Fantasy Rodeo, LLC

Mailed: November 18, 2025
UNITE D STA TE S PA TE NT AND TR A DE MA R K OFFIC E
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Fantasy Rodeo, LLC
————
Serial Nos. 90531680 & 905316991
————
Carla Calcagno of Calcagno Law PLLC,
for Fantasy Rodeo, LLC.
Tara Nielson,2 Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 127,
Mark Pilaro, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Goodman, Lavache, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Fantasy Rodeo, LLC, which is organized and located in Texas, seeks
registration on the Principal Register of the following proposed marks:
1 The Board granted Applicant’s motion to consolidate the appeals associated with the
referenced serial numbers in an order dated February 22, 2024. 7 TTABVUE 1 (Serial No.
90531680). Unless otherwise noted, the TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document
Retrieval (TSDR) citations in this opinion refer respectively to entries in the Board’s
electronic docket and the electronic application file for Serial No. 90531680. 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.
2 The above-named examining attorney, who was assigned to both applications after the filing
of Applicant’s appeals, is the third examining attorney to work on these applications. Within
this opinion, we refer to all involved examining attorneys as the Examining Attorney.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
2
RODEO TEXAS (standard characters) for “Clothing and apparel, namely, shirts,
hats, and jackets not for use by rodeo competitors,” in International Class 25, and
“Entertainment services, namely, conducting special events in the nature of pre
event [sic] parties, watch parties, and after parties in connection with sports and
entertainment events,” in International Class 41;3 and
for “Clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, hats, and jackets, all
of the foregoing not for use by rodeo competitors,” in
International Class 25.4
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on the Principal
Register of Applicant’s proposed standard character mark RODEO TEXAS under
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), on the ground that it is
primarily geographically descriptive. For the same reason, the Examining Attorney
refused registration on the Principal Register as to the proposed composite mark
3 Application Serial No. 90531680, filed February 17, 2021, based on Applicant’s allegation of
use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming October
12, 2020, as both the date of first use anywhere and the date of first use in commerce for both
classes. While Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register, it has indicated that, in
the alternative, registration is sought on the Supplemental Register if the Board finds the
mark ineligible for registration on the Principal Register. See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17
TTABVUE 3; October 18, 2022 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 1, 28.
4 Application Serial No. 90531699, filed February 17, 2021, based on Applicant’s allegation of
use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming October
12, 2020, as both the date of first use anywhere and the date of first use in commerce.
Both of the applications in this appeal were originally filed by Rodeo Sports Promotions, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company, but, after an intervening assignment to a Texas individual,
they were ultimately assigned to Fantasy Rodeo, LLC, through an assignment executed on
September 22, 2022, and recorded in the USPTO on September 28, 2022, under Reel/Frame
7854/0505.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
3
under Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a),5 in the absence of a disclaimer
of RODEO TEXAS.
After the Examining Attorney issued a final refusal in both applications,
Applicant appealed and submitted a request for reconsideration in each application,
which the Examining Attorney denied.6 The consolidated appeal subsequently
resumed and has been fully briefed.7 For the reasons explained below, we affirm the
relevant refusal as to each application.
I. Is RODEO TEXAS Primarily Geographically Descriptive?
The sole issue on appeal is whether the wording RODEO TEXAS is primarily
geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act. That section
prohibits the registration of a mark (or a portion of a mark) which, when used on or
in connection with the goods or services of an applicant, is primarily geographically
descriptive of them.8 “That is to say, where there is an indication that the purchasing
5 The Examining Attorney cites Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) as the basis for the disclaimer
requirement, based on a finding that RODEO TEXAS is primarily geographically descriptive.
See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 19 TTABVUE 1, 20. However, the statutory basis for refusing
registration for failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement is Trademark Act 6(a), 15
U.S.C. § 1056(a). See, e.g., In re Korn Ferry, No. 90890949, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 224, at *2.
6 Applicant subsequently filed another document captioned as a “Request for Reconsideration
after Final Action,” but the document merely requested that the case be returned to the Board
to resume the appeal in accordance with a previous Board order. See January 6, 2025 Request
for Reconsideration at TSDR 1-2.
