Microsoft Corporation v. Mineverse LLC

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

This Opinion is Nota
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: May 11, 2026

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Aurrora Limited, Sapphire Studios LLC, Spark Squared GmbH, Easy Games,
Inc., Jigarbov Productions Inc., King Cube LTD, Ziax Ltd., ReWrite Media,
Inc., Hydreon Corporation, Razzleberries AB, Mineplex LLC
U.

Mineverse LLC

Microsoft Corporation

V.
Mineverse LLC

Opposition Nos. 91266862 (parent) and 91268696!

1 The Board previously granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate. 41 TTABVUE
(Opposition No. 91266862). Citations in this opinion are to the record in parent Opposition
No. 91266862 (unless otherwise noted) and to the TTABVUE docket entry number and
electronic page number where the document or testimony appears.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 2 -
Barry Werbin and Joshua Herman of Herrick, Feinstein LLP,
for Aurrora Limited, Sapphire Studios LLC, Spark Squared GmbH, Easy Games,
Inc., Jigarbov Productions Inc., King Cube LTD, Zix Ltd., ReWrite Media, Inc.,
Hydreon Corporation, Razzleberries AB, Mineplex LLC
Kristen McCallion of Fish & Richardson P.C.,
for Microsoft Corporation
Michael J. Schwab of Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP
for Mineverse LLC.2
_____
Before Greenbaum, Pologeorgis, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Brock, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Aurrora Limited, Sapphire Studios LLC, Spark Squared GmbH, Easy Games,
Inc., Jigarbov Productions Inc., King Cube LTD, Zix Ltd., ReWrite Media, Inc.,
Hydreon Corporation, Razzleberries AB, Mineplex LLC (collectively, “Gaming Group
Opposers”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) oppose registration on the
Principal Register of a trademark application owned by Mineverse LLC for the mark
SKYBLOCK in standard characters for the following services in International Class
42:
Computer programming services, namely, content creation for virtual
worlds and three dimensional platforms; Computer services, namely,
creating an on-line community for registered users to engage in gaming
and virtual worlds; Computer services, namely, creating an on-line
virtual environment for gaming and social interaction; Computer
services, namely, providing gaming and virtual world servers to others;
Designing and modifying computer programs and video games for
2 Counsel, Mr. Schwab of Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, represented Applicant Mineverse LLC
in both oppositions.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 3 -
others; Hosting of digital content on the Internet; Programming virtual
content and goods for use in online virtual worlds; Server hosting.3
Gaming Group Opposers and Microsoft (collectively, “Opposers’”) separately
opposed the SKYBLOCK application; after the close of discovery, proceedings were
consolidated at the request of all parties, as noted above.4
After the consolidation, in its first amended complaint, Microsoft asserted five
grounds for opposition: (1) abandonment; (2) SKYBLOCK is generic; (3) SKYBLOCK
is merely descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness; (4) fraud; and (5) as to
certain services, no bona fide use of SKYBLOCK prior to the filing of the use-based
application.5
For their part, Gaming Group Opposers asserted the same five grounds in a
similarly amended notice of opposition,6 with some minor differences in the facts and
allegations.
3 Application Serial No. 88699388 was filed on November 20, 2019, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and in
commerce since at least as early as September 4, 2011.
4 See n.1, supra; 41 TTABVUE.
5 Microsoft’s first amended complaint, 43 TTABVUE 24-28 (Opp. No. 91266862).
6 Gaming Group Opposers’ first amended complaint, 46 TTABVUE 25-28 (Opp. No.
91266862).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 4 -
Applicant answered both amended pleadings, largely denying the salient
allegations7 and admitting that “the principal owner of Applicant is Noobcrew, who
in real life is Brandon Chaney.”8
Opposers jointly filed a main brief, ultimately asserting three grounds for
opposition: (1) SKYBLOCK is merely descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1)
and has not acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f); (2)
SKYBLOCK is generic under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45; and (3) lack of
bona fide use in commerce as of the filing date of the use-based application, for certain
services, under Trademark Act Sections 1(a), 3, and 45.9
7 Answer to Microsoft, 47 TTABVUE; Answer to Gaming Group Opposers, 54 TTABVUE.
Applicant also asserted “affirmative defenses” of failure to state a claim and a statement that
Applicant will assert other defenses that may be developed through the course of proceedings,
but did not pursue them. “The asserted defense of failure to state a claim is not a true
affirmative defense because it relates to an assertion of the insufficiency of the pleading of
opposer’s claim rather than a statement of a defense to a properly pleaded claim.” John W.
Carson Found. v. Toilets.com, Inc., No. 91181092, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 226, at *25. Applicant
did not file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, Applicant’s “defense” of failure to state a claim will be given no consideration.
As to Applicant’s intention to assert additional defenses, a defendant cannot reserve
unidentified defenses or counterclaims in its answer since it does not provide a plaintiff fair
notice of such defenses. Philanthropist.com, Inc. v. Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day
Adventists, No. 92065178, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 205, at *2 n.6, aff’d, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS
21811 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Whether Applicant may amend its answer to include additional
affirmative defenses or counterclaims would be resolved by way of a motion for leave to
amend. No such motion was filed by Applicant during the course of this proceeding.
Accordingly, this purported “affirmative defense” will also be given no consideration.
8 47 TTABVUE ¶ 23; 54 TTABVUE ¶ 36.
9 Opposers’ trial brief, 90 TTABVUE 3. Opposers in both oppositions originally asserted fraud
as a ground for opposition. In their joint main brief, Opposers did not pursue the fraud claim,
so it is waived. See, e.g., Monster Energy Co. v. Lo, No. 91225050, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at
*3-4 (deeming opposer’s lack of bona fide intent to use claim and the family of marks portion
of its likelihood of confusion claim waived because they were not argued in opposer’s brief).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 5 -
Applicant filed a trial brief10 and Opposers filed a joint reply.11
I. Trial Record
The record includes the pleadings and the file of the involved application.
Trademark Rule 2.122(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b). In addition, Opposers and Applicant
introduced the evidence outlined below. Microsoft and Gaming Group Opposers
introduced evidence separately, so we list it separately.
Microsoft introduced:
• Notice of reliance on discovery materials (OTX 1-12);12
• Discovery deposition of Brandon Chaney, CEO and founder of Applicant,
dated December 21, 2023 and select exhibits (OTX 13-14) (“Chaney
Deposition”);13
• Testimony declaration of expert witness Matthew G. Ezell, dated January
23, 2025, with attached expert report, dated November 14, 2022 (OTX 15);14
and
• Notices of reliance on Internet materials, parts I and II (OTX 16-23, and
24-29).15
Gaming Group Opposers introduced:
• Notices of reliance on Internet materials, parts I-VIII (OPP 1-8);16 and
10 Applicant’s trial brief, 92 TTABVUE.
11 Opposers’ reply brief, 95 TTABVUE.
12 59-62 TTABVUE (in order: 62, 59, 60, then 61 TTABVUE). Microsoft included its requests
for discovery because they referred to attached exhibits that were not included with
Applicant’s responses.
13 63 TTABVUE.
14 64 TTABVUE.
15 65-67 TTABVUE.
16 68-78 TTABVUE.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 6 -
• Notice of reliance on discovery responses (OPP 10).17
Applicant introduced:
• Notice of reliance on official records (ATX 7);18
• Testimony declaration of Brandon Chaney, CEO and founder of Applicant,
dated March 25, 2025 and select exhibits thereto (ATX 1-5, 8-23) (“Chaney
Declaration”);19
• Notices of reliance on Internet materials, parts I and II (ATX 8-17, and 18-
22);20 and
• Notice of reliance on discovery materials (ATX 1-6).21
The entire record has been considered and relevant evidence is discussed
throughout this opinion, even if we do not discuss the precise contents. See Quiktrip
W., Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc., 984 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have held on
multiple occasions that failure to explicitly discuss every issue or every piece of
evidence does not alone establish that the tribunal did not consider it.”) (quotation
17 79 TTABVUE.
18 83 TTABVUE. This is the USPTO file history of the opposed Application Serial No.
88699388. It is not necessary to include the file of the involved application as it is
automatically of record. Trademark Rule 2.122(b).
19 Chaney Declaration, 85 TTABVUE. The exhibits referenced in the declaration were entered
instead under notices of reliance on Internet materials and appear as follows: ATX 1-5 at 87
TTABVUE; ATX 7 at 83 TTABVUE; ATX 8-17 at 86 TTABVUE; and ATX 18-22 at 84
TTABVUE.
An exhibit identified as ATX 6 is included in the materials submitted under notice of
reliance at 87 TTABVUE but is not referenced in the Chaney Declaration, so we list it
separately.
The declaration itself references ATX 23, identified as two YouTube videos on a USB drive,
which we address below.
20 86 and 84 TTABVUE. As noted above, most of the materials submitted by Applicant under
notice of reliance are actually exhibits to the Chaney Declaration, other than exhibit ATX 6
(screenshot of Applicant’s website, skyblock.net).
21 87 TTABVUE.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 7 -
omitted); In re Miracle Tuesday LLC, 695 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he
mere fact that the Board did not recite all of the evidence it considered does not mean
the evidence was not, in fact, reviewed.”) (citation omitted).
II. Objections and Other Evidentiary Matters
The parties raised objections to certain portions of the evidence, and we identified
some evidentiary issues as well. “Because [inter partes proceedings are] … akin to a
bench trial, the Board is capable of assessing the proper evidentiary weight to be
accorded the testimony and evidence, taking into account the imperfections
surrounding the admissibility of such testimony and evidence.” Peterson v. Awshucks
SC, LLC, No. 92066957, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 520, at *11. This precludes the need to
strike. See, e.g., Spiritline Cruises LLC v. Tour Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 91224000, 2020
TTAB LEXIS 3, at *13-14.; Tao Licensing, LLC v. Bender Consulting Ltd., No.
92057132, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 437, at *4-6 (objections on grounds of hearsay, lack of
personal knowledge, irrelevance and improper opinion testimony overruled, but
Board will weigh the relevance and strength or weakness of the objected-to testimony,
including any inherent limitations). Given the circumstances, we note the objections
here and address them here or in our analysis. As necessary and appropriate, we will
point out any limitations applied to the evidence or otherwise note that we may not
rely on the testimony or evidence in the manner sought.
None of the testimony and documentary evidence sought to be excluded is outcome
determinative, and we generally decline to exclude it (except as otherwise noted),

