Titan Int'l., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2002

No. 76031072 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2002)

Mailed: November 26, 2002
Paper No. 17
cl

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Titan International, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/031,072
_______
Daniel A. Rosenberg of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors &
Roberts, P.C. for Titan International, Inc.
Steven W. Jackson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
114 (K. Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Cissel and Quinn, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Titan International, Inc. (applicant), an Illinois
corporation, has appealed from the final refusal of the
Trademark Examining Attorney to register the mark TRACTION
DRIVE for tires, namely, tires for agricultural equipment.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 USC §1052(e)(1), arguing

1 Application Serial No. 76/031,072, filed April 18, 2000, based upon
allegations of use and use in commerce since January 1, 1994.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 76/031,072
2
that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive. Applicant and
the Examining Attorney have submitted briefs but no oral
hearing was requested.
It is the Examining Attorney’s position that
applicant’s mark TRACTION DRIVE combines two descriptive
words that separately and independently identify
characteristics of applicant’s goods because both terms
identify types of tires--traction tires and drive tires.
Based upon the evidence of record, described in more detail
below, the Examining Attorney argues that applicant’s mark
immediately tells prospective purchasers that applicant’s
goods are drive tires that provide traction in rugged
conditions, or are traction tires with enhanced drive
capabilities. The Examining Attorney argues that these
words are highly descriptive, if not generic, of
applicant’s goods.
Among the evidence submitted by the Examining
Attorney, from the Nexis database and from the Internet,
are the following.
The G164 RTD traction drive tire for
use on regional delivery vehicles such
as UPS and Fed-Ex trucks.
Tire Business, March 1, 1999

The deep tread, high traction drive
tire designed to perform in highway and
Serial No. 76/031,072
3
off road conditions.
Michelin catalog (undated)
Two front traction drive tires…
Toro.com Web site
The Turf Tiger [riding lawn mower]
features an ultra wide track stance,
low center of gravity, 1” to 6” cutting
height range, large high-traction drive
tires and 10mph ground speed.
Intmowers.com Web site
Front Drive Tires: Dual 5.00 x 8 8-ply
Pneumatic Traction Drive Tires
LEKTRO Aircraft Towing Vehicle catalog
(undated)

Drive Tire
Goodyear’s G372 LHD line haul drive
tire has a 30/32nds-inch nonskid tread…
New Traction Tire
Goodyear designed the G164 Regional
Traction Drive radial tire to withstand
most rugged conditions…
Tirereview.com Web site
1. What qualifies as a traction tire?
Do mud and snow tires qualify?
Tires that are labeled snow tire, all-
season, all-weather, or studded…qualify
so long as they meet the standards set
in WAC 204-24-040 Traction Devices.
Washington State government Web site
Most drive tires are designed to dig
into soft, wet surfaces, trying to
grab, so that the torque of the engine
can be transferred to the road.
Trucktires.com Web site
Serial No. 76/031,072
4
Tires that meet the following
requirements also qualify as “approved
traction tires”…
Washington State Dept. of
Transportation Web site
(1) “Traction Tire”:
(a) Tires with studs allowed
under ORS 815.165;
(b) Tires marked as mud and snow
or all-season radial tires
when used on vehicles exempt
under ORS 815.145(4)…
Oregon State Archives Administrative
Rules (undated)
Vehicles Must Use Traction Devices or
Traction Tires: Snow tires or mud and
snow tires, or “all-season” radial
tires qualify as traction tires.
www.fs.fed.us Web site
5X12 Deep Lug traction tires…
www.hsmfgco.com Web site
The drive tires must provide traction
to push the rig over wet pavement
through snow…
Georgia state government Web site
T823 Transteel Traction Drive Radial
Firestone Web site
It is the applicant’s position that the combination of
two arguably descriptive terms does not necessarily make a
combined descriptive mark. According to applicant, a
merely descriptive rejection requires “a 100 percent
Serial No. 76/031,072
5
descriptive mark,” and the mark must be so descriptive that
it is incapable of acquiring secondary meaning. Brief, 1-
2. Here, according to applicant, the combination of the
words diminishes the descriptiveness of each. Moreover,
these words have different meanings, applicant argues. For
example, “traction drive” could refer to the tight, hugging
ride which one receives if riding on gripping tires. In
this connotation, “drive” is used as a synonym of “ride” to
refer to the feel of the vehicle on the road, according to
applicant. On the other hand, “traction drive” could refer
to the powerful ride and accelerating force of the vehicle.
In sum, it is applicant’s position that the Examining
Attorney has provided minimal evidence of descriptiveness
of these words considering the large size of the databases
searched by the Examining Attorney, and that the terms
“traction tire” and “drive tire” appear with much greater
frequency than the expression “traction drive.” Finally,
applicant argues that any doubt be resolved in favor of
publication.2

2 In its appeal brief, applicant states that, if its mark is found to be
descriptive, “as a final recourse Applicant should be allowed to enter
a statement of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). The
Applicant has used the mark continuously for more than five years, as
required by Section 2(f).” In its reply brief applicant again states
that it should be allowed to enter a statement of acquired
distinctiveness. The statement in applicant’s appeal brief concerning
the basis for its belief of acquired distinctiveness comes too late in
the appeal for this evidence to be considered, and this issue,
therefore, cannot be considered. See Trademark Rule 2.142(d). See
Serial No. 76/031,072
6
Upon careful consideration of this record, we conclude
that applicant’s mark merely describes its tires. Aside
from the fact that it appears that both “traction” and
“drive” are types of tires, the Examining Attorney has made
of record some evidence that tires are described by both
words--“traction drive”—-which applicant seeks to register.
While perhaps not an overwhelming showing of mere
descriptiveness, this evidence is sufficient from which to
conclude that the words “traction drive” merely describe a
characteristic or feature of applicant’s tires.
Accordingly, the refusal of registration under Section
2(e)(1) of the Act is affirmed.

also TMEP §1212.02(c) for the proper procedure for arguing acquired
distinctiveness in the alternative.