Perosphere Technologies Inc.

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: April 21, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Perosphere Technologies Inc.
_____
Serial No. 98267521
_____
Kristen Ruisi of Venable LLP,
for Perosphere Technologies Inc.
Kapil Bhanot, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108,
Kathryn E. Coward, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Elgin, and Stanley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant seeks registration on the Principal Register of the standard-character
mark CLOTCHEK for the following goods:
“Reagents and assays for clinical medical use for
hemotology [sic] controls and (ESR) controls, namely,
whole blood controls; diagnostic reagents for testing blood
and body samples in clinical laboratories for medical use;
diagnostic reagents for laboratory control of in vitro
diagnostic tests for medical use; diagnostic reagents for
medicinal use,” in International Class 5;
“Laboratory equipment, namely, disposable cuvettes,” in
International Class 9, and

Serial No. 98267521
- 2 -
“Medical devices, namely, blood coagulometer,” in
International Class 10.
Applicant seeks registration under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1051(b), based upon an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce.1 Applicant also claims priority under Trademark Act Section 44(d), 15
U.S.C. § 1126(d), to the Sept. 11, 2023 filing date of European Union Reg. No.
18923854.
The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that it is merely
descriptive as applied to the goods identified in the application. Applicant appealed
and filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied. Following resumption of
the appeal, Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs. The appeal is now
ready for decision.2
1 Ser. No. 98267521 was filed on Nov. 13, 2023.
2 Following briefing, the Board suspended the appeal and remanded the application to the
Examining Attorney for examination of Applicant’s country of origin under Trademark Act
Section 44(e), 15 U.S.C. §1126(e). See 10 TTABVUE. In response to the new country-of-origin
refusal, Applicant amended its filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) and represented
that it “has had a bona fide and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the
European Union as of the date of issuance of the foreign registration” upon which it relies.
See Dec. 29, 2025 Resp. to Office Action. Following resolution of the outstanding issues, the
Examining Attorney maintained the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1)
and returned jurisdiction to the Board for resumption of the appeal. See Jan. 16, 2026
Subsequent Final Office Action. The appeal was then resumed and now is ready for final
decision.
All citations to documents contained in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval
(TSDR) database are to the downloadable .pdf versions of the documents. Citations in this
opinion to the briefs and other materials in the case docket refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s
online docketing system. See, e.g., In re Seminole Tribe of Fla., No. 87890892, 2023 TTAB
LEXIS 184, at *1 n.1.

Serial No. 98267521
- 3 -
I. Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act excludes from registration any “mark which,
(1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive
... of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A mark is “merely descriptive” within the meaning
of Section 2(e)(1) “if it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality,
or characteristic of the goods … for which registration is sought.” In re N.C. Lottery,
866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 675
F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “A mark need not immediately convey an idea of
each and every specific feature of the goods in order to be considered merely
descriptive; it is enough if it describes one significant attribute, function or property
of the goods.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS
150, at *4 (citing In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Descriptiveness is not considered in the abstract; it is analyzed in relation to an
applicant’s identified goods or services, “the context in which the [term] is being used,
and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of
the [goods and services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re
NextGen Mgmt., LLC, No. 88098031, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *6-8 (quoting In re
Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64 (2007)); see also Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d at 1300;
Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *4. We ask “whether someone who knows what
the goods and services are will understand the mark to convey information about
them.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir.

Serial No. 98267521
- 4 -
2018) (quoting DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted)).
A mark is suggestive, and not merely descriptive, if it requires imagination,
thought, and perception on the part of someone who knows what the goods or services
are to reach a conclusion about their nature from the mark. See, e.g., Fat Boys, 2016
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *11. Because we consider the context of the use, that a term
may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling on the question of
descriptiveness. In re RiseSmart, Inc., No. 85050089, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 448, at
*8 (citing In re Chopper Indus., No. 273140, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6). “So long
as any one of the meanings of a word is descriptive, the word may be merely
descriptive.” In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., No. 78542726, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 66,
at *19 (citations omitted).
We also must “consider the commercial impression of a mark as a whole … viewed
through the eyes of a consumer.” Real Foods, 906 F.3d at 974 (cleaned up, quoting
DuoProSS Meditech, 695 F.3d at 1253) (emphasis in original omitted). “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 Zuma Array Ltd.,
No. 79288888, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *8 (quoting In re Omniome, Inc.,
No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *12). “[I]f each component retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results
in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.” Omniome, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at
*12. Only where the combination of merely descriptive terms creates a unitary mark,

