LumaClean, LLC

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: December 8, 2025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re LumaClean, LLC
_____
Serial No. 98444087
_____
Kathryn Yoches and Victoria Walker of LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C.
for LumaClean, LLC.
Jaime Whelan, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 129,
Pamela Y. Willis, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Heasley, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, LumaClean, LLC, appeals from the Trademark Examining Attorney’s
final refusal to register its proposed mark STOMADISC (in standard characters) on
the Principal Register on the ground that it is merely descriptive of Applicant’s
identified Class 5 goods, “wound dressings; wound dressings, namely, pledgets;
sterile wound dressings,”1 under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
1 Application Serial No. 98444087 was filed on March 11, 2024, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming first use and use in commerce of the mark on
the identified goods since February 15, 2024.

Serial No. 98444087
- 2 -
§ 1052(e)(1). The case is fully briefed.2 For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the
refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law of Mere Descriptiveness
The Trademark Act provides in pertinent part that “[n]o trademark by which the
goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused
registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it … [c]onsists of
a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is
merely descriptive … of them….” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A term is merely descriptive
within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it immediately conveys information
concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the goods for which registration is
sought. In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Chamber of
Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). If a term is merely
descriptive, it fails to distinguish the applicant’s goods from the goods of others, who
have an equal right to use the term in marketing their products. Hoover Co. v. Royal
Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Furthermore, descriptive
terms are in the public domain and should be free for use by all who can truthfully
employ them to describe their goods. See Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of
Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543-44 (1920)”). An applicant cannot remove a merely
descriptive term from the public domain unless it shows that the term has acquired
distinctiveness—i.e., that “in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a
2 Citations to the prosecution file are to the USPTO’s TRADEMARK STATUS & DOCUMENT
RETRIEVAL (“TSDR”) system in .pdf format. Citations to the appeal record are to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system.

Serial No. 98444087
- 3 -
product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product
itself.” Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n. 11 (1982), quoted in
Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300.
It is the Examining Attorney’s burden to show that a term is merely descriptive
of an applicant’s goods or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come
forward with evidence to rebut the prima facie case. In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Evidence of the purchasing public’s understanding of a term
may be obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony,
consumer surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,]
and other publications.” Fallon, 2020 USPQ2d 11249, at *7 (quoting Real
Foods, 128 USPQ2d at 1374). “These sources may include [w]ebsites,
publications and use in labels, packages, or in advertising materials
directed to the goods.” Id., at *7-8 (quoting In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d
1363, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1710 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
omitted)). “Evidence that a term is merely descriptive similarly may come
from an applicant's own usage other than that found on its labels,
packaging or advertising materials.” Omniome, 2020 USPQ2d 3222, at *4.
In re Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 WL 3282655, *5 (TTAB 2022).
The Board resolves doubts as to the mere descriptiveness of a term in favor of the
applicant. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 WL 3915986, *2
(TTAB 2016).
II. Whether STOMADISC is Merely Descriptive of Applicant’s
Identified Goods
A. The Examining Attorney’s Prima Facie Case
The Examining Attorney maintains that the term STOMADISC is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods, “wound dressings; wound dressings,

Serial No. 98444087
- 4 -
namely, pledgets; sterile wound dressings,” for the following reasons.
Applicant’s proposed mark combines the words “stoma” and “disc.” A “stoma” is
“an artificial permanent opening especially in the abdominal wall made in surgical
procedures.”3 As a medical website explains:
Stomas can be created anywhere along the digestive system. Common
types of stoma include:
• Colostomy—from your colon or large intestine
• Ileostomy—from your small bowel or ileum
• Urostomy (also known as an ileal conduit)4
The National Institute of Health National Library of Medicine reports that
“[e]very year thousands of people undergo surgical procedures for diversion resulting
in an intestinal or urological stoma.”5
A “disc” is “a thin circular object”6 The Examining Attorney adduces evidence of
third parties commonly providing disc-shaped wound dressings to apply to such
stoma:
7
3 Webster.com, April 11, 2025 Request for Reconsideration after Final Action at 16.
4 HealthDirect.gov.au, Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at 5.
5 NIH National Library of Medicine, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at 26.
6 Merriam-Webster.com, Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at 11.
7 BettyMills.com, July 15, 2025 Office Action at 21.

Serial No. 98444087
- 5 -
8
9
Various forms of stoma discs are offered:
10
8 Ontosight.ai/glossary, July 15, 2025 Office Action at 20.
9 Medical-supplies-equipment-company.com, Jan. 14, 2025 Office Action at 50.
10 ShopOstomySupplies.com, Sept. 24, 2024 Office Action at 22.

Serial No. 98444087
- 6 -
One website advises on how to change a stoma disc: “The stoma disc is loosened
with a moist compress and carefully removed.”11 Another advises: “When removing
the stoma disc, press the skin with one hand, and slowly tear off the stoma disc with
the other hand.”12
In like manner, Applicant offers its STOMADISC product:
13
Applicant’s identified goods, consisting mainly of “wound dressings,” include
“pledgets,” “a compress or pad used to apply medication to or absorb discharges (as
from a wound).”14
11 MedInfo.net, Jan. 14, 2025 Office Action at 33.
12 Longterm-Health.com, Jan. 14, 2025 Office Action at 36.
13 Etsy.com, Jan. 14, 2025 Office Action at 7.
14 Merriam-Webster.com, 12/1/2025. “The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary
definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed format or regular fixed editions.
In re Cordua Rests. LP, No. 85214191, 2014 WL 1390504, *2 n.4 (TTAB 2014), aff’d, 823 F.3d
594 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Look Cycle Int’l v. Kunshan Qiyue Outdoor Sports Goods Co., No.
92079409, 2024 WL 3739358, *14 n. 36 (TTAB 2024).

Serial No. 98444087
- 7 -
In the course of prosecution, Applicant explained the derivation of its proposed
mark:
15
Such a combination of descriptive words can, however, still be descriptive. “Where
a mark consists of multiple words, the mere combination of descriptive words does
not necessarily create a non-descriptive word or phrase.” In re Omniome, Inc., No.
87661190, 2019 WL 7596207, *5 (TTAB 2019). “[I]f those two portions individually
are merely descriptive of an aspect of [Applicant’s] goods, the PTO must also
determine whether the mark as a whole, i.e., the combination of the individual parts,
conveys any distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness
of the individual parts.” In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174-75 (Fed.
Cir. 2003). “If each word instead ‘retains its merely descriptive significance in relation
to the goods, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.”’
In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 WL 6255423, *9 (TTAB 2020) (quoting Fat Boys,
2016 WL 3915986, at *6). “A mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive
components is registrable only if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark
with a non-descriptive meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or incongruous
15 April 11, 2025 Request for Reconsideration after Final Action at 12.

Serial No. 98444087
- 8 -
meaning as applied to the goods or services.” In re Omniome, 2019 WL 7596207, at
*5.
B. Applicant’s Rebuttal
Applicant maintains that combining the individual words “Stoma” and “Disc” into
STOMADISC conveys a distinctive, source-identifying impression for several
reasons: the term is suggestive, unitary, a double entendre, and/or incongruous. We
shall address these arguments, along with Applicant’s ancillary contentions, in turn.
Applicant first argues that its proposed mark is not descriptive, but suggestive:
[T]he mark is a fusion of the terms “STOMA” and “DISC,” but the resulting
coined compound term “STOMADISC” is not a term of art nor an industry
standard. It does not appear in dictionaries or medical glossaries, nor is
there any evidence that consumers or competitors use it generically or
descriptively in the field of wound care. 16
Further, it argues:
A consumer encountering “stoma” may think of ostomy procedures or
medical treatments. A consumer encountering “disc” may envision CDs,
spine anatomy, or circular objects in a general sense. But the combination
“STOMADISC” presents an unfamiliar term that does not readily or clearly
describe a wound dressing or pledget without additional context or
explanation. It triggers a “mental pause,” requiring the consumer to
interpret the relationship between the two words, if any.17
“Finally,” Applicant argues, “even if some consumers might interpret the mark
descriptively, that is not the proper legal standard. ‘It is well settled that so long as
any one of the meanings of a term is not descriptive, the term may not be refused
16 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 12. See Merriam-Webster.com, Dec. 20, 2024 Response
to Office Action at 18; Merriam-Webster.com, April 11, 2025 Response to Office
Action/request for reconsideration at 14 (no dictionary definition of “stomadisc”).
17 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 18.

Serial No. 98444087
- 9 -
registration as merely descriptive.’ In re Grand Metropolitan Foodservice Inc., [No.
74073,517, 1994 WL 270710 (TTAB 1994).]”18
We are unable to locate this quote in Grand Metropolitan Foodservice. That
decision, moreover, involved a double entendre, or dual meaning of MufFuns, “that of
muffins and of the ‘fun’ aspect of applicant’s food product.” Id. at *1. The applicant in
that case also disclaimed “muffins,” which further distinguishes that case from this.
Id. at *1 n.2. We shall address the subject of double entendres later. For our present
purposes, we note that in general, “[s]o long as any one of the meanings of a term is
descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.” In re UST Glob.
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd., No. 87657822, 2020 WL 2093068, *6 (TTAB 2020).
Applicant’s other arguments are similarly misplaced. Even if the combined term
does not appear in a dictionary, “it is fundamental that a mark does not have to
appear in a dictionary in order for it to be merely descriptive of an applicant’s goods.”
In re Thomas Collators, Inc., 1968 WL 8246, *1 (TTAB 1968). Descriptive words such
as “Stoma” and “Disc,” which do appear in the dictionary, can still be descriptive when
combined, even though the combination does not appear in the dictionary. In re
Orleans Wines, Ltd., 1977 WL 22593, *2 (TTAB 1977) (“it is well settled that the fact
that a term is not found in the dictionary is not controlling on the question of
registrability, where as in the present case such term has a well understood and
recognized meaning”) (finding BREADSPRED merely descriptive of the use or
function of jellies and jams).
18 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 11. See also Applicant’s reply brief, 12 TTABVUE 8.

Serial No. 98444087
- 10 -
As for Applicant’s contention that “STOMADISC” presents an unfamiliar term
that does not readily describe a wound dressing without additional context or
explanation, we remind Applicant that “[d]escriptiveness must be evaluated in
relation to the particular goods for which registration is sought, the context in which
it is being used, and the possible significance that the term would have to the average
purchaser of the goods because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Chamber of
Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300 (quoting In re Bayer AG, 499 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir.
2007)). “Whether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of
the mark alone is not the test.… Rather, the question is whether someone who knows
what the goods and services are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech. Co. v. Shanghai Zhenglang Tech. Co., 2024
WL 5265081, *9 (TTAB 2025) (quoting DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.
Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation and citation
omitted)).
In the present case, the relevant purchasers of the goods would be the attending
physicians, who know what stoma discs are, and their patients, whom they would
educate in the use of such goods. In that context, both groups of relevant purchasers
would apprehend the significance of “STOMADISC” in conveying information about
the goods.
Applicant next claims that its applied-for mark is unitary: “While the individual
terms ‘stoma’ (a medical opening) and ‘disc’ (a general shape) may hold certain
descriptive meanings in isolation, the combination ‘STOMADISC’ is a coined and

Serial No. 98444087
- 11 -
unitary mark that does not exist in common usage or medical terminology.”19
Applicant continues, “STOMADISC’ is a linguistically blended construction — a
coined compound that gives rise to a unique commercial impression.”20
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized, however, that:
A unitary mark has certain observable characteristics. Specifically, its
elements are inseparable. In a unitary mark, these observable
characteristics must combine to show that the mark has a distinct meaning
of its own independent of the meaning of its constituent elements. In other
words, a unitary mark must create a single and distinct commercial
impression.
Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991); accord In re
Lego Juris A/S, No. 88698784, 2022 WL 1744613, *3 (TTAB 2022) (if the elements of
a mark are so merged together that they cannot be viewed as separable elements, the
mark is considered unitary).
As the Board has repeatedly emphasized, deleting a space between two words does
not render it unitary. “It is almost too well established to cite cases for the proposition
that an otherwise merely descriptive term is not made any less so by merely omitting
spaces between the words….” Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Addressograph-
Multigraph Corp., 1967 WL 7276, *2 (TTAB 1967). The Board explains why this is:
“when a compound term comprises two ordinary English words, consumers often
recognize them as such, rather than considering the combination to be a fanciful term
with no meaning at all” and “whether such a mark appears as one word or two often
has little or no effect on consumers’ impression of it.” Anheuser-Busch, LLC v.
19 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 8.
20 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 13.

Serial No. 98444087
- 12 -
Innvopak Sys. Pty Ltd, No. 91194148, 2015 WL 5316485, *10 (TTAB 2015). See, e.g.,
In re Carlson, 2009 WL 1719596, *2 (TTAB 2009) (“the compression of the words
URBAN HOUSING into a single term, URBANHOUZING, still conveys the
commercial impression of two words. In other words, consumers would recognize the
mark as consisting of the separate elements URBAN and HOUZING”); In re A La
Vieille Russie Inc., 2001 WL 862510, *1 n. 2 (TTAB 2001) (“the compound term
RUSSIANART is as merely descriptive as its constituent words, ‘Russian Art”’).
In fact, even though Applicant has applied to register STOMADISC in standard
characters, which can be displayed in varying sizes and fonts, see In re Calphalon
Corp., No. 86356713, 2017 WL 1476288, *4 (TTAB 2017), it has chosen to display the
proposed mark as “StomaDisc.” It does so in its specimen:
21
21 March 11, 2024 specimen at 1.

Serial No. 98444087
- 13 -
On its LinkedIn page:
22
And on its website:
23
“[T]he United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) commonly looks to
an applicant’s website when it is made of record for possible evidence of descriptive
use of a proposed mark.” In re Berkeley Lights, Inc., 2022 WL 15733123, *5 (TTAB
2022). Where there is record evidence of the applicant’s use of the proposed mark, the
Board “must consider [the] mark in its commercial context to determine the public’s
perception.” N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d at 1365, quoted in In re Nextgen Mgmt., No.
88098031, 2023 WL 111145, *7 (TTAB 2023). Indeed, “an applicant’s own website and
marketing materials may be . . . the most damaging evidence in indicating how the
relevant purchasing public perceives a term.” Zuma Array, 2022 WL 3282655, at *8
22 Applicant’s LinkedIn page, Dec. 20, 2024 Response to Office Action at 16.
23 Applicant’s website, LumaCleanCares.com, Dec. 20, 2024 Response to Office Action at 21.
See In re Union Carbide Corp., 1971 WL 16536, *3 (TTAB 1971) (“The fact that applicant has
used the term ‘MINIGENERATOR’ in a trademark manner and employed the designation
‘TM’ in association therewith does not, per se, establish that it does perform or is capable of
performing the function of a trademark.”).

Serial No. 98444087
- 14 -
(internal punctuation and citation omitted).
Here, Applicant’s use of its proposed mark in its commercial context reveals the
same likely perception as the relevant public: to perceive “Stoma” and “Disc” as
separate words. The proposed mark is not unitary.
Applicant next contends that its proposed mark is a double entendre. Applicant
elaborates that
[STOMADISC] requires interpretation and invites multiple plausible
associations. Such as:
• Interpretation 1 (Medical Context): A disc-shaped medical device
potentially used in connection with stomas, suggestive but requiring
some knowledge and inference.
• Interpretation 2 (Invented Brand Name): A novel or coined term
evoking modernity, technology, or a niche brand identity,
disconnected from specific product features.24
“Therefore,” Applicant concludes, “the Mark ‘STOMADISC’ functions as a double
entendre, with one meaning possibly suggestive of a product related to stoma care
and another as a coined brand name.”25
“For trademark purposes, a ‘double entendre’ is an expression that has a double
connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services.” TRADEMARK MANUAL
OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1213.05(c) (Nov. 2025). The multiple
interpretations that make an expression a ‘double entendre’ must be associations that
the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent from the proposed
24 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 16-17. See also Applicant’s reply brief, 12 TTABVUE
7-8.
25 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 17.

Serial No. 98444087
- 15 -
mark itself. In re S. Malhotra & Co. AG, No. 79194076, 2018 WL 4660940, *5 (TTAB
2018). For example, in In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 (CCPA 1968), the
mark SUGAR & SPICE was not merely descriptive of bakery products,
notwithstanding the descriptive nature of the terms “SUGAR” and “SPICE,” because
the mark immediately evoked the nursery rhyme “sugar and spice and everything
nice.” Id. at 552-53.
Here, in contrast, we find that the first meaning of STOMADISC—that it refers
to a disc used to dress stoma wounds—is the only readily apparent meaning conveyed
by the proposed mark. It comprises two ordinary English words, which the relevant
purchasing public would recognize as such, despite the omission of a space between
them. Anheuser-Busch v. Innvopak, 2015 WL 5316485, at *10. And that single
meaning is merely descriptive of a feature of Applicant’s goods. The proposed mark
is therefore not a double entendre.
Applicant next contends that its proposed mark is not merely descriptive because
it is incongruous. It expounds further:
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has consistently held that
incongruity in a mark — that is, the use of terms in an unexpected or
illogical combination — tends to create a commercial impression that is
suggestive rather than merely descriptive. In In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363,
365 (TTAB 1983), the Board stated: “Incongruity is one of the accepted
guideposts in the evolved set of legal principles for discriminating the
suggestive from the descriptive mark.”
…
The Mark “STOMADISC” is incongruous because it combines two
disparate terms, one clinical and one geometric, into a single coined unit
that does not clearly, directly, or immediately describe the goods.26
26 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 18-19.

Serial No. 98444087
- 16 -
We have explained that “[f]or purposes of Section 2(e)(1), incongruity exists, for
example, where a term evokes an immediate association with something unrelated to
the goods or services.” Calphalon Corp., 2017 WL 1476288, *9. For instance, in In re
Shutts, 1983 WL 51780, *2 (TTAB 1983), on which Applicant relies, the Board found
“SNO-RAKE” for a snow removal hand tool not merely descriptive because even
though it evoked raking snow, “the idea of a ‘rake’ or ‘raking’ does indeed sit strange
in terms of application to snow and, at best, is suggestive of a capacity for gathering
up snow with an implement or using an action that hardly fits any of the common
conceptions of ‘rake’ or ‘raking.’” This is consistent with the dictionary definitions of
“incongruous” as “strange because of not agreeing with what is usual or expected,”27
or “out of keeping or place; inappropriate; unbecoming.”28
But here, unlike in Shutts, the third-party evidence shows that a disc is commonly
marketed as a means of securing effluents from a stoma. The term is not unusual or
out of place, but appropriate for describing the medical equipment used to manage a
stoma. In its medical setting, Applicant’s proposed mark is not incongruous.
Finally, in its main brief on appeal, Applicant submits a table of fourteen
registered STOMA-formative marks, ostensibly to demonstrate that “[t]he
application of merely descriptive or generic to the Applicant’s Mark is inconsistent
27 Britannica.com/dictionary/incongruous 12/2/2025.
28 Dictionary.com 12/2/2025.

Serial No. 98444087
- 17 -
with existing USPTO practice, given that there are many registered marks with
similar constructions as the Applicant’s.”29
However, only five of the registered marks listed in Applicant’s table were adduced
in evidence during prosecution.30 Trademark Rule 2.142(d) provides that the record
should be complete before an appeal is filed. 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d). We therefore do not
consider Applicant’s listing of registrations that should have been submitted during
prosecution. TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 1207.01 (2021), cited in In re Taverna Izakaya LLC, No. 88612441, 2021 WL
5411210, *1 (TTAB 2021). Of the five, one, STOMABOOST, identifies “fertilizer,” a
good that is too dissimilar to be relevant to our analysis.31
The remaining four registered marks are for medical stoma-related goods, but as
the Examining Attorney points out,32 they couple “STOMA” with a suggestive term—
STOMADOME, STOMATUCK, STOMA CLOAK, and STOMAGENIE33—rendering
the marks, taken as a whole, inherently distinctive, not merely descriptive, as they
do not immediately convey information concerning a feature, quality, or
characteristic of the goods.
In any event, “[w]hile we recognize that ‘consistency is highly desirable,’ ...
consistency in examination is not itself a substantive rule of trademark law, and a
29 Applicant’s main brief, 4 TTABVUE 23-26.
30 Dec. 20, 2024 Response to Office Action at 23-43 (TESS printouts).
31 Reg. No. 4979792.
32 Examining Attorney’s brief, 8 TTABVUE 13.
33 Reg. Nos. 4958734, 5997702, 7192942, and 5643909, respectively.

Serial No. 98444087
- 18 -
desire for consistency with the decisions of prior examining attorneys must yield to
proper determinations under the Trademark Act and rules. ... The Board must assess
each mark on its own facts and record.” In re Am. Furniture Warehouse CO, No.
86407531, 2018 WL 1942214, *7 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re Omega SA, 494 F.3d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The facts and record here indicate that Applicant’s proposed
STOMADISC mark merely describes its goods.
III. Conclusion
The Examining Attorney has made out a prima facie case that “STOMADISC”
immediately conveys information regarding a feature of Applicant’s goods—i.e., that
they consist of discs used to manage waste emanating from stoma. Applicant’s
evidence and arguments do not rebut this prima facie case. So based on careful review
of the arguments and evidence of record under the applicable law, and giving
Applicant the benefit of the doubt, we find that the proposed mark is merely
descriptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed STOMADISC mark is
affirmed.