This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: October 13, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

John Edward Guzman
d/b/a Club Ed Surf School and Camp
v.
The New Santa Cruz Surf School, LLC
________

Opposition No. 91220843
_______

Barbara Burns, Praxis Legal Solutions LLC, for John Edward Guzman d/b/a Club
Ed Surf School and Camp.

Patrick T. Reilly, Esq., for The New Santa Cruz Surf School, LLC.
_____

Before Zervas, Cataldo and Ritchie,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The New Santa Cruz Surf School, LLC (“Applicant”), seeks to register SANTA

CRUZ SURF SCHOOL in standard characters on the Principal Register under the

provisions of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), for the following

International Class 41 services:

Educational services, namely, conducting surfing lessons
in the field of ocean recreation; Providing a web site
Opposition No. 91220843

featuring information needed for the sport of surfing,
namely, wave conditions, wave locations and duration of
surfing session; Providing a website featuring information
relating to the sport of surfing; Rental of surf boards.1

The term SURF SCHOOL has been disclaimed.

John Edward Guzman d/b/a Club Ed Surf School and Camp (“Opposer”) asserts in

his amended notice of opposition (filed on September 11, 2015) that he is a competitor

of Applicant and has been providing instruction in surfing, boogie boarding and

standup paddle boarding, as well as the rental of surfboards, boogie boards, stand-up

paddle boards and paddles and wetsuits, for more than 20 years.2 Opposer alleges in

its amended complaint that SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL is geographically

descriptive pursuant to Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15, U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2),

and that Applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) based on the

substantially exclusive and continuous use of its mark for at least five years prior to

its written statement is “erroneous” due to other uses of SANTA CRUZ, e.g., “Santa

Cruz Bicycles, Santa Cruz Skateboards, Santa Cruz Boardroom, Santa Cruz

Millwork and Santa Cruz Electronics.”3

With regard to an answer to the amended notice of opposition, the record reflects

that the Board extended Applicant’s time to respond to Opposer’s motion to amend

the notice of opposition on January 20, 2016, and Applicant filed a “Notice of Non-

1 Application Serial No. 86266634, filed April 29, 2014 pursuant to Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming first use anywhere on October 15, 1998, and
first use in commerce on October 30, 1998. The English translation of “Santa Cruz” in the
mark is “Holy Cross.”
2 Amended notice of opposition at ¶2, 9 TTABVUE 12.
3 9 TTABVUE 11-15.

-2-
Opposition No. 91220843

Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Opposition” on

February 5, 2016. After the Board granted the motion to amend the notice of

opposition and allowed Applicant time to file an answer, Applicant filed its “Answer

to Opposer’s Amended Notice of Opposition” on February 26, 2016, which primarily

addresses Opposer’s motion to amend the notice of opposition rather than the

contents of the amended notice of opposition, and which does not comply with

Trademark Rule 2.106(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 106(b)(2) (“An answer shall state in short

and plain terms the applicant’s defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or

deny the averments upon which the opposer relies.”).

Opposer states in its trial brief that Applicant’s answer to the amended notice of

opposition is “unacceptable as to form and does not establish denials and defenses for

use at trial”; “Applicant should not be allowed to offer any unpleaded denials and

unpleaded defenses because of its failure to properly answer”;4 and “Applicant has

not set forth any specific denials, save a generous construction of the mark as not

primarily geographically descriptive.”5

Opposer, however, stated in its March 15, 2016 submission that “Applicant filed

its Answer to Opposer’s Amended Notice of Opposition” on February 26, 2016, and

later in the same submission refers to Applicant’s filing as “its Answer.”6

Additionally, Opposer never sought default judgement for Applicant’s failure to file a

4 Opposer’s brief at 8-9, 27 TTABVUE 9-10.
5 Id.
6 “Opposer’s Notice of Non-Opposition to Applicant’s Request to Re-Open Discovery,”
21 TTABVUE 2.

