Huck Int'l., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2002

No. 75650428 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2002)

1/16/02
Hearing:
17 OCT 2001

Paper No. 18
AD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Huck International, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/650,428
_______

Joseph R. Papp of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. for Huck
International, Inc.

David H. Stine, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
114 (Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Simms, Walters and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On February 26, 1999, Huck International, Inc.
(applicant) filed a trademark application to register the
mark AL (typed form) for goods identified as “threaded
metal fasteners, namely nuts and bolts” in International
Class 6.1

1 Serial No. 75/650,428. The application was based on an
allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/650,428
2
The Examining Attorney refused to register the mark on
the ground that the mark, when applied to the goods, is
merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark
Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). When the Examining Attorney
made the refusal to register final, applicant filed a
notice of appeal. Both applicant and the Examining
Attorney have submitted briefs and attended an oral hearing
held on October 17, 2001.2
The Examining Attorney’s position is that applicant’s
mark is in typed form so that the mark can be presented in
any style. The Periodic Table of Elements identifies the
symbol for aluminum as “Al.” Since applicant has indicated
that it produces fasteners that contain aluminum, the mark
is merely descriptive of an ingredient of applicant’s
goods.
Applicant responds that its mark is not descriptive of
its goods because it will only use the mark in all capital
letters and the abbreviation for aluminum is represented by
a capital “A” and a small “l”. Also, it points to other
registrations that it suggests demonstrate that the USPTO
has registered similar marks for abbreviations from the

2 After oral argument, applicant, sua sponte, also filed a
“Supplemental Brief Re Issues Raised at Oral Argument.” We have
not considered this paper.
Ser. No. 75/650,428
3
Periodic Table of Elements. In addition, it argues that:
“The fasteners sold with the AL mark are lightweight
fasteners of the AERO-LITE® line for use in the aerospace
industry. The purchasers of such AERO-LITE® fasteners are
sophisticated buyers.” Applicant’s Appeal Br. at 14-15.
Applicant’s concludes that, based on its arguments and
evidence, its mark is not merely descriptive.
We agree with the Examining Attorney that applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive and we, therefore, affirm the
refusal to register.
A mark is merely descriptive if it immediately
describes the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of
the goods or services or if it conveys information
regarding a function, purpose, or use of the goods or
services. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200
USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA 1978). See also In re Nett Designs,
236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We
look at the mark in relation to the goods or services, and
not in the abstract, when we consider whether the mark is
descriptive. Abcor, 588 F.2d at 814, 200 USPQ at 218.
Courts have long held that to be “merely descriptive,” a
term need only describe a single significant quality or
property of the goods. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217,
3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Meehanite Metal Corp.
Ser. No. 75/650,428
4
v. International Nickel Co., 262 F.2d 806, 807, 120 USPQ
293, 294 (CCPA 1959).
We start our discussion by noting that applicant has
admitted that at least some of its “fasteners will be made
with at least one component of aluminum.” Response dated
January 20, 2000, p. 2. See also Request for
Reconsideration, p. 3 and Certification Test Exhibit
(“[E]nclosed is a copy … of tests performed on wire sold to
applicant and of a type used to make lightweight bolts
including the AERO-LITE® [applicant’s] bolt. You will note
that the wire tested is made of a titanium alloy … with one
of the alloying materials, Al, being aluminum”).
Therefore, the question now is whether the mark AL is
merely descriptive of fasteners that contain aluminum as
one of the ingredients.3 Applicant strenuously argues that

