Application of Abcor Development Corp.
Decision Date | 14 December 1978 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 78-562. |
Citation | 588 F.2d 811 |
Parties | Application of ABCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Assignee of Abcor, Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Richard P. Crowley, Boston, Mass., attorney of record, for appellant.
Joseph F. Nakamura, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Harry I. Moatz, Asst. Sol., U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, RICH, BALDWIN, and MILLER, Associate Judges, and FORD,* Judge.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("board),1 affirming the examiner's refusal to register appellant's trademark GASBADGE on the principal register as "merely descriptive" within the meaning of section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.2 We affirm.
Appellant's application3 states that the goods for which the mark has been adopted are "Device to determine and monitor personal exposure to gaseous pollutants."
The board considered appellant's advertising literature, describing the "Walden Gas Monitoring Badge Service" and the badge,4 and the specimen labels ("Gas Badge" appears within a parallelogram preceded by "Walden") filed with the application. It found that "the purchasers and prospective purchasers of these goods are obviously aware of the function and characteristics of applicant's badges." After considering the nature of the goods and the context in which the mark was used (particularly the advertising literature), it concluded that GASBADGE "leaves nothing for speculation or conjecture" and that "the term immediately and unequivocally describes the purpose and function of applicant's goods." It, therefore, held that GASBADGE is "merely descriptive" and not registrable.
Citing Stix Products, Inc. v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc., 295 F.Supp. 479, 487, 160 USPQ 777, 784 (S.D.N.Y.1968), appellant argues that the proper test for determining mere descriptiveness is whether the mark conveys forthwith an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the goods "to the ultimate consumer, who has never seen the product and does not know what it is." It contends that GASBADGE does not satisfy this test, because: (1) the mark "does not convey any idea of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the goods," i. e., the mark is not descriptive; and (2) the mark does not convey such an idea forthwith and immediately, and examination and study of appellant's literature is required to reach a conclusion regarding the nature of appellant's goods. Alternatively, appellant contends that, assuming the mark describes the goods, the mark is not "merely descriptive," since considerable thought (over a period of time) is required to arrive at a conclusion regarding the nature of the goods. Appellant also argues that certain third-party registrations5 were not given full consideration.
The solicitor agrees with the test used by the board and contends that determination of whether a mark is "merely descriptive" requires consideration of the mark as it is applied to the goods, and not in the abstract as proposed by appellant.
OPINIONThe major reasons for not protecting such marks are: (1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products. Armour & Co. v. Organon Inc., 245 F.2d 495, 498 and 500, 44 Cust.Pat.App. 1010, 1014 and 1016, 114 USPQ 334, 337 and 338 (1957).
The Lanham Act incorporates the common law proscription against "merely descriptive" marks in section 2(e)(1)6 as follows:
Various tests have been used in determining whether a mark is "merely descriptive."7 In early cases the Supreme Court8 considered whether the mark describes the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of the goods. This court has applied the same test.9 It has also looked to whether the mark conveys information regarding a function, or purpose, or use of the goods.10 Other considerations include whether the mark describes a feature or part of the goods11 and whether it conveys information about any properties of the goods.12 Although a mark may be generally descriptive, if it also functions as an indication of origin, it is not "merely descriptive."13
We note that the Seventh Circuit, in Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 379, 188 USPQ 623, 635, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 830, 97 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed.2d 94, 191 USPQ 416 (1976), quoted A. Seidel, S. Dalroff & E. Gonda, Trademark Law and Practice § 406, at 77 (1963), for what it regarded as the best statement of the distinction between a descriptive and suggestive mark:
This is similar to appellant's alternate proposed test. It is also similar to the test approved by the Second Circuit in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 11, 189 USPQ 759, 765 (CA 2 1976), namely:
A term is suggestive if it requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods. A term is descriptive if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods.14
In In re American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 442 F.2d 1404, 1407, 58 CCPA 1240, 1243, 169 USPQ 800, 801 (1971), this court impliedly approved this test by stating that the service mark involved was "merely descriptive," since it "would immediately convey to one seeing or hearing it the thought of appellant's services."
