Taymitch & Associates

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: July 27, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Taymitch & Associates
_____
Serial No. 99033907
_____
Taymitch & Associates, pro se (by Kaomi Taylor, Owner).
Elena Kravtsoff, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113,
Myriah Habeeb, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Lebow and Casagrande,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Taymitch & Associates (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark MUSEUM OF NAMES (in standard characters, MUSEUM disclaimed)
for “Retail gift shops” in International Class 35, and “entertainment and educational
services, namely, the presentation of seminars, workshops and panel discussions, and
ongoing television and radio shows all in the field of names” in International Class
41.1
1 Application Serial No. 99033907 was filed on February 8, 2025, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).

Serial No. 99033907
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the
ground that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant
appealed to this Board. We reverse the refusal to register.
I. Mere Descriptiveness
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, which Applicant does not claim here,
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark which, when
used on or in connection with an applicant’s goods or services, is merely descriptive
of them. “A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a
quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is
used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re Gyulay,
820 F.2d 1216, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A suggestive mark is one for which imagination,
thought or perception is required to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods
or services. In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Whether a
given mark is suggestive or merely descriptive depends on whether the mark
‘immediately conveys . . . knowledge of the ingredients, qualities, or characteristics of
the goods . . . with which it is used,’ or whether ‘imagination, thought, or perception
Page references to the application record are to the .pdf version of the USPTO’s Trademark
Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) electronic database. References to the briefs on appeal
refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s appeal brief is at 6 TTABVUE and
its reply brief is at 9 TTABVUE; the Examining Attorney’s brief is at 8 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 99033907
- 3 -
is required to reach a conclusion on the nature of the goods.’” In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d
at 1217 (quoting In re Quik-Print Copy Shops, Inc., 616 F.2d 523, 525 (CCPA 1980)).
A term that describes the source or provider of goods or services may be merely
descriptive of those goods or services. See In re Major League Umpires, No. 75154506,
2001 TTAB LEXIS 515 at *5 (MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE as merely descriptive of
provider of clothing and baseball gear); see also In re Omaha Nat’l Bank Corp., 819
F.2d 1117, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (rejecting argument that descriptiveness should be
limited to a quality or characteristic of the good or service itself and holding that it
includes a designation descriptive of the service provider).
We must consider the issue of descriptiveness by looking at the mark in its
entirety, although we may consider the descriptive significance of the individual
terms separately. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices Ltd., 695
F.3d 1247, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2012). When two or more merely descriptive terms are
combined, the determination of whether the composite mark also has a merely
descriptive significance turns on whether the combination of terms evokes a new and
unique commercial impression requiring “mature thought” or “multi-stage reasoning”
or the combined terms result in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See In
re Tennis in the Round Inc., 1978 TTAB LEXIS 44, at *4 (no number in original).
II. Evidence
As evidence, the Examining Attorney provided multiple dictionary definitions of
“museum,” “of,” and “name.”2
2 July 17, 2025 Office Action, pp. 5-12, August 27, 2025 Office Action, pp. 6-68.

Serial No. 99033907
- 4 -
The definitions for “museum,” include:
an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of
objects of lasting interest or value or a place where objects are
exhibited.3
The definitions for “of” include:
relating to: about.4
The definitions of “name” include:
a word or combination of words by which a person, place or
thing, a body or class or any object of thought is designated,
called, or known.5
The Examining Attorney provided an entry from Encyclopaedia Britannica
related to “virtual museum” that describes it as:
[A] collection of digitally recorded images, sound files, text
documents, and other data of historical, scientific, or cultural
interest that are accessed through electronic media. A virtual
museum does not house actual objects and therefore lacks the
3 MERRIAM-WEBSTER (merriam-webster.com), July 17, 2025 Office action p.5. Additional
definitions provided with the August 27, 2025 Office Action are from Dictionary.com: “a
building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value
are kept and displayed,” id. at p. 6; COLLINS DICTIONARY (collinsdictionary.com): “a museum
is a building where a large number of interesting and valuable objects, such as works of art
or historical items, are kept, studied, and displayed to the public,” id. at p. 26; and AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY (ahdictionary.com): “[a] building, place, or institution devoted to the
acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition and educational interpretation of objects having
scientific, historical, or artistic value,” id. at p. 62.
4 MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, July 17, 2025 Office Action, pp. 7-9. Additional definitions
of the preposition “of” provided with the August 27, 2025 Office Action are from
Dictionary.com, id., at pp. 10-14; COLLINS DICTIONARY, id. at pp. 32-36; AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY, id. at p. 64. (Definitions not provided for brevity).
5 Dictionary.com, August 27, 2025 Office Action p. 16. Additional definitions provided by the
Examining Attorney are from COLLINS DICTIONARY: “The name of a person, place or thing is
the word or group of words that is used to identify them,” id. at p. 49; AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY: “A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from
others,” id. at p. 67. In the first Office Action, the Examining Attorney referenced a definition
from MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary for “name,” but did not include it as an attachment. July
17, 2025 Office Action p. 2.

Serial No. 99033907
- 5 -
permanence and unique qualities of a museum in the
institutional definition of the term. 6
The Examining Attorney also provided webpages from physical museums that
offer virtual access to their collections:
• San Diego Museum of Art provides virtual webpages, virtual scans of
galleries, podcasts about collections, virtual tours, and podcasts and
lectures about collections;7
• Kimbell Art Museum provides virtual tours of its collection and special
exhibitions;8
• Museum of American Revolution provides virtual museum tours and online
exhibits.9
III. Argument
The Examining Attorney’s position is that Applicant’s proposed mark describes
the provider of the services, whether physical or virtual.10 The Examining Attorney
submits that Applicant’s services still fall under the definition of museum as a virtual
place even if Applicant “rejects being called an institution” because “upon
encountering the mark MUSEUM OF NAMES, it would be reasonable for consumers
to understand that applicant’s retail and educational and entertainment services are
6 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA, (britannica.com), August 27, 2025 Office Action, p. 69. The
entry indicates that “[i]n fact, most virtual museums are sponsored by institutional museums
and are directly dependent upon their existing collections.” id.
7 August 27, 2025 Office Action pp. 78-85. (sdmart.org).
8 August 27, 2025 Office Action pp. 86-92 (kimbellart.org).
9 August 27, 2025 Office Action pp. 93-101 (amrevmuseum.org).
10 8 TTABVUE 6-7.

Serial No. 99033907
- 6 -
rendered by an institution that is devoted to the study or virtual display of
designations of people or things.”11
Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney’s evidence is insufficient to
establish descriptiveness since Applicant’s services involve no collections nor access
to collections in virtual form and “[n]othing in the identified services involves
collections, study, display, or museum operation.”12 Applicant argues that its mark is
suggestive and unitary and that doubt should be resolved in its favor.13.
IV. Analysis
The dictionary definitions and encyclopedia entry the Examining Attorney relies
on in the brief are:
11 8 TTABVUE 6-7.
12 6 TTABVUE 17; 9 TTABVUE 8.
13 6 TTABVUE 22-24; 9 TTABVUE 8-11. Applicant also argues in the reply brief that the
disclaimer requirement was “improperly imposed and legally inapplicable.” 9 TTABVUE 10.
The Examining Attorney did not require a disclaimer in the first Office Action descriptiveness
refusal but provided an “advisory” that a disclaimer may be required in the event that
Applicant filed an amendment to allege use and sought registration on the Supplemental
Register. July 17, 2025 Office Action, p. 3 (“Advisory - Disclaimer of Generic Wording”).
Applicant voluntarily entered the disclaimer in its July 25, 2025 Response to Office Action,
pp. 1, 6. Applicant indicates in its main brief that it provided the disclaimer to facilitate
prosecution, 6 TTABVUE 15, but in its reply brief it indicates that the disclaimer
requirement was improper and inapplicable. 9 TTABVUE 10. To the extent that Applicant’s
statement in the reply brief could be construed as a request for withdrawal of a voluntary
disclaimer, this argument is forfeited. By raising it in a reply brief, Applicant provided the
Examining Attorney no opportunity to respond. See, e.g., In re Lar Mor Int’l, Inc., No.
73256334 1983 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *13 (not considering argument first raised in a reply brief
and noting “this argument and supporting evidence should have been presented to the
Examining Attorney during the prosecution of this case”). See also TMEP Section 1213.01(c)
(May 2026) (when an Applicant voluntarily offers a disclaimer in the mistaken belief it would
be required, the Examining Attorney must offer an opportunity to withdraw the disclaimer).
In any event, such a withdrawal would not have affected our analysis because the disclaimer
was never required by the Examining Attorney’s Section 2(e)(1) refusal against Applicant’s
application for registration on the Principal Register; it was only noted as necessary if
Applicant later amended to allege use and sought registration on the Supplemental Register.

Serial No. 99033907
- 7 -
• Museum: an institution or place that is dedicated to the procurement, care,
study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value;
• Of: a preposition;
• Names: a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a
person or thing;
• Virtual Museum: a digitized collection of materials accessed electronically,
often associated with institutional museum collections.14
The Examining Attorney’s reliance on dictionary and encyclopedia definitions
does not establish that MUSEUM OF NAMES merely describes the provider of
Applicant’s identified retail gift shop or entertainment and educational services.
First, Applicant’s recited services are not identified as museum services, virtual
museum services, museum-based educational or entertainment programming, or
retail gift shop services provided in or by a museum. The record also contains no
evidence that Applicant’s identified services involve the study or display of
collections, otherwise constitute a museum-like institution, or are virtual museum
services. Notably, the fact that a virtual museum need not be a physical place does
not establish that Applicant is a provider of virtual museum services. At most, the
evidence shows that museums may exist in non-physical form.
Moreover, the Examining Attorney points us to no evidence in the record that
Applicant is a museum of names (or, more generally, a museum). While a proposed
14 8 TTABVUE 3-4. The Examining Attorney also relies on the three webpages from museums
with physical branches that illustrate a “virtual museum,” supra. The webpages show virtual
collections or virtual tours, and only one references lectures and podcasts. Britannica’s
definition of “virtual museum” does not mention the educational or entertainment services
identified by Applicant or its retail gift shop services.

Serial No. 99033907
- 8 -
mark is considered merely descriptive if it describes the source of the services, see,
e.g., Omaha Nat’l Bank, 819 F.2d at 1119; Major League Umpires, 2001 TTAB LEXIS
515, at *5; see generally TMEP § 1209.03(q) (listing cases), we see no evidence in the
record that Applicant is a museum.
On this record, we hold that the Examining Attorney has not established that the
proposed mark is merely descriptive.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark MUSEUM OF NAMES is
reversed.