L-Nutra Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: December 3, 2025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re L-Nutra, Inc.
_____
Serial No. 88935187
_____
Thomas J. Speiss, III of Snell & Wilmer LLP for L-Nutra, Inc.
Kyle D. Simcox, Trademark Examining Attorney,1 Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Larkin, Cohen, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
L-Nutra, Inc. (“Applicant” or “Appellant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the proposed standard-character mark FASTING MEAL (MEAL
disclaimed) for goods identified as “Nutritionally balanced prepared meals for
medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables; nutritional meal
1 The application was initially examined by Trademark Examining Attorney Suzanne Blane,
who issued the final refusal to register from which this appeal was taken. After Applicant
appealed, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) reassigned the
application to Trademark Examining Attorney Simcox, who denied Applicant’s request for
reconsideration and filed the USPTO’s brief. We will refer to them both as the “Examining
Attorney.”

Serial No. 88935187
- 2 -
replacement drinks, soups and snacks adapted for medical use; herbal teas for
medical treatments; dietary supplements; food supplements; nutritional
supplements; vitamin and mineral supplements; Plant-based dietary supplements
containing algal oil, vegetable powders, vitamins and minerals” in International
Class 5.2
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s proposed mark
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that
Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods. When the
Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration, which was denied. The case is fully briefed.3 We affirm the refusal
to register.
I. Prosecution and Procedural History, and Record on Appeal4
We summarize below the prosecution history of the application, and the
procedural history of the appeal, because they provide useful background to our
disposition of the appeal.
2 Application Serial No. 88935187 was filed on May 27, 2020 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention
to use the mark in commerce.
3 Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other materials in the case file refer to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system. The number preceding TTABVUE corresponds to the
docket entry number, and any numbers following TTABVUE refer to the page(s) of the docket
entry where the cited materials appear. Applicant’s appeal brief appears at 6 TTABVUE and
its reply brief appears at 10 TTABVUE. The Examining Attorney’s brief appears at 8
TTABVUE.
4 Citations in this opinion to the application record are to pages in the downloadable .pdf
version of the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval database (“TSDR”).

Serial No. 88935187
- 3 -
In the initial Office Action, the Examining Attorney refused registration under
Section 2(e)(1), advised Applicant that amendment to seek registration on the
Supplemental Register was not possible because the application was filed on the basis
of Applicant’s intention to use the mark, and required a disclaimer of MEAL apart
from the mark as shown.5 The Examining Attorney made of record pages from
Applicant’s website at l-nutra.com,6 and dictionary definitions of the words “fast”7
and “meal.”8
Applicant responded by disclaiming the exclusive right to use MEAL and arguing
against the mere descriptiveness refusal.9 Applicant made of record pages from the
website of the University of Southern California (“USC”) regarding Applicant’s
founder, Valter Longo, PhD,10 and plain copies of the certificates of registration of
Applicant’s registered marks ProLon, PROLON, FASTING MIMICKING DIET, Fast
Bar and design, LONGEVITY BAR, and FASTING MIMICKING & ENCHANCING,
for various goods in International Class 5 and, in one registration, services in
International Class 44 as well.11
5 June 23, 2020 Office Action at TSDR 2-4.
6 Id. at TSDR 6-14.
7 Id. at TSDR 15-26 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).
8 Id. at TSDR 27-28 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY).
9 December 23, 2020 Response to Office Action at TSDR 5-12.
10 Id. at TSDR 13-25. Dr. Longo was identified as the Edna Jones Professor of Gerontology
and Professor in Biological Science at USC, and the director of USC’s Longevity Institute. Id.
at TSDR 13.
11 Id. at TSDR 26-33.

Serial No. 88935187
- 4 -
The Examining Attorney accepted and entered Applicant’s disclaimer of MEAL,12
and the USPTO subsequently advised Applicant that the application would be
published for opposition.13 Shortly after the application was published for opposition
on March 9, 2021,14 however, the Examining Attorney and her Managing Attorney at
the time, Laurie Kaufman, requested that jurisdiction over the application be
restored to the Examining Attorney,15 and jurisdiction was restored to the Examining
Attorney on May 11, 2021.16
The Examining Attorney then issued a non-final Office Action again refusing
registration under Section 2(e)(1).17 She made of record dictionary definitions of the
words “fast”18 and “meal,”19 pages from the website of L-Nutra Italia at l-nutra.eu,20
and pages from the websites at healthline.com, medicalnewstoday.com,
health.harvard.edu, and hopkinsmedicine.org regarding dieting and intermittent
fasting.21
12 January 28, 2021 Examiner’s Amendment at TSDR 1.
13 February 17, 2021 Notice of Publication at TSDR 1.
14 March 9, 2021 Trademark Official Gazette Publication Confirmation.
15 May 11, 2021 Administrative Response at TSDR 1.
16 Id.
17 September 20, 2021 Office Action at TSDR 3-6. This Office Action refers to a June 11, 2020
Office Action and evidence allegedly made of record in that Office Action, id. at TSDR 4-5,
but there is no June 11, 2020 Office Action in the prosecution history and the cited evidence
was not made of record through the June 23, 2020 Office Action.
18 Id. at TSDR 7-17 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).
19 Id. at TSDR 18-19 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY).
20 Id. at TSDR 20-26. Although this website has an .eu TLD, it is entirely in English.
21 Id. at TSDR 27-40, 49-72. The Office Action also includes blank pages from the forbes.com
website. Id. at TSDR 41-48.

Serial No. 88935187
- 5 -
Applicant responded by arguing against the mere descriptiveness refusal.22
Applicant made of record a copy of the Board’s non-precedential decision in In re L-
Nutra, Inc., Ser. No. 87635652, 2021 WL 4205717 (TTAB Aug. 24, 2021) (the “Fast
Drink Decision”), in which the Board reversed a mere descriptiveness refusal to
register Applicant’s mark FAST DRINK for “Nutritional meal replacement drinks
adapted for medical use; herbal teas for medical treatments,”23 a dictionary definition
of the word “fast” in various forms,24 and dictionary definitions of the words “fast,”
“fasting,” and “meal.”25
The Examining Attorney then issued an Office Action making final the mere
descriptiveness refusal.26 She made of record dictionary definitions of the word
“fasting” and the phrase “fasting glucose;”27 Wikipedia entries captioned “Fasting”
and “Juice Fasting;28 a dictionary definition of the phrase “Fasting day;29 and USPTO
electronic records regarding registrations of marks for various goods and services in
22 March 21, 2022 Response to Office Action at TSDR 5-18.
23 Id. at TSDR 19-27. In the Fast Drink Decision, the Board concluded that “[b]ecause we find
FAST DRINK equally as likely to be perceived as indicating a drink that will be used while
fasting, as a drink that can be made quickly, or as a drink that can be consumed as a quick
snack or as an on-the-go meal replacement, FAST DRINK is, at most, suggestive of the
identified goods.” L-Nutra, 2021 WL 4205717, at *4.
24 Id. at TSDR 28-32 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY).
25 Id. at TSDR 33-43 (THE FREE DICTIONARY).
26 September 28, 2024 Final Office Action at TSDR 2-8. This Office Action again referred to
the non-existent June 11, 2020 Office Action, id. at TSDR 4-5 and evidence that does not
appear in the record.
27 Id. at TSDR 10-12 (WIKTIONARY.ORG).
28 Id. at TSDR 13-21, 25-27.
29 Id. at TSDR 22-24 (THE FREE DICTIONARY).

Serial No. 88935187
- 6 -
which the word “Fasting” has been disclaimed, either alone or as part of a compound
word or phrase, or which issued on the Supplemental Register, including several such
registrations owned by Applicant for the marks INTERMITTENT FASTING BAR;
FASTING MIMICKING PROGRAM; FAST BAR INTERMITTENT FASTING BAR
and design; FASTING MIMICKING DIET; and FASTING BAR.30
Applicant then appealed and simultaneously requested reconsideration. In its
Request for Reconsideration, Applicant made of record pages from its website at
prolonlife.com,31 plain copies of the certificates of registration of its marks FASTING
MIMICKING DIET, INTERMITTENT FASTING BAR, FASTING BAR, FAST BAR
INTERMITTENT FASTING BAR and design, FASTING MIMICKING PROGRAM,
FAST BAR, FAST BAR and design, FAST WITH FOOD, and FMD,32 and plain copies
of the certificates of registration of the third-party marks PRE-FASTING, FASTING
DAYS, and FASTING LEMONADE.33
The Board suspended the appeal and remanded the application to the Examining
Attorney for consideration of Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration. 2 TTABVUE
1. The Examining Attorney denied Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration,34 and the
appeal was resumed, 5 TTABVUE 1, and is now ready for decision.
30 Id. at TSDR 28-68.
31 March 27, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 14-15.
32 Id. at TSDR 16-25.
33 Id. at TSDR 26-28.
34 May 8, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 1-5.

Serial No. 88935187
- 7 -
II. Preliminary Matters
A. Applicant’s Request for Remand
When Applicant filed its reply brief on September 15, 2025, Applicant
simultaneously filed a document captioned “Amendment Proposal and Request for
Remand,” in which Applicant requests that the Board “suspend the instant appeal
and remand the application at issue to allow Applicant to amend the goods in class
005.” 9 TTABVUE 2. Applicant requests that “the application be amended to ‘herbal
teas for medical treatments; Plant-based dietary supplements containing algal oil,
vegetable powders, vitamins and minerals’,” id. at 3, and that all other goods be
deleted.
Applicant’s reply brief treats Applicant’s “Amendment Proposal” as a fait accompli
in arguing that “[a]s amended, Appellant’s goods are for ‘herbal teas for medical
treatment; Plant-based dietary supplements containing algal oil, vegetable powders,
vitamins and minerals’,” that the goods “are not related to ‘meals’ in reference to
fasting or ‘part of a schedule abstention from or reduced consumption of foods’,” and
that “[t]here are no meals offered for fasting.” 10 TTABVUE 8 (emphasis in bold
here in italics in the original).
In In re Ox Paperboard, LLC, Ser. No. 87847482, 2020 WL 4530517 (TTAB 2020),
the Board discussed the hierarchy of preferred means for an applicant to make a
request to amend an application involved in an appeal as follows:
As a best practice, an applicant seeking to obviate a refusal
by proposing an amendment to an application should
propose the amendment as early as possible during
prosecution. If that does not occur, then the Board strongly

Serial No. 88935187
- 8 -
prefers that an applicant make such an amendment in a
request for reconsideration filed soon after the issuance of
a final Office action but prior to the applicant’s deadline for
filing a notice of appeal. Doing so provides an opportunity
for the issue to be addressed before the appeal stage. If an
applicant has missed that opportunity, then the next
preferred alternative is to file a separately captioned
request for remand and suspension of proceedings with the
Board, ideally prior to the deadline for filing an appeal
brief, so that the Board can make a prompt ruling on the
request and the examining attorney does not have to draft
a potentially unnecessary appeal brief. If the Board decides
to remand the application to the examining attorney, it will
suspend the appeal for consideration by the examining
attorney of an amendment which might obviate the refusal
(and thus the appeal).
Id. at *2.
The Board also explained in Ox Paperboard that requests to remand an
application to the Examining Attorney for examination of a proposed amendment
must be supported by a showing of good cause, and that
[g]ood cause will generally be found, for example, when the
amendment is an attempt to comply with a requirement,
such as an amendment to the identification of goods or
services in response to a requirement for an acceptable
identification, when the amendment will obviate a ground
for refusal, such as an amendment to the Supplemental
Register or an amendment to assert a Trademark Act § 2(f)
claim (15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) ) in order to avoid or overcome a
refusal under Trademark Act § 2(e)(1), Trademark Act §
2(e)(2) or Trademark Act § 2(e)(4), 15 U.S.C. §
1052(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2) or 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4),
or when the examining attorney consents to remand for
consideration of the amendment. However, whether good
cause will be found will depend, in part, on the stage of the
appeal at the time the amendment is filed, including the
reason given for the delay.
Ox Paperboard, 2020 WL 4530517, at *2 (quoting TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) Section 1205.01).

Serial No. 88935187
- 9 -
The applicant in Ox Paperboard had included a request for remand in its appeal
brief, but the Board found that the applicant had “failed to show the requisite good
cause as to why the application should be remanded to the Examining Attorney for
consideration of Applicant’s amendment” because, among other things, the applicant
“did not even request permission to amend its identification of goods; it merely
presumed that it was entitled to assert a new identification in its brief and argue the
substance of the appeal on this basis,” and “offer[ed] no explanation as to why it
waited until filing its brief to ‘propose’ an amendment to its original identification.”
Id. at *3.
Applicant and its counsel are well aware of the amendment process discussed in
Ox Paperboard. In In re L-Nutra, Inc., Ser. No. 88171365, 2021 WL 2352136 (TTAB
Mar. 18, 2021) (non-precedential) (the “Fasting Bar Case”), the Board affirmed a mere
descriptiveness refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark FASTING BAR for
“Nutritionally balanced prepared meals for medical use consisting primarily of
grains, nuts and vegetables; nutritional meal replacement snacks adapted for medical
use.”35 In the Fasting Bar Case, Applicant purported to amend its identification of
goods in its appeal brief, and the Board advised Applicant that “‘[a]s a best practice,
an applicant seeking to obviate a refusal by proposing an amendment to an
35 The Examining Attorney attached a copy of the decision in the Fasting Bar Case in
TTABVUE to his brief, 8 TTABVUE 12-37, pursuant to TBMP Section 101.03(a)(2). The
decision is also available in the Westlaw database, which we will cite.

Serial No. 88935187
- 10 -
application should propose the amendment as early as possible during prosecution.’”
Id. at *2 n.14 (quoting Ox Paperboard, 2020 WL 4530517, at *2).36
Here, Applicant followed the guidance in Ox Paperboard only to the extent of filing
a separate request for remand rather than embedding such a request in its brief, but
Applicant did not “propose the amendment as early as possible during prosecution.”
Ox Paperboard, 2020 WL 4530517, at *2. Applicant also did not propose the
amendment “in [its] [R]equest for [R]econsideration filed soon after the issuance of a
final Office action,” id., or in a request for remand made “prior to the deadline for
filing an appeal brief,” id., or even in its appeal brief itself, as it did in the Fasting
Bar Case. Instead, Applicant waited until its reply brief to seek amendment of its
identification of goods, after the Examining Attorney had (1) examined and refused
Applicant’s application based on a record directed to the goods originally identified in
the application, (2) denied Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration based on that
record and additional evidence made of record by the Examining Attorney directed to
the goods originally identified in the application, and (3) prepared and filed the
USPTO’s appeal brief based on the goods originally identified in the application. The
timing of Applicant’s remand request smacks of gamesmanship.
36 In response to Applicant’s proposed amendment in the Fasting Bar Case, the examining
attorney sought a remand, in part because she claimed that “Applicant amended the
identification to delete a significant amount of wording, and specifically the wording for
which the evidence in the record was strongest in order to avoid the refusal.” L-Nutra, 2021
WL 2352136, at *3. A remand was granted, and the examining attorney made of record
additional evidence before filing her brief. Id. Here, it also appears that Applicant sought
amendment to delete “the wording for which the evidence in the record was strongest in order
to avoid the refusal,” id., but Applicant did so only after the Examining Attorney had filed
his brief, giving him no opportunity to address the amendment or seek a remand to offer
additional evidence.

Serial No. 88935187
- 11 -
As the Board explained in Ox Paperboard, whether good cause for a remand
request “will be found will depend, in part, on the stage of the appeal at the time the
amendment is filed, including the reason given for the delay.” Id. (quoting TBMP
§ 1205.01). Applicant’s remand request was made more than five years after the
application was filed, and nearly six months after the appeal was filed, at the last
stage of the appeal prior to its submission for decision,37 and, like the applicant in Ox
Paperboard, Applicant “offers no explanation as to why it waited until filing its [reply]
brief to ‘propose’ an amendment to its original identification.” Id. at *3. “Given the
late stage of Applicant’s ‘request’ without any explanation for the reason for the delay,
we find that Applicant has failed to demonstrate good cause to suspend the appeal
and remand the application to the Examining Attorney for consideration of
Applicant’s proposed amendment and further examination.” Id. Applicant’s request
for a remand is denied, and we will decide the appeal based on the identification of
goods that was discussed in Applicant’s appeal brief and in the Examining Attorney’s
brief.
B. The Examining Attorney’s Evidentiary Objection
Applicant attached 12 exhibits to its appeal brief consisting of webpages and the
certificates of registration of various of Applicant’s marks. 6 TTABVUE 20-44. The
Examining Attorney addresses these attachments as follows:
Upon review, it appears that the majority of this evidence
is merely reproductions of evidence previously provided by
37 Applicant originally requested an oral hearing, 12 TTABVUE 1-2, but then withdrew that
request after the hearing was scheduled, stating that “the Board may proceed to decide the
appeal on the written record and briefs.” 15 TTABVUE 2.

Serial No. 88935187
- 12 -
applicant over the course of examination. To the extent this
is the case, the examining attorney will refer to the original
copies of said evidence, with citation to the appropriate
location in the TSDR record where necessary. To the extent
that any of the evidence proffered in the appeal brief differs
from that provided over the course of examination, or
constitutes new evidence offered for the first time on
appeal, the examining attorney objects to such evidence. . .
. Because any new evidence was untimely submitted
during an appeal, the trademark examining attorney
objects to any such evidence and requests that the Board
disregard it.
8 TTABVUE 2-3 (citations omitted). Applicant does not respond to this objection in
its reply brief.
The Board strongly discourages the practice of attaching materials to briefs:
Parties to Board cases occasionally seem to be under the
impression that attaching previously-filed evidence to a
brief and citing to the attachments, rather than to the
original submission is a courtesy or a convenience to the
Board. It is neither. When considering a case for final
disposition, the entire record is readily available to the
panel. Because we must determine whether attachments
to briefs are properly of record, citation to the attachment
requires examination of the attachment and then an
attempt to locate the same evidence in the record developed
during the prosecution of the application, requiring more
time and effort than would have been necessary if citations
directly to the prosecution history were provided.
In re Michalko, Ser. No. 85584271, 2014 WL2531202, at *1 (TTAB 2014). This case
presents a textbook example of the conundrum discussed in Michalko.
We cannot determine on the face of the 12 exhibits attached to Applicant’s brief
which exhibits are in the record and which are not. Applicant provides no help in that
regard, as its appeal brief merely describes the exhibits. 6 TTABVUE 11 (describing
Exhibit A as materials on “Appellant’s website”), 17 (describing Exhibit B as a “copy

Serial No. 88935187
- 13 -
of Dr. Longo’s biography as it appears on the USC website”), 18 (describing Exhibits
C-L as “trademark registrations, one of which is incontestable, centered upon the
dominant term ‘FAST,’ and ‘FASTING’ . . . .”). Because Applicant cites to the exhibits
and not to the record, we have been forced to “attempt to locate the same evidence in
the record developed during the prosecution of the application, requiring more time
and effort than would have been necessary if citations directly to the prosecution
history were provided.” Michalko, 2014 WL2531202, at *1.38
Based on our review of the record summarized above, the pages from the
prolonlife.com website, 6 TTABVUE 20-21, Dr. Longo’s biography on the USC
website, id. at 22-34, and the copies of the certificates of registration of Applicant’s
marks, id. at 35-44, all appear in the record, and we overrule the Examining
Attorney’s objections.
III. Mere Descriptiveness Refusal
A. Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the
38 The Examining Attorney also provides no help because after conducting a review of the
exhibits and concluding that “the majority of this evidence is merely reproductions of
evidence previously provided by applicant over the course of examination,” 8 TTABVUE 2,
the Examining Attorney does not identify either the “reproductions” or “any of the evidence
proffered in the appeal brief [that] differs from that provided over the course of examination,
or constitutes new evidence offered for the first time on appeal.” Id. at 3.

Serial No. 88935187
- 14 -
applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them,” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), unless the mark
has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).39
“A term is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or services, within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1), if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient,
quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the goods or services.” In
re Zuma Array Ltd., Ser. No. 79288888, 2022 WL 3282655, at *3 (TTAB 2022)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). “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.” In re Chamber of Com. of the United States, 675 F.3d 1297, 1300
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (cleaned up; citation omitted).
“Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. Rather, it is
considered 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.” In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations
omitted). “The question is not whether someone presented with only the mark could
guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who
knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
39 Applicant did not amend its application to make a claim of acquired distinctiveness under
Section 2(f), but as discussed below, some of its arguments read as if it were making such a
claim.

Serial No. 88935187
- 15 -
Applicant’s proposed mark FASTING MEAL consists of two words. We must
“consider the commercial impression of [the] mark as a whole . . . .” Real Foods Pty
Ltd. v. Frito Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted;
emphasis in bold here in italics in the original). “In considering [the] mark as a whole,
[we] may not dissect the mark into isolated elements, without consider[ing] . . . the
entire mark,” id. (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted), “but [we] may
weigh the individual components of the mark to determine the overall impression or
the descriptiveness of the mark and its various components.” Id. (internal quotation
and quotation marks omitted). Indeed, we are “required to examine the meaning of
each component individually, and then determine whether the mark as a whole is
merely descriptive.” DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1255 (citation omitted). See also Heritage
All., Inc. v. Am. Pol’y Roundtable, 133 F.4th 1063, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
“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 Omniome,
Inc., Ser. No. 87661190, 2019 WL 7596207, at *5 (TTAB 2019). “A mark comprising
a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable only if the combination
of terms creates a unitary mark with a non-descriptive meaning, or if the composite
has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to the goods or services.” Id. (citing
In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 (CCPA 1968)). “If the words in the proposed
mark are individually descriptive of the identified goods, we must determine whether
their combination ‘conveys any distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to
the descriptiveness of the individual parts.’” In re Fallon, Ser. No. 86882668, 2020

Serial No. 88935187
- 16 -
WL 6255423, at *9 (TTAB 2020) (quoting In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, Ser. No.
86490930, 2016 WL 3915986, at *6 (TTAB 2016) (citation omitted)). “If each word
instead retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods, the
combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.” Id. (quoting Fat
Boys, 2016 WL 3915986, at *6 (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted)).
“Whether a mark is merely descriptive or not is determined from the viewpoint of
the relevant purchasing public.” In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir.
2005). The identification of goods in the application establishes that the relevant
consumers are purchasers of prepared meals, and drinks, soups and snacks, for
medical use, herbal teas for medical treatments, and various forms of supplements,
which purchasers include members of the general public.40
“Evidence of the public’s understanding of [a] term . . . may be obtained from any
competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in
dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.” Real Foods, 906
F.3d at 974 (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted). “These sources may
include [w]ebsites, publications and use in labels, packages, or in advertising
materials directed to the goods.” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted). “Additionally, evidence that
a term is merely descriptive may be found in third-party usage in connection with
40 To sustain the refusal to register, the Examining Attorney need not show that Applicant’s
proposed mark is merely descriptive of all of the distinct goods set forth in the identification
of goods. “[R]egistration should be refused if the mark is descriptive of any of the goods for
which registration is sought.” Stereotaxis, 429 F.3d at 1041 (citations omitted).

Serial No. 88935187
- 17 -
goods or services similar or related to those at issue.” In re Nursecon, LLC, Ser. No.
88052194, 2024 WL 5265079, at *6 (TTAB 2024) (citing Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph
Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
B. Summary of Arguments
1. Applicant’s Arguments in Its Appeal Brief41
Applicant argues that
The term “FASTING” is not merely descriptive of
Appellant’s medically used meals and supplements for
medical treatment. Here, the term “FASTING” does not
immediately convey an idea of an ingredient, quality,
characteristic, feature, function, purpose, or use of the
goods. Instead, the Mark require[s] imagination, thought,
or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of [the]
goods, and is, therefore, at most, suggestive of Appellant’s
identified goods.
6 TTABVUE 9 (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted).
Applicant further argues that
the term “FASTING” does not merely describe Appellant’s
medically used meals related to meal replacements for
medical use and supplements. Here, FASTING MEAL is a
broad term that encompasses a broad category of goods but
does not immediately convey products for medical use,
mainly nutritiously balanced meals for medical use,
including grains, nuts, vegetables, drinks, soups, oil, and
supplements.
Id. at 10.
41 The arguments in Applicant’s reply brief are directed to “the goods (as amended) ‘herbal
teas for medical treatment; Plant-based dietary supplements contain algal oil, vegetable
powders, vitamins and minerals,’ in International Class 005.” 10 TTABVUE 6. Because we
have denied Applicant’s eleventh-hour request for a remand to delete goods from its
application, we will consider whether FASTING MEAL is merely descriptive of any of the
goods originally identified in the application, and we will not consider the arguments in
Applicant’s reply brief directed to the purported new identification.

