Epp Well Solutions

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: October 23, 2026

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

In re Epp Well Solutions

Serial No. 98641507

Philip R.M. Hunt, Rylander & Associates PC for Epp Well Solutions.

April E. Reeves, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 124,
Lydia Belzer, Managing Attorney.

Before English, Thurmon and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by English, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant, Epp Well Solutions, seeks registration on the Supplemental Register
of the proposed standard-character mark WATER BOOSTER for the following goods
in International Class 7:

Well water pumping and supply systems comprising [sic] primarily of
electrical water pumps for household plumbing systems, water tanks of
plastic for household purposes, electronic controllers configured for
controlling water pumps, water flow detectors, pressure sensors, sold as
a unit.!

1 Application Serial No. 98641507 was filed on July 10, 2024 under Trademark Act Section
1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), alleging February 16, 2024 as the date of first use and first use of
the mark in commerce.

Serial No. 98641507
-2-
Applicant originally sought registration on the Principal Register. The Examining
Attorney issued a nonfinal Office Action refusing registration of the proposed mark
under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that it is
merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods.2 In response, Applicant amended
the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.3 The Examining
Attorney then issued a new nonfinal Office Action, refusing registration on the
Supplemental Register under Trademark Act Sections 23(c) and 45, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1091(c) and 1127, on the ground that the proposed mark is generic as applied to
the identified goods. Once the new refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and
filed a request for reconsideration, which the Examining Attorney denied. The appeal
proceeded and has been briefed.4 We affirm the refusal.
I. Evidentiary Objections
During prosecution, Applicant introduced search results for the term “water
booster” from the Google search engine.5 The Examining Attorney promptly objected
to this evidence on the ground that the printout lacks a URL address and advised
Applicant that to properly introduce Internet evidence, the URL and date of access
2 January 12, 2025 Office Action.
3 April 14, 2025 Office Action Response, TSDR 3.
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.
4 Applicant’s Appeal Brief is at 6 TTABVUE, the Examining Attorney’s Brief is at 8
TTABVUE and Applicant’s Reply Brief is at 9 TTABVUE.
5 September 4, 2025 Office Action Response, TSDR 4.

Serial No. 98641507
-3-
or download must be provided.6 In re I-Coat Co., No. 86802467, 2018 TTAB LEXIS
171, at *7-9 (URL and date of access or download required to make Internet evidence
of record); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 1208.03 (2026); TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 710.01(b)
(May 2026).
Applicant did not cure the deficiency, and the Examining Attorney maintained the
objection in her brief. The objection is thus sustained; we have not considered the
Google search results.7
II. Analysis
Applicable Law
“Generic terms are common names that the relevant purchasing public
understands primarily as describing the genus of goods or services being sold.” In re
6 November 6, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 5. The printout also is undated. The Examining
Attorney did not point out the missing date to Applicant but her instructions on how to
properly introduce Internet evidence included the requirement to provide the date the
material was downloaded or accessed. Id.
7 The Examining Attorney also objects to “Applicant’s reliance on a prior application [for
WATER BOOSTER] in Applicant’s Appeal Brief” because the file of the application is not of
record nor does the Board take judicial notice of the contents of application files. 8 TTABVUE
3. Applicant does not assert any arguments based on its purported prior-filed application but
states that the USPTO issued an Office action “which made a refusal for being merely
descriptive and a refusal for the specimen not being acceptable” and “recommended amending
[to] the supplemental register. … The Applicant decided to abandon the Application.” 6
TTABVUE 3. We give this statement no consideration because it is not supported by the
record, and as the Examining Attorney points out, we do not take judicial notice of USPTO
records. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. O’Rourke, No. 91178937, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 544, at *12
(“[I]t is well settled that the Board does not take judicial notice of USPTO records.”). In any
event, Applicant’s statement, even if true, would have no bearing on our decision, which is
based on the specific record before us. In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (“The Board must decide each case on its own merits.”).

Serial No. 98641507
-4-
Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). They are “by definition incapable of indicating source, are the antithesis of
trademarks, and can never attain trademark status.” In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, generic
terms are ineligible for registration on either the Principal Register or Supplemental
Register. USPTO v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020) (“A generic name—
the name of a class of products or services—is ineligible for federal trademark
registration.”); In re Jasmin Larian, LLC, No. 87522459, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 99, at
*44 (“Our finding that the proposed mark is generic is an absolute bar to its
registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register.”).
Whether a proposed mark is generic rests on the primary significance of the term
to the relevant public. In re Am. Fertility Soc’y, 188 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Making this
determination “involves a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus of goods or
services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered . . . understood by the
relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?” H. Marvin Ginn
Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Importantly, the evidence need not show that the term at issue refers to the entire
genus of goods; a term is generic if it refers to a subcategory or key aspect of the
claimed genus of goods. In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 604-05 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[A] term is generic if the relevant public understands the term to refer to part
of the claimed genus of goods or services, even if the public does not understand the

Serial No. 98641507
-5-
term to refer to the broad genus as a whole.”); In re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc.,
777 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (BUNDT generic for ring cake mixes, i.e., “bundt
cakes” a subcategory of cakes).
In Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal
Circuit emphasized that a term may be generic even if it does not refer to the entire
genus:
We … explained that “a term is generic if the relevant public
understands the term to refer to part of the claimed genus of goods
or services, even if the public does not understand the term to refer to
the broad genus as a whole.” In In re Cordua, we found that the term
“churrasco” was generic, even for use in connection with a broad class of
restaurant services, because the key public would understand the term
to be referring to a specialty dish—a sub-aspect of restaurant services.
We made clear that “[t]here is no logical reason to treat differently a
term that is generic of a category or class of products where some but
not all of the goods identified in an application fall within that category.”
We pointed out, for instance, that the term “pizzeria” would be generic
for restaurant services, even though the public does not understand the
term to refer to the broad class of restaurants as a whole; the public need
only understand that the term refers to “a particular sub-group or type
of restaurant rather than to all restaurants.” So too here, if the public
understands ZERO when used in combination with a designated
beverage name to refer to a sub-group or type of beverage that carries
specific characteristics, that would be enough to render the term generic.
…
On remand, accordingly, the Board must examine whether the term
ZERO, when appended to a beverage mark, refers to a key aspect of the
genus. ZERO need not be equated by the general public with the entire
broad genus TCCC claims in order for the term to be generic. The Board
therefore must consider whether ZERO is generic because it refers to a
key aspect of at least a sub-group or type of the claimed beverage goods.
Id. at 1367-68 (internal citations omitted) (italics emphasis in original changed to
bold).

Serial No. 98641507
-6-
The Record
1. Applicant’s Specimen
Below are cropped excerpts from Applicant’s specimen of use.8
8 July 10, 2024 Specimen.

Serial No. 98641507
-7-
2. The Examining Attorney’s Evidence
The Examining Attorney introduced a printout from MERRIAM-WEBSTER online
dictionary defining “booster” as “an auxiliary device for increasing force, power,
pressure, or effectiveness.”9 She also introduced printouts from sixteen third-party
websites describing “water booster” as a type of water pump and supply system that
boosts water pressure, as shown in the excerpts below.10
9 January 12, 2025 Office Action, TSDR 15. The record also includes dictionary definitions
for “water.” Id. at 4-14.
10 The Examining Attorney introduced one additional website from LEO, an entity identified
as located in Zhejiang, China, providing a “comprehensive guide” to “choosing the perfect
home water booster pump.” January 12, 2025 Office Action, TSDR 23-37. Although LEO is
identified as an entity outside the United States, its website is in English. We have
considered this evidence to the extent U.S. consumers might consult this website guide to
learn about water booster pumps. In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 969 (“The probative value,
if any, of foreign information sources must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”); cf. In re
Odd Sox LLC, No. 86297488, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 346, at *15-16 (finding foreign website
evidence relevant because potential consumers would likely encounter those English
language websites when searching for companies offering services similar to applicant). Even
if we had not considered this website evidence, we would reach the same decision affirming
the refusal.

Serial No. 98641507
-8-
• Towle Whitney explaining that “water booster pumps” boost low water
pressure; identifying “signs you need a water booster pump”; and promoting
an article about “how to know which water booster pump is right for you.”
This website also states:
There are a number of applications for water booster pumps,
ranging from large buildings like hotels to smaller residential
homes. While the application can vary, the booster pump’s
purpose remains constant – to increase the pressure of water to
all of the plumbing fixtures in the building.11
• Fresh Water Systems blog replete with references to “water booster pumps”
including asking, “What is a Water Booster Pump and How Does it Work?”
and answering, “A water booster pump increases water pressure and volume
to your faucet or shower head.”12 Specific to well water, the blog explains:
A single water booster pump can boost water pressure throughout
an entire home. Sometimes, well water users want to increase
flow from a low-recovery well to their home because it does not
produce enough water to keep up with household demand. A
water pressure booster pulls water from the well storage tank
to pressurize the water in the house.
• Watson Well servicing well pumps and providing a blog identifying numerous
“Benefits of water booster pumps for your home,” including improved and
consistent water pressure and energy efficiency.13
• Ralph’s Pump and Well advertising well-related services and explaining that
a “water booster pump & tank system” is a solution for “low water pressure”;
A water booster pump provides pressure to move water from a well or
throughout a whole house or commercial facility.”14
• Pump Supermarket offering a SPERONI “water booster pump with pressure
tank … particularly suitable to increase pressure from a water system, to
supply water from wells and in domestic high pressure groups.”15
11 January 12, 2025 Office Action, TSDR 39-42.
12 Id. at 43-51.
13 Id. at 53-56.
14 June 4, 2025 Office Action, TSDR 7-8.
15 Id. at 10-12.

Serial No. 98641507
-9-
• Raco Manufacturing & Engineering Co. blog post titled “Understanding the
Benefits of a Water Booster Pump System”.16
• Callaghan Pump and Controls Inc. providing “A Simple Guide to Choose Your
Domestic Water Booster System”:
[W]e are here to talk about water pressure booster pumps. By
reading this blog post, you will be able to determine the accurate
size, pipes, valves, and other aspects necessary for your water
booster pump system. … At Callaghan Pump, our pressure-
boosting pump system can be integrated with your building, be it
a commercial or industrial one. … We operate in Connecticut, and
our Domestic Water Booster Pump System may also be
configured as part of a custom prefabricated housed system….17
• RainHarvest Systems LLC offering a “DAB E.Sybox Mini Water Booster
System”18 for “the water supply of a single dwelling [that] guarantees the
comfort of constant pressure.”
• RP Pumps offering a SPERONI “water booster pump” and DAB “water
booster system[s]”.19 One identified application of the DAB water booster is
“pumping water from shallow water wells[.]” This retailer explains that
“Water booster pumps are a critical component in modern plumbing and
water management systems. As a subcategory of water pump, their main role
is to increase water pressure and flow in systems where low pressure hampers
performance.”20
• Pump Stop Online offering Best Control Well System a “water booster pump”
for “for water pumps that pull water out of shallow wells,” among other
applications.21
• Express Water offering “the Express Water Booster Pump, maximizing the
water pressure efficiency of your filter water.”22
16 Id. at 17-29.
17 November 6, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR 7-9.
18 Id. at 10-12.
19 Id. at 13-16.
20 Id. at 17-29.
21 Id. at 31-38.
22 Id. at 39, 45.

Serial No. 98641507
-10-
• Gallup Well Services Inc.: “Well Water Storage Tank Setup in Maryland. In
need of a well water booster pump as well? Our booster pumps are capable
of providing 50-80 psi of constant pressure ....”23
• TrueValue offering a SIMER “water booster system” to “[b]oost your
incoming [water] pressure.”24
• Northeastern Supply Co. offering a DAB PUMPS “water booster system”.25
• Thrush Co. Inc. offering THRUSH “packaged water booster systems” for “a
constant supply of pressurized water[.]”26
• RC Worst Co. offering an A.Y. McDonald “water booster pump system” for
“boosted and constant water pressure from water storage systems” and
advertising “water well pump systems,” among other systems.27
3. Applicant’s Evidence
Applicant introduced Bing search engine results for the term “water booster.”28
Below is an excerpt from that portion of the search results on which Applicant relies.
23 Id. at 46-49.
24 Id. at 50-51.
25 Id. at 53-55.
26 Id. at 57-59.
27 Id. at 61-69.
28 January 7, 2026 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 4 (the URL and date of access are
shown on the printout).

A water booster can refer to two types of devices: -
« Water Heater Booster: This \s an electronic f. a
2

device that attaches to your existing hot water
heater, improving its efficiency and capacity by
heating water on demand It helps ensure you

have enough hot water available when needed.

© 2

e Water Booster Pump This device increases
the pressure of the water supply, making it useful for homes with low
water pressure or for drawing water from wells. It enhances water flow to
laps and appliances. © 2
Both types of boosters serve to improve water availability and pressure in
different contexts.

