AgBio LTDA

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: September 15, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re AgBio LTDA
_____
Serial No. 98544842
_____
Kourtney A. Mulcahy of Akerman LLP,
for AgBio LTDA.
Jenna Dibble, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 122,
Kristin Dahling, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Allard and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
AgBio LTDA (“Applicant”) originally sought registration on the Principal Register
of the mark BIOINPUT (in standard characters) for Biological fungicides, herbicides
and insecticides in International Class 5; Business consulting services in the
agriculture field in International Class 35; Agricultural research; Providing
temporary use of online non-downloadable computer software for inputting,
managing, visualizing, and analyzing data and providing recommendations to
improve profitability and yield in the field of agriculture in International Class 42;

Serial No. 98544842
- 2 -
and Agriculture services, namely, providing agricultural advice and analysis of data
for others related to row crops; Agricultural advice, namely, providing
recommendations for plant and soil nutrition supplements in International Class 44.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the basis that
the mark is merely descriptive.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Preliminary Issue
In its notice of appeal, Applicant appealed the Section 2(e)(1) refusal as to all
identified Classes (5, 35, 42, 44) in the application. However, Applicant has not
addressed the mere descriptiveness refusal in relation to the Class 5 goods in its
appeal brief. Instead, Applicant offers in its appeal brief and reply brief to delete the
Class 5 goods in the application.2
1 Application Serial No. 98544842 was filed on May 10, 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).
Page references to the application record are to the downloadable .pdf version of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) electronic database. References to the
briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s Appeal Brief is at
6 TTABVUE and its Reply brief is at 9 TTABVUE. The Examining Attorney’s Brief is at 8
TTABVUE.
2 See 6 TTABVUE 9 (“In that regard, Applicant agrees to delete the Class 5 goods from the
application.”); 9 TTABVUE 6 (“The Applicant agreed to delete the Class 5 goods”; “As
Applicant stated in its Appeal Brief, it is willing to delete Class 5 goods from the application”).

Serial No. 98544842
- 3 -
Although Applicant offers to amend its identification of goods to delete Class 5, it
is too late for Applicant to amend its identification. “The Board’s ability to amend an
application that it has reviewed on appeal is limited by the Trademark Rules.” In re
Faucher Indus. Inc., No. 85202870, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 313, at *7. Under Trademark
Rule 2.142(g), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(g), “[a]n application which has been considered and
decided on appeal will not be reopened except for the entry of a disclaimer... or upon
order of the Director.” Accordingly, the Class 5 goods remain in the application for
purposes of this appeal.
Applicant has not argued against the Class 5 refusal on appeal. The failure to
address the merits of the Section 2(e)(1) refusal as to the Class 5 goods on appeal
constitutes a waiver or forfeiture of the appeal on this ground as to this class. In re
Katch, LLC, No. 86301765, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 154, at *4 (applicant who failed to
address a ground for refusal in his briefing waived appeal of the refusal of registration
on that ground). In view of the waiver, we need not consider the refusal with respect
to Applicant’s Class 5 goods and affirm the Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register as to
Class 5.
II. Mere Descriptiveness
In the absence of acquired distinctiveness, which Applicant does not claim here,
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark which, when
used on or in connection with an applicant’s goods or services, is merely descriptive
of them. “A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a
quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is

Serial No. 98544842
- 4 -
used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re Gyulay,
820 F.2d 1216, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A mark need not immediately convey each and
every specific feature of the goods or services in order to be considered merely
descriptive; rather, it is sufficient that the mark describes a significant attribute,
function or property of the goods or services. In re Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at
1300; In re H.U.D.D.L.E., No. 73211831, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 41, at *3.
A mark’s descriptiveness must be “considered in relation to the particular goods
[or services] 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 [or services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Coach Servs.,
Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re
Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 964). The determination of mere descriptiveness must not be
made in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d
811, 814 (CCPA 1978). The question is whether someone who knows what the goods
or services are will understand the term to convey information about them. DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Where a mark consists of multiple terms, the mere combination of descriptive
terms does not necessarily create a non-descriptive word or phrase. In re Phoseon
Tech., Inc., No. 77963815, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 306, at *3; In re Associated Theatre
Clubs Co., No. 73557499, 1988 TTAB LEXIS 48, at *6. Whether the composite mark
also has a merely descriptive significance turns on the question of whether the

