Sunstone Engineering LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: October 16, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Sunstone Engineering LLC
_____
Serial No. 98088456
_____
Thomas Lingard, of Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, for Sunstone Engineering LLC.
Kim Teresa Moninghoff, Trademark Examining Attorney,1 Law Office 113,
Myriah Habeeb, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Heasley, Casagrande and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by O’Connor, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Sunstone Engineering LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the standard-character mark PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER for the
following goods and services, as amended:
electric welding machines; arc welding machines, namely,
tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding machines and gas
1 The application was initially examined by Examining Attorney Ty Murray, who issued an
April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, an August 5, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, a January 1,
2025 Final Office Action and a subsequent Nonfinal Office Action dated August 12, 2025.
Thereafter, the application was examined and the brief in this appeal filed by Examining
Attorney Kim Teresa Moninghoff. Unless noted otherwise, references herein to “Examining
Attorney” refer to both Examining Attorneys Murray and Moninghoff.

Serial No. 98088456
- 2 -
tungsten arc welding (GTAW) machines; electric resistance
welding machines; laser welding machines; electrodes for
welding machines; metal electrodes for welding machines,
namely, tungsten electrodes and tungsten alloy electrodes;
component part for electric welding machines, namely, a
stylus, in International Class 7 and
welding education services, namely, providing educational
seminars, lectures, presentations, workshops, and non-
downloadable videos in the field of electric welding;
education services, namely providing educational
seminars, lectures, presentations, and workshops for the
operation of electric welders; education services, namely,
providing educational seminars, lectures, presentations,
workshops, and non-downloadable videos in the field of
electric welding; education services, namely, providing
educational seminars, lectures, presentations, workshops,
and non-downloadable videos in the field of the operation
and maintenance of an electric welder, in International
Class 41.2
Registration was finally refused on the ground that the proposed mark is merely
descriptive of the identified goods and services under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).3 Prior to the operative final refusal, the initial nonfinal
and final Office actions issued by the original Examining Attorney characterized the
refusal as being based on descriptiveness with a generic advisory, but the substance
of the refusal addressed both descriptiveness and genericness.4 Applicant requested
2 Application Serial No. 98088456 was filed on July 17, 2023 pursuant to Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s averment of a bona fide intent to
use the mark (the “Application”).
3 See February 18, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action, TSDR 2.
4 See April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 2-5; August 5, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action,
TSDR 1 (maintaining the refusal); January 1, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 2-8; see also
Applicant’s July 1, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 4-9 (primarily addressing
genericness). The April 1, 2024 and August 5, 2024 Office Actions also included requirements
to amend the goods and services identification and/or to provide information about
Applicant’s goods and services, which Applicant satisfied.

Serial No. 98088456
- 3 -
reconsideration and filed this appeal, which was suspended.5 In response to the
request for reconsideration, a further Nonfinal Office Action was issued, clarifying
that the genericness refusal in the prior Final Office Action was premature, and
refusing registration based only on descriptiveness, with a generic advisory.6
Applicant responded7 and a Subsequent Final Office Action was issued on February
18, 2026 making final the descriptiveness refusal, and including a generic advisory.8
The appeal resumed, and Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.9
The only issue before us is the descriptiveness refusal under Trademark Act
Section 2(e)(1). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the refusal to register on the
ground of mere descriptiveness.
I. Mere Descriptiveness – Applicable Law
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
prohibits registration of a mark on the Principal Register that, when used in
5 July 1, 2025 Request for Reconsideration; Notice of Appeal, 1 TTABVUE.
6 August 12, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 1-5.
7 February 12, 2026 Response to Office Action, TSDR 4-8 (continuing to argue against both
descriptiveness and genericness).
8 February 18, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action, TSDR 2-5 (informing Applicant that the
generic advisory was not ripe for appeal and Applicant’s appeal brief should only address the
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal).
9 Applicant’s brief is at 6 TTABVUE and the Examining Attorney’s brief is at 8 TTABVUE.
References to the briefs on appeal refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system.
The number preceding “TTABVUE” corresponds to the docket entry number; the number(s)
following “TTABVUE” refer to the page number(s) of that particular docket entry.
Despite the Examining Attorney’s admonition, Applicant’s brief addresses genericness in
addition to descriptiveness. See 6 TTABVUE 2, 7-16. Because genericness is not at issue in
this appeal, we do not address Applicant’s arguments relating to genericness. See, e.g., In re
Sheet Pile, LLC, No. 97010763, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 111, at *15-16 (advisory statements are
not refusals subject to appeal).

