Jaguar Cars Limited

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2009

No. 77035168re (T.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2009)

Mailed: July 29, 2009
PTH

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Jaguar Cars Limited
________

Serial No. 77035168
________

Request for Reconsideration
________

Hope V. Shovein of Brooks Kushman P.C. for Jaguar Cars
Limited.

Eli J. Hellman, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
112 (Angela Wilson, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Hairston, Walters, and Zervas, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:

On April 7, 2009, the Board issued a decision
affirming the examining attorney’s refusal to register the
mark DAIMLER on the ground that it is primarily merely a
surname.
Applicant has filed a timely request for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision. Applicant
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Ser No. 77035168
2
contends that the Board erred in finding that DAIMLER is
primarily merely a surname.
In particular, applicant argues that the Board did not
accord appropriate weight to the fact that the evidence
showed fewer than 100 persons with the surname Daimler.
Applicant’s argument is essentially a rehash of the
contention previously made in its appeal and reply briefs.
We remain convinced that Daimler is not so rare a surname
as to preclude a finding that its primary significance to
the purchasing public is, in fact, that of a surname. We
note that our primary reviewing court, in In re
Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 225 USPQ 652,
653 (Fed. Cir. 1985), affirmed a refusal to register the
mark DARTY on the ground that it was primarily merely a
surname where the record included 32 telephone directory
listings of persons with the surname. What the Court said
in that case, 225 USPQ at 653, is equally applicable in the
case at hand:
Thus, as a surname, DARTY is not so unusual that
such significance would not be recognized by a
substantial number of persons. Nor can the
interests of those having the surname DARTY be
discounted as de minimis. Under these
circumstances, the statutory policy against
immediate registration [Section 2(f) of the
Trademark Act] on the Principal Register should
be applied.

Ser No. 77035168
3
Applicant also argues that the fact that no one
connected with applicant has the surname Daimler is a
factor which weighs in applicant’s favor. Applicant is
incorrect since this factor is neutral. See In re
ThermoLabSystems Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1285 (TTAB 2007); and In
re Gregory, 70 USPQ2d 1792 (TTAB 2004).
Further, applicant argues that this case is similar to
In re Garan, Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1537 (TTAB 1987), where the
Board held that a prima facie basis for refusing
registration on the ground that GARAN was primarily merely
a surname had not been made out. The evidence showed that
GARAN was a rare surname, and the Board found that the
remaining surname factors were either neutral or supportive
of applicant’s position. The case at hand is
distinguishable because we did not find that the remaining
surname factors were either neutral or supportive of
applicant’s position. Rather, we found that one of the
factors was neutral, i.e., the fact that no connected with
applicant has DAIMLER as a surname; and that two of the
factors supported a finding that DAIMLER is primarily
merely a surname; i.e., DAIMLER has no recognized meaning
other than as a surname, and DAIMLER has the look and feel
of a surname.
Ser No. 77035168
4
Finally, with respect to the “look and feel” factor,
for the reasons indicated in our decision, we remain of the
view that DAIMLER has the look and feel of a surname.
Accordingly, because applicant’s arguments are not
persuasive that our decision was erroneous, applicant’s
request for reconsideration is denied.