BalletCollective Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: July 7, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re BalletCollective Inc.
_____
Serial No. 97567146
_____
Randolph E. Digges, III, of Rankin, Hill & Clark LLP,
for BalletCollective Inc.
Amy E. Thomas, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,1
Loksye Lee Riso, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Thurmon, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
BalletCollective Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the proposed standard-character mark BALLETCOLLECTIVE for:
Music composition services; dance and ballet composition services, namely,
dance and ballet choreography for others; Entertainment services in the
nature of live visual and audio performances, namely, music, dance and
ballet performances; Entertainment in the nature of dance performances;
Planning arrangement of showing ballet performances; Presentation of
1 The application was reassigned to the Examining Attorney, identified above, after Applicant
filed this appeal. We use “Examining Attorney” to refer to the current and previously-
assigned examining attorneys.

Serial No. 97567146
- 2 -
ballet performances; Providing a website featuring information in the field
of music, ballet and entertainment in International Class 44.2
Applicant asserts a claim of acquired distinctiveness for the proposed mark
pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).
Registration of the proposed mark is refused under Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45 of the
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1053 and 1127, on the ground that BALLETCOLLECTIVE is
generic for the identified services.
In the alternative, the Examining Attorney refuses registration on the ground the
proposed mark is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1), and Applicant has not shown that the proposed mark has acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f).
After the mere descriptiveness refusal was made final, Applicant filed a notice of
appeal and then filed an appeal brief.3
Before filing an appeal brief, the Examining Attorney requested suspension of the
appeal proceeding and that the Board remand the application in order for the
Examining Attorney to submit additional evidence relevant to the issue on appeal.4
The Board granted this request5 and both the Examining Attorney and Applicant
submitted additional evidence on remand. Subsequently, the Examining Attorney
2 Application Serial No. 97567146 was filed on August 26, 2022 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), alleging February 8, 2013 as the date of first use
anywhere and in commerce.
3 1 TTABVUE (Appeal) and 4 TTABVUE (original Appeal Brief).
4 6 TTABVUE.
5 7 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 97567146
- 3 -
issued another final Office Action refusing registration on the same aforementioned
grounds.6 The appeal proceeding resumed;7 and has been fully briefed.8
For the reasons below, we affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark
on the genericness ground.
Genericness
“A generic name--the name of a class of products or services--is ineligible for
federal trademark registration.” In re Uman Diagnostics AB, No. 88960633, 2023
TTAB LEXIS 77, at *3 (quoting U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B.V., 591
U.S. 549, 551 (2020)). “A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness, cannot
acquire distinctiveness,’ and is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or
Supplemental Register under any circumstances.” Id. (quoting In re La. Fish Fry
Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v.
Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1982)).
“A term is generic if it refers to the class or category of goods or services on which
it is used.” Id. (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted)). “To refuse registration based on a
proposed mark being generic, the examining attorney must ‘establish a prima facie
case that the term is generic.’” In re PT Medisafe Techs., 134 F.4th 1368, 1373 (Fed.
Cir. 2025) (quoting TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”)
6 8 TTABVUE.
7 9 TTABVUE.
8 10 TTABVUE (Applicant’s supplemental Appeal brief); 12 TTABVUE (Examining
Attorney’s Appeal Brief); and 13 TTABVUE (Applicant’s Reply Brief).

Serial No. 97567146
- 4 -
§ 1209.01(c)(i) (2022)). “Thereafter, the ‘burden shifts to the applicant to come
forward with evidence to rebut the prima facie case.’” Id. (quoting In re Pacer Tech.,
338 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “Then the Board, in reviewing an examining
attorney’s refusal to register a mark, considers the full record.” Id. The Board
determines registrability “on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence
with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument” on contested issues. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“Determining whether a mark is generic … 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?” PT Medisafe, 134 F.4th at 1374 (quoting Marvin Ginn, 782 F.2d
at 990). A “registration is properly refused if the word is the generic name of any of
the goods or services for which registration is sought.” In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823
F.3d 594, 605 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation and quotation marks omitted) (“[T]he term
‘pizzeria’ would be generic for restaurant services, even though the public
understands the term to refer to a particular sub-group or type of restaurant rather
than to all restaurants.”). “Whether a mark is generic is a question of fact.” Bullshine
Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, 130 F.4th 1025, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
I. What is the Genus of the Services and Who is the Relevant
Purchasing Public?
Because the recitation of services in an application defines the scope of rights
conferred by Section 7(b) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b), the genericness inquiry
ordinarily “focuses on the description of services set forth in the [application or]

Serial No. 97567146
- 5 -
certificate of registration.” Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 602 (quoting Magic Wand, Inc.
v. RDB, Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Here, Applicant and the Examining Attorney are in agreement that the relevant
genus is that described in the application’s identification of services, including:
“entertainment in the nature of dance performances” and “planning arrangement of
showing ballet performances; [and] presentation of ballet performances.”9 We agree
and summarize this genus as entertainment services in the nature of dance and ballet
performances.
Before continuing with the second step in the inquiry, we must identify the
relevant public for entertainment services in the nature of dance and ballet
performances. See Royal Crown Co. v. Coca‑Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2018). The relevant consumer for a genericness determination is the purchasing or
consuming public for these services. Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 641. In this case, the
relevant consumers are ordinary purchasers, or attendees, of entertainment services
in the nature of dance and ballet performances. Royal Crown, 892 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]he
parties do not dispute the Board’s determination of the relevant consuming public as
‘ordinary consumers who purchase and drink soft drinks, energy drinks, or sports
drinks.’”).
Thus, the ultimate question is whether these consumers understand
BALLETCOLLECTIVE as primarily referring to a class or category of entertainment
9 Applicant’s Supp. Br., 10 TTABVUE 10 (“the genus at issue, which is defined by Applicant’s
identification of services”); Examining Attorney’s Br., 12 TTABVUE 4 (“the genus of the
services may be defined by an applicant’s identification of services”).

Serial No. 97567146
- 6 -
services in the nature of dance and ballet performances. Loglan Inst. Inc. v. Logical
Language Grp., Inc., 962 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Magic Wand, 940
F.2d at 641).
II. Does the Relevant Public Understand BALLETCOLLECTIVE to
Primarily Refer to the Class or Category of Entertainment
Services in the Nature of Dance and Ballet Performances?
Whether a term is generic “turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies
to consumers the class of … services.” Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 557. See also In re
Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“An inquiry into the public’s
understanding of a mark requires consideration of the mark as a whole.”).
[W]hen a firm wishes to string together two or more generic
terms to create a compound term … courts must determine
whether the combination of generic terms conveys some
distinctive, source-identifying meaning that each term,
individually, lacks. … If the meaning of the whole is no
greater than the sum of its parts, then the compound is
itself generic.
Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 567 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).
A. The Evidence and Arguments
Evidence regarding the relevant purchasing public’s understanding of a term
“may be obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer
surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers, and other publications.”
In re Hikari Sales USA, Inc., No. 86439012, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 73, at *7 (quoting In
re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

Serial No. 97567146
- 7 -
1. Dictionary Definitions
We begin with dictionary definitions. When a proposed mark is composed of
dictionary words, those definitions generally inform its meaning and connotation.
Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns Inc., 955 F.3d 994, 996 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“The Board relied on dictionary definitions of the terms ‘stratus’ and ‘strata’
to evaluate similarities in the connotation of each mark.”).
With the first Office Action, the Examining Attorney attached the following
definitions of the terms “ballet” and “collective”:10
“BALLET: a theatrical art form using dancing, music, and scenery to convey
a story, theme, or atmosphere”; and
“COLLECTIVE: a collective body: group.”
Based on these definitions, the Examining Attorney contends that, “[t]aken as a
whole, the term ‘ballet collective’ identifies a group coming together to create
theatrical art forms using dancing, music, and scenery to convey a story, theme, or
atmosphere.”11 The Examining Attorney also argues that the applicability of these
defined meanings, as taken together, is further corroborated by Applicant’s
description of its services. Specifically, the Examining Attorney points to “about page”
on Applicant’s website that provides (bold for emphasis added):12
To create and perform forward thinking works of art that reflect the world
we live in, BalletCollective commissions emerging and established art
makers and thought leaders to collaborate closely using an original process
that inspires ballet-based works. BalletCollective exclusively performs
10 June 15, 2023 Office Action, TSDR at 7-10 and 19-24 (screenshots from Merriam-Webster
Dictionary).
11 12 TTABVUE 5-6.
12 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR pp. 67-68.

Serial No. 97567146
- 8 -
commissioned, collaborative work that reimagines ballet for 21st century
audiences...By its nature, BalletCollective consists of a rotating group of
artists and collaborators. With each new collective new ideas, new
challenges, and ultimately, new forms of expression emerge.
Applicant, on the other hand, points to the lack of a definition for the composite
term, BALLETCOLLECTIVE, arguing:13
But the absence of dictionary definitions is highly probative. If
BALLETCOLLECTIVE was truly a generic term that consumers
understand and use, it would appear in dictionaries or in common usage.
2. Internet Evidence of Third-Party Use
The Examining Attorney also submitted evidence from multiple third-party uses
of “ballet collective(s)” in connection with ballet performances and entertainment,
including the following excerpts (bold for emphasis added):14
• The Black Iris Project website
“Choreographer Jeremy McQueen unveils The Black Iris Project: A ballet
collective where Black lives become works of art.”15
• LA Dance Chronicle website
“Bay area visitors meet NY guests al fresco downtown, site specific dance in
Santa Ana, and a flamenco fest in a Santa Barbara park, all live! Plus an online
hip hop fest, a ballet collective’s new contemporary works, and dance
inspired by veterans’ letters, COVID vaccines, the samba, a prior pandemic,
plus more SoCal dance this week.”16
13 13 TTABVUE 6.
14 Screenshots from websites attached to January 22, 2025 Office Action. The Examining
Attorney also listed a similar synopsis of this evidence (at 12 TTABVUE 6-7).
15 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 25.
16 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 34.

Serial No. 97567146
- 9 -
• Dance Magazine website:
“The Pillow has presented countless dance artists, and the Inside/Out series is
no exception. Last year’s participants included Caleb Teicher & Dancers,
Danielle Agami’s Ate9 dANCE cOMPANY, the traditional Indian dance of
Preeti Vasudevan & Thresh Performing Arts, a ballet collective of
Christopher Ruud & The Stars of Ballet West, an Urban Bush Women lecture
demonstration and many more.”17
• Nick Jaina website
“He has composed music scores for feature films … He also co-founded a ballet
collective in New York City, in which he was the musical composer and
worked with dancers from Juilliard and New York City Ballet and performed
works at the Baryshnikov Center and BAM Center for the Arts.”18
• Comment on Reddit chat group:
“Also some adult ballet intensive have a performance at the end. There are also
some almost ballet “collectives” that are like dancer lead dance projects that
perform at different smaller scale events.”19
• City of Mobile (Alabama) website:
“Delta Resource Educational Association of Mobile, Inc. (D.R.E.A.M.) will host
Collage Dance Collective, a world-class ballet collective showcasing a
repertoire of relevant choreography and a dynamic group of classically trained
dancers from around the world.”20
The Examining Attorney also relies on evidence showing third-party use of the
term BALLET COLLECTIVE as part of marks or trade names being promoted in
connection with ballet performance services, including:
• Ballet Collective SD is a platform for local professional dancers in San Diego
under the guidance of Jenny Asseff and Emily Miller to train at no cost, create
work, challenge each other in the pursuit of excellence. Through project-based
performances during off-season in summer, we share the joy of dance with the
greater San Diego and national community.21
17 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR pp. 31-32.
18 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 43-44.
19 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 47.
20 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 49.
21 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR pp. 78-79.

Serial No. 97567146
- 10 -
• OMNI Ballet Collective is a conservatory program which provides a
superlative ballet training alongside the opportunity to grow in other dance
styles. Ballet Dancers today are ... multifaceted in ballet as well as jazz
contemporary, and more. OBC is a unique environment for pre-professional
ballet dancers to excel their ballet technique with a freedom to explore
alternative dance styles.22
• Fermata Ballet Collective, Inc. diversifying ballet and creating
collaborative experiences ... FBC’s ongoing mission is to diversify ballet in
creating renewed paths within the dance experience and create collaborative
performance opportunities with the goal to safely house artists by
acknowledging identity, personal experience, while creating enriching and
inclusive programming, workshops, and events for dancers and the
community.23
• The Ballet Collective shall serve to provide an inclusive and safe space for
those passionate about ballet to take classes without formally enrolling in a
university class.24
• The Adult Ballet Collective is a group a of amateur adult ballet dancers and
dance enthusiasts of varying levels of experience seeking to showcase their love
of dance through performance opportunities in and around the Norman and
Oklahoma City metro. The Collective has partnered with Askew Ballet
Academy and its CEO and Director Penny Askew, an accomplished dance
educator, adjudicator, and choreographer.25
• IGNITE BALLET COLLECTIVE - Our mission is to enrich dancers’ lives by
offering supplemental ballet training and community performance
opportunities. We aim to foster artistic growth and cultivate a deep love for
ballet. To ensure well-rounded development, our collective dancers are
required to take weekly classes at their home studios in addition to our
programs.26
• For years, we have waltzed into dance studios and regional companies and
worked with dancers to help them develop a deeper understanding of ballet
through choreography. Also known as “The Ballet Bomb”, the Deep South
Ballet Collective focuses on creating works that will not only showcase
22 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR pp. 85-86.
23 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR pp. 104-105.
24 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 89.
25 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 94.
26 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 97.

Serial No. 97567146
- 11 -
dancers but also allow them to progress. We are true collaborators who love
working together and with dancers from beginner thru advanced.27
The Examining Attorney argues that “[b]ased on the foregoing evidence, the
relevant consuming public would understand the term BALLETCOLLECTIVE to
refer primarily to a group providing ballet performances and related ballet services
including the other services listed in the application.”28
Applicant, in the face of the aforementioned evidence, again focuses its argument
against the genericness refusal on the basis that the evidence only shows use of
component terms with a space between them, but not like Applicant’s proposed mark,
BALLETCOLLECTIVE, in its compound form:29
There is no evidence that BALLETCOLLECTIVE, taken as a whole,
signifies to consumers the class of services identified in the application.
There is no evidence that consumers have asked or would ask for their
favorite BALLETTCOLLECTIVE (sic) provider. The
BALLETCOLLECTIVE mark is used, and has been used, exclusively by
Applicant for twelve years as a source-identifying mark for its services.
3. Applicant’s Evidence
For purposes of our genericness determination, we have given consideration
to all of Applicant’s submissions, including evidence submitted in support of
Applicant’s claim that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness. This
evidence includes the declaration, and supplemental declaration, of Applicant’s
27 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 101.
28 12 TTABVUE 8.
29 13 TTABVUE 4 (emphasis in original).

Serial No. 97567146
- 12 -
Artistic Director, Troy Schumacher, and the attached exhibits.30 Schumacher
avers, inter alia, in his declarations that:
• Applicant “and its presenting partners spend tens of thousands of dollars
per year on advertising in social media and on other Internet search
engine-based advertising, which in recent years has generated more than
a million annual impressions of the BALLETCOLLECTIVE mark.”31
• Applicant “has sold thousands of tickets to live music, dance and ballet
performances under the BALLETCOLLECTIVE mark since 2011.”32
• In 2024, “the BalletCollective mark was actively and prominently used to
advertise and promote [Applicant’s] services. … These campaigns reached
8,295 households through direct mail and generated over 130,000 digital
impressions via paid Meta and Google Advertising … [and] [t]his level of
interaction is evidence that the mark conveys a specific source and
identity to the public.”33
• “In a post-performance survey completed by 25% of ticket buyers
[approximately 100 in-person attendees], 91% agreed that
‘BalletCollective has a unique mission within the world of ballet,’ and 67%
stated they are ‘as or more interested in seeing BalletCollective perform
vs. legacy dance companies.’”34
Some of the exhibits attached to the Schumacher declarations include:
• Six letters, signed under oath, from individuals who for the most part
work and have extensive experience and knowledge in the field of dance
and ballet.35 Each individual states that they recognize “BalletCollective”
as a name that refers specifically to Applicant.
30 First declaration attached to Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR pp. 23-
243; supplemental declaration attached to Applicant’s response filed June 26, 2025, TSDR
pp. 17-40.
31 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR p. 23 (Schumacher Dec. ¶ 3).
32 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR p. 23 (Schumacher Dec. ¶ 4).
33 Applicant’s response filed June 26, 2025, TSDR p. 19 (Schumacher Dec. ¶ 5).
34 Applicant’s response filed June 26, 2025, TSDR p. 19 (Schumacher Dec. ¶ 6). Schumacher
testified that this “survey” was in conjunction with Applicant’s 2024 Fall Season involving
“three live performances sold out (396 in-person attendees).” Id.
35 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR pp. 38-50. The letters are from
Alastair Macaulay (“a critic of the performing arts”), Augusta Thomas (a composer and