7 The Examining Attorney’s Brief for Serial No. 90531680 does not include the customary
signature block that includes the names and signatures of the examining attorney and
managing attorney. See Appendix A of the TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(TMEP) (May 2025). However, the Office’s electronic database otherwise indicates that the
brief was transmitted to the Board by the above-referenced examining attorney.
8 Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2), reads in relevant part:

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
4
public would expect [an] applicant’s goods [or services] to have their origin in the
place named by the mark, registration should be refused.” In re Cambridge Dig. Sys.,
No. 73508576, 1986 TTAB LEXIS 33, at *2.
If RODEO TEXAS is primarily geographically descriptive as applied to Applicant’s
identified goods and services, then Applicant’s composite mark may not be registered
on the Principal Register without a disclaimer of RODEO TEXAS, and Applicant’s
standard character mark may not be registered on the Principal Register at all. See
15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(e)(2), 1056(a).9
A mark (or a portion of it) is primarily geographically descriptive when:
(1) the mark (or a portion of it) sought to be registered is the name of a
place generally known to the public;
(2) the source of the goods or services is the geographic region named in
the mark; and
(3) the public would make an association between the goods or services
and the place named in the mark, that is, believe that the goods or
services for which the mark is sought to be registered originate in that
place.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the
goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of
its nature unless it . . . (e) Consists of a mark which . . . (2) when used on or in
connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically
descriptive . . . .
9 A term that would otherwise be deemed to be primarily geographically descriptive of an
applicant’s goods or services may be registered on the Principal Register if the record
establishes that the term has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). See
15 U.S.C. § 1052(f); In re Broken Arrow Beef & Provision, LLC, No. 87334198, 2019 TTAB
LEXIS 32, at *2; TMEP §§ 1210.07(b); 1212.02(a). Here, Applicant has not claimed acquired
distinctiveness in either application.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
5
In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 860-61 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see In re Societe
Generale des Eaux Minerals de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
“[T]he geographical meaning [must be] perceived by the relevant public as the
primary meaning and that the geographical significance of the mark is to be
assessed as it is used on or in connection with the goods [or services].” Newbridge
Cutlery, 776 F.3d at 859 (emphasis in original; italics replaced with bold text). The
relevant public consists of the U.S. purchasers for the types of goods or services
identified in the application. Id. at 861.
If the geographic significance of a term is its primary significance, and the place
named in the mark is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the goods
and services with the place named may be presumed if, in fact, the goods and services
originate from the place named. See In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, No. 78710805,
2007 TTAB LEXIS 93, at *17; In re Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc., No. 73186977,
1982 TTAB LEXIS 107, at *6.
A. First Element – Primary Significance of RODEO TEXAS
We begin with the first element of the Section 2(e)(2) test: whether the mark (or
a portion of it) sought to be registered is the name of a place generally known to the
public. Newbridge Cutlery, 776 F.3d at 860. Where the relevant wording is composed
of more than one term, we may consider the significance of each term, provided that
we evaluate the wording as a whole. In re Save Venice New York Inc., 259 F.3d 1346,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
On that point, it is well settled that the addition of highly descriptive matter to a
geographic term does not detract from the primarily geographically descriptive

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
6
significance of the mark as a whole. In re JT Tobacconists, No. 75598351, 2001 TTAB
LEXIS 408, at *4 (MINNESOTA CIGAR COMPANY geographically descriptive of
cigars and cigar products); In re Monograms Am., No. 75089735, 1999 TTAB LEXIS
55, at *5-6 (MONOGRAMS AMERICA geographically descriptive of “consultation
services for owners of monogramming shops”); Cambridge Dig., 1986 TTAB LEXIS
33, at *9 (“[W]e do not believe that the addition of the highly descriptive word
DIGITAL and the design detract from the primary geographic significance of the
mark, CAMBRIDGE being the dominant origin-indicating feature of the mark.”).
