Enginuity Portable Grid, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2009

No. 77305984 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2009)

Mailed:
Feb. 9, 2009

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Enginuity Portable Grid, Inc.
________

Serial No. 77305984
_______

Todd A. Vaughn of Sherr & Vaughn, PLLC for Enginuity
Portable Grid, Inc.

Glenn Mayerschoff, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
106 (Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Walters, Bucher and Grendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Enginuity Portable Grid, Inc., applicant herein, seeks
registration on the Principal Register of the mark EPG (in
standard character form) for goods identified in the
application as
power generation equipment, namely, portable
electric power generators primarily including a
diesel engine, alternator, control instruments,
circuit breakers, batteries, battery charger,
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 77305984
2
fuel tank, fuel gauges, light fixtures, and fire
extinguishers all sold as a unit

in International Class 7.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
refusal to register applicant’s mark on the ground that the
mark is merely descriptive of the goods identified in the
application. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C.
§1052(e)(1).
Applicant has appealed the final refusal.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record
and the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons discussed
below, we affirm the refusal to register.
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered merely

1 Serial No. 77305984, filed on October 17, 2007. The
application is based on applicant’s allegation of a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce. Trademark Act Section
1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b).
Ser. No. 77305984
3
descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not
in the abstract, but in relation to the goods or services
for which registration is sought, the context in which it
is being used on or in connection with those goods or
services, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services
because of the manner of its use. That a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
Moreover, it is settled that “[t]he question is not whether
someone presented with only the mark could guess what the
goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether
someone who knows what the goods or services are will
understand the mark to convey information about them.” In
re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
See also In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d
1537 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Association of
Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313 (TTAB 1990); and In re American
Greetings Corporation, 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).
Ser. No. 77305984
4
Of particular relevance to the present case involving
the acronym “EPG,” our case law provides that an acronym or
initialism is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services only if the wording it stands for is merely
descriptive of the goods or services, and the acronym or
initialism is readily understood by relevant purchasers to
be “substantially synonymous” with the merely descriptive
wording it represents or stands for. See, e.g., Modern
Optics, Inc. v. The Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 110 USPQ
293 (CCPA 1956)(“CV” not substantially synonymous with
merely descriptive designation “continuous vision” and thus
is not merely descriptive of trifocal lenses); In re
BetaBatt Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1152 (TTAB 2008)(“DEC” is
substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term
“direct energy conversion” and thus is merely descriptive
of type of batteries); and Capital Project Management Inc.
v. IMDISI Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1172 (TTAB 2003)(“TIA” is
substantially synonymous with generic term “time impact
analysis” and thus is generic for type of construction
project schedule analysis services).
The Trademark Examining Attorney contends that
“emergency power generator” is the generic name of a type
of power generator; that this type of generator is
encompassed by applicant’s identification of goods; and
Ser. No. 77305984
5
that “EPG” is an acronym for “emergency power generator”
and would be readily recognized as such by relevant
purchasers. In support of his refusal, the Trademark
Examining Attorney has submitted the following pertinent
evidence:
1.2 www.acronymfinder.com – 29 entries for “EPG” –
including “Emergency Power Generator.”
2.3 Yahoo website summary – www.nws.noaa.gov –

Southern Region Emergency Power Generator
Maintenance Program … Monthly inspections of all
WFO Emergency Power Generator (EPG) systems are
required…

3. Yahoo website summary –
isotf.org/pipermail/outages/2007

…power build and back up facilities, Level(3)
deploys generator set in an EPG set-up (Emergency

2 Applicant challenges the reliability and indeed the
admissibility of the Trademark Examining Attorney’s evidence
derived from acronymfinder.com, noting that the site itself
includes a disclaimer concerning its reliability. (However, as
noted below, applicant in the alternative has relied on the
Trademark Examining Attorney’s acronymfinder.com evidence to show
that “EPG” is an acronym for many other terms and phrases.) The
Board has accepted acronym dictionary evidence in ex parte cases.
See, e.g., In re BetaBatt Inc., supra; In re Fiesta Palms LLC, 85
USPQ2d 1360 (TTAB 2007); and In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618
(TTAB 2006). Thus, we have considered the acronymfinder.com
evidence in this case, and we shall give it whatever probative
value it deserves. We note that it is accompanied in the record
by other evidence supporting the point for which the Trademark
Examining Attorney cites it.

