Agadia Systems Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: September 24, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Agadia Systems Inc.
_____
Serial No. 90060221
_____
Agadia Systems Inc., pro se.1
Keri-Marie Cantone, Trademark Examining Attorney,
Law Office 104, Zachary Cromer, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Goodman, and Lebow,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Agadia Systems Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the standard character mark FORMULARYHUB.COM for the following services:2
1 Applicant’s General Counsel, Jayson M. Macyda, filed the appeal brief and other
submissions on Applicant’s behalf.
2 Application Serial No. 90060221 was filed on July 18, 2020, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s claim of a bona fide intent to use
the mark in commerce. The application was approved for publication and after the opposition
period, Applicant filed a Statement of Use, on May 11, 2022, claiming May 9, 2022, as the
date of first use of the mark in connection with the services anywhere and first use in
commerce.

Serial No. 90060221
- 2 -
Software design and development; Computer software
design; Customizing computer software; Developing
computer software, in International Class 42.
Applicant appeals the Examining Attorney’s final refusal to register the mark
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the recited services.3
The appeal is fully briefed.4 We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Background – Prior Decision in Related Application and Appeal
Because there is argument regarding the way in which the application has
been prosecuted and the potential ramifications stemming from that prosecution, we
provide some relevant background.
The application was filed based on Applicant’s intent to use the mark in commerce
(see Note 2 above). The Examining Attorney issued a Final Refusal to register under
Section 2(e)(1) on March 29, 2021, and on September 28, 2021, Applicant filed an
Appeal of the 2(e)(1) Refusal. The appeal was instituted by the Board and Applicant
filed an appeal brief November 24, 2021.5 However, the application was approved for
3 The Examining Attorney also finally refused registration on the grounds that: (1) when
viewed in conjunction with the specimen, the activities recited in the identification of services
are not registrable services, under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-
1053, 1127; and (2) “the specimen of record does not show use of the mark in connection with
the services specified in the application,” under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1051, 1127. Applicant has also appealed these grounds for refusal. However, because we
affirm the mere descriptiveness refusal, we need not reach these additional grounds. In re
SIPCA Holding SA, No. 88488405, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 202, *12 (affirming refusal to register
for failing to provide a definite identification and to respond to information requirement but
declining to reach likelihood of confusion refusal).
4 Applicant’s appeal brief, 17 TTABVUE; the Examining Attorney’s brief, 19 TTABVUE; and
Applicant’s reply brief, 20 TTABVUE.
5 4 TTABVUE (Applicant’s first Appeal Brief).

Serial No. 90060221
- 3 -
publication for opposition on January 26, 2022, and the appeal proceeding was
terminated.6
After the opposition period, Applicant filed a Statement of Use (SOU). Upon
examination of the SOU, the Examining Attorney ultimately issued a Final Office
Action, refusing the registration on the bases that the specimen of use does not
evidence an association between the mark and the services specified in the
application, and that the activities recited in the identification of services are not
registrable services. Applicant appealed this refusal, on both bases, and filed a
request for reconsideration.7 The request for reconsideration was denied by the
Examining Attorney; the appeal proceedings were resumed on August 10, 2023; and
Applicant was given time to file its appeal brief.8
However, on October 2, 2023, the Board suspended this proceeding pending the
outcome of Applicant’s related application Serial No. 88943465 (“Companion
Application”) which was then on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”).9 The Companion Application for a standard
character mark FORMULARYHUB for “customizing computer software,” in
International Class 42, was refused registration on the ground that the mark is
6 6 TTABVUE.
7 8 TTABVUE.
8 9 TTABVUE (denial of request for reconsideration); 10 TTABVUE (Board resumption
order).
9 11 TTABVUE (Board suspension order). See also In re Agadia, 2024-113 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3,
2024) (denying Applicant’s petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the Board to vacate its
order staying proceedings).