Serial No. 98267521
- 5 -
or a mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in
relation to the goods or services is the mark registrable as suggestive. Id.
Refusals for mere descriptiveness, like other refusals, are based on evidence
bearing on public perception of the mark. See, e.g., Real Foods, 906 F.3d at
974 (descriptiveness inquiry “consider[s] the commercial impression of a mark as a
whole, viewed through the eyes of a consumer”) (cleaned up, citation and italics
omitted); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The
perception of the relevant purchasing public sets the standard for determining
descriptiveness.”). Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant
purchasing public may be obtained from any competent source, Nett Designs,
236 F.3d at 1341, such as dictionaries, newspapers, or surveys. Bayer, 488 F.3d at
964. It also may be obtained from websites and publications, see N.C. Lottery, 866
F.3d at 1368, including an applicant’s own materials, website, or news articles. 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 was based on intent-to-use under Trademark Act Section
1(b)).
A multiclass application, like the one here, is the equivalent of separate
applications. G&W Labs., Inc. v. G W Pharma Ltd., No. 91169571, 2009 TTAB LEXIS
2, at *6 (“[A] multiple-class application can be viewed as a series of applications for
registration of a mark in connection with goods or services in each class, combined

Serial No. 98267521
- 6 -
into one application”). We must determine the issue of descriptiveness as to each class
of goods.
II. Discussion
A. What Are Applicant’s Goods?
We start by discussing the nature of Applicant’s goods in each class, which fall
into the medical field. We may consider extrinsic evidence to better understand the
nature of the goods. See, e.g., In re Thor Tech, Inc., No. 78634024, 2009 TTAB LEXIS
253, at *12 n.10 (although extrinsic evidence may not be used to limit or restrict the
identified goods, it is nonetheless proper to consider extrinsic evidence in the nature
of dictionary entries to define the terminology used to describe the goods); In re
Trackmobile, Inc., No. 78401595, 1990 TTAB LEXIS 20, at *5 (“[W]hen the
description of goods for a cited registration is somewhat unclear, ... it is improper to
simply consider that description in a vacuum and attach all possible interpretations
to it when the applicant has presented extrinsic evidence showing that the description
of goods has a specific meaning to members of the trade.”), cited in In re W.W. Henry
Co., No. 78401595, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 7, at *8-9 (evidence accepted to show
registrant’s goods would be used by industrial plastics manufacturers, not
handypersons). We have considered the evidence of record in that light and not to
restrict the goods identified in the application.
In response to a request for information, Applicant describes the goods, as
identified in the application, as follows:

Serial No. 98267521
- 7 -
Applicant’s goods include: (i) a point of care coagulometer
[Class 10], (ii) throw away single-use cuvettes that are
inserted into the coagulometer and into which a drop of the
patient’s blood is deposited [Class 9] and (iii) reagents that
are used as controls to ensure the accuracy of the device
[Class 5]. The cuvettes that are inserted into the
coagulometer have an anionically charged surface that
causes the patient’s blood to clot and the time it takes to
clot is determined by measuring the amount of infrared
light that passes through the blood sample in the cuvette
inserted into the coagulometer. The point of care
coagulometer device, cuvettes and reagents are intended to
be sold to medical practitioners, medical practices, and
hospitals.3
The evidence of record supports this description. For example, pages from
Applicant’s website explain that its CLOTCHEK product “provides an unprecedented
global view of coagulation status where and when needed.”4 The accompanying
images show a representation of a device, cuvettes, lancets, and a bottle of what we
presume is the reagent:5
3 Aug. 13, 2024 Response to Office Action at TSDR 12-13.
4 Mar. 4, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 14. The website evidence states that
“[t]he Perosphere ClotChek is CE Marked in the European Union and its not FDA cleared in
the United States,” suggesting that the product is not available for purchase in the United
States. Id. at TSDR 12. Nonetheless, this website evidence was made of record by Applicant
to demonstrate the nature of its product (see id. at TSDR 6) and we consider it in that light.
5 Id. at TSDR 13.

