Portland Pedal Power, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2013

No. 85396037 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2013)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
September 10, 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Portland Pedal Power, LLC
_____

Serial No. 85396037
_____

Jeffrey J. Armistead of Jeffrey Armistead LLC for Portland Pedal Power, LLC.

Jaclyn Kidwell Walker, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112 (Angela
Bishop Wilson, Managing Attorney).
_____

Before Grendel, Taylor, and Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Gorowitz, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Portland Pedal Power, LLC (“applicant”) seeks to register the mark set forth
below for “advertising and promotional services rendered on, or provided in
connection with, a bicycle enclosure; advertising and marketing services, namely,
promoting the goods and services of others rendered on, or provided in connection
with, a bicycle enclosure; advertising, marketing and promoting the goods and
Serial No. 85396037

2

services of others using bicycle enclosures; providing advertising space on bicycle
enclosures; rental of advertising space on bicycle enclosures” in Class 35:1

The applied-for mark is described in the application as:
The mark consists of trade dress for advertising,
marketing, and promotional services rendered on, or
provided in connection with, a bicycle consisting of an
enclosure attached and connected to a bicycle wrapped
around a frame to form convex sides of which the matter
depicted in broken lines being a bicycle and the flaps are
not claimed as a feature of the mark.
Registration was refused pursuant to Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45,
15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127 on the ground that the applied-for mark consists of
nondistinctive trade dress that would not be perceived as a service mark but only as
decoration or ornamentation. The refusal was made final on June 14, 2012.
Thereafter on January 4, 2013, applicant filed both a request for reconsideration

1 Application Serial No. 85396037, filed August 11, 2011, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming dates of first use anywhere and first used in
commerce, at least as early as May 15, 2009.
Serial No. 85396037

3

and a notice of appeal. The request for reconsideration was denied and this appeal
followed.
The sole question in the case at bar is whether applicant’s bicycle enclosure is
inherently distinctive and thus would be perceived as a service mark.
“[A] mark is inherently distinctive if ‘[its] intrinsic nature serves to identify a
particular source.’” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 54
USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000), quoting Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S.
763, 768, 23 USPQ2d 1081, 1083 (1992). It “should be displayed with such
prominence as will enable easy recognition” and “the average consumer will regard
it as an unmistakable, certain, and primary means of identification pointing
distinctly to the commercial origins of such product.” In re Swift & Co., 223 F.2d
950, 106 USPQ 286, 289 (CCPA 1955). “[U]ltimately ‘the focus of the [inherent
distinctiveness] inquiry is whether or not the trade dress is of such a design that a
buyer will immediately rely on it to differentiate the product from those of
competing manufacturers; if so, it is inherently distinctive.’” In re Chippendales
USA, Inc., 622 F.3d 1346, 96 USPQ2d 1681, 1685 (Fed. Cir. October 1, 2010),
quoting Tone Brothers, Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1331
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
In determining whether a design is arbitrary or
distinctive [the CCPA] has looked to [1] whether it was a
“common” basic shape or design, [2] whether it was
unique or unusual in a particular field, [3] whether it was
a mere refinement of a commonly-adopted and well-
known form of ornamentation for a particular class of
goods viewed by the public as a dress or ornamentation
for the goods, or [4] whether it was capable of creating a
Serial No. 85396037

4

commercial impression distinct from the accompanying
words.
Seabrook Foods, Inc. v. Bar-Well Foods Ltd., 568 F.2d 1342, 196 USPQ 289, 291
(CCPA). “A finding that any one of these factors is satisfied may render the mark
not inherently distinctive.” Chippendales, 96 USPQ2d at 1687. The fourth factor,
whether the trade dress was capable of creating a commercial impression distinct
from the accompanying words, is not applicable.
The examining attorney contends that the applied-for mark is a common
shape or design since it is “merely an enclosure with convex sides and can be said to
be nothing more than a modified rectangular box with slanted sides.” Examining
Attorney’s Brief, p. 4. Applicant relying on In re Proctor & Gamble, 105 USPQ2d
1119, 1122 (TTAB 2012), responds by stating “[t]he Board has indicated that a
common shape is a ‘common geometric shape such as a circle, oval, square or
triangle.’” Applicant’s Brief, p. 9. Applicant’s reliance on the Proctor & Gamble
case is misplaced as the Board did not define a common shape, but merely indicated
examples of common shapes, i.e. letters or geometric shapes. Proctor & Gamble, at
1122. To the contrary the Board has found the following to be common shapes:

Serial No. 85396037

5

In re E S Robbins Corp., 30 USPQ2d 1540 (TTAB 1992) (common shape for
floor mats); and

In re Chevron Intellectual Property Group LLC, 96 USPQ2d 2026 (TTAB 2010)
(common shape for a pole spanner sign).

