Environment-ally Safe Products, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2019

No. 86667516 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2019)

Mailed: January 8, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Environmentally Safe Products, Inc.
________

Serial No. 86667516

_______

Alexis P. Grilli, Lauren J. Arnold, and David L. May of Nixon Peabody LLP,
for Environmentally Safe Products, Inc.

Brian Pino, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 114
Laurie Kaufman, Acting Managing Attorney.
_______

Before Ritchie, Kuczma and Adlin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Ritchie, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Environmentally Safe Products, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the mark ESP LOW-E, in standard character format, for
the following goods and services:1
International Class 17: Building insulation; Metal foil for
building insulation; Vapor/thermal/reflective composite
insulation materials in sheet and strip form for use in building
construction and in the further manufacture of other products;

1 Application Serial No. 86667516 was filed on June 18, 2015, under Section 1(a) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), alleging dates of first use and first use in
commerce on August 29, 2002 for all classes.
This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 86667516
2
Insulating materials, namely, foil-faced polyethylene foam;
Laminated vapor barrier; Composite vapor barrier in roll form for
use in construction; Foam liner for use as a protective vapor
barrier in building and construction; Reflective insulation for use
in commercial and residential buildings, automobiles,
recreational vehicles, marine craft, aircraft, and product
packaging; Aluminum polyethylene composite house wrap in roll
form for insulating houses.

International Class 19: Roofing underlayment; Carpet
underlayment; Aluminum-polyethylene composite roof
underlayment in roll form.

International Class 35: Providing consumer product information
relating to building insulation; providing information regarding
the cost of building insulation.

Pursuant to a requirement from the Examining Attorney, Applicant included
a disclaimer of “LOW-E” apart from the mark as shown.
The Examining Attorney has refused registration under Section 2(a) of the
Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the ground that the mark
sought to be registered is deceptive in relation to the identified goods. The
refusal is made as to the goods in International Class 17 and 19 only. When
the refusal was made final, Applicant filed an appeal and a request for
reconsideration. When the request for reconsideration was denied, Applicant
and the Examining Attorney each filed briefs, and Applicant filed a reply brief.2

2 An identification requirement was also made final. However, after this case was
briefed, Applicant filed an additional request for reconsideration, making the changes
proposed by the Examining Attorney. 23 TTABVUE. The Examining Attorney then
deemed the identification requirement satisfied. 26 TTABVUE 3. The Examining
Attorney clarified that the only remaining issue to be determined on appeal is the
Section 2(a) refusal. Id.
Serial No. 86667516
3
A. Section 2(a) Deceptiveness
Pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, registration must be refused
if a mark is deceptive in relation to the identified goods. The Examining
Attorney contends that the term “LOW-E” in Applicant’s mark would be
understood by consumers to refer to a feature or characteristic which
Applicant’s identified goods do not necessarily have. That is, Applicant’s
identification is not limited to “Low-E” building materials. Specifically, the
Examining Attorney argues:
the evidence shows that low-emissivity (low-e) renders the goods
more appealing or desirable because goods with low emissivity
are more efficient, environmentally friendly (less energy use to
cool or heat a dwelling), and reduce the long term cost of the goods
for the purchaser because of the low-e feature (less heating or
cooling costs), and the applicant admits that low-e goods are more
expensive to manufacture, are more expensive to purchase, have
enhanced performance, and are of superior quality than like
goods without low-e feature.3

The Office has the initial burden of putting forth a prima facie case that a
trademark falls within the prohibition of Section 2(a). In re Budge Mfg. Co.,
857 F.2d 773, 8 USPQ2d 1259, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The test for deceptiveness
is: 1) whether the mark misdescribes the goods; 2) if so, whether consumers
would be likely to believe the misdescription; and 3) whether the
misdescription would materially affect consumers’ decisions to purchase the
product. Id.; see also In re California Innovations, Inc., 329 F.3d 1334, 66

3 22 TTABVUE 5.
Serial No. 86667516
4
USPQ2d 1853, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2003; In re E5 LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1578, 1579
(TTAB 2012).
1. Whether the mark misdescribes the goods
In looking at the first element, we must decide whether the term “Low-E”
misdescribes the goods for which Applicant seeks registration. We note, in this
regard, that a mark may be found to be deceptive under Section 2(a) due to the
misdescriptiveness of one of the terms, as long as the mark is then analyzed as
a whole. See In re Budge, 8 USPQ2d at 1260 (LOVEE LAMB deceptive for
“automotive seat covers” that are “wholly made from synthetic fibers”); In re
E5 LLC, 103 USPQ2d at 1579 ( found deceptive under § 2(a) for “dietary
supplements” that do not contain copper).
There is no dispute that the term “Low-E” refers in the context of
Applicant’s identified goods to “low emissivity.”4 Furthermore, there is no
dispute that Applicant’s goods currently sold under the mark contain low
emissivity.5 In response to the third question in a request for information by
the Examining Attorney, Applicant responded as follows:
Question: Do all of the goods listed in International Classes 17
and/or 19 have or feature low emissivity?