Serial No. 98267521
- 8 -
Other evidence from Applicant’s website confirms that a coagulometer generally
“guides physicians to rapid diagnosis of coagulation status….”6
B. Is the Mark Merely Descriptive of the Goods?
In determining the overall meaning of CLOTCHEK, we first consider how relevant
consumers would view the mark for the goods identified in each of the classes in the
application.
Although CLOTCHEK is a compound term with no space, we find that consumers
would recognize the separate component terms: CLOT, which (as discussed further
below) is a recognizable word to consumers in the context of blood, meaning to
coagulate or form into a coherent mass;7 and CHEK, which Applicant does not dispute
6 June 20, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 29.
7 Id. at TSDR 7, 11-12 (definitions of “clot”); Mar. 4, 2025 Request for Recon. at TSDR
24 (definition of “coagulation”).

Serial No. 98267521
- 9 -
is a deliberate misspelling of the word CHECK.8 Cf. In re Cox Enters. Inc., No.
76591278, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 6, at *10 (“THEATL is simply a compressed version of
the descriptive term THE ATL without a space between the two words. Without the
space, THEATL is equivalent in sound, meaning and impression to THE ATL and is
equally descriptive of applicant’s goods”).
We next consider whether the separate terms, CLOT and CHEK, have any
meanings; and if so, whether they each are merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods.
In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., No. 78806413, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 465, at *14 (“First,
we examine the evidence concerning the meanings that would be ascribed to the term
BATTLECAM and the separate terms BATTLE and CAM, when used with
applicant’s goods.”) (citing In re Zanova Inc., No. 75519495, 2001 TTAB LEXIS
340 (ITOOL would be perceived as short for “Internet tools” and was refused as
descriptive for goods and services including software for creating Web pages).
1. Are CLOT and CHEK Merely Descriptive of the Identified
Goods?
We start from the dictionary definitions of record. The noun “clot,” as defined in
MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, means, inter alia:
1 : a portion of a substance adhering together in a thick
nondescript mass (as of clay or gum)
2 a : a roundish viscous lump formed by coagulation of a
portion of liquid or by melting
8 See, e.g., 6 TTABVUE 8 (“The term ‘CLOTCHEK’ is likely to be interpreted by users as
checking a patient for a blood clot or checking a patient’s clot itself.”).

Serial No. 98267521
- 10 -
b : a coagulated mass produced by clotting of blood9
Applicant does not dispute that these are accurate definitions of the term “clot.”
Applicant also made of record evidence indicating that “Blood clots (thrombi), are
clumps of blood that have changed from a liquid to a gel. That transformation
(coagulation) happens to stop damaged blood vessels from leaking blood, either at the
skin or inside the body. A type of blood cell called platelets and proteins called clotting
factors work together to form clots and stop bleeding.”10 This corroborates the
dictionary definitions.
As noted, Applicant does not dispute that the term CHEK in Applicant’s mark is
a deliberate misspelling of the word “check.” Dictionary definitions made of record by
the Examining Attorney indicate that “check” means to “inspect, examine, or look at
appraisingly or appreciatively,” or “the act of testing or verifying.”11 Again, Applicant
does not dispute this definition.
To the extent that “check” is merely descriptive, so too would be the misspelling
CHEK. See, e.g., In re Calphalon Corp., No. 86356713, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 98, at *34
(holding “SHARPIN”, the phonetic spelling of “sharpen,” merely descriptive of cutlery
knife blocks with built-in sharpeners); Terry Nazon Inc. v. Ghiorse, No. 91216729,
2016 TTAB LEXIS 262, at *22 (“one cannot obtain rights in a mark merely by a slight
9 June 20, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 7; see also id. at TSDR 12 (defining “clot” as an
intransitive verb in the medical sense).
10 Mar. 4, 2025 Request for Recon. at TSDR 16; see also id. at TSDR 24 (dictionary definition
of “coagulation” as “the process of becoming viscous or thickened into a coherent mass : the
forming of clots (as in blood or cream).”).
11 June 20, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 15-18 (definitions of “check”).