Serial No. 98088456
- 4 -
connection with an applicant’s goods or services, is merely descriptive of them. 15
U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge
of an ingredient, quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the identified goods or
services. In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Chamber
of Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). By contrast, a mark is
suggestive if imagination, thought or perception is required to reach a conclusion as
to the qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216,
1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The determination of whether a proposed mark is merely descriptive must be
made in relation to the goods and services for which registration is sought, not in the
abstract. In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This requires
consideration of the context in which the putative mark is used or intended to be used
in connection with those goods or services, and the possible significance that it would
have to the average purchaser of the goods or services in the marketplace. Id.; see
also In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (in assessing whether
applied-for mark is merely descriptive, Board “must consider a mark in its
commercial context to determine the public’s perception”). The question is not
whether someone presented with only the proposed mark could guess the goods or
services listed in the identification, but whether someone who knows what the goods
or services are will understand the proposed mark to convey information about them.
DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir.
2012).

Serial No. 98088456
- 5 -
In order to be descriptive, it is not necessary that the proposed mark describe each
feature of the relevant goods or services, rather, it need only describe a single feature
or attribute. Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300 (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress
Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “Moreover, a mark need not
be merely descriptive of all recited goods or services in an application. A
descriptiveness refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of the [goods or
services] for which registration is sought.’” Id. (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d
1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
“Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant purchasing public may
be obtained from any competent source, such as dictionaries, newspapers, or
surveys.” Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964 (cleaned up), cited in Heritage All. v. Am. Pol’y
Roundtable, 133 F.4th 1063, 1067-68 (Fed. Cir. 2025). It may also be obtained from
“labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods,” In re Abcor Dev.
Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA 1978), or from websites and publications. N.C.
Lottery, 866 F.3d at 1368. Such materials may include Applicant’s own website and
advertising for the goods and services. See, e.g., Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1301
(content of applicant’s website, along with articles discussing the activities of
chambers of commerce, constituted substantial evidence supporting Board’s finding
of mere descriptiveness).
Where a mark consists of multiple terms, the mere combination of descriptive
terms does not necessarily create a non-descriptive word or phrase. In re Phoseon
Tech., Inc., No. 77963815, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 306, at *3. When two or more merely

Serial No. 98088456
- 6 -
descriptive terms are combined, the determination of whether the composite also has
a merely descriptive significance turns on whether the combination of terms evokes
a new and unique commercial impression. See, e.g., In re Omniome, Inc., No.
87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *12-13. “When determining whether a mark is
merely descriptive, the Board must consider the commercial impression of a mark as
a whole,” DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1252, but in the course of doing so we may consider
the significance of each element. See id. at 1253 (“[t]he Board, to be sure, may
ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark”
provided it considers the mark as a whole in the context of the goods or services). If
each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods or
services, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See,
e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
II. Analysis
We first consider the meanings of the component terms in the proposed mark
PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER in relation to Applicant’s goods and services and
then determine whether the proposed mark as a whole is merely descriptive.
The record contains evidence that “welder” is defined as “a machine used in
welding.”10 Applicant’s goods include “electric welding machines” and “laser welding
machines,” which are machines used in welding. Applicant concedes that its goods
10 8 TTABVUE 4 (citing MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, February 18, 2026 Subsequent
Final Office Action, TSDR 6); see also 6 TTABVUE 11 (Applicant’s brief conceding that the
proposed mark “does contain the generic word ‘welder’ that clearly describes a genus (as the
dictionary defines welder as: ‘machine used in welding’”)).

