E-2 Brokers, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 1999

No. 74656481 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 1999)

Paper No. 11
DEB
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE
AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JAN. 11, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re E-2 Brokers, Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/656,481
_______
Bernhard Kreten for E-2 Brokers, Inc.
Wm. Patrick Shanahan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 101 (R. Elsworth Williams, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Hairston and Bucher, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, E-2 Brokers, Inc. has filed an application for
registration of the mark "DAILY PURE" for "teas."1
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal to
register based upon Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§1056(a), on the ground that applicant has refused to comply

1 Serial No. 74/656,481, filed April 3, 1995, alleging use
since March 10, 1995.
Ser No. 74/656,481
2
with the requirement for a disclaimer of the word “PURE.” The
Trademark Examining Attorney takes the position that the word
“PURE” is merely descriptive matter under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), and therefore it must be
disclaimed prior to the issuance of a federal trademark
registration.
Applicant has appealed the final refusal to register.
Briefs have been filed, but applicant did not request an
oral hearing. We affirm the refusal to register.
The central question before the Board in this case
arises under §2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The Trademark
Examining Attorney stands by his position that the term
“PURE” within the composite mark “DAILY PURE” is merely
descriptive and that the two terms do not combine to create
a new unitary connotation.2
The Trademark Examining Attorney points to various
pieces of information from applicant’s own packaging,
including the following designation which is placed on the
top and side of the boxes in which the goods are marketed:

2 We note that much of applicant’s brief is directed to
whether “DAILY PURE” is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods.
However, that issue is not before us.
Ser No. 74/656,481
3
The packaging also shows applicant’s trade name,
“Naturally Pure Enterprises.” The text on the box states
that “‘DAILY PURE’ is blended from the finest all–natural
ingredients…,” “ALL NATURAL BOTANICALS,” “Flavored … with
natural flavor” and is “caffeine free.” These notations
all stress the natural, pure and healthful properties of
this tea. The packaging appeals to the health
consciousness of consumers by stressing the descriptive
meaning of the word “pure” as applied to tea. Hence, the
average consumer would conclude that this term, as used in
the mark DAILY PURE, is merely touting the product as being
tea completely free of any additives, fillers or
excipients.3
Applicant argues that consumers would not view “PURE”
in its mark as describing tea which is free of additives,
but would understand DAILY PURE to suggest that it cleanses
the body. However, given the over-riding emphasis on

3 The Trademark Examining Attorney has made of record three
third-party marks for goods including tea, in which the word
“pure” is disclaimed in the federal registrations. However, we
have not given these registrations any weight in reaching our
final decision, given that the evidence involved so few examples,
Ser No. 74/656,481
4
“Pure” as a feature of the tea, we are not persuaded that
the average consumer would think that the term “Pure”
referred to an effect the tea would have on the tea
drinker.4
Applicant argues that we must consider the mark in its
entirety. In this vein, applicant argues that any descriptive
meaning of the individual word “PURE” is lost in the mark as a
whole. That is, that “DAILY PURE” is a “unitary” mark.
However, because of the way “PURE” appears in the mark as well
as the references to “DAILY” and “PURE” in the packaging, the
average consumer would regard each word as having a different
suggestive or descriptive significance. For example, the
packaging also uses the word “Daily” in the context of “DAILY
MAINTENANCE: Drink one cup daily before breakfast.”
Accordingly, “Daily” suggests the recommended frequency of
usage, while “Pure” speaks to the natural ingredients.
Together, they connote two different features of the goods.
These two strains do not merge into any new meaning or double
entendre. Inasmuch as the combination of “DAILY” and “PURE”

and where it is not clear-cut that the usage in those composite
marks is totally analogous to the present case.
4 In support of this contention, applicant points to
quotations taken from the packaging trade dress, i.e., that
drinking this tea “leads to purification or cleansing of the
body” because it is “helpful in activating the major eliminatory
organs.”
Ser No. 74/656,481
5
does not create any new, double meaning, we find that the word
“PURE” as used in the mark “DAILY PURE” would immediately be
perceived as describing a feature of the goods.
Decision: In view of the foregoing, the requirement for a
disclaimer of the term “PURE” is affirmed and, in the absence of
a disclaimer, registration is refused. In accordance with
Trademark Rule 2.142(g), if a disclaimer is filed within thirty
days of the mailing date of this decision, we will set aside
this decision and the mark will be published for opposition.
E. J. Seeherman
P. T. Hairston
D. E. Bucher
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board