Eggbar Holdings, LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: July 14, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Eggbar Holdings, LLC
_____
Serial No. 98619785
_____
Sam M. Fakih and Gloria Y. Saad of Fakih & Associates PLLC,
for Eggbar Holdings, LLC.
Harrison Neidish, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 120,
Joshua Toy, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Larkin, Elgin, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Brock, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Eggbar Holdings, LLC seeks registration on the Principal Register of the proposed
mark EGGBAR (in standard characters) for “restaurant services featuring breakfast
sandwiches, hash browns, coffee, matcha, and fruit drinks” in International Class
43.1
1 Application Serial No. 98619785 was filed on June 26, 2024 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere since
at least July 26, 2023 and in commerce since at least August 1, 2023.

Serial No. 98619785
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that the mark EGGBAR is
merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified services. When the refusal was made
final, Applicant appealed.
The appeal is fully briefed.2 For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the refusal
to register Applicant’s mark.
I. Mere Descriptiveness
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), prohibits registration
of a proposed mark that is merely descriptive of an applicant’s goods or services
unless the mark has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(f). “A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a
quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is
used.” In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation omitted).
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,” In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007), as well as “labels,
2 Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE; Reply Brief, 7
TTABVUE.
Applicant attached to its main brief the December 4, 2025 Final Office Action and the
ESTTA filing receipt for its notice of appeal, which is not necessary.
Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other materials in the case docket refer to
TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. The number preceding TTABVUE
corresponds to the docket entry number, and any numbers following TTABVUE refer to the
page(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear.

Serial No. 98619785
- 3 -
packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods.” In re Abcor Dev. Corp.,
588 F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA 1978). It may also be obtained from websites and
publications, In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017), including
Applicant’s own website. See, e.g., In re Promo Ink, No. 76541018, 2006 TTAB LEXIS
138, at *7 (examining attorney is “permitted to introduce evidence that applicant’s
own literature supports the descriptive nature of the term.”).
The Examining Attorney submitted dictionary evidence defining the word EGG
as “[t]he oval, thin-shelled reproductive body of a bird, especially that of a hen, used
as a food,” and BAR as:
a. A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic drinks,
and sometimes food are served.
b. An establishment or room having such a counter.3
A further dictionary definition of BAR notes use of the term in a “shop sense … a
coffee bar.”4
The Examining Attorney also included a screenshot of Applicant’s menu; the
seven sandwiches – all pictured – include a “steam-baked egg” in the description or
an egg is visible in the sandwich:
3 January 29, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action, 6, 8-9 (THE AM. HERITAGE DICTIONARY).
Page references to the application file refer to the online database of the USPTO’s TSDR
system. All citations to documents contained in the TSDR database are to the downloaded
.pdf versions of the documents.
4 Id. at 11-13 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).

Serial No. 98619785
- 4 -
5
This shows that the “breakfast sandwiches” listed in the identification of services all
include eggs. Accordingly, the terms EGG and BAR are each descriptive of Applicant’s
“restaurant services featuring breakfast sandwiches, hash browns, coffee, matcha,
and fruit drinks,” because food, such as Applicant’s egg-based breakfast sandwiches,
can be served at or by a counter.
The Examining Attorney also attached websites and online menus from third-
party restaurants to show the following:
5 Id. at 27.

Serial No. 98619785
- 5 -
• Cracked Eggery – “shows that eggs are used in sandwiches and provided via
restaurant services.”6
• Another Broken Egg Café – “demonstrates that eggs are provided via
restaurant services and that bars are common within restaurants.”7
• Founding Farmers – “shows that eggs are served in restaurants and that bars
are common within restaurants.”8
• Breakfast Bar Hispanic Fusion – “At Breakfast Bar, we believe that a great
breakfast is not complete without a great mimosa or a glass of wine.”9
This evidence tends to show, consistent with Applicant’s own menu, that eggs are
part of restaurant meals and that restaurants include bars.
“Where a mark consists of multiple words, the mere combination of descriptive
words does not necessarily create a non-descriptive word or phrase.” In re Zuma
Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *8 (quotation omitted).
Therefore, we must “consider the commercial impression of a mark as a whole …”
Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. FritoLay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(citation omitted; emphasis in original changed to bold). “If each word instead retains
its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods, [then] the combination
results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.” Zuma Array, 2022 TTAB
6 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 3; evidence in January 29, 2025 Nonfinal Office
Action at 34-8.
7 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 3-4; evidence in January 29, 2025 Nonfinal Office
Action at 39-41.
8 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 4; evidence in January 29, 2025 Nonfinal Office
Action at 42-54.
9 January 29, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action at 55-61. The Examining Attorney explains that
this evidence “demonstrates that the term ‘BAR’ is not only used to describe the serving of
alcohol but food,” 6 TTABVUE 4, but the evidence shows the contrary. Nevertheless, this
evidence shows a breakfast restaurant that offers alcoholic drinks as from a bar.

