SmartContract Chainlink Limited SEZC

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: May 7, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re SmartContract Chainlink Limited SEZC
_____
Serial No. 98004679
_____
J. Damon Ashcraft of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.,
for SmartContract Chainlink Limited SEZC.
David Tooley, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 125,
Robin Mittler, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Greenbaum, Thurmon and Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lebow, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, SmartContract Chainlink Limited SEZC, filed an application to
register, on the Principal Register, the mark CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS for
use in connection with “Database management services, namely, collecting secure
data for use by decentralized computing networks” (International Class 35) and
“Storing of secure electronic data for use by decentralized computing networks”
(International Class 42).1
1 Application Serial No. 98004679 was filed on May 19, 2023 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention
to use the mark in commerce.

Serial No. 98004679
- 2 -
The Examining Attorney, in a final Office action, has refused registration under
Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a), based on Applicant’s failure
to disclaim the term “DATA STREAMS” in the mark, which the Examining Attorney
maintains is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services.2 Applicant requested
reconsideration of the final refusal, but the request was denied and the appeal
proceeded. Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs and the case
is ready for decision. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the disclaimer
refusal under Section 6(a).
I. Disclaimer Requirement
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, which Applicant does not allege here,
merely descriptive terms are unregistrable under Section 2(e)(1), and therefore are
subject to disclaimer if the mark is otherwise registrable. A “disclaimer” is a
statement that an applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable
component of a mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80
(CCPA 1965); TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1213 (May
2024). See also In re La. Fish Fry Prods., 797 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(Newman, Circuit Judge, concurring):
[A] disclaimer of a component of a composite mark amounts merely to a
statement that, in so far as that particular registration is concerned, no
rights are being asserted in the disclaimed component standing alone,
2 See November 26, 2024 Final Office Action. The final action also withdrew previously issued
refusals based on likelihood of confusion and an indefinite recitation of services.
Citations to the prosecution file refer to the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system and identify the documents by title, date, and page in the
downloadable .pdf version. Citations to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE online docket system.

Serial No. 98004679
- 3 -
but rights are asserted in the composite; and the particular registration
represents only such rights as flow from the use of the composite mark.
An examining attorney may require an applicant to disclaim an unregistrable
component of a mark otherwise registrable. Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1056(a). Failure to comply with a disclaimer requirement is a basis for refusal. In
re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he Trademark Office may
require a disclaimer as a condition of registration if the mark is merely descriptive
for at least one of the products or services involved.”); In re Korn Ferry, No. 90890949,
2024 TTAB LEXIS 224, at *2, quoting Lego Juris, No. 88698784, 2022 TTAB LEXIS
175 (“Failure to provide the required disclaimer constitutes a ground for refusing
registration.”).
II. Evidence and Argument
The Examining Attorney contends that “[t]he wording DATA STREAMS is a well-
defined term in the computer industry referring to a manner of transmitting data
across computer networks.”3 He provides the following definitions of “data streams”:
• “[t]he continuous transmission of data from one location to another”;4
• “[t]he continuous flow of data from one place to another”;5
• “[t]he transmission of a sequence of digitally encoded signals to convey
information”;6
3 8 TTABVUE 4 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
4 See November 16, 2023 Office Action, TSDR at 10-12, citing the MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY
OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL TERMS (2002 ed.), by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
5 Id., citing THE COMPUTER LANGUAGE COMPANY, INC. (2023 ed.).
6 See November 26, 2024 Final Office Action, TSDR at 4, citing Wikipedia.org.

Serial No. 98004679
- 4 -
• “[t]he continuous transfer of data from one or more sources at a steady, high
speed for processing into specific outputs”;7 and
• “[t]he continuous flow of data generated by various sources in real-time.”8
The Examining Attorney also made of record screenshots from a variety of
websites showing that “[m]any companies use the term [data stream] descriptively or
generically to describe data transmission.”9 Representative examples follow
(emphasis added).
(1) The website Snowflake (snowflake.com) explains that
Data streaming involves the continuous flow of data, facilitating real-
time processing and analysis as information is generated. … [D]ata
streaming allows organizations to receive and respond to data
instantaneously.10
(2) Amazon’s website (amazon.com) explain that its “Amazon Kinesis Data
Streams” can “[e]asily stream data at any scale.” For example, “Thomson Reuters
uses Amazon Kinesis to build a streaming data pipeline for faster insights and
improved customer experience.”11
(3) An article from Salesforce website (salesforce.com), titled “Data Streams in
Data Cloud,” explains that “Data streams are the connections and associated data
associated into [its] Data Cloud.”12
7 See November 26, 2024 Final Office Action, TSDR at 93, citing techtarget.com.
8 Id. at 35, citing an article titled “Data Stream in Data Analytics” on geeksforgeeks.com.
9 8 TTABVUE 5 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
10 See November 26, 2024 Final Office Action, TSDR at 8.
11 Id. at 11.
12 January 24, 2025, Reconsideration Letter, TSDR at 3-5.

Serial No. 98004679
- 5 -
(4) Rudderstack’s (rudderstack.com) article, “Understanding Data Streams in
Google Analytics 4,” explains that Google’s data streams are “the means by which
usage data is collected from our websites and apps and imported to the Google
Analytics platform,” and provides “Step-by-step” instructions on “how to set up data
streams.”13
(5) Lytics (lytics.com) explains that
A data stream is a continuous flow of data generated from various
sources such as websites, mobile apps, email providers, social media,
and other digital platforms. Data streams typically involve high
volumes of data generalized in real-time or near-real-time, making it
necessary to process and analyze the data as it arrives.14
(6) A page from IBM (ibm.com) titled “What is streaming data” explains that
Streaming data is the continuous flow of real-time data from various
sources. …. [S]treaming data is processed as it arrives for immediate,
real-time insights.
Organizations today generate high volumes of data on everything from
Internet of Things (IoT) devices to e-commerce transactions. Streaming
data, also known as “data stream” or “real-time data streaming”,
helps organizations process these continuous data flows as they come
in.15
(7) An article from Hevo (hevodata.com), “Data Streams in Data Mining
Simplified 101,” explains that:
Data stream is a continuous, fast-changing, and ordered chain of data
transmitted a very high speed. It is an ordered sequence of information
for a specific interval. The sender’s data is transferred from the sender’s
side and immediately shows in data streaming at the receiver’s side.16
13 Id. at 6-14.
14 Id. at 15-19.
15 Id. at 39-54.
16 Id. at 56-64.

Serial No. 98004679
- 6 -
(8) MIT’s (mit.edu) publication, “Machine Learning for Data Streams: with
Practical Examples in MOA,” offers “[a] hands-on approach to tasks and techniques
in data stream mining and real-time analytics….”17
(9) According to the article, “Databases vs. Data Streams” on TDWI Flashpoint’s
website (tdwi.org), “[d]ata streams are among the most challenging of big data. Most
of us are familiar with the concept of streaming data through experiences of
streaming music or video.”18
These are several of the numerous examples provided by the Examining Attorney
showing the meaning of “data streaming” within the relevant industry.
Once again, the application recites the following services:
“database management services, namely, collecting secure data for use
by decentralized computing networks” (Class 35); and
“storing of secure electronic data for use by decentralized computing
networks” (Class 42).
The Examining Attorney notes that a “computer network” is “a system of
computers and peripherals that are able to communicate with each other” or “[a]
system of computers interconnected by telephone wires or other means in order to
share information.”19 He maintains that the evidence in this case shows that “[o]ne
method of transferring data among network nodes is via DATA STREAMS.”20 The
17 Id. 70-75.
18 Id. at 76-79.
19 8 TTABVUE 11 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
20 Id. at 7 (Examining Attorney’s Brief). We grant the Examining Attorney’s request, id. at
12-13, that we take judicial notice of the definitions of “network” and “blockchain” from the
MERRIAM-WEBSTER (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/network) and AMERICAN