3 To simplify matters, we have addressed the issue of
descriptiveness as if the mark is only used in all capital
letters. Even with this limitation, we find the mark merely
descriptive of the goods. However, applicant’s mark is not “in
the block letter form” (Reply Br., p. 11; Applicant’s Appeal Br.,
p. 14). The Examining Attorney advised applicant that “[i]f the
applicant intends to display the mark in a form other than as the
Periodic Table of Elements abbreviation for aluminum, the
applicant must adopt a specific stylized form of the mark.”
Final Office Action, p. 2, fn. 1. For whatever reason, applicant
did not submit a special form drawing. Instead, applicant
attempted to disclaim the “Al” form, which disclaimer was not
accepted. Without a special form drawing, the mark encompasses
the Periodic Table of Element abbreviation “Al” for aluminum, and
even applicant does not appear to contest that this abbreviation
is merely descriptive for fasteners made at least in part of
aluminum. Applicant’s offer to disclaim the designation “Al” is
essentially meaningless, confusing, and inappropriate. It is not
Ser. No. 75/650,428
5
“the mark AL does not designate aluminum and that the
accepted, recognized designation for aluminum by those in
the field is the Periodic Table form, “Al.” Reply Br., p.
6. We do not disagree that the standard way of designating
a symbol from the Periodic Table is to show the initial
letter as a capital letter and the second letter as a small
letter. However, applicant has not submitted any evidence
to support its argument that the simple capitalization of
the second letter would change a descriptive term into a
non-descriptive term. Indeed, trademark law ordinarily
recognizes that even a “slight misspelling of a word will
not generally turn a descriptive word into a non-
descriptive mark. 2 McCarthy’s on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, § 11:31; In re Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.,
616 F.2d 523, 205 USPQ 505 (CCPA 1980) (QUIK-PRINT); In re

a proper response to a suggestion that a special form drawing may
be necessary. It is confusing because it would not be readily
apparent what applicant was disclaiming. For example, when
spoken, there is no difference between applicant’s mark and the
abbreviation in the Periodic Table unless one went to great
lengths to describe the term. Finally, since it appears to
disclaim the entire mark except when the term is used with the
first and second letter capitalized, it is effectively
meaningless. Accord In re Northland Aluminum Products, Inc., 777
F.2d 1556, 227 USPQ 961, 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Board properly
refused to accept a disclaimer differentiating between a cake
made from a cake mix and one made from a recipe).
Ser. No. 75/650,428
6
Hercules Fasteners, Inc., 203 F.2d 753, 97 USPQ 355 (CCPA
1953) (FASTIE); and In re Organik Technologies, Inc., 41
USPQ2d 1690 (TTAB 1997) (ORGANIK).
Similarly, the correct spelling of a proper noun in
English normally requires an initial capital letter.
However, the failure to spell a surname with a capital
letter did not overcome its surname significance. In re
Directional Marketing Corp., 204 USPQ 675 (TTAB 1979). In
that case, applicant argued that use of the word “DRUMMOND”
in lower case letters emphasizes the service mark
significance of the term. The Board rejected this argument
and held that “[n]or do we think that applicant’s use of
the mark in lower case letters has such an impact on the
commercial impression created by the mark as to alter its
primary significance to the purchasing public from that of
a surname to that of a service mark.” Id. at 677.
We do not have any basis to find that the spelling of
applicant’s term with two capital letters as opposed to one
capital letter changes the commercial impression from a
descriptive term to a non-descriptive one. Previously, the
Board found that the term “ALR” in all capital letters was
merely descriptive for insulated electrical conductor
building wire. Southwire Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corp., 196 USPQ 566 (TTAB 1977). The record in that case
Ser. No. 75/650,428
7
established that the abbreviation “ALR” was a descriptive
abbreviation of the term “aluminum revised.” Id. at 574.
The Board indicated that:
It is a reasonable inference from the foregoing that
the entire electric industry … because of the
adherence of most electrical codes to the National
Electrical Code for which UL establishes standards,
are of necessity aware of the “CO/ALR” designation for
wiring devices and significance of “ALR” as meaning
“aluminum revised” to distinguish from the designation
“AL” previously used to identify aluminum wire that
has not been upgraded or revised.

Id. at 574.
Apparently, the designations “ALR” and “AL” were
recognized in the electrical industry as referring to
aluminum regardless of the fact that the “l” was
capitalized. Thus, we simply cannot agree with applicant’s
argument that prospective purchasers of fasteners would not
similarly recognize the term “AL” as an abbreviation for
aluminum merely because the “L” is capitalized.
Also, the fact that applicant believes that the term
“AL” is an acronym for its mark “AERO-LITE” is not
persuasive. The term “AL” when applied to fasteners that
contain aluminum would describe the aluminum content of the
fasteners. Applicant admits that its mark is used “for a
lightweight metal fastener for use in the aerospace
industry.” Applicant’s Br., p. 3. Aluminum is defined as
“a silvery-white, ductile metallic element used to form
Ser. No. 75/650,428
8
many hard, light, corrosion-resistant alloys.”4 Thus, the
presence of aluminum as an ingredient would be significant
in the manufacturing of lightweight fasteners because it is
used to make “hard, light, corrosion-resistant alloys.”
As stated earlier, applicant maintains that it sells
lightweight fasteners to the aerospace industry; however,
applicant has not limited its identification of goods to
fasteners that are either lightweight or sold only to the
aerospace industry. Therefore, we must consider the goods
as applicant has chosen to describe them in its
identification of goods. Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston
Computers Services Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (“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 an applicant's goods,
the particular channels of trade or the class of purchasers
to which sales of the goods are directed”); In re Vehicle
Identification Network, Inc., 32 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1994)
(Descriptiveness of mark in an intent-to-use application

4 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984). We
take judicial notice of this dictionary definition. University
of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 213 USPQ
594, 596 (TTAB 1982), aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Ser. No. 75/650,428
9
determined by services identified in application).
Therefore, applicant’s argument that the purchasers are
sophisticated because the purchasers are limited to those
purchasing parts for the aerospace industry is not
relevant.5
Applicant devotes considerable time arguing that it is
a “practice of the Trademark Office in granting trademarks
to block letters which are same as the upper and lower case
letter form for elements in the PERIODIC TABLE.” Reply
Br., p. 9. To support this argument, applicant has
submitted printouts of 37 registrations that purportedly
support its argument. The Examining Attorney was not
persuaded by this evidence because he found that many
registrations were in special form or composite marks or
that the metal was not perceived as forming a salient
ingredient of the goods. We agree with the Examining
Attorney.
First, we note that “[e]ven if some prior
registrations had some characteristics similar to Nett
Designs' application, the PTO's allowance of such prior
registrations does not bind the Board or this court.” Nett

5 Even it were relevant, we have no basis to find that
sophisticated purchasers seeking lightweight aluminum fasteners
for the aerospace industry would not assume that “AL” did not
describe fasteners with aluminum as an ingredient.
Ser. No. 75/650,428
10
Designs, 57 USPQ2d at 1566. Similarly, even if applicant
were able to establish that the USPTO had registered marks
that had similar characteristics to applicant’s mark, it
does not establish that applicant’s descriptive mark is
entitled to registration. Second, we note that of the 37
marks applicant has submitted at least 15 of the marks are
cancelled or expired. “[A] canceled registration does not
provide constructive notice of anything.” Action Temporary
Services Inc. v. Labor Force Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 10 USPQ2d
1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Third, many of the
registrations are for composite marks, such as 3CR12, CR-
PAA, TISALES, TI-13-13, and TI-GUARD or the registrations
have integral designs that may be viewed as unitary.
Fourth, at least one registration, NITRO TI, contains a
disclaimer of the term “TI.” Finally, many registrations
consisting of abbreviations from the Periodic Table are for
goods that are apparently not made of the matter described
by the abbreviations and the abbreviation would not
deceptively misdescribe the goods in the registrations.
For example, it is unlikely that registrations containing
the letters for the abbreviations for thallium (TL)6 and

6 Thallium is a “soft, malleable highly toxic metallic element
used in rodent and rat poisons and low-melting glass.” Webster’s
II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984). We take judicial
notice of this dictionary definition.
Ser. No. 75/650,428
11
calcium (CA) would deceptively misdescribe the goods in
those registrations.
There is certainly no rule that prohibits the
registration of abbreviations from the Periodic Table so it
is not surprising that there are registrations for these
abbreviations. What applicant’s evidence shows is that
each mark must be evaluated individually. In applicant’s
case, its mark is the Periodic Table’s abbreviation for
aluminum. Applicant’s goods actually contain aluminum and
aluminum would be a significant feature of lightweight
fasteners. Therefore, applicant’s mark describes a feature
or ingredient of its goods, and it is merely descriptive.
Decision: The Examining Attorney’s refusal to
register the mark AL under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark
Act on the ground that it is merely descriptive of the
goods, threaded metal fasteners, namely nuts and bolts, is
affirmed.