Hansen Honey Farm

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: September 22, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Hansen Honey Farm
_____
Serial No. 98224899
_____
David A. Gottardo of GottardoLaw LLC,
for Hansen Honey Farm.
Darryl Spruill, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 112,
Matthew Cuccias, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Heasley, Lebow, and Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant Hansen Honey Farm seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark HANSEN HONEY FARM (in standard characters) for “honey; creamed honey;
flavored honey; edible honeycombs containing honey; candy pieces made with honey;
candy bars made with honey” in International Class 30.1 The Trademark Examining
Attorney refused registration of the mark under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act,
1 Serial No. 98224899 was filed on October 16, 2023 under Trademark Act Section 1(b),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.

Serial No. 98224899
- 2 -
15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4), on the ground that, when viewed in its entirety, the mark is
primarily merely a surname.2
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration, which was denied. Upon resumption of the appeal, both Applicant
and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.3 The appeal is fully briefed. For the reasons
set forth below, we affirm the refusal to register.
I. Evidentiary Objection
We first address the Examining Attorney’s objection to materials submitted by
Applicant after filing its main brief.4
Applicant’s appeal brief was due, as extended, by March 18, 2026.5 Applicant
timely filed the brief.6 The following day, Applicant filed two “supplemental” filings
consisting in total of 805 pages of materials in exhibits labeled A-P.7 Subsequently,
the Board received copies of “bulky exhibits” – two DVDs mailed by Applicant on
March 19, 2026 – which purportedly contain higher resolution copies of the materials
2 The Examining Attorney also advised that a disclaimer of “HONEY FARM” would be
required upon an attempted amendment to the Supplemental Register. See December 16,
2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 6. Because Applicant has not requested
an amendment or disclaimer, even in the alternative, this issue is not before us on appeal.
Citations to the prosecution records refer to the USPTO Trademark Status and Document
Retrieval system (TSDR) in the downloadable .pdf format by page number. References to the
briefs on appeal are to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. In re Integra Biosciences Corp.,
No. 87484450, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 17, at *6.
3 Applicant’s main brief and reply brief are at 8 and 14 TTABVUE. The Examining Attorney’s
brief is at 13 TTABVUE.
4 See 13 TTABVUE 3-4.
5 7 TTABVUE 2.
6 8 TTABVUE.
7 9 and 10 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98224899
- 3 -
filed that day through the Board’s electronic filing system, and another copy of
Applicant’s brief.8
Each of the exhibits in these filings is preceded by a cover page relating to the
exhibit; arguably, much of this is attorney argument. For example, the cover page for
Exhibit B states: “The Merriam-Webster Dictionary does not define the term HONEY
FARM. Instead, it defines the term apiary as ‘a place where bees are kept, especially,
a collection of hives or colonies of bees kept for honey.’”9 Other exhibits include a
“table of contents” in the form of lengthy charts describing each of numerous website
printouts and materials.10 The Examining Attorney objects to the March 19, 2026
electronic and mailed filings on the basis that they were untimely filed after
Applicant’s brief was due, submitted after close of prosecution, and contain improper
argument.11
Applicant responds:
Wherein the exhibits were filed with Applicant’s Request
for Reconsideration, they are properly part of the record.
The screenshots underlying the foregoing TSDR Exhibits
A-P show the exact same content as the Exhibits A-P filed
in support of Applicant’s Appeal Brief, despite the
appellate exhibits being broken into sections. Nonetheless,
in view of the total page number underlying the exhibits,
Applicant filed them as a courtesy to the Board. Applicant
notes that the Board encourages parties to highlight the
probative parts where “a great deal” of evidence exists.
TBMP 1301 ¶ 1 [sic]. However, in view of the difficulty and
questionable accuracy associated with optical character
8 See 12 TTABVUE.
9 9 TTABVUE 5.
10 E.g., id. at 24-33, 262-69; 10 TTABVUE 2-3, 19-29, 154-56, 367-74.
11 See 13 TTABVUE 3-4.

