Knoll, Inc.

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Hearing: March 26, 2026 Mailed: March 30, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Knoll, Inc.
_____
Serial No. 98370045
_____
Christopher Turk of the Belles Group, P.C.,
for Knoll, Inc.
Philip Liu, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109,
Michael Kazazian, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Pologeorgis, Thurmon, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Pologeorgis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Knoll, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
standard character mark TUGENDHAT for “seating furniture” in International
Class 20.1
1 Application Serial No. 98370045, filed on January 22, 2024, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). The application includes the following translation
statement: “The wording ‘TUGENDHAT’ has no meaning in a foreign language.”

Serial No. 98370045
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4), on the ground that
TUGENDHAT is primarily merely a surname.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. When the request for reconsideration was denied, this appeal
resumed. The appeal is fully briefed. An oral hearing was held on March 26, 2026.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law – Primarily Merely a Surname
Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that is
“primarily merely a surname.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4).2 “The test for determining
whether a mark is primarily merely a surname is the primary significance of the
mark as a whole to the purchasing public.” In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552,
554 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also In re Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d 629, 631 (CCPA
1975) (the “primary significance to the purchasing public” is determinative) (citations
omitted); In re Six Continents Ltd., No. 88430142, 2022 WL 407385, at *3 (TTAB
2022) (“We conduct our analysis from the perspective of the purchasing public
because it is that impact or impression which should be evaluated in determining
2 A mark consisting of surname may be registered on the Principal Register if the surname
has acquired distinctiveness as a source identifier under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.
15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). See, e.g., Schlafly v. Saint Louis Brewery, LLC, 909 F.3d 420, 425 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). However, as is normally the case with § 1(b) applications, Applicant has not
claimed acquired distinctiveness under § 2(f). See generally TRADEMARK MANUAL OF
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1212.09 (Nov. 2025).

Serial No. 98370045
- 3 -
whether or not the primary significance of a word when applied to a product is a
surname significance.”) (cleaned up; citations omitted).
In In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the Federal
Circuit considered several inquiries in determining whether the purchasing public
would perceive a proposed mark as primarily merely a surname, including: (1)
whether the applicant adopted a principal’s name and uses it in a way that reveals
its surname significance; (2) whether the term has a non-surname, ordinary language
meaning; and (3) the extent to which other people have that surname (i.e., its degree
of rarity or commonality). Id. at 17. The Board expanded on those three potential
inquiries in In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, No. 74340080, 1995 WL 789509 (TTAB
1995), adding two more inquiries that could lead to probative evidence: (4) whether
the term has the “structure and pronunciation” or “look and sound” of a surname; and
(5) whether the stylization of lettering is distinctive enough to create a separate
commercial impression. Id. at *2-3. “These inquiries are not exclusive, nor are they
presented in order of importance; any of the inquiries--singly or in combination--as
well as any other relevant circumstances, may shape the analysis in a particular
case.” Six Continents, 2022 WL 407385, at *3 (citations omitted).
When we are faced with a Section 2(e)(4) refusal of a term in standard character
form, with no other literal or design elements, as is the case here, we consider the
impact the applied-for term has or would have on the purchasing public because “it
is that impact or impression which should be evaluated in determining whether or
not the primary significance of a word when applied to a product is a surname

Serial No. 98370045
- 4 -
significance. If it is, and it is only that, then it is primarily merely a surname.” In re
Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d 629, 631 (CCPA 1975) (quoting Ex parte Rivera
Watch Corp., 1955 WL 6450, at *4 (Comm’r Pat. 1955)) (emphasis in original).
Whether the primary significance of an applied-for mark is merely that of a
surname is a question of fact. See Darty, 759 F.2d at 17. There is no rule as to the
kind or amount of evidence necessary to show that the applied-for mark would be
perceived as primarily merely a surname. This question must be resolved on a case-
by-case basis. Id.; see also, e.g., In re Pohang Iron & Steel Co., No. 73439003, 1986
WL 83576, at *1 (TTAB 1986). The entire record is examined to determine the
primary significance of a term.
II. Discussion
Using the inquiries outlined above, we now examine the evidence and arguments
to determine whether the primary significance of TUGENDHAT to the purchasing
public is that of a surname.
A. Whether TUGENDHAT is Commonly or Rarely Encountered as a
Surname
We first consider the frequency with which TUGENDHAT is encountered or
recognized by the public as a surname. “The relevant question is not simply how
frequently a surname appears, however, but whether the purchasing public for
Applicant’s services is more likely to perceive Applicant’s proposed mark as a
surname rather than as anything else.” In re Beds & Bars Ltd., No. 85597669, 2017

