Decisions · 86890565
In re Emergency Alert Solutions Group, LLC
Serial No. 86890565 · Decided 2017-03-30 · Other
What happened
The Board split its ruling: it upheld the refusal to register LOCKDOWN ALARM for school and building safety-training services because the term is commonly used to name a type of emergency alarm and the applicant’s own training is centered on that alarm’s use and response, but it overturned a separate refusal that had faulted the applicant for not answering the examiner’s background questions clearly enough.
The marks
Applicant
LOCKDOWN ALARM
"Training services in the field of school safety, school security and crisis preparedness; training services in the field of security and crisis preparedness for schools, hospitals, college campuses, malls, public buildings, office buildings, and other commercial buildings," in International Class 41
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision applying the Federal Circuit’s ‘key aspect’ genericness doctrine (Cordua, 1800Mattress.com, Hotels.com, Reed Elsevier) to a training-services mark named after the device being trained on, and separately clarifying the standard for adequate narrative responses to Rule 2.61(b) information requirements.
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 Chestek PLLC
The Board affirmed the refusal to register CHESTEK LEGAL for legal services because the applicant law firm gave only a post office box instead of the required domicile street address…
88938938 · 2022-03-30 · CHESTEK LEGAL (standard characters; LEGAL disclaimed)
In re The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC
The Board found the wording in this law firm’s colorful square logo, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM, was simply the common name for consumer-protection legal services rather than a brand…
87444846 · 2021-03-02 · THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM & Design ("Applicant's Proposed Word-and-Design Mark") -- a square outlined in navy blue containing the words "THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM" vertically stacked; "THE" in green above "CONSUMER" in navy blue above "PROTECTION" in red above "FIRM.COM," with "FIRM" in green and "COM" in yellow separated by a yellow period; colors green, navy blue, red, and yellow claimed; "Firm.com" disclaimed
In re The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC
The Board found that ordinary legal-services consumers understand the phrase THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM to be the common name for a category of legal practice (consumer-protection law)…
87445801 · 2021-03-02 · THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM (standard characters; "Applicant's Proposed Word Mark"); "Firm" disclaimed
In re National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America, Inc.
The Board refused to register VETERINARY TECHNICIAN SPECIALIST as a certification mark for veterinary medicine services because the phrase simply describes a veterinary technician who…
87171093 · 2019-07-19 · VETERINARY TECHNICIAN SPECIALIST
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.