Serial No. 98544842
- 5 -
combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression. In other
words, we must consider the issue of descriptiveness by looking at the mark in its
entirety. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp., 695 F.3d at 1252 (“When determining
whether a mark is merely descriptive, the Board must consider the commercial
impression of a mark as a whole.”).
Nonetheless, in the course of evaluating the mark as a whole, we may consider
the merely descriptive significance of each element separately. Id. at 1253 (noting
that “[t]he Board to be sure, may ascertain the meaning and weight of each of the
components that makes up the mark.”). If 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. See, e.g., In re Oppedahl & Larson
LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1174-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Evidence of the purchasing 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 Pty
Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Royal
Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These sources
may include [w]ebsites, publications and use in labels, packages, or in advertising
materials directed to the goods [or services].” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).
We have reviewed the entire record, although we do not summarize it in full here.
See Quiktrip W., Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc., 984 F.3d 1031, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We

Serial No. 98544842
- 6 -
have held ‘on multiple occasions that failure to explicitly discuss every issue or every
piece of evidence does not alone establish that the tribunal did not consider it.’”)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Evidence
The Examining Attorney provided dictionary definitions of “bio” and “input” as
did Applicant.3 The relevant definition for “bio” is “biology; biological.”4 The relevant
definition for “input” is “a component of production (such as land, labor, or raw
materials).”5
Applicant provided third-party registrations of BIO formative marks, one INPUT
and design mark, and one INPUTS formative mark.6
The Examining Attorney provided internet printouts to show the use of
“biologicals” and “inputs” separately in connection with agriculture,7 including the
following (emphasis supplied):
Agricultural biologicals are a rapidly growing class of agronomic inputs derived
from microbes, plants or other living organisms. … Agricultural biologicals are a
3 April 16, 2025 Office Action pp. 9-11; February 23, 2025 Response to Office Action pp. 19-
20. Applicant provided a definition from Google, but the source is unidentified on the
printout.
4 April 16, 2025 Office Action pp. 9-10. AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (ahdictionary.com).
5 April 16, 2025 Office Action p. 11. MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (merriam-webster.com).
6 February 23, 2025 Response to Office Action pp. 9-17.
7 November 26, 2024 Office Action pp. 5-18; April 16, 2025 Office Action pp. 12-70; October
21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 9-70.
While some of the internet printouts are from foreign sources, we will not exclude them from
consideration, particularly where, as here, they corroborate the uses of the terms in internet
printouts from U.S. sources. The Board has relaxed its earlier rulings limiting the use of
foreign publications. See In re Remacle, No. 75932290, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 715, at *4 n.5
(TTAB 2002). In addition, the Federal Circuit has stated that foreign internet publications
may have probative value in certain cases. See In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 969.

Serial No. 98544842
- 7 -
promising class of inputs engineered for reducing synthetic chemicals and for
supporting crop health and productivity. Biologicals can be biostimulants that
stimulate a range of beneficial processes, or biopesticides that control pests.
Biologicals can be living microbes, or natural products derived from living
organisms.8
Biological products such as biofertilizers, biostimulants, and biocontrol agents help
maintain soil fertility and encourage beneficial microbial activity. These natural
inputs not only enhance yields but also reduce dependence on synthetic chemicals ...9
Input costs are the operating costs for a farm that require upfront purchases
necessary to begin production. These are items such as fertilizer, pesticides, seeds,
weaned animals, feed and any other production input.10
From 1948 to 2019 the amount of farm labor … and land use declined 28 percent. On
the other hand, the use of intermediate inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, and
purchased services grew 126 percent ….11
The Examining Attorney provided examples of use of the combined term
“biological inputs” in connection with agriculture, including the following (emphasis
supplied):
Agricultural biologicals market trends indicate that biological inputs will represent
an estimated $18-20 billion global market by 2025 with microbials as the fastest
growing segment.12
The agricultural biologicals market is segmented into biocontrol, biostimulants and
biofertilizers. … Key trends and disruptions impacting the agricultural biologicals
market include the shift from chemical to biological inputs … .13
8 April 16, 2025 Office Action p. 23, North Carolina State University Extension.
9 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied p. 20, MarketsandMarkets.
10 April 16, 2025 Office Action p. 30, American Farm Bureau Federation.
11 April 16, 2025 Office Action p.20, USDA Economic Research Service.
12 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied p. 15, Farmonaut.
13 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied p. 22, MarketsandMarkets.

Serial No. 98544842
- 8 -
This report will investigate the transformation underway in global horticulture
particularly how precision farming, biological inputs, and greenhouse automation
are impacting growers across North America, Europe and emerging markets.14
The Examining Attorney provided evidence of use of “bioinputs” in connection
with agriculture, including the following (emphasis supplied):15
Bioinputs are agro-industrial products or processes derived from living organisms
or their byproducts. These include microorganisms, enzymes, plant extracts, and
other biological materials, and are often referred to by terms such as Biological
Defense, Biodefense and Agricultural Biologicals.16
Bioinputs refer to biological products used in agriculture and animal husbandry that
promote growth, protect against pests, or improve soil health through natural
mechanisms. Unlike synthetic chemicals, bioinputs rely on living organisms or
natural substances such as beneficial microbes, plant extracts or organic
compounds.17
Many farmers who use bio-fertilizers operate in integrated production systems and
the safe use of these inputs involves crop production and sanitary and environmental
dimensions, making the correct and safe use of bio inputs in agriculture essential.18
The global bioinput market is one of the fastest growing in the agricultural sector …
Brazil is already emerging as one of the main frontiers for the development of
bioinputs. … Bioinputs play a central role in the transition to more sustainable
and competitive agriculture.19
14 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied p. 26, iGrow News.
15 We have considered evidence showing use of the plural form bioinputs, biologicals and
inputs in this decision. See e.g., In re Oscar Mayer & Co. Inc., 1971 TTAB LEXIS 113, at *1-
2 (no number in original) (“WIENER SINGLES” for wieners held merely descriptive where
“singles” is the plural form of the noun “single”); cf. Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878
(CCPA 1957) (“there is no material difference, in a trademark sense, between the singular
and plural forms of the word ‘Zombie’ and they will therefore be regarded here as the same
mark.”).
16 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied p. 31, Sterigenics.
17 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 33-37, Agribusiness Play.
18 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied p. 38, Nature.
19 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 45, 46, Revista Cultivar, English.

Serial No. 98544842
- 9 -
Bioinputs, essentially a biological solution to the problems of modern agriculture,
are an alternative to the use of pesticides and fertilizers to control pests and improve
crop yields.20
Bioinputs produce between 69% to 91% less carbon dioxide (CO2) during their
manufacturing compared to conventional agrochemicals, such as pesticides and
fertilizers according to a study by the University of California (UC-Davis) in
collaboration with Marrone Bio….21
IV. Analysis and Argument
Applicant argues that none of the articles provided by the Examining Attorney
show that BIO or INPUT separately or combined identify agricultural research,
consultancy, advisory services, computer software services, analysis of data related
to row crops, or providing recommendations for plant and soil nutrition
supplements.22 Applicant contends that “the extensive third-party usage evidence
relates exclusively to biological products” and not services.23
However, some of the Examining Attorney’s evidence does show use of “bioinputs”
in connection with the identified services. The record includes articles about bioinput-
related agricultural research for the Class 42 agricultural research services, as well
as articles showing that companies offering bioinputs also provide consulting and
advisory services to assist farmers in using those products, relevant to Applicant’s
Class 35 business consulting services.24 The record also includes evidence of use of
20 November 26, 2024 Office Action p. 8, Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce.
21 November 26, 2024 Office Action p. 9, AgroPages, AgNews.
22 6 TTABVUE 8-9.
23 6 TTABVUE 8-9.
24 See April 16, 2025 Office Action p. 9 (UC-Davis and Marrone Bio study of bioinputs and
carbon dioxide gases); April 16, 2025 Office Action p.13 (research by Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation – 70 projects related to bioinputs); October 21, 2025 Reconsideration

