Triunfo Foods Import & Export Corp.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: March 31, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Triunfo Foods Import & Export Corp.
_____
Serial No. 97898551
_____
Michael F. Snyder of Volpe Koenig,
for Triunfo Foods Import & Export Corp.
Patty Evanko, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 119,
Brett Golden, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Lykos and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lykos, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Triunfo Foods Import & Export Corp. (“Applicant”) seeks to register the proposed
mark SEAFISH in standard characters on the Principal Register for the goods
identified below in International Class 29:1
Seafood products and fish-based food products, namely,
processed seafood; frozen seafood; frozen fish; frozen meals
1 Application Serial No. 97898551, filed on April 20, 2023 under Section 1(b) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
Page references to the application record refer to the online database of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) system in Portable Document Format
(“PDF”). References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.

Serial No. 97898551
- 2 -
consisting primarily of seafood; frozen meals consisting
primarily of fish; processed anchovies; caviar; canned or
tinned fish; fish cakes; smoked fish; smoked seafood;
prepared meals consisting primarily of fish; prepared
meals consisting primarily of seafood; fish croquettes; tuna
fish, not live; sardines in tomato sauce; marinated fish;
fish, not live.
Applicant appeals the Trademark Examining Attorney’s final refusal on the
ground that the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods under
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). The appeal is fully
briefed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the refusal to register.2
I. Mere Descriptiveness – Applicable Law
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness,3 Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
prohibits registration of a mark on the Principal Register that, when used in
connection with an applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive of them. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1). A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of an
ingredient, quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the identified goods. In re
TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Chamber of Commerce
of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). By
contrast, a mark is suggestive if it “requires imagination, thought, and perception to
2 The Examining Attorney’s request to take judicial notice of the dictionary definitions of
“sea-fish”, i.e. the term used with a hyphen between “sea” and “fish” is moot in view of our
affirmance of the refusal on the current record. See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 18
TTABVUE 4-5.
3 Applicant has not claimed acquired distinctiveness of its proposed mark under Trademark
Act Section 2(f).

Serial No. 97898551
- 3 -
arrive at the qualities or characteristics of the goods.” In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216,
1218 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The determination of whether a proposed mark is merely descriptive must be
made in relation to the goods for which registration is sought, not in the abstract. In
re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This requires consideration of the
context in which the putative mark is used or intended to be used in connection with
those goods, and the possible significance that it would have to the average purchaser
of the goods in the marketplace. Id.; see also Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300.
The question is not whether someone presented only with the proposed mark could
guess the goods listed in the identification, but rather whether someone who knows
what the goods are will understand the proposed mark to convey information about
them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted).
“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and
extent’ of the applicant’s goods [ ].” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171,
1173 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2001)). It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions,
characteristics, or features of a product to be considered merely descriptive; it is
enough if the term describes one significant function, attribute, or property. Chamber
of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300.
Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant purchasing public “may
be obtained from any competent source, such as dictionaries, newspapers, or

Serial No. 97898551
- 4 -
surveys,” Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964, as well as “labels, packages, or in advertising
material directed to the goods.” In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 812 (CCPA
1978). It may also be obtained from websites4 and publications. In re N.C. Lottery,
866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
II. Analysis
Applicant argues that the applied-for mark SEAFISH is not merely descriptive
but suggestive of the identified goods because it is “not an actual word, but a new, fun
play on words.”5 Applicant contends that because there is no dictionary definition of
SEAFISH, it is not merely descriptive.6 In Applicant’s view, its proposed mark is a
“whimsical” and “unitary term that is an imaginative combination of ‘sea’ and ‘fish,’
which together make up more than the sum of their separate parts.”7 Applicant also
points to previously registered marks beginning with the word SEA as proof that its
mark is not merely descriptive. Lastly, Applicant argues that while competitors in
the seafood industry may need to use each word “sea” and “fish” to describe their
products, “it is highly unlikely any of them would need to use SEAFISH in order to
sell their products” because “[t]here are innumerable other terms and combinations
thereof which a competitor could adopt to describe similar goods.”8
4 The Board has not relied on any foreign websites in reaching its decision. See printouts from
the British online retail website Frozen Fish Direct and the FreshMa website advertising its
brick-and-mortar seafood market in Chennai, India submitted with the July 23, 2024 Final
Office Action at TSDR 13-33.
5 Applicant’s Brief, p. 7; 16 TTABVUE 8.
6 Applicant’s Brief, p. 7; 16 TTABVUE 8.
7 Applicant’s Brief, p. 7; 16 TTABVUE 8.
8 Applicant’s Brief, p. 10; 16 TTABVUE 11.

