Facility Automation Systems LLC

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: April 27, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Facility Automation Systems LLC
_____
Serial No. 98425350
_____
Joseph R. Falcon III of Barley Snyder,
for Facility Automation Systems LLC.
Rhonna Kollenkark, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 126,1
Jeffrey Look, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before English, Elgin, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register of the standard-character
mark CLOUD BAS ECOSYSTEM for the following services:
“Installation, maintenance and repair of building
automation equipment” in International Class 37, and
1 The application was reassigned to the above-listed examining attorney to prepare the appeal
brief. The Trademark Examining Attorney during prosecution was Taylor Duenas of Law
Office 126.

Serial No. 98425350
- 2 -
“Design, installation, updating and maintenance of
computer software for building and facility automation” in
International Class 42.
Applicant seeks registration under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b),
based upon an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.2
The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that it is merely
descriptive of the services identified in the application. Applicant appealed and filed
a request for reconsideration, which was denied. Following resumption of the appeal,
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs. The appeal is now ready for
decision. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the refusal.
I. Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act excludes from registration any “mark which,
(1) when used on or in connection with the [services] of the applicant is merely
descriptive ... of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A mark is “merely descriptive” within
the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) “if it immediately conveys information concerning a
feature, quality, or characteristic of the [services] … for which registration is sought.”
In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also In re Chamber of
Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “A mark need not immediately
convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the [services] in order to be
considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it describes one significant attribute,
function or property of the [services].” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No.
2 Ser. No. 98425350 was filed on Feb. 28, 2024.

Serial No. 98425350
- 3 -
86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *4 (citing In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1218
(Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Descriptiveness is not considered in the abstract; it is analyzed in relation to an
applicant’s identified goods or services, “the context in which the [term] is being used,
and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of
the [goods and services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re
NextGen Mgmt., LLC, No. 88098031, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *6-8 (quoting In re
Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64 (2007)); see also Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300;
Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *4. We ask “whether someone who knows what
the goods and services are will understand the mark to convey information about
them.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (quoting DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted)).
A mark is suggestive, and not merely descriptive, if it requires imagination,
thought, and perception on the part of someone who knows what the goods or services
are to reach a conclusion about their nature from the mark. See, e.g., Fat Boys, 2016
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *11. Because we consider the context of the use, that a term
may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling on the question of
descriptiveness. In re RiseSmart, Inc., No. 85050089, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 448, at
*8 (citing In re Chopper Indus., No. 273140, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6). “So long
as any one of the meanings of a word is descriptive, the word may be merely

Serial No. 98425350
- 4 -
descriptive.” In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., No. 78542726, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 66,
at *19 (citations omitted).
We also must “consider the commercial impression of a mark as a whole … viewed
through the eyes of a consumer.” Real Foods, 906 F.3d at 974 (cleaned up, quoting
DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1253) (emphasis in original omitted). “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 (quoting In re Omniome, Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB
LEXIS 414, at *12). “[I]f 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.” Omniome, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *12. Only where the
combination of merely descriptive terms creates a unitary mark, or a mark with a
unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods or
services is the mark registrable as suggestive. Id.
Refusals for mere descriptiveness, like other refusals, are based on evidence
bearing on public perception of the mark. See, e.g., Real Foods, 906 F.3d at
974 (descriptiveness inquiry “consider[s] the commercial impression of a mark as a
whole, viewed through the eyes of a consumer”) (cleaned up, citation and italics
omitted); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The
perception of the relevant purchasing public sets the standard for determining
descriptiveness.”). Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant
purchasing public may be obtained from any competent source, Nett Designs,

Serial No. 98425350
- 5 -
236 F.3d at 1341, such as dictionaries, newspapers, or surveys. Bayer, 488 F.3d at
964. It also may be obtained from websites and publications. See N.C. Lottery, 866
F.3d at 1368.
A multiclass application, like the one at issue here, is the equivalent of separate
applications. G&W Labs., Inc. v. G W Pharma Ltd., No. 91169571, 2009 TTAB LEXIS
2, at *6 (“[A] multiple-class application can be viewed as a series of applications for
registration of a mark in connection with goods or services in each class, combined
into one application”). We must determine the issue of descriptiveness as to each class
of services.
II. Discussion
A. What Are Applicant’s Services?
We start by discussing the nature of Applicant’s services in each class. Again, the
services are “Installation, maintenance and repair of building automation
equipment” and “Design, installation, updating and maintenance of computer
software for building and facility automation.” The plain meaning of “building
automation equipment” and “building and facility automation” refers to systems that
enable a building operator to automate operations (e.g. without human labor).3 Thus,
3 See, e.g., MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/automation,
accessed Apr. 27, 2026) (defining “automation” as, inter alia, “automatically controlled
operation of an apparatus, process, or system by mechanical or electronic devices that take
the place of human labor.”). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions,
including online dictionaries that exist in printed format. In re Cordua Rests. LP, No.
85214191, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 94, at *6 n.4; see also B.V.D. Licensing Corp. v. Body Action
Design, Inc., 846 F.2d 727, 728 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“dictionaries and encyclopedias may be
consulted”).

