Mathew A. McPherson

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2012

No. 85129937 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

Mailed: September 24, 2012

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Mathew A. McPherson
________

Serial No. 85129937
_______

Richard Arrett of Vidas Arrett & Steinkraus PA for Mathew
A. McPherson.

Melissa Vallillo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
113 (Odette Bonnet, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Quinn, Kuhlke and Wolfson, Administrative Trademark
Judges.

Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Mathew A. McPherson, applicant, has filed an
application to register as a mark HONEYCOMB CORE TECHNOLOGY
(in standard character form) on the Principal Register for
“archery bows” in International Class 28.1
The examining attorney has 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 is merely

1 Application Serial No. 85129937, filed on September 15, 2010,
under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b),
alleging a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B
Serial No. 85129937
2
descriptive of its services. Both applicant and the
examining attorney have filed briefs. We affirm the
refusal to register.
“A mark is merely descriptive if it ‘consist[s] merely
of words descriptive of the qualities, ingredients or
characteristics of’ the goods or services related to the
mark.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71
USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004), quoting, Estate of P.D.
Beckwith, Inc. v. Commissioner, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920).
See also In re MBNA America Bank N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67
USPQ2d 1778, 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The test for
determining whether a mark is merely descriptive is whether
it immediately conveys information concerning a significant
quality, characteristic, function, ingredient, attribute or
feature of the product or service in connection with which
it is used, or intended to be used. In re Engineering
Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986); In re Bright-
Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979). It is not
necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive, that
the mark describe each feature of the goods or services,
only that it describe a single, significant ingredient,
quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use
of the goods or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Serial No. 85129937
3
Further, it is well-established that the determination
of mere descriptiveness must be made not in the abstract,
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 Abcor
Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978).
Finally, while a combination of descriptive terms may
be registrable if the composite creates a unitary mark with
a separate, nondescriptive meaning, In re Colonial Stores,
Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968), the mere
combination of descriptive words does not necessarily
create a nondescriptive word or phrase. In re Associated
Theatre Clubs Co., 9 USPQ2d 1660, 1662 (TTAB 1988). If
each component retains its descriptive significance in
relation to the goods or services, the combination results
in a composite that is itself descriptive. In re Oppedahl
& Larson LLP, supra.
It is the examining attorney’s position that:
…HONEYCOMB CORE TECHNOLOGY is
descriptive in relation to the goods in
that they feature technology comprised
of a network of hexagons. This
technology is commonly known in various
industries, including applicant’s, as a
“honeycomb core.” Therefore, the mark
Serial No. 85129937
4
as a whole describes a characteristic
or feature of the goods.2

In support of her refusal, the examining attorney
submitted the following dictionary definitions for the
individual words HONEYCOMB, CORE and TECHNOLOGY:3
Honeycomb: an object resembling a honeycomb in
pattern or structure, especially by consisting of
a network of hexagons;

Core: the central or most important part of
something; and

Technology: the study, development, and
application of devices, machines, and techniques
for manufacturing and productive processes.

In addition, she submitted a printout from Wikipedia
of the entry for “Honeycomb structure” which includes the
following:4
Honeycomb structures are natural or man-made
structures that have the geometry of a honeycomb
to allow the minimization of the amount of used
material to reach minimal weight and minimal
material cost. ... Man-made honeycomb structures
include sandwich composites with honeycomb cores.
... A honeycomb core is a material used as a
central layer material in a sandwich structured
composite structures.

Finally, she submitted evidence consisting of excerpts
from various third-party websites that show the terms
HONEYCOMB and HONEYCOMB CORE used to describe a type of

2 Ex. Att. Br. p. 9.

3 Encarta World English Dictionary (2009), December 2, 2010
Office action pp. 2-8.

Serial No. 85129937
5
design structure or technology that is used in a wide
variety of applications and industries, including the
archery industry. A few representative examples, including
a third-party’s patent application for an archery bow and a
blog excerpt describing applicant’s bows, are shown below:5
Honeycomb Cores For Lighter, Stiffer, Stronger
Products ... Plascore high performance honeycomb
cores are manufactured in a variety of metal and
plastic materials, each offering unique
performance qualities. From aerospace to
commercial applications. (www.plascore.com);

