Laundry CEO LLC

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: December 18, 2025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Laundry CEO LLC
_____
Serial No. 98382558
_____
Andrea Hence Evans of The Law Firm of Andrea Hence Evans, LLC,
for Laundry CEO LLC.
Jenna Dibble, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 122,
Kristin Dahling, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Thurmon and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Laundry CEO LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark LAUNDRY CEO (in standard characters) for the following goods and
services:
Downloadable non-fiction books on a variety of topics; Electronic
publications, namely, books, magazines, manuals, e-books, newsletters,
e-journals, and training videos featuring business, all recorded on
computer media in International Class 9;
Series of printed non-fiction books in the field of business in
International Class 16; and

Serial No. 98382558
- 2 -
Education services, namely, providing classes, seminars, and workshops
in the field of business; Educational and entertainment services,
namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of
business; Providing online non-downloadable electronic publications in
the nature of books, magazines, manuals, e-books, blogs, newsletters, e-
journals, and training videos in the field of business in International
Class 41.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the
ground that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Mere Descriptiveness
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, which Applicant does not claim here,
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark which, when
used on or in connection with an applicant’s goods or services, is merely descriptive
of them. “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 Commerce 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 Gyulay,
1 Application Serial No. 98382558 was filed on January 30, 2024, based upon Applicant’s
assertion of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Page references to the application record are to the online database of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs on appeal
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s brief is at 6 TTABVUE; the
Examining Attorney’s brief is at 8 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98382558
- 3 -
820 F.2d 1216, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A mark need not immediately convey an idea of
each and every specific feature of the goods or services in order to be considered
merely descriptive; rather, it is sufficient that the mark describes a significant
attribute, function or property of the goods or services. In re Chamber of Commerce,
675 F.3d at 1300; In re H.U.D.D.L.E., No. 73211831, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 41 at *3.
A mark’s descriptiveness must be “considered in relation to the particular goods
[or services] 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 [or services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Coach Servs.,
Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964). The determination of mere descriptiveness must not be made
in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814
(CCPA 1978). The question is whether someone who knows what the goods or services
are will understand the term to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech
Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Where a mark consists of multiple terms, the mere combination of descriptive
terms does not necessarily create a non-descriptive word or phrase. In re Phoseon
Tech., Inc., No. 77963815, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 306, at * 3; In re Associated Theatre
Clubs Co., No. 73557499 1988 TTAB LEXIS 48, at *6. Whether the composite mark
also has a merely descriptive significance turns on the question of whether the
combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression. In other
words, we must consider the issue of descriptiveness by looking at the mark in its

Serial No. 98382558
- 4 -
entirety. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp., 695 F.3d at 1252 (“When determining
whether a mark is merely descriptive, the Board must consider the commercial
impression of a mark as a whole.”).
Nonetheless, in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole, we may consider
the merely descriptive significance of each element separately. DuoProSS Meditech
Corp., 695 F.3d at 1253 (noting that “[t]he Board to be sure, can ascertain the
meaning and weight of each of the components that makes up the mark.”). If each
component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods or
services, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See,
e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Evidence of the purchasing public’s understanding of a term may be obtained from
any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.” 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, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These sources
may include [w]ebsites, publications and use in labels, packages, or in advertising
materials directed to the goods [or services].” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted)). Evidence may also be obtained from
Applicant’s own website and specimen of use and any explanatory text included
therein. Id.
The entire record has been considered and relevant evidence is discussed
throughout this opinion, although we do not list its contents. See Quiktrip W., Inc. v.

Serial No. 98382558
- 5 -
Weigel Stores, Inc., 984 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have held ‘on multiple
occasions that failure to explicitly discuss every issue or every piece of evidence does
not alone establish that the tribunal did not consider it.’”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
II. Arguments and Analysis
The Examining Attorney argues that “the individual components and the
composite” are merely descriptive and “that the composite term ‘LAUNDRY CEO’
immediately conveys to applicant’s consumers that applicant’s publications and
educational and entertainment services are intended for CEOs in the laundry
business.” 8 TTABVUE 4.
Applicant argues that “the combination of the terms in Applicant’s mark do not
inform the consumer of exactly what is being provided “immediately or with any
degree of particularity.” Applicant submits that “‘Laundry’ has no immediate
meaning in connection with entertainment and educational services and books
relating to business.” 6 TTABVUE 7, 8. And “the use of CEO, even where CEO’s are
the subject matter, … is not specific enough to immediately bring to mind Applicant’s
goods and services.” 6 TTABVUE 9.
Where there is record evidence of an applicant’s use of the proposed mark, the
Board “must consider [the] mark in its commercial context to determine the public’s
perception.” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d at 1367-68. The Examining Attorney
provided webpages regarding Applicant’s LAUNDRY CEO forum, podcasts, and a
blogpost to support the refusal. Those webpages indicate that the Laundry CEO

Serial No. 98382558
- 6 -
forum is directed to entrepreneurship and being a laundry owner and operator.2 April
24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at TSDR at 2-5; August 28, 2024 Office Action at
TSDR 5. The webpages explain that the Laundry CEO forum is a gathering of owners,
operators, investors, managers and entrepreneurs in the laundry business (“powerful
leaders in laundry” and “laundry business owners” “opportunities for laundromat
owners to scale their business” “supporting laundry business owners” “the event
where market leaders are made” “for laundry business owners/operators” “created to
bring together the brightest minds in the industry. Leaders who are shaping the
future of laundry.”). April 24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at TSDR 2-3; August
28, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 5. These individuals may be CEOs (decision makers)
in their laundry business. The Examining Attorney provided a couple of webpages
with Applicant’s blogposts, for which Applicant’s principal is the author; one of the
webpages states “each week, I write an editorial (washweekly.com) that goes out to
laundry entrepreneurs worldwide, sharing unconventional thinking and insights on
building a laundry business.” April 24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at TSDR 4. A
webpage relating to Applicant’s podcasts states “[j]oin me as I have conversations
with laundry owners and operators who share their stories, insights, and lessons, for
you to excel in the laundry industry.” April 24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at 5;
August 28, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 6; November 19, 2024 Office Action at TSDR
9 (blogpost article discussing laundry business owners).
2 Applicant points out the word CEOs is never used on the YoutTube page, although it
acknowledges that there may be an interview with a CEO in a podcast. 6 TTABVUE 10.

Serial No. 98382558
- 7 -
The Examining Attorney provided dictionary definitions for the terms “laundry”
and “ceo” and provided third-party registrations on the Principal Register with
disclaimers of CEO as well as third-party registrations of marks on the Supplemental
Register that contain the term CEO. August 28, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-4;
November 19, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 5-8; April 24, 2025 Denial of
Reconsideration at TSDR 10-26.3 The Examining Attorney also provided third-party
website evidence relating to the laundry industry and laundry services. November
19, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2-4; April 24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration Denied
TSDR at 6-9.
The first term LAUNDRY in Applicant’s mark is defined as “[a] commercial
establishment for laundering clothes or linens.” AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
(ahdictionary.com), August 28, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 2. The third-party website
evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney shows that “laundry” is used to
describe the laundry industry and laundry services which involve the business of
providing services for washing and drying clothes. November 19, 2024 Office Action
at TSDR 2-4; April 24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration Denied at TSDR at 6-9.
As indicated, the Examining Attorney provided information about Applicant’s
LAUNDRY CEO forum (laundryceo.com), YouTube podcasts, and blogposts. For
example, Laundryceo.com states: “The Laundry CEO Forum is … designed for
laundry business owners/operators, and industry professionals who desire to grow
3 As discussed infra, Applicant provided third-party registrations to counter this evidence.
October 1, 2024 response to Office Action at TSDR 14-23; February 6, 2025 Request for
Reconsideration at TSDR 8-33.

Serial No. 98382558
- 8 -
their profits and gain more customers.” August 28, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 3. The
webpages show that Applicant provides workshops, talks and networking for the
owners, operators, and managers in the garment care or laundry industry. See April
24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at TSDR 2, 3 (“laundry business owners” “for
laundry business owners/operators” “Leaders who are shaping the future of laundry,”
“opportunities for laundromat owners to scale their business”); August 28, 2024 at
TSDR 5-6; November 19, 2024 at TSDR 9. The YouTube webpage includes a podcast
titled “From Pick & Delivery to Owning a Laundromat.” August 28, 2024 at TSDR 6.
Applicant argues that LAUNDRY “has no immediate meaning in connection with
entertainment and educational services, and books relating to business” as identified
in the involved application. 6 TTABVUE 7.
However, since Applicant’s Class 9, 16, and 41 goods and services are identified
as being in the business field without limitation, the identification must be presumed
to include the laundry business. In re AC Webconnecting Holding B.V., No. 85635277,
2020 TTAB LEXIS 428, at *32 (TTAB 2020) (services that are “identified without
limitation ... must be presumed to include” all specific subsets of those services within
the broad identification). We find LAUNDRY is merely descriptive of the subject
matter of Applicant’s Class 9, 16 and 41 downloadable and nondownloadable
electronic publications, printed books, videos, and educational and entertainment
services because the evidence shows that Applicant is using its mark within the
laundry market.

Serial No. 98382558
- 9 -
The second term in Applicant’s mark is CEO which is defined as “chief executive
officer,” AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY. Id. at TSDR 3, and “the executive with the
chief decision-making authority in an organization or business.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER
DICTIONARY (merriam-webster.com) Id. at 4.
In the November 19, 2024 Office Action (at TSDR 5-8), the Examining Attorney
provided three third-party Supplemental Register registrations incorporating the
term CEO, two of which cover similar Class 41 services as Applicant’s. In the April
24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration (at TSDR 10-26), the Examining Attorney
provided 17 third-party registrations that identify services similar to Applicant’s
Class 41 services. Three of the registrations issued on the Supplemental Register and
the remaining registrations issued on the Principal Register with disclaimers of
CEO.4 These third-party registrations are for the purpose of showing the Office’s
treatment, as merely descriptive, of the term CEO for the same or similar Class 41
services as those in the application.5 Cf. In re Country Music Ass’n, Nos. 78906900,
2011 TTAB LEXIS 343, at *28 (third-party registrations submitted by the Examining
4 In re DNI Holdings Ltd., No. 76331011, 2005 TTAB LEXIS 515, at *25 (“it has long been
held that the disclaimer of a term constitutes an admission of the merely descriptive nature
of that term, as applied to the goods or services in connection with which it is registered, and
an acknowledgment of the lack of an exclusive right therein at the time of the disclaimer.”);
In re Consol. Foods Corp., 1978 TTAB LEXIS 108, at *2 n.2 (no number in original)
(“Registration of the same mark on the Supplemental Register is not prima facie evidence of
distinctiveness; in fact, such a registration is an admission of descriptiveness”) (citing Quaker
State Oil Ref. Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 453 F.2d 1296, 1299 (CCPA 1972)).
5 Two of the third-party registrations cover relevant Class 9 goods as well as Class 41 services;
one third-party registration covers relevant Class 16 goods and Class 41 services. Another
registration covers Classes 9 and 16 goods and Class 41 services but only the Class 41 services
are relevant. These registrations are too few to determine the Office’s treatment of the term
CEO in Classes 9 and 16.

Serial No. 98382558
- 10 -
Attorney “show the Office's consistent treatment of the word ‘association’ as a generic
term when used in connection with association services such as those identified in
applicant’s application”).
To counter this evidence, Applicant provided five third-party registrations in its
October 1, 2024 response to Office Action (at TSDR 14-23) and 11 third-party
registrations in its February 6, 2025 Request for Reconsideration (at TSDR 8-33).
Applicant argues that the third-party registrations support its position that CEO is
not merely descriptive in connection with its services. 6 TTABVUE 8, 9, 16. However,
of the five registrations submitted on October 1, 2024, one has been cancelled
according to the Examining Attorney.6 April 24, 2025 Denial of Reconsideration at
TSDR 1. Three of the registrations are for services different from Applicant’s services,
leaving only one registration which does not include a disclaimer of CEO.
As to the eleven third-party registrations submitted by Applicant on February 6,
2025, one is for services different than the Class 41 services identified, seven of the
registrations issued on the Supplemental Register, and one registration cancelled
according to the Examining Attorney. 8 TTABVUE 11. As the Examining Attorney
points out, the submission of Supplemental Register registrations undercuts
Applicant’s argument that CEO is not descriptive. 8 TTABVUE 10-11. Of the two
remaining registrations in the February 6, 2025 submission, one registration does
not include a disclaimer presumably because the term CEO in the mark incorporates
6 Expired registrations are “not evidence of anything except that it issued.” Time Warner
Entm’t Co. L.P. v. Jones, No. 91112409, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 462, at *4.

Serial No. 98382558
- 11 -
a design element, while the other is a Principal Register registration that does not
have a disclaimer of the term CEO.
Based on the evidence, the term CEO often has been treated by the Office as
merely descriptive in connection with services similar to Applicant’s Class 41
educational and entertainment services. Although Applicant has provided a few
registrations which did not require a disclaimer, these registrations highlight why
prior decisions in other applications are not binding on the Board and underscore the
need to evaluate each case on its own record. In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). And here, the evidence shows that Applicant uses the applied-
for mark to provide goods and services to decision makers and business leaders
(which would include CEOs) in the laundry market.
Although Applicant argues that its evidence reflects that the term CEO does not
immediately bring to mind a specific meaning in connection with its identified goods
and services, 6 TTABVUE 8-10, we find that the Examining Attorney’s third-party
registration evidence and the third-party Supplemental Register registrations
submitted by Applicant support a finding of mere descriptiveness of the term CEO in
connection with Applicant’s identified Class 41 services. Consistent with this,
Applicant’s website, which discusses the Laundry CEO forum, indicates that its
educational and entertainment services are directed to decision makers–leaders who
are owners, operators and managers in the laundry industry that may be CEOs.
Based on the dictionary definitions, third-party registrations, and various website
evidence relating to Applicant, we find the term CEO is merely descriptive in relation

Serial No. 98382558
- 12 -
to Applicant’s identified goods and services as it describes the intended user of the
goods or services, i.e., leaders or aspiring leaders in the laundry industry (owners,
officers, managers and entrepreneurs), that would include CEOs.
We now consider the mere descriptiveness of the combined term LAUNDRY CEO.
Under the dictionary definitions of the words “laundry” and “CEO,” the combined
term LAUNDRY CEO describes an executive with the chief decision-making
authority in an organization or business in the nature of a commercial establishment
for laundering clothes or linens. The website pages from Applicant and the YouTube
podcast page shows that Applicant’s services are directed to owners, operators,
managers, and entrepreneurs in the laundry business. We find that the terms
LAUNDRY CEO when combined do not lose their descriptive significance.
LAUNDRY CEO describes the subject matter and intended user of Applicant’s goods
and services, conveying that Applicant’s business education services, publications
and videos are intended for executives and feature subject matter related to the
laundry industry. In re Planalytics, Inc., No. 76322156, 2004 TTAB LEXIS 198, at *3.
(“A mark can be descriptive if it describes the intended users of the goods or
services.”).
Applicant argues the mark is suggestive. 6 TTABVUE 15. Although Applicant
acknowledges that its books, educational, and entertainment services may discuss
the laundry industry, it argues that because “the focus of Applicant’s goods and
services state that they cover a number of topics, including the broadly stated
business industry, … it would require several steps of reasoning for the consumer to

