Commercial Turf Products, Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2000

No. 75380390 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2000)

12/22/00 Paper No. 12
CEW
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Commercial Turf Products, Ltd.
___________
Serial No. 75/380,390
___________
Roger D. Emerson and John M. Skeriotis of Emerson and
Associates for applicant.
Sarah A. Otte, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104
(K. Margaret Le, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Simms, Hairston and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Commercial Turf Products, Ltd. has filed a trademark
application to register on the Principal Register the mark
COMMERCIAL TURF PRODUCTS for “commercial lawn and garden
tractors.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration, under 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 goods.

1 Serial No. 75/380,390, in International Class 7, filed October 28,
1997, based on an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/380,390
2
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
The Examining Attorney contends that “the combination
of these terms is commonly used in connection with goods
similar and identical to the applicant’s goods, and the
public is familiar with this common usage”; that “the
phrases COMMERCIAL TURF PRODUCTS and TURF PRODUCTS are
commonly used to refer to commercial outdoor power equipment
that is similar and identical to applicant’s commercial lawn
and garden tractors”; and that applicant’s proposed mark,
considered in connection with the identified goods,
“immediately conveys to prospective purchasers that the
applicant’s goods are manufactured specifically for
businesses or professionals for use with topsoil and grass.”
In support of her position, the Examining Attorney
submitted dictionary definitions of the individual terms
comprising the mark, excerpts of articles from the
LEXIS/NEXIS database, and copies of excerpts from Internet
web sites.
Applicant contends that both the individual words and
the phrase “commercial turf products” are too broad to be
descriptive; and that the phrase includes other products,
such as fertilizer, sod, and grass seed and, thus, does not
describe applicant’s goods with any degree of particularity.
Serial No. 75/380,390
3
Applicant argues that the evidence submitted by the
Examining Attorney supports the conclusion that the phrase
is extremely broad so that several mental steps are
necessarily involved in drawing a connection between
applicant’s goods and the phrase COMMERCIAL TURF PRODUCTS.
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately conveys
information concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of the product or service
in connection with which it is used, or intended to be used.
In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986);
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979). It is
not necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive,
that the mark describe each feature of the goods or
services, only that it describe a single, significant
quality, feature, etc. In re Venture Lending Associates,
226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). Further, it is well-established
that the determination of mere descriptiveness must be made
not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork, but in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is
sought, the context in which the mark is used, and the
impact that it is likely to make on the average purchaser of
such goods or services. In re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB
1977).
Serial No. 75/380,390
4
We have reviewed the evidence in the record and
conclude that applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. It is
clear that the phrase “commercial turf products” includes
commercial lawn and garden tractors as well as other
products related to lawn and turf care. In fact, several of
the excerpts in the record indicate that tractor equipment
for commercial mowing and trimming may be one of the
principal products included in the category of commercial
turf products. This certainly appears to be the case in the
excerpts referring to tractor and machinery manufacturers.2
Following are two examples of the excerpts in the record:
The Bush Hog line of commercial turf products
includes zero-turn mowers, tri-deck mowers, air
tunnel finishing mowers, rear discharge finishing
mowers, side discharge finishing mowers, GT-42
powered rotary cutters, box blades, roll-over
blades, single roller pulverizers, double roller
pulverizers, pluggers, backhoes, landscape rakes,
rotary tillers, rear blades, post hole diggers,
rotary cutters, chipper/shredders and front-end
loaders. [Implement and Tractor, March 1, 1999.]
Toro’s current line of commercial turf products
includes rotary mowers that cut paths up to 16
feet wide, greens mowers equipped with precision
height-asjustment devices that make it possible to
trim grass to as short as three-thirty-seconds of
an inch, and turf aerators. [Corporate Report
Minnesota, May, 1990.]
The fact that the phrase “commercial turf products” is a
broad term that encompasses goods besides those of applicant
is inapposite. In the case of In re Analog Devices, Inc., 6

2 There is no evidence in the record that would warrant the conclusion
that the few ambiguous references to commercial turf products in the
Serial No. 75/380,390
5
USPQ2d 1808, 1810 (TTAB 1988), aff’d., 871 F.2d 1097, 10
USPQ2d 1879 (Fed. Cir. 1989), although the issue before the
Board was genericness, the following statement of the Board
is equally applicable in this case:
Applicant argues that the term is too nebulous and
vague to be commercially useful for competitors of
applicant to use to describe any products.
However, while we readily concede that the
category of products which the term “analog
devices” names encompasses a wide range of
products in a variety of fields, we do not believe
this fact enables such a term to be exclusively
appropriated by an entity for products, some of
which fall within that category of goods.
In the present case, it is our view that, when applied
to applicant’s goods, the phrase COMMERCIAL TURF PRODUCTS
immediately describes, without conjecture or speculation, a
significant feature or function of applicant’s goods,
namely, that applicant’s lawn and garden tractors are turf
products for the commercial market. Nothing requires the
exercise of imagination, cogitation, mental processing or
gathering of further information in order for purchasers of
and prospective customers for applicant’s services to
readily perceive the merely descriptive significance of the
phrase COMMERCIAL TURF PRODUCTS as it pertains to
applicant’s identified goods.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act
is affirmed.

excerpts in the record exclude commercial lawn and garden tractors.