Integrated Device Technology, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2001

No. 75649329 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2001)

7/30/01

Paper No. 10
RFC

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Integrated Device Technology, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/649,329
_______

F. Michael Sajovec of Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec for
Integrated Device Technology, Inc.

Rodney Dickinson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
112 (Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Cissel, Hohein and Holtzman, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cissel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On March 1, 1999, applicant filed the above-referenced
application to register the mark “QDR” for “semiconductor
devices,” in Class 9. The application was based on
applicant’s assertion that it possessed a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce in connection with
its goods.
The Examining Attorney refused registration under
Section 2(e)(1) the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/649,329
2
1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is merely
descriptive of the identified goods.
In support of the refusal to register, he included
excerpts from articles retrieved from an automated database
of publications wherein the letters “QDR” are shown to be
an acronym for the term “quad data rate,” which is a
computer architecture developed jointly by “bitter rivals
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. and Integrated Device
Technology Inc., (applicant), along with Micron
Technology.” This evidence indicates that the new QDR SRAM
architecture for high-performance communications
applications “addresses switches and routers and operates
at data rates faster than 200 MHz. QDR is said to offer a
significant increase in performance…, in some cases
doubling it.” (Excerpt is from the 1991 edition of Cahers
Publishing Company’s Electronic News.) The article goes on
to say that “[t]he need for higher system bandwidth and
multiple sources spurred QDR’s development. QDR SRAMS will
have two ports that independently run at double data rate,
resulting in four data items per clock cycle.” (“SRAMS”
are “static RAMS,” which are a type of computer memory that
requires constant power flow to hold information. SRAMS
are quicker and more dependable than dynamic RAMS, but also
have some drawbacks. PC Novice Learning Series Computing
Ser No. 75/649,329
3
Dictionary, 1996 ed.). Another excerpt, from the 1999
addition of CMP Media Inc. Electronic Engineering Times,
states that “[t]hree major SRAM vendors have pooled their
efforts to develop faster parts for communications. The
quad-data-rate (QDR) SRAM is to be unveiled this week by
Cypress Semiconductor Corp., Integrated Device Technology
Inc. and Micron Technology Inc. … The QDR parts add speed
by putting read and write functions on different ports.
This, in addition to a double-data-rate architecture,
allows the parts to complete four read or write operations
per clock cycle. That should provide enough muscle for QDR
parts to stretch up to 500 MHz speeds… [T]he QDR
architecture was designed from scratch…” Another excerpted
article, this one from the 1999 CMP Media, Inc. TechWeb
News, quotes an analyst at In-Stat Group (not apparently
affiliated with applicant or its licensees in developing
QDR semiconductors) as stating that “… the market has said
they need second-sourcing and compatibility to make this
QDR architecture successful.” The article goes on to quote
applicant’s marketing manager as stating that QDR will
increase speeds, and that “QDR is a double-data-rate SRAM,
meaning that functional data rates are actually doubled to
between 333 and 500 MHz.”
Ser No. 75/649,329
4
Based on these examples of how the letters sought to
be registered are used, the Examining Attorney held that
prospective purchasers of applicant’s semiconductor devices
would not understand “QDR” as an indication of the source
of the goods, but rather, that the letters would be
understood to refer descriptively “to Quad Data Rate
architecture for static RAM chips, a very new technology in
the field of semiconductor devices.”
Applicant responded to the refusal to register with
argument that the mark it seeks to register is not merely
descriptive, but rather, is only suggestive in connection
with the goods specified in its application because
imagination, thought or knowledge would be required for
purchasers of applicant’s semiconductor devices to
associate the letters with the particular nature or
characteristics of the goods. Applicant pointed out that
the articles cited in the Office Action refusing
registration discuss applicant and its licensees with
regard to the development of the goods to which the mark
sought to be registered will be applied. Additionally,
applicant argued that “marks more descriptive than
applicant’s have been registered,” citing four registered
third-party marks that it asserted “are at least as
descriptive as applicant’s mark.”
Ser No. 75/649,329
5
The Examining Attorney was not persuaded by
applicant’s arguments. The refusal to register was made
final with the second Office Action. Submitted with that
action in support of the refusal were copies of nine
additional excerpts retrieved from an automated database of
publications and nine excerpts from websites which the
Examining Attorney asserted show descriptive use of the
letters “QDR” in connection with quad data rate SRAM
semiconductor devices. These excerpts are similar to the
ones attached to the first Office Action in that they show
“QDR” used in reference to “quad-data-rate” semiconductor
chips developed by applicant, Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
and Micron Technology Inc. for high performance
communications applications. The excerpts from what
appears to be a single website of applicant, Micron and
Cypress sometimes show the superscript “TM” following the
letters “QDR,” but on other occasions do not. The same is
true for the excerpts from the individual websites of
Cypress, Micron and applicant.
The Examining Attorney noted that the excerpted
published articles and the website excerpts all show the
letters applicant seeks to register used in reference to
semiconductors being developed by applicant, Cypress and
Micron, but the Examining Attorney maintained that this
Ser No. 75/649,329
6
does not alter the fact that “QDR” is used descriptively as
an acronym for the term “quad data rate,” which is also
