Manhattan Scientifics, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2002

No. 76039649re (T.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2002)

Paper No. 16
Mailed: November 26, 2002
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Manhattan Scientifics, Inc.
________
Serial No. 76/039,649
_______
Request for Reconsideration
_______
James C. Wray for applicant.
Johanna B. Robinson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 104 (Sidney I. Moskowitz, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Cissel, Seeherman and Quinn, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Board, in a decision dated October 4, 2002,
affirmed the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act on the basis that the mark HYDROCYCLE, if
applied to “operator controlled motor propelled road
vehicles, namely, hydrogen fueled bicycles,” would be
merely descriptive thereof. The Board considered
dictionary definitions of “hydro” meaning “hydrogen” and
“cycle” meaning “bicycle.” When the terms “hydro” and
THIS DECISION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE TTAB
2
“cycle” are combined, the mark HYDROCYCLE, as a whole, is
merely descriptive of hydrogen-fueled bicycles.
Applicant has timely filed a request for
reconsideration. In maintaining that the Board committed
error in affirming the refusal to register, applicant
argues that the Board improperly dissected the mark; that
there are no descriptive uses of HYDROCYCLE in the NEXIS
excerpts of record; that the term “hydro” has meanings
other than “hydrogen”; that the mark is suggestive; and
that any doubt on mere descriptiveness must be resolved in
applicant’s favor.
Applicant’s concerns were considered in our original
opinion, and nothing raised by applicant on reconsideration
compels us to reach a different result. Applicant and
others in the field have developed hydrogen-fueled
bicycles. The readily recognized meanings of “hydro” and
“cycle” include “hydrogen” and “bicycle,” respectively, so
that the mark HYDROCYCLE merely describes a significant
characteristic or feature of applicant’s goods, namely that
they are bicycles powered by hydrogen fuel. We have no
doubts about our determination as to which side of the
suggestive/merely descriptive line applicant’s proposed
mark falls on.
3
The request for reconsideration is denied, and the
decision dated October 4, 2002 stands.