Chris Parisis

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2019

86460089 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2019)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: November 13, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Chris Parisis
_____

Serial No. 86460089

_____

Michael Zarrabian of Brooks Acordia IP Law PC,
for Chris Parisis
Kelly Trusilo, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 107,
J. Leslie Bishop, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Cataldo, Heasley and English,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by English, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Chris Parisis (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark HOMECHEF, in standard characters, for “cooking instruction, namely, in-
person cooking lessons and video clips related thereto in a commercial location for
nonprofessional cooks” in International Class 41.1

1 Application Serial No. 86460089; filed November 20, 2014 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.
Serial No. 86460089
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that
Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive of the services identified in Applicant’s
application under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).2 When
the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. The
Examining Attorney denied Applicant’s request for reconsideration, and the appeal
was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Arguments and Evidence
The Examining Attorney argues that HOME CHEF merely describes an intended
user of Applicant’s services, namely “non-professional home cooks” referred to
“commonly” as “home chefs.” 13 TTABVUE 7. In support of this position, the
Examining Attorney has submitted dictionary definitions for the words “home” and
“chef,” screen shots from Applicant’s website, screen shots from third-party websites,
online newspapers and magazines, and Internet blogs showing third-party use of
“home chef,” “homechef” and “home cook,” and third-party registrations for:3
• HOME CHEF registered on the Principal Register by Relish Labs LLC for
providing a website featuring information in the field of recipes and cooking
for nonprofessional cooks; Section 2(f) claim as to the entire mark;4

2 Applicant’s application is based on an intent to use the mark. Accordingly, Applicant has
not claimed acquired distinctiveness in an attempt to overcome the refusal.
3 The Examining Attorney also submitted three third-party applications. Oct. 16, 2018 Req.
for Recons. Denial at TSDR 86-88; 92-97. This evidence has “no probative value other than
as evidence that the application[s] [were] filed.” In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d
1266, 1270 n.8 (TTAB 2009) (internal citations omitted). Citations to the examination record
refer to the Trademark Office’s online Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system
(TSDR) by page number in the downloadable .pdf versions of the documents.
4 Registration No. 536224. Oct. 16, 2018 Req. for Recons. Denial at TSDR 83-85.
Serial No. 86460089
- 3 -
• HOME CHEF AID registered on the Principal Register by John Nguyen for
cutlery; “home chef” disclaimed;5
• HOME CHEF CHAMPIONSHIP registered on the Supplemental Register by
LG Electronics Inc. for electric and gas ranges for household purposes and
arranging and organizing cooking contests; “championship” disclaimed.6
• HOME OF THE HOME COOK registered on the Principal Register by Scripps
Networks, LLC for entertainment-related services in the fields of food, cooking
and the culinary arts; “home cook” disclaimed;7 and
• HOME COOK SUPERSTAR registered on the Principal Register by Time Inc.
for conducting contests; “home cook” disclaimed.8
Applicant argues that the descriptiveness refusal should be reversed because: (1)
in concluding that Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive, the Examining Attorney
“has not addressed that Applicant’s services are in-person instruction”;9 (2)
Applicant’s mark is incongruous because “Applicant’s users are not chefs, but rather
individuals cooking dinner with applicant’s instruction services”;10 (3) a “multistep
reasoning process is required [to arrive at an understanding of Applicant’s services].
Specifically, consumers would first arrive at the understanding that the mark refers

5 Registration No. 5197369. Oct. 16, 2018 Req. for Recons. Denial at TSDR at 89-91.
6 Registration No. 4582017. Oct. 16, 2018 Req. for Recon. Denial, at TSDR 80-82.
7 Registration No. 4806841. May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 134-136.
8 Registration No. 3864123. May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 128-130.
9 11 TTABVUE 11.
10 4 TTABVUE 15.
Serial No. 86460089
- 4 -
to professional cooks who prepare meals in the home. Then consumers would have to
take a mental step to understand that instead of professional chefs, consumers
themselves can be like professional chefs or achieve professional quality meals at
home. Then after that, consumers need to arrive at the notice of consumers being like
professional chefs in a commercial location, i.e., not in the home, to help them achieve
such results”;11 and (4) third-party registrations for “similar marks … casts further
doubt” on whether Applicant’s mark is merely descriptive and this doubt must be
resolved in Applicant’s favor.12
In support of its position, Applicant submitted dictionary definitions for the word
“chef,” Wikipedia pages for “chef,” screen shots from his own website, screen shots
from third-party websites, Internet blogs and online magazines showing use of “home
chef” and “homechef,” and a list of registrations for marks incorporating “home” and
“chef,” which, according to Applicant, are registered on the Principal Register without
disclaimers or claims of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark
Act: 13
(1) TURNING HOME COOKS INTO CHEFS for food preparation services;
(2) CHEF AT HOME for dish cloths, wash cloths, and towels;
(3) TAKE HOME CHEF for nonfiction program on the subject of culinary arts;
(4) HOME CHEF KITCHEN for various food items;

11 11 TTABVUE 13.
12 Id. at 14.
13 The list purportedly identifies marks and registration numbers, the goods/services
identified in the registrations and class numbers, and the status of the registrations.
Serial No. 86460089
- 5 -
(5) HOMECHEFTV for television broadcasting services and promoting the goods
and services of others; and
(6) THE STAY AT HOME CHEF for e-books featuring food.
Applicant’s Internet evidence does not include the required URL addresses or
dates the pages were printed. In re I-Coat Co., 126 USPQ2d 1730, 1733 (TTAB 2018).
Applicant also did not submit copies of the listed third-party registrations or their
electronic equivalent as necessary to make the registrations of record. In re City of
Houston, 101 USPQ2d 1534, 1536 n.5 (TTAB 2012). The Examining Attorney,
however, did not object so we deem any such objections waived. In re Mueller Sports
Meds., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1586 (TTAB 2018) (objection may be deemed waived
if examining attorney fails to object and advise applicant of the proper way to make
Internet evidence of record); In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1581,
1594 n.40 (TTAB 2014) (objection waived where examining attorney, in a continuing
refusal, failed to advise applicant that mere listing of third-party registrations was
insufficient to make them of record); City of Houston, 101 USPQ2d at 1536 (“[T]he
examining attorney’s failure to advise applicant of the insufficiency of the list of
registrations when it was proffered during examination constituted a waiver of any
objection to consideration of that list.”) (citing In re Broyhill Furniture Indus., Inc.,
60 USPQ2d 1511 (TTAB 2001). Accordingly, we have considered Applicant’s Internet
evidence and Applicant’s list of third-party registrations, but the list is of limited
probative value because we are unable to verify its contents.
Serial No. 86460089
- 6 -
II. Decision
A. Applicable Law
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), prohibits 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 of goods or services if it
conveys an immediate idea of a quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or
use of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d
1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3
USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987). A mark also is descriptive if it describes the intended
users of the goods or services. See, e.g., In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1454
(TTAB 2004) (GASBUYER merely descriptive identifying an intended user of
applicant’s services of “providing on-line risk management services in the field of
pricing and purchasing decisions for natural gas”); In re Camel Mfg. Co., 222 USPQ
1031, 1032 (TTAB 1984) (“[T]here is no doubt that the group described by the term
‘MOUNTAIN CAMPER’ is a category of purchaser to whom applicant specifically
directs its camping equipment;” MOUNTAIN CAMPER held descriptive of retail
services in the field of selling camping equipment).
Whether a term is merely descriptive is determined not in the abstract, but in
relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in which
it is being used on or in connection with those goods or services, and the possible
significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods or
services because of the manner in which the mark is used or intended to be used. In
Serial No. 86460089
- 7 -
re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The question is whether someone who knows the goods or services will understand
the term to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.
Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the composite mark also has a merely descriptive significance turns on
whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression.
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., DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1757 (SNAP SIMPLY SAFER merely descriptive
of “medical devices, namely, cannulae; medical, hypodermic, aspiration and injection
needles; medical, hypodermic, aspiration, and injection syringes”).
B. Analysis
Dictionary definitions reflect the common usage of terms. The evidence shows that
the term “home” is defined as: 14
: the place (such as a house or apartment) where a person lives
1 a : one’s place of residence : domicile
The dictionary definitions of record for “chef” define the word as follows:

14 March 11, 2015 Office Action at TSDR 9-10, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, merriam-
webster.com. The Examining Attorney provided additional substantially identical definitions
for the word “home” in the ENGLISH OXFORD LIVING DICTIONARY, en.oxforddictionaries.com,
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, ahdictionary.com, and COLLINS ENGLISH
DICTIONARY, collinsdictionary.com. May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 6-33.
Serial No. 86460089
- 8 -
Chef (n):15
: a professional cook who usually is in charge of a kitchen in a restaurant
: a person who prepares food for people to eat
1 : a skilled cook who manages a kitchen (as of a restaurant)
2 : cook
Chef (n):16
A professional cook, typically the chief cook in a restaurant or hotel.
Chef (n):17
A cook, especially the chief cook of a large kitchen staff.
Chef (n):18
1. a cook in charge of a kitchen, as of a restaurant; head cook
2. any cook
Chef (n):19
someone who cooks food in a restaurant as their job.
Chef (n):20

15 March 11, 2015 Office Action at TSDR 17-19, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, merriam-
webster.com.
16 May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 34, ENGLISH OXFORD LIVING DICTIONARY,
en.oxforddictionaries.com; August 30, 2018 Req. for Recons. 4 TTABVUE 18.
17 Id. at TSDR 40, THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, ahdictionary.com.
18 Id. at 43; 5 TTABVUE 6-7, COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY (American English),
collinsdictionary.com.
19 August 30, 2018 Req. for Recons. 4 TTABVUE 16, MACMILLAN DICTIONARY (URL address
not provided, see Section I above).
20 Id. at 21, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY (American English) (URL address not provided, see
Section I above).
Serial No. 86460089
- 9 -
a skilled and trained cook who works in a restaurant, esp. the most
important cook
***
Three of the dictionaries define “chef” as referring exclusively to a professional
cook in a commercial kitchen. But the other three definitions in MERRIAM-WEBSTER
DICTIONARY and COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY (American English) demonstrate that
the word “chef” is also more broadly defined as “any cook” or “person who prepares
food for people to eat.” “So long as any one of the meanings of a word is descriptive,
the word may be merely descriptive.” In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84 USPQ2d
1028, 1034 (TTAB 2007).
The record includes comments on blogs and websites reflecting a debate over use
of the term “chef.” Examples include:
• “It is a common misconception to equal “Chef’ with ‘good cook.’ But ‘Chef’
means ‘boss’ – a great Chef has to be at least a decent cook, but the ability to
manage the kitchen is the real role.”21

• “Problem is, most of the public, because the lines get blurred so often, are
confused over the difference between cook and chef, and so, sadly are the
majority of food bloggers here in Miami…. A common misconception is that
an amazingly talented cook who consistently puts out delicious food is a chef.
Not necessarily true.22

• “The ‘chef’ thing is what bothers me. Cooks calling themselves ‘chefs’? It’s not
the definition.”23

21 Id. at 34 (February 3, 2014 comment).
22 Id. at 31 (Nov. 22, 2010 article).
23 May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR at 53 (September 3, 2009 comment).
Serial No. 86460089
- 10 -
• “Part of the problem is how lazy we are with language. Somehow ‘amateur’
is a bit of an insult now regardless of the endeavor, while the term ‘expert’
(chef, hwatever [sic]) gets thrown around with abandon.”24

• “[I]f you do cooking in your home you are a cook. Just that. A cook. No
modifier needed. If you cook in a restaurant, or in any variations thereof, you
are a chef. Period.”25

• “Bicker all you want about what is and what does not constitute cooks, home
cooks, gourmands, but leave the Chef title alone. This acquired title is due in
part to dedication, much sweat, far too many hours, and the knowledge of the
inner workings of a professional kitchen….”26

• “I don’t have any particular bee in my bonnet about home cook, plain old cook,
etc. but do NOT call myself a chef. My dad is a retried culinary instructor.
HE is a chef. Not me.”27

• “Chef is not honorific…. It’s not something you earn after making a good meal
in your kitchen at home. ‘Chef’ is a job title.”28

• “I am not a chef… Chef means a degree of professionalism either because
you’ve got the qualifications or because you’ve worked in a restaurant
kitchen. I have done neither. … A chef means in some sense that you are a
professional and I feel like I am a passionate amateur.”29

• “The idea of what defines a chef versus a cook is an ongoing battle in our
editorial meetings as we dispute whether some ‘chefs’ are in fact cooks who
have taken on the title to give themselves more credibility.30

24 Id. at 54 (September 3, 2009 comment).
25 Id. at 57 (September 4, 2009 comment).
26 Id. at 58 (September 4, 2009 comment).
27 Id. at 61 (September 5, 2009 comment)
28 August 30, 2018 Req. for Recon. 4 TTABVUE 40 (July 30, 2011 comment).
29 Id. at 29 (Nov. 22, 2010 article).
30 Id. (Nov. 22, 2010 article).
Serial No. 86460089
- 11 -
These comments reflect that while some people use the term “chef” to refer only
to a professional cook in a commercial kitchen, others use the term “chef” more
broadly to refer generally to someone who cooks, as reflected in some of the dictionary
definitions for “chef.” Evidence of record excerpted above suggests that while the term
“chef” originally denoted a professional cook in charge of a kitchen in a commercial
establishment, the term has more recently been attributed to other cooks, both
professional and amateur. We must consider the issue of mere descriptiveness from
the perspective of the average prospective purchaser of Applicant’s services, and that
includes the segment of the public that uses and understands the term “chef” as
referring generally to someone who cooks. In re Omaha Nat’l Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2
USPQ2d 1859, 1861 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (explaining that descriptiveness must be
analyzed with respect to all classes of prospective purchasers; “Descriptiveness is not
determined by its meaning only to the class of regular customers with the largest
head count.”). The above evidence suggests differing opinions regarding whether a
home cook may properly be termed a chef. Nonetheless, the evidence also establishes
that cooks outside the scope of the original meaning of “chef” are referring to
themselves and others by that title.
When combined in Applicant’s mark, the terms “home” and “chef” retain their
descriptive significance with respect to Applicant’s services. The evidence
demonstrates that Applicant and third parties use “home chef” synonymously with a
skilled or dedicated “home cook.”
Serial No. 86460089
- 12 -
On its website, Applicant states:
• “HomeChef Cooking School was established in 1970 by Judith Ets-Hokins, a
passionate homechef and an expert home entertainer.”31

Third-party descriptive use of “home chef” is as follows:
• Book title “The Home Chef’s Guide to Herb Gardening”32

• March 29, 2017 blog post titled “5 Dream Kitchens for the Home Chef”
stating: “With the right tools and kitchen layout, the Home Chef can
comfortably flex those culinary muscles. If you would like to see more kitchens
that are designed for the home chef, visit our Pinterest board …”33

• May 15, 2018 blog post titled “How to Go from Cooking Novice to Home Chef
with One Recipe”34

• November 15, 2017 Blog Post, “Learn How to Cook: 11 Skills Every Amateur
Chef Should Know”: “Here are the basic building blocks every amateur home
chef should learn.”35

• Undated article, “10 Essential Tools for the Home Chef”: “[T]oday I want to
share my favorite kitchen tools with you—the only 10 tools that a home chef
really needs.”36

• May 20, 2018 article titled “20 kitchen gadgets every at-home chef needs”:
“Below you’ll find 20 items all at-home chefs (and even amateur cooks) might
need to make cooking a breeze.”37

31 October 16, 2018, Req. for Recons. Denial 9 TTABVUE 5; August 30, 2018 Req. for Recon.
4 TTABVUE 43. The address listed on the webpage is the same as the address of record for
Applicant, and the logo is the same as the logo on Applicant’s Facebook page. May 11, 2017
Final Office Action at TSDR 4.
32 May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 121 (amazon.com).
33 Id. at 83-91 (villarealestate.com).
34 October 16, 2018, Req. for Recons. Denial 6 TTABVUE 18-22 (themanual.com).
35 October 16, 2018 Req. for Recons. Denial 7 TTABVUE 4 (mydomaine.com).
36 Id. at 12-13. (themuse.com).
37 October 16, 2018 Request for Recons. Denial 8 TTABVUE 2 (aol.com).
Serial No. 86460089
- 13 -
• Chef Eric’s Culinary Classroom: “Chef Eric’s students include successful
restaurant owners, professional chefs, caterers, personal chefs, home chefs,
beginning cooks, and children.”38

• August 8, 2017 comment on Quora.com: “[A] Professional Chef needs more
skills than a home Chef.”39

• September 14, 2009 blog comment: “Agreed, we should abolish the term home
cook. Love Bob’s comment. I think I’m a stay at home chef or meal maker[.]”
May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 67.

