Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02037/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DDMB, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: DDMB, INC.,

Appellant

______________________ 

2016-2037

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

86/312,296.

______________________ 

Decided: March 8, 2017

______________________ 

 MATTHEW R. GROTHOUSE, Saper Law Offices, LLC, 

Chicago, IL, for appellant.

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS L.

CASAGRANDE. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

DDMB, Inc. (“DDMB”) appeals from a decision of the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Trademark 

Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the ExaminCase: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2017
2 IN RE: DDMB, INC. 

ing Attorney’s rejection of the mark EMPORIUM 

ARCADE BAR and Design, absent a disclaimer of the 

term EMPORIUM. See In re DDMB Inc., No. 86312296, 

2016 WL 552609 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) (“Decision”). 

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

DDMB sought registration on the Principal Register 

of the mark EMPORIUM ARCADE BAR and Design (“the 

mark”), as depicted below: 

DDMB sought to register the mark in International Class 

41 (for “providing video and amusement arcade services”) 

and International Class 43 (for “bar services; bar services 

featuring snacks”). See Decision, 2016 WL 552609, at *2.

The Examining Attorney refused registration under 

15 U.S.C. § 1056, on the ground that the terms 

EMPORIUM and ARCADE BAR are merely descriptive 

and must be disclaimed. DDMB agreed to disclaim 

ARCADE BAR but not EMPORIUM. Thus, the Examining Attorney issued a final refusal, which DDMB appealed to the Board.

The Board affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal 

to register the mark absent a disclaimer of the term 

EMPORIUM. The Board found that the term 

EMPORIUM is descriptive of “video and amusement 

arcade services,” “bar services,” and “bar services featuring snacks.” See Decision, 2016 WL 552609, at *5. The 

Board cited several dictionary definitions of EMPORIUM, 

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2017
IN RE: DDMB, INC. 3

including: (1) “a large retail store, especially one selling a 

great variety of articles”; (2) “a large store with a wide 

variety of things for sale”; and (3) “a place of commerce; 

trading center; marketplace.” Id. at *2. Based on those 

definitions, the Board found that EMPORIUM “connot[ed]” the attributes of “size, variety of merchandise, 

and trading activity” and noted that both “[a]rcades and 

bars contain elements of these attributes.” Id. 

The Board also examined the dictionary definitions of 

“arcade” and “bar” and concluded that: (1) “[a]n arcade is 

an emporium in the sense that it provides the visitor with 

multiple opportunities to play a variety of different video 

games”; and (2) “[a] bar is an emporium in the sense that 

it is a retail outlet serving a variety of different alcoholic 

beverages.” Id. Thus, the Board found that EMPORIUM 

is descriptive of both arcade and bar services. The Board 

noted that the combination of EMPORIUM with ARCADE 

BAR does not give rise to a “unitary phrase”—which 

would indicate that EMPORIUM is not descriptive as 

used in the mark—but rather, each of the two terms 

“create[s] [a] separate and distinct commercial impression[].” Id. at *3. 

Finally, the Board cited seven third-party registrations for marks containing the term EMPORIUM, registered for restaurant, catering, and bar services, wherein 

EMPORIUM had been disclaimed. The Board explained 

that such third-party registrations, while not binding 

precedent, are useful as evidence, similar to a dictionary 

definition, to show the meaning of the term. See id. at *4. 

Thus, the Board concluded that EMPORIUM, as it relates 

to video and amusement arcade services and bar services, 

is merely descriptive and a disclaimer for that term is 

required. Id. 

DDMB timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). 

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2017
4 IN RE: DDMB, INC. 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, In re 

Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. 

Cir. 1999), and the Board’s factual findings for substantial 

evidence, On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 

F.3d 1080, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence is 

defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re 

Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Whether a mark is descriptive is a fact question that we 

review for substantial evidence. In re TriVita, Inc., 783 

F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A mark is descriptive if it 

“‘consist[s] merely of words descriptive of the qualities, 

ingredients or characteristics of’ the goods or services 

related to the mark,” and, thus, “immediately conveys 

knowledge of a quality or characteristic of the product.” 

In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Estate of P.D. 

Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 

(1920)).

The Lanham Act provides that the PTO can “require 

the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a 

mark otherwise registrable.” 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a). A mark 

or component is unregistrable if, “when used on or in 

connection with the goods of the applicant,” it is “merely 

descriptive . . . of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). Thus, 

the PTO “may require a disclaimer as a condition of 

registration if the mark is merely descriptive for at least 

one of the products or services involved.” In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

On appeal, DDMB argues that the term EMPORIUM, 

when used in connection with “bar services” and “video 

and amusement arcade services,” is not descriptive, but 

rather is suggestive. DDMB argues that the term 

EMPORIUM does not “immediately convey” knowledge of 

arcade and bar services “without resort to analysis or 

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2017
IN RE: DDMB, INC. 5

speculation.” Appellant’s Br. 8. DDMB argues that the 

dictionary definitions of EMPORIUM, including “marketplace,” “trading center,” and “retail store,” are “broad and 

vague” and “encompass[] such a broad sweep of commercial establishments” that the term cannot immediately 

convey knowledge of DDMB’s services with any “degree of 

particularity.” Id. at 8, 11. DDMB also argues that 

EMPORIUM, defined as a “retail store,” connotes a place 

of commerce for off-site consumption of the goods or 

services sold; in contrast, DDMB’s video/arcade and bar 

services are for on-site consumption of the goods and 

services provided. Id. at 14.

