Litehouse, Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: March 11, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Litehouse, Inc.
_____
Serial No. 97501419
_____
Mark W. Hendricksen of Wells St. John P.S.,
for Litehouse, Inc.
Keri-Marie Cantone, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104,
Zachary Cromer, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lykos, Heasley and English,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lykos, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On July 13, 2022, Litehouse Inc. (“Applicant”) applied to register the proposed
mark VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE (standard characters) on the Principal Register for,
as amended, “pasta, macaroni and cheese, pasta sauce, pizza, pizza crust, croutons,
frozen meals consisting primarily of pasta or rice” in International Class 30.1
1 Application Serial No. 97501419, filed under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
Page references to the application record refer to the online database of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) system in Portable Document Format
(“PDF”). References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.

Serial No. 97501419
- 2 -
Applicant appeals the Trademark Examining Attorney’s final refusals to register
the proposed mark on grounds that VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE: (1) is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1); and (2) is so widely used by numerous third parties to convey
a message that food is nutritional that it fails to function as a trademark under
Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, 1127.
Both refusals are fully briefed.2 We affirm the mere descriptiveness refusal and
do not reach the failure to function refusal. See, e.g., In re SIPCA Holding SA, No.
88488405, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 202, at *12 (Board affirmed refusal to register for
failing to provide a definite identification and to respond to information
requirements, but declined to reach likelihood of confusion refusal).
I. Mere Descriptiveness – Applicable Law
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness,3 Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act
prohibits registration of a mark on the Principal Register that, when used in
connection with an applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive of them. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1). A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of an
2 We have given no consideration to the two third-party registrations Applicant attached its
reply brief as well as any argument relating to the registrations. See 17 TTABVUE. The
record in an application should be complete prior to the filing of an appeal. Trademark Rule
2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d). Otherwise, the correct procedure would have been for
Applicant, prior to filing its appeal brief, to have filed a separately captioned request for
remand, with a showing of good cause, along with printouts of the third-party registrations.
See TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (“TBMP”) § 1207.02
(2025).
3 To be clear, Applicant has not claimed acquired distinctiveness of its proposed mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(f).

Serial No. 97501419
- 3 -
ingredient, quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the identified goods. In re
TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Chamber of Commerce
of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). By
contrast, a mark is suggestive if it “requires imagination, thought, and perception to
arrive at the qualities or characteristics of the goods.” In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216,
1218 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
When two or more descriptive terms are combined the determination of whether
the mark has a merely descriptive significance turns on whether the combination of
terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression. See In re Oppedahl & Larson
LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d
1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) (“[T]he PTO must . . . determine whether the mark as a
whole, i.e., the combination of the individual parts, conveys any distinctive source-
identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.”). If
each component retains its descriptive significance in relation to the goods, the
combination itself is merely descriptive. See, e.g., In re Calphalon Corp., No.
86356713, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 98, at *29-30 (finding no double entendre about the use
of the word sharpen or its phonetic equivalent SHARPIN to describe the function of
knife blocks with built-in sharpeners that automatically sharpen knives). Only where
the combination of descriptive terms creates a unitary mark with a unique,
incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods is the mark
registrable as suggestive. Compare In re Tennis in the Round Inc., 1978 TTAB LEXIS
44, at *5-6 (TENNIS IN THE ROUND held not merely descriptive for providing

Serial No. 97501419
- 4 -
tennis facilities because the association of applicant’s mark with the phrase “theater-
in-the-round” created an incongruity since applicant’s tennis facilities are not
analogous to those used in a “theater-in-the-round”) with In re Mecca Grade Growers,
LLC, No. 86358219, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 64, at *8 (MECHANICALLY FLOOR-
MALTED merely descriptive of malt for brewing and distilling and processing of
agricultural grain).
“A mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and
extent’ of the applicant’s goods or services.” Oppedahl & Larson, 373 F.3d at 1173
(citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). It is
not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics, or
features of a product to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if the term
describes one significant function, attribute, or property. Chamber of Commerce, 675
F.3d at 1300.
Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant purchasing public “may
be obtained from any competent source, such as dictionaries, newspapers, or
surveys,” In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007), as well as “labels,
packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods.” In re Abcor Dev. Corp.,
588 F.2d 811, 812 (CCPA 1978). It may also be obtained from websites and
publications. In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
II. Analysis
Applicant argues that the applied-for mark VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE is
suggestive, not merely descriptive, of the identified goods, because it does

Serial No. 97501419
- 5 -
NOT directly tell the viewer what the goods are, but
instead requires the viewer to exercise imagination,
thought or perceptions. The identified goods range from
pasta to pizza to frozen meals consisting primarily of pasta
or rice and the VEGGIES portion of the mark does not refer
to those types of food. The combination of VEGGIES with
the remainder of the mark, namely, IN EVERY BITE, the
viewer must use his or her imagination, thought or
perception to reach a conclusion as to what the goods are
or the nature of the goods are [sic]. It requires the
consumer use imagination to bridge that gap.4
Applicant’s arguments are not well-taken. The determination of whether a
proposed mark is merely descriptive must be made in relation to the goods for which
registration is sought, not in the abstract. Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964. This requires
consideration of the context in which the putative mark is used or intended to be used
in connection with those goods, and the possible significance that it would have to the
average purchaser of the goods in the marketplace. Id.; see also Chamber of
Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300. In other words, the question is not whether someone
presented only with the proposed mark could guess the goods listed in the
identification. Rather, the question is whether someone who knows what the goods
are will understand the proposed mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(internal citation omitted).
Although Applicant’s goods themselves are not vegetables, this does not preclude
a finding that Applicant’s proposed mark is merely descriptive. As noted above, it is
well established that a proposed mark that refers to an ingredient is merely
4 Applicant’s Supplemental Brief, p. 4; 14 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 97501419
- 6 -
descriptive. TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d at 874. The record shows that Applicant’s
processed food items are made from vegetables. In response to the Examining
Attorney’s information request, Applicant submitted excerpts from its website,
www.veggiecraft.com, showing that Applicant’s penne pasta is made from vegetables
such as sweet potato, peas, lentils and/or cauliflower.5 Consumers encountering the
phrase VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE in connection with Applicant’s “pasta, macaroni
and cheese, pasta sauce, pizza, pizza crust, croutons, frozen meals consisting
primarily of pasta or rice” will immediately understand that vegetables are a key or
significant ingredient of Applicant’s food items. See, e.g., TriVita, 783 F.3d at 876
(“the relevant consumer, knowing that the goods are supplements containing nopal
cactus juice, would understand the mark NOPALEA to convey information that the
goods contain ingredients from the Nopalea cactus”).
Another flaw with Applicant’s contention that its proposed mark is suggestive is
that each individual word in the phrase VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE is descriptive,
and when combined, each word retains its descriptive significance rather than
projecting a separate connotation. “Veggies” is the plural version of “veggie,” a
commonly recognized shorthand for “vegetables.6 When used as a noun in the context
of food, the word “bite” denotes “morsel” i.e. “the amount of food taken at a bite” or a
“small amount of food.”7 The prepositional phrase “in every bite” modifies the noun
5 November 11, 2024, Office Action at TSDR 36-42 (printouts from veggiecraft.com).
6 THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (www.merriam-webster.com) defines “veggie” as
“vegetable.” November 21, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 5.
7 The Board takes judicial notice of the dictionary entry for the word “bite” from the online
version of THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (www.merriam-webster.com accessed on

Serial No. 97501419
- 7 -
“veggies” to convey that that each morsel of Applicant’s “pasta, macaroni and cheese,
pasta sauce, pizza, pizza crust, croutons, frozen meals consisting primarily of pasta
or rice” is composed of vegetables. The combination has no other new, unique or
incongruous meaning (such as a double entendre) in relation to the identified goods.
No mental leap or multi-stage reasoning is required to understand that vegetables
are a key ingredient.
We may also look to Applicant’s website and product packaging as evidence of
public perception. See In re Promo Ink, No. 76541018, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 138, at *4-
5 (examining attorney may introduce evidence that applicant’s own literature
supports descriptiveness of term even though application is based on intent-to-use
under Trademark Section 1(b)). Even Applicant itself uses its proposed mark
descriptively on its website to tout its penne pasta as gluten-free, high in nutritional
value, and a significant source of protein and fiber:8
Say hello to your new favorite pasta! Our 3-ingredient
pasta is filled with veggies in every bite, and takes
everything that you love about pasta and levels it up a
notch. Delicious taste, gluten-free recipe, a good source of
protein and fiber, and has 1/3 of your daily recommended
veggies per serving. Eating veggies has never been so
exciting!
(Emphasis added.) Likewise, Applicant’s product packaging for its sweet potato,
peas/lentil/zucchini and peas/lentil/cauliflower penne, draws attention to the phrase
3/9/2026). See In re White Jasmine LLC, No. 77115548, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 9, at *20 n.23
(Board may take judicial notice of online dictionaries that exist in printed format or have
regular fixed editions).
8 May 20, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 4 (response to information request).

Serial No. 97501419
- 8 -
VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE with an arrow to a forkful or “bite” of its penne to
differentiate its product from traditional pasta made from flour or wheat:9
An applicant’s own “marketing materials may be … ‘the most damaging’” evidence of
mere descriptiveness. In re Berkeley Lights, Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS
382, at *17-18.
Our finding is bolstered by evidence that it is not uncommon for competitors in
the food industry use the same phrase to advertise that their pasta, mac & cheese,
and pizza are also made from or incorporate vegetables. See, e.g., Coach Servs., Inc.
v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (evidence of
9 May 20, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 5 (response to information request).

Serial No. 97501419
- 9 -
descriptiveness may come from “evidence of third parties that use the term … to
describe [goods or] services that are similar to those identified in [the] application”).10
We note the following website evidence describing pasta, mac & cheese, and pizza
from other food manufacturers as containing “Veggies in Every Bite”:
Printouts from Shaws grocery store website
(www.shaws.com) advertising for sale in its “shopping cart”
Barilla brand Veggie Spaghetti. The product description
highlights “Made from puree from real spinach and
zucchini, this vegetable pasta promises to add color and
nutrition to your plate.” It also describes Barilla Veggie
Spaghetti as providing “Wholesome Veggies in Every
Bite.”11
Printouts from Kidfresh (www.kidfresh.com) advertising
its mac & cheese and pizza as “A Fresh Take On the Foods
Kids Love – HIDDEN VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE.”12
A press release November 9, 2017 disseminated via the PR
News Wire Association by Bird’s Eye, announcing a new
line of pasta “made from 100% vegetables” as “a healthy
alternative to your family’s favorite starchy sides. Veggie
Made Pasta does not contain wheat or flour, filler or any
artificial ingredients – just nutritious veggies in every
bite.”13
10 We have not considered outdated articles from 2002 and 2012. Nor have we considered
third-party marketplace uses of the phrase in connection with food items not included in
Applicant’s identification.
11 May 9, 2023 Office Action at TSDR 8-12.
12 May 9, 2023 Office Action at TSDR 39-40.
13 May 9, 2023 Office Action at TSDR 33. Although newswire press releases generally have
limited probative value because we cannot judge the extent of public exposure, they cannot
be completely discounted. See In re Cell Therapeutics, Inc., No. 75313795 et. al. 2003 TTAB
LEXIS 375, at *10-11 (newswire stories have less probative value than stories appearing in
magazines and newspapers; nonetheless, with the advent of personal computers, “it is much
more likely that newswire stories will reach the public because they can be picked up and
‘broadcast’ on the Internet”). Here, the Bird’s Eye newswire press release was distributed
online via Nosh Food Wire meaning that there has been some current public exposure. See

Serial No. 97501419
- 10 -
As this evidence illustrates, the phrase communicates that each forkful or bite of
food has more nutrients than traditional pasta, mac & cheese and pizza; is a way to
increase vegetable intake, especially for picky eaters such as children; and is a viable
option for consumers with dietary restrictions.
In sum, no imagination or thought is required to discern that a key ingredient of
Applicant’s “pasta, macaroni and cheese, pasta sauce, pizza, pizza crust, croutons,
frozen meals consisting primarily of pasta or rice” is vegetables. Applicant’s proposed
mark immediately conveys, without conjecture or speculation, an attribute of
Applicant’s food items. The evidence not only shows the phrase “Veggies in Every
Bite” as a descriptive phrase used by third-parties but also demonstrates that
consumers specifically look for pasta, pizza and rice composed of vegetables in lieu of
semolina flour or wheat for nutritional value or other health reasons. Competitors in
the food industry should be free to use this merely descriptive language when
describing their own items to the public in advertising and marketing materials. See
In re Styleclick.com Inc., No. 75459912, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 127, at *15 (“The intent
of Section 2(e)(1) is to protect the competitive needs of others …”).
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing evidence, the proposed mark VEGGIES IN EVERY BITE,
when considered as a whole, immediately conveys that vegetables are a key or
significant ingredient of Applicant’s “pasta, macaroni and cheese, pasta sauce, pizza,
September 14, 2023 Office Action at TSDR 10-11 (www.nosh.com/food-wire/ accessed on
9/14/2023).

Serial No. 97501419
- 11 -
pizza crust, croutons, frozen meals consisting primarily of pasta or rice.” We therefore
find Applicant’s proposed mark to be merely descriptive of the identified goods.
Decision: The mere descriptiveness refusal under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act is affirmed. As a result, we need not reach the failure to function
refusal under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act.