Herb's Seafood, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2005

No. 76496383 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2005)

Mailed: July 6, 2005
PTH

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Herb’s Seafood, Inc.
________

Serial Nos. 76496382, 76496383, 76496384,
and 76496385
_______

Norman E. Lehrer for Herb’s Seafood, Inc.

Katherine Stoides, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
110 (Chris A. F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Chapman and Walsh, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Herb’s Seafood, Inc. has filed applications to
register the marks CHICKEN SNIPPETS1 and RAINBOW CHICKEN
SNIPPETS2 for “frozen prepared and breaded chicken”; and SEA

1 Serial No. 76496382, filed on March 10, 2003, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
The word CHICKEN is disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.
2 Serial No. 76496383, filed on March 10, 2003, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
The word CHICKEN is disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76496382; 76496383; 76496384; and 76496385
2
SNIPPETS3 and RAINBOW SEA SNIPPETS4 for “frozen prepared and
breaded seafood.”
In application Serial No. 76496382 applicant has
appealed the trademark examining attorney’s final refusal
to register the mark CHICKEN SNIPPETS under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground
that as applied to the recited goods, the mark is merely
descriptive of them.
In application Serial Nos. 76496383, 76496384, and
76496385 applicant has appealed the examining attorney’s
final requirement that applicant disclaim CHICKEN SNIPPETS
and SNIPPETS, respectively, apart from the marks RAINBOW
CHICKEN SNIPPETS, SEA SNIPPETS, and RAINBOW SEA SNIPPETS,
and her final refusal to register these marks absent
compliance with the final requirement for disclaimers.
Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1056(a). The
basis of the disclaimer requirement is the examining
attorney’s contention that CHICKEN SNIPPETS and SNIPPETS
are merely descriptive of the recited goods.

3 Serial No. 76496384, filed on March 10, 2003, based on an
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
4 Serial No. 76496385, filed on March 10, 2003, based on an
allegation on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Ser No. 76496382; 76496383; 76496384; and 76496385
3
Briefs have been filed, but an oral hearing was not
requested. Because the underlying issue in each
application is the same or similar, i.e., whether CHICKEN
SNIPPETS/SNIPPETS is merely descriptive of the recited
goods, the appeals have been treated in a single opinion.
Serial No. 76496382
The examining attorney asserts that the mark CHICKEN
SNIPPETS, when applied to frozen prepared and breaded
chicken, is merely descriptive of the nature of the goods
because it immediately communicates that the goods are
morsels or bite-size pieces of chicken. In this
connection, the examining attorney submitted the following
dictionary listing for the word “snippet”:
1. A bit, scrap or morsel: “sparkling black
bass… strewn with snippets of coriander and
basil”.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (3rd ed. 1992).

Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, argues that the word “snippet” has other meanings
and the average consumer would not understand “snippet” to
refer to a piece or portion of food. In this regard,
applicant submitted dictionary listings which show that
“snippet” also means “scraps or fragments of, for example,
Ser No. 76496382; 76496383; 76496384; and 76496385
4
knowledge or news;”5 “a small part, piece, or thing;
especially: a brief quotable passage;”6 and “a small and
often interesting piece of information or conversation.”7
Further, applicant argues that thought and imagination are
required in order to reach a conclusion as to the nature of
the goods; that competitors do not need to use the term
“snippets” to describe their goods; and that any doubt on
the issue of descriptiveness should be resolved in
applicant’s favor.
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of
an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. 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 (CCPA 1978).
A term need not immediately convey an idea of each and
every specific feature of the goods or services in order to
be considered merely descriptive; it is enough that the
term describes one significant attribute, function or
property of the goods or services. In re H.U.D.D.L.E.,

5 New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language.
6 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
7 Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.
Ser No. 76496382; 76496383; 76496384; and 76496385
5
216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In Re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338
(TTAB 1973). Further, it is well-established that the
determination of mere descriptiveness must be made not in
the abstract or on the basis of guesswork, but in relation
to the goods or services for which registration is sought,
the context in which the term is used or is intended to be
used, and the impact that it is likely to make on the
average purchaser of such goods or services; that a term
may have other meanings in different contexts is not
controlling. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593
(TTAB 1979).
Applying these principles in the present case, we find
that the mark applicant seeks to register, CHICKEN
SNIPPETS, is merely descriptive of the goods identified in
the application, “frozen prepared and breaded chicken.”
Obviously, the word CHICKEN is descriptive of the
identified goods. Moreover, the word SNIPPETS has
descriptive significance with respect to the identified
goods. Foods such as chicken may be served in small or
bite-size portions, and when the word SNIPPETS is
considered in connection with frozen prepared and breaded
chicken, it is the meaning of “[a] bit, scrap or morsel”
that consumers will ascribe to the word, and not “a brief
quotable passage;” “fragments of news,” or “a small and
Ser No. 76496382; 76496383; 76496384; and 76496385
6
often interesting piece of information or conversation.”
In view thereof, we find that the mark CHICKEN SNIPPETS
immediately describes a significant characteristic or
feature of the goods, namely, that they are bits or morsels
of chicken. No amount of imagination, cogitation, mental
processing or gathering of further information is necessary
in order for purchasers of and prospective customers for
applicant’s goods to readily perceive the merely
descriptive significance of the designation CHICKEN
SNIPPETS as it pertains to applicant’s goods.
With respect to applicant’s contention that
competitors do not need to use the term CHICKEN SNIPPETS to
describe their goods, even if that is so, it does not
negate the mere descriptiveness of applicant’s mark, nor
does it justify registration of the mark. See, e.g., In re
Officers’ Organization For Economic Benefits, Limited, 221
USPQ 184 (TTAB 1984).
In sum, we find that applicant’s mark is merely
descriptive of the goods identified in the application, and
that the trademark examining attorney's refusal to register
the mark is proper.
Serial Nos. 76496383, 76496384, and 76496385
As discussed above, the terms CHICKEN SNIPPETS and
SNIPPETS are merely descriptive of frozen prepared and
Ser No. 76496382; 76496383; 76496384; and 76496385
7
breaded chicken. The word SNIPPETS is equally descriptive
of frozen prepared and breaded seafood. Again, seafood may
be served in small or bite-size portions and when the word
SNIPPETS is used in connection with such goods, it is the
meaning of “[a] bit, scrap or morsel” that consumers will
ascribe to the word. Thus, the examining attorney’s
requirement for a disclaimer of CHICKEN SNIPPETS and
SNIPPETS, respectively, in the above applications is
proper.
Decision: In application Serial No. 76496382 the
refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is affirmed.
In application Serial Nos. 76496383, 76496384, and
76496385 the refusals of registrations based on applicant’s
failure to disclaim CHICKEN SNIPPETS and SNIPPETS are
affirmed. However, if applicant submits the required
respective disclaimers within thirty days of this decision,
the refusals of registration in Serial Nos. 76496383,
76496384, and 76496385 based on the disclaimer requirements
will be set aside and those applications would be published
for opposition. See Trademark Rule 2.142(g).