throbber
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
`PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mailed: 9/11/07
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`________
`
`In re Panasonic Corporation of North America
`________
`
`Serial No. 76002076
`_______
`
`Morton Amster of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein for
`Panasonic Corporation of North America.
`
`Tamara G. Frazier, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
`116 (Michael W. Baird, Managing Attorney).1
`_______
`
`Before Seeherman, Quinn and Walsh, Administrative Trademark
`Judges.
`
`Opinion by Quinn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
`
`An application was filed by Panasonic Corporation of
`
`
`
`North America to register the mark E-WEAR for “portable
`
`audio products, namely, digital audio players that may be
`
`worn on various parts of the user’s body, such as the head,
`
`wrist, arm, neck or hair.”2
`
`
`1 Ms. Frazier did not assume responsibility of the application
`until the filing of the appeal brief.
`2 Application Serial No. 76002076, filed March 16, 2000, alleging
`a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. Applicant
`subsequently filed an amendment to allege use setting forth a
`date of first use anywhere and a date of first use in commerce of
`January 29, 2001.
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`
`
`The trademark examining attorney 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, as applied
`
`to applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive thereof.
`
`
`
`When the refusal to register was made final, applicant
`
`appealed. Applicant and the examining attorney filed
`
`briefs.
`
`
`
`The examining attorney maintains that the prefix “e”
`
`is a well-known abbreviation for “electronic,” and that the
`
`term “wear” is descriptive of audio products designed to be
`
`worn by the user (as reflected in the identification of
`
`goods). The examining attorney contends that the terms “e-
`
`wear” and “wearable electronics” are used interchangeably
`
`within the electronics industry, and that both terms are
`
`merely descriptive of audio products worn by the user. In
`
`support of the refusal, the examining attorney introduced
`
`dictionary definitions of “e” and “wear,” articles
`
`retrieved from the NEXIS database and the Internet, and a
`
`printout listing the results of a search using the GOOGLE
`
`search engine.
`
`
`
`Applicant argues that its mark does not forthwith
`
`convey an immediate idea about its goods and that,
`
`therefore, its mark is, at worst, just suggestive when
`
`applied to the goods. Applicant points to various meanings
`
`2
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`of the letter “E” other than “electronic.” Applicant also
`
`contends that while the term “wear” may be descriptive as
`
`applied to conventional clothing, it is only suggestive of
`
`non-clothing items, such as applicant’s portable
`
`electronics. The average consumer does not think,
`
`applicant maintains, of electronic products being “worn” as
`
`opposed to be carried on the user’s body. Applicant
`
`questions the probative value of the examining attorney’s
`
`evidence, pointing out that the terms “wearable
`
`electronics” and “e-wear” are often used in the context of
`
`goods (e.g., clothing) completely different from
`
`applicant’s audio products. Moreover, applicant contends,
`
`even if the term “wearable electronics” were viewed as
`
`merely descriptive, it is a leap therefrom to conclude that
`
`E-WEAR is merely descriptive. Also noteworthy, according
`
`to applicant, is the number of articles (over 100) in
`
`printed publications wherein E-WEAR is used as a trademark
`
`to identify applicant’s products. Finally, applicant urges
`
`that any doubt be resolved in its favor. In support of its
`
`position, applicant submitted articles in printed
`
`publications, and third-party registrations of marks that
`
`include the non-disclaimed term “wear” for goods other than
`
`clothing.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or
`
`services, within the meaning of Trademark Act Section
`
`2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
`
`ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function,
`
`purpose or use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re
`
`Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987); and
`
`In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215,
`
`217-18 (CCPA 1978). A term need not immediately convey an
`
`idea of each and every specific feature of the applicant’s
`
`goods or services in order to be considered merely
`
`descriptive; it is enough that the term describes one
`
`significant attribute, function or property of the goods or
`
`services. See In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358 (TTAB
`
`1982); and In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338 (TTAB 1973).
`
`Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not
`
`in the abstract, but in relation to the goods or services
`
`for which registration is sought, the context in which it
`
`is being used or is intended to be used on or in connection
`
`with those goods or services, and the possible significance
`
`that the term would have to the average purchaser of the
`
`goods or services because of the manner of its use or
`
`intended use. That a term may have other meanings in
`
`different contexts is not controlling. In re Bright-Crest,
`
`Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). It is settled that:
`
`4
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`....the question of whether a mark is
`merely descriptive must be determined
`not in the abstract, that is, not by
`asking whether one can guess, from the
`mark itself, considered in a vacuum,
`what the goods or services are, but
`rather in relation to the goods or
`services for which registration is
`sought, that is, by asking whether,
`when the mark is seen on the goods or
`services, it immediately conveys
`information about their nature.