Turning to the wording at issue here, RODEO TEXAS, we find first that TEXAS
in Applicant’s marks is the name of a place known generally to the American public,
including the relevant purchasing public, and is far from obscure or remote. Avoiding
any doubt on that point, the Examining Attorney has made of record a definition of
“Texas” as “a state in the southern U.S.,”10 as well as an excerpt from Britannica
Academic, indicating that Texas is the second-largest U.S. state in terms of area and
had a population exceeding 29 million people as of 2020.11 Aside from that evidence,
Applicant “concedes that Texas is a well-known place.”12
As to RODEO, the Examining Attorney has provided dictionary evidence,
defining the term as “a public performance featuring bronco riding, calf roping, steer
10 September 13, 2021 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 3.
11 April 19, 2022 Final Office Action at TSDR 8.
12 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE 2; see also Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE
19 (“Applicant stipulates for this entire appeal, to part one of the Newbridge test, that TEXAS
is the name of a place known generally to the public.”).

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
7
wrestling, and Brahma bull riding,”13 and contends that “the wording in the marks is
merely a combination of a descriptive term, ‘RODEO,’ and a geographic term,
‘TEXAS,’ which together are primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of
Applicant’s goods and services.”14 Applicant does not contest the meaning of RODEO
reflected in the Examining Attorney’s proffered definition, but argues that RODEO
is not merely descriptive of its goods or services,15 and disputes that RODEO TEXAS
as a whole is primarily geographically descriptive of Applicant’s goods or services.16
Therefore, to determine the primary significance of RODEO TEXAS as a whole,
we must consider the significance of RODEO in connection with Applicant’s identified
Class 25 goods and Class 41 services.
1. Applicant’s Class 41 Services
Applicant’s Class 41 services are identified as “entertainment services, namely,
conducting special events in the nature of pre[-]event parties, watch parties, and after
parties in connection with sports and entertainment events.”
Applicant argues that RODEO does not merely describe these services because
“Applicant does not render rodeo services.”17 We are not persuaded by this argument,
however, because the nature of the identified “sports and entertainment events” that
are the subject of Applicant’s entertainment services is not further specified. Thus,
13 September 13, 2021 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 2.
14 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 19 TTABVUE 6.
15 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE 14-18, 21-24.
16 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE 2.
17 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE 21.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
8
the services, as identified, are broad enough to include pre-event parties, watch
parties, and after parties featuring rodeos. See, e.g., In re NextGen Mgmt., LLC, No.
88098031, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1, at * (finding “drug prescription information” in the
application’s recitation of services “broad enough to include the diagnostic
information on which a prescription is based”).
In fact, as the Examining Attorney points out, the specimen of use provided in
support of the services advertises the “HOOEY FEST for RODEO TEXAS,” which is
described as the “LARGEST NFR WATCH PARTY and CONCERT.”18 According to
evidence provided by the Examining Attorney, the initialism “NFR” refers to the
“National Finals Rodeo,”19 confirming that at least some of Applicant’s watch parties
feature rodeo competitions. See In re Omniome, Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB
LEXIS 414, at *14 (indicating that the applicant’s own usage, including any
specimens of use, may be considered in determining descriptiveness.). In other words,
while Applicant may not itself be staging live, in-person rodeo competitions, it is
presenting such competitions through watch parties.
Thus, RODEO is merely descriptive in that it “immediately conveys knowledge of
a . . . feature . . . or characteristic of the . . . 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). Indeed, RODEO is highly descriptive in this context because
18 February 17, 2021 Application at TSDR 7.
19 See April 19, 2022 Final Office Action at TSDR 57.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
9
it identifies the subject matter of Applicant’s entertainment services, and the relevant
purchasing public will perceive it in that manner. See, e.g., In re Tires, Tires, Tires,
Inc., No. 77091459, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 654, at *13 (“A term that names the central
focus or subject matter of the services is generic for the services themselves.”); In re
Lens.com, Inc., No. 78076812, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 55, at *8 (finding LENS is a generic
name for online retail store services featuring contact eyewear products because it
identifies the subject matter of the services); In re Am. Acad. of Facial &
Reconstructive Surgery, No. 75215519, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 312, at *15 (“The words
FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY for training, association, research and collective
membership services in the field of facial plastic surgery are clearly very highly
descriptive of the nature and subject matter of applicant’s services . . . .”).
We therefore find that, as to Applicant’s Class 41 services, the term RODEO does
not detract from the primarily geographically descriptive significance of RODEO
TEXAS as a whole. See JT Tobacconists, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 408, at *4; Cambridge
Dig., 1986 TTAB LEXIS 33, at *9.
