Moxa Technologies Co., Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2008

No. 78587313 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2008)

Mailed:
February 28, 2008
Bucher

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Moxa Technologies Co., Ltd.
________

Serial No. 78587313
_______

Lin-Yun Cheng of Pro-Techtor International Services for Moxa
Technologies Co., Ltd.

Paul F. Gast, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106
(Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Bucher, Drost and Walsh, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Bucher, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Moxa Technologies Co., Ltd. seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the following mark:

for goods recited in the application as follows:
“computer networking products, namely,
modems, media converters, routers, computer
servers, communication servers, terminal
servers, multiplexers, gateways, network
interface cards for computers in the form of
printed circuits, wireless LAN cards for
connecting portable computer devices to
computer networks, hubs, fiber optic
couplers, switches, computer network
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 78587313
- 2 -
management hardware and computer network
management software and associated networking
software used to manage virtual or physical
servers; electrical power supplies; printed
circuit boards; integrated circuits; computer
chips; analog-to-digital converters; digital-
to-analog converters; signal processors;
computer hardware, namely, multiport
microchip cards for controlling serial
devices such as modems and other industrial
machines” in International Class 9.1

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration
on the ground that the mark was merely descriptive under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1), because the proposed mark describes the fact
that the goods will feature Input and Output logic or be
used with items that do, and hence, the mark is the
phonetic equivalent of common descriptive terminology in the
area of computers and computer related goods.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal
final, applicant appealed to this Board. We affirm the
refusal to register.
Preliminary matters
In support of its argument that the instant refusal is
inconsistent with past practices of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, applicant included in its brief

1 Application Serial No. 78587313 was filed by Moxa
Technologies Co., Ltd. on March 15, 2005 based upon applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
Serial No. 78587313
- 3 -
several tables containing lists of prior registrations.
However, the Trademark Examining Attorney has correctly
objected to the mere submission of a list of registrations,
as this does not make these registrations part of the
record. In re Delbar Products, Inc., 217 USPQ 859 (TTAB
1981); and In re Duofold Inc., 184 USPQ 638 (TTAB 1974). To
make registrations proper evidence of record, soft copies of
the registrations or the complete electronic equivalent
(i.e., printouts of the registrations taken from the
electronic search records of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office) must be submitted. See In Re J.T.
Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080, 1081 n. 2 (TTAB 2001); In re
Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1446 n. 2 (TTAB 2000);
Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368, 1370 (TTAB 1998);
In re Broadway Chicken Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1559, 1560 n.6 (TTAB
1996); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Katz, 24 USPQ2d 1230, 1231-32
(TTAB 1992).
Additionally, the record must be complete prior to
appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d); TBMP §§ 1207.01 et seq. See
Rexall Drug Co. v. Manhattan Drug Co., 284 F.2d 391,
128 USPQ 114 (CCPA 1960); and In re Psygnosis Ltd.,
51 USPQ2d 1594 (TTAB 1999). Consequently, applicant may not
rely on these tables or lists of prior registrations.
Serial No. 78587313
- 4 -
Is term merely descriptive?
A mark is merely descriptive, and therefore
unregistrable pursuant to the provisions of Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), if it
immediately conveys “knowledge of a quality, feature,
function, or characteristics of the goods or services.”
In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d
1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007) [ASPIRINA is merely descriptive
of analgesic product]. See also In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d
1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987) [APPLE PIE merely
descriptive of potpourri mixture]; and In re Quik-Print Copy
Shops, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 205 USPQ 505, 507 (CCPA 1980).
To be “merely descriptive,” a term need only describe a
single significant quality or property of the goods.
Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1009. Descriptiveness of a mark is not
considered in the abstract, but in relation to the
particular goods or services for which registration is
sought. That is, when we analyze the evidence of record, we
must keep in mind that the test is not whether prospective
purchasers can guess what applicant’s goods are after seeing
applicant’s mark alone. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978) [GASBADGE merely
descriptive of a “gas monitoring badge”; “Appellant’s
Serial No. 78587313
- 5 -
abstract test is deficient – not only in denying
consideration of evidence of the advertising materials
directed to its goods, but in failing to require
consideration of its mark ‘when applied to the goods’ as
required by statute”]. Rather, the proper test in
determining whether a term is merely descriptive is to
consider the applied-for mark in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the mark is used, and the significance that the mark
is likely to have on the average purchaser encountering the
goods or services in the marketplace. In re Omaha National
Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d
1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987) [the term
“first tier” describes a class

