CodeBox, Inc.

Mailed: September 18, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re CodeBox, Inc.
————
Serial No. 98597114
————
William H. Quirk of Rosenthal Pauerstein Sandoloski Agather, LLP,
for CodeBox, Inc.
Valerie Kaplan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 107,
Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Pologeorgis, Lavache, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant CodeBox, Inc. seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
composite mark below for “Lockboxes, namely, digital lockboxes; Digital deadbolts
and digital door locks,” in International Class 9.1
1 Application Serial No. 98597114, filed on June 12, 2024. Applicant alleges use in commerce
as to the identified “Lockboxes, namely, digital lockboxes,” under Trademark Act Section 1(a),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming May 29, 2013, as both the date of first use anywhere and the
date of first use in commerce. As to the identified “Digital deadbolts and digital door locks,”
Applicant alleges a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act
Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). According to the mark description, “[t]he mark consists of
the capitalized two-syllable word, ‘CODEBOX’, in a uniformly-stylized reverse contrast font,
where the ‘CODE’ syllable is in dark blue font surrounded by a white background, and where
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 98597114
2
Applicant provided the following specimen of use for the identified “Lockboxes,
namely, digital lockboxes.”2
The Trademark Examining Attorney required a disclaimer of the term CODEBOX
in Applicant’s mark under Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a), on the
the ‘BOX’ syllable is in white font over a dark blue rectangle, and where there is a small notch
cut out in the underside of the upper bar of the letter ‘E’ in ‘CODE’, and where the lower bar
of that same ‘E’ extends into the dark blue rectangular shape such that the dark blue ‘E’
unites with the dark blue rectangle to give the shape of a lockbox with an open shackle.” The
colors dark blue and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.
2 June 12, 2024 Application at TSDR 7. The Trademark Status and Document Retrieval
(TSDR) and TTABVUE citations in this opinion refer respectively to the downloadable PDF
version of the electronic application file and entries in the Board’s electronic docket. For
TTABVUE citations, the number preceding the TTABVUE designation is the docket entry
number and any numbers following indicate the relevant page numbers within the docket
entry.

Serial No. 98597114
3
ground that the term is merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods. After the
Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under Section 6(a) based on
Applicant’s failure to submit the required disclaimer, Applicant appealed and filed a
request for reconsideration, which the Examining Attorney denied. The appeal then
resumed and has been fully briefed.3 As explained below, we affirm the refusal under
Section 6(a) for failure to disclaim CODEBOX.
I. Disclaimer Requirement
A. Applicable Law
A “disclaimer” is a statement that an applicant does not claim exclusive rights to
an unregistrable component of a mark apart from the mark as shown. See In re
Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 273 (CCPA 1979); In re White Jasmine LLC, No.
77115548, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 9, at *29. If an applied-for mark is otherwise
registrable, but contains an unregistrable component, an examining attorney may
require the applicant to disclaim the unregistrable component. Trademark Act
Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a). See White Jasmine, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 9, at *28-29.
Failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement is grounds for refusing registration.
In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming refusal of registration
for failure to disclaim descriptive matter); In re Nat’l Presto Indus., No. 73040998,
1977 TTAB LEXIS 159, at *6 (“The refusal of registration in the absence of the
required disclaimer was correct.”).
3 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE;
Applicant’s Reply Brief, 9 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98597114
4
Absent a showing of acquired distinctiveness,4 a term that is merely descriptive
is unregistrable under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), and
thus is subject to a disclaimer requirement if it appears in an applied-for mark that
is otherwise registrable. See, e.g., In re Taylor & Francis (Publ’rs), Inc., No. 75229157,
2000 TTAB LEXIS 380, at *12. 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) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re
TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811,
813 (CCPA 1978) (indicating that a term may be descriptive if it conveys information
about an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, part, purpose, use, or
any other property of the identified goods). By contrast, a term is suggestive, and thus
registrable, if it “requires imagination, thought, and perception to arrive at the
qualities or characteristics of the goods.” In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1218 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Descriptiveness is assessed not in the abstract, but “in relation to the 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 964 (citing Abcor, 588
F.2d at 813). Here, we must consider the perception of the average purchaser of the
identified digital lockboxes, digital deadbolts, and digital door locks.
4 Applicant has not claimed acquired distinctiveness as to CODEBOX.

Serial No. 98597114
5
Evidence of the relevant purchasers’ understanding of a term or phrase “may be
obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys,
listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.” Real
Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These
sources may include [w]ebsites, publications and use ‘in labels, packages, or in
advertising materials directed to the goods.’” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Abcor, 588 F.2d at 814). Evidence of an applicant’s own
usage beyond those noted above may also be considered. See In re Omniome, Inc., No.
87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *14.
A term may be found merely descriptive if it describes at least one feature,
characteristic, or purpose of the identified goods. See In re Friends in the West, No.
74584732, 1997 TTAB LEXIS 213, at *5 (“It is sufficient . . . if the designation or term
simply describes one significant attribute of the [goods or] services.”). Further, a
disclaimer is appropriate if the term at issue is merely descriptive of any of the goods
in a class; it need not be merely descriptive of all the identified goods in that class.
See In re UST Global (Sing.) Pte. Ltd., No. 87657822, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 19, at *26;
see also In re Sheet Pile, LLC, No. 97010763, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 111, at *6 (“[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] for
which registration is sought.’” (quoting Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300)).

Serial No. 98597114
6
B. Analysis
1. Mere Descriptiveness of CODEBOX
With a term like CODEBOX, which is a combination of the words CODE and
BOX, we first consider the meaning of each component word and then determine
whether the combined term, as a whole, is merely descriptive. See DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That
is, we assess whether the combination of component words in the term “conveys any
distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the
individual parts.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS
150, at *14-15 (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed. Cir.
2003)). If each component word “retains its merely descriptive significance in relation
to the goods, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.”
Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *15 (citing In re Tower Tech., Inc., No. 75709532,
2002 TTAB LEXIS 300, at *10).
Here, the Examining Attorney asserts that “CODE is often used to describe a
feature and/or characteristic of the goods - using a code to open the lock box,”5
providing the following internet evidence in support:
• Home Depot (homedepot.com) offers a “Combination Key Lock Box with
Door Hanger and Wall Mount,” featuring a “4-digit code [that] can be
customized and reset, ensuring that only authorized users with the
current code can open the lock box.”6 Other product listings on the
Home Depot website describe similar lock boxes that allow the user to
5 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 2.
6 May 19, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 5-7.

Serial No. 98597114
7
set and reset a “combination for thousands of personalized combination
code options.”7
• A blog post on kylehandy.com entitled “How to Unlock A Realtor Lock
Box With Code (7 Types Of Boxes)” explains that a “combination lock
box works similarly to a safe” and “has a keypad where the agent enters
the combination code to grant themselves lockbox access.”8
• Roperlock.com offers the “3-Wheel Alpha Combination Lock Box” for
“storage of up to six keys” that allows the user to “[s]et . . . [an] alpha
combination” and “reset the combination for multiple personalized 3-
letter codes.”9
• Amazon.com features multiple listings for a “key lock boxes” with a
“Resettable Code” or “Resettable Combination Code,” or, more simply,
a “Key Lock Box with Code.”10
• Durable (durable-north-america.com) offers a “key box . . . combination
lock,” featuring a “code [that] can be set individually from a choice of up
to 1000 combinations.”11
• Gokeyless.com offers various “lockboxes” for sale, explaining that they
“safeguard your keys behind a personalized code for easy retrieval when
you need them.”12
• Allpadlocks.com includes a listing for the “Master Lock . . . Bluetooth
Wall Mount Lock Box,” which allows the user to open the lock with an
app, but also provides “[b]ackup access using [a] directional code on the
lock keypad.”13
• The Igloohome online store (store-us.igloohome.co) offers the “Smart
Keybox 3,” which “[s]tore[s] keys, access cards, and more” and allows a
7 Id. at 13, 20.
8 Id. at 26, 30.
9 Id. at 38-39.
10 January 12, 2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 6, 9-10.
11 Id. at 18.
12 Id. at 28.
13 Id. at 60.

Serial No. 98597114
8
homeowner to “[g]rant access from anywhere via PIN codes or
Bluetooth keys.”14
Further, Applicant’s own website states that Applicant’s lockboxes feature “code
generation technology [that] allows for years of unique codes” and “provide[s]
convenient, secure access.”15 Consistent with this description, Applicant’s specimen
of use, reproduced above, shows that the goods themselves include instructions to
“Enter [the] Code” to open the lockbox.16
As to the significance of BOX, the Examining Attorney points to some of the same
evidence summarized above, which uses wording including “combination key lock
box,” “combination lock box,” “key box,” and “lock box” to refer to lockable storage
devices for holding keys and other items for accessing a property.17 According to the
Examining Attorney, this usage supports the argument that BOX “merely describes
the nature” of Applicant’s identified “digital lockboxes.”18 Indeed, Applicant
acknowledged during prosecution that “‘box’ itself may be somewhat descriptive of a
lock box.”19
Based on this evidence, the Examining Attorney contends that “both the
individual components [CODE and BOX] and the composite result [CODEBOX] are
descriptive of the Applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or
14 Id. at 63-64.
15 May 19, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 41-46.
16 June 12, 2024 Application at TSDR 7.
17 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 3-4.
18 Id. (underlining in original replaced with boldface).
19 November 19, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 5.

Serial No. 98597114
9
nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods.”20 That is, “CODE is often used to
describe a feature and/or characteristic of the goods - using a code to open the lock
box, and BOX is used to describe the nature of the goods, a lockbox,” and “[t]hus, the
applied-for mark merely combines two highly descriptive terms to describe the
goods.”21 Thus, the Examining Attorney concludes, “the wording CODEBOX is clear
that it is referring and describing a lock box that uses a code.”22
Applicant, however, argues that the record does not establish the descriptiveness
of CODEBOX.23 According to Applicant, “[i]n the context of lockboxes, while ‘lockbox’
itself combines ‘lock’ and ‘box’ to form the well-recognized term, Applicant has coined
the term ‘CODEBOX’ to analogously combine ‘code’ and ‘box’ to create an innovative
suggestion of a lockbox with a ‘code’ twist.”24 Thus, Applicant asserts, “while terms
like ‘lock box,’ ‘key lock box,’ or ‘key management box’ commonly appear in
descriptions of lockbox products, and ‘code’ may occasionally be used to describe the
combination feature of a lockbox, none of these usages show that the compound term,
‘CODEBOX,’ is a common descriptive term in the industry.”25 Applicant does
acknowledge that there is evidence of record showing “two distinct blurbs where the
words ‘code’ and ‘box’ appear consecutively,” but notes that in both instances the
20 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 5.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 5-6.
23 See Applicant’s Reply Brief, 9 TTABVUE 4.
24 Id. at 5.
25 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 14 (italics in original replaced with boldface).

Serial No. 98597114
10
words appear “as unpunctuated keyword strings likely intended to attract internet
search traffic.”26
We agree that the record does not establish widespread, or even significant, use
of “CODEBOX,” or “CODE BOX,” in connection with digital lockboxes or any of the
other identified goods. But the Trademark Act “does not exempt from the prohibition
against registration of merely descriptive terms those that are not in common or
widespread use, simply because of relative infrequency of use.” In re Eximius Coffee,
LLC, No. 86262060, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 472, at *20 n.14. And “‘[t]he fact that
Applicant may be the first or only user of a term does not render that term distinctive’
if . . . it has been shown to be merely descriptive of the goods identified in the
application.” In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *32-33 (quoting
Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *10); see also In re Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs.
AG, No. 85485359, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 131, at *29 n.50 (“Being ‘the first and only one
to adopt and use the mark sought to be registered does not prove that the mark is not
descriptive.’”) (quoting In re Bailey Meter Co., 102 F.2d 843, 844 (CCPA 1939)).
Applicant further asserts that, “[d]espite that there are a few examples where the
term ‘code’ is used with reference to a combination for a lock, the ‘code’ term also has
numerous other possible meanings in ordinary language, including software code,
encryption code, access code, legal code, or symbolic code.”27 Thus, Applicant contends
that, “[w]hen combined with ‘box’ into the single term CODEBOX and viewed as a
26 Id. at 13-14 (emphasis omitted).
27 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 9 TTABVUE 5-6.

Serial No. 98597114
11
whole, the resulting commercial impression is ambiguous and suggestive rather than
merely descriptive.”28
We disagree. The fact that CODE could have other meanings in other contexts is
not relevant to our determination here. Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, Opp.
No. 91170112, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 383, at *52 (“[T]hat a term may have other
meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”). “[S]o long as any one of the
meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely
descriptive.” In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., No. 87209946, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 156,
at *18 (quoting In re Chopper Indus., No. 73273140, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6).
Here, the record establishes that CODE is commonly used to describe a significant
aspect of at least some types of lockboxes.
Further, while Applicant argues that CODEBOX is ambiguous and incongruous,
and therefore requires “some imagination, thought, or multistage reasoning . . . to
associate the mark with Applicant’s goods,”29 Applicant has not identified what the
relevant incongruity is or explained the multistage reasoning that would be required
to determine the significance of the term in connection with Applicant’s goods. Again,
the evidence shows that CODE and BOX are commonly used to describe significant
features or aspects of lockboxes. Simply combining CODE and BOX, and omitting the
space between them, does not change the meaning of these terms or the overall
impression they create. See, e.g., In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 TTAB
28 Id. at 6.
29 Id. at 5.

Serial No. 98597114
12
LEXIS 545, at *28, *30-31 (finding NURSECON merely descriptive of “arranging and
conducting special events for social entertainment purposes” where the evidence
showed nurse conferences were the venue for the special events); Tower Tech, 2002
TTAB LEXIS 300, at *13-14 (finding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of highly
automated cooling towers); see also Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. Addressograph-
Multigraph Corp., 1967 TTAB LEXIS 152, at *5 (“It 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 . . . .”) (no number in
original).
Applicant’s arguments that CODEBOX is somehow ambiguous or suggestive
relies on the mistaken premise that the term is to be considered in the abstract. But
“[w]hether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark
alone is not the test.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech. Co. v. Shanghai Zhenglang Tech. Co.,
No. 91272143, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *24 (quoting In re Am. Greetings Corp., No.
73284539, 1985 TTAB LEXIS 97, at *3-4). Again, the term must be considered “in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in which
the [term] is used, and the possible significance that the [term] is likely to have to the
average purchaser encountering the goods or services in the marketplace.” Hangzhou
Mengku Tech., 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *23-24. In view of the record here, we find
no basis for concluding that the relevant consumers seeking digital lockboxes would
need to engage in a multi-stage reasoning process to determine the significance of
CODEBOX when applied to such goods. In other words, we have no doubt that

Serial No. 98597114
13
“someone who knows what the goods . . . are will understand the mark to convey
information about them.” Fallon, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *21-22.
Thus, we conclude that CODEBOX is merely descriptive as applied to the
identified goods.
2. Is Applicant’s Mark Unitary?
Although we have determined that the term CODEBOX is merely descriptive, our
analysis does not end there. We must address Applicant’s argument that, even if
CODEBOX is found to be merely descriptive, a disclaimer should not be required
because the applied-for mark (reproduced again below) “presents a unitary
commercial impression in which the wording and design elements are visually and
conceptually integrated such that they are not readily divisible into separate,
independently descriptive components.”30 Specifically, Applicant argues that “the
coloring [in the mark] unifies the design by visually connecting the dark blue ‘E’ in
the first syllable with the dark blue rectangular background surrounding the second
syllable, ‘BOX,’ creating the overall impression of a lockbox with an open shackle.”31
Elaborating, Applicant asserts that “[c]learly, the shackle appearance of the ‘E’ letter
is not just about the ‘E’, but the shackle aspect unites it with the entirety of the ‘BOX’
element” and the “‘COD’ portion of the mark, although not literally connected to the
30 Id. at 7.
31 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 11. A “shackle” in this context is a “U-shaped
fastening device secured by a bolt or pin through holes in the end of the two arms.” MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shackle (accessed on
September 16, 2026). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including
online dictionaries that exist in printed form or regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull GmbH,
No. 75788830, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *7.