HexWeb Honeycombs ... Honeycomb is a lightweight
core material which is available in a variety of
cell sizes and densities, providing a wide range
of mechanical and thermal properties.
(www.hexcel.com);

Azom.com .. Core Materials in Polymeric
Composites ... Topics Covered ... Core Types ...
Honeycombs;

[patent application] I claim: 1. An archery bow
... Because this type of composite laminate
permits design to the thickest, most twist
resistant bow limbs, the composite type of
structure provides maximum freedom for design of
bow limbs recurved to a degree not heretofore
possible. It will be understood that other
material than maple wood may be used in the core
of the composite laminate, for instance other
woods, rigid foams and structural cores such as
honeycombs. (www.freepatentsonline.com); and

Built on the popular and successful Monster bow
series, the Safari appears to be a beefed up
version with the all new honeycomb designed
cutouts in the riser and cams.
(http://archeryreport.com).

4 http://en.wikipedia.org June 23, 2011 Office action pp. 38-42.
5 June 23, 2011 Office action.
Serial No. 85129937
6

On its website, applicant describes its archery bow by
stating that the “natural design of honeycomb is one of the
strongest in nature [and] [t]he hexagonal honeycomb design
has been used in aerospace industries for years because of
its high strength-to-weight ratios.”6 Shown below is a
picture of applicant’s archery bow employing honeycomb core
technology:
7

As noted above, we determine the descriptiveness of a
term in the context of the goods or services at issue, not
in the abstract. In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ 258
(TTAB 1984); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., supra. Clearly,
these terms separately have a descriptive significance in

6 http://mathewsinc.com/product/safari, June 23, 2011 Office
action p. 12.

Serial No. 85129937
7
relation to applicant’s services. HONEYCOMB immediately
conveys to the consumer a significant feature of the
services, namely that they include a honeycomb
construction. The word CORE indicates that it is the core
of the bow that is in the honeycomb shape. The word
TECHNOLOGY simply indicates an application of a specific
design structure technology in the bows. The question
remains whether combined they present a unique or
incongruous combination.
We find that when combined the terms HONEYCOMB, CORE
and TECHNOLOGY do not lose their descriptive significance
and, in fact, make clear that applicant’s archery bows
feature honeycomb core technology. It is beyond question
that a significant feature of applicant’s archery bows is
the honeycomb core, a technology that makes the product
lighter and uses less material without comprising its
strength. Thus, we are persuaded by the evidence of record
that the terms HONEYCOMB, CORE and TECHNOLOGY are merely
descriptive of applicant’s identified goods and that when
combined do not present a unique or incongruous meaning.
In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002).

7 http://mathewsinc.com/product/safari, June 23, 2011 Office
action p. 12.
Serial No. 85129937
8
Applicant argues that “Even if ‘HONEYCOMB’ by itself,
does describe an attribute of the goods (which applicant
does not concede), the terms ‘CORE’ and ‘TECHNOLOGY’
combine with ‘HONEYCOMB’ to create a unitary mark with a
nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods
‘archerybows’.”8 Relying on In re Hutchinson Technology
Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 7 USPQ2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988),
applicant argues that the terms TECHNOLOGY and CORE prevent
the entire mark from being merely descriptive. In
Hutchinson Technology, the application had been refused
registration on the basis that it was primarily merely a
surname and the word TECHNOLOGY disclaimed as merely
descriptive did not remove the surname significance of
HUTCHINSON. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s
determination because the “board never considered what the
purchasing public would think when confronted with the mark
as a whole.” Hutchinson Technology, 7 USPQ2d at 1492.
In this case, the entire phrase is refused as merely
descriptive, not as primarily merely a surname, and the
examining attorney has presented evidence sufficient to
analyze the phrase in its entirety. Viewing HONEYCOMB CORE
TECHNOLOGY as a whole, we find the evidence of record sets
forth a prima facie case that such phrase is merely

8 Br. p. 2.
Serial No. 85129937
9
descriptive. Thus, we are persuaded that when used in
connection with applicant’s goods, HONEYCOMB CORE
TECHNOLOGY immediately describes, without need for
conjecture or speculation, a significant feature of
applicant’s goods.
Decision: The refusal to register under Section
2(e)(1) is affirmed.