Serial No. 98224899
- 4 -
recognition (OCR) searches of screenshot images, and in
the spirit of TBMP 1301 [sic], Applicant included a table of
contents that provides page-number citations for those
appellate exhibits having numerous pages. Because the
screenshots underlying the appellate exhibits are the same
as those made of record within the TSDR, they need not be
stricken.12
The materials filed after Applicant filed its brief are untimely in two ways. First,
“[t]he record should be complete prior to the filing of an appeal. Evidence should not
be filed with the Board after the filing of a notice of appeal.” Trademark Rule 2.142(d),
37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d). Even if it is true that the “exhibits” are duplicates of the exhibits
filed during prosecution13 (and we do not waste Board resources in determining to
what extent this representation is accurate), the filings were untimely and improper.
Cf. ITC Ent. Grp. v. Nintendo of Am., No. 92023557, 1998 TTAB LEXIS 13, at
*1-3 (filing duplicative submissions is a waste of time and resources and is a burden
on the Board). Second, the materials were filed after Applicant’s briefing period
closed. Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(1) (“The brief of appellant
shall be filed within sixty days from the date of appeal.”).
Finally, we would not, in any case, consider the extraneous argument contained
within the filings. Even if the filings had been timely submitted, these multi-page
12 14 TTABVUE 3. The correct section number to which Applicant apparently refers is
TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1203.01 (June
2026).
13 Applicant refers to its 814-page (when downloaded to .pdf) “Petition To Revive Abandoned
Application – Failure To Respond Timely To Office Action” filed on August 22, 2025, which
included a 34-page argument intended as a Request for Reconsideration and exhibits labelled
A-P totaling 748 pages. See id. at TSDR 30-778 (Exhibits A-P); id. at TSDR 779-813
(argument). We note that the record contains two petitions to revive an abandoned
application; this is the second. For clarity, we refer to this filing below as the “August 22,
2025 Request for Reconsideration.”

Serial No. 98224899
- 5 -
arguments would exceed the page limitation allotted to Applicant for its brief.
Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(2) (“Without prior leave of the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a brief shall not exceed twenty-five pages in
length in its entirety, including the table of contents, index of cases, description of the
record, statement of the issues, recitation of the facts, argument, and summary.”).
The Examining Attorney’s objection is sustained. We have not considered the
March 19, 2026 online or bulky filings.
II. Analysis
Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act precludes registration of a mark on the
Principal Register which is “primarily merely a surname” without a showing of
acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f).14 A term is
primarily merely a surname if, when viewed in relation to the goods or services for
which registration is sought, its primary significance to the purchasing public is that
of a surname. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Beds & Bars Ltd., No. 85597669, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 141, at *5.
Whether the primary significance of a mark is merely that of a surname is a
question of fact. See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 17 (Fed. Cir.
1985). There is no hard and fast rule as to the kind or amount of evidence necessary
to make out a prima facie showing that the mark would be perceived as primarily
14 Applicant has not claimed use in commerce or acquired distinctiveness in whole or in part
under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act for its mark. But see August 22, 2025 Request for
Reconsideration at TSDR 728 (“Hansen Honey Farms [sic] opened back in 2003.”); April 7,
2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 13 (detailing history of Hansen Honey Farm).

Serial No. 98224899
- 6 -
merely a surname. This question must be resolved on the specific facts presented in
each case. Id.; see also Beds & Bars, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 141, at *7.
A. Is HANSEN Primarily Merely a Surname?
When relevant, the Board often considers one or more of the following inquiries to
determine whether a mark is primarily merely a surname: (1) the degree of a
surname’s rareness; (2) whether anyone connected with applicant has that surname;
(3) whether the term has any recognized meaning other than that of a surname;
(4) whether the term has the “structure and pronunciation” of a surname; and,
(5) whether the stylization of lettering is distinctive enough to create a separate
commercial impression. In re Colors in Optics, Ltd., No. 87558653, 2020 TTAB LEXIS
4, at *4-5 (citing In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, No. 74340080, 1995 TTAB LEXIS 10,
at *1-3) (the “Benthin factors”). “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.” In re Six Continents Ltd., No. 88430142, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *6 (citations
omitted).
In this case, Applicant does not dispute that HANSEN is a common, not rare,
surname. The Examining Attorney made evidence of record showing that
HANSEN appears 286,420 times in the LEXISNEXIS surname database.15 Nor
15 See June 11, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 22-48.