2. Applicant’s Class 25 Goods
Applicant’s Class 25 goods are identified as “clothing and apparel, namely, shirts,
hats, and jackets not for use by rodeo competitors” in the ‘680 Application, and
“clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, hats, and jackets, all of the foregoing not for
use by rodeo competitors” in the ‘699 Application.20
20 Though the wording in these identifications differs slightly, the goods identified are
essentially identical for purposes of our analysis.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
10
The Examining Attorney argues that RODEO “describes the style or characteristic
of [Applicant’s identified] clothing.”21 In support, the Examining Attorney points to a
handful of third-party website excerpts, which discuss or reference clothing in the
context of rodeos.
For example:
• ParisTexasCo.com features a webpage under the heading “Rodeo
Collection,” featuring a number of clothing items for sale, including
hats and shirts;22
• Preview.HoustonChronicle.com features an article under the heading
“RODEO” discussing the “Magellan Outdoors x Rodeo” clothing line,
created in part by the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo, which
includes shirts with a rodeo theme or rodeo-related slogan (e.g.,
RODEO CHICK, RAISED ON RODEO);23 and
• Rodeo.Austin.com advertises rodeo events and offers merchandise,
including shirts and hats emblazoned with a RODEO AUSTIN logo;24
• RodeoHouston.com, the website of the Houston Livestock Show and
Rodeo, invites Houstonians to attend the Rodeo Roundup and “[w]ear
. . . Western attire, such as jeans, cowboy boots, and cowboy hats.”25
Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney’s evidence does not establish “that
rodeo is a defined term for non-competition clothing,” “that there is a category of rodeo
style clothing,” or “that there is a style of clothing known as a rodeo clothing.”26 We
agree that the Examining Attorney’s evidence is lacking in terms of establishing
21 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 19 TTABVUE 10.
22 April 19, 2022 Final Office Action at TSDR 40.
23 Id. at 51.
24 Id. at 33-34.
25 Id. at 31-32
26 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE 2, 4.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
11
pervasive marketplace use of the term RODEO as a direct descriptor for a particular
style or category of clothing. But we find the evidence at least somewhat probative to
the extent it shows that RODEO is used to refer to rodeo-themed clothing, that such
clothing may be provided by rodeo exhibitors, and that there are types of clothing
(e.g., Western wear) that may be considered appropriate attire for attending rodeos.
The record contains other evidence relevant to the potential descriptive
significance of RODEO. In support of its argument that the Office has not treated
RODEO as descriptive in connection with clothing, Applicant provided ten active
third-party registrations on the Principal Register for marks containing RODEO and
applied to clothing, in which RODEO was not disclaimed and acquired distinctiveness
was not claimed.27 These marks are:
• (SAN ANTONIO disclaimed) for clothing, including hats,
jackets, and tops;
• RODEO NAKED for clothing, including shirts and hats;
• ROBERTSON + RODEO for clothing, including shirts;
• RODEO TUFF for clothing, including shirts, hats, and jackets;
• ROCK ‘N’ ROLL RODEO for clothing, including, shirts, jackets, and hats;
27 October 18, 2022 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 2-25. Applicant made thirteen
third-party registrations of record, but three of the registrations—Registration Nos. 4350877,
4439143, and 5044271—have since been cancelled. See In re Audemars Piguet Holding SA,
No. 90045780, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *60 n.103 (taking judicial notice of registration
renewals reflected in USPTO records). We therefore do not consider these registrations. See
Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, No. 91223352, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 228, at *31 (“A
cancelled or expired registration has no probative value other than to show that it once
issued.”).

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
12
• CINCH RODEO for clothing, including t-shirts, jackets, and caps;
• RODEO REBEL for clothing, including shirts, hats, and jackets;
• RODEO FOX for “women’s clothing, namely, shirts, dresses, skirts,
blouses”;
• RODEO HIPPIE for clothing, including t-shirts, hats, and jackets; and
• RODEO MALIBU for “graphic T-shirts.”
