Decisions · 86709923
In re Family Emergency Room LLC
Serial No. 86709923 · Decided 2017-03-14 · Other
What happened
The Board upheld a refusal to register a hospital’s logo mark (featuring stylized wording plus a white cross on a red field) because the cross-on-red-field design was found too similar to the flag of Switzerland, and the added wording and minor design tweaks didn’t change that impression.
The marks
Applicant
Design mark consisting of a white cross on a red field with red diagonal lines on the left edge of the field, and the stylized wording CEDAR PARK FAMILY EMERGENCY ROOM (CEDAR PARK FAMILY EMERGENCY ROOM disclaimed); colors white, red, and gray claimed as a feature of the mark
"hospitals," in International Class 44
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| appearance | Similar | The design portion (white cross on a red ground) was found highly similar in appearance to the flag of Switzerland; added lines and a slight tilt were insignificant. |
| commercial impression | Similar | The addition of the wording CEDAR PARK FAMILY EMERGENCY ROOM did not change the perception of the design as a simulation of the Swiss flag; no distinct commercial impression was created. |
Design element held to be a simulation of the Swiss flag, not distinguished by other mark elements
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision applying and illustrating the TMEP § 1205.01(d) multi-factor framework for Swiss-flag-simulation refusals under Section 2(b), useful precedent for flag/insignia refusal analysis outside the 2(d) context.
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
Disclaimer requirement upheld
In re Brainlab SE
The Board agreed that DYNAMIC SURFACE merely describes what Brainlab’s radiotherapy patient-tracking systems do (continuously track a moving patient’s body surface), so Brainlab must…
79371727 · 2026-05-26 · EXACTRAC DYNAMIC SURFACE
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 James S. Fallon
The Board upheld two of the refusals against registering THERMAL MATRIX for a heat-moldable liner in an anti-snoring mouthpiece: the product packaging did not clearly show the mark…
86882668 · 2020-10-21 · THERMAL MATRIX (THERMAL disclaimed)
Mixed result
In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.
The Board found the words ALLERGY CARE generic for allergy-treatment medical services, but because the mark is a stylized logo the applicant may keep its Supplemental Register application…
87169404 · 2019-12-04 · Design mark consisting of a red, horizontal oval with a white and blue border; inside the oval in stacked formation are the words "ALLERGY CARE" in stylized capital letters in white with blue outline; colors red, blue and white claimed as features of the mark (text extraction shows a gap where the mark image is embedded in the original, e.g. "seeks registration ... of the mark for" and "Applicant's mark is")
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 — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.