Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-18-02049/USCOURTS-ca13-18-02049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
JC Hospitality LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC,

Appellant

______________________

2018-2048, 2018-2049

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

86/525,425, 86/525,431.

______________________

Decided: February 28, 2020

______________________

JILL MARIA PIETRINI, Sheppard Mullin Richter & 

Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also 

represented by PAUL BOST, SUSAN M. HWANG. 

 THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, CHRISTINA J. HIEBER. 

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and REYNA,

Circuit Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2020
2 IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC

JC Hospitality appeals from an order of the Trademark 

Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office’s refusal to register two trademark 

applications. Both applications sought to register the same 

proposed mark “THE JOINT,” but for two different classes 

of services. The Board affirmed both refusals on the 

ground that the mark is generic for the applied-for services, 

or, in the alternative, because the mark is merely descriptive of the services and that JC Hospitality had not proven 

that the mark had acquired distinctiveness as a source 

identifier for the services. We affirm the Board’s order with 

respect to both applications because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions that 

THE JOINT is merely descriptive of JC Hospitality’s services and that JC Hospitality has not demonstrated acquired distinctiveness.

I

This appeal involves two trademark applications to 

register the same proposed mark, THE JOINT (in standard 

characters). Application Serial No. 86/525,425 (“the ’425 

application”) covers “[e]ntertainment services, namely live 

musical performances, shows, and concerts; and nightclub 

services” in International Class 41. Application Serial 

No. 86/525,431 (“the ’431 application”) covers “[r]estaurant, bar and catering services” in International Class 43.1

Prosecution of these applications proceeded in parallel. 

The examining attorney refused registration in both 

1 The ’425 and ’431 applications were filed by JC 

Hospitality’s predecessor in interest, HRHH IP, LLC. On 

March 30, 2018, HRHH assigned the applications to JC 

Hospitality, and that assignment was recorded with the Office on May 25, 2018 at Reel 6336/Frame 0854. We refer to 

JC Hospitality and its predecessor in interest collectively 

as JC Hospitality.

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2020
IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC 3

applications based on two alternative grounds under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1052. Specifically, the examining attorney determined that THE 

JOINT is generic for both classes of applied-for services, or 

in the alternative, merely descriptive of the services. 

JC Hospitality responded by arguing that the mark is 

neither generic nor merely descriptive. In the alternative, 

JC Hospitality amended its application to claim the benefit 

of Section 2(f), which permits an applicant to register a 

merely descriptive mark if the applicant can demonstrate 

acquired distinctiveness. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). The examining attorney considered, but rejected, the evidence of acquired distinctiveness and again refused registration of the 

mark on the bases that the mark was generic for the services, or in the alternative, was merely descriptive but had 

not acquired distinctiveness for the services. 

After the examining attorney’s refusals became final, 

and following reconsideration by the examining attorney, 

the Board considered JC Hospitality’s appeal from prosecution on both grounds. The Board consolidated the proceedings on appeal and decided them in one opinion. With 

respect to both, the Board affirmed the examining attorney’s finding that THE JOINT is generic, or in the alternative, merely descriptive of JC Hospitality’s services, and 

that JC Hospitality had not acquired distinctiveness as a 

source identifier for the mark. In re HRHH IP, LLC, Nos. 

86525425 and 865252431, 2018 WL 1871443 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 

4, 2018) (“Board Decision”).

JC Hospitality timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).

II

A proposed trademark is evaluated for eligibility based 

on the mark’s placement on a distinctiveness spectrum, 

which includes in ascending order: generic (or “common” 

descriptive), merely descriptive, suggestive, and arbitrary 

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 02/28/2020
4 IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC

(or fanciful) marks. In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1366

(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting 

World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 10–11 (2d Cir. 1976)); In re Chippendales USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). 

Relevant to this appeal, under Section 2(e)(1) of the 

Trademark Act, a mark is merely descriptive if it describes

“the qualities or characteristics of a good or service.” Park 

’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 194

(1985) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1)); see also In re Bayer 

Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

“[M]arks that are merely descriptive cannot be registered 

unless they acquire secondary meaning under § 2(f) of the

[Trademark] Act.” N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d at 1366 (citing

15 U.S.C. § 1052(f)); see also Park ’N Fly, 469 U.S. at 194. 

In determining whether a mark has acquired distinctiveness, or secondary meaning, the Board may consider the 

following factors: “(1) association of the [mark] with a particular source by actual purchasers (typically measured by 

customer surveys); (2) length, degree, and exclusivity of 

use; (3) amount and manner of advertising; (4) amount of 

sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying; 

and (6) unsolicited media coverage of the product embodying the mark.” Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 1120 

(Fed. Cir. 2018); see also In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 

1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he applicant’s burden of 

showing acquired distinctiveness increases with the level 

of descriptiveness; a more descriptive term requires more 

evidence of secondary meaning.” Steelbuilding.com, 415 

F.3d at 1297 (citing In re Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp., 894 

F.2d 1316, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

Whether a mark is merely descriptive, and whether an 

applicant has demonstrated acquired distinctiveness are 

questions of fact that we review for substantial evidence. 

