Teresa Michelle Lee

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: September 29, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Teresa Michelle Lee
————
Serial No. 98081572
————
Rosaleen H. Chou and ZoeVikstrom, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP,
for Teresa Michelle Lee.
Akeela Makshood, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 122,
Kristin Dahling, Managing Attorney.
————
Before English, Lavache and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by English, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Teresa Michelle Lee, seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
standard-character mark JASPE for the following goods in International Class 25:
Clothing, namely, tops as clothing, bottoms as clothing, coats, dresses,
clothing jackets, sweaters, shirts, t-shirts, shorts, pants, leggings,
trousers in the nature of leggings, leg warmers, overalls, smocks, jumper
dresses, pajamas, ponchos, pullovers, hoods, jumpsuits, cardigans,
skirts; beach clothes, namely, beach cover-ups; swimwear; knitwear,
namely, pullovers, cardigans, dresses, skirts, shirts, pants, sweaters;
hats; headwear; headbands; slippers; socks; footwear.1
1 Application Serial No. 98081572 was filed on July 12, 2023, based on an allegation of a bona
fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(b).

Serial No. 98081572
-2-
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on grounds that
Applicant’s proposed mark is: (1) deceptive under Trademark Act Section 2(a),
15 U.S.C. § 1052(a); and (2) deceptively misdescriptive under Trademark Act Section
2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
After the Examining Attorney issued a final refusal, Applicant appealed and filed
a request for reconsideration, which the Examining Attorney denied. The appeal
resumed and has been briefed.2 In her brief, the Examining Attorney withdraws the
deceptive ground for refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(a).3 Thus, the only basis
for refusal before us is whether Applicant’s proposed mark is deceptively
misdescriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
We find that the proposed mark is deceptively misdescriptive under Trademark
Act Section 2(e)(1), and therefore, we affirm the refusal.
I. Analysis
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
Register of a term that is deceptively misdescriptive of the goods to which it is applied
2 Applicant’s Appeal Brief is at 6 TTABVUE and the Examining Attorney’s Brief is at 8
TTABVUE.
The TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) citations in this
opinion refer respectively to entries in the Board’s electronic docket and to the downloadable
PDF version of 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 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 3 (“The examining attorney hereby withdraws the
Section 2(a) - Deceptive Refusal”). During prosecution, the Examining Attorney initially
refused Applicant’s proposed mark as merely descriptive and issued a genericness advisory.
October 18, 2023 Office Action, TSDR 2-3. This refusal and the advisory were obviated. May
27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 2.

Serial No. 98081572
-3-
and has not acquired distinctiveness.4 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A proposed mark is
deceptively misdescriptive if: (1) it misdescribes a quality, feature, function, or
characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used; and (2) consumers would
be likely to believe the misrepresentation. In re Dolce Vita Footwear, Inc., No.
88554722, 2021 WL 2285578, at *3 (TTAB 2021) (citing In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857
F.2d 773, 774-75 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re White Jasmine LLC, No. 77115548, 2013 WL
2951788, at *10 (TTAB 2013). In our analysis, we focus on “shirts” and “pants”
identified in the involved application because the evidence of record substantially
involves these goods. Cf. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“[A] mark need not be merely descriptive of all recited goods or services in
an application. A descriptiveness refusal is proper ‘if the mark is descriptive of any of
the [goods or services] for which registration is sought.”’).
Does Applicant’s Proposed Mark Misdescribe a Quality, Feature,
Function, or Characteristic of Applicant’s Shirts and Pants?
A proposed mark is misdescriptive when it is “merely descriptive, rather than
suggestive, of a significant aspect of the goods or services which the goods or services
plausibly possess but in fact do not.” In re Dolce Vita Footwear, 2021 WL 2285578, at
*3 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
1. Does the term “jaspe” describe a feature of the shirts and pants
identified in the involved application?
A term is merely descriptive of goods or services if it “conveys an immediate idea
of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the goods
4 Applicant does not assert that her proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness.

Serial No. 98081572
-4-
or services.” In re Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 WL 3282655, at *3 (TTAB
2022) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Whether a proposed mark is
descriptive must be considered “in relation to the goods or services for which
registration is sought, the context in which the mark is used, and the possible
significance that the mark is likely to have to the average purchaser encountering
the goods or services in the marketplace.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech. Co. v. Shanghai
Zhenglang Tech. Co., No. 91272143, 2024 WL 5265081, at *9 (TTAB 2024). The
question is “whether someone who knows what the goods . . . are will understand the
mark to convey information about them.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito Lay N. Am.,
Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro
Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1252, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
In support of the position that “jaspe” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods,
the Examining Attorney introduced definitions of the term provided by third parties
in the clothing industry5 as well as evidence of 13 third parties selling “jaspe”
clothing.
Representative third-party descriptions of “jaspe” are below:
• TextileGlossary.com:6
Jaspe Fabric: Textured, Multicolored Weave for Casual and Formal
Fashion[:] Jaspe is a textile term that refers to a fabric with a mottled
or variegated appearance, created by twisting together different colored
5 The Examining Attorney also introduced a printout from Wiktionary.org defining “jaspe” as
a noun meaning “(textiles) cotton or rayon cloth with shaded effect[.]” October 18, 2023 Office
Action, TSDR 25.
6 May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 41-44.

Serial No. 98081572
-5-
yarns. … The process of creating jaspe fabric involves using a
combination of colored yarns, typically in two or more shades, and
twisting them together in a way that creates a variegated effect. … The
resulting fabric can have a subtle or more pronounced marbled effect,
depending on the thickness of the yarns used and the method of twisting.
… Jaspe fabric can be made from a variety of fibers, including cotton,
wool, silk, and synthetic materials. The texture and weight of the fabric
can vary depending on the fiber used and the method of twisting. …
Jaspe fabric is also used in contemporary fashion … [and] can be found
in a range of clothing styles, including shirts, dresses, skirts and pants.
… Many independent designers incorporate jaspe fabric into their
collections to add color and texture to their designs. … Whether used in
traditional or contemporary clothing styles, jaspe fabric adds a pop of
color and texture that can elevate any outfit.
Jaspe[:] A woven fabric with a series of faint stripes formed by the
arrangement of light, medium, and dark warp yarns or by twisting
together 2 yarns of different colors.
• Lands’ End:7 “Jaspe[:] Yarns of two (or more) different colored threads spun
together creating a mixed color. When woven into fabric, Jaspe yarn creates a
variegated look.”
• Gazman Clothing (Facebook post):8 “Jaspe is a unique fabric which combines
two different coloured [sic] cotton threads to create a textured appearance. Soft
washed and cut for comfort, we think the jaspe fabric looks especially smart
when worn together with chinos and a sweat.”
• Aura Maya:9 “Jaspe is a type of fabric characterized by its unique pattern. The
fabric is made by weaving together different colors of thread, creating a
variegated effect.”
• Stone Mountain Fabric:10 “Jaspe is a type of ikat11 specifically from
Guatemala—it is beautiful handwoven, yarn-dyed fabric.”
7 May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 34.
8 May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 49.
9 October 14, 2024 Office Action, TSDR 8-14.
10 October 14, 2024 Office Action, TSDR 29.
11 We take judicial notice that an “ikat” is “a fabric in which the yarns have been tie-dyed
before weaving.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ikat (MERRIAM-WEBSTER
DICTIONARY, last visited September 29, 2026). The Board may take judicial notice of

Serial No. 98081572
-6-
• The Denim Vault:12
Jaspe fabric is one of the most unique out there. … It has a soft texture
as if its [sic] been heathered or brushed roughly to give it a time worn
appearance but in actuality Jaspe cotton is created that way. If you ever
looked at a shirt in your closet and seen that it appears to have two
different colors woven through it, then you might tell yourself that it’s a
trick of light. However, what you may have missed, is that the shirt is
actually created from Jaspe cotton. It’s a cotton weave that has to deal
with the dying [sic] of the fibers than the actual weave itself. … Jaspe
cotton is created when two yarns of cotton are dyed separate colors then
woven together, the end result is a fabric that seems to have various
colors running through it.
• Archive New York:13 “We work with artisans … to make super in[t]ricate ‘jaspé’
(or ‘ikat’) dyed textiles. What is jaspe? It’s basically a tie dye technique done to
threads prior to weaving it. The patterns that can be made with this technique
are absolutely mind-blowing in complexity.”
Representative examples of third-party retailers selling “jaspe” clothing, are
shown below. 14
• Ratio Clothing15
dictionary entries. In re Nextgen Mgmt., LLC, No. 88098031, 2023 WL 111145, at *4 n.5
(TTAB 2023).
12 October 18, 2023 Office Action, TSDR 39-40.
13 October 18, 2023 Office Action, TSDR 28-38 (emphasis omitted).
14 The Board has cropped the images below.
15 October 18, 2023 Office Action, TSDR 13-15.