-3-
Opposition No. 91220843

proper answer to the amended pleading but rather waited over eight months, until

the filing its trial brief on October 11, 2016, to object to Applicant’s failure to answer

the amended notice of opposition. Thus, despite Opposer’s arguments and Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(b)(6)7 which permits the Board to deem admitted any portion of an allegation

that has not been denied, we construe Applicant’s “Answer to Opposer’s Amended

Notice of Opposition,” as denying the salient allegations of the amended notice of

opposition. We hold Applicant to its admissions made in its answer to the original

notice of opposition, however, including its admission (discussed below) that “Club Ed

Surf School and Camp is now and has been in operation in Santa Cruz since 1990.”8

Both Applicant and Opposer agree that this opposition involves the following

issues:9

1. Whether SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL has acquired
distinctiveness through use in interstate and foreign
commerce;

2. Whether SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL primarily
identifies the services Applicant provides rather than the
city of Santa Cruz, California; and

3. Whether the term “Santa Cruz” is incapable of serving
as a mark because it is generic.

Genericness, identified as No. 3 above, was not pleaded by Opposer. We consider

genericness to have been tried by the consent of the parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 15(b) (issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by the express or implied consent

7Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) is made applicable to Board proceedings pursuant to Trademark Rule
2.116(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a).
8 Applicant’s answer ¶ 2, 4 TTABVUE 1.
9 Applicant’s brief at 5, 28 TTABVUE 6; reply at 6, 30 TTABVUE 7.

-4-
Opposition No. 91220843

of the parties, and shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the

pleadings). See also, TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE

(“TBMP”) § 507.03(b) (June 2017).

In addition, we address the following issues:

(i) whether Applicant’s statement of five-years use
submitted during the prosecution of its application
establishes that its mark has acquired
distinctiveness; and

(ii) if Applicant’s statement of five years use does not
establish acquired distinctiveness, whether
Applicant has established through its evidence
submitted in this proceeding that its mark has
acquired distinctiveness.

Opposer also asserts that this proceeding involves a claim of geographic

descriptiveness. Applicant, however, seeks registration of SANTA CRUZ SURF

SCHOOL pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, and hence has admitted that

the designation is not inherently distinctive based on the primarily geographically

descriptive nature of the mark. Kasco Corp. v. Southern Saw Serv., Inc., 27 USPQ2d

1501, 1506 n.7 (TTAB 1993) (applicant conceded that its alleged mark was not

inherently distinctive when it did not reserve its rights when amending its

application to claim acquisition of distinctiveness under Section 2(f)). See also, Cold

War Museum Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 92 USPQ2d 1626,

1629 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Where an applicant seeks registration on the basis of Section

2(f), the mark’s descriptiveness is a nonissue; an applicant’s reliance on Section 2(f)

during prosecution presumes that the mark is descriptive.”). Geographic

descriptiveness is therefore not an issue before us.

-5-
Opposition No. 91220843

The Record

In addition to the pleadings and Applicant’s opposed application, which is

automatically of record pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b),

the evidence of record consists of the following:

? Opposer’s first notice of reliance upon:

(i) Opposer’s first set of interrogatories and Applicant’s responses
thereto;10

(ii) Opposer’s first requests for admissions and Applicant’s
responses thereto,11 including its admission to Request for
Admissions No. 1 providing that “documents submitted in
response to the Requests for Production of Documents … are
genuine”; and

(iii) Opposer’s first request for production of documents and
Applicant’s responses thereto where documents were produced in
support of Applicant’s non-admissions to Opposer’s first requests
for admissions, as well as various documents produced by
Applicant relating to Applicant’s response to Opposer’s Request
for Admissions No 1.12

? May 2, 2016 testimony deposition with exhibits of Mr. Dylan Greiner,
owner of Applicant’s predecessor-in-interest Santa Cruz Surf School,
Inc., submitted by Applicant.

? June 28, 2016 testimony deposition with exhibits of Mr. David K.
Meyberg, the sole member of Applicant, submitted by Applicant.

? Opposer’s rebuttal notice of reliance, submitting an Office Action
issued in connection with the opposed application.

10 19 TTABVUE.
11 Id.
12 19 TTABVUE.

