here demonstrates that a consumer
`
`would immediately understand the intended meaning of [TRAUMACARE]. In other
`
`words, the evidence shows that the mark is less an identifier of the source of goods or
`
`services and more a description of a feature or characteristic of those goods or
`
`services.” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1353, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Such “descriptive terms are in the public domain and should be free for use by all who
`
`can truthfully employ them to describe their goods [or services].” Hoover Co. v. Royal
`
`Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357, 57 USPQ2d 1720, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing
`
`
`18 AnaheimLighthouse.com, Sept. 25, 2021 Office Action (response to request for
`reconsideration) at 4 (emphasis added).
`
`19 BeWellRecovery.com, Sept. 25, 2021 Office Action (response to request for reconsideration)
`at 5 (emphasis added).
`
`20 Examining Attorney’s brief, 8 TTABVUE 9.
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Serial No. 88900074
`
`Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543-44 (1920)).
`
`III. Conclusion
`
` For these reasons, we find that Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive
`
`of its services. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
`
` Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark is affirmed.
`
`- 10 -
`
`