Serial No. 98004679
- 7 -
Examining Attorney thus concludes that the term “DATA STREAMS is descriptive
of applicant’s services because they all involved streaming of data among networked
computers.”21
III. Applicant’s Argument
Notably, Applicant does not challenge or dispute the validity of the above-
described evidence in showing that DATA STREAMS is descriptive. Instead,
Applicant argues that because the wording CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS, as a
whole, is unitary, it cannot be descriptive:
Applicant combines its family mark CHAINLINK with DATA
STREAMS to create a new commercial impression. The unitary mark,
when considered as a whole, creates a new and unique commercial
impression, namely, a service of the Applicant. The Mark, when
considered in connection with the identified services, creates the
commercial impression suggestive of a source identifying brand,
CHAINLINK, with DATA STREAMS.22
Applicant’s conclusory argument is unsupported, and thus is not evidence. Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The mere addition of
Applicant’s alleged “family” mark, CHAINLINK, to the descriptive term, DATA
STREAMS, does not create a new and unique commercial impression that renders
the mark as a whole registrable without a disclaimer. See TMEP §1213.05(b)(iv)
(“when an entire unitary phrase or slogan is generic, descriptive, or merely
HERITAGE (http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=network) dictionaries, accessed
April 27, 2026. See Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., No.
91061847, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 146, at *7 (“[T]he Board may take judicial notice of use of a
term in dictionaries.”).
21 Id. at 7.
22 6 TTABVUE 14-15 (Applicant’s Brief) (capitalization lowered).

Serial No. 98004679
- 8 -
informational, it remains unregistrable”).
Applicant argues that DATA STREAMS cannot be descriptive because “it has
multiple interpretations and is inherently ambiguous.”23 According to Applicant, “[a]
mark with multiple definitions is inherently ambiguous as it does not immediately
convey a mark’s goods and/or services.”24 And here, explains Applicant, DATA
STREAMS also refers to “[a] sequence of digitally encoded signals used to represent
information in transmission”; “is the continuous transfer of data from one or more
sources at a steady, high speed for processing into specific outputs”; and is “the
transmission of a sequence of digitally encoded signals to convey information.”25
However, “[i]t 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 Chopper
Indus., No. 73273140, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6. “The fact that a term may have
other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.” In re Nursecon, LLC, No.
88052194, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 545, at *16. See also In re Tokutake Indus., No.
79018656, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 26, at *12 (affirming refusal to register AYUMI and
Japanese-character equivalent as merely descriptive of footwear despite evidence of
multiple meanings of “ayumi,” including “walking,” “a step,” and “one’s pace”).26 Here,
23
24 Id. at 19.
25 Id. at 19-20.
26 Even so, the other meanings of DATA STREAM offered by Applicant’s evidence—“[a]
sequence of digitally encoded signals used to represent information in transmission”; “the
continuous transfer of data from one or more sources a stead, high speed for processing into
specific outputs”; and “the transmission of a sequence of digitally encoded signals to convey
information” (see May 27, 2024 Request for Reconsideration, at TSDR 22-26)— appear to be
other ways of describing the basic meanings of DATA STREAM we noted above.

Serial No. 98004679
- 9 -
several of the established definitions of DATA STREAMS fit. Consequently, this is
not a case where there are widely-differing definitions, as even Applicant’s proposed
definition seems to it fits its services as well.
Applicant argues this case is “just like Manpower, Inc. v. Driving Force, Inc., [1981
TTAB LEXIS 109], “where the Board found that the mark THE DRIVING FORCE
could be interpreted in multiple ways as applied to the defendant’s services and
therefore the mark was not merely descriptive.”27 But the Board in Manpower did not
find the term THE DRIVING FORCE non-descriptive merely because it had multiple
meanings; it did so because the record showed a wide diversity of potential
connotations among witnesses who were intimately familiar with the parties’
businesses and the term’s use. Witnesses ascribed meanings ranging from “a leader
in the industry,” a “force with velocity,” a “philosophy that doing business with
[opposer]” is professional, to even a non-literal reference such as “Mrs. Jones is the
driving force behind her husband.” Manpower v. Driving Force, 1981 TTAB LEXIS
109, at *5-6. Because of this variety of interpretations, the Board determined that the
mark did not immediately convey the specific characteristics of the services—
supplying leased truck drivers and goods-handling personnel on a contract basis—
without requiring s significant exercise of imagination or perception. Id. at *8.
In sharp contrast, the term DATA STREAMS has a fairly uniform and established
meaning in the computer and data-processing industry: the continuous transmission
or flow of data from one location to another in real time. As demonstrated by the
27 6 TTABVUE 20 (Applicant’s Brief).

Serial No. 98004679
- 10 -
dictionary definitions and extensive third-party use evidence of record, this meaning
directly and immediately describes a feature of Applicant’s identified services—
collecting and storing secure electronic data for use by decentralized computing
networks—which inherently involve the streaming of data across networked systems.
Unlike the situation in Manpower, there is no comparable diversity of connotations
here that would require imagination to connect the term to the services; rather, the
term is merely descriptive.
Applicant also argues this case is similar to the Board’s non-precedential decision
in In re Open Software Foundation, Inc., No. 74672089, 1998 TTAB LEXIS 298, at *3,
where the Board found that even though the mark OPENUI had known definitions,
“the commercial impression of OPENUI did not immediately convey the goods and
services associated with the mark.” Here, contends Applicant, DATA STREAMS
similarly refers to a variety of known definitions, however, none immediately convey
blockchains, decentralized networks, a database, or secure storage,” as recited in
Applicant’s identification.28
But in Open Software, the Board did not hold that OPENUI was registrable
because its components had multiple dictionary meanings. The Board found the mark
not merely descriptive because OPENUI is a unitary blended term whose composite
commercial impression as a whole did not immediately convey the nature of the
applicant’s computer software and support services. Although “open” and “UI” each
had recognized meanings in the computer field, their combination into a coined
28 6 TTABVUE 21 (Applicant’s Brief) (italics omitted).

Serial No. 98004679
- 11 -
unitary mark OPENUI required imagination and perception; it did not directly
describe the goods and services and instead created a distinct, non-descriptive
commercial impression.29
Here, DATA STREAMS is not a blended or coined unitary term. It’s a common,
well-established phrase in the computer and data-processing industry that directly
and immediately conveys the continuous transmission or flow of data – precisely the
core feature of Applicant’s services of “data management services, namely, collecting
secure data for use by decentralized computer networks” and “storing of secure
electronic data for use by decentralized computing networks.” The dictionary
definitions and third-party use evidence of record confirm that the term has a
common meaning in the relevant field and requires no imagination to connect it to
Applicant’s data-related services in a networked decentralized environment. Adding
the distinctive word CHAINLINK does not transform the descriptive term “DATA
STREAMS” into the type of unitary, suggestive mark at issue in Open Software; the
combination simply joins a distinctive word with a descriptive component.
Applicant’s citation to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Cross Com. Media, Inc. v.
Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is likewise inapposite. There, the term
“COLLECTIVE” was found not narrowly tailored to the specific goods and services at
issue. Id. at 163. Here, DATA STREAMS is precisely and narrowly descriptive of the
29 The meaning of many computer and networking terms has changed with the rapid
advances of the internet. These findings are evidence intensive and based on a particular
point in time.