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 8 -
remaining mindful of any shortcomings in such evidence. Peterson, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 520, at *11.
III. Objections
A. Opposers’ Objections
Opposers object to sections of the Chaney Declaration on the bases of hearsay,
relevancy, and lack of personal knowledge.22 To the extent that in Para. 113, Mr.
Chaney describes Microsoft’s interaction with third parties, and his knowledge is
based on third-party Internet materials,23 we accord his statements little probative
value and we treat the referenced Internet materials (ATX 22) as if submitted under
notice of reliance; that is, only for what they show on their face, not for the truth of
the matters stated within. Cf. WeaponX Performance Prods. Ltd. v. Weapon X
Motorsports, Inc., No. 91221553, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *11.
As to the more numerous objections based on relevancy and lack of personal
knowledge, to the extent that these objections have merit and involve materials or
information that we rely upon, we address them at that point in our decision.
Peterson, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 520, at *10. In doing so, we follow our well-established
policy of declining to strike declaration testimony on the basis of a substantive
objection if the testimony was taken in accordance with the applicable rules, but we
will consider the objection when evaluating the probative value of the testimony. See,
22 90 TTABVUE 53.
23 85 TTABVUE 19.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 9 -
e.g., Spiritline, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 3, at *13-14; Tao Licensing, 2017 TTAB LEXIS
437, at *4-6.
In sum, we discuss Opposers’ evidentiary objections when necessary,24 including
what weight, if any, we accord to those paragraphs of the Chaney Declaration and
the material referenced therein.
B. Applicant’s Objections
For its part, Applicant objects to two portions of Opposers’ evidence. First,
Applicant objects to exhibits 39 and 40 of the Chaney Deposition on the basis that the
screenshots of third-party websites shown to Mr. Chaney during his deposition are
hearsay and lacking relevance.25 We address it here because similar issues of the
probative value of third-party Internet evidence arise repeatedly in our decision.
During his deposition, Mr. Chaney identified the exhibits – to which Applicant
now objects – as screenshots of the third-party website planetminecraft.com; Mr.
Chaney also confirmed that he had viewed the website in the past.26 Counsel for
Microsoft asked if the screenshots in the exhibit showed Applicant’s SKYBLOCK
map, and if not, if he authorized those uses of SKYBLOCK.27 Mr. Chaney stated that
his SKYBLOCK map was not shown in the exhibits, that he did not authorize those
uses of SKYBLOCK, and that he had not seen any of those uses of SKYBLOCK before
24 See, e.g., our discussions of Applicant’s evidence, infra.
25 92 TTABVUE 40-41.
26 63 TTABVUE 67-68.
27 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 10 -
that day.28 We find that Mr. Chaney is able provide a foundation for the website
planetminecraft.com website, generally, and that the third-party uses of SKYBLOCK
displayed on a particular screenshot were unauthorized by Applicant.
Opposers cite to these exhibits as evidence that “[third-party] webpages from
planetminecraft.com show dozens of third-party maps that were available for
download under the name ‘skyblock’ in 2011.”29 Mr. Chaney stated that he had
not seen the particular websites before (i.e., the particular search or dated version on
the website, and the third-party uses), so he cannot know what was available in 2011.
Consequently, we accord this evidence limited probative weight for the purpose that
Opposers offer it.
Next, Applicant objects to Opposers’ use of excerpts of electronic books for the
truth of the matter contained therein.30 This issue is related to the first, in that we
are being asked to use Internet materials that are inherently hearsay for the truth of
the matter asserted – whether that “truth” is dates or definitions. Here, Microsoft
submitted excerpts from eight electronic books under a notice of reliance on Internet
materials31 and Opposers rely on these excerpts for a number of definitions.32 Absent
testimony from a competent witness, we consider Internet materials only for what
they show on their face, not for the truth of the matter, “whether there is an objection
28 Id.
29 90 TTABVUE 12 (emphasis added).
30 92 TTABVUE 41.
31 65 TTABVUE 6-111.
32 90 TTABVUE 10-11, 18, 20, 23. 32-36.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 11 -
or not.” WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *19 n.18. Accordingly, as there is no
corroborating testimony, we do not rely on the substance of the particular definitions;
however, the Internet materials show on their face that “there are entire publications,
such as an unofficial encyclopedia ebook, dedicated to defining common terms [in
Minecraft],” as Opposers assert.33
C. Other Evidentiary Issues
1. Opposers’ Evidence
a. Notice of Reliance on Internet Materials
For their part, under notice of reliance, Gaming Group Opposers introduced
evidence of third-party use of the term SKYBLOCK for each year from 2012-2019,
inclusive.34 The materials include the full URL and publication date.35 Trademark
Rule 2.122(e); see also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE
(TBMP) § 704.08(b) (2025). Each exhibit comprises a screenshot, labeled with, inter
alia, the name or title provided by Gaming Group Opposers, publication date,36 and
33 Id. at 11.
34 68-78 TTABVUE.
35 The date of access can also be provided. Trademark Rule 2.122(e).
36 The publication dates appear in the titles or labels added to each Youtube.com screenshot
by Gaming Group Opposers. Absent testimony from a competent witness (here, the person
who performed the Internet searches and can speak to the manner in which the searches
were performed), we consider Internet materials only for what they show on their face. Cf.
WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *19 n.18 (citation omitted). And even if the publication
date was shown in the screenshots themselves, the date itself is still hearsay.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 12 -
URL. With one exception, the hundreds of pages of material consist of screenshots of
videos from Youtube.com (“YouTube”).37
First, as stated above, absent supporting testimony (such as how the searches
were conducted), the dates shown on the printouts in Gaming Group Opposer’s
evidence (and in most cases, added by Gaming Group Opposers themselves) is
hearsay. WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *11.
Second, as we consider these materials only for what they show on their face, we
are struck by what so many of the printouts do not show: the term SKYBLOCK. In
many of the screenshots, the word SKYBLOCK does not appear in the screenshot
itself or even in the URL; rather, SKYBLOCK appears only in the name Gaming
Group Opposers added above the screenshots themselves (like the dates discussed
above), without providing any testimonial context for how SKYBLOCK would appear
to consumers. Representative examples are shown below:
37 The one exception appears at 70 TTABVUE 10-11 (screenshot of planetminecraft.com).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 13 -
38
39
As the title or name of video (where the term SKYBLOCK appears) is not visible
in the screenshot itself or the provided URL, absent supporting testimony describing
38 69 TTABVUE 9.
39 70 TTABVUE 19.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 14 -
how the term SKYBLOCK would be presented to consumers,40 we cannot accept
Gaming Group Opposers’ name for the video as evidence of use of the term
SKYBLOCK in the screenshots. WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *11. Gaming
Group Opposers’ description of these materials in the notices of reliance does not
provide clarity as to these titles.41 A significant number of Gaming Group Opposers’
screenshots present this issue,42 and we accord these portions of the evidence no
probative weight as to third-party use of the term SKYBLOCK.
Finally, for the remaining evidence that does show the term SKYBLOCK on its
face, that evidence does not distinguish between two types of uses of SKYBLOCK:
those that support Opposers’ claims and those that do not. That is, for “proving
Opposers’ claims of abandonment, genericness, and mere descriptiveness,”43 as stated
in the relevant notices of reliance, it matters whether the alleged “third-party uses”
of the term SKYBLOCK are using the term to refer to Applicant or its SKYBLOCK
game, or in a descriptive sense (or otherwise) as Opposers claim. On this record, we
are unable to distinguish between two types of uses of SKYBLOCK in these Internet
materials submitted under notice of reliance only.
Opposers do not rely on this evidence in their brief. Due to significant flaws,
Gaming Group Opposers’ notice of reliance on Internet materials and accompanying
40 In some cases, SKYBLOCK appears only the URL, after the domain name. As in the
examples above, SKYBLOCK does not even appear in the URL.
41 See, e.g., 68 TTABVUE 2-4.
42 68 TTABVUE 7-8, 13-19, 21-22 (OPP 1-1); id. at 24-27 (OPP 1-2); etc.
43 See, e.g., 68 TTABVUE 2-3.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 15 -
exhibits OPP 1-1 to 8-4 do not support their claim of mere descriptiveness. We accord
it little probative value for the purposes offered.
b. Evidence Related to SKYWARS
We disregard evidence and argument offered by all parties related to the term
SKYWARS, subject of abandoned trademark Application Serial No. 90258628, filed
in the name of Mineverse, LLC. The term is not at issue in the instant proceeding.
2. Applicant’s Evidence
Applicant is not exempt from our close review of the parties’ notices of reliance. In
its “Notice of Reliance on Discovery Materials,” Applicant introduced documents it
produced in response to discovery requests.44 A party may not make its own responses
of record except as necessary to counter “misleading” discovery responses submitted
by the inquiring party. Trademark Rule 2.120(k)(5). Applicant did not make of record
any of Opposers’ discovery responses, so there was no such evidence to counter. Id.
However, most of these documents45 appear to be exhibits to the Chaney
Declaration,46 as we noted above, and should have been identified and filed as such.
As to any remaining documents that are merely Applicant’s own responses to
discovery, we do not consider them, as Applicant has not indicated that the responses
are submitted to counter misleading discovery responses submitted by Opposers.
44 87 TTABVUE.
45 ATX 1-5, 87 TTABVUE 6-75.
46 85 TTABVUE 2-23.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 16 -
Applicant’s “Notice of Reliance on Internet Materials Part I” also comprises
exhibits to the Chaney Declaration and should have been identified and filed as
such.47
Applicant’s “Notice of Reliance on Internet Materials Part II” is also mainly
exhibits to the Chaney Declaration, except that it also lists video files.48 Applicant
mailed “a USB drive containing two YouTube videos” to the Board.49 USB drives are
not accepted, so we have not reviewed the videos. TBMP 703.01(i).
IV. Background
Minecraft is a “widely” popular, online, survival video game50 in which players in
an open, virtual world place and break blocks representing various materials, to craft
and create new materials and objects.51 In addition to a more traditional gameplay
mode that follows a set of objectives or story, Minecraft is a “sandbox” game, meaning
the game offers creative play to its users.52 Players can build and share their own
worlds or “maps” and modifications to gameplay or “mods”,53 and many have their
own “servers” (programs or software, not necessarily physical servers) for users to
play online together in the same worlds or under certain sets of rules.54 There is, in
47 86 TTABVUE.
48 86 TTABVUE; 89 TTABVUE.
49 89 TTABVUE 2.
50 Chaney Declaration, 85 TTABVUE 3-4, ¶¶9, 11.
51 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 13.
52 85 TTABVUE 4, ¶12, 63 TTABVUE 13.
53 85 TTABVUE 4, ¶¶13-15.
54 63 TTABVUE 12 45.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 17 -
essence, a host of user-created content within the overarching game environment and
structure of Minecraft. Part of the popularity of the Minecraft game is evidenced by
this “vast ‘modding’ and third-party community” of players who create content and
share it online, or seek out and use that third-party-created content.55 Some of the
content is offered for free; some is sold.56 Although Opposers object to statements by
Mr. Chaney along these lines,57 it is clear that there are real dollars exchanged in
this ecosystem within and surrounding the Minecraft game, in addition to the cost of
the game itself.
Brandon Chaney is the owner, founder, and CEO of Applicant Mineverse, LLC,58
a game developer for Minecraft.59 Online, Mr. Chaney uses the name or alias
“Noobcrew.”60 He began playing Minecraft as a child, and at the age of 15, he created
his own Minecraft world or map, which he named SKYBLOCK.61 His downloadable
SKYBLOCK game is a map or world he programmed within the Minecraft game – a
“survival island”62 in which players face a physically constrained environment with
55 85 TTABVUE 4, ¶13.
56 Id. at ¶16; 63 TTABVUE 23, 28-29.
57 90 TTABVUE 53. Mr. Chaney made similar statements during his deposition, which
Microsoft entered into the record in whole. 63 TTABVUE. But even without Mr. Chaney’s
statements explaining the nature of the Minecraft Marketplace from the perspective of a
customer, the name itself, e.g., a “marketplace,” suggests commerce.
58 79 TTABVUE 11; 85 TTABVUE 3, ¶3.
59 63 TTABVUE 12.
60 Id. at 11; 85 TTABVUE 3, ¶7.
61 85 TTABVUE 4-5, ¶¶17-18, 22-23.
62 85 TTABVUE 5, ¶22.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 18 -
limited resources.63 Under his “Noobcrew” alias, Mr. Chaney made the SKYBLOCK
map available for others to download on the third-party website minecraftforum.net
on September 4, 2011.64 The next year, in 2012, Mr. Chaney created his own
multiplayer server for his SKYBLOCK game, to allow Minecraft players to play
together.65 In 2015, when he was an adult,66 Mr. Chaney formed Applicant Mineverse,
LLC and thereafter assigned to it the SKYBLOCK business and trademark.
Applicant generally offers the SKYBLOCK game for free;67 Applicant earns money
from advertisements. When players clicked the link to download Applicant’s
SKYBLOCK game from the minecraftform.net website, ads played before the game
began to download to the player’s computer.68 Applicant earned ad revenue in this
manner for a few years69 before transitioning to his own website, skyblock.net, where
it continues to earn ad revenue through ads placed on the website.70 Applicant’s
63 Id. at 6, ¶¶26, 31.
64 Id. at 5, ¶¶22-23.
65 Id. at 9, ¶¶45, 49. We generally use the term Applicant unless it is clear that the action
undertaken pre-dated Applicant’s formation and its acquisition of Mr. Chaney’s rights in his
SKYBLOCK content.
66 Mr. Chaney’s date of birth is not in the record, but he would have been around 19 at this
point.
67 Id. at 6, ¶25; 63 TTABVUE at 14.
68 63 TTABVUE 18; 85 TTABVUE 7, ¶¶33-4.
69 63 TTABVUE 18; 85 TTABVUE 6-7, ¶32.
70 63 TTABVUE 29. Applicant continues to earn ad revenue on his own website. 85 TTABVUE
7, ¶¶33-4. In partnership with developer Piki Studios, Applicant offered SKYBLOCK content
on the Minecraft Marketplace beginning in 2022. Id. It is not clear whether such SKYBLOCK
content is still available on the Minecraft Marketplace at present.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 19 -
SKYBLOCK games, servers, and forums71 are offered on Applicant’s skyblock.net
website.
Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game was popular, but the parties disagree as to the
scope and nature of that popularity. After the initial release of SKYBLOCK in 2011,
Mr. Chaney created and released three additional versions of SKYBLOCK, all within
a few months.72 Cumulatively, Applicant’s SKYBLOCK games have been downloaded
more than 12 million times.73 Additionally, as of 2025, Applicant had five million
unique players on his SKYBLOCK server.74 Those are large numbers.75
71 63 TTABVUE 12, 48.
72 85 TTABVUE 7, ¶35.
73 Id. at ¶36. (“Version 2.1 is the most well-known version of the SKYBLOCK game. This
version consists of a distinct “L” shaped grassy island and a neighboring “cube” shaped sand
island in the distance. This version has been downloaded over 8.4 million times, whereas all
other versions of the SKYBLOCK game world have been downloaded over 12.3 million times
since its creation. See ATX 15.”). Opposers object to this statement and others, as follows:
“Mr. Chaney’s Declaration contains numerous statements for which Mr. Chaney has no
personal knowledge of the matters asserted as required under Fed. R. Evid. 602.3 Several of
these statements pertain to the alleged success of Applicant’s ‘skyblock’ content, such as
unsupported metrics, and consumer recognition of the same; however, Mr. Chaney fails to
cite any evidence supporting these self-serving statements.” 90 TTABVUE 53. Mr. Chaney’s
statement refers to exhibit ATX 15, described as “Screenshots of publicly accessible website
hosted by Mineverse bearing the access date and URL, attached hereto as ATX 15, showing
the total downloads for the SKYBLOCK game.” Notice of Reliance on Internet Materials,
Part I, 86 TTABVUE 4. These are totals from Applicant’s own website; we find this evidence
reliable as to the total number of downloads from skyblock.net. Additionally, the total
number of downloads is likely even higher, as this does not take into account initial
downloads of Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game from when it was originally posted on third-party
website mincraftforum.net.
74 85 TTABVUE 9, ¶¶45, 49.
75 They are missing context, however. The record does not include the total number of
Minecraft players, what percentage of those players go beyond the four-corners of the
Minecraft game itself and download content like Applicant’s, or play in groups on servers like
Applicant’s, etc. We will return to these large numbers in our consideration of whether
SKYBLOCK has acquired distinctiveness.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 20 -
Mr. Chaney’s SKYBLOCK game immediately inspired fans or copycats, depending
on who tells the story and whether there is money involved. That “vast ‘modding’ and
third-party community” of Minecraft players,76 Mr. Chaney explained, “is what
people in Minecraft do. They take inspiration from elsewhere, and then they create
their own version of it. … Anything anyone creates unique [sic], they create other
versions of it on third-party websites. You can’t really do anything about that. ...”77
Mr. Chaney clarified his position on these “inspired” Minecraft fans as follows: “When
it comes to third-party content related to SKYBLOCK, I have always supported the
creation of fan-created variations of SKYBLOCK or non-commercial content across
the Minecraft platform. Minecraft, as a platform, thrives on creativity and has long
depended on third-party content to enrich the player experience.”78 Although this is
the self-serving statement of an adult, made years after he created the SKYBLOCK
game as a child, Mr. Chaney is consistent in his statements that he was not bothered
by other players creating and offering their own SKYBLOCK games if they did so for
free,79 like he had, and credited him (i.e., his Noobcrew alias) as the source of the
original SKYBLOCK game.80
76 85 TTABVUE 4, ¶13.
77 63 TTABVUE 71.
78 85 TTABVUE 21, ¶125.
79 63 TTABVUE 23.
80 85 TTABVUE 13, ¶74-75. His statements regarding his awareness of fan-created
SKYBLOCK content typically begins with his assessment whether he deems the use
“commercial” or not. Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 21 -
Although he earns ad revenue, as noted above, Applicant generally offers the
SKYBLOCK game for free.81 Mr. Chaney uses the word “free” nine times in his
declaration,82 and the word comes up in his deposition as well, as he distinguishes
between different types of SKYBLOCK-related material in the Minecraft ecosystem.
First, there is Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game, which it offers for free (“[a]s is usual
and customary in the Minecraft community”).83 Then, generally, Applicant
acknowledges two types of third-party SKYBLOCK content: 1) “fan-created
variations of SKYBLOCK or non-commercial content”,84 of which there are both fan-
created games and a “never-ending” number of SKYBLOCK servers;85 and 2)
commercial SKYBLOCK-named games offered for sale, e.g., SKYBLOCK content
offered by some of the Gaming Group Opposers on Microsoft’s Minecraft
Marketplace.86
81 Id. at 6, ¶25; 63 TTABVUE at 14.
82 85 TTABVUE; see also n.78 supra.
83 Id. at 6, ¶25.
84 Id. at 21, ¶125; 13, ¶74-5 (“[T]here are numerous fan-created spinoffs of the SKYBLOCK
game such as, ‘SKYBLOCK Warriors, ‘Skygrid’, ‘Oneblock’, and ‘Luckyblock’. Like the
SKYBLOCK game, these games involve similar floating island environments. …
‘SKYBLOCK Warriors’ for example, is a fan-made adaptation of the SKYBLOCK world,
created by the Minecraft user ‘Swipeshot’ on March 24, 2013 and offered for free on Planet
Minecraft. … Importantly, ‘Swipeshot’ acknowledges that he is not the original creator of the
SKYBLOCK game, and that his game was inspired by the SKYBLOCK game.”)
85 85 TTABVUE 54.
86 Id. at 10, ¶¶58-65; id. at 13, ¶73 (“I would typically have no issue if the infringing content
did not utilize the trademark SKYBLOCK or did not claim to be ‘original’ or ‘official’
SKYBLOCK content. As with the parties involved here, they refused to stop employing these
tactics as they generated substantial sales.”; id. at 16, ¶91 (“I therefore concentrated my
takedown efforts directly on the larger companies or ‘Minecraft Partners’ that provided
SKYBLOCK games for sale on the Minecraft Marketplace.”).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 22 -
This brings us to Opposers and the always-underlying issue of money. Microsoft
did not create the Minecraft game; it acquired Minecraft around 201487 and launched
the Minecraft Marketplace sometime thereafter.88 Opposers object to most of Mr.
Chaney’s statements regarding the Minecraft Marketplace and the Marketplace
Partners sellers, on the bases that Mr. Chaney lacks personal knowledge and that his
statements are irrelevant and immaterial.89 Because Mr. Chaney has sold some
content on the Minecraft Marketplace in conjunction with another developer, he
likely does have personal knowledge of some of the workings of the platform, in
addition to his personal knowledge based on his status as a Minecraft player and
customer. At any rate, at least some of the Gaming Group Opposers sell SKYBLOCK
content via the Minecraft Marketplace.90
Microsoft sells “Minecoins” used to purchase content in the Minecraft Marketplace. 63
TTABVUE 58.
87 Id. at 3, ¶10. In a strange turn, we cite to unobjected portions of Mr. Chaney’s testimony
for facts and background regarding various of the Opposers, including Microsoft. Opposers
submitted no testimony or declaration evidence about themselves during their trial period;
in their brief, they cite to the pleadings for certain facts. 90 TTABVUE 5, 10. “Statements
made in pleadings cannot be considered as evidence on behalf of the party making them; such
statements must be established by competent evidence during the time for taking testimony.
However, statements in pleadings may have evidentiary value as an opposing party’s
statement.” Philanthropist.com, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 205, at *21.
88 63 TTABVUE 23. Applicant has some presence on the Minecraft Marketplace. In
conjunction with another developer, Piki Studios, Applicant began selling some SKYBLOCK-
named content on the Minecraft Marketplace in December 2022, id. at 29, while continuing
to offer the SKYBLOCK game for free on Applicant’s own website. Applicant has earned
around $1,000 from Minecraft Marketplace. Id. at 38.
89 90 TTABVUE 53.
90 See, e.g., 85 TTABVUE 11, ¶¶58-64 (describing Gaming Group Opposers Sapphire Studios
LLC and Razzleberries AB).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 23 -
Mr. Chaney gave conflicting answers as to when he first became aware of third-
party SKYBLOCK content (2017-2020),91 but it is clear that Applicant has focused its
enforcement efforts on what Mr. Chaney deems “commercial” uses – SKYBLOCK
content offered for sale on specific platforms: Minecraft Marketplace, Roblox, Epic
Games (Fortnite), Apple App Store, and Google Play store.92 Applicant “sent
takedown notices or cease and desist letters” to game developers and the
aforementioned platforms.93 Roblox and Epic Games removed SKYBLOCK content
from their platforms at Mr. Chaney’s request.94 After some communication between
Mr. Chaney and third-parties, Apple also removed SKYBLOCK apps from the App
Store.95 Google did not remove content on the basis that Applicant lacked a trademark
registration for SKYBLOCK.96 Microsoft also did not remove content from the
Minecraft Marketplace.97
91 See, e.g., 62 TTABVUE 92 (“Until recently, the ‘Minecraft’ community was more singular
and users were able to easily search and find [Applicant’s] ‘skyblock’ to play as an existing
service. It was not until approximately April 2017, six (6) years after Applicant launched
‘skyblock’, that other users have created third-party content that free rides off of the goodwill
Applicant built through providing goods and services using the mark ‘skyblock’, and even
then, the practice of third-party users free riding off of ‘skyblock’ did not become noticeable
until approximately 2019.”), id. at 170 (“Admit[ted] that the first instance in which a need to
enforce its alleged trademark rights in the term “skyblock” was not until 2020 when a third-
party game developer attempted to use the mark for a game mode on Roblox.”).
We find it more plausible that Mr. Chaney has been aware of third-party content for longer,
but that he only understood it to be actionable if the use of SKYBLOCK was for commercial
purposes.
92 85 TTABVUE 14, ¶76.
93 Id.
94 Id. at ¶77.
95 Id. at ¶78.
96 Id. at 15, ¶84.
97 Id. at 15-16, ¶¶85-89.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 24 -
It was during this same time period (2017-2020) that Applicant learned about the
merits of federal trademark registration,98 and on November 20, 2019, filed the
application that is the subject of these proceedings. Given their interest in using the
term SKYBLOCK, Opposers initiated the instant proceedings following publication
of the application.99
V. Entitlement to a Statutory Cause of Action
Opposers’ entitlement to a statutory cause of action is a necessary element of the
plaintiff’s case in every inter partes proceeding. Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978
F.3d 1298, 1302-07 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To establish entitlement to a statutory cause of
action, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests
protected by the statute, and (ii) a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused
by the registration of the mark. See Meenaxi Enter., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 38 F.4th
1067, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components,
Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 129, 132 (2014)); Corcamore, 978 F.3d at 1303.
“Where, as here, there are multiple opposers, each opposer must plead and prove
its own [entitlement to a statutory cause of action] in each proceeding.” Int’l Dairy
Foods Ass’n v. Interprofession du Gruyere, No. 91232427, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 268, at
*28, aff’d, 575 F. Supp. 3d 627 (E.D. Va. 2021), aff’d, 61 F.4th 407 (4th Cir. 2023).
And where an opposer has proven its entitlement as to at least one properly pleaded
98 62 TTABVUE 92 (“It was not until recently that Applicant understood the benefits provided
to trademarks registered on the Principal Trademark Register.”); 85 TTABVUE 12, ¶66.
99 See Microsoft’s first amended notice of opposition, 43 TTABVUE and Gaming Group
Opposer’s first amended notice of opposition, 46 TTABVUE.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 25 -
ground, it has also established entitlement for any other legally sufficient ground. Id.
Entitlement to a statutory cause of action for a mere descriptiveness or genericness
claim may be found where the plaintiff is a competitor of the defendant and has an
interest in using the term in its business. See, e.g., Nobelle.com, LLC v. Qwest
Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., No. 92030454, 2003 TTAB LEXIS 43, at *9 (standing to assert
mere descriptiveness or genericness requires only that plaintiff claims the right to
use the term because it is engaged in the business of selling goods of the type
identified in the application); Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Freud Am., Inc., No.
92059634, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 384, at *11 (entitlement established because parties
are competitors). Similarly, if the defendant has sent a cease and desist letter to the
plaintiff, asserting its rights in the trademark at issue, this too can establish
entitlement to oppose registration of that mark. Miller v. Miller, No. 91184841, 2013
TTAB LEXIS 1, at *11-12 (competitive need and cease and desist letter establish
entitlement).
For their part, Opposers state, briefly: “Opposers have standing in this proceeding
as parties that use the term ‘skyblock’ descriptively, or have a commercial interest in
doing so, in connection with services identical or highly similar to the Applied-for
Services. TBMP § 309.03(b). Indeed, Applicant has attempted to enforce purported
rights in ‘skyblock’ against several of the Opposers.”100 Thus, Opposers assert that
they have entitlement as competitors or because they have, in effect, received a cease
and desist letter from Applicant regarding its proposed mark SKYBLOCK.
100 90 TTABVUE 30

