Ampere EV, LLC

Mailed: December 31, 2025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Ampere EV, LLC
————
Serial No. 97469877
————
Woodrow H. Pollack and Jodi-Ann Tillman of Shutts & Bowen, LLP,
for Ampere EV, LLC.
Laura Golden, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103,
Stacy Wahlberg, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Heasley, Lavache, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Ampere EV, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks to register the proposed standard character
mark TOUCH SAFE on the Supplemental Register for, as amended, “High voltage
electronic vehicle components, namely, car batteries,” in International Class 9.1
1 Application Serial No. 97469877 was filed June 22, 2022, seeking registration on the
Principal Register based on Applicant’s claimed bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce
under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). On December 18, 2023, Applicant
filed an amendment to allege use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(a), claiming July 27, 2023 as both the date of first use anywhere and the date of first
use in commerce. On December 21, 2023, Applicant amended the application to the
Supplemental Register.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 97469877
2
The Trademark Examining Attorney ultimately refused registration of
Applicant’s proposed mark (i) under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1051-1053, 1127, on the ground that the proposed mark does not function
as a trademark to indicate the source of Applicant’s goods and to identify and
distinguish them from others, and (ii) under Trademark Act Sections 23(c) and 45, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1091(c), 1127, on the ground that the mark is generic and thus incapable of
distinguishing Applicant’s goods.
After the Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration on these
grounds, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration, which the Examining
Attorney denied. The appeal then resumed and both Applicant and the Examining
Attorney filed briefs.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register the proposed
mark under Trademark Act Sections 23(c) and 45 on the ground that Applicant’s
proposed mark is generic and thus incapable of distinguishing Applicant’s goods. We
do not reach the other ground for refusal. Cf., e.g., In re DTI P’ship LLP, No.
76197868, 2003 TTAB LEXIS 171, at *10 (finding applicant’s failure to comply with
a requirement for information was a sufficient basis to refuse registration, and thus
declining to reach an additional ground of refusal based on mere descriptiveness); see
also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE § 1217 (2025)
(noting Board’s discretion to affirm a refusal of registration based on one of multiple
grounds).

Serial No. 97469877
3
I. Genericness – Applicable Law & Analysis
“Generic terms are common names that the relevant purchasing public
understands primarily as describing the genus of goods or services being sold.” In re
Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). They are “by definition incapable of indicating source, are the antithesis of
trademarks, and can never attain trademark status.” In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, generic
terms are ineligible for registration on either the Principal Register or Supplemental
Register. See USPTO v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020) (“A generic
name—the name of a class of products or services—is ineligible for federal trademark
registration.”); In re Jasmin Larian, LLC, No. 87522459, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 99, at
*44 (“Our finding that the proposed mark is generic is an absolute bar to its
registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register.”).
Whether a proposed mark is generic rests on its primary significance to the
relevant public. In re Am. Fertility Soc’y, 188 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Magic
Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Making this determination
“involves a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue?
Second, is the term sought to be registered . . . understood by the relevant public
primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l
Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Importantly, to find genericness, the evidence need not show that the term at issue
refers to a whole category of goods, i.e., the entire genus, because genericness may
also be found if the term refers to a part or subcategory of the claimed genus of goods

Serial No. 97469877
4
or a key aspect of them. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 605 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
A. What is the Genus of the Goods at Issue?
The first part of the genericness inquiry requires us to determine the genus of the
goods at issue. Marvin Ginn, 782 F.2d at 990 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Generally, because the
identification of goods in an application defines the scope of rights that will be
accorded the owner of any resulting registration under Section 7(b) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), “a proper genericness inquiry focuses on the description of
[goods or] services set forth in the [application or] certificate of registration.” Cordua,
823 F.3d at 602 (quoting Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 640).
Here, we agree with the Examining Attorney that the relevant genus is
appropriately defined by the identification of goods: “High voltage electronic vehicle
components, namely, car batteries.”2 See Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 640. Applicant
disputes this determination, arguing that it is “conclusory” and “not supported by
facts or law,” because “the record does not support a finding that TOUCH SAFE is a
class of high voltage electronic vehicle component, namely car batteries.”3 However,
this argument mistakenly conflates the first part of the inquiry, in which we define
the relevant genus of goods to be considered in our analysis, with the second part of
2 See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 12-13. The “TTABVUE” citations in this
opinion refer to entries in the Board’s electronic docket. The number preceding “TTABVUE”
is the docket entry number and any numbers following indicate the relevant page numbers
within the docket entry. See, e.g., Turdin v. Trilobite, Ltd., No. 94002505, 2014 TTAB LEXIS
17, at *6 n.6.
3 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 19.

