Helande, LLC

Mailed: February 13, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Helande, LLC
————
Serial No. 98083515
————
David M. Perry and Blake Fink of Blank Rome LLP,
for Helande, LLC.
Hanno Rittner, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 119,
Brett Golden, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Heasley, Dunn, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Helande, LLC seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
proposed standard character mark HELANDE for:
Non-medicated skin care preparations, namely, creams, lotions, gels, serums,
oils, balms, and masks for the face, body, and hands, in International Class 3;
Medicated skin care preparations, namely, creams, lotions, gels, serums, oils,
balms, and masks for the face, body, and hands, in International Class 5.1
1 Application No. 98083515, filed on July 13, 2023, claiming a bona fide intention to use the
mark in commerce as to both classes, under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
The application includes the following translation statement: “The English translation of
HELANDE in the mark is healing.”
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 98083515
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of the proposed mark as
to both classes of goods under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1),
on the ground that HELANDE is the foreign equivalent of the term “healing” and is
thus merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods. After the Examining Attorney
issued a final refusal under Section 2(e)(1), Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration, which the Examining Attorney denied. The appeal then resumed
and has been fully briefed. An oral hearing was held on October 30, 2025. For the
reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark.
I. Applicable Law
A. Mere Descriptiveness
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act bars registration of a mark that is merely
descriptive when used on or in connection with an applicant’s identified goods and
the mark has not otherwise acquired distinctiveness. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(e)(1),
1052(f). A term is merely descriptive “if it immediately conveys knowledge of a
quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods . . . 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).
Descriptiveness is not assessed in the abstract, but instead “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, we must consider the perception

Serial No. 98083515
- 3 -
of the average purchasers of medicated and non-medicated skin care preparations in
the nature of creams, lotions, gels, serums, oils, balms, and masks for the face, body,
and hands.
Evidence of the relevant purchasers’ understanding of a term in connection with
particular goods “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 may also be considered when determining descriptiveness. See
In re Omniome, Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *14.
B. Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents
Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, if a proposed mark contains a foreign
term from a common, modern language familiar to an appreciable number of
American consumers, that term is translated into English to determine whether it is
merely descriptive. See Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Vetements Grp.
AG, 137 F.4th 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (noting the “well-recognized tenet that
‘words from modern languages are generally translated into English.’” (quoting Palm
Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1377)), cert. denied, Vetements Grp. AG v. Stewart, __ US __,
2026 U.S. LEXIS 373 (Jan. 12, 2026).

Serial No. 98083515
- 4 -
“[U]nless it is unlikely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and
translate the word into its English equivalent, the doctrine of foreign equivalents
applies.” Vetements Grp., 137 F.4th at 1327 (“Our cases have translated and
prohibited registration of a descriptive non-English mark regardless of ‘the idea
which [the mark] may, or may not, convey to the general public.’”). In this context,
the “ordinary American purchaser” includes “all American purchasers, including
those proficient in a non-English language who would ordinarily be expected to
translate words into English.” In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2009).
Bearing in mind that “[t]he doctrine of foreign equivalents is not an absolute rule
and should be viewed merely as a guideline,” Palm Bay Imps., 396 F.3d at 1377, our
primary reviewing court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has
identified three nonexclusive “guiding principles” “relevant to analyzing the
‘threshold limitation on the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents’ of
whether the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the mark into
English.” Vetements Grp., 137 F.4th at 1331 (citations omitted).
These guiding principles are:
(1) “[T]he burden is on the party opposing translation to show that it is
unlikely the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate
the word into its English equivalent.” Id.
(2) “As long as an appreciable number of Americans, from the U.S.
population as a whole, are capable of translating the word, the word
likely will be translated.” Id. (citations omitted).
(3) The analysis considers “whether in context, the mark would
ordinarily be translated by a purchaser (from the U.S. population as

