Magasin Chateau d'Ivoire Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2003

No. 76085630 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2003)

Mailed: Mailed:
Aug. 6, 2003
Hearing: Paper No. 16
Aug. 5, 2003 Bottorff
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Magasin Chateau d’Ivoire Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/085,630
_______
Theodore A. Breiner of Breiner & Breiner, L.L.C. for
Magasin Chateau d’Ivoire Inc.
Scott M. Oslick, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Bottorff and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bottorff, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark depicted below, for goods and services
identified in the application, as amended, as “jewelry” in
Class 14; “retail and wholesale distributorship in the
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 76/085,630
2
field of jewelry” in Class 35; and “custom manufacture of
jewelry” in Class 40.1
The application includes the following translation
statement: “The English translation of the word “chateau”
in the mark is “castle.” The English translation of the
word “ivoire” is “ivory,” and the English translation of
the letter “d” is “of.”
In response to the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
inquiry during examination, applicant stated that its goods
and services did not include or involve ivory. Pursuant to
the Trademark Examining Attorney’s requirement, applicant
has disclaimed the exclusive right to use D’IVOIRE apart
from the mark as shown.
1 Serial No. 76/085,630, filed on July 10, 2000. The application
filing basis is Trademark Act Section 44(e), based on applicant’s
ownership of Canadian Registration No. TMA469,628. The
application originally included an intent-to-use filing basis
under Trademark Act Section 1(b), but applicant subsequently
withdrew that basis and elected to proceed solely on the basis of
Section 44(e).
Ser. No. 76/085,630
3
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued and
maintained a final refusal to register applicant’s mark on
the ground that the mark is deceptively misdescriptive
under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1). Applicant has
appealed that final refusal. The appeal has been fully
briefed, and an oral hearing was held.
We find that the evidence of record fails to establish
that applicant’s mark, as a whole, is deceptively
misdescriptive of the identified goods and services.
Applicant has disclaimed D’IVOIRE, which on this record is
the only portion of the mark that might be deemed to be
unregistrable. With such disclaimer, the mark otherwise
appears to be registrable on the Principal Register, and we
are unaware of any other reason why the disclaimer is not
sufficient to overcome the “deceptively misdescriptive”
refusal.
Decision: The Section 2(e)(1) deceptive
misdescriptiveness refusal is reversed. The application,
with its disclaimer of D’IVOIRE, shall proceed to
publication.