-6-
Opposition No. 91220843

Opposer’s Standing

Standing is a threshold issue that must be proven by a plaintiff in every inter

partes case. To establish standing in an opposition or cancellation proceeding, a

plaintiff must show “both a ‘real interest’ in the proceedings as well as a ‘reasonable

basis’ for its belief of damage.” Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Gen. Cigar Co., 753

F.3d 1270, 111 USPQ2d 1058, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting ShutEmDown Sports,

Inc., v. Lacy, 102 USPQ2d 1036, 1041 (TTAB 2012)); Ritchie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d

1092, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lipton Industries, Inc. v. Ralston

Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185, 189 (CCPA 1982).

Opposer has not offered any evidence or comment in its briefs regarding its

standing.

As noted above, however, Applicant, admitted in its answer to the original notice

of opposition that “Club Ed Surf School and Camp is now and has been, in operation

in Santa Cruz since 1990.”13 Applicant has not sought to withdraw this admission,

and, as also noted above, did not admit or deny any of the specific allegations of the

amended notice of opposition in his “Answer to Opposer’s Amended Notice of

Opposition.” Additionally, Opposer’s Request for Admission No. 25 states, “Admit

that Applicant sent a cease and desist letter, dated February 5, 2015, to Opposer,

claiming registration of the mark SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL in the United States

13 Answer to notice of opposition, ¶ 3, 4 TTABVUE 2.

-7-
Opposition No. 91220843

Patent and Trademark Office.”14 Although Applicant stated it does not admit the

request for admission, it added:

[Applicant] recognizes its unfortunately inaccurate
phrasing in the referenced Cease and Desist Letter of
having “registered the trademark” and to a “Register No,”.
[sic] Applicant notes, however, that the U.S. Trademark
Application No. 86/266,634 was provided in the referenced
letter, and that the letter’s recipient were [sic] thereby on
notice that the references therein were directed to an
Application for Registration and not to a completed
registration.

Because of Applicant’s statements concerning a cease and desist letter regarding

the SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL designation to Opposer, and because Applicant

has not contested Opposer’s standing in its brief, we find that Opposer has both a real

interest in the proceeding as well as a reasonable basis for its belief of damage and

that Opposer has standing to maintain this opposition. See Empresa Cubana Del

Tabaco, 111 USPQ2d at 1062.

Burdens of Proof

Opposer bears the burden of proving genericness as plaintiff in its opposition.

Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827,

1830 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Opposer also has the initial burden of showing that Applicant’s mark has not

acquired distinctiveness. Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d 1572, 6

USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (a party challenging the sufficiency of an

applicant’s § 2(f) showing “must have at least the initial burden of challenging or

14 19 TTABVUE 45.

-8-
Opposition No. 91220843

rebutting the applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness made of record during

prosecution which led to publication of the proposed mark”). When an opposer has

met its initial burden challenging the sufficiency of applicant’s proof of acquired

distinctiveness, an applicant may then present additional evidence and argument to

rebut opposer’s showing and to establish that its mark has acquired distinctiveness.

Id. at 1005. In this regard, the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of acquired

distinctiveness is on Applicant. Id. at 1006.

Genericness

We now consider Opposer’s challenge to registration of Applicant’s designation on

the ground that it is unregistrable on the basis of genericness. As the Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit explained in Princeton Vanguard:

A generic term “is the common descriptive name of a class
of goods or services.” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of
Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989 [228 USPQ 528, 530]
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Because generic terms “are by definition
incapable of indicating a particular source of the goods or
services,” they cannot be registered as trademarks. Dial-A-
Mattress [Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344, 57
USPQ2d 1807, 1810 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]. “The critical issue in
genericness cases is whether members of the relevant
public primarily use or understand the term sought to be
protected to refer to the genus of goods or services in
question.” Marvin Ginn, 782 F.2d at 989-90.

We have said that determining a mark’s genericness
requires “a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus of
goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be
registered or retained on the register understood by the
relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or
services?” Id. at 990. Evidence of the public’s
understanding of the mark may be obtained from “any
competent source, such as consumer surveys, dictionaries,
newspapers and other publications.” In re Northland

-9-
Opposition No. 91220843

Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1559 [227 USPQ
961] (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Princeton Vanguard, 114 USPQ2d at 1830.