Serial No. 98083515
- 5 -
a whole) with ordinary sensibilities.” Id. (emphasis in italics in
original).
II. Arguments, Evidence, and Analysis
The Examining Attorney argues that the proposed mark HELANDE is the
Swedish equivalent of the English term “healing,” and thus is merely descriptive of
the purpose of Applicant’s medicated and non-medicated skin care preparations.2 The
record contains excerpts from online translation dictionaries supporting this
translation,3 and Applicant itself has confirmed this translation by entering a
translation statement indicating that the “English translation of HELANDE in the
mark is healing.”4 See In re Tokutake Indus., No. 79018656, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 26, at
*10-11 (“Once an applicant provides a translation of a foreign term that is a . . .
descriptive term for the goods in English, it has a more difficult burden to then show
that the term is not merely descriptive . . . .”)
The Examining Attorney’s evidence in support of the descriptiveness of “healing”
includes the following:
• A list of results from google.com in response to a Google search for
“healing skin cream,” showing more than 30 different brands of skin
preparations variously described as “healing ointment,” “healing
skin ointment,” “healing cream,” “healing skin cream,” “all purpose
healing skin cream,” “skin healing cream,” “fast healing cream,”
“healing lotion,” “intensive healing lotion,” “healing balm,” “healing
2 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12 TTABVUE 3-8.
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 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.
3 See, e.g., March 22, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 41-42, 46-47.
4 April 16, 2024 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 1.

Serial No. 98083515
- 6 -
salve,” “healing skin salve,” “intensive healing scar cream,” “original
healing,” “wound healing cream,” “all purpose cream w/ healing
crystals,” “eczema treatment for healing dermatitis, dry skin,” and
“aftercare healing cream”;5
• Excerpts from cvs.com, eucerinus.com, niveausa.com, and
goldbond.com, advertising different brands of skin care preparations
variously referred to as “healing ointment skin protectant,”6 “original
healing lotion,”7 “intense healing body lotion,”8 and “healing
hydrating cream/lotion”;9
• An excerpt from the “r/SkincareAddiction” forum on reddit.com
inquiring about users’ “favorite body lotion for healing”;10 and
• Eighteen active third-party registrations for marks containing
HEALING, covering medicated and non-medicated skin care
preparations, in which HEALING is disclaimed.11
The Internet evidence provided by the Examining Attorney establishes that the
term “healing” is commonly used in the marketplace to refer to medicated and non-
5 May 22, 2024 Final Office Action at TSDR 8-21. The search engine results include
photographs of the relevant goods and provide sufficient context for determining how the
term “healing” is used in connection with the goods. Thus, we find these results to be
probative evidence in our analysis. Compare Bayer, 488 F.3d at 967 (“Search engine results—
which provide little context to discern how a term is actually used on the web page that can
be accessed through the search result link—may be insufficient to determine the nature of
the use of a term or the relevance of the search results to registration considerations.”), with
In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 86261962, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *29 n.38 (“Web-based
information that includes greater context for the use of a term, such as a complete webpage,
will have greater probative value in determining how a term will be perceived.”).
6 May 22, 2024 Final Office Action at TSDR at 5-7.
7 Id. at 109-112.
8 Id. at 113-117.
9 Id. at 102-108.
10 Id. at 100-101.
11 March 22, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 5-39.

Serial No. 98083515
- 7 -
medicated skin care preparations that can be used to cure, restore, or repair skin.12
In this case, Applicant’s skin care preparations are broadly identified and would
therefore include preparations for healing the skin. See In re Country Oven, Inc., No.
87354443, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 381, at *4 (“Where the identification of [goods or]
services is broad, the Board ‘presume[s] that the [goods or] services encompass all
[goods or] services of the type identified.’” (quoting Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled,
Ltd., No. 76393986, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 176, at *60-61)). Thus, “healing” merely
describes a purpose, characteristic, or function of the identified goods, and the
relevant purchasers would perceive the term accordingly. See N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d
at 1367 (“[T]he TTAB must consider a [term] in its commercial context to determine
the public’s perception.” (internal quotations omitted)); see also Bayer, 488 F.3d at
964.
The third-party registrations provided by the Examining Attorney lend further
support for this conclusion, as such registrations generally “show the sense in which
[a] word is used in ordinary parlance and may show that a particular term has
descriptive significance as applied to certain goods.” In re Morinaga Nyugyo KK, No.
86338392, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 448, at *25. Here, where a mark was registered on the
12 See MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
healing (indicating “healing” is a form of “heal,” which means, inter alia, “to make well again
: to restore to health” or “to cure of disease or disorder”) (accessed on February 6, 2026). The
Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries that
exist in printed form or regular fixed editions. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet
Food Imps. Co., No. 91061847, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 146, at *7, aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Red Bull GmbH, No. 75788830, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *7; TRADEMARK TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE § 1208.04 (2025).

Serial No. 98083515
- 8 -
Principal Register with a disclaimer of HEALING, we may reasonably presume that
the assigned examining attorney determined that the term was not distinctive, and
thus not registrable, in connection with the goods, 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.”).
Despite the evidence that “healing” is merely descriptive and the application’s
translation statement indicating that HELANDE means “healing,” Applicant asserts
that its proposed mark “does not have a descriptive connotation, since the term
HELANDE is so unfamiliar to the American buying public that it should not, and
would not, be translated into English for descriptiveness purposes.”13 In other words,
Applicant disputes that the doctrine of foreign equivalents should be applied here,
and makes a number of arguments against applying it.14
A. Is “Healing” a Literal and Direct Translation of HELANDE?
First, Applicant argues that “the applicable English translation is not literal and
direct” because “the term ‘HELANDE’ is the present participle of the term ‘hela,’
which can mean a variety of things, including ‘full,’ ‘throughout,’ ‘heal,’ or
‘curative.’”15 However, Applicant’s argument is significantly undercut by its
13 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 9-10.
14 Id. at 9-16.
15 Id. at 11.

Serial No. 98083515
- 9 -
submission of a translation statement translating HELANDE as “healing.”16 See
Tokutake Indus., 2008 TTAB LEXIS 26, at *10 (rejecting applicant’s argument that
the definition of the relevant term relied upon by the examining attorney was “taken
out of context” where that meaning matched the one applicant itself provided). Aside
from that, the Examining Attorney has supplemented the evidence from online
translation dictionaries with numerous actual examples of Swedish phrases
containing “helande” that, when translated into English, refer to “healing.” For
instance:
• The wording “helande salva,” which appears in the description of a
skin care preparation, appears in English on the goods as “healing
salve”;17
• The wording “Vetenskapliga Helande Affirmationer,” the title of a
book, translates to “Scientific Healing Affirmations”;18
• Another book title, “Inre Helande,” is translated as “Inner
Healing”;19
• A third book title, “Helande Berättelse,” is translated into English as
“Healing Story”;20 and
• “Helande Tarar,” the name of a podcast, translates to “Healing
Tears” on the English version of the Apple podcasts site.21
16 April 16, 2024 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 1.
17 May 22, 2024 Final Office Action at TSDR 35.
18 Id. at 41.
19 February 24, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 27.
20 Id. at 43, 46.
21 Id. at 41-42.

Serial No. 98083515
- 10 -
In addition, Applicant’s own website, helande.com, refers to “helande” as “the
Swedish concept of healing.”22 In view of this evidence, we reject Applicant’s
argument that “healing” is not a literal and direct translation of HELANDE.
B. Other Relevant Meanings of HELANDE
We likewise reject Applicant’s related argument that “the evidence clearly
supports that there are other relevant meanings that can be applied to the Swedish
term and Applicant’s mark HELANDE.”23 Applicant bases this argument on
dictionary evidence showing that the Swedish term “hela” can be an adjective
meaning “full” or a preposition meaning “throughout.”24 While “hela” and “helande”
appear to be related terms in Swedish,25 “helande” is the term at issue here, not
“hela.” In other words, the “helande” form of the term is the one we must consider
when determining whether the doctrine of foreign equivalents applies. In any event,
Applicant’s evidence also shows that the verbal form of “hela” means “heal” and the
adjectival form “helande” means “curative,”26 which are the most apt meanings in
connection with the identified goods.
To the extent that Applicant is arguing that the “curative” definition of “helande”
constitutes “contradictory evidence of another meaning for the subject term,”27 we
22 Id. at 203.
23 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 16.
24 Id. at 11, 16 (citing evidence in April 16, 2024 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR
10).
25 April 16, 2024 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 10.
26 Id.
27 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 16.

Serial No. 98083515
- 11 -
disagree. “Curative” means “relating to or used in the cure of diseases : tending to
cure,”28 and is synonymous with “healing,” which is defined as, inter alia, “to cure of
disease or disorder.”29 Applicant cites no other evidence showing that “helande” has
other contradictory meanings when applied to the identified goods.
C. Is Swedish a Common and Modern Language?
The bulk of Applicant’s remaining arguments concern whether Swedish is a
common, modern language, such that the relevant American purchaser would stop
and translate the term HELANDE. According to Applicant, the doctrine of foreign
equivalents should not be applied here because “the Examining Attorney failed to
demonstrate in any capacity that Swedish is a common, modern language to U.S.
citizens,” whereas Applicant’s evidence “emphatically proves that Swedish is not a
common, modern language to U.S. citizens supported by facts and statistics.”30 We
disagree.
As a preliminary matter, Applicant’s use of the phrase “common, modern
language to U.S. citizens” recasts the relevant consideration in a significant and
inaccurate way by suggesting that there must be proof that U.S. citizens view the
relevant foreign language as common and modern. But there is no such requirement.
Rather, we must determine whether the foreign language “is one of the modern
languages of the principal nations of the world” and whether “an appreciable number
28 See MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cura-
tive (accessed on February 9, 2026).
29 See MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heal-
ing (accessed on February 9, 2026).
30 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 12 (emphasis omitted).

Serial No. 98083515
- 12 -
of Americans are capable of translating the term” at issue. Vetements Grp., 137 F.4th
at 1326-27.
The record provides ample evidence that Swedish is a modern language of a
principal nation of the world, namely, Sweden. There are currently more than 10
million Swedish speakers in Sweden, which, according to the International Trade
Administration, is the “largest Nordic economy,” “with a GDP of $586 billion” as of
2022.31 And the World Bank’s World Integrated Trade Solution website indicates that
Sweden is a major trading partner of the U.S., which receives the third-most Swedish
exports, behind only Norway and Germany.32 Further, the Examining Attorney
submitted evidence from Wikipedia indicating that Swedish is the most spoken
Germanic language in Nordic countries and the fourth-most spoken Germanic
language overall, with the largest Swedish-speaking populations outside of Sweden
residing in Finland, the U.S., the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany.33
Applicant points to two declarations to support its argument that Swedish is not
a common, modern language.34 In one of the declarations, the Executive Director of
the American Swedish Historical Museum in Philadelphia opines that “Swedish is a
31 February 24, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 156.
32 Id. at 126.
33 See May 22, 2024 Final Office Action at TSDR 83, 87. “The Board gives guarded
consideration to evidence taken from Wikipedia, bearing in mind the limitations inherent in
this reference work, so long as the non-offering party has an opportunity to rebut the evidence
by submitting other evidence that may call its accuracy into question.” In re Lizzo LLC, No.
91240180, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 22, at *16 n.24. Here, because the Wikipedia excerpt was
included in a final office action, to which Applicant could, and did, respond, Applicant had an
opportunity to rebut the evidence.
34 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 15.

Serial No. 98083515
- 13 -
decidedly rare language in my community and, I believe, in the U.S. at large.”35 The
declarant bases this opinion on the fact that the number of students enrolled in the
museum’s Swedish language classes has stayed consistent and has not grown, and
because the museum’s exhibit descriptions are in English, not Swedish. In the other
declaration, the Program Manager of Swedish Language Studies of the Swedish
Institute opines that “in the United States, Swedish must be regarded as a lesser
taught language,” because only 23 universities in the U.S. offer Swedish language
studies.36
These declarations, which reflect the personal opinions of the declarants, are
unpersuasive. It stands to reason that a Swedish historical museum in America,
which presumably caters to many patrons who are not knowledgeable about Sweden
and do not speak Swedish, would present its exhibits in English. We therefore cannot
conclude on this basis that Swedish is an uncommon or obscure language. Further,
the number of students enrolled in Swedish language classes, and the number of
American universities that offer Swedish language studies, at best establish only that
Swedish is less commonly taught in the United States than other languages. But a
language is not rare or obscure simply because it is less commonly taught.37 In other
words, “less common” does not mean “uncommon.” In sum, based on the evidence of
record, we find that Swedish “is one of the modern languages of the principal nations
35 November 22, 2024 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 150 (declaration of Tracey Beck).
36 Request for Remand, 4 TTABVUE 6 (declaration of Viktor Hennius).
37 For this reason, we are also not persuaded by Applicant’s other evidence regarding the
number of Swedish language classes and students in the U.S.

Serial No. 98083515
- 14 -
of the world,” i.e., a common, modern language. See Vetements Grp., 137 F.4th at
1326.
That leaves the question of whether an “appreciable number” of American
purchasers are capable of translating the Swedish term HELANDE. “As long as
an appreciable number of Americans, from the U.S. population as a whole, are
capable of translating the word, the word likely will be translated.” Vetements Grp.,
137 F.4th at 1331.
Both the Examining Attorney and Applicant have submitted a substantial
amount of evidence regarding the Swedish language and the number of Swedish
speakers worldwide and in the U.S. And both appear to agree that, according to U.S.
Census data, there were slightly more than 76,000 Swedish speakers in the United
States as of 2022.38 Applicant accurately calculates that this amounts to
approximately .02% of the U.S. population.39
Based in part on this calculation, Applicant disputes that an “appreciable
number” of Americans are capable of translating HELANDE.40 Applicant argues that
“[e]ven if the ‘ordinary American purchaser’ includes Swedish speakers, which it
undoubtedly does, the test then turns to how many Swedish speakers there are and
whether that number is significant enough to result in the ‘ordinary American
purchaser’ being knowledgeable about the meaning.”41 On this point, the Court of
38 See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12 TTABVUE 9; Applicant’s Reply Brief, 13 TTABVUE 8.
39 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 12.
40 See id. at 8, 11; Applicant’s Reply Brief, 13 TTABVUE 6.
41 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 13 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 98083515
- 15 -
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected the idea that the “appreciable number”
determination should be decided on the basis of a mere “headcount” of those American
purchasers who understand the foreign language at issue. Vetements Grp., 137 F.4th
at 1327 (rejecting appellant’s argument that “only a minute fraction of Americans
actually speak French,” and noting that “[a]dopting Appellant’s headcount rule would
render the doctrine of foreign equivalents inapplicable for all words in non-English
languages that are not understood by most Americans.”). Thus, the “appreciable
number” “principle does not require an absolute majority of the population being
capable of translation.” Id. at 1331. Nor does it require “precisely or rigidly defining
the ordinary American purchaser’s language skills,” given the “well recognized
principles in the doctrine of foreign equivalents that . . . words from modern
languages are generally translated into English”; that “typically a descriptive word,
used in one of the modern languages of the principal nations of the world, cannot be
properly registered as a trade-mark”; and that it is “usually . . . immaterial that the
name is in a foreign language.” Id. at 1327 (internal citations and quotations omitted);
see also Nestle’s Milk Prods., Inc. v. Baker Importing Co., 182 F.2d 193, 196 (CCPA
1950) (“Foreign language words, not adopted into the English language, which are
descriptive of a product, are so considered in registration proceedings despite the fact
that the words may be meaningless to the public generally.”).
We acknowledge that the relative share of Swedish speakers in the U.S. is very
small. However, even very small populations of speakers of a common and modern
foreign language can give rise to an appreciable number of American purchasers who

