Ledger-Domain, LLC

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2020

87159899 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2020)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Hearing: Jan. 22, 2019 Mailed: March 6, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re LedgerDomain LLC
_____

Serial No. 87159899
_____

Martin Schwimmer and Lauren Beth Emerson of Leason Ellis LLP,
for LedgerDomain, LLC
N. Gretchen Ulrich, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 113,
Myriah Habeeb, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Adlin, Heasley, and Coggins,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
LedgerDomain, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the mark LEDGERDOMAIN (in standard characters) for
Downloadable software for creating, managing, and
analyzing data on blockchains, distributed ledgers and
peer-to-peer payment networks in the fields of financial
management, asset management, resource management
and decentralized applications in International Class 9;
and
Application service provider featuring application
programming interface (API) for developing mobile and
web-based applications in the fields of blockchains,
Serial No. 87159899
- 2 -
distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer payment networks in
the fields of financial, asset management, resource
management and decentralized applications for creating,
managing, and analyzing data on blockchains, distributed
ledgers and peer-to-peer transaction and payment
networks; Software as a service (SAAS) services, namely,
software development tools developing mobile and web-
based internet applications and client interfaces in the
fields of blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer
payment and transaction applications for creating,
managing, and analyzing data on blockchains, distributed
ledgers and peer-to-peer transaction and payment
networks; Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer
software platforms for use in developing software in the
fields of blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer
payment and transaction networks and decentralized
applications for creating, managing, and analyzing data on
blockchains, distributed ledgers and peer-to-peer
transaction and payment networks in International Class
42.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s proposed
mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the
ground that it is merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods and services.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration.2 The Examining Attorney denied the request for reconsideration,
and the appeal resumed. The Board then granted Applicant’s request to suspend the
appeal and remand the application to the Examining Attorney for further

1 Application Serial No. 87159899 was filed on Sept. 2, 2016, based on 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).

Page references to the application record are to the downloadable .pdf version of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system. References to the briefs, motions
and orders on appeal are to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system.

2 1 and 4 TTABVUE.
Serial No. 87159899
- 3 -
examination in light of additional evidence Applicant wished to make of record.3
Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d). The Examining Attorney maintained
the refusal, adding evidence in support thereof, and the appeal once again resumed.4
We reverse the refusal to register.
I. Mere Descriptiveness
A. Applicable Law

Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act precludes registration of a mark on the
Principal Register that, when used in connection with an applicant’s goods or
services, is merely descriptive of them. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). “A mark is merely
descriptive if it immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or
characteristic of the goods or services for which registration is sought.” Real Foods
Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (quoting In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 123 USPQ2d 1707, 1709 (Fed. Cir.
2017)). “The major reasons for not protecting such [merely descriptive] marks are: (1)
to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular
goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus
avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against
others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products.” In re
Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In
re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (CCPA 1978)).

3 Applicant’s request to suspend and remand, 23 TTABVUE; Board Order suspending appeal
and remanding application to Examining Attorney, 24 TTABVUE.
4 June 10, 2018, Office Action, 25-33 TTABVUE; proceedings resumed, 34 TTABVUE.
Serial No. 87159899
- 4 -
It is the examining attorney’s burden to show that a term is merely descriptive of
an applicant’s goods or services. In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1987). Once a prima facie case is established, the burden of rebuttal shifts
to Applicant. Id.; In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1512 (TTAB
2016).
B. Arguments of the Examining Attorney and Applicant

The Examining Attorney contends that LEDGERDOMAIN combines the words
LEDGER and DOMAIN.5 “LEDGER” describes a “collection of financial accounts of a
particular type,”6 she contends, and “DOMAIN” describes “a sphere of activity,
influence, or knowledge.”7 Applicant’s software goods and services are intended for
the sphere of activity of distributed ledgers (that is, to record financial transactions
on an electronic ledger that is distributed over a decentralized group of computers,
not a centralized computer base).8 “As Applicant’s software is for use in the sphere of
activity of distributed ledgers, the individual components [LEDGER and DOMAIN]
and the composite result [LEDGERDOMAIN] are descriptive of the field of use of
Applicant’s goods and services, and thus a feature and characteristic of them,” the
Examining Attorney concludes.9

5 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 8.
6 OXFORD DICTIONARIES, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/ledger, 12/20/2016,
Dec. 20, 2016 Office Action TSDR 6; Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 9.
7 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, YourDictionary.com 3/13/2018, March 13, 2018 Office
Action TSDR 100, Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 10.
8 See generally Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action, TSDR 75-76, March 13, 2018 Office Action, TSDR
88.
9 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 10.
Serial No. 87159899
- 5 -
In support of this conclusion, the Examining Attorney adduces Internet evidence
of third parties using the terms “ledger” and “domain” together. In her brief, she cites,
for example:
• “Someone created an electronic ledger domain (a blockchain), and let the
world know they could use high-powered computers, all tied together like
miners filing down a mineshaft, to mine other computers to find bitcoins.”10