Answer: Yes.6

4 Applicant notes this at various places in its brief as well as in its initial Request for
Reconsideration. 20 TTABVUE 6, 13; 4 TTABUE 5.
5 Id.
6 These responses are set forth in Applicant’s May 3, 2017 Request for
Reconsideration, 4 TTABUE 7. Applicant reiterated this in its brief, stating,
“Applicant has affirmatively stated, and the record shows, that the goods at issue in
fact do contain low emissivity.” 20 TTABVUE 7.
Serial No. 86667516
5
Applicant argues that the term “Low-E” cannot be misdescriptive if it is
accurate, arguing that the term is not misdescriptive, but rather it is simply
descriptive of the goods Applicant currently sells, and thus it is appropriately
disclaimed.7 Applicant argues, in this regard, “If the Examining Attorney
properly accepted Applicant’s acknowledgment that the goods do contain low
emissivity, there would be no reason to maintain the deceptiveness refusal.”8
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examining Attorney cites the
Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”), § 1203.02(e)(ii) (2018),
which states, in pertinent part, with regard to a Section 2(a) refusal on
deceptiveness:
If the goods possess the relevant feature or characteristic and the
feature or characteristic referenced by the mark would be
believable and material, the identification must include the
feature or characteristic in order to resolve the ambiguity
between the mark and the identification of goods/services. The
identification must be amended even if the record indicates
elsewhere that the goods/services contain the feature or
characteristic.9

The Examining Attorney’s point is well taken. The question is whether the
mark is misdescriptive of the goods as identified. While the goods Applicant
currently sells feature low emissivity (or Low-E), the identification is not so
limited. An applicant may adopt as broad an identification of goods or services
as is accurate, but does so at its peril. See In re FCA US LLC, 126 USPQ2d

7 19 TTABVUE 13.
8 19 TTABVUE 8.
9 The TMEP goes on to further clarify, “Generally, an applicant may avoid or overcome
a deceptiveness refusal by amending the identification of goods or services, if accurate,
to include the potentially deceptive term.” TMEP § 1203.02(f)(i).
Serial No. 86667516
6
1214, 1217 (TTAB 2018) (“Applicants have the option of tailoring their
applications so that the registrations that ultimately issue will more closely
reflect market realities,” and “[p]arties that choose to use identifications of
goods in their trademark applications that are broader than their actual goods
will be held to the broader scope of the application.”); see also Stone Lion
Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 110 USPQ2d 1157,
1163 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (”Parties that choose to recite services in their trademark
application that exceed their actual services will be held to the broader scope
of the application.”) (citing Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Houston Comp. Servs. Inc., 918
F.2d 937, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1788 (stating that a broad application “is not
narrowed by testimony that the applicant’s use is, in fact, restricted”)).
The disclaimer of “LOW-E” in the application is appropriate since some of
the goods are or may be considered low emissivity materials. In this regard,
the term “Low-E” is descriptive of Applicant’s current goods. However, the
term “Low-E” is nevertheless misdescriptive of a subset of Applicant’s goods as
identified, because the identified goods are not limited to “Low-E” goods.
Applicant had the option of including limiting language in its identification of
goods.10 Applicant expresses understanding of this in its brief, saying it does
not want to be limited. Specifically, Applicant argued that:

10 With the September 30, 2015 Office Action, the Examining Attorney instructed that
“To avoid a deceptiveness refusal, applicant must amend the identification to indicate
that the goods and/or services possess this relevant feature or characteristic.” The
issue was raised again in the November 3, 2016 Final Office Action, and with the May
22, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration.
Serial No. 86667516
7
[T]he Examining Attorney[’s] insistence on an amendment to
Applicant’s identification of goods to include the term “low
emissivity (low-e)” is an unfair burden placed on Applicant to
unnecessarily narrow the scope of its identification of goods and
services.11