Serial No. 97469877
5
the inquiry, in which we assess whether the relevant public would understand the
proposed mark to primarily refer to that genus (or a subcategory or key aspect of it).
Further, Applicant has not offered an alternative definition of the relevant genus
here, nor has it provided any argument or evidence that would support a finding that
the identification of goods does not adequately define the relevant genus. In fact,
Applicant’s arguments regarding the second part of the genericness inquiry
essentially adopt the genus defined by the identification, asserting that there is no
evidence that the proposed mark is “a generic reference for a class or category of
high voltage electronic vehicle components and/or car batteries.”4
B. Does the Relevant Public Understand TOUCH SAFE to Primarily
Refer to the Genus of the Identified Goods?
Turning to the second part of the inquiry, we must initially define who the
relevant public is. We concur with the Examining Attorney that the relevant public
consists of ordinary consumers who wish to purchase the goods named in the
identification of goods.5 See Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 641 (“[T]he relevant public for
a genericness determination is the purchasing or consuming public.”).
Thus, the ultimate inquiry here is whether these consumers understand TOUCH
SAFE to refer to a class or category of “high voltage electronic vehicle components,
namely, car batteries,” or to a key aspect or subcategory of those goods. Loglan Inst.
Inc. v. Logical Language Grp., Inc., 962 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting
Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 641). Applicant does not dispute that this is the relevant
4 Id. (emphasis added).
5 See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 13.

Serial No. 97469877
6
inquiry and instead argues only that the Examining Attorney has not provided
evidence of the relevant public’s understanding of the proposed mark.6
Moving on to that issue, “[e]vidence of the public’s understanding of the term may
be obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer
surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers and other publications.”
Merrill Lynch, 828 F.2d at 1570; see also Cordua, 823 F.3d at 599. And when
assessing what such evidence shows with respect to the public’s understanding of the
mark, we must consider the mark as a whole. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d
1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, “[e]ven if each of the constituent words in a
combination mark is generic, the combination is not generic unless the entire
formulation does not add any meaning to the otherwise generic mark.” Id. at 1297
(Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., 786
F.3d 960, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Regardless of whether the mark is a compound term
or a phrase, the applicable test is the same and the Board must consider the record
evidence of the public’s understanding of the mark as a whole.” (citing Am. Fertility,
188 F.3d at 1348-49)).
Here, Applicant’s amendment of the application to the Supplemental Register7 is
an admission by Applicant that, as a whole, TOUCH SAFE is, at a minimum, not
inherently distinctive as applied to the identified goods. See, e.g., In re Clorox Co., 578
6 See Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 19.
7 See December 21, 2023 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 1. The “TSDR” citations in
this opinion refer to the relevant entry and page number in the involved application’s
electronic file within the USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system.

Serial No. 97469877
7
F.2d 305, 308 (CCPA 1978) (“[A]n application for Supplemental Registration of a
particular term as an admission of descriptiveness.”).8 But we must go further to
assess whether, based on the relevant public’s understanding of the proposed mark
in connection with the identified goods, the term TOUCH SAFE, as a whole, is
capable of serving as a trademark for the goods. See Trademark Act Section 23(c), 15
U.S.C. § 1091(c) (indicating that “[f]or purposes of registration on the supplemental
register . . . [a] mark must be capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or
services”).
On that point, the Examining Attorney argues that the evidence of record “shows
that the wording ‘TOUCH SAFE’ in the applied-for mark refers to a characteristic of
electrical products (including vehicle batteries) indicating that the goods meet a
particular safety standard.”9 In support, the Examining Attorney has provided
dictionary excerpts defining (1) “touch” as “to bring a bodily part into contact with,”10
and (2) “safe” as “free from harm or risk.”11 Based on these definitions, when “touch”
and “safe” are combined, the combination, “touch safe” may refer to something that
will not cause harm in the event of bodily contact, i.e., something that is safe to touch.
8 We therefore reject Applicant’s argument that “because the Mark is suggestive, not merely
descriptive, it is registrable on the Principal Register.” Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 18.
9 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 13.
10 April 10, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 7.
11 Id. at 28.