used descriptively in connection with the semiconductors
applicant and its licensees are developing.
With respect to the third-party registrations cited by
applicant, the Examining Attorney notes that such
registrations are not determinative of the question of mere
descriptiveness within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of
the Act, and that it is irrelevant whether or not other
marks have been registered for different products in view
of the fact that the record in the instant application
establishes that the mark applicant seeks to register is
merely descriptive in connection with the goods specified
in this application.
Applicant timely filed a Notice of Appeal, which was
followed by an appeal brief. In addition to making the
arguments which had previously been made to the Examining
Attorney, applicant argues in its brief that “QDR” is not
yet well known in the field of semiconductor devices. In
support of this argument, applicant provided a list of
entries under “QDR” from an online acronym website. Seven
entries are listed, but none relates to quad data rate
semiconductors.
Ser No. 75/649,329
7
In his timely filed brief, the Examining Attorney
properly objected to our consideration of the list of
acronyms submitted with applicant’s appeal brief. The
objection is sustained. We have not considered the list
submitted with applicant’s brief in our determination of
the issue of mere descriptiveness because, under Trademark
Rule 2.142(d), the application record for purposes of
appeal closes with the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
Moreover, even if we had considered the list of acronyms as
if it had been timely submitted by applicant, the fact that
there is no relevant entry for the acronym would not be
determinative of its descriptiveness in connection with
semiconductor devices. The evidence which was timely made
of record by the Examining Attorney establishes that this
technology is developing rapidly. Reference sources cannot
be expected to keep pace with the evolution of terminology
used in connection with such technology.
Turning, then, to the merits of this appeal, we hold
that the record demonstrates that “QDR” is merely
descriptive of semiconductor devices within the meaning of
Section 2(e)(1) of Lanham Act.
A term is considered to be merely descriptive of goods
within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the Act if it
immediately and forthwith conveys information concerning a
Ser No. 75/649,329
8
significant quality, characteristic, feature, function,
purpose or use of the goods. In re Abcor Development
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978). It is not
necessary that a term describe all of the properties or
functions of the goods in order for it to be considered
merely descriptive thereof; rather it is sufficient if the
term describes a significant attribute or feature of them.
Moreover, whether a term is merely descriptive is
determined not in the abstract, but rather in relation to
the goods for which registration is sought, the context in
which it is or will be used on or in connection with those
goods, and the possible significance that the term would
have to the average purchaser of the goods because of the
manner of its use. In re Bright-Crest Ltd., 204 USPQ 591
(TTAB 1979). Whether consumers could guess what the
product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the
test. In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 635 (TTAB
1985). That particular words have other meanings in other
contexts is irrelevant. See In re Hycon Mfg. Co., 169 USPQ
622 (TTAB 1971). The issue is whether purchasers and/or
users of the particular goods specified in the application
would understand the mark to convey information about a
significant aspect of the specified goods.
Ser No. 75/649,329
9
On the other hand, a mark is only suggestive, and
hence registrable, if, when the goods bearing the mark are
encountered, a multi-stage reasoning process, or the
utilization of imagination, thought or perception, is
required in order to determine what attributes of the goods
the mark conveys. See: In re Abcor Development Corp.,
supra, at 218, and In re Mayer-Beaton Corp., 223 USPQ
1347,1349 (TTAB 1984).
In the case at hand, the letters sought to be
registered are merely descriptive of the goods with which
applicant intends to use them because if potential
purchasers and/or users of applicant’s semiconductor
devices were to encounter the letters “QDR” in connection
with these products, they would immediately understand the
letters to identify the fact that applicant’s semiconductor
devices feature QDR, or quad data rate, capability. The
record clearly demonstrates use of these letters in the
press to convey this information about the characteristics
of the semiconductor devices that are being developed by
applicant and its licensees. Moreover, the website
excerpts from applicant and its licensees plainly show that
applicant and its licensees use the letters sought to be
registered in the same descriptive way, as an indication
that their semiconductor devices feature quad data rate
Ser No. 75/649,329
10
capability. This is unquestionably a significant feature
or characteristic of those products, so the that letters
conveying this information are merely descriptive of the
goods.
This conclusion is not altered by the fact that the
references in both the publications and the website
excerpts are to the semiconductor devices being developed
by applicant and its licensees. That an applicant may be
the first or even the only entity to use a descriptive
designation does not make that designation any less
descriptive. In re National Shooting Sports Foundation,
Inc., 219 USPQ 1018, (TTAB 1983).
Applicant and its licensees use the letters “QDR” as
an acronym for the term “quad data rate,” which they use to
describe the enhanced performance of the semiconductor
devices they are developing. So does the press in this
technical field. Any prospective purchaser and/or user of
these devices, having encountered promotion of them by
applicant and/or its licensees or the published accounts of
their development by applicant and its licensees, would
immediately and forthwith understand “QDR,” in connection
with semiconductor devices, to convey this significant
characteristic or feature of them. Under these
Ser No. 75/649,329
11
circumstances, the letters “QDR” are unregistrable under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, the refusal to register is affirmed.
Ser No. 75/649,329
12