Serial No. 98224899
- 7 -
does Applicant dispute that HANSEN is the surname of its president.16 Applicant
also has not argued that HANSEN has a recognized meaning other than a
surname, or that it does not have the “structure and pronunciation” of a surname.
Because the mark is in standard character form, we do not consider the fifth
Benthin factor. In re Yeley, No. 78489186, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 87, at *3 (Board
should not consider the fifth factor, “that is, whether the manner in which the
mark is displayed might negate any surname significance” for a standard
character mark).
Taking into consideration all relevant evidence of the public’s perception which
is of record and applying the relevant Benthin factors to the evidence, we find that
the primary significance of the term HANSEN to the purchasing public would be
that of a surname.
B. Is HANSEN HONEY FARM Primarily Merely a Surname?
This does not end our inquiry because HANSEN HONEY FARM is a combination
of three terms; or, in the view of the Examining Attorney and Applicant, the term
HANSEN plus a two-term phrase, HONEY FARM. “[W]hen the mark consists of a
surname and another term, the Board must evaluate the source-identifying
significance of the additional term and determine whether adding the additional term
to the surname alters the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the
purchasing public.” Six Continents, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *6.
16 September 28, 2024 Petition to Revive Abandoned Application at TSDR 1 (“The term
HANSEN is the surname of the president of the applicant/owner of the mark.”).

Serial No. 98224899
- 8 -
A key element in this determination is the relative distinctiveness of the
additional terms in the mark. Earnhardt, 864 F.3d at 1377-78 (citing In re
Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Nondistinctive terms
typically are accorded less weight and are not likely to detract from the primary
surname significance of the mark. See Six Continents, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *32-
33 (finding ATWELL SUITES primarily merely a surname); see also, e.g., In re Weiss
Watch Co., No. 86782562, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 183, at *23-24 (“There can be no dispute
that when used in connection with watches, the additional words WATCH
COMPANY are incapable of source-identifying function and, viewing the mark as a
whole in the context of the identified goods, do not alter the primary significance of
the proposed mark WEISS WATCH COMPANY as primarily merely a surname.”);
Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, No. 91218679, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 123, at *17 (“[T]he
addition of RIBS in the mark does not detract from the primary significance of the
surname AZEKA”).
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, 814 (CCPA 1978). It may also be obtained from websites and
publications. In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
1. The Examining Attorney’s Evidence and Argument
The Examining Attorney argues that the phrase “honey farm” is merely
descriptive and/or generic of Applicant’s identified goods and, therefore, the inclusion

Serial No. 98224899
- 9 -
of this phrase in the mark does not detract from the surname significance of
Applicant’s HANSEN HONEY FARM mark.17 In support of this argument, the
Examining Attorney submitted seven third-party registrations on the Principal
Register in which “HONEY FARM” and “HONEY FARMS” are disclaimed as
descriptive:
• Reg. No. 7266929 – HIVE TO TABLE HONEY FARMS (HONEY
FARMS disclaimed) for “honey” in Class 30;18
• Reg. No. 6665049 – DEER CREEK HONEY FARMS (HONEY FARMS
disclaimed) for “honey” in Class 30;19
• Reg. No. 7373562 – LOCKHART HONEY FARMS (HONEY FARMS
disclaimed and Section 2(f) in part as to “LOCKHART”) for “honey” in
Class 30;20
• Reg. No. 5502219 – (HONEY FARMS disclaimed) for “honey”
in Class 30;21
• Reg. No. 5270023 – (HONEY FARM disclaimed) for “honey” in
Class 30;22
17 13 TTABVUE 7.
18 See June 11, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 8-9.
19 Id. at TSDR 10-11.
20 Id. at TSDR 12-13.
21 Id. at TSDR 18-19. The Examining Attorney mistakenly characterizes this registration as
existing on the Supplemental Register without a design or other features. 13 TTABVUE 12.
This registration is on the Principal Register with a design and a disclaimer of “HONEY
FARMS.” See June 11, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 18-19. We discuss these registrations in
further detail below.
22 June 11, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 14-15.

