Universal Electronics Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 1997

EX (T.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 1997)

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB JULY 28, 97
Paper No. 16
RLS/LCB
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Universal Electronics Inc.
________
Serial No. 74/591,009
_______
Robert E. Browne of Altheimer & Gray for applicant.
Kevin R. Peska, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Myra K. Kurzbard, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Simms, Cissel and Quinn, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Universal Electronics Inc. (applicant), an Illinois
corporation, has appealed from the final refusal of the
Trademark Examining Attorney to register the mark KIDS
CLICKER for goods subsequently identified as universal
remote control units which are programmable to eliminate
user access to select television channels and/or programs.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under

1 Application Serial No. 74/591,009, filed October 26, 1994,
based upon applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce under Section 1(b) of the Act, 15 USC §1051(b).
Serial No. 74/591,009
2
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 USC §1052(e)(1), arguing that
applicant's mark is merely descriptive of its goods.2
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have submitted briefs,
but no oral hearing was requested.
According to the Examining Attorney, applicant's mark
is descriptive of the intended users of applicant's remote
control units, which the Examining Attorney contends are
also called "clickers". It is the Examining Attorney's
position that the combination of two descriptive terms in
this case results in nothing more than a merely descriptive
composite mark without the creation of an unusual or
incongruous combination. Therefore, no imagination is
required to understand the nature and users of applicant's
goods, according to the Examining Attorney. Applicant's
mark immediately tells the purchasing public that
applicant's remote control units (“clickers”) are designed
to limit access by kids to various objectionable
programming.
In support of his position, the Examining Attorney has
submitted a dictionary definition of the word "kid," copies
of electronic versions of various third-party registrations
wherein the word "KIDS" is disclaimed, numerous excerpts
from the Lexis/Nexis database showing the term "clicker"
used descriptively or generically, and copies of applicant's

2 The Examining Attorney has withdrawn an earlier refusal under
Section 2(d) of the Act, 15 USC §1052(d), on the basis of
Registration No. 1,588,022, issued March 20, 1990, for the mark
KIDDIE KLIKER for children’s toys, namely, simulated electronic
remote control units.
Serial No. 74/591,009
3
responses in other cases wherein applicant has disclaimed
the term "CLICKER" in connection with its remote control
units and has admitted that "the term 'clicker,' standing
alone, is merely descriptive in relation to a remote control
unit." Response, p. 7, filed March 26, 1996.3
Applicant, on the other hand, argues that its mark is
"a highly distinctive mark and at most suggestive" (brief,
1), and that the term "KIDS CLICKER" does not conjure up the
image of a remote control unit, but rather requires thought
and imagination to understand the nature of applicant's
goods. Applicant also maintains that its goods are
"particularly directed" to adults who use the programmable
functions of the units to limit or block access to certain
TV channels and programs. In this regard, applicant
maintains that children are not the intended purchasers or
users of applicant's goods, but rather are merely the
beneficiaries. While the term "clicker" may be descriptive,
according to applicant the terms of its mark are "combined
in a unique and distinctive manner." Brief, 9.
Although the individual word "CLICKER"
when used alone, may be descriptive, the
combination of this word with "KIDS"
forms a distinctive mark when used on
Applicant's programmable universal
remote controls. The Examining Attorney
determined that Applicant's mark was
descriptive based upon the incorrect
assumption "that the goods are intended
to limit access to programs and/or
channels by kids." However, the