Serial No. 98083515
- 16 -
are capable of translating a term in the relevant language. See In re La Peregrina
Ltd., No. 78676199, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 38, at *10 (“We presume that a word in one of
the common, modern languages of the world will be spoken or understood by an
appreciable number of U.S. consumers for the goods at issue.”). And the Board has
previously applied the doctrine of foreign equivalents to common, modern languages
with relatively small U.S. populations of speakers. Cf., e.g., In re S. Malhotra & Co.
AG, No. 79194076, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 344, at *6 (Greek, spoken by 304,932 U.S.
residents); Tokutake Indus., 2008 TTAB LEXIS 26, at *8 (Japanese, spoken by
“hundreds of thousands of people in the United States”). Therefore, in view of our
finding that Swedish is a common, modern language, we also find that an appreciable
number of American purchasers are capable of translating HELANDE.
Further, in accordance with Vetements Grp., we find that “in context, the mark
would ordinarily be translated by a purchaser (from the U.S. population as a whole)
with ordinary sensibilities.” 137 F.4th at 1331 (emphasis deleted). That is, a
purchaser with ordinary sensibilities would translate the word HELANDE because
it is relevant in the context of medicated and non-medicated skin care preparations,
which the evidence shows are commonly marketed for use in healing the skin.
Further, there is no evidence that HELANDE, meaning, simply, “healing” would
require an advanced Swedish vocabulary. See id. at 1327 (“Additionally, the word in
question is a simple and common word–the word for clothing.”). And, because
HELANDE has a clear, descriptive English meaning in the context of Applicant’s
goods, consumers familiar with the word likely will focus on that meaning when

Serial No. 98083515
- 17 -
encountering the mark on the goods. Thus, because the record fails to establish any
meaning of HELANDE other than “healing” in the context of Applicant’s goods, that
is undoubtedly how the term would be recognized and understood by the Swedish-
speaking American public. See La Peregrina Ltd., 2008 TTAB LEXIS 38, at *11
(applying doctrine of foreign equivalents because “la peregrina” and “the pilgrim” are
“equivalent in meaning”).
D. Whether Applicant Has Satisfied its Burden
As stated in Vetements Grp., the burden is on the party opposing translation to
show that it is unlikely the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate
the foreign term into its English equivalent. 137 F.4th at 1331. And, “[o]nce an
applicant provides a translation of a foreign term that is a . . . descriptive term for
the goods in English, it has a more difficult burden to then show that the term is not
merely descriptive.” Tokutake Indus., 2008 TTAB LEXIS 26, at *10-11; see also In re
Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 603 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Because ‘churrasco’ is a
common word in Spanish and Portuguese and because the . . . Application itself
concedes that ‘churrascos’ means ‘barbecue,’ the [USPTO] would have been justified
in translating ‘churrascos’ into ‘barbecue’ and subsequently determining whether the
term ‘barbecue’ is generic when applied to restaurant services.”).
Here, the evidence establishes that Swedish is a common, modern language; that
an appreciable number of Americans, from the U.S. population as a whole, are
capable of translating Swedish word HELANDE; and that a consumer with ordinary
sensibilities actually would translate the term given the relevance of its meaning in
connection with Applicant’s identified goods.

Serial No. 98083515
- 18 -
Applicant itself provided a translation statement indicating that HELANDE
means “healing.” It has not established that this translation is mistaken or otherwise
inaccurate, or that HELANDE would not be easily recognized and translated by
Swedish speakers in the U.S. marketplace in connection with Applicant’s goods. See
In re Sadoru Group, Ltd., No. 77941164, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 325, at *3 (“The doctrine
is applicable in this case because the record shows that the relevant English
translation is literal and direct, the word comes from a common, modern language,
and there is no contradictory evidence of another relevant meaning.”). Nor has
Applicant established that the term is an obscure, rare, or uncommon word, known
only to those with an advanced Swedish vocabulary; that it would not be translated
because of marketplace circumstances or the commercial setting in which the mark
is used; or that its inherent nature makes translation unnecessary. See La Peregrina
Ltd., 2008 TTAB LEXIS 38, at *11; In re Thomas, No. 78334625, 2006 TTAB LEXIS
135, at *14 (applying doctrine of foreign equivalents because MARCHE NOIR and
“black market” are exact translations and there was no indication that MARCHE
NOIR would not be translated due to inherent nature of the mark, marketplace
circumstances, or commercial setting). We therefore find that Applicant has not met
its burden to show that it is unlikely the ordinary American purchaser would stop
and translate HELANDE into its English equivalent.
III. Other Considerations
A. Prior USPTO Actions
Applicant argues that a finding of mere descriptiveness in this case would
contradict “the prevailing, current position of the [USPTO] regarding the Swedish