Serial No. 98224899
- 10 -
• Reg. No. 5754983 – (GEORGIA HONEY FARM disclaimed)
for “Honey; Snack foods, namely, edible honey comb” in Class 30; and
“On-line retail store services featuring honey, snack foods, namely,
edible honey comb” in Class 35;23 and
• Reg. No. 7397061 – WEEKS HONEY FARM (HONEY FARM
disclaimed) for “Honey; Unfiltered and raw honey; Infused honey; Honey
straws” in Class 30.24
The Examining Attorney also submitted an excerpt from Applicant’s website,
advertising Applicant as “HANSEN HONEY FARM[:] More Than A Honey Farm”:25
Additionally, the Examining Attorney made of record printouts from four third-
party websites using the phrase “honey farm” “in connection with goods and/or
services the same as or similar to Applicant’s goods”:26
• All Things Honey & More:27
o “What Are Honey Farms Called?”
23 Id. at TSDR 16-17.
24 Id. at TSDR 20-21.
25 April 7, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 9 (arrow added for emphasis).
26 13 TTABVUE 8. (bolded for emphasis).
27 December 16, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 33, 38, 42.

Serial No. 98224899
- 11 -
o “An apiary, also known as a honey farm, is a specialized location
where beehives of honey bees are kept for the purpose of honey
production.”
o “The terminology around honey farming indicates a deep
association with beekeeping.”
o “A honey farm, typically synonymous with the term apiary,
involves the management of bees primarily for honey production.
Bee farmers, known as beekeepers, honey farmers, or apiarists,
manage and maintain these colonies, ensuring their productivity
and health.”
o “What Is The Word for Honey Farming?”
• Answers.com:28
o “A honey farm is called an apiary.”
• Shifty Chevre:29
o “What are Honey Farms?[:] Honey farms are agricultural
operations centered around the cultivation of honeybees (Apis
mellifera) to produce honey, beeswax, and other bee-related
products for sale, while also providing crucial pollination services
to other farms and ecosystems.”
o “Honey farms, also known as apiaries, represent a fascinating
intersection of agriculture, ecology, and business. These farms are
more than just places where honey is harvested; they are complex
ecosystems managed by beekeepers (or apiculturists) who
understand the intricate lives of bees and their vital role in our
food supply. In recent years, interest in honey farming has
grown….”
• Hive & Honey Apiary:30
o “Honey Farms – Take a Tour and Become Part of a Larger
Movement”
28 Id. at TSDR 48.
29 Id. at TSDR 53; see also id. at TSDR 54-61 (numerous other examples).
30 Id. at TSDR 66, 68; see also id. at TSDR 67, 69 (numerous other examples).

