U-Haul Int'l, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2004

No. 76368480 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2004)

Mailed: June 18, 2004
PTH
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re U-Haul International, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76368480
_______
Heather S. Bacal of Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP for U-
Haul International, Inc.
Steven Fine, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110
(Chris A. F. Pedersen, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Quinn, Hairston and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by U-Haul International,
Inc. to register the mark shown below,
for “truck and trailer rental services.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused
1 Serial No. 76368480, filed February 7, 2002, alleging a bona
fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76368480
2
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act on
the ground that, when used in connection with applicant’s
services, SUPERGRAPHICS would be merely descriptive of
them. When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Briefs have been filed, but no oral hearing was requested.
The Examining Attorney contends that the applied-for
mark is descriptive of applicant’s truck and trailer rental
services because applicant’s trucks and trailers bear
graphical images that represent states and provinces; that
these images are intriguing and educational in nature; and
thus a significant feature of applicant’s rental services
is that such services involve trucks and trailers bearing
“supergraphics.” In support of the refusal, the Examining
Attorney made of record information from applicant’s “home
page” which discusses applicant’s use of graphical images
on its trucks and trailers.
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that the mark SUPERGRAPHICS does not
immediately describe any quality or feature of applicant’s
truck and trailer rental services. Applicant argues that
the only relationship between the term SUPERGRAPHICS and
applicant’s services is that applicant chooses to apply
graphical images to the trucks and trailers it offers for
rental.
Ser No. 76368480
3
A mark is descriptive if it “forthwith conveys an
immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or
characteristics of the goods [or services].” Abercrombie &
Fitch Company v. Hunting World, Incorporated, 537 F2d. 4,
189 USPQ 759, 765 (2nd Cir. 1976) (emphasis added). See
also, In re Abcor Development Corporation, 616 F.2d 525,
200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978). Moreover, in order to be merely
descriptive, the mark must immediately convey information
as to the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the
goods or services with a “degree of particularity.” See In
re TMS Corporation of the Americas, 200 USPQ 57, 59 (TTAB
1978); and In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750, 1751
(TTAB 1990), aff’d, unpub’d, (Fed. Cir. February 13, 1991).
The Examining Attorney bears the burden of showing
that a mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods
or services. See In re Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and
Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1143 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
In this case, we are unable to find that when used in
connection with applicant’s truck and trailer rental
services, SUPERGRAPHICS is merely descriptive thereof.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that graphical
images, much less, SUPERGRAPHICS would be perceived as a
significant feature of truck and trailer rental services.
Ser No. 76368480
4
We recognize that purchasers of applicant’s services may
find the graphical images on applicant’s trucks and
trailers to be intriguing and perhaps educational. Also,
it is quite possible that persons may even characterize the
graphical images as “super.” Nonetheless, the term
SUPERGRAPHICS does not immediately convey knowledge of any
quality or characteristic of applicant’s services.
The intent of Section 2(e)(1) is to protect the
competitive needs of others. We believe that competitors
in the truck and trailer rental field are not unduly
deprived by registration of SUPERGRAPHICS. There is no
evidence that anyone in the field uses “supergraphics” to
describe similar services. And, we might add, there is no
indication that anyone in the field would need to use this
term. In sum, contrary to the Examining Attorney’s
position, it is not enough that applicant’s rental trucks
and trailers bear intriguing/educational graphical images
for a finding of mere descriptiveness.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) is reversed.