Kemal Colakel

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

No. 85206022 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
September 23, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Colakel
_____

Serial No. 85206022
_____

Matthew H. Swyers, Esq. for Kemal Colakel
Eugenia K. Martin, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114 (K. Margaret
Le, Managing Attorney).
_____

Before Wolfson, Lykos and Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On December 27, 2010, Kemal Colakel (“applicant”) applied to register the
mark (depicted below):

based on his intent to use the mark for goods in International Class 24, namely,
“Bath towels; Beach towels; Children's towels; Compressed towels; Curtains and
towels; Face towels; Face towels of textiles; Football towels; Golf towels; Hand
Serial No. 85206022

2

towels; Hand towels of textile; Hand-towels made of textile fabrics; Hooded towels;
Household linen, including face towels; Japanese cotton towels (tenugui); Kitchen
towels; Large bath towels; Moisture absorbent microfiber textile fabrics for use in
the manufacture of athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, shorts, jackets, bags,
towels and athletic uniforms; Quilts of towels; Tea towels; Terry towels; Towel sets;
Towel sheet; Towelling coverlets; Towels; Towels made of textile materials; Towels
that may be worn as a dress or similar garment; Turkish towel.”
The application includes the following disclaimer: No claim is made to the
exclusive right to use TOWEL apart from the mark as shown.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of applicant’s
mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), having
determined that the applied-for mark merely describes the identified goods.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed and filed a request for
reconsideration. After the examining attorney denied the request for recon-
sideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
Evidentiary Issue
The examining attorney has objected to the introduction of a list of third-
party registrations that applicant submitted with its appeal brief. The objection is

1 The application also includes a statement explaining that the ampersand (“&”) appearing
in the mark “means or signifies AND in the relevant trade or industry or as applied to the
goods/services listed in the application.”
Serial No. 85206022

3

sustained. Because the record must be complete prior to appeal, the listing has not
been considered. Trademark Rule 2.142(d); TBMP § 1208.02.2
Applicable Law
Trademark Act § 2(e)(1) prohibits registration of a mark which is merely
descriptive of the applicant’s goods or services. A term is deemed to be merely
descriptive of goods or services, within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1), if it forthwith
conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature,
function, purpose or use of the goods or services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the
U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also, In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828 (TTAB 2007); and 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 and/or
services in order for it to be considered to be merely descriptive thereof; rather, it is
sufficient if the term describes a significant attribute or feature about them.
Moreover, whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not in the abstract,
but in relation to the goods and/or services for which registration is sought. See In
re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979).
Discussion
Applicant admits that the word “towel” in the mark “is a self explanatory
word that identifies the goods(s),”3 and that “the term ‘TOWEL’ speaks for itself.”

2 We hasten to add that consideration of the list would not have changed the result in this
proceeding.
Serial No. 85206022

4

Brief at 6. Applicant argues, however, that when the word “towel” is repeated and
the two instances joined by an ampersand, the resultant mark is not merely
descriptive. Instead, a unique mark is allegedly created that suggests to customers
they “will be able to find, choose, compare and make a purchase of many towel
goods. It suggests a family of products that are being sold based on their
relationship to one another.” In other words, applicant contends that by repeating
the word “towel,” the proposed mark allegedly evokes the impression of a variety of
different types of towels, “sit[ting] next to the another [sic] towel, almost any given
time, any place on earth.” Response to Office Action (dated September 27, 2011).
In contrast, the examining attorney contends that “[b]ecause the goods are
towels, the word ‘towel’ is descriptive of the goods.” Examining Attorney’s Appeal
Brief at 5. She argues that the mark is merely descriptive because it simply repeats
the descriptive word “towel” without creating a new or different meaning or
commercial impression of the word. “A consumer presented with the mark TOWEL
& TOWEL in relation to applicant’s goods, towels, would clearly understand the
meaning of the mark in this case, as the mark would be used on a [sic] different
types of towels.” Id. at 8.
“It is settled that a mark’s mere repetition of a merely descriptive word does
not negate the mere descriptiveness of the mark as a whole.” In re Litehouse, Inc.,
82 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (TTAB 2007) (holding CAESAR!CAESAR! merely
descriptive for salad dressing). A mark comprised of a repeated descriptive term is
itself merely descriptive unless a new or different commercial impression results