Serial No. 98224899
- 12 -
o “Honey farms are becoming an increasingly popular cottage
industry …. Those with larger urban yards or small semi-rural or
rural properties can go bigger and actually start honey farms.
In these latter cases, a profitable honey farm can turn into the
primary source of income for an individual or family.”
o “Honey farms have joined in on this fun and many are now
offering tours and the response has been tremendous. In some
cases, such as Hunter’s Honey Farm in Martinsville, Indiana,
they do this on an ongoing basis with a certain set weekly
schedule.”
Also, the Examining Attorney included additional website evidence of third
parties using “HONEY FARM” as part of the names of businesses selling honey to
show the “commercial necessity of ‘HONEY FARM’ by those similarly situated to
Applicant.”31 These include: Weeks Honey Farm,32 Hope Honey Farm;33 McDaniel
Honey Farm;34 Hunter’s Honey Farm;35 Adlee Honey Farms;36 Rulison Honey
Farms;37 and Miller Honey Farms.38
2. Applicant’s Evidence and Argument
Applicant challenges the Examining Attorney’s evidence. Applicant says use of
“More Than A Honey Farm” on its website is insufficient by itself to establish public
consumer perception. Applicant argues the third-party registrations with disclaimers
31 13 TTABVUE 8.
32 April 7, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 16, 17. See also supra text accompanying note
24 (registration for WEEKS HONEY FARM).
33 April 7, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 20.
34 Id. at TSDR 25.
35 Id. at TSDR 27.
36 Id. at TSDR 33.
37 Id. at TSDR 37.
38 Id. at TSDR 41.

Serial No. 98224899
- 13 -
are not conclusive. Applicant made of record a partial TSDR record for a registration
that does not include a disclaimer of HONEY FARM: Reg. No. 1660985 –
(“MISSOURI HONEY” AND “FLORISSANT, MO 63033” disclaimed) for “honey” in
Class 30.39
Applicant contends the Examining Attorney’s third-party internet references
represent a “paucity of evidence” that is insufficient to prove widespread public
understanding; further, several of the sites use “HONEY FARM” in a trademark
sense, not descriptively.40 Applicant supplemented the record with evidence of other
businesses that use “Honey Farm[s]” as part of their names, and argues that no
likelihood of confusion exists and marketplace competition is preserved.41 Applicant
also submitted dictionary definitions and other evidence showing that the public and
industry use the terms “apiary” or “bee farm” rather than “honey farm” to describe a
facility where honey is produced and bees are raised.42
39 August 22, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 30-31. The literal portion of the
mark is “MISSOURI HONEY GATEWAY TO GOOD HEALTH, HENSLEY’s HONEY FARM
– FLORISSANT, MISSOURI 63033.”
40 8 TTABVUE 4-7.
41 Id. at 16-18.
42 Id. at 8-11. The dictionary evidence shows that “apiary” as “a place where bees are kept”
and “a place where bees and beehives are kept, especially a place where bees are raised for
their honey.” August 22, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 32, 33, 35. See also id.
at 39 (“An apiary, also known as a bee yard or bee farm, refers to a location or facility where
beehives or honey bee colonies are kept, managed, and maintained by beekeepers for the
purposes of honey production, pollination services, or beekeeping education and research.”).

Serial No. 98224899
- 14 -
Applicant also argues that the “HONEY FARM term arguably creates an
incongruity and is thus suggestive, rather than descriptive of Applicant’s products,”
in that honey and honeycombs are produced by bees in an apiary, not “grown” on a
farm; creamed honey is processed; and candy manufacturing is not associated with
farming. Thus, “the term therefore becomes metaphorical and evocative, therefore
requiring consumers to make a mental connection linking them” to the Class 30
goods.43 Applicant also contends that any doubt regarding descriptiveness of the
phrase HONEY FARM must be resolved in its favor.44
Finally, Applicant argues that the mark HANSEN HONEY FARM as a whole
creates a commercial impression that is not primarily merely a surname. Citing to
Hutchinson Tech., 852 F.2d at 554, Applicant argues the Examining Attorney erred
by analyzing the components separately (“HANSEN” as surname plus “HONEY
FARM” as descriptive) without evaluating what the purchasing public would perceive
when confronted with the entire composite mark HANSEN HONEY FARM.45
Applicant points to the Examining Attorney’s evidence as supporting its own
position, noting that third party registrations combining a surname with “HONEY
FARM” (e.g., LOCKHART HONEY FARMS, BEDILLION HONEY FARM, WEEKS
HONEY FARM) or a geographic term with “HONEY FARM” (e.g., GEORGIA
43 8 TTABVUE 11-12 (citing, inter alia, In re Shutts, No. 245440, 1983 TTAB LEXIS
150 (SNO-RAKE is not merely descriptive of a snow-removal hand tool); In re Vienna Sausage
Mfg. Co., 1967 TTAB LEXIS 183 (no number in original) (FRANKWURST not merely
descriptive for “wieners” (aka hot dogs); and In re John H. Breck, Inc., 1966 TTAB LEXIS 102
(TINT TONE not descriptive for hair coloring, being incongruous or redundant)).
44 Id. at 13.
45 Id. at 14-15.

