TTAB - Trademark Trial and Appeal Board - *1 IN RE VOLVO WHITE TRUCK CORPORATION Serial No. 535,225 June 29, 1990


Serial No. 535,225

June 29, 1990

Hearing: March 7, 1990


Andrew J. O'Rourke and Thomas E. Fisher for applicant



David Stine



Trademark Examining Attorney



Law Office 8



(Sidney Moskowitz, Managing Attorney)



Before Seeherman, Simms and Hanak






Opinion by Seeherman






 Volvo White Truck Corp. [FN1] has appealed from the Examining Attorney's refusal to register on the Supplemental Register the term INTEGRAL SLEEPER, with the word SLEEPER disclaimed, for over-the-highway heavy duty trucks and truck-tractors. [FN2] Registration has been refused pursuant to Section 23 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1091, on the ground that the term is incapable of identifying applicant's goods and distinguishing them from those of others because it is an aptly descriptive, informational phrase which denotes an important feature of the goods. It is the Examining Attorney's position that INTEGRAL SLEEPER aptly describes a sleeping compartment or sleeper which is constructed as an integral part of the driver's cab, rather than as a separate unit.



 Before discussing the evidence, a brief explanation of applicant's product may prove useful. According to applicant, its truck is a conventional (cab behind engine) over-the-highway truck, the cab of which has a driving compartment and a built-in sleeping compartment. In general, driving compartments and sleeping compartments may either be constructed separately and combined later or constructed together as a unit. At the time applicant brought its product to the marketplace its truck was the first conventional truck constructed with a sleeping compartment within the cab structure rather than an optional add-on box-like arrangement.



 The Examining Attorney has made of record the following literature which he asserts demonstrates that INTEGRAL SLEEPER is in generic usage within the relevant trade as a descriptor of a type of truck cab/sleeper configuration:



 1) an excerpt from the April 11, 1988 issue of "Automotive News" in which, in an interview with the chairman of Daimler-Benz of North America Holding Co., Freightliner Corp., Mercedes-Benz Truck Co. and Freightliner of Canada, the following question was asked and response was given:

   What about coming out with an integral sleeper like Volvo's? They've been touting their great success with that product.

   There is something to be said about an integral sleeper in the long conventional segment. We have a sleeper that's not integral that we are selling. A sleeper is not everything. Volvo has a niche in the medium conventional segment with that item, nothing more or less.



 2) Literature for Able Body Corporation's conventional sleeper which describes it as having "the look of an integral...."



 3) Mack Trucks, Inc. December 1988 specification sheets which contain such references as "Aero Aids for Mack Integral Sleepers", "MACK INTEGRAL SLEEPER BOX FEATURES" and "QUICK-MAX MODEL CH613 WITH 60" MACK INTEGRAL SLEEPER"



  *2 4)        Mack Trucks, Inc. literature from 1957 through 1961 which refers to "the integral sleeper bunk", an "optional sleeper compartment which is constructed as an integral part of the body," "an integral sleeper compartment which generously exceeds I.C.C. space requirements and is accessible from the driver's compartment" and "a spacious integral sleeping compartment having a 30-inch mattress and convenient stowage compartment located both within the cab and beneath the bunk's left side." Certain of the specifications state "Sleeper compartment integral." [FN3]



 The Examining Attorney has also made of record a dictionary definition of  "integral" as meaning "of, pertaining to, or belonging as an essential part of the whole; constituent or component". In addition, he has noted a reference in applicant's own literature which states that the "convenient, easy entry/exit bunk is protected from leaks by its integral roof of stamped metal....".



 In arguing against the refusal of registration, applicant asserts that its competitors have not adopted the phrase INTEGRAL SLEEPER in its descriptive sense. Applicant has also indicated its efforts to police its asserted mark, efforts which we would readily describe as aggressive.



 With respect to the usage of "integral sleeper" in the "Automotive News" article, applicant claims that this article is evidence of registrability because it is clear that the interrogator is referring to applicant's vehicle, and that the interviewee recognized that the term identifies applicant. Applicant also provided the correspondence in which it protested the misuse of its trademark to the periodical, in response to which Automotive News stated that "it intends to comply with whatever legal obligations it may have to [[[applicant]."



 As for the advertisement by Able Body Corporation, applicant states that it was not aware of this use until it was brought to its attention by the Examining Attorney, and applicant decided not to protest it because it was transitory in nature.