See In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(mere descriptiveness); In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Inc., 797 

F.3d 1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (acquired distinctiveness). 

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 4 Filed: 02/28/2020
IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC 5

We review the Board’s conclusions of law de novo. See In 

re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

JC Hospitality appeals the Board’s conclusion that the 

proposed mark THE JOINT is generic for services in Classes 41 and 43. JC Hospitality also appeals the Board’s alternative conclusion that the mark THE JOINT is merely 

descriptive of services in Classes 41 and 43, and that JC 

Hospitality has not established acquired distinctiveness of 

the mark for either class of services. Because we conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions

that THE JOINT is merely descriptive of the applied-for

services, and that JC Hospitality did not establish acquired 

distinctiveness, we affirm the Board’s decision. We do not 

reach the Board’s alternative basis for refusal that the 

mark is generic for the services in Classes 41 and 43. 

A

The Board found that the THE JOINT is merely descriptive of JC Hospitality’s services based on evidence 

showing that common use of the term “joint” describes restaurant and entertainment services as covered by Classes

41 and 43. More particularly, the Board considered a number of dictionary definitions that were submitted by both 

the examining attorney and JC Hospitality during prosecution of the applications. See Board Decision, at *4. For 

example, the Oxford Dictionary defines “joint” as “[a]n establishment of a specified kind, especially one where people 

meet for eating, drinking, or entertainment.” J.A. 245–46, 

885–86. Similarly, Wiktionary defines “joint” as “[a] restaurant, bar, nightclub, or similar business.” J.A. 75, 904–

06. The Board concluded that this dictionary evidence 

“demonstrates that [JC Hospitality’s] mark immediately 

conveys the idea of a business establishment that provides 

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 5 Filed: 02/28/2020
6 IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC

live musical performances, shows, and concerts, and nightclub, restaurant and bar services.” Board Decision, at *11.2

The Board also considered a number of news excerpts

submitted by the examining attorney during prosecution of 

both applications to demonstrate use of the term THE 

JOINT. See Board Decision, at *4–6. For example, one excerpt dated August 21, 2015, and published in the San Jose 

Mercury News, stated “History San Jose is gearing up for 

another fundraising celebration of Manny’s Cellar on Sept. 

18 in the historic downtown Fallon House, which was once 

home to the restaurant and bar. The joint was a haunt for 

the city’s movers and shakers from 1962 until 1990.”

J.A. 242, 1075 (emphasis added). Another excerpt dated 

August 1, 2012, and published in the Newark Star-Ledger, 

stated “Delta’s, situated in a former firehouse, is not your 

ordinary soul food restaurant. The joint jumps on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, when DJs and jazz and R&B 

groups turn Delta’s into a happening spot.” J.A. 233–34, 

1066–67 (emphasis added). 

Other news excerpts submitted by the examining attorney during prosecution of both applications specifically 

considered use of the term JOINT without the definite article “the.” See Board Decision, at *6. For example, an article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 21, 

2013, stated “Walter hopes to pursue a college degree in 

business and one day open his own music/restaurant 

joint.” J.A. 233, 1065–66 (emphasis added).

On appeal, JC Hospitality argues that the Board erred 

in finding THE JOINT merely descriptive because even if 

the marks are descriptive of its services, the mark is 

2 Though neither JC Hospitality nor the examining 

attorney submitted a definition of “THE,” the Board took 

judicial notice of three dictionaries defining “the” as a definite article. Board Decision, at *4.

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 6 Filed: 02/28/2020
IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC 7

registerable as a double entendre. Appellant’s Br. 35 (quoting Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”) 

§ 1213.05(c) (A “‘double entendre’ will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not 

merely descriptive in relation to the goods or services.”)).

Specifically, JC Hospitality argues that THE JOINT functions as a double entendre because it is “a playful or ironic 

reference to ‘prison’” instead of to its services. Appellant’s 

Br. 35. Thus, according to JC Hospitality, THE JOINT is 

registerable for its services because the term “prison” is not 

descriptive of them. Appellant’s Br. 35–36; see also TMEP 

§ 1213.05(c). 

The Board considered and rejected JC Hospitality’s argument that THE JOINT is registerable as a double entendre for the applied-for services. Board Decision, at *7–

8. The Board acknowledged that JC Hospitality submitted 

evidence that revealed “the joint” is one of several slang 

terms for prison. Id., at *8. The Board, however, found 

this evidence unpersuasive because it did not demonstrate 

a relationship between prison and the applied-for services 

as required for proving a “double entendre” for trademark 

purposes. Id., at *7; see also TMEP § 1213.05(c) (“For 

trademark purposes, a ‘double entendre’ is an expression 

that has a double connotation or significance as applied to 

the goods or services.”). Indeed, only a single article describing a musician’s plans for when he “get[s] out of the 

joint” had even a tangential relationship to JC Hospitality’s services. Board Decision, at *8. Taken together, the 

Board found there was insufficient evidence in the record 

to demonstrate that consumers would associate “the concept of the ‘the joint’ as a prison with [JC Hospitality’s] entertainment services, nightclub services, restaurants, bars, 

or catering services.” Id., at *7. We agree and conclude 

that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion 

that THE JOINT is not a double entendre for the services 

covered by either Class 41 or 43.