Serial No. 98083515
- 19 -
language and, more specifically, the term ‘HELANDE.’”42 In making this argument,
Applicant points to a third-party application, “Serial No. 98364404 for HELANDE
INNOVATIONS for use in connection with ‘Medical devices, namely, spinal implants
composed of artificial materials’ in International Class 10[,] . . . which has received a
Notice of Allowance and will register upon submission of sufficient proof of use
without a disclaimer of ‘HELANDE.’”43 According to Applicant, the USPTO’s
allowance of this application “without a disclaimer of ‘HELANDE’ or a claim of
acquired distinctiveness demonstrates a recognition by the [USPTO] that the use of
the word HELANDE in this context is inherently distinctive, and that such marks
are registrable without a disclaimer.”44
We find this argument unavailing, as the allowance of a single application cannot
and does not establish a “prevailing, current position” of the USPTO on the
registrability of a specific term. The cited application has yet to mature to registration
and, even if it were currently registered, we are not bound by prior decisions of
examining attorneys to register other marks. See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some
characteristics similar to [Applicant’s] application, the [USPTO’s] allowance of such
prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”). In any event, the mark
42 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 18.
43 Id. at 17 (italics and underlining removed). The application also contains a translation
statement indicating that HELANDE means “curative.” The applicant has since filed a
statement of use, which was accepted by the examining attorney assigned to the application.
44 Id.

Serial No. 98083515
- 20 -
and the goods in this third-party application are different from those at issue here.45
See In re USA Warriors Ice Hockey Program, Inc., No. 86489116, 2017 TTAB LEXIS
143, at *10 n.10 (noting that prior decisions and actions of other trademark
examining attorneys in registering other marks have little evidentiary value and
neither the Board nor other examining attorneys are not bound by prior decisions
involving different records); see also Lizzo LLC, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 22, at *28
(“[W]here an applicant cites registrations where the factual record is unknown, those
references ‘have no precedential value.’” (quoting In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518
F.2d 629, 632 (CCPA 1975))). In short, each case must be decided on its own merits,
and the allowance of one application does not require the allowance of another “if, on
the facts of the [second] case, it would be improper to do so under the governing legal
standard.” USA Warriors, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 143, at *10 n.10 (citing Cordua Rests.,
823 F.3d at 600).
B. Rule of Doubt
Lastly, Applicant notes that, if any doubt exists as to whether the proposed mark
is merely descriptive, the doubt must be resolved in Applicant’s favor.46 While we
agree with that general proposition, we have no doubt as to our conclusion. See In re
Berkeley Lights, Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *30 (“To be sure, when
the Board has doubt on the issue of descriptiveness, it resolves such doubt in favor of
45 Applicant also cites to the record of a third-party application from over ten years ago, in
which the assigned examining attorney withdrew a requirement to translate the Swedish
term KALLA after the applicant argued that Swedish is obscure and uncommon in the U.S.
See id. We find this evidence is also of little probative value.
46 Id. at 18-19.

Serial No. 98083515
- 21 -
the applicant. But the ‘rule of doubt’ applies only where the Board expresses some
doubt.” (citations omitted)).
IV. Conclusion
Having considered all of the arguments and evidence of record, we find that the
doctrine of foreign equivalents applies here and, accordingly, conclude that
Applicant’s proposed mark HELANDE, the Swedish equivalent of the English term
“healing,” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods.
Decision: The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) to register Applicant’s
proposed mark HELANDE is affirmed as to both classes of goods.