Opposer’s only support for his contention that Applicant’s designation is generic

is Applicant’s statement in its “Answer to Opposer’s Amended Notice of Opposition”

providing that “the term ‘Santa Cruz’ as it currently exists has become a generic term

evoking a spirit of excitement embodied in the realm of extreme sports, and

particularly in the realm of board sports.”15 Applicant explained in its brief that it did

not make the statement in the trademark sense, but rather in the sense that “it

identifies a spirit, not a good or service. There is no genus of ‘Santa Cruz’ for which

Applicant’s product is a species. Nothing stops other surf schools from competing with

it.”16

Opposer bears the burden of proving genericness as plaintiff in its opposition. Id.

In view of the lack of evidence concerning the inquiry set forth in Marvin Ginn, 228

USPQ at 530, and Applicant’s explanation for its statement in its “Answer to

Opposer’s Amended Notice of Opposition,” we find that Opposer has not met its

burden of proof on the ground of genericness and dismiss the opposition on the ground

of genericness.17

15 20 TTABVUE 3.
16 Applicant’s brief at 12, 28 TTABVUE 13.
17Opposer included a throwaway motion for judgment on the pleadings at pp. 8-9 of its main
brief on the basis that Applicant’s designation is incapable of registration under Section 2(f)
because it is a generic term. 27 TTABVUE 9-10. Opposer’s motion is denied as moot, and as
untimely. See TBMP § 504.01 (“in order to avoid a disruption or delay in the trial phase of a
Board proceeding, a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be filed prior to the deadline
for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period, as originally set or as reset.”).

– 10 –
Opposition No. 91220843

Secondary Meaning

We now consider whether Applicant’s applied-for mark has acquired secondary

meaning. Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), provides that “proof

of substantially exclusive and continuous use” of a designation “as a mark by the

applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of

distinctiveness is made” may be accepted as prima facie evidence that the mark has

acquired distinctiveness as used in commerce with the applicant’s goods or services.

Trademark Rule 2.41(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a)(3), states that an applicant may

submit, in support of registration under Section 2(f), “appropriate evidence showing

duration, extent, and nature of the use in commerce and advertising expenditures in

connection therewith … and verified statements, letters or statements from the trade

or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence of distinctiveness.”

“To show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness, an applicant must

demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the

mark as identifying the source of a product or service rather than the product or

service itself.” In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed.

Cir. 2005).

Applicant submitted the declaration dated November 5, 2014 of its principal,

David Meyberg, with its November 25, 2014 response to the Examining Attorney’s

first Office Action, attesting that “the mark has become distinctive of the services

through Applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at

– 11 –
Opposition No. 91220843

least … five years … .”18 The Examining Attorney accepted the declaration as

evidence of acquired distinctiveness of Applicant’s mark. At trial, Applicant offered

additional evidence.

Whether the statement of five years’ use is sufficient in and of itself to establish

acquired distinctiveness depends on the degree to which the mark is descriptive. If

the mark is highly descriptive of the goods or services named in the application, the

statement of five years’ use alone will be deemed insufficient to establish acquired

distinctiveness. See In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 116 USPQ2d 1262

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (Board was within its discretion not to accept applicant’s allegation

of five years’ use given the highly descriptive nature of the mark); Alcatraz Media,

Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1766 (TTAB 2013) (“Given

the highly descriptive nature of registrant’s mark [ANNAPOLIS TOURS], continuous

use alone since 1992 would not be sufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness.”).

See also, TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 1212.05(a)

(April 2017).

Opposer has not offered evidence to demonstrate the level of descriptiveness of

Applicant’s designation but relies on Applicant’s statement in its “Answer to

Opposer’s Amended Notice of Opposition” to establish weakness as a source indicator.

Because of the lack of evidence regarding any significant weakness of Applicant’s

mark as a source indicator, we find that the designation has an ordinary level of

descriptiveness and that a declaration attesting to substantially exclusive and

18 Nov. 25, 2014 response, TSDR 2; Meyberg Depo. Exh. A, 24 TTABVUE 72.

– 12 –
Opposition No. 91220843

continuous use of a designation as a mark in commerce for the five years before the

date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made may establish acquired

distinctiveness of Applicant’s designation. Applicant’s disclaimer of the SURF

SCHOOL, however, constitutes a tacit admission that SURF SCHOOL is generic for

the identified services. See Alcatraz Media, 107 USPQ2d at 1762 (citing In re Creative

Goldsmiths of Wash., Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986)).

