Superior of Ohio, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 1998

No. 75049029 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 1998)

Paper No. 10
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB 12/7/98
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Superior of Ohio, Inc.
________
Serial No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
_______
Charles C. Garvey, Jr. of Pravel, Hewitt, Kimbal & Krieger
for Superior of Ohio, Inc.
Andrew P. Baxley, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hanak, Quinn and Hairston, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Superior of Ohio, Inc. has filed applications to
register the marks CROWN SOVEREIGN1 and SOVEREIGN2 for
“automobile dealership services of specialty vehicles,
namely limousines and funeral coaches.”

1 Application Serial No. 75/049,029 filed January 26, 1996, and
alleging a date of first use and first use in commerce in 196l.
2 Application Serial No. 75/049,035, filed January 26, 1996, and
alleging a date of first use and first use in commerce in 1961.
Ser No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
2
The Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration in each application on the ground that the
specimens submitted by applicant do not show use of the
mark in connection with the identified services.
Applicant has appealed and, because both cases involve
similar records and the same issue, we will consider them
in a single opinion.
It is essentially the Examining Attorney’s position
that the marks CROWN SOVEREIGN and SOVEREIGN, as used on
the specimens of record, identify models of funeral coaches
and limousines, and not the services recited in the
applications. Applicant submitted in both applications
copies of a brochure which features its different models of
funeral coaches and limousines. As noted by the Examining
Attorney, applicant’s only uses of CROWN SOVEREIGN in the
brochure is in bold type near a photograph of a funeral
coach, and in the description of the funeral coach, as
shown below:
Ser No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
3
Similarly, applicant’s only uses of SOVEREIGN in the
same brochure is in bold type near photographs of other
funeral coaches and limousines, and in the descriptions of
those vehicles. The brochure also includes photographs of
other models of funeral coaches and limousines along with
descriptions of those vehicles, e.g., STATESMAN, DIPLOMAT,
and CHANCELLOR.
Thus, the Examining Attorney maintains that:
. . . the applicant’s mark is no more
a service mark for the applicant’s automobile
dealership than the CIVIC model designation
Ser No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
4
is for HONDA dealerships, the COROLLA model
designation is for TOYOTA dealerships, the
626 model designation for MAZDA dealerships,
or the M3 model designation is for BMW
dealerships. Although each of the
aforementioned designations identifies a
model of automobile, the connection between
each mark and automobile dealership
services is a multi-staged reasoning
process in that the mark identifies the
model which one purchases at the automobile
dealerships.
(Brief, p. 3)
Applicant, on the other hand, argues that:
When customers see the “Crown Sovereign”
[or “Sovereign”] service mark in advertising
literature at an automobile dealership, they
know that the automobile dealership that
they are visiting (or the one which sent
them the advertising literature) is a
dealer of high quality limousines and
funeral coaches. Thus, the mark serves
“to identify”” the dealership services of
the dealer as high quality services and to
“distinguish” that dealer’s services “from
the services of others” whose quality may
not be as high.”
(Brief, p. 2)
In this case, we agree with the Examining Attorney
that the manner of use of CROWN SOVEREIGN and SOVEREIGN in
the specimen brochure is so indirectly related to
applicant’s automobile dealership services that purchasers
and prospective purchasers are not likely to perceive these
terms as identifying and distinguishing such services.
Rather, the clear import of CROWN SOVEREIGN and SOVEREIGN
in the specimen brochure is to identify models of funeral
Ser No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
5
coaches and limousines which may be purchased at
applicant’s automobile dealerships. While CROWN SOVEREIGN
and SOVEREIGN funeral coaches and limousines may be of the
highest quality, and this may in turn suggest to purchasers
and prospective purchasers of these vehicles that the
automobile dealers who carry them are high quality dealers,
this does not warrant a finding that CROWN SOVEREIGN and
SOVEREIGN function as service marks to identify automobile
dealership services.
In short, purchasers and prospective purchasers of
CROWN SOVEREIGN and SOVEREIGN funeral coaches are unlikely
to perceive these designations, as used in applicant’s
specimen brochure, as service marks to identify automobile
dealership services of specialty vehicles, namely
limousines and funeral coaches.
Ser No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
6
Decision: The refusal to register in each application
is affirmed.
E. W. Hanak
T. J. Quinn
P. T. Hairston
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/049,029 and 75/049,035
7