Learn 2 Read Read 2 Learn LLC

Mailed: July 30, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Learn 2 Read Read 2 Learn LLC
————
Serial No. 99176400
————
Learn 2 Read Read 2 Learn LLC, pro se (by Guy Lodge, Managing Member).
Rebecca Eubank, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116,1
Heather Schubert, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Pologeorgis, Allard, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Learn 2 Read Read 2 Learn LLC, seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the proposed standard-character mark WORD BANK: WORD
LEARNING PROGRAM for the following goods and services:
Printed educational publications, namely, educational learning cards,
flash cards, activity cards, workbooks, textbooks, activity books, story
books, puzzle books, printed puzzles, teacher guides, manuals, posters
and educational booklets in the field of early literacy[]; Educational kits
sold as a unit in the field of early literacy consisting primarily of printed
1 The application was reassigned from the original examining attorney to the above-named
examining attorney after the appeal was filed. In this opinion, we refer to both examining
attorneys involved with the application as the Examining Attorney.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 99176400
- 2 -
books and also including DVDs; Printed guide books featuring
instruction and strategies for teaching early literacy and vocabulary
development to children[]; Printed flip books; Printed baby books;
Printed children's books; Printed children's interactive educational
books; Printed children's books and dolls sold as a unit; Printed
reference books in the field of early literacy instruction and vocabulary
development, in International Class 16; and
Educational services, namely, conducting workshops and training
sessions for parents and caregivers in the field of early literacy and
vocabulary instruction and distribution of educational materials in
connection therewith; Educational services, namely, offering of
assessments and surveys in the field of educator training and
performance for the purpose of improving teaching procedures;
Consulting services about education, in International Class 41.2
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of the proposed mark
under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that it is
merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods and services. After the Examining
Attorney issued a final refusal, Applicant appealed and subsequently filed a brief,
which was followed by the Examining Attorney’s brief.3 Applicant then filed a reply
brief,4 along with a request for remand containing additional evidence.5 The Board
granted the request and remanded the application to the Examining Attorney for
2 Application Serial No. 99176400, filed May 8, 2025, based on an allegation of a bona fide
intention to use the mark in commerce, under Trademark Act Section 1(b),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
3 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE.
The TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) citations in this
opinion refer respectively to entries in the Board’s electronic docket and to the downloadable
pdf. version of the electronic application file. For TTABVUE citations, the number preceding
the TTABVUE designation is the docket entry number and any numbers following indicate
the relevant page numbers within the docket entry.
4 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 8 TTABVUE.
5 Applicant’s Request for Remand, 7 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 99176400
- 3 -
consideration of the additional evidence.6 On remand, the Examining Attorney
considered the additional evidence but maintained the final refusal.7 The appeal
resumed8 and is ready for final decision. For the reasons explained below, we affirm
the refusal to register the proposed mark.
I. Relevant Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act bars registration of a mark that is merely
descriptive when used on or in connection with an applicant’s identified goods or
services, and the mark has not otherwise acquired distinctiveness. See 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1052(e)(1), 1052(f). 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 Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re
TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Descriptiveness must be assessed not in the abstract, but “in relation to the goods
[or services] for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used,
and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of
the goods [or services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Bayer, 488
F.3d at 964 (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813 (CCPA 1978)). Here, in
view of the identified goods and services, we must consider the perception of the
6 See Remand Order, 9 TTABVUE.
7 See Denial of Request for Reconsideration, 10 TTABVUE.
8 See 11 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 99176400
- 4 -
average consumers of educational publications and services, including those in the
fields of early literacy and teacher training.
Evidence of the relevant purchasers’ understanding of a term or phrase in
connection with particular goods or services “may be obtained from any competent
source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade
journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N.
Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola
Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These sources may include [w]ebsites,
publications and use ‘in labels, packages, or in advertising materials directed to the
goods [or services].’” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting
Abcor, 588 F.2d at 814). Evidence of an applicant’s own usage beyond those noted
above may also be considered when determining descriptiveness. See In re Omniome,
Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *14.
“A mark ‘need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail to
be descriptive,’ it need only describe a single feature or attribute.” Chamber of Com.,
675 F.3d at 1300 (quoting In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2001)). And registration may be refused as to an entire class of goods or
services if the proposed mark is merely descriptive of any of the goods or services in
that class. See Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300 (quoting In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429
F.3d 1039, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re Positec Grp. Ltd., No. 77920346, 2013 TTAB
LEXIS 469, at *16-17 (“[I]f the [proposed] mark is descriptive of some of the identified