Opposer challenges the accuracy of Mr. Meyberg’s statements in his declaration.

According to Opposer, while the declaration states that “[t]he mark has become

distinctive of the services through Applicant’s substantially exclusive and continuous

use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this

statement,” the mark has not been in “substantially exclusive use” or “continuous

use” during the five-year period. We consider whether SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL

has been in “substantially exclusive use” or “continuous use” during the five-year

period in the following paragraphs.

Exclusive use

Opposer relies on Applicant’s failure to properly answer its allegation in its

amended pleading regarding the use of SANTA CRUZ marks by third-parties as an

admission of the existence of such marks. As discussed above, we do not consider

Applicant’s failure to file a proper answer as an admission of Opposer’s allegations

regarding non-exclusive use. At best, Opposer may rely on “Santa Cruz Bicycles,”

referenced in Applicant’s admission to Opposer’s Request for Admission No. 12.19

19 Opposer also references Applicant’s response to Request for Admissions Nos. 26 and 27
(concerning cease and desist letters) at p. 14 of its brief, 27 TTABVUE 15, but the response

– 13 –
Opposition No. 91220843

Even if the rental or sale of bicycles is related to the services identified in the opposed

trademark application, however, “Santa Cruz Bicycles” constitutes only one use, and

there is no information as to how extensive such use is. In addition, Mr. Greiner

testified that nobody else was operating under the name SANTA CRUZ SURF

SCHOOL at any time after he acquired the Santa Cruz Surf School and SANTA

CRUZ SURF SCHOOL mark from Anne Bailey in late 2000 or 2001.20 (Apparently,

Ms. Bailey owned the school since 1997.21) Opposer has hence not established that

Applicant’s use was not substantially exclusive during the five-year period prior to

November 5, 2014, the date of Mr. Meyberg’s declaration. See Ayoub, Inc. v. ACS

Ayoub Carpet Serv., 118 USPQ2d 1392, 1404 (TTAB 2016) (finding that, because of

widespread third-party uses of the surname Ayoub in connection with rug, carpet and

flooring businesses, applicant’s use of the applied-for mark, AYOUB, was not

“substantially exclusive” and thus the mark had not acquired distinctiveness in

connection with applicant’s identified carpet and rug services); Nextel Commc’ns, Inc.

v. Motorola, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1393, 1408 (TTAB 2009) (finding opposer’s extensive

contemporaneous use of the mark in connection with services closely related to

applicant’s goods rose to the level necessary to rebut applicant’s contention of

substantially exclusive use); Target Brands, Inc. v. Hughes, 85 USPQ2d 1676, 1682-

83 (TTAB 2007) (finding substantial use of mark by opposer’s parent company and

to each request is “Not Admitted” and we cannot determine the mark and underlying services
which are the subject of the requested admissions.
20 Greiner Depo. at 4 and 18, 23 TTABVUE 5 and 19.
21 Applicant’s Resp. to Interrog. Nos. 4 and 8, 19 TTABVUE 15 and 16.

– 14 –
Opposition No. 91220843

additional use of mark by numerous third parties “seriously undercuts if not nullifies

applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness.”); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields

Cookies, 11 USPQ2d 1355, 1357-58 (TTAB 1989) (“[T]he existence of numerous third

party users of a mark, even if junior, might well have a material impact on the

Examiner’s decision to accept a party’s claim of distinctiveness.”).

Continuous use

We consider next whether the use of SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL by Applicant

and its immediate predecessor-in-interest was continuous during the five-year period

from November 5, 2009 to November 5, 2014, prior to the November 5, 2014 date of

Mr. Meyberg’s declaration, and set forth the salient facts and testimony as presented

to us in the record.