• “In fact, this technology could affect a wide range of offerings and practices in
financial services:… More startups in the distributed ledger domain.”11

• “So why did I take us through this analysis? Because it gets us to the heart of
the distributed ledger domain: the thing that is genuinely new is the
emergence of platforms, shared across the Internet between mutually
distrusting actors, that allow them to reach consensus about the existence and
evolution of facts shared between them.”12

• “Blockchain remains on the agenda everywhere. However distribution of
elucidation is not broadly available outside a few ledger domain experts &
now the BWJ (‘Bandwagon Jumpers’ – keep up at the back!) vendors of
ignorance will be eagerly distributing their myopia amongst the
regulators….”13

• “Provided that there isn’t any manner of deciding objectively which blockchain
should be favoured over the other, the Bitcoin protocol implements a specific
fork-alternative technique stipulating that, if there is a battle some place on
the network, the longest chain shall win….As a result [] it will get us to the
guts of the distributed ledger domain: the thing that’s genuinely new is the

10 “These Two Rules for Trading Bitcoin Could Save Your Wallet” ZenithTradingCircle.com
10/4/2017, downloaded 3/6/2018, March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR 26-27, Examining
Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 10 (emphasis added in all quotes).
11 “A Strategists’ Guide to Blockchain” Strategy-Business.com 1/11/2016, downloaded
8/17/2017, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 13-28, Examining Attorney’s brief, 37
TTABVUE 11.
12 “Introducing R3 Corda™: A Distributed Ledger Designed for Financial Services”
R3cev.com/blog 4/5/2016 downloaded 8/17/2017, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 29-38.
13 Exchange Invest – The Daily Newsletter of Market Infrastructure, ExchangeInvest.com
2/23/2016, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 62.
Serial No. 87159899
- 6 -
emergence of platforms, shared throughout the Internet between mutually
distrusting actors, that permit them to succeed in consensus in regards to the
existence and evolution of information shared between them.”14

• “Ledger domain: Blockchain technology could be disruptive or merely
transformative, but it’s coming to a financial institution near you.”15

Applicant agrees that the word LEDGER in its applied-for mark potentially
describes a feature of its goods and services that pertain to distributed ledger
databases.16 It contends, however, that the word DOMAIN has too broad a meaning
to describe a feature. DOMAIN “by itself, is not descriptive, needing another word,
preferably a subject, to be meaningful,”17 Applicant argues, “in ordinary diction, the
word ‘domain’ is not readily used as a substitute for ‘subject’ or ‘field’ in ordinary

14 Portuguese Uniao de Mocidade da Assembleia de Deus Ministerio de Belem (Union of the
Youth of the Assembly of God, Belem Brazil), UMADEMB site: www.UMADEMB.com,
5/7/2016, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 64.
15 IB In Business, Madison, Wisconsin, IBMadison.com 5/2017, downloaded 8/17/2017, Aug.
17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 8-12, Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 12. Not cited in
the Examining Attorney’s brief, but included in the record, are some other website examples:
“Ledger Domain–Entity-Relationship” Github.com/rafaelturon/blockchain-investments
8/17/2017, “Research Project supervisor in the Distributed Ledger domain (Block chain)”
Au.LinkedIn.com/in/dewaalesterhuyse 8/17/2017, “In a few months this guy will be forced
back to his Ledger domain, abandoning amateur blockchain magic for good.”
www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments 8/17/2017, “Namecheap provides the best .3 bitcoin for
sale web bitcoin price hosting of any Bitcoin ledger domain registrar and web host.” Google
cache of www.AmericasLocalMarketingExperts.biz/bitcoin-nc posted 6/15/2017, “Once
exclusively the bitcoin ledger domain of tech-savvy libertarians,….”, Google cache of
www.OrfeoSpeaker.com/bitcoin-160 posted 6/19/2017, “All of the transactional details in the
RMG network will be published on a public ledger domain but identities behind the
transaction will by encrypted by use of blockchain technology.” Cryptoground.com 3/6/2018,
“A blockchain-based cross-domain solution is likely to be less complex….” www.ibm.com
3/6/2018, “The project, developed at MIT, removes central authorities altogether and uses the
blockchain as a distributed ledger of domains and their associated public keys.”
Venturebeat.com 3/6/2018, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 48, 50-51, 54, 57-58, March 13,
2018 Office Action TSDR 11, 15, 21.
16 Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 7 n. 2, Applicant’s reply brief, 38 TTABVUE 3.
17 Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 8.
Serial No. 87159899
- 7 -
commercial speech. Expressions such as ‘This product is in the automotive domain’
or ‘We provide accounting domain software services,’ are not common.”18 In fact,
Applicant points out, based on the evidence adduced by the Examining Attorney,
there are at least nine dictionary definitions of “domain.” For example:
19

18 Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 9.
19 FREE ON-LINE DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING, Foldoc.org 12/20/2016, Dec. 20, 2016 Office
Action TSDR 10.
Serial No. 87159899
- 8 -
20
Applicant argues that the broad and disparate meanings of the term “DOMAIN”
suggest that it functions like the word “TECHNOLOGY” as discussed in In re
Hutchinson Technology.21 In that case, where the applicant applied to register
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY for electronic and mechanical computer components
but was refused based on the Board’s ruling that the mark as a whole was primarily
merely a surname, the Board had found that the word “technology” was descriptive
and thus did not detract from the surname significance of “Hutchinson.” In re
Hutchinson Tech., Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 7 USPQ2d 1490, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The

20 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, AHDictionary.com 8/17/2017, Aug. 17, 2017 Office
Action, TSDR 121. The Examining Attorney has submitted a multiplicity of other dictionary
definitions of “domain.” See, e.g., Webopedia.com, YourDictionary.com, Wiktionary,
WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD TELECOM DICTIONARY, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE
DICTIONARY, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD LAW DICTIONARY, COMPUTER DESKTOP
ENCYCLOPEDIA, March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR 92, 99-100, 102, 109-113.
21 Applicant’s reply brief, 38 TTABVUE 6.
Serial No. 87159899
- 9 -
Federal Circuit reversed, noting that, in finding that “Technology” was descriptive,
“the board solely relied on Hutchinson’s concession that ‘technology’ is used on many
goods similar to those listed in Hutchinson’s application.” Id. at 1492. But the Court
held that “the fact that the term ‘technology’ is used in connection with computer
products does not mean that the term is descriptive of them. Many other goods
possibly may be included within the broad term ‘technology,’ but that does not make
the term descriptive of all of those goods.” Id. at 1492.22
Applicant goes beyond the situation presented in Hutchinson and argues that the
third-party quotes on which the Examining Attorney relies illustrate the broad,
disparate and imprecise use of the term “domain” in the general field of computers
and information. Some examples of the broad, disparate and imprecise uses
supporting Applicant’s position are summarized by Applicant as follows:
• Several of the Examining Attorney’s quotes use “domain” to modify the term
“distributed ledger,” and not “ledger,” as Applicant’s applied-for mark does.
The difference is significant, Applicant argues, as a “ledger,” which can be
centralized, has a materially different connotation from a “distributed
ledger.”23
• Some quotes use “domain” to mean “industry,” as in “More startups in the
distributed ledger domain.”24
• Other quotes use “domain” to modify “experts,” as in “a few ledger domain
experts….”25

22 The Court noted that the Board had affirmed the examining attorney’s requirement that
“Technology” be disclaimed, id. at 1491 n.5, and the Court remanded to the USPTO for
entry of the disclaimer. Id. at 1493.
23 Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 10 n. 5; see Applicant’s reply brief, 38 TTABVUE 5.
24 “A Strategists’ Guide to Blockchain” Strategy-Business.com 1/11/2016, downloaded
8/17/2017, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 13-28, Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 11.
25 Exchange Invest – The Daily Newsletter of Market Infrastructure, ExchangeInvest.com
2/23/2016, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 62, Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 11.
Serial No. 87159899
- 10 -
• Still other quotes use “domain” as a “subset of computers,” as in “Someone
created an electronic ledger domain….” 26
• And some quotes are unclear as to precisely what is meant, as in “Because it
gets us to the heart of the distributed ledger domain….”27

Given these vague, imprecise uses of the term “domain,” Applicant concludes, the
Examining Attorney has not met her burden of establishing prima facie that “ledger
domain” has a merely descriptive meaning that immediately conveys information
concerning a feature or characteristic of Applicant’s software goods and services.28
In any event, Applicant maintains, LEDGERDOMAIN is a double entendre, a play
on the word “legerdemain.” The word means sleight of hand, such as that performed
by a magician, and suggests skill or adroitness.29 In support of this argument,
Applicant cites the MERRIAM-WEBSTER dictionary:
30