of banks]; In re Pennzoil Products Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB
1991) [MULTI-VIS is merely descriptive of “multiple viscosity
motor oil”]; In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075
(TTAB 1986) [DESIGN GRAPHIX merely descriptive of computer
graphics programs]; and In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ
591 (TTAB 1979) [COASTER-CARDS merely descriptive of a
coaster suitable for direct mailing].
Hence, the ultimate question before us is whether the
term conveys information about a significant feature
Serial No. 78587313
- 6 -
or characteristic of applicant’s goods with the immediacy
and particularity required by the Trademark Act.
A mark is suggestive, and therefore registrable on the
Principal Register without a showing of acquired
distinctiveness, if imagination, thought or perception is
required to reach a conclusion on the nature of the goods or
services. “Whether a given mark is suggestive or merely
descriptive depends on whether the mark ‘immediately conveys
… knowledge of the ingredients, qualities, or
characteristics of the goods … with which it is used,’ or
whether ‘imagination, thought, or perception is required to
reach a conclusion on the nature of the goods.’” (citation
omitted) In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1009; In re Home Builders
Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313 (TTAB
1990) [NEW HOME BUYER’S GUIDE
merely descriptive of “real
estate advertisement services”]; and In re American
Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985) [APRICOT is merely
descriptive of apricot-scented dolls].
In arguing for registrability, applicant contends that
its mark is, at worst, suggestive of computer and network
related goods but does not immediately tell consumers
something about the goods. Applicant argues that the
letters “IO” have many different meanings – not necessarily
Serial No. 78587313
- 7 -
“input/output.” Moreover, applicant argues that its mark
consists of a stylized one-word, fanciful and arbitrary
mark, “IOLOGIK” lacking a definition entry in any English-
language dictionary. To conceive of this mark as “IO”
(input/output) and “Logic” (computer science terminology)
separately, applicant argues, requires a great deal of
thought and imagination in order for the relevant public to
perceive any significance of the mark as it relates to the
applicant’s goods. Applicant has also taken the position
that this refusal is inconsistent with the practice of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, and finally, that
any doubt with respect to the descriptiveness of its mark
must be resolved in favor of Applicant.
By contrast, the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
argument concerning the descriptiveness of the term begins
with definitions of the component parts. He points out that
the term “IO” (or “I/O”) is a readily understood designation
for “Input and Output” – the communication between an
information processing system such as a computer, and the
outside world.2 The Trademark Examining Attorney has also
demonstrated this fact from third-party registrations:

2 www.acronymfinder.com “What does IO stand for? In this
case, it means Input/Output.”
Serial No. 78587313
- 8 -
I/O PLUS for “computer programs for monitoring
computer systems” in International
Class 9;3
VSAM I/O
PLUS
for “pre-recorded computer software
for operating main frame computer
systems” in International Class 9;4
OPEN I/O for “signal interface modules for use
in industrial control and data
acquisition systems” in International
Class 9;5
I/O FLEX for “SCSI controller; input and output
controller” in International Class 9;6
DATA I/O for “computer circuit boards and
computer programs all for use in the
field of programmable semi-conductor
devices, namely, computer circuit
boards and computer programs used for
programming, designing, handling,
marking, testing, sorting and labeling
programmable semi-conductor devices
and circuits containing programmable
semi-conductor devices; and
programming and handling equipment for
use in programming, testing, sorting,
handling, marking and labeling
programmable semi-conductor devices”
in International Class 9;7

3 Registration No. 1648498 issued on June 18, 1991; renewed.
No claim is made to “I/O” apart from the mark as shown.

4 Registration No. 1858391 issued on October 18, 1994;
renewed. No claim is made to “VSAM I/O” apart from the mark as
shown.

5 Registration No. 2190055 issued on the Supplemental Register
on September 15, 1998.

6 Registration No. 2354833 issued on June 6, 2000; Section 8
affidavit (six-year) accepted and Section 15 affidavit
acknowledged. No claim is made to “I/O” apart from the mark as
shown.

7 Registration No. 2687749 issued under Section 2(f) of the
Act on February 18, 2003.
Serial No. 78587313
- 9 -
I/O MAGIC for “computer memory cards; optical
scanners; CD-ROM players; DVD players;
computer keyboards; video cameras;
video graphics accelerator cards and
adapters; software for accelerating
computer graphics; digital cameras;
data communication equipment, namely
high speed data/fax/voice computer
modem” in International Class 9;8
I/O
SOFTWARE
for “computer software utilizing
biometrics and other authentication
technologies for use in controlling
access to computers and applications,
encryption of files and data, securing
e-mail and electronic communications,
cryptographic key management, securing
access to web sites and servers on the
global computer network, validating
financial transactions, and
controlling access to restricted areas
and equipment” in International Class
9;9

Additionally, the Trademark Examining Attorney
submitted the following dictionary entry:
log·ic (lòj îk) noun as
“… 5. Computer Science.
a. The nonarithmetic operations
performed by a computer, such as
sorting, comparing, and matching,
that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer
circuitry…”

8 Registration No. 2623403 issued on September 24, 2002. No
claim is made to “I/O” apart from the mark as shown.

9 Registration No. 2658088 issued under Section 2(f) of the
Act on December 10, 2002. No claim is made to the word
“Software” apart from the mark as shown.
Serial No. 78587313
- 10 -
Finally, the Trademark Examining Attorney submitted for
the record a representative sampling of Internet stories
showing the manner in which the combined terminology,
“IO Logic,” is used in the context of computer related goods
having the same descriptive properties as applicant’s listed
goods:
“…EnCore modules are designed to plug into a
custom baseboard which provides an
opportunity to incorporate additional custom
I/O logic as well as connectors to access to
the outside world.”
…
“… ETX modules are designed to plug into a
custom baseboard with I/O connectors and
custom I/O logic.”10

The World’s Lowest Cost Ladder Logic PLCs (with
built-in RS485 Two-Wire Network Port)
…
Creates ladder program using meaningful
names:
- Uses simulator to fully test programs on
the PC screen before downloading
- On-line monitoring of all I/O logic states
on ladder diagram or on full screen
- Forced-setting/resetting of i/os can be
done directly from computer screen.11

“… 3. JED PC543: a new single board
computer using the AMD ELAN SC300 …
effectively a 386, 33 MHz computer with up to
4 Mb. DRAM and 8 Mb. FLASH. This PC/104 is
an ideal embedded controller where multiple
serial ports are needed: this board features
FIVE serial ports! As well, it has a full-
featured bi-directional parallel port, a RTC,
a JBUS port with 20 I/O lines from a 5202 or

10 www.ampro.com/html/Overview_Products.html

11 http://www.tri-plc.com/e10intro.htm
Serial No. 78587313
- 11 -
5204 Xilinx gate array (add your own I/O
logic). For development or code update
purposes, there is a floppy disk interface on
board connected to the LPT port
connector...just plug in a drive and
download.”12

CamSoft's PC-Based CNC Machine Tool Control
…
How is logic programmed?
Unlike most other CNC controllers you do not
need to purchase and program logic with third
party software. We provide you with complete
seamless digital I/O logic commands running
in concert with the motion and other system
logic on the PC itself totally within
software. NO external PLC devices or ladder
logic is needed. CamSoft offers a much
easier logic programming method using simple
commands that are referenced by terminal
strip number or descriptive names. This
method is preferred by installers that need
to diagnose, modify and test the logic before
they begin physical wiring. This is the only
method that allows remote I/O logic
diagnostics via a modem. We have our own I/O
logic, which is much easier than learning PLC
ladder logic. It even provides for very
complex multiple I/O threads where as ladder
is sequential and only branches off.
Hundreds of every type of commands including
IF THEN, LOOPS, TIMERS and WAITUNTIL are
provided in simple to read text files that
compile when the system starts. We utilize
several manufacturers’ I/O boards to give a
wide choice of inputs/outputs. CamSoft wrote

12 http://www.jedmicro.com.au/jedds/JEDDS.htm We note that to
the extent that websites such as this one are from English
language, foreign sources, they may nonetheless be relevant to
determine if the mark is merely descriptive. Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 82 USPQ2d at 1835 (“Information originating
on foreign websites or in foreign news publications that are
accessible to the United States public may be relevant to discern
United States consumer impression of a proposed mark”).