Dylan Greiner owned and operated Santa Cruz Surf School, Inc. in Santa Cruz,

California from 2009 to approximately August 16, 2013, when he was arrested and

imprisoned.22

The record is slim, but does reflect that Mr. Greiner provided surfing lessons

between 2006 to 2010 to Mendocino Community School and Mendocino High School

in California;23 between 2000 and 2012 at Asilomar Beach, California;24 and in

December of 2011 in New Smyrna Beach Florida.25 In addition, Mr. Greiner testified

2224 TTABVUE 8 and 11; 23 TTABVUE 5; Applicant’s brief at 6, 29 TTABVUE 7; Answer to
notice of opposition ¶ 2, 4 TTABVUE 1.
23 Greiner Depo. at 39-40, 23 TTABVUE 40-41.
24 Greiner Depo. at 41, 23 TTABVUE 42.
Greiner Depo. at 10 and 26-27, 23 TTABVUE 11 and 27-28. Applicant’s Resp. to Interrog.
25

Nos. 14 and 15, 19 TTABVUE 17-18.

– 15 –
Opposition No. 91220843

he owned an active website promoting his services during the time he provided

surfing lessons,26 but did not provide any information about the number of visitors to

the website.

Mr. Meyberg, Applicant’s sole member who is also an attorney licensed to practice

law in California, provided legal services to Mr. Greiner and Santa Cruz Surf School,

Inc. as early as 2005. Mr. Meyberg testified he was in monthly or quarterly contact

with Mr. Greiner; he periodically provided surfing lessons; he would “regularly go to

his shop to meet with [Mr. Greiner] and discuss business matters”; and Mr. Greiner

“was in business non-stop every month from when I first became involved with

helping the surf school all the way … until he was basically incarcerated … and

actually even after that.”27 Mr. Meyberg added, however, that after Mr. Greiner’s

arrest, “classes went on, I think … for a few days as the publicity and the, you know,

the incident became more known through press and news coverage[,] the customers

basically dwindled to … a stop.”28

Applicant acquired the surf school and designation SANTA CRUZ SURF

SCHOOL from Santa Cruz Surf School, Inc. pursuant to a Business Sale Agreement,

dated December 17, 2013.29 The Business Sale Agreement provides insight into the

condition of the business purchased by Mr. Meyberg. It states:

The business has not been operating for several months.
The business currently does not have a physical business
location due to cancellation of the commercial lease. The

26 Greiner Depo. at 7-8, 15, 22 and 41; 24 TTABVUE 8-9, 16, 23 and 42.
27 Meyberg Depo. at 7-9, 11 TTABVUE 10-12.
28 Meyberg Depo. at 11, 23 TTABVUE 14.
29 24 TTABVUE at 13; see also Exh. B to Meyberg’s Depo., 24 TTABVUE 74-75.

– 16 –
Opposition No. 91220843

insurance policy which is required to operate the business
was cancelled. The website is not operating and has an
outstanding bill. Numerous independent contract[or]s who
taught lessons were never paid their last pay check. The
business operating permit will expire at the end of
December 2013 and the City of Santa Cruz’s Parks and
Recreation Department’s Heads have expressed their
intent to not renew the operating permit. The vehicle
trailer is not registered. The business’ reputation and good
will has been substantially diminished.30

30 Greiner Depo. Exh. B, 23 TTABVUE 61-62; Meyberg Depo. Exh. B, 24 TTABVUE 74-75.
These statements are not hearsay pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. § 803(15), which identifies the
following exception to the rule against hearsay:
(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in
Property. A statement contained in a document that purports
to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated
was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings
with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the
statement or the purport of the document.

Thus, “[u]nder the plain meaning of Rule 803(15), hearsay statements are admissible if they
are contained within a document that affects an interest in property, if the statements are
relevant to the purport of the document, and if dealings with the property since the document
was made have not been inconsistent with the truth of the statements.” U.S. v. Boulware,
384 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Silverstein v. Chase, 260 F.3d 142, 149 (2d Cir.2001).
Mr. Greiner and Mr. Meyberg respectively authenticated the document, i.e., the sales
agreement. Greiner Depo. at 6, 23 TTABVUE 7; Meyberg Depo. at 10, 24 TTABVUE 11. The
sales agreement affects an interest in property, i.e., the sale of the business, and specifically
mentions a “trademark/tradename” as part of the “business enterprise” and is relevant to the
document’s purpose, i.e., the transfer of the property to Applicant. Later dealings with the
trademark and the business are not inconsistent with the sales agreement.
See also, Notes of the Advisory Committee on the 1972 Proposed Rules stating:
Dispositive documents often contain recitals of fact. Thus a deed
purporting to have been executed by an attorney in fact may
recite the existence of the power of attorney, or a deed may recite
that the grantors are all the heirs of the last record owner. Under
the rule, these recitals are exempted from the hearsay rule. The
circumstances under which dispositive documents are executed
and the requirement that the recital be germane to the purpose
of the document are believed to be adequate guarantees of
trustworthiness, particularly in view of the nonapplicability of
the rule if dealings with the property have been inconsistent
with the document.

