In Re GLASCOE

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 22-1073
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-1073 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 04/20/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: DEIRDRE C. GLASCOE, Appellant ______________________

2022-1073 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 88374879. ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Deirdre C. Glascoe appeals from a final decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the refusal to register the mark SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD. This court, having considered the Board’s decision and Ms. Glas- coe’s opening brief, summarily affirms that decision. Ms. Glascoe applied to register the mark SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF GOD in International Class 42 for scientific re- search. She submitted a specimen consisting of a webpage printout that described her services as “[a] better way to study God, Man and the Universe. Analyzing the ‘process of creating a human being, the earth, the universe and its environment using object-oriented design, a computer pro- gram and instructions from the Holy Bible[.]’” ECF No. 1- 2 at 9. Case: 22-1073 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 04/20/2022

2 IN RE: GLASCOE

The examining attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark was “merely descriptive” of the ser- vices identified under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). In particular, the examining attorney found that, when viewed as a whole, the mark described a service that uses systematic scientific methods to examine and analyze the creator and ruler of the universe, and hence, merely describes the type or function of the research and subject matter or purpose of the research. Ms. Glascoe appealed the examining at- torney’s rejection to the Board, which affirmed. Ms. Glas- coe then filed this appeal and her opening brief. “A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used.” In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (cit- ing In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Cit- ing the common ordinary definitions of “scientific,” “study,” and “God,” the Board agreed with the examining attorney that the proposed mark described scientific research about God. The Board further concluded that the evidence of rec- ord reflected that the mark merely described Ms. Glascoe’s services identified in the application. Ms. Glascoe has failed to make any cogent, non-frivolous argument as to why the Board’s determinations were incorrect. Because Ms. Glascoe’s opening brief raises no substan- tial question regarding the outcome of the appeal, the court affirms, and finds it appropriate to do so by summary or- der. See Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“We hold that summary disposition is appropri- ate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question re- garding the outcome of the appeal exists.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: Case: 22-1073 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 04/20/2022

IN RE: GLASCOE 3

(1) The final decision of the Trademark Trial and Ap- peal Board is summarily affirmed. (2) Any pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

April 20, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court