Jeffrey Kellogg

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2001

No. 75524117 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2001)

7/26/01

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_______________

In re Jeffrey Kellogg
____________

Serial No. 75/524,117
_______________

Curtis V. Harr for Jeffrey Kellogg.

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

Before Hanak, Bucher and Rogers, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Hanak, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Jeffrey Kellogg (applicant) seeks to register in
typed drawing form SKEETER VAC for “electrically powered
insect control devices, namely, a fan driven vacuum
cleaner using air to trap and kill insects and to clean
up debris.” The intent-to-use application was filed on
July 23, 1998.
The Examining Attorney has refused registration on
the basis that applicant’s mark, as applied to
applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive pursuant to
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
When the refusal to register was made final,
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
applicant appealed to this Board. Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs. Applicant did not
request a hearing.
Ser. No. 75/524,117

A mark is merely descriptive pursuant to Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act if it immediately conveys
information about a significant quality or characteristic
of the relevant goods. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Bed & Breakfast
Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818, 819 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Whether a mark is merely descriptive is
determined in relation to the identified goods, not in
the abstract. In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117,
2 USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978).
At page 2 of his brief, applicant acknowledges that
“the terms SKEETER and VAC, although subject to different
meanings in different contexts, are slang words, one
meaning of which is mosquito as to the former, and vacuum
as to the latter.” While it is true that the word
SKEETER can also mean a skeet shooter, and while the word
VAC can also mean vacant or vacation, these are not the
meanings of the words SKEETER and VAC which would come to
mind when one views applicant’s mark SKEETER VAC in
connection with applicant’s “electrically powered insect
control devices, namely, a fan driven vacuum cleaner
using air to trap and kill insects and
2
Ser. No. 75/524,117

to clean up debris.” Obviously, when the mark SKEETER
VAC is used in connection with the foregoing goods, one
would not think of a skeet shooter (a person) or a
vacation. As previously noted, the mere descriptiveness
of a mark is not determined in the abstract, but rather
is determined in relation to the identified goods. Omaha
National Corp., 2 USPQ2d at 1861; Abcor Development
Corp., 200 USPQ at 218. Indeed, applicant himself
recognizes this very proposition when he makes the
following statements at page 4 of his brief: “The
descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the
abstract. The mark is considered in relation to the
goods or services for which registration is sought ...”
When applicant’s mark SKEETER VAC is considered in
relation to “electrically powered insect control devices,
namely, a fan driven vacuum cleaner using air to trap and
kill insects and to clean up debris,” said “mark”
immediately conveys a significant characteristic of
applicant’s insect control devices, namely, that they can
be used to trap and kill mosquitoes (skeeters).
At page 6 of his brief, applicant argues that
SKEETER VAC is not descriptive of his electrically
powered insect control devices because “mosquito
eradication is not even a
3
Ser. No. 75/524,117

primary purpose for the goods in question, but merely a
single potential use among an unlimited plethora of
possible eradication uses for the goods in question.”
Applicant’s argument at page 6 is particularly perplexing
given the fact that at pages 3 and 4 of his brief,
applicant acknowledges that “to be ‘merely descriptive,’
a term need only describe a single significant quality or
property of the goods.” (emphasis added). See Meehanite
Metal Corp. v. International Nickel Co., 262 F.2d 806,
120 USPQ 293, 294 (CCPA 1959). (“A word may be
descriptive though it merely describes one of the
qualities or properties of the goods.”).
In short, the fact that applicant’s mark SKEETER VAC
does not identify all of the insects which applicant’s
electrically powered insect control devices trap and kill
does not mean that said mark is not merely descriptive.
Applicant’s mark clearly identifies a significant insect
which applicant’s device traps and kills, namely,
mosquitoes (skeeters). Applicant’s argument at page 6 of
his brief that “it is highly possible that [applicant’s
goods] may never be used for mosquito eradication” is
simply not plausible. If this were the case, it is hard
to understand
4
Ser. No. 75/524,117

why applicant would have selected the mark SKEETER VAC
when said mark is, in terms of meaning, identical to the
“mark” MOSQUITO VAC.
At page 9 of his brief, applicant argues that his
mark SKEETER VAC is not merely descriptive because the
very dictionary definitions supplied by the Examining
Attorney demonstrate that “multiple definitions apply to
both SKEETER (mosquito, skeet shooter), and VAC
(vacation, vacuum).” Once again, applicant’s argument at
page 9 is particularly perplexing in light of his
concession at page 4 of his brief that “the
descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the
abstract. The mark is considered in relation to the
goods or services for which registration is sought ...”
As previously noted, when an average prospective consumer
sees the mark SKEETER VAC in connection with
“electrically powered insect control devices, namely, a
fan driven vacuum cleaner using air to trap and kill
insects and to clean up debris,” that average prospective
purchaser would not be thinking of a skeet shooter or a
vacation.
Two final comments are in order. First at page 8 of
his brief applicant argues that “the combination of terms
including terms only available as slang terms is a factor
in
5
Ser. No. 75/524,117

rendering the applicant’s mark unique or incongruous
since the combination of the two words does not result in
a designation that has a plain and readily understood
meaning for any goods.” (emphasis added). To begin with,
we are by no means convinced that the term VAC, as a
shortened form of VACUUM, is any more of a “slang” term
than is the term AUTO as a shortened form of AUTOMOBILE.
However, whether the terms SKEETER and VAC are slang or
not is not particularly relevant given the fact that as
applied to applicant’s goods, they have, as acknowledged
by applicant, meanings which are readily understood by
the relevant purchasing public. Moreover, applicant has
failed to explain how its mark SKEETER VAC is in any way
incongruous.
Second, applicant is entirely correct when, at page
3 of his brief, he notes that in determining whether a
mark is merely descriptive, it is the practice of this
Board to resolve doubts in applicant’s favor. See In re
Gourmet Bakers Inc., 173 USPQ 565 (TTAB 1972). However,
while applicant’s mark is perhaps not highly descriptive
of his goods, we have no doubt that the mark does
describe a significant feature of applicant’s
electrically powered insect control devices, namely, that
said devices use a fan
6
Ser. No. 75/524,117

driven vacuum cleaner to trap and kill, amongst other
insects, mosquitoes (skeeters).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.

7