The Examining Attorney, in response, provided twenty-eight third-party
registrations for marks containing RODEO, in which RODEO is disclaimed, or the
mark was registered on the Principal Register under Section 2(f) or on the
Supplemental Register.28 Among those marks registered on the Principal Register
are:
• RCCO RODEO CLOTHING COMPANY (RODEO CLOTHING
COMPANY disclaimed) for jackets, pants, and shirts;
• (RODEO disclaimed) for “western clothing,” including
shirts, jackets, and hats;
• HOOKED RODEO HARDWEAR (RODEO disclaimed) for various
types of clothing, including shirts, jackets, and baseball caps;
• RODEO QUINCY (RODEO disclaimed) for clothing, including shirts
and hats;
• RODEO CARTIE (RODEO disclaimed) for clothing, including hats,
shirts, and “clothing jackets”;
28 January 10, 2024 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 8-58. The Examining
Attorney made twenty-nine third-party registrations of record, but, as Applicant notes, one
of those registrations, Registration No. 5591240, has since been cancelled. Thus, as with the
cancelled registrations submitted by Applicant, we do not consider the cancelled registration
submitted by the Examining Attorney. See Made in Nature, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 228, at *31.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
13
• ROOFTOP RODEO (RODEO disclaimed) for “clothing, namely, shirts,
sweatshirts, jackets, and caps,” as well as entertainment services,
including live rodeo events;
• RODEO COLD (RODEO disclaimed) for clothing, including shirts and
hats, as well as advertising and marketing services;
• ROWEL-D RODEO (RODEO disclaimed) for clothing, including
headwear and tops;
• (Section 2(f)-in-part claim as to RODEO AUSTIN; RODEO
disclaimed) for clothing, including shirts, jackets, and hats;
• (RODEO disclaimed) for “western apparel,” including
shirts and cowboy hats, as well as rodeo equipment;
• (RENO RODEO disclaimed) for clothing, including
hats, jackets, and t-shirts;
• (DENIM DRIVE and RENO RODEO FOUNDATION
disclaimed) for t-shirts and charitable services;
• (HOUSTON LIVESTOCK SHOW AND RODEO
disclaimed) for “t-shirts; caps being headwear,” “belt buckles,” and
entertainment services, including rodeos;
• (NEWPORT and RODEO RODEO ASSOCIATION
NEWPORT, WA disclaimed) for “hats; shirts, sweatshirts; coats” and
“live rodeo performances for entertainment”;

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
14
• RODEO WITH ALTITUDE (RODEO disclaimed) for “clothing,
namely, shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, and caps,” as well as
entertainment services, including live rodeo events; and
• ST. PAUL RODEO (Section 2(f) claim; RODEO disclaimed) for clothing
including, hats and t-shirts, as well as jewelry and beverageware.
Such third-party registrations, by themselves, are not dispositive on the question
of descriptiveness. See, e.g. In re Consumer Prot. Firm, No. 87445801, 2021 TTAB
LEXIS 67, at *29 (“Marks that are merely descriptive or generic do not become
registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register.”).
However, they may be probative evidence of descriptiveness of a given word or phrase,
if they “show the sense in which the word [or phrase] is used in ordinary parlance
and may show that a particular term has descriptive significance as applied to certain
goods or services.” In re Morinaga Nyugyo KK, No. 86338392, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 448,
at *25. Accordingly, each case must be decided on its own merits, based on the facts
and evidence at hand. See In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2001).
Here, Applicant asserts that “[t]o the extent that Applicant’s and the Examiner’s
third[-]party registrations are given any weight, it is clear that the register is a mixed
bag”29 in terms of the Office requiring a disclaimer of RODEO for marks applied to
clothing. However, as Applicant also notes, we do not have the file histories for any
of these registrations.30 In those cases where the mark was registered on the Principal
29 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE 6.
30 Id.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
15
Register with a disclaimer of RODEO, we may reasonably presume that the assigned
examining attorney determined that the term was not distinctive, and thus not
registrable, in connection with clothing, or that the applicant otherwise voluntarily
disclaimed the wording, believing the same. See Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15
U.S.C. § 1056(a) (“The Director may require the applicant to disclaim an
unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable. An applicant may
voluntarily disclaim a component of a mark sought to be registered.”). On the other
hand, where a disclaimer of RODEO was not required, the assigned examining
attorney could have concluded that the mark was unitary and thus no disclaimer of
RODEO was required, even if it would otherwise be deemed descriptive when applied
to clothing. See TMEP § 1213.05 (“If the matter that comprises the mark or relevant
portion of the mark is unitary, no disclaimer of an element, whether descriptive,
generic, or otherwise, is required.”).
Likewise, we do not know for certain why some of the registered RODEO-
formative marks relied on by the Examining Attorney were registered either on the
Principal Register under Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental
Register.31 One possibility is that the assigned examining attorney in those cases
concluded that the specimen of record showed ornamental or otherwise nondistinctive
use of the mark, not that the term RODEO is descriptive as applied to clothing. See
TMEP § 1202.03 (indicating that the ornamental matter that is not inherently
31 For this reason, we do not find these registrations compelling on the question of
descriptiveness and therefore we do not include them in the list set forth above.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
16
distinctive or an indicator of secondary source may be registered on the Principal
Register under Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register).
All that said, if there is a pattern to be discerned based on a review of the third-
party registrations of record as a whole here, it is that, more often than not, RODEO
has been disclaimed in connection with clothing, especially where the term appears
along with geographically descriptive matter, or where the application includes both
clothing and rodeo-related services.
Applicant, however, argues that RODEO is not merely descriptive of its goods
because it “does not sell clothing to wear in rodeo competitions,” which is reflected in
its amendment of the applications’ identifications to specifically indicate that the
identified clothing is “not for use by rodeo competitors.”32 But there is no reason to
conclude that RODEO is only descriptive as to clothing when that clothing is
specifically worn or used in rodeo competitions; in fact, the record suggests otherwise.
Descriptiveness must be assessed “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 In re Abcor Dev., 588 F.2d 811,
813 (CCPA 1978)). Here, the evidence of record, considered as a whole, indicates that
RODEO can be used to refer to rodeo-themed or rode-appropriate attire, or to clothing
items that are otherwise associated with rodeo events. Thus, the term has been
disclaimed in many, though not all, RODEO-formative marks applied to clothing.
32 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE 15.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
17
Further, it “is well-established that a term which describes the provider of goods
or services is also merely descriptive of those goods and services.” In re Major League
Umpires, No. 75154506, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 515, at *3. Thus, in addition to describing
the attributes discussed above, the relevant consumers may view RODEO, when it
appears in the phrase RODEO TEXAS, as indicating that the goods are provided by
a rodeo exhibitor (albeit one who exhibits rodeo events through watch parties). Cf. id.
(finding MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE descriptive of clothing items where, inter alia,
the officers and partners of Applicant were major league baseball umpires). None of
these characteristics for which RODEO is descriptive are excluded by the limiting
language added by Applicant to the identification of the goods. See, e.g., In re Classic
Media, Inc., No. 78278235, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 71, at *9-10 (finding “‘entertainment
in the nature of on-going television programs in the field of comedy’ is broad enough
to encompass contemporary television programming”).
Therefore, we find that RODEO is merely descriptive in that it immediately
conveys information about a feature or characteristic of Applicant’s identified shirts,
hats, and jackets. See Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300. And, when considered
in connection with the nature of the goods, the addition of the term RODEO does not
detract from the primarily geographic descriptiveness of RODEO TEXAS as a whole.
B. Second Element – Geographic Origin of the Goods and Services
Under the second element of the Section 2(e)(2) test, we consider whether the
source of the goods and services is the geographic region named in the mark (or
relevant portion of the mark). See Newbridge Cutlery, 776 F.3d at 860. In other words,

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
18
we must determine whether Applicant’s identified clothing items and entertainment
services originate in Texas.
In making this determination, the relevant inquiry is whether there is some direct
connection between the named place and the goods and services. See In re Miracle
Tuesday, LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is clear that there must
be some other direct connection between the goods [or services] and the place
identified in the mark . . . .”). Thus, goods may be deemed to originate in a place if it
is where the goods are manufactured or sold, “where the goods are designed or
distributed, where the applicant is headquartered or has its research and
development facility, or where a main component of the good originates.” Id. at 1345;
see also Spirits of New Merced, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 93, at *2-3 (finding YOSEMITE
identified the geographic origin of the applicant’s beer where, inter alia, it was brewed
and sold in Merced, California, 80 miles from Yosemite National Park).
And services may be found to originate in a geographic location if they are
rendered in or near the location. See, e.g., In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, No.
85662420, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 167, at *21-22 (finding that applicant’s services
originated in Hollywood because it is district of Los Angeles, where applicant’s
address was located); In re MCO Props. Inc., No. 74438943, 1995 TTAB LEXIS 19, at
*4-5 (finding FOUNTAIN HILLS primarily geographically descriptive of real estate
development services rendered in Fountain Hills, Arizona).
The Examining Attorney argues that Applicant’s Class 41 services originate in
Texas because Applicant is organized in Texas and has a domicile address in Decatur,

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
19
Texas, and because one of the specimens of use indicates that at least some of its
services are rendered in Fort Worth, Texas.33 We agree with the Examining Attorney
that this is a sufficient basis to find that Applicant’s services originate in Texas . Cf.
In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen, Inc., No. 73580581, 1988 TTAB LEXIS 64, at *5 (finding that
even if the applicant’s restaurant services provided under the mark CALIFORNIA
PIZZA KITCHEN are provided in other states in addition to California, consumers
would still assume the services originate in California).
As to the origin of Applicant’s Class 25 goods, the Examining Attorney relies not
only on the fact that Applicant is organized and located in Texas, but also that the
relevant specimens of use indicate that its goods are sold online without any apparent
restrictions “regarding where consumers can purchase [the goods], meaning
Applicant sells its goods in Texas.”34 The Examining Attorney also points out that
consumers are likely to purchase the goods in Texas when attending Applicant’s
watch parties rendered in Texas, and thus the goods may be distributed in Texas.35
Applicant does not explicitly dispute that the goods may be offered, distributed, or
sold in Texas. Instead, it argues only that none of its goods are manufactured in
Texas;36 that the fact that Applicant is organized and located in Texas is insufficient
33 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 19 TTABVUE 7.
34 Id. at 8.
35 Id.
36 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE 20; see also Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE
8 (asserting that “[o]ther than Applicant’s domicile, there is absolutely no evidence in the
record that Applicant’s goods are made in Texas [or] are actually shipped or packaged from
Texas”).

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
20
to establish that consumers will believe the goods originate there;37 and that
“something more” than the fact that the goods are sold online is required to establish
an origin in Texas.38 We agree with Applicant that any one of the considerations
raised by the Examining Attorney, might, in isolation, be inadequate to support the
Examining Attorney’s position as to the goods’ origin. However, when the facts and
evidence of record are evaluated as a whole, we find there is a sufficient nexus
between Applicant’s goods and the state of Texas such that the goods originate there
for purposes of the Section 2(e)(2) analysis. See Cal. Pizza Kitchen, 1988 TTAB LEXIS
64, at *4 (“It is the perception of the public as to the geographical significance of the
mark which controls whether registration should be refused pursuant to Section
2(e)(2) . . . .”).
In reaching the above findings, we reject Applicant’s argument that “in the context
of Applicant’s composite mark TEXAS does not identify the geographic origin of
Applicant’s [goods and] services.”39 Specifically, Applicant argues that RODEO
TEXAS “is not a correct grammatical use of the English language ,”40 but instead
“breaks apart a unitary term [TEXAS RODEO] [that] when reassembled in its new
form, creates an incongruity that requires a multi-stage reasoning process or
37 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE 19-20.
38 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE 9.
39 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17 TTABVUE 21.
40 Id. at 23.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
21
imagination to tie it to Applicant’s [goods] and . . . services.”41 According to Applicant,
this renders RODEO TEXAS “no more than geographically suggestive of Applicant’s
clothing and services.”42 Applicant presents these arguments in the context of the
geographic origin of the goods and services, but they are more appropriately directed
to whether the primary significance of RODEO TEXAS is geographic, which we have
already addressed above. In any event, we find this argument unpersuasive in either
context, because, beyond Applicant’s bare argument, there is nothing to convince us
that the transposition of TEXAS RODEO to RODEO TEXAS results in a distinctive
meaning, without any geographically descriptive significance.43 See, e.g., U.S. Playing
Card Co. v. Harbro, LLC, No. 78253725, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 484, at *18 (giving no
weight to attorney argument in the absence of support in the record).