 With regard to the uses by Mack Trucks, Inc., applicant brought suit in Federal District Court for trademark infringement in connection with Mack Trucks' use of "integral sleeper," as a result of which Mack Trucks acknowledged the validity of applicant's rights in the trademark INTEGRAL SLEEPER. [FN4]



 Applicant also provided evidence of another use by a competitor of "integral sleeper". Applicant states that it protested Saab-Scania's advertising SCANIA trucks as having "an Integral Sleeper cab with comfort instead of add-on sleeping facilities and costly drag." Applicant asserts that, as a result of its protest, the literature was changed, and the product is now described as a "Cab integrated with Sleeper". Applicant characterizes this evidence as showing that another company considered INTEGRAL SLEEPER to be a trademark which it sought to adopt for itself, and that the changed phraseology demonstrates that the genus of these goods can be described without resort to the term "integral sleeper". We should point out though that, contrary to the statements made in applicant's supplemental brief, the evidence does not show that Scania originally used a "TM" designation with the term "Integral Sleeper" and, while the initial letters were capitalized, it is not clear from the advertising literature that Scania treated or intended "integral sleeper" to be viewed as a trademark. Further, although applicant has submitted what it states is Scania's current, changed literature, we note that one use of the phrase "Choice of Day Cab or Integral Sleeper cabs" still remains.



  *3 Also in support of its claim of registrability, applicant has submitted 25 letters written by trade journal editors, vehicle users and vehicle dealers. The overwhelming majority of these letters state that INTEGRAL SLEEPER is synonymous with applicant, and that INTEGRAL SLEEPER identifies certain trucks manufactured by applicant.



 There is no question that the term INTEGRAL SLEEPER is merely descriptive of a major characteristic of applicant's trucks, as shown by the dictionary definition and applicant's literature. Applicant has also conceded that the generic term for an over-the-highway tractor equipped with sleeping compartment is "sleeper", and has disclaimed that term.



 While INTEGRAL SLEEPER may be merely descriptive, based on the record before us we find that, when adopted by applicant, INTEGRAL SLEEPER was not an apt descriptive term for a truck in which the cab and sleeper form an integral unit or the sleeper is an integral part of the cab.



 The record shows that at least since the 1950's, more than two decades prior to applicant's adoption of the term INTEGRAL SLEEPER, sleeping compartments had been an integral part of cabs in cabover tractors. Yet, despite the existence of integrated sleeping compartments in such trucks, there is no evidence that such arrangements of the cabs, or the trucks containing them, were called "integral sleepers". The references in the Mack Truck literature between 1957 and 1961, while using "integral sleeper" as a descriptive term for a bunk or compartment, do not demonstrate that this term is generic for trucks or truck cabs. On the contrary, the fact that there is no evidence that the term was used in a generic manner for trucks prior to applicant's adoption of INTEGRAL SLEEPER for its truck in 1983 indicates that the term was not needed by competitors in order to describe their trucks.



 While applicant sells a conventional, rather than a cabover style of truck, we think this fact is immaterial in determining whether INTEGRAL SLEEPER was an apt descriptive term when it was adopted. There is nothing in the record to suggest that "integral sleeper" is a more descriptive term when applied to a conventional truck than it is for a cabover truck. This case is thus distinguishable from SCREENWIPE, In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987), since cabs with integrated sleeper compartments had been in existence for more than 25 years before applicant adopted the term.



 The issue, then, is whether, since applicant introduced its conventional truck containing a cab in which the sleeper and cab form an integral unit, "integral sleeper" has become a generic term for such an arrangement. It is basic to this inquiry to determine whether members of the relevant public primarily use or understand the term to refer to the genus of goods or services. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire Chiefs Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986).



  *4 The evidence on this point relates almost entirely to the use of  "integral sleeper" with respect to conventional trucks. [FN5]

In our view, the evidence is ambiguous.        The excerpt from "Automotive News", the advertising literature by Able Body Corporation and Scania, and the 1988 specification sheets from Mack Truck support the position that "integral sleeper" has become a generic term in the trade to identify conventional trucks having sleepers as an integral part of the cab. However, because applicant was the originator of this design in 1983, and according to the editor of "Fleet Equipment" magazine, enjoyed a unique market position until relatively recently, these references may have been used as "shorthand" to mean a configuration like applicant's INTEGRAL SLEEPER truck.



