Swatch sought to register the mark:

Click here to view image.

for “jewellery, horological and chronometric instruments.”  In its application, Swatch described the mark as containing the term “TOURBILLON” below a design of a “tourbillon.”  Swatch disclaimed the exclusive right to use the term TOURBILLON for horological and chronometric instruments, but did not enter that disclaimer as to jewelry.  The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark in its entirety merely describes the goods. 

A tourbillon is a feature or component of horological or chronometric instruments.  Thus, the Board agreed that the term is highly descriptive of a watch having a tourbillon.  The applicant argued, however, that TOURBILLON is not descriptive of jewelry.  The Examining Attorney maintained that watches are a category of jewelry and thus, the term is equally descriptive of jewelry.  The Board agreed with the Examining Attorney, finding the evidence sufficiently established that watches are readily perceived to be a category of jewelry.  

The Board was not bothered that this interpretation creates a redundancy in the identification of goods, pointing out that “redundancy in an identification does not limit or otherwise adversely affect the evidentiary value of a registration certificate.”

The Board also ruled that the design element of the mark represents a tourbillon and is also merely descriptive of the identified goods.  Even though the design is not an exact representation of the component of the element in Swatch’s goods, it still conveys an immediate idea of a feature of the goods and lacks any additional fanciful, arbitrary or suggestive matter.

In re The Swatch Group Management Services AG, Case no. 85485359 (TTAB April 18, 2014) [precedential].