Serial No. 98088456
- 7 -
are, and its services relate to, “welders.”11 The Examining Attorney made of record
evidence that “permanent jewelry” refers to “a piece [of jewelry] (usually a necklace
or bracelet) that’s welded together instead of secured with a clasp.”12 There is also
evidence of third-party use-based registrations for goods or services relating to
“jewelry” or “permanent jewelry” in which the words PERMANENT JEWELRY were
disclaimed,13 and the USPTO’s Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services
Manual (2025) contains entries for repair or welding services for “permanent
jewelry.”14 This supports a finding that the term PERMANENT JEWELRY is
understood by consumers to refer to a type of jewelry. See, e.g., Sweats Fashions, Inc.
v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1564-65 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (third-party
registrations for marks incorporating a term that has been disclaimed may support
position that the term is descriptive of the goods).
We now consider whether, in view of the commercial context, an average
purchaser with knowledge of Applicant’s goods and services would understand the
composite PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER to immediately convey information
about them.
11 See, e.g., 6 TTABVUE 11 (stating that Applicant “is seeking registration of its mobile,
micro-welders and educational services to teach artists how to use its micro welders”).
12 April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 28-29 (article titled “What is Permanent
Jewelry and Why Is It All the Rage?” from time.com/shopping); accord Applicant’s Brief, 6
TTABVUE 6 (distinguishing “a weld that is permanent” from “clasp-closures or crimp-
closures”); see also November 5, 2024 Response to Office Action, TSDR 62-67 (entry on
Applicant’s website titled “Sunstone permanent jewelry” with FAQs about its welder
products and their uses).
13 February 18, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action, TSDR 8-9, 12-25.
14 Id. at 7.

Serial No. 98088456
- 8 -
Once again, Applicant’s goods are:
electric welding machines; arc welding machines, namely,
tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding machines and gas
tungsten arc welding (GTAW) machines; electric resistance
welding machines; laser welding machines; electrodes for
welding machines; metal electrodes for welding machines,
namely, tungsten electrodes and tungsten alloy electrodes;
component part for electric welding machines, namely, a
stylus
and its services are
welding education services, namely, providing educational
seminars, lectures, presentations, workshops, and non-
downloadable videos in the field of electric welding;
education services, namely providing educational
seminars, lectures, presentations, and workshops for the
operation of electric welders; education services, namely,
providing educational seminars, lectures, presentations,
workshops, and non-downloadable videos in the field of
electric welding; education services, namely, providing
educational seminars, lectures, presentations, workshops,
and non-downloadable videos in the field of the operation
and maintenance of an electric welder.
These goods and services are broad enough to encompass or relate to welders used
for affixing permanent jewelry. See In re Allen Electric & Equip. Co., 458 F.2d 1404,
1405 (CCPA 1972) (identified goods were “antennas” and there was evidence in the
record that there are antennas known as “scanning antennas,” such that the mark
SCANNER was merely descriptive).
The Examining Attorney made of record evidence showing descriptive use of the
wording PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER in the marketplace.15 This evidence
includes articles, product listings, and websites, such as the following:
15 In arguing against genericness during prosecution, Applicant stated that its proposed mark
is descriptive. See July 1, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 5 (“Applicant believes

Serial No. 98088456
- 9 -
• Page on linkedpermanentjewelrytraining.com titled “Permanent Jewelry
Machines” discusses products, including several with listings that use the
wording “Permanent Jewelry Welder.”16
• Article on permanentjewelrycenter.com titled “9 Best Permanent Jewelry
Welders in 2024,” stating, inter alia, that “[t]he market is full of various
types of materials, chain vendors, and permanent jewelry welders” and
referring to products of Applicant and third parties using the wording
“permanent jewelry welder.”17
• Amazon.com listings for products offered by Healthible,18 TBVECHI,19 and
SOKO20 each includes the wording “Permanent Jewelry Welder.”
• YouTube video and listing for HELIX product uses the wording “Permanent
Jewelry Welder.”21
• Beadboat1.net listing for Jupiter Welder product includes the wording
“Permanent Jewelry Welder.”22
• AliExpress listing for unbranded product uses the wording “permanent
jewelry welder.”23
• Third party website listings for Applicant’s products use the wording
“permanent jewelry welder.”24
that, based on the facts before the Office, Applicant’s mark is not generic, but is at least
descriptive.”); see also July 1, 2024 Response to Office Action, TSDR 13 (“PERMANENT
JEWELRY WELDER is not generic, but rather suggestive, or, at best, descriptive, of the
goods and services in the Application.”); February 12, 2026, Response to Subsequent Office
Action, TSDR 4 (“the mark PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER is suggestive of the goods
and services, or at best, descriptive”). We need not rely on Applicant’s statements, however,
in view of the record evidence supporting descriptiveness.
16 April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 10-11.
17 Id. at 13, 17, 20, 22.
18 Id. at 48-50.
19 January 1, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 25, 53.
20 Id. at 45.
21 Id. at 10-16.
22 April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 55.
23 Id. at TSDR 62.
24 January 1, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 66 (listing on stonesandfindings.com); 69
(listing on kassoy.com); see also April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 39.