Serial No. 98382558
- 13 -
determine that LAUNDRY CEO immediately brings to mind books, motivational
speaking, and educational services in the field of business.” 6 TTABVUE 8.
It appears that Applicant is arguing that multi-step reasoning is required because
of the broad nature of the identification which is for print and electronic publications
and educational and entertainment services in the business industry. A term may be
merely descriptive if the identified goods and services fall within a subset of services
indicated by the term. The fact that a term or phrase may not be merely descriptive
of some of the goods or services listed in the identification does not mean that it is not
merely descriptive of the others. See In re Application of Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc.,
616 F.2d 523, 525 (CCPA 1980); In re Richardson Ink Co., 511 F.2d 559, 561 (CCPA
1975).
Here, the print and electronic publication goods and the educational and
entertainment services are broadly described as featuring business or being in the
field of business which encompasses the laundry business/industry and being
directed to CEO’s in the laundry industry. In addition, Applicant’s website
(webpages), YouTube page and blog posts on washweekly.com show that its goods
and services are directed to owners, entrepreneurs, managers, and officers—leaders
in the laundry industry who are often the CEOs of those businesses.
Applicant submits that “the [LAUNDRY CEO] combines two terms that have no
connotation when used together, much less any immediate and/or particular meaning
with Applicant’s products and services,” and “does not convey any information about
its entertainment and information services with the particularity required” or

Serial No. 98382558
- 14 -
describe the identified “type of content or learning material” and while “listeners
[may have] some theories as to who is providing content, and maybe the nature of
that content, it does not immediately inform consumers as to what will be discussed”
without the listeners “tuning in.”7 6 TTABVUE 7, 8, 12.
As has often been stated, “a term is merely descriptive if it forthwith conveys an
immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods [or
services].” In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d at 812. “[T]he immediate idea must be
conveyed forthwith with a degree of particularity.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Cont’l Gen. Tire, Inc., No. 75745727, 2003 TTAB LEXIS 277, at *8.
However, “the requisite degree of particularity” standard does not require that the
term convey precise information.” Id. at *37. While it is true that, in order for a mark
to be held merely descriptive, it must describe an attribute of the associated goods
and services with some particularity, it is not necessary that the mark describe each
and every aspect of the goods or services in order for the mark to be merely
descriptive. See In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173 (“A mark may be
merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the
applicant’s goods or services,” citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d
1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). It is settled that, to be descriptive, the mark need
describe only a single significant attribute of the goods or services. See In re Gyulay,
820 F.2d at 1217; see, e.g., In re Entenmann’s, Inc., No. 74712062, 1990 TTAB LEXIS
7 Applicant submits LAUNDRY CEO is not descriptive in connection with podcasts. 6
TTABVUE 12.

Serial No. 98382558
- 15 -
26, at * 3-4 (OATNUT held merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts
because it “readily informs purchasers, with the required degree of particularity, of
two not inconsequential ingredients” of the product, even though the kind of nut is
not specified by such term).
Here, in the context of the Applicant’s print and electronic publications and
educational and entertainment services, a significant subject area (laundry business)
and potential users of the goods and services are officers/owners (CEOs) in the
laundry business. Therefore, LAUNDRY CEO does describe the goods and services
with sufficient particularity to enable a consumer to immediately form an impression
as to the subject matter and intended user of the goods and services.
Applicant argues that “with ‘laundry’ referring to dirty clothes, [LAUNDRY CEO]
is only suggestive to be considered a chief executive officer of these articles.” 6
TTABVUE 11. Applicant also contends the mark is suggestive because LAUNDRY
CEO is nebulous and vague and does not provide an immediate, descriptive meaning.
6 TTABVUE 9, 14, 16. In support, Applicant argues that “LAUNDRY CEO could refer
to the Applicant themselves as someone who is the Chief Executive Officer of a
laundry business, it could refer to classes for people to become the owner of their own
laundry business, or it could be motivational speeches by current Chief Executive
Officers in the laundry business. The word has several connotations, which is the
hallmark of a suggestive mark.” 6 TTABVUE 14. Applicant also references the third-
party registrations it submitted for THE LEADER and FREELANCE CFO as

