Opinion ID: 218696
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Third-Party Registrations

Text: Dalton next argues that the Board erred by not con- sidering evidence of third-party registrations that include the term DEALER and/or DASHBOARD. This argument is without merit. It is well-established that third-party registrations “are not conclusive on the question of descriptiveness.” In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 U.S.P.Q. 517, 519 (T.T.A.B. 1977) (disregarding third-party registrations including the term “SCHOLASTIC” on grounds that they did not involve the services set forth in the application before the Board). Even if there are third-party registrations using similar words, the Board “must decide each case on its own merits.” In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also In re Rodale Inc., 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1696, 1700 (T.T.A.B. 2006) (“Although consistency in examination is a goal of the Office, the decisions of previous Trademark Examining Attorneys are not binding on us, and we must decide each case based on the evidence presented in the record before us.”). Accordingly, a merely descriptive mark does not qualify for registration simply because other similar marks appear on the register. See Nett Designs, 236 F.3d at 1342 (finding that prior registrations of marks including the term ULTIMATE “do not conclusively rebut the Board’s finding that ULTIMATE is descriptive in the context of this mark”). On appeal, Dalton argues that, because the Board previously registered the mark “Banker Dashboard,” it should “be consistent” and find that “DealerDashboard is a registerable mark.” Informal Brief at 6. Although “Banker Dashboard” and “DealerDashboard” both contain 17 DALTON v. HONDA MOTOR the term “Dashboard,” this alone is insufficient to rebut the Board’s decision that DEALERDASHBOARD is merely descriptive in the context of the identified services. See Nett Designs, 236 F.3d at 1342. Specifically, the Board found that the term DEALERDASHBOARD “is recognized and used by numerous third parties to describe Internet-based goods and services that are used to provide such information.” Board Decision, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 358 at -17. Because the Board properly assessed the mark on its merits in the context of the services involved, we find no error in the Board’s analysis.