Super Coffeemix Mfg. Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 1999

No. 75045893 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 1999)

Hearing: Paper No. 12
January 20, 1999 HRW
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT
CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB AUG. 26, 99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd.
________
Serial No. 75/045,893
_______
Gary D. Krugman of Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, Macpeak & Seas,
PLLC for Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd.
Carolyn C. Gray, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office
101 (Chris Wells, Acting Managing Attorney)
_______
Before Hairston, Walters and Wendel, Administrative
Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wendel, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd. has filed an
application to register the mark COFFEEMIX for “coffee
preparations, namely, instant coffee sachets; coffee based
beverages; and coffee.”1

1 Serial No. 75/045,893, filed January 19, 1996, based on a bona
fide intention to use the mark in commerce with the United States
under Section 1(b) and asserting a claim of priority under
Section 44 (d) based on Application Serial No. TMA No. 7050/95,
filed August 1, 1995 in Singapore. On January 27, 1997 an
amendment to allege use in commerce was filed, setting forth a
Ser No. 75/045,893
2
Registration has been finally refused on the ground
that the mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act. Applicant and the Examining Attorney
have filed briefs and both participated in an oral hearing.
The Examining Attorney argues that the term COFFEEMIX
immediately and without conjecture describes the nature of
applicant’s goods. She points to the specific statement on
the specimens of record (the packaging for the coffee
sachets) that the product is a “3 in 1 instant coffee mix”
and also notes the description of the goods as consisting
of “sugar, creamer, instant coffee [which] mixes instantly
with hot water.” Relying upon the ordinary dictionary
definitions of “coffee” and “mix” introduced in her brief,
the Examining Attorney argues that there is nothing
incongruent or which requires the exercise of any mental
processing to perceive the descriptive significance of
COFFEEMIX when used with applicant’s coffee preparations.
Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney has
failed to make of record any of the types of evidence
commonly used to demonstrate descriptiveness, but instead
has relied solely upon applicant’s packaging; that
applicant’s mark COFFEEMIX is only suggestive of the

first use date of July 23, 1987 and a first use in commerce with
the United States of January 30, 1993.
Ser No. 75/045,893
3
instruction “mix coffee with water,” giving indirect
information about the product, and that it is only after
reading the full packaging that it is learned “what is to
be mixed with what”; and that here, similar to the
situation in In re Reynolds Metals Co., 480 F.2d 902, 178
USPQ 296 (CCPA 1973)[BROWN-IN-BAG], the mark will not
prevent competitors from fair use of the terms “coffee” and
“mix.”
A word or phrase is merely descriptive within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys
information about a characteristic, purpose, function or
feature of the goods or services with which it is being
used. Whether or not a particular term or phrase is merely
descriptive is not determined in the abstract, but rather
in relation to the goods or services for which registration
is sought, the context in which the mark is being used, and
the significance the mark is likely to have, because of the
manner in which it is used, to the average purchaser as he
encounters the goods or services bearing the mark. See In
re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215
(CCPA 1978); In re Nibco Inc., 195 USPQ 180 (TTAB 1977) and
the cases cited therein.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, we cannot agree
that the term COFFEEMIX requires a multi-stage reasoning
Ser No. 75/045,893
4
process to associate the term with a primary characteristic
or feature of applicant’s goods. In the specimens
themselves, the product is described as a “3 in 1 instant
coffee mix,” or in other words, a mixture of three
ingredients to form a product from which coffee can be
made. In the dictionary definitions for “mix” introduced
by the Examining Attorney,2 we find the description of “mix”
as “a mixture, esp., of ingredients packaged and sold
commercially .”3 Applicant’s goods consist of a
mixture of three ingredients packaged and sold from which
purchasers prepare coffee. We see no need for any exercise
of a multi-step thought process for purchasers to make an
association between the term COFFEEMIX and the nature or
purpose of the mixture being sold by applicant. Whether or
not the term is also descriptive, rather than only
suggestive, of the fact that the product must be mixed with
water is immaterial. We are inclined to believe, however,
that most purchasers, upon encountering a dry mixture for
making coffee bearing the mark COFFEEMIX would readily make
this association as well.

2 Although not earlier made of record by the Examining Attorney,
the Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions.
See Marcal Paper Mills, Inc. v. American Can Co., 212 USPQ 852
(TTAB 1981).
3 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984).
Ser No. 75/045,893
5
We fail to see the parallel which applicant attempts
to draw between the present circumstances and those in In
re Reynolds, supra. There the Court held that the phrase
BROWN-IN-BAG was only suggestive of the fact that one of
the several purposes of the applicant’s plastic bags was to
brown meat. Moreover, by applicant’s use of the unitary
mark BROWN-IN-BAG competitors would not be deprived of
using the individual words to describe similar products.
Here COFFEEMIX immediately and specifically conveys the
information that applicant’s product is a coffee mix or a
mixture of ingredients to make coffee. We doubt whether
applicant would consider use by competitors of “coffee mix”
in a descriptive manner for similar products a fair use if
applicant’s mark were registered.
Accordingly, we find the mark COFFEEMIX merely
descriptive of applicant’s coffee preparations.
Decision: The refusal under Section 2(e)(1) is
affirmed.
P. T. Hairston
C. E. Walters
H. R. Wendel
Trademark Administrative Judges,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Ser No. 75/045,893
6
Ser No. 75/045,893
7