Ellen Sirot

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2011

No. 77541490 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2011)

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.