Interlink Electronics, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 1997

EX (T.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 1997)

THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB June 23, 1997
Paper No. 12
CEW
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Interlink Electronics, Inc.
___________
Serial No. 74/619,816
___________
Mark A. Cantor, Brooks & Kushman, attorney for applicant.
Darry Carmine, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102
(Myra Kurzbard, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Sams, Rice and Walters, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Interlink Electronics, Inc. has filed a trademark
application to register the mark SUPERMOUSE for “computer
cursor control device, namely a cursor location controller
for desk-top, portable and hand-held use.”1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has finally refused
registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15

1 Serial No. 74/619,816, in International Class 9, filed January 6,
1995, based on use of the mark in commerce, alleging dates of first use
and use in commerce of December 22, 1993.
Serial No. 74/619,816
2
U.S.C. 1052(e)(1), on the ground that applicant’s mark is
merely descriptive of its goods.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We affirm the refusal to register.
The test for determining whether a mark is merely
descriptive is whether the involved term immediately conveys
information concerning a quality, characteristic, function,
ingredient, attribute or feature of a product or service.
In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979); In re
Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986). It is
not necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive,
that the mark describe each feature of the goods, only that
it describe a single, significant quality, feature, etc. In
re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985).
Further, it is well-established that the determination of
mere descriptiveness must be made not in the abstract or on
the basis of guesswork, but in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the mark is used, and the impact that it is likely to
make on the average purchaser of such goods or services. In
re Recovery, 196 USPQ 830 (TTAB 1977).
We agree with the Examining Attorney’s conclusion that
SUPERMOUSE is composed of the two terms SUPER and MOUSE,
both of which are merely descriptive in connection with the
Serial No. 74/619,816
3
specified goods. In support of his conclusion that the term
MOUSE is the name of the goods, the Examining Attorney has
submitted a dictionary definition of MOUSE as “a small
mobile manual device that controls movement of the cursor on
a computer display”2 and a description of a MOUSE from
Microsoft Press’ Computer Dictionary, 2d ed., 1994, as
follows:
A common pointing device, popularized by its
inclusion as standard equipment with the Apple
Macintosh. With the rise in popularity of
graphical user interfaces in MS-DOS, UNIX and
OS/2, use of mice is growing throughout the
personal computer and workstation worlds. The
basic features of a mouse are a casing with a flat
bottom, designed to be gripped by one hand; one or
more buttons on the top; a multidirectional
detection device (usually a ball) on the bottom;
and a cable connecting the mouse to the computer.
. . . By moving the mouse on a surface (such as a
desk), the user typically controls an on-screen
cursor. A mouse is a relative pointing device
because there are no defined limits to the mouse’s
movement and because its placement on a surface
does not map directly to a specific screen
location. To select items or choose commands on
the screen, the user presses one of the mouse’s
buttons, producing a “mouse click.”
Additionally, the Examining Attorney has submitted the
following excerpts3 of articles from the NEXIS database that
use the term MOUSE:

2 Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1990.
3 The single newswire story was given little weight herein. A
proprietary newswire article is circulated primarily to newspapers and
news journals whose editors select from the releases those stories of
sufficient interest to publish. The article’s appearance in the NEXIS
database does not prove that the news release appeared as a story in any
newspaper or magazine. This story is evidence that the author used the
term MOUSE in a certain manner and that editors were exposed to such
use. However, we cannot conclude that the public was exposed to the
Serial No. 74/619,816
4
TrackMan Live from Logitech is a hand-held radio
controlled mouse designed specifically for giving
onscreen presentations. (PC User, February 8,
1995.)
Boxlight Corp. offers an optional hand-held remote
control, which functions like a cordless mouse. .
. (PC Magazine, January 23, 1996.)
The $229 Remote Control is a 4-ounce wireless,
hand-held device that lets presenters, product
demonstrators, or trainers - from up to 45 feet
away - control the mouse. . .
Laserex’s new gadget is a hand-held transmitter
that provides total mouse emulation from up to 40
feet from a personal computer. (The Phoenix
Gazette, October 31, 1994.)
Applicant’s contention that its product is not
“technically” a MOUSE is not supported by any evidence.
Further, not only does the evidence submitted by the
Examining Attorney support his contention that applicant’s
product would be considered to be a type of MOUSE, but
applicant’s own packaging and brochure support that
conclusion.4 Applicant’s brochure states “SuperMouse is a
multi-purpose mouse”; and “Just unplug your ordinary mouse
and plug in SuperMouse.” The product specifications
indicate that the hardware interface for applicant’s product
is through the mouse port of the user’s computer; and that
applicant’s product is compatible with Microsoft Mouse