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 7 Filed: 02/28/2020
8 IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC

With respect to the ’425 application only, JC Hospitality summarily argues in a single sentence that the evidence 

of record is insufficient to establish that THE JOINT is descriptive of live musical performances, shows, concerts, or 

nightclub services covered by Class 41. Appellant’s Br. 36. 

JC Hospitality does not point to any specific failure of evidence, nor does JC Hospitality otherwise explain why the 

Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 

We conclude that based on the record in this case, substantial evidence, including the dictionary definitions and news 

excerpts cited and relied on by the Board, supports the 

Board’s finding that THE JOINT is merely descriptive of 

the entertainment services covered by Class 41. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s determination that THE JOINT is merely descriptive of the services 

covered by both Classes 41 and 43 is supported by substantial evidence. 

B

We now turn to JC Hospitality’s argument that it 

demonstrated acquired distinctiveness for THE JOINT under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. JC Hospitality argues that the Board’s determination that it did not 

demonstrate acquired distinctiveness is not supported by 

substantial evidence. We disagree. 

For both applications, JC Hospitality asserted acquired 

distinctiveness by relying on two declarations by its Vice 

President of Entertainment, Charles Smith, which purported to include evidence related to revenue, advertising 

and marketing, and press and consumer recognition. 

JC Hospitality argues that the Smith Declarations and related exhibits demonstrate that THE JOINT has been in 

substantially exclusive and continuous use since March 

1995. JC Hospitality also argues that the evidence shows 

more than $12 million in marketing expenditures for THE 

JOINT and a total gross revenue of more than $104 million. 

Furthermore, JC Hospitality argues that a variety of online 

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 8 Filed: 02/28/2020
IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC 9

websites and forums (e.g., various social media websites, 

Yelp and TripAdvisor forums, and YouTube) show press 

and public recognition. 

The Board considered JC Hospitality’s evidence but 

concluded that relative to the “highly descriptive nature” of

THE JOINT, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate 

that the mark had acquired distinctiveness. Board Decision, at *12 (citing Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d at 1297). 

The Board observed that JC Hospitality’s services are limited to a single venue within the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, and found the sales and 

marketing figures unpersuasive of acquired distinctiveness 

because there was no context for how those figures compared to similar restaurants and nightclubs. Board Decision, at *12. The Board also carefully reviewed 

JC Hospitality’s remaining evidence but found it similarly 

lacked context and was unpersuasive because the mark 

THE JOINT often appeared in connection with other

marks (e.g., “Hard Rock” or “Hard Rock Hotel & Casino”). 

The Board stated that “it is unclear which mark . . . attracts public attention.” Id., at *12. Thus, the Board concluded that JC Hospitality failed to demonstrate that THE 

JOINT is perceived as identifying the source of its services 

and therefore that it had not shown acquired distinctiveness. Id., at *13. 

On appeal, JC Hospitality argues that the Board required an impossible level of evidence by requiring more 

context for its sales and marketing figures. JC Hospitality 

also argues that reference to other marks in its evidence is 

either sporadic or of secondary significance, and that the 

Board erred by calling into question which mark had attracted public attention. 

We do not agree with JC Hospitality that in this case

the Board required too high a burden to show acquired distinctiveness. The Board correctly determined that a high 

level of proof was required to show acquired distinctiveness

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 9 Filed: 02/28/2020
10 IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC

for the mark THE JOINT. See Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d

at 1297; see also Royal Crown Co., Inc. v. The Coca-Cola 

Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As a result, 

we do not find error in the Board’s challenges to JC Hospitality’s evidence, which it found failed to provide information showing how JC Hospitality’s sales and marketing 

figures compared to similar businesses. Indeed, we agree 

with the Board that such questions are particularly appropriate where record evidence showed significant overlap 

between JC Hospitality’s use of THE JOINT with other 

marks. See Fish Fry, 797 F.3d at 1337 (discounting advertising expenditures concerning FISH FRY PRODUCTS 

where the evidence relied on included ads promoting another mark). Given the prominence of “Hard Rock” and 

“Hard Rock Hotel & Casino” in the evidence submitted, and 

the relationship of those marks to the applied-for services, 

we are unpersuaded that they are of secondary significance. Thus, we conclude that the Board’s finding that JC 

Hospitality has not demonstrated acquired distinctiveness

is supported by substantial evidence.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s affirmance of the refusal to register THE JOINT for services 

under either Class 41 or 43. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 18-2049 Document: 11 Page: 10 Filed: 02/28/2020