Mailed: July 15, 2008
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_______
In re Poly-clip System Corp.
_______
Application Serial No. 78724442
_______
Raiford A. Blackstone, Jr. of Trexler, Bushnell, Giangiorgi,
Blackstone & Marr, Ltd., for Poly-clip System Corp.
Michael P. Keating, Examining Attorney, Law Office 101,
(Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Zervas, Mermelstein, and Ritchie de Larena,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Mermelstein, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration of the mark HYBRID SYSTEM
(in standard characters) for “food preparation apparatus,
namely, automated sausage stuffers, automated sausage
machines” in International Class 7.1 Registration has been
finally refused under Trademark Act § 2(e)(1); 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1), on the ground that the proposed mark is merely
descriptive of the identified goods.
We affirm.
I. Facts
In his first Office Action, the examining attorney
1 Application filed September 30, 2005, based on a bona fide
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Application No. 78724442
2
required applicant to submit information about the
identified goods pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.61(b), “to
determine whether all or part of the mark is merely
descriptive as applied to the goods.” Applicant responded,
providing a clear description of the goods:
Sausage is commonly encased in a casing
prior to processing. Usually, a pasty
sausage product, such as ground meat and
spices, is pumped (or “stuffed”) into a
tubular casing. The filled casing is
squeezed to form a neck at which two
clips are applied. Usually but not
always the neck is separated between the
clips. The tubular casing can be an
edible natural material such as collagen
or an inedible material that is removed
prior to use. Different types of
tubular casing are used for different
products. ....
Please note that there are two types of
sausage stuffers commonly used. In one
type of stuffer, preformed tubular
casing is shirred over a tubular filling
horn and the pasty sausage product is
pumped into that filling horn. The
pasty sausage product exits the other
end of the filling horn filling the
tubular casing. ... The filled tubular
casing then proceeds to a clipper which
clips the tube to form a sausage. ...
In the other type of stuffer, flat
sheets of casing, called “roll stock”,
are formed into a tubular shape over a
filling horn. A device seals the seam
formed in the tube, so that a tubular
casing is formed over the filling horn.
The pasty sausage product is pumped into
the filling horn and fills the tubular
casing formed from the flat sheets of
roll stock. This process has the
disadvantage of forming a seam in the
intent to use the mark in commerce.
Application No. 78724442
3
casing but has the advantages of economy
and streamlined processing.
...
Applicant has a bona fide intent to use
a machine incorporating both types of
stuffers. ... Two filling horns will
be used. One will be used for tubular
casing formed from flat roll stock. The
other filling horn will be used for
shirred tubular casing. One filling
horn is used to connect the stuffer ...
to a clipper.... When the user wishes
to switch to a different type of casing,
the first filling horn can be rotated
out of the way and the other filling
horn rotated in to connect the stuffer
to the clipper.
The customers are sausage manufacturers
or other manufacturers of products that
are extruded into a preformed tubular
film or a film made from flat roll
stock, such as vegetarian sausages and
cheeses.
The system is hybrid in the sense that
it can utilize both flat roll stock film
and pre-formed tubular casing. The term
“hybrid” has no other significance in
relation to the goods or in the
industry. The goods are part of a
“system” in the sense that a stuffer and
a clipper form a “system”. But the
goods described in the application are
the stuffer having two filling horns.
Response, Oct. 4, 2006.2
2 Applicant also provided information regarding two related
machines, applicant’s ICA 8700 Automatic Double Clipper and its
TSA 120/200 Automatic Sealing Machines. Other than these
submissions, applicant did not provide any other evidence during
examination.
Application No. 78724442
4
II. Applicable Law
A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys
knowledge of a significant quality, characteristic,
function, feature or purpose of the goods with which it is
used. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Whether a particular term is merely descriptive is
determined in relation to the products for which
registration is sought and the context in which the term is
used, not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In
re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). In
other words, the issue is whether someone who knows what the
products are will understand the mark to convey information
about them. In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-
1317 (TTAB 2002); In re Patent & Trademark Serv. Inc., 49
USPQ2d 1537, 1539 (TTAB 1998); In re Home Builders Ass’n of
Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (TTAB 1990); In re Am.
Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
“On the other hand, if one must exercise mature thought
or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to
determine what product or service characteristics the term
indicates, the term is suggestive rather than merely
descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ
496, 497 (TTAB 1978); see also In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363,
364-365 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water Sys., Inc., 209
Application No. 78724442
5
USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980). Even where individual terms are
descriptive, combining them may evoke a new and unique
commercial impression. If each component retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to the goods, without
the combination of terms creating a unique or incongruous
meaning, then the resulting combination is also merely
descriptive. In re Tower Tech., 64 USPQ2d at 1317-1318.
III. Descriptiveness under Trademark Act § 2(e)(1)
According to the Examining Attorney, “the mark is a
combination of descriptive terms in that the goods are
single sausage stuffing machines that perform the functions
of two different machines. ... Here, the record
conclusively establishes the mere descriptiveness of the
terms HYBRID and SYSTEM in relation to the goods for which
registration is sought, and the combination of those terms
fails to create a separate non-descriptive meaning. Ex.
Att. Br. at 5.
The Examining Attorney submitted a number of dictionary
definitions in support of his refusal to register, including
the following:
hybrid
...
2a. Something of mixed origin or composition.
b. Something such as a computer or power
plant, having two kinds of components that
produce the same or similar result.