Serial No. 97469877
8
Indeed, the record is replete with evidence establishing that TOUCH SAFE (often
the hyphenated version, “touch-safe”)12 is used in this manner in the relevant
marketplace. This includes the following website excerpts showing various third
parties using “touch safe” or “touch-safe” to refer to electrical components, generally,
and batteries and their components, in particular, that can be handled without risk
of harm:13
• The website for Cleantron Cleantech Batteries (cleantron.nl)
advertises the company’s “[p]owerful modular battery system for [a]
new generation of electronic vehicles,”14 touting the fact that because
“[a] vehicle compartment can contain several low voltage (less than
12 Although much of the evidence shows the hyphenated form, “touch-safe,” we view this
difference as legally insignificant for purposes of the genericness analysis. See, e.g., In re
Noon Hour Food Prods., No. 78618762, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 23, at *2 n.2 (“[M]inor variations
in the display of a generic term (in this case, e.g., ‘bondost,’ ‘Bondost,’ ‘Bond Ost,’ or ‘Bond-
Ost’) typically are legally insignificant. . . . Certainly an upper-case letter or the addition of
a hyphen (or a space) cannot obviate [a genericness refusal] any more than can a slight
misspelling . . . .”).
13 In all of the examples that follow, the emphasis on certain words and phrases is ours. We
are not considering any of the cited examples for the truth of the statements they contain,
but instead as evidence of the use of “touch safe” (or “touch-safe”) to refer to something that
will not cause a shock through bodily contact.
14 September 10, 2024 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 17. Applicant asserts that,
because this excerpt and several others in the record are from foreign websites, they are “not
competent evidence of the United States public’s perception of whether TOUCH SAFE
functions as a source identifier because there is no evidence or reason to infer accessibility
and familiarity with foreign publications by the relevant public.” Applicant’s Brief, 6
TTABVUE 13-14. However, as the Examining Attorney correctly counters in her brief,
“English language material obtained from foreign websites or foreign news publications has
been accepted as competent evidence in trademark examination when it is likely that U.S.
consumers have been exposed to the website or news publication.” 8 TTABVUE 10 (citing In
re Well Living Lab Inc., No. 86440401, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 156, at *12 n.10 (“[I]t is settled
that [i]nformation originating on foreign websites or in foreign news publications that are
accessible to the United States public may be relevant to discern United States consumer
impression of a proposed mark.” (internal quotations omitted))). Here, we find the submitted
excerpts from the websites of foreign companies to be probative because the websites are in
English, are evidently accessible from the U.S., and feature subject matter that the relevant
U.S. consumers might encounter through an internet search. See Well Living Lab, 2017
TTAB LEXIS 156, at *12 n.10.

Serial No. 97469877
9
60V) battery modules or cartridges,” “[t]he end user can . . . change
the touch-safe battery modules with no risk”;15
• Revolt Motors (revoltmotors.com) identifies the batteries for their
electric motorcycles as “Touch-safe,” noting that “[a]ll batteries are
tested for safety and are touch safe”;16
• The website for Sun Farm Energy (sunfarmenergy.net) lists various
battery back-up product options, including the Tesla Powerwall-
branded battery storage system, which features “[l]iquid thermal
controls and touch safe technology [to] maximize battery life and
safety”;17
• The website for West Bay Energy (westbayenergy.com) also advertises
the Tesla Powerwall battery storage system, noting that it “is safe to
install anywhere alongside your home’s or business’s exterior, thanks
to liquid thermal controls and touch-safe technology”; 18
• The website for Victron Energy (community.victronenergy.com)
includes a “Questions & Answers” section where one user’s answer to
another user’s question about connecting battery banks on a boat
states that “[y]ou can float a dedicated battery that is at a touch-
safe voltage”;19
• The Kurt Energy website (kurt.energy) explains the process the
company uses for designing customer-specific battery configurations,
noting that after selecting the appropriate components, it “add[s] the
required safety devices like fused switches, touch-safe
connectors and cables, voltage indicators, etc.”;20
• The website for Delta-Q Technologies (delta-q.com) advertises the
company’s lithium battery chargers and identifies one of the chargers’
“Key Product Attributes” as “Universal Conformity,” noting that
“[c]ompliance with UNECE R10 for electromagnetic compatibility on
road vehicles and touch safe output voltage <60Vdc enables the
15 September 10, 2024 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 23.
16 January 31, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 16.
17 Id. at 20.
18 September 10, 2024 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 56.
19 Id. at 57.
20 Id. at 10.

