Decisions · 86947786
In re Virtual Independent Paralegals, LLC
Serial No. 86947786 · Decided 2019-03-27 · Other
What happened
Registration refused - the Board found that VIRTUAL INDEPENDENT PARALEGALS is simply the generic name for a class of paralegals who work remotely without attorney supervision, so it cannot serve as a trademark for the company’s paralegal, document-review, and litigation support services, and the company’s five years of use was not enough to show the phrase had become a brand in customers' minds.
The marks
Applicant
VIRTUAL INDEPENDENT PARALEGALS
"paralegal services; providing medical record summaries, deposition summaries and document review; litigation support services" in Class 45
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision affirming genericness of a designation built from two generic phrases (‘virtual paralegal’ + ‘independent paralegal’) and holding a bare five-year-use claim insufficient under Section 2(f) for a highly descriptive term; also issues much-cited practice guidance discouraging duplicate evidence submissions and requiring legible records.
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 Well Living Lab Inc.
The Board refused registration of WELL LIVING LAB for scientific research, product testing, and accreditation services focused on health and wellness in indoor environments, finding the…
86440401 · 2017-06-07 · WELL LIVING LAB
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.