Milacron

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 5, 2001

No. 75625093 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2001)

1/5/00 Paper No. 8
CEW
UNITED STAT
Tradem
S
John W. Gregg, Esq.
Rodney Dickinson, Tr
112 (Janice O’Lear,
Before Hanak, Walter
Judges.
Opinion by Walters,
Milacron Inc. h
register the mark QU
temporary use of on-
assisting preparatio
contract manufacturi
The Trademark E
registration, under
U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), o
merely descriptive o

1 Serial No. 75/625,093,
1999, based on use of th
in commerce as of Januar
IS NOT
THIS DISPOSITION
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.ES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
ark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Milacron Inc.
___________
erial No. 75/625,093
___________
for applicant.
ademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
Managing Attorney).
____________
s and Chapman, Administrative Trademark
Administrative Trademark Judge:
as filed a trademark application to
OTE HELPER for “services of providing
line, non-downloadable software for
n of job quotes for the job shop and
ng industry.”1
xamining Attorney has finally refused
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15
n the ground that applicant’s mark is
f its services.
in International Class 42, filed January 22,
e mark in commerce, alleging first use and use
y 4, 1999.
Serial No. 75/625,093
2
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
The Examining Attorney made of record a definition of
“quote” as “to state (a price) for securities, goods, or
services,” and of “helper” as “one that helps; an
assistant.” The Examining Attorney contends that the mark
merely describes the function of applicant’s services
because “the purchasing public will perceive the mark as
referring to the fact that the applicant’s services will
assist or help the user quote prices for jobs.” He notes
that it is clear from the identification of services that
applicant’s services involve “assisting preparation of job
quotes”; and that applicant’s specimens, a copy of a page
from its web site, includes the statement “[l]et us help you
quote your next job.”
Applicant contends that its mark is suggestive, arguing
that, notwithstanding its identification of services and its
web page, its services are “limited to providing access to
software via a global network”; and that the Examining
Attorney applied the noted definitions too liberally.
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately conveys
information concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of the product or service
Serial No. 75/625,093
3
in connection with which it is used, or intended to be used.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re
Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986). It is
not necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive,
that the mark describe each feature of the goods or
services, only that it describe a single, significant
quality, feature, etc. In re Venture Lending Associates,
226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). Further, it is well-established
that the determination of mere descriptiveness must be made
not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork, but in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is
sought, the context in which the mark is used, and the
impact that it is likely to make on the average purchaser of
such goods or services. In re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB
1977).
In the present case, it is our view that, when applied
to applicant’s services, the term QUOTE HELPER immediately
describes, without conjecture or speculation, a significant
feature or function of applicant’s services, namely, that
applicant provides access, through its Internet site, to
software that helps users determine job quotes. Nothing
requires the exercise of imagination, cogitation, mental
processing or gathering of further information in order for
purchasers of and prospective customers for applicant’s
services to readily perceive the merely descriptive
Serial No. 75/625,093
4
significance of the term QUOTE HELPER as it pertains to
applicant’s identified services.
We are not persuaded otherwise by applicant’s attempts
to obfuscate the nature of its services by referring to them
in its reply brief overbroadly as “providing on-line access
to software.” The fact remains that applicant’s specimens
of record demonstrate the nature of its services; those
services are correctly reflected in its identification of
services in the record; and its mark is merely descriptive
in connection therewith.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act
is affirmed.