story. See, In re Men’s International Professional Tennis Council, 1
USPQ2d 1917 (TTAB 1986).
4 The mere two statements on applicant’s packaging and brochure that
applicant’s product is other than a MOUSE (e.g., applicant’s packaging
contains the statement “Unlike a mouse or trackball, SuperMouse has no
moving parts to break . . .” and its brochure states “Introducing
Serial No. 74/619,816
5
Driver software. Applicant’s packaging refers to the
product as “Three Mice in One!” and describes the product as
a “Desktop Mouse,” a “Portable Mouse,” and a “Hand-Held
Mouse.” Applicant’s packaging includes the following
statements: “SuperMouse is a 3-in-1 mouse - for any
application, anyplace!”; “It’s a great hand-held mouse”; and
“SuperMouse offers full two-button Microsoft® mouse
functionality.”
We add that, aside from the question of whether the
product represented by the specimens of record and described
in applicant’s brochure is a mouse, the record supports the
conclusion that applicant’s broad identification of goods
clearly encompasses a product properly defined as a MOUSE.
Thus, MOUSE is merely descriptive in connection with
applicant’s identified goods.
Likewise, the term SUPER is more than mere vague
puffery in connection with the identified goods. Rather,
SUPER is merely descriptive of several real and specific
characteristics of applicant’s product that are touted by
applicant in its literature as being superior. For example,
applicant claims that its product is more versatile than an
“ordinary” mouse because it can be used in three different
ways; that its product is more ergonomically-correct than an

SuperMouse - the mouse alternative . . .”) are outweighed by the number
of references thereon to applicant’s product as a MOUSE.
Serial No. 74/619,816
6
“ordinary” mouse because of its shape and its push-button
controlling device; and that its product has fewer moving
parts than an “ordinary” mouse and is, thus, maintenance
free. See, In re Ralston Purina Company, 191 USPQ 237 (TTAB
1976); and In re U.S. Steel Corp., 225 USPQ 750 (TTAB 1985)
and cases cited therein.
We are not convinced that SUPERMOUSE is not merely
descriptive in connection with the identified goods by
applicant’s argument that SUPERMOUSE connotes a cartoon
superhero and, in this case, is reminiscent of Superman and
Mighty Mouse. It is a general principle that a combination
of descriptive words may result in an arbitrary unitary
designation which is registrable if the juxtaposition of the
words is inventive, evokes a unique commercial impression,
or if the term has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as
applied to the goods or services. See, In re National
Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018, 1020 (TTAB
1983) and cases cited therein. We find that such is not the
case herein. There is no question that MOUSE has another
definition as a small mammal. We also note that applicant’s
packaging includes several pictures of an anthropomorphic
caped mouse reminiscent of cartoon or comic superheroes.
However, that figure is not included as part of the mark in
this application. Further, we believe that the term MOUSE,
standing alone and considered in connection with the
Serial No. 74/619,816
7
identified goods, is a sufficiently established term in the
computer field that such term will call to mind a computer
cursor control device rather than a small mammal. The
addition of the term SUPER to MOUSE merely indicates the
claim of superlative qualities attributed to the computer-
related MOUSE. SUPERMOUSE is not an inventive juxtaposition
of the words SUPER and MOUSE, nor does it evoke a unique
commercial impression or impart a bizarre or incongruous
meaning to the mark as applied to the goods or services.
In the present case, we conclude that, when applied to
applicant’s goods, the term SUPERMOUSE immediately
describes, without conjecture or speculation, a significant
feature or function of applicant’s goods, namely, that it is
computer cursor control device with special features that
improve the product’s quality and versatility. Nothing
requires the exercise of imagination, cogitation, mental
processing or gathering of further information in order for
purchasers of and prospective customers for applicant’s
services to readily perceive the merely descriptive
significance of the term SUPERMOUSE as it pertains to
applicant’s goods.
Serial No. 74/619,816
8
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act
is affirmed.
J. D. Sams
J. E. Rice
C. E. Walters
Administrative Trademark Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board