Serial No. 98224899
- 15 -
HONEY FARM) registered on the Principal Register show that combining a surname
or geographic term with “HONEY FARM” yields a registrable mark as a whole.46
3. Analysis
a. Is HONEY FARM Merely Descriptive?
The evidence from Applicant’s website weighs heavily on our analysis of the
descriptive nature of HONEY FARM. “[T]he United States Patent and Trademark
Office (‘USPTO’) commonly looks to an applicant’s website when it is made of record
for possible evidence of descriptive use of a proposed mark.” In re Berkeley Lights,
Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *13. Where there is record evidence of
the applicant’s use of the proposed mark, the Board “must consider [the] mark in its
commercial context to determine the public’s perception.” N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d at
1365, quoted in In re NextGen Mgmt., LLC, No. 88098031, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1,
at *18 (subsequent history omitted). Indeed, “an applicant’s own website and
marketing materials may be … the most damaging evidence in indicating how the
relevant purchasing public perceives a term.” In re Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888,
2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *18 (internal punctuation and citation omitted).
Applicant’s website uses the phrase in a descriptive slogan – “More Than A Honey
Farm” – which indicates that Applicant views itself as “A” (i.e., one among many)
honey farm. This is strong evidence of descriptiveness. See, e.g., N.C. Lottery,
866 F.3d at 1369 (“The commercial context here demonstrates that a consumer would
immediately understand the intended meaning of FIRST TUESDAY”); In re Hunter
46 Id. at 15-16.

Serial No. 98224899
- 16 -
Fan Co., No. 78195616, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 140, at *8 (“applicant’s own use of the
term ERGONOMIC … highlights the descriptive nature of this term used in
connection with applicant’s ceiling fans”).
Applicant, however, argues that the proper name for a business of this type is an
“apiary” or “bee farm,” not a “honey farm.” We do not question that those terms are
also used. But the existence of other apt names does not make HONEY FARM less
apt or descriptive. A term that immediately describes the goods, or the place from
which they come, is merely descriptive even if another term also would describe them.
Cf. Genesee Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co., 124 F.3d 137, 149 n.15 (2d Cir.
1997) (possible alternatives may not be as effective in communicating information to
prospective purchasers).
The evidence of record also shows that third parties use “honey farm[s]”
descriptively, including the evidence made of record by the Examining Attorney and
cited above.47 Applicant’s evidence includes additional examples of descriptive use of
“honey farm” as a place where honey and honey products are made and sold:
• “West Virginia honey farms produce a diverse range of honeys
including rosemary honey…”48
• “This bee farm has it all: visitors can purchase elderberry syrup,
wildflower honey and plenty of products for those interested in
building their own starter hives …. Bees can even be purchased at
this honey farm as 5-frame Nucs cost around $180.”49
47 See supra text accompanying notes 27-30.
48 August 22, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 43.
49 Id. at TSDR 776 (emphasis in bold added).

