Armor Inox SA

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2006

No. 78223935 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2006)

Mailed:
10 August 2006

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Armor Inox SA
________

Serial No. 78223935
_______

Gerald E. Helget of Briggs and Morgan, P.A. for Armor Inox
SA.

Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 102 (Thomas V. Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Walters and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Drost, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On March 11, 2003, Armor Inox SA (applicant) applied
to register the term MULTIMOLDS (in typed or standard
character form) on the Principal Register for goods
ultimately identified as “stackable, metal processing molds
for industrial food preparation” in Class 21. The
application was originally based on applicant’s bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce. On February 17,
2004, applicant filed an amendment to allege use, which was
THIS DISPOSITION IS
NOT CITABLE AS
PRECEDENT OF THE
TTAB
Ser. No. 78223935
2
accepted by the examining attorney.1 The amendment asserted
a date of first use anywhere and in commerce of March 26,
2003. In addition, another paper filed on February 20,
2004, “request[ed] that this application be amended to the
Supplemental Register.” In a response dated September 29,
2004, applicant included the following statement: “The
applicant seeks registration of the mark on the
Supplemental Register (i.e., a change of the words
‘Principal Register’ to ‘Supplemental Register’).” 15
U.S.C. § 1091.
The examining attorney2 refused registration originally
on the ground that the mark as applied to the goods was
merely descriptive. After the application was amended to
the Supplemental Register, the examining attorney refused
registration on the ground that the mark was generic. In
the final Office action, the examining attorney made the
refusals on the grounds of descriptiveness and genericness
final and applicant responded by filing this appeal.
We summarize the evidence in this case as follows.
With the first Office action, the examining attorney

1 The examining attorney subsequently “noted that the proposed
mark differs on the drawing and the specimen … [and] refused the
specimen because it was unacceptable as evidence of actual
trademark use. The applicant submitted an acceptable substitute
specimen in its May 17, 2005, response.” Examining Attorney’s
Brief at 6 n.2.
Ser. No. 78223935
3
included a definition of “multi” as “1. Many; much;
multiple: multicolor. 2. a. More than one: multiparous.
b. More than two: multilateral.” “Mold” is defined as “a
frame or model around or on which something is formed or
shaped.” Final Office Action. The examining attorney also
relies on printouts from the Internet and electronic
databases.
It’s a Sweet Time of the Year
Homemade Candy Flies off Shelves at Stone's in Oswego

… “with the molds because you could produce only
one rabbit at a time." Stachowicz said. "So I
started buying multi-molds. Now if I run out of
something, I can come and tell Tim and we'll have
more in two hours."
Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), April 22, 2000.

Moul'flex Red Silicone Baking Mold Diamond
… create spectacular pastries and molds. These molds
are oven, freezer, and dishwasher safe, making baking,
molding, and cleaning a snap… Non-stick food grade
silicone, temperature resistant from -40 F to 500 F.
Each multi-mold sheet measures 11 7/8" long by 6 7/8”
wide.
www.surfasonline.com

Non-Stick Silicone Molds from World Cuisine
These molds are made of non-stick food grade silicone
and are temperature resistant from –40 to 500 F. Each
multi-mold sheet measures 11 7/8’ long by 6 7/8 wide.
They are reusable up to 3000 times.
http://dvorsons.com

Tartlet Multi-Mold Set
… Each set comes with a baking multi-mold sheet
www.sharpknives.com

2 The current examining attorney was not the original examining
attorney in this case.
Ser. No. 78223935
4
There are also 3 references that are apparently from
foreign sources. One appears to be about food products
although it is not clear: "The large installations with
very few products will use mainly multimold press towers,
and the installations with multiple references will
probably combine the multimold press towers with individual
stainless steel molds." www.metalquinia.com. Another is
from a multinational corporation that says: "In order to
produce high-value cheese, the plant is based in the multi-
mold basic system…" www.laude.nl. The third website also
refers to a cheese making process and it reports that “the
pusher keeps the cheeses on the rack while the multi-mould
is lifted.” www.tecnal.fr.3
We also look at applicant’s goods. The specimen
attached to the first amendment to allege use describes the
product as follows:4