Serial No. 98425350
- 6 -
the services cover installing and maintaining such systems and the software that
operates them.
B. Is the Mark Merely Descriptive of the Services?
1. Is Each Term Merely Descriptive of the Identified Services?
We first consider whether the separate terms, CLOUD, BAS, and ECOSYSTEM,
have any meanings; and if so, whether they each are merely descriptive of Applicant’s
services. In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., No. 78806413, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 465, at
*14 (“First, we examine the evidence concerning the meanings that would be ascribed
to the term BATTLECAM and the separate terms BATTLE and CAM, when used
with applicant’s goods.”) (citing In re Zanova Inc., No. 75519495, 2001 TTAB LEXIS
340 (ITOOL would be perceived as short for “Internet tools” and was refused as
descriptive for goods and services including software for creating webpages).
It is well settled that a mark is considered to be merely descriptive of goods or
services within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it “forthwith conveys an immediate
idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the
goods or services.” Zuma Array, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *5 (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
a. BAS
Although BAS is the second term in the mark, we start with this term because it
informs the meanings of the other terms in the mark (i.e., CLOUD and
ECOSYSTEM).

Serial No. 98425350
- 7 -
The Examining Attorney asserts that BAS is an acronym standing for “building
automation system.” A term, an initialism, or an acronym is merely descriptive when
it is a recognized abbreviation for the goods or services in the application, or is
otherwise understood as being “substantially synonymous” with the merely
descriptive words it represents.4 In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., No. 76681269, 2011 TTAB
LEXIS 9, at *14-15 (citing Modern Optics, Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F.2d 504, 506
(CCPA 1956)); see also In re BetaBatt, Inc., No. 77036122, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 59, at
*9-11 (holding DEC substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term “direct
energy conversion” and thus merely descriptive of a type of batteries and battery
related services).
The record includes an entry from the “Acronym Finder”: “BAS stands for Building
Automation System (Sprint).”5 Website excerpts confirm this understanding. A
webpage from the company Schneider Electric states that “[a] building automation
system (BAS) allows an operator to access, control, and monitor all connected building
systems from a single interface.”6 A website excerpt from the company Daikin
confirms, “Daikin’s scalable, cloud-based building automation systems (BAS)
instantly and easily optimize the performance of any HVAC ecosystem-including
4 An acronym is “a word (such as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or
letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term,” whereas an
initialism is “an abbreviation (such as FBI) formed from initial letters.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER
DICTIONARY (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acronym, accessed Apr. 27, 2026). It is unclear
from the record whether BAS is properly considered an acronym or an initialism; but the
result is the same either way.
5 Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 16. The meaning of “Sprint” is not explained. See also
Apr. 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 7.
6 Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 20.

Serial No. 98425350
- 8 -
other makes and existing building systems.”7 Several articles from Intelligence Power
Today explain that: “Building Automation Systems (BAS) offer a compelling
proposition for building managers, promising energy sayings, streamlined
operations, and improved occupant comfort,”8 and “Building Automation Systems
(BAS) have become a cornerstone of modern building management, offering the
promise of optimized energy consumption, improved occupant comfort, and
streamlined operations.”9 The evidence of record establishes that BAS is an acronym
for “Building Automation System.”
Applicant does not dispute this connotation of BAS. Instead, it argues that the
acronym BAS is not “so generally understood as to be substantially synonymous” with
the underlying phrase,10 and “[w]here the meaning of an acronym is not immediately
apparent, descriptiveness cannot be presumed.”11 In particular, Applicant argues
that “‘BAS’ lacks universal consumer recognition even within the building
automation industry. It competes with other terms such as ‘BMS’ (Building
Management System) and ‘EMS’ (Energy Management System), none of which have
achieved lexical exclusivity.”12 There are two problems with this argument.
7 Apr. 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 17. We take notice that “HVAC” is an initialism
for “heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/HVAC, accessed Apr. 27, 2026).
8 Apr. 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 33; see also id. at TSDR 36, 37.
9 Id. at TSDR 21.
10 6 TTABVUE 12.
11 Id. (citing Modern Optics, 234 F.2d at 504 (finding term CV not merely descriptive as not
generally understood to be an abbreviation for “continuous vision”)).
12 Id.

