Distribusun LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2014

No. 85912421 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014)

This Order is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: December 23, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Distribusun LLC
_____

Serial No. 85912404
Serial No. 85912421

_____

CORRECTIVE ORDER

Michael D. Hobbs, Jr. and Austin Padgett of Troutman Sanders LLP,
for Distribusun LLC.
Michael A. Wiener, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108,
Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Zervas, Wolfson and Gorowitz,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The terminal paragraphs of the Board’s December 10, 2014 decision (on page 13)
state:
In conclusion, the Examining Attorney’s evidence of record supports
a determination that Applicant’s proposed mark, RADIANT, when
considered in relation to the aforementioned International Class 35
and 40 services, immediately informs prospective purchasers as to a
quality, feature or characteristic of Applicant’s services. Thus, the
Office has met its burden of demonstrating that Applicant’s proposed
Serial Nos. 85912404 and 85912421
- 2 -
mark RADIANT POWER, when used in connection with the identified
services, is merely descriptive.
Decision: The descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act to register (i) Applicant’s proposed RADIANT POWER
mark (as to International Class 35), and (ii) Applicant’s proposed
RADIANT POWER mark (as to International Classes 35 and 40), are
affirmed.
The paragraphs are amended to state:
In conclusion, the Examining Attorney’s evidence of record supports
a determination that Applicant’s proposed mark, RADIANT, when
considered in relation to the aforementioned International Class 35
and 40 services, immediately informs prospective purchasers as to a
quality, feature or characteristic of Applicant’s services. Thus, the
Office has met its burden of demonstrating that Applicant’s proposed
mark RADIANT, when used in connection with the identified services,
is merely descriptive.
Decision: The descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act to register (i) Applicant’s proposed RADIANT POWER
mark (as to International Class 35), and (ii) Applicant’s proposed
RADIANT mark (as to International Classes 35 and 40), are affirmed.

***