Miller & Kreisel Sound Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 13, 1999

No. 75190781 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 1999)

Paper No. 10
HRW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB AUGUST 13, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Miller & Kreisel Sound Corporation
________
Serial No. 75/190,781
_______
Henry Klein of Ladas & Parry for Miller & Kreisel Sound
Corporation.
David H. Stine, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
103 (Michael A. Szoke, Acting Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hohein, Wendel and Bucher, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Miller & Kreisel Sound Corporation has filed an
application to register the mark TRIPOLE for “audio sound
systems, namely, loudspeakers, sound mixers and
multichannel sound reproductions equipment.”1

1 Serial No. 75/190,781, filed October 31, 1996, claiming first
use dates of December 27, 1995.
Ser No. 75/190,781
2
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the
ground that the mark is merely descriptive. Applicant and
the Examining Attorney have filed briefs but no oral
hearing was requested.
The Examining Attorney argues that the terminology
“tripole” aptly describes the “salient operational
characteristic of applicant’s loudspeaker systems,” in that
“applicant’s ‘tripole operation’ involves connection of a
third terminal, using a jumper wire, to produce surround
sound effects.” [Brief, p. 2]. He argues that to those in
the relevant trade, the terms “bipole” and “dipole” are
standard terminology and the term “tripole,” even if coined
as applicant claims, would be readily understood as
describing applicant’s three-terminal hookup as opposed to
the standard two-terminal hookup. He contends that the
term is self-explanatory, pointing out that on the
specimens themselves the wiring instructions printed
thereon use the language “FOR THX2 (DIPOLE) OPERATION:
remove jumper between terminals 3 and 4” and “FOR TRIPOLE
OPERATION: install jumper between terminals 3 and 4.” As
additional evidence of the descriptive nature of the term,
the Examining Attorney has submitted an excerpt of a
Ser No. 75/190,781
3
Lexis/Nexis database article in which “at least one trade
source found the term ‘tripole’ adequately descriptive to
be used in reference to the operating characteristics of
applicant's goods, without extensive additional
explanation.” [Brief p. 3]. In this excerpt, the author,
in discussing applicant’s goods, first refers to the
surround speaker as “M&K’s SS-150 ‘tripole’,” but later in
his description of the speaker makes general references to
the “tripole design,” the ability to switch between “dipole
and tripole modes,” and the difference between the “dipole
or tripole operation.”
Applicant argues that consumers would have to follow a
multi-stage reasoning process to go from associating
“bipole” or “dipole,” terms long used to describe features
which are in fact present in applicant’s goods, with
“tripole,” applicant’s coined term for its new enhancement
which allows users to elect either dipole sound or surround
sound coverage. Applicant insists that its mark TRIPOLE is
simply “playing on the lingo used in the acoustics field”
and does not immediately convey any specific information
with respect to the goods themselves.
Applicant further contends that the Examining Attorney
is operating on inaccurate presumptions; that its speakers

2 A trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd., the licensor of applicant.
Ser No. 75/190,781
4
do not have three terminals; that “dipole” and “bipole” do
not relate to the use of two terminals to connect speakers
to a sound system or in any other way to the manner of
connection, but rather the term “dipole” relates to the
magnets in applicant’s speakers, which by definition have
two poles, a north and a south pole, and to the magnetic
field produced by the drive elements, which also have two
poles; and that a magnet with three poles is a scientific
impossibility. Applicant argues that the terms “bipole”
and “dipole” relate only to the use of magnetic fields
within a speaker and that speakers are either “bipole” or
“dipole” depending on the acoustical phases of their drive
elements, one being “in-phase” and the other “out-phase”.
Applicant states that the surround sound feature of
its goods is created by radiating sound simultaneously from
a dipole speaker and a direct radiator. There is no third
terminal; instead, the insertion of the jumper wire allows
the speaker to use the direct radiator to achieve the
surround sound effect. Applicant further argues that its
use of the term TRIPOLE in its specimens is strictly in
reference to its own goods and that the article relied upon
by the Examining Attorney is also in reference to
applicant’s own goods, albeit with some incorrect usage of
Ser No. 75/190,781
5
the term “tripole” by a journalist not well versed in
proper trademark use.
A term is merely descriptive within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys information about
a characteristic, purpose, function, or feature of the
goods with which it is being used. Whether or not a term
is merely descriptive is not determined in the abstract,
but in relation to the goods or services for which
registration is being sought. See In re Abcor Development
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
In the present case, we believe that applicant has
raised doubt with respect to the accuracy of the Examining
Attorney’s equating “dipole” operation with two terminals
and “tripole” operation with three terminals. There are no
definitions or other forms of evidence of record to support
this assumption. Moreover, it is readily apparent that the
surround sound effect which is the “salient” feature of
applicant’s goods is created by the activation of the
direct radiator by means of a jumper between terminals 3
and 4, not by any connection of outside equipment with a
third terminal. Even though applicant, in its specimens,
refers to “TRIPOLE OPERATION,” we see no reason why this is
not a reference to applicant’s specific system, rather than
Ser No. 75/190,781
6
to a generally recognized mode of operation.3 Finally, we
decline to rely upon a single trade article about
applicant’s own goods, in which the term “tripole” is used
in only some instances in a non-trademark manner, to
demonstrate general recognition of the term in the
industry.
Consequently, because we have doubt as to whether the
term TRIPOLE is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods, we
find it appropriate to resolve this doubt in favor of
applicant, since any person who believes that he would be
damaged by the registration of the mark will have the
opportunity to file an opposition thereto. See In re
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc., 828 F.2d
1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Gourmet Bakers,
Inc., 173 USPQ 565 (TTAB 1972).

3 We note that, by contrast, applicant uses the trademark THX in
conjunction with the “dipole” operation, as the distinguishing
source indicator.
Ser No. 75/190,781
7
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) is reversed.
G. D. Hohein
H. R. Wendel
D. E. Bucher
Trademark Administrative Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/190,781
8