Inset Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 1997

EX (T.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 1997)

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTTAB JULY 31, 97
Paper No. 14
PTH
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Inset Incorporated
________
Serial No. 74/481,825
_______
James W. Badie of Wyatt, Gerber, Burke & Badie for Inset
Incorporated.
Angela M. Micheli, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
108 (David E. Shallant, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Hanak, Hohein and Hairston, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Hairston, Administrative Trademark Judge:
This is an appeal from the Trademark Examining
Attorney's refusal to register the mark THE FUEL STABLIZER
for goods which were subsequently identified as "emission
reduction units, namely fuel stabilizing devices for land
vehicles."1 Registration has been refused under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that the mark merely describes applicant's goods.

1Serial No. 74/481,825 filed January 24, 1994; alleging a date
of first use of January 18, 1990 and a date of first use in
commerce of March 1991.
Ser No. 74/481,825
2
Further, the Examining Attorney has required that applicant
amend the classification of its goods from class 11 to class
7.2
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs,
but no oral hearing was requested.
We turn first to the requirement to amend the
classification of applicant's goods. As pointed out by the
Examining Attorney, matters relating to classification are
governed by the Acceptable Identification of Goods and
Services Manual (ID Manual). Applicant argues that the
Examining Attorney misapprehends the nature of applicant's
goods. However, our review of the manual indicates that
emission reduction units for motors and engines are
classified in class 7. Thus, we find the requirement to
amend the classification of the goods to class 7 to be
proper.
We turn next to the refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The Examining Attorney
maintains that "applicant's proposed mark immediately and
uneqivocally describes the purpose, function and nature of
applicant's goods." (Brief, p. 3.)

2We note that, in her first Office action, the Examining
Attorney required that the goods be amended from class 11 to
class 12. In her final office action, she required that the
goods be amended from class 11 to class 7. It appears that,
during the pendency of this application, Office classification
policy changed such that certain goods which were formerly
classified in class 12 are now classified in class 7. Thus,
while the Examining Attorney, in her final Office action,
"changed" the requirement from class 12 to class 7, no new issue
was raised, and it was not improper for her to make the
requirement final.
Ser No. 74/481,825
3
In support of the refusal to register, the Examining
Attorney has submitted an entry from Webster's Third New
International Dictionary defining "stabilizer" as "a
distilling column for decreasing the evaporative tendency of
petroleum products (as gasoline) by removal of gaseous and
low-boiling hydrocarbons." Also, the Examining Attorney
submitted a story from the Nexis data base in which
applicant's device is discussed. Portions of that story are
excerpted below:
It looks a bit like a slim beer can with a
boltlike valve on each end, but it reportedly
holds a great deal more promise than 12 ounces
of golden lager.
...
It's the Inset Fuel Stabilizer, and its being
touted as a simple solution to auto emission
problems.
...
The device, manufactered by Inset Inc., of
Oakland, N.J., "realigns molecules for 100
percent combustion" in a vehicle's engine,
said account executive Scott Marshall, who
declined to give away the technological
workings that create pure burn.
...
Marshall said he installed a stabilizer in
his wife's 1990 Honda and within 11 days,
hydrocarbon counts dropped fron 145 parts
per million to 9 parts per million. Carbon
monoxide emissions were eliminated completely
in that time, Marshall said.
(Chicago Tribune, May 3, 1994)
Finally, the Examining Attorney submitted an exerpt
from a patent for an induction control device, which states
as follows:
Ser No. 74/481,825
4
The air, by passing through the flow restriction
element and being polarized by friction,
facilitates optimal molecular bonding between
the gasoline and air molecules prior to entry
into the combustion chambers. The flow
restriction element, in causing the
polarization acts to stabilize the number
of bondable molecules..."
Applicant, in urging reversal of the refusal to
register, argues that "[a]s noted from the description of
the device and its function of aligning the fuel and air
molecules, the term 'stabilizer' is arbitrary, and at best
suggestive of applicant's device." (emphasis in original)
(Brief, p. 5).
A mark is considered to be merely descriptive of goods
or services, under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, if
it immediately describes an ingredient, quality,
characteristic or feature thereof or if it directly conveys
information regarding the nature, function, purpose or use
of the goods or services. See In re Abcor Development
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978).
We find that THE FUEL STABILIZER, used for emission
reduction units, namely fuel stabilizing devices for land
vehicles, directly conveys to the relevant purchasers that
these goods are fuel stabilizers, i.e., they remove gaseous
and low-boiling hydrocarbons from fuel. No amount of
imagination or speculation is necessary for customers and
prospective purchasers to readily perceive the merely
Ser No. 74/481,825
5
descriptive significance of the THE FUEL STABILIZER as
applied to applicant's goods.
In this regard, we note the following benefit of
applicant's product as outlined in its product brochure:
-Reduces and eliminates hydrocarbons/
particulates
Accordingly, we conclude that applicant's mark, when
applied to the above-identified goods, is merely descriptive
of them.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed, and the
requirement to amend the classification of the goods is
affirmed.
E. W. Hanak
G. D. Hohein
P. T. Hairston
Administrative Trademark
Judges, Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board
Ser No. 74/481,825
6
Ser No. 74/481,825
7