Serial No. 98081572
-7-
• Ralph Lauren16
• Time Catcher17
16 October 18, 2023 Office Action, TSDR 21-22 (gray highlighting in original).
17 October 14, 2024 Office Action, TSDR 37-39.

Serial No. 98081572
-8-
• Imogene + Willie18
Additional retailers of “jaspe” shirts and pants include Callaway, Orvis, U.S. Polo
Association, Line of Trade, Grayers, Dillards, Brook Taverner, Gazman Clothing, and
Chica Mala.19
Applicant argues that the evidence as a whole shows there is no consistent
meaning for the word JASPE, and because the word “lacks a stable, commonly
understood meaning”20 it “does not have the ‘degree of particularity’” necessary21 to
“‘immediately describe’ a feature of the goods, nor can it convey a specific, false
18 May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 35.
19 October 14, 2024 Office Action, TSDR 33, 35; May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 32-
33, 36-37, 39-40, 49.
20 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 7.
21 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 98081572
-9-
message about them.”22 To this end, Applicant introduced the following dictionary
definitions for the adjective “jaspé”:
• MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY:23 “resembling jasper in blending of
colors: clouded in streaks or contrasting colors[;] specifically:
variegated in weaving by the use of warp yarns of differing shades
together with single-color filling yarns”;
• COLLINS DICTIONARY (American English):24 “given a veined and spotted
appearance imitating jasper”; and
• OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:25 “Resembling Jasper; mottled or
variegated[.]”
We disagree with Applicant’s assertion that the word “jaspe” lacks a stable,
commonly understood meaning. Based on the evidence, we find that the word “jaspe”
has two descriptive meanings applicable to shirts and pants as identified in
Applicant’s involved application.
First, “jaspe” is a fabric made from unique techniques in dyeing yarn and twisting
or weaving two different colors or shades of the dyed yarn. We acknowledge that there
are slight differences in the descriptions of “jaspe” fabric. Some definitions emphasize
the colorful, unique patterns that the fabric may have while others emphasize that
the differences in color can be more subtle resulting in a solid-color appearance. Other
22 6 TTABVUE 17.
23 January 18, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 12 (italics emphasis in original changed
to bold).
24 August 20, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 16. The May 27, 2025 Final Office Action
includes a printout from the Credo Reference website defining “jaspe” as “a subtly striped
woven fabric” and attributes this definition to COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY. Id. at TSDR
38. It is clear, however, that this is the British English definition of the term, so it has little,
if any, probative value. August 20, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR at 17.
25 January 18, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 11.

Serial No. 98081572
-10-
definitions emphasize the textured nature of the resulting fabric. Regardless, the core
definition is the same. Jaspe is a fabric made from unique dyeing and weaving
techniques, which can result in all the characteristics that are touted in the evidence
summarized above.26 We find “jaspe” immediately describes clothing made from jaspe
fabric.27
Applicant’s dictionary evidence demonstrates that the word “jaspe” also means a
blended, veined, spotted, mottled or variegated appearance resembling or imitating
jasper.28 As shown below, this definition too is immediately descriptive of clothing
with a “jaspe” design or appearance:29
26 The record also shows “jaspe” used to refer to the dyeing technique for yarn, the resulting
yarn (“jaspe yarn”), and the method of weaving that are all used to produce jaspe fabric. We
find these uses are consistent with the meaning of jaspe as a type of fabric. In this way, the
word “jaspe” is similar to the word “cotton,” defined as a plant, a yarn made from that plant,
and the resulting fabric. We take judicial notice of the definitions of “cotton” from MERRIAM-
WEBSTER DICTIONARY at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cotton (last visited
September 29, 2026).
The analogy to cotton is also apt in responding to Applicant’s argument that “jaspe” is not
descriptive because there is “no clear visual appearance or texture associated with the term
JASPE.” Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 10. Cotton fabric doesn’t have a uniform “visual
appearance or texture,” but it still identifies a type of fabric. We find the same for “jaspe.”
27 Applicant points to evidence showing the word “‘JASPE’ accompanied by another fabric
descriptor such as ‘canvas’ or ‘twill’” and argues such uses “suggest[] that ‘JASPE’ is not
viewed by consumers as a type of fabric.” Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 6. We disagree. Indeed,
we find it more likely that consumers familiar with tweed and canvas will believe that “jaspe
twill” or “jaspe canvas” is a hybrid fabric or, in the case of “cotton jaspe,” a jaspe fabric made
with cotton yarn. See October 18, 2023 Office Action, TSDR 13; October 14, 2024 Office
Action, TSDR 35 and 39; May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 33, 35, and 36.
28 January 18, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 11-12; August 20, 2024 Office Action
Response, TSDR 16.
It is not uncommon in the English language for a word to have more than one meaning.
29 August 20, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 48 (red arrow added by the Board).

Serial No. 98081572
-11-
Because Applicant’s identification does not exclude shirts and pants with a blended,
spotted or mottled appearance, the second definition of “jaspe” also is merely
descriptive of a feature that Applicant’s clothing might possess. 30
30 We recognize that some of the evidence uses “jaspé” with an acute accent on the last letter
“é.” A slight variation in spelling does not transform a descriptive term into a registrable
mark. In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming Board’s finding that
ASPIRINA is merely descriptive of analgesic goods as a variation or misspelling of aspirin);
In re Ginc UK Ltd., No. 78618843, 2007 WL 2698304, at *2 (TTAB 2007) (“A slight
misspelling is not sufficient to change a descriptive or generic word into a suggestive word.”);
Cf. Conwood Corp. v. S.A. Bongrain-Gerard (Les Maitres Fromagers), 1976 WL 20922, at *3
(TTAB 1976) (purchasers are not apt to place much significance on an accent mark).
To this end, we take judicial notice of the following “note” in MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY:

Serial No. 98081572
-12-
Applicant asserts several additional arguments to support that JASPE is not merely
descriptive of a feature or characteristic of shirts and pants. Applicant argues that
“the word ‘jaspe’ does not have a widely recognized definition in English; instead, it
is a unique mark adopted by the Applicant[.]”31 With respect to the latter point, the
evidence of extensive descriptive use of the term “jaspe” for clothing, discussed above,
undercuts the assertion that the word JASPE is unique for Applicant’s clothing. As
to whether “jaspe” is widely recognized, Applicant asserts that the word “jaspe” is not
defined in Dictionary.com or CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY,32 is “not mentioned [in] or
regulated” by the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act,33 and does not appear on the websites of some clothing retailers.34
This argument and supporting evidence is unpersuasive.
Diacritical marks are an integral part of spelling in many foreign languages.
In English, words with diacritics are borrowings from other languages—the
marks are not a natural part of the English language itself. Although the
English borrowings enter the language with their markings, they are often
dropped from many spellings through Anglicization. Take, for instance,
French naïve, which is commonly spelled naive in English.
31 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 3.
32 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 13; January 18, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 9-10.
Applicant asserts that “jaspe” does not appear in the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, but that
dictionary does in fact provide a definition for “jaspe.” January 18, 2024 Office Action
Response, TSDR 11.
33 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 19-20.
34 Applicant also introduced evidence of two third-party retailers using the word “jaspe” in
connection with clothing that do not appear to describe the clothing fabric or its design. See
August 20, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 40 (JASPE CULTIVO maxi dress) and 42
(Jaspe satin slingback sandals). We find these two apparent non-descriptive uses are
outweighed by the evidence discussed in this opinion showing that “jaspe” has two
immediately descriptive meanings for shirts and pants.
We do not consider a third example because it is in French, see August 20, 2024 Office Action
Response, TSDR 44-47, and therefore, it is not likely to influence U.S. consumer perception

