F.3d 1143, 1147 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999)). A court’s determination of whether a mark is suggestive or descriptive is not as clear as one would hope and is not as objective as one would think. Zobmondo Entm’t, 602 F.3d at 1114; Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1197. The dictionary definition may be relevant in the analysis of whether a mark is descriptive because it shows how the public may view the mark and what, if any, mental step is needed. Zobmondo Entm’t, 602 F.3d at 1116; see Surgicenters of Am., Inc. v. Med. Dental Surgeries, Co., 601 F.2d 1011, 1015 n.11 (9th Cir. 1979)(“While not determinative, dictionary definitions are relevant and often persuasive in determining how a term is understood by the consuming public ... ”); cf. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2002)(<HOLDING>). The issue for the Court to determine is
holding that entrepreneur is merely descriptive as the name of a magazine because an entirely unimaginative literalminded person would understand its meaning holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that an action brought in the name of a person adjudicated as incapacitated instead of in the name of her guardian cannot be corrected as a misnomer holding that a state was embraced within the meaning of the word person  where the word person was defined as meaning and including a partnership association company or corporation as well as a natural person holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983