3 We deem these two entries from the Internet search summary
(items 2 and 3 above) to be sufficiently clear in their contexts
that they are entitled to some corroborative probative value.
See, e.g., In re Hotels.com L.P., 87 USPQ2d 1100, 1105 n.7 (TTAB
2008); In re Fitch IBCA Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058 (TTAB 2002).
Applicant has not contended otherwise.
Ser. No. 77305984
6
Power Generator). It is very important that the
EPG configurations…”

4.4 website of publication COMPUTERWORLD (Australia)
(www.computerworld.com.au) -
March 27, 2008 issue: “Traffic on a major Sydney
city street will come to a halt in the new year
as Optus installs its third Emergency Power
Generator (EPG) onto the roof of its Ultimo Data
Centre. A crane will lift the EPG onto the roof,
requiring the complete closure of Harris Street…”

5. website of Elinex Power Solutions (Netherlands)
(www.elinex.com/en/lexicon):
ELINEX LEXICON entry for “Emergency power
generator”: “Unlike a UPS, an emergency power
generator (EPG), also known as an emergency power
diesel unit, does not deliver electricity
immediately. It takes about 15 seconds because
the diesel motor still has to be started up. … A
combination of the two systems offers the
advantage of an uninterrupted power supply with a
long bridging time. EPGs are used in e.g.
hospitals and drinking water plants and pumping
stations so that these can continue to operate in
the event of power failures.”

6. website of Foley/Cat[erpillar]
(www.foleyinc.com/power/epg_ups.cfm)
Product page for “Prime and Backup Power” –
heading says “EPG & UPS”. Lists products under
“Power Generation Systems”: Prime & Emergency
Power Generator Sets; Diesel Fuel; Natural Gas;
Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS); Automatic
Transfer Switches; Paralleling Switch Gear.

7. website THINK Energy group.com
(www.thinkenergygroup.com): employment ads/listings
includes:

4 We have given these foreign websites (item nos. 4 and 5 above)
probative value because they are in English, because they would
readily be found by persons searching the Internet for
information about EPGs, and because the goods in this case
obviously are the type of goods that are manufactured and
marketed worldwide. Applicant has not contended otherwise.

Ser. No. 77305984
7
An established Caterpillar dealer located in
East-Central NJ is actively searching for an
Electrical Engineer to work as an Emergency Power
Generator (EPG) Technical Communicator
coordinating all phases of EPG technical support
services. … This position requires a BSEE with
strong emergency power generator technical
background and 5 years experience in Start up and
customer interaction. … Previous experience with
Caterpillar Generators highly preferred.”