Serial No. 97469877
10
vehicle to be serviced at all mechanical shops without
specialized high voltage training”;21
• An article on aptiv.com explains that a “high-voltage interlock loop[]
is a safety feature of hybrid and all-electric vehicles that protects
people during the assembly, repair, maintenance and operation of a
vehicle,” and notes that the feature is “just one aspect of a
comprehensive approach to the safe use of electricity in an EV,” which
also includes “[h]igh-voltage connectors throughout the vehicle [to]
provide finger-proof, touch-safe two-step disconnection
technologies to guarantee optimum safety during all handling
operations”; 22
• A post on hackaday.io entitled “Making it touch-safe” discusses a
project to create an “insulator/housing for [a] high-voltage inlet to [an]
inverter” for an electric vehicle, allowing the post’s author to enclose
copper conductor posts and attached cables to avoid “someone
touching a live conductor”;23
• A document on stanleyengineeredfastening.com advertises a “2-piece
fastening system for Copper and Aluminum busbar applications”
designed for use in the “Automotive/EV Industries,” indicating that it
is “Touch Safe”;24
• The website for TE Connectivity (te.com) offers a webinar entitled
“Touch-Safe High-Voltage Battery Solutions,”25 as well as a white
paper entitled “Touch-safe bolt termination for traction
batteries,” which indicates, inter alia, that the contacts for vehicle
battery modules “must also be fully touch-safe in order to
eliminate potential high-voltage and high-power hazards in
both private and commercial vehicles and to ensure safety
towards customers and service personnel as well as regulatory
compliance,”26 and notes that “[t]ouch-safe handling in unmated
and mated conditions and low-resistances electrical connectivity make
[TE Connectivity’s] BCON+ connection system suitable for high
21 Id. at 67-68.
22 Id. at 26-27.
23 Id. at 30.
24 Id. at 96.
25 November 28, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 11.
26 Id. at 14, 16-17.

Serial No. 97469877
11
volume applications . . . enabling safe operation and safe
handling of high voltage battery systems”;27
• The Guchen Electronics website (guchenconnector.com) includes a
blog post entitled “Touch-safe Technologies Used in High
Voltage Connectors,” which discusses “Touch-safe Designs” used
by engineers when designing electric vehicle high voltage connectors
to “prevent operators from getting injured when accidental[ly]
touching . . . live contacts,” including an “Outer Insulating
Protective Jacket,” which “provides protection to personnel from
accidental contact with . . . high voltage insulated conductors
in the connector,” and “Finger-proof Terminals” . . . which effectively
protects the operator by eliminating unintended finger contact
with connector pins”;28
• Green Boat Solutions (greenboatsolutions.com) advertises the Molabo
brand of “touch-safe low-voltage electric solutions,” including
electric drives/motors for boats;29
• Eaton.com advertises Eaton’s “IP20 touch safe” “Moeller series
MSFS feeder system for motor-starter combinations,” noting that it
“facilitates safe power distribution” and that, because “[e]nsuring the
safety of staff working with live electrical equipment is of paramount
importance,” the system’s “built-in cover shields the live parts of
the device and prevents any accidental contact”;30
• A webpage from techbriefs.com discusses the Schneider Electric
lithium-ion battery cabinet, which features a “modular, touch-safe
design [that] simplifies maintenance”;31
• An excerpt from DIYsolarforum.com shows a forum discussion about
the risk of high-voltage batteries in which posters refer to “touch-safe
connectors,” state that “[i]t’s nice to work around skin touch safe
equipment,” and opine that “[their] ideal specs would probably be 8
kWh, 2kW, touch safe connections, [and] UL9540 compliant”;32
27 Id. at 22.
28 Id. at 5-8.
29 Id. at 47.
30 Id. at 53-54.
31 September 10, 2024 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 48.
32 Id. at 24.