`
`
`In re Patent & Trademark Services Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1537,
`
`1539 (TTAB 1998).
`
`The examining attorney has submitted evidence that the
`
`letter “e-” is defined as “electronic; e-mail.”
`
`(www.encarta.msn.com). See also In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d
`
`1592 (TTAB 2002); and In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d
`
`1445 (TTAB 2000), in both of which cases the Board noted
`
`dictionary definitions that the prefix “E” indicates
`
`“electronic.” The examining attorney also submitted a
`
`dictionary definition showing that the term “wear” is
`
`defined, in relevant part, as “the act of wearing or the
`
`state of being worn.” (www.bartleby.com) The term is
`
`further defined, in relevant part, as “to bear or have upon
`
`the person; to have attached to the body or part of it or
`
`to the clothing; to carry on or as if on the person.”
`
`5
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
`
`Language (unabrideged ed. 1993).3
`
`Applicant’s advertisement for its goods, “SV-SD75 e-
`
`wear SD Audio Player,” reads in pertinent part, as follows:
`
`“Put Some Music On! Extremely compact for wearability.”
`
`The advertisement, as well as many of the articles about
`
`applicant’s product, attests to the small size of the
`
`digital audio player, and touts that the goods are to be
`
`worn. This is further borne out by pictures of the product
`
`and by the language of the identification of goods
`
`indicating that the digital audio player “may be worn on
`
`various parts of the user’s body, such as the head, wrist,
`
`arm, neck or hair.” In this connection, one of the
`
`pictures shows the user wearing applicant’s audio digital
`
`player around her neck in the manner of a necklace.
`
`
`
`Articles in printed publications and on the Internet
`
`show the following relevant uses of “e-wear” in connection
`
`with electronic devices:
`
`“At the Massachusetts Institute of
`Technology, they’ve been researching
`‘e-wear’ – wearable electronics and
`computers – for years,” says Bajarin.
`(www.abcnews.com, December 24, 2004)
`
`
`3 Judicial notice may be taken of dictionary definitions, and we
`have done so with respect to this additional definition.
`University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co.,
`213 USPQ 594, aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir.
`1983).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`Welcome to wearable computers, e-wear
`if you will, and digital jewelry.
`(Ventura County Star, December 10,
`2001)
`
`And jewelry that doubles as a camera,
`electronic organizer or music player.
`It’s not some future vision – some of
`these products are available now, and
`more are on the way. It’s being called
`wearable electronics, or “e-wear.”
`(www.sptimes.com, June 11, 2001)
`
`More fashionable and less expensive is
`the e-wear from VIA of Northfield,
`Minn. A Pentium PC, a voice-
`recognition hardware and four PC-card
`slots reside in a waistband that looks
`like Bruce Wayne’s bat-belt.
`(USA Today, November 22, 1996)
`
`At NAB, Panasonic showcased new digital
`media products such as “personal e-
`ware” (wearable electronics) and
`public-venue display systems.
`(Electronic Media, April 30, 2001)
`
`Although many wearable fashions sound
`futuristic, some are available today,
`and more are on the way. The
`crossroads between CE (consumer
`electronics) and high fashion couture
`is being called wearable electronics or
`“e-wear.”
`(www.realtytimes.com, March 17, 2006)
`
`The record also includes articles showing uses of “wearable
`
`electronics” or “wearable” for various electronic devices:4
`
`
`4 The examining attorney also submitted copies of search results
`for the key words “wearable electronics” and “e-wear wearable
`electronics” generated by the GOOGLE search engine. In some
`cases, a webpage shown in the summaries has been submitted, and
`we have cited to the webpage; however, in most cases, the
`examining attorney did not submit the corresponding webpage.
`Although we have considered the GOOGLE summaries, they are
`
`7
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`Some technology-minded fashionphiles
`say the future is not in accessories,
`but rather “wearable electronics” where
`the gadget actually becomes part of the
`clothing. IBM is developing digital
`jewelry, such as a necklace that
`doubles as a microphone; earrings with
`speakers, so wearers can answer calls;
`and watches and bracelets with video
`screens.”
`(The San Diego Union-Tribune, January
`28, 2002)
`
`Sony, meanwhile, is developing a
`version of the Memory Stick that’s half
`the size of current models. “The
`purpose of an ultrasmall type of flash
`media is to open the door for wearable
`electronics, like a wristwatch camera
`or a portable audio device that you
`could wear like a piece of jewelry,”
`Neiman explains.
`(Computer Shopper, November 1, 2001)
`
`So even though the valuable components
`of today’s wearable electronics, such
`as the mobile phone, will be
`unplugged...
`(USA Today, June 1, 2001)
`
`Oakley’s line of “wearable electronics”
`includes sunglasses with a built-in MP3
`player...