Serial No. 97898551
- 5 -
The evidence of record belies Applicant’s arguments. “Sea fish,” otherwise known
as “saltwater fish,” is a well-recognized designation in the seafood industry and
includes many species for human consumption such as bluefin tuna and Atlantic cod.9
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the term “sea fish” appears as an entry in multiple
dictionaries to denote “any fish found in salt waters”10 or “a fish that lives in the sea,
rather than in rivers or lakes.”11 The fact that Applicant’s mark is presented as a
single term as opposed to the two separate words “sea” and “fish” does not lessen its
merely descriptive nature. See In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 TTAB LEXIS
545, at *28, *30-31 (“an otherwise merely descriptive term is not made any less so by
merely omitting spaces between the words.”). This is especially so here since “seafish”
is also an alternative form of spelling of “sea fish.”12
Online reference materials further tout “sea fish” as “commercially important for
human consumption”13 and its nutritional and health benefits. The entry for “Sea
Fish” from ENCYCLOPEDIA.COM explains that
[c]onsidering the merits of fish as food, nutritionists give
[sea fish] high marks. Sea fish, like fresh water fish, are an
9 January 18, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 17-19 (printouts from WIKIPEDIA at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki_Saltwater_fish accessed on 1/18/2024).
10 January 18, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 41 (printouts from YOUR DICTIONARY.COM at
www.yourdictionary.com/sea-fish accessed on 1/18/2024); see also id. at 20-21 (printout from
LANGEEK DICTIONARY at https//dictionary.langeek.com accessed on 1/18/2024).
11 January 18, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 26 (printouts from the U.S. version of the OXFORD
LEARNERS DICTIONARIES, www.oxfordlearners.com/us/definition/english/sea-fish accessed
on 1/18/2024).
12 October 31, 2024 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 3 (entry for “seafish” from
WIKTIONARY at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seafish accessed on 10/31/2024).
13 January 18, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 20-21 (printout from LANGEEK DICTIONARY at
https//dictionary.langeek.com accessed on 1/18/2024).

Serial No. 97898551
- 6 -
excellent source of protein, but have additional benefits to
offer, for example in the form of vitamins, iodine, and
phosphorus. … Summarizing the health benefits of eating
sea fish, [a nutritionist] points out that they are low in
calories, that most of them are very low in fat, while all are
low in saturated fat. The long-chain omega-3 oils have been
shown to protect against heart disease and some other
afflictions, and are definitely low in cholesterol and
sodium.14
This evidence supports a determination that Applicant’s proposed mark SEAFISH
is a merely descriptive of the identified goods because consumers will immediately
understand that Applicant’s fish and fish products originate from sea waters. The
identification only mentions three types of sea fish, “tuna fish, not live,” “processed
anchovies,” and “sardines in tomato sauce.” But that does not limit our finding.
Because Applicant’s other processed, frozen, canned, tinned, smoked and marinated
fish and seafood items are unrestricted as to source (e.g., rivers, lakes, or sea), we
must assume that such items encompass all types of fish, including sea fish. See In
re Hughes Furniture Indus., Inc., No. 85627379, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 65, at *6
(“Applicant’s broadly worded identification of ‘furniture’ necessarily encompasses
Registrant’s narrowly identified ‘residential and commercial furniture.’”). Consumers
encountering Applicant’s mark will also immediately glean that its frozen, smoked
and prepared meals consisting primarily of fish and seafood as well as its fish cakes
are made from sea water fish. See TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d at 876 (“the relevant
consumer, knowing that the goods are supplements containing nopal cactus juice,
14 January 18, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 4-15 (printouts from
www.encyclopedia.com/food/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sea-fish accessed
on 1/18/2024).

