Source: https://ttabcenter.com/ttabcase/rain-bird-corporation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:05:50+00:00

Document:
The Applicant appeals from the examination refusal of its COPPER Color mark, Application No.
Color mark entitled to registration; and, particularly, on the Principal Register.
involved periodic flushing of subsurface drip irrigation tubing with herbicidal copper-based solutions.
level without evaporation loss typical of above ground sprinklers.
to identify which one is the COPPER Color marked drip tubing.
more accommodating to color marks since the 1993 filing of this prior registered COPPER Color mark.
COPPER Color mark from the typical brown tubing that seamlessly blends into surface landscape.
to accept registration on the Supplemental Register.
Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions, Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee (2017 Edition).
the registered COPPER Color mark discouraged the provision of metal copper drip irrigation tubing.
issues this Office Action to correct that deficiency.
to the entire surface of the goods is an aesthetically functional feature of these products.
presents printouts from websites promoting irrigation tubing of Rain Bird as well as its competitors.
seamlessly blend into the landscape[.] [Emphasis added] October 21, 2012 Office Action, TSDR p. 1.
that the COPPER Color mark does not serve the asserted aesthetic function of brown tubing.
exception of when referring to the Applicants XFS drip irrigation tubing with the COPPER Color mark.
industry does not use these terms to describe typical drip irrigation tubing.
shiny are used only when characterizing the COPPER Color marked tubing.
in color identification are both inadvertent and de minimis.
tubing as being the color brown so that it too can seamlessly blend into mulch and landscape material.
August 13, 2014 Office Action, TSDR p. 1.
tubing is camouflaged so that it visually disappears by seamlessly blending into the surface landscape.
irrigation tubing: seamlessly blending into the surrounding surface landscape.
thirteen basic color groups; and, in these materials the color copper is considered a shade of brown.
the COPPER Color mark relative to the color brown for such tubing.
other evidence contradicting this theory must be wrong. End of story.
seamlessly blends into surface landscape.
on the Copper Shield tubing until the mark literally disappears out of sight underground.
Amendment, TSDR p. 2-7; May 8, 2017 Request Reconsideration, TSDR p. 17-56.
? The copper color of Rain Bird XFS plastic tubing is noticeably different from the usual brown tubing.
? The copper color of Rain Bird XFS plastic tubing is noticeably different from the usual tubing colors.
mark is fourth from the left. October 13, 2015 Response, TSDR p. 77-78.
Color mark is readily recognized as different and distinctive from prior brown drip irrigation tubing.
providing a declaration, these unfounded suspicions of bias continue.
been employed by the applicant.
providing his or her declaration.
Attorneys suspicion of bias is entirely unfounded and completely incorrect.
kind related to providing the declaration. May 8, 2017 Request Reconsideration, TSDR p. 57-58.
distinctiveness or against aesthetic functionality.
design. In re Black & Decker Corp., supra.
[T]here is nothing of record to dispute the statements contained therein[.]).
consideration. See generally, Pic Design Corp. v. Bearings Specialty Co., Inc., 168 USPQ 321 (1st Cir.
separates the color Copper in common understanding from the brown color of wood or coffee.
the COPPER Color marked tubing is distinct and different from typical brown tubing.
and irrigation tubing, conduit and fittings are not uncommon. In its October 13, 2015 Response TSDR p.
for wire rope, such as Wire Rope Corporation of America, Inc. v. Secalt S.A., 196 USPQ 312, 315 (TTAB).
earplugs are more readily visible, allowing for easier and quicker safety checks.
function required of brown color drip line tubing seamlessly blending into surface landscape and mulch.
do the same. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 34 USPQ2d 1161 (U.S. 1995)(emphasis added).
the mark does not serve the stated aesthetic function of seamlessly blending into landscape and mulch.
the color pink to one entity would preclude competitors from using similar flesh colors on bandages.
copper color stands out and makes it easy to see that the crew is installing the right product.
Extracts of declarations recognizing the COPPER Color mark appear above, pages 11 and 12.
seamlessly blends into mulch, dirt or landscape.
recognized the distinction. In Brunswick Corp. v. British Seagull Ltd., 32 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cert.
intended to seamlessly blend into landscape.
August 5, 2016, TSDR p. 15-36.
distinctly different from prior brown drip irrigation tubing.
COPPER Color mark is not aesthetically functional and withdraw the Section 2(e)(5) refusal.
alternative. July 21, 2017 Request for Remand, 9 TTABVUE 2.
registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Registers.
otherwise seem sufficient to find the COPPER Color mark an exclusive source identifier for Rain Bird.
and during examination. Citing, McCormick & Co. v. Summers, 148 USPQ 272,276 (C.C.P.A. 1966); Gen. Foods Corp. v.
MGD Partners, 224 USPQ 479, 486 (TTAB 1984).
from where the Examining Attorney culls his examples.
distinctiveness and should entitle the COPPER Color mark to registration on the Principal Register.
is Inside! on its website and elsewhere. February 23, 2015 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p. 12-13.
FOR THE COPPER COLOR. October 13, 2015 Response, TSDR p. 14-42; August 5, 2016, TSDR p. 15-36.
relevant marketplace recognition of the COPPER Color mark as a source identifier for the Applicant.
tubing available before the introduction of the Applicants XFS drip irrigation tubing.
marked drip irrigation tubing and its tie-in to the Copper Shield chip inside.
or similar Look for tag lines. August 5, 2016 Response, TSDR p. 15-36.
aff d 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Black & Decker Corp., supra.
that the recognition continues to increase.
as acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).
METALLIC COPPER or the like in the July 21, 2017 Request for Remand.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.