 Applicant argues that a factor in determining genericness is whether competitors have a need to use the term. Pointing to the fact that competitors using the term "integral sleeper" in their literature ceased such uses after applicant's protests, and that Mack Trucks, Inc. specifically acknowledged applicant's rights in INTEGRAL SLEEPER as a trademark, applicant argues that this proves that competitors don't need to use the term. We are not so naive as to believe that the only reason competitors might stop using the term is because they recognized the correctness of applicant's position. Instead, rather than defending a costly lawsuit, competitors might well decide to allow applicant, which has been very aggressive in asserting its perceived rights in INTEGRAL SLEEPER, to appropriate a common descriptive term, particularly if there were other terms which they could use. See In re Consolidated Cigar Corp., 13 USPQ2d 1481 (TTAB 1989).



 The 25 letters from those in the trade, while in general supporting applicant's claim that INTEGRAL SLEEPER is recognized as a trademark of applicant rather than a common descriptive term, present some evidentiary problems. These letters were apparently written to someone in applicant's organization in response to requests or telephone discussions (some are form letters, and some repeat the same phraseology). We have no information as to what was said in the telephone calls from applicant's employee which apparently elicited the letters. As a result, the letters are not entitled to great weight. Further, there is some ambiguity in the statements in some of the letters as to whether it is the integrated sleeper configuration, rather than the name INTEGRAL SLEEPER, which the writer associates with applicant. [FN6]



 We candidly confess that we have grave doubts on the issue of whether or not INTEGRAL SLEEPER is an apt descriptive name for applicant's goods. The evidence, as we have noted, contains many ambiguities. It is certainly possible that in fact the trade regards "integral sleeper" as a generic term for conventional trucks with a sleeper integrated in the cab, but because of the limited resources of the Office, the Examining Attorney has not been able to obtain the evidence necessary to prove genericness. In any event, the Patent and Trademark Office has the burden to prove genericness. In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 1987). On the record before us we cannot say that the Examining Attorney has shown INTEGRAL SLEEPER to be incapable of identifying applicant's goods. [FN7] In re Bush Brothers & Co., 884 F.2d 569, 12 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1989).



  *5 Accordingly, we resolve our considerable doubts in favor of applicant, and reverse the refusal of registration on the Supplemental Register.



 Decision: The refusal to register is reversed.



E. J. Seeherman



E. W. Hanak



Members, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board



FN1. It appears from the papers that applicant has changed its name or that the application has been assigned to Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation. If applicant wishes a registration to issue in its current name, it should record its change of name or assignment with the Assignment Division of the Office, and should also advise the Examining Operation.



FN2. Application Serial No. 535,225, filed on the Principal Register May 1, 1985 and amended to the Supplemental Register June 13, 1986.



FN3. Also of record are excerpts of recent advertising of Nissan Diesel America, Inc.'s UD XPRESS cabover tractor, discussed infra, at footnote 5.



FN4. This action was filed in July 1989, shortly before applicant filed its reply brief in the present appeal. It was brought to the Patent and Trademark Office's attention by the clerk of the federal court, and applicant vigorously opposed suspending proceedings pending the outcome of the civil action, stating that any decision in the pending suit would not be dispositive of the issues before the Board. Nonetheless, after the parties to the civil action effected a settlement agreement, applicant attempted to submit the agreement on a confidential basis, as was required by the terms of the agreement. The Board declined to accept the document on this basis, stating that applicant had no obligation to the Board to file the agreement because the private agreement between the parties was not part of the judicial determination by the federal court. Nevertheless, applicant elected to file the settlement agreement without benefit of confidentiality, and the agreement was submitted on February 12, 1990, shortly before the oral hearing held on the appeal. The paper had not been associated with the file at the time of the oral hearing, and neither the Examining Attorney nor the Board had a chance to review it either prior to or at the hearing.

   Normally, we would give summary treatment to a paper which is so untimely filed. In this case, because of the circumstances detailed above, in which the Board sua sponte suspended proceedings because of the civil action, we think it appropriate to allow the agreement settling the action to be placed in the record. At the same time, we recognize that the Examining Attorney never had the opportunity to review the document and accordingly could not comment on it.

   Applicant has also attempted to make of record an agreement with Freightliner Corporation settling another lawsuit. This document was filed on September 8, 1989, after applicant's reply brief was filed and well after the April 17, 1989 date set for the purpose of allowing applicant to file any evidence (a fact which was reiterated in the August 9, 1989 Board action in which applicant was advised that its May 15, 1989 submission was untimely). Since applicant did not request a remand of the application in order to submit this second agreement, we have not considered it.



