Ellen SirotDownload PDFTrademark Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 2011No. 77541490 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2011) Copy Citation Mailed: February 11, 2011 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ________ In re Ellen Sirot ________ Serial No. 77541490 _______ Thomas L. Peterson, Esq. for Ellen Sirot. Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102 (Karen M. Strzyz, Managing Attorney). _______ Before Quinn, Kuhlke and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judges. Opinion by Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge: Ellen Sirot (“applicant”) filed an intent-to-use application on the Principal Register for the mark GLOVETTE, in standard character form, for goods ultimately identified as “protective gloves for preventing premature aging of the hands,” in Class 25. The Trademark Examining Attorney refused to register applicant’s mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s THIS OPINION IS NOT A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Serial No. 77541490 2 goods.1 According to the Examining Attorney, the mark GLOVETTE “is commonly used to describe a fingerless glove.”2 A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a significant quality, characteristic, function, feature or purpose of the products it identifies. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Whether a particular term is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods for which registration is sought and the context in which the term is used, not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). In other words, the question is not whether someone presented only with the mark could guess the products listed in the description of goods. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows what the products are will understand the mark to convey information about them. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); 1 The examining attorney issued a final refusal on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive. The examining attorney did not refuse registration on the ground that applicant’s mark is generic; rather, the examining attorney issued an advisory statement that applicant’s mark appears to be generic. Accordingly, the only ground for refusal before us is whether applicant’s mark is merely descriptive. 2 The Examining Attorney’s Brief, unnumbered page 2. Serial No. 77541490 3 In re Home Builders Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (TTAB 1990); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985). “On the other hand, if one must exercise mature thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to determine what product or service characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 497 (TTAB 1978); see also, In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Systems, Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980). To support the descriptiveness refusal, the Examining Attorney submitted numerous excerpts from websites advertising the sale of “glovettes.” The following examples are representative of the evidence submitted by the examining attorney. 1. INTERWEAVE Store (interweavestore.com) Serial No. 77541490 4 2. Joni’s Crochet Creations (artfire.com) There is a second excerpt about knitted clothing at crazykindabliss.wordpress.com. That website appears to be a bulletin board or chat room dedicated to various subjects including fabric and yarn. One contributor wrote about the “glovettes” she knitted. Serial No. 77541490 5 3. StitchBee.biz In “Fingerless Gloves,” an online article by Peter Gitundu published by Ezine Articles (ezinearticles.com), the author writes that “Fingerless gloves, also known as glovettes, look like the regular more common ones, apart from the fact that they have one large opening instead of separate openings for each finger.” Finally, in response to the examining attorney’s request for information regarding applicant’s products, applicant submitted the advertisement shown below. Serial No. 77541490 6 In this advertisement, we find that applicant is using the word “Glovettes” descriptively. The term “Hand Perfection” appears to be the trademark. Based on the above-noted evidence, we find that GLOVETTE is merely descriptive of “protective gloves for preventing premature aging of the hands.” GLOVETTE immediately describes and indeed is used as the name of a particular type of glove (i.e., a fingerless glove). Nothing in the term is incongruous, indefinite or ambiguous when considered in relation to applicant’s goods and, consequently, no imagination, cogitation or gathering of further information would be necessary in order for customers to perceive the merely descriptive significance Serial No. 77541490 7 of GLOVETTE. GLOVETTE immediately describes the product as a fingerless glove. Applicant argues that GLOVETTE is not merely descriptive because it does not convey any information regarding the prevention of premature aging of the hands. However, it is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics, or features of a product to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if the term describes one significant function, attribute, or property. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services,” citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010; In re Cox Enterprises Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040, 1044 (TTAB 2007) (even though applicant’s publication includes matter that does not specifically relate to Atlanta, the mark THEATL is descriptive of that portion of the subject matter that relates to Atlanta). In this case, the evidence shows that GLOVETTE means a fingerless glove and that applicant’s products are fingerless gloves. During the prosecution of the application, applicant argued that GLOVETTE is not listed in any dictionary. The Serial No. 77541490 8 fact that GLOVETTE is not listed in a dictionary is not dispositive of whether the mark is merely descriptive. The fact that a term is not found in a dictionary is not controlling on the question of registrability if the examining attorney can show that the term has a well understood and recognized meaning. See In re Mine Safety Appliances Co., 66 USPQ2d 1694, 1697 (TTAB 2002); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516, 517 (TTAB 1977). In view of the foregoing, we find that applicant’s mark GLOVETTE is merely descriptive of “protective gloves for preventing premature aging of the hands.” Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation