Advanced Solutions Life Sciences, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2020

87832505 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2020)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: May 22, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Advanced Solutions Life Sciences, LLC
_____

Serial No. 87832505
_____

Karen Kreider Gaunt of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
for Advanced Solutions Life Sciences, LLC.

Brittany Johnson, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 126,
Andrew Lawrence, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Kuhlke, Adlin and Johnson,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Advanced Solutions Life Sciences, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the standard character mark BIOREACTORBOT for services
ultimately identified as “Industrial robots which incorporate a bioreactor for
providing an environment in which biological and chemical processes are carried
out,” in International Class 7; “Bioreactor for providing an environment in which
biological and chemical processes are carried out for use in cell culturing; Bioreactor
for providing an environment in which biological and chemical processes are carried
out for laboratory use; Laboratory robots which incorporate a bioreactor for
Serial No. 87832505
- 2 -

providing an environment in which biological and chemical processes are carried
out; Bioreactor for providing an environment in which biological and chemical
processes are carried out which incorporate robots for laboratory use,” in
International Class 9; “Bioreactor for providing an environment in which biological
and chemical processes are carried out for use in the treatment of biomaterials,
biologic tissue, cellular materials, cellular cultures, biologic cultures and
biochemical,” in International Class 11.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
mark in each class on the ground that BIOREACTORBOT is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1). In addition, the Examining Attorney refused registration for
Applicant’s failure to comply with a request for information pursuant to Trademark
Rule 2.61(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.61(b), regarding the nature of Applicant’s services in
order to permit proper examination of the application.
When the refusals were made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. The Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration
and the appeal was resumed. After Applicant filed its brief, the Examining Attorney
requested and was granted remand to submit additional evidence. Applicant was
allowed time to file a supplemental brief which it did. The case is now fully briefed.
We affirm the refusal to register on both grounds.

1 Application Serial No. 87832505, filed on March 13, 2018, 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).
Serial No. 87832505
- 3 -

I. Trademark Rule 2.61(b) Requirement for Information
Trademark Rule 2.61(b) provides that “[t]he Office may require the applicant to
furnish such information ... as may be reasonably necessary to the proper
examination of the application.” The underlying purpose of the rule is to encourage
high-quality, efficient examination. It recognizes that an applicant is often in the
best position to provide the facts and information that the USPTO needs to properly
examine an application and assess registrability of the applicant’s mark.
TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 814 (Oct. 2018)
(“TMEP”). According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the
wording “reasonably necessary” in this context should be interpreted broadly, and
applies to information that is “relevant to” registrability or “reasonably calculated”
to lead to such relevant information. Cf. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393
F.3d 1277, 73 USPQ2d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing Patent Rule
1.105(a)(1), which is the patent counterpart of Trademark Rule 2.61(b)).
“Applicants are expected to provide direct and complete responses to a
requirement for information. Examining attorneys are not expected to infer direct
answers from responses that provide mere hints as to the answer.” In re ADCO
Industries-Technologies, L.P., 2020 USPQ2d 53786 *2 (TTAB 2020); see also In re
AOP LLC, 107 USPQ2d 1644, 1651 (TTAB 2013). Noncompliance is a proper ground
for refusing registration. In re AOP, 107 USPQ2d at 1651; see also In re
Cheezwhse.com Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1917, 1919 (TTAB 2008); In re DTI P’ship LLP, 67
USPQ2d 1699, 1701 (TTAB 2003); TMEP § 814.
Serial No. 87832505
- 4 -

In the Office Actions, the Examining Attorney required Applicant to:
[S]ubmit additional product information about applicant’s
goods. The requested product information should include
fact sheets, instruction manuals, and/or advertisements.
If these materials are unavailable, applicant should
submit similar documentation for goods of the same type,
explaining how its own product will differ. If the goods
feature new technology and no competing goods are
available, applicant must provide a detailed description of
the goods. Factual information about the goods must
clearly indicate how they operate, their salient features,
and their prospective customers and channels of trade.
Said information should indicate to what extent, if any,
the goods comprise bioreactors and/or robots. Conclusory
statements regarding the goods will not satisfy this
requirement.2
The Examining Attorney advised Applicant that the information was necessary to
permit proper examination of the application.3
Applicant did not provide a response to this request other than to amend the
identification of goods. December 28, 2018 Response. After the Final Office Action
issued, Applicant requested reconsideration and submitted the following response:
Applicant states that it does not have any relevant
information to provide at this time. Applicant filed the
present application on an intent-to-use basis, and the
actual product is still in the research and development
phase, thus, the materials that the Examiner is seeking
are not readily available. Nor can Applicant provide
documentation for goods of the same type, because to
Applicant’s knowledge, no such goods exist.4

2 June 30, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 1. All references to the application record are to the
USPTO’s Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system.
3 Id.
4 July 26, 2019 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 7-8.

Serial No. 87832505
- 5 -

In its appeal brief, Applicant reiterated that because the underlying technology is
still being developed, precise information about the goods is not available. Applicant
offered this further clarification:
Potential customers for Applicant’s Goods would be
hospitals, research facilities, universities, and
pharmaceutical companies. In response to the Examining
Attorney’s question as to what extent the goods comprise
bioreactors and/or robots, Applicant believes the
identification of goods adequately addresses the
Examining Attorney’s inquiry in that “bioreactors,”
“industrial robots,” and “laboratory robots” are clearly
listed in Applicant’s identification of goods.
App. Brief, 11 TTABVUE 17.
We find that the Examining Attorney’s information requirements were
reasonably necessary to the proper examination of the applications, as stated in
Trademark Rule 2.61(b). The information is directly relevant to whether the
proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified bioreactor goods.
Applicant’s response is insufficient. If they are in development, there would at
least be some specific information of some type about the nature of the goods beyond
the wording in the identification of goods. See In re AOP, 107 USPQ2d at 1651
(affirming Rule 2.61(b) refusal based on evasive response to information
requirement that was relevant to potential descriptiveness and misdescriptiveness
refusals). For example, Applicant could not have crafted its identification of goods
unless it had at least some more specific information about the products it was
developing. Perhaps at a minimum Applicant could explain how bioreactors and
robots incorporating bioreactors work -- what is generally involved, beyond the
simple listing in the identification of goods.
Serial No. 87832505
- 6 -

In view of the above, the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark because
Applicant failed to respond sufficiently to the Trademark Rule 2.61(b) final
requirement for information is proper and is affirmed.
Applicant’s failure to comply with the Trademark Rule 2.61(b) requirements is a
sufficient basis, in itself, for affirming the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed
mark. See DTI P’ship, 67 USPQ2d at 1702; In re Joseph Edward Page, 51 USPQ2d
1660, 1665 (TTAB 1999). Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, we now
address the refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).
II. Mere Descriptiveness
A mark is deemed to be merely descriptive of goods or services, within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1), if it immediately conveys information about a quality,
feature, function, or characteristic of them. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.,
675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re TriVita, Inc.,
783 F.3d 872, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The determination of
whether a mark is merely descriptive must be made “in relation to the 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.” In re Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In
re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978)). It is not
necessary, in order to find a mark merely descriptive, that the mark describe each
feature of the goods or services, only that it describe a “single feature or attribute”
Serial No. 87832505
- 7 -

of the goods or services. In re Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219; In re
Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Examining Attorney asserts that the proposed mark BIOREACTORBOT
“immediately conveys information about the goods, namely, that the goods are
robots featuring bioreactors or bioreactor elements and/or bioreactors featuring
bots, that is, robots, and/or robotic elements.” Ex. Att. Brief, 24 TTABVUE 10. In
response, Applicant asserts that:
While there is no doubt that “BIOREACTOR
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT” would be descriptive of the goods
in Applicant’s Mark, the composite term
BIOREACTORBOT, without a space between the
individual elements and featuring a shorthand form of the
vague word “BOT,” is too attenuated and requires too
much imagination on behalf of an observer to be merely
descriptive. Any information conveyed by this mark lacks
the required particularity to indicate the specific type of
robots featured in Applicant’s Goods, and thus, the mark
is at most suggestive, not descriptive.
App. Brief, 11 TTABVUE 11.
In support of her position that the mark combines two descriptive terms in a
manner that does “not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in
relation to the goods,” (24 TTABVUE 6) the Examining Attorney relies on the
following definitions:
Bioreactor n. An apparatus, such as a fermentation
chamber, for growing organisms such as bacteria or yeast
that are used in the biotechnological production of
substances such as pharmaceuticals, antibodies, or
vaccines, or for the bioconversion of organic waste.5

5 June 30, 2018 Office Action, TSDR 2 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2018) at www.ahdictionary.com).
Serial No. 87832505
- 8 -

Bot n. 1. A software program, such as a spider, that
performs automated tasks on the internet. 2. A software
program that imitates the behavior of a human, as in
participating in chatroom or IRC discussions. 3. Informal
A robot.6
Bot n. 1. Robot 2. A. a computer program that performs
automatic repetitive tasks.7
Bot Refers to a robot or an agent.8
Bot A bot is a computer program that carries out tasks for
other programs or users, especially on the internet9
BOT noun 1. Robot 2. A computer program that executes
a specific task according to the user’s instructions10
In addition, the Examining Attorney submitted several online articles and web
pages from various third-party websites referring to bots as robots.11
A few examples are reproduced below with “bot” bolded:
Acronym Finder listing BOT as an abbreviation for Robot
(especially a software agent);12

6 Id. at 4.
7 January 27, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 2-3 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER (2019) at www.merriam-
webster.com).
8 Id. at 8 (Barkley’s OASIS Comprehensive Technology Glossary at oasismanagment.com).
9 January 27, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 48 (COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary (2019)
at www.collinsdictionary.com).
10 January 27 Office Action, TSDR 51 (WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY (4th
ed. 2010) at www.collinsdictionary.com “in American”).
11 We note Applicant’s objection to the “internet printouts of articles” and in particular to
the “quote from Smarter CX” on the grounds of hearsay. App. Supp. Brief, 22 TTABVUE 2.
First, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in ex parte appeals, although they may be
used as guidelines. In re Medline Industries, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 10237 at *3. Second we use
these printouts for what they show on their face – those in the industry using the term in a
certain manner, and consumers exposed to such use. In view thereof, the objection is moot.
12 January 27, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 43 (Acronym Finder at
https://www.acronymfinder.com).
Serial No. 87832505
- 9 -

Meet the human-friendly robot that could pave the way
for household bots … Dubbed Blue, the two-armed bot is
designed to work alongside humans and be cheap enough
not to break the bank. For now, it’s a research tool.;13
Prolifics … Service Bots: The Next Level of Process
Automation … Service bots provide the next level of
automation for companies that are looking to reduce costs
and speed up manual processes.;14
Robotic Process Automation at Scale: Innovating with
bots … Utilizing our RPA maturity curve model … [graph
showing “personal assistant bots” and “personal
multiplication bots”] … Don’t be afraid to automate a
process that can only be completed 80% by a bot … Bots
understand explicit instructions … A bot runs in the
context of a user – likely a user you will create specifically
to represent a bot.;15
Will Robots Take My Job? What are the advantages of
having bots in the workplace?;16
The Robotic Future: Where Bots Operate Together and
Learn From Each Other … The real challenge, How says,
is readying these AI-enabled bots for the real world,
outside of the lab. … In How’s idealized ecosystem of co-
learning AI-enabled bots, the whole is greater than the
sum of the parts …;17 and
What Does Bot Mean? 4 Ways Bots Play a Role in Our
Daily Lives … To put is simply, “bot” is short-form for
robot. So a bot can be any robot, and there are many
different types of bots out there. We have voice-bots,
chat-bots, web crawlers, and many more. … The
applications for bots are seemingly endless … . 18

13 September 13, 2019 Reconsideration Letter, TSDR 12-17 (www.nbcnews.com).
14 Id. at 33-36 (www.prolifics.com).
15 Id. at 37-43 (www.arrowdigital.com).
16 Id. at 44-48 (https://willrobotstakemyjob.com).
17 February 26, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 38-42 (wired.com).
18 Id. at 29-33 (smartercx.com).
Serial No. 87832505
- 10 -

Finally, the Examining Attorney submitted third-party registrations in which
the term “bot” is disclaimed or issued on the Supplemental Register:19
Registration No. 3607151 for the mark Q BOT (BOT
disclaimed) for sewing robots;
Registration No. 4039129 for the mark GOT BOT? (BOT
disclaimed) for, inter alia, industrial robots;
Registration No. 4298559 for the mark BOT COLONY
(BOT disclaimed) for, inter alia, computer game software;
Registration No. 4548593 for the mark RESCUE BOTS
(BOTS disclaimed) for, inter alia, toy robots convertible
into other visual toy forms;
Registration No. 4694600 for the mark BOT BASH (BOT
disclaimed) for, inter alia, entertainment events featuring
remote controlled equipment and robots for others;
Registration No. 5408770 for the mark BOT SQUAD
(BOT disclaimed) for, inter alia, robots for personal or
hobby use;
Registration No. 4336457 for the mark CLAWBOT on the
Supplemental Register for, inter alia, toy robots and
robots for personal, educational and hobby use and
structural parts therefor; and
Registration No. 4535091 for the mark PI-BOT on the
Supplemental Register for robots for educational and
personal use.
Applicant provided the following dictionary definition for the word “robot”:20
1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a
human and is capable of performing a variety of often
complex human tasks on command or by being
programmed in advance. 2. A machine or device that
operates automatically or by remote control.

19 January 27, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 10-42.
20 December 28, 2018 Response, TSDR 10 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2018) at www.ahdictionary.com).
Serial No. 87832505
- 11 -

The Examining Attorney explains that “the wording ‘BOT’ is used to reference
‘robots’ and can also refer to robots used in industry or laboratories [and] a relevant
consumer viewing applicant’s mark in connection with the identified goods would
recognize ‘BOT’ as the equivalent of the descriptive wording ‘ROBOT’.” 24
TTABVUE 8. Further, “[b]ased on the evidence of record, the definition of ‘BOT’ and
its treatment by the USPTO for similar goods, the term is a descriptive term
synonymous with robot, and therefore, when combined with the descriptive term
‘BIOREACTOR’, the mark ‘BIOREACTORBOT’ is merely descriptive of the goods
and/or a feature thereof. It immediately conveys information about the goods,
namely, that the goods are robots featuring bioreactors or bioreactor elements
and/or bioreactors featuring bots, that is, robots, and/or robotic elements.” Ex. Att.
Brief, 24 TTABVUE 10.
It is clear that both terms, BIOREACTOR and BOT, are merely descriptive of
the goods. BIOREACTORBOT immediately tells consumers that Applicant’s goods
are comprised of a bioreactor and a bot. This is directly reflected in the
identifications of goods for Classes 7 (“Industrial robots which incorporate a
bioreactor”) and 9 (“Laboratory robots which incorporate a bioreactor, Bioreactor for
providing an environment in which biological and chemical processes are carried
out which incorporate robots for laboratory use”). While the identification of goods
in Class 11 does not specify use of a robot or bot, it is sufficiently broad to
encompass bioreactors which incorporate or work with robots or bots.
Serial No. 87832505
- 12 -

Applicant argues that “the term ‘bot’ is imprecise and could refer to a wide
variety of robots and robotic functionality.” App. Brief, 11 TTABVUE 10. However,
there is nothing imprecise about the term. The record clearly shows it is the
equivalent of “robot” which is present in the identification as a feature of the goods.
In addition, Applicant’s argument that “the term ‘robot’ itself is a vague term which
provides very little information about the nature of the goods” stands in
contradiction to its own description of its goods which identifies robots as part of the
bioreactors. If the term was not clear, Applicant would not have chosen it for its
identification of goods. Applicant points to the Acceptable Identification of Goods
and Services manual noting that the word robot only appears alongside another
word, as support that the word is “vague” or not sufficiently immediate in its
description; however, it is precisely defined by Applicant’s identification -- a robot
that incorporates or is incorporated by a bioreactor. In other words, the point is not
whether “robot” is used “alongside” another word, but rather whether it refers to
and identifies the nature of Applicant’s goods. Here it does.
Applicant’s argument ignores the well-established principle that the
determination of whether a mark is merely descriptive must be made in relation to
the goods or services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract. In re
Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In
re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831. This requires consideration of the context in which
the mark is used or intended to be used in connection with those goods/services, and
the possible significance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the
Serial No. 87832505
- 13 -

goods or services in the marketplace. See In re Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d
at 1219; In re Bayer, 82 USPQ2d at 1831; In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57
USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Our determination is based on “whether someone
who knows what the goods and services are will understand the mark to convey
information about them.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d
965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v.
Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation omitted)). Moreover, “[t]hat a term may have other meanings in
different contexts is not controlling.” In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104
USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591,
593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e). “It 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.” In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018)
(quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)). Applicant’s
reliance on RJR Foods, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 174 USPQ 244 (TTAB
1972) does not persuade us of a different result. In that case, the Board found that
although GRAPEBERRY “tells us that applicant’s product comprises a blend of
grape and some type of berry juice” it does not specify “which berry.” Id. at 245.
Here, “BIOREACTORBOT” directly tells the consumer that it is a “BOT” used with
a “BIOREACTOR.”21

