Hewlett-Packard Co.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 1999

No. 75066504 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 1999)

Paper No. 14
HRW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB APRIL 27, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Hewlett-Packard Company
________
Serial No. 75/066,504
_______
M. Iris Hess of Ladas & Parry for Hewlett-Packard Company.
Barney L. Charlon, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
105 (Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Hairston and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Hewlett-Packard Company has filed an application to
register the mark AD for “computer firmware and software
tool to measure and evaluate the average intensity of
acoustic signals in a two-dimensional ultrasound image in
real time for medical applications.”1

1 Serial No. 75/066, 504, filed March 1, 1996, on the basis of a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. An amendment to
allege use was filed October 14, 1997, setting forth dates of
first use of June 10, 1996, and was accepted on December 12,
1997.
Ser No. 75/066,504
2
Registration has been finally refused on the ground
that the mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
have filed briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
Applicant describes its goods as “an integrated
software analysis package...to plot and quantitate the
intensities obtained within a region of interest in a two-
dimensional ultrasound image across time and generate a
time-intensity curve in the field of contrast
echocardiography.” Applicant claims that not only did it
develop the new technology embodied in its goods, but it
also adopted the mark ACOUSTIC DENSITOMETRY for this
technology.2 Applicant’s present mark, AD, is described by
applicant as the acronym coined from its full mark.
The Examining Attorney, in his brief, first focuses on
whether the term “acoustic densitometry” in itself is
descriptive of applicant’s goods. He points out that even
though applicant may be the first, or perhaps the only,
user of the term, this does not detract from the fact that
the term may still be merely descriptive of the technology
involved in the products with which the term is being used.

2 Applicant filed an application, Serial No. 75/066,505, to
register the mark ACOUSTIC DENSITOMETRY for the same goods, which
was also refused under Section 2(e)(1), but the application has
since been abandoned.
Ser No. 75/066,504
3
He introduces definitions from Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary (1994) of the individual words
“acoustic,” as “pertaining to sound,” and “densitometry,”
as “determination of variations in density by comparison
with that of another material, or with a certain standard."3
He also notes the promotional material applicant has
submitted with its brief, in which applicant has described
its new software in terms of permitting users to “display
and analyze average acoustic densities within an ultrasound
image,” in connection with echocardiography.4 On the basis
of this evidence, the Examining Attorney contends that the
term “acoustic densitometry” is merely descriptive of
applicant’s goods.5

3 Although these definitions were not previously made of record
by the Examining Attorney, the Board may take judicial notice of
dictionaries and, accordingly, has considered the definitions.
See Marcal Paper Mills, Inc. v. American Can Co., 212 USPQ 852
(TTAB 1981).
4 Although this evidence was not submitted until applicant’s
brief, the Examining Attorney has not objected to the evidence,
but rather has relied upon it in his brief. Accordingly, we have
also considered the material.
5 The Examining Attorney has further requested that the Board
take judicial notice of an excerpt from the reference work,
Textbook of Echocardiography and Doppler in Adults and Children
(1996) in connection with the use of this term. Under FRE
201(b), the Board may take judicial notice of facts that are
capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. We do not find a
medical textbook to lie within this scope and, thus, have not
given any consideration to the excerpt in making our decision.
See TBMP § 712.01.
Ser No. 75/066,504
4
The Examining Attorney then turns to the dispositive
issue in this case, whether the acronym, or initials, AD
will be perceived by the relevant public as being
substantially synonymous with the term “acoustic
densitometry” and, as a result, are also merely descriptive
of applicant’s goods. He argues that the initials will
simply be viewed as an abbreviation for the descriptive
term “acoustic densitometry”, and thus have the same
descriptive significance. In support of his position, the
Examining Attorney has introduced excerpts from press
releases found on the NEXIS database in which applicant
uses the initials as an abbreviation in describing its new
software as including “HP-developed Acoustic Densitometry
(AD) technology.”6 He has also made of record a full copy
of a press release dated June 6, 1996 in which applicant,
in introducing its “HP Acoustic Densitometry (AD)
software,” uses AD not only in referring to its “AD
software,” but also in describing the “AD images” stored by
means of this software. Finally, he has introduced an
abstract of an article in the Journal of the American