Serial No. 78587313
- 12 -
its own assembler drivers to access these
cards in the unprecedented 10khz range.”13

Writing Windows NT Server Applications in MFC
Using I/O Completion Ports
…
“… The big benefit of using C++ to implement
the server is that we can strictly separate
the I/O logic from the client interactions.
In other words, as long as a client that is
attached to CServerDatabaseProtocol with the
Associate member function has an m_se
variable and a Dispatch function, we can
associate any client to the interaction
without changing a thing to the
CServerDatabaseProtocol object. We can even
define CClientObject as a base class, derive
different client types from it, and attach
clients from any derived class to the
CServerDatabaseProtocol object.”14

Compucorp 122E 'Scientist' Programmable Desktop
Calculator
…
“The brains and personality of the calculator are
contained on two plug-in circuit boards. Each
board measures approximately 8” x 10”, and are
populated mostly by the HTL chips. The boards
plug into a [sic] edge connectors, which provide
the ‘backplane’ for communication between the two
boards. The boards appear to be of a general
design, such that different configurations of
chips needed for the various machines in the 100-
series of calculators can be accommodated by the
same circuit boards. A surprisingly small
sprinkling of discrete components is mixed in
with the International Class’s -- it appears that
very few ‘glue’ components were needed to tie the
various chips together. The boards have
nomenclature on them indicating their general
function. The top board is called the “I/O
LOGIC” board. This board has a number of edge
connectors arranged across the back and sides of
the board for plugging in the keyboard, display,
and I/O expansion subassemblies. This board
appears to contain all of the necessary logic for

13 http://www.camsoftcorp.com/prod02.asp

14 http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms810436.aspx
Serial No. 78587313
- 13 -
scanning the keyboard, multiplexing the display,
decoding and executing the microcode operations,
the various mathematics core functions such as
the adder/subtractor, and perhaps some of the
working registers.”15

National Semiconductor Unveils Trusted Chip
for PCs
…
“The devices contain a Trusted Platform
Module, or TPM, which securely stores such
data as passwords and digital certificates.
National began shipping discrete TPMs several
years ago and has now integrated it with
other I/O logic to save cost.”16

Reconfigurable PCI and Sbus Interface Cards

“Developed reconfigurable PCI and Sbus
Interface cards for Sun Microsystems Inc.
These boards allow rapid prototyping of
custom “co-processors,” “soft” peripherals
and/or I/O logic with little or no physical
hardware development…”17

In response to this evidence of the descriptiveness of
the term, , applicant argues that the position of
the Trademark Examining Attorney is inconsistent with the
past practice of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. As noted above, we have given no consideration to
these alleged registrations. However, we hasten to add that
even if we had considered these third-party registrations,
they would not be conclusive on the question of

15 http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/compucorp122e.html

16 http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/National-Semiconductor-
Unveils-Trusted-Chip-for-PCs/

