Gerald A. Weigert

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 20, 1998

No. 74605074 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 1998)

Hearing: Paper No. 20
April 23, 1997 PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB AUG 20 ,98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Gerald A. Weigert
________
Serial No. 74/605,074
_______
Edouard V. Rosa for Gerald A. Weigert.
Anthony Masiello, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Quinn and Hairston, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Gerald A. Weigert has filed an application to register
the term JETBIKE for goods which were subsequently
identified as “boats, namely recreational jet[-]powered
personal watercraft that plane on the surface of the water
by means of runners.”1
Registration has been finally refused pursuant to
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1),
on the ground that the term is merely descriptive of
Ser No. 74/605,074
2
applicant’s goods. Applicant has appealed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs
on the case, and an oral hearing was held.
It is essentially the Examining Attorney’s position
that the term JETBIKE is merely descriptive of applicant’s
goods because applicant’s boats are propelled by a jet of
water and resemble bikes. In addition, the Examining
Attorney contends that JETBIKE, when used in connection with
applicant’s goods, is generic because it is the equivalent
of “jet bike,” the apt descriptive name for applicant’s
goods.
In support of the refusal to register, the Examining
Attorney relies on thirty-three excerpts from the NEXIS data
base wherein the term “jet bike” (two words) is used. We
note that fourteen of the NEXIS excerpts are from foreign
publications and are of no probative value as to public
perception of the term in the United States, since there is
no evidence as to the extent, if any, of circulation of
those publications in the United States. See In re Bel
Pease Sales Co., 1 USPQ2d 1233, 1235 (TTAB 1986). Moreover,
in four of the excerpts, “jet bike” appears to refer to a
motorized land vehicle, and thus these excerpts are of no
value in deciding the issue in this appeal. The following

1 Application Serial No. 74/605,074 filed December 1, 1994, which
alleges a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 74/605,074
3
are representative examples of the remaining fifteen NEXIS
excerpts, with the term jet bike highlighted:
But personal watercraft probably aren’t what
you have in mind when you think of a cruising
vessel. Manufacturers eager to distance
themselves from the idea that jet bikes are
good only for hot-rodding, have been pushing
cruising as a viable use for these machines.
(“Jetcraft Junkies;” Motor Boating & Sailing;
August, 1993);
. . . Marina, 1710 W. Mission Bay Drive,
222-6440. Rentals are available for
sailboats, Aquacycles, powerboats, water
jet bikes, sail boards and more. Prices:
$15 to $65 an hour.
(“Water Sports,” The San Diego Union-Tribune;
May 20, 1994);
While boaters have traditionally been big
buyers of personal watercraft, manufacturers
like Kawasaki and Sea-Doo are now launching
their jet bikes directly into America’s
living rooms with TV ad campaigns that show
the inherent fun of the sport.
(“Wave Masters;” Motor Boating & Sailing;
August 1994);
Goodwin said many problems come when riders
try to engage in “dogfights.” That’s when
riders on two or more of the jet bikes try
to get as close to each other as possible
and spray each other with their jet stream
nozzles.
(“Get Wet!;” The Dayton Daily News; July
22, 1995);
Sgt. McGrath said water jet bikes are
particularly dangerous. “The jet bikes
are treated as if they are toys, and they
are not toys,” he said. “The equipment in
the water has to be handled with care and
responsibility.”
(“Oklahoma Student Dies;” Dallas Morning News;
August 17, 1995); and
Ser No. 74/605,074
4
Cruising on Lake Powell is like taking a
waterborne trip into the Old West. We
explore its rugged canyons on jet bikes--
four of the hottest on the water.
(“Canyon Cruising;” Motor Boating and
Sailing, September, 1995).
Based on the above evidence, the Examining Attorney
concludes that the purchasing public would perceive the
designation JETBIKE as a generic name for the type of boats
offered by applicant.
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that at most, JETBIKE “suggests that
personal watercraft may be in the shape of a bicycle and
propelled by a jet type device;”2 that JETBIKE is not the
common term used to describe the type of boats sold by
applicant; and that the NEXIS evidence is insufficient to
establish that JETBIKE is generic of applicant’s goods since
most of the excerpts are taken from a single industry
publication. In support of its position, applicant
submitted copies of numerous articles, advertisements, and
competitor product brochures wherein boats such as
applicant’s are referred to as watercraft, personal
watercraft, or “PWC.” In addition, applicant submitted the
declarations of six individuals who are directly involved in
Ser No. 74/605,074
5
the personal watercraft industry, each of whom states, in
relevant part, that he/she has personal knowledge of