26“These Two Rules for Trading Bitcoin Could Save Your Wallet” ZenithTradingCircle.com
10/4/2017, downloaded 3/6/2018, March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR 27, Applicant’s brief, 35
TTABVUE 11.
27 “Introducing R3 Corda™: A Distributed Ledger Designed for Financial Services”
R3cev.com/blog 4/5/2016 downloaded 8/17/2017, Aug. 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 29-38,
Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 11.
28 Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 12.
29 Applicant’s brief, 35 TTABVUE 12-14; Applicant’s reply brief, 38 TTABVUE 7-8.
30 Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/legerdemain 6/12/2017; June 20, 2017 Response to Office
Action TSDR 10-11.
Serial No. 87159899
- 11 -
The Examining Attorney responds that even though the term “domain” has
multiple meanings, some of which are not descriptive, that is beside the point. “So
long as any one of the meanings of a word is descriptive, the word may be merely
descriptive.”31 The issue, she insists, is not whether “ledger” and “domain” combine
to convey a precise aspect of Applicant’s intended goods and services, but whether the
average purchaser―someone seeking software goods or services to enable
participation in an electronic distributed ledger―would understand the applied-for
mark to convey information about them.32 And since the relevant purchaser will
understand that Applicant’s goods and services are for use in the domain of
distributed ledgers, she maintains, the proposed mark LEDGERDOMAIN conveys
information about them, namely their field of use.33
As for Applicant’s double entendre argument, the Examining Attorney argues,
“[t]he multiple interpretations that make an expression a ‘double entendre’ must be
associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent
from the mark itself.”34 For example, in In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157
USPQ 382 (CCPA 1968), the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals wrote, “[t]he
immediate impression evoked by the mark [SUGAR & SPICE for bakery goods] may

31 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 13, quoting In re IP Carrier Consulting Grp., 84
USPQ2d 1028, 1034 (2007).
32 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 13-14, citing DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro
Medical Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Chamber
of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
33 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 14-15.
34 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 17, quoting the TRADEMARK MANUAL OF
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1213.05(c) (Oct. 2018).
Serial No. 87159899
- 12 -
well be to stimulate an association of ‘sugar and spice’ with ‘everything nice.’ As such,
on the record below, the mark, along with the favorable suggestion which it may
evoke, seems to us clearly to function in the trademark sense and not as a term merely
descriptive of goods.” Id. at 385. In this case, the Examining Attorney contends, “there
is nothing associated with the applied-for mark that would elicit ‘legerdemain’ in the
minds of consumers. Unlike SUGAR & SPICE, the term ‘legerdemain’ does not evoke
a pleasant connotation….”35 Indeed, she argues, “legerdemain” carries a negative
connotation in relation to financial matters.36 According to the AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY, it is defined as:
37
In asking consumers to see “legerdemain” in LEDGERDOMAIN, Applicant
assumes that consumers would disassociate their established knowledge of the term
“ledger domain” ― which has a neutral or positive meaning in relation to the applied-
for goods and services ― and associate it with a term that generally has negative
connotations in relation to fields other than magic, the Examining Attorney argues.38
For these reasons, the Examining Attorney concludes, the double entendre argument

35 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 18.
36 Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 18 n. 37.
37 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR 163.
38 June 10, 2018 Office Action TSDR 4.
Serial No. 87159899
- 13 -
must fail, and the applied-for mark is merely descriptive.
C. Analysis

There is no dispute that LEDGERDOMAIN contains one term, “LEDGER,” that
is descriptive. The issue is whether adding the other term, “DOMAIN,” renders the
applied-for mark, taken as a whole, merely descriptive.
In considering a mark as a whole, the Board may weigh the
individual components of the mark to determine the overall
impression or the descriptiveness of the mark and its
various components. … [I]f ... two portions individually are
merely descriptive of an aspect of appellant’s goods [or
services], the PTO must also determine whether the mark
as a whole, i.e., the combination of the individual parts,
conveys any distinctive source-identifying impression
contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.

In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
If each component retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the
goods or services, then the mark as a whole is merely descriptive. Id. at 1374; In re
Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, 125 USPQ2d 1950, 1955 (TTAB 2018). And if the mark
as a whole is merely descriptive, the omission of a space between the two components
would not diminish its descriptiveness. “It is almost too well established to cite cases
for the proposition that an otherwise merely descriptive term is not made any less so
by merely omitting spaces between the words....” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v.
Addressograph-Multigraph Corp., 155 USPQ 470, 472 (TTAB 1967). See also In re
Aquamar, Inc., 115 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (TTAB 2015); In re Carlson, 91 USPQ2d
1198, 1200 (TTAB 2009) (URBANHOUZING merely descriptive of real estate
brokerage, consultation and listing services); In re A La Vieille Russie Inc., 60
Serial No. 87159899
- 14 -
USPQ2d 1895, 1897n. 2 (TTAB 2001) (“the compound term RUSSIANART is as
merely descriptive as its constituent words, ‘Russian Art”’).
Even if we were to assume, without finding, that the word DOMAIN also retains
a descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, we find that when
LEDGER