3 We give these foreign references some limited weight
particularly inasmuch as the goods are for industrial use. In re
Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 n.5 (TTAB 2002) (“[I]t is
reasonable to assume that professionals in medicine, engineering,
computers, telecommunications and many other fields are likely to
utilize all available resources, regardless of country of origin
or medium. Further, the Internet is a resource that is widely
available to these same professionals and to the general public
in the United States. Particularly in the case before us,
involving sophisticated medical technology, it is reasonable to
consider a relevant article from an Internet web site, in
English, about medical research in another country, Great Britain
in this case, because that research is likely to be of interest
worldwide regardless of its country of origin”).
4 The specimen refers to the mark as MULTIMOULDS rather than
MULTIMOLDS. Applicant subsequently submitted a second specimen.
Ser. No. 78223935
5
1. Optimal Loading – The Multimoulds system makes the
most efficient and economical use of the cooking
capacity showing an increase of 20-30% compared
with more traditional methods.

2. Reduced Handling – Strategically placed handles
enable the Multimoulds to be handled easily during
the loading and unloading phase.

3. Total Flexibility – Multimoulds can produce a whole
range of products, such as hams and ham logs,
pressed or unpressed products, to be cooked in a
tank or in a steam chamber.

4. Easy Pressing – The method of stacking facilities
pressing, ensuring a homogeneous and consistent
product.

5. Space Saving – The compact design of the
Multimoulds system allows the customer to make more
efficient use of the production area.

6. Solidly Constructed and Hygienic – Because they are
made entirely of stainless steel, the Multimoulds
are extremely simple to maintain and are solidly
constructed under the best hygienic conditions.

Descriptiveness

We briefly discuss the question of whether the mark
is merely descriptive. A mark is merely descriptive if it
immediately describes the ingredients, qualities, or
characteristics of the goods or services or if it conveys
information regarding a function, purpose, or use of the
goods or services. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA 1978). See also In re
Nett Designs, 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); In re MBNA America Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328,
Ser. No. 78223935
6
67 USPQ2d 1778, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (A “mark is merely
descriptive if the ultimate consumers immediately
associate it with a quality or characteristic of the
product or service”). To determine whether a mark is
descriptive, we must consider the mark in relation to the
goods or services, and not in the abstract. Abcor, 200
USPQ at 218.
In her brief, the examining attorney argues that
applicant’s mark “immediately tells consumers a
characteristic of the applicant’s goods – that is, [they
are] processing molds containing multiple forms.” Brief
at 3. The examining attorney “submits that the
applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive of its
goods.” Brief at 2. Applicant maintains (brief at 8)
that:
The mark MULTIMOLDS does not immediately tell
customers what the goods or services are. The mark
requires the exercise of imagination, thought and
perception by the consumer. It is an incongruous
word combination. The consumer’s mind would not jump
instinctively from a contemplation of the mark to
knowledge of a quality or characteristic of the
goods.

Inasmuch as applicant is seeking registration of its
mark on the Supplemental Register, it is appropriate that
we consider that the mark is admittedly merely descriptive
of the goods. Registering a mark on the Supplemental
Ser. No. 78223935
7
Register is an admission that the mark is merely
descriptive. In re Consolidated Foods Corp., 200 USPQ
477, 478 n.2 (TTAB 1978) (“Registration of the same mark
on the Supplemental Register is not prima facie evidence
of distinctiveness; in fact, such a registration is an
admission of descriptiveness”). See also Quaker State Oil
Refining Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 453 F.2d 1296, 172
USPQ 361, 363 (CCPA 1972) (“We also agree with the
observation of the board that, when appellant sought
registration of SUPER BLEND on the Supplemental Register,
it admitted that the term was merely descriptive of its
goods”).
While we understand that the descriptiveness refusal
was rendered moot by the amendment to the Supplemental
Register, inasmuch as both applicant and the examining
attorney discuss this refusal, we add the following in the
event that they viewed the amendment as an alternative
argument. In this case, the goods are in fact molds and
these “Multimoulds can produce a whole range of products,
such as hams and ham logs.” Applicant’s molds would be
accurately described as “Multimolds” and prospective
purchasers of these processing molds would understand that
these molds can produce multiple food items. Furthermore,
there is also evidence that other molds used for making
Ser. No. 78223935
8
food products are referred to as MULTIMOLDS. Post-
Standard (Syracuse, NY) (Candy - "So I started buying
multi-molds”); www.sharpknives.com (Tartlet Multi-Mold
Set); and www.surfasonline.com (Pastries - Each multi-mold
sheet measures…).
Therefore, we conclude that the mark MULTIMOLDS is
merely descriptive for stackable, metal processing molds
for industrial food preparation.
Genericness
The ultimate issue in this case is whether the term
MULTIMOLDS is generic for applicant’s goods. “The critical
issue in genericness cases is whether members of the
relevant public primarily use or understand the term sought
to be protected to refer to the genus of goods or services
in question.” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Association of
Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Determining whether a mark is generic therefore
involves a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus
of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term
sought to be registered or retained on the register
understood by the relevant public primarily to refer
to that genus of goods or services?

