Gregory L. Horne

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2001

No. 75783734 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2001)

9/17/01 Paper No. 12
RLS/CV

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Gregory L. Horne
________

Serial No. 75/783,734

James E. Bradley of Bracewell & Patterson, LLP for Gregory
L. Horne.

Robin S. Chosid, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
102 (Thomas Shaw, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Simms, Seeherman and Walters, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Simms, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Gregory L. Horne (applicant) has appealed from the
final refusal to register the mark INTERCEPTOR ID for a
telephone call monitor that diverts calls from unknown
persons to an audio recorder.1 The Examining Attorney has
required a disclaimer of the word “INTERCEPTOR” because of
her contention that this word is merely descriptive of

1 Application Serial No. 75/783,734, filed August 19, 1999, based
upon applicant’s bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/783,734
2
applicant’s goods. See Section 6(a) of the Act, 15 USC
§1056(a). Applicant and the Examining Attorney have
submitted briefs, but no oral hearing was requested.
It is the Examining Attorney’s position that, in view
of the meanings of the words “intercept” (“to stop,
deflect, or interrupt the progress or intended course of”)
and “interceptor” (“one that intercepts…”)2 and the nature
of applicant’s goods, which “intercept” or divert a call
from an unknown person to a recorder, the term
“INTERCEPTOR” in applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of
a quality, characteristic, feature or purpose of
applicant’s goods. In other words, the Examining
Attorney’s contends that applicant’s product blocks or
intercepts an incoming call from an unrecognized telephone
number and diverts that call to a recorder. The Examining
Attorney maintains that the relevant public would
immediately understand the nature of applicant’s goods from
the word “INTERCEPTOR” in applicant’s mark.
Applicant, on the other hand, maintains that the word
‘INTERCEPTOR” in his mark is only suggestive because
purchasers must use some imagination or thought in order to
determine the attributes of applicant’s goods. Applicant

2 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd ed.
1992).
Ser. No. 75/783,734
3
argues that, even if the word conveys some idea of the
quality of applicant’s goods, the term “INTERCEPTOR” is so
vague that it does not immediately convey information
concerning applicant’s goods with any degree of
particularity.
The word “interceptor” is too vague to
convey information about Applicant’s goods
with the requisite degree of particularity.
In the context of applicant’s goods,
“interceptor” could suggest a device which
completely stops all incoming telephone
calls. “Interceptor” could suggest a device
which interrupts, or intercepts, an ongoing
telephone call when a second incoming call
is received. Or “interceptor” could suggest
a device which merely intercepts the
identity of the incoming caller and displays
the caller’s telephone number. These are
just a few of the many concepts the word
“interceptor” could possibly suggest in the
context of Applicant’s goods.

Applicant’s brief, 3-4. While applicant states that “the
device performs some tasks which could possibly be
considered ‘intercepting,’” the function of the device is
to filter or to screen calls, according to applicant.
Applicant maintains that registration will not inhibit
competition because the term “INTERCEPTOR” is not commonly
used to describe telephone call monitoring and screening
devices. In sum, it is applicant’s position that the
Examining Attorney has not made out a prima facie case and
that any doubt should be resolved in favor of applicant.
Ser. No. 75/783,734
4
In response to these arguments, the Examining Attorney
maintains that the fact that applicant may be the first and
only user of a merely descriptive term does not justify
registration.
Upon careful consideration of this record and the
arguments of the attorneys, we agree with applicant that
the word “INTERCEPTOR” in his mark is only suggestive of
the function or purpose of his telephone call monitors.
Applicant’s devices are intended to recognize whether an
incoming call is from a preprogrammed number and, if it is
not, to record that call. Applicant’s monitors act as
screening devices to separate calls that are allowed to
ring and those that are recorded. Unrecognized incoming
calls are not completely “intercepted” or “stopped”; they
are merely diverted to a recorder. The term “INTERCEPTOR,”
in our opinion, only hints, somewhat inaccurately, at the
screening function of applicant’s call monitors and does
not immediately convey or describe a feature or function of
the goods.
We also note that there is no evidence that others have
used this term to describe their similar devices. Finally,
if there is doubt on the question of mere descriptiveness,
and we confess that this case presents such a doubt, that
doubt must be resolved in favor of publication. See In re
Ser. No. 75/783,734
5
Intelligent Medical Systems Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1674 (TTAB 1987)
and cases cited therein.
Decision: The requirement for a disclaimer is reversed.

Ser. No. 75/783,734
6