Serial No. 98267521
- 11 -
misspelling of a recognized descriptive term”); see generally 2 J. Thomas McCarthy,
MCCARTHY § 11:31 (5th ed. Mar. 2026 update) (“A slight misspelling of a word will
not usually turn a descriptive word into a nondescriptive one.”).
Turning to Applicant’s goods, the point-of-care coagulometer device, single-use
cuvettes containing the patient’s blood for insertion into the device, and reagents to
test the accuracy of the device all serve the ultimate purpose or function of the goods:
that is, to determine, or check, the clotting status of the patient’s blood. It is well
settled that terms that identify the function or purpose of a product or service may
be merely descriptive or generic under Section 2(e)(1). See, e.g., In re Gould Paper
Corp., 834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE held generic for an anti-static
cloth used for cleaning computer and television screens); In re Cent. Sprinkler Co.,
No. 74505190, 1998 TTAB LEXIS 386 (ATTIC found generic for sprinklers installed
primarily in attics); In re Reckitt & Colman, N. Am., Inc., No. 73736589, 1991 TTAB
LEXIS 16 (PERMA PRESS found generic for soil and stain removers for use on
permanent press products); In re Nat’l Presto Indus., 1977 TTAB LEXIS 159
(BURGER found merely descriptive of cooking utensils); and In re Orleans Wines,
Ltd., 1977 TTAB LEXIS 96 (BREADSPRED found merely descriptive of jams and
jellies).
Although we need not rely on them, the Examining Attorney made of record two
third-party registrations to show that CLOT is descriptive, and 24 such registrations
to show that CHECK is descriptive.12 The two CLOT registrations and most of the
12 Apr. 16, 2025 Denial of Request for Recon. at TSDR 5-44.

Serial No. 98267521
- 12 -
CHECK registrations are not probative because the goods identified in those
registrations are different and unrelated to the goods identified in Applicant’s
application. Thor Tech, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 253, at *18 (third-party registrations
relating to goods different from and unrelated to the goods at issue “cannot be
indicative of descriptive or suggestive connotations”). The CHECK-formative
registrations that we find most relevant – although minimally so due to differences
in the marks and the goods – are:
• COVICHECK (Supplemental Register) for “diagnostic kits comprised of
medical diagnostic reagents and assays for testing of bodily fluids for
use in virus detection; testing kits comprised of medical diagnostic
reagents and assays for testing bodily fluids; testing kits comprised of
medical diagnostic reagents and assays that test for the presence of
antibodies; all of the foregoing in the field of COVID-19 and
Coronavirus” in International Class 5;
• TRIPLE CHECK (Supplemental Register) for “Diagnostic preparations
and reagents for medical and home use, namely, in-vitro diagnostic
preparations and reagents for pregnancy testing, pregnancy test kits for
home use” in International Class 5;
• SHUNTCHECK (Supplemental Register) and SHUNTCHECK & design
(Principal Register, “shunt check” disclaimed) for “Medical device for use
in evaluating shunt flow” in International Class 10;
• CHECK RITE & design (Principal Register, “check” disclaimed) for
“Drug testing kits comprised of medical diagnostic reagents and assays
for testing body fluids” in International Class 5;
• WOUNDCHEK (stylized) (Principal Register, “wound” and “check”
disclaimed) for “Medical devices for use in the diagnosis and of wounds”
in International Class 10; and
• SELFCHECK (Supplemental Register) for “Medical diagnostic test
collection kits containing sterile medical specimen collection tools,
collection containers, instructions, and packing materials for detecting
viruses, disorders, and diseases.