Serial No. 98224899
- 17 -
Businesses producing honey from beekeeping use the phrase HONEY FARM[S]
as part of their business names, supporting a finding that the phrase is merely
descriptive. In addition to the evidence made of record by the Examining Attorney,50
Applicant’s evidence shows the commonness of this usage.51 Business entity
designations indicating the type of goods or services produced, rendered or sold are
merely descriptive of those goods or services produced, rendered or sold. See In re
Taylor & Francis (Publ’rs), Inc., No. 75229157, 2000 TTAB LEXIS 380, at
*7-8 (PRESS in the mark PSYCHOLOGY PRESS is descriptive for books; “We have
repeatedly held that ‘a mark which names the type of commercial establishment from
which particular goods come is merely descriptive of those goods.’”) (quoting In re
Phone Co., No. 73287792, 1983 TTAB LEXIS 111, at *2); see also In re Paint Prods.
Co., No. 73504654, 1988 TTAB LEXIS 33, at *11 (PAINT PRODUCTS CO. “describes
the goods of any company selling such products.”); In re Martin’s Famous Pastry
Shoppe, No. 73280011, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 205, at *12, aff’d, 748 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1984) (PASTRY SHOPPE in the mark “conveys a clear and immediate impression of
the character of applicant’s baked goods as products likely to emanate from a pastry
shop”). Businesses use the phrase HONEY FARM in their names because it is an apt
50 See supra text accompanying notes 32-38.
51 See August 22, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 732, 738, 746, 748, 756, 759,
763, 765, 767.

Serial No. 98224899
- 18 -
phrase conveying an immediate impression of honey and honey-based products
produced on a farm by “farmers.”52
The consumer perception that “honey farm” is a place where honey and honey
products are made and sold is confirmed by the third party registration evidence
made of record by the Examining Attorney, where the phrase HONEY FARM is
disclaimed.53 Trademark Act Section 6(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a) (“The Director may
require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise
registrable.”).
Against this evidence, we are not persuaded by Applicant’s argument that
HONEY FARM instead is suggestive or metaphorical as applied to its specific Class
30 confectionary items, such as “candy pieces made with honey” and “candy bars
made with honey,” rather than services of operating a farm.54 The record plainly
shows that businesses often use, and consumers recognize, the phrase HONEY
FARM as designating a place where honey and products containing honey are
produced. Applicant also appears to rely on the principle that a mark comprising a
combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if it results in the
“coinage of hitherto unused and somewhat incongruous word combinations whose
52 See, e.g., id. at TSDR 125 (“Beginner’s Guide to Bee Farming”), 415 (“We took a tour
through a bee farm/honey bee hives with award-winning bee farmer Amber at Ambee
Assembly”), 726 (“A Louisiana native and multi-generational bee farmer, Dalton Lemoine, is
the owner of Lemoine’s Honey in Deville”), and 730 (“Walker says that the beekeeping
industry has been struggling in the past years, with farmers losing more of their colonies
than the normal rate, around 65 percent this year”).
53 See supra text accompanying notes 18-24.
54 8 TTABVUE 11-12.

Serial No. 98224899
- 19 -
import would not be grasped without some measure of imagination and ‘mental
pause’.” Shutts, 1983 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *6. Unlike Shutts, where combining
“snow” and “rake” created a novel, non-standard phrasing for a hand tool, the phrase
“honey farm” is a common commercial designation widely understood by the
purchasing public to describe facilities that yield honey and honey-derived
confections. Such a meaning presents no incongruity.
We find that HONEY FARM is a merely descriptive phrase as applied to
Applicant’s goods.
b. Is HANSEN HONEY FARM Primarily Merely a
Surname as a Whole?
We next turn to the question of whether Applicant’s mark as a whole is primarily
merely a surname. Applicant’s reliance on third-party registrations for LOCKHART
HONEY FARMS, BEDILLION HONEY FARM, WEEKS HONEY FARM and
GEORGIA HONEY FARM to show that combining a surname or geographic term
with “HONEY FARM” yields a registrable mark as a whole is unpersuasive, as
Applicant’s mark is readily distinguishable from those examples. First, both
registrations for LOCKHART HONEY FARMS, the composite registration for
BEDILLION HONEY FARM, and the standard character registration for WEEKS
HONEY FARM disclaim HONEY FARMS.
The standard character registration for LOCKHART HONEY FARMS asserts
Section 2(f) in part as to “LOCKHART,” indicating it was viewed by the Examining
Attorney as a surname but the registrant established acquired distinctiveness. We do