Serial No. 98425350
- 9 -
First, Applicant fails to point to any evidence in the record supporting it.13
Attorney argument is not evidence. Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2018). In conducting our own search of the record, we did not find any
instances of use of EMS, and found only one instance of use of BMS: a website from
Cisco explaining that “[m]ore recently, building management systems (BMS) – also
known as building automation systems (BAS) – have been developed to help resolve
the issue of siloed operations.”14 This scant evidence is unconvincing in the face of
contrary evidence that consumers in the relevant industry would readily understand
BAS to refer to “Building Automation System.” Indeed, even this one article refers to
both terms. Moreover, the question is not whether someone presented with the mark
could guess what the services are, but “whether someone who knows what the goods
and[/or] services are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”
DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1254 (quoting In re Tower Tech, Inc., No. 75709532, 2002
TTAB LEXIS 300, at *7).
Second, in the English language it is common for objects to have more than one
name. For example, couch and sofa; lawn and yard; and sink or washbasin. “[L]exical
exclusivity” is not required for a term to be merely descriptive. Even if consumers are
familiar with “other terms such as ‘BMS’ (Building Management System) and ‘EMS’
13 Applicant neither submitted any evidence and nor pointed us to any evidence placed in the
record by the Examining Attorney.
14 Apr. 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 14.

Serial No. 98425350
- 10 -
(Energy Management System),”15 that does not preclude them from also immediately
recognizing BAS as “building automation system.”
Turning to Applicant’s services, both the installation, maintenance and repair of
building automation equipment (Class 37) and design, installation, updating and
maintenance of computer software for building and facility automation (Class 42)
concern building automation technology. Thus, consumers who know what
Applicant’s services are would understand the term BAS to convey an “immediate
idea” that the purpose or use of the services in both classes is for “building automation
systems.” See Zuma Array, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *5.
b. CLOUD
The term CLOUD, as applied to Applicant’s services, means “the computers and
connections that support cloud computing” (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).16
Applicant does not dispute this definition. The evidence of record includes uses of
CLOUD in connection with automated building systems and software to run those
systems, such as:
• “Cloud-Based BAS Solutions: Cloud-based BAS offer inherent
interoperability advantages. Data resides in a central cloud platform,
accessible by authorized users regardless of location or device. This
cloud-based approach simplifies data access and fosters collaboration
between different stakeholders involved in building management.”17
15 6 TTABVUE 12.
16 Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 7.
17 Id. at TSDR 35.

Serial No. 98425350
- 11 -
• “Daikin’s scalable, cloud-based building automation systems (BAS)
instantly and easily optimize the performance of any HVAC
ecosystem-including other makes and existing building systems.”18
• “Building Automation Systems (BAS) have become a cornerstone of
modern building management, offering the promise of optimized
energy consumption, improved occupant comfort, and streamlined
operations. However, traditional on-premise BAS solutions can
present limitations in scalability, remote access, and data
management. Cloud-based BAS, a rapidly growing trend, is
transforming the landscape by leveraging cloud computing
technologies to deliver enhanced functionality and potential cost
savings.”19
• “Software Updates and Maintenance: With cloud-based BAS,
software updates and system maintenance are handled by the
service provider. This eliminates the burden on building
management staff and ensures that BAS software remains up-to-
date and secure…. Reduced Hardware Costs: Cloud-based BAS can
potentially reduce hardware costs associated with on-premise
servers and software licenses.”20
• “The Latest in Building Automation[.] Advances in cloud storage.
Decreased cost in sensing, and the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT)
makes connecting building automation platforms and devices both
feasible and affordable.”21
The record supports a finding that the term CLOUD immediately describes a
characteristic of Applicant’s building automation systems and software in Classes 37
and 42, i.e., that they are supported in the cloud.
18 Apr. 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 17.
19 Id. at TSDR 21.
20 Id. at TSDR 22.
21 Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 23.

