Sony Electronics, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2001

No. 75628281 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2001)

1/19/01 Paper No. 12
CEW
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Sony Electronics, Inc.
___________
Serial No. 75/628,281
___________
Robert B.G. Horowitz of Cooper & Dunham for applicant.
Rebecca Gilbert, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Seeherman, Walters and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sony Electronics, Inc. has filed a trademark
application to register the mark ERGO-ANGLE for “multimedia
liquid crystal display.”1 This product is, essentially, a
computer monitor that has multimedia capabilities.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally 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 is
merely descriptive of its goods.

1 Serial No. 75/628,281, in International Class 9, filed January 27,
1999, based on an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/628,281
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 contends that the mark is merely
descriptive because “ergo” is “a recognized shortening of
‘ergonomic’”; that “a design feature of [computer] hardware
is whether or not the hardware can be held at the correct
ergonomic angle”; and that “ergonomic angle” means “a design
factor intended to maximize productivity by minimizing
operator fatigue and discomfort using the place, position,
or direction from which an object is presented to view.”
In support of her position, the Examining Attorney
submitted copies of dictionary definitions of “ergonomics”
as “the applied science of equipment design, as for the
workplace, intended to maximize productivity by reducing
operator fatigue and discomfort” and of “angle” as “the
place, position, or direction from which an object is
presented to view.”2 Additionally, the Examining Attorney
submitted excerpts of several articles from the LEXIS/NEXIS
database and excerpts from several different web sites,
including an excerpt from applicant’s web site.
Applicant contends that its mark is suggestive; that
there is no evidence in the record that the public
understands “ergo” to mean “ergonomics”; that there is no
Serial No. 75/628,281
3
evidence in the record showing use of the term ERGO-ANGLE by
any third party; and that the Examining Attorney’s evidence
does not support her conclusion that the mark is merely
descriptive in connection with applicant’s identified goods.
In support of its position, applicant submitted a dictionary
definition of “ergo” as “because of … therefore, hence”3;
and copies of third-party registrations for marks including
the word or syllable “ergo.”4
The nine NEXIS excerpts submitted by the Examining
Attorney discuss workplace ergonomics. Following are
several excerpts wherein the term “ergo” is used to mean
“ergonomic” (bold print added):
In The Seattle Times, December 2, 1998, an article
entitled “A Chair that Fits – Slumping Sitters
Invest in Ergonomic Chairs to Cushion Back Pain”
states -- “So what can you expect to pay for an
ergo chair? While some discount warehouse stores
may carry ergonomic chairs …”
In The Gazette (Colorado Springs), June 22, 1998,
an article entitled “Ergonomics Goes Beyond Wrist
Rests” states – “You can get a wrist pad for every
PC in your office … or get ergonomic keyboards ….
Ergo keyboards angle the keys so your wrist is

2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd ed.
1992).
3 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1988).
4 The Examining Attorney objected to this evidence as untimely because
it is attached to applicant’s brief. However, applicant indicates in
its brief that this evidence was attached to its request for
reconsideration; the evidence is referenced in its request for
reconsideration; and, although the evidence is not in the record
attached to applicant’s request for reconsideration, the Examining
Attorney did not state in her denial of the request for reconsideration
that the evidence had not been included. Therefore, we have considered
this evidence.
Serial No. 75/628,281
4
flat …. These devices don’t do any good if the
user intentionally defeats the ergo features, of
course.”
In Workbench, October 1997, an article entitled
“Ergonomic Tools; Hand and Power Tools” states –
“Can ergonomically designed tools save you from
the pain of cumulative trauma disorders? …
Remember that there is no true ‘ergo tool’ as
such.”
In the Roanoke Times & World News, May 8, 1997, an
article entitled “Keep Seat, Keyboard and Computer
Screen Low for Comfort” states – “The real experts
in ergonomics are at Virginia Tech, Karl Kroemer
told us after this column recently sent readers to
an ergo page at the University of California, San
Francisco.”
In two of the excerpts there is a reference to the
ergonomics of computer screens, i.e., in discussing how to
properly sit in a chair, one article advises “balance your
angle of view to the computer screen so you can keep your
neck straight” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, November 23,
1998); and in discussing where to place a computer display
screen, another article advises that “[t]he display screen
should be directly behind the keyboard … [t]his has to do
with the natural angle of the line of sight automatically
chosen by the human eye ….”
The majority of the Examining Attorney’s excerpts from
various web sites discuss ergonomics in the context of
computers, computer hardware, and computer work stations,
and include references to proper ergonomic angles.5 One

