Glissen Chemical Co., Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2002

No. 75929155 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2002)

6/26/02

Paper No. 12
RFC

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Glissen Chemical Company, Inc.
________

Serial No. 75/929,155
_______

Myron Amer for Glissen Chemical Company, Inc.

Brooke A. Beyer, Jr., Trademark Examining Attorney, Law
Office 105 (Thomas G. Howell, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Cissel, Seeherman and Hanak, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cissel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On February 25, 2000, applicant filed the above-
identified application to register the term “WINDOW WASH”
on the Principal Register for “a detergent for industrial
use in washing, and cleaning surfaces, namely, windows,
glass table tops, glass store fronts, and glass door
panels,” in Class 1. The basis for filing the application
was applicant’s assertion that it possessed a bona fide
intention to use the term as a trademark in commerce on
these goods.
THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser No. 75/929,155
2
The original Examining Attorney1 refused registration
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act on the ground that
the term applicant seeks to register is merely descriptive
of the goods set forth in the application. Enclosed in
support of the refusal to register was a copy of a
dictionary definition of “wash” as a noun meaning “a
preparation or product used in washing or coating.” Also
submitted in support of the refusal to register were copies
of a number of third-party registrations for marks used
with cleaners or detergents wherein the word “wash” is
disclaimed. The Examining Attorney reasoned that the term
“WINDOW WASH” is merely descriptive of the goods specified
in the application because it “merely conveys the meaning
of a preparation or product used in washing windows, i.e.,
a window wash.”
Applicant responded by filing an amendment to allege
use of the mark in connection with the recited goods since
October 12, 2000, and amended the application to seek
registration on the Supplemental Register.
The Examining Attorney then refused registration on

1 Jean H. Im was responsible for the first three Office Actions,
but the application was subsequently assigned to Mr. Beyer for
submission of the appeal brief.
Ser No. 75/929,155
3
the Supplemental Register on the ground that the term
sought to be registered is generic in connection with the
goods specified in the application.2 In support of the
refusal to register, she submitted excerpts from a number
of articles retrieved from the Nexis automated database of
publications. Typical examples include the following:
“One concept, a powdered concentrated auto window wash
called Film-off, has been minimally successful in the
United States and a big-seller in Taiwan.” The Columbian,
(Vancouver, WA), Jan 5, 1999.

“‘I never knew him to take that car on the street when
it was dirty,’ said Shirley, who retrieved a bottle of
window wash that was among the other debris at the crash
site.” The Baltimore Sun, October 16, 2000.

“Verstandig suggested as environmentally correct the
following mixture for a window wash: one quarter to one-
half vegetable-base liquid soap…” The Times Union,
(Albany, NY) September 15, 1995.

“Bobby Butler provides the window wash. Harlan
Stevenson of Pontiac cooks and shows off the barbeque ribs
at C&J Soul Food and Stay Clean Car Wash in Pontiac.” The
Detroit News, June 29, 2000.

Also submitted were articles retrieved from an
Internet search which show the term used as the name of a
product used to wash windows. For example, one story about
recyclable products notes that some products, e.g., motor
oil, gasoline and “auto window wash,” are not recyclable.