A © @4Souwces

* waterheaterleakinginfo.com © Miami Water Heater ea
Water Heater Boosters: What Water Heater Boosters: What
You Should Know They Are And How They Work? View all

-11-

Serial No. 98641507
-12-
Analysis
1. Genus and Relevant Public
As the Federal Circuit has instructed, with respect to the first prong of the
genericness inquiry, we focus on the identification in the involved application to
determine the genus of goods. In re Cordua, 823 F.3d at 602; Magic Wand, 940 F.2d
at 640 (a proper genericness inquiry focuses on the identification set forth in the
application or certificate of registration). Here, the identification of goods in the
application appropriately defines the genus as “well water pumping and supply
systems.”
As to the second prong of analysis, the relevant public is actual or potential
purchasers of well water pumping and supply systems. Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 640
(“[T]he relevant public [is] limited to actual or potential purchasers of the goods or
services.”).
2. Analysis
The inquiry here is whether consumers of the genus at issue here—“well water
pumping and supply systems”—would primarily understand WATER BOOSTER as
identifying the genus or a subcategory or key aspect thereof. The numerous third-
party uses of WATER BOOSTER above demonstrate that competitors and others in
the field use “water booster” to identify a subcategory or key aspect of “water pumping
and supply systems,” including well water pumps that boost water pressure.
Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 561 n.6 (“Evidence informing [the genericness] inquiry can
include not only consumer surveys, but also dictionaries, usage by consumers and
competitors, and any other source of evidence bearing on how consumers perceive a

Serial No. 98641507
-13-
term’s meaning.”); Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs., No. 91192657, 2013 TTAB
LEXIS 468, at *31 (“[E]xamples of third-party use of the term ‘footlong’ (or ‘foot-long’)
demonstrates use of the term to denote a type of sandwich” and “is strong evidence
that purchasers will not be able to differentiate between competing sources by
viewing the term ‘Footlong.’ Such use by competitors is evidence of genericness.”).
Consistent with the third-party use, Applicant uses the wording WATER
BOOSTER in its specimen to identify a type of water pump, namely, one that boosts
the water pressure of wells and city water supplies. In re Consumer Prot. Firm PPL,
No. 87445801, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 67, at *11 (“In assessing the primary significance
of Applicant’s Proposed Marks to the relevant public, we also may consider
Applicant’s use thereof.”); Sheetz of Del., 2013 TTAB LEXIS 468, at *29-30 (finding
applicant’s own advertising “demonstrate[s] that applicant is not using the term
‘Footlong’ in a manner likely to be recognized as a trademark”); In re Central
Sprinkler Co., No. 74505190, 1998 TTAB LEXIS 386, at *11-13 (affirming genericness
refusal; “we cannot overlook how the relevant public will encounter the matter sought
to be registered” as shown in applicant’s specimen and product literature).
Applicant’s display of the proposed mark in initial capital letters and occasionally
with a ™ designation does not change that the proposed mark is used in the text of
Applicant’s advertising as a generic term for a part of its goods.
We find that consumers encountering the industry uses, summarized above, and
Applicant’s own use will understand WATER BOOSTER as generic for a subpart or

Serial No. 98641507
-14-
key aspect of “well water pumping and supply systems,” namely a well water pump
that boosts water pressure. 29
Applicant argues that “the Examining Attorney has presented evidence of the use
of the terms ‘Water Booster Pump’ and ‘Water Booster Pump System’ by the relevant
public to refer to the genus of goods in question” but “has not presented any evidence
that the relevant public uses just the term ‘Water Booster’ without more to refer to
the genus of goods in question[.]”30 That is, Applicant argues that because the
proposed mark does not include the term “pump” or “system,” generic terms for the
broader genus of goods at issue, WATER BOOSTER cannot be generic for “well water
pumping and supply systems.”
This argument is wholly without merit. As noted above, it is well-established that
a term is generic if it refers to a subcategory or key aspect of the genus of goods. In re
Cordua, 823 F.3d at 605. This legal principle would be obliterated if we were to accept
Applicant’s argument that a proposed mark cannot be generic if it does not include
the generic term for the broader genus. Examples of a term for a genus subcategory
or key aspect found to be generic include: (1) CHURRASCOS generic for the broad
genus of restaurant services because such services encompass restaurants with a
29 Even if we were to identify the genus as “well water pumping and supply systems
comprising [sic] primarily of electrical water pumps for household plumbing systems, water
tanks of plastic for household purposes, electronic controllers configured for controlling water
pumps, water flow detectors, pressure sensors, sold as a unit,” we would reach the same
decision affirming the refusal because the evidence demonstrates that WATER BOOSTER
refers to a key aspect of the goods, namely, an electrical water pump for household plumbing
systems that boosts water pressure of well water pumping and supply systems.
30 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 12.