– 17 –
Opposition No. 91220843

At a minimum, the Santa Cruz Surf School was not in operation from the time of

Mr. Greiner’s arrest until the purchase of the surf school by Applicant, a period of

four months in the fall of 2013.31 There is no indication in the record that employees

or contractors provided the services identified in the opposed trademark application

while Mr. Greiner was in prison, before Applicant started using SANTA CRUZ SURF

SCHOOL.

Only four checks made out to “Santa Cruz Surf School” are in the record; they are

all dated between December 2015 and June 2016.32 There are numerous emails from

customers in the record inquiring about surfing lessons; many of the emails do not

indicate a year or are dated in June 2015 or later.33

Opposer argues that Applicant did not receive a business license until May 31,

2015, and hence had lawful use “approximately 19 months after the time that

Applicant stated that the business of the surf school had ‘dwindled … to a stop’, but

21 months after the arrest of Dylan Greiner … .”34 We do not agree with Opposer’s

time calculations; the Meyberg declaration attesting to use is dated November 5,

2014, which is 14 months after Mr. Greiner’s arrest on August 16, 2013, and

Applicant’s business license indicates that Applicant paid for the license on June 5,

2014.35

Meyberg Depo. at 11-12, 24 TTABVUE 14-15. See also, Exh. B to Mr. Meyberg’s Depo., 24
31

TTABVUE 74-75.
32 Meyberg Depo. Exh. E, 24 TTABVUE 86.
33 Meyberg Depo. Exh. F, 24 TTABVUE 87-105.
34 Opposer’s brief at 25, 27 TTABVUE 26; Meyberg Depo. at 12, 24 TTABVUE 15.
35 Meyberg Depo. Exh. H, 24 TTABVUE 113.

– 18 –
Opposition No. 91220843

Opposer also points out that Mr. Meyberg’s declaration states that SANTA CRUZ

SURF SCHOOL has been used for five years prior to November 5, 2014, but his

corporation acquired the surf school approximately one year earlier on December 17,

2013; and Applicant denied certain requests for admissions on the basis that

Applicant “cannot speak to the knowledge or belief of its predecessors in interest.”36

Applicant is silent as to how it can attest to matters that occurred prior to

December 17, 2013, during the prosecution of the application, but not during this

proceeding. We are troubled by Applicant’s inconsistency, but, in view of our ultimate

resolution of this case, we have considered all of Applicant’s statements and

responses.

As noted, Mr. Greiner was arrested on August 16, 2013, and there is no

documentary evidence in the record demonstrating that Applicant’s predecessor and

Applicant offered surfing lessons or the rental of surfboards for more than one year

after Mr. Greiner’s arrest. There is also an absence of documentary evidence

regarding the provision of surfing lessons and the rental of surfboards by the

“independent contracts [sic] who taught lessons” referenced in the Business Sale

Agreement from essentially the date that Mr. Greiner was arrested and throughout

2014 (the business licenses in the record are not evidence of use of the mark in

commerce)37; and the “Business Sale Agreement” describes a defunct business. Based

36 See, e.g., 19 TTABVUE 41, responding to Req. for Admissions No. 9.
37Mr. Meyberg’s statement that “I would regularly see people wearing the hats, tank tops,
shirts and sweat shirts [of Santa Cruz Surf School], you know, around Santa Cruz,”37 is not
helpful to Applicant because the time period Mr. Meyberg is referring to is unclear, and
Applicant does not contend that the hats, tank tops, shirts and sweat shirts constitute
promotion of the mark for the specific services identified in the application.

