Benjamin Langhofer

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: August 13, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Benjamin Langhofer
_____
Serial No. 98693560
_____
Ian T. Hughes of Adams Jones Law Firm, P.A. for Benjamin Langhofer.
Laila Sabagh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 127,
Scott Kumis, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Allard, Cohen and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Cohen, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Benjamin Langhofer seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
proposed standard character mark FAMILY HANDBOOK for goods ultimately1
identified as “downloadable documents in the field of custom documents designed by
1 Applicant previously sought registration for “a set of custom documents designed by parents
to establish and memorialize the purpose and direction of their family” in International Class
42 but later amended the identification as shown above, which was accepted by the
Examining Attorney.

Serial No. 98693560
- 2 -
parents to establish and memorialize the purpose and direction of their family,” in
International Class 9.2
The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s proposed mark on the
ground that it is merely descriptive of the goods identified in the application within
the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). When
the refusal to register was made final, Applicant appealed. The case is now ready for
decision.3 For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register the
proposed mark.
I. Descriptiveness – Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), prohibits registration
on the Principal Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with
the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them,” unless the mark has
acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).4 A term is
merely descriptive of identified goods or services if it conveys an immediate idea of
an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the goods
or services. See, e.g., Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 972
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
2 Application Serial No. 98693560 was filed on August 12, 2024, based on an allegation of a
bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15
U.S.C. § 1051(b).
3 Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify the documents by title, date, and page in the
downloadable .pdf version. Citations to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE online docket system.
4 Applicant does not claim that its proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness.

Serial No. 98693560
- 3 -
Whether a term is merely descriptive is not determined in the abstract, but rather
in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the term is being used on or in connection with those goods or services, and the
possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods
or services because of the manner in which the term is used or intended to be used.
In re Bayer A.G., 488 F.3d 960, 963-64 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The question is whether
someone who knows what the goods or services are will understand the term to
convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices
Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
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 Omniome,
Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 WL 7596207, at *5 (TTAB 2019). “If the words in the
proposed mark are individually descriptive of the identified goods [or services], we
must determine whether their combination ‘conveys any distinctive source-
identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.”’ In re
Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 WL 3282655, at *4 (TTAB 2022) (quoting In re
Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 WL 3915986, at *6 (TTAB 2016)).
However, 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. Id. (quoting Fat Boys, 2016 WL 3915986, at *6).
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

Serial No. 98693560
- 4 -
are to reach a conclusion about their nature from the mark. See, e.g., StonCor Grp.,
Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., 759 F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Fat Boys, 2016
WL 3915986, at *5.
Evidence of the 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. Zuma Array, 2022
WL 3282655, at *5. These sources may include websites, publications and use in
labels, packages, or in advertising materials directed to the goods. Id. “Proof of mere
descriptiveness may originate from an applicant’s own descriptive use of its proposed
mark, or portions thereof in its materials, and an applicant’s own website and
marketing materials may be the most damaging evidence in indicating how the
relevant purchasing public perceives a term”. Id. at *8 (cleaned up, citations omitted).
In support of the descriptiveness refusal, the Examining Attorney provides
dictionary definitions for FAMILY which means “a fundamental social group in
society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children,”5 and
HANDBOOK which means “a concise manual or reference book providing specific
information or instruction about a subject or place.”6 Based on these definitions, the
Examining Attorney asserts that the “the wording FAMILY HANDBOOK describes
a purpose, characteristic, use, or function of [A]pplicant’s goods being downloadable
documents to be used and function as a manual or reference book providing specific
5 February 20, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 6, AHDICTIONARY.COM.
6 Id. at 8, AHDictionary.com.

Serial No. 98693560
- 5 -
family information or instruction.”7 The Examining Attorney continues that further
evidence of the descriptive meaning of Applicant’s mark is found in Applicant’s
website which describe the goods as:
A Family Handbook is a set of custom documents designed by winning
coaches, CEOs, family counselors and intentional parents to establish and
memorialize the purpose and direction for their families.8
The Examining Attorney also submitted evidence of three third-party
registrations for “the wording ‘topic + HANDBOOK’ for goods and services used to
create or access instruction, direction or resources about the respective topic.”9
Specifically, the Examining Attorney submitted registrations for:
• EDUCATORSHANDBOOK.COM and design
(EDUCATORSHANDBOOK.COM disclaimed) for a variety of services
including providing on-line non-downloadable software for creating
and documenting paperless school and student reports, … for
educator’s to use for students and educational institutions in the field
of educational administration;10
• CAPITAL MARKETS HANDBOOK and design (CAPITAL MARKETS
HANDBOOK disclaimed) for a variety of goods including downloadable
software in the nature of a mobile application for use as an educational
resource for professionals and students interested in jobs in finance
and investment banking;11 and
• EYE HANDBOOK (acquired distinctiveness claimed) for
ophthalmology specific electronic reference and diagnostic software
application for mobile phones.12
7 6 TTABVUE 4.
8 Id.; see February 20, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 12, MYFAMILYHANDBOOK.COM.
9 6 TTABVUE 7.
10 Registration No. 5772545, July 1, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 7.
11 Registration No. 6185804, id. at 9.
12 Registration No. 5458607, id. at 5.

