John A. Galbreath

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2000

No. 75625646 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2000)

Paper No. 17
PTH
11/6/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re John A. Galbreath
________
Serial No. 75/625,646
_______
John A. Galbreath, pro se.
Kathleen L. Kolacz, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 114 (K. Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hairston, Bottorff and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by John A. Galbreath to
register the mark SAFE-T-BUCKLE for “plastic buckle
fasteners for use in child strollers, high chairs, child
carriers, changing stations, shopping cart restraint
systems and similar articles.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act on

1 Serial No. 75/625,646 filed January 25, 1999, which alleges a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/625,646
2
the ground that applicant’s mark, when applied to the
identified goods, is merely descriptive thereof. When the
refusal was made final, applicant appealed. Applicant and
the Examining Attorney have filed briefs.2
According to the Examining Attorney, the term SAFE-T-
BUCKLE would be perceived by purchasers as nothing more
than a novel spelling of safety buckle and is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods because “it immediately
identifies that such goods are buckles for safety
purposes.” (Brief, p. 4). In support of the refusal, the
Examining Attorney made of record dictionary definitions of
the words “safety” and “buckle.”3 In addition, she
submitted several excerpts from the NEXIS data base which
refer to “safety buckle(s).” The following are
representative samples of the excerpts:
In one case, a malfunctioning safety buckle
in an infant carseat that causes the belt
to unsnap at random might be covered . . .
(The Legal Intelligencer, July 27, 1998);

2 We note that applicant, for the first time with its brief,
submitted certain exhibits. The Board, in an order mailed June
13, 2000, advised applicant that such materials would not be
considered because they should have been submitted with a request
for reconsideration rather than as attachments to applicant’s
brief. Accordingly, we have not considered these materials in
reaching our decision herein.
3 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3d.
ed. 1992) defines “safety” as “the condition of being safe;
freedom from danger, risk or injury” and “buckle” as “a clasp for
fastening two ends, as of straps or a belt, in which a device
attached to one of the ends is fitted or coupled to the other.”
Ser No. 75/625,646
3
Children as young as two years old can
release the most common designs of safety
buckles on strollers, so keep a close
watch, says a Temple University professor.
(Chicago Sun-Times, November 16, 1997);
I put on a life vest, zipped it up, and even
snapped together the three safety buckles
that assure a firm fit when you wear the
buoyant garment.
(The Washington Times, August 22, 1994); and
Rachel’s parents believe that she was not
properly strapped into the seat. They
said a piece of the safety buckle found
under the ride the morning after the
accident strengthened that belief.
(The Dallas Morning News, October 16,
1992).
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, argues that his SAFE-T-BUCKLE mark is unique;
that the NEXIS excerpts are not pertinent because the
products described therein are nothing like his goods, but
instead are conventional buckles attached to safety belts,
where the “safety” element is derived from the belt and not
the buckle. According to applicant, goods of the type
involved herein are referred to simply as buckles, and not
safety buckles. Finally, applicant argues that his mark
should be registered because the Office has registered many
other marks which contain the term “SAFE-T” for a variety
Ser No. 75/625,646
4
of products. Applicant submitted copies of ten of these
third-party registrations.
At the outset, we should point out that the issue in
this case is whether the term SAFE-T-BUCKLE is merely
descriptive of the identified goods and not whether the
term is the generic name for such goods. In this regard,
it is well settled that a term is considered to be merely
descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if it immediately
describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic or feature
thereof or if it directly conveys information regarding the
nature, function, purpose or use of the goods or services.
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). It is not necessary that a term
describe all of the properties or functions of the goods or
services in order for it to be considered merely
descriptive thereof, rather, it is sufficient if the term
describes a significant attribute or idea about them.
Moreover, whether a term is merely descriptive is
determined not in the abstract but in relation to the goods
or services for which registration is sought. In re
Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
It is clear, and applicant has acknowledged, that
goods such as his are commonly referred to as buckles.
Ser No. 75/625,646
5
Moreover, applicant does not dispute that the principal
function of his buckles is “safety,” that is, to keep a
child free from danger, risk or injury.
The term SAFE-T-BUCKLE is the phonetic equivalent of
the safety buckle, and when purchasers of children’s items
encounter SAFE-T-BUCKLE used in connection with plastic
buckle fasteners for use in child strollers, high chairs,
child carriers, changing stations, shopping cart restraint
systems and similar articles, we have no doubt that the
designation would immediately convey to them information
about the primary feature or function of applicant’s goods,
namely, that the buckles are designed for safety.
Accordingly, applicant’s mark, when applied to his goods,
is merely descriptive of them. See, e.g., In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982). [TOOBS, the
phonetic equivalent of the word “tubes,” is merely
descriptive of bathroom and kitchen fixtures in the shape
of tubes].
In reaching our decision, we have not overlooked
applicant’s criticism of the NEXIS excerpts made of record
by the Examining Attorney. We find these NEXIS excerpts to
be probative, however, because we are not convinced that
the buckles referred to therein are in no way designed for
safety. On the contrary, it seems to us that any buckles
Ser No. 75/625,646
6
for use on infant car seats, child strollers, life vests,
and amusement rides would most certainly be designed for
safety.
With respect to the third-party registrations, while
uniform treatment under the Trademark Act is an
administrative goal, our task in this appeal is to
determine, based upon the record before us, whether
applicant’s mark is registrable. As often stated, each
case must be decided on its own set of facts. We are not
privy to the file records of these third-party
registrations and thus have no way of knowing the reasons
why such registrations were allowed.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
C. M. Bottorff
G. F. Rogers
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board