By not limiting its identification of goods, however, Applicant renders the
identification, as currently written, misdescriptive of some of those identified
goods.
Applicant cites to other registrations “featuring the disclaimed term ‘safe’
or ‘environmental,’ which do not include any of the phrasing of the mark itself
in the description of goods/services.”12 Applicant further cites to its own
Registration No. 2673077, which also contains the term “Low-E,” with a
disclaimer, but which does not include “Low-E” or “low emissivity” as a
limitation in the identification of goods.13 In this regard, Applicant argues that:
the Examining Attorneys’ requirement that Applicant include the
mark itself within the ID creates a standard whereby any and all
marks with potentially descriptive wording (including those that
have acquired distinctiveness) must do the same. The Examining
Attorney’s contention is tantamount to requiring that all marks
that could be perceived to have descriptive wording contain
within the identification the phrasing or terms at issue, or even
the full mark itself. This is simply not supported by USPTO
practice.14

Applicant is incorrect. Office practice is summarized in TMEP
§ 1203.02(e)(ii), which requires that an identification that is broad enough to
render the mark misdescriptive of certain items, even if descriptive of others,

11 20 TTABVUE 13.
12 20 TTABVUE 12.
13 Id.
14 4 TTABVUE 5.
Serial No. 86667516
8
should be amended to clarify “that the goods/services contain the feature or
characteristic.”15 Applicant’s speculation about this practice’s effect on
descriptive terms is misplaced, because the practice applies only to
misdescriptive terms. In this case, since Applicant admits that its mark is
descriptive of the goods it currently sells thereunder, it would be sufficient for
Applicant to register its mark with a disclaimer, if it were clear from the
identification that the mark is not also being registered for goods that do not
contain “Low-E.” Applicant does not limit its identification to “Low-E” goods,
however. Therefore, the identification, as worded by Applicant, also
encompasses goods that do not contain “Low-E,” and for which the mark is
therefore misdescriptive.
The first prong of the Section 2(a) deceptiveness refusal is satisfied.
2. Whether consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation
For the second prong of the deceptiveness analysis, we ask whether
consumers are likely to believe the misdescription. As discussed above,
Applicant has admitted that the term “Low-E” may be descriptive of its

15 Furthermore, the USPTO must examine each application on its own merits based
on the record in the application under consideration and neither the USPTO’s
examining attorneys nor the Board are bound by the decisions of other examining
attorneys in other applications. See In re Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118
USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The PTO is required to examine all trademark
applications for compliance with each and every eligibility requirement . . . .”); 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 Nett Designs’ application,
the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”).
Accordingly, these registrations are not particularly relevant to our analysis.
Serial No. 86667516
9
identified goods.16 The Examining Attorney submitted evidence showing that
low emissivity or “Low-E” is a feature that consumers may expect to be
included in building materials, such as those in Applicant’s identification of
goods. For example, the California Energy Commission defines “Low-E” in its
glossary of terms as “A special coating that reduces the emissivity of a window
assembly, thereby reducing the heat transfer through the assembly.”
Energy.ca.gov; attached to September 30, 2015 Office Action, at 2, 5.
Additional web excerpts include the following:
Coler Natural Insulation: Low-E Reflective: Benefits of Low-E
Insulation: Saves time and money . . . [cached]; Attached to
November 3, 2016 Final Office Action, at 2.

Progressive Energy Solutions, Inc.: Low-E Reflective Insulation:
Reflective insulation can be used in existing homes to increase
the energy efficiency and help reduce your utility bills. Low-E
insulation can be used in many different applications in
residential homes and commercial buildings. [cached]; Attached
to November 3, 2016 Final Office Action, at 4.

JP Construction: Best way to lower your energy bills with
minimal investment – Residential Low-E applications; 1.
Housewrap/Foam Insulation . . . 2) Roofing Underlayment . . . 3)
Attic Space Applications . . .
http://jpconstructionservices.com; Attached to November 3, 2016
Final Office Action, at 10.

Cal Vintage Roofing Co Inc: . . . If Low E Therma Sheet is
installed as part of the roofing system, it is installed on top of
the underlayment for all roofing products (Low E is compliant
with Title 24 requirement).
Calvintageroofing.com; Attached to November 3, 2016 Final
Office Action, at 12/14.

16 20 TTABVUE 6.
Serial No. 86667516
10
Houseneeds: Low-E foil Insulation for underfloor and infloor
radiant heating and house wrap. Low E Insulation is extremely
easy to install and has numerous residential, commercial . . .
Houseneeds.com; Attached to November 3, 2016 Final Office
Action, at 16.

Dunmore: Low Emittance Films for Reflective Insulation and
Radiant Barriers; DUNMORE has extensive experience as a
global provider of low emittance, also called low E. facing films
for reflective insulation products and radiant barrier structures.
. . . DUNMORE low E films have the superb corrosion and
degradation properties necessary for long life reflective
insulation and radiant barrier applications.
Dunmore.com; Attached to November 3, 2016 Final Office
Action, at 19.

