Iowa Mfg. Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2000

No. 74651205 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2000)

Paper No. 24
JQ
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 2, 00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Iowa Manufacturing Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/651,205
_______
H. Robert Henderson of Henderson & Sturm for applicant.
Karen A. McGee, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Hairston and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Iowa Manufacturing
Inc. to register on the Supplemental Register the term THE
WEDGE for “metal clamps, namely work bench-top tool
mounting clamps.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration on the Supplemental Register because the

1 Application Serial No. 74/651,205, filed March 24, 1995,
alleging dates of first use of September 8, 1994.
Ser No. 74/651,205
2
proposed mark is incapable of identifying applicant’s goods
and distinguishing them from those of others. More
specifically, the Examining Attorney asserts that the term
sought to be registered is generic.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs. An
oral hearing was not requested.
Applicant argues, in urging that the refusal be
reversed, that the mark sought to be registered is not a
generic name for the clamping mechanism of applicant’s
product. The essence of applicant’s position is summed up
as follows (brief, p. 5):
Applicant, however, respectfully
submits that the evidence does not show
that a wedge is a clamp, or that a
clamp is a wedge. A clamp is
considered generally to comprise a pair
of relatively movable parts, whereas a
wedge is generally considered to
comprise a single part. Applicant does
not deny that the evidence shows there
is a particular tool called a wedge
clamp; however, there is no evidence
Applicant’s term THE WEDGE relates to a
wedge clamp. Thus, Applicant’s mark is
not a generic name of the clamping
mechanism of Applicant’s product.
[citations omitted]
Ser No. 74/651,205
3
In support of its position, applicant submitted
informational literature about its product. Applicant also
has referred to a dictionary.2
The Examining Attorney maintains that the term sought
to be registered is generic. The Examining Attorney
contends that the category of goods is “metal clamps,” and
that the term “wedge clamp” is a widely known type of metal
clamp. In support of the refusal, the Examining Attorney
relied upon excerpts retrieved from the NEXIS database
which show generic uses of the term “wedge clamps.” The
Examining Attorney concludes that “the relevant public upon
encountering the mark THE WEDGE for clamps--even clamps for
mounting tools--would understand the term primarily to
refer to a ‘wedge clamp.’” (brief, p. 9)
With respect to genericness, the Office has the burden
of proving this refusal with “clear evidence” of
genericness. In re Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The critical issue in genericness cases such as this one is
whether members of the relevant public primarily use or
understand the term sought to be registered to refer to the
genus (category or class) of goods in question. H. Marvin

2 Although the dictionary listings were not submitted, such
evidence is proper subject matter for judicial reliance.
Ser No. 74/651,205
4
Ginn Corporation v. International Association of Fire
Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Evidence of the relevant public’s perception of a
term may be acquired from any competent source, including
newspapers, magazines, dictionaries, catalogs and other
publications. In re Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 32 USPQ2d
1443, 1449 (TTAB 1994), citing In re Northland Aluminum
Products, Inc., 777 F.2d 1566, 227 USPQ 961, 963 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
The identification of goods involved here reads “work
bench-top tool mounting clamps.” The NEXIS evidence
clearly establishes that a “wedge clamp” is a widely known
type of clamping mechanism used to secure machine tools to
a stable surface. The following excerpts are
representative of the Examining Attorney’s evidence:
The wedge clamp is one of the oldest
forms of clamping mechanisms used in
industry. From older wedge action
vises and clamps to specialty
workholders, the wedge clamp has been
part of workholding since the beginning
of mass production. Although wedge
clamps are not as prevalent as some
other forms of clamps, the wedge action
principle is still widely adapted in a
variety of other workholding devices.
Modern Machine Shop, September 1989
Wedge Clamps can support virtually any
benchtop tool including power miter
saws, router tables and scroll saws.
Home Mechanix, September 1995
Ser No. 74/651,205
5
Flat wedge and conical wedge are the
two forms of wedge clamps used for
workholding.
Modern Machine Shop, December, 1989
The most common form of clamps are:
strap clamps, screw clamps, wedge
clamps, cam clamps, and toggle clamps.
Modern Machine Shop, June 1989
Also of record is applicant’s literature describing
the product as, in relevant part, “heavy-duty aluminum
extruded body and wedge clamps.” Applicant, in its
response filed on April 17, 1997, described its goods as “a
portable support attachment to a work bench--by a wedge
clamp device--for securing power tools to the top of the
bench.”
The broad category of goods involved here is work
bench-top tool mounting clamps. This category includes, as
shown by applicant’s own literature and by the NEXIS
articles, wedge clamps. The term “wedge” simply names the
distinctive characteristic of applicant’s clamps. See: In
re Sun Oil Co., 426 F.2d 401, 165 USPQ 718 (CCPA
1970)[CUSTOM BLENDED was held generic for gasoline]; and J.
Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx & Co., 280 F.2d 437, 126 USPQ
362 (CCPA 1960)[MATCHBOX for toy vehicles was held generic
because that category of toy cars was sold in matchbox-
sized boxes]. Accordingly, we find that the designation
Ser No. 74/651,205
6
THE WEDGE would be understood by the relevant public as
referring to that category of clamps, that is, the type of
clamp used in applicant’s product. Remington Products Inc.
v. North American Philips Corp., 892 F.2d 1576, 13 USPQ2d
1444, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also: In re Central
Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d 1194 (TTAB 1998)[ATTIC held
generic for automatic sprinklers for fire protection]. The
addition of the definite article “THE” which essentially
makes the adjective “wedge” (as in “wedge clamp”) into a
noun here does not, in our view, convert the generic term
into a registrable trademark. See: In re G. D. Searle &
Co., 360 F.2d 650, 149 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1966)[THE PILL held
generic for a birth control oral contraceptive]; and In re
Computer Store, Inc., 211 USPQ 72 (TTAB 1981)[THE COMPUTER
STORE held generic for computer outlet sales services].
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
T. J. Quinn
P. T. Hairston
T. E. Holtzman
Trademark Administrative
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/651,205
7