Serial No. 97567146
- 13 -
• a Wikipedia online dictionary entry for “BalletCollective” that describes
Applicant’s activities.36
• a copy of a “New York State Department of State Certificate of Service
Mark Registration” for “BalletCollective,” issue on September 22, 2022.37
• a Printout from a “DDP Dance Data Project” website listing “The Largest
150 U.S. Ballet Companies,” with BalletCollective appearing in the 89th
position.38
• Printouts from thirty (30) websites containing “unsolicited online articles
and/or media coverage … referenc[ing] Applicant and Applicant’s services
using the applied-for BALLETCOLLECTIVE service mark, and never
once stat[ing] that the primary significance of [the mark] to the relevant
public is the class or category of goods or services with which it is used.”39
B. Genericness Analysis
We have considered, as we must, “the full record” in this appeal for assessing
whether the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the primary significance
of Applicant’s proposed mark BALLETCOLLECTIVE is to refer to the relevant genus
of services, namely, entertainment services in the nature of dance and ballet
performances. PT Medisafe, 134 F.4th at 1373. Upon doing so, and as explained
collaborator with Applicant), Duke Dang (Executive Director Works & Process at the
Guggenheim performing arts center), Leslie Tonner Curtis (a “supporter” of Applicant and
attendee of Applicant’s performances for fifteen years), Marina Harss (a “dance critic and
writer at The New Yorker” and other publications), and Jonathan Stafford (Artistic Director
of New York City Ballet and Chair of Faculty of The School of American Ballet). Applicant
provided an oath and signature page for each letter with its response filed June 26, 2025.
36 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR pp. 31-34.
37 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR p. 36.
38 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR pp. 38-39.
39 Applicant’s response filed December 11, 2023, TSDR pp. 22-23, 54-246 (printouts from
websites).

Serial No. 97567146
- 14 -
below, we find that BALLETCOLLECTIVE to be a generic term for this genus of
services.
At the outset, we address Applicant’s primary argument regarding the
significance of its proposed mark being a compound term. That is, Applicant asserts
that “the ‘one word’ vs. ‘two words’ distinction is legally significant” and that
“Applicant’s use of BALLETCOLLECTIVE (one word) is unique, distinctive and is
used exclusively by Applicant and is recognized by the public as Applicant’s brand …
[while t]here is no evidence in this regard to the contrary.”40 In support, Applicant
relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Booking.com, citing specifically to
the following language:41
Under these principles, whether “Booking.com” is generic turns on whether
that term, taken as a whole, signifies to consumers the class of online hotel-
reservation services. Thus, if “Booking.com” were generic, we might expect
consumers to understand Travelocity—another such service—to be a
“Booking.com.” We might similarly expect that a consumer, searching for
a trusted source of online hotel-reservation services, could ask a frequent
traveler to name her favorite “Booking.com” provider.
591 U.S. at 557.
However, applying the above Booking.com rationale to this case, Applicant’s
argument is not persuasive given the evidence adduced by the Examining Attorney.
That is, as the above-listed website evidence demonstrates, there are others that
provide dance and ballet entertainment services and are described to the public as a
“ballet collective(s)”—to wit, the website for the City of Mobile, Alabama describes
40 13 TTABVUE 5.
41 13 TTABVUE 4 (Applicant’s reply brief, citing to Booking.com).