Applicant’s own website touts the benefits of “Low-E” as an energy saving
advantage of its building materials:
Why Low-E?: Green building is not just a trend but the wave of the
future as more and more homeowners and builders demand energy
efficient homes and products. ESP Low-E® Insulation products are
designed for maximum energy and cost efficiency.
Low-e.com; Attached to September 30, 2015 Office Action, at 10.

We find that, because the evidence shows that “Low-E” is a common and
sometimes desirable feature in building materials such as those identified by
Applicant, consumers will believe, based on the mark and the goods at issue,
that Applicant’s goods contain the feature of low emissivity, or “Low-E.” Thus,
the second prong of the Section 2(a) deceptiveness test is also satisfied.
3. Whether the misdescription is material to consumers’ decisions to
purchase the goods
Finally, we ask whether the misdescription is material to consumers’
decision to purchase the goods. See In re Budge, 8 USPQ2d at 1260; In re E5
LLC, 103 USPQ2d at 1583. The web evidence set forth above confirms that
Serial No. 86667516
11
both Applicant and others in the industry are keenly aware of the benefits of
using low emissivity, or “Low-E,” building materials and that they consider
these benefits to be material to consumers. Applicant further confirmed with
its responses to the information requirement for the identified goods that the
presence or absence of low emissivity, or “Low-E,” is material to a purchase as
it affects both the cost and the quality of the goods:17
1. Are any or all of the goods listed in International Classes
17 and/or 19 more expensive to make if the goods have low
emissive properties and/or features?
Answer: Yes, the goods would be more expensive by adding low
emissive properties [sic]. This would require the purchase of a
raw material ex. (pure aluminum, silver, and gold) then
applying a substrate and strength layer to the low emissive
surface to ensure they could be bonded to the non-emissive
surface. Labor would be an additional cost in addition to the
obvious raw material cost increase.

2. Are any or all of the goods listed in International Classes
17 and/or 19 more expensive to purchase by the consumer if the
goods have low emissive properties and/or features as compared
to the goods in International Classes 17 and/or 19 that do not
have low emissive properties and/or features?
Answer: Yes, the goods would be more expensive to purchase by
adding low emissive properties. It would be in direct correlation
to the answer above due to raw and labor cost increase.

3. Do all of the goods listed in International Classes 17
and/or 19 have or feature low emissivity?
Answer: Yes.

4. Do any of the goods in International Classes 17 and/or 19
have enhanced performance and/or function over the goods of
the same type that do not have low emissivity?
Answer: Yes, once one adds a low emissive surface to the
product one’s performance is enhanced because the new product

17 4 TTABVUE 7.
Serial No. 86667516
12
has the ability to redirect radiant heat transfer up to 97%. It is
known and agreed that there are 3 forms of heat transfer
Conductive, Convective and Radiant. It is also know[n] and
agreed that up to 93% of heat gain is Radiant and up to 70% of
heat loss is also radiant. The added performance of a low
emissive surface is easily understood when one sees that 97%
(emittance) of 93% (Heat Gain/Radiant) is redirected away for
heat gain, and 97% (emittance) of 70% (Heat Loss/Radiant) is
redirected back for heat source loss.

5. Do any or all of the goods in International Classes 17
and/or 19 that do have low emissivity have superior quality over
goods of the same type that do not have low emissivity?
Answer: Yes, the goods would have superior quality by adding low
emissive properties. It would be in direct correlation to the
answer above due to heat types (loss and Gain) and nature of how
Low Emissive products redirect radiant heat [sic].

Accordingly, the record shows that low emissivity, or Low-E goods have
important and desirable benefits. The feature’s presence – or its absence –
would be material to consumers’ decisions to purchase Applicant’s goods. In
re E5 LLC, 103 USPQ2d at 1583. Thus, the third and final prong of the
Section 2(a) deceptiveness test is also satisfied.
In sum, we find that the Examining Attorney has carried his burden of
establishing all three elements of the 2(a) deceptiveness test, which evidence
has not been rebutted by Applicant. There is no evidence that the result
would be different with regard to the mark as a whole, and we find that it is
not. Therefore, the refusal under Section 2(a) is affirmed on the ground that
the mark sought to be registered is deceptive of a feature or characteristic of
the identified goods.

Serial No. 86667516
13
Decision: The Section 2(a) refusal to register is affirmed as to International
Classes 17 and 19.
The application will proceed to publication in due course as to International
Class 35 only.