Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1073

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: RANDY WAYNE WHITE,
Appellant
______________________
2024-1073
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
90758882.
______________________
Decided: July 10, 2025
______________________
J OHN T ODD T IMMERMAN, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick,
LLP, Tampa, FL, for appellant. Also represented by
D UANE A. D AIKER .
ERICA J EUNG D ICKEY , Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
appellee Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by
MICHAEL CHAJON, S ARAH E. CRAVEN, M AI-T RANG D UC
D ANG, AMY J. N ELSON.
______________________
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

IN RE: WHITE 2
Before D YK and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges, and HALL ,
District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Randy Wayne White (“White”) appeals from the final
decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“PTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) re-
fusing registration of the mark YUCATAN SHRIMP. The
Board’s finding that the mark is descriptive—and thus not
eligible for registration—is supported by substantial evi-
dence. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. White owns and operates a restaurant known as
“Doc Ford’s Rum Bar & Grille” on Sanibel Island in Florida.
The name of the restaurant is a reference to the “Doc Ford”
series of novels written by Mr. White. The restaurant of-
fers a dish called “YUCATAN SHRIMP”. The restaurant’s
menu labels it a “SIGNATURE DISH” and includes the fol-
lowing description: “Tomlinson[2] traveled to the Bay of As-
cension, Quintana Roo, Mexico to fish for bonefish and
came back with this great recipe. Steamed peel-and-eat
shrimp in a dressing of real butter, garlic, mild Colombian
chilies, fresh cilantro and Key lime juice.” J.A. 24, 26.
On June 7, 2021, Mr. White filed U.S. Trademark Ap-
plication Serial No. 90758882 (“the ’882 Application”),
seeking protection of the mark YUCATAN SHRIMP (in
standard characters) for use in connection with “prepared
food, namely, shrimp.” J.A. 18. Mr. White subsequently
amended the description to “prepared food, namely,
1 Honorable Jennifer L. Hall, District Judge, United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting
by designation.
2 “Tomlinson” is a fictional character from Mr.
White’s “Doc Ford” novels.
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

IN RE: WHITE 3
shrimp, not live.” J.A. 120. On May 16, 2022, the exam-
iner issued a Final Office Action that refused registration
under the Lanham Act § 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), be-
cause the applied-for mark was merely descriptive of the
identified goods. J.A. 180. The examiner concluded that
“YUCATAN SHRIMP immediately describes a characteris-
tic and ingredient of applicant’s goods, namely, that they
are small crustaceans cooked in the style of the Yucatan
Peninsula in the Gulf Coast of Mexico.” J.A. 182.
Mr. White appealed to the Board, which affirmed the
examiner’s refusal to register the mark. The Board agreed
with the examiner that “YUCATAN SHRIMP, when con-
sidered as a whole, is merely descriptive of the goods in the
application because it identifies a characteristic of the
goods, namely, a Mexican-inspired shrimp dish.” J.A. 7–8.
Mr. White appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
D ISCUSSION
I
We consider whether the Board erred in refusing reg-
istration on the ground that the mark is descriptive. We
review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual
findings for substantial evidence. In re Cordua Rests., Inc.,
823 F.3d 594, 599 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Board’s determi-
nation that a mark is merely descriptive is a factual finding
that we review for substantial evidence. In re TriVita, Inc.,
783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Substantial evidence
“means—and means only—such relevant evidence as a rea-
sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a con-
clusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Consol. Edi-
son Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “Where two
different conclusions may be warranted based on the evi-
dence of record, the Board’s decision to favor one conclusion
over the other is the type of decision that must be sustained
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 3 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

IN RE: WHITE 4
by this court as supported by substantial evidence.” In re
Bayer AG., 488 F.3d 960, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations
omitted).
A mark is not registerable if, when used in connection
with an applicant’s goods or services, the mark is “merely
descriptive” of those goods or services. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1). “A mark is merely descriptive if it immedi-
ately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or
characteristic of the goods or services for which registration
is sought.” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing In re Bayer, 488 F.3d at 963). “The
question is whether someone who is presented with the
mark in connection with the goods or services would under-
stand that the mark describes the goods or services.” In re
TriVita, 783 F.3d at 874 (citing 2 J. Thomas McCarthy,
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 11:16
(4th ed. 2014)).
Thus, we review whether the Board’s conclusion—that
a consumer would understand the YUCATAN SHRIMP
mark to convey information about the dish offered at Mr.
White’s restaurant—is supported by substantial evidence.
II
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion
that the YUCATAN SHRIMP mark is merely descriptive of
Mr. White’s goods. The examiner marshalled a legion of
recipes and descriptions of “Yucatan Shrimp” dishes from
third-party cooking and restaurant webpages, showing
that the public understands “Yucatan Shrimp” to refer to a
dish that features shrimp prepared with a set of common
ingredients associated with Mexican cuisine, such as hot
peppers or sauce, citrus juice, and cilantro. J.A. 39–113.
The Board found that the third-party evidence establishes
that YUCATAN SHRIMP is recognized as a dish using
shrimp and particular ingredients associated with Mexican
cuisine. J.A. 8.
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 4 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