3 In those cases, applicant successfully sought registration of
the mark "SPORTS CLICKER" and "SPORTS CLICKER" and design.
Serial No. 74/591,009
4
intended customers and users of
Applicant's goods are not children. In
fact, Applicant's goods are particularly
directed at adults who want to limit
access to television channels and
programs. . .
Even if the individual elements of
the mark "KIDS CLICKER" were deemed
descriptive when used with Applicant's
goods, the mark can still be found
registrable. Although the Examining
Attorney relies on the independent
definitions of "KIDS" and "CLICKER" in
holding Applicant's mark is merely
descriptive of Applicant's goods, when
the words are combined into "KIDS
CLICKER", the mark as a whole does not
tell a relevant purchaser what product
is being offered. . .
The mark "KIDS CLICKER" taken as a
whole, is not descriptive of remote
control units. Children or kids are not
the intended purchasers of the goods,
nor are they the intended users of the
unique features of such goods. In fact,
Applicant's universal remote controls
are particularly directed at adults who
want to control what channels and
programs can be accessed through the use
of their universal remote controls.
(This product will have tremendous
benefits to the families and to the
public in general.) The fact that a
child may actually push a button on such
a remote control is not enough to reject
the subject mark.
Brief, 6, 7, 10. Elsewhere, applicant states that its goods
are not used exclusively by children, but that its goods
will be used by adults and older children.
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we agree with the Examining
Attorney that applicant's asserted mark is, at a minimum,
Serial No. 74/591,009
5
merely descriptive. With respect to the term "clicker," as
the Examining Attorney has pointed out, applicant has
disclaimed this term in two other applications and has
conceded that this term is merely descriptive or generic,
“standing alone.”4 Moreover, the Lexis/Nexis excerpts
further demonstrate the descriptive, if not generic, nature
of the term "clicker."
Rejected by loved ones because you hog
the remote? Condemned by jealous
comrades for your dazzling capability
with the clicker?
The Palm Beach Post, July 24, 1995
* * * * * * * *
What I am hoping for is that someone
invents a wondrously easy-to-use
"universal" remote control device -- one
clicker that will free me from all my
other clickers.
The Boston Herald, July 23, 1995
* * * * * * * *
... it is very easy to tune out nowadays
-- you don't even have to walk across
the room -- you just touch a button on
the remote control. "The Clicker is the
enemy," a showbiz mogul once explained
to me.
The Washington Post, July 16, 1995
* * * * * * * *
... prototype flashed logos of the NFL,
the NBA, the NHL, Major League Baseball
and the NCAA. The plan is for customers
to eventually use their remote-control
clickers to access games, customized and
uncustomized stats, special interview

4 In its response filed March 26, 1996, p. 7, applicant argued
that registration here would not deprive consumers or
competitors "from using the generic name of Applicant's goods
(i.e. clicker, remote control, remote, etc.)."
Serial No. 74/591,009
6
shows, displays of sports paraphernalia,
simulated games and a long...
Sports Illustrated, July 3, 1995
* * * * * * * *
... Food-borne bacteria can live for
hours, even days, on skin and household
surfaces -- such as countertops, phones
and remote-control clickers -- until
they're picked up by somebody's hand and
eventually make their way into the
mouth.
The San Francisco Chronicle, June 21,
1995
* * * * * * * *
Maybe the fishing's not as good as it
once was. Maybe amenities have come to
the marshes. But the remote-control
clicker is not likely to make much of an
impact out here.
Newsday, May 31, 1995
* * * * * * * *
... speakers and other components.
Through the new box you can control all
the components with a single button on
one remote control clicker.
Forbes, May 22, 1995
* * * * * * * *
It is the part of maleness that can be
defined by beer, testosterone and the
remote control clicker, not necessarily
in that order.
The Washington Post, May 17, 1995
* * * * * * * *
... include placing the dummy dudes at
the dinner table (reading a newspaper,
of course) or on the couch (gripping a
remote-control clicker, natch).
The Boston Globe, April 9, 1995
* * * * * * * *
Serial No. 74/591,009
7
... ADHD appear throughout our culture:
"The fast pace. The sound bite. The
bottom line. Short takes, quick cuts.
The TV remote-control clicker."
Washingtonian, April 1995
While it is true that applicant's "clickers" may be
designed to be programmable by adults to eliminate access to
certain channels and/or programs, it is clear to us from a
reading of the arguments in this case that applicant's units
are designed so that children (kids) who use the devices
will not be able to watch certain programs and/or channels.
While applicant has made much of the fact that its devices
are intended to be purchased and programmed by adults, it
seems to us elementary that these devices are designed to
prevent children from watching certain programs and/or
channels. That is, these remote control devices or clickers
may be safely used by children without any fear on the part
of the parents that the children may watch objectionable
programs. In this context, we have no doubt but that
applicant's mark is, at a minimum, merely descriptive of the
goods in that it combines a name of the goods (clicker) with
a reference to the intended users of the goods. See, for
example, In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d
1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(“SCREENWIPES”) and Eastern Air Lines,
Inc. v. New York Air Lines, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 1270, 218
USPQ 71 (SDNY 1983)(“Air-shuttle”).
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.
R. L. Simms
Serial No. 74/591,009
8
R. F. Cissel
T. J. Quinn
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board