In traversing the mere descriptiveness refusal,
applicant has not disputed the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s contentions (and evidence) that the phrase
“emergency power generator,” in itself, is the name of a
particular type of generator, and that applicant’s goods as
identified in the application encompass that product. In
view thereof, we find that those facts are established, and
that the phrase “emergency power generator” is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods.
For two (apparently alternative) reasons, applicant
argues that the Trademark Examining Attorney has failed to
make out a prima facie case of mere descriptiveness because
the record fails to establish that “EPG” is readily
understood as an acronym which is substantially synonymous
with the merely descriptive term “emergency power
generator.”
First, applicant contends that “EPG” is, and would be
readily understood by applicant’s purchasers as, an acronym
Ser. No. 77305984
8
for applicant’s corporate name, i.e., “Enginuity Portable
Grid.”
Second, applicant argues that “EPG” would not be
readily and immediately understood to be a substantially
synonymous acronym for “emergency power generator” because
the Trademark Examining Attorney’s own evidence (primarily
the Acronym Finder listings for “EPG”) shows that “EPG” is
an acronym for other terms and phrases, not just “emergency
power generator.” Applicant acknowledges the settled
principle that mere descriptiveness must be determined in
connection with applicant’s identified goods and not in the
abstract, and that the fact that the term in question may
have other meanings in different contexts does not cure the
term’s mere descriptiveness as applied to applicant’s
goods. However, applicant responds to this by contending
that many of these other meanings of the acronym “EPG” are
not from different, irrelevant contexts, but rather are
related to applicant’s “field of endeavor,” which is the
field of “engineering and/or technology.” These other
meanings of “EPG” include “engineered products group,”
“enhanced platform group,” “enhanced products group,”
“engineering practice group,” “engineering process group,”
“electrical power generator,” “energy practice group,”
Ser. No. 77305984
9
“external pulse generator,” “electric power generator,” and
“emergency preparedness group.”
Applicant argues that for either or both of these
reasons, i.e., the fact that “EPG” is an acronym for
applicant’s corporate name, and/or the fact that there are
numerous potential meanings of “EPG” in the context of
applicant’s “field of endeavor,” “EPG” would not
necessarily be immediately and readily understood to be an
acronym substantially synonymous with “emergency power
generator.” Applicant contends that because of all these
other meanings, purchasers would have to engage in mature
thought and a multi-stage reasoning process before they
would understand that “EPG” stands for the term “emergency
power generator.”
We have considered applicant’s arguments, but we find
them to be unpersuasive. We find that the evidence
discussed above establishes, prima facie, that “EPG” is
merely descriptive of the goods identified in applicant’s
application. First, it is undisputed that the term
“emergency power generator” is the name of or at least
merely descriptive of a type of generator. Second, it is
undisputed that this type of generator is encompassed by
applicant’s identification of goods. Third, the acronym
“EPG” is and would be readily understood by relevant
Ser. No. 77305984
10
purchasers to be substantially synonymous with the merely
descriptive term “emergency power generator.” On the
websites quoted above, the acronym “EPG” appears in close
conjunction with, or as an obvious alternative to, the
words “emergency power generator.” This manner of usage
clearly demonstrates that relevant purchasers would readily
understand and use the acronym “EPG” and the term
“emergency power generator” interchangeably when referring
to applicant’s goods. We thus find that “EPG” is
substantially synonymous with “emergency power generator.”
“EPG” must remain available to others in applicant’s
industry for use in identifying and describing their
emergency power generators.
Applicant has failed to rebut the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s prima facie showing of mere descriptiveness.
The fact that “EPG” is an acronym for applicant’s corporate
name avails applicant nothing, because its corporate name
is not part of the mark applicant seeks to register.
Likewise unavailing is applicant’s argument that “EPG” has
other meanings in applicant’s “field of endeavor”, i.e.,
“engineering and/or technology.” The significance of the
term in applicant’s “field of endeavor” is not the test.5

5 This is especially so where applicant’s asserted “field of
endeavor” is so obviously overbroad.
Ser. No. 77305984
11
Rather, we must determine the mere descriptiveness of “EPG”
as applied to the specific goods identified in applicant’s
application. The evidence of record clearly establishes
that “EPG” has one specific meaning as applied to those
identified goods. It is commonly used as, and would be
readily recognized as, a synonym of “emergency power
generator.” The evidence shows that the acronym and the
term it stands for, “emergency power generator,” are used
interchangeably to refer to and immediately describe the
goods identified in the application.
Applicant contends that relevant purchasers would have
to engage in mature thought and a multi-stage reasoning
process before they would understand that “EPG” stands for
the term “emergency power generator.” However, aside from
its contention that “EPG” has other meanings (which, as
discussed above, is not relevant to our determination of
whether the term is merely descriptive as applied to
applicant’s specific goods), applicant does not describe
what that multi-stage reasoning process would consist of.
Applicant’s mere argument that such a process would be
required is not sufficient. See In re BetaBatt Inc., 89
USPQ2d at 1156-57.
Finally, we note applicant’s argument that “…if one
were to ask a prospective purchaser the meaning of ‘EPG,’
Ser. No. 77305984
12
that potential purchaser cannot, without additional clues,
immediately conclude that the term describes the particular
goods in question. That understanding does not arise, ipso
facto, from the term ‘EPG.’” (Applicant’s brief at 4;
emphasis in original.) As noted above, however, “[t]he
question is not whether someone presented with only the
mark could guess what the goods or services are. Rather,
the question is whether someone who knows what the goods or
services are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d at 1316-17.
In this case, relevant purchasers encountering “EPG” in
connection with applicant’s EPGs will immediately
understand and attribute to the term its descriptive
significance.
For these reasons, we find, without any doubt, that
“EPG” is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods as they
are identified in the application. Applicant’s arguments
to the contrary are not persuasive.

Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.