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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