Serial No. 90060221
- 4 -
merely descriptive of the services and Applicant had appealed the Board’s decision
affirming that refusal.10
On March 11, 2025, Applicant informed the Board that the Federal Circuit issued
a final determination of the appeal involving the Companion Application;11 indeed,
the Federal Circuit, on February 20, 2025, affirmed the Board’s decision that the
mark is merely descriptive of the services (“Prior Decision”).12
On June 12, 2025, the Examining Attorney filed a Motion to Remand requesting
jurisdiction of the application be restored:13
… to address an issue not involved in the appeal that may render the
subject mark unregistrable.
Specifically, a Section 2(e)1 Refusal was withdrawn prior to submission of
the Examiner’s Statement during the first appeal of this application. On
remand, the trademark examining attorney intends to issue a new non-
final Office action reinstating the Section 2(e)1 Refusal.
The Board granted the Examining Attorney’s request and remanded jurisdiction
of the application.14 The Examining Attorney eventually issued a Final Office Action
refusing registration on grounds that now include mere descriptiveness under Section
2(e)(1) of the Act. This appeal is now ready for final decision.
10 The application was filed on June 2, 2020, approximately 6 weeks before the filing of the
application subject of this appeal. See also Ex Parte Appeal docket for Ser. No. 88943465, 13
TTABVUE (Board Final Decision).
11 12 TTABVUE.
12 See Ex Parte Appeal docket for Ser. No. 88943465: 15 TTABVUE (copy of Federal Circuit
Final Decision); In re Agadia Sys., No. 2023-1993 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (unpublished).
13 13 TTABVUE 1.
14 14 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 90060221
- 5 -
II. Applicant’s Procedural and Evidentiary Objections
Applicant argues that “[t]he USPTO is barred from relitigating its merely
descriptive refusal because it has already determined that FORMULARYHUB.COM
is not merely descriptive in the first appeal and it is precluded from introducing new
evidence as a matter of law.”15 Applicant also argues that “the Examining Attorney
does not have an unlimited amount of time to submit evidence after a Notice of
Appeal has been filed: all evidence was required to be submitted in the First Appeal.”
(Emphasis in original).16
While the prosecution of this appeal is somewhat convoluted, the Board’s grant of
the Examining Attorney’s request to remand the application to reassert the mere
descriptiveness refusal is straightforward and the Examining Attorney’s introduction
of additional evidence on remand is appropriate. Applicant is correct that once an
appeal has been filed, the ex parte appeal record should be complete, and evidence
should not thereafter be filed with the Board. Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. §
2.142(d); see also TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE
(TBMP) § 1209 (2026). However, the Board may, at the request of the examining
attorney and upon a showing of good cause, suspend the appeal and remand the
application to the examining attorney for further examination of an issue not on
appeal that may render the mark unregistrable. Id. This is exactly what occurred
when the Board granted the request for remand on June 18, 2025 (14 TTABVUE);
15 17 TTABVUE 4.
16 20 TTABVUE 2.

Serial No. 90060221
- 6 -
and the evidence submitted before the appeal proceedings resumed on December 11,
2025 is properly of record.
The fact that the Examining Attorney previously raised and then withdrew the
mere descriptiveness refusal does not prohibit reasserting the refusal on remand.
Accordingly, we stand by our prior decision to remand the application and now decide
the appeal of that refusal on the evidence properly of record.
III. Merely Descriptive -- Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Act prohibits registration on the Principal Register of “a
mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods [or services] of the
applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them,” unless the mark has acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act.17
A term is “merely descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it
“immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of
the goods or services with which it is used.” In re Chamber of Com. 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)). “A mark need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail
to be descriptive, it need only describe a single feature or attribute.” Id. (cleaned up;
citation omitted).
“Descriptiveness must be evaluated ‘in relation to the particular goods [or
services] for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and
17 Section 2(f) is not pertinent to our decision because Applicant does not claim the mark is
registrable because it has acquired distinctiveness.

Serial No. 90060221
- 7 -
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.’” Id. (quoting
Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 963-64). Descriptiveness is not considered “in the abstract or
on the basis of guesswork.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports, LLC, No. 86490930, 2016
TTAB LEXIS 150, at *4 (citing In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA
1978)). “The question is not whether someone presented with only the mark could
guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who
knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
As applicable to this appeal, “[w]here 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, 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.
Lastly, “[w]hether a mark is merely descriptive or not is determined from the
viewpoint of the relevant purchasing public.” In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039,

Serial No. 90060221
- 8 -
1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We must “consider the commercial
impression of a mark as a whole ... viewed through the eyes of a consumer.” Real
Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (cleaned
up, quoting DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1253) (emphasis in original omitted).
Applicant’s mark FORMULARYHUB is a compound term consisting of the words
FORMULARY and HUB, followed by the top-level-domain (TLD) “.COM.”
The Examining Attorney argues that FORMULARYHUB.COM is merely
descriptive because each of “the individual words in Applicant’s mark convey an
immediate idea of a feature, characteristic, purpose, or use of applicant’s identified
software services.”18 In support, she points to the following defined meanings:
FORMULARY: “A formulary is a list of generic and brand-name prescription
medications covered by your health insurance plan”19 and “formulary is a list of
medications covered by your health plan.”20
HUB: “the effective center of an activity, region, or network.”21
.COM: “abbr[eviation]. commercial organization (in internet addresses).”22
18 19 TTABVUE 4.
19 15 TTABVUE 23; Definition from GoodRX website (www.goodrx.com), attached to Final
Office Action issue December 10, 2025.
20 Id. at 29.
21 Definition from Lexico website (www.lexico.com), attached to Office Action issue on
September 9, 2020, at TSDR p. 6.
22 We agree, at the Examining Attorney’s request (19 TTABVUE 12, n. 1), to take judicial
notice of the definition from THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE, FIFTH EDITION that he attached. In re Jimenez, No. 97551823, 2025 TTAB LEXIS
441, at *17 n.14 (Board may take judicial notice of a dictionary definition). See also Univ. of
Notre Dame du Lac v. J. C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., No. 91061847, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 146,
at *7 (“[T]he Board may take judicial notice of use of a term in dictionaries.”).

