Atmel Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2002

No. 75649068re (T.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2002)

6/6/02

Paper No. 17
JQ

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Atmel Corporation
________

Serial No. 75/649,068
_______

Request for Reconsideration
_______

Thomas Schneck of Law Offices of Thomas Schneck for
applicant.

Florentina Blandu, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
112 (Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Walters and Chapman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Board, in a decision dated March 8, 2002, affirmed
the Section 2(e)(1) refusal based on mere descriptiveness.
More specifically, the Board found that the mark SMARTRF,
as applied to “semiconductor devices, computer programs to
develop software applications using semiconductor devices,
and software for evaluating semiconductor devices,” merely
describes radio frequency semiconductor devices
THIS DECISION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 75/649,068
2
incorporating and involving smart technology, and computer
programs dealing with the same type of semiconductor
devices.
Applicant has filed a request for reconsideration,
arguing that the Board’s decision is in error “because
semiconductors do not necessarily or inherently incorporate
or involve smart technology.” Applicant goes on to state
that a semiconductor device does not necessarily include a
microprocessor and therefore does not necessarily
incorporate ‘smart’ technology.” (request for
reconsideration, p. 2) Potential consumers of applicant’s
goods, according to applicant, would know that not all
semiconductors have microprocessors. Applicant contends
that the term “smart” has a variety of meanings and that
the combination of “smart” and “RF” (concededly an
abbreviation of “radio frequency”) results in a bizarre or
incongruous meaning of the mark as a whole. Lastly,
applicant’s dismisses the NEXIS evidence submitted by the
Examining Attorney.
The issue of mere descriptiveness is decided on the
basis of the goods as set forth in the application. In re
Allen Electric and Equipment Co., 458 F.2d 1404, 173 USPQ
689, (CCPA 1972) [SCANNER for antennas is merely
descriptive--while applicant contends that the specimen
Serial No. 75/649,068
3
shows that the mark is not in fact applied to scanning
antennas, trademark cases must be decided on the basis of
the identification of goods as set forth in the
application--the term “antennas” is broad enough to
encompass scanning antennas]; and In re Vehicle Information
Network Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1994). There are no
pertinent limitations in the identification of goods in the
present application, and, as shown by the record, the term
“smart” has been used to describe certain computer programs
and electronic devices. Being broadly identified, we must
assume, for purposes of our legal analysis, that
applicant’s goods involve smart technology. As such, the
mark SMARTRF is merely descriptive as applied to radio
frequency semiconductor devices involving smart technology
and computer programs dealing with the same type of
semiconductor devices.
In sum, we do not find any of applicant’s arguments to
be persuasive of a different result, but rather conclude
that the record supports affirmance of the refusal to
register.
The request for reconsideration is denied, and the
Board’s decision dated March 8, 2002 stands.