Serial No. 98267521
- 13 -
While not directly on point, these registrations generally support the finding that
CHEK as used in Applicant’s mark CLOTCHEK is descriptive of goods that “check”
the status of a medical condition (here, blood coagulation).
These registrations are countered, however, by six registrations for CHECK
formative marks as well as eight third-party registrations for CLOT formative marks,
all made of record by Applicant to show each term is not descriptive:13
• CLOTIT (Principal Register) for “Chemical preparations that aid in the
coagulation of blood and delivery systems therefor for use in veterinary
medicine; pharmaceutical preparations, namely, a blood clotting aid and
delivery system for use in veterinary medicine; dressings for wounds;
dressings for surgery; gauze for dressings; medical dressings; surgical
dressings; wound dressings; bandages for dressings; bandages for skin
wounds; surgical bandages” in International Class 5:
• CLOTTRAC (Principal Register) for “Standardized blood samples in
cartridge form used as controls to verify performance of blood
coagulation monitoring equipment” in International Class 5;
• GRO-KLOT (Principal Register) for “Hemostatic foam for treating
wounds; Hemostatic foam to stop bleeding” in International Class 5;
• CLOTGONE (Principal Register) for “Yeast dietary supplements;
Dietary supplements; Food supplements; Herbal supplements;
13 Mar. 4, 2025 Request for Recon. at TSDR 23, 26-39. Applicant made of record copies of
certificates of registration (commonly called “plain copies”) for these marks. A plain copy
“generally [is] not sufficient to make a registration of record.” Shenzhen IVPS Tech. Co. v.
Fancy Pants Prods., LLC, No. 91263919, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 383, at *12. However, where, as
here, third-party registrations are offered merely to show that they issued, plain copies of the
registrations are sufficient. See Merritt Foods Co. v. Americana Submarine, No. 91060795,
1980 TTAB LEXIS 80, at *3 n.16 (a party who wishes to rely upon third-party registrations
need only provide plain copies thereof); see also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 704.03(b)(1)(B) (June 2025) and cases cited therein. But
plain copies, which do not show current status, have less probative value and increases our
burden in reviewing them. Applicant also made of record one pending application for a “clot”
formative mark. Applications, however, have no probative value other than as evidence that
the application was filed. In re Team Jesus LLC, No. 88105154, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 503, at
*17 n.29.

Serial No. 98267521
- 14 -
Nutritional supplements; Protein supplements; Vitamin supplements”
in International Class 5;
• QUICKCLOT & Design (Principal Register) for “Chemical delivery
agents consisting of compounds impregnated on delivery devices for
aiding in blood coagulation for human medicinal use; Wound dressings;
Bandages for dressings; Sponges for dressings; Gauze; First aid kits;
Medical kits comprising gauze, wound dressings, bandages, tourniquets,
gloves, and shears” in International Class 5;
• CLOTSEAL (Principal Register) for “Surgical dressings, namely,
absorbable surgical hemostats for control of both diffuse and profuse
bleeding” in International Class 5;
• ENDOCLOT+ (Principal Register) for “Medical devices for use in
gastroenterology procedures, namely, absorbable and/or nonabsorbable
hemostat for control of bleeding; medical system that includes
hemostatic powder and a delivery device, an air compressor, sprayers,
and films; submucosal injection system; catheters; injection needles;
surgical instruments, namely, hemostats; delivering applicator
containing sealants, gels, fluids and powders for internal animal and
human use for preventing adhesion and scar tissue and/or for tissue and
mucosal protection after surgery” in International Class 10;
• COAGUCHEK (Principal Register) for “in vitro diagnostic reagents for
medical use” International Class 5 and for “Medical apparatus for the
performance of blood coagulation testing for medical diagnostic
purposes” in International Class 10;
• HEART CHECK (Principal Register) for “Blood pressure measuring
apparatus; Blood pressure monitors” in International Class 10;
• NEURO CHECK (Principal Register) for “Surgical and medical devices
and instruments, namely, surgical instruments for accessing and
localizing tissue” in International Class 10;
• SEAL CHECK (Principal Register) for “Sub-atmospheric wound therapy
device which utilizes negative pressure to promote tissue granulation
and decompression, flap and graft survival, and to remove infectious
materials” in International Class 10;
• TEMPA CHECK (Principal Register) for “Fever thermometers” in
International Class 10; and

Serial No. 98267521
- 15 -
• VIDEO-CHECK (Principal Register) for “Video measuring machines,
especially in form of coordinate measuring machines” in International
Class 9.
The Board is not bound by prior decisions made in connection with different
marks, and each case must be decided on the proceeding record before us and on its
own merits. See In re Brunetti, 151 F.4th 1367, 1377-78 and n.13 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
(citing cases) (the USPTO must examine each application for compliance with
eligibility requirements, even if it earlier mistakenly registered a similar or identical
mark suffering the same defect); Nett Designs, 236 F.3d at 1342 (“The Board must
decide each case on its own merits”). This is not to say that we “need not take account
of prevailing practice” and therefore must provide “coherent and rational rules for the
guidance of examining attorneys and the Board in other proceedings.” Brunetti, 151
F.4th at 1378.
Again, each of these registrations is minimally probative due to differences in the
marks and the goods, with the exception of one: COAGUCHEK for “in vitro diagnostic
reagents for medical use” International Class 5 and for “Medical apparatus for the
performance of blood coagulation testing for medical diagnostic purposes” in
International Class 10. This registration supports a finding that the term “chek” is
not descriptive for Applicant’s goods when combined with a term with a similar
connotation to CLOT. Nonetheless, it is only one registration, and we think the
registration and mark as a whole are distinguishable as discussed further below.
In sum, we find that both CLOT and CHEK individually are descriptive of
Applicant’s goods in Classes 5, 9, and 10.