Serial No. 98224899
- 20 -
not have the Office records in the other registrations to determine if BEDILLION or
WEEKS were determined to be common surnames.
The composite registrations for LOCKHART HONEY FARMS and
BEDILLION HONEY FARM include prominent designs, indicating that
they were not viewed “primarily merely” as surnames. See Benthin, 1995 TTAB
LEXIS 10, at *6 n.2 (“[A] word which, by itself, is primarily merely a surname is no
longer such when coupled with a distinctive design, even if the distinctive design is
incorporated into the letters of the word.”). This is also the case for the third-party
registration for the composite mark – other portions of the mark, most
notably the phrase MISSOURI HONEY and the honeycomb design, visually
dominate the diminutive phrase HENSLEY’S HONEY FARM.55 To the extent a
registration for a geographically descriptive mark is relevant to a surname refusal,
the registration for GEORGIA HONEY FARM and design disclaims the
entire literal element of the mark.
55 See supra text accompanying note 39.

Serial No. 98224899
- 21 -
Applicant’s mark does not fit into any of these categories: (1) HANSEN is a
common surname; (2) the mark is standard characters, not part of a composite
mark; (3) Applicant has not disclaimed HONEY FARM; and (4) Applicant has not
proven acquired distinctiveness as to the surname HANSEN. Nor has Applicant
sought to amend the application to the Supplemental Register as advised by the
Examining Attorney.
In sum, there is nothing in the combination of the term HONEY FARM with the
term HANSEN that diminishes the immediate connotation that Applicant’s products
come from a honey farm owned by a person named Hansen. Indeed, the record shows
it is very common for businesses to use the last names of their owners along with the
descriptive phrase “honey farm[s]” in their names:
• McDaniel Honey Farm (owner Steve McDaniel);56
• Rulison Honey Farms (owners Rulison family);57
• Miller’s Honey Farms (founder Nephi Ephraim Miller, current owner
John Miller);58
• Raines Honey Farm (owner Phillip Raines);59
• Wilmer Honey Farm (owners Stacy and Bruce Wilmer);60
• Tate’s Honey Farm (owner Jerry Tate);61
56 April 7, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 25-26.
57 Id. at TSDR 37-38.
58 Id. at TSDR 41-42.
59 August 22, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 732.
60 Id. at TSDR 738.
61 Id. at TSDR 746.

Serial No. 98224899
- 22 -
• Adee Honey Farms (owner Richard Adee);62
• Coy’s Honey Farm (owner Richard Coy);63
• Sadler Honey Farm (owner Colby Sadler);64 and
• Lockhart Honey Farms (owners Laura and Leo Lockhart).65
Thus, inclusion of the descriptive phrase HONEY FARM does not detract from or
change the primary surname significance of the entire mark HANSEN HONEY
FARM.
We also are not convinced by Applicant’s argument that registering the proposed
mark poses no risk of competitive harm or confusion because other competitors use
distinct surnames alongside “honey farm.”66 The lack of potential confusion with
third-party marks does not override the statutory bar under Trademark Act Section
2(e)(4) against registering a mark where the significance to the purchasing public
remains primarily merely a surname.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record and the accompanying
arguments, we find that the mark HANSEN HONEY FARM for “honey; creamed
honey; flavored honey; edible honeycombs containing honey; candy pieces made
with honey; candy bars made with honey” is primarily merely a surname under
Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act. We do not harbor any doubts about this
62 Id. at TSDR 748.
63 Id. at TSDR 756.
64 Id. at TSDR 763.
65 Id. at TSDR 765.
66 8 TTABVUE 16-18.

Serial No. 98224899
- 23 -
finding. Cf. Benthin, 1995 TTAB LEXIS 10, at *7 (resolving doubt in applicant’s
favor).
Decision
The refusal to register is affirmed.