Serial No. 98081572
-13-
There is no requirement that a word appear in all dictionaries to be descriptive.
Applicant introduced definitions from three mainstream American English
dictionaries defining “jaspe” in a way that is merely descriptive of a characteristic
that Applicant’s shirts and pants may possess. At most, the absence of “jaspe” from
some dictionaries may show that the word is not yet in widespread use. But even if a
term is known by only a subset of relevant consumers, it may be misdescriptive. In re
Quandy Winery Inc., 1984 WL 63115, at *1-2 (TTAB 1984) (rejecting argument
attempting to overcome deceptively misdescriptive refusal on ground that “only a
small percentage” of relevant purchasers would be aware of the misdescription). In
any event, because the evidence shows several clothing retailers and others in the
clothing industry defining “jaspe,” we find that consumers have been exposed to
descriptive use of “jaspe” for shirts and pants and therefore are likely to know the
meaning of the word. Id. at *2 (“Even less knowledgeable wine buyers are likely to
believe the misrepresentation, since, as the Examining Attorney demonstrated,
reference works to which potential purchasers could refer note that essensia is the
very desirable rare Hungarian wine, rather than a domestic muscat.”).
Further, whether the word “jaspe” appears in the FTC’s Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act35 is not determinative of consumer perception, which is the focus of
our inquiry. See e.g., In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
of the English word “jaspe.” In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 969 (“The probative value, if any, of
foreign information sources must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”); cf. In re Jasmin
Larian, LLC, No. 874522459, 2022 WL 374410, at *13 (considering foreign sources in the
English language as “sources to which US consumers likely have been exposed”).
35 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 19-20.

Serial No. 98081572
-14-
(“The perception of the relevant purchasing public sets the standard for determining
descriptiveness.”). The record discussed above reflects numerous descriptive uses of
the term “jaspe” in the clothing field supporting that consumers are likely to know
and understand the descriptive meaning of the word “jaspe” for clothing.36
The fact that the websites of third-party clothing retailers Abercrombie & Fitch,
GAP and Banana Republic “contain no reference to the term ‘JASPE’”37 is similarly
unpersuasive. The absence of the word “jaspe” on the websites of these retailers could
well be because they do not sell any clothing that may be described as “jaspe.”
“Applicant has also provided more definitions of JASPE that do not relate to fabric
or weaving techniques whatsoever[,]” namely, that it is “a red gemstone[,] … a
common last name, [and] [i]n Applicant’s case, [the] first name” of her son Jasper.38
“The fact that a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not
controlling.” In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 WL 5265079, at *7 (TTAB
2024); Robinson v. Hot Grabba Leaf, LLC, No. 92060394, 2019 WL 1915759, at *6
(TTAB 2019) (same). “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a
term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.” In re
36 The premise of Applicant’s argument – that “jaspe” is not a generic name for any type of
fiber – also is flawed. The Examining Attorney does not argue that “jaspe” is a fiber but rather
argues that it is a fabric and has submitted evidence that jaspe fabric can be made from
different types of fibers. May 27, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 41-44 (“Jaspe fabric can be
made from a variety of fibers, including cotton, wool, silk, and synthetic materials.”). Thus,
it is no surprise that “jaspe” does not appear in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.
37 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 13; April 14, 2025 Office Action Response, TSDR 52-82.
38 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 3, 12-13, and 17. The other “definitions” Applicant lists
“resembling jasper” and “given a veined and spotted appearance imitating jasper” are
descriptive of clothing with such a design or pattern, as discussed above.

Serial No. 98081572
-15-
Mueller Sports Med., Inc., No. 87209946, 2018 WL 2277503, at *6 (TTAB 2018)
(quoting In re Chopper Indus., No. 73273140, 1984 WL 63033, at *2 (TTAB 1984)).
Further, Applicant’s intent in adopting the proposed mark as “a meaningful
tribute to her son, Jasper” is not relevant to whether the proposed mark JASPE (not
JASPER) is registrable for Applicant’s identified goods. See, e.g., In re Water Gremlin
Co., 635 F.2d 841, 843-44 (CCPA 1980) (“Appellant’s asserted intention to adopt the
package design to indicate source may well be true, but intent or lack of intent at the
time of adoption of a particular design is not controlling.”).
Next, Applicant invokes the doctrine of foreign equivalents arguing that “jaspe”
means “jasper” in Spanish and because “Spanish is the most commonly spoken
language in the United States after English … a very large population of United
States consumers will immediately associate the JASPE mark with the jasper
gemstone.”39 The doctrine of foreign equivalents may be “used to ascertain if a non-
English word mark is impermissibly generic or descriptive by translating the mark
into English and then considering its genericness or descriptiveness.” In re Vetements
Grp. AG, 137 F.4th 1317, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing In re N. Paper Mills, 64 F.2d
998, 998-99 (CCPA 1933)). But the evidence shows that Applicant’s proposed mark is
an English word, so the doctrine of foreign equivalents has no application here.40
Last, “Applicant notes that numerous third-party marks incorporating terms that
could suggest a material, such as ‘velvet’ or ‘canvas,’ have been registered on the
39 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 13.
40 Nor has Applicant cited any case where the Board has allowed an applicant to invoke the
doctrine of foreign equivalents to overcome a deceptively misdescriptive refusal.