Serial No. 97469877
12
• Powermag.com includes an article discussing the “SBS75x Connector”
manufactured by Anderson Power, consisting of a “Touch-safe
connector,” which features a “touch-safe design [that] provides
protection to the user by eliminating finger contact with live
circuits” and “is recommended for use with hazardous DC
voltages . . . where risk of shock can be health-threatening”;33
• The Connector Supplier website (connectorsupplier.com) includes an
article entitled “Touch-Safe Connectors Product Roundup,”
“highlight[ing] finger-proof, touch-safe connectors from leading
suppliers,” such as “Smiths Interconnect’s HBB Series single-pole
circular connectors,” which “are designed to safely and reliably
transmit high currents up to 200 and 500A” “in high-power harsh-
environment applications including electric-drive fighting vehicles,
unmanned vehicles, rail transport, and industrial equipment”;34
“Rhino Series Connectors from Amphenol Military & Aerospace,”
which “are particularly well suited for use in applications including
electric drive vehicles” and feature “IP2X finger-proof protection”;35
and “Phoenix Contact’s Levered Power Combicon (Hybrid) PCB
connectors” “designed to meet the increased touch-proof requirements
of IEC/UL 61800-5-1” and “for use in a broad range of industrial,
telecommunications, automation, measurement and control, drive
technology, and transportation applications”;36
• The Control Engineering website (controleng.com) includes an article
discussing the “ProLine Panelboard from ABB,” which was “certified
by Certifi-Group as touch-safe per IP20 standards,” and explaining
that the “IP20 rating assures that a probe the approximate size
of a finger is not able to make contact with any hazardous,
energized parts,” to ensure that “an operator is isolated from
hazardous or dangerous materials during operations and
maintenance”;37
• The McMaster-Carr online catalog (mcmaster.com) includes a listing
for “Touch-Safe Terminal Blocks,” which are “[r]ated IP20” and
33 April 10, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 44.
34 Id. at 46.
35 Id. at 47.
36 Id. at 48.
37 Id. at 52.

Serial No. 97469877
13
“have recessed terminals to prevent accidental contact with
live circuits”;38
• The Nvent Hoffman website (Hoffman.nvent.com) advertises a
“Touch-Safe UL Light Switch,” which is advertised as “UL listed
for a touch-safe wire connection”;39
• The website for ABB (electrification.us.abb.com) advertises ABB’s
ProLine power distribution panelboards as “the electrical industry’s
first current-limiting, touch-safe and fully coordinated UL 67
panelboard,” and indicates that one of their “key benefits” is that they
are “Touch Safe – IP20”;40
• Another website for ABB (search.abb.com) states that some of ABB’s
“high-performance circuit breakers” have terminals that are “touch
safe”;41
• Acopian.com offers for sale “Linear Regulated Power Supplies” that
are “Mini Encapsulated – with touch safe terminals” and explains
that the products’ “[t]erminal block input/output connections
eliminate all need for sockets or soldering and are touch safe”;42
• A discussion on Cruisersforum.com includes a user noting that
“Cinch-Jones style terminals are not touch safe in a line
voltage use case” and “safety guards are not common for them,”43
with another user stating that “you should definitely cover them”; and
• A Stack Exchange electronics forum (electronics.stackexchange.com)
includes a post from a user stating that “[a]ny working voltage
below 60V is considered ‘touch safe,’ that is, it’s low enough
that it poses almost no shock hazard.”44
38 Id. at 67.
39 Id. at 76.
40 November 28, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 37.
41 Id. at 41.
42 Id. at 42.
43 Id. at 50.
44 Id. at 51.

Serial No. 97469877
14
In addition to this evidence, the Examining Attorney submitted a patent abstract
describing a “Method and device for battery management and battery with integrated
device for battery management,” which states that the claimed battery technology
has “a 100% touch safe design” and characterizes this design as a “significant
security feature” because “measurement of data can be determined without
contact.”45
The record also contains an excerpt from Applicant’s own website, ampereev.com,
discussing the use of Applicant’s Atom Drive EV conversion system to convert a car
from gas-powered to electric.46 The excerpt includes a quote from the person who
installed the system, indicating that he selected the system in part because “it was
the only system we could find that offers thermal management, custom software and
controls, touch-safe HV connectors, NEW battery cells and a warranty—just like
the big OEMs.”47
Based on the record,48 we find that TOUCH SAFE is commonly used in the
marketplace, in both industrial and general contexts, to identify electrical devices,
including vehicle batteries (and their components), that can be handled without risk
of harm caused by electrocution. The evidence, in fact, establishes that this
45 Id. at 26-27 (emphasis added).
46 September 10, 2024 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 11-16.
47 Id. at 16 (emphasis added).
48 A small portion of the evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney does not provide
sufficient contextual information to be probative of how TOUCH SAFE would be perceived,
or is otherwise not sufficiently legible. See, e.g., November 28, 2023 Final Office Action at
TSDR 33 (illegible), 35 (insufficient context). Thus, we have not referenced such evidence in
this opinion or relied on it in our analysis.