Serial No. 98425350
- 12 -
c. ECOSYSTEM
Finally, we turn to the last term in Applicant’s mark, ECOSYSTEM. The
Examining Attorney made of record several dictionary definitions of the term:22
“Something (such as a network of businesses) considered to resemble an
ecological ecosystem especially because of its complex interdependent
parts” (COLLINS DICTIONARY).23
“A complex and interconnected system, especially one that involves
technology” (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).24
Several websites of record support a finding that the term “ecosystem” describes
characteristics of a building automation system (BAS) and the sub-systems it
controls, such as HVAC:
• “This article explores the challenges of interoperability in BAS,
examines the consequences of siloed data, and discusses potential
solutions towards creating a more Integrated building automation
ecosystem.”25
• “Several solutions can help overcome interoperability challenges and
create a more integrated BAS ecosystem….”26
• “The Road to a Unified Ecosystem: Embracing Collaboration and
Open Standards … Creating a truly integrated building automation
ecosystem requires collaboration between various stakeholders….
The vision for the future of building automation lies in a seamlessly
integrated ecosystem where various systems work in concert to
optimize building performance.” 27
22 In addition to the definition from the COLLINS DICTIONARY made of record during
prosecution, the Examining Attorney asks that we take judicial notice of the second definition
from the MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY. 8 TTABVUE 4. Applicant did not object. We have
considered the definition.
23 8 TTABVUE 12.
24 Sept. 24. 2024 Office Action at TSDR 24.
25 Id. at TSDR 33.
26 Id. at TSDR 34.
27 Id. at TSDR 35.

Serial No. 98425350
- 13 -
• “Using the fourth utility–in this case, a building’s data network-
smart building systems take building automation to the next level.
They do so by not only connecting but also interconnecting sensors
and devices to work in coordination, sharing data that helps to
manage the building’s ecosystem in real time.”28
• “Whether you’re overseeing a complex HVAC ecosystem of
equipment and buildings or monitoring standalone units, Siteline
Controls and Service Solutions will help you create comfortable and
sustainable environments where tenants work and live. Daikin's
scalable, cloud-based building automation systems (BAS) instantly
and easily optimize the performance of any HVAC ecosystem-
including other makes and existing building systems.”29
This evidence supports a finding that the term ECOSYSYSTEM is descriptive of a
characteristic of Applicant’s class 37 and 42 services, namely, that they are for use
with a building automation system that functions like an ecosystem.
Applicant counters that “[t]he term ‘ecosystem,’ borrowed from biology,
transforms the phrase from literal description to metaphor. It evokes an environment
of interacting components, not a discrete product feature” and therefore is suggestive.
A definition in the record (although not relied upon by Applicant), defines “ecosystem”
as “all the plants and animals that live in a particular area together with the complex
relationship that exists between them and their environment.”30 We agree that the
term “ecosystem” has been borrowed from the natural world; however, it is equally
clear that the meaning of the word has evolved and now more broadly refers to any
complex and interconnected system. And the record shows “ecosystem” is used in the
28 Apr. 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 15.
29 Id. at TSDR 17.
30 Sept. 24. 2024 Office Action at TSDR 24. The Examining Attorney argues the Applicant
did not support this definition with evidence, 8 TTABVUE 6. However, as indicated here, the
Examining Attorney supplied the necessary evidence.

Serial No. 98425350
- 14 -
relevant industry to mean the system of complex and interconnected building
automation equipment and software, and would immediately be recognized as such.
We conclude that ECOSYSTEM immediately describes a feature or characteristic
of Applicant’s services in Classes 37 and 42.
2. Is CLOUD BAS ECOSYSTEM More Than the Sum of Its Parts?
Having determined that each individual term in the mark is merely descriptive of
a purpose or function of Applicant’s services, we look at whether the mark CLOUD
BAS ECOSYSTEM, in its entirety, is merely descriptive of the services identified in
the application. The Examining Attorney asserts that the phrase, put together, is
merely descriptive of the services.
Applicant contends that its “search submissions” of CLOUD BAS ECOSYSTEM,
presumably in an Internet search engine, “showed negligible third-party use of the
exact phrase, with only incidental references tied to Applicant’s own materials,”31 but
again failed to supply any evidence of such searches. Even if Applicant’s assertion is
true, and we note that the Examining Attorney did not offer any evidence of third-
party descriptive uses of the phrase “cloud BAS ecosystem,” the evidence would be
minimally probative. The fact that Applicant may be the first or only user of a merely
descriptive phrase does not necessarily render the phrase incongruous or distinctive.
In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 545, at *30 (quoting Zuma
Array, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *21).
31 6 TTABVUE 13.