21 In addition, as the Examining Attorney noted that decision has been limited to its
particular facts. See In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750, 1751 (TTAB 1990).
Serial No. 87832505
- 14 -

Applicant agrees that “there is no doubt that “BIOREACTOR INDUSTRIAL
ROBOT” would be descriptive of the goods, but, as discussed above, contends that
the combination “without a space between the individual elements and featuring a
shorthand form of the vague word ‘BOT,’ is too attenuated and requires too much
imagination on behalf of an observer to be merely descriptive.” App. Brief, 11
TTABVUE 11. Applicant further argues that:
BIOREACTOR and BOT separately have nothing to do
with each other. There is nothing inherent in an
apparatus for growing organisms that would signify that
robots would be a component of these goods. There is also
nothing inherent in robots that have anything to do with
bioreactors. The two are therefore unrelated words that
when combined create an impression that is separate
from the elements as defined. The result is a clearly
coined term, BIOREACTORBOT, that is devoid of
meaning given the disconnect between the definitions of
its individual elements and is more than capable of
distinguishing Applicant’s goods from those of other
traders. …
Because the term BOT is vague and does not give any
indication of the type of robots featured, the combination
of terms in the compound BIOREACTORBOT mark is
incongruent and requires a level of thinking by an
observer to discern the nature of the goods.
App. Br., 11 TTABVUE 12-13.
While we agree that BIOREACTORBOT consists of individual components, the
combination of the prefix “bioreactor” with the word “bot” does not present a unique,
incongruous or otherwise nondescriptive meaning. Rather, as Applicant’s chosen
identification of goods makes clear, the individual components of the term
BIOREACTORBOT retain their descriptive meaning in relation to the goods and
the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive. See In re
Serial No. 87832505
- 15 -

Petroglyph Games, Inc., 91 USPQ2d 1332, 1341 (TTAB 2009). It immediately and
directly conveys that Applicant’s goods comprise bioreactors and bots.
It is sufficient that a proposed mark merely describe a function or characteristic
to be, at minimum, merely descriptive. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5
USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE held generic for an anti-static cloth
used for cleaning computer and television screens). Chamber of Commerce of the
U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219; see also In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171,
1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A mark may be merely descriptive
even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods or
services”) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d
1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
The fact that an applicant may be the first to use a term does not make it
nondescriptive. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S.
111, 122 (2004) (trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining “a
complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first”)
(citation omitted); Clairol, Inc. v. Roux Distrib. Co., 280 F.2d 863, 126 USPQ 397,
398 (CCPA 1960) (“Even novel ways of referring to a product may nonetheless be
merely descriptive.”); In re Bailey Meter Co., 102 F. 2d 843, 41 USPQ 275, 276
(CCPA 1939) (“The fact that appellant may have been the first and only one to
adopt and use the mark sought to be registered does not prove that the mark is not
descriptive . . . .”).
Serial No. 87832505
- 16 -

In addition, Applicant’s reliance on a “competitive need” test is misplaced. An
examining attorney is not required to prove that others have used the mark at issue
or that they need to use it; the correct test is whether the mark conveys an
immediate idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose
or use of the goods. In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514
(TTAB 2016); see also In re Walker Mfg. Co., 359 F. 2d 474, 149 USPQ 528 (CCPA
1966); (“The question . . . is not whether the Board or others may or would utilize
‘CHAMBERED PIPE’ to describe applicant’s goods, but whether this designation
does, in fact, describe such goods. That there are other words which others may
employ to describe or define applicant’s goods does not, in any way, lessen the
descriptive character of the words ‘CHAMBERED PIPE.’ …”) (quoting Board
decision with approval).
Applicant argues that doubt should be resolved in its favor; however, this is not
a record where there is any doubt that BIOREACTORBOT merely describes a
feature of Applicant’s goods that comprise bioreactors and bots.

Decision: The refusals to register BIOREACTORBOT as merely descriptive
under Section 2(e)(1) and for failure to comply with a request for information
pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.61(b) are affirmed.