IN RE: WHITE 5
The Board also relied on Mr. White’s own usage of the
mark on his restaurant’s menu. The menu describes the
dish as originating in Quintana Roo, Mexico, which encom-
passes a portion of the Yucatan Peninsula. J.A. 24, 26.
And the menu explains that the dish is prepared using the
same ingredients as the third-party dishes described
above, further supporting the Board’s finding that the pub-
lic would recognize the YUCATAN SHRIMP mark as de-
scribing a shrimp dish with common ingredients. Id.
The third-party webpages and Mr. White’s own menu
provide substantial evidence support for the Board’s con-
clusion that the YUCATAN SHRIMP mark is merely de-
scriptive.
III
Mr. White’s arguments are unpersuasive. Mr. White
first contends that the Board’s decision should be reversed
because the examiner failed to demonstrate “that there is
a particular style of cooking originating, or understood to
originate, in the Yucatan region of Mexico.” Appellant’s
Br. 16. But the examiner relied on a wealth of evidence, in
the form of third-party recipes, dish descriptions, and com-
ments, in support of its finding that consumers associate
YUCATAN SHRIMP with Mexican cuisine and a dish
made with the same primary ingredients. Indeed, Mr.
White’s restaurant’s menu expressly associates Mr.
White’s YUCATAN SHRIMP dish with Mexican cuisine.
The mere fact that some third-party recipes had variations,
including additional ingredients, did not preclude the
Board from drawing the reasonable conclusion that
YUCATAN SHRIMP describes the characteristics and in-
gredients of Mr. White’s own dish.
Next, Mr. White contends that the Board improperly
relied on a “new ground for refusal” of the registration that
was not relied on by the examiner. According to Mr. White,
“the [Board]’s subtle shift from the mark being merely de-
scriptive of ‘a style of cooking that originates in the
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 5 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

IN RE: WHITE 6
Yucatan region of Mexico,’ to being merely descriptive of a
‘Mexican-inspired’ food dish, was improper.” Appellant’s
Br. 30–31. We disagree. The Board’s use of slightly differ-
ent language is not a new ground. Both the Board and the
examining attorney refused the Application on the same
ground that the mark is merely descriptive of Mr. White’s
shrimp dish.
Mr. White further asserts that the examiner erred by
disregarding certain evidence Mr. White submitted. Mr.
White submitted a 2010 New York Times article and recipe,
along with accompanying public comments, describing the
Doc Ford’s Rum Bar & Grille’s YUCATAN SHRIMP recipe
and associating it with the restaurant. J.A. 125–175. Alt-
hough the examiner did not consider this evidence, the
Board did consider it and concluded that it “does not rebut
the Examin[er’s] far more extensive third-party restaurant
and cooking website evidence.” J.A. 11. Thus, even if the
examiner’s refusal to consider the evidence were erroneous,
any error was harmless because the Board considered the
evidence and reasonably concluded that the YUCATAN
SHRIMP mark is merely descriptive. Indeed, the article
contains several public comments associating the dish with
Mexico and Mexican cuisine, further supporting the
Board’s finding that consumers would understand
YUCATAN SHRIMP to describe a characteristic or ingre-
dient of Mr. White’s dish.
Finally, Mr. White contends that any doubts as to de-
scriptiveness should have been resolved in his favor. This
argument simply repackages Mr. White’s complaints about
the Board’s adverse finding. There is no basis on this rec-
ord to conclude that the examiner or the Board doubted the
descriptiveness of the mark or that they improperly re-
solved any doubts against Mr. White.
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 6 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

IN RE: WHITE 7
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision that
the YUCATAN SHRIMP mark applied for in the ’882 Ap-
plication is descriptive of Appellant’s goods or services and
therefore ineligible for registration.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1073 Document: 66 Page: 7 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 7 of 7 --