introduce any evidence let alone substantial evidence to show that the mark is merely descriptive which would make it a non registered ball as opposed to suggestive which would allow it to be registered well as a relates to services of providing and in their bravery if you don't respond are you trying your procedural argument or you simply think that it doesn't matter which edition is that issue the procedural issue i think that it  s an assumption as to the the bias of the board in this case at the initial onset there was this clear review standard or a standard of review for clear error they've taken away that safeguard allowed an appeal based on their merits so while that safeguard no longer exists the court you're on or is are the safeguard for driven innovations in this case with respect to their trademark the only evidence introduced by the examiner in this case consistent merely of the definition of the word blog and website screenshot suggesting that period block domain names may someday be available for registration along with the search engine result words block coupled with the additional term g t l d which stands for generic top level domain understanding that there might be a fine line between merely descriptive and suggestive were guided by the previous rulings in this regard and the difference is at least in theory is that a customer consumer must make a mental leap to understand the relationship between a suggestive mark and the product or service courts have explained that suggest marks connote without describing some quality ingredient or characteristic of the product a suggestive term suggests but again does not describe an actual beauty of the good it requires the consumer to exercise as imagination to apply the trademark to the good you think that if you're not in your brief you mention the consumer survey but i can't seem to find it in the record it's in there in the record your honor yes it was suggest a market that's requires the observer listener to use imagination or perception to determine the nature of the goods and in that to take that step a step further the courts have said merely descriptive mark is very similar to an adjective we've learned since we were in grade school that an adjective is something that describes something in this case taken the guidance from the courts we turn to the proposed mark dot block the spelled out deal t e l o g and no where in the right here it is there any evidence indicating how the word dot singularly the word blocks in your league or the composite term dop lot is crap some quality ingredient or characteristic of a product in fact the only attempt to win the board ruling on page seventeen taken the word died says that the term indicates at the camp provides an internet based service indicates as another word for suggests not describes the per the first part of a trademark the dot in this case is an inner is in or go to the consumer recall as with respect to the second portion of it they describe it and it define the word blog as an online journal for as an online journal now although the term blog might create a link between the market and the services that is not enough your honour's the case of the dial a mattress case is instructive in this regard in that case although the courts found the dial up the phrase dial a mattress certainly established as a link between the telephone and bending products it does not begin to describe the nature  of the services that the name has come to represent and that's the key here there's nothing in this record that says that block describes an element of the services and if they applied for m  think that one of if we if for an example dot blocks search would be descriptive of that service but the term blog blog alone although it may relate to or establish a can a connection between the service and a block a block that actual service doesn't really have anything to do with blogs other than that is in this context i don't think the blog has anything to do with dots dot is another specifier indicator in this case that the examiner failed to address whatsoever they without providing any evidence to find the work died only in a way that suits their purpose stating that it is a word that when the word got spelled out deal t as it relates to what it comes before another word specifies a punctuation mark or period now this is inconsistent with their prior argument where there are where they're arguing that do is temporary top level domain name the examiners themselves had confusion as to what the services are first arguing that it was a top level domain name and then rolling out that argument and it relying on the merely descriptive ness argument there are several examples where other marks that are much more s have been ruled to be suggestive rather than descriptive for instance paulie pitcher was a mark that used who was used to describe polyurethane pitchers which was  ruled to be suggestive rather than descriptive sense or mat is another mark that was merit not merely descriptive of an electronic sensor mat to be placed under a patient snow rake  was held not merely descriptive of a snow removal tool i'm so while a word in a trademark can establish a link that is not enough to render it merely descriptive there has to be something describing the services and that description of the services has to clearly indicate to the consumer what those services are that standard has not been met in this case but it  indicate to consumer what those standards are with an understanding of what the services are yes your honor ok and in light of the evidence in the record keeping in mind the fact that any doubt as to whether a mark is descriptive merely descriptive as opposed to suggest of the third is any doubt that doubt has to be ruled in the applicant's favor there is in the record also other examples of dot formative trademarks including dot vegas dot video dot com how dot hosting dot net dot family dot menu and deference will here there is some deference but there are there has to be substantial evidence to support the finding your honor and i don't believe that even a prima fashioned case was established even shift the burden on the applicant in this case they have to show that the market describes the services not establish that link but describes the services and that is what they failed to do another  interesting point is that around contemporaneously with my client application of dopamine dots sports was applied for and approved for registration the statement of a use for a dive scores was an on my website relating to sports now if that wasn't helped to be descriptive i don't see that there is any way that doc block can be held to be descriptive of an online service providing sufficient space for the civic information requested by customers on the internet there are have also been registered trademarks with blog including blog local blog press and blog scape so while the term blog is used in an obviously can connote some kind of connection between the market and the services those that word doesn't describe the service and doesn't make it clear in a consumer's mind what that service is and in light of that the record here is is not sufficient plays the court the specimen of use in this case disclose that the service is a search service that will get information from blog posts it directly search yes that's right and dot doesn't describe anything different from an internet search service that may or may not be directed towards blogs and in fact as the applicant has conceded dot descriptive but it's less descriptive here than blogs as it does connote on the internet service but together it doesn't distract away from the fact that a blog is exactly what their search service is directed at you know you as i understand your argument that do one aspect of the service it's only has to describe one aspect of the services and they say blog and this has to do with blogs aaron go it's descriptive you've got all of those other marks out there like wallop blog that has to do with blogs relating to money how is that not descriptive when you it's all about a block i don't know what the facts were in those other cases and this court's been clear that to just point to other registrations you know is not you can you can mark a registration fight not give this block marker registration even though my rationale for denying it to one would apply equally to all the others what we don't know what the services or goods were in those all of those other different case yet you do it in the air in the registrations and we don't know what the facts were as well that were behind that what evidence that the examining attorney poured in that's the whole point trademark case is a very  they do know what the service is in the service here is an internet search service where customers give information to to the the applicant the applicant will then look for that information on blogs and that's what they tell their customers you give us this information will look for blogs to talk about this and we'll give you a search report so the only search that they're doing they're only provision of the specific information they're doing is directed to blogs and this court's been very clear that it most likely suggestion be that this has something to do with what providing blogs are starting up blogs or helping someone put together a blog or improve their blogs i think the fact that it might be descriptive of other hypothetical services doesn't detract from the fact  does in fact describe the very thing they're searching in the service the customers know that that's what they're directing it at that's what their report going back to the customers talks about  there is there's really no there's no conflict or dispute about whether or not dot has anything to do with anything other than the internet here even when they gave a hypothetical which wasn't mean that it's not generic or descriptive of another good as well