Serial No. 98544842
- 10 -
bioinputs in connection with the Class 44 agricultural advice and data analytical
services.25
We turn first to the separate terms in the proposed mark and their meanings in
connection with the services.
BIO in Applicant’s mark means biological. The record shows that agricultural
biologicals are a class of agronomic inputs derived from microbes, plants or other
living organisms and can be living microbes, or natural products derived from living
organisms. Biologicals include biofertilizers, biostimulants and biocontrol agents.
Accordingly, BIO describes the subject matter, field, or purpose of Applicant’s broadly
identified business consulting, agricultural research, non-downloadable software,
agricultural advice, and data analysis services.
As to the term input, Applicant argues that its use of INPUT is non-descriptive
because the term has multiple meanings in the dictionary.26
However, this contention is unpersuasive since descriptiveness is not considered
in the abstract and must be determined in the specific context of the involved services.
The fact that a term in the mark may have different meanings in other contexts is
not controlling on the question of mere descriptiveness. In re Chopper Indus., No.
Denied p. 59 (bioinput research was winner of World Food Prize); October 21, 2025
Reconsideration Denied pp. 52, 53 (Biologika – professional consulting in connection with
bioinputs); April 16, 2025 Office Action p. 13 (Bayer advisory and stewardship services in
connection with biologicals).
25 October 21, 2025 Reconsideration Denied pp. 48, 51 (Nunatak (“bioinput powerhouse”)
offering “biotechnological solutions for agriculture and soil restoration” and solutions for
restoring soil health); April 16, 2025 Office Action p. 17 (Pattern Ag processes “agricultural,
biological and climate data to forecast outcomes for growers”).
26 6 TTABVUE 11; 9 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 98544842
- 11 -
73273140, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6 (alternate dictionary meanings unrelated
to the goods do not avoid descriptiveness where at least one meaning of the term is
descriptive of the goods; “[i]t is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings
of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive”).
The relevant dictionary definition for input is a component of production such as
raw materials. Here, the evidence shows that INPUT is a term used in the
agricultural industry to describe operating costs for a farm such as fertilizer,
pesticides, seeds, animals, feed and any other production inputs that require upfront
purchases necessary to begin production. Therefore, INPUT is merely descriptive
because it describes the subject matter, field, or purpose of the broadly identified
business consulting, agricultural research, non-downloadable software, agricultural
advice, and data analysis services.
As to the combined term BIOINPUT, the evidence shows that the combination
“bioinput” or “bioinputs” retains the descriptive meaning of its individual
components, BIO and INPUT, and is not unique, incongruous, or otherwise
nondescriptive.27 A “bioinput” is an agricultural product or input derived from living
organisms or their byproducts that is used in agricultural production to, among other
things, promote growth, protect against pests, or improve soil health through natural
mechanisms. The proposed mark BIOINPUT immediately and directly conveys
27 The fact that some of the evidence provided by the Examining Attorney shows use of
bioinput in its plural form does not lessen the term’s descriptiveness. Both the singular and
plural forms convey an immediate idea of the qualities or characteristics of Applicant’s
services. See e.g., In re Oscar Mayer & Co. Inc., 1971 TTAB LEXIS 113, at *1-2 (“WIENER
SINGLES” merely descriptive where “singles” is the plural form of the noun “single”).

