Storopack Hans Reichenecker GmbH & Co.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 1998

No. 74379085 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 1998)

Paper No. 18
SIMMA/MD
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB 6/2/98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Storopack Hans Reichenecker GmbH & Co.
________
Serial No. 74/379,085
_______
Felix J. D’Ambrosio of Jones, Tullar & Cooper, P.C. for
Storopack Hans Reichenecker GmbH & Co.
Andrew D. Lawrence, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (David Shallant, Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Sams, Simms and Quinn, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Storopack Hans Reichenecker GmbH & Co. (applicant), a
German corporation, has appealed from the final refusal of
the Trademark Examining Attorney to register the mark
PAPERFILL for pourable packaging materials for use in
shipping goods.1 The Examining Attorney has refused

1 Application Serial No. 74/379,085, originally filed April 15,
1993, based upon an application filed in the Federal Republic of
Germany on October 15, 1992. On July 27, 1995, applicant changed
the basis of its application from Section 44(d), 15 USC †1126(d),
Ser No. 74/379,085
2
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 USC
†1052(e)(1), arguing that applicant’s mark is merely
descriptive of its goods. Applicant and the Examining
Attorney have submitted briefs but no oral hearing was
requested.
We affirm.
Relying upon a definition of the word “fill” (“a
material used to fill a receptacle, cavity, or passage”),
and upon copies of articles obtained from the Nexis
database, the Examining Attorney argues that, in the
packaging business, a fill is known by its composition.
Fill is poured directly into shipping containers and is
designed to cushion the goods being shipped from whatever
shocks the container may encounter during shipping. Some
excerpts from the articles made of record are set forth
below:
…In 1989, customers were complaining
about plastic “peanuts” used in mail
order shipments. A study of plastic vs.
paper fills found that plastic cushioned
better and weighed less…
DM News, December 27, 1993
* * * * * *
A machine patented by Patriot Packaging
produces coiled paper pellets for use as
a loose packaging fill…

to Section 1(b) of the Act, 15 USC †1051(b) (bona fide intent to
use the mark in commerce).
Ser No. 74/379,085
3
Crains Cleveland Business, November 15,
1993
* * * * * *
“Ultimately, we’re trying to close the
loop on paper by recycling mixed mail,
educating our customers and using our
own internal paper trimmings as
packaging fill instead of polystyrene
peanuts…”
Business & the Environment, April 1992
The Examining Attorney notes that applicant has indicated
that its fill could be made of paper and, in fact, applicant
has submitted samples of its goods, some of which are made
of paper. Thus, it is the Examining Attorney’s position
that fill made of paper may be called paper fill.
Applicant’s mark PAPERFILL, according to the Examining
Attorney, immediately tells prospective purchaser what
applicant’s goods are.
Applicant argues that the words “paper” and “fill”
describe something about the goods but they do not describe
the goods themselves. Applicant’s Response, filed September
30, 1994, 2. See also applicant’s brief, 2. Essentially,
it is applicant’s position that the asserted mark is
suggestive because the information about applicant’s goods
suggested by the mark is indirect or vague. While applicant
admits that its goods are called “loose fill,” applicant
argues that in the trade packaging fill is primarily made of
thermoplastic rather than paper. Applicant also states that
Ser No. 74/379,085
4
it is not aware of any competitor using this mark for its
goods.
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that the asserted mark is merely descriptive. It
immediately tells prospective purchasers that applicant’s
fill is made of paper. These highly descriptive words are
unregistrable under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
J. D. Sams
R. L. Simms
T. J. Quinn
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/379,085
5