International Products Group LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

No. 86390478 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

THIS OPINION IS NOT
A PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Mailed: June 10, 2016

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re International Products Group LLC
_____

Serial No. 86390478
_____

John D. Gugliotta, Esq.
for International Products Group LLC.
William Rossman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109,
Michael Kazazian, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Seeherman, Quinn and Bergsman,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
International Products Group LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark HAND + SOAP (in standard characters) for
“antibacterial soap; bar soap; bath soaps; bath soaps in liquid, solid or gel form;
beauty soap; body cream soap; cosmetic soaps; cream soaps; deodorant soap;
Serial No. 86390478

2

detergent soap; disinfectant soap; disinfecting perfumed soaps; granulated soaps;
hand soaps; liquid soap” in International Class 3.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney 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,
when applied to Applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive thereof.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed. Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs.
We affirm.
Applicant argues that its mark is, at worst, suggestive of the goods. In this
connection, Applicant contends that the presence of the plus sign “+” in the mark
results in an inherently distinctive mark, to be perceived as “hand plus soap.”
Applicant relies upon evidence retrieved from the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic
Search System (TESS) in support of its argument.
The Examining Attorney maintains that the mark is merely descriptive of hand
soap, with the plus sign merely acting as a connector between the words “hand” and
“soap,” thereby not changing the overall commercial impression of the mark. In
support of the refusal, the Examining Attorney introduced dictionary evidence, third-
party registrations, and excerpts from third-party websites.
Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we direct our attention to an
evidentiary matter. Applicant, with its response filed July 6, 2015, submitted a

1 Application Serial No. 86390478, filed September 10, 2014 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.
Serial No. 86390478

3

printout of TESS results showing a list of third-party marks (applications and
registrations) that include a “+” component (Exhibit 1); and TESS printouts of two
third-party registrations (Exhibits 2 and 3). The Examining Attorney, in his final
Office action dated July 28, 2015, objected to the TESS list, indicating that the mere
submission of a list without copies of the corresponding listed registrations is
insufficient to make them of record.
The objection is sustained. To make a third-party registration of record, a copy of
the registration, either a copy of the paper USPTO record, or a copy taken from the
electronic records of the Office, should be submitted. In re Compania de Licores
Internacionales S.A., 102 USPQ2d 1841, 1843 (TTAB 2012); In re Jump Designs LLC,
80 USPQ2d 1370, 1372-73 (TTAB 2006). Mere listings of registrations are not
sufficient to make the registrations of record. In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1174, 1177
(TTAB 2010). See generally TBMP § 1208.02 (2015); TMEP § 710.03 (2016).
Accordingly, we have not considered the TESS list in making our decision. We
have considered, however, two third-party registrations for which TESS copies were
furnished.
A term is merely descriptive of goods within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it
forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature,
function, purpose or use of the goods. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675
F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d
1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Whether a mark is merely descriptive is
determined in relation to the goods for which registration is sought and the context
Serial No. 86390478

4

in which the term is used. In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ
215, 218 (CCPA 1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). A term
need not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the goods
in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it describes one significant
attribute, function or property of them. See In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010; In re
H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB 1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338
(TTAB 1973). This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used or
intended to be used in connection with those goods, and the possible significance that
the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods in the relevant
marketplace. See In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re
Abcor Dev. Corp., 200 USPQ at 218; In re Venture Lending Assocs., 226 USPQ 285
(TTAB 1985). The question is not whether someone presented only with the mark
could guess what the goods listed in the identification are. Rather, the question is
whether someone who knows what the goods are will understand the mark to convey
information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695
F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012), quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc.,
64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-1317 (TTAB 2002). See also In re Patent & Trademark
Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Association
of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (TTAB 1990); In re American Greetings Corp.,
226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
Serial No. 86390478