2 Although the statutory basis for this refusal was originally
misstated as Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, the proper section,
Section 23, was subsequently identified by the second Examining
Attorney.
Ser No. 75/929,155
4
Another story includes “Automobile window wash” in a list
of what appear to be household cleaning products.
Applicant argued that the refusal to register was not
well taken because the term sought to be registered is not
generic, but rather is capable of identifying applicant’s
goods and distinguishing them from similar goods produced
by others. Applicant amended the identification-of-goods
clause to delete reference to “windows” per se, reciting
the goods as follows: “detergent for industrial use in
cleaning surfaces, namely, glass table tops, glass
storefront windows, and glass door panels,” in Class 3.
The Examining Attorney was not persuaded to withdraw
the refusal to register, however, and with the third Office
Action, the refusal to register on the Supplemental
Register was made final. Attached as additional support
for the refusal were two pages she retrieved from another
Internet search. One page promotes Kemco Oil & Chemicals
products, which include antifreeze, oils of various types,
de-icer and “Window Wash Concentrate.” The second page is
from an on-line hardware store, and it lists “E-Z Spray
Window Wash,” which is used “for exterior glass surfaces”
and “can be used with a hose-end sprayer” to reach higher
windows.
Ser No. 75/929,155
5
Applicant filed a timely Notice of Appeal, followed by
an appeal brief. The new Examining Attorney filed a brief
on appeal and applicant filed a reply brief, but applicant
did not request an oral hearing before the Board.
Attached to applicant’s brief were copies of nine
trademark registrations which applicant claimed it owns.
Although this evidence would not normally be considered by
the Board because it was not timely submitted under
Trademark Rule 2.142(d), the Examining Attorney treated it
as if it were of record by directing arguments in his brief
to the arguments applicant had made in its brief regarding
these registrations, so we have considered these materials
as if they had been properly made of record. As the
Examining Attorney points out, however, in that the marks
in these registrations are all different from the term
applicant seeks to register with the instant application,
and none appears to be generic for the goods recited
therein, these registrations have no probative value in
supporting applicant’s arguments as to the registrability
of “WINDOW WASH” on the Supplemental Register for a
detergent for industrial use in cleaning, inter alia, glass
storefront windows.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth
the test to determine whether a designation is generic in
Ser No. 75/929,155
6
H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire
Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
This test has two parts: (1) What is the class of goods or
services at issue? (2) Does the relevant purchasing public
understand the designation sought to be registered
primarily to refer to that class of goods or services? If
members of the relevant purchasing public primarily use or
understand the term to refer to the genus of goods, the
mark is not registrable, even on the Supplemental Register,
because under Section 23 of the Lanham Act, in order to be
registrable on the Supplemental Register, a term must be
capable of identifying applicant’s goods and distinguishing
them from similar products emanating from other sources.
When these principles are applied to facts established
by the record in the instant application, we find that the
refusal to register “WINDOW WASH” on the Supplemental
Register for applicant’s goods is well taken. The evidence
submitted by the Examining Attorney establishes that
prospective purchasers of detergent for industrial use in
cleaning glass storefront windows understand the term
“WINDOW WASH” to refer to this category or class of
cleaning products.
To begin with, the dictionary definition of record
establishes that the word “WASH” is a noun that is used in
Ser No. 75/929,155
7
reference to “a preparation or product used in washing…”
As the excerpted published articles and information
obtained by the Examining Attorney from the Internet search
clearly show, the combination of “WINDOW” and “WASH,”
“WINDOW WASH,” is used to identify a category or genius of
products, namely window cleaning preparations.
Applicant argues that the term it seeks to register is
“certainly not a term that is commonly utilized with a
detergent for ‘industrial’ cleaning chores…” The fact that
applicant has limited its identification of goods to
industrial use does not make “WINDOW WASH” any less generic
for a window washing detergent than it is generic for
window washing detergent used by ordinary homeowners, for
example. As the Examining Attorney points out, a “window”
is a window, no matter whether it is in the front of a
store or in a house or car, and a “wash” is a wash,
regardless of what it is used to clean. The evidence of
record clearly shows that “window wash” is used as the
generic name for window washes for automotive and household
use. This same generic significance is attributable to the
term in other applications like cleaning glass storefront
windows.
In summary, the evidence submitted by the Examining
Attorney establishes that the term applicant seeks to
Ser No. 75/929,155
8
register is understood as the name of the category or class
of cleaning products in connection with which applicant
uses it. Accordingly, this term is generic for these
goods. As such, it does not possess the capability of
identifying the source of applicant’s goods and
distinguishing them from similar products provided by
others. Under these circumstances, registration on the
Supplemental Register is not proper.
DECISION: The refusal to register under Section 23 of
the Act is affirmed.