However, implicit in this test is the requirement that descriptiveness of a mark, when applied to the goods or services involved, is to be determined from the standpoint of the average prospective purchaser.15 In re Andes Candies, Inc., 478 F.2d 1264, 178 USPQ 156 (CCPA 1973); In re Automatic Radio Manufacturing, 404 F.2d 1391, 56 CCPA 817, 160 USPQ 233 (1969); Blisscraft of Hollywood v. United Plastics Co., 294 F.2d 694, 699, 131 USPQ 55, 60 (CA 2 1961). See E. Vandenburg, Trademark Law and Procedure, supra note 12, at 92-93. Evidence of the context in which a mark is used on labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods is probative of the reaction of prospective purchasers to the mark. In re American Society of Clinical Pathologists, supra. See In re Thunderbird Products Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 56 CCPA 969, 160 USPQ 730 (1969). To hold otherwise would be to separate the concept of the average prospective purchaser from the world of reality.
Appellant's proposed abstract test is deficient — not only in denying consideration of evidence of the advertising materials directed to its goods, but in failing to require consideration of its mark "when applied to the goods" as required by the statute.
Considering appellant's trademark GASBADGE when applied to appellant's goods and considering further the record evidence of appellant's advertising materials to which the average prospective purchaser is presumed to have been exposed, which clearly identify the gaseous pollutants collection function of appellant's device and its use in determining personal exposure to such pollutants, leaving nothing for the exercise of imagination when viewing the mark,16 we agree with the board that the term GASBADGE immediately and unequivocally describes the purpose and function of appellant's goods.17
Accordingly, we hold that GASBADGE is "merely descriptive" for purposes of section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.
The decision of the board is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
For all the majority's extensive review and discussion of various "tests," propounded from time to time in various places, for determining § 2(e)(1) descriptiveness, the opinion fails to state why I believe GASBADGE is "merely descriptive" under the statute.
My reasoning is very simple and requires no application of an elusive test. The ultimate in descriptiveness is the name of a thing. Weiss Noodle Co. v. Golden Cracknel & Specialty Co., 290...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., 84-C-511
...average prospective purchaser. See In re Omaha National Corporation, 819 F.2d 1117, 1119 (Fed.Cir.1987); Application of Abcor Development Corporation, 588 F.2d 811, 814 (C.C.P.A.1978); Bayer Company, Inc. v. United Drug Company, 272 F. 505, 509 (S.D.N.Y.1921). What the designation means to ......
-
Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Evans
...relates information about the characteristics, ingredients, qualities, purpose, or function of a product. Application of Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813 (CCPA 1978); Norm Thompson Outfitters, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 448 F.2d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1971). It has generally been ......
-
Fancaster, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.
...(Fed.Cir.1990) ( “shortening [a term] to [a] more concise, more easily used” form “is still descriptive”); Application of Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 815 (C.C.P.A.1978) (shortened versions of terms may be descriptive because “users of language have a universal habit of shortening......
-
Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Stroh Brewery Co.
..." 724 F.2d at 1325 (citations omitted). The same test applies when deciding whether a word is descriptive. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814 (C.C.P.A.1978). Stroh argues that in addition to consumer perceptions, other factors such as the understanding of those familiar with l......
-
TTAB Deems "DIRECT DIVINE LIGHT HEALING" Generic For And Merely Descriptive Of Educational Services In The Field Of Spiritual Healing
...to determining the status of a term as of the date it was first adopted." As Judge Rich explained in In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 219, (CCPA 1978) (Rich, J., concurring), a term that immediately and unequivocally describes the purpose and function of Respondent......
-
When a "+" Doesn't Add Anything in the Equation: Analyzing the Effect of the "+" on Trademark Law
...McCarthy, supra note 18 at § 12:20.56. Id. 57. USPTO, Supra note 41 at § 702.01.58. Id. at § 1209.59. Id. (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813 (C.C.P.A. 1978)).60. Id. at § 1209.02.61. Id. (noting that § 2(e)(1) of Lanham Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1)).62. USPTO, T......