RIFOCS Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2002

No. 76128435 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2002)

Mailed: September 19, 2002
Paper No. 8
CEW

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________

In re RIFOCS Corporation
___________

Serial No. 76/128,435
___________

Matthew P. Lynch, Esq. for RIFOCS Corporation.

Angela M. Micheli, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 108 (David E. Shallant, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Simms, Walters and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:

RIFOCS Corporation has filed an application to
register on the Principal Register the mark FIBERTOOLS
for “fiber optic test equipment, namely, power meters;
light sources, namely, light emitting diodes and lasers
not for medical use, attenuators, and accessories
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 76/128,435
2
therefor, namely, adapters.”1 The Trademark Examining
Attorney has issued a final refusal to register, under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely
descriptive in connection with 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 submitted the following
definitions from the Academic Press Dictionary of Science
and Technology (Harcourt, Inc.):
Fiber – Materials. A thin, threadlike piece of
any material. Optics. A fiber made of
transparent material, such as glass, fused
silica, or plastic, that is capable of
conducting light signals by means of total
internal reflection.

Tool – Mechanical Devices. A portable and
usually hand-held instrument, either unpowered
or powered, that is used to increase the
efficiency of a work effort.

She also submitted several excerpts of articles retrieved
from the LEXIS/NEXIS database and excerpts from Internet
Web sites. Following are several examples:
Leviton’s … new Universal Fiber Optic Tool Kit
for multi or single mode is a collection of

1 Serial No. 76/128,435, in International Class 9, filed September 15,
2000, based on use of the mark in commerce, alleging first use and use
in commerce as of December 1, 1997.
Serial No. 76/128,435
3
fiber tools for fiber-optic connectors.
[Teleconnect, August 1, 1999.]

Fiberoptic splice kit (NSK-12), combines a
complete fiber tool kit with Norland optical
splices and Fiber Visualizer. [Electric Power &
Light, June 1990.]

HEADLINE: Proteon offers fiber tools,….
[Network World, October 3, 1998.]

One Internet web site excerpt from HomeTech
Solutions at www.hometech.com, November 29, 2001,
contains a table of contents section entitled “Fiber
Optic Installation Tools.” The two sub-headings are
“Fiber Tool Kits” and “Individual Fiber Tools.”
The Examining Attorney contends that the evidence
establishes that both the individual terms, “fiber” and
“tools,” and the compound formed from them, “fiber
tools,” are descriptive in connection with applicant’s
goods; and that the compound term FIBERTOOLS is not a
deviation or unusual combination of the individual terms
resulting in a different connotation or commercial
impression from the individual terms.
Applicant contends that FIBERTOOLS is at most
suggestive because “fiber” may as readily refer to
textile fibers as to fiber optics; that “tool” could
“refer to a large number of different types of products,”
only one of which is fiber optic equipment; that the use
Serial No. 76/128,435
4
by manufacturers of the term “fiber tool(s)” is
“occasional,” “rather infrequent,” and “rather limited.”
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether it immediately conveys information
concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, 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). It is not necessary, in order to find that
a mark is 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 or on
the basis of guesswork, 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).
Applicant acknowledges that there is some use of the
term “fiber tools” in the fiber optic industry.
Regardless of whether the term FIBERTOOLS is commonly
Serial No. 76/128,435
5
used for the identified goods, it simply eliminates the
understood term “optics,” i.e., “fiber optics tools.” It
is well established that a mark need not be a common
compound word to convey the good's characteristics. See,
e.g., In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215
(C.C.P.A. 1978) [affirming the Board's finding that
"GASBADGE" is merely descriptive of a badge which detects
gaseous pollutants even though the common compound word
would be “gas monitoring badge”].
Applicant’s principal, if not only, argument in
support of its position that FIBERTOOLS is suggestive,
is the fact that “fiber” and “tool,” considered out of
context, could refer to a number of different things.
However, as stated above, such an argument is not valid.
On the other hand, the Examining Attorney has provided
clear evidence that not only are the individual terms
“fiber” and “tools” merely descriptive in connection
with the identified goods, but the compound term “fiber
tools” is also merely descriptive thereof. The merging
of the two words into FIBERTOOLS does not change the
appearance or connotation of the terms, either
individually or as a compound term.”
When applied to applicant’s goods, the term
FIBERTOOLS immediately describes, without conjecture or
Serial No. 76/128,435
6
speculation, a significant feature or function of
applicant’s goods, namely, that applicant’s goods include
fiber optic equipment and tools to use on or in
connection with fiber optic equipment. 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 goods to readily perceive the merely
descriptive significance of the term FIBERTOOLS as it
pertains to applicant’s goods.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Act is affirmed.