5

When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on the
question of whether the combination of terms evokes a non-descriptive commercial
impression. If each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation
to the goods, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.
In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(PATENTS.COM merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database
of records that could include patents, and for tracking the status of the records by
means of the Internet). See also In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d 1198 (TTAB 2009)
(URBANHOUZING merely descriptive of real estate brokerage, real estate
consultation and real estate listing services); In re Putman Publishing Co., 39
USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ONLINE merely descriptive of
news and information services in the food processing industry). However, a mark
comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the
combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a non-descriptive meaning, or if
the composite has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to the goods. See In
re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE
for “bakery products”).
The excerpts from the websites of online retailers such as Amazon.com and
Walmart leave no doubt that the wording “hand soap” is commonly used and
recognized to identify a type of soap, namely, hand soap. (Office action, 12/30/14).
These products are called “hand soap,” and photographs show product labels that
Serial No. 86390478

6

prominently display “Hand Soap” as the name of the goods. Other third-party
websites (e.g., www.officesupply.com; www.mrsmeyers.com) show use of the wording
“hand soap” to identify a type of soap. Id. Further, third-party registrations of marks
that include “HAND SOAP” as a portion thereof show a disclaimer of “hand soap”
(e.g., Reg. No. 186614 for BLACK AND WHITE HAND SOAP; Reg. No. 4512232 for
SHOP TOUGH HAND SOAP). Id. Perhaps more importantly, Applicant has included
“hand soaps” in its identification of goods, as one of the items on which it intends to
use the mark.
To state the obvious, HAND SOAP is, at the very least, highly descriptive of soap.
Applicant does not dispute this point, but rather contends that the addition of a plus
sign “+” to the combination of “hand” and “soap” to form HAND + SOAP results in a
mark that is inherently distinctive. More specifically, Applicant argues that its mark
“does not merely describe its products but conjures up the idiom ‘hand plus soap,’ as
providing an imagery that far exceeds that of merely ‘soap’ or ‘hand soap.’ An idiom,
by definition, cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements.” (4
TTABVUE 5).
In the face of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded by Applicant’s
argument. Rather, we agree with the Examining Attorney’s assessment that the plus
sign in Applicant’s mark is akin to a punctuation mark. In this connection, the use of
a common punctuation mark generally is not sufficient to negate the mere
descriptiveness of a term. See In re Vanilla Gorilla, L.P., 80 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB
2006) (finding that the presence of a hyphen in the mark "3-0’s" does not negate mere
Serial No. 86390478

7

descriptiveness of mark for automobile wheel rims); In re S.D. Fabrics, Inc., 223
USPQ 54 (TTAB 1984), reopening denied 223 USPQ 56 (1984) (finding that the
presence of a slash in the mark DESIGNERS/FABRIC does not negate mere
descriptiveness of mark for retail store services in field of fabrics). In the present case,
we find that the plus sign in Applicant’s mark does not magically transform the highly
descriptive wording “hand soap” into an inherently distinctive mark. That is, the
addition of a plus sign to the wording HAND SOAP to form HAND + SOAP does not
evoke a new and unique commercial impression. Rather, no imagination or thought
is required by prospective purchasers to discern that Applicant’s goods are hand
soaps. In calling for the goods, these purchasers are likely to vocalize the mark as
“hand soap,” not “hand plus soap.” The mark immediately describes, without
conjecture or speculation, what the goods are.
Applicant introduced two third-party registrations: Reg. No. 1358724 for
CLEAN + (in special form) (CLEAN disclaimed) for “industrial strength hand soap”;
and Reg. No. 3456376 for NAKED BODY + BATH (in special form) (BODY + BATH
disclaimed) for “soaps.” Applicant argues that these examples show that the inclusion
of a plus sign can change the overall commercial impression of wording with which it
is being used. These registrations have little probative value to the present issue
inasmuch as each registration includes a disclaimer. Thus, the plus sign in each mark
did not negate the descriptiveness of certain words in the marks. If anything, these
registrations show that the descriptive words in each mark retained their descriptive
meaning despite the inclusion of a plus sign.
Serial No. 86390478

8

Accordingly, we find that HAND + SOAP is merely descriptive.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.