Applicant relies on five decisions (two of which are not precedential) to
support its position that its bicycle enclosure is not a common shape. We have
considered the decisions, however, we do not find them helpful in evaluating
applicant’s applied-for mark since the facts and the marks in each case differ from
the facts and the applied-for mark in this case.
The specimen submitted by applicant is:
.
The examining attorney contends that while the applied-for mark is not a
single geometric shape, it is a common shape, which the average consumer will not
regard as the primary means of identification of applicant’s services. In support of
this position, in the Office action dated November 19, 2011, the examining attorney
Serial No. 85396037

6

submitted photographs of various bicycle enclosures used for advertising, all of
which vary to some extent in their appearances:

(1) www.postercity.de (2) www.mobilebillboards.co.uk2

(3) www.lowrydersadvertising.com

2 These photographs are from a German website (www.postercity.de) and a UK website
(www.mobilebillboards.co.uk). While we generally do not consider information from foreign
websites relevant, since these photographs were addressed by applicant in its brief, we
consider any objection to them waived and we have considered the photographs in this
decision.
Serial No. 85396037

7

(4) www.sarasotabicycleads.com (5) www.marquis –media.com

In addition to the evidence submitted by the examining attorney, the applicant
submitted an example of “an advertising bicycle” as an exhibit to its request for
reconsideration dated December 13, 2012. The enclosure on the advertising bicycle,
which is depicted in the photograph below, is rectangular.

Photo from Wikipedia article entitled “Billboard bicycle.”

On appeal, we must consider whether the Examining Attorney has made a
prima facie case that the subject matter sought to be registered is not inherently
distinctive and, if so, whether applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to rebut
that prima facie case. In re Pacer Technology, 338 F.3d 1348, 67 USPQ2d 1629,
1631 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The burden on the Examining Attorney is to establish a
Serial No. 85396037

8

“reasonable predicate” for her position that the subject matter is not inherently
distinctive. Id. The evidence of record illustrating advertising enclosures on
bicycles establishes that bicycle enclosures vary in appearance, but are similar in
that they are all attached to the backs of bicycles and include large areas for
placement of one or more advertisements.
The applicant claims that the following features of its bicycle enclosure differ
from the bicycle enclosures set forth above, thus establishing that its bicycle
enclosure is inherently distinctive: “1) the substantially convex curvature of the side
panels; 2) a rectilinear top panel not present in the triangular examples; 3) a
rectangular bottom panel wider than the top panel and 4) front and back panels
that have a shape that can’t be described by any word known to Applicant.”3
Appeal Brief, p. 10. While the convex curvature of the side panels in applicant’s
bicycle enclosure is different from the examples of other bicycle enclosures,
rectilinear top and bottom panels are present in the enclosures depicted above as
Number 2, which is located at www.mobilebillboards.co.uk, Number 5, which is
located at www.marquis–media.com and in the advertising bike submitted by
applicant. Moreover, in the photographs numbered 2 and 5, the rectangular bottom
panel is wider than the top panel.
To support its position that the design of the enclosure is inherently
distinctive, applicant submitted the Declaration of Ken Wetherell, principal of

3 Applicant’s inability to describe the shape of the side panels of its enclosure is irrelevant
to our decision.
Serial No. 85396037

9

applicant and designer of the “applied for bicycle enclosure services mark.”4 In his
declaration, Mr. Wetherell states that the enclosure design was created
independently and that the cost of manufacturing the enclosure is “many times
greater than they would be with a design utilizing straight sides.”5 These factors,
however, are not relevant to a determination of inherent distinctiveness. Therefore,
we give little, if any weight, to the Wetherell declaration.
The primary difference between applicant’s bicycle enclosure and the other
bicycle enclosures of record is the convex shape of the sides of applicant’s enclosure.
As such, our determination regarding the inherent distinctiveness of the applied-for
mark is contingent on whether the convex shape of the sides of the enclosure is
sufficient to establish that the enclosure would immediately be perceived as a
service mark. While the shape of most, but not all, of the enclosures of record, is
concave, we do not find that the convex-shaped sides of applicant’s enclosure are
sufficiently different from the other shapes commonly used for bicycle enclosures to
establish that consumers will immediately rely on it to differentiate applicant’s
services from those of its competitors, particularly since consumers are familiar
with bicycle enclosures that have different shapes. Applicant’s enclosure’s convex
sides merely are rounded like a sphere as opposed to being inwardly rounded like a
bowl or flat as are the sides in the other enclosures. Thus, the evidence of record
establishes that the applied-for mark is not an uncommon shape for bicycle
enclosures on which advertisements are placed. Accordingly, the examining

4 Witherell Decl. par. 1 (Exhibit to May 21, 2012 Response to Office Action.)
5 Wetherell Decl. pars. 2 and 4.
Serial No. 85396037

10

attorney has established a reasonable predicate on which to base her conclusion
that applicant’s applied-for bicycle enclosure mark is not inherently distinctive.
The burden now shifts to the applicant to establish that the applied-for mark
has acquired distinctiveness. Applicant has submitted no evidence to establish its
mark has acquired distinctiveness, e.g., that the design of the enclosure is promoted
as a service mark, or that anyone other than applicant considers the shape of its
bicycle enclosure to be a service mark. Accordingly, we find that the applied-for
mark has not acquired distinctiveness.
As fully discussed above, the examining attorney has met the Office’s burden
of establishing that applicant’s bicycle enclosure is not inherently distinctive.
Further, applicant has not established acquired distinctiveness.
Decision: The refusal to register pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the
Trademark Act on the ground that the applied-for mark is nondistinctive trade
dress that would not be perceived as a service mark but only as decoration or
ornamentation, is affirmed.