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 26 -
Opposers cite to paragraphs 80, 85-89, and 93-94 of the Chaney Declaration,101 in
which Mr. Chaney describes: (1) contacting Opposer Easy Games and that it agreed
to change the name of a game “from Skyblock to ‘Islands’”; (2) contacting Opposer
Microsoft “pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘DMCA’)”; and (3)
contacting Opposer Razzleberries.102 Opposers do not cite to the record in support of
the assertion that each is a competitor of Applicant.
Applicant does not contest or even mention Opposers’ entitlement,103 and
Opposers’ citation to the Chaney Declaration on its face refers to only three of the 12
opposers. We therefore have reviewed the record to determine whether each Opposer
has pleaded and established its entitlement.104
A. Microsoft Corporation
To prove their entitlement as a group, as noted above, Opposers point only to
several paragraphs in the Chaney Declaration.105 Paragraph 87 describes an email
from Microsoft to Mr. Chaney (it is also Exhibit 21 to the Chaney Deposition).106 In
the relevant paragraphs of the Chaney Declaration, Mr. Chaney describes contacting
101 Id. (statement); 85 TTABVUE 14-16 (Chaney Declaration).
102 Id.
103 See generally 92 TTABVUE.
104 Opposers should have separately addressed and demonstrated entitlement for each
individual opposer, with supporting citations to the record. The citations to the Chaney
Declaration account for three opposers, at best, as discussed below. Opposers’ counsel is
advised to take more care in introducing and citing evidence in future proceedings before the
Board. Cf. In re Thermo LabSystems, Inc., No. 78204502, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 92, at *16 n.7
(“It is applicant’s obligation to point to particular items of evidence that support its position,
not to invite the … Board to search for it.”).
105 90 TTABVUE 30; 85 TTABVUE 14-16, ¶¶80, 85-89, 93-94.
106 Id; 63 TTABVUE 31 (transcript), 118-124 (exhibit).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 27 -
Microsoft pursuant to the DMCA.107 An allegation of copyright infringement,
standing alone, is not a statutory claim found in the Trademark Act; the Board has
no jurisdiction to determine copyright infringement. Carano v. Vina Concha y Toro
S.A., No. 91125728, 2003 TTAB LEXIS 263, at *7-8 (citing Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina
Footwear, Inc., 705 F.2d 1316, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Turning to the underlying communication referenced in the declaration, the email
from “Microsoft Team” to Mr. Chaney states: “We received your notice of
infringement. We do not, however, find a valid claim based on the information
provided and are closing this matter.”108 The “information provided” appears in the
email chain, and – rather than a DMCA complaint based in copyright, as described
in the portion of the Chaney Declaration cited by Opposers – the complaint
summarized in Microsoft’s response is based on Applicant’s asserted trademark
rights in SKYBLOCK.109 In greater detail, during his deposition, counsel for Gaming
107 85 TTABVUE 15, ¶87.
108 63 TTABVUE 31 (transcript), 118 (exhibit). The email chain includes an internal forward
of what appears to be the text Mr. Chaney described entering into an online complaint form
with Microsoft, demonstrating his personal knowledge of the correspondence.
109 Id. We also address here some of Opposers’ objections to portions of the Chaney
Declaration on the bases that Mr. Chaney’s statements are irrelevant and immaterial, and
that Mr. Chaney lacks personal knowledge in the matter. 90 TTABVUE 53. As Opposers
object to these statements, we cannot look to them to support their entitlement. For example,
although Microsoft pleaded that it owns the Minecraft game and operates the Minecraft
Marketplace, 43 TTABVUE 32-33, ¶¶2, 4, Opposers did not offer any evidence on this point
and instead objected to Mr. Chaney’s statements along these lines in his declaration. 90
TTABVUE 53 (objections), 85 TTABVUE 9, ¶¶50-52 (“50. Upon information and belief, on or
about September 15, 2014, Microsoft acquired Minecraft. 51. Upon information and belief, on
or about June 1, 2017, Microsoft created and released the Minecraft Marketplace. 52. The
Minecraft Marketplace is a platform within Minecraft …”). Strangely (but fortunately for
Microsoft), Opposers did not object to Mr. Chaney’s similar, earlier statement that “Upon
information and belief, Minecraft was created in or about 2009 by Mojang Synergies AB

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 28 -
Group Opposers asked Mr. Chaney, “And were these notifications [referring to the
email chain] requesting Skyblock-related content that you sent to the Microsoft store
marketplace?”, to which Mr. Chaney responded “Yes.”110
Furthermore, Mr. Chaney described Applicant’s business as “game development
on Minecraft and multiplayer servers … where people can get online and play
together on Minecraft” and that those servers are solely related to Minecraft.111 As
Microsoft owns the Minecraft game,112 it has a real interest in offering the applied-
for services under the SKYBLOCK within Microsoft’s Minecraft property.
Additionally, because it offers the Minecraft game through which Applicant offers
at least some of its services, Microsoft necessarily offers the same services as
Applicant, such as “creating an on-line virtual environment for gaming.” Microsoft
and Applicant are therefore competitors as well.
Microsoft has established, by a preponderance of the evidence,113 its entitlement
to oppose Applicant’s application because: 1) Applicant’s CEO, Mr. Chaney, confirmed
that Microsoft owns Minecraft, and contacted the Microsoft Minecraft Marketplace
to request that Microsoft act on Applicant’s alleged trademark rights; 2) Microsoft
owns the Minecraft game to which Applicant’s services are directed; and 3) Microsoft
(‘Mojang’), and acquired by Microsoft Corporation (‘Microsoft’) in or around 2014.” 85
TTABVUE 3, ¶10.
110 63 TTABVUE 31.
111 63 TTABVUE 12.
112 85 TTABVUE 3, ¶10.
113 Microsoft simply could have offered a witness to testify that Microsoft is a competitor in
the same industry as Applicant.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 29 -
and Applicant are competitors. See Books on Tape, Inc. v. Booktape Corp., 836 F.2d
519, 520 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding competitor has entitlement because it has an
interest in the outcome beyond that of the general public); Miller, 2013 TTAB LEXIS
1, at *11-12 (competitive need and cease and desist letter establish entitlement).
B. Gaming Group Opposers
Next, we consider whether each of the Gaming Group Opposers have also
established its entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence. As stated above, in
their brief, Opposers argue that they have entitlement to oppose as parties who use
the term ‘skyblock’ descriptively, have a commercial interest in doing so, or have been
the target of Applicant’s efforts to enforce rights in its alleged SKYBLOCK mark.114
Based on these statements, it is unclear where entitlement lies for each Gaming
Group Opposer.
In this regard, we consider each Gaming Group Opposer in turn. In each case, we
begin by considering the portions of the Chaney Declaration upon which Opposers
rely to demonstrate their standing in their brief.115
1. Aurrora Limited
Opposer Aurrora is not mentioned in the portions of the Chaney Declaration cited
by Opposers;116 indeed Aurrora is not mentioned in the Chaney Declaration at all.
However, in the email exhibit discussed above, we see that Applicant’s SKYBLOCK-
114 90 TTABVUE 30.
115 90 TTABVUE 30 (Opposers’ main brief), 85 TTABVUE 14-16, ¶¶80, 85-89, 93-94 (Chaney
Declaration).
116 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 30 -
based trademark complaint to Microsoft is directed, in part, to Aurrora, with Mr.
Chaney complaining of Aurrora’s actions as follows:
This content is infringing on my intellectual property and trademark,
‘Skyblock’, without my permission and I would like the content removed
so it does not [conflict] with my mark and services. I am the sole creator
of the original Skyblock map that this content is based off of, along with
the trademarked name/phrase ‘Skyblock’ … 117
Accordingly, through its CEO, Applicant identified Aurrora as a competitor in
offering Minecraft maps, and through this takedown notice, Applicant sent what is
akin to a cease and desist letter based on asserted trademark rights in SKYBLOCK.
See Books on Tape, 836 F.2d at 520; Miller, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *11-12.
Aurrora has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, its entitlement to
oppose Applicant’s application.
2. Sapphire Studios LLC
Sapphire Studios is also not mentioned in the portions of the Chaney Declaration
upon which Opposers rely to demonstrate their entitlement.118 Earlier in the
declaration, however, Mr. Chaney describes “infringing use of the SKYBLOCK
trademark”119 on the Minecraft Marketplace, stating, “my search revealed that
Plaintiff Sapphire Studios LLC, posted what they claim to be the ‘Original Skyblock’
on or about September 10, 2019.”120 See Books on Tape, 836 F.2d at 520; Miller, 2013
TTAB LEXIS 1, at *11-12.
117 63 TTABVUE 124.
118 90 TTABVUE 30; 85 TTABVUE 14-16, ¶¶80, 85-89, 93-94.
119 85 TTABVUE 11, ¶60.
120 Id. at ¶62.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 31 -
As Applicant’s principal alleges that Opposer Sapphire Studio posted implicitly
competing content that infringed Applicant’s trademark, Sapphire Studios has
established its entitlement, by a preponderance of the evidence, to oppose Applicant’s
application.
3. Spark Squared GmbH
Spark Squared is not mentioned in the portions of the Chaney Declaration upon
which Opposers rely to demonstrate their entitlement.121 Indeed, Spark Squared is
not mentioned at all in the Chaney Declaration. However, in the email exhibit
discussed above, Applicant’s SKYBLOCK-based trademark complaint to Microsoft
also includes a claim of infringement of SKYBLOCK against Spark Squared.122 See
Books on Tape, 836 F.2d at 520; Miller, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *11-12.
Spark Squared has established its entitlement, by a preponderance of the
evidence, to oppose Applicant’s application.
4. Razzleberries AB
Razzleberries is also not mentioned in the portions of the Chaney Declaration
upon which Opposers rely to demonstrate their entitlement.123 Earlier in the
declaration, however, Mr. Chaney describes “infringing use of the SKYBLOCK
trademark”124 on the Minecraft Marketplace, including that of Sapphire Studios,
discussed above. Mr. Chaney states, “Razzleberries AB (‘Razzleberries’) created
121 90 TTABVUE 30; 85 TTABVUE 14-16, ¶¶80, 85-89, 93-94.
122 63 TTABVUE 120.
123 90 TTABVUE 30; 85 TTABVUE 14-16, ¶¶80, 85-89, 93-94.
124 85 TTABVUE 11, ¶60.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 32 -
and/or launched their infringing ‘SKYBLOCK’ game on or about August 27, 2019.”125
See Books on Tape, 836 F.2d at 520; Miller, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *11-12.
As Applicant’s principal alleges that Opposer Razzleberries posted implicitly
competing content that infringed Applicant’s trademark, Razzleberries has
established its entitlement, by a preponderance of the evidence, to oppose Applicant’s
application.
5. Easy Games, Inc.
Returning to the portions of the Chaney Declaration upon which Opposers rely to
demonstrate their entitlement, Easy Games is mentioned specifically in cited Para.
80.126 In the context of describing his enforcement actions against developers posting
content related to the Roblox game, Mr. Chaney states, “the developer, Plaintiff, Easy
Games, Inc. (see ATX 8 …), agreed to my request and changed the name of its game
from Skyblock to ‘Islands’.”127 See Books on Tape, 836 F.2d at 520; Miller, 2013 TTAB
LEXIS 1, at *11-12. This appears to have resolved the dispute between Applicant and
Easy Games regarding Easy Games’ use of the term SKYBLOCK.
There is no other information in the record concerning Easy Games and there is
no argument in the briefs regarding its entitlement. Because a party must establish
its entitlement to a statutory cause of action to prevail before the Board, and it has
not done so, Easy Games’ opposition is dismissed with prejudice with regard to all
125 Id. at ¶63.
126 90 TTABVUE 30, 85 TTABVUE 14, ¶80.
127 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 33 -
operable claims. See Int’l Dairy Foods, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 268, at *32-33 (opposition
dismissed as to both pleaded claims).
6. Jigarbov Productions Inc., King Cube Ltd, Ziax Ltd., Rewrite
Media, Inc., Hydreon Corporation, and Mineplex LLC
Jigarbov Productions, King Cube, Ziax,128 Rewrite Media,129 Hydreon, and
Mineplex are not mentioned in the portions of the Chaney Declaration upon which
Opposers rely to demonstrate their entitlement,130 nor anywhere else in the
declaration and exhibits thereto. There is no information in the record at all
concerning these parties and there is no argument in the briefs regarding their
entitlement.
Because a party must establish its entitlement to a statutory cause of action to
prevail before the Board, and they have not done so, the oppositions of Jigarbov
Productions, King Cube, Ziax, Rewrite Media, Hydreon, and Mineplex are dismissed
with prejudice with regard to all operable claims. See Int’l Dairy Foods, 2020 TTAB
LEXIS 268, at *32-33 (opposition dismissed as to both pleaded claims).
128 For the avoidance of doubt, we also searched the record for evidence referring to Ziax by
its prior name, Digital Tree Media Ltd., the name used at the time the opposition was filed,
before amending its name to Ziax Ltd. during the course of proceedings. 1 TTABVUE 2
(original notice of opposition), 39 TTABVUE 4 (stipulation to consolidation and amendment
of name of Digital Tree Media Ltd to Ziax, Ltd.).
129 The record contains one passing reference to Rewrite Media in Mr. Chaney’s discovery
deposition, in which he describes an online chat with someone who may have been affiliated
with Rewrite Media. 63 TTABVUE 38. A portion of the Discord chat, attached as an exhibit
thereto, shows snippets of posts from the unidentified Neonerz and Mr. Chaney’s responses.
63 TTABVUE 143-45. It does not show a connection between Neonerz and Rewrite Media, or
even Neonerz’s actual name, much less a connection to the pleaded grounds sufficient
establish its entitlement.
130 90 TTABVUE 30; 85 TTABVUE 14-16, ¶¶80, 85-89, 93-94.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 34 -
7. Summary of Remaining Opposers
In view of our dismissals with prejudice of the oppositions by opposers Easy
Games, Inc., Jigarbov Productions Inc., King Cube Ltd, Ziax Ltd., Rewrite Media,
Inc., Hydreon Corporation, and Mineplex LLC, the terms “Gaming Group Opposers”
and “Opposers” are amended to hereafter refer to the remaining plaintiffs in this
consolidated proceeding.
VI. Applicant’s Proposed Deletion of Services
As we have determined that some of the Opposers (i.e., Microsoft and the Gaming
Group Opposers, namely, Aurrora, Sapphire Studios, Spark Squared, and
Razzleberries) have established entitlement, we turn to the application at issue, and
in particular, the identification of services. Applicant included a “Preliminary
Statement” in its brief, stating, “Applicant concedes the Challenged Services and will
not seek registration for those services. This concession does not impact Applicant’s
right to register its trademark for the remaining [s]ervices.”131 It defines the
“Challenged Services” as “Computer programming services, namely, content creation
for virtual worlds and three dimensional platforms;” “Designing and modifying
computer programs and video games for others;” “Hosting of digital content on the
Internet;” “Programming virtual content and goods for use in online virtual worlds;”
and “Server hosting.”132
131 92 TTABVUE 8, n.1.
132 Id. at 8. We also refer to such services as the “Challenged Services.”

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 35 -
Trademark Rule 2.133(a), titled “Amendment of application or registration during
proceedings,” provides that “[a]n application subject to an opposition may not be
amended in substance … except with the consent of the other party or parties and
the approval of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or upon motion granted by
the Board.” “In the absence of consent, a motion to amend an application ‘should be
made prior to trial to give the opposer fair notice.’” Monster Energy Co. v. Chun Hua
Lo, No. 91225050, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *12 (quoting City of London Distillery,
Ltd. v. Hayman Grp. Ltd., No. 91235280, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 501, at *40). We construe
Applicant’s statement in its brief that it “concedes the Challenged Services and will
not seek registration for those services” as an unconsented motion to amend, which
we deny as untimely.133 See, e.g., Monster Energy, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *14
(denying motion to amend application to restrict services filed concurrently with
applicant’s trial brief), civil action dismissed, No. 5:23-cv-00549-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.
133 For their part, Opposers acknowledge the proposed amendment in a footnote to their reply
brief, stating,
Applicant concedes that it lacked a bona fide intent to use “skyblock” in
connection with “computer programming services, namely, content creation
for virtual worlds and three dimensional platforms,” “designing and modifying
computer programs and video games for others,” “hosting of digital content on
the Internet,” “programming virtual content and goods for use in online
virtual worlds,” and “server hosting” at the time of filing and is no longer
seeking registration of these services. 92 TTABVUE 8. Given this concession,
the only relevant Applied-for Services remaining are: “computer services,
namely, creating an on-line community for registered users to engage in
gaming and virtual worlds; computer services, namely, creating an on-line
virtual environment for gaming and social interaction; computer services,
namely, providing gaming and virtual world servers to others.” These are the
services Opposers refer to when referencing the “Applied-for Services.”
95 TTABVUE 7, n.1. We do not construe this acknowledgement as Opposers’ consent to
Applicant’s proposed amendment to delete the Challenged Services from the application.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 36 -
July 13, 2023); Personnel Data Systems, 1991 TTAB LEXIS 26, at *6-7 (defendant’s
motion to restrict identification of goods in involved registration, filed with brief on
case, denied). See also TBMP § 514.03.134
VII. Pleadings Amended by Implied Consent; Nonuse Claim and
Applicant’s Concession
We now turn to the merits of the operable claims. We first consider Opposers’
claim of nonuse as of the filing date. In their first amended complaints, Opposers
pleaded nonuse claims as to three of the services in the Application, namely,
“Designing and modifying computer programs and video games for others;” “Hosting
of digital content on the Internet;” and “Server hosting.”135
As described above, in Applicant’s preliminary statement, it stated that it
“concedes the Challenged Services and will not seek registration for those services”,136
i.e., “Computer programming services, namely, content creation for virtual worlds
and three dimensional platforms;” “Designing and modifying computer programs and
video games for others;” “Hosting of digital content on the Internet;” “Programming
virtual content and goods for use in online virtual worlds;” and “Server hosting.”
Applicant’s concession thus includes the three services subject to Opposers’ nonuse
claims, plus two more.
134 Any reference by the parties to the “Services” (capitalized) is retained in quotations we
excerpt from their briefs, but we do not ascribe to it any meaning other than the full
identification of services in the Application.
135 Microsoft’s first amended complaint, 43 TTABVUE 28; Gaming Group Opposer’s first
amended complaint, 46 TTABVUE 27-28.
136 92 TTABVUE 8, n.1.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 37 -
We treat Applicant’s “concession” and Opposers’ acknowledgement thereof137 as
the parties’ consent to amend the pleadings to expand the nonuse claim to encompass
the five Challenged Services, rather than just the three services listed in the amended
notices of opposition.138 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b). Accordingly, Opposers’ operative
pleadings are amended with regard to their nonuse claims to include all five of the
Challenged Services.
Given Applicant’s concession as to the Challenged Services (i.e., “Applicant
concedes the Challenged Services and will not seek registration for those services.”)139
in the consolidated proceedings (Opposition Nos. 91266862 (parent) and 91268696),
Opposers’ claim of no bona fide use of SKYBLOCK under Trademark Act Sections
1(a), 3, and 45, for the Challenged Services, namely, “Computer programming
services, namely, content creation for virtual worlds and three dimensional
platforms;” “Designing and modifying computer programs and video games for
others;” “Hosting of digital content on the Internet;” “Programming virtual content
and goods for use in online virtual worlds;” and “Server hosting” is sustained.
VIII. Is SKYBLOCK Merely Descriptive of the Services?
We pick up with Opposers’ first ground for opposition, that the term SKYBLOCK
is merely descriptive of the services and has not acquired distinctiveness or secondary
137 95 TTABVUE 7, n.1.
138 Microsoft’s first amended complaint, 43 TTABVUE 28; Gaming Group Opposer’s first
amended complaint, 46 TTABVUE 27-28.
139 92 TTABVUE 8, n.1.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 38 -
meaning.140 Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), prohibits
registration of a proposed mark that, when used on or in connection with an
applicant’s services, is merely descriptive of them, unless the mark has acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(f). A term is merely
descriptive of the services if it immediately conveys information concerning a quality,
characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the services. See, e.g., In re
Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re
TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015). By contrast, a mark is suggestive if
“imagination, thought, or perception is required to reach a conclusion on the nature
of the [services].” In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (quotation
omitted).
Whether a proposed mark is merely descriptive is not determined in the abstract,
but rather in relation to the services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the proposed mark is being used on or in connection with those services, and
the possible significance that the proposed mark would have to the average purchaser
of the services because of the manner in which it is used or intended to be used. In re
Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v.
Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The commercial
impression that a mark conveys must be viewed through the eyes of a consumer.”).
In other words, the question is not whether someone presented only with the mark
could guess the services listed in the identification. Rather, the question is whether
140 90 TTABVUE 30-44.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 39 -
someone who knows what the services are will understand the mark to convey
information about them. DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1253 (quotation omitted).
The mark need not describe all identified services, as long as it merely describes
one of them. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Even as
to one of the services, it is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes,
functions, characteristics, or features of the service to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough if the term describes one significant function, attribute, or
property. Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300 (quotation omitted).
“‘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 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 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.
Evidence that a term is merely descriptive “may be obtained from any competent
source.” Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964 (competent sources of the purchasing public’s
understanding of a term include dictionaries and newspapers); In re N.C. Lottery, 866
F.3d 1363, 1367 68 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he public’s understanding of a [proposed]
mark can be evidenced by … [w]ebsites, publications, and use ‘in labels, packages, or

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 40 -
in advertising material directed to the goods.’”) (quoting In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA 1978)).
A. Opposers’ Evidence and Arguments
Opposers argue that SKYBLOCK is descriptive of the services because the term
“is merely an obvious combination of two common, generic terms, ‘sky’ and ‘block’
[that] … “does not create a new or suggestive meaning.”141 Instead, Opposers urge,
SKYBLOCK immediately conveys the nature of certain types of content within the
game of Minecraft142 and in this manner, “has been used by countless third parties to
refer to virtual worlds/maps that feature islands comprised of blocks in the sky,
games/mini-games played in such worlds, game modes through which players
interact with such worlds, as well as servers through which players can connect to a
virtual world and/or game/mini game.”143 In fact, use of the term has extended even
141 Id. at 32.
142 Id. at 32-33.
143 90 TTABVUE 32 (italics in original changed to boldface). A “game mode” is a genre or type
of sub-game within the overarching game. Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 55:

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 41 -
beyond the Minecraft game and spills over into other video games.144 Insofar as
Applicant’s business is directed towards Minecraft game development and
multiplayer servers,145 Opposers assert, then Applicant’s use-based application for
SKYBLOCK is descriptive of Applicant’s services directed to gaming and virtual
worlds.146
Opposers argue that “[t]he defining feature of ‘skyblock’ worlds is that they begin
on a small island floating in the sky that is composed of a limited cluster of blocks
and the player must expand the island by acquiring and placing additional blocks in
the sky.”147 Further, Opposers argue, the relevant community, i.e., the Minecraft
community148 and the gaming community at large,149 ascribe precisely this meaning
to the SKYBLOCK term. In support, Opposers point to “thousands of examples” of
“third parties [who] have published Minecraft video game content featuring blocks in
the sky under the name ‘skyblock.’”150
144 Id. at 37.
145 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 12 (In response to question about the nature of
Applicant’s business: “It’s just a game development on Minecraft and multiplayer servers.”)
146 90 TTABVUE 32.
147 Id. at 32.
148 Id. at 35.
149 Id. at 37.
150 Id. at 14. Opposers describe and identify the “thousands of examples” of third-party
Internet evidence as a group in the record, which is generally helpful, at 90 TTABVUE14,
n.29 and at 32, n.110, as follows (we converted the block of text into a list, then added
numbers and labels for ease of review):
1. [ebooks] See, e.g., 65 TTABVUE 6–111 (OTX 16–23, excerpts from ebooks
explaining “skyblock” is a “world,” “map,” “game,” “mini-game,” “game mode,” or
“style” of gameplay);

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 42 -
This third-party evidence, Opposers argue, shows that SKYBLOCK is a
descriptive term “used by countless third parties to refer to [1] virtual worlds/maps
that feature islands comprised of blocks in the sky, [2] games/mini-games played in
such worlds, [3] game modes through which players interact with such worlds, as well
as [4] servers through which players can connect to a virtual world and/or game/mini
game.”151 In connection with the services, Opposers argue, “the term ‘skyblock’
describes the very type of virtual world content the … Services are intended to create,
host, or support.”152 In this manner, Opposers argue the services
relate directly to the creation, deployment, or maintenance of this type
of “skyblock” gameplay experience. As such, “skyblock” immediately
conveys the purpose or function of the underlying services, namely,
programming, designing, and hosting this type of content. The term is
2a. [discovery requests – maps, worlds, and servers] 62 TTABVUE 190–295 (OTX 10,
Exs. 1–5 to Microsoft’s Requests for Admission, website printouts showing app
listings for third-party “skyblock” virtual worlds and games, third-party
“skyblock” servers);
2b. [discovery requests – servers, cont.] 62 TTABVUE 608–664, 60 TTABVUE 3–723,
and 61 TTABVUE 3–138 (OTX 12, Exs. 7–12 to Microsoft’s Requests for
Admission, website printouts listing numerous third-party “skyblock” servers);
3. [deposition – maps] 63 TTABVUE 171–254 (OTX 14, Exs. 39–52 to Chaney Tr.,
website printouts showing numerous third-party “skyblock” virtual worlds and
games);
4. [notice of reliance on Internet materials] 66 TTABVUE 7–281 (OTX 24, website
printouts showing articles, online forums, and social media posts regarding
“skyblock” content and third-party “skyblock” virtual worlds and games); 67
TTABVUE 2–357, 466–468 (OTX 25–26, 29, same).
Opposers’ description is not entirely accurate. For example, as part of Microsoft’s lengthy
OTX 12 (Microsoft’s second set of requests for admission and exhibits thereto, i.e., OTX 12-8
to 12-20), included Exhibits 7-9 are at 59 TTABVUE, which is not mentioned in the notes.
Parties are strongly encouraged to check their citations to the record.
151 90 TTABVUE 32 (emphasis in original, changed to boldface).
152 Id. at 36.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 43 -
therefore descriptive, as it informs consumers, without imagination or
speculation, about the nature and focus of the services being offered.153
Moreover, Opposers conclude, the term SKYBLOCK is so ubiquitous that its
descriptive meaning stretches beyond the Minecraft game and into the gaming
community at large.154
Given this “industry-wide descriptive use,”155 Opposers argue, Applicant cannot
show that “the primary significance of [SKYBLOCK] to the relevant public is as a
source identifier, not a description of the product or service itself.”156 Opposers argue
that they have established that SKYBLOCK is “highly descriptive” of the services, so
Applicant, in turn, must put forth even more evidence to establish acquired
distinctiveness.157
Opposers evidence falls into three categories: 1) Internet material reviewed by
Applicant or its CEO, Mr. Chaney (because the printouts were attached as exhibits
to Microsoft’s discovery requests or presented to Mr. Chaney during his deposition);158
2) Internet material submitted under notice of reliance;159 and 3) the declaration of
expert witness, Mr. Ezell.160
153 Id. (citation omitted).
154 Id. at 37.
155 Id. at 37.
156 Id. at 38 (citation omitted).
157 Id.
158 59-62 TTABVUE.
159 65-67 TTABVUE.
160 64 TTABVUE. We discuss Mr. Ezell’s testimony and survey in our analysis of acquired
distinctiveness.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 44 -
We discuss each of these in turn.
1. Maps, Worlds, and Servers Attached to Discovery Requests
As evidence of descriptive use of SKYBLOCK by “countless” third parties.
Opposers cite website printouts attached to Microsoft’s requests for admission,
Exhibits 1-5 and 7-12.161 The printouts show the results of searches for the term
SKYBLOCK on various gaming-related websites that compile lists of Minecraft maps,
games, and servers. Applicant would have reviewed the printouts in responding to
the relevant requests for admission; accordingly, we must review Applicant’s
responses before considering the exhibits.
Applicant admitted to most of the requests, i.e., that the uses of SKYBLOCK
shown in the printouts were not Applicant’s, but it denied some requests, in part, on
the basis that Applicant’s own SKYBLOCK material was included in the results162 or
that Applicant was negotiating [a license] with at least one of the owners of a listed
SKYBLOCK game.163 When we exclude Applicant’s own servers and the owner of an
161 Opposers did not include Exhibit 6 in their n. 110, but we include it here as the material
is similar to the rest of the cited exhibits and Applicant admitted that the content was not
Applicant’s.
162 62 TTABVUE 299 (“Deny in part. Mineverse does own the ‘Skyblock’ server named
‘Skyblock’ under the domain ‘skyblock.net’ shown on page 4 of Exhibit 9, … named
‘Mineverse’ under the domain ‘mineverse.com’ shown on page 3 of Exhibit 9 [and] … named
‘SkyWars’ under the domain ‘skywars.com’ shown on page 3 Exhibit 9.”); id. at 300 (“Deny in
part. Applicant states that it does own the ‘Skyblock’ server named ‘Skyblock’ under the
domain ‘skyblock.net’ shown on page 9 of Exhibit 10 [and] named ‘Mineverse’ under the
domain ‘mineverse.com’ shown on page 33 of Exhibit 10.”); id. at 301 (“Deny in part. Applicant
states that it does own the ‘Skyblock’ server named ‘Skyblock’ under the domain
‘skyblock.net’ shown on pages 7 and 12 of Exhibit 12.”).
163 62 TTABVUE 173 (“Admit. Applicant also admits it has entered negotiations with at least
one of the games or mobile applications shown in Exhibit 1 to license or otherwise authorize
the use of ‘skyblock.’”)

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 45 -
app who was engaged in negotiations with Applicant, the websites shown in Exhibits
1-12 of Microsoft’s first and second set of requests for admission account for many
third-party uses of SKYBLOCK in connection with games, apps, mods, and servers,164
with the vast majority of these results appearing as third-party servers identified by
the listing website as SKYBLOCK servers165 – the software that allows individuals
to play together.
We note several issues with the lists of third-party SKYBLOCK servers. As a
prefatory note, SKYBLOCK appears in the title or search name at the beginning of
each of these lists, e.g., “Minecraft Skyblock Servers.”166 Then, in the list of servers,
SKYBLOCK may appear in any (or none) of the displayed server names, server IP
addresses, images, descriptions, or tags.
The first issue with this evidence is based on the unavoidable fact that there is no
one, central repository for Minecraft servers. Opposers’ evidence comprises search
164 From these exhibits, we additionally disregard results that may appear in Opposers’
various “skyblock’ searches but do not show the SKYBLOCK term in the particular item. For
example, Exhibit 4 is a printout from the website minecraft.buzz, titled “Top Skyblock
Minecraft Servers to play on”; the first numbered result is a server appearing as “Skyblock
& Survival” but the second result, for the server “Buzz.PixelblockMC.com” does not display
the term SKYBLOCK anywhere in the name or description. 62 TTABVUE 253. Accordingly,
while this second server may have been tagged as a SKYBLOCK server somehow – in that it
appears on this website – it is not clear to us how the SKYBLOCK term is being used in a
way that is visible to users, other than its mere inclusion on the list. We therefore discount
this result and others like it. Accordingly, Exhibit 4 shows the term SKYBLOCK appearing
in 91 of the results, not in the full 182 results shown. Id. at 252-284. Cf. WeaponX, 2018 TTAB
LEXIS 72, at *19 n.18 (citation omitted); see also Couch/Braunsdorf Affinity, Inc. v. 12
Interactive, LLC, No. 92051006, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 95, at *26 n.30. For the avoidance of
doubt, we do consider results, such as the fifth, in which SKYBLOCK does not appear in the
server name or description, but there is a visible “tag” icon labeled “Skyblock Server.” Id.
165 See, generally, 59-62 TTABVUE.
166 61 TTABVUE 116.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 46 -
results for SKYBLOCK Minecraft servers across several websites that compile that
data (i.e., minecraft.buzz,167 minecraft-mp.com,168 minecraftlist.org,169 minecraft-
server-list.com,170 servers-minecraft.net,171 topminecraftservers.org,172 and
serverlist101.com173). As each website has, presumably, compiled its own list of
SKYBLOCK servers in some manner (which is not apparent), it is likely that there
are overlapping results in these lists; that is, any one SKYBLOCK-named or -tagged
server may appear on multiple lists. We have no way of knowing how often this
occurs, so the total number of SKYBLOCK servers could range from the total severs
listed on only one of the lists (if the lists all overlap significantly) to the total of all
servers on all lists (if there is no overlap between lists). This creates a variance of a
few hundreds to several thousands.
A second issue with the SKYBLOCK server evidence is that although these
various websites indicate that the search results or lists are Minecraft SKYBLOCK
servers, the term SKYBLOCK may not appear in the individual listing. That is,
SKYBLOCK may or may not appear in the visible server names, server IP addresses,
images, descriptions, or tags. When visible to computer gamers using or searching
these websites, these uses of SKYBLOCK are probative of third-party use of the term.
167 62 TTABVUE 253-82.
168 Id. at 608-664, cont. 59 TTABVUE 3-143.
169 59 TTABVUE 146-228.
170 Id. at 232-350, cont. 60 TTABVUE 3-19.
171 60 TTABVUE 22-436.
172 Id. at 439-723, cont. 61 TTABVUE 3-113.
173 61 TTABVUE 116-138.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 47 -
Often, however, SKYBLOCK does not appear in each individual result, as in the
representative example below, with SKYBLOCK appearing in only two of the eight
servers shown.174
175
174 The arrows are provided by the Board for reference.
175 60 TTABVUE 49.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 48 -
Even though Mr. Chaney reviewed these website exhibits in the course of
responding to discovery requests, it was only to indicate whether or not the uses of
SKYBLOCK were his own or authorized.176 For other purposes, these Internet
materials remain hearsay; absent competent witness testimony regarding these
searches or websites, we consider them only for what they show on their face, not for
the truth of the matters stated in them. Cf. WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *19
n.18 (citation omitted); see also Couch/Braunsdorf, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 95, at *26
n.30. In sum, while these servers appear on websites listing SKYBLOCK servers, if
the servers are not visibly labeled in some manner as SKYBLOCK servers on their
face, we cannot presume so.
Third, there is also the issue of the quality of some of the scanned materials. In
some cases, the website scans are of such low quality that it is not always possible to
confirm that the term SKYBLOCK is apparent in each search result. It is the party’s
“duty to ensure that the evidence it submit[ted] is legible.” In re Sausser Summers,
PC, No. 88626569, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 204, at *28 n.59 (citation omitted).
Representative examples of illegible search pages and results are shown below.
176 See n.148 supra.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
Semere ! Troms / Milecian Skyblock Bórves
Minecraft Skyblock Servers, page 23
Servers: 1626
SkyBlockiia one of the most popular minecraft matis ever created. The concept behind the map is very simple; you spawn on a Boating istand and mutt survive and complete chaianges weh the resources available to you.
Minecraft SkyBlock servers allow players to play SikyBlock maps in multiplayer. Fins here at the best Minecrat Skyfick servers.
Find alt the best Minecraft Skyblock servers on our top server ist Minecraft.no.com
177
majestik network
#2584
.....
play.majestiknetwork.cam:28868
D:500
tussecraftgamenamenet
#2588
RUIN ČRAFT
#2602
play ruineratt.xyz
178
TOP SKYBLOCK MINECRAFT SERVERS - PAGE 18
Atl Minecraft servera > Skyblock server ) Pago 18
Top 20 of the 545 best Skyblock Minecraft servers. Skyblock servers provide the challenge of surviving on an isolated floating island.
Sort by:
Votos (Rank)
-
Fittor by.
Countries . Versions
Typos
Current Filters
Votes
Name & Type
Server
Players & Status
0/60
School
Online
51.79:41.110:25632:4804
Copy
Taj Mc Network
071,000
Online
tajmo.fun
Copy
De Bosbar
DE BOSBAR ML.DE BOSBAR NL
FACTIONS
0/ 200
0
Online
mc.debosbar.nl
Copy
179
177 59 TTABVUE 12.
178 Id.
179 Id. at 198.
- 49 -