Serial No. 98425350
- 15 -
Applicant also argues that “[e]ven descriptive words can yield suggestive meaning
when combined in an unexpected manner.”32 Applicant contends that CLOUD BAS
ECOSYSTEM
does not convey an immediate, single-layer meaning. The
component words – “cloud,” “BAS,” and “ecosystem” – exist
in distinct semantic fields, and their union requires mental
synthesis. A consumer encountering the phrase must first
recognize “BAS” as an acronym (if they know it at all), then
conceptually link “cloud” computing to an “ecosystem” of
automation software. That multistage reasoning
disqualifies the mark from the descriptive category. The
Federal Circuit has long held that when imagination or
perception is required to bridge linguistic or conceptual
gaps, the mark is suggestive.33
“Additionally,” says Applicant, “the incongruity between a ‘cloud’ (a virtual
computing space) and an ‘ecosystem’ (a natural habitat) underscores the imaginative
leap required.”34
It is true that a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive components
is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a
nondescriptive meaning. See, e.g., In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 (CCPA
1968) (finding SUGAR & SPICE for “bakery products” suggestive); In re Shutts, 1983
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *7 (finding SNO-RAKE for “a snow removal hand tool having a
handle with a snow-removing head at one end, the head being of solid uninterrupted
construction without prongs” suggestive). But that is not the case here. As explained
above, the terms CLOUD, BAS, and ECOSYSTEM individually are descriptive of
32 6 TTABVUE 14.
33 Id. at 10-11.
34 Id. at 11-12.

Serial No. 98425350
- 16 -
Applicant’s services in each class. Viewed in its entirety, we find that CLOUD BAS
ECOSYSTEM does not present an incongruity or lose its descriptive meaning; rather,
it immediately informs the consumer that Applicant’s services in each class are used
in connection with complex, cloud-based building automation systems.
Nor are we persuaded by any of Applicant’s other arguments that the applied-for
mark is suggestive as a whole. Applicant argues that its identified customers are
sophisticated, technically informed purchasers, that is, “facility engineers,
integration consultants, and automation specialists,” who “are accustomed to
branding that uses metaphorical or aspirational language to convey innovation
rather than literal function.”35
Again, Applicant has not supported this attorney argument with any evidence,
such as a declaration. Applicant cites to Tower Tech, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 300, for the
proposition that marks are found suggestive where professionals would perceive the
mark as inventive.36 But Tower Tech found that the mark SMARTTOWER was
merely descriptive of commercial and industrial cooling towers, and did not discuss
the sophistication of the relevant consumers. Nonetheless, even if we infer that
purchasers of building automation equipment and software are sophisticated
purchasers, this supports the conclusion that the mark would immediately be
understood as descriptive of characteristics of Applicant’s services. In other words,
those who purchase building automation systems and the services that support them
35 Id. at 14.
36 Id.

Serial No. 98425350
- 17 -
would immediately know that BAS is an acronym for those systems, that they are
supported in the cloud, and that such systems are complex ecosystems.
Finally, Applicant suggests that, to the extent doubt exists as to whether
Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the identified services, we must find that
the mark is suggestive.37 We have no such doubt in this case. We find the meaning of
the compound term CLOUD BAS ECOSYSTEM to be no more than the sum of its
individual parts, and thus it is merely descriptive of the identified services in Classes
37 and 42 under Section 2(e)(1). See In re Polo Int’l Inc., No. 74729974, 1999 TTAB
LEXIS 59, at *5 (DOC-CONTROL for document management software is merely
descriptive because DOC-CONTROL is not incongruous, creates no double entendre,
and does not create or present a commercial impression or meaning other than
“document control.”); In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., No. 73670049, 1991 TTAB LEXIS 27,
at *8 (MULTI-VIS for multiple viscosity motor oil is merely descriptive because the
plain meaning of the components comprising the term MULTI-VIS as confirmed by
dictionary definitions, other evidence, and applicant’s specimens when considered in
the context of applicant’s goods, demonstrate there is nothing incongruous about the
term MULTI-VIS or requires the exercise of mental processing to perceive the
descriptive significance of such term as it relates to multiple viscosity motor oil).
Decision
The refusal to register in International Classes 37 and 42 is affirmed.
37 8 TTABVUE 11.