the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1176-77 (Fed.Cir.2004). If each component retains its descriptive significance in relation to the services at issue, the combination results in a composite that is itself descriptive. Id. Here, merely combining “Tracker” with an acronym that accurately and thoroughly describes the product at issue does not evoke a new and unique commercial impression. Therefore, “TraekerDMS” is also descriptive. The Court also finds the mark “Finance Express” to be descriptive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board held that “Express” is merely descriptive of banking and trust services. See In re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 95, 1986 WL 83696, 1986 TTAB LEXIS, at *5-6 (TTAB 1986) (<HOLDING>). The board noted that the term “express”
holding expressservice was merely descriptive of banking and trust services holding that a corporation that purchased certain technology and support services through a services and licensing agreement was not protected by the njcfa because the technology and services were not 1 available to the public in large quantities or mass produced and 2 had no similarity to the comprehensive definitions of goods and services promulgated by the nj division of consumer affairs under the njcfa holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust