Bridgewater Auto Body Shop, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 1998

No. 74673178 (T.T.A.B. May. 26, 1998)

Paper No. 10
CEW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MAY 26, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Bridgewater Auto Body Shop, Inc.
___________
Serial No. 74/673,178
___________
Robert D. Frawley of Smith, Stratton, Wise, Heher & Brennan
for applicant.
Mitchell Front, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101
(R. Ellsworth Williams, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Hanak, Hohein and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Bridgewater Auto Body Shop, Inc. has filed a trademark
application to register the mark MANAGED CARE FOR COLLISION
REPAIR for “motor vehicle body repair services.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is
merely descriptive of its services.
Serial No. 74/673,178
2
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
The Examining Attorney acknowledges that “[t]he term
MANAGED CARE is most commonly associated with the field of
health care and health care insurance to denote a method of
providing health care, while keeping costs down” but
contends that “MANAGED CARE has come into common use in the
automotive repair industry to describe a method of keeping
automotive repair costs down.” In support of this
contention, the Examining Attorney has submitted excerpts of
articles from the LEXIS/NEXIS database. The following are
several examples:
“Managed Care Comes to Car Repair; Auto Insurers
see CMOs Cutting Body Shop Costs As HMOs Did in
Medicine” - Just as it did for hospitals, managed
care for cars is expected to transform the body
shop industry by increasing pressure to become
more cost effective. That is precisely the
development that garage owners most fear. [The
Washington Post, November 21, 1995.]
A reaction by the industry to rising repair costs
is to institute “managed care” programs for car
repair, borrowing the concept of managed care from
the medical care field. [National Underwriter,
Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management
Edition, October 30, 1995.]
. . . Insurance in Massachusetts is offering 10
percent discounts through three of the state’s
five American Automobile Association clubs. –-
Body-shop managed-care plans. These will get a

1 Serial No. 74/673,178, in International Class 37, filed April 25,
1995, based on an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.
Serial No. 74/673,178
3
run in New Jersey starting next year. [Sun
Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, September 22, 1995.]
“Lawmakers poised to kill managed care auto plan”
-- . . . drivers to save on automobile insurance
costs by agreeing to go to mechanics chosen by the
insurance companies for car repairs after an
accident. Supporters of the managed care option
argue it is strictly an alternative that can be
selected by those who want it. [New Jersey
Lawyer, November 20, 1995.]
In their efforts to contain costs, insurance
companies are forcing and will continue to force
“managed care” into the body shop business by
dictating how a repair will be done, what parts
will be used and how much they will pay, the
report says. [Automotive News, July 1, 1996.]
The Examining Attorney contends that the term MANAGED CARE
does not relate only to insurance services. Rather, “auto
body repair services are a necessary ingredient when a
MANAGED CARE automobile insurance model is used [as] . . .
the body shop must be one that is approved by the insurer.”
The Examining Attorney argues that the phrase COLLISION
REPAIR is, likewise, highly descriptive of applicant’s
services as applicant “is in the business of repairing cars
which have been involved in collisions.”
Applicant contends that its mark is incongruous as
MANAGED CARE is primarily a medical reference and, thus, the
mark will be read as suggesting “physicians examining and
treating an automobile.” Applicant concedes that “the term
‘managed care’ may be used to describe insurance
reimbursement services both in connection with medical
Serial No. 74/673,178
4
insurance and, potentially, automobile insurance” but
contends that, since applicant renders auto body repair
services, not insurance services, the term is, at most,
suggestive in connection with applicant’s services. In this
regard, applicant states that “it would be willing to
disclaim the use of the words ‘MANAGED CARE’ apart from the
mark as shown in order to confirm that applicant has no
interest in using the mark in connection with insurance
services or other services outside of motor vehicle body
repair.”2
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately conveys
information concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of the product or service
in connection with which it is used, or intended to be used.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re
Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986). It is
not necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive,
that the mark describe each feature of the goods, only that
it describe a single, significant quality, feature, etc. In
re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985).

2 Applicant appears to be offering this disclaimer to emphasize its
contention that the phrase is not merely descriptive in connection with
its identified services, rather than as a concession that it is merely
descriptive in connection therewith. As the Examining Attorney
correctly points out, such an amendment would not serve the purpose
intended by applicant. Thus, we give the proffered amendment no further
consideration.
Serial No. 74/673,178
5
Further, it is well-established that the determination of
mere descriptiveness must be made not in the abstract or on
the basis of guesswork, but in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the mark is used, and the impact that it is likely to
make on the average purchaser of such goods or services. In
re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1977).
First, we note that applicant does not discuss the
descriptiveness of the term COLLISION REPAIR in its mark
and, thus, we consider applicant to have conceded the
Examining Attorney’s argument that the term COLLISION REPAIR
is highly descriptive of applicant’s services as applicant
“is in the business of repairing cars which have been
involved in collisions.” Even if we were to consider
applicant’s lack of argument on this point to be an
oversight rather than a concession, we agree with the
Examining Attorney that the term COLLISION REPAIR is highly
descriptive in connection with applicant’s services. While
not all auto body damage is the result of a collision with
another vehicle or object, clearly a significant portion of
such damage repaired by an auto body shop is the result of a
collision. Thus, COLLISION REPAIR is merely descriptive of
one type of auto body repair undertaken as part of
applicant’s services.
Serial No. 74/673,178
6
As applicant concedes, the Examining Attorney has
established that MANAGED CARE, while originally a term most
commonly associated with the field of health care and health
care insurance to denote a method of providing health care,
while keeping costs down, the insurance industry has applied
the phrase, and the cost-containing concepts it implies, to
the automotive repair industry to describe a method of
keeping automotive repair costs down. The fact that
applicant is applying the term to motor vehicle body repair
services does not render the term incongruous, as such
services are an integral part of a managed care system.
Thus, considered in connection with applicant’s services, we
find no incongruity in the phrase MANAGED CARE FOR COLLISION
REPAIR. Rather, it is our view that, when applied to
applicant’s services, the phrase MANAGED CARE FOR COLLISION
REPAIR immediately describes, without conjecture or
speculation, a significant feature or function of
applicant’s services, namely, that applicant’s motor vehicle
body repair services are rendered as part of an arrangement
with motor vehicle insurance providers that establishes
practices and prices for collision motor vehicle body
repairs. Nothing requires the exercise of imagination,
cogitation, mental processing or gathering of further
information in order for purchasers of and prospective
customers for applicant’s services to readily perceive the
Serial No. 74/673,178
7
merely descriptive significance of the phrase MANAGED CARE
FOR COLLISION REPAIR as it pertains to applicant’s
identified services.
Serial No. 74/673,178
8
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act
is affirmed.
E. W. Hanak
G. D. Hohein
C. E. Walters
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board