Serial No. 90060221
- 9 -
With respect to the term HUB in particular, the Examining Attorney asserts that
this is “another name for a portal, a website or other means of accessing content” and
it is used “across multiple industries … to refer to a centralized portal of data, the
healthcare industry.”23 To illustrate its use in connection with the healthcare
industry, the Examining Attorney provided eight examples from third-party
websites, including:
HelloHealth website (www.hellohealth.com), “The Solution: A Centralized
Health Hub … A centralized hub is a single, integrated platform to access,
manage and share health information … whether you’re tracking personal
health goals, monitoring medications, or coordinating with providers. …
Here are some ways a centralized hub can help your life.”24
The Healthcare Value Hub website (www.healthcarevaluehub.com), “The
Hub monitors, translates, and disseminates research on health care
affordability issues and policies … to create an affordable, high quality
health care system … About The Hub.” 25
The Examining Attorney contends that the component terms of Applicant’s mark,
as outlined above, do not lose their descriptive meanings, rather “[w]hen combined,
the wording FORMULARYHUB.COM immediately informs consumers that
Applicant’s services involve designing, customizing and developing software that
creates a centralized location for a collection of formula[rie]s via a website.”26 To
23 19 TTABVUE 5.
24 Printouts attached to August 12, 2025, Office Action, TSDR pp. 4-8.
25 Printout attached to December 10, 2025, Office Action, TSDR p. 20.
26 19 TTABVUE 6. Applicant focused on this sentence in the Examining Attorney’s brief
because it contained a typographical error, using the term “formulas” instead of
“formularies,” and asserts that the Examining Attorney “erroneously believes a ‘formula’ is
the same thing as a ‘formulary.’” 17 TTABVUE 20-21 (n. 11). In the Examining Attorney’s
brief, the term “formulas” appears once, and when read in the context, it is apparent that
this is merely a spelling error and the Examining Attorney was obviously referring to the
plural of formulary, i.e., “formularies.”

Serial No. 90060221
- 10 -
further illustrate the mark’s overall commercial impression made on the relevant
consumer, the Examining Attorney submitted printouts from Applicant’s website
describing various features of Applicant’s services. See In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d
1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bayer AG, 488 F.3d at 964 (in determining how the
relevant consuming public perceives a mark in connection with the identified
services, we may consider any competent source, an applicant’s own advertising
material and explanatory text). On its website, Applicant touts its FormularyHub
services as “enabl[ing] Health Plans … and other formulary management companies
to create and manage one or many Formulary files by using some of the following
attributes [of Applicant’s software].”27 In other words, Applicant’s software services
involve creating a hub or centralized location for a collection of formularies with
various functions for users so they can manage the formularies.
In sum, considered as a whole, FORMULARYHUB.COM does not present an
incongruity and the individual terms retain their descriptive meanings. The mark
immediately informs a relevant consumer that Applicant’s software services will
feature a hub or centralized location to manage formularies, with the TLD .COM
suffix merely indicating that Applicant renders or advertises its services through a
commercial internet domain. See In re Hotels.com LP, 573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(referring to the “standard usage of ‘.COM’ to show a commercial internet domain.”).
To be clear, the absence of spaces between the component terms does not serve to
remove the mere descriptiveness of the mark. “It is almost too well established to cite
27 Printout attached to September 9, 2020 Office Action, TSDR p. 3.

Serial No. 90060221
- 11 -
cases for the proposition that an otherwise merely descriptive term is not made any
less so by merely omitting spaces between the words... .” Minnesota Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Addressograph- Multigraph Corp., 1967 TTAB LEXIS 152, *5.
Apart from Applicant’s procedural and evidentiary objections, discussed above, we
have also fully considered Applicant’s arguments against the descriptiveness refusal
of Applicant’s mark. Applicant contends that its mark only “suggests the services
provided.”28 Applicant goes on to describe “the services provided are not merely to
aggregate customers’ formularies into what the Examining Attorney essentially
describes as an electronic filing cabinet, but to service these formularies in a specific
manner based upon customers’ requests: integration with a health plan’s pharmacy
claims system; regulatory compliance; integration with mail vendors.”29 Applicant
contends that “consumers must pause and cogitate to understand the mark relative
to the services/functions actually performed … [and therefore the mark] is suggestive,
not merely descriptive.”30
For reasons already discussed, we disagree with Applicant as to whether
consumers will need to “pause and cogitate” upon encountering the mark
FORMULARYHUB.COM in connection with Applicant’s services. Rather, we have no
doubt that a consumer interested in software design and customization services for
managing and maintaining formularies immediately perceives the mark as
28 17 TTABVUE 19.
29 17 TTABVUE 21.
30 17 TTABVUE 21-22.

Serial No. 90060221
- 12 -
describing the feature and function of those services, namely, Applicant’s software
design, customization and development services involve the creation of a centralized
location where formularies can be managed online.
IV. Conclusion
Upon consideration of the applicable law, the evidence of record, and the
arguments of Applicant and the Examining Attorney, we find that Applicant’s mark
FORMULARYHUB.COM immediately conveys to consumers a feature, function or
purpose of Applicant’s software design, customization and development services, and
as such is merely descriptive of the services.
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark
FORMULARYHUB.COM under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.