Serial No. 98088456
- 10 -
The Examining Attorney also provided examples of Applicant’s advertising using
“Permanent Jewelry Welder” in a descriptive, if not generic, manner, as seen in
Applicant’s Amazon.com listing, below (calling Applicant’s product “The World’s
Bestselling Permanent Jewelry Welder”).
25
25 April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 39.

Serial No. 98088456
- 11 -
Applicant’s website also uses the term in this manner, stating “Professional
permanent jewelry welder, built by Sunstone.”26 Cf. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d
1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (the applicant’s own specimen provided “the most
damaging evidence” as to how its proposed mark would be perceived by the
purchasing public); see In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *30
(finding that text used on the applicant’s website was the most compelling evidence
of mere descriptiveness).
Based on the foregoing, we find that the proposed mark PERMANENT JEWELRY
WELDER describes a function, purpose or use of Applicant’s goods, that they are used
to weld permanent jewelry. See, e.g., DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1251 (one articulation of
descriptiveness “is that a mark is merely descriptive if it ‘conveys information
regarding a function, or purpose, or use of the goods’”) (quoting Abcor, 588 F.2d at
813). This conclusion is all but unavoidable. Indeed, Applicant states in its brief that
“PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER describes the outcome of the use of the welder
– permanent jewelry is welded onto a customer.”27 The proposed mark also describes
a purpose or characteristic of Applicant’s services, that they relate to welders that
are used to weld permanent jewelry.
Applicant nonetheless argues that its proposed mark is not merely descriptive but
is suggestive. Applicant notes that permanent jewelry is a relatively new product,
and unsophisticated consumers will not understand how welding, commonly
26 February 18, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action, TSDR 29.
27 6 TTABVUE 12 (emphasis omitted).

Serial No. 98088456
- 12 -
understood as “a dangerous industrial process, involving high heat, bright flashes of
light, and providing significant personal risk of bu[rn] injuries,” relates to formation
of jewelry.28 We do not consider the proposed mark in the abstract, however, but from
the perspective of an average consumer who knows what the goods and services are.
Here, the relevant consumers include prospective purchasers of electric welding
machines, including machines used to affix permanent jewelry, and persons seeking
instruction about the operation and maintenance of those machines, such as people
who already have or would like to start a permanent jewelry business.29
To the average consumer familiar with the goods and services, which include
“electric welding machines” and “education services, namely, providing educational
seminars, lectures, presentations, workshops, and non-downloadable videos in the
field of the operation and maintenance of an electric welder,” PERMANENT
JEWELRY WELDER immediately conveys information about the goods and services,
that they are or relate to welders for affixing permanent jewelry. Indeed, as noted by
the Examining Attorney, the combination of “PERMANENT JEWELRY” and
“WELDER” communicates to potential consumers that, as opposed to industrial
28 Id. at 5-6. As observed by the Examining Attorney, 8 TTABVUE 10 n.6, the case Applicant
cites in support of this argument, Stone Lion Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap. LLP, 746 F.3d
1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014), involved likelihood of confusion, not descriptiveness. As we
pointed out earlier, in the descriptiveness inquiry, we determine “the possible significance
that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods.” Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964
(citing, inter alia, Abcor, 588 F.2d at 814 (“descriptiveness of a mark, when applied to the
goods or services involved, is to be determined from the standpoint of the average prospective
purchaser”) (citations omitted)).
29 See, e.g., April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 37 (Applicant’s Orion mPulse 30
product is “an ideal choice for jewelry professionals seeking precision, power and ease of use
in their work”), 40 (“Why More Permanent Jewelry Artists Trust Their Business to the Orion
mPulse”).