Serial No. 98267521
- 16 -
2. Is CLOTCHEK More Than the Sum of Its Parts?
Having determined that each individual term in the mark is merely descriptive of
a purpose or function of Applicant’s goods, we look at whether the mark CLOTCHEK,
in its entirety, is merely descriptive of the goods identified in the application.
Applicant contends that the Examining Attorney has improperly dissected the
mark into its constituent terms and has not considered the mark as a whole, and
“[t]here are at least seven stages of thought, with revisions to the thought process,
required for the Examining Attorney to come to a final conclusion about the meaning
of the Mark.”14 Applicant points to each step such as defining each term separately,
choosing a meaning, and examining the specimen of use.15 This is not the type of
mature thought and “multi-stage reasoning process” that leads to a nondescriptive
mark. As discussed above, it is entirely acceptable to look at each individual
component of a compound mark to divine its meaning as whole. Instead, the mark
immediately informs prospective purchasers of the function or purpose of Applicant’s
goods.
It is also true that a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive
components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a
nondescriptive meaning. See, e.g., In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 (CCPA
1968) (finding SUGAR & SPICE for “bakery products” suggestive); In re Shutts, 1983
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *7 (finding SNO-RAKE for “a snow removal hand tool having a
14 6 TTABVUE 10.
15 Id. at 9-10.

Serial No. 98267521
- 17 -
handle with a snow-removing head at one end, the head being of solid uninterrupted
construction without prongs” suggestive). But that is not the case here. As explained,
the terms CLOT and CHEK individually are descriptive of Applicant’s goods in each
class. Viewed in its entirety, we find that CLOTCHEK does not present an
incongruity or lose its descriptive meaning; rather, it immediately informs the
consumer that Applicant’s goods are used to check the clotting status of the patient’s
blood.
Nor are we persuaded by any of Applicant’s other arguments that CLOTCHEK is
suggestive as a whole. Applicant first argues that the mark CLOTCHEK, rather than
informing the consumer that the products determine the rate at which a patient’s
blood will clot when that blood is exposed to a clot forming environment (i.e.,
“measur[ing] the rapidity, i.e., the amount of time, that it takes for a patient’s blood
to coagulate”), it would be taken to mean “checking a patient for a blood clot or
checking a patient’s clot itself[,] [n]either [of which] is the function of the goods.”16
This argument states the test of mere descriptiveness in reverse. As we explained
above, the test for determining if a mark is merely descriptive is not whether a
consumer can guess the nature of the goods from viewing the mark, but rather
whether a consumer who knows what the goods are will understand the mark to
convey information about them. Real Foods, 906 F.3d at 974. While it is possible that
any of the above interpretations could be reasonable in the context of different goods,
we must determine the issue of descriptiveness in connection with the goods set forth
16 Id. at 8.

Serial No. 98267521
- 18 -
in the application. Here, consumers who know that the goods are a coagulometer,
disposable cuvettes, and reagents for testing the coagulometer device would
immediately understand that CLOTCHEK refers to their function or purpose.
Moreover, even if the other meanings proposed by Applicant were attributed to
the term, CLOTCHEK would still be merely descriptive as applied to Applicant’s
goods, in that each is involved with blood clot formation and therefore is directly
related to the function or purpose of Applicant’s goods. For example, the Examining
Attorney points to third-party website evidence explain that “[c]oagulation tests
measure your blood’s ability to clot, and how long it takes to clot. Testing can help
your doctor assess your risk of excessive bleeding or developing clots (thrombosis)
somewhere in your blood vessels.”17
Applicant next argues that some of the third-party website evidence relied upon
by the Examining Attorney to show use of the terms “clot check” is insufficient as the
evidence relates to products that are different from Applicant’s goods at issue here.18
The Examining Attorney counters that the third-party website evidence shows the
terms CLOT and CHECK are used in the medical equipment field in relation to
determining how long it takes for blood samples to clot. Applicant has the better
argument here, as we do not find the website evidence particularly compelling. Four
of the six websites appear to relate to products by one company (Siemens chemistry
17 8 TTABVUE 3 (citing to June 20, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 33-37).
18 6 TTABVUE 11-12.