Id. See also In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75
USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Ser. No. 78223935
9
“Evidence of the public's understanding of the term
may be obtained from any competent source, such as
purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers, and other
publications.” In re Merrill Lynch, Fenner and Smith Inc.,
828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Therefore, to be generic, members of the relevant public
must primarily use or understand applicant’s term as
referring to the genus of its goods. Ginn, 228 USPQ at
530.
The examining attorney argues (brief at 5) that:
The brochure provided by the applicant illustrates
that its product is a system of food processing molds
that are used to shape or form a whole range of foods,
with special emphasis on hams, pork, beef and poultry.
The evidence in the record demonstrates that the term
“MULTIMOLD” is used by the food processing industry to
refer to food processing systems containing many
molds, and which are used to shape or form foods, such
as meats.

Applicant responds by arguing that with “one
exception, all of the examples cited by the Office Action
show the use of the term ‘Multi-mold’ as an adjective to
modify a noun such as ‘basic system’ or ‘racks and towers’
or ‘press towers,’ etc. Thus, the term ‘multi-molds’ is
Ser. No. 78223935
10
used by the buying public as a descriptive term modifying
the name of the product.” Brief at 2.5
We begin by determining the genus of the goods.
Applicant’s goods are “stackable, metal processing molds
for industrial food preparation.” The examining attorney
argues that “the class or genus of the goods at issue is
processing molds for food preparation.” Brief at 4. We
agree.
Next we must consider whether the term MULTIMOLDS is
used by the “relevant public primarily to refer to that
genus of goods.” The term “molds” is obviously generic for
these goods and the term “Multi” is very descriptive of
molds that are used to shape foods into a variety of molds.
As evidence that prospective purchasers would understand
that the term is generic, the examining attorney has
included several excerpts of use of the term MULTIMOLDS.
Two of these references are apparently for the same pan
(measures 11 7/8" long by 6 7/8”). www.surfasonline.com
and http://dvorsons.com. Both these references use the
term to refer to a “multi-mold sheet.” Another reference
refers to a “baking multi-mold sheet.”6 These references

5 We note that applicant apparently admits that the term
“Multimolds” is descriptive of its goods.
6 www.sharpknives.com.
Ser. No. 78223935
11
appear to be highly descriptive uses rather than generic
uses. Two of the foreign uses seem to be similar highly
descriptive uses.
“To deny the registration of a mark as generic, the
PTO has the burden of substantially showing that the matter
is in fact generic based on clear evidence of generic use.”
Steelbuilding.com, 75 USPQ2d at 1421 (internal punctuation
marks omitted). “Furthermore, doubt on the issue of
genericness is resolved in favor of the applicant.” In re
DNI Holdings Ltd., 77 USPQ2d 1435, 1437 (TTAB 2005). The
one domestic reference and one foreign reference that may
indicate a generic-type use are hardly a clear or
substantial showing of generic use. The other evidence,
while it does demonstrate that the mark is descriptive, is
more equivocal and it does not clearly show that the term
is also generic. In the end, we have doubt as to whether
there is clear evidence that the term MULTIMOLDS is generic
for stackable, metal processing molds for industrial food
preparation. Therefore, we reverse the examining
attorney’s refusal that the mark is generic.
Decision: The refusal to register applicant’s
MULTIMOLDS mark on the ground that the mark is generic is
reversed. The examining attorney’s refusal to register on
the ground that the mark is merely descriptive is affirmed
Ser. No. 78223935
12
but, inasmuch as applicant has already submitted an
amendment to seek registration on the Supplemental
Register, the application will be forwarded to issuance on
the Supplemental Register.