Fisheye, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 1998

No. 74731211 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 1998)

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB SEPT 10, 98
Paper No. 9
BAC
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Fisheye, Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/731,211
_______
Clark Puntigam of Jensen & Puntigam, P.S. for applicant
Cheryl Goodman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
102 (Myra Kurzbard, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Hairston, Walters and Chapman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Chapman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Fisheye, Inc. has filed an application to register the
mark FISHEYE and design, in the form reproduced below
for “underwater video cameras”.1
Ser. No. 74731211
2
Registration has been finally refused under Section 6
of the Trademark Act on the basis of applicant’s failure to
comply with a requirement to disclaim the word ‘FISHEYE’.
Such word, according to the Examining Attorney, is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, and therefore must be
disclaimed.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm.
It is the Examining Attorney’s position that the term
‘FISHEYE’ is merely descriptive of a feature of applicant’s
goods, namely, an underwater video camera which utilizes a
wide-angle lens (as shown on applicant’s specimens of
record). As evidence in support of this position, the
Examining Attorney submitted (1) the following dictionary
definition of the term FISHEYE from Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary: “being, having, or produced by a
wide-angle photographic lens that has a highly curved
protruding front, that covers an angle of about 180
degrees, and that gives a circular image ”; and
(2) excerpts from several Nexis stories which discuss

1 Application Serial No. 74/731,211, filed September 19, 1995,
alleging dates of first use and first use in commerce of February
Ser. No. 74731211
3
‘fisheye’ lenses used with video cameras.
Applicant maintains that the term ‘FISHEYE’ when used
alone, without the word ‘lens’, is suggestive because the
word FISHEYE does not immediately convey the meaning of a
particular type of lens; and that applicant’s trademark
‘FISHEYE’ does not refer to the lens per se, but rather,
“is intended to suggest an ‘underwater view’, like a ‘fish
eye’ view of underwater scenes, as well as adding emphasis
to the ‘fisheye’ feature of the design portion of the
mark”. In support of its contention that the term ‘fisheye
lens’ refers to a camera lens, whereas the term ‘fisheye’
alone does not so refer, applicant submitted a different
dictionary definition stating the source to be Webster’s
New World Dictionary, wherein the term ‘fisheye lens’ is
defined as “a camera lens designed to record a full 180-
degree field of vision”; and there is no listing or excerpt
for only the term ‘fisheye’ in that dictionary.
The Examining Attorney has established the
significance or meaning of the term ‘FISHEYE’, namely, that
it is a wide-angle lens. In fact, the dictionary
definition submitted by applicant also supports that fact.
Also, it would appear from the evidence of record that the

1993 and December 1994, respectively.
Ser. No. 74731211
4
addition of the term ‘lens’ is immaterial to the
connotation of ‘FISHEYE’ as a camera lens.
Applicant’s specimens of record indicate that its
goods, underwater video cameras, have a fixed focus wide-
angle lens, which when connected to a television bring in
“sharp, clear pictures”, and if connected to a camcorder or
VCR allows the underwater action to be taped. That is,
applicant’s underwater video cameras allow the consumer to
watch or to record the underwater wide-angle scene. Thus,
the word ‘FISHEYE’ describes a significant characteristic
or feature of applicant’s goods, i.e., the wide-angle lens
which is the lens in applicant’s underwater video cameras.
Applicant’s argument that the term may be construed to
refer to a ‘fish eye’ view of underwater scenes is not
persuasive, and does not overcome the Examining Attorney’s
evidence of the ordinary meaning of the term in relation to
applicant’s goods. See In re Omaha National Corporation,
819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The design
feature of applicant’s mark, namely, the depiction of a
fish with a large eye, does not mitigate the descriptive
significance of the word ‘FISHEYE’ as applied to underwater
video cameras which utilize wide-angle lenses.
Based on the above, we find that the term ‘FISHEYE’ is
an unregistrable component of the composite mark, and that
Ser. No. 74731211
5
the requirement for a disclaimer under Section 6 was
proper.
Decision: The requirement under Section 6 for a
disclaimer of the term ‘FISHEYE’ is affirmed. However,
this decision will be set aside and the mark published for
opposition if applicant, no later than thirty days from the
mailing date hereof, submits an appropriate disclaimer of
‘FISHEYE’. See Trademark Rule 2.142(g).
P. T. Hairston
C. E. Walters
B. A. Chapman
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board