Applicant’s own descriptive use of “homechef” to refer to refer to its founder as a
skilled home cook is strong evidence that Applicant’s mark is descriptive of
Applicant’s services. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978) (“Evidence of the context in which a mark is used ... in advertising material ...
is probative of the reaction of prospective purchasers to the mark.”); cf. In re Gould
Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (applicant’s specimen
showed SCREENWIPE generically referred to a wipe for screens). The third-party
descriptive uses of “home chef,” “homechef” and “at-home chef” are further support
that upon encountering Applicant’s mark, prospective consumers would immediately
understand HOME CHEF as descriptive of an intended user or purpose of Applicant’s
cooking instruction services. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 200 USPQ at 218.
Because the evidence shows that the word “chef” broadly encompasses a non-
professional cook and that “home chef” refers to a potential non-professional who
cooks in the home, there is no incongruence in Applicant’s HOMECHEF mark. Nor
is it necessary to employ mental gymnastics to arrive at an idea about the nature of

38 October 16, 2018 Request for Recons. Denial 9 TTABVUE 3 (cullinaryclassroom.com).
39 August 30, 2018 Req. for Recon. 4 TTABVUE 40 (quora.com).
Serial No. 86460089
- 14 -
Applicant’s services. Rather “home chef” immediately conveys to the average
prospective purchaser that Applicant’s cooking instruction is intended for the “home
chef” or will turn a novice cook into a “home chef.” The fact that Applicant intends to
provide his services in a commercial location does not change this conclusion.
We acknowledge that the record includes some third-party uses of HOME CHEF
in a trademark manner:40
• HOME CHEF for a cooking instruction television show;41
• HOME CHEF cooking video;42
• HOME CHEF meal kit service;43 and
• TOP HOME CHEF for a cooking contest.44
Even if some third parties intend HOME CHEF or HOMECHEF to function as a
source indicator, this does not mean that the terms serve such a purpose. Nor does it
obviate the terms’ descriptiveness as to Applicant’s services. Indeed, at least one
third-party trademark use of HOME CHEF by Relish Labs, LLC is registered on the

40 The record also includes TAKE HOME CHEF for a television program in which “Australian
Master Chef, Curtis Stone … approaches regular people in the grocery store to find out what’s
for dinner and offers his help in transforming their regular meals into something
extraordinary.” May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 125-126 (metacritic.com). In this
example, “take home” modifies “chef,” and therefore, is different from the listed third-party
trademark uses.
41 March 11, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 7 (createtv.com).
42 October 16, 2018 Req. for Recons. Denial 6 TTABVUE 2 (greatprojectscampaign.com).
43 Id. at 8-14 (homechef.com; Relish Labs, LLC).
44 May 11, 2017 Final Office Action at TSDR 93-106 (azcentral.com; THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
newspaper).
Serial No. 86460089
- 15 -
Principal Register for related services with a claim of acquired distinctiveness to the
mark in its entirety under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.
As to the third-party registrations, they may show conflicting indications about
how the Office treats “home chef,” “homechef” and “chef” in composite marks in the
fields of cooking and food, but a mark that is merely descriptive, as is Applicant’s
mark, may not be registered on the Principal Register simply because other similar
marks might be on the register. Each case must be determined on its own merits. In
re Datapipe, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1330, 1336 (TTAB 2014) (“Although the United States
Patent and Trademark Office strives for consistency, each application must be
examined on its own merits”); see also In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57
USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
III. Conclusion

Based on the record before us, we find that the proposed mark HOMECHEF is
merely descriptive of “cooking instruction, namely, in-person cooking lessons and
video clips related thereto in a commercial location for nonprofessional cooks” because
“home chef” identifies an intended user of Applicant’s services and a purpose of
Applicant’s services, e.g. to transform novice cooks into “home chefs.”
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark under Section 2(e)(1)
of the Trademark Act is affirmed.