Bobbie J. Cox

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2002

No. 75960145 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2002)

7/3/02

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____________

In re Bobbie J. Cox
_____________

Serial Nos. 75/960,141 and 75/960,145
____________

Daniel V. Thompson for Bobbie J. Cox.

Janice L. McMorrow, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 104 (Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
____________

Before Cissel, Hanak and Chapman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Bobbie J. Cox (applicant) seeks to register in typed
drawing form POSTAL VAULT (Serial No. 75/960,141) and
DELIVERY VAULT (Serial No. 75/960,145) for “sheet metal
boxes.” Both intent-to-use applications were filed on
March 14, 2000. Applicant has disclaimed exclusive rights
to the terms POSTAL and DELIVERY. Because the records and
briefs in each case are similar, they will be decided in
this one decision.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
2
Citing Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, the
Examining Attorney has refused registration on the basis
that applicant’s marks are merely descriptive of sheet
Serial Nos. 75/960,141 and 75/960,145

metal boxes. At page 2 of her briefs, the Examining
Attorney states as follows: “The sole issue on appeal is:
Whether the proposed mark [POSTAL VAULT or DELIVERY VAULT]
merely describes the applicant’s goods, i.e., ‘sheet metal
boxes.’” When the refusal to register was made final,
applicant appealed to this Board. Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs. Applicant did not request
an oral hearing.
As has been stated repeatedly, “a term is merely
descriptive if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of
the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the
goods.” In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200
USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis added). Moreover, the
immediate idea must be conveyed forthwith with a “degree of
particularity.” In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200 USPQ
57, 59 (TTAB 1978); In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ 57, 751
(TTAB 1990), aff’d 90-1495 (Fed. Cir. February 13, 1991).
At page 3 of her briefs, the Examining Attorney states
that “the term VAULT is clearly generic. The term is
3
defined, in part, as ‘a room or compartment, often built of
steel, for the safekeeping of valuables.’ The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
Serial Nos. 75/960,141 and 75/960,145

(1992).” (emphasis added). In the application seeking
registration of DELIVERY VAULT, the Examining Attorney made
of record no evidence. However, in the application seeking
registration of POSTAL VAULT, the Examining Attorney made
of record seven news articles. One such article is from
the July 10, 1998 edition of The Washington Post and it
reads, in part, as follows: “Billions of non-denominated
rate-change stamps, which will carry the letter H and a big
Uncle Sam hat, have been waiting in postal vaults for
several years.” In an article from the June 3, 1994
edition of The Washington Post there appears the following
sentence: “The 250 million recalled stamps – the ones with
the wrong portrait of Wild West star Bill Pickett – are
locked in postal vaults in Kansas City, Missouri.”
It is applicant’s position that its goods (sheet metal
boxes) are simply not vaults. Applicant argues that when
used in connection with sheet metal boxes, the word “vault”
merely suggests a higher level of security.
4
We agree with applicant’s position. The Examining
Attorney’s own dictionary definition and newspaper stories
clearly indicate that vaults are very large compartments
the size of a room. In this regard, the Board has
Serial Nos. 75/960,141 and 75/960,145

consulted yet another dictionary which defines the word
“vault” as “a room for the safekeeping of valuables and
commonly built of steel.” Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary Unabridged (1993). The very first story relied
upon by the Examining Attorney talks about billions of
stamps being stored in postal vaults. Obviously, one would
not store billions of stamps in a box.
In addition, applicant has properly made of record
copies of third-party registrations of marks on the
Principal Register which contain the word VAULT (not
disclaimed) and which were not obtained pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2(f). For example, Registration No.
1,647,192 is for the mark TOOL VAULT in typed drawing form
for “metallic goods; namely, portable tool boxes.” While
this registration has a disclaimer of the word “tool,”
there is no disclaimer of the word “vault.” Registration
No. 1,608,263 is for the mark TRAVEL VAULT in typed drawing
form for a “general purpose carrying case.” Once again,
5
there is no disclaimer of the word “vault” and this
registration was not obtained pursuant to the provisions of
Section 2(f).

Serial Nos. 75/960,141 and 75/960,145

We are fully aware that Examining Attorneys and
especially this Board are not bound by the actions of other
Examining Attorneys. However, third-party registrations
are competent evidence to supplement dictionaries to show
the meanings of words. Sams, “Third Party Registrations in
T.T.A.B. Proceedings,” 72 Trademark Reporter 297 (1982).
In any event, we would have reached the result that we did
regardless of the presence of these third-party
registrations in the record.
Decision: Both refusals to register are reversed.