Serial No. 98382558
- 16 -
examples of suggestive marks.8 6 TTAVUE 11; February 6, 2025 Request for
Reconsideration at TSDR 34-36.
All of these potential meanings of LAUNDRY CEO provided by Applicant merely
describe a significant characteristic or feature of Applicant’s identified goods and
services. A term that has multiple meanings, all of which are merely descriptive of
the goods or services, remains merely descriptive within the meaning of Section
2(e)(1). See In re Carlson, No. 78752616, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 438. But regardless of
other potential meanings in other contexts, in the context of Applicant’s goods and
services, the record sufficiently demonstrates that the designation LAUNDRY CEO
immediately conveys to the consumer a significant feature or attribute of Applicant’s
identified goods and services.
Applicant argues that LAUNDRY CEO is incongruous as the meaning is “not
apparent” and is “impossible.” 6 TTABVUE 11.
As to incongruity, it must be shown that in combination, the descriptiveness of the
individual words has been diminished, and that the combination creates a term so
incongruous or unusual as to possess no definitive meaning or significance other than
that of an identifying mark for the goods or services. In re Medical Disposables Co.,
No. 74098753, 1992 TTAB LEXIS 60, at *6. See e.g., In re Calphalon Corp., No.
86356713, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 98, at *27 (“incongruity exists, for example, where a
8 However, these marks, as the Examining Attorney points out, contain different terms than
those involved herein, limiting their probative value. 8 TTABVUE 10.

Serial No. 98382558
- 17 -
term evokes an immediate association with something unrelated to the goods or
services”).
We find no incongruity. Combining the merely descriptive terms LAUNDRY and
CEO into the composite LAUNDRY CEO does not negate their mere descriptiveness,
nor does it create a composite that is incongruous. Here, the combination, merely
describes the subject matter and potential user of the goods and services.
Applicant argues that “[t]he Examining Attorney is guessing that the intended
user of applicant’s goods and services are Laundry CEO’s, even though there is no
such thing as this type of officer. There is no evidence that LAUNDRY CEO is
anything more than a made up term.” 6 TTABVUE 11.
The evidence shows that a potential consumer could discern a significant feature
or characteristic of Applicant’s goods and services without guesswork. The fact that
the term LAUNDRY CEO is not in the dictionary and is “made up” is not controlling
on the question of registrability. See In re Dahlquist, Inc., 1976 TTAB LEXIS 79, at
*6 (no number in original). Moreover, the fact that an applicant may be the first user
of a merely descriptive designation does not justify registration if the only significance
conveyed by the term is merely descriptive as it is here. See In re Fat Boys Water
Sports LLC, No. 86490930 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *10. In this case, as the third-
party registrations reflect, the mark does not appear to be made-up but follows a
normal naming convention of identifying CEOs of different businesses.
Applicant argues that the vagueness of the wording and co-existence of third-party
registrations, establish that doubt should be resolved in its favor. 6 TTABVUE 16,

Serial No. 98382558
- 18 -
17. While we do resolve doubts in descriptiveness cases in favor of the applicant, we
have no such doubts based on the record in this case.
III. Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we find Applicant's mark LAUNDRY CEO when applied
to the identified Class 9 and 16 goods and Class 41 services to be merely descriptive.
Decision: The Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register Applicant’s mark LAUNDRY
CEO is affirmed.