Serial No. 98267521
- 19 -
analyzers),19 one relates to dialysis machines,20 and one to a blood test service in
South Africa.21 None relate to Applicant’s goods. But that does not mean that
CLOTCHECK is not merely descriptive overall, as the other evidence supports the
Examining Attorney’s arguments.
Applicant’s third-party registration evidence, summarized above, does not help
Applicant here either; again, almost all of the marks as a whole are distinguishable.22
The marks each consist of the terms CLOT or CHECK (or CHEK) along with
additional wording that renders each mark at least suggestive as a whole as to the
goods in each registration. We take note of two registrations in particular which we
deem the closest to Applicant’s mark. First, the mark COAGUCHEK (which we
singled out above) is a compound term consisting of COAGU and CHEK. As the
Examining Attorney points out, the known abbreviation for “coagulation” is “coag,”
not “coagu.”23 This lends a hint of suggestiveness to the mark COAGUCHEK overall,
contrasting with CLOTCHEK which leaves nothing to the imagination. Second, the
mark HEART CHECK for “Blood pressure measuring apparatus; Blood pressure
monitors” is slightly suggestive, as the goods measure, or “check,” blood pressure, not
19 See Dec. 4, 2024 Final Office Action at TSDR 10 (Siemens Dimension EXL 200 chemistry
analyzer), 15 (Siemens Dimension Vista 500 Intelligent Lab System), 30 (clot check device
for Siemens Dimension EXL device), and 67 (Siemens Dimension EXL 200 chemistry
analyzer).
20 Id. at TSDR 7 (“tips for checking your dialyzer”).
21 Id. at TSDR 56 (“See if you have healthy blood or thickblood and blood clots[. W]e offer
people a 20 min thick blood and blood clot check only using Live Blood Analysis.”).
22 See supra text accompanying note 13.
23 8 TTABVUE 7 (citing Mar. 4, 2025 Request for Recon. at TSDR 24-25 (dictionary definitions
for “coagulation” and “coag” (an abbreviation for coagulate and coagulation)).

Serial No. 98267521
- 20 -
the heart itself. And again, only two registrations are not convincing evidence, and
each case is decided on its own merits. Brunetti, 151 F.4th at 1377-78 and n.13; Nett
Designs, 236 F.3d at 1342.
Finally, Applicant suggests that, to the extent doubt exists as to whether
Applicant’s mark CLOTCHEK is merely descriptive of the identified goods, we must
find that the mark is suggestive.24 We have no such doubt in this case. We find the
meaning of the compound term CLOTCHEK to be no more than the sum of its
individual parts, and thus it is merely descriptive of the identified goods in Classes
5, 9, and 10 under Section 2(e)(1). See In re Polo Int’l Inc., No. 74729974, 1999 TTAB
LEXIS 59, at *5 (DOC-CONTROL for document management software is merely
descriptive because DOC-CONTROL is not incongruous, creates no double entendre,
and does not create or present a commercial impression or meaning other than
“document control.”); In re Pennzoil Prods. Co., No. 73670049, 1991 TTAB LEXIS 27,
at *8 (MULTI-VIS for multiple viscosity motor oil is merely descriptive because the
plain meaning of the components comprising the term MULTI-VIS as confirmed by
dictionary definitions, other evidence, and applicant’s specimens when considered in
the context of applicant’s goods, demonstrate there is nothing incongruous about the
term MULTI-VIS or requires the exercise of mental processing to perceive the
descriptive significance of such term as it relates to multiple viscosity motor oil).
Decision
The refusal to register in International Classes 5, 9, and 10 is affirmed.
24 6 TTABVUE 17-18.