Serial No. 98081572
-16-
Principal Register without disclaimers or claims of acquired distinctiveness”41 and so
the proposed mark similarly should be allowed to register on the Principal Register.
This is not a convincing argument. None of the third-party marks include the word
“jaspe.” In addition, unlike Applicant’s proposed mark consisting of a single word,
each of the third-party marks is a composite mark and may have been registrable for
that reason. TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1209.03(d)
(May 2026) (“[A] composite mark is registrable if the combination of terms creates a
unitary mark with a unique, nondescriptive meaning, or if the composite has a
bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to the goods. Applicant’s proposed mark
is not a composite mark, so this line of reasoning is inapplicable.”). Most importantly,
each case must be decided on its own merits. See, e.g., In re Nett Designs, 236 F.3d at
1342.
In sum, based on the evidence of record discussed above, we find that the proposed
mark JASPE immediately describes shirts and pants that are made from or feature
a jaspe fabric or design.
2. Does the term “jaspe” describe a significant feature that Applicant’s
goods may plausibly possess, but do not?
There are no restrictions on the shirts and pants identified in Applicant’s
application. We find these identified clothing items are broad enough to encompass
items featuring a jaspe fabric or design. Based on the record, we further find that
“jaspe” would be a significant feature of such goods.
41 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 20-22; August 20, 2024 Office Action Response, TSDR 52-82.

Serial No. 98081572
-17-
It is further clear from the Examining Attorney’s information requests and
Applicant’s responses below that Applicant’s goods do not feature “jaspe” and are not
intended to feature “jaspe” in the future:
What is the significance of the wording JASPE in the mark?42
JASPE is the first name of the Applicant’s son and holds personal
significance to the Applicant. The term is not intended to convey any
descriptive or relevant meaning in connection with the applied-for-
goods[.]43
Do any of [A]pplicant’s goods contain jaspe textile?44
No.45
3. Summary of the First Part of the Test
The word “jaspe” merely describes a significant feature—jaspe fabric or a jaspe
design—that Applicant’s shirts and pants might plausibly possess but do not in fact
possess. Accordingly, the first part of the test is met.
Would Reasonably Prudent Consumers be Likely to Believe that
Applicant’s Shirts and Pants Feature Jaspe?
Under the second prong of the test, we apply the reasonably prudent consumer
test to assess whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation. In re
Dolce Vita Footwear, 2021 WL 2285578, at *4.
The evidence discussed above demonstrates that consumers are likely to regularly
encounter shirts and pants described as “jaspe.” As a result, we find that reasonably
prudent consumers encountering the proposed mark JASPE for the shirts and pants
42 October 14, 2024 Office Action, TSDR 6.
43 April 14, 2025 Office Action Response, TSDR 7.
44 October 14, 2024 Office Action, TSDR 6.
45 April 14, 2025 Office Action Response, TSDR 7.

Serial No. 98081572
-18-
identified in Applicant’s application are likely to mistakenly believe that these goods
are made from or feature jaspe. In re Quandy Winery, 1984 WL 63115, at *2.
Thus, the second prong of the test is met.
II. Conclusion
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion,46 we have no doubt on this record that (1) the
proposed mark JASPE misdescribes a significant quality, feature, function, or
characteristic that Applicant’s shirts and pants might possess but do not; and (2)
consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. The proposed mark is
therefore deceptively misdescriptive of Applicant’s identified shirts and pants.
Decision: The refusal to register the proposed mark JASPE on the ground that it
is deceptively misdescriptive of Applicant’s goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act is affirmed.
46 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 4.