C. Third Element – Whether Purchasers are Likely to Believe Goods
and Services Originate in the Named Place
The third element of the Section 2(e)(2) test is whether “the public would make
an association between the goods or services and the place named in the mark, that
is, believe that the goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered
originate in that place.” Newbridge Cutlery, 776 F.3d at 860. Because we have already
41 Id. While Applicant specifically references its “services” in these arguments, the thrust of
the arguments, relating to the primary significance of RODEO TEXAS, would appear to apply
to both its goods and its services.
42 Id.
43 Accordingly, we also note that the cases cited by Applicant in support of this argument—In
re Urbano, No. 74441447, 1999 TTAB LEXIS 203, and In re Int’l Minerals & Chem. Corp.,
1965 TTAB LEXIS 121 (no number in original)—are distinguishable from this case because,
in those cases, the Board found the marks at issue to have distinctive, non-geographic
meanings as applied to the relevant goods and services.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
22
found that (1) the primary significance of RODEO TEXAS is geographic and the
named place, Texas, is neither obscure nor remote, and (2) Applicant’s goods and
services originate in Texas, we may presume that the relevant public will make the
requisite association of the goods and services with the named place.44 See In re
Princeton Equity Grp. LLC, No. 97397212, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 242, at *9-10; Spirits
of New Merced, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 93, at *17; Handler Fenton Westerns, 1982 TTAB
LEXIS 107, at *6.
II. Conclusion
In conclusion, we find the primary significance of TEXAS in Applicant’s RODEO
TEXAS mark to be the U.S. state of Texas, a geographical location that is generally
known to the relevant U.S. purchasers of Applicant’s identified goods and services.
Because Applicant is organized and located in Texas and the identified goods and
services are offered in and originate from Texas, we presume that the relevant
purchasers will make the requisite association between Texas and the identified
goods and services. The addition of the merely descriptive term RODEO to TEXAS is
of no consequence with respect to the primary geographic descriptiveness of RODEO
TEXAS, as it does not change the geographic meaning of the term as a whole when
considered in connection with the identified goods and services. Thus, we find
RODEO TEXAS to be primarily geographically descriptive of the goods and services
44 We also note, as the Examining Attorney does (see Examining Attorney’s Brief, 19
TTABVUE 8-9), that the evidence of record, some of which we discussed in our analysis,
establishes that the public has been exposed to rodeo-related services and goods that emanate
from Texas. And Applicant has conceded that Texas is a well-known place that has rodeos.
See Applicant’s Reply Brief, 22 TTABVUE 2. Thus, we would find the requisite goods/place
and services/place association in the absence of the referenced presumption.

Serial Nos. 90531680 & 90531699
23
in the involved applications under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(2).
Decision: The refusal of registration on the Principal Register of Applicant’s
proposed standard character mark RODEO TEXAS in Application Serial No.
90531680, under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2), is affirmed. However, the
application may proceed to registration on the Supplemental Register in view of
Applicant’s proposed amendment in the alternative to that register during
prosecution.45 See TMEP § 816.04.
The refusal of registration on the Principal Register of the proposed composite
mark in Application Serial No. 90531699, under Trademark Act Section 6(a), in the
absence of a disclaimer of RODEO TEXAS, is also affirmed. However, Applicant is
allowed until 30 days from the date of this decision to submit to the Board a properly
formatted disclaimer of RODEO TEXAS,46 in which case this decision will be set aside
and the application will be forwarded to publication for registration on the Principal
Register in due course. See Trademark Rule 2.142(g), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(g);
TRADEMARK TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE § 1218.
45 See October 18, 2022 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 28 (“Applicant is amending the
application to the Supplemental Register solely in the alternative, while it continues to
maintain that the mark should achieve a Principal Registration.”).
46 We note that Applicant has previously indicated a willingness to disclaim RODEO TEXAS
if it is found to be primarily geographically descriptive. See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 17
TTABVUE 23. A properly formatted disclaimer statement would read as follows: No claim is
made to the exclusive right to use “RODEO TEXAS” apart from the mark as shown. See
TMEP § 1213.08(a)(i).