Serial No. 88935187
- 18 -
According to Applicant, “‘FASTING’ is used as a way to identify the source,
Appellant’s FAST family of marks under its FAST and FASTING brand.” Id. at 10.
Specifically, “FASTING” refers to identifying human
biophysical sites of action to support a body’s healthy
aging, promote cell-based renewal, promote weight loss,
and support metabolic health. Appellant has spent
substantial time and effort in promoting and educating the
technology behind the health benefits in its products. In
fact, Appellant’s website explains that their [sic] products
are “formulated to activate your body’s natural cell-
rejuvenating processes” and “designed to target fat loss
while protecting muscle mass.” (See Ex. A). Here,
Appellant is using the “FASTING” word as a source
identifying mark to identify the fasting diet and
Appellant’s associated goods and services.
Id. at 11 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
Applicant acknowledges that the Examining Attorney “has provided separate
definitions of FASTING and MEAL,” but argues that the Examining Attorney “has
not submitted for the record any definition for the full mark FASTING MEAL to show
the full mark’s meaning, that is the context in relation to the covered goods, or how
the target customers would understand the composite mark to immediately describe”
the goods identified in the application. Id. at 13. Applicant claims that “given
Applicant’s family of FAST related marks and its FAST and FASTING brand,
consumers are likely to be introduced to Applicant’s products as its displayed next to
or near its other FAST branded products, increasing the likelihood of a consumer
recognizing the mark to denote source of the product.” Id.
According to Applicant, its proposed mark
is ambiguous because FASTING MEAL does not
immediately convey what a MEAL would be. A
customer is required to use some imagination to interpret

Serial No. 88935187
- 19 -
what the actual goods would be in relation to the Mark.
There is no commonly understood definition as to what a
fasting meal may contain. As the Examining Attorney
pointed out, there are a variety of different types of fasting
and diets. The Examining Attorney points out that there is
juice fasting, fasting glucose, and intermittent fasting.
Because there is no commonly defined diet associated with
FASTING, the mark FASTING MEAL is ambiguous.
Id. at 14 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
Applicant further argues that its proposed mark
as intended to be used in connection with nutrition, does
not convey an immediate idea about the goods with any
degree of particularity. Whether the term “fasting” is
perceived to mean “abstaining,” the combination with the
term “meal” does not result in a merely descriptive
designation. The mark FASTING MEAL requires
imagination, thought and perception to reach any
conclusion as to the nature of the goods since FASTING
makes no sense as a modifier of MEAL. A consumer must
engage in mature thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning
process to determine any specific attributes of Appellant’s
product - - Does fasting mean a twice-a-week approach?
Does fasting mean alternate day fasting, or daily fasting?
Does fasting involve fasting completely, or is there a meal
included with the fasting?
Id. at 15.
Applicant concludes that
[t]he FASTING MEAL mark is conspicuously unlike other
marks where with other marks the combination of terms
makes immediate descriptive sense. First, a consumer
must connect the term “FASTING” to either “abstinence”
or “intermittent fasting,” or “time-resisted fasting,” and
further connect the meanings as applied to the term
“meal.” Next, upon making these respective connections,
the consumer is then forced to make some sense out of the
various meanings conveyed by the incongruous
combination of the two terms. This need to resort to
imagination renders the mark only suggestive. Last, in
sum, the significance of the incongruous combination as a

Serial No. 88935187
- 20 -
whole, when the applied-for mark “FASTING MEAL” is
considered in the context of the goods, it is somewhat vague
and unclear, and the mark is thus suggestive of the goods.
Id. at 16.42
Applicant also points to its registrations “centered upon the dominant term
‘FAST,’ and ‘FASTING,’” which Applicant claims “are part and parcel of Appellant’s
established and expanding commercial reputation as a leader in the field of
‘nutritional health’” and show “that the Mark is source-indicative of the FAST and
FASTING Diet associated with Appellant . . . .” Id. at 18.
2. The Examining Attorney’s Arguments
The Examining Attorney responds that the record contains
evidence from Merriam-Webster showing that the term
“FASTING” means abstaining from foods or eating of foods
sparingly . . ., and from the American Heritage Dictionary
showing that the term “MEAL” means the food served and
eaten in one sitting. . . . It should be noted that the
applicant does not refute that “MEAL” is descriptive of
applicant’s goods, and even states in its brief that “[a]t
present, the only term at issue is ‘FASTING’ because
Appellant has disclaimed ‘MEAL.’”
8 TTABVUE 4 (citations omitted).
42 As noted above, Applicant does not seek registration of its proposed mark based on acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f), but Applicant makes some arguments that make it seem
that acquired distinctiveness is its claimed basis for registration on the Principal Register.
Applicant provides “information so as to further familiarize the Board with its marketplace
presence and goods,” id. at 17, including information about Dr. Longo, and states that
Applicant “is the exclusive licensee of the FASTING MIMICKING DIET® technology
pioneered by Dr. Longo and others at USC,” id., and that “Dr. Longo’s FASTING
MIMICKING DIET® has been the subject of numerous media mentions, including as part of
the Dr. Oz show, and in traditional media outlets such as Harper’s Bazaar, the Los Angeles
Times, NEWSWEEK, The Huffington Post, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, and TIME
magazine.” Id.

Serial No. 88935187
- 21 -
With respect to the word “FASTING,” the Examining Attorney argues that
the record also includes numerous examples from third-
party sources showing that the term “FASTING” is
commonly used within the relevant dieting and nutrition
industries to describe a particular type of diets known as
fasting or restricted calorie diets, that involve periodic
abstention from food or eating foods in substantially
reduced quanties [sic] or according to certain schedules.
Id. (record citations omitted).
The Examining Attorney also argues that the record contains “a number of third-
party registrations containing the wording ‘FASTING’ for the same or related goods
in which either the term ‘FASTING’ is disclaimed or the mark in its entirety is
registered under a Section 2(f) claim or on the Supplemental Register” and that
“Applicant itself also provided a number of similar third-party registrations, many of
which it owns itself.” Id. at 5 (citations omitted).
The Examining Attorney further argues that “both the individual components and
the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not
create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods
and/or services,” that “[s]pecifically, the mark FASTING MEAL, both in its
component elements and as a composite whole, immediately communicates to
consumers that applicant produces and provides single sitting portions of food that
can be consumed as part of a schedule of abstention from or reduced consumption of
foods,” and that “[i]n other words, applicant produces meals that can be consumed
while fasting or as part of a fasting diet.” Id. at 6.
According to the Examining Attorney,

Serial No. 88935187
- 22 -
[t]his understanding is confirmed and reinforced by
applicant itself. Applicant itself notes in its brief that its
website “indicates that its meals are to be eaten while
otherwise fasting because the[y] mimic the effect of fasting
on the body” . . . Similarly, applicant stated in its Request
for Reconsideration that applicant has “spent substantial
time and effort in promoting and educating the technology
behind the fasting benefits in their products” and that its
meals “trigger the various stages of fasting that contribute
cellular renewal” . . . and continuously referred to its foods
as part of a “fasting diet”, in lower case and in un-
emphasized font in a manner common of descriptive usage.
As such, applicant itself confirms that its goods are
intended for use in connection with fasting and/or for
achieving weight loss common in fasting.
Id. (citations omitted; emphasis supplied by the Examining Attorney).
The Examining Attorney also argues that the refusal to register “is wholly
consistent with the Office’s treatment of applicant’s multiple previous attempts to
register marks that are substantively similar to the mark at issue in this case.” Id.
The Examining Attorney states that “[m]ost notably, the Board recently affirmed the
Office’s Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register applicant’s mark FASTING BAR for similar
‘nutritionally balanced prepared meals’ and other nutritional and dietary supplement
goods.” Id. at 6-7 (citing the decision in the Fasting Bar Case). The Examining
Attorney acknowledges the limitations on citation of non-precedential decisions, but
argues that the Fasting Bar Decision “involves the same applicant and presented a
nearly identical question of both law and fact” and that “it has direct probative value
with respect the refusal in the instant appeal.” Id. at 11 n.1.
The Examining Attorney argues that in the Fasting Bar Case, “the Board found
that the terms ‘FASTING’ and ‘BAR’ were individually descriptive of applicant’s
goods, which were meal replacement snack foods in bar form that could be used in

Serial No. 88935187
- 23 -
fasting or as part of a fasting or fasting mimicking diet,” and then “further
determined that the terms retained their merely descriptive meaning when
considered as a composite whole, holding that . . . ‘FASTING BAR would immediately
be understood to describe meal replacement snacks in bar form that are used in the
course of eating sparingly or abstaining from some foods.’” Id. at 7 (quoting L-Nutra,
2021 WL 2352136, at *11). The Examining Attorney claims that “same logic from this
case can and should be applied[ ] here” because the “mark FASTING MEAL is
substantively and structurally similar, if not virtually identical to, the mark
FASTING BAR, and the goods at issue here are functionally identical to those at issue
in the prior case.” Id. According to the Examining Attorney,
in the same way the composite phrase FASTING BAR
merely described “snacks in bar form that are used in the
course of eating sparingly or abstaining from some foods,[”]
it should be consistently held that FASTING MEAL merely
describes meals that are used in the course of eating
sparingly or abstaining from some foods.
Id.
The Examining Attorney also argues that “the evidence of record provided by
applicant itself clearly establishes the Office’s consistent treatment of ‘FASTING’ as
descriptive of applicant’s specified goods,” id., because each of Applicant’s
registrations “either includes a specific disclaimer of the term ‘FASTING’ or is
registered on the Supplemental Register.” Id. The Examining Attorney notes that
Applicant “has not argued that circumstances or conditions surrounding this term as
it relates to these goods have changed such as to warrant departure from consistency,
nor has it provided evidence to support such an argument,” and “this consistent

Serial No. 88935187
- 24 -
treatment of applicant’s prior ‘FASTING’ formative marks weighs in favor of
similarly finding the applied-for mark FASTING MEAL descriptive of applicant’s
goods in this case.” Id.
C. Analysis
As discussed above, we must first “examine the meaning of each component of
[FASTING MEAL] individually, and then determine whether the mark as a whole is
merely descriptive.” DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1255 (citation omitted). We begin with
the word MEAL, which in the context of at least the goods identified as “nutritionally
balanced prepared meals for medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and
vegetables” and “nutritional meal replacement drinks, soups and snacks adapted for
medical use,” means “the food served and eaten in one sitting.”43 Applicant disclaimed
the exclusive right to use MEAL apart from the mark as shown,44 thus conceding that
MEAL is at least merely descriptive of the goods identified in the application.45 Zuma
Array, 2022 WL 3282655, at *7 (citations omitted). Indeed, according to Applicant,
“the only term at issue is ‘FASTING’ because Appellant has disclaimed ‘MEAL.’” 6
TTABVUE 9.
As the Board found in the Fasting Bar Case, the “word FASTING in Applicant’s
proposed mark is the gerund form of the verb ‘fast,’” L-Nutra, 2021 WL 2352136, at
43 June 23, 2020 Office Action at TSDR 27 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY); March
21, 2022 Response to Office Action at TSDR 39 (THE FREE DICTIONARY).
44 December 23, 2020 Response to Office Action at TSDR 12.
45 In the goods identified in the application as “nutritionally balanced prepared meals for
medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables,” the word “meal” is used in
the plural as the generic name for the goods.

Serial No. 88935187
- 25 -
*8, which the record shows means “the act or practice of abstaining from or eating
very little food,”46 and “to eat sparingly or abstain from some foods.”47 As discussed
below, the record shows that in the context of the identified goods, and the fields of
nutrition and dieting in which they are sold, “fasting” frequently involves “eat[ing]
very little food” and “eat[ing] sparingly or abstain[ing] from some foods,” rather than
total abstinence from food, and that “fasting” may involve the consumption of at least
the goods identified in the application as “Nutritionally balanced prepared meals for
medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables” and “nutritional
meal replacement drinks, soups and snacks adapted for medical use.”
Applicant’s website at l-nutra.com contains a section captioned “Fasting With
Food™,” which states that USC’s Longevity Institute and Dr. Longo “discovered a
nutrition formulation that supplies the body with specific foods while also allowing it
to remain in a fasted state for a variety of life-enhancing health benefits.”48
Applicant’s website at l-nutra.eu discusses “Fasting Mimicking Diets” (“FMD”) which
“provide healthy, natural, and scientifically tested ingredients that nourish the body
while it does not recognize it is eating” and a “fasting-with-food meal plan [that] is
low in carbohydrates and proteins and contains healthy fatty acids.”49 Applicant’s
46 March 21, 2022 Response to Office Action at TSDR 31 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY), 35 (THE FREE DICTIONARY).
47 June 23, 2020 Office Action at TSDR 17 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).
48 Id. at TSDR 12-13.
49 September 20, 2021 Office Action at TSDR 20-21. Applicant stated during prosecution that
its goods are based on “‘Fasting Mimicking’ Research” conducted by Dr. Longo, December 23,
2020 Response to Office Action at TSDR 6, and the “Publications” portion of Dr. Longo’s
curriculum vitae lists multiple published works with the phrase “fasting-mimicking diet” in
their titles. Id. at TSDR 14-17.

Serial No. 88935187
- 26 -
website at prolonlife.com also discusses FMDs, which “offer[ ] the benefits of a water-
only fast, but with carefully formulated food” designed “to target fat loss while
protecting muscle mass.”50 Applicant acknowledges that its “website indicates that
its meals are to be eaten while otherwise fasting because they mimic the effect of
fasting on the body.” 6 TTABVUE 18.51
Here, as in the Fasting Bar Case, the record as a whole, particularly Applicant’s
websites, makes it clear that the word FASTING in Applicant’s proposed mark
describes a feature or attribute of at least the goods identified in the application as
“nutritionally balanced prepared meals for medical use consisting primarily of grains,
nuts and vegetables” and “nutritional meal replacement drinks, soups and snacks
adapted for medical use,” namely, that those goods are consumed while “eat[ing]
sparingly or abstain[ing] from certain foods.” L-Nutra, 2021 WL 2352136, at *9.
We have found that both FASTING and MEAL are individually descriptive of at
least the goods identified in the application as “nutritionally balanced prepared meals
for medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables” and “nutritional
meal replacement drinks, soups and snacks adapted for medical use,” but we must
decide whether their combination “‘conveys any distinctive source-identifying
impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.”’ Fat Boys, 2016
WL 3915986, at *6 (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 371 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed.
50 March 27, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 15.
51 Articles on the websites of Medical News Today, Harvard Health Publishing, and Johns
Hopkins Medicine discuss the use of foods identified in the application in the course of
“intermittent fasting,” which involves eating only during certain hours in the day. September
20, 2021 Office Action at TSDR 49-72.

Serial No. 88935187
- 27 -
Cir. 2004)). Applicant makes several arguments, a few of which echo arguments made
in the Fasting Bar Case, that the combination of FASTING and MEAL “creates a
unitary mark with a non-descriptive meaning” or a “composite [that] has a bizarre or
incongruous meaning as applied to the goods,” Omniome, 2019 WL 7596207, at *5,
but Applicant’s arguments all miss the mark.52
Applicant properly notes that “‘[t]he question is not whether someone presented
with only the mark could guess what the goods or services are,’” 6 TTABVUE 12
(quoting DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1254), but Applicant then argues that “FASTING
MEAL is a broad term that encompasses a broad category of goods but does not
immediately convey products for medical use, mainly nutritiously balanced meals for
medical use, including grains, nuts, vegetables, drinks, soups, oil, and supplements.”
Id. at 10. Here, as in the Fasting Bar Case, “Applicant’s argument that its proposed
mark FASTING [MEAL] is suggestive because consumers cannot determine the
goods identified in its application from the face of the mark itself is meritless because
it addresses the wrong inquiry.” L-Nutra, 2021 WL 2352136, at *11. A consumer who
knows that the goods are “nutritionally balanced prepared meals for medical use
consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables” and “nutritional meal
replacement drinks, soups and snacks adapted for medical use” will understand
FASTING MEAL to describe “nutritionally balanced prepared meals” and
52 As noted above, Applicant’s arguments suggesting that FASTING BAR has acquired
distinctiveness, 6 TTABVUE 17-18, and belongs to Applicant’s “FAST family of marks under
its FAST and FASTING brand,” id. at 10, are irrelevant because Applicant does not seek
registration under Section 2(f).

Serial No. 88935187
- 28 -
“nutritional meal replacement[s]” that, in Applicant’s words, “are to be eaten while
otherwise fasting because they mimic the effect of fasting on the body.” 6 TTABVUE
18.
As discussed above, Applicant also argues that “while the Examiner has provided
separate definitions of FASTING and MEAL . . . the Examiner has not submitted for
the record any definition for the full mark FASTING MEAL to show the full mark’s
meaning . . . .,” id. at 13, and that “[t]here is no commonly understood definition as to
what a fasting meal may contain.” Id. at 14.
In the Fasting Bar Case, Applicant similarly argued “that if the record does not
show descriptive use of its proposed mark FASTING BAR per se, the mark cannot
ipso facto be descriptive.” L-Nutra, 2021 WL 2352136, at *10. Here, as there, “[t]hat
is not the law.” Id. There is no dictionary definition of the term “fasting meal” and no
evidence that any third party uses that term, but even if Applicant coined it, “[t]here
is no requirement that the Examining Attorney prove that others have used the mark
at issue or that they need to use it” and “‘[t]he fact that Applicant may be the first or
only user of [the] term does not render that term distinctive, if it otherwise meets the
standard’ for descriptiveness.” Id. (quoting Fat Boys, 2016 WL 3915986, at *5 (citing
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 122 (2004)
(trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining “a complete monopoly on
use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first” (citation omitted)).
As discussed above, Applicant also points to its portfolio of registrations forming
what it calls a “family of marks . . . centered upon the dominant term ‘FAST,’ and

Serial No. 88935187
- 29 -
‘FASTING’ . . . .” 6 TTABVUE 18. Applicant lists nine registrations that contain these
words:
(1) FASTING MIMICKING DIET, Reg. No. 5,487,435
(incontestable); (2) INTERMITTENT FASTING BAR,
Reg. No. 6,741,432; (3) FASTING BAR, Reg. No.
7,451,632; (4) FAST BAR INTERMITTENT FASTING
BAR (& Design), Reg. No. 6,792,807; (5) FASTING
MIMICKING PROGRAM, Reg. No. 6,629,444; (6) FAST
BAR, Reg. No. 6,836,043; (7) FAST BAR & Design, Reg.
No. 5,958,685; (8) FAST BAR & Design, Reg. No.
6,792,802; (9) FAST WITH FOOD, Reg. No. 7,000,784 . . .
.
Id. (emphasis supplied by Applicant).53 Applicant also owns Registration No. 5183115
of the mark FASTING MIMICKING & ENHANCING on the Principal Register for
the goods identified in the current application,54 and Registration No. 5032303 of the
mark FASTING MIMICKING & ENHANCING on the Principal Register for
“nutritional additives for medical purposes used in foods and dietary supplements for
human consumption; dietary supplements; nutritional supplement energy bars.”55
Applicant suggests that these registrations support the registration of its proposed
mark FASTING MEAL. Id.
With respect to the USPTO’s issuance of Applicant’s registrations of other
FASTING-formative marks, “[i]t is axiomatic that the Board must assess each mark
on its own facts and record,” In re Korn Ferry, Ser. No. 90890949, 2024 WL 3219482,
at *5 (TTAB 2024) (quotation and quotation marks omitted), and “the prior decisions
53 Applicant lists a 10th registration of the mark FMD, which, as noted above, abbreviates
“Fasting Mimicking Diet,” but does not contain either FAST or FASTING. 6 TTABVUE 18.
54 December 23, 2020 Response to Office Action at TSDR 32.
55 Id. at TSDR 33. This registration also covers certain services in Class 44.

Serial No. 88935187
- 30 -
and actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks are
not binding upon the USPTO or the Board.” Id. (citation omitted). “Each case is
decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits.” Id. (quotation and
quotation marks omitted). But unlike in Korn Ferry, where the USPTO’s prior
issuance of registrations to the applicant without requiring a disclaimer of the word
ARCHITECT at issue in that case was offered in support of the applicant’s argument
that a disclaimer of ARCHITECT should once again not be required, the USPTO’s
prior issuance of registrations of FASTING-formative marks to Applicant actually
supports the Examining Attorney’s position that FASTING MEAL is merely
descriptive.
Applicant was required to disclaim the exclusive right to use FASTING (either
alone or as part of a longer phrase) to obtain Principal Register registrations of
FASTING MIMICKING DIET for “Dietary supplements; nutritional supplement
energy bars” (Registration No. 5487435), FASTING MIMICKING AND
ENHANCING (Registration Nos. 5183115 and 5032303) for the goods identified in
the current application and for “nutritional additives for medical purposes used in
foods and dietary supplements for human consumption; dietary supplements;
nutritional supplement energy bars,” and FAST BAR INTERMITTENT FASTING
BAR and design for “nutritional meal replacement snacks adapted for medical use;
food supplements; nutritional supplements; plant-based supplements containing
algal oil, vegetable powders, and vitamins and minerals” (Registration No. 6792807).
As discussed above, Applicant’s disclaimer of FASTING in these registrations is an

Serial No. 88935187
- 31 -
admission that FASTING is merely descriptive of the involved goods. See, e.g., In re
Six Continents Ltd., Ser. No. 88430142, 2022 WL 407385, at *8 (TTAB 2022)
(collecting cases).56
Applicant also owns Supplemental Register registrations of the marks
INTERMITTENT FASTING BAR for “Nutritional meal replacement snacks adapted
for medical use; food supplements; nutritional supplements; plant-based
supplements containing algal oil, vegetable powders, and vitamins and minerals”
(Registration No. 6741432), and FASTING BAR for “Nutritionally balanced prepared
meals for medical use consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables; nutritional
meal replacement snacks adapted for medical use; food supplements; and, plant-
based dietary and nutritional supplements containing algal oil, vegetable powders,
and vitamins and minerals” (Registration No. 7451632). Registration of a mark on
the Supplemental Register “constitutes an admission that the mark is descriptive at
the time of registration.” State Permits, Inc. v. Fieldvine, Inc., Canc. No. 92075095,
2024 WL 3825297, at *12 (TTAB 2024) (citing In re Future Ads LLC, Ser. No.
85134539, 2012 WL 3263733, at *2 (TTAB 2012)). Applicant’s portfolio of
registrations shows that the USPTO has consistently treated the word FASTING as
56 The Examining Attorney also made of record third-party Principal Register registrations
of marks in which FASTING was disclaimed (either alone or as part of a longer phrase) for
various types of supplements and other Class 5 goods, September 28, 2024 Final Office Action
at TSDR 28-29 (Registration No. 5736819 of VIRTUALFASTING), 39-40 (Registration No.
6099801 of FASTING ELECTROLYTES* and design), 48-49 (Registration No. 7382230 of
IFS INTERMITTENT FASTING SUPPORT OPTIMIZING YOUR FASTING PROGRAM and
design), 61-62 (Registration No. 7324755 of FASTING REIMAGINED). Disclaimers in third-
party registrations “are evidence, albeit not conclusive, of descriptiveness of the term.”
Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co., 833 F.2d 1560, 1564 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
(citation omitted).

Serial No. 88935187
- 32 -
merely descriptive of goods identical to or similar to those identified in the current
application.
We find that the whole of Applicant’s proposed mark FASTING MEAL is nothing
more than the sum of its merely descriptive parts. Here, as in the Fasting Bar Case,
“[t]he two component words of the mark combine in a manner and order that would
be easily interpreted by persons familiar with the English language and the
goods.” Fat Boys, 2016 WL 3915986, at *6. FASTING MEAL “would immediately be
understood to describe [‘nutritionally balanced prepared meals for medical use
consisting primarily of grains, nuts and vegetables’ and ‘nutritional meal
replacement drinks, soups and snacks adapted for medical use’] that are used in the
course of eating sparingly or abstaining from some foods.” L-Nutra, 2021 WL
2352136, at *11. We thus find, based on the record as a whole, that the Examining
Attorney showed that Applicant’s proposed mark FASTING MEAL is merely
descriptive of a feature or attribute of at least two of the goods identified in the
application, and Applicant’s proposed mark is thus ineligible for registration on the
Principal Register in the absence of a showing of acquired distinctiveness.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.