Clic Goggles, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2014

No. 85880648 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014)

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed:
January 29, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Clic Goggles, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 85880648
_____

Nathan P. Koenig of Bay Area Technology Law Group PC for Clic Goggles, Inc.

Carolyn P. Cataldo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103 (Michael
Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_____

Before Greenbaum, Adlin and Hightower, Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Greenbaum, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Clic Goggles, Inc. (applicant) filed an application to register on the Principal
Register the mark FRONT CONNECTION EYEWEAR in standard characters for
“eyewear” in International Class 9.1
Registration has been refused on the ground that FRONT CONNECTION
EYEWEAR is merely descriptive of the identified goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). When the refusal was made final, applicant
appealed. Applicant and the examining attorney have filed briefs.

1 Serial No. 85880648, filed March 19, 2013, based on applicant’s bona fide intent-to-use the
mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 85880648
2

“A mark is merely descriptive if it ‘consist[s] merely of words descriptive of
the qualities, ingredients or characteristics of’ the goods or services related to the
mark.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2004), quoting Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner, 252 U.S. 538, 543
(1920). See also In re MBNA America Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778,
1780 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive
must be made in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought. In
re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). The test for determining whether a mark is merely descriptive is
whether it immediately conveys information concerning a significant quality,
characteristic, function, ingredient, attribute or feature of the product or service in
connection with which it is used, or intended to be used. In re Engineering Systems
Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB
1979). It is not necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive, that the mark
describe each feature of the goods or services, only that it describe a single,
significant ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of
the goods or services.2 In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination
of whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on

2 Applicant's reliance on Ex Parte Heatube Corp., 109 USPQ 423 (Comm'r Pats. 1956) as
setting forth the test for determining whether a mark is merely descriptive is misplaced.
See App. Br., p. 4. The test has evolved over time, and we must follow the test as set forth
above by the Federal Circuit, our primary reviewing court. See also Oppedahl, 71 USPQ2d
at 1371 (“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and
extent’ of the applicant's goods and services,” citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp.,
240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Serial No. 85880648
3

the question of whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique
commercial impression. If each component retains its merely descriptive
significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a
composite that is itself merely descriptive. See, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v.
Inviro Medical Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(SNAP SIMPLY SAFER is merely descriptive for “medical devices, namely,
cannulae; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection needles; medical,
hypodermic, aspiration and injection syringes”); Oppedahl, 71 USPQ2d at 1371
(PATENTS.COM is merely descriptive of computer software for managing a
database of records that could include patents for tracking the status of the records
by means of the Internet); In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB
2009) (BATTLECAM is merely descriptive of computer game software); In re Tower
Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d at 1317 (SMARTTOWER is merely descriptive of commercial
and industrial cooling towers); and In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084
(TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS is merely descriptive of computer programs for use in
development and deployment of application programs). However, a mark
comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the
combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, nondescriptive
meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to the
goods or services. See In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA
1968); In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983); and TMEP § 1209.03(d) (October
2013).
Serial No. 85880648
4

Although the application is based on applicant’s bona fide intent to use the
mark in commerce, the examining attorney has made of record evidence that
applicant actually sells eyewear with a magnetic front closure, that is, eyewear with
a frame that connects in the front, at the bridge of the wearer’s nose, with magnets.3
For example, the “Little Gorgeous Things” website
displays various styles of applicant’s eyewear with the frames both connected and
disconnected at the front, and describes the eyewear as follows:
CliC readers, sunglasses, and goggles all have a unique,
patented, neodymium magnetic front connection system
that was invented in the USA. To put the glasses on, you
just lift them up and over your nose, and the front magnet
guides the lenses closed with a gentle "click." This
magnetic front connection allows them to use a flexible
headband in the back. This has two benefits... first, when
you're looking through the lenses, the headband keeps
them securely in place on your head. They won't fall off,
blow off, or fly off. Then, when you don't need them, just
"un-click" them in front, and let them hang comfortably
around your neck. No "granny chain" or cords needed! You
will never misplace your readers again.4
The examining attorney also submitted printouts from applicant’s website
featuring applicant’s “Clic Metal Aviator Frame Rx S. V.
Silver” and other styles of glasses, all of which are described as having “patented
front connection technology.”5 Applicant’s website also describes the “Click Half
Frame Black Sun Reading Glasses” and many others as having a “unique patented
neodymium magnet system” that “allows the glasses to come together at the
bridge.” Similarly, the printout from the Sportclic website displays

3 June 28, 2013 and August 6, 2013 Office actions.
4 June 28, 2013 Office action.
5 August 6, 2013 Office action.
Serial No. 85880648
5

pictures of applicant’s “front connecting glasses” -- reading glasses, sunglasses and
goggles.6 Printouts from the Walmart website show additional
eyewear from applicant, such as the “Clic Long Reading Glasses – Black,”
promoting “[t]he one-of-a-kind front connection system” that “allows you to easily
wear and remove them.”7
The evidence also includes printouts from the Amazon website
displaying several styles of applicant’s eyewear and a description
thereof.8 Almost all of the pictures show the eyewear separated at the bridge of the
nose to demonstrate that they connect at the front, and the associated descriptions
tout this feature. For example, applicant’s “Clic Reader Reading Glasses – Long
Stem” and “Clic Adjustable Front Connect Reader” have a “magnetic front
connection” that offers “as needed access to your [glasses/readers].” Similarly, the
printouts show many other styles of applicant’s eyewear, and refer to virtually all of
them as “front connect reader[s].”
Even if we were to accept applicant’s argument that FRONT CONNECTION
EYEWEAR could mean many things, including eyewear which can be connected to
other optical or non-optical devices, such as prescription lenses, applicant does not
contend that the alternate meaning is a double entendre, as was Sugar & Spice for
bakery goods in Colonial Stores, or that FRONT CONNECTION EYEWEAR is
otherwise incongruous, nor can we make such findings based on the evidence of

6 Id.
7 Id.
8 June 28, 2013 Office action.
Serial No. 85880648
6

record, all of which points to the magnetic front connection of applicant’s eyewear as
the main feature of the eyewear.
Each of the words comprising applicant’s proposed mark is individually
descriptive (and in the case of EYEWEAR, admittedly generic),9 and the
combination of these terms does not evoke a new and unique commercial
impression. Rather, each component of the composite mark retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to applicant’s goods, thus resulting in a
composite that is itself merely descriptive. See Petroglyph Games, 91 USPQ2d 1332
(BATTLECAM merely descriptive for computer game software); In re Carlson, 91
USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009) (URBANHOUZING merely descriptive of real estate
brokerage, real estate consultation, and real estate listing services). No imagination
is required by a prospective purchaser or user to discern that applicant’s eyewear
connects in front. Accordingly, the proposed mark, FRONT CONNECTION
EYEWEAR, when considered as a whole, is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods.
Finally, the fact that applicant may be the first and only user, as applicant
contends, does not obviate a mere descriptiveness refusal. In re Nat'l Shooting
Sports Found., Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983).
Applicant correctly states that in cases of refusals under Section 2(e)(1), we
must resolve doubt in favor of applicant; however, we have no such doubt in this
case.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.

9 App. Br., p. 4.