Serial No. 97567146
- 15 -
the “Collage Dance Collective” as “a world-class ballet collective showcasing a
repertoire of relevant choreography and a dynamic group of classically trained
dancers from around the world.”42 Thus, following the Booking.com logic, this
evidence shows that we might expect a consumer looking for a ‘trusted source’ of
ballet or dance entertainment to expect to receive these services from a “ballet
collective,” such as Applicant or any one of the third parties identified in the evidence
as “a ballet collective.”
The Supreme Court also confirmed in Booking.com that “[a] compound of generic
elements is generic if the combination yields no additional meaning to consumers
capable of distinguishing the goods or services.” Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 560. As
Justice Breyer reiterated in his dissent, “when a firm wishes to string together two
or more generic terms to create a compound term,” the compound term remains
generic when “the meaning of the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts.”
Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 567.
The Board and our primary reviewing court also have long held that a party
cannot obtain exclusive rights to a merely descriptive or generic term by merely
depicting the constituent terms as a compound word, i.e., without a space, when the
separate words retain their descriptive or generic significance when joined in the
compound. See In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
(SCREENWIPE generic for a wipe for cleaning television and computer screens); In
re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811 (CCPA 1978) (GASBADGE at least descriptive for
42 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR p. 49.

Serial No. 97567146
- 16 -
gas monitoring badges; three judges concurred in finding that term was the name of
the goods); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 1977 TTAB LEXIS 96 (BREADSPRED
descriptive for jams and jellies that would be a spread for bread); In re Perkin-Elmer
Corp., 1972 TTAB LEXIS 108 (LASERGAGE merely descriptive for interferometers
utilizing lasers). Indeed, as the Board pointed years ago, “[i]t is almost too well
established to cite cases for the proposition that an otherwise merely descriptive term
is not made any less so by merely omitting spaces between the words … .” Minn.
Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp., 1967 TTAB LEXIS 152, at
*4.
While there are situations or circumstances where we may find “the whole [of a
mark to] be greater than the sum of its parts,” Princeton Vanguard, 786 F.3d at 966-
7, this is not the case here. The words “ballet” and “collective” retain their same
defined meanings despite being joined—and consumers will not discern any
additional non-generic meaning as a result of their joinder. Rather, the relevant
consumers will easily and readily understand BALLETCOLLECTIVE as merely an
expression of a “ballet collective,” without the space, and a reference to the genus of
services. Simply put, the proposed compound mark, BALLETCOLLECTIVE, conveys
the same generic meaning to consumers as the sum its generic component terms—
”the entire formulation does not add any meaning to the otherwise generic mark.” See
Steelbuilding, 415 F.3d at 1297.
Similarly, and to the extent that Applicant relies on its own particular use of the
proposed mark with the first letter in the component terms capitalized—

Serial No. 97567146
- 17 -
BalletCollective—this does not alter or obviate the generic meaning of the proposed
mark. To the contrary, capitalizing the first letter of each word further assists
consumers to more quickly identify each generic term. In any event, Applicant seeks
registration of the mark, BALLETCOLLECTIVE, in standard character format,
which means that it, if registered, Applicant will have protection and may use the
mark in any font style, size or color, including in all capital or all lowercase letters.
See Trademark Rule 2.52(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.52(a); see also In re Viterra, Inc., 671 F.3d
1358, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a standard character mark may be depicted in any
font style, size, or color, and not merely “reasonable manners” of depicting such
mark). Thus, we cannot assume Applicant will always use the mark in that manner
and it will be given rights to use the mark in all lowercase letters—“balletcollective”—
as well as in all uppercase lettering.
As to Applicant’s reliance on the six letters from individuals with significant
experience and knowledge in the ballet and dance world, we are less persuaded by
their statements that Applicant’s use of “BalletCollective” distinctly identifies
Applicant’s services, than we are by the evidence of various other entities being
described as “ballet collectives.” The statements from the six individuals reflect only
the opinions of those who are already familiar with Applicant, with some having had
a business relationship with Applicant or its principal, Mr. Schumacher. We agree
with the Examining Attorney statement that “none of the authors [of the letters]