6 Business Wire, June 26, 1996. We note that applicant has also
specifically defined “Acoustic Densitometry” in this release as
the technology “designed to accurately quantify changes in
ultrasound image intensity due to the presence of contrast
agents... .”
Ser No. 75/066,504
5
Society of Echocardiography, Vol. 10, No.5 (June 1997) from
which the following excerpt is noted:
Time-domain-based integrated backscatter values
obtained with the use of acoustic densitometry (AD)
were compared with values determined from a spectral-
based analysis of the radio-frequency (RF) signals
with a modified Hewlett-Packard Sonos 1500 imaging
system.
The Examining Attorney maintains that this article
demonstrates not only the use by persons in the medical
field of the term “acoustic densitometry” in a descriptive
sense, but also the general practice of using initials as a
synonym for a scientific term, including AD for “acoustic
densitometry.”
Applicant, on the other hand, maintains that the term
“acoustic densitometry” in itself is not descriptive of
applicant’s firmware and software and, thus, it follows
that the initials AD are not merely descriptive of the
same. Applicant argues that the only usages of record of
the term “acoustic densitometry” or the initials AD are in
reference to applicant’s own product, and that there is no
evidence of use of the term or the initials AD by others in
the medical field. Applicant states that even the article
from the Journal of the American Society of
Echocardiography relied upon by the Examining Attorney
identifies applicant’s product as the one being used in the
Ser No. 75/066,504
6
test procedure and that the reference therein to “acoustic
densitometry” in lower case letters was an “editorial or
typographical error.”
A term or phrase is merely descriptive within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys
information about a characteristic, purpose, function or
feature of the goods with which it is being used. In re
Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA
1987). As a general rule, initials are not considered
merely descriptive unless they are so generally understood
as representing descriptive words as to be substantially
synonymous therewith. Modern Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens
Co., 234 F.2d 504, 110 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1956). In the
present case, in order to hold the mark AD merely
descriptive of applicant’s computer firmware and software
tool, we must find (1) that AD is an abbreviation of the
term “acoustic densitometry”; (2) that “acoustic
densitometry” is merely descriptive of the product and (3)
that AD would be recognized by the relevant public as no
more than an abbreviation of this descriptive term. See In
re Harco Corp., 220 USPQ 1075 (TTAB 1984).
We have no problem determining that the initials AD
serve as an abbreviation for the term “acoustic
densitometry.” Applicant, in its press releases and the
Ser No. 75/066,504
7
promotional material submitted with its brief, uses the
initials immediately following the term, as the equivalent
thereof, and then makes references to its product as “AD
software.” In the specimens of record we also see use by
applicant of AD as a shortened form for “Acoustic
Densitometry.”
Turning to the term “acoustic densitometry”, we agree
with applicant that the uses of the term upon which the
Examining Attorney is relying are uses by applicant in
describing its new product and the technology involved
therein. The fact that applicant is the first, or even the
only, one to use the term, however, does not detract from
any descriptive significance it may possess. See In re
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018
(TTAB 1983). From the dictionary definitions alone of the
words “acoustic” and “densitometry,” we find that the term
“acoustic densitometry” would be readily understood as
describing the function of applicant’s firmware and
software tool, i.e., the measurement and evaluation of the
intensity of acoustic signals, which in the specific field
of echocardiography becomes the measurement of the changes
in acoustic signal intensity due to the presence of a
contrast agent. Applicant has provided no other term to
describe or name the technology to which its software tool
Ser No. 75/066,504
8
is directed, which might lead the relevant public to view
“Acoustic Densitometry” as an indication of a particular
source of the software tool, rather than its function.
Accordingly, the issue narrows down to whether the
initials AD will be recognized and understood by the
relevant public as being synonymous with the term “acoustic
densitometry” and therefore having the same descriptive
significance. Here also we agree that applicant was the
first to use AD as an abbreviation for this term and thus
the public would not have had prior exposure to the
initials being used in this context. Nonetheless, we find
that applicant has done no more than follow the accepted
practice in the medical field of using initials as an
abbreviation for a technical term, for the sake of
convenience. Applicant’s own promotional material, its
specimens, and its press releases show use and
identification of AD as an abbreviation for “acoustic
densitometry.” We consider this ample evidence to
demonstrate that the relevant public, namely, those in the
medical field, will recognize and interpret AD as an
abbreviation for the sake of convenience, possessing the
same descriptive significance as the term “acoustic
densitometry.” See Intel Corp. v. Radiatieon Inc., 184
USPQ 54 (TTAB 1974)[although applicant may have been the
Ser No. 75/066,504
9
first to design a commercially marketable programmable read
only memory device and may have been the first to utilize
the notation PROM in connection therewith, use of the
shorthand designation was a natural extension of the
commonly used acronym ROM and the aptness and convenience
of using the term was immediately apparent to those
involved in the electronics industry].
Accordingly, we find the mark AD merely descriptive of
the function or purpose of applicant’s computer firmware
and software tool.7
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is
affirmed.
R. F. Cissel
P. T. Hairston
H. R. Wendel
Trademark Administrative Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

7 Applicant’s request for the Board to exercise its authority
under Section 18 and allow applicant to submit evidence of
acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) or to transfer the
application to the Supplemental Register is not well taken. An
application which has been considered and decided on appeal will
Ser No. 75/066,504
10

not be reopened except for purposes of entry of a disclaimer.
See Trademark Rule 2.142(g).