FN5. We note that there is generic usage of "integral sleeper" in recent literature for the UD XPRESS cabover truck, as noted in footnote 3, supra. However, we are inclined to give it little weight because the usage occurred after applicant had adopted and popularized the term for its product and the later usage may thus be an attempt to trade on the popularity of applicant's product. It must be remembered that for at least for 25 years prior to applicant's adoption of the term INTEGRAL SLEEPER, there had been cabover trucks with sleepers built in, and yet no one utilized the term to describe these trucks per se.



FN6. For example, some of the letters state that "the term 'integral sleeper' and [applicant] have become synonymous as it is an exclusive feature of this product line" (Appendix H) and that INTEGRAL SLEEPER "was used as a model designation for a distinct vehicle configuration that was an exclusive product of [applicant]" (Appendix E). One letter states "no one else builds a True 'Integral Sleeper', a conventional cab with the sleeper integrally built as part of the total structure" (Appendix J), while the following appears in another, "When we think integral sleeper at RAPID WAYS, we automatically think of VOLVO G.M. TRUCK CO. and the original integral sleeper" (Appendix Q).



FN7. We emphasize that our decision is based on the present record. It would not preclude a different result, on a different record, in any cancellation proceeding which might arise as the result of the registration of applicant's mark.





*6 R.L. Simms






 Because I fail to see any origin-indicating capability in the words sought to be registered, I would hold that INTEGRAL SLEEPER is incapable of distinguishing applicant's goods from those of others. While the majority does not seem convinced that the term sought to be registered is a trademark, it has nevertheless resolved doubts in favor of applicant. I have much less uncertainty on this record and believe that the Office (and applicant) have demonstrated that the term sought to be registered is indeed generic. In this connection I would note that seldom, if ever, are we confronted with a case where all of the usages of a term are unambiguous and generic. Here we have usages by applicant of this term in the manner of a trademark and some correspondence tending to support recognition, as well as numerous other instances demonstrating descriptive and generic use of this inherently nondistinctive term by competitors, the trade press and others. I believe the majority has placed an unrealistic burden on the Examining Attorney to demonstrate unregistrability.



 Applicant has conceded that at the time its product was introduced, its truck cab was the first conventional truck with a built-in sleeping compartment constructed as a single unit rather than as an add-on. Although applicant has disclaimed the term "SLEEPER" in its asserted mark, counsel claims that the adjective "INTEGRAL" is capable of identifying a particular brand of sleeper. The evidence of record is sufficient to convince me otherwise.



 I believe that this record shows that "integral sleeper" defines a separate product category which is distinguishable from add-on or separate sleeping compartments attached to the truck cab after manufacture. As both the Examining Attorney and applicant's attorney have apparently agreed, sleepers may be designed as a separate unit attached to the rear of a cab or they may be constructed as an integral part of the cab. [FN1]



 Long before applicant's product came on the market, Mack Trucks, Inc. used the term "integral sleeper" to describe an integrated sleeping compartment of its cabover (cab over engine) vehicle. The product information of this competitor, dating from 1957-61 and made of record by the Examining Attorney, demonstrates the following usages, among others: "Mack Integral Sleeper"; "the cab and the integral sleeper bunk"; "a spacious integral sleeping compartment"; "the optional sleeping compartment which is constructed as an integral part of the body"; "Construction: Welded all-metal, unified cab and cowl. Sleeper compartment integral."



 Other evidence of record makes clear that these words have been used to denote a particular type of cab/sleeper configuration. For example, Nissan's UD Xpress truck has been advertised as a vehicle "[w]ith sleek new body styling, an integral sleeper and a variety of optional extras ..." and "the UD XPRESS' integral sleeper provides a comfortable, quiet sleeping environment." Trade journal articles about Nissan's vehicle note that the "UD Xpress has an integral fiberglass sleeper."



  *7 Saab Scania A.B., which makes both cabover and conventional trucks, at one time (before applicant's protest) used the term "Integral Sleeper" to identify both types of trucks with integrated sleeping compartments:

   Decide between a short-haul, long-term economic Day Cab or an Integral Sleeper cab with comfort instead of add-on sleeping facilities and costly drag. [FN2]



 Able Body Corporation has advertised its Bullet truck as follows:

   The Bullet has built-in air fairings, an eight-foot ceiling and nearly double the interior space any conventional sleeper.

   It will improve MPG, speed and road handling characteristics.

   This patent-pending design has the look of an integral with a plus ... it's removable.