5 We do not consider the excerpts from web sites unrelated to computers,
computer hardware or workstations to be relevant.
Serial No. 75/628,281
5
site, Gaylord.com, accessed March 2, 2000, states that its
Grolen Vu-Mizer computer work station is “[s]pecifically
designed to place the monitor at the most ergonomic angle
(0° – 60° below the horizontal) [which is] particularly
beneficial for people with bifocals”; and that “[d]esigned
for viewing comfort, the downward monitor angle protects
against stress to the neck and minimizes eye strain.”
On its web site, applicant includes the statement that
its ERGO-ANGLE Multimedia LCD Display features an
“[e]xclusive dual-hinge pedestal [that] provides twice the
flexibility of other LCD displays – so you get the per (sic)
viewing angle every time.”
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
in connection with which it is used, or intended to be used.
In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986);
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979). 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
Serial No. 75/628,281
6
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).
We conclude that the evidence establishes that
“ergonomic angle” is merely descriptive in connection with
computer hardware and computer workstations. From the
evidence of record, it is clear that “ergonomic angle” in
connection with a computer monitor exactly describes a
significant feature of the monitor, namely, that it is
designed to permit adjustment of the screen to minimize
viewer discomfort and fatigue.
We also find that the record establishes that “ergo”
has been used in the news media as a short-hand term for
“ergonomic” and, thus, the public has been sufficiently
exposed to this use of “ergo” so that the public
will understand it to mean “ergonomic” in the context of
furniture and computer hardware design. We are not
convinced otherwise by applicant’s definition of “ergo”
because we must consider the meaning of the term in the
context of the identified goods, as we stated above.
Further, the lack of a dictionary definition of “ergo” as
“ergonomics” in the relevant context is not conclusive,
Serial No. 75/628,281
7
particularly in applicant’s 1988 dictionary. We take
judicial notice of the fact that the 1985 edition of The
American Heritage Dictionary (2nd ed.) does not even contain
an entry for “ergonomics,” which is a fairly new term, at
least in the general usage lexicon.
In conclusion, we find that applicant’s mark, ERGO-
ANGLE, when considered in connection with the identified
goods, immediately describes, without conjecture or
speculation, a significant feature or function of
applicant’s goods, namely, that applicant’s goods are
designed to permit adjustment of the computer monitor screen
to minimize viewer discomfort and fatigue. No exercise of
imagination, cogitation, mental processing or gathering of
further information is required for purchasers of and
prospective customers of applicant’s goods to readily
perceive the merely descriptive significance of the term
ERGO-ANGLE as it pertains to applicant’s identified goods.
We are not persuaded otherwise by the third-party
registrations submitted by applicant of marks including the
term “ergo.” Of the twelve registrations, one is on the
Principal Register with a disclaimer of “ergo”6; one is on
the Principal Register and consists solely of the term
“ergo”7; two are on the Supplemental Register with a

6 Registration No. 2,301,868 for the mark ERGO KNEEL.
7 Registration No. 2,287,007.
Serial No. 75/628,281
8
disclaimer of the other term8; five are on the Principal
Register with disclaimers of the other term9; three are
single, unitary word marks of which “ergo” is a portion10;
and two are on the Principal Register for two-word marks
without disclaimers.11 These registrations may indicate
inconsistent practice by the USPTO. However, we cannot
reach that conclusion because each case must be decided on
its own facts, and we do not have the records of those cases
before us. Deciding the case before on its facts, we are
led, clearly, to the conclusion stated above, that the mark
is merely descriptive in connection with the identified
goods.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act
is affirmed.

8 Registrations Nos. 2,229,682 and 2,226,826 for, respectively, ERGO
GEAR and ERGO GEAR and design.
9 Registration No. 2,304,613 for ERGO HEALTH; Registration No. 2,245,050
for ERGO PLANNER; and Registration No.2,242,158 for ERGO INTERIORS.
10 Registration No. 2,229,173 for ERGORESEARCH; Registration No.
2,270,645 for ERGOTUBE; and Registration No. 2,233,117 for ERGOPANEL.
11 Registration No. 2,204,420 for ULTRA ERGO; and Registration No.
2,173,323 for ERGO POSTURE.