17 http://www.brightstareng.com/index.html
Serial No. 78587313
- 14 -
descriptiveness, and would not have changed the outcome
herein. Judging only by the nature of many of the composite
marks, we observe that under Office practice, the running
together of distinctive and merely descriptive matter in
creating a new composite does not force a refusal based on
mere descriptiveness of the entire mark or the requirement
for a disclaimer of the descriptive portion thereof. Other
marks arguably represent jarring incongruities, double
entendres, or the goods and services involved in the
registrations appear to be quite unlike those of applicant.
By contrast, the Trademark Examining Attorney has properly
placed into the record registrations having goods similar to
those of applicant with “I/O,” for example, within the
composite mark, demonstrating that the United States Patent
and Trademark Office does consider these terms to be merely
descriptive of goods such as applicant’s. The term is
disclaimed or registered under Section 2(f) of the Act, or
the mark is registered on the Supplemental Register.
Moreover, a proposed mark that is merely descriptive
does not become registrable simply because other similar
marks may appear on the Principal Register. In re
Scholastic Testing Services, Inc., 196 USPQ 517 (TTAB 1977).
For example, terms once considered to be arbitrary or
suggestive may lose their distinguishing characteristics
Serial No. 78587313
- 15 -
through use in a descriptive manner over a period of time.
In re Digital Research, Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1242, 1243 (TTAB
1987); In re International Spike, Inc., 190 USPQ 505, 507
(TTAB 1976). This happens most often with terminology in
the rapidly changing field of high tech goods and services.
Accordingly, the Trademark Examining Attorney must make
descriptiveness determinations based upon the evidence in
the record at the time registration is sought. In re Sun
Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001); In re
Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445, 1448 (TTAB 2000) [“A
year or two is an eternity in ‘Internet time,’ given the
rapid advancement of the Internet into every facet of daily
life”].
There can be no question but that applicant’s types of
electronic devices have as significant components Input and
Output functions controlled by nonarithmetic operations.
While applicant’s mark does not describe every feature or
characteristic of its goods, there is no requirement that a
mark must do this before it can be found to be merely
descriptive of the goods. Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1009;
Meehanite Metal, 120 USPQ 293, 294 (CCPA 1959). Clearly,
applicant’s mark describes a feature or characteristic of
the goods to the extent that it immediately conveys
Serial No. 78587313
- 16 -
information about the circuitry of computer processors and
boards.
In part, applicant bases its position that this mark is
suggestive on the fact that its mark is a slight misspelling
of the commonly-used term “I/O Logic.” However, we find
that applicant’s merely changing the final letter “c” to a
letter “k” is insignificant in avoiding a finding that its
mark is merely descriptive.
It has long been held that a novel spelling does not
overcome evidence of descriptiveness if purchasers would
perceive the different spelling as the equivalent of the
descriptive term. “The word, therefore is descriptive, not
indicative of the origin or ownership of the goods; and
being of that quality, we cannot admit that it loses such
quality and becomes arbitrary by being misspelled. Bad
orthography has not yet become so rare or so easily detected
as to make a word the arbitrary sign of something else than
its conventional meaning ….” Standard Paint Co. v. Trinidad
Asphalt Mfg. Co., 220 U.S. 446, 455 (1911). See also
Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp., 305 U.S.
315 (1938) [NU-ENAMEL; NU held equivalent of “new”]; In re
Quik-Print Copy Shops, 205 USPQ at 507 n.9 [QUIK-PRINT held
descriptive: “There is no legally significant difference
here between ‘quik’ and ‘quick’”]; In re Hercules Fasteners,
Serial No. 78587313
- 17 -
Inc., 203 F.2d 753, 97 USPQ 355 (CCPA 1953) (FASTIE, as
phonetic spelling of “fast tie,” connotes that which unites
or joins quickly, and hence the notation is descriptive of
the function and character of tube sealing machines]; Andrew
J. McPartland, Inc. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 164 F.2d
603, 76 USPQ 97 (CCPA 1947), cert. denied, 333 U.S. 875, 77
USPQ 676 (1948) [KWIXTART, phonetic spelling of “quick
start,” is descriptive of electric storage batteries]; In re
Hubbard Milling Co., 6 USPQ2d 1239 (TTAB 1987) [MINERAL-LYX
held generic for mineral licks for feeding livestock]; and
In re State Chemical Manufacturing Co., 225 USPQ 687 (TTAB
1985) [FOM equivalent to word “foam,” is descriptive for
foam rug shampoo].
Similarly here, the slight differences between IOLOGIK
and I/O LOGIC do not result in its mark creating a different
connotation. Applicant proposed mark would be understood by
many, if not most, consumers as simply being a slight
misspelling of I/O LOGIC.
Finally, we find that the other de minimis differences
between applicant’s special form mark and the usage seen in
the Internet articles – e.g., the absence of a back slash
(“io” rather than “i/o” or “I/O”) or a space (“ioLogic”
rather than “io Logic”), and the addition of inverted
Serial No. 78587313
- 18 -
triangles as the dots on the letters “I” – do not obviate
the statutory bar presented by Section 2(e)(1) of the Act.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Act is hereby affirmed on the ground that
applicant’s mark is merely descriptive for the identified
goods.