   At last! The best of everything in one unit. Superior aerodynamics, cost savings and big room comfort ... the Able Bullet brings it all together in a sleeper that installs on practically any truck with a smooth, factory-looking fit.



 From a copy of a lawsuit filed by applicant against Freightliner Corporation, which the majority has not considered as being of record, it appears that applicant also sought to stop this company from using "Integral Sleeper" for its trucks. It therefore appears that, after the interview discussed and partially excerpted by the majority, Freightliner introduced its own version of a built-in sleeper cab and used these words in promoting it.



 Applicant's own specimens of record indicate:

   The convenient, easy entry/exit bunk is protected from leaks by its integral roof of stamped metal and all-weld cab construction.



 Applicant makes the rather specious argument that its competitors have not used the term descriptively but as a trademark. A review of the evidence is sufficient to disprove that assertion.



 After consideration of this entire record, it is my view that the term INTEGRAL SLEEPER is generic for a type of truck in which a sleeping compartment is constructed as an integral part of the driver's cab. Members of the relevant public primarily use or understand this term to refer to the genus of goods. H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Asso. of Fire Chiefs Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 (Fed. Cir. 1986). An "integral sleeper" truck is one which incorporates a sleeping compartment as an integral part of the truck. While there may be other ways of referring to applicant's product ("unitary sleeper," "built-in sleeper" come to mind), it is certainly an alternative way of stating that the sleeper is built as a part of the truck body. It is a common or apt descriptive name for applicant's goods, which, like many products, may be named by more than one generic term. In re Sun Oil Co., 426 F.2d 401, 165 USPQ 718, 719 (J. Rich, concurring). I fully agree with the Examining Attorney's statement that:

   [T]here are few, if any, phrases which would more concisely and directly identify the nature of applicant's cab/sleeper configuration. The goods have a driver's cab which is designed with an integral sleeper compartment. (Final Refusal dated May 5, 1987, p. 2)



  *8 The trade usage of record is consistent with the ordinary meaning of these words. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1111-12 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("Gould has simply joined the two most pertinent and individually generic terms applicable to its product, and then attempts to appropriate the ordinary compound thus created as its trademark."), In re DC Comics, Inc., 689 F.2d 1042, 215 USPQ 394, 405 (CCPA 1982) (J. Nies, concurring) and Cummins Engine Co., Inc. v. Continental Motor Corp., 359 F.2d 892, 149 USPQ 559, 561 (CCPA 1966) (holding TURBODIESEL to be a word which by its very nature conveys such a meaning that it cannot be a trademark). This combination of descriptive terms does not render the term unique or incongruous in any way. In re Gould, supra.



 Applicant has taken the position, which the majority has apparently accepted, that, even though the words sought to be registered may be "merely descriptive" of a feature of applicant's goods, the term is not generic or an apt descriptive term for trucks. In support of this position, the majority contends that Mack Trucks, the early user of these words, did not use these words "to describe trucks per se" (Footnote 5). I have no doubt that this early evidence demonstrates use as a generic term for a feature (sleeper constructed as a part of the vehicle) of the cabover trucks. A generic term for a significant feature of a product cannot be a trademark for the product any more than such terms as "V-8," "diesel" or "five-speed," generic terms for features of vehicles, would be capable of indicating origin of automotive vehicles with these features. In re Thunderbird Products Corp., 406 F.2d 1389, 160 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1969) ("cathedral hull"). This term is generic for cabs with a built-in sleeper and is not capable of distinguishing trucks with this feature. Moreover, applicant's position is belied by its disclaimer of, and acknowledgment that, the term "sleeper" is generic for its trucks equipped with sleepers. Under applicant's reasoning, this word would not be a generic term for trucks because "trucks" would not be called "sleepers."



 I also find no merit in applicant's argument that competitors have chosen not to use the term "integral" to describe trucks on which add-on sleepers have been installed. Applicant takes the position that, once installed, these sleepers become just as much an integral part of the vehicle as sleepers that are designed to be a part of the cab, but that competitors have not found it necessary to use the term "integral" to describe such vehicles.