Serial No. 97469877
15
characteristic is highly important and, in some cases, necessary for the safe use and
operation of such goods. Indeed, some of the evidence refers to an international
standard that has been developed to rate the safety of electrical devices based on
whether a finger-sized probe can make contact with electrified components, i.e.,
whether they are touch-safe.49
We therefore reject Applicant’s assertions that there is no evidence of record “that
demonstrates the relevant public’s understanding of the ‘TOUCH SAFE’ mark as a
generic reference for a class or category of high voltage electronic vehicle components
and/or car batteries” and that there could “be no such evidence because neither the
[m]ark as a whole nor its individual components mean ‘electric,’ ‘vehicle,’ or
‘components’ or ‘car batteries.’”50 Nor are we persuaded by Applicant’s related
argument that “‘[b]ecause [TOUCH SAFE] is not a generic name to consumers, it is
not generic.’”51
Instead, we find that TOUCH SAFE is generic because the evidence establishes
that ordinary purchasers of high voltage electronic vehicle components in the nature
of car batteries would readily understand the term to refer to a key aspect,
49 See, e.g., April 10, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 52.
50 Applicant’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 19.
51 Id. at 20 (quoting Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 549). Applicant also incorrectly asserts that the
Examining Attorney must establish genericness by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 20.
Actually, “the examining attorney must ‘establish a prima facie case that a term is generic.’”
In re PT Medisafe Techs., 134 F.4th 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing TRADEMARK MANUAL
OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1209.01(c) (2022)). The Federal Circuit has “never held
that the examining attorney must find genericness by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at
1374 n.4 (suggesting that a prior TMEP reference to “clear evidence” was misconstrued as
“clear and convincing evidence”).

Serial No. 97469877
16
subcategory, or type of such car batteries, namely, those that are safe to touch because
they have safeguards against the danger posed by contact with electrical current.52
See, e.g., Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[I]f
the public understands ZERO when used in combination with a designated beverage
name to refer to a sub-group or type of beverage that carries specific characteristics,
that would be enough to render the term generic.”); In re Twenty-Two Desserts, LLC,
No. 86586833, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 269, at *4 (“Any term that the relevant public uses
or understands to refer to the genus of goods, or a key aspect or subcategory of the
genus, is generic.”); In re Cent. Sprinkler Co., No. 74505190, 1998 TTAB LEXIS 386,
at *14 (“[B]ecause the term ATTIC directly names the most important or central
aspect or purpose of applicant’s goods, that is, that the sprinklers are used in attics,
this term is generic . . . .”); cf. In re A La Vieille Russie Inc., No. 75609153, 2001 TTAB
LEXIS 541, at *14 (finding RUSSIANART generic for particular type of art and thus
also generic for dealership services involving that art). In short, TOUCH SAFE
identifies a type of car battery and thus the term should remain “freely available for
use by competitors” who offer the same type of goods. Cent. Sprinkler Co., 1998 TTAB
LEXIS 386, at *14.
52 Applicant’s own use of TOUCH SAFE in the specimen of record appears to rely on this
understanding of the term. Specifically, the specimen consists of a photograph of a battery
module, which displays the wording TOUCH SAFE (including a design consisting of a
lightning bolt within a shield) above the icons for “negative” (“-”) and “positive” (“+”), which
are positioned near what are presumably the negative and positive terminals/connections for
the battery module. See December 18, 2023 Amendment to Allege Use at TSDR 2. In this
context, TOUCH SAFE would likely be understood as indicating that the
terminals/connections are safe to touch.

Serial No. 97469877
17
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark TOUCH
SAFE on the Supplemental Register under Trademark Act Sections 23(c) and 45 on
the ground that it is generic as applied to the identified goods. We therefore do not
reach the other ground for refusal.