Serial No. 99176400
- 5 -
items - or even just one - the whole class of goods [or services] may still be refused by
the [examining attorney].”).
II. Analysis
With a proposed mark like WORD BANK: WORD LEARNING PROGRAM, we
first consider the meaning of the mark’s component terms and then determine
whether the proposed mark, as a whole, is merely descriptive. DuoProSS Meditech
Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That is, we
assess whether the combination of component terms in the mark “conveys any
distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the
individual parts.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS
150, at *14-15 (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed. Cir.
2003)). If 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.” Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *15 (citing In re Tower Tech., Inc.,
No. 75709532, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 300, at *10).
We need not consider the definitions of the terms WORD and BANK separately
to determine the meaning of WORD BANK, because the evidence of record
demonstrates that WORD BANK is a recognized phrase in the relevant context.
Specifically, the Examining Attorney has provided an excerpt from the Fiveable
(fiveable.me), a website that appears to provide advanced placement exam
preparation guides and tools for educators.9 The website defines “word banks” as a
9 October 1, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 7-11.

Serial No. 99176400
- 6 -
“curated collections of vocabulary words, often organized by theme or subject matter,
designed to aid in the learning and acquisition of language,” which “serve as a
valuable resource for students to expand their vocabulary, enabling them to recall
and utilize new words more effectively in writing and speaking.”10
Another website, twinkl.com, states that a “Word Bank (also called a vocabulary
bank) is a written list of key vocabulary words or phrases to support pupils with their
writing.”11 The webpage also notes that “[w]ord banks are visual teaching resources,
used to familiarise [sic] pupils with a specific groups of words,” that “word banks can
. . . help improve children’s spelling skills,” and that “they’re most popular for using
with KS1 and KS2 children.”12
A third website, polkadotsplease.com, explains to teachers “[t]he WHY and HOW
of using WORD BANKS in your elementary classroom.”13 The webpage defines “word
banks” as “lists of commonly used words—sight words, everyday object names,
spelling words, topical vocabulary words, and more,” and suggests that “[w]ith little
ones, [one should] use word banks that have pictures to match every word.”14 Among
the listed “Benefits of Using Word Banks” are “[b]uilding [the] confidence of reluctant
10 Id. at 7.
11 Id. at 16 (emphasis omitted).
12 Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted).
13 Id. at 27.
14 Id. at 28 (emphasis omitted).

Serial No. 99176400
- 7 -
readers,” “[d]evelop[ing] vocabulary,” and “[s]upport[ing] English Language
Learners.”15
As to the meaning of the remaining component terms of the mark, the Examining
Attorney has provided excerpts from the online version of THE AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY, defining:
• “word” as “[a] sound or a combination of sounds, or its
representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and
communicates a meaning”;16
• “learning” as “[t]he act, process, or experience of gaining
knowledge”;17 and
• “program” as “[a] course of academic study; a curriculum.”18
Based on this evidence, we find that WORD BANK describes a curated list or
collection of vocabulary terms or phrases used in language learning. And WORD
LEARNING PROGRAM describes a curriculum for gaining knowledge about terms
used in communication. And we agree with the Examining Attorney that, when the
component terms are combined, the resulting combination, WORD BANK: WORD
LEARNING PROGRAM, connotes “an educational curriculum for the acquisition of
words that features curated collections of vocabulary words.”19
Again, however, we must consider this connotation not in the abstract but based
on the relevant consumers’ understanding of the term as used in connection with
15 Id. at 29.
16 Id. at 53.
17 Id. at 55.
18 Id. at 57.
19 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 4.

