The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark EZ INSTALL SLEEVE for "metal venting parts, namely, metal connector pipes for venting; metal pipes and fittings of metal for pipes; alignment pipes, namely alignment pipes of metal for venting" on the ground of mere descriptiveness under Section 2(e)(1). Applicant Duravent pointed to the lack of a dictionary definition of "EZ," asserted that its goods are alignment pipes, not "sleeves," and argued that the term "EZ" is ambiguous in meaning. How do you think this came out? In re DuraVent, Inc., Serial No. 90192019 (June 2, 2022) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Michael B. Adlin).
Examining Attorney April Roach submitted dictionary defintions of "easy," "install," and "sleeve," as well as a number of third-party uses of "EASY-INSTALL," or close variations thereof, for venting parts, pipes, and related products. She also provided evidence that "sleeve" is commonly used to describe goods that fall with applicant's identification of goods. And finally, she proffered six third-party registrations for marks including the term EASY INSTALL, in which registations the term was disclaimed or the marks were registered on the Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register under Section 2(f).
Applicant contended that the proposed mark is merely suggestive because it has an ambiguous meaning open to various interpretations: "Does it mean 'as install'? Does it mean 'install an e and z'? Does it mean a type of 'install' such as an 'e and z' shape?'" [LOL - ed.].
The Board wisely found that EZ INSTALL SLEEVE immediately conveys information regarding a quality, feature, characteristic, or function of applicant's goods. The evidence showed that some metal pipe fittings and venting parts are known as "sleeves." Since EZ is merely the phonetic equivalent of "easy," and thus is essentially a synonym of "easy," the proposed mark informs consumers that the goods are not difficult to install. Several of applicant's competitors tout their pipe fittings as easy to install, and they should not be denied the opportunity to continue to do so. The proposed meanings of the mark offered by applicant "make no sense in the conext of applicant's identified goods."
And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