 With respect to applicant's argument that third parties have stopped using the term as a result of threats and litigation, I agree with the majority that the outcome of these conflicts could have been dictated by a desire to avoid litigation and should have little bearing upon the analysis of the understanding by the public of the term sought to be registered. In re Dana Corporation, 12 USPQ2d 1748, 1750 (TTAB 1989). I also agree that little weight should be given to the correspondence from distributors and others attesting to recognition of the term as applicant's trademark. Without more information, such as the letter which prompted the responses, I would give little weight to these letters. [FN3]



  *9 The fact that four of applicant's competitors (Mack Trucks, Nissan, Saab and Freightliner) and some trade publications have used this term generically is significant. It appears to me that the fact that competitors, who at one time used what the majority even concedes are merely descriptive words (and therefore presumably freely available to competitors) to describe their products, must now resort to using such terms as "cab integrated with sleeper" to avoid trademark problems with applicant, is evidence of the sophistry one must engage in to find these words registrable. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary uses "integrated" as a word to define "integral.") Applicant's activity has amounted to nothing more than an overt attempt to use its asserted mark as well its market position to monopolize the market for this type of truck by interfering with competitors' free use of the English language. What the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said in CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, Inc., 531 F.2d 11, 188 USPQ 612, 615 (1975) seems particularly appropriate:

   To allow trademark protection for generic terms, i.e., names which describe the genus of goods being sold, even when these have become identified with a first user, would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are.



 I believe the majority has ignored the common meaning of these words. See Remington Products Inc. v. North American Philips Corp., 892 F.2d 1576, 13 USPQ2d 1444, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In that case, citing In re Thunderbird Products Corp., supra, wherein "cathedral hull" was refused registration for boats because the term had entered into general usage to designate a type of boat hull, the Court stated, at 1449:

   It is very easy for marks consisting of common, simple English words having connotations related to the products on which they are used, their properties, or uses to ship out of their origin-indicating role and into the vernacular as descriptive terms and once that happens the possibility of registration as trademarks under the Lanham Act vanishes.



 I would affirm the refusal of registration.



FN1. One of the definitions of "integral" made of record is:

   of, pertaining to, or belonging as an essential part of the whole; constituent or component.



FN2. Saab Scania now uses the phrase "Cab integrated with Sleeper" to describe its vehicles, which is interchangeable terminology with "integral sleeper cab." Contrary to what the majority states, this is evidence that cabover manufacturers (Mack Trucks and Saab Scania) have used these words to describe their integral sleeper cabs.



FN3. As applicant's attorney has indicated, he has submitted "the good with the bad." Some of the "bad" are:

   Of course, only cab-over-engine sleepers were offered to the market until the Volvo White Truck Company introduced a White conventional with an integrated sleeper and called it the INTEGRAL SLEEPER.

   To my recollection, the White INTEGRAL SLEEPER has enjoyed a unique market position until the Mack Truck Company recently introduced a conventional with an integrated sleeper. I do not believe, however, that this new vehicle was ever referred to as an integral sleeper.

   Maureen, the INTEGRAL SLEEPER has been applied so exclusively to the White nameplate that I was surprised to learn that you did not have it protected. Why, it's almost "part of the language!" (Letter from Fleet Equipment magazine editor, April 11, 1989)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


   As the WhiteGMC dealer in Fresno, California, it has been our pleasure to be merchandising the integral sleeper since about 1983. Our customers have found this combination of a conventional tractor with sleeping accommodations to be a great answer to many of their transportation requirements.

   In our organization the term "integral sleeper" and WhiteGMC have become synonymous as it is an exclusive feature of this product line. Our customers recognize that the WhiteGMC Integral Sleeper is only available from this manufacturer. (General Manager of Central Valley Truck Center, April 13, 1989)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


   Within the many excellent product lines produced by VOLVO GM Heavy Truck Corporation no model name is more descriptive of the product than are "Integral Sleeper". Since its inception, even back to the White Motor Company days, this product has been referred to by both the customer and our sales force as the "Integral Sleeper". (President, WHITEGMC Truck Sales, April 14, 1989)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


   We have been in the transportation business since 1898 and a full time Class 8 truck dealer since 1954. We compete with many other manufacturers, but no one else builds a True "Integral Sleeper", a conventional cab with the sleeper integrally built as part of the total structure. (President, Snyder WHITEGMC Truck Center, April 12, 1989)



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

   RAPID WAYS is currently the owner of (20) twenty Volvo White Integral Conventional Sleepers, (10) ten 1988 models and (10) 1989 models, with which we are very pleased. Driver acceptance has been excellent compared with the obsolete box sleepers from other manufacturers.

   When we think integral sleeper at RAPID WAYS, we automatically think of VOLVO G.M. TRUCK CO. and the original integral sleeper. (Vice President, Rapid Ways Truck Leasing Inc., April 11, 1989)


<< Return to TTAB Final Decision Archive 1990