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 50 -
Despite these issues with the SKYBLOCK server evidence, we are persuaded that
in this group of third-party website evidence, there are: 1) hundreds of third-party
games or maps visibly named or tagged with SKYBLOCK, and 2) at least a thousand
third-party SKYBLOCK gaming servers (where SKYBLOCK is visible to the user)
listed on the various websites of Exhibits 1-12.
We also consider here “website printouts” shown to Mr. Chaney during his
discovery deposition.180 Mr. Chaney viewed these website printouts and stated
variously that the uses of SKYBLOCK shown on the websites were not his
SKYBLOCK map and he did not authorize or license the use of SKYBLOCK.181 Again,
considering only the results that show the term SKYBLOCK, these materials show
another 200 or so third-party SKYBLOCK maps.
In sum, Opposers’ evidence, which was reviewed in some manner by Mr. Chaney
on behalf of Applicant, shows significant use of SKYBLOCK by third-parties to: 1)
name or describe third-party SKYBLOCK maps (hundreds), and 2) name or describe
third-party SKYLOCK gaming servers (at least a thousand).
2. Other Third-Party Internet Evidence Submitted under Notice
of Reliance
Unlike the evidence we discussed above, this evidence consists of website
printouts submitted under notice of reliance. Internet materials submitted in this
manner are hearsay; they are evidence of what they show on their face, not for the
180 63 TTABVUE 171–254 (OTX 14, Exs. 39–52 to Chaney Deposition).
181 Id. at 67-72.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 51 -
truth of the matters stated within. Cf. WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at *19 n.18
(citation omitted).182
First, Opposers point to Internet “excerpts from ebooks explaining ‘skyblock’ is a
‘world,’ ‘map,’ ‘game,’ ‘mini-game,’ ‘game mode,’ or ‘style’ of gameplay.”183 These are
presented as screenshots of select pages of seven ebooks available on the Google Play
online store.184 As we pointed out in our discussion of Applicant’s objections, as there
is no corroborating testimony, we cannot rely on the ebooks for the truth of the
definitions and explanations. Id. On its face, the term SKYBLOCK appears in text
and in headings, such as “Awesome Arenas: Melee Maps, Skyblock & More,”185
“Skyblock” (alongside similar headings “Parkour” and “Ultra Hardcore”),186 and
“Skyblock and Skyblock Variants.”187 Indeed, we accord these entries some probative
value to the extent that they show that “there are entire publications, such as an
182 See our discussion of issues in Gaming Group Opposers’ evidence of third-party use of the
term SKYBLOCK for each year from 2012-2019 at Section III.C.1.a., supra.
183 Id. at 32, n. 110.
184 65 TTABVUE 2-111. Although presented as eight entries, Opposers’ exhibits OTX 19-20
are two ebooks by the same author, Meghan Miller, and appear to present the same content.
Id. at 53-75.
185 Id. at 14.
186 Id. at 26-28.
187 Id. at 41. We note here that Applicant objects to Opposers’ use of excerpts from electronic
books for the truth of the matter contained therein. 92 TTABVUE 41. Applicant’s hearsay
objections are moot because, absent testimony from a competent witness, we consider
Internet materials only for what they show on their face, not for the truth of the matters
stated in them, “whether there is an objection or not.” WeaponX, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 72, at
*11 and *19 n.18.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 52 -
unofficial encyclopedia ebook, dedicated to defining common terms [in Minecraft]” as
Opposers assert, and that the term SKYBLOCK is included therein.188
The next group of “website printouts” were introduced in Microsoft’s second notice
of reliance on Internet materials.189 The evidence is a bit of a hodge podge, which
Opposers describe as “website printouts showing articles, online forums, and social
media posts regarding ‘skyblock’ content and third-party ‘skyblock’ virtual worlds and
games.”190 In greater detail, the evidence includes:
• Several online articles touting the “5 best” SKYBLOCK maps and “Best
skyblock servers in Minecraft”;191
• Around 75 third-party SKYBLOCK game modes, skins, and maps;192
• SKYBLOCK servers;193
• 16 YouTube videos with SKYBLOCK in the title or image;194
• Seven Instagram accounts for SKYBLOCK games or servers;195
• Around 20 Instagram posts of videos of users playing SKYBLOCK games
or offering maps or modes;196
• Gameplay video of SKYBLOCK game on planetminecraft.com;197
188 90 TTABVUE 11.
189 66-67 TTABVUE (excluding OTX 27, 67 TTABVUE 358-465).
190 90 TTABVUE 32, n.110.
191 66 TTABVUE 8-23, 67 TTABVUE 467-69. We note that Applicant’s map is included in the
first article, and identified as the original. Id. at 12.
192 66 TTABVUE at 24-270.
193 Id. at 271-72
194 Id. at 273-74; 67 TTABVUE 140-41, 206-17, 219-22, 259-60, 344-55.
195 66 TTABVUE 275 and 67 TTABVUE 120-121, 187-200.
196 67 TTABVUE 201-04, 223-34, 356-7
197 66 TTABVUE 276-78.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 53 -
• Animated video posted on “Mine-Imator Forums” website;198
• Reddit post titled “Questions on Skyblock map from Spark Universe;”199
• Planetminecraft.com lists titled “Skyblock | Minecraft Maps sorted by
Relevancy posted in …” years 2012, 2013 (twice), 2014, 2015, 2018, 2020,
2022;200
• Google Play online store listing three SKYBLOCK apps;201
• Google.com search results showing nine (of ten) SKYBLOCK images;202
• Amazon.com store listing three SKYBLOCK maps;203
• Eight websites offering SKYBLOCK maps, games, or modes;204
• Eight gaming servers’ websites with descriptions using the term
SKYBLOCK;205
• Website for third-party Roblox games;206
• Roblox Wiki page on “Skyblox”;207
• Roblox.com detailed listings for three SKYBLOCK games;208
• Roblox.com search results for SKYBLOCK;209
198 Id. at 279.
199 Id. at 280-81.
200 67 TTABVUE 3-76.
201 Id. at 77-84.
202 Id. at 85.
203 Id. at 87-96.
204 Id. at 97-121; 147-51; 176; 261-69, 322-25.
205 Id. at 122-39; 177; 182-86.
206 Id. at 142-43.
207 Id. at 144-46. As Opposers have not argued that SKYBLOX is equivalent to the proposed
mark SKYBLOCK, we disregard this evidence.
208 Id. at 151-57.
209 Id. at 158-71.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 54 -
• SKYBLOCK game on Minecraft Marketplace, minecraft.net;210
• SKYBLOCK map on planetminecraft.com;211
• Ebay listing for “Skyblock Gifts”;212
• Justminecraft.net list of posts, including “Introducing JustSkyblock”;213
• Two Twitter posts including term SKYBLOCK;214
• Two articles including SKYBLOCK in content or title;215
• 12 games, mods with SKYBLOCK in the name of description listed on
curseforge.com;216
• Skyblock map on planetminecraft.com;217 and
• 19 Reddit posts using the term SKYBLOCK;218
As before, we do not consider evidence where the term SKYBLOCK is not
apparent. Some of this evidence may also overlap with the materials shown to Mr.
Chaney/Applicant during discovery. Moreover, as Mr. Chaney was not presented with
these materials for him to confirm or deny that the uses shown are not Applicant’s
own or are not referring to Applicant, in some cases we have no way of knowing if the
use of SKYBLOCK is indeed a true third-party use.
210 Id. at 173.
211 Id. at 174-75.
212 Id. at 178-80.
213 Id. at 181.
214 Id. at 218, 235. The screenshot is dated July 8, 2022, before the platform’s name changed
to X.
215 Id. at 237-58.
216 Id. at 270-305.
217 Id. at 306.
218 Id. at 308-21; 327-43.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 55 -
Despite these limitations, however, taken as a whole, Opposers’ evidence in this
group of online materials shows third-party use of SKYBLOCK in the name and
description of Minecraft servers, maps, worlds, modes, and packs; for Roblox games;
for content offered for sale on Amazon.com, ebay.com, and Google Play; as the names
or descriptions of videos depicting gameplay; in many discussions on social media;
and in many articles.
B. Applicant’s Evidence and Arguments
In response, Applicant argues that Opposers have not established that
SKYBLOCK is descriptive of the services. First, Applicant asserts that SKYBLOCK
is a fanciful, coined term;219 if not, “the term is clearly only slightly suggestive of the
Services.”220 In this vein, Applicant argues that “[t]here is no evidence that when
consumers first encounter SKYBLOCK in connection with the Services that they
immediately understand what type of game experience this represents or the nature
of the Services without additional context or explanation.”221 Finally, Applicant
addresses Opposers’ evidence, asserting that “[t]hird-party use of the term does not
change the inherently distinctive nature of the trademark SKYBLOCK. This is
especially true given the strong brand recognition of the mark as well as its source
within the Minecraft community.”222 That is, “third-party SKYBLOCK games,
219 92 TTABVUE 20.
220 Id.
221 Id.
222 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 56 -
repeatedly and routinely credit Applicant for creating the SKYBLOCK survival game,
but attempt to put their twist on it.”223
C. Analysis
First, we are persuaded by the testimony of Applicant’s founder, Mr. Chaney, that
he coined the term SKYBLOCK.224 While we also agree with Applicant that
SKYBLOCK is not merely descriptive of a “survival game … that players begin on a
small floating island,”225 that is not the proper inquiry. The services are not so
limited; that is, the services are not a “survival game … that players begin on a small
floating island.” The services include, inter alia, “creating an on-line community for
registered users to engage in gaming and virtual worlds,” “creating an on-line virtual
environment for gaming and social interaction,” and “providing gaming and virtual
world servers to others.” See, e.g., Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 963-964 (“Descriptiveness of
a mark is not considered in the abstract … [but] 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.”).
We must determine the possible significance of SKYBLOCK to someone who plays
video games, including the Minecraft game, see, e.g., Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 963, and
whether a gamer who knows the services will understand SKYBLOCK as conveying
223 Id.
224 85 TTABUE 6, ¶27.
225 92 TTABVUE 21.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 57 -
information about any one of them. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906
F.3d 965, 974 Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Stereotaxis, 429 F.3d at 1041. We also keep in
mind Applicant’s admission that the services are primarily intended for use with
Minecraft,226 and thus are directed to someone who plays Minecraft.
Applicant’s unsupported statement that “[t]hird-party use of the term does not
change the inherently distinctive nature of the trademark”227 fundamentally
misstates the nature of an inherently distinctive mark, which is not separable from
consumer perception at the time registration is sought. Cf. State Permits, Inc. v.
Fieldvine, Inc., No. 92075095, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 291, at *32 (2024) (registration on
the Supplemental Register is an admission that the mark is descriptive at the time
of registration). We cannot remove this time element from the inquiry. It is possible
that the SKYBLOCK mark was inherently distinctive for some services when Mr.
Chaney selected and began using the term in 2012,228 but that is not the issue before
us. We are concerned with the environment in which prospective purchasers find
themselves today. A mark cannot be inherently distinctive if it is deemed to be merely
descriptive of the services within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1). And whether the
term is descriptive is determined by evidence of purchasers’ understanding of the
226 62 TTABVUE 168 (Subject to general objections, Applicant admits to request “Admit that
Applicant’s Services are primarily intended for use in connection with the video game
Minecraft.”)
227 92 TTABVUE 21.
228 We are mindful that Mr. Chaney was only 15 years old when he created and named what
became an enormously popular – and enormously copied – game. We are sympathetic to
Applicant’s situation, in which decisions made by a child and the actions of individuals as
well as companies impact the current landscape.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 58 -
term now, such as third-party Internet evidence. Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964; N.C. Lottery,
866 F.3d at 1367-68.
By any measure, Opposers have presented thousands of examples of use of the
term SKYBLOCK by third-parties as parts of names or descriptions for their own
Minecraft maps or worlds, game modes, and especially servers. The use is so
widespread and SKYBLOCK is so well understood as describing a type of gameplay
that its use even extends to Minecraft-like games built within the unrelated Roblox
game. Applicant’s (likely truthful yet still self-serving) assertion that it “permits
third-parties to use the mark in a fair manner for modding purposes as the Minecraft
community encourages and expects”229 is irrelevant – the cumulative effect of such
use of the term SKYBLOCK is not to refer to Applicant or its services but as a way of
describing each gamer’s or developer’s own “on-line virtual environment for gaming
and social interaction” or “gaming and virtual world servers.”
As stated above, we are especially persuaded by the evidence of thousands of
Minecraft servers named or tagged as SKYBLOCK servers. We find this evidence
particularly probative of consumer perception of the term because the servers exist
outside the closed ecosystem of the Minecraft Marketplace; that is, Microsoft and the
Gaming Group Opposers do not have direct influence over the number of gaming
servers that unrelated third-parties have tagged or otherwise designated as
SKYBLOCK servers.
229 Id. at 22-23.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 59 -
Applicant argues that Opposers’ self-interest helped create – or at best did not
reduce – the number of third-party uses of SKYBLOCK, upon which Opposers now
rely.230 In support, Applicant points to evidence that it contacted Microsoft to remove
SKYBLOCK content on the Minecraft Marketplace and was not successful in
persuading Microsoft to act.231 Along similar lines, Applicant’s statement of facts
alleges that “[i]n January 2022, while this action was pending, Microsoft designated
‘SKYBLOCK’ as a category on the Minecraft Marketplace and released an ‘official’
SKYBLOCK Bundle for $6.”232 Opposers object to Para. 109 of the Chaney
Declaration on the ground that Mr. Chaney lacks personal knowledge (“109. Not only
did Microsoft refuse to take down the infringing SKYBLOCK content, it has promoted
that content. In or about January 2022, while this action was pending, Microsoft
designated ‘SKYBLOCK’ as a category on the Minecraft Marketplace.”). Opposers’
objection is overruled insofar as “the Board is capable of assessing the proper
evidentiary weight to be accorded the testimony and evidence …” Peterson, 2020
TTAB LEXIS 520, at *10.
Mr. Chaney makes a number of allegations in his declaration, to which Opposers
object on the basis of lack of personal knowledge,233 and while the facts underlying
the allegations are certainly in dispute, Mr. Chaney plausibly describes a system in
230 92 TTABVUE 30-31.
231 Id. at 30, citing Chaney Declaration, 85 TTABVUE 15, ¶¶85-90 and Chaney Deposition,
63 TTABVUE 118-124 (and exhibits thereto); see also our earlier discussion of Opposers’
entitlement to a statutory cause of action, based on these statements and exhibits.
232 Id. at 16, citing Chaney Declaration, 85 TTABVUE 19, ¶¶109-10.
233 90 TTABVUE 53.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 60 -
which marketplace and its owner/operator functions as one would expect: (1)
developers such as the Gaming Group Opposers profit in part through use of the
SKYBLOCK term for their content sold via the Minecraft Marketplace, and (2) as the
owner/operator of the Minecraft Marketplace, Microsoft is not a neutral-gatekeeper,
in that it likely profits (a) directly from any sales within its Minecraft Marketplace,
such as those of the Gaming Group Opposers and (b) indirectly by permitting the
proliferation of third-party SKYBLOCK content upon which Opposers now rely.234
Opposers’ objection is overruled. Peterson, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 520, at *10.
And now, we come back to Opposers’ initial argument, that the term SKYBLOCK
is descriptive because it is “merely an obvious combination of two, common generic
terms, ‘sky’ and ‘block’ … [that] directly conveys the nature of the game.”235 Based on
the cumulative effect of Opposers’ evidence, we find that the term SKYBLOCK
describes in the Minecraft game, “worlds … that … begin on a small island floating
in the sky that is composed of a limited cluster of blocks and the player must expand
the island by acquiring and placing additional blocks in the sky.”236 In this manner,
SKYBLOCK also describes games, mods, and servers related to this content – within
Minecraft or in the wider gaming community. Although the services are not limited
to the Minecraft game, neither is the descriptive meaning of the term SKYBLOCK so
limited within the gaming community. To this purchasing public, then, we find by a
234 85 TTABVUE 19-21, ¶¶109-121.
235 Id. at 32.
236 90 TTABVUE 32.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 61 -
preponderance of the evidence that SKYBLOCK immediately describes the services
relating to that content, e.g., “creating an on-line virtual environment for gaming and
social interaction” and “providing gaming and virtual world servers to others.”
IX. Acquired Distinctiveness Under Section 2(f)
A. Level of Descriptiveness
Before we consider whether SKYBLOCK has acquired distinctiveness, we must
first determine whether SKYBLOCK “is highly descriptive rather than merely
descriptive.” Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
see also, e.g., In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“On
appeal, Louisiana Fish Fry does not challenge the Board’s finding that the term FISH
FRY PRODUCTS is highly descriptive.”). When a proposed mark is highly
descriptive, evidence of substantially exclusive and continuous use for five years, or
even longer, is generally insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness. Id. at 1337.
For a highly descriptive term, an applicant faces an “elevated burden to establish
acquired distinctiveness.” Id. at 1336. Under “this sliding scale approach,” the more
highly descriptive the proposed mark, the greater the burden. Royal Crown, 892 F.3d
at 1368-69.
Given the number of third-party uses of SKYBLOCK – and especially third-party-
operated servers that use the term SKYBLOCK in a descriptive manner237 – we were
persuaded that the term is merely descriptive of the services. Based on the same
evidence, and coupled with the fact that use of the term SKYBLOCK has extended
237 See, e.g., 62 TTABVUE 608-64, 60 TTABVUE 3-723, and 61 TTABVUE 3-138.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 62 -
beyond the Minecraft game and into player-created content in other, unrelated video
games, such as Roblox and Fortnite,238 we are persuaded by a preponderance of the
evidence that the term falls onto the “highly descriptive” end of the spectrum.
B. Sufficiency of Evidence of Acquired Distinctiveness
A descriptive designation may acquire distinctiveness when “in the minds of the
public, the primary significance of [the] . . . term is to identify the source of the product
rather than the product.” Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, n.11
(1982); see also Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378-79 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[T]he
greater the degree of descriptiveness the term has, the heavier the burden to prove it
has attained secondary meaning.” In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Bongrain Int’l (Am.) Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 1317n.4 (Fed. Cir.
1990)); Performance Open Wheel Racing, Inc. v. U. S. Auto Club Inc., No. 91229632,
2019 TTAB LEXIS 137, at *20 (2019) (“Highly descriptive terms are less likely to be
perceived as trademarks, and therefore more substantial evidence of secondary
meaning will ordinarily be required to establish their distinctiveness.”).
The following six so-called Converse factors inform whether a mark has acquired
secondary meaning:
(1) association of the trade[mark] with a particular source by actual
purchasers (typically measured by consumer surveys); (2) length,
degree, and exclusivity of use; (3) amount and manner of advertising;
(4) amount of sales and number of customers; (5) intentional copying;
and (6) unsolicited media coverage of the product embodying the mark
238 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 57.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 63 -
. . . All six factors are to be weighed together in determining the
existence of secondary meaning.
Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 909 F.3d 1110, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Although all six factors
are to be weighed together in determining the existence of secondary meaning, no
single factor is determinative.” Flame & Wax, Inc. v. Laguna Candles, LLC, No.
92072343, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 272, at *36. We consider the entire record to assess
acquired distinctiveness, bearing in mind that Applicant bears the ultimate burden
of persuasion on this issue.239 Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., 840 F.2d
1572, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
1. Applicant’s Evidence and Argument
We consider the Converse factors somewhat out of order, as Applicant does not
address them explicitly.
a. Length, Degree, and Exclusivity of Use
Applicant began using SKYBLOCK in 2011.240 But Applicant acknowledges
difficulties in establishing its exclusivity of use in the time since, stating: “Applicant’s
exclusive use of the trademark SKYBLOCK in connection with its survival game and
the Services from September 2011 through 2019 (when … the first [third-party]
commercialized SKYBLOCK products began appearing on the Minecraft
239 The Board considers not only the evidence submitted at trial but also any relevant
evidence submitted during prosecution. See, e.g., Grote Indus., Inc. v. Truck-Lite Co., LLC,
No. 91196923, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 105, at *33; see also Trademark Rule 2.122(b). The
SKYBLOCK application was not refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) during
prosecution, so there is no evidence of acquired distinctiveness from the prosecution record.
240 85 TTABVUE 5, ¶22-23.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 64 -
Marketplace) establishes eight years of exclusive source identification.”241 In
Applicant’s testimony declaration, Mr. Chaney attests to substantial use of
Applicant’s SKYBLOCK mark;242 he also attests to its “popularity and notoriety”243
and recognition,244 but not to Applicant’s exclusive use. Even if he did, however, such
testimony standing alone would be insufficient to prove acquired distinctiveness for
Applicant’s highly descriptive mark. See Real Foods, 906 F.3d at 979 (“Particularly
for a mark that is . . . highly descriptive like [Real Foods’ proposed marks], the [TTAB]
was within its discretion not to accept [Real Foods’] alleged five years of substantially
exclusive and continuous use as prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness.”)
(quotation omitted). Instead, Applicant first argues that its proposed mark is
inherently distinctive or at most “is only slightly descriptive,”245 both of which are
unpersuasive given the evidence discussed above.
b. Amount and Manner of Advertising
Applicant does not advertise,246 apart from on its own website.247
241 92 TTABVUE 28. Opposers argue that Applicant enjoyed almost no period of exclusivity
of use, as third-party use of SKYBLOCK, “commercial” or otherwise, started “[w]ithin weeks
of Mr. Chaney’s initial release of ‘skyblock.’” 90 TTABVUE 12.
242 85 TTABVUE 7, ¶36, and 9, ¶49.
243 Id. at ¶37.
244 Id. at ¶38.
245 92 TTABVUE 18-24.
246 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 64.
247 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 65 -
c. Association of SKYBLOCK with a Particular Source by
Actual Purchasers; Unsolicited Media Coverage
Applicant submitted no consumer survey or other direct evidence of consumer
perception of SKYBLOCK as a source indicator for Applicant. Much of Applicant’s
arguments regarding purchaser association of SKYBLOCK with a singular source
rely on third-party articles and videos; accordingly, we group these two Converse
factors together. In this regard, Applicant argues that “[t]he evidence reveals that
consumers consistently associate the trademark SKYBLOCK with ‘Noobcrew’ (a/k/a
Applicant) as the singular source, or at the very least as a specific Minecraft game,
not merely as a descriptive term for a survival game.”248 Applicant alleges that its
SKYBLOCK game appeared on the first page of minecraftforum.net in 2011, and that
the initial post of Applicant’s game received over 10,000 replies;249 Applicant cites to
Mr. Chaney’s declaration, but there are no supporting exhibits.250
Applicant points to evidence that “many of those consumers [who] created
derivatives (or ‘mods’) … explicitly acknowledged and credited Noobcrew’s
SKYBLOCK survival game.”251 In detail, this evidence comprises the following
Internet material:
• From Applicant’s Notice of Reliance on Internet Materials Part I:
• YouTube video showing the date October 22, 2011, titled “Experiencing
SkyBlock – Minecraft Animation – Slamacow,” stating also, inter alia, “This
248 Id. at 24.
249 Id.
250 85 TTABVUE 7, ¶38. There is no statement in the cited paragraphs 38-44 regarding the
alleged 10,000 replies.
251 92 TTABVUE 24.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 66 -
video is based off of SkyBlock 2.1,” “Get the SkyBlock Map here,” “Special
Thanks to noobcrew for giving me the idea to make a SkyBlock video!”252
• YouTube video showing the date October 19, 2024, titled “Minecraft’s Most
Famous Map is being STOLEN by Microsoft …” stating also, inter alia,
“Skyblock is the most famous creation in minecraft history. But the past 4
years behind the scenes, the original creator of skyblock has been
undergoing a fierce legal battle with 12 companies, including Microsoft
themselves...”253
• YouTube video showing the date October 21, 2024, titled “Skyblock is being
taken by Microsoft,” stating also, inter alia, “Noobcrew/Mineverse thread,”
“As someone not privy to the legal dispute, it’s [difficult] to righteously take
a side here. It’s easy to fall for the trap of going all guns blazing and
supporting the smaller man - Noobcrew/Mineverse (N). I’d even say that it’s
the ‘kinder’ thing to do. Microsoft and others (M) have vastly more resources
capable of decimating every legal angle.”254
• Online article “10 Most Influential Minecraft Maps of All Time,” dated
March 26, 2023, and ranking SKYBLOCK as first, stating, inter alia,
“Undoubtedly the most influential map to have been created was Skyblock
by noobcrew in 2011. It’s become so synonymous with Minecraft that
thousands of servers offer some Skyblock world to play on, as well as
thousands of inspired custom maps and mods revolving around it.”255
• Online article “Minecraft Mods: 8 Best Custom Maps for Survival,” dated
July 22, 2024, and listing SKYBLOCK “The Classic Survival Challenge” as
eight, stating, inter alia, “SkyBlock is that one custom map almost every
Minecraft player knows. It’s one of the most famous and most played
Minecraft maps ever made, with very active communities keeping it alive
despite its age,” and “Because of SkyBlock’s popularity, there are numerous
renditions online, each with its creative twist.”256
• Printout from minecraftmaps.com showing a download to “Skyblock” map,
listing Noobcrew as “Map Creator,” and stating, inter alia, “SkyBlock is one
of the most popular minecraft maps ever created,” “This map was the
original floating island type survival map, and a vast majority of survival
252 86 TTABVUE 47.
253 Id. at 234.
254 Id. at 320.
255 Id. at 479-88.
256 Id. at 492-507.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 67 -
maps are based on it,” “‘Skyblock’ is a registered trademark of Mineverse,
LLC.”257
• Printout from minecraft.fandom.com/wiki titled “Tutorials/Skyblock,”
stating, inter alia, “Skyblock is one of the most popular survival game
modes. The idea is that you can create and expand your very own world
infinitely with only minimal materials. It was originally created by
Noobcrew, a veteran Minecraft player.”258
• Online article, “10 Best Minecraft Custom Maps of All Time,” dated August
20, 2024, listing SKYBLOCK “Simple, but perfect” in third place, and
stating, inter alia, Noobrew as “Map Creator,” “Skyblock is one of the
smallest maps ever made for Minecraft, and yet it’s also one of the most
popular ones.”259
• From Applicant’s Notice of Reliance on Internet Materials Part II (here,
Applicant cites 300 pages of material,260 described in the notice of reliance
as screenshots of various third-party websites “which show other Minecraft
content creators and gamers acknowledging and crediting Noobcrew as the
creator of the SKYBLOCK game.”).261
• Screenshots from planetminecraft.com:
o 36 third-party SKYBLOCK maps (e.g., “Skyblock 2.1 for Bedrock,”262
“Skyblock,”263 “Skyblock 2022,”264 “Skyblock Remastered,”265
“Skyblock Revisited – Recreation of Noobcrew’s Skyblock 2.1,”266
257 Id. at 514-27.
258 Id. at 529-40.
259 Id. at 542-62. Applicant does not cite to this article in its brief, but we include it here.
260 92 TTABVUE 24, n.79 (“84 TTABVUE 7-553 (ATX 18-20).”). We note that ATX 20 ends at
p. 305, and ATX 21-1, starting at p. 306, contains screenshots of the Gaming Group Opposers’
alleged infringing content.
261 84 TTABVUE 3.
262 Id. at 8-13.
263 Id. at 14-18.
264 Id. at 20-41.
265 Id. at 42-46.
266 Id. at 47-51.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 68 -
“Original Skyblock (+Hardcore Version) | Bedrock Edition,”267 that
include various statements crediting Noobcrew in some manner.268
o Article and poll, “What’s Our Favorite Minecraft Survival Map?”
including “Skyblock Survival made by noobcrew.”269
• Other websites: four third-party SKYBLOCK maps.270
Applicant states that “[t]he evidence in the record only contains a small sampling
of fan-created content [attributing Noobcrew/Applicant] as it would be too
burdensome to include a complete list.”271
Applicant also argues “almost every prominent Minecraft YouTuber has
showcased the SKYBLOCK survival game in their videos [which have] … amassed
millions of views.”272 Each video credits Noobcrew (Applicant) as the creator of the
SKYBLOCK survival game; Applicant asserts that this shows the popularity of
Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game as well as “Applicant’s success in educating the public
that it is the source of SKYBLOCK.”273 While there is some discrepancy as to whether
these videos account for millions or billions of views, in his declaration, Mr. Chaney
provides some specific numbers:
39. Over the years, nearly every prominent Minecraft YouTuber has
showcased the original and iconic SKYBLOCK worlds I created within
their videos, collectively amassing billions of views. See e.g., ATX 8. For
example, one of the most popular YouTubers, “CaptainSparklez”, who
has millions of subscribers, produced a video series on my
267 Id. at 52-58.
268 Id. 7-263.
269 Id. at 264-73.
270 Id. at 283-305.
271 92 TTABVUE 25.
272 Id. at 26 (footnotes removed).
273 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 69 -
“SKYBLOCK” world (version 1.1) only 29 days after its release. See
ATX 8 at 1-3. CaptainSparklez produced a total of 49 “SKYBLOCK”
videos with a combined 67 million views.
40. Similarly, the YouTuber, “PewDiePie”, who has over 110 million
subscribers, produced four YouTube videos starting on July 14, 2019 on
“SKYBLOCK” (version 2.1) and garnered 59 million views.274
Applicant argues that, taken as a whole, this evidence “establish[es] that millions
of consumers recognize SKYBLOCK as identifying Applicant as the source of the
Services,”275 i.e., (1) five “best of” articles including Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game or
map; (2) a “too burdensome to include” list of third-party SKYBLOCK maps that
credit Noobcrew/Applicant as the original SKYBLOCK game (but at least 36); and (3)
YouTube videos about Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game that show, by our count, more
than 200 million views.276
Applicant also asserts that when people use the Google.com search engine to
search for the term SKYBLOCK, “Applicant’s website, www.skyblock.net, also ranks
as the top Google search result.”277 Opposers object to Applicant’s characterization of
the evidence, the manner in which the search was conducted, and the timeframe
selected, and argue that the metrics are hearsay as “Mr. Chaney has not provided
274 85 TTABVUE 8, ¶¶39-40. Opposers object to the statements in the Chaney Declaration on
the basis that Mr. Chaney lacks personal knowledge.
275 92 TTABVUE 26.
276 86 TTABVUE 8-399. As we noted repeatedly in our assessment of Opposers’ evidence,
Internet materials submitted under notice of reliance is hearsay, and we rely on it for what
it shows on its face, not for the truth of the matter shown. Nevertheless, on its face, these
printouts from YouTube show views in the millions to tens of millions.
277 92 TTABVUE 27.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 70 -
testimony explaining how the metrics shown in these printouts were created.”278
Although we do not expect Mr. Chaney – or indeed any of the parties to this
proceeding – to be able to testify to the inner workings of “how the metrics shown in
these printouts were created” by Google, it appears that as of March 19, 2025, Google
indicates that Applicant’s skyblock.net website was a top result for Google.com
searches for SKYBLOCK and related phrases:
279
We find that the probative value of this Google evidence is somewhat lessened for
the reasons raised by Opposers and also due to additional missing context, such as
the number of people who searched SKYBLOCK, and those searching for SKYBLOCK
in connection with the services.
278 90 TTABVUE 42.
279 85 TTABVUE ¶42; 86 TTABVUE 584-588 (ATX 16).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 71 -
d. Sales and Customers
Although presented as evidence of association of SKYBLOCK with Applicant,
Applicant claims that players have downloaded its SKYBLOCK game over 12.3
million times (but likely more than that),280 and its multiplayer server hosts “more
than 5 million unique players playing and creating 700,000-plus [worlds] on the
multiplayer server.”281 Applicant points to its own longstanding website at
skyblock.net, with a SKYBLOCK community “forum [that] has operated continuously
for over 12 years, with over 77,000 members since inception, demonstrating ongoing
consumer awareness.”282
e. Intentional Copying
Finally, we return to the issue Applicant acknowledged in its own assessment of
exclusivity of use of SKYBLOCK: the copycats. Applicant argues that its use of
SKYBLOCK as a trademark was exclusive for “its survival game and the Services
from September 2011 through 2019 … [when] only the Applicant’s original
280 We find Mr. Chaney’s testimony as to the number of downloads reliable but there are
discrepancies in the numbers stated by Mr. Chaney and restated by counsel in Applicant’s
brief. See n.73, supra. In his declaration, Mr. Chaney describes the four versions of
SKYBLOCK he created, saying “[Version 2.1] has been downloaded over 8.4 million times,
whereas all other versions of the SKYBLOCK game world have been downloaded over 12.3
million times since its creation.” Chaney Dec., 85 TTABVUE 7, ¶36. It is unclear if Mr.
Chaney meant all versions including or excluding Version 2.1, but in its brief, Applicant
repeatedly refers to “over 12 million downloads.” See, e.g., 92 TTABVUE 10, 13, 26. This is
supported by the evidence of downloads from Applicant’s skyblock.net website. ATX 15, 86
TTABVUE 580. We assume the actual numbers are higher, as the downloads from
skyblock.net only do not include those from third-party website minecraftforum.net, before
Applicant moved SKYBLOCK to its own website.
281 92 TTABVUE 26, citing 86 TTABVUE 47, 234, 320.
282 92 TTABVUE 27.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 72 -
SKYBLOCK survival game and the permitted fan-created derivatives existed. The
latter did not impinge on Applicant’s trademark rights because those creators
appropriately credited Noobcrew, and, more importantly, are a part of Minecraft's
remix culture.”283 Any non-exclusive and infringing uses after 2019, Applicant
argues, are largely due to Microsoft’s refusal to enforce Applicant’s trademarks rights
in SKYBLOCK.
2. Opposers’ Evidence and Argument
Opposers argue that
Applicant has no evidence of advertising, advertising spend, sales,
unsolicited media coverage, consumer surveys or studies, or any other
objective indication that the term “skyblock” serves as a source
identifier. In fact, Applicant admits it does no advertising or promotion
outside of Twitter/X posts, and even then, its activities appear limited
to an isolated “tweet.”284
Opposers further assert that “the limited evidence that Applicant has provided is
insufficient to show that consumers associate ‘skyblock’ with Applicant”285 and allege
deficiencies in Applicant’s evidence. Opposers also point to the testimony of Opposers’
survey expert, Mr. Ezell.286 Opposers argue that the survey shows that only 3% of
respondents associated SKYBLOCK with a single source,287 far below the usual range
supporting a finding of secondary meaning (citing Thomas J. McCarthy, MCCARTHY
ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION §32:190 (5th ed. 2021) for the premise that
283 Id. at 28.
284 90 TTABVUE 39.
285 Id. at 40.
286 Id. at 44.
287 Id.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 73 -
“‘[g]enerally, figures over 50% are regarded as clearly sufficient’ and that figures
between 37% and 48% have also been found sufficient …”).288 This evidence, Opposers
argue, indicates that consumers do not understand SKYBLOCK as a single-source
identifier but “as descriptive of a genre or type of gameplay, or of a sever [sic] through
which players can engage in such gameplay.”289
Applicant argues that “Opposers’ survey is flawed and should be rejected,”290 and
that we should give the survey no probative weight, as opposed to striking it.
Applicant contends that “The Ezell survey has four key flaws: (i) it measures the
wrong question; (ii) its respondents are too broad; (iii) the control cell is inappropriate;
and (iv) it lacks validation information.”291 We will address these points here, briefly,
as we do not rely heavily on the survey in our analysis.
Applicant argues that the survey measures the wrong question: “the degree, if
any, to which gamers who play virtual world/sandbox games associate the term
‘skyblock’ with Mineverse LLC (‘Mineverse’ or “Applicant’)” instead of with Mr.
Chaney’s online alias, Noobcrew.292 Although the survey expert reported the results
in that manner (i.e., association with Mineverse), the survey questions actually asked
if participants associated SKYBLOCK with one content creator, more than one
288 Id. at 45.
289 Id.
290 92 TTABVUE 33 (cleaned up).
291 Id.
292 Id. (citing 64 TTABVUE 7, ¶2).

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 74 -
content creator, or “don’t know or no opinion.”293 If participants indicated a response
of one or more than one content creator, they were given a text box in which to enter
the content creator(s).294 Section 45 of the Trademark Act defines a “trademark” as
“any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof— (1) used by a person
… to identify and distinguish his or her goods … from those manufactured or sold by
others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” 15
U.S.C. § 1127. Therefore, the survey did not “measure the wrong question.”295
In its second point, Applicant argues that “gamers who play virtual world/sandbox
games” is not the relevant universe because it is too broad;296 the relevant universe
should be gamers who play Minecraft. It is true that “[p]layers of any virtual
world/sandbox video games are not necessarily players of Minecraft or the
SKYBLOCK survival game,”297 as Applicant asserts, but Applicant’s services are not
limited to the Minecraft game. Where, as here, there are no limitations in the
identification, we must presume that the identified services will be purchased by the
usual classes of purchasers. Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.,
719 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“PTO proceedings are ‘based on the content of
the registration application’ and not upon any specific use of the challenged mark in
commerce.”). Although Applicant’s CEO, Mr. Chaney, testified that all the services of
293 64 TTABVUE 95
294 Id.
295 92 TTABVUE at 28.
296 Id. at 34.
297 Id. at 35.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 75 -
the company are directed towards Minecraft,298 there is ample evidence showing
third-party use (and therefore, knowledge of) SKYBLOCK in the wider gaming
community, as in Roblox. Cf. U.S. Navy v. U.S. Mfg. Co., No. 9166583, 1987 TTAB
LEXIS 76, at *14 (finding survey of general public not persuasive to show consumers
associate term “USMC” with the U.S. Government where the record was “replete with
testimony that applicant’s goods are sold only to trained, certified professionals in the
field”).
As to Applicant’s third point, to some extent, we agree with Applicant that use of
the term “skins” as a control is suspect because it is already “a well-established
generic gaming term used across multiple games.”299 We disagree with Applicant’s
fourth point that the survey was improperly validated300 because the Internet survey
used screener questions.301
Subject to our concerns noted above, we consider Opposers’ expert testimony and
the underlying survey.302
3. Analysis
Guided by the factors laid out by the Federal Circuit in the Converse decision, we
consider whether SKYBLOCK has acquired distinctiveness for the services.
298 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 12.
299 92 TTABVUE 36.
300 Id.
301 64 TTABVUE 93-95.
302 We do not find the survey dispositive and would have reached the same result even if we
had excluded it.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 76 -
Applicant released the SKYBLOCK game in 2011303 and its SKYBLOCK website with
a forum and servers in 2012.304 Accordingly, Applicant has used SKYBLOCK in
connection with the services since 2012. While Applicant claims that it has used
SKYBLOCK for more than ten years, we must consider the nature of that use, as well
as any evidence of use by others. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d
1401, 1403 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“In respect of registration, there must be a trademark [or
service mark], i.e., purchasers in the marketplace must be able to recognize that a
term or device has or has acquired such distinctiveness that it may be relied on as
indicating one source of quality control and thus one quality standard.”); In re
Craigmyle, No. 73317106, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 25, at *7 (TTAB 1984) (finding
registrability under Section 2(f) was not established by sales over a long period of
time where there was no evidence that the subject matter had been used as a mark).
Mr. Chaney testified to more than 12 million downloads of Applicant’s
SKYBLOCK games and more than 5 million unique players on Applicant’s
SKYBLOCK servers.305 As we have noted many times before with respect to evidence
from all parties, additional context would have been helpful, such as the total number
of Minecraft players, how these numbers have accrued over time, etc. For example, it
is possible that Applicant’s proposed SKYBLOCK mark enjoyed the most recognition
earliest in its use.
303 Chaney Declaration, 85 TTABVUE 5, ¶23.
304 Id. at 7, ¶33; 8, ¶43; 9, ¶45.
305 Id. at 7, ¶35.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 77 -
Applicant does not advertise,306 apart from on its own website,307 and Opposers
assert that “Applicant has offered no evidence of … unsolicited media coverage,”308
but we disagree. Applicant provided substantial evidence of popular YouTube gamers
showing or playing Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game and crediting Noobcrew, i.e.,
Applicant, as the source of that SKYBLOCK game. Those videos – demonstrating a
link between Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game and Applicant as the source of at least
those services – have amassed hundreds of millions of views.309 But on this record,
we have no way of knowing when and how these impressions were made, or if
Applicant’s SKYBLOCK map was “merely” the first and best in a series of many.
Similarly, for every online article including Applicant’s SKYBLOCK maps (and
crediting Noobcrew) on “best of” lists for Minecraft maps,310 there are just as many
articles that use the term SKYBLOCK as a description for a type of map, e.g., “5 best”
SKYBLOCK maps and “Best skyblock servers in Minecraft.”311 In any event, “[t]he
ultimate test in determining whether a designation has acquired distinctiveness is
Applicant’s success, rather than its efforts, in educating the public to associate the
proposed mark with a single source.” Mini Melts, Inc. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No.
91173963, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 151, at *54. While we cannot rely on the ebooks for the
306 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 64.
307 Id.
308 90 TTABVUE 39.
309 86 TTABVUE 8-399.
310 Id. at 479-88, 492-507, 514-27, 529-40, 542-62.
311 66 TTABVUE 8-23, 67 TTABVUE 467-69.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 78 -
truth of their contents, they support a finding that Applicant has not been successful
in educating the public to associate the proposed mark with one source, especially
when “there are entire publications” doing the opposite, “such as an unofficial
encyclopedia ebook, dedicated to defining common terms [in Minecraft]” such as the
term SKYBLOCK.312
Over and over, the evidence as a whole shows that Applicant’s use of SKYBLOCK
for the services is not exclusive, given the hundreds of third-party SKYBLOCK games
and thousands of SKYBLOCK servers;313 whether SKYBLOCK is used as part of a
name or as a tag or descriptor for the content, the effect is the same. This use of
SKYBLOCK to describe a map or style of gameplay is so prevalent within the
Minecraft “modding” community that it has even spilled over into unrelated games,
such as such as Roblox and Fortnite.314 Simply put, thousands of third-parties have
used the term SKYBLOCK to describe their own content and an unknowable number
of gaming consumers have been conditioned to use the term SKYBLOCK in this
manner. See In re Franklin Cnty. Hist. Soc’y, No. 77699113, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 326,
at *24-25 (TTAB 2012) (finding acquired distinctives had not been established where
the term at issue was highly descriptive and applicant’s use was not substantially
exclusive). Even set against Applicant’s millions of downloads and many millions of
YouTube views, Opposers’ survey merely confirms what the evidence shows today:
312 90 TTABVUE 11.
313 See 59-62 TTABVUE and our discussion of these materials, supra.
314 Chaney Deposition, 63 TTABVUE 57.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 79 -
the relevant purchaser’s understanding of the term SKYBLOCK is not as a single-
source indicator. See Target, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 94, at *13 (“Acquired distinctiveness
and buyer recognition is to be tested in an opposition proceeding as of the date the
issue is under consideration.”) (quotation omitted).
Given the scope of third-party, non-trademark use of the SKYBLOCK term to
name or describe third-party content, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between
intentional copying of the type contemplated in Converse and a sort of gradual315
adoption of the term SKYBLOCK as a descriptive term by ardent fans. And while we
have no doubt that Microsoft’s refusal to remove SKYBLOCK content from its
Minecraft Marketplace has compounded this issue of third-party content, Microsoft
has no direct influence over the wild west of third-party gaming servers. As discussed
above, we are far more persuaded by the numbers of SKYBLOCK-labeled servers.
Even though many millions of gamers have watched YouTube videos attributing
SKYBLOCK to Applicant, we are convinced that consumer perception is largely that
Applicant’s SKYBLOCK game is “a” SKYBLOCK game.
We have sympathy for Applicant’s position; it is clear that its founder created a
beloved part of the Minecraft universe. We explicitly make no finding as to whether
SKYBLOCK functioned as a trademark for Applicant’s services or for how long.
Considering the record in its entirety, we find consumers do not recognize
SKYBLOCK as indicating a single source for the identified services, and instead
would view it as a term that merely describes a map or style of gameplay. Applicant’s
315 Or perhaps a much faster adoption; the record is not clear.

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 80 -
evidentiary showing under the Converse factors is overridden by the substantially
non-exclusive use, which presents a serious problem for Applicant, because it
indicates that the relevant public would not perceive SKYBLOCK as an indicator of
a single source. Spiritline, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 3, at *32 (citing Levi Strauss v. Genesco,
742 F.2d at 1403 (“When the record shows that purchasers are confronted with more
than one (let alone numerous) independent users of a term or device, an application
for registration under Section 2(f) cannot be successful, for distinctiveness on which
purchasers may rely is lacking under such circumstances.”); DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna
Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1961) (“Power Shop” for woodworking
saws is not substantially exclusive “in view of [Opposer’s] millions of competitive and
continuing uses of ‘power shop.’”); In re Gen. Mills IP Holdings II, LLC, No. 86757390,
2017 TTAB LEXIS 262, at *42 (lack of exclusivity undermines Section 2(f) claim).
Decision:
Opposition No. 91266862 (parent) is dismissed as to opposers Easy Games, Inc.,
Jigarbov Productions Inc., King Cube Ltd, Ziax Ltd., Rewrite Media, Inc., Hydreon
Corporation, and Mineplex LLC for lack of entitlement.
In the consolidated proceedings (Opposition Nos. 91266862 (parent) and
91268696), Opposers’ claim of no bona fide use of SKYBLOCK for the Challenged
Services, namely, “Computer programming services, namely, content creation for
virtual worlds and three dimensional platforms;” “Designing and modifying computer
programs and video games for others;” “Hosting of digital content on the Internet;”

Opposition Nos. 91266862 and 91268696
- 81 -
“Programming virtual content and goods for use in online virtual worlds;” and “Server
hosting” is sustained.
Opposers’ claim that SKYBLOCK is merely descriptive of the identified services
and has not acquired distinctiveness is sustained as to all services.316
In view thereof, we need not and do not address Opposers’ remaining claims of
genericness and abandonment. See, e.g., CBC Mortg. Agency v. TMRR, LLC, No.
92076723, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 295, at *40 n.22; Kohler Co. v. Honda Giken Kogyo K.K.,
No. 91200146, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 450, at *4 n.4.
316 Opposers’ fraud claims are waived. See n.9, supra.