Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C.

This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: August 19, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C.
_____
Serial No. 98169669
_____
Daniel H. Bliss, of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, for Neuropsychiatric
Services, S.C.
Evan Federico, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 131, Nicholas Coleman,
Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Thurmon, Casagrande and O’Connor, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Thurmon, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Supplemental Register of the mark NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, S.C., in
standard characters, for “Psychiatric services; outpatient and inpatient care services;
behavioral health services in the nature of psychiatric and outpatient psychiatric care
services; neuropsychiatric testing,” in International Class 44.1 The Trademark
1 Application Serial No. 98169669 was filed on September 7, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), claiming a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
The application originally sought registration on the Principal Register and went through
many steps before reaching this point. Ultimately, Applicant amended to seek registration
on the Supplemental Register, and the Trademark Examining Attorney finally refused such

Serial No. 98169669
- 2 -
Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under Sections 23(c) and 45
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1091(c), 1127, on the basis that the applied-for
mark is generic for the identified services.
The appeal is fully briefed and ready for final decision. We affirm the refusal to
register.
Genericness – Applicable Law
“Generic terms are common names that the relevant purchasing public
understands primarily as describing the genus of goods or services being sold.” In re
Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted). Generic terms “are by definition incapable of indicating a particular source
of the goods or services, and cannot be registered as trademarks” on either the
Principal Register or Supplemental Register. Id.; see also USPTO v. Booking.com
B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020).2
Whether a particular term or phrase is generic is a question of fact. In re Cordua
Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 599 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Resolution of that question depends
on the primary significance of the term to the relevant public. Booking.com, 591 U.S.
at 556. More specifically, the genericness inquiry follows a two-part test: “First, what
registration for the reasons stated in the text. A more detailed explanation of the prosecution
of this application is not necessary to resolve the issue presented by this appeal.
Citations to the prosecution file are to entries in the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document
Retrieval (“TSDR”) system in .pdf format. Citations to the appeal record are to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system.
2 Applicant’s amendment to seek registration on the Supplemental Register constitutes an
admission that the terms NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, S.C. are not inherently
distinctive. See Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 453 F.2d 1296, 1299
(1972).

Serial No. 98169669
- 3 -
is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered
… understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or
services?” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., 786
F.3d 960, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]here is only one legal standard for genericness: the
two-part test set forth in Marvin Ginn[.]”).
A term is generic if the term refers to a subcategory of the claimed genus of
services or a key aspect of them; there is no requirement that the term refer to the
entire genus. Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 605 (“[T]he term ‘pizzeria’ would be generic
for restaurant services, even though the public understands the term to refer to a
particular sub-group or type of restaurant rather than to all restaurants.”); In re
1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming that
“mattress” is generic for online retail store services featuring mattresses and related
goods); In re Twenty-Two Desserts, LLC, No. 86586833, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 269, at *4
(“Any term that the relevant public uses or understands to refer to the genus of goods,
or a key aspect or subcategory of the genus, is generic.”).
A. Defining the Genus and the Relevant Consumers.
The Application identifies the services, which define the scope of rights potentially
obtained through registration. See In re JobDiva, Inc., 843 F.3d 936, 940 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘[t]he usages listed in [an] application
... are critical’ because of, inter alia, the legal rights that trademark registration
conveys.”) (citing B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 143

Serial No. 98169669
- 4 -
(2015)); accord CBS Inc. v. Morrow, 708 F.2d 1579, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1983). For that
reason, we begin with the identification as the genus of the services for the purposes
of our genericness analysis. Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 602 (quoting Magic Wand Inc.
v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); In re Nordic Naturals, Inc., 755 F.3d
1340, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the relevant goods were adequately defined by
“nutritional supplements containing DHA”). There is nothing in the record to suggest
that this approach should be altered in this case. The genus of the services, therefore,
is: “Psychiatric services; outpatient and inpatient care services; behavioral health
services in the nature of psychiatric and outpatient psychiatric care services;
neuropsychiatric testing.”
The relevant consumers of this genus are individuals seeking healthcare services
of the type identified in the application.3 Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d
1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting the need to identify the relevant consumer group
in a genericness analysis); Magic Wand, Inc., 940 F.2d at 641 (finding the relevant
consumer group consists of the purchasers or consumers of the identified services).
Applicant disputes the definition of the genus. According to Applicant, the genus
is “psychiatric services” and not “neuropsychiatric services and testing.”4 No real
explanation for this argument is given, and the Trademark Examining Attorney did
not define the genus as “neuropsychiatric services and testing,” but instead used the
3 This definition is broad enough to include persons seeking care for others (e.g., parents or
guardians).
4 12 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 98169669
- 5 -
entire identification of services, as we did above. We see nothing in the record to
justify truncating the genus to only one of the identified services.
B. Do the Relevant Consumers Primarily Understand
NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, S.C. to Refer to the Genus?
Whether a term is generic “turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies
to consumers the class of … services.” Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 557; see also In re
Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“An inquiry into the public’s
understanding of a mark requires consideration of the mark as a whole.”). When two
generic terms are used together in a mark, we “must determine whether the
combination of generic terms conveys some distinctive, source-identifying meaning
that each term, individually, lacks. … If the meaning of the whole is no greater than
the sum of its parts, then the compound is itself generic.” Booking.com, 591 U.S. at
567 (citations omitted).
Evidence of the relevant consumer’s understanding of the proposed marks may be
obtained from any competent source. Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 599. Sometimes the
best evidence of what a term or phrase means is found in an applicant’s own
materials. See In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“Gould’s
own submissions provided the most damaging evidence that its alleged mark is
generic and would be perceived by the purchasing public as merely a common name
for its goods rather than a mark identifying the good’s source.”). That is true here.
Applicant submitted a specimen during examination that includes the following
statement: “Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C. is a leader in providing integrated

Serial No. 98169669
- 6 -
neuropsychiatric services to adult and geriatric patients ….”5 The words
“neuropsychiatric services” are used generically in the text of applicant’s own
promotional material. This is highly probative evidence because applicant would not
have referred to such services as “neuropsychiatric services” unless it expects
customers to understand what those words mean. See, e.g., In re Omniome, Inc., No.
87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *31 (finding “numerous examples in Applicant’s
U.S. patents and patent applications made of record” showed descriptive uses of the
applied-for mark).
What do the words “neuropsychiatric services” mean? We have three definitions
or explanations in the record. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary provides the
following definition: “a branch of medicine concerned with both neurology and
psychiatry.”6 Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 561 n.6 (2020) (“Evidence informing [the
genericness] inquiry can include … dictionaries … and any other source of evidence
bearing on how consumers perceive a term’s meaning.”). According to the American
Neuropsychiatric Association, “neuropsychiatry is the integrated study of psychiatric
and neurological disorders.”7 The Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute provides a
detailed history of the development of this practice area, further showing that the
applied-for mark identifies a well-established area of medical practice.8 This Institute
5 Specimen filed January 7, 2026.
6 Office Action dated May 6, 2024, at 7.
7 Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated February 14, 2025, at 74.
8 Id. at 70-72. The piece begins with the statement, “Neuropsychiatry involves the interface
area of psychiatry and neurology.” There are at least three definitions of neuropsychiatry in

Serial No. 98169669
- 7 -
provides the following definition: “Neuropsychiatry involves the interface area of
psychiatry and neurology.”9
The significance of the materials from the American Neuropsychiatry Association
10 runs deeper still, because it shows that neuropsychiatry is an established field of
medicine that has a recognized association of its practitioners. This evidence is highly
probative of the fact that at least the key “NEUROPSYCHIATRIC” part of the
applied-for mark is a generic word for a type of medical practice. When we combine
this fact with the specimen, which confirms that applicant provides neuropsychiatric
services, there can be little, if any, doubt that the applied-for mark is generic.11
But to stop here would sell the record short. The Trademark Examining Attorney
provided evidence of third-party uses of the words “neuropsychiatry” and
“neuropsychiatric” services from Stanford,12 Brigham and Women’s Hospital,13
UCLA,14 and at least five third-party practice groups that use “neuropsychiatry” or
“neuropsychiatric” in their business name.15 This evidence shows that the generic
the record, and each is consistent with the others. These definitions also appear to cover
exactly the type of medical services identified in the application.
9 Id. at 70.
10 Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated February 14, 2025, 73-75.
11 Applicant’s argument that “Neuropsychiatry is actually a subspecialty of Psychiatry,” is a
tacit admission that the word “neuropsychiatry” is generic for a type of medicine. 12
TTABVUE 9.
12 Office Action dated May 6, 2024, at 18-20 (“Stanford Neuropsychiatry Services”).
13 Id. at 21-24 (“Neuropsychiatry”).
14 Id. at 25-28 (“UCLA Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital”).
15 Final Office Action dated August 12, 2024, at 59-61 (“Divine Neuropsychiatric Services”),
62-63 (“Hunstville Neuropsychiatric Services”), 64-67 (“Shoreline Neuropsychiatric
Services”); Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated February 14, 2025, at 115-17
(“Cygnet Neuropsychiatric Services”), 122-30 (Baker Street Behavior Health lists

Serial No. 98169669
- 8 -
phrase “neuropsychiatric services” is used to identify the same type of services
identified in the application. See, e.g., BellSouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp., 60 F.3d
1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The cases have recognized that competitor use is
evidence of genericness.”) (citation omitted).
The record also contains excerpts from technical articles, online newspapers and
other publications using “neuropsychiatry” and “neuropsychiatric” to refer to the type
of medical services identified in the application.16 There is even a copy of testimony
given at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee that includes
“neuropsychiatric services” among a list of services of potential benefit to a person
who has sustained a brain injury.17 The record thus contains a wide range of generic
uses of neuropsychiatry and neuropsychiatric services.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of genericness. The words “neuropsychiatric
services” as used in the applied-for mark are generic for the type of medical services
identified in the application. Applicant provides these services, based on the specimen
it submitted. There is nothing remotely distinctive in the use of
NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES as part of its proposed mark for Applicant’s
psychiatric services, outpatient and inpatient care services, behavioral health
“Neuropsychiatric Services”). The Trademark Examining Attorney submitted entries from
NPI but provided no explanation of what this source is. The materials appear to show
additional third parties using “neuropsychiatry” or “neuropsychiatric” in their business name
or in a description of their services. Office Action dated August 12, 2024, at 7-58, 68-74. We
place little weight on this evidence because it is not clear that these are existing businesses.
16 Id. at 76, 80, 82, 85-87, 88-91, 92.
17 Id. 94-98.

Serial No. 98169669
- 9 -
services in the nature of psychiatric and outpatient psychiatric care services, and
neuropsychiatric testing.
Applicant argues that the mark as a whole is not generic because of the word
“services” and the “S.C.” at the end of the applied-for mark.18 These arguments are
specious. The word “service” and its plural “services” are found throughout the
Trademark Act. Applicant seeks registration of a service mark. To argue that the
word service is not generic for a service is pushing the limits of zealous advocacy.
The same is true for the argument that the letters S.C. at the end of the mark
somehow save the entire enterprise from the pit of genericness. Not so. A business
identifier like Inc. or Co. (S.C. identifies a Service Corporation, as the Trademark
Examining Attorney established19) is not a distinctive source identifier. This suffix
adds nothing to the rest of the mark. See, e.g., Booking. com, 591 U.S. at 558 (noting
the principle that “a generic corporate designation added to a generic term does not
confer trademark eligibility”) (citing Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v.
Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598 (1888)). And nothing plus nothing is still nothing.
Some of the misguided arguments Applicant makes under the second prong of our
standard are a result of its improper identification of the genus. Given the inclusion
of “neuropsychiatric testing” in the identified services, it was error to exclude such
services from the genus.
18 12 TTABVUE 7.
19 Office Action dated May 6, 2024, at 29-30 (Illinois Secretary of State materials regarding
a professional service corporation), 31-32 (showing that S.C. means service corporation);
Denial of Request for Reconsideration dated February 14, 2025, at 99-104, 105-09, 110-14.

Serial No. 98169669
- 10 -
The applied-for mark NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, S.C. is generic for the
services identified in the application, which constitute the genus for our analysis. The
record is overwhelming. There is no evidence supporting Applicant. Indeed, the only
evidence Applicant submitted was a definition of the word “service.” That evidence
merely confirms that service is a generic word for a service.
Decision: The genericness refusal is affirmed.