– 19 –
Opposition No. 91220843

on this record, we find that SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL was not used from

approximately August 16, 2013 until after November 5, 2014 at least insofar as

“educational services, namely, conducting surfing lessons in the field of ocean

recreation” and “rental of surf boards.”

As for the website services in Applicant’s identification, i.e., “providing a web site

featuring information needed for the sport of surfing, namely, wave conditions, wave

locations and duration of surfing session; providing a website featuring information

relating to the sport of surfing,” Mr. Greiner testified that he operated a website

which he used to “promote the services of teaching surfing in the ocean”;38 and that

the website was in existence from 2000 to 2012.39 However, the Business Sale

Agreement states that the website was not operating and had an outstanding bill.40

We therefore find that Applicant’s designation was not in continuous use for five

years preceding the date of Mr. Meyberg’s declaration.

In sum, we find that Mr. Meyberg’s declaration does not establish acquired

distinctiveness of Applicant’s mark for any of Applicant’s identified services.

Additional evidence

We now consider whether the record adduced at trial suffices to demonstrate

acquired distinctiveness, particularly through the trial testimony of Messrs. Greiner

and Meyberg, and exhibits. Trademark Rule 2.41(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.41(a), allows that:

In appropriate cases, where the applicant claims that a
mark has become distinctive in commerce of the applicant’s

38 Greiner Depo. at 7, 23 TTABVUE 8.
39 Greiner Depo. at 22 and 41, 23 TTABVUE 23 and 42.
40 Greiner Depo. Exh. B, 23 TTABVUE 74-75.

– 20 –
Opposition No. 91220843

goods or services, the applicant may, in support of
registrability, submit … verified statements, depositions,
or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent,
and nature of the use in commerce and advertising
expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of
media and attaching typical advertisements), and verified
statements, letters or statements from the trade or public,
or both, or other appropriate evidence of distinctiveness.

At best, Applicant’s evidence reflects use of SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL from

approximately 199741 until trial, with an interruption of more than one year from late

2013 through 2014. The passage of time alone, however, may be insufficient to

establish secondary meaning. See In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 USPQ 917,

920 (TTAB 1984) (deeming use of mark for sixteen years “a substantial period but not

necessarily conclusive or persuasive on the Section 2(f) showing”). Additionally, the

record reveals use of SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL by Applicant for less than five

years and limited advertising or promotional efforts by Applicant and its

predecessors-in-interest42; and is incomplete regarding (i) Applicant’s and its

41 Applicant’s Resp. to Interrog. Nos. 4 and 8, 19 TTABVUE 15 and 16.
42 Mr. Meyberg testified at p. 19, 24 TTABVUE 22:
[W]hat sort of marketing materials and goods that were marked
with the mark Santa Cruz Surf School were you aware of? …

A. In addition to, you know, the documents here, I would
regularly see at the surf school and around town people wearing
hats, shirts, sweat shirts, tank tops with the Santa Cruz Surf
School logo and business name on it. … There … was a sign that
was regularly posted in front of the surf school, and I believe that
there was signage even on different vehicles when I was, you
know, when I would visit the business office or business location
in person. … I would see stickers posted around everywhere with
Santa Cruz Surf School. In fact, I still see them on the doors to
markets and to other business establishments.

– 21 –
Opposition No. 91220843

predecessors-in-interest’s volume of sales under the mark,43 and (ii) the internet

traffic generated by the website operated by Applicant and its predecessors-in-

interest. There is no evidence of copying, or media recognition of SANTA CRUZ SURF

SCHOOL. See Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1424. The impression created by the

evidence in the record, including any evidence not specifically mentioned in this

opinion, is that Applicant and its predecessors-in-interest have provided the services

identified in the involved application to only a limited number of customers on an

irregular basis. We therefore conclude that Applicant has not satisfied its burden of

demonstrating that SANTA CRUZ SURF SCHOOL has acquired distinctiveness.

Decision: The opposition is sustained on the ground that SANTA CRUZ SURF

SCHOOL is geographically descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness.

Registration to Applicant is refused.

43 Mr. Meyberg testified that Applicant provides from five to twelve lessons per week.
Meyberg Depo. at 64, 24 TTABVUE 67. He did not indicate when Applicant began providing
this number of lessons.

– 22 –