Charles C. Neault

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 9, 2009

No. 77131332 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2009)

Mailed: April 9, 2009

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Charles C. Neault
________

Serial No. 77131332
_______

Edwin D. Schindler, Esq. for Charles C. Neault

Paul F. Gast, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106
(Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Walters and Wellington,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Charles C. Neault filed an application for the mark
GLARE REDUCER, in standard character format, for “sun
shields and visors for motor cars; vehicle parts, namely,
sun visors.”1 Registration was refused on the ground that
the proposed mark used in connection with the identified
goods is merely descriptive. Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). When the refusal was made

1 Application Serial No. 77131332, filed March 14, 2008, based on
applicant’s stated intent to use the mark in commerce. Section
1(b) Trademark Act.
THIS OPINION IS NOT
A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 77131332
2
final, applicant appealed. Both applicant and the
examining attorney filed briefs.
The examining attorney contends that GLARE REDUCER is
merely descriptive of sun shields and sun visors for
vehicles because “there are no aspects of imagination,
thought and perception needed to reach a conclusion as to
the nature of the goods. They work as glare reducers.”
Brief, (unnumbered) p. 3. In support of the refusal, the
examining attorney submitted numerous printouts from third-
party websites, including articles, advertisements and
patent claims. In addition, the examining attorney
submitted copies of registrations that contain the term
“glare reducers” in the identifications of goods.
Applicant asserts that his mark “must, at a minimum,
be considered ‘suggestive,’ not merely descriptive, let
alone generic.” Brief, p. 3. Rather, applicant asserts
that one would “have to devote a reasonable measure of
thought, conjecture and speculation in order to be able to
offer an educated guess at that which is offered by
[applicant] under his trademark and how it might be useful
in connection with a vehicle.” Id. at p. 4. Applicant
also attaches some value to the examining attorney’s
finding of no likelihood of confusion with any other
registered mark or earlier-filed application which might
Serial No. 77131332
3
conflict with applicant’s mark; specifically, applicant
argues this “supports [applicant’s] view that his mark is
suggestive and registration will not provide [applicant]
with certain exclusive rights to a descriptive term, which
might be harmful to competitors in the relevant industry.”
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys
knowledge of a significant quality, characteristic,
function, feature or purpose of the goods with which it is
used. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Whether a particular term is merely descriptive is
determined in relation to the goods for which registration
is sought and the context in which the term is used, not in
the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). In
other words, the issue is whether someone who knows what
the goods are will understand the mark to convey
information about them. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ
1314, 1316-1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent & Trademark
Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In re Home
Builders Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317
(TTAB 1990); In re American Greetings Corp., 226 UPSQ 365,
366 (TTAB 1985).
Serial No. 77131332
4
“On the other hand, if one must exercise mature
thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order
to determine what product or service characteristics the
term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely
descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ
496, 497 (TTAB 1978). See also, In re Shutts, 217 USPQ
363, 364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Systems,
Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
We first address applicant’s reliance on the examining
attorney’s finding that there is no similar registered or
pending mark that would bar registration under Section 2(d)
(“likelihood of confusion”). The examining attorney’s
likelihood of confusion determination has no relevance or
bearing on our determination as to whether applicant’s mark
is merely descriptive of the identified goods. Indeed,
applicant does not cite to any case law or other
authorities for such a proposition.
Turning now to the evidence of record, we find that it
clearly establishes that applicant’s proposed mark GLARE
REDUCER is merely descriptive of “sun shields and visors
for motor cars [and] vehicle parts, namely, sun visors.”
We note the following description of a patent:
Title: Sun visor glare reducer extension
...
Serial No. 77131332
5
Abstract: A sun visor glare reducing extension for
incorporation within a vehicle's sun visor is
disclosed having a three sided rigid frame capable of
being incorporated within a vehicle's sun visor. The
frame has a back frame member pivotally affixed to a
pair of generally parallel leg segments at each end.
Each leg segment forms a "U" shaped retaining channel.
A glare shield slidably retained within the "U" shaped
retaining channels, and is deployable in a linear
manner from the edge of an otherwise conventional sun
visor.

[www.freepatentsonline.com, regarding U.S. Patent
5662371]

The website www.magnamail.com advertises a product
called a “Visor Glare Reducer” in an apparent generic
fashion. The following description of the goods is
provided:
Now it’s easy to end painful glare from sun and
headlights that cause eye strain and accidents!
Simply attach this transparent, tinted GLAREBLOCKER to
your existing sun visor and stop sun from shining in
your eyes even when it’s low on the horizon. Flips up
and out of the way when not needed. Never obstructs
driver’s view.

It is clear from the above description that the
website is using the term “visor glare reducer” generically
to describe a product that is very similar, if not
identical, in nature to applicant’s identified goods.
Indeed, another website, www.myautoshades.com, also
advertises a very similar product identified as a “Visor
Glare Reducer,” as the appropriate name or the type of such
goods. One other website, www.unifireusa.com, refers
Serial No. 77131332
6
descriptively to this type of product as a “Multi-Visor
Glare Reducer,” and touts its ability to rotate “to block
glare through side window while visor blocks windshield
glare.”
We also agree with the examining attorney that the use
of the term “glare reducers” in third-party registrations
is relevant despite the goods being used in connection with
computer screens. Ultimately, the registrations show that
“glare reducer” may be used to describe the same objective
of different products, i.e., they reduce the glare from a
light source.
Based on all of the evidence of record and not just
the aforementioned examples, we have no trouble concluding
that GLARE REDUCER conveys to potential consumers the
purpose and feature of applicant’s products without the
need for any thought, logic, or multi-stage reasoning.
And, although applicant is correct that any doubt as to the
merely descriptive nature of a mark should be resolved in
favor of an applicant, we have no such doubt in this case.
It is abundantly clear that applicant’s use of GLARE
REDUCER in connection with “sun shields and visors for
motor cars [and] vehicle parts, namely, sun visors” will
immediately convey to consumers and potential purchasers
that the intended purpose or feature of the goods is that
Serial No. 77131332
7
they will reduce sun glare in the vehicle. Accordingly,
the mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed and
registration to applicant is refused.