THIS OPINION IS NOT A
`PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
`
` Mailed: July 2, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`_____
`
`In re Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan
` _____
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`_____
`
`Tal Grinblat of Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan,
` for Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan.
`
`Robin Womeodu, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120,1
`David Miller, Managing Attorney.
` _____
`
`Before Wellington, English, and O’Connor,
`Administrative Trademark Judges.
`
`Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`Applicant, Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan, is a law firm and has
`applied to register JUSTICENTER (in standard characters) on the Principal
`Register for “Attorney services; Attorney services, namely, representation of clients
`in personal injury matters; Legal services,” in International Class 45.2
`
`1 The identified Examining Attorney was assigned responsibility for the application on March
`17, 2025, after the appeal was filed.
`2 Application Serial No. 98115823 was filed on August 3, 2023 under Section 1(b) of the
`Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s claim of a bona fide intent to use
`the mark in commerce.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 2 -
`The Trademark Examining Attorney finally refused registration of Applicant’s
`proposed mark on the ground that it is merely descriptive of the recited services under
`Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
`Applicant requested reconsideration of the refusal, which was denied, and
`Applicant then filed an appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed. For the reasons
`discussed below, we affirm the refusal to register.
`Mere Descriptiveness
`In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, which Applicant does not claim here,
`Section 2(e)(1) of the Act prohibits registration on the Principal Register of “a mark
`which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods [or services] of the applicant
`is merely descriptive . . . of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A term is “merely
`descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it “immediately conveys
`knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services
`with which it is used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102
`USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82
`USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “On the other hand, if one must exercise mature
`thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to determine what product
`or service characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than
`merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB 1978);
`see also In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-65 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Sys.,
`Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
`Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 3 -
`services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract or on the basis of
`guesswork. Descriptiveness must be evaluated “in relation to the particular goods for
`which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible
`significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods [or
`services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re Chamber of Com. of
`the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Bayer AG, 82 USPQ2d at 1831). In other
`words, we evaluate whether someone who knows what the goods or services are will
`understand the mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp.
`v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)).
`When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the composite mark “is
`registrable only if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a
`nondescriptive meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as
`applied to the goods or services.” In re Omniome, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 3222, at *12
`(TTAB 2020). However, if each component retains its merely descriptive significance
`in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is
`itself merely descriptive. Id. (citing In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71
`USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d
`1822, 1823 (TTAB 2012).
`Similarly, with relevance to this proceeding, a “telescoped” word mark will
`generally be held merely descriptive if consumers can easily decipher the individual
`words which are descriptive of the involved goods or services. See, e.g., In re Wells
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 4 -
`Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95, 97 (TTAB 1986) (EXPRESSERVICE: “Since the
`telescoping would be readily apparent to any intelligent person, this fact is
`immaterial to the issue before us.”) (citing In re U. S. Steel Corp., 225 USPQ 750, 751
`(TTAB 1985) (SUPEROPE held equivalent in terms of purchaser impressions to
`“super rope.”); In re Copperloy Corp., 182 USPQ 384 (TTAB 1974) (CONTAINERAMP
`is a mere misspelling of the term “container ramp” and is merely descriptive of mobile
`loading ramps). See also In re Greenliant Sys., Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1083 (TTAB
`2010) (because it is readily apparent that NANDRIVE is the combination of NAND
`and DRIVE, “the combination, or ‘telescoping,’ of the terms is immaterial to the issue
`before us and applicant’s slightly misspelled version of the generic term NAND drive
`does not compel a different result.”).
`Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant purchasing public “may
`be obtained from any competent source, such as dictionaries,” In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d
`at 1831, “websites and publications.” In re Nursecon, LLC, 2024 USPQ2d 2217, at *14
`(TTAB 2024). “It is the Examining Attorney’s burden to show, prima facie, that a
`mark is merely descriptive of an applicant’s goods or services.” In re Fat Boys Water
`Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1513 (TTAB 2016) (citing In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216,
`3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). If the Examining Attorney establishes a
`prima facie case, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut that case. Id.
`Here, the Examining Attorney argues that JUSTICENTER is a telescoped version
`of “justice center,” and this wording “merely describes a characteristic or feature of
`the Applicant’s services, namely, that applicant’s attorney and legal services feature
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 5 -
`a place where consumers have the opportunity to attain what is fair in accordance
`with the law.”3 In support, the Examining Attorney relies on the dictionary
`definitions of the composite terms:4
`Justice: Law The attainment (or upholding) of what is just, especially that
`which is fair, moral, right, merited or in accordance with laws. My client
`has not received justice in this hearing. [Also, We seek justice in this matter
`from the court.]
`
`Center: A place where a particular activity or service is concentrated.
`A medical center.
`
`The Examining Attorney also relies on Internet evidence showing third-party use
`of the term “justice center” arguing it shows that, “in [the] context of the attorney
`related services, businesses and legal institutions, including applicant’s competitors,
`use the wording in the applied-for mark to identify a place where people seek legal
`help and remedies in accordance with the law.”5 These uses include:
`“Liberty Justice Center … a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-interest
`litigation firm that seeks to protect economic liberty … we fight back with
`smart legal strategies … without ever charging our clients a dime—even if
`it means taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court”6
`
`“The William Wayne Justice Center for Public Interest Law … provide[s]
`broad support to students, faculty and alumni interested in pro bono work
`and public service.”7
`
`“Legal Aid Justice Center … training on individual rights … will refer to
`appropriate non-profit and private immigration lawyers depending on
`screening … will represent Arlington residents who have been detained in
`
`3 6 TTABVUE 2.
