Decisions · 77967395
In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.
Serial No. 77967395 · Decided 2014-07-09 · Other
What happened
Refusal upheld — the Board ruled that CLOUDTV is a generic name (a mash-up of the everyday tech terms “cloud” and “TV”) for ActiveVideo’s cloud-based interactive-television software and video-on-demand services, so it cannot be registered as a brand; the Board added that even if it were not generic the term is at best highly descriptive and ActiveVideo had not shown the public sees it as a brand.
The marks
Applicant
CLOUDTV
Software and online software for delivering, viewing and navigating audiovisual/multimedia content on Internet-connected TVs and devices, plus e-commerce software (Class 9); television broadcasting and telecommunication connectivity via video-on-demand (Class 38); provision of non-downloadable television and multimedia content via video-on-demand (Class 41); and providing online network-based media-processing software, technical support and product-development consulting (Class 42).
Why this decision is significant
Precedential TTAB decision applying the Gould/American Fertility compound-term rule and the “central focus”/“key aspect” genericness doctrine to a coined, compressed technology term, and confirming that a Section 2(f) acquired-distinctiveness showing of advertising/commercial success cannot overcome genericness. Broadly applicable to cloud-/Internet-formative marks in fast-moving tech fields.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
In re Nursecon, LLC
The Board affirmed the refusal to register NURSECON for arranging and conducting special events for social entertainment purposes, finding the mark merely descriptive because NURSE names…
88052194 · 2024-12-26 · NURSECON (standard characters)
In re Lizzo LLC
The Board reversed the failure-to-function refusal of 100% THAT BITCH for Lizzo LLC’s shirts, jackets, headwear and other clothing, finding that consumers would perceive the phrase - which…
88466264 · 2023-02-02 · 100% THAT BITCH (standard characters)
In re Lizzo LLC
The Board reversed the failure-to-function refusal of 100% THAT BITCH for Lizzo LLC’s t-shirts in this use-based companion application, finding on an essentially identical record that…
88466281 · 2023-02-02 · 100% THAT BITCH (standard characters)
In re Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd.
The Board refused registration of ZHIMA because the applicant would not add a required statement translating the word (evidence showed ZHIMA is the Chinese word for ‘sesame,’ used across…
86832288 · 2023-01-12 · ZHIMA
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.