Serial No. 98544842
- 12 -
information about the subject matter, use, field, or purpose of the broadly identified
business consulting, agricultural research, non-downloadable software, agricultural
advice, and data analysis services. See In re Petroglyph Games, Inc., No. 78806413,
2009 TTAB LEXIS 465, at *32.
Applicant argues “[t]he mark functions as a unitary whole with a distinct
commercial impression” and that BIOINPUT is unitary because “the words of the
mark are merged together so that they cannot be viewed as separable elements.”28
However, Applicant offers no explanation for how the combination of BIO and INPUT
creates a new, unique meaning.
A unitary mark is one in which the combination of descriptive terms creates a
mark with a unique, incongruous, bizarre, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning in
relation to the goods or services. See In re Omniome, Inc., No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB
LEXIS 414, at *12; see also In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 552 (CCPA 1968).
Therefore, the mere merging of the words into one term by itself does not make the
mark unitary. Here, the individual elements BIO and INPUT remain readily
recognizable, and as shown by the evidence of record, when combined together as
BIOINPUT the terms still convey the descriptive meaning of biological inputs—i.e.,
inputs used in agriculture that are biological in nature. Because the combined term
BIOINPUT does not create an incongruous, bizarre, or otherwise nondescriptive
meaning, Applicant’s unitary-mark argument fails.
28 9 TTABVUE 6; 6 TTABVUE 11.

Serial No. 98544842
- 13 -
Applicant also relies on a limited number of third-party registrations to argue that
its mark is registrable and that BIOINPUT is unitary.29
Of the nine registrations provided, six cover Class 5 goods such as fungicides,
pesticides, and insecticides for agricultural use.30 The remaining third-party service
registrations are limited and are distinguishable: a mark with a design element,
, for Class 42 website and technology services in connection with
agriculture; one Supplemental Register BIO-formative mark (CLIMATE BIO) for
Class 42 agricultural research and development and product development services;
and a Class 44 BIO-formative registration (BIO S.I.) for agricultural advisory services
that has a different second term than Applicant’s mark.
Applicant’s reliance on third-party registrations is not conclusive on the question
of descriptiveness. Marks that are merely descriptive do not become registrable
simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register. In re The
Consumer Prot. Firm Pllc, No. 87444846, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 67, at *30 (citing In re
Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 1977 TTAB LEXIS 97, at *4-5 (no number in original)).
Each mark must be evaluated on its own facts, and the registration of other BIO
29 6 TTABVUE 10; 9 TTABVUE 6.
30 Applicant provided seven third-party registrations with BIO as a component and two third-
party registrations with INPUT(S) as a component. None of the provided third-party
registrations contain BIO and INPUT in the same mark. One Class 5 BIO-formative
registration is not based on use, and another Class 5 BIO-formative registration is registered
on the Supplemental Register. As indicated supra, the Section 2(e)(1) refusal has been
affirmed due to waiver in Class 5. Applicant argues as to the Supplemental Register
registrations that “[t]hese registrations prove only that those specific marks required
alternative paths to registration—not that all BIO- combinations are descriptive.” 9
TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 98544842
- 14 -
formative marks, an INPUT and design mark, or an INPUTS-formative mark does
not establish that BIOINPUT is unitary or not merely descriptive. See In re Nett
Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (even if prior registrations had
similar characteristics to applicant’s application, the USPTO’s “allowance of such
prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court”).
As indicated, none of the provided third-party registrations combine BIO and
INPUT in the same mark. Accordingly, the provided third-party registrations do not
establish that BIOINPUT is not merely descriptive on the present record.
Applicant submits that “the Examining Attorney’s evidence exclusively describes
biological inputs as products—not consulting, research, software, or advisory
services—and cannot meet the substantial evidence burden to show BIOINPUT
conveys the essence of Applicant’s service offerings.”31
Applicant’s argument assumes that a term is descriptive of services only if the
term names the services directly and that the Examining Attorney’s evidence does
not show that BIO or INPUT separately or combined as BIOINPUT identify the
actual services (e.g., business consulting, agricultural research, agricultural advice
and data analysis).32 This argument attempts to narrow the descriptiveness inquiry
and is unavailing as descriptiveness can be established even if the term does not
name the actual service. In re Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300; In re Bayer
31 9 TTABVUE 4; 6 TTABVUE 8-9.
32 6 TTABVUE 9 (“None of these articles in support of the Examiner's merely descriptiveness
refusal describes BIOINPUT as services being offered in the agricultural industry … nor
describes a class of agricultural research …”); 9 TTABVUE 4.

