Peavey Electronics Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2000

No. 75335174 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2000)

Paper No. 9
PTH
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 10, 00
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Peavey Electronics Corporation
________
Serial No. 75/335,174
_______
W. Whitaker Rayner of Watkins Ludlam & Stennis, P. A. for
Peavey Electronics Corporation.
Glenn G. Clark, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
115 (Tomas V. Vlcek, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Seeherman, Hairston and McLeod, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
An application has been filed by Peavey Electronics
Corporation to register the mark STAGE PACK for “musical
instrument amplifiers and musical instrument cables” in
class 9; and “electric guitars, guitar straps, guitar
Ser No. 75/335,174
2
picks, musical instrument carrying bags and guitar strings
in class 15.”1
Registration has been finally refused under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the
ground that, when used on applicant’s goods, the mark STAGE
PACK is merely descriptive of them.
Applicant has appealed. Briefs have been filed, but
no oral hearing was requested.
The Trademark Examining Attorney maintains that the
mark STAGE PACK is merely descriptive of applicant’s
musical instrument amplifiers, electric guitars and
accessories therefor because it immediately conveys to
prospective purchasers that such goods are for use on stage
and may be carried in a pack.
In support of the refusal, the Examining Attorney made
of record, inter alia, definitions of the words “stage” (a
raised and level platform) and “pack” (a complete set of
related items) taken from The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language (3rd ed.). In addition, he
submitted several excerpts of articles taken from the NEXIS

1 Application Serial No. 75/335,174 filed August 4, 1997,
alleging a date of first use and first use in commerce of July
11, 1997.
Ser No. 75/335,174
3
data base which refer to “stage guitar(s).” For example:
The music fund defrays maintenance costs
for five stage guitars, two blues amps,
strings, repairs, and customized picks
bearing the Andrew Baxter Jr. name.
(Dallas Observer, July 2, 1998);
Wright, we are told, recently purchased a
hand-built electric-acoustic stage guitar
from a well-known Christchurch musician.
(The Press, April 3, 1998); and
“When I moved to Nashville, I couldn’t
afford a stage guitar,” England recalls.
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 27,
1966).
Also, the Examining Attorney points to statements at
applicant’s web site which indicate that applicant sells a
musical instrument amplifier, an electric guitar and
accessories therefor in a single package.
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that, at most, STAGE PACK is suggestive
of its goods. Applicant submitted the affidavit of its
Chairman, Harvey D. Peavey, who states that he has over
thirty years experience in the music industry; that the
term STAGE PACK has no significance in the industry; and
that the term is not used by others in the industry. Also,
applicant submitted its own search of the NEXIS data base
which reveals no use of the combined term STAGE PACK.
A mark is merely descriptive if it forthwith conveys
Ser No. 75/335,174
4
an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or
characteristics of the goods or services. In re Abcor
Development Corp., 616 F.2d 525, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
Moreover, in order to be descriptive, the mark must
immediately convey information as to the ingredients,
qualities or characteristics as to the goods or services
with a “degree of particularity.” Plus Products v. Medical
Modalities Associates, Inc., 211 USPQ 1199, 1204-05 (TTAB
1981); Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Monolith Enterprises, 212 USPQ
949, 952 (TTAB 1981); In re TMS Corp. of the Americas, 200
USPQ 57, 59 (TTAB 1978); and In re Diet Tabs, Inc., 231
USPQ 587, 588 (TTAB 1986).
If however, when the goods or services are encountered
under a mark, a multistage reasoning process, or resort to
imagination, is required in order to determine the
attributes or characteristics of the product or services,
the mark is suggestive rather than merely descriptive. See
In re Abcor Development Corp., supra at 218; and In re
Atavio, 25 USPQ2d 1361, 1362 (TTAB 1992). To the extent
that there is any doubt in drawing the line of demarcation
between a suggestive mark and a merely descriptive one,
such doubt is to be resolved in applicant’s favor. In re
Atavio, supra at 1363.
Ser No. 75/335,174
5
In our view, prospective customers of applicant’s
musical instrument amplifiers, electric guitars and
accessories would not obtain an immediate idea of the
nature of applicant’s goods upon seeing the mark STAGE PACK
used in connection therewith. Rather, STAGE PACK used for
such goods is incongruous and requires a modicum of
imagination or thought before one is able to determine the
nature of the goods.
We believe a multistage reasoning process (i.e.,
applicant sells in a single package a musical instrument
amplifier, electric guitar and accessories; these items are
for use on stage during a musical performance; thus this
package, or pack, of items is a “stage pack”) is necessary
in order to ascertain the precise nature of applicant’s
goods.
Accordingly, because STAGE PACK does not immediately
describe with particularity the nature of applicant’s
goods, it is not merely descriptive of them.
Ser No. 75/335,174
6
Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.
E. J. Seeherman
P. T. Hairston
L. K. McLeod
Administrative Trademark Judges
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board