`(Contra Costa Times (California),
`December 22, 2005)
`
`And you thought iPods were the pinnacle
`of wearable electronics.
`(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 21,
`2005)
`
`Oakley, the supplier and retailer of
`outdoor apparel and accessories,
`
`
`entitled to limited probative value in the absence of the
`corresponding webpages. In re Fitch IBCA, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1058
`(TTAB 2002).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`shipped its second-generation MP3
`sunglasses with embedded memory, and it
`promises to expand its selection of
`wearable electronics.
`(Twice, December 5, 2005)
`
`Thanksgiving retailers stand to snag
`strong sales in televisions, digital
`cameras, cell phones and wearable
`electronic devices, Goldenberg says.
`(San Bernardino Sun, November 24, 2005)
`
`Wearable technology is now hitting the
`fashion runway. From sexy thigh
`holsters for cell phones to geeky hats
`with built-in cellular microphones,
`wearable electronics are now available
`in the marketplace.
`(Rochester Democrat and Chronicle,
`November 13, 2005)
`
`This Sunglass Icon will have a
`definitive Southern California flavor
`as well as a dedicated “store-within-a-
`store” concept which will highlight and
`feature select Oakley-branded apparel,
`accessories and wearable electronic
`products.
`(PrimeZone Media Network, November 10,
`2005)
`
`The decision for Motorola and Oakley to
`collaborate is natural; Razrwire is not
`the first time either company has tried
`creating wearable electronic
`technology.
`(Sacramento Bee, July 28, 2005)
`
`Samsung intros wearable digital audio
`player.
`(www.macworld.com, May 9, 2001)
`
`Keep the beat strong and your workout
`long with this wearable digital audio
`player/exercise sensor.
`(www.ebay.com)
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`The world’s first MP3 Watch is a cool
`combo wristwatch and wearable audio
`player by Casio that stores up to 33
`minutes of MP3 files.
`(The Boston Herald, November 23, 2000)
`
`Wearable Digital Audio Player
`(www.design.philips.com)
`
`The record establishes that the term “wearable
`
`
`
`electronics” refers to small electronic devices, such as
`
`applicant’s, that may be literally worn by the user. The
`
`evidence also shows that the term “e-wear” essentially has
`
`been used as an interchangeable abbreviated version of the
`
`term “wearable electronics.” In view of this evidence, we
`
`find that consumers would equate “e-wear” with “wearable
`
`electronics.” Accordingly, we conclude that the term E-
`
`WEAR sought to be registered is merely descriptive when
`
`applied to digital audio players that may be worn on the
`
`user’s body. The term immediately describes, without
`
`conjecture or speculation, a significant characteristic or
`
`feature of the goods, namely, that applicant’s digital
`
`audio players are wearable electronic devices.
`
`
`
`Applicant has submitted numerous articles that make
`
`reference to “e-wear” as a trademark for its goods.
`
`Although these articles may have a bearing on acquired
`
`distinctiveness (if any) of the term sought to be
`
`10
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`registered, the evidence is not persuasive in showing that
`
`the term is inherently distinctive.
`
`
`
`We also note that some of the articles not
`
`specifically cited in this decision refer to a type of
`
`clothing that actually incorporates electronics into the
`
`clothing fibers, and that such clothing has been referred
`
`to as “e-wear.” We also readily appreciate that the letter
`
`“e” has various meanings, and that the term “wear” often
`
`refers to clothing (although, as shown above, “wear” has
`
`been used in connection with goods other than clothing).
`
`Such uses, however, do not compel a different result in
`
`this case. As noted earlier, that a term may have other
`
`meanings in different contexts is not controlling.
`
`
`
`Applicant’s contention that the term “wear” is not
`
`descriptive, but rather is “playfully suggestive,” is not
`
`persuasive. In this connection, applicant submitted third-
`
`party registrations of marks that include the non-
`
`disclaimed term “wear” for goods other than clothing. The
`
`fact that the term “wear” has not been disclaimed in the
`
`context of various non-clothing items is of no significance
`
`herein. In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d
`
`1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) [“Even if some prior
`
`registrations had some characteristics similar to
`
`[applicant’s] application, the PTO’s allowance of such
`
`11
`
`

`
`Ser No. 76002076
`
`prior registrations does not bind the board or this
`
`court.”].
`
`
`
`We conclude that the term E-WEAR is merely descriptive
`
`of wearable electronics, that is, the specific type of
`
`product identified in the involved application: “portable
`
`audio products, namely, digital audio players that may be
`
`worn on various parts of the user’s body, such as the head,
`
`wrist, arm, neck or hair.”
`
`
`
`Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket