Fast Slow Motion, LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: May 26, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Fast Slow Motion, LLC
_____
Serial No. 98631466
_____
Josh Andrews of Gatehouse Law, LLC for
Fast Slow Motion, LLC.
James Lovelace, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 119,
Brett Golden, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Thurmon, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Fast Slow Motion, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the standard-character mark SCALABLE BUSINESS FRAMEWORK
(“FRAMEWORK” disclaimed) for the following services:1
1 Application Serial No. 98631466 was filed on July 3, 2024, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming first use of the mark in connection with the
services anywhere on February 20, 2024 and first use in commerce since at least as early as
June 14, 2024.

Serial No. 98631466
- 2 -
Computer software consulting; Consultation services
relating to computer software; Consulting services for
others in the field of design, planning, and implementation
project management of computer software; Consulting
services in the design and implementation of computer-
based information systems for businesses; Consulting
services in the field of software as a service (SAAS);
Consulting in the field of IT project management, in
International Class 42.
The Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that Applicant’s
mark is merely descriptive of the recited services. After the Examining Attorney
issued a final refusal, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. The
Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, and the appeal resumed.
The appeal is fully briefed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Merely Descriptive -- Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act prohibits registration on the Principal Register of “a
mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods [or services] of the
applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them,” unless the mark has acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act.2
A term is “merely descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it
“immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of
the goods or services with which it is used.” In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 675
F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir.
2 Section 2(f) is not pertinent to our decision because Applicant does not claim the proposed
mark is registrable because it has acquired distinctiveness.

Serial No. 98631466
- 3 -
2007)). “A mark need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail
to be descriptive, it need only describe a single feature or attribute.” Id. (cleaned up;
citation omitted).
“Descriptiveness must be evaluated ‘in relation to the particular goods [or
services] 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 [or services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.’” Id. (quoting
Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 963-64). Descriptiveness is not considered “in the abstract or
on the basis of guesswork.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports, LLC, No. 86490930, 2016
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *4 (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA
1978)). “The question is not whether someone presented with only the mark could
guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who
knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
As applicable to Applicant’s mark in this appeal, “[w]here a mark consists of
multiple words, the mere combination of descriptive words does not necessarily create
a non-descriptive word or phrase.” In re Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 TTAB
LEXIS 281, at *8 (quoting In re Omniome, Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS
414, at *12). “[I]f each component retains its merely descriptive significance in
relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is itself
merely descriptive.” Omniome, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *12. Only where the

Serial No. 98631466
- 4 -
combination of merely descriptive terms creates a unitary mark, or a mark with a
unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods or
services is the mark registrable as suggestive. Id.
Lastly, “[w]hether a mark is merely descriptive or not is determined from the
viewpoint of the relevant purchasing public.” In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039,
1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We must “consider the commercial
impression of a mark as a whole ... viewed through the eyes of a consumer.” Real
Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (cleaned
up, quoting DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1253) (emphasis in original omitted). Applicant’s
services establish that the relevant consumers are individuals and businesses
seeking consultation services in the field of computer software, information
technology, and information systems.
II. Arguments and Analysis
The Examining Attorney argues that:3
the individual components [of Applicant’s mark] and the composite result
are descriptive of applicant’s services and do not create a unique,
incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the services.
Specifically, the mark SCALABLE BUSINESS FRAMEWORK in its
entirety merely describes a feature of applicant's services, namely,
consulting related to a basic conceptional structure for commercial
enterprises that is capable of being easily expanded or upgraded on
demand.
3 8 TTABVUE 4. Citations to the briefs and other materials in the appeal record refer to the
Board's TTABVUE online docket system. 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.

Serial No. 98631466
- 5 -
In support, the Examining Attorney points to the dictionary definitions for each
of the component terms:4
• Scalable: “capable of being easily expanded or upgraded on demand … [e.g.]
Companies like Hometown, which cater to underserved markets while
leveraging scalable solutions, represent …”;
• Business: “a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise”; and
• Framework: “a basic conceptional structure (as of ideas).”
The Examining Attorney also points to Applicant’s website that shows “the
descriptiveness of the combination of terms,” specifically where Applicant touts the
following features of its services; for example:
“The three components of the Scalable Business Framework™ – Process,
Automation, and Visibility – work together iteratively to build a scalable
system for growth”5
“At Fast Slow Motion, we use the Scalable Business Framework™ to grow
not only our own business, but the businesses of our clients as well” 6
“They should be addressed in a specific order, providing an iterative model
that allows the Framework to grow with your business. Here’s a brief
overview of each component to help you grasp the power of the
Framework.”7
“John Burdett is the founder [of Applicant], a consulting firm that helps
businesses scale using CRM technology.”8
4 Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster online dictionary website, attached to first Office
Action issued January 30, 2025, TSDR pp. 7-25.
5 Screenshots attached to first Office Action issued January 30, 2025, TSDR pp. 27-29.
6 Screenshots attached to first Office Action issued January 30, 2025, TSDR pp. 27-29.
7 Screenshot attached to final Office Action issued May 1, 2025, TSDR p. 96.
8 Screenshot attached to final Office Action issued May 1, 2025, TSDR p. 101.

Serial No. 98631466
- 6 -
“Michael Johnson is the Director of Growth at [Applicant] and a trusted
expert in building scalable business systems.”9
“[Applicant] helps growing businesses build scalable systems on the
Salesforce and HubSpot platforms. Combining expert consulting, real-
world business experience… [Applicant] exists to be a blessing to
business leaders as they grow their businesses.” 10
The Examining Attorney also submitted evidence showing eight third-party uses
of the entire phrase “scalable business framework” and argues that this phrase is
“commonly used in the business industry to identify business models that are capable
of being scaled to accommodate for growth.”11 In his brief, the Examining Attorney
highlighted the following language:
“Creating a scalable business framework can be the key to multiplying
your reach, revenue, and impact.”, “Building a scalable business
framework can help you expand your reach, build authority, and generate
new revenue streams.”12
“Scalable business frameworks are designed to support growth without
being hindered by the company's structure or available resources.”,
“Scalable business frameworks are not one-size-fits-all solutions but
tailored strategies that consider the unique aspects of each business.”13
“These common obstacles can make it difficult for contractors to transition
from an individual labor-driven model to a scalable business
framework.”14
9 Screenshot attached to final Office Action issued May 1, 2025, TSDR p. 101.
10 Screenshot attached to final Office Action issued May 1, 2025, TSDR p. 102.
11 8 TTABVUE 4; evidence attached to final Office Action issued May 1, 2025, at TSDR pp.
32-90.
12 From taralbryan.com podcast website.
13 From fastercapital.com website.
14 From Fox59.com website.

Serial No. 98631466
- 7 -
“By optimizing your pricing, reducing expenses, and implementing tiered
options, you can enhance profits and build a scalable business
framework.”15
“WorkNomads operates under a flexible and scalable business
framework that allows companies to grow and adapt their teams as
needed.”16
“Build a Scalable Business Framework: We establish streamlined
operational workflows and CRM systems that allow you to manage
customer relationships and grow efficiently.”17
“Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS) for Success: One of Zac’s most
impactful lessons was implementing EOS to create structure and
accountability within his companies. He shares how this system helped
him move from gut-driven decisions to a scalable business
framework.”18
“Additional revenue is generated through premium services, such as
design assistance, expedited production, and specialty finishes. By offering
these varied services and fostering a robust online marketplace,
Shapeways maintains a sustainable and scalable business
framework.”19
The aforementioned evidence clearly shows that consumers of Applicant’s services
will have no problem in immediately recognizing and understanding Applicant’s
mark as conveying information regarding a feature or purpose of the services.
Specifically, we have no doubt that, as the Examining Attorney concludes, the mark
“merely describes a feature of applicant’s consulting services, namely, software and
15 From miraspaces.com blog website.
16 From worknomads.com (FAQ) website.
17 From silverleads.co website.
18 From Apple.com podcast website.
19 From vizologi.com website.

Serial No. 98631466
- 8 -
related project management consulting for establishing a business framework that
can be scaled up to accommodate growth or expansion.”20
In reaching our determination regarding the descriptiveness of Applicant’s mark,
we have given full consideration to Applicant’s various arguments and contentions.
However, these are either not persuasive or Applicant is simply incorrect in its
assertions. Specifically, without citing to any authority, Applicant contends that the
Examining Attorney’s evidence is “untimely” to the extent the Internet evidence post-
dates the application filing date.21 This is incorrect. It is well-settled that we must
consider all probative and properly introduced evidence to determine whether a mark
is merely descriptive. Indeed, the fact that an applicant may be the first to adopt a
term or phrase does not mean that the term or phrase is not merely descriptive, nor
does it somehow render it distinctive. See In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 464, at *32-33 (“‘The fact that Applicant may be the first or only user of a term
does not render that term distinctive’ if ... it has been shown to be merely descriptive
of the goods identified in the application.”) (quoting Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150,
at *10); In re Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. AG, No. 85485359, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 131,
at *29 n.50 (“Being ‘the first and only one to adopt and use the mark sought to be
registered does not prove that the mark is not descriptive.’”) (quoting In re Bailey
Meter Co., 102 F.2d 843, 844 (CCPA 1939).
20 8 TTABVUE 9.
21 6 TTABVUE 12-13.

Serial No. 98631466
- 9 -
Applicant also takes issue with certain evidence because “none of which contain
the mark ‘SCALABLE BUSINESS FRAMEWORK,’” claiming that “the Examining
Attorney’s entire argument shifts, claiming that ‘model’ is synonymous with
‘framework’ and that evidence for ‘scalable business model’ is therefore relevant.”22
Evidence showing that the component terms of Applicant’s mark are descriptive of
Applicant’s services is relevant and probative so long as each component term retains
its descriptive significance in relation to the services, and our ultimate determination
is whether the mark, as a whole, is merely descriptive. Omniome, 2019 TTAB LEXIS
414, at *12. In any event, as discussed, the Examining Attorney did submit evidence
showing the proposed mark, in its entirety, being used descriptively by third parties.
Applicant also argues that certain evidence is unreliable because it is
“inaccessible.”23 Specifically, Applicant identifies three websites that return a “404
error” and are no longer accessible.24 The Examining Attorney counters that this
argument “is not credible and should be ignored because the evidence has already
been properly made of record, and each website was verified as accessible on the
Internet as of the writing of this brief.”25 Even if we are to disregard this objected-to
evidence, there is ample evidence demonstrating the mark is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s services. We disagree with Applicant that consumers must take “mental
leaps” before understanding the descriptive significance of Applicant’s mark and we
22 6 TTABVUE 13.
23 6 TTABVUE 14.
24 6 TTABVUE 14.
25 8 TTABVUE 8.

Serial No. 98631466
- 10 -
also disagree its assessment that there exists a “mixed record [that] creates
reasonable doubt.”26 Rather, as mentioned, the record demonstrates clearly that
consumers of Applicant’s services will readily understand the mark as conveying
information about these services—consulting in the field of software or information
systems or IT project management for establishing a business framework that can be
scaled up to accommodate growth or expansion.
III. Conclusion
Upon consideration of the applicable law, the evidence of record, and the
arguments of Applicant and the Examining Attorney, we find that Applicant’s mark
SCALABLE BUSINESS FRAMEWORK immediately conveys to consumers a feature
or purpose of Applicant’s services, and as such is merely descriptive of the services.
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark
SCALABLE BUSINESS FRAMEWORK under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
26 6 TTABVUE 15, 17.