BSH Home Appliances Corporation

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2009

No. 77298376 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2009)

Mailed:
June 15, 2009

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re BSH Home Appliances Corporation
________

Serial No. 77298376
_______

Russell W. Warnock of BSH Home Appliances Corporation for
BSH Home Appliances Corporation.

David S. Miller, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Grendel and Zervas, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Grendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark SENSOR DOME (in standard character form) for
goods identified in the application as “household and
kitchen machines and equipment, namely, heating, steam
producing, and cooking devices, namely, cooking, baking,
frying, grilling, toasting, thawing, and hot-keeping
apparatus, namely, domestic cooking ovens, electric and gas
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser. No. 77298376
2
ranges, cooktops; structural parts of all aforementioned
goods.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has issued a final
refusal to register applicant’s mark on the ground that it
is merely descriptive of the goods. Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1).
Applicant has appealed the final refusal. Applicant
and the Trademark Examining Attorney have filed briefs on
appeal.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record
and the arguments of counsel, we affirm the refusal to
register.
Initially, we sustain the Trademark Examining
Attorney’s objection (made in his brief on appeal) to the
evidence submitted for the first time with applicant’s
appeal brief. This evidence is untimely and will not be
considered. See Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R.
§2.142(d).
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,

1 Serial No. 77298376, filed on October 8, 2007. The application
is based on applicant’s asserted bona fide intent to use the mark
Ser. No. 77298376
3
purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987), and
In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
goods or services in order to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
“On the other hand, a mark is suggestive if, when the
goods or services are encountered under the mark, a
multistage reasoning process, or the utilization of
imagination, thought or perception, is required in order to
determine what attributes of the goods or services the mark
indicates.” In re On Technology Corp., 41 USPQ2d 1475,
1477 (TTAB 1996) (internal citations omitted).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not
in the abstract, but in relation to the goods or services
for which registration is sought, the context in which it
is being used on or in connection with those goods or
services, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services

in commerce. Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. §1051(b).
Ser. No. 77298376
4
because of the manner of its use. That a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979).
Finally, it is settled that “[t]he question is not
whether someone presented with only the mark could guess
what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is
whether someone who knows what the goods or services are
will understand the mark to convey information about them.”
In re Tower Tech Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002).
See also In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d
1537 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Association of
Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313 (TTAB 1990); and In re American
Greetings Corporation, 226 USPQ 365 (TTAB 1985).
Applying these principles in the present case, we find
as follows.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has submitted
dictionary evidence establishing that “sensor” is defined,
in pertinent part, as “a device, such as a photoelectric
cell, that receives and responds to a signal or stimulus.”
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th
ed. 2000.) The same dictionary defines “dome” as “a
vaulted roof having a circular, polygonal, or elliptical
base and a generally hemispherical or semispherical shape,”
or a “domelike structure, object, or natural formation.”
Ser. No. 77298376
5
The Trademark Examining Attorney also has submitted
evidence from third-party websites showing that ovens,
ranges and cooktops typically, if not always, have one or
more temperature sensors, and that such sensors may take a
variety of shapes, including a domelike shape. See, e.g.,
www.fixitnow.com, which includes an article entitled “Oven
Temperature Sensors Demystified,” and www.fornobravo.com,
which discusses one oven’s “dome sensor.”
In his first Office action, the Trademark Examining
Attorney required applicant, under Trademark Rule 2.61(b),
37 C.F.R. §2.61(b), to provide information about the nature
of applicant’s goods. In response to the Trademark
Examining Attorney’s queries, applicant stated that
“[a]pplicant’s identified goods may incorporate a sensor”;
“[a]pplicant’s identified goods may be domelike in shape”;
“[a]pplicant’s identified goods may include a sensor or a
related part that is domelike in shape”; and “…neither the
term SENSOR nor the term DOME have any other meaning or
significance as applied to Applicant’s identified goods.”
The Trademark Examining Attorney also required
applicant to provide advertising and promotional materials
related to applicant’s goods. In response, applicant
submitted an advertisement (from a retailer’s website,
Ser. No. 77298376
6
www.kbbonline.com) which describes the goods to potential
purchasers as follows (emphasis added):
Take the guesswork out of the kitchen with
Thermador’s new electric cooktops, which feature
Sensor Dome, an infrared sensor technology. Part
of the Masterpiece Deluxe Series, the 30-in.
model offers four burners and one sensor, while
the 37-in. model has five burners and one or two
sensors. The retractable dome continuously
measures the heat from the cookware and
automatically cycles the burner on and off to
maintain the precise temperature needed.

We find that applicant’s admissions in response to the
Trademark Examining Attorney’s inquiries, especially the
admission that “[a]pplicant’s identified goods may include
a sensor or a related part that is domelike in shape,”
clearly establish that SENSOR and DOME each are merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods. SENSOR immediately
describes (and indeed names) a component of the goods, and
DOME immediately describes the shape of the sensor.
Applicant has admitted that “…neither the term SENSOR nor
the term DOME have any other meaning or significance as
applied to Applicant’s identified goods.” The mere
descriptiveness of these words as applied to the goods is
made even more apparent by applicant’s own merely
descriptive use of the words in its advertisement, quoted
above. Cf. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5
USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(in genericness context,
Ser. No. 77298376
7
applicant’s own generic usage in marketing materials is
strong evidence of genericness).
We further find that the composite SENSOR DOME is
merely descriptive of applicant’s goods. The combination
of the two words does not result in an incongruous, clever
or otherwise inherently distinctive composite. The mark as
a whole immediately informs purchasers that applicant’s
ovens, ranges and cooktops feature and use a dome-shaped
temperature sensor. SENSOR DOME would have no other
meaning or significance to purchasers who encounter the
mark in connection with the goods. Certainly, applicant
has not identified any such alternative meaning that the
mark might have as applied to the goods.
For these reasons, and based on the legal principles
regarding mere descriptiveness discussed above, we find
that the evidence of record clearly establishes that SENSOR
DOME is merely descriptive of the goods identified in the
application. We have considered all of applicant’s
arguments to the contrary, but we find them to be wholly
unpersuasive.

Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.