Gamma-Metrics

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2000

No. 75489741 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2000)

Paper No. 14
TEH
9/25/00
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Gamma-Metrics
________
Serial No. 75/489,741
_______
Edward W. Callan for Gamma-Metrics.
Lisa Weiss Rosaya, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112
(Janice O'Lear, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Bottorff and Holtzman, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Holtzman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Gamma-Metrics to register
RAMOS for goods that were subsequently amended to the following:1
Computer software for use in a raw materials processing
system for proportioning raw materials to produce an optimal
raw mix chemistry. In Class 9.
User manuals and printed documentation pertaining to a raw
materials processing system that uses computer software to
proportion raw materials to produce an optimal raw mix
chemistry. In Class 16.

1 Application Serial No. 75/489,741, filed May 22, 1998, asserting a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/489,741
2
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under
Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act on the ground that RAMOS is
primarily merely a surname.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the Examining
Attorney have filed briefs. An oral hearing was not requested.
Whether a mark is primarily merely a surname depends upon
whether its primary significance to the purchasing public is that
of a surname. In re Hutchinson Technology, Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 7
USPQ2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Office has the burden of
establishing prima facie that a term is primarily merely a
surname. In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 225
USPQ 652 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In this regard, the Examining Attorney has attached evidence
from Phonedisc U.S.A. (1998 edition) showing that out of a total
of 115 million residential listings, 27,787 individuals have the
surname "Ramos." The Examining Attorney has also submitted an
excerpt from American Surnames (1st ed. 1969). According to this
publication, the name "Ramos" is ranked 318 out of the 2,000 most
common surnames in the United States,2 ahead of, for example, the
surnames Stevenson, Brady and McGee. In addition, the Examining
Attorney has submitted the relevant page from Webster's II New

2 In order to fully understand this ranking in context, we have taken
judicial notice of the fact that there are a total of 2,000 surnames
identified in this publication. See, for example, Sprague Electric
Co., Inc. v. Electrical Utilities Co., 209 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1980).
Ser No. 75/489,741
3
Riverside University Dictionary (1994) containing no entry for
"Ramos," thereby demonstrating that "Ramos" has no non-surname,
dictionary meaning. The Examining Attorney's evidence shows that
RAMOS is a relatively common surname, that the public exposure to
RAMOS is only as a surname, and that RAMOS would therefore be
regarded as a surname by the average purchaser of applicant's
products.
Thus, the Examining Attorney has established, prima facie,
that RAMOS is primarily merely a surname. Having done so, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the showing made by the
Examining Attorney. See In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d
629, 186 USPQ 238, 239-40 (CCPA 1975).
Applicant argues that the primary significance of RAMOS is
"an indication of an association with [applicant's] goods" rather
than a surname. (Applicant's brief, p.3). In support of this
claim, applicant refers to its user manual wherein applicant, by
its own description of its software product, states that "RAMOS
stands for RAw [sic] Mix Optimization System." (Emphasis in
original). Applicant points out that RAMOS has also been used by
other industry members to refer to applicant's software products.
As an example of such use, applicant submitted a copy of a
technical paper which was presented at an industry conference by
another member company and which contains a reference to
applicant's RAMOS software.
Ser No. 75/489,741
4
The question to be considered is whether RAMOS has any
"recognized meaning other than that of a surname." See In re BDH
Two, 26 USPQ2d 1556, 1558 (TTAB 1993) (emphasis added).
Applicant, or even other industry groups, may use RAMOS to refer
to applicant's products. However, that use does not, in itself,
detract from the significance of RAMOS as a surname or show that
those entities, or that relevant purchasers in general, recognize
RAMOS as anything other than a surname. Applicant has still not
shown that RAMOS has a primary meaning other than that of a
surname.3
In an apparent attempt to overcome applicant's claim that
RAMOS is a recognized acronym for applicant's goods, the
Examining Attorney submitted an entry from an acronym dictionary
(Acronym, Initialism and Abbreviations Dictionary, 23rd ed. 1997)
showing that RAMOS is instead an acronym for either "Reading and
Mathematics Observation System" or "Remote Automatic
Meterological Observing Station." The mere fact that RAMOS
appears in an acronym dictionary does not automatically exclude
the possibility that it is still primarily merely a surname.

3 Evidence of industry recognition of RAMOS as a mark and an
association of RAMOS with applicant's products would be relevant to
show that RAMOS has acquired a meaning other than that of a surname
over time, and thus that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under
Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. See, for example, In re McDonald's
Corporation, 230 USPQ 304 (TTAB 1986). However, that is not the nature
of applicant's claim in this case.
Ser No. 75/489,741
5
See, for example, In re Nelson Souto Major Piquet, 5 USPQ2d 1367,
1368 (TTAB 1987). There are vast numbers of words or terms
appearing in dictionaries which are unknown to the purchasing
public. There is no indication that the acronyms appearing in
this dictionary have any relevant meaning in connection with
applicant's products or that the average purchaser of applicant's
products would recognize any such other meaning. Thus, this
evidence does not overcome the primary significance of RAMOS as a
surname. Accordingly, applicant has failed to rebut the prima
facie case presented by the Examining Attorney.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
R. F. Cissel
C. M. Bottorff
T. E. Holtzman
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board