Serial No. 98370045
- 5 -
WL 2391858, at *8 (TTAB 2017) (finding BELUSHI’S to be primarily merely a
surname).
In order to show that the primary significance of the term TUGENDHAT is that
of a surname, the Examining Attorney submitted the following evidence:
1. A Wikipedia entry for “TUGENDHAT” that states: “The Tugendhat family was
a family of Czech-Jewish textile and oil industrialists.”3 The entry also lists the
following family names: 4
2. A Wikipedia entry for “VILLA TUGENDHAT” that states, in relevant part:5
3 August 22, 2024 Office Action, TSDR p. 6. This Wikipedia entry, as well as the ones for
Tugendhat Villa and Tugendhat Chair, like all Internet evidence, can be considered only for
what they show on their face, not for the truth of matters, unless corroborated by testimony.
See WeaponX Performance Prods. Ltd. v. Weapon X Motorsports, Inc., No. 91221553, 2018
WL 1326374, at *4 (TTAB 2018). Here, there is no corroborating testimony attesting to the
truth of the matters contained within these Internet materials. Nevertheless, because the
content of the Wikipedia entries is consistent with other evidence of record, we accord these
entries probative value to the extent that they show that TUGENDHAT, TUGENDHAT
VILLA, and TUGENDHAT CHAIR have achieved recognition significant enough that
Wikipedia entries devoted to them have been created.
4 Id.
5 Id., TSDR p. 12. The blue arrows in certain evidentiary images in this decision were
provided by the Board to indicate relevant information.

Serial No. 98370045
- 6 -
3. A Wikipedia entry for “VILLA CHAIR” that states, in relevant part:6
4. A search in the LEXIS/NEXIS surname database that shows that the surname
TUGENDHAT appears 16 times;7
5. A search on www.ancestry.com revealed 423 records of persons with the
surname Tugendhat;8
6 Id., TSDR p. 10.
7 Id., TSDR p. 14. Although the search results indicates that 16 “hits” for the surname
TUGENDHAT were retrieved, the printed excerpt only identifies 10 persons and some appear
to be duplicative.
8 January 18, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR p. 14.

Serial No. 98370045
- 7 -
6. A search on www.forbears.com (a genealogy website) revealed approximately
117 people who bear the surname Tugendhat;9
7. A screenshot from Applicant’s own website, www.knoll.com, touting the
Tugendhat family connection. See below:10
8. Screenshots from a blog article authored by Tom Tugendhat titled “My name
teaches me old hate is still alive” found on the website
www.timesofisrael.com;11 and
9. A screenshot from www.wallpaper.com regarding Applicant’s Tugendhat chair
and how it was “designed and built for the family of the same name ….” See
below:12
9 Id., TSDR p. 13.
10 Id., TSDR p. 15.
11 Id., TSDR at p. 12.
12 January 18, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR p. 9. The highlighting was provided by the
Examining Attorney.

Serial No. 98370045
- 8 -
Applicant argues the TUGENDHAT surname is exceptionally rare and therefore
would not be perceived as a surname and supports its argument by comparing the
listings for TUGENDHAT to surnames in the general public.13 However, Applicant’s
argument is unavailing because the determination on whether a surname is common
or rare is not determined solely by comparing the number of listings of the surname
to the total number of listings in a computerized database, because even the most
common surname would represent only a small fraction of the database. In re
Gregory, No. 76277664, 2004 WL 1195609, at *3 (TTAB 2004) (“the question whether
a surname is or is not rare is not to be determined solely by comparing the number of
listings of the name to the total number of listings in a vast computerized database.”).
Moreover, even if “TUGENDHAT” is a relatively rare surname in the United
States, that would not per se preclude a finding that a term is primarily merely a
surname inasmuch as even a rare surname may be held primarily merely a surname
13 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, pp. 3-5, 8 TTABVUE 8-10.

Serial No. 98370045
- 9 -
if its primary significance to purchasers is that of a surname. See In re Adlon Brand
GmbH & Co. KG C10 Fundus Fonds-Verwal Tungen GmbH, No. 85831682, 2016 WL
7385751, at *4 (TTAB 2016) (“The issue to be determined under the statute is whether
the public would perceive the surname significance as the proposed mark’s primary
significance, not whether the surname is rarely encountered.”); In re Eximius Coffee,
LLC, No. 86262060, 2016 WL 6819241, at *5 (TTAB 2016) (“even a rare surname is
unregistrable if its primary significance to purchasers is a surname.”).
Applicant further argues that the public exposure of the TUGENDHAT surname
is very limited unlike the surnames discussed in the Board’s decisions in In re Beds
& Bars Ltd. and In re Six Continents Ltd. Applicant contends that in these cases the
surname at issue was “subjected to widespread media attention,” where here the
evidence demonstrates a de minimis exposure of TUGENDHAT.14
The inquiry, however, is not whether the surname is subjected to widespread
media attention; the statutory inquiry is whether the relevant public would perceive
the term as a surname, not how frequently the surname appears in the population.
See Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting
In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). In any event,
Applicant’s own advertising and marketing materials emphasize the surname
significance of TUGENDHAT by promoting the Tugendhat family connection with its
goods.
14 Id. at pp. 4-5, 8 TTABVUE 9-10.

Serial No. 98370045
- 10 -
We conclude from the evidence of record that while TUGENDHAT is not a
common surname, there is meaningful and fairly sufficient exposure to the surname
throughout the United States, especially Applicant’s own marketing materials in an
online catalog or at the point of sale. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding
that TUGENDHAT is likely to be perceived by the public as a surname.
B. Whether TUGENDHAT is the Surname of Anyone Connected with
Applicant
Applicant states that “there is absolutely no evidence that anyone connected with
Applicant uses the term [TUGENDHAT] as a surname.”15 Even though no one
connected with Applicant is named Tugendhat, that says nothing about the primary
significance of the term to the purchasing public. See Adlon, 2016 WL 7385751, at *7
(“[t]he apparent absence of a person named ADLON in Applicant’s current
management does not, in itself, reduce the likelihood that the public would perceive
the mark as a surname.”). The absence of a family member connection is, at best,
neutral. In re Thermo LabSystems Inc, No. 78204502, 2007 WL 809858, at *2 (TTAB
2007).
That being said and as previously noted, Applicant’s own marketing material
emphasizes the Tugendhat family connection. For example, the following screenshot
from Applicant’s website (www.knoll.com) states how architects designed a home for
the Tugendhat family in 1929, including interior pieces such as a “spring chair” that
became known as the “Tugendhat chair.”16
15 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 5, 8 TTABVUE 10.
16 January 18, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR p. 15. Blue arrow provided by the Board.

Serial No. 98370045
- 11 -
Applicant cannot simultaneously build its brand around a family’s historic legacy
and then argue that consumers will not perceive the mark as a surname because no
family member is employed by the company. Indeed, Applicant concedes that
TUGENDHAT is a family name by asserting “the Goods are named after the
Tugendhat chair designed for the Tugendhat Villa, and named for the Tugendhat
family, ….”17 Accordingly, we find no meaningful difference between Applicant’s
promotion of a connection with a family having the surname TUGENDHAT and other
cases where we held that a party’s promotion of its founder having the surname as
establishing public exposure to that surname. See In re Olin Corp., No. 86651083,
2017 WL 4217176, at *5 (TTAB 2017) (although there was “no evidence that anyone
with the surname OLIN has had a publicly known connection with the company in
recent years,” Applicant’s marketing indicating that its founder had that name
“further supports that the public perceives OLIN primarily as a surname.”); see also
17 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 5, 8 TTABVUE 10.

Serial No. 98370045
- 12 -
Adlon, 2016 WL 7385751, at *5 (Applicant’s reliance on evidence showing ADLON
may designate an historic hotel was “obviously problematic” because the evidence
also showed “that the hotel was named ADLON [after] the surname of its founder,
and was subsequently held out as a family operation”).
Put simply, Applicant’s self-made connection between its products and the
Tugendhat family and its eponymous villa exacerbates the surname significance of
TUGENDHAT because actual purchasers of Applicant’s products will encounter the
mark alongside surname use of TUGENDHAT when viewing Applicant’s own
advertising and marketing material and even point-of-sale information.
Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the Tugendhat family has any
notoriety in the eyes of consumers other than possibly through Applicant’s promotion,
let alone reach a level of fame that has been found in other cases as overcoming
surname significance. Cf. Lucien Piccard Watch Corp. v. Since 1868 Crescent Corp.,
314 F. Supp 329, 331 (SDNY 1970) (holding DA VINCI not primarily merely a
surname because it primarily connotes Leonardo Da Vinci); In re Pyro-Spectaculars,
Inc., No. 75398909, 2002 WL 745587, at *3 (TTAB 2002) (holding SOUSA for
fireworks and production of events and shows featuring pyrotechnics not primarily
merely a surname, where the evidence showed present day recognition and
continuing fame of John Philip Sousa as a composer of patriotic music, and the
applicant’s goods and services were of a nature that “would be associated by potential
purchasers with patriotic events such as the Fourth of July, patriotic figures, and
patriotic music”).

Serial No. 98370045
- 13 -
In sum, we find that the purchasing public will understand TUGENDHAT as a
family name regardless of whether descendants currently work for Applicant simply
because Applicant’s own marketing material ties the mark to the Tugendhat family
villa, reinforcing the surname perception of the purchasing public.
C. Whether TUGENDHAT has any Recognized Meaning other than a
Surname
Applicant argues that the term TUGENDHAT is best recognized as the name of
an architectural landmark, i.e., the Villa Tugendhat, and a specific design style of
furniture, namely, the Tugendhat chair.18 As such, Applicant maintains that
consumers encountering the mark will associate it with aesthetics and design, not a
family lineage.19
We disagree. The negative dictionary evidence of record shows that there is no
other meaning to the term TUGENDHAT.20 Furthermore, Applicant itself provided
a negative translation statement: “The wording ‘TUGENDHAT’ has no meaning in a
foreign language”, and has not provided any evidence that there is an alternative
meaning for TUGENDHAT. The term appears in use only as a surname.21 This
finding is based on the absence of evidence of that would ascribe any other meaning
to TUGENDHAT than that of a surname.
18 Applicant’s July 18, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p. 4.
19 Id.
20 January 18, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR p. 8.
21 Id., TSDR pp. 10-14.

Serial No. 98370045
- 14 -
In addition, the applied-for mark is presented in standard characters. There are
no stylization or design elements that would alter the primary significance of the
surname. TMEP § 1211.01(b)(ii). Thus, there are no other elements in the applied-for
mark that would obscure the purchasing public’s perception that TUGENDHAT is
primarily merely a surname.22
Finally, even if some consumers would attribute the meaning of the term
TUGENDHAT to a famous villa or a particular design of furniture, the mere existence
of non-surname meanings of the mark does not preclude a finding that the mark is
primarily merely a surname. “To be considered primarily merely a surname, a term
does not have to be devoid of any non-surname significance.” In re Isabella Fiore LLC,
No. 76445173, 2005 WL 1787224, at *3 (TTAB 2005). As this Board has previously
stated:
The question is not whether a mark having surname significance might
also have a non-surname significance, but whether, in the context of the
goods or services at issue, that non-surname significance is the mark’s
primary significance to the purchasing public, thus eclipsing and
relegating the mark’s surname significance to secondary rather than
primary status.
Miller v. Miller, No. 91184841, 2013 WL 2329829, at *6 (TTAB 2013) (citations
omitted). “Thus the determining factor is the primary (not secondary) significance to
the public....” Harris-Intertype Corp., 518 F.2d at 631. See also Darty, 759 F.2d at 17
(“The statute ... reflects the common law that exclusive rights in a surname per se
22 But even in situations where a mark has some stylization, courts have consistently held
that even stylized lettering does not overcome surname significance when the underlying
term is a surname. See In re Pickett Hotel Co., No. 73474328, 1986 WL 83680, at *3 (TTAB
1986) (holding PICKETT a surname despite use of stylized lettering).

Serial No. 98370045
- 15 -
cannot be established without evidence of long and exclusive use which changes its
significance to the public from a surname of an individual to a mark for particular
goods or services.”). Accordingly, and on this particular record, we cannot find that
TUGENDHAT has a recognized alternative meaning other than being a surname.
D. Whether TUGENDHAT has the Structure and Pronunciation of a
Surname
Applicant argues that “[t]he mark TUGENDHAT does not possess the typical
structure or phonetic quality of common American surnames. Instead, it appears
highly stylized, abstract, and non-intuitive as a family name to U.S. consumers.”23
Further, Applicant contends that the TUGENDHAT mark resembles “the types of
fanciful, often Scandinavian- or Germanic-sounding coined terms used by IKEA® to
brand its furniture and home goods,” such as the following:24
23 Applicant’s July 18, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p. 4.
24 Id., TSDR pp. 4-5.

Serial No. 98370045
- 16 -
We are not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments for several reasons. First,
Applicant provides no evidence that consumers would perceive TUGENDHAT as a
term coined by IKEA® or akin to IKEA’s branding strategy. Mere conjecture is not
evidence. See Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“[a]ttorney argument is no substitute for evidence;” finding alleged “assertions of
fact” in party’s brief “is not evidence under any of the relevant rules”) (citations
omitted).
Second, the brand names created by IKEA® are linguistically and culturally
distinct from the German or Czech language. TUGENDHAT is a Czech-Jewish or
Czech-German surname, linked to the Czech Republic through the historic
Tugendhat Villa (now a UNESCO World Heritage Site) and the Tugendhat family.25
We find that the purchasing public encountering “Tugendhat” in the context of
furniture designed for the Tugendhat family’s 1929 villa will not conflate this
Czech/German family surname with Swedish place names.
Third, IKEA’s naming strategy differs from Applicant’s use of TUGENDHAT.
IKEA employs Swedish words drawn from various meanings such as a suburb, a lake,
a historic village, a town, or a historic battleground.26 In contrast, Applicant’s own
advertising and marketing material explicitly tie the TUGENDHAT mark with the
Tugendhat family and their historical residence. As a result, the connection signals
to consumers that TUGENDHAT functions as a surname, i.e., the name of the family
25 August 22, 2024 Non-Final Office action, TSDR p. 6 and July 23, 2025 Denial for Request
for Reconsideration, dated July 23, 2025, TSDR p. 5
26 Applicant’s July 25, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR pp. 6-8.

Serial No. 98370045
- 17 -
for whom the chair was designed, not as a fanciful word. Applicant cannot
simultaneously promote the Tugendhat family connection and then imagine
consumers ignoring that message to hypothetically think of IKEA-style naming
conventions instead. Based on the evidence as a whole, and because this is a
“decidedly subjective” inquiry, Benthin, 1995 WL 789509, at * 2, we find this factor
to be neutral.
E. Whether Contextual Use by Applicant Reveals Surname Significance
Although Applicant’s application was filed based on an intent-to-use the mark in
commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, there is evidence of record
showing the mark in actual use by Applicant, namely, a screenshot from Applicant’s
website, as shown below:27
27 August 24, 2024 Nonfinal Office Action, TSDR p. 8.

Serial No. 98370045
- 18 -
Below the wording “Tugendhat™ Chair” in the screenshot above, there is a
description of the featured chair which reads as follows:28
Additionally, the record includes another screenshot of Applicant’s website which
states that the “[a]rchitects Ludwig Miles van de Rohe and Lilly Reich designed a
home for the Tugendhat family … and the villa is a celebrated example of
functionalist architecture … ,” as shown below:29
28 Id.
29 January 18, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR p. 15.

Serial No. 98370045
- 19 -
When viewing these screenshots collectively, they clearly provide contextual clues
that consumers would identify the term TUGENDHAT as a family surname.30
F. Resolving Doubt
Lastly, Applicant argues that any doubt regarding the mark’s surname
significance should be resolved on Applicant’s behalf.31 We acknowledge that, if there
is any doubt, we are inclined to resolve such doubts in favor of Applicant. See Benthin,
1995 WL 789509, at *3. Here, however, the evidence of record clearly demonstrates
the surname significance of TUGENDHAT. Applicant’s own promotional materials
places emphasis on the Tugendhat family and villa, the historical association, and
the surname origins. Thus, the evidence of record leaves no doubt that the mark is
primarily merely a surname under the meaning of Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark
Act.
II. Conclusion
We have considered the evidence before us in its entirety and all relevant factors
and ultimately find that a prima facie showing has been made that consumers are
likely to view and understand the mark TUGENDHAT on the identified goods to be
primarily merely a surname. In reaching this conclusion, we have carefully
considered all of Applicant’s arguments and evidence, but have found them
unpersuasive.
30 Because Applicant’s mark appears in standard characters, the Benthin factor which
concerns whether the stylization of lettering is distinctive enough to create a separate
commercial impression is inapplicable in our analysis.
31 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 7, 8 TTABVUE 12.

Serial No. 98370045
- 20 -
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s TUGENDHAT mark under Section
2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.