Serial No. 98597114
14
rest of the design, can be viewed as a chain link-like extension from the shackle by
virtue of the colors and shapes of the letters.”32
The “test for unitariness requires the Board to determine ‘how the average
purchaser would encounter the mark under normal marketing of such goods and also
. . . what the reaction of the average purchaser would be to this display of the
mark.’” Dena Corp. v. Belvedere International Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (quoting In re Magic Muffler Serv., 1974 TTAB LEXIS 236, at 2 (no number in
original)). As explained in Dena Corp.:
A unitary mark has certain observable characteristics. Specifically, its
elements are inseparable. In a unitary mark, these observable
characteristics must combine to show that the mark has a distinct
meaning of its own independent of the meaning of its constituent
elements. In other words, a unitary mark must create a single and
distinct commercial impression.
950 F.2d at 1561.
Among the factors to consider when determining unitariness are “the physical
connection of the potentially unregistrable component to other elements of the
proposed mark by lines or other design features; the relative location of the respective
elements of the proposed mark; and the significance of the terminology as used on or
in connection with the goods or services.” In re Lego Juris A/S, No. 88698784, 2022
TTAB LEXIS 175, at *7 (citing Dena Corp., 950 F.2d at 1561). “If the elements of a
32 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 9 TTABVUE 7.

Serial No. 98597114
15
composite mark are so merged together that they cannot be viewed as separable
elements, the mark is considered unitary, thereby rendering a disclaimer
unnecessary.” Lego, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 175, at *6-7 (citing In re EBS Data Processing,
Inc., No. 73145310 1981 TTAB LEXIS 110, at *4).
We acknowledge that the colors and elements in Applicant’s mark have been
arranged and stylized to suggest the shape of Applicant’s product, but the overall
effect is very subtle and may not even be immediately recognized by the average
purchaser of Applicant’s goods. That is, these purchasers would likely perceive the
literal element first, possibly followed by a realization of what the design portion
might depict. Thus, we agree with the Examining Attorney that nothing about the
meaning of the words or their relation to the other elements in the mark renders
these elements so merged together, either physically or conceptually, that they would
be perceived as inseparable.33 Nor does the mark otherwise present any obvious
incongruity between the literal portion and design portion of the mark that would
render the mark unitary. Accordingly, we find that the mark is not unitary and
CODEBOX must be disclaimed apart from the mark as shown.
II. Conclusion
We have considered all the arguments and evidence of record and find that
CODEBOX is merely descriptive of at least some of Applicant’s goods, specifically
“lockboxes, namely, digital lockboxes.” The term is thus an unregistrable component
of Applicant’s composite mark. Accordingly, in view of our finding that the mark is
33 See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 98597114
16
not unitary, CODEBOX must be disclaimed. See UST Global, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 19,
at *26.
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark under Trademark
Act Section 6(a) based on Applicant’s failure to satisfy the requirement to disclaim
CODEBOX. However, Applicant is allowed until 30 days from the date of this decision
to submit to the Board a properly formatted disclaimer of CODEBOX,34 in which case
this decision will be set aside and the application will proceed in due course to
publication in the Trademark Official Gazette. See Trademark Rule 2.142(g), 37
C.F.R. § 2.142(g); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE
§ 1218 (2026).
34 A properly formatted disclaimer statement would read as follows: No claim is made to the
exclusive right to use “CODEBOX” apart from the mark as shown. See TRADEMARK MANUAL
OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1213.08(a)(i) (May 2026).