Evan Jordan Maisano

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: October 13, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Evan Jordan Maisano
_____
Serial No. 99276833
_____
Evan Jordan Maisano, pro se.
David Collier, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109,
Michael Kazazian, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Cohen, Lavache, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
On Request for Reconsideration
On August 12, 2026, the Board issued a final decision affirming the Examining
Attorney’s refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark, MAGNETBALL, under
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that it is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s identified “action skill games,” in International Class 28.1
1 Final Decision, 10 TTABVUE. The TTABVUE citations in this opinion refer to entries in
the Board’s electronic docket. The number preceding the TTABVUE designation is the docket

Serial No. 99276833
2
On August 13, 2026, Applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Board’s
final decision under Trademark Rule 2.144, 37 C.F.R. § 2.144.2 “‘Generally, the
premise underlying a request for reconsideration . . . is that, based on the evidence of
record and the prevailing authorities, the Board erred in reaching the decision it
issued . . . .’” In re Berkeley Lights, Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *2-
3 (quoting TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 543 (2022)). Thus, “a request for reconsideration ‘normally should be limited to a
demonstration that based on the evidence properly of record and the applicable law,
the Board’s ruling is in error and requires appropriate change.’” Id.
Here, Applicant argues that the Board erred in its decision by (1) relying on an
unsupported factual proposition3 and (2) improperly concluding that, because magnet
balls could be utilized in goods encompassed by the identification, the average
purchasers of action skill games will immediately perceive MAGNETBALL as
describing a feature of those goods.4
As to the first purported error, Applicant asserts that, while the final decision
correctly quotes Applicant as stating that the identified goods “can include a ball-
based game object” and “magnetically influenced components,” these statements do
entry number and any numbers following indicate the relevant page numbers within the
docket entry.
The subject application, Serial No. 99276833, was filed July 10, 2025, based on an allegation
of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce, under Trademark Act Section 1(b),
15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
2 Request for Reconsideration of Final Decision, 11 TTABVUE.
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id. at 4-6.

Serial No. 99276833
3
“not say that the ball-based game object is itself a magnet, nor does it identify that
object as a ‘magnetic sphere.’”5 Thus, according to Applicant, the final decision erred
in relying on a different, more specific, and unsupported proposition—that
Applicant’s goods “feature or include a magnetic sphere”—to find that
MAGNETBALL is merely descriptive of the goods.6
Applicant mischaracterizes the reasoning of the final decision, as well as the
degree to which the decision relied on Applicant’s statements regarding the identified
goods. A review of the decision shows the Board found the evidence of record
establishes “that the phrase ‘magnet ball,’ or the plural form ‘magnet balls,’ may be
used to describe magnetic spheres generally”; “that consumers of toys, games, and
puzzles have been exposed to use of that phrase in connection with magnetic spheres
that are elements of toys, games, and puzzles”; and “that the properties of ‘magnet
balls’ could be utilized in action skill games requiring physical dexterity and
coordination.”7 The decision subsequently refers to Applicant’s own statements about
the nature of the identified goods, but does so to address Applicant’s argument that
“the Examining Attorney improperly ‘reduced Applicant’s identified goods to a game
said to comprise “a magnet, a ball, and/or a magnet ball,”’ and that this ‘framing is
narrower than the actual identification.’”8 Specifically, the decision states that it is
“entirely appropriate to consider all types of goods encompassed by the wording in
5 Id. at 3.
6 Id.
7 Final Decision, 10 TTABVUE 7.
8 Id. at 8 (quoting Applicant’s Reply Brief, 7 TTABVUE 4).

Serial No. 99276833
4
the identification of goods”; that Applicant’s identification of goods “is broad enough
to encompass action skill games involving magnetic spheres”; and that Applicant’s
own statements indicate that Applicant’s goods consist of a “game system,” “which
can include a ball-based game object” and “magnetically influenced components.”9
Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the Board did not determine that Applicant’s
goods must feature or include a magnetic sphere based on Applicant’s statements
about the nature of the goods, but merely pointed out that “Applicant’s statements,
when considered with the other evidence of record, provide further support for the
conclusion that the identified goods may have characteristics or features for which
the term MAGNETBALL has descriptive significance.”10 In other words, Applicant’s
statements, while corroborative, were not the basis for, or even essential to, the
ultimate determination that MAGNETBALL is merely descriptive.
As to the second purported error, Applicant asserts that the record does not
adequately support the Board’s finding that “the average consumer of action skill
games will immediately understand the wording MAGNETBALL as conveying
information about the goods, namely that they feature or include a magnetic
sphere.”11 Applicant acknowledges the decision’s statement that, “[w]hile the
evidence does not show extensive use of the phrase ‘magnet ball’ in the specific
context of action skill games, it does indicate that the properties of ‘magnet balls’
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Request for Reconsideration of Final Decision, 11 TTABVUE 6-7 (quoting Final Decision,
10 TTABVUE 9-10).

Serial No. 99276833
5
could be utilized in action skill games requiring physical dexterity and
coordination.”12 Applicant contends, however, that “the fact that a hypothetical action
skill game falling within the broad identification could employ a magnetic sphere does
not by itself establish that MAGNETBALL will immediately communicate that
feature to the relevant consumer.”13 According to Applicant, “a further analytical step
is required before concluding that the average purchaser encountering
MAGNETBALL in connection with the identified ‘action skill games’ will
immediately perceive the proposed mark as describing a feature of those goods,” and
“[t]he Board’s acknowledgment that magnetic spheres merely ‘could be utilized’ in
action skill games illustrates that additional step.”14
This argument’s apparent premise is that the mere possibility that action skill
games could utilize a magnetic sphere does not necessarily translate into a likelihood
that the relevant consumers would perceive MAGNETBALL as descriptive of such
goods.15 But, as the final decision states, the test is not whether the consumers could
guess what the goods are based on the mark alone.16 That is, our determination is not
based on, as Applicant says, “a hypothetical action skill game [that] could employ a
magnetic sphere.” We must instead consider whether “someone who knows what
12 Id. at 4 (quoting Final Decision, 10 TTABVUE 7).
13 Id. at 5.
14 Id. at 4-5.
15 See id. at 5.
16 Final Decision, 10 TTABVUE 10 (citing Hangzhou Mengku Tech. Co. v. Shanghai
Zhenglang Tech. Co., No. 91272143, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *24).

Serial No. 99276833
6
the goods . . . are will understand the mark to convey information about them.”17 In
this case, the decision uses the phrase “could be utilized” to explain that, based on
the evidence of record, consumers of games would be aware that magnetic spheres
could be used in action skill games and thus would perceive MAGNETBALL as
descriptive in connection with action games that include or feature a magnetic
sphere. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the final decision’s use of this
phrase does not suggest doubt as to whether consumers would perceive
MAGNETBALL as descriptive, nor does it otherwise implicate a required “further
analytical step” in determining descriptiveness.
We have carefully reviewed Applicant’s arguments and do not find any error in
the Board’s final decision affirming the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark,
MAGNETBALL, under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), on the ground that it is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods in International Class 28. Accordingly,
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration of the Board’s final decision is denied and
the Board’s August 12, 2026, final decision stands as issued.18
17 Id. at 11 (quoting In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *21-22) (emphasis
added).
18 Accordingly, we deny Applicant’s request to modify “the decision to correct or clarify any
finding that Applicant represented in the record that the ball-based game object itself is a
magnetic sphere.” Request for Reconsideration of Final Decision, 11 TTABVUE 8.