Glaze, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2005

No. 76528004 (T.T.A.B. May. 31, 2005)

Mailed: May 31, 2005
PTH

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Glaze, Inc.
________

Serial No. 76528004
_______

Myron Amer for Glaze, Inc.

Robert Clark, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108
(Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Walters and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Glaze, Inc., on June 27, 2003, filed an intent-to-use
application to register the mark MIRROR MIRROR for a
“double mirror with arm extension.”1
The trademark examining attorney has refused
registration of applicant’s mark under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act on the ground that when used in

1 Applicant voluntarily disclaimed the “second” MIRROR apart from
the mark as shown.
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Ser No. 76528004
2
connection with applicant’s goods, MIRROR MIRROR would be
merely descriptive of them.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed.
Applicant and the examining attorney have filed briefs, but
an oral hearing was not requested.
It is the examining attorney’s position that MIRROR is
merely descriptive of a characteristic of applicant’s goods
in that they are mirrors; and that applicant’s combined
mark MIRROR MIRROR does not create a new or different
commercial impression, but rather is equally descriptive of
applicant’s goods.2 Further, the examining attorney argues
that the disclaimer of the second MIRROR does not render
the mark MIRROR MIRROR any less descriptive of applicant’s
goods that are mirrors.
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, contends that the disclaimer of the second MIRROR
makes the mark as a whole less descriptive, and that the

2 In his July 27, 2004 office action the examining attorney
states that advertisements from YAHOO! which purportedly show use
of MIRROR MIRROR in connection with mirrors are attached. In his
brief on the case, the examining attorney again notes that the
YAHOO! advertisements were attached to his July 27, 2004 office
action. However, the advertisements are not in the TICRS file of
the involved application and applicant has not acknowledged or
discussed the advertisements. Under the circumstances, we will
not presume that the advertisements accompanied the office
action. Thus, in reaching our decision herein, we have not
relied on the examining attorney’s statements concerning the
advertisements.
Ser No. 76528004
3
combined mark MIRROR MIRROR has a bizarre meaning as used
in connection with applicant’s goods. Further, applicant
contends that purchasers may associate MIRROR MIRROR with
the chant in the Cinderella fairytale of “Mirror mirror on
the wall….”
A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
services, within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of
an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods or services. In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (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.
Rather, it is enough that that the term describes one
significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217, 3USPQ2d 1009,
1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 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 because of the manner of
Ser No. 76528004
4
its use. In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB
1979).
While we have carefully considered applicant’s
arguments, we are not persuaded thereby. A brochure
submitted by applicant shows that its goods consist of a
large mirror and a small mirror connected by a swivel arm.
There is simply no question that MIRROR is merely
descriptive of applicant’s goods. We also find that the
combined mark MIRROR MIRROR is equally descriptive of the
goods and the disclaimer does not render the mark any less
descriptive. Applicant argues that combining MIRROR and
MIRROR into MIRROR MIRROR creates a mark with a bizarre
meaning, but applicant does not explain specifically what
that meaning is, or why the composite is any less
descriptive than the single word MIRROR. As noted by the
examining attorney, the Board’s finding in In re Disc
Jockeys Incorporated, 23 USPQ2d 1715, 1715 (TTAB 1992)
involving the mark DJDJ for providing disc jockey services,
is equally applicable here:
If one were to express the view that milk was
“creamy creamy” or that a red bicycle was “red
red” or that a razor was “sharp sharp”, the
repetition of the words “creamy”, “red” and
“sharp” would be understood as emphasis and the
combinations of these words would not, simply
because of their repetition, be rendered
something more than descriptive. Nothing new or
different is imparted by the simple repetition of
Ser No. 76528004
5
the descriptive expression DJ. Thus, the
composite expression is, in our view, equally
descriptive as used in connection with the
identified services.

In this case, to the extent that anything more
would be imparted by the repetition of the descriptive
word MIRROR, it would be that applicant’s goods
consist of two mirrors, a meaning that is also
descriptive of applicant’s goods. Moreover, even
assuming that purchasers would associate the chant in
the Cinderella fairytale with applicant’s goods, the
primary meaning of MIRROR MIRROR in the context of
applicant’s goods is that of a double mirror.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that
applicant’s mark MIRROR MIRROR is merely descriptive
of a double mirror with arm extension.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.