applicant’s use of the “‘JETBIKE’ trademark,” and that:
Based upon my personal knowledge, I am not
aware of any other personal watercraft
company that uses the JETBIKE trademark
to describe its product line. However, I
am aware of the common use of the terms
watercraft, personal watercraft and
runabouts to specifically describe jet
powered watercraft.
We turn first to the question of genericness. The
critical issue in determining whether a term is generic, as
applied to the goods set forth in an application or
registration, is whether the relevant public primarily uses
or understands the term to refer to the category of goods or
services under that term. See Marvin Ginn Corporation v.
International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d
987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Evidence of the
public’s understanding of a term may be obtained from any
competent source, including purchaser testimony, surveys,
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers and other
publications. In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc., 777
F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden is on
the Patent and Trademark Office to establish the genericness
of a term by “clear evidence” thereof. In re Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141,

2 Although this is an intent-to-use application, it appears that
Ser No. 74/605,074
6
1143 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See In re Gould Paper Co., 834 F.2d
1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
After careful consideration of all of the evidence of
record, we find that the primary significance to the
relevant public of the term JETBIKE is not a generic
expression for applicant’s boats. The instances of generic
use of the two-word term “jet bike” are de minimus, and it
could be that the media has misused the term. In any event,
the Nexis evidence is outweighed by the affidavits of the
six individuals who are directly involved in the industry,
namely boat manufacturers and retailers. Each of these
individuals has stated that he knows of no other personal
watercraft companies which use the term JETBIKE to describe
their products. Moreover, the record fails to show that
competitors have a need to use the term JETBIKE as a generic
designation for boats such as applicant’s; on the contrary,
the record shows the opposite, namely that a fair number of
competitors exist and that none of them uses the term
JETBIKE, but rather, they use the terms “watercraft,”
“personal watercraft,” “PWC,” and “runabouts” as common
names for these goods. We find, therefore, that on this
record, JETBIKE has not been shown to be generic of
applicant’s goods.

applicant has begun to market goods under the involved mark.
Ser No. 74/605,074
7
We turn next to the question of mere descriptiveness.
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately conveys
information concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of a product or service.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); and In
re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985).
We have no hesitation in finding that JETBIKE is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods. As shown by applicant’s
own description of its goods, JET describes the means by
which applicant’s boats are powered on the water. Moreover,
applicant’s boats do resemble both bicycles and motorcycles.
In this regard, we note that applicant’s boats are steered,
in part, by handlebars and the rider straddles the boat as
if riding a bicycle or motorcycle. Also, we note the
following statements in applicant’s product brochures which
liken applicant’s goods to motorcycles:
JETBIKE. The world’s only motorcycle for the water.
This Grand Prix motorcycle-like, high speed
machine is the only watercraft . . .
Design and Engineering Highlights . . . motorcycle
twist throttle
Performance Highlights . . . motorcycle-like
handling.
Accordingly, the relevant class of consumers will
immediately understand, without any need for imagination,
thought or perception, that applicant’s boats are jet
Ser No. 74/605,074
8
powered and possess the characteristics of bikes. Under the
circumstances, we find that the term JETBIKE is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.
R. F. Cissel
T. J. Quinn
P. T. Hairston
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board