Serial No. 98641507
-15-
central focus on churrascos, In re Cordua, 823 F.2d at 604-05; (2) BUNDT generic for
“ring cake mix” because BUNDT is a type of ring cake, In re Northland Aluminum,
777 F.2d at 1561; and (3) FOOTLONG generic for “sandwiches” because it “identifies
a category of sandwiches 12 inches long,” Sheetz of Del., 2013 TTAB LEXIS 468, at
*62-63. Each of the proposed marks was found generic despite the omission of the
broader genus of goods or service, i.e. “restaurant,” “cake” and “sandwich.”
Next, Applicant points to the Bing search results stating that “A water booster
can refer to two types of devices: Water Heater Booster … [or] Water Booster Pump.”31
Applicant argues that because “‘water booster … refers to two distinct types of
devices: (1) a water heater booster, and (2) a water booster pump” its “primary
significance is ambiguous, and thus, it cannot be generic.32 More specifically,
Applicant argues that “if the relevant public understands ‘water booster’ to refer to
two different and unrelated categories of devices — water heater boosters and water
booster pumps — then the term cannot ‘primarily’ refer to any one genus.”33
The Examining Attorney points out that the source is not identified for the above
Bing search results stating that there are two types of “water boosters”: (1) a water
heater booster; and (2) a water booster pump. Because the source has not been
identified, we cannot ascertain the credibility of this information, lessening its
probative value. But even giving full credit to this evidence, it does not help Applicant.
31 Appeal Brief, 6 TTABVUE 13.
32 Reply Brief, 9 TTABVUE 5.
33 Id. at 6.

Serial No. 98641507
-16-
There is no requirement that a term identify “any one genus.” Indeed, it is common
for English-language words to have more than one meaning. For example, the word
“baseball” refers to a sport, a sports player and sports equipment. The fact that
“baseball” has three different meanings does not make the term any less generic for
each of these things.
Last, we note that in its reply brief, Applicant asserts two arguments that it did
not make in its appeal brief or during prosecution. Applicant forfeited or waived these
arguments by failing to raise them in its appeal brief when the Examining Attorney
would have had the opportunity to respond.34 U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 463 F.3d 1267,
1276 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not
properly before this court.”); Cross Med. Prods. v. Medronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424
F.3d 1293, 1320 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (declining to consider “new arguments raised for
the first time in [a] reply brief”); Rocket Trademarks Pty. Ltd. v. Phard S.p.A., No.
91172486, 2011 TTAB LEXIS 39, at *37 (plaintiff’s reply brief “must be confined to
rebutting the defendant’s main brief”); cf. In re Princeton Equity Grp. LLC, No.
97397212, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 242, at *6-9 (“Parties whose briefs purport to
34 Specifically, Applicant argues that the evidence (1) is “almost exclusively from industry
sources—competitor websites and product listings—rather than from consumer-facing
evidence of how the purchasing public understands the term,” Reply Brief, 9 TTABVUE 6;
and (2) “predominantly concerns a broader genus of household water pressure boosters, not
the specific integrated well water pumping and supply systems identified in the application.”
Id. at 11. Even if not waived, these arguments are unpersuasive. The third-party uses are
directed precisely to the relevant public and show that water boosters may be used to boost
water pressure of any water supply system, including well water. Indeed, Applicant describes
its goods as “adaptable to both well and city water supplies. It is perfect for those situated at
the end of the water supply line, or for those using a shared well that requires increased
output or pressure.” July 10, 2024 Specimen.

Serial No. 98641507
-17-
incorporate by reference arguments made during prosecution will be held to have
failed thereby to present whatever arguments the incorporation statement purports
to cover to the Board and will be deemed to have forfeited them.”).
In sum, the industry use and Applicant’s own use, discussed above, leaves us with
no doubt that consumers of well water pumping and supply systems encountering the
proposed mark WATER BOOSTER would primarily understand it to refer to a
subcategory or key aspect of well water pumping and supply systems, namely, a pump
that boosts well water pressure.35
III. Conclusion
Decision: The refusal to register the proposed mark WATER BOOSTER under
Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act is affirmed.
35 Based on the Bing search results, it appears that the genus for a “water heater booster”
would be a water heater, which is different from a well water pump or system.