The Board first noted that although applicant's identification of goods includes tools other than "jaws" or gripping devices, a mark is deemed merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) if it describes even one of the identified goods.
"Super-"formative marks have been discussed in a number of precedential TTAB decisions, and applicant and the Examining Attorney seemingly agreed that there is no per se rule as to how the USPTO treats the word "super." The Board found helpful guidance in In re Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (TTAB 2002), where the Board affirmed a Section 2(e)(1) deceptive misdescriptiveness refusal of SUPER SILK for "shirts made of silk-like fabric:"
A general proposition which may be distilled from the foregoing cases is that if the word “super” is combined with a word which names the goods or services, or a principal component, grade or size thereof, then the composite term is considered merely descriptive of the goods or services, but if such is not strictly true, then the composite mark is regarded as suggestive of the products or services.
The distinction made in Phillips-Van Heusen "explains well the difference in result" between many of the "Super-"formative marks listed by applicant and the Examining Attorney. The marks cited by applicant were either unitary marks in which disclaimer of "super" would not be required, or, for registrations issuing after Phillips-Van Heusen, comprised the word "Super" followed by a suggestive term (e.g., SUPER STRAP, SUPER BRITE, SUPER EDGE). In substantially all of the registrations cited by the Examining Attorney, the second term in the composite mark "names the goods," and therefore the registrations included a disclaimer of "Super" or a Section 2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness, or resided on the Supplemental Register.
Applicant feebly argued that the term SUPERJAWS will immediately bring to mind connotations of Superman or some other superhero, rather than a laudatory reference to its goods. The Board, however, found no support for this argument in the evidence of record. Instead, it concluded that consumers would readily understand that the applied-for mark "describes a superior vice system for grasping and holding work pieces."
And so it affirmed the mere descriptiveness refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog note: I think the word "super" should always be deemed merely descriptive. Better yet, there should be a new refusal: Section 2(t): mere triteness.
PS: This decision has been appealed to the CAFC
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2013.
Post a Comment