Serial No. 98619785
- 6 -
LEXIS 281, at *8 (quotation omitted); see also DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro
Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (we are “required to examine
the meaning of each component individually, and then determine whether the mark
as a whole is merely descriptive.”) (citation omitted).
The evidence establishes that the terms EGG and BAR retain their descriptive
meaning in the proposed mark EGGBAR. An egg is a food sold in restaurants, and
bars can also sell food; EGGBAR restaurant services immediately informs purchasers
that the menu will include foods containing eggs. Additionally, consumers are used
to phrases like “coffee bar,”10 confirming that the term “bar” is not limited to alcoholic
drinks (as noted in the dictionary definitions).
As further evidence that the mark is descriptive as a whole, the Examining
Attorney points to Applicant’s specimen of use: “applicant’s own specimen of record
drives home the point of eggs being an important feature of applicant’s restaurant
services as the image of an egg appears prominently behind the mark”:11
10 January 29, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action, 11-13 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY) (BAR
definition includes: “shop sense … a coffee bar”) (cleaned up).
11 6 TTABVUE 4; June 24, 2024 Application, specimen at 3.

Serial No. 98619785
- 7 -
Applicant argues that the proposed EGGBAR mark does not immediately describe
Applicant’s services because the “reasoning process requires mental steps and
inference.”12 In essence, Applicant argues that EGGBAR is an incongruous
combination of terms, because “[w]hen consumers encounter the term ‘BAR,’ their
immediate association is with alcohol service, not with a particular food or menu
item.”13 Applicant offers no evidence in support of this assertion. See In re Ye Mystic
Krewe of Gasparilla, No. 90522364, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *13 n.15 (“Attorney
argument is no substitute for evidence”) (citations omitted). Further, the argument
is belied by the Examining Attorney’s dictionary evidence that a “bar” may serve food,
12 4 TTABVUE 7.
13 Id.

Serial No. 98619785
- 8 -
the dictionary example of a “coffee bar,” and the evidence of food restaurants that
include bars and bar service.
Applicant implicitly requests us to set aside evidence of its own use and find
instead that its proposed mark is suggestive because “it does not fall within the
category of marks whose meanings are immediately apparent.”14 “Descriptiveness of
a mark is not considered in the abstract. Rather, it is considered in relation to the
particular goods for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used,
and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of
the goods because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Bayer, 488 F.3d at 963-
64 (citations omitted). “The question is not whether someone presented with only the
mark could guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether
someone who knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to
convey information about them.” DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1254 (citation omitted); see
also In re Berkeley Lights, Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *17 (“in
descriptiveness cases in which there is record evidence of the applicant’s use of the
proposed mark, the Board ‘must consider [the] mark in its commercial context to
determine the public’s perception.’”) (quoting In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2017)).
The record shows that in connection with Applicant’s services, purchasers would
recognize EGGBAR as immediately conveying knowledge of a quality of Applicant’s
“restaurant services featuring breakfast sandwiches” and other foods, namely, that
14 Id. at 11.

Serial No. 98619785
- 9 -
the menu will include breakfast sandwiches containing eggs served in a “bar” setting
or at a counter. See, e.g., In re King Koil Licensing Co., No. 76565486, 2006 TTAB
LEXIS 62 (THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of “beds, mattresses,
box springs and pillows” based on dictionary definitions and excerpts of web pages).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark, EGGBAR, on the
basis that the mark is merely descriptive is affirmed.