Matsushita Electric Corp. of America

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2002

No. 75847054 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2002)

4/5/02 Paper No. 11
BAC

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
________

Serial No. 75/847,054
_______

Morton Amster of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein for
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America.

Esther Borsuk, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112
(Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Chapman, Bucher and Bottorff, Administrative
Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Chapman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (a Delaware
corporation) filed on November 12, 1999 an application to
register on the Principal Register the mark PUREFLAT for
“television monitors” in International Class 9.1
The Examining Attorney refused registration under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.

1 The application was originally based on applicant’s assertion
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on the
identified goods. Applicant filed an Amendment to Allege Use
which was accepted by the Examining Attorney in June 2001, and
applicant’s claimed date of first use and first use in commerce
is October 26, 2000.

THIS DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Ser. No. 75/847054
2
§1052(e)(1), on the ground that when applicant’s mark is
used on the goods identified in the application, it is
merely descriptive thereof.
When the refusal was made final, applicant appealed to
this Board. Both applicant and the Examining Attorney have
filed briefs. Applicant did not request an oral hearing.
The Examining Attorney argues that the applied-for
mark “PUREFLAT” is a combination of the words “pure” and
“flat,” which immediately describes a significant feature
of the goods, namely, that the screens on applicant’s
television monitors are completely flat. In support of the
refusal to register the Examining Attorney submitted (i)
dictionary definitions of the terms “pure” and “flat”2; (ii)
photocopies of excerpted stories retrieved from the Nexis
database relating to “pure flat”3; and (iii) printouts of
certain Web pages from the Internet, all showing references
to “pure flat” television monitors.

2 The Examining Attorney attached these dictionary definitions to
her brief on appeal. We hereby take judicial notice of same.
See University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports
Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505
(Fed. Cir. 1983). See also, TBMP §712.01.
3 Several of these excerpted stories are from foreign
publications and were not considered in reaching our decision
herein. See In re Men’s International Professional Tennis
Council, 1 USPQ2d 1917, 1918 (TTAB 1986).
Ser. No. 75/847054
3
The relevant portions of the definitions from The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third
Edition 1992) are as follows:
“pure” (adjective) is defined as
“...6. Complete; utter: pure
folly....”; and

“flat” (adjective) is defined as “1.
Having a horizontal surface without a
slope, tilt, or curvature....,” and
(noun) “A flat surface or part.”

In the context of television monitors, the word “flat”
immediately conveys information about the front surface of
the screen. The following are examples of the excerpted
stories retrieved from the Nexis database, showing use of
the term “pure flat” in the context of perfectly flat
screens (emphasis added):
HEADLINE: Flat Panels With Fat Prices
...Instead get a picture-tube display
with a flat-front pane of glass for
your computer or your TV. Called,
“natural flat,” “pure flat,” “flat
screen” and other such confusing
terms, these don’t have the same big
curve on their front sides as on older
tubes. In fact, this is the second
generation of flattening, after some
preliminary work in the mid-‘90s.
“Dayton Daily News,” March 20, 2000;

HEADLINE: Thomson Unveils a Frugal
HDTV
...it will broaden its line to analog
models this year, ranging in screen
size from 20 inches to 36 inches.
...Sharp Electronics Corp. introduced
its 34N-WF5H Pure Flat HDTV Ready TV,
Ser. No. 75/847054
4
which will be available in March at
the suggested retail price of $4,999.
“Electronic Media,” January 10, 2000;
and

HEADLINE: Compaq Revitalizes
Professional Line CRTs4 with new FD
Trinitron Monitors
...Virtually flat screen. The majority
of CRTs today exhibit a visible range
of curvature on the front glass, which
results in geometric distortion of
images on screen. The virtually flat
screen of FD Trinitron, often referred
to as “pure flat,” provides a
geometrically correct image and in
many cases completely eliminates
glare. The result is less distortion
of the image on the screen, increasing
comfort and productivity by reducing
eyestrain, irritation and fatigue.
...
With viewing resolutions up to 1600 x
1200, 0.24 to 0.25mm variable aperture
grille pitch and FD Trinitron pure
flat tube, ... “M2 Presswire,” October
26, 1999.

The Internet evidence shows that several different
television manufacturers refer on their respective Web
sites to “pure flat” in connection with televisions –
including “Samsung Introduces Tantus Digital Ready Pure
Flat Direct-View Television At 2000 CES [Consumer
Electronics Show],” “Sharp 34N-WF5H Pure Flat Widescreen