Serial No. 97898551
- 7 -
would understand the mark NOPALEA to convey information that the goods contain
ingredients from the Nopalea cactus”).
Turning to Applicant’s argument that its proposed mark SEAFISH is whimsical,
Applicant postulates that consumers upon viewing SEAFISH will “then think ‘see
fish’ and ‘eat fish.’”15 We disagree. Applicant does not point to any evidence that
consumers will recognize its proposed mark as having this incongruous meaning in
relation to its goods. See In re Tennis in the Round Inc., 1978 TTAB LEXIS 44, at *5-
6 (TENNIS IN THE ROUND held not merely descriptive for providing tennis
facilities because the association of applicant’s mark with the phrase “theater-in-the-
round” created an incongruity since applicant’s tennis facilities are not analogous to
those used in a “theater-in-the-round”). The record summarized above shows that
SEAFISH in relation to Applicant’s goods is not unique but rather is part of ordinary
U.S. lexicon.
Applicant refers to third-party registrations comprised in part of the term SEA
registered on the Principal Register for fresh and frozen fish or seafood as evidence
that Applicant’s mark is not merely descriptive.16 Those marks are as follows: SEA
15 Applicant’s Reply Brief, p. 2; 19 TTABVUE 3.
16 Applicant’s Brief, pp. 9-10 and Ex. A (third-party registrations), 16 TTABVUE 10-11; 14-
27. Normally the Board would deem Applicant’s submission of third-party registrations with
its brief as untimely. See Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d). However, in this
case, the Examining Attorney did not object to the third-party registrations as late but rather
presented arguments evaluating their merit in her brief. See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 18
TTABVUE 7. As a result, we shall treat the third-party registrations as stipulated into the
record. See In re Olin Corp., No. 86651083, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 337, at *29 n.22 (because the
examining attorney addressed applicant’s two registrations in her brief and neither objected
to the other's discussion of the registrations, Board treated both registrations as though they
are of record).

Serial No. 97898551
- 8 -
FRESH; SEASOURCE; SEA SPRAY; SEA CHAMPION; SEA HARVEST; SEABIRD;
SEA LION; SEA CRUNCHY; SEA FROST; SEAPAK; and SEAFAERS.17 Applicant
contends that these registrations show that “the term SEA paired with another term
can still be registered and act as at least a suggestive source identifying mark for the
same goods as Applicant.”18 Applicant’s attempt to draw a comparison with these
registrations is flawed. These third-party marks are completely different from the
mark in the involved application meaning that they lack any probative value. We
remind Applicant that “[t]he great variation in facts from case to case prevents the
formulation of specific rules for specific fact situations. Each case must be decided on
its own merits.” TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 1209.01(b) (Nov.
2025) (citing In re Ampco Foods, Inc., No. 73313197, 1985 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *7 and
In re Venturi, Inc., No. 73004593, 1977 TTAB LEXIS 200, at *7).
Applicant also points to its prior application for the same mark and goods where
another examining attorney also issued a mere descriptiveness final refusal, but then
subsequently withdrew the refusal while the application was on appeal at the
Board.19 Ultimately that application was abandoned for failure to timely file a
statement of use.20 The Board is not bound by a previous examining attorney’s
decision. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The PTO
17 Applicant’s Brief, Ex. A (third-party registrations); 16 TTABVUE 14-27.
18 Applicant’s Brief, p. 9; 16 TTABVUE 10.
19 See Applicant’s July 18, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR 11-78 (prosecution history
and Applicant’s appeal brief for its previously filed Application Serial No. 87434787).
20 See id.

Serial No. 97898551
- 9 -
is required to examine all trademark applications for compliance with each and every
eligibility requirement ... even if the PTO earlier mistakenly registered a similar or
identical mark suffering the same defect.”). Trademark rights are not static, and
eligibility for registration must be determined on the basis of the facts and evidence
of record that exist at the time registration is sought. In re Int’l Watchman, Inc., No.
87302907, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 446, at *37 (internal citations omitted). Nor is the
allowance of a trademark application by a previous examining attorney a final
decision on the merits from a prior adjudication and therefore a basis for res judicata
or collateral estoppel. Id.
In sum, Applicant’s proposed mark SEAFISH immediately conveys, without
conjecture or speculation, the type of Applicant’s fish or a key attribute of Applicant’s
processed fish and seafood products. The evidence further shows that consumers may
specifically shop for “seafish” for nutritional value or other health reasons.
Competitors in the seafood industry should be free to use this merely descriptive
designation when describing their own fish items to the public in advertising and
marketing materials. See In re Styleclick.com Inc., No. 75459912, 2001 TTAB LEXIS
127, at *15 (“The intent of Section 2(e)(1) is to protect the competitive needs of others
…”). The Board has no doubt that Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive
for the identified goods. See In re Zuma Array Ltd., 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *21
(“The Board resolves doubts as to the mere descriptiveness of a mark in favor of the
applicant.”).

Serial No. 97898551
- 10 -
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing evidence, the proposed mark SEAFISH when considered
as a whole, immediately conveys that Applicant’s goods are either composed of, or
made with fish from the sea. We therefore find Applicant’s proposed mark to be
merely descriptive of the identified goods.
Decision: The mere descriptiveness refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act is affirmed.