Microspot USA, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2001

No. 75738233 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2001)

12/19/01 Paper No. 12
CEW

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________

In re Microspot USA, Inc.
___________

Serial No. 75/738,233
___________

Stephen F. Heller of Gonsalves & Kozachenko for
applicant.

James Arthur Bruno, Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney,
Law Office 103 (Michael Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Seeherman, Hairston and Walters, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Microspot USA, Inc. has filed a trademark
application to register the mark PCDRAFT for “two-
dimensional computer aided design (CAD) software for
personal computers.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
refusal to register, under Section 2(e)(1) of the

1 Serial No. 75/738,233, in International Class 9, filed June 28, 1999,
based on use of the mark in commerce, alleging first use and use in
commerce as of September 27, 1997.

THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/738,233
2
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), on the ground that
applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of its goods.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
The Examining Attorney contends that “the mark
PCDRAFT immediately conveys a significant purpose and
feature of [applicant’s] computer aided design software
for use with personal computers (PC), [which is] to draft
designs [on a PC].” The Examining Attorney states that
“PC” is a common acronym for “personal computer”2; and he
submitted a definition of “draft” as “a representation of
something to be constructed.”3
The Examining Attorney also submitted a printout of
a page from applicant’s website, June 9, 2000, wherein
applicant describes its PCDRAFT software as follows:
A complete drafting design environment. That
works the way you do. Easy to use. PC DRAFT
will allow you to quickly create professional
quality drawings. Just sit down and draw. The
best way to port your MacDraft files to PC.

2 In this regard, we take judicial notice of the definition in The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,
2000 of PC as “personal computer, i.e., a computer built around a
microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or
school.”

3 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition, 1992.
Serial No. 75/738,233
3
Additionally, the Examining Attorney submitted
excerpts of articles retrieved from the LEXIS/NEXIS
database which demonstrate use of the term “draft” in
proximity to the term “computer aided design.” Following
are several examples:
Team New Zealand was the group that best
capitalized on the benefits of computer-aided
design technology – not only to draft boat
specifications for various parts of its vessel,
but also to test them by simulating real-world
racing conditions. [Computer Graphics World,
December 1, 1999.]

… and computer-aided design (CAD), in which
graphics and visual software enable engineers to
draft and manipulate designs on a terminal.
[Chief Executive (U.S.), March 1997.]

With the latest Computer-Aided Design, or CAD
systems, engineers will be able to draft a
design, measure its aerodynamics, even put it
through crash tests. [Investor’s Business
Daily, June 15, 1993.]

… giving the bridge and structures office
analytical capabilities that most other computer
aided design and drafting (CADD) systems can’t
deliver. Since then, the combined flexibility
to draft and design bridges, while conducting
complex geometric calculations, has proven time
and again to be of significant benefit. [Public
Works, June 1993.]

This high resolution afforded by the use of 24-
pin technology has made the dot-matrix printer a
suitable output device for graphics and
computer-aided design drafts …. [PC Week,
August 1, 1988.]

Applicant contends that its mark is, at most,
suggestive; that persons encountering the mark have no
Serial No. 75/738,233
4
way of knowing that the goods are a software product; and
that PC also means “politically correct” and DRAFT also
means “a breeze or light wind, a drink, to conscript a
person for military or other service, and to draw liquid
from a tap” (brief, p. 13). Applicant argues that, even
if persons encountering the mark are aware that the
product is a computer software program, the term “draft”
in the mark does not inform them “whether the product is
used for word processing – i.e., to prepare drafts of
text documents such as letters, manuscripts and legal
briefs – or whether it is designed to prepare other types
of ‘drafts,’ such as, for example, to make pictures or
graphic designs.” (brief, p. 13.) Applicant states
that, even if each of the individual terms PC and DRAFT
are merely descriptive, which applicant does not concede,
the combination of these terms is not merely descriptive.
Applicant notes that the record contains no evidence of
third-party use of the term PCDRAFT, and concludes that
doubt should be resolved in favor of publication of the
mark for opposition.
As applicant points out, the test for determining
whether a mark is merely descriptive is whether the
involved term immediately conveys information concerning
a quality, characteristic, function, ingredient,
Serial No. 75/738,233
5
attribute or feature of the product or service in
connection with which it is used, or intended to be used.
In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB
1986); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB
1979). However, it is not necessary, in order to find a
mark merely descriptive, that the mark describe each
feature of the goods or services, only that it describe a
single, significant quality, feature, etc. In re Venture
Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). Further,
it is well-established that the determination of mere
descriptiveness must be made not in the abstract, but in
relation to the goods or services for which registration
is sought, the context in which the mark is used, and the
impact that it is likely to make on the average purchaser
of such goods or services. In re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830
(TTAB 1977).
We agree with the Examining Attorney, and applicant
does not disagree, that the mark PCDRAFT is likely to be
perceived as a combination of the terms PC and DRAFT.
The record clearly establishes that PC is a term commonly
understood as a synonym for “computer,” and that DRAFT,
in the context of computer assisted design (CAD)
software, merely describes both the act of designing and
the finished product that results from using the
Serial No. 75/738,233
6
identified software. The combination of these two terms
into the term PCDRAFT does not result in a different
connotation than the connotations of the individual
terms.
We find applicant’s arguments to the contrary to be
unpersuasive and, for the most part, based incorrectly on
viewing PCDRAFT and the individual terms in a vacuum,
without reference to the identified goods. Moreover, we
do not find, and applicant provides no reason for its
contention, that the combination of the two merely
descriptive terms PC and DRAFT creates a registrable
mark.
In the present case, it is our view that, when
applied to applicant’s goods, the term PCDRAFT
immediately describes, without conjecture or speculation,
a significant feature or function of applicant’s goods,
namely, that applicant’s software is used to draft
designs on a personal computer. Nothing requires the
exercise of imagination, cogitation, mental processing or
gathering of further information in order for purchasers
of and prospective customers for applicant’s services to
readily perceive the merely descriptive significance of
the term PCDRAFT as it pertains to applicant’s goods.
Serial No. 75/738,233
7
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Act is affirmed.