Robert Bosch GmbH

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2001

No. 75473538 (T.T.A.B. May. 3, 2001)

5/3/01 Paper No. 14
CEW
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
___________
In re Robert Bosch GmbH
___________
Serial No. 75/473,538
___________
J. W. Gipple of Gipple & Hale for applicant.
Adam C. Striegel, Senior Trademark Attorney, Law Office 112
(Janice O’Lear, Managing Attorney).
____________
Before Quinn, Walters and Drost, Administrative Trademark
Judges.
Opinion by Walters, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Robert Bosch GmbH has filed an application to register
on the Principal Register the mark shown below for services
identified, as amended, as “providing training in the use
and application of computer programs which interface with
embedded automotive control software for the purposes of
testing, measuring and application of hardware, but
excluding all those aforesaid goods being used in the field
of navigation including navigational systems for vehicles
DISPOSITION
IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT
OF THE T.T.A.B.
Serial No. 75/473,538
2
in particular electronic travel pilots and electronic
maps,” In International Class 41.1
The Examining Attorney has issued a final refusal
requiring the submission of substitute specimens showing
use of the mark in connection with the sale or advertising
of the identified services.
Applicant has appealed. Both applicant and the
Examining Attorney have filed briefs, but an oral hearing
was not requested. We reverse the refusal to register.
The specimens submitted with the application are
described by applicant, in its April 5, 2000 response, as
including photographs “of signage outside applicant’s

1 Application No. 75/473,538, filed April 24, 1998, based on use in
commerce, alleging first use as of June 1994, and first use in commerce
as of February 1997. The application also includes goods identified as
“computer programs which interface with embedded automotive control
software for the purposes of testing, measuring and application of
hardware, but excluding all those aforesaid goods being used in the
field of navigation including navigational systems for vehicles in
particular electronic travel pilots and electronic maps,” in
International Class 9. However, the acceptability of the specimens
submitted in connection with these goods is not at issue in this
appeal.
Serial No. 75/473,538
3
buildings in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Stuttgart, Germany”
and photographs that “show signage at a display booth at
its headquarters where guests are informed about the
training services which applicant offers.” The first
photograph clearly shows the mark herein on a sign in front
of a building in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The latter
photograph, which is an exhibit booth that clearly exhibits
the mark herein, is on a page from a January 1998
publication identified as RealTimes. The accompanying
paragraph of writing on the page indicates that the booth
is directed to visitors, i.e., prospective and existing
clients, at applicant’s headquarters and describes the
services demonstrated.
The Examining Attorney contends that the service mark
specimens are unacceptable because “neither the signs
outside the applicant’s buildings nor the signs at the
display booth refer to the services.” The Examining
Attorney argues that specimens do not indicate that
applicant is providing the training services identified in
the application.
Contrary to the Examining Attorney’s contentions, we
find that the specimens are acceptable evidence of the use
of the mark herein in connection with the services
identified in the application. The mark appears in the
Serial No. 75/473,538
4
photograph in connection with applicant’s display booth.
The accompanying text refers to a “demo work station.” The
nature of applicant’s service does not need to be spelled
out in greater detail on the specimen. We conclude that
the specimens of record are adequate to support the use of
the mark in connection with the identified services.
Decision: The refusal to register on the ground that
the specimens are unacceptable evidence of service mark use
in connection with the identified services is reversed.