Serial No. 97567146
- 18 -
could be considered an ‘ordinary purchaser,’”43 and, taken together, the letters do not
represent the spectrum of consumers.
Moreover, as the Examining Attorney also points out, the letters all refer to
Applicant’s use of “BalletCollective,” with one stating “[a]nd by using the words
together, ballet+collective, [Schumacher] created a name that had an unusual,
stylistic and memorable ring to it, not to mention the internal capitalization of the ‘C’
- all in all a perfect logo.”44 Again, Applicant is seeking registration of a mark
BALLETCOLLECTIVE in standard characters, not stylized with mixed case
lettering. Thus, as the Examining Attorney correctly observes, “[n]one of the [letter
writers] allude to the understanding of the relevant public with regard to the term
BALLETCOLLECTIVE.”45
In contrast, the Internet evidence adduced by the Examining Attorney,
demonstrates that a broader representation of the relevant consuming public, such
as those interested in attending ballet and dance performances, frequently encounter
and will immediately understand the term “ballet collective” to refer to an entity that
renders entertainment services in the nature of dance and ballet performances. The
excerpted language, listed above, reveals that the term “ballet collective” is used in
normal parlance by various entities to describe and promote these entertainment
services. The websites are directed to an audience of individuals who may be
43 12 TTABVUE 18.
44 12 TTABVUE 18 (quoting the letter from Leslie Tonner Curtis, attached to June 26, 2025
Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 34).
45 12 TTABVUE 18.

Serial No. 97567146
- 19 -
interested in attending ballet performances. Thus, this evidence better reflects the
relevant consumers.
In addition, the evidence of use of the term BALLET COLLECTIVE in third-party
marks or trade names, along with source-identifying matter, e.g., “Ignite Ballet
Collective” and “Deep South Ballet Collective,” further establishes that this is a term
readily used by others in connection with ballet performances. In other words, the
evidence proves that the relevant public perceives BALLETCOLLECTIVE primarily
as the genus of services rather than as a source identifier.
We also agree with the Examining Attorney that Applicant’s own description of
its services on its website is probative and corroborates the genericness of the
proposed mark. See In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, No. 86358219, 2018 TTAB
LEXIS 64, at *28 (applicant’s own materials “may be probative, or even, … ‘the most
damaging evidence,’ in indicating how the relevant public perceives a term.” (quoting
In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). That is, Applicant
describes itself as “consist[ing] of a rotating group of artists and collaborators” and
“with each new collective,” it offers entertainment services in the nature of “ballet-
based works.”46 This description of its services is in line with how the overall mark
will be understood based on the plain meanings of the composite terms.
Applicant’s specimen of use submitted the application also contains the following
description:47
46 January 22, 2025 Office Action, TSDR pp. 67-68.
47 Application specimen of use, filed on August 26, 2022, TSDR p. 1.

Serial No. 97567146
- 20 -
As pointed out, Applicant refers to itself as a “non-profit arts collective” that
creates “new, ballet-based works.” The specimen also depicts (on the left) the word
BALLET above and separated from the word COLLECTIVE.
In view of the above, we find the preponderance of the evidence sufficiently
supports the refusal that the primary significance to the relevant consuming public
for the proposed mark BALLETCOLLECTIVE is a generic term for the relevant
genus of services, i.e., entertainment services in the nature of dance and ballet
performances. Compare Hikari Sales, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 73 (finding ALGAE
WAFERS generic for fish food based on, inter alia, extensive third-party use in trade
publications, dictionaries, and media), with In re GJ & AM, LLC, No. 86858003, 2021
TTAB LEXIS 203 (finding COOKINPELLETS.COM not generic for processed wood
pellets for use in barbecue grills, after resolving “doubt” in applicant’s favor).
Accordingly, Applicant’s proposed mark must be refused registration under
Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45 of the Act.
In view of our determination that the proposed mark is generic in connection with
entertainment services in the nature of dance and ballet performances, we do not
reach the alternative ground for refusal and determine whether Applicant’s proposed
mark has acquired distinctiveness based on the record. That is, if a term is found to
be generic, no amount of evidence of acquired distinctiveness can change that result.

Serial No. 97567146
- 21 -
In re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (where
the proposed mark is deemed generic, “inquiry … [as to acquired distinctiveness] is
not necessary”) (internal citation omitted).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark on the ground of
genericness is affirmed.