Federal Circuit disposition — 24-2183

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: NAGARAJAN DURAISAMY,
Appellant
______________________
2024-2183
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.
97552142.
______________________
Decided: September 3, 2025
______________________
N AGARAJAN D URAISAMY , Fremont, CA, pro se.
MICHAEL CHAJON, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee
Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by ROBERT J.
MCMANUS , AMY J. N ELSON, MARY BETH WALKER.
______________________
Before D YK, P ROST , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Nagarajan Duraisamy appeals from a decision of the
U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirm-
ing the trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register
Mr. Duraisamy’s mark for failure to provide an acceptable
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 2
entity designation, description of the mark, and identifica-
tion of goods and services. In re Duraisamy, No. 97552142,
2024 WL 3025989 (T.T.A.B. June 4, 2024) (“Decision”). For
the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2022, Mr. Duraisamy applied for trade-
mark registration of the mark:
S.A. 50–55.1 Mr. Duraisamy did not claim color as a fea-
ture of the mark. S.A. 52. He described the mark in his
application as: “[t]he mark consists of regular English lan-
guage text with font ‘Times New Roman’ with size 19 pt.
No character styles. Text Color Black in white back-
ground.” S.A. 50. He identified the goods and/or services
as “[s]oftware development and product development in the
field of software applications, embedded systems and ap-
plications with hardware,” and he listed International
Class 42 as the class for the goods and/or services. S.A. 50.
Mr. Duraisamy listed his name as the owner of the mark
but listed “limited liability company” as the type of legal
entity. S.A. 50. On April 18, 2023, Mr. Duraisamy
amended his application to change the identification of
goods and/services to:
Software development and product development in
the field of software applications, embedded sys-
tems and applications with hardware. Product
name: Thalami Sensor Network. The product has
hardware and software that accompanies it. The
infrastructure might be considered as a new
method or process to realize a network and how to
leverage it. The applicability of the concept can be
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with the government’s brief.
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 3
considered very ubiquitous and can be applied to
multiple vertical domains Design and development
of virtual (online virtual spaces like websites or vir-
tual reality spaces) and real spaces (like town plan-
ning or design of various parts of a city or region),
Consumer appliances and security systems, Indus-
trial equipment, Surveillance, Emergency manage-
ment in real or virtual world, Real estate, Sports,
large venues (convention center or stadium), Edu-
cation, Entertainment, Information Technology,
Avionics, Communication, Navigation and map-
ping, Industrial automated and manual manufac-
turing, Textiles, Automobiles and Robotics,
Logistics (Storage/Warehouse/distribution), Agri-
culture, Medical, Retail, Hotels / restaurants/ hos-
pitals, Transport networks, Media, Construction,
Government, Trading networks, Public utilities
like electricity and water, Public Transit and dis-
tribution networks (shipping/railways/air-
lines/drones/self driving or autonomous vehicles),
Pharmaceutical research, Geological research, Re-
search and Design of products, Point of sale or re-
tail stores, Governance of Private/Public
businesses, Defense, Consumer applications, mov-
ies, music, games and applications that require
checks and balances like accounting, finance, in-
ventory, compliance, security, sales, manufactur-
ing, human resource management, customer
relationship management and advertising. User
interface that leverages virtual or mixed or aug-
mented reality in addition to conventional user in-
terface. I have applied for a provisional patent
application number 63447002. In addition to the
software, this trademark will be used for on de-
mand or downloadable two dimensional and/or
multidimensional audio / video user interface
and/or real-time audio/video stream and/or multi-
dimensional virtual reality and/or augmented
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 4
reality and/or mixed reality content as on de-
mand/real-time stream and accompanying docu-
ments that are created as reference and for
download on a pay per view or subscription based
channel. These products may be sold with or with-
out the embedded software and hardware for ad-
vertisement and/or training and/or as deployment
experience and/or informational education for a
customer and/or potential customers and/or gen-
eral audience. These products may be sold on stand
alone basis or available to watch on demand for po-
tential customers to increase product outreach and
demonstrate various use cases. These products
may be sold along with electronic or physical books
and/or on demand video blogs or real time video
/audio experiences on various topics of interest to
general audience.
S.A. 56–57 (cleaned up). He amended his application three
more times to include International Classes 9, 35 and 41.
S.A. 65–91.
On June 8, 2023, the trademark examining attorney is-
sued a nonfinal Office action refusing registration for fail-
ure to meet certain requirements. S.A. 93–97. Specifically,
the examining attorney directed Mr. Duraisamy to (1) clar-
ify the entity classification by either amending the legal
entity type to “individual” since a name of an individual
appears in the owner’s name, or providing the name of the
limited liability company as owner if the owner is in fact a
limited liability company; (2) amend the description of the
mark because the description must “identify only those lit-
eral and design elements appearing in the mark” and the
description was inconsistent with the stylized wording ap-
pearing in the drawing; and (3) amend the identification of
services required because Mr. Duraisamy’s previous
amendments of the identification of goods and/or services
was “beyond the scope of the original identification.” S.A.
94–96. The examining attorney provided Mr. Duraisamy
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 5
with a link to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s
(“USPTO”) online database for identifying and classifying
goods and services in trademark applications. S.A. 96.
Mr. Duraisamy addressed the examining attorney’s re-
fusal to register in separate responses to the nonfinal Of-
fice action. S.A. 102–20. He initially changed the entity
type to “individual,” S.A. 102, but changed it back to “lim-
ited liability company” while keeping his name as owner
and adding “DBA Thalami,LLC” and “Thalami,LLC” in the
“DBA/AKA/TA/Formerly” and “Internal Address” fields, re-
spectively, S.A. 108–09. He did not amend the description
of the mark, stating that “there [was] no discrepancy in the
description of the trademark.” S.A. 105. Mr. Duraisamy
also did not amend the identification of the goods and/or
services; he argued that the examining attorney was incor-
rect and that he would also include International Class 38.
S.A. 105, 111, 114. On June 14, 2023, the examining attor-
ney issued a final Office action maintaining the refusal to
register for the issues identified in the nonfinal Office ac-
tion. S.A. 130–33. Mr. Duraisamy requested reconsidera-
tion, stating the examining attorney was “forcing a
particular scope for the product itself.” S.A. 140. The ex-
amining attorney denied Mr. Duraisamy’s request for re-
consideration, explaining that the identification of goods
and/or services exceeded the scope “originally itemized in
the application.” S.A. 218. On June 17, 2023, Mr. Du-
raisamy appealed the examining attorney’s decision to the
Board. S.A. 168.
On June 4, 2024, the Board affirmed the examining at-
torney’s decision. Decision, 2024 WL 3025989, at *8. After
addressing procedural and evidentiary matters, the Board
noted that “the name of the applicant should be set out in
its correct legal form,” and if the application reflects an in-
consistency between the owner name and entity type, the
examining attorney must require the applicant to clarify
the record. Id. at *3 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.22(a)(1),
2.32(a)(2)). The Board determined that “[i]t remains
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 6
unclear if the owner of the Application should be listed as
Nagarajan Duraisamy, an individual; as Nagarajan Du-
raisamy, an individual DBA Thalami; as Thalami, LLC, a
limited liability corporation; or some other variation.” Id.
at *4. Next, the Board noted that a “description of the
mark must be included in an application if the mark is not
in standard characters” and “[i]f an applicant submits a
color drawing or a description of the mark that indicates
the use of color on the mark, the applicant must claim color
as a feature of the mark.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.37,
2.52(b)(1)). The Board determined that Mr. Duraisamy
“uses black and white in the description of the mark to in-
dicate colors of the text while simultaneously indicating
that color is not a feature of the mark,” and he includes
reference to “type font Times New Roman,” which is con-
sidered use of a registered mark and is prohibited in the
description of a mark. Id. at *4–5.
Finally, the Board noted that an applicant “may amend
the identification of goods and services of its application
during the course of examination ‘to clarify or limit, but not
to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services.’” Id.
at *5 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 2.71(a)). The Board determined
each of Mr. Duraisamy’s amendments “to be unacceptable
because they are indefinite and impermissibly broaden the
initial identification of services.” Id. at *7. As a result, the
Board concluded that Mr. Duraisamy failed to comply with
the examining attorney’s “requirements for an acceptable
entity designation, description of the mark, and identifica-
tion of services.” Id. at *8. Mr. Duraisamy filed a request
for reconsideration, and on September 4, 2024, the Board
denied Mr. Duraisamy’s request, determining that he
“failed to show why the reasoning for the decision was in
error in any respect and requires correction.” In re Du-
raisamy, No. 97552142, 2024 WL 4183232, at *7 (T.T.A.B.
Sep. 4, 2024).
Mr. Duraisamy timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B).
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 6 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 7
D ISCUSSION
We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its
underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. In re
Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We “hold
unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclu-
sions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-
cretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” “without
observance of procedure required by law,” or “unsupported
by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D), (E); see
also In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105, 1108 (Fed. Cir.
2024). Section 1051 of the Trademark Act authorizes the
USPTO Director to “promulgate rules prescribing the re-
quirements for [an] application” and requires applicants to
“comply with such rules or regulations as may be pre-
scribed by the Director.” 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(4), (b)(4).
“The [US]PTO has discretion to determine whether and
how a trademark registration should include a more par-
ticularized statement of the goods for which the mark is
[to] be used.” In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
On appeal, Mr. Duraisamy argues that he is applying
for trademarks “as owner of his company.” Appellant’s In-
formal Br. 16 ¶ 1. He requests an opportunity to “alleviate
the factors” leading to refusal of his registration. Id. at
13 ¶ 5. He states that he has been facing financial burden
and requests payment of application fees in four install-
ments. Id. Mr. Duraisamy requests to replace the mark
with an amended trademark design and description. Id. at
24–27 ¶¶ 7, 8.
We determine for three main reasons that the Board
did not abuse its discretion in affirming the examining at-
torney’s refusal to register Mr. Duraisamy’s mark. First,
the Board properly determined an inconsistency between
the owner name and entity type. Decision, 2024 WL
3025989, at *4; see also 37 C.F.R. § 2.32(a). Mr. Duraisamy
listed his name as the owner but “limited liability
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 7 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

IN RE: DURAISAMY 8
company” as the legal entity type, and Mr. Duraisamy
failed to appropriately amend his application or clarify
whether an individual or entity was the owner.
Second, the Board properly determined that Mr. Du-
raisamy failed to submit an acceptable description of the
mark. Id. at *4–5; see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.37, 2.52(b)(1).
Mr. Duraisamy applied for a stylized mark that did not
claim color, yet he mentioned color in his description. He
also referenced Times New Roman, which is itself a regis-
tered mark (TIMES NEW ROMAN, U.S. Registration No.
1340165), but failed to appropriately amend or accept the
examining attorney’s language suggestions. See Decision,
2024 WL 3025989, at *5.
Third, the Board properly determined that Mr. Du-
raisamy’s identification of goods and/or services is indefi-
nite and his amendments to the identification section
exceeded the scope of his original application. Id. at *7; see
also 37 C.F.R. § 2.71(a). Mr. Duraisamy improperly ex-
panded his identification of goods/services to extend be-
yond his original identification in International Class 42
and identify new goods and services in other classes. The
USPTO notes in its brief that “[i]f Mr. Duraisamy cannot
afford to pursue applications at this time, he may file in the
future.” Appellee’s Br. 24–25. Accordingly, we affirm the
Board’s decision.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Duraisamy’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2183 Document: 72 Page: 8 Filed: 09/03/2025

-- 8 of 8 --