4 The usage of CRT, an abbreviation for “Cathode Ray Tube,”
describes monitors long associated with television picture tubes,
and increasingly associated with computer and/or video monitors.
The Nexis excerpts make it clear that cutting edge technology is
often used interchangeably among these various electronic
devices.
Ser. No. 75/847054
5
HDTV Display,” and “Hitachi Pure Flat Widescreen Rentals.”
Applicant’s own Web site includes the following statement:
“The Pure Flat Range of Televisions Employs Panasonic’s own
Technology Which is at the Cutting Edge of Picture Tube
Technology.”
We note that applicant’s specimen of use is a
photograph of the side of a carton containing a television,
showing the words “Panasonic®,” “PUREFLAT,” “Color
Television” (in three languages), and “T[Tau]”5 appearing
thereon.
Applicant acknowledges that its “mark may consist of
elements which, considered separately, could give rise to a
finding of descriptiveness.” (Brief, p. 4.) However,
applicant contends that the mark, when considered as a
whole, is only suggestive of a feature of a television
monitor; and that the mark PUREFLAT “requires the consumer
to expend considerable imagination in order to reach any
conclusion about the nature of the goods.” (Brief, p. 2.)
Further, applicant argues as follows:
In the instant case, prospective
customers encountering Applicant’s
PUREFLAT mark will not have a
concrete idea about the specific
nature of Applicant’s product. For

5 It appears from the information of record that applicant uses
the Greek letter “tau” [T] as a trademark in connection with a
series of its high resolution monitors.
Ser. No. 75/847054
6
example, Applicant’s product could
consist of no more than a screen,
like the screens used in movie
theaters. Similarly, Applicant’s
product could consist of a flat
screen on the face of a watch or a
flat screen on a small, portable
product similar to a make-up
compact.” (Brief, p. 3.)

Applicant submitted for the first time with its brief
on appeal photocopies of some stories retrieved from the
Nexis database “in which PUREFLAT is specifically used as a
trademark as to Applicant’s goods[s]”; and asserting that
because there is now a “mixed bag” of articles of record,
those submitted by the Examining Attorney are insufficient
on which to find mere descriptiveness. (Brief, pp. 3-4.)
Applicant’s evidence and argument on this point is untimely
under Trademark Rule 2.142(d); and the Examining Attorney
objected thereto. The objection is well taken and is
sustained. See TBMP §1207. Therefore, applicant’s
untimely evidence was not considered in reaching our
decision. Even if it had been considered, it would not
change the result herein.
The well-established test for determining whether a
term or phrase is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act is whether the term immediately
conveys information concerning a significant quality,
characteristic, function, ingredient, attribute or feature
Ser. No. 75/847054
7
of the product or service in connection with which it is
used. See In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200
USPQ 215 (CCPA 1978); In re Eden Foods Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1757
(TTAB 1992); and In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591
(TTAB 1979). The determination of mere descriptiveness
must be made, not in the abstract, but rather in relation
to the goods or services for which registration is sought,
the context in which the term or phrase is being used on or
in connection with those goods or services, and the impact
that it is likely to make on the average purchaser of such
goods or services. See In re Consolidated Cigar Co., 35
USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1995); and In re Pennzoil Products Co.,
20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991).
The question is not whether someone presented with
only the term or phrase could guess what the goods or
services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who
knows what the goods or services are will understand the
term or phrase to convey information about them. See In re
Home Builders Association of Greenville, 18 USPQ2d 1313
(TTAB 1990); and In re American Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ
365 (TTAB 1985).
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the term
PUREFLAT immediately and directly conveys information about
a significant feature of applicant’s “television monitors.”
Ser. No. 75/847054
8
Applicant’s television monitors have completely flat
screens, devoid of any curved surface area. The record
shows that a flat surface instead of a curved surface on
the television monitor improves the quality of the picture
by reducing distortion of the image on the screen. As
touted by applicant and its competitors, the word “pure” in
this context might also have the ready connotation of
“true” proportions and a “clear” picture. The commonly
understood English meaning of the words “pure” and “flat,”
presented as “pureflat,” will be readily understood by the
relevant purchasers (the general public) as a completely
flat television monitor providing a distortion-free image.
This record establishes that whichever meaning of the term
“pure” (either “completely” or “distortion-free”), the term
“PUREFLAT” reinforces and hence describes a significant
feature of the goods. The question is not, as applicant
suggests, whether prospective purchasers of the goods sold
under the mark PUREFLAT would know from the mark alone
whether the goods are the size of a movie screen or a make-
up compact.
As discussed above, the combination of these two words
into one word does not create an incongruous or creative or
unique mark. Rather, applicant’s mark, PUREFLAT, when used
on applicant’s identified goods, immediately describes,
Ser. No. 75/847054
9
without conjecture or speculation, a significant feature of
applicant’s goods. Nothing requires the exercise of
imagination or mental processing or gathering of further
information in order for purchasers and prospective
customers of applicant’s goods to readily perceive the
merely descriptive significance of the term PUREFLAT as it
pertains to applicant’s television monitors. See In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
(APPLE PIE merely descriptive for potpourri); In re Omaha
National Corporation, 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed.
Cir. 1987) [FIRSTIER (stylized) merely descriptive for
banking services]; and In re Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540
(TTAB 1994) (SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of
facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays).
Decision: The refusal to register the mark as merely
descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) is affirmed.