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed.
2000) online edition www.bartleby.com (Oct. 25, 2006).
Application No. 78724442
6
hybrid
...
3a: something heterogeneous in origin or
composition: COMPOSITE
b:
something(as a power plant, vehicle, or
electronic circuit) that has two different
types of components performing essentially
the same function.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE www.bartleby.com (Oct. 25, 2006).
hybrid
noun
...
3. result of mixing elements: something made
up of a mixture of different aspects or
components
adjective
...
2. containing mixed elements: made up of
different aspects or components
• a hybrid literary form
MSN Encarta Dictionary (online edition http://encarta.-
msn.com (Oct. 25, 2006).
sys·tem
-noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or
parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a
mountain system; a railroad system.
DICTIONARY.COM UNABRIDGED (v 1.0.1) (http://dictionary-
.reference.com Oct. 25, 2006).
sys·tem
n.
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or
interdependent elements forming a complex
whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements,
especially:
...
d. A group of interacting mechanical or
electrical components.
Application No. 78724442
7
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed.
2000) online edition http://dictionary.reference.com
(Oct. 25, 2006).
system
n 2: instrumentality that combines
interrelated interacting artifacts designed
to work as a coherent entity; “he bought a
new stereo system”; “the system consists of a
motor and a small computer”
WORDNET 2.0 http://dictionary.reference.com (Oct. 25,
2006).
Applicant nonetheless argues that HYBRID SYSTEM is
suggestive of the identified goods:
There is absolutely no information
conveyed in the mark as to what type or
types of sausage-stuffing mechanism[] is
used by the apparatus, ... how the
apparatus operates, or what kinds of
sausages the apparatus produces. A
user, even a sophisticated user, must
make a mental leap of imagination to
determine why Applicant’s apparatus is
“hybrid”.
App. Br. at 7. Despite the significance of the words to
applicant’s goods, applicant argues that
a user still must use imagination,
thought or perception to conclude that
the goods use two different types of
sausage-stuffing mechanisms. The simple
label of a sausage machine as having a
mixture of two or more things or as
produced by combining elements from
different sources does not convey any
information about Applicant’s goods.
Knowing that the sausage machine is
“hybrid” still does not tell the
consumer how the machine operates or
what kind of sausage it makes. Rather,
numerous questions would arise in the
mind of the consumer before the user
could determine what two or more things
Application No. 78724442
8
are combined or mixed in Applicant’s
apparatus[.]
App. Br. at 7-8.
We agree with the examining attorney. The fact that
the words HYBRID SYSTEM alone do not immediately convey to a
potential purchaser a full understanding of exactly what the
device is, how it operates, or precisely what kind of
product it makes does not prevent those words from being
held descriptive.3 The question is whether the mark
immediately conveys knowledge of some significant quality,
characteristic, function, feature or purpose of the goods
with which it is used. Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1009. It is not
necessary that a term describe all of the functions or
characteristics of the goods in order to be merely
descriptive. In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358, 358-59 (TTAB
1982).
Moreover, the words claimed to be descriptive must be
examined with reference to the identified goods, and not in
the abstract. See, e.g., In re Fitch IBCA Inc., 64 USPQ2d
1058, 1060 (TTAB 2002) (“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,
3 Applicant supposes that “[a] customer, looking at Applicant’s
apparatus and seeing the proposed mark, will not immediately
conclude ‘Oh, this apparatus must use both preformed tubular
casing and flat sheets of casing!”, and concludes therefore that
Application No. 78724442
9
the context in which the mark is used or intended to be
used, and the impact that it is likely to make on the
average purchaser of such goods or services”). In other
words, knowing what the goods are, does the mark convey
significant information about them?
Applicant’s proposed mark is HYBRID SYSTEM, and is
intended to be used on a machine which combines the function
of two different types of sausage-stuffing machines. This
machine is clearly a “hybrid,” in that it has “two different
types of components performing essentially the same
function.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE, supra.4 Likewise, the goods
constitute a “system” in that it comprises a “functionally
related group of elements,” and in particular, “a group of
interacting mechanical or electrical components.” THE
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, supra. In
applicant’s own words, “[t]he system is hybrid in the sense
that it can utilize both flat roll stock film and pre-formed
tubular casing.” Response, Oct. 4, 2006.
Finally, there is nothing about the combination of the
terms “hybrid” and “system” in applicant’s mark which gives
it a meaning other than that of its constituent parts.
the mark is only suggestive. Reply Br. at 3.
4 We note applicant’s argument that its use of “hybrid” does not
fit this definition because the components do not “perform[]
essentially the same function.” We disagree. Both components of
applicant’s goods form sausage. The fact that the components do
it somewhat differently (with somewhat different results) is
precisely what makes such a device a “hybrid.” If the two
Application No. 78724442
10
There is no incongruity or different meaning when these
merely descriptive terms are combined to form the composite
mark at issue here. We have no doubt that a prospective
purchaser of applicant’s goods would immediately, and
forthwith, understand that such goods are a hybrid system,
i.e., that they consist of a combination of similar
components which produce sausage in two different ways.
IV. Conclusion
After careful consideration, we find that applicant’s
mark, HYBRID SYSTEM, is merely descriptive of applicant’s
goods, and that registration is accordingly barred under
Trademark Act § 2(e)(1).
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
components did the same thing in the same way one of them would
simply be a spare part.