Serial No. 99176400
- 8 -
Applicant’s identified goods and services. See Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964. That is, “we
must assume that prospective consumers will encounter the term in relation to the
identified [goods and] services and determine whether those consumers will
understand the term to convey information about the [goods or] services.” Grand
Canyon West Ranch, LLC v. Hualapai Tribe, No. 91162008, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 33, at
*11.
To reiterate, the goods and services here are:
Printed educational publications, namely, educational learning cards,
flash cards, activity cards, workbooks, textbooks, activity books, story
books, puzzle books, printed puzzles, teacher guides, manuals, posters
and educational booklets in the field of early literacy[]; Educational kits
sold as a unit in the field of early literacy consisting primarily of printed
books and also including DVDs; Printed guide books featuring
instruction and strategies for teaching early literacy and vocabulary
development to children[]; Printed flip books; Printed baby books;
Printed children's books; Printed children's interactive educational
books; Printed children's books and dolls sold as a unit; Printed
reference books in the field of early literacy instruction and vocabulary
development, in International Class 16; and
Educational services, namely, conducting workshops and training
sessions for parents and caregivers in the field of early literacy and
vocabulary instruction and distribution of educational materials in
connection therewith; Educational services, namely, offering of
assessments and surveys in the field of educator training and
performance for the purpose of improving teaching procedures;
Consulting services about education, in International Class 41.
As the Examining Attorney points out, “[t]he identification for educational
services in International Class 41 specifies that the services are provided in the field
of ‘early literacy and vocabulary instruction,’”20 as are most of the identified Class 16
20 Id. at 6-7.

Serial No. 99176400
- 9 -
goods. Consistent with the identification of goods and services, Applicant itself has
described its goods and services as a “proprietary early-literacy system” that includes
“a multi-step learning progression,”21 and a “curriculum and product line designed to
accelerate word acquisition through structured repetition and multi-sensory
learning.”22 And the evidence Applicant submitted with its request for remand
indicates that its publications feature “[a] high-quality word learning program for
infants and children up to 5 years of age” that “empowers caregivers to introduce the
written form of words to their children (one word at a time).”23
The third-party evidence discussed above establishes that the relevant consumers
have been exposed to use of the phrase WORD BANK to describe a particular tool for
vocabulary acquisition for the purpose of teaching literacy. Likewise, based on the
provided dictionary evidence, the phrase WORD LEARNING PROGRAM has a
descriptive significance when considered in connection with a literacy system. And
Applicant’s own statements about its goods and services reinforce these conclusions.24
Accordingly, we agree with the Examining Attorney that the average consumer of
educational publications and services, particularly in the fields of early literacy and
teacher training, will immediately understand the wording WORD BANK: WORD
21 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 5-6.
22 October 8, 2025 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 3.
23 Applicant’s Request for Remand, 7 TTABVUE 6 (emphasis supplied; converted to standard
capitalization).
24 While some of Applicant’s materials refer to vocabulary being learned “one word at a time,”
id., this does not preclude the possibility that Applicant’s goods and services feature
collections of vocabulary terms. For instance, even if words are learned one at a time,
collections of the learned words may be presented in lists for review and reinforcement.

Serial No. 99176400
- 10 -
LEARNING PROGRAM as conveying information about the goods and services,
namely that they feature or include an educational curriculum for the acquisition of
words that uses curated collections of vocabulary words.
Applicant, however, argues that the Examining Attorney failed to consider the
commercial impression of the entire mark and instead engaged in a “piecemeal
analysis,” without analyzing “whether the composite phrase creates a distinct
commercial impression”25 in view of “Applicant’s actual marketplace use.”26
According to Applicant, when consumers encounter the entire mark in the
appropriate context, it “creates a unified, source-identifying commercial impression”
that would be perceived not as descriptive, but as a “brand name for a proprietary
literacy system.”27
We disagree. As the Examining Attorney correctly notes, “a trademark examining
attorney may consider the significance of each element separately in the course of
evaluating the mark as a whole.”28 Indeed, this method of analysis is required. See
DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1255 (“To determine whether a composite mark such as the
SNAP SIMPLY SAFER mark is merely descriptive, the Board was required to
examine the meaning of each component individually, and then determine whether
the mark as a whole is merely descriptive.”). Here, the record shows that the
Examining Attorney properly considered the meaning of the component terms and
25 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 5 (italics removed).
26 Id. at 6.
27 Id. at 5-6 (emphasis omitted).
28 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 99176400
- 11 -
then determined whether their “combination results in a composite that is itself
merely descriptive.” Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *15.
While Applicant argues that the combination of terms in the proposed mark
instead creates a distinct commercial impression apart from any descriptive
significance, there is no basis in the record for such a finding. And, beyond stating
that the mark would be perceived as a brand name for a proprietary literacy system,
Applicant has not identified what the proposed mark’s “unified, source-identifying
commercial impression” is.
We have reviewed the evidence of “Applicant’s marketplace presentation” of the
proposed mark, which Applicant describes as the “[f]ront cover of Book 1 in the WORD
BANK Word Learning Program series”; “[s]creenshots from Applicant’s official
program webpage”; and “[b]randing materials demonstrating presentation of the
composite mark.”29 None of these materials show use of the mark as depicted on the
drawing page of Applicant’s application, and instead show either WORD BANK
WORD LEARNING PROGRAM (without a colon after BANK), or WORD BANK (also
without a colon) appearing above the WORD LEARNING PROGRAM. That aside,
there is nothing about the presentation of the mark in these materials that would
lend distinctive significance to what is otherwise descriptive wording. Some of these
materials explain that Applicant chose the phrase WORD BANK to “represent[] a
child’s growing internal store of language.”30 However, Applicant has not argued that
29 Applicant’s Request for Remand, 7 TTABVUE 2.
30 Id. at 11.

Serial No. 99176400
- 12 -
this is the distinctive commercial impression that it is referring to. Nor are we
convinced that the relevant consumers, who would be aware of the descriptive
significance of WORD BANK in the context of literacy education, would perceive this
alternative meaning without Applicant’s prompting.31 Simply put, while Applicant
may intend for the proposed mark to serve as an indicator of source, such intent,
alone, does not make it so. See, e.g., Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Foods Corp., 640
F.2d 1317, 1322 (CCPA 1981) (“Even if appellee adopted and used BRIE NOUVEAU
with the intent ‘to identify its goods and distinguish them from those manufactured
or sold by others’–i.e., adopted and intended to use BRIE NOUVEAU as a trademark–
BRIE NOUVEAU must be distinctive . . . .”); Roux Labs., Inc. v. Clairol Inc., 427 F.2d
823, 828-29 (CCPA 1970) (“The mere fact that a combination of words or a slogan is
adopted and used by a manufacturer with the intent . . . that it identify its goods and
distinguish them from those of others . . . does not necessarily mean that the slogan
accomplishes that purpose in reality.”). Further, while it is certainly possible for a
descriptive phrase to acquire distinctiveness as an indicator of source, Applicant has
made no such claim under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), nor does
the record contain any evidence in support of such a claim.
Applicant also contends that none of the materials referenced in the Examining
Attorney’s evidence “resemble Applicant’s goods or services, and none reflect the
31 In any event, based on the record, “word bank” could also be descriptive of something that
facilitates an “internal storage of language,” because that phrase is another way of referring
to a collection of vocabulary terms.

Serial No. 99176400
- 13 -
commercial impression created by Applicant’s mark in the marketplace.”32 But,
again, we must determine descriptiveness based on the goods and services as they
are identified in the application, see Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964. Here, the application’s
identification of goods and services is broad enough to include those that feature or
include an educational curriculum for the acquisition of words using curated
collections of vocabulary words. See In re Country Oven, Inc., No. 87354443, 2019
TTAB LEXIS 381, at *4 (“Where the identification of services is broad, the Board
‘presume[s] that the services encompass all services of the type identified.’” (quoting
Sw. Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., No. 76393986, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 176, at *60-
61)); In re Cryomedical Scis. Inc., No. 74238772, 1994 TTAB LEXIS 23, at *6 (holding
SMARTPROBE merely descriptive where the identification goods was broad enough
to include all types of disposable cryosurgical probes, including those containing
electronic devices or microprocessors). And, while Applicant argues that its goods and
services are much more than simple word banks, it is sufficient that the proposed
mark merely describes at least one feature, characteristic, or purpose of the identified
goods and services. See In re Friends in the West, No. 74584732, 1997 TTAB LEXIS
213, at *5 (“It is sufficient . . . if the designation or term simply describes one
significant attribute of the [goods or] services.”).
We also reject Applicant’s argument that “a consumer encountering this mark
must interpret it, not merely read it,” and this “requirement for mental processing
32 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 99176400
- 14 -
places the mark squarely in the category of suggestive marks.”33 According to
Applicant, the proposed mark “does not instantly describe Applicant’s proprietary
literacy platform” because “[i]t does not tell a consumer what the system is, how it
works, what materials it uses, or how it delivers instruction.”34 Applicant’s arguments
rely on the mistaken premise that the mark is to be considered in the abstract. But
“[w]hether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration
of the mark alone is not the test.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech. Co. v. Shanghai
Zhenglang Tech. Co., No. 91272143, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *24 (quoting In re Am.
Greetings Corp., No. 73284539, 1985 TTAB LEXIS 97, at *3-4). Again, the mark must
be considered “in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the
context in which the mark is used, and the possible significance that the mark is
likely to have to the average purchaser encountering the goods or services in the
marketplace.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech., 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *23-24. In view of
the record here, we find no basis for concluding that the relevant consumers seeking
educational publications and services, including those in the fields of early literacy
and teacher training, would need to engage in a multi-stage reasoning process to
determine the significance of WORD BANK: WORD LEARNING PROGRAM when
applied to Applicant’s goods and services.
Applicant states that, although it seeks registration of the proposed mark in
standard-character form with a colon between the terms WORD BANK and WORD
33 Id. at 8.
34 Id.

Serial No. 99176400
- 15 -
LEARNING PROGRAM, “Applicant’s actual commercial use employs the double-bar
separator ‘||’” in place of the colon.35 According to Applicant, this “stylization is
unique to Applicant and is exclusively associated with Applicant’s literacy system,”
which “reinforces the mark’s status as a source identifier.”36 However, this
“stylization” is not actually reflected in the mark drawing, which controls for purposes
of determining the mark for which registration is sought. Trademark Rule 2.52, 37
C.F.R. § 2.52 (“A drawing depicts the mark sought to be registered.”); cf., e.g., In re
Change Wind Corp., No. 86046590, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 233, at *15 n.6 (“[T]he drawing
of the mark, not the words an applicant uses to describe it, controls what the mark
is.”) Nor would a “stylization” of the mark with a “double-bar” separator necessarily
be encompassed by the standard-character drawing reflected in the mark drawing,
given that a colon, on the one hand, and two vertical bars, on the other, are different
elements altogether. With respect to the colon, which does appear in the mark
drawing, we have no reason to conclude that it would be perceived as serving
anything other than its usual purpose, i.e., as a punctuation mark that draws
35 Id. Applicant states that a colon appears in the mark drawing instead, because “[t]he
USPTO’s filing system does not allow the ‘||’ symbol in a standard character drawing.” Id.
However, the USPTO’s standard-character set does include a vertical-line character,
indicating that it is acceptable to include in standard character marks. See Standard
Character Set for Trademarks, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/standard-
character-set (accessed on July 27. 2026). That said, Applicant had the option to seek
registration based on a special form drawing if Applicant believed that its mark included a
non-standard character. See TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 807.04(b)
(May 2026) (“A special form drawing is required for marks that contain superscripts,
subscripts, exponents, or other characters that are not in the USPTO’s standard character
set.”).
36 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 99176400
- 16 -
attention to the matter that follows it.37 Thus, it does not change the commercial
impression of the mark in such a way as to render it distinctive. Cf., e.g., In re Promo
Ink, No. 76541018, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 138, at *12 (finding that an exclamation point
in the proposed mark did not change the commercial impression of the mark, but
instead emphasized the mark’s descriptive nature); In re S.D. Fabrics, Inc., No.
73343087, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 160, at *5 (“[W]e are not persuaded that the design
features of applicant’s mark, namely, the filling in of portions of some of the l[e]tters
in the mark and the separation of the two words of the mark with a conventional
punctation mark, are so distinctive as to create a commercial impression separate
and apart from the unregistrable components.”).
Lastly, Applicant notes that, if any doubt exists as to whether the proposed mark
is merely descriptive, the doubt must be resolved in Applicant’s favor.38 While we
agree with that general proposition, it is not a thumb on the scale that displaces a
conclusion the record otherwise compels. See In re Berkeley Lights, Inc., No.
88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *30 (“To be sure, when the Board has doubt on
the issue of descriptiveness, it resolves such doubt in favor of the applicant. But the
‘rule of doubt’ applies only where the Board expresses some doubt.” (citations
omitted)). Here, we have no doubt as to our conclusion. On this record, the descriptive
significance of the proposed mark as applied to Applicant’s goods and services is not
37 See MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colon
(defining “colon”) (accessed July 27, 2026). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary
definitions, including online dictionaries that exist in printed form or regular fixed editions.
In re Red Bull GmbH, No. 75788830, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 136, at *7.
38 Applicant’s Reply Brief, 8 TTABVUE 4.

Serial No. 99176400
- 17 -
a matter of degree or close judgment; it follows directly from the evidence. Because
our conclusion rests on that evidence rather than on any unresolved uncertainty, the
rule of doubt does not aid Applicant. See Berkeley Lights, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382,
at *30.
III. Conclusion
Two significant reasons for not registering merely descriptive marks are: “(1) to
prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular
goods [or services]; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language
involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the
registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own
products.” Stereotaxis, 429 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Abcor, 588 F.2d at 813). We have
considered all the arguments39 and evidence of record here, and conclude that WORD
BANK: WORD LEARNING PROGRAM, when considered as a whole, is merely
39 Applicant argues that the refusal should be reversed because an examining attorney
“cannot lawfully convert a non-final refusal into a Final refusal without showing that . . .
Applicant’s arguments were considered and found insufficient,” and asserts that, here, “the
record contains no such analysis.” Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE 9. In particular,
Applicant notes that substantive examination of Applicant’s response to the Examining
Attorney’s initial Office action is implausible because the Examining Attorney issued a final
Office action the day after Applicant’s response was submitted, with “[f]ewer than twenty
(20) hours [having] elapsed.” Id. We have reviewed the Examining Attorney’s October 9, 2025
Final Office Action at TSDR 1-13, and find Applicant’s assertions unfounded. In accordance
with accepted examining procedure, the Final Office Action noted that based on Applicant’s
response, a requirement had been satisfied, but that the Section 2(e)(1) refusal was
maintained and made final. See TMEP § 714.04. While the Office action does not specifically
reproduce Applicant’s arguments, it does reiterate the reasons for the refusal, thereby
generally addressing Applicant’s arguments. In addition, contrary to Applicant’s claim, it is
apparent that Examining Attorney did review Applicant’s response, because the Final Office
Action (1) noted that the response satisfied a requirement, and (2) responded to Applicant’s
statements regarding the stylization of its mark when used in the marketplace. See October
9, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 5 (“Applicant refers to a mark not applied for with
stylization and/or a design feature.”).

Serial No. 99176400
- 18 -
descriptive of Applicant’s goods and services. Thus, other entities in the marketplace
who offer the same goods and services featuring or including an educational
curriculum for the acquisition of words, using curated collections of vocabulary words,
should be free to use WORD BANK: WORD LEARNING PROGRAM in advertising
such goods and services.
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark, WORD
BANK: WORD LEARNING PROGRAM, under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), as to
both the goods in International Class 16 and the services in International Class 41.