Serial No. 98088456
- 13 -
welders, Applicant’s goods are appropriate for affixing jewelry, and its services relate
to using welders for this purpose.30
The record evidence relating to commercial context indicates that this is not a
foreign concept to consumers of Applicant’s goods and services, who include
professional permanent jewelry artists. For example, the stuller.com post made of
record by Applicant states that “[t]he process of fitting your customers with bracelets,
necklaces, and anklets is quick, painless and permanent.… It’s easy to get into the
permanent jewelry business and we are happy to offer a range of welders in a variety
of sizes and price points to fit your needs.”31
We do not find the proposed mark to be incongruous or to require imagination or
a mental pause to convey information about the goods and services. When the words
PERMANENT JEWELRY and WELDER are combined to form the composite
PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER, they retain their original meanings as referring
to features of the goods and services, which are or relate to welders for affixing
permanent jewelry. See, e.g., In re Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 TTAB
LEXIS 281, at *8, 22 (composite mark may be descriptive where combination of terms
does not “convey[ ] any distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to the
descriptiveness of the individual parts”) (cleaned up). This is unlike cases where
incongruity was found because there was a difference or disconnect between the
terms in the mark and the goods or services. See, e.g., In re Shutts, No. 73245440,
30 8 TTABVUE 7.
31 July 1, 2024 Response to Office Action, TSDR 65.

Serial No. 98088456
- 14 -
1983 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *1, 6-7 (SNO-RAKE not merely descriptive of “snow
removal hand tool having a handle with a snow-removing head at one end, the head
being of solid uninterrupted construction without prongs”); In re Tennis in the Round
Inc., 1978 TTAB LEXIS 44, at *6-7 (TENNIS IN THE ROUND not merely descriptive
of providing tennis facilities in a setting that was not analogous to a “theater-in-the-
round”).
Applicant’s other arguments are also unavailing. It is of no moment that
PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER “does not appear in any pre-application
dictionary, trade publication, or industry glossary as a recognized category name.”32
See In re Dahlquist, Inc., 1976 TTAB LEXIS 79, at *6. The fact that Applicant may
be the first user of a term does not render the term distinctive if it otherwise meets
the test for descriptiveness. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *10. The same goes for Applicant’s contention that permanent
jewelry may be affixed by means other than welding. For descriptiveness, it is enough
if the proposed mark describes one significant function, attribute, or property of
Applicant’s goods and services. Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300; Oppedahl &
Larson, 373 F.3d at 1173.
Applicant contends that it “has marketed its mark as a brand, not just a
description.”33 But Applicant’s own advertising uses the designation descriptively, if
not generically. For example, Applicant’s Amazon.com listing states “Trust Your
32 6 TTABVUE 6.
33 Id. at 13.

Serial No. 98088456
- 15 -
Work to a Quality, Branded Permanent Jewelry Welder!” but identifies the brand as
SUNSTONE.34 Occasional use of the TM symbol with the proposed mark35 does not
transform a merely descriptive term into a protectable trademark. “The mere intent
that a term function as a trademark is not enough in and of itself, any more than
attachment of the trademark symbol would be, to make a term a trademark.” In re
Aero. Optics, Inc., No. 76171288, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 126, at *8 (cleaned up). Even if,
as Applicant contends, the third party uses listed above are “knock offs” of Applicant’s
product,36 this does not change the fact that the proposed mark is merely descriptive
of a function, characteristic or purpose of the goods and services. See, e.g., Zuma
Array, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *21 (cleaned up) (“The fact that Applicant may be
the first or only user of a term does not render the term distinctive if, as here, it has
been shown to be merely descriptive of the goods identified in the application.”) (cited
in In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 545, at *30); see also KP
Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 122 (2004)
(trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining “a complete monopoly on
use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first” and thereby “depriv[ing]
commercial speakers of the ordinary utility of descriptive words”) (citation omitted);
Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d 823, 828 (CCPA 1970) (mere fact that
combination of words is adopted and used by a manufacturer with the intent that it
34 April 1, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR 37, 40.
35 See, e.g., January 1, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 61 (“Orion PJ The Original Permanent
Jewelry Welder™”; “The only permanent jewelry welder™ specifically designed for the PJ
artist!”).
36 6 TTABVUE 13-14.

Serial No. 98088456
- 16 -
identify its goods and distinguish them from those of others does not necessarily mean
that purpose has been accomplished).
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the proposed mark PERMANENT JEWELRY WELDER
immediately conveys information about a function, purpose, or use of Applicant’s
goods and services, namely, that they are or relate to welders for affixing permanent
jewelry. We therefore find Applicant’s proposed mark to be merely descriptive of the
identified goods and services, and as such it is ineligible for registration on the
Principal Register absent acquired distinctiveness, which is not asserted.
Decision:
The mere descriptiveness refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is
affirmed.