`4 April 4, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR pp. 5-8.
`5 6 TTABVUE 3-4.
`6 April 4, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 23.
`7 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 6 -
`hearings in immigration court to get them released …”8
`
`“National Immigrant Justice Center … dedicated to ensuring human
`rights protections and access to justice … provides direct legal services to
`and advocates for these populations…”9
`
`“The Edward P. Swyer Justice Center at Albany Law School … acts as an
`in-house public interest law firm, providing free legal services to eligible
`clients …”10
`
`“Family Justice Center … provide[s] coordinated advocacy, government,
`civil legal services … for victims of domestic violence and their children.”11
`
`“Tahirih Justice Center … client-centered legal services include screening,
`assessment, counsel and advice, and/or full-scale legal representation.”12
`
`“MacArthur Justice Center … fight for real solutions to problems with [the]
`criminal legal system … highest standards of integrity in representing our
`clients…”13
`
`“Survivors Justice Center … Free legal services and support for victims of
`sexual assault to seek justice by holding their perpetrators accountable.”14
`
`“Safe Family Justice Centers … court support … restitution assistance …
`help navigating the criminal justice system … advocacy and support
`services to individuals … family law legal referrals.”15
`
`Based on the record before us, including the above Internet evidence showing
`multiple organizations using the wording “Justice Center” in connection with the
`provision of legal services to others, we find the Examining Attorney has established
`
`8 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 9.
`9 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 12.
`10 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 18.
`11 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 24.
`12 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 27.
`13 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 30.
`14 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 37.
`15 October 10, 2024 Office Action, at TSDR p. 42.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 7 -
`a prima facie case that JUSTICE CENTER is merely descriptive of Applicant’s legal
`services. That is, consumers will understand “justice center” as merely describing
`Applicant’s attorney and legal services in that Applicant offers a place or center
`providing legal services seeking justice or fairness for clients in accordance with the
`law.
`We are not persuaded by Applicant’s argument that JUSTICENTER, “as a
`telescoped mark, has no meaning in and of itself.”16 Despite the lack of a definition
`for the actual telescoped term, the proposed mark will be readily recognized by
`consumers as the composite of the two words.17 No imagination or mental exercise is
`necessary. And, as explained above, our caselaw is clear that in such circumstances,
`the telescoped words do not lose any of their meaning despite a minor misspelling.
`Thus, we find that JUSTICENTER will be immediately understood in the context of
`legal services as the telescoped combination of the merely descriptive words JUSTICE
`CENTER.
`Applicant also argues:18
`Even were the mark dissected into two words (which is not the case), the
`term JUSTICENTER at most, would suggest a place where justice can be
`
`16 7 TTABVUE 4.
`17 Applicant’s reliance on other telescoped marks that may have been allowed to register does
`not persuade us that Applicant’s proposed mark is not merely descriptive. As the Examining
`Attorney points out, the registered marks identified by Applicant, i.e., JUSTICEWORKS,
`JUSTICEAPP, may “contain non-descriptive wording that allows the marks to be registrable”
`and thus can be distinguished from Applicant’s proposed mark. 6 TTABVUE 7. Moreover, as
`the Examining Attorney also pointed out, the Board is not bound by prior decisions made in
`connection with different marks, but each case must be decided on the proceeding record
`before us and on its own merits. In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citing In re Shinnecock Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`18 7 TTABVUE 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 8 -
`sought. But even that suggestion is too vague to convey the nature of
`Applicant’s services to consumers. Despite the Examining Attorney’s
`narrow view of the term ‘justice,’ because the word justice has broad
`meaning that is not necessarily connected with legal services, let alone
`personal injury legal services, a consumer would have to use significant
`imagination to conclude that JUSTICENTER is a place where they can go
`to be represented in personal injury matters.
`
`However, this argument fails to persuade us for two reasons. First, as already
`noted above, the meaning of Applicant’s proposed mark must be determined in the
`context of the services recited in the application, which include “attorney services”
`and “legal services.” In other words, while the term “justice” may have multiple
`meanings or may seem vague in a vacuum, it has a particular meaning in connection
`with law or legal services, as evidenced by the provided definition, supra. In the
`context of law or legal services, “justice” means the attainment or upholding of what
`is merited or in accordance with the laws. This meaning is certainly buttressed by
`the evidence showing a multitude of organizations that use the term JUSTICE
`CENTER and provide legal services to others, often touting their ability to assist
`others seeking “justice.”
`Second, Applicant attempts to restrict its services to “personal injury legal
`services.” However, the services described in the application include “attorney
`services” and “legal services,” which are very broad and encompass many of the same
`services provided by the entities that self-describe as “justice centers” in the Internet
`evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney. In any event, the term “justice,” as
`used in the context of law, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with “personal injury
`legal services.” Indeed, personal injury law firm clients may consider “justice” to be a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Serial No. 98115823
`- 9 -
`judgment in their favor as a recompense for their injuries.
`In sum, we find Applicant’s proposed mark, JUSTICENTER, is the readily
`recognizable equivalent of JUSTICE CENTER, and the Examining Attorney has
`established a prima facie case that this phrase is merely descriptive of Applicant’s
`“attorney services” and “legal services” in that it identifies a place offering legal
`services seeking justice or fairness for clients merited in law. Applicant has failed to
`rebut this showing. Consequently, we affirm the Section 2(e)(1) refusal.
`
`Decision: The refusal is affirmed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`