Circuit City Stores West Coast, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 1998

No. 75050185 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 1998)

Paper No. 9
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB SEPT 11, 98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Circuit City Stores West Coast, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/050,185
_______
Mary Dalton Baril of McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe,
L.L.P. for Circuit City Stores West Coast, Inc.
Leigh Case, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105
(Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Sams, Cissel and Hairston, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
This is an appeal from the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s final refusal to register the mark APPLIANCE
STATION (APPLIANCE is disclaimed) for “retail stores
featuring computer hardware, computer software, camcorders,
compact discs featuring music, telephones, cellular
telephones, satellite receiving equipment, facsimile
Ser No. 75/050,185
2
machines, appliances, housewares and toys utilizing a
computerized ordering and information system.”1
Registration has been refused under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the grounds
that the mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s
services.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed
briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
In support of the refusal to register, the Examining
Attorney submitted an entry from the IBM Dictionary of
Computing (1994), wherein “station” is defined as “[a]n
input or output point of a system that uses
telecommunication facilities, for example, one or more
systems, computers, terminals, devices, and associated
programs at a particular location that can send or receive
data over a telecommunication line.” Also, the Examining
Attorney submitted the following excerpt from the NEXIS
database, which refers to applicant’s “Appliance Stations.”
. . . Circuit City is installing in-store
Appliance Stations, on-line interactive kiosks
connected to Amana and General Electric, where
shoppers can place special orders for delivery
in less than one week. It hopes to extend the
service to include other manufacturers.
(“Up Dates;” Chain Store Age, October 1, 1996).

1 Application Serial No. 75/050,185 filed January 30, 1996, and
based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 75/050,185
3
It is the Examining Attorney’s position that
applicant’s mark APPLIANCE STATION immediately conveys
information about the nature of applicant’s services,
namely that applicant provides, in its retail stores,
computer work stations from which customers may order or
obtain information about appliances.
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that the Examining Attorney’s reasoning
is flawed because of her reliance on a “technical”
definition of the word “station” with which ordinary
consumers are not familiar; that ordinary consumers are
more likely to attribute to the word “station” the
definition thereof which is found in general reference
dictionaries2; and that when such definition is associated
with applicant’s mark APPLIANCE STATION, the result is an
incongruous term. Further, applicant points out that there
is no evidence that APPLIANCE STATION is being used by any
of its competitors.
A mark is merely descriptive if it forthwith conveys
an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or
characteristics of the goods or services. In re Abcor
Development Corp., 616 F.2d 525, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).

2 For example, applicant submitted an excerpt from Webster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1984) wherein “station” is
Ser No. 75/050,185
4
Moreover, in order to be descriptive, the mark must
immediately convey information as to the ingredients,
qualities or characteristics as to the goods or services
with a “degree of particularity.” Plus Products v. Medical
Modalities Associates, Inc., 211 USPQ 1199, 1204-1205 (TTAB
1981); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Monolith Enterprises, 212 USPQ
949, 952 (TTAB 1981); In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200
USPQ 57, 59 (TTAB 1978); and In re Diet Tabs, Inc., 231
USPQ 587, 588 (TTAB 1986).
If however, when goods or services are encountered
under a mark, a multistage reasoning process, or resort to
imagination, is required in order to determine the
attributes or characteristic of the product or services,
the mark is suggestive rather than merely descriptive. See
In re Abcor Development Corp., supra at 218; and In re
Atavio, 25 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (TTAB 1992). To the extent
that there is any doubt in drawing the line of demarcation
between a suggestive mark and a merely descriptive one,
such doubt is resolved in applicant’s favor. In re Atavio,
supra at 1363.
In our view, customers of applicant’s retail stores
would not obtain an immediate idea of the nature of

defined as “the place or position in which something or someone
stands or is assigned to stand or remain.”
Ser No. 75/050,185
5
applicant’s services upon seeing the mark APPLIANCE STATION
used in connection therewith. We agree with applicant that
APPLIANCE STATION used for retail stores is incongruous and
requires a modicum of imagination or thought before one is
able to determine the nature of applicant’s retail stores.
That is to say, because there is no evidence that “station”
has a recognizable meaning in relation to retail stores or
that the term is used in a descriptive sense by the trade,
we believe that a multistage reasoning process (i.e.
station describes the system in applicant’s retail stores
by which a customer may order or obtain information about
the products sold therein; appliances are among the
products sold in applicant’s stores; thus a customer may
order or obtain information about the appliances sold in
applicant’s stores at the “appliance station”) is necessary
in order to ascertain the precise nature of applicant’s
services. We should note that the writer of the story from
which the NEXIS excerpt is taken has used “Appliance
Station” in the manner of a service mark. That is, it is
capitalized and modifies “on-line interactive kiosks.”
Accordingly, because APPLIANCE STATION does not
immediately describe with particularity the nature of
applicant’s services, it is not merely descriptive thereof.
Ser No. 75/050,185
6
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
J. D. Sams
R. F. Cissel
P. T. Hairston
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal and Board
Ser No. 75/050,185
7