Case Name: Application of WALKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-05-05
Citations: 359 F.2d 474
Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 7568
Parties: Application of WALKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 359
Pages: 474–480

Head Matter:
53 CCPA
Application of WALKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Patent Appeal No. 7568.
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
May 5, 1966.
Martin and Smith, JJ., dissented.
William H. Gross, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (George C. Roeming, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before RICH, Acting Chief Judge, and MARTIN, SMITH, and ALMOND, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.
United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Chief Judge WORLEY, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28, United States Code.

Opinion:
ALMOND, Judge.
Walker Manufacturing Company appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration on the Principal Register of the term "CHAMBERED PIPE" for exhaust systems and components for internal combustion engines. Specimens filed with the application consist of labels affixed to the goods bearing the designation "WALKER CHAMBERED PIPE." Registration was thus refused by the examiner and affirmed by the board on the ground that the term "CHAMBERED PIPE" is merely descriptive of appellant's goods within the meaning of Section 2(e) (1) of the statute (15 U.S.C. § 1052).
Appellant's product or exhaust system, in connection with which the term "CHAMBERED PIPE" is used, is described in promotional literature of record as a mechanism which eliminates the conventional muffler by utilizing a series of tuning or silencing portions over the length of a pipe, such portions being carefully determined to secure optimum performance of the exhaust system. To eliminate word description of appellant's system and show comparison therewith to the conventional muffler, we reproduce the following configurations:
It was the examiner's position that the "tuning and silencing portions" are, in fact, chambers formed in the exhaust pipe which permit the expansion of exhaust gases, serving this function in lieu of the large single conventional muffler ; and that the words "CHAMBERED PIPE" aptly describe the system.
In sustaining the examiner, the board pointed out certain promotional and advertisement material used by appellant explanatory and descriptive of the system to which it would affix its alleged trademark. Pertinent excerpts from this material addressed to and disseminated among the automotive trade disclose the following: "There is a 'first' for Olds [Oldsmobile] too: the introduction of the Walker Mfg. Co. chambered exhaust system, thé first major break-through in exhaust systems"; a description of the exhaust system as "a series of small tuning chambers spaced at select intervals along the length of the pipe from the manifold to the exhaust outlet"; "NEW WALKER CHAMBERED PIPE Scientifically designed tuning chambers blend exhaust tones." (Our emphasis.)
Suffice it to say that the record is replete with like promotional material aptly descriptive of appellant's exhaust system.
In view of the above and in further reliance on standard dictionary definition of the word "chamber" as, inter alia, "an increased or compartmental space designed for some special purpose," the board concluded that "CHAMBERED PIPE" merely describes the nature and character of appellant's goods.
Appellant here poses, as it did before the board, the following question:
Without any knowledge whatsoever of Appellant's trademark, would the Court define or describe Appellant's exhaust system as a "chambered pipe" ?
We are in accord with the response made by the board that:
The question is not whether the Board or others may or would utilize "CHAMBERED PIPE" to describe applicant's goods, but whether this designation does, in fact, describe such goods. That there are other words which others may employ to describe or define applicant's goods does not, in any way, lessen the decriptive character of the words "CHAMBERED PIPE."
We think it pertinent to add that it would be difficult to devise or divine a more apt and clearly descriptive term than that by which appellant itself designates and describes its exhaust system. The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.
. Application Serial No. 165,007, filed March 19, 1963. The word "pipe" is disclaimed apart from the mark.