Serial No. 98004679
- 12 -
data-transmission aspect of Applicant’s services, as shown by the record.
Applicant also argues in its reply brief that its services concern “data at rest” –
i.e., secure database management and the storing of electronic data – rather than
“data in motion” (continuous transmission or streaming).30 Applicant contends that
the Examining Attorney’s evidence relates primarily to real-time analytics, ingestion
pipelines, and transmission, not to the identified storage and database management
services.31 We are not persuaded.
The identified services are “database management services, namely, collecting
secure data for use by decentralized computing networks” and “storing of secure
electronic data for use by decentralized computing networks.” These services
necessarily involve the collection of data from one or more sources and the provision
of that data for use by a decentralized network of computers. In the context of
computer networks – especially decentralized ones – collecting and making data
available for network use inherently requires the transmission or flow of data across
network nodes. One of the primary methods for transferring data among network
nodes is via data streams, as the record abundantly demonstrates. Applicant’s own
promotional materials of record confirm that its CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS
offering involves the reliable delivery and availability of data in distributed systems
using active multi-site deployment models that ensure continuous operations.
That the data may ultimately be stored or verified on a blockchain, as with
30 Id. at 5.
31 Id. at 4-6.

Serial No. 98004679
- 13 -
Applicant’s services, does not remove the descriptive significance of DATA
STREAMS. Applicant’s services explicitly require collecting secure data for use by
decentralized networks – a process that inherently encompasses the streaming or
continuous flow of data into and across those networks. Applicant cannot avoid the
descriptiveness of a term by focusing only on one end-result (storage) while ignoring
the means of achieving that result in the context of networked, decentralized systems.
Applicant, in its appeal brief, notes that “the Board has held that where the mark
combines two or more terms creating an incongruity and thought and imagination
are required to leap past the incongruity to discern a descriptive quality, then the
mark at issue was suggestive.”32 But as the Examining Attorney points out, Applicant
“offers no explanation or theory on why it thinks the wording DATA STREAMS is
incongruous.”33 On reply, however, Applicant contends that the combination of
CHAINLINK (its alleged house mark) with DATA STREAMS creates an incongruity
because “streams” “connotes ephemerality and flow, and Applicant’s identified
services … focus on durable, secure storage.”34
This argument is unpersuasive. There is no incongruity in using a term that
describes a key feature or function of the services simply because the services have
multiple aspects. DATA STREAMS directly and immediately describes the
transmission aspect inherent in collecting and making data available for use by
32 Id. at 15.
33 8 TTABVUE 9 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
34 Id. at 7.

Serial No. 98004679
- 14 -
decentralized computing networks. Adding the house mark, CHAINLINK, does not
create the type of incongruous or blended unitary impression seen in cases such as In
re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 1978 TTAB LEXIS 44, at *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”). Here, the mark simply combines a distinctive element with a merely
descriptive one. See TMEP 1213.05(b)(iv).
IV. Conclusion
As previously explained, so long as any one meaning of the term DATA STREAMS
is descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the services as identified, the term is
merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. Chopper Indus., 1984
TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6. The extensive dictionary definitions and third-party usage
evidence of record in this case establish that DATA STREAMS immediately conveys
the continuous transmission or flow of data across networked systems—the very
process inherent in collecting and storing secure electronic data for use by
decentralized computing networks. Applicant’s own evidence confirms that its
services employ multi-site deployment models to ensure continuous, reliable data
availability across distributed origins. For the foregoing reasons, the term DATA
STREAMS is merely descriptive of a feature of Applicant’s services.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark based on the requirement
under Trademark Act § 6(a) to disclaim DATA STREAMS is affirmed in both classes.

Serial No. 98004679
- 15 -
However, if Applicant submits a disclaimer of DATA STREAMS to the Board within
thirty days from the mailing date of this decision, the disclaimer requirement will
have been met and the application will proceed. Trademark Rule 2.142(g), 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.142(g). The disclaimer should read as follows: “No claim is made to the exclusive
right to use DATA STREAMS apart from the mark as shown.”