Serial No. 98544842
- 15 -
AG, 488 F.3d at 963. As indicated, a mark may be merely descriptive not only when
it names the services themselves, but also when it immediately conveys information
about the subject matter, use, field or purpose of the services. Id. As discussed infra,
the record reflects that BIOINPUT may describe the subject matter, use, or purpose
of those services.
Applicant argues that “its Class 35, 42, and 44 services encompass far more than
consulting about biological inputs. To conclude that BIOINPUT is descriptive of these
diverse services merely because biological inputs could be one topic addressed
requires the multi-stage reasoning process that defines suggestiveness, not
descriptiveness.”33
However, Applicant’s reliance on its broader identification of services does not
render BIOINPUT suggestive in connection with the services. Services that are
identified broadly must be presumed to include all services of the type identified
within the identification. See, e.g., Southwestern Mgmt., Inc. v. Ocinomled, Ltd., No.
94002242, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 176, at *60-61 (with a broad identification of services,
“we must presume that the services encompass all services of the type identified”); In
re Elbaum, 1981 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *3 (no number in original) (same). If the term is
descriptive of any of the services encompassed by the broad identification, the term
is merely descriptive rather than suggestive of the services. In re Allen Elec. and
Equip. Co., 458 F.2d 1404, 1405 (CCPA 1972) (“Since the goods are described merely
as ‘antennas’ and that term is broad enough to encompass ‘scanning antennas,’ the
33 9 TTABVUE 4-5; 6 TTABVUE 8-9.

Serial No. 98544842
- 16 -
mark SCANNER as applied to the goods is merely descriptive within the meaning of
15 USC 1052(e)(1).”).
Additionally, it is unnecessary that a mark immediately convey an idea of each
and every specific feature of the services in order to be considered merely descriptive;
it is sufficient that the mark describes a significant attribute, function or property of
the services. In re Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300. Here, Applicant’s
identification is broad enough to include consulting, research, software, or advisory
services relating to biological inputs, and therefore, BIOINPUT may describe the
subject matter of the services directly, without the need for multistage reasoning.
Because Applicant’s services are broadly identified, and because the evidence
shows that “bioinputs” are a subject matter of consulting, research, software, and
advisory services in the agricultural field, BIOINPUT is merely descriptive of the
identified services.
Applicant argues that “a proper balancing of the doubts at hand favors publication
of Applicant’s mark for opposition” and the Board should resolve doubt about the
descriptiveness of its proposed mark in its favor.34
While we must resolve doubt for Applicant, we have no doubt that (based on the
entire record) BIOINPUT immediately conveys information to the relevant
consumers about subject matter, field, or purpose of the services. In re Omniome, Inc.,
2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *34 (“While we must resolve doubt for Applicant, we have
no doubt that (based on the entire record) the designation immediately conveys
34 6 TTABVUE 12; 9 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 98544842
- 17 -
information to the relevant target audience, microbiologists, concerning features and
characteristics of Applicant’s reagents, analyzers, biological analysis devices and
biological analysis services, i.e., a DNA sequencing process that relies on identifying
binding sites to determine the sequence of DNA molecular structure.”).
V. Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we find Applicant’s proposed mark BIOINPUT when
applied to the identified goods and services in Classes 5, 35, 42, and 44 to be merely
descriptive.
Decision: The Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register Applicant’s mark BIOINPUT in
Classes 5, 35, 42, and 44 is affirmed.