Power Fasteners, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2001

No. 75612036 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2001)

11/14/01

Paper No. 19
EJS

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Power Fasteners, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/612,036
_______

Bradley N. Ruben and Vincent A. Sireci of Hopgood,
Calimafde, Judlowe & Mondoline LLP for Power Fasteners,
Inc.

Cynthia Esparza Crockett, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 111 (Craig Taylor, Managing Attorney)
_______

Before Seeherman, Bottorff and Rogers, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Seeherman, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Powers Fasteners, Inc. has appealed from the final
refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register
WEDGE-BOLT as a trademark for what was ultimately
identified as “non-expansion-type masonry anchors; namely
metal bolts installable in holes drilled in masonry.”1

1 Application Serial No. 75/612,036, filed December 24, 1998,
based on an asserted bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.

THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/612,036
2
Registration has been refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), on the ground
that applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of its
identified goods.2
The appeal has been fully briefed, but an oral hearing
was not requested.
We affirm the refusal of registration.
A mark is merely descriptive, and therefore prohibited
from registration by Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act,
if it immediately conveys knowledge of the ingredients,
qualities, or characteristics of the goods with which it is
used. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
Applicant has described its goods as “a masonry anchor
that takes the form of [a] rod having a cutting thread
which when turned into a hole drilled in masonry, then cuts
a female thread in the bank of the hole. This cutting
action produces masonry debris that jams into spaces
between convolutions of the thread to form a compacted mass
that resists withdrawal of the anchor from the hole.”
Response filed August 10, 1999. The abstract for the

2 During the course of prosecution the Examining Attorney had
also refused registration on the ground that the mark is
deceptively misdescriptive-, and that it is likely to cause
confusion with two registered marks, but these refusals were
subsequently withdrawn.
Ser No. 75/612,036
3
patent for these goods, which applicant made of record,
explains that “particulate debris produced by the cutting
action is discharged into the [helical] land and forced
into the compacting zone to create a dense mass that wedges
the anchor in the hole and thereby enhances the holding
power of the anchor.”
It is clear from just this material that WEDGE-BOLT
immediately conveys information about a significant feature
of applicant’s bolts, namely, that the bolt is wedged into
the hole. Moreover, the evidence shows that consumers of
this product would readily recognize the significance of
“wedge” when used with the word bolt. The excerpts from
applicant’s own website, made of record by the Examining
Attorney, show that “wedge anchor” is a commonly used term
for anchoring bolts:3
Just as the wedge anchor replaced the
self-driller, the new Wedge-Bolt will
replace the traditional wedge anchor.
Why? Anchors that are simple and easy
to install are better. There is less
likelihood of improper installation,
therefore better performance. While
traditional wedge anchors have been
restricted to use in concrete only, the
versatile Wedge-Bolt anchor can be used
in most sold base materials including
concrete, block, grout filled block and
brick. Installation time compared with

3 Although the application is based on an intention to use the
mark, and no amendment to allege use has been filed, the evidence
indicates that applicant is using the mark WEGDE-BOLT in
connection with the advertising of its goods.
Ser No. 75/612,036
4
traditional wedge anchors is reduced by
up to 70%. Versatility and speed of
installation combined with superior
performance characteristics make the
Wedge-Bolt anchor the most reliable
product on the market.

Applicant argues that its bolt does not function as a
wedge, is not secured into the base material with wedges,
and is not wedge-like in geometrical form, statements with
which we agree. However, as noted above, the bolt does
function to wedge or fix itself into the masonry by using
the debris created during the insertion process, and it is
this meaning that will be obvious to consumers of the
goods. It is a well-settled principle of trademark law
that the question of descriptiveness is not determined in
the abstract, but in relation to the goods on which the
term is used. See In re Abcor Development Corporation, 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
Nor are we persuaded by applicant’s statement that
“WEDGE-BOLT is a rhythmic combination of terms presented in
an unusual and distinctive manner.” Brief, p. 6. As
indicated above, applicant’s own literature uses “wedge
anchor” in a generic manner. An anchor is a type of bolt,
as applicant’s own identification of goods makes clear.
Applicant has identified its goods as masonry anchors,
Ser No. 75/612,036
5
namely metal bolts.4 Further, the NEXIS evidence submitted
by the Examining Attorney shows that the term “wedge bolt”
is used as a generic term for expansion bolts. See, for
example, “The sill bolt used for concrete is called a wedge
bolt (or sometimes an expansion bolt).” “The San Francisco
Chronicle,” October 17, 1990. Although applicant’s goods
are specifically identified as “non-expansion bolts,” and
the Examining Attorney has not asserted that WEDGE-BOLT is
generic for these goods, the usage of the term “wedge bolt”
in the construction industry refutes applicant’s argument
that WEDGE-BOLT is a combination of terms presented in an
unusual and distinctive manner.
As for applicant’s argument that competitors do not
need to use the term WEDGE-BOLT, this term is clearly an
apt term to describe a bolt that wedges itself in to the
base material, particularly when the term “wedge anchor” is
already being used in the industry.
Decision: The refusal of registration is affirmed.

4 In view of applicant’s own identification, we find applicant’s
statement that its product is not a bolt to be less than
forthright.