Serial No. 98693560
- 6 -
While third-party registrations are not conclusive on the question of mere
descriptiveness, the disclaimer or claim of acquired distinctiveness in the three
registrations cited by the Examining Attorney support the conclusion that marks
made up of “topic + HANDBOOK” may be perceived as descriptive. See In re Pollio
Dairy Prods. Corp., No. 73596577, 1988 WL 252425, at *1 n.4 (TTAB 1988) (“By its
disclaimer of the word LITE, applicant has conceded that the term is merely
descriptive as used in connection with applicant’s goods.”).
Arguing that its mark is suggestive and not descriptive, Applicant contends that
the:
services are materially different from a “Handbook,” which is “A concise
manual or reference book providing specific information about or instruction
about a subject or place.” As this definition would indicate, a consumer would
understand a “handbook” to contain preexisting and compiled information.
When used with the qualifier “family,” a person would understand this
handbook to most likely contain information about childcare or parenting
techniques. By contrast, the Family Handbook as used by Applicant is “a set
of custom documents designed by parents to establish and memorialize the
purpose and direction of their family,” which has two important distinctions.
It is guiding and normative, not merely informative, and it is the result of
parents and families deciding the purpose and direction of their family for
themselves rather than referencing prefabricated information.13
A term need not describe all of the properties or functions of the goods to be
considered merely descriptive thereof; rather, it is sufficient if the term describes a
significant attribute or feature about them. Zuma Array, 2022 WL 3282655, at *3.
Here, FAMILY HANDBOOK describes a significant characteristic, feature, or
function of the goods sold by Applicant. Applicant’s mark describes goods, namely,
13 4 TTABVUE 3.

Serial No. 98693560
- 7 -
customizable documents providing specific information about a particular family,
that are intended to be used as a reference book, or handbook, for that family. Indeed,
Applicant’s own identification of goods uses “family” to describe documents that are
used to “establish and memorialize the purpose and direction of their family.”
The descriptive nature of FAMILY HANDBOOK is reinforced on Applicant’s
website, MYFAMILYHANDBOOK.COM, which describes the goods as giving parents a
way to “lead[] and create[e] inspiring family culture within their families by creating
their very own Family Handbook.”14 Applicant’s website also describes the FAMILY
HANDBOOK as a way for parents to use a set of custom documents to “establish and
memorialize the purpose and direction for their families”;15 “serves to guide the
family”;16 and “[p]rovides clarity on family values … guiding daily decisions and
actions.”17
No imagination would be necessary for purchasers to perceive the descriptive
significance of FAMILY HANDBOOK as it relates to important features of
Applicant’s goods. When used on the relevant goods, FAMILY would retain its
ordinary dictionary meaning as “a fundamental social group in society typically
consisting of one or two parents and their children”;18 and HANDBOOK would retain
its ordinary dictionary meaning as “a concise manual or reference book providing
14 February 20, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 11.
15 Id. at TSDR 12.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 14.
18 February 20, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 6, AHDICTIONARY.COM.

Serial No. 98693560
- 8 -
specific information or instruction about a subject or place.”19 Fat Boys, 2015 WL
3915986, at *6 (citing In re Tower Tech, Inc., No. 75709532, 2002 WL 992268, at *4
(TTAB 2002)). Each component in FAMILY HANDBOOK retains its descriptive
significance in relation to the goods, such that the combination, taken as a whole, is
merely descriptive.
Applicant’s mark as used in connection with the identified goods would be
understood to describe goods that provide information or instruction for a family or
in other words, a family handbook. As demonstrated on Applicant’s website,
Applicant promotes goods that are a collection of documents (i.e., a handbook) used
to establish and memorialize the purpose and direction for a family. See In re King
Koil Licensing Co., No. 76565486, 2006 WL 639160, at *5 (TTAB 2006) (finding THE
BREATHABLE MATTRESS merely descriptive of beds and mattresses, “because it
is likely to be perceived by consumers as indicating that these products are breathable
and therefore desirable”). Consumers who know what Applicant’s goods are will
immediately understand FAMILY HANDBOOK to convey information about those
goods. See In re Chopper Indus., No. 73273140, 1984 WL 63033, at *2 (TTAB 1984)
(“It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the
term may be considered to be merely descriptive.”).
We are not persuaded by Applicant’s argument, asserted without any evidentiary
support, that a consumer would understand FAMILY HANDBOOK to mean a
19 Id. at 8, AHDICTIONARY.COM.

Serial No. 98693560
- 9 -
handbook about childcare or parenting techniques.20 Estée Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal,
S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“arguments of counsel cannot take the place
of evidence lacking in the record”) (citation omitted). This argument requires
considering the proposed mark in a vacuum. The mark must be considered “in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in which
the mark is used, and the possible significance that the mark is likely to have to the
average purchaser encountering the goods or services in the marketplace.” Hangzhou
Mengku Tech., Ltd v. Shanghai Zhenglang Tech. Co., Ltd, No. 91272143, 2024 WL
5265081, at *9 (TTAB 2024). Applicant’s prescribed meaning would not likely come
to mind when FAMILY HANDBOOK is viewed in connection with “downloadable
documents in the field of custom documents designed by parents to establish and
memorialize the purpose and direction of their family.” Rather, consumers would
understand that the goods are intended as a handbook for a family.
Having considered the evidence of record, we conclude that the proposed mark
FAMILY HANDBOOK immediately informs the consumer of a characteristic, feature
or function of Applicant’s goods. See In re Planalytics, Inc., No. 76322156, 2004 WL
715031, at *1 (TTAB 2004) (“Courts have long held that to be ‘merely descriptive,’ a
term need only describe a single significant quality or property of the goods”); In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1216-17 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (affirming Board’s decision finding
APPLE PIE descriptive based on key characteristic of applicant’s potpourri). FAMILY
20 4 TTABVUE 3.

Serial No. 98693560
- 10 -
HANDBOOK requires no interpretation or imagination to understand that it
describes a feature of Applicant’s goods.
II. Conclusion
Viewed in its entirety and in the context of the identified goods and based on the
record before us, we find that FAMILY HANDBOOK is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Decision: The refusal to register FAMILY HANDBOOK under Section 2(e)(1) is
affirmed. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).