You are looking at a refused application, btw.
One of my greatest pet peeves about domain forums is that people don't seem to realize that the USPTO database includes a lot of things. If you don't know how to read a trademark record, then you should get help.
Did you notice how every application ever filed on "3DTV" was refused registration?
Okay, now with respect to the record you are looking at, did you notice under "status" that it has been refused?
Did you click on "TDR" (trademark document retrieval) and READ the refusal?
This is what the USPTO has said about the application you are reading, and which flamewalker, for no reason at all, believes will "soon" be registered:
The examining attorney refuses registration on the Principal Register because the proposed mark merely describes the goods and services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); TMEP §§1209 et seq.
A mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); TMEP §1209.01(b). A mark that describes an intended user of a product or service is also merely descriptive within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1). See Hunter Publ’g Co. v. Caulfield Publ’g, Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986); In re Camel Mfg. Co., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984).
The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive is considered in relation to the identified goods and/or services, not in the abstract. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); see, e.g., In re Polo Int’l Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1999) (DOC in DOC-CONTROL would be understood to refer to the “documents” managed by applicant’s software, not “doctor” as shown in dictionary definition); In re Digital Research Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242 (TTAB 1987) (CONCURRENT PC-DOS found merely descriptive of “computer programs recorded on disk” where relevant trade uses the denomination “concurrent” as a descriptor of this particular type of operating system). “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985); see TMEP §1209.01(b).
Applicant seeks to register the term 3DTV on the Principal Register for Electronic LCD advertisement display unit with multi-networking (TCP/IP) capabilities; Electronic advertisement and messaging display unit with multi-networking (TCP/IP) capabilities and remote connectivity; Electronic apparatus, namely, plasma display panels; Flat panel display screens; LCD large-screen displays; Liquid crystal displays and Providing advertising services using 3D and animation designs; Displaying advertisements for others. 3DTV readily describes a feature and/or characteristic of both applicant’s displays and services being provided via applicant’s displays. The trademark examining attorney refers to the excerpted materials from the Google search engine in which 3DTV appeared in reference to display units in scores of stories. See attachments.
For the purpose of a Section 2(e)(1) analysis, a term need not describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of the goods and/or services to be merely descriptive. In re Dial-a-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is enough if the term describes only one significant function, attribute or property. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.”) (quoting In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Accordingly, the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the goods and services.
Given that it is a 1B application (intent to use), I'd like to know exactly how flamewalker thinks the applicant is going to get around that refusal.