3 Response to Office Action (dated September 27, 2011).
Serial No. 85206022

5

from the repetition. In re Tires, Tires, Tires, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1153, 1155 (TTAB
2009) (holding TIRES TIRES TIRES generic for retail tire store services). See also,
In re Disc Jockeys, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1715, 1716 (TTAB 1992) (holding DJDJ merely
descriptive for disc jockey services for parties); and TMEP §1209.03(t). “[T]he
critical factor is that the two or more words serve to modify each other and enhance
the meaning of the composite, which is something that does not occur merely by
repeating a word.” Tires, Tires, Tires, 94 USPQ2d at 1156.
Here, no new or different commercial impression is formed by the simple
repetition of the descriptive word “towel,” nor has the meaning of the term “towel”
been altered by the repetition. The first instance of the word “towel” does not
modify the second word “towel,” nor does the repetition of the words “towel & towel”
enhance the meaning of the phrase. Likewise, the use of an ampersand instead of
the word “and” (or merely a space between the words) has not created a composite,
unitary mark whose meaning has been somehow enhanced or made incongruous
thereby. See In re Seaman & Associates Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1657, 1659 (TTAB 1986)
(“We do not believe that addition of the ampersand between the terms ‘product
acceptance’ and ‘research’ results in a designation which in its entirety is
incongruous or in any other way less descriptive than the terms taken alone.”). See
also In re Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 222 USPQ 820 (TTAB 1984) (LAW &
BUSINESS held unregistrable on the Supplemental Register).
Applicant alleges that the mark “has never been used in commerce/trade
before.” That the mark has never been used before is irrelevant. “There is no valid
Serial N

reason
compose
attorney
does no
USPQ2d
A
stylizati
stylizati
purchas
In re Am
1753 (T
is nothi
the imp
Appeal
(TTAB
seats di
and In
mark
inheren
Register
o. 8520602
to requir
d solely o
has demo
t result in
at 1155.
pplicant
on of the w
on must
ers separa
. Academ
TAB 2002)
ng in the s
ression m
Brief at 8
2012) (fin
d not crea
re Guilfor
tly distinc
.”).
2
e an exam
f a repeati
nstrated t
a designa
The same
also argu
has creat
ords in a
be suffici
te and apa
y of Facia
. We agre
imple font
ade by th
. See, e.g
ding that
te a separ
d Mills In
for m
tive displa
ining at
ng word h
hat the rep
tion with
reasoning
es that t
ed a uniq
mark to en
ently dist
rt from th
l Plastic
e with the
which cre
e words T
., In re S
the styliza
ate and in
c., 33 US
icrofiber
y that is
6
torney to
as been us
eated term
a different
applies in
he partic
ue and re
able regis
inctive so
e impressi
& Reconst
examinin
ates an im
OWEL &
adoru Gro
tion of th
herently d
PQ2d 104
fabrics “in
registrabl
demonstr
ed by oth
is gener
meaning.
this case.
ular styli
gistrable
tration of
as to “cr
on made b
ructive Su
g attorney
pression ‘
TOWEL.
up, Ltd.,
e mark
istinctive
2, 1044 (T
sufficient
e, without
ate that
ers, when
ic and that
” Tires, T
zation of
mark. In
the mark a
eate an
y the word
rgery, 64 U
that in th
separate a
” Examin
105 USPQ

commerci
TAB 1994
ly stylized
more, on
a designa
the exami
the repet
ires, Tires
the wor
order for
s a whole
impression
s themsel
SPQ2d 1
is case, “t
nd apart’
ing Attorn
2d 1484,
for motorc
al impress
) (holding
to create
the Princ
tion
ning
ition
, 94
ding
the
, the
on
ves.”
748,
here
from
ey’s
1485
ycle
ion);
the
an
ipal
Serial No. 85206022

7

Finally, applicant argues that its proposed mark can “conjure up numerous
other images.” Brief at 6. Applicant suggests that the mark can reference a retail
store that sells “bath products and other home goods” and that “even if a consumer
utilized their imagination” they would not immediately know that such a retail
store sold towels or that the mark refers to towels. Id. Although towels are
typically considered “home goods” and would likely be sold in such retail stores,
suffice it to say that we do not consider the mark in a vacuum, but rather in relation
to the goods that are listed in the identification of goods of the applicant’s
application. Someone who knows that applicant’s goods are towels, towel fabric,
and goods made from such fabric will immediately understand the mark TOWEL &
TOWEL to convey information about these goods. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v.
Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
We find that neither the mere repetition of the word ”towel” in applicant’s
mark, the presence of the ampersand in the mark, the combination of both these
features, nor the stylization of the mark, suffice to negate the mere descriptiveness
of the mark as a whole as applied to the goods.
Decision: The refusal to register applicant’s mark as
merely descriptive under Trademark Act § 2(e)(1) is affirmed.