Fairfield Line, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 1998

No. 75063713 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 1998)

Hearing: Paper No. 14
October 1, 1997 HANAK/MD
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB 8/7/98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Fairfield Line, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/063,713
_______
Edmund J. Sease of Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees & Sease
for Fairfield Line, Inc.
Andrew D. Lawrence, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Seeherman, Hanak and Hairston, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Fairfield Line, Inc. (applicant) seeks registration of
FEATHERLITE in typed capital letters for “gloves.” The
intent-to-use application was filed on February 26, 1996.
The Examining Attorney refused registration pursuant to
Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Trademark Act on the basis
that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of gloves.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed to
this Board. Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed
Ser No. 75/063,713
2
briefs and were present at a hearing held on October 1,
1997.
At the outset, one matter should be clarified. In its
reply brief, applicant quite properly objects to material (a
printout from the PTO’s TRAM database) which the Examining
Attorney attached to his brief and which was not previously
made of record by the Examining Attorney. In reaching our
decision, we have given no consideration to this material.
In arguing that FEATHERLITE is not descriptive of
gloves, applicant makes essentially three arguments.
First, applicant argues that upon encountering the mark
FEATHERLITE, “an average consumer is unlikely to immediately
think of gloves.” (Applicant’s brief page 5). Applicant’s
statement is true, but is irrelevant. The descriptiveness
of a mark is not determined in the abstract, but rather is
determined in relationship to the goods for which
registration is sought. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978).
Second, applicant argues that “although the term
FEATHERLITE may arguably describe the lightweight feature of
some goods, this is not a characteristic of appellant’s
goods.” (Applicant’s brief page 2). Whether applicant’s
particular gloves are lightweight, medium weight or heavy
weight is irrelevant. Applicant’s own chosen description of
goods is simply “gloves.” Obviously, some gloves are
Ser No. 75/063,713
3
lightweight. As our primary reviewing Court has stated,
“the authority is legion that the question of registrability
of an applicant’s mark must be decided on the basis of the
identification of goods set forth in the application
regardless of what the record may reveal as to the
particular nature of applicant’s goods.” Octocom Systems
Inc. v. Houston Computers Services Inc., 918 F.2d 737, 16
USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In upholding the
Board’s decision refusing registration of the term SCANNER
for “antennas” on the ground that the mark is merely
descriptive of said goods, the Court rejected applicant’s
argument that its particular antennas were not scanning
antennas. In so doing, the Court noted that “trademark
cases must be decided on the basis of the identification of
the goods as set forth in the application.” Continuing, the
Court noted that “since the goods are described merely as
‘antennas’ and that term is broad enough to encompass
‘scanning antennas,’ the mark SCANNER as applied to the
goods is merely descriptive.” In re Allen Electric &
Equipment Co., 458 F.2d 1404, 173 USPQ 689, 690 (CCPA 1972).
Finally, at page 4 of its brief, applicant notes that
the tag for its gloves “states that the insulation of the
glove is ‘warm’, ‘lightweight’, ‘quick drying’,
‘comfortable’, and ‘conserves body heat.’ … However,
‘lightweight’ refers only to the insulation of the glove and
Ser No. 75/063,713
4
is not alleged to be a property of the overall glove.” Even
assuming for the sake of argument that applicant’s proposed
mark FEATHERLITE and the term “lightweight” refer only to
the insulation for a glove, the purported mark FEATHERLITE
is still descriptive of the glove. Obviously, insulation is
an important component or characteristic of a glove. As has
been repeatedly stated, “a term is descriptive if it
forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients,
qualities or characteristics of the goods.” Abcor
Development, 200 USPQ at 218 (emphasis added). Thus, even
assuming arguendo that the purported mark FEATHERLITE does
not describe an entire glove, it would nevertheless be
descriptive as applied to gloves when, as is the case here,
it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of a significant
component or characteristic of gloves.1

1 Of course, applicant has never disputed that the word
“featherlight” (which is the equivalent of applicant’s mark
FEATHERLITE) is defined as meaning “extremely light.” See
photocopy of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, (1976)
Attached to Office action No. 1.
Ser No. 75/063,713
5
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
E. J. Seeherman
E. W. Hanak
P. T. Hairston
Administrative
Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/063,713
6