Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 79-613. |
| Citation | 616 F.2d 523 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of QUIK-PRINT COPY SHOPS, INC. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Arland T. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., attorney of record for appellant; Frederick H. Colen and Frederick L. Tolhurst, Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel.
Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; Jere W. Sears, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Donald R. Fraser, Vincent L. Barker, Jr. and Lynda E. Roesch of Wilson, Fraser, Barker & Clemens, Toledo, Ohio, attorneys of record for Quickprint, Inc.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN and MILLER, Judges, and FORD,* Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board"),1 affirming the examiner's refusal to register applicant-appellant's service mark QUIK-PRINT on the principal register as "merely descriptive" within the meaning of section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.2 We affirm.
According to the application to register,3 the mark is for the services of printing, photocopying, collating, binding, cutting, drilling, folding, padding, stapling, and perforating in the area comprising the District of Columbia and states of N.Y., Pa., N.J., Del., Md., Va., and W.Va. Two "exceptions" to applicant's right to exclusive use are set forth: (1) a mark consisting of a fanciful KP and the words KWIK PRINT for printing services, Registration No. 981,740, owned by Kwik Print, Inc., of Coral Gables, Florida; (2) a mark, QUIK PRINT and arrow design, for the services of reproducing documents and forms, Registration No. 997,747,4 owned by Quik Print, of Wichita, Kansas. The application also states that applicant is "informed" of nineteen state registrations and "concomitant users" of the same or similar marks.
The only issue before the board was the correctness of the examiner's refusal to register under section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act on the ground that the mark as applied to the stated services is merely descriptive thereof.5 The board, in affirming the examiner, said (203 USPQ at 627):
In the instant case, applicant is claiming use of the mark "QUIK-PRINT" for printing and duplication, which falls within the general category of "printing" See: "The Random House College Dictionary". Thus, the question is what meaning, if any, does the term "QUIK-PRINT" invoke as to these services. There is no doubt but that "QUIK-PRINT" is the equivalent of "QUICK-PRINT" and would be readily recognized as such, the word "QUICK" obviously would be equated with fast and promptly and when used with the word "PRINT" would immediately convey to customers that applicant's printing or duplication services will be rendered or completed in a short time or quickly. And since the "SAME-DAY SERVICE" offered by applicant through its advertising material emphasizes this quick service and attempts thereby to capitalize on it, it is obvious this is a desirable service and a desirable aspect of applicant's services that is conveyed to applicant's customers and potential customers by the term "QUIK-PRINT". Thus, "QUIK-PRINT" is equated with "FAST-PRINT" and therefore constitutes a term that others in the trade should be free to utilize in describing the speed in which they render their services. The aptness or desirability of the use of this term is demonstrated by the some twenty users of the same or a similar mark in connection with similar services noted by applicant in its application. Applicant has attempted to denigrate such use by urging that such use, as in its case, merely reflects a suggestive use of the term. However, it is believed that the widespread use of the term "QUIK-PRINT" throughout the United States by others including a number in the same state tends to establish that the term has lost whatever suggestiveness it may have possessed and has taken on and projects a descriptive significance of quick or fast printing services to the general public....
The board further said that a registration on the supplemental register of QUIK PRINT,6 along with the other registrations of record, indicates that the practice of the PTO is to treat QUIK-PRINT as merely descriptive and to allow registration on the principal register only after a showing of secondary meaning under section 2(f) of the Lanham Act. It found "nothing in this record to establish that applicant has achieved a recognition or a secondary meaning in the mark `QUIK-PRINT' in its marketing area." 203 USPQ at 627.
OPINIONA mark is merely descriptive7 if it immediately conveys to one seeing or hearing it knowledge of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the goods or services with which it is used; whereas, a mark is suggestive if imagination, thought, or perception is required to reach a conclusion on the nature of the goods or services. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813-14, 200 USPQ 215, 217-18 (CCPA 1978). Registration will be denied if a mark is merely descriptive of any of the goods or services for which registration is sought. In re American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 58 CCPA 1240, 442 F.2d 1404, 169 USPQ 800 (1971). Therefore, the dispositive question is whether the mark QUIK-PRINT is merely descriptive of any of appellant's services.
Appellant argues that although the words "quick" and "print" used individually are well-known, mundane...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interstate Net Bank v. Netb@Nk, Inc.
...of the product. See In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir.2001) (citing In re Quik Print Copy Shops, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 525 (Cust. & Pat.App.1980)). A descriptive mark can be registered only if it has acquired secondary meaning. See In re Dial-A-Mattress, 240......
-
In re SFS Intec Holding AG
... ... Cir. 2004) (quoting ... Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm'r, 252 ... U.S. 538, 543 (1920) ("A mark is ... identification of goods in the application features products ... that are used specifically with ... NU-ENAMEL); In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 ... F.2d 523, 205 U.S.P.Q. 505, ... ...
-
United Parcel Service Of America, Inc. v. Powertech Industrial Co. Ltd.
... ... in the application, as amended, as "power supplies; ... mobile phone battery chargers; ... trademark registrations, a patent publication and a copy of ... applicant's website; Opposer's Rebuttal Notice of ... re Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc. , 616 F.2d 523, 205 ... U.S.P.Q. 505, 507 (CCPA ... ...
-
In re Pellegrino and Associates, LLC
... ... descriptive." In re Tennis in the Round, Inc. , ... 199 U.S.P.Q. 496, 498 (TTAB 1978); see also ... programs for use in developing and deploying application ... programs); In re Putman Publ'g. Co. , 39 ... See ... In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 205 ... U.S.P.Q. 505, ... ...
-
Unconstitutional Incontestability? the Intersection of the Intellectual Property and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution: Beyond a Critique of Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp
...v. Sunbeam Corp., 442 F.2d 979 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 27. See, e.g., In re Quick-Print Copy Shops, Inc., 203 U.S.P.Q. 624 (T.T.A.B.), offd, 616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1979). The American Law Institute's drafts have elements of all three tests, see RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMP. § 14 cmt. b (Tent......
-
Trade Emblems
...202 (C.C.P.A. 1954). 37. Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1976). 38. In re Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc., 616 F.2d 523 (C.C.P.A. 1980). 39. Richard Hellman, Inc. v. Oakford and Fahnestock, 54 F.2d 423 (C.C.P.A. 1932). 40. Landes and Posner, supra note 12, at 276......
-
When a "+" Doesn't Add Anything in the Equation: Analyzing the Effect of the "+" on Trademark Law
...(quoting 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)).37. Int'l Trademark Ass'n, Supra note 27.38. In the Matter of the Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 525 (C.C.P.A. 1980).39. Id.40. Int'l Trademark Ass'n, supra note 27.41. USPTO, Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1209.01(c)(i) (202......