Moreover, DDMB argues, the terms EMPORIUM and 

ARCADE BAR form a single “unitary mark,” for which no 

disclaimer can be required. See, e.g., Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560–61 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

DDMB argues that both (1) the “incongruous” use of the

term EMPORIUM as an adjective modifying ARCADE 

BAR, instead of a noun, and (2) the “redundancy” of using 

EMPORIUM and ARCADE BAR, nouns with “overlapping” meanings, for video/arcade and bar services is so 

“unique” and “strange” that it renders the combination a 

“unitary mark” with no significant meaning beyond 

identifying DDMB’s services. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 21, 

22, 24. DDMB argues that the “incongruous redundancy” 

of the mark would “cause the average consumer to interpret the three words as one unitary phrase.” Id. at 22–24. 

The PTO responds that the word EMPORIUM is descriptive for DDMB’s services because it immediately 

conveys the information of a commercial establishment 

featuring a variety of beverages and video arcade games. 

Appellee’s Br. 17. The PTO points to the dictionary 

definitions of EMPORIUM, including a “place of commerce” or a “retail shop,” and argues that bars are a type 

of “retail outlet” because they “sell drinks” and that 

arcades, similarly, “provide games . . . when customers 

place coins in them.” Id. Furthermore, the PTO argues 

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2017
6 IN RE: DDMB, INC. 

that EMPORIUM cannot connote only off-site consumption of goods or services because one of the dictionary 

definitions relied upon by the Board cited “pizza emporium” as an example, and pizza would likely be consumed 

on-site at such an establishment. Finally, the PTO argues that EMPORIUM combined with ARCADE BAR 

does not form a unitary mark because the composite mark 

does not possess a “distinct meaning of its own.” Id. at 30.

The question before us is whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that, as applied to 

DDMB’s services, EMPORIUM is merely descriptive and 

does not form a unitary mark in combination with 

ARCADE BAR. We agree with the PTO that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s determinations. 

First, the Board found that EMPORIUM was descriptive of “video and amusement arcade services” and “bar 

services.” See Decision, 2016 WL 552609, at *2. That 

finding was based on, inter alia: (1) dictionary definitions 

of EMPORIUM indicating that the term connotes the 

“attributes” of “size, variety of merchandise, and trading 

activity”; (2) dictionary definitions of “arcade” and “bar,” 

which indicate that arcades and bars contain elements of 

those same attributes; (3) the example of “pizza emporium,” provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “emporium,” indicating that goods or services may 

be consumed on-site at an emporium; and (4) seven thirdparty registrations disclaiming the term EMPORIUM for 

restaurant, catering, and bar services, as evidence, similar to a dictionary definition, of the meaning of that term. 

Id. at *2–3. We conclude that the foregoing constitutes 

substantial evidence that supports the Board’s finding. 

Second, the Board found that EMPORIUM ARCADE 

BAR is not a unitary mark and, thus, EMPORIUM is not 

arbitrary as used in the mark. See id. at *3. The Board 

rejected DDMB’s “incongruous redundancy” argument, 

explaining that there is no redundancy—“‘emporium’ does 

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/08/2017
IN RE: DDMB, INC. 7

not overlap with ‘bar’” because “the two words are not 

synonyms.” Id. The Board also explained that the socalled “incongruous” use of EMPORIUM to modify the 

generic term ARCADE BAR does not, in and of itself, 

render EMPORIUM arbitrary. Id. And the Board found

that the two terms do not form a unitary mark because

each term “create[s] [a] separate and distinct commercial 

impression[].” Id. 

We find the Board’s determination to be supported by 

substantial evidence. For a composite mark to qualify as 

a “unitary mark,” the elements of the composite must be 

“inseparable.” Dena Corp., 950 F.3d at 1561. A unitary 

mark must have “a distinct meaning of its own independent of the meaning of its constituent elements.” Id. (emphasis added). For example, our predecessor court held 

that the composite mark SUGAR & SPICE is not descriptive of bakery products. See Application of Colonial 

Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 552–53 (C.C.P.A. 1968). There, 

the court explained that while, individually, both SUGAR 

and SPICE are descriptive of ingredients in bakery products, the composite SUGAR & SPICE possessed a “reminiscent, suggestive or associative connotation” due to the 

well-known nursery rhyme—“sugar and spice and everything nice”—and, thus, a “distinctive nature,” above and 

beyond the individual components. Id. at 553. Unlike 

SUGAR & SPICE, which has a meaning all its own, 

“independent of the meaning of its constituent elements,” 

Dena Corp., 950 F.3d at 1561, EMPORIUM ARCADE 

BAR possesses no such independent significance. Thus,

the composite mark is not a unitary mark that renders 

EMPORIUM, otherwise descriptive, exempt from a disclaimer requirement. 

We note that DDMB agreed to disclaim ARCADE 

BAR as descriptive of its services. Thus, the argument 

that EMPORIUM is “redundant”—referring to DDMB’s 

“incongruous redundancy” argument—with ARCADE 

BAR would seem to be an admission that EMPORIUM is 

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/08/2017
8 IN RE: DDMB, INC. 

also descriptive of those same services. Nevertheless, 

because we find the Board’s findings to be supported by 

substantial evidence, we need not reach the issue of 

whether DDMB’s argument constitutes an admission.

We thus conclude that the Board’s findings that 

EMPORIUM is descriptive of DDMB’s services and that 

EMPORIUM ARCADE BAR is not a unitary mark are

supported by substantial evidence.

CONCLUSION

We have considered DDMB’s remaining arguments 

but find them to be unpersuasive. For the foregoing 

reasons, we affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-2037 Document: 54-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/08/2017