In In re Kinetic Energy Corp., the applicant argued that its SOLARWINDOWS mark was not descriptive of “Solar-powered electricity generators”; “Apparatus for converting electronic radiation to electrical energy, namely, photovoltaic cladding panels; Apparatus for converting electronic radiation to electrical energy, namely, photovoltaic solar hybrid modules; Apparatus for converting electronic radiation to electrical energy, namely, photovoltaic solar modules; Photovoltaic cells; Photovoltaic cells also including a solar thermal collector sold as a unit; Photovoltaic cells and modules; Solar cells”; and “Semi-finished plastic films and sheets to be used in solar or photovoltaic modules; Substrates primarily of ceramic, silicon and non-metals for electrical or thermal insulation of solar cells, photovoltaic cells, and solar collectors.”
In making its argument, the applicant argued that the words SOLAR and WINDOWS have multiple meanings, many of which were not merely descriptive of applicant’s goods. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejected applicant’s argument, stating
We also are not persuaded by applicant’s argument that the individual terms have multiple meanings, many of which are not descriptive of the identified goods. Again, as stated, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods. The fact that the terms “solar” and “window” have other meanings in other contexts is simply not controlling on the question of descriptiveness presently before us.
Accordingly, applicants should not rely on the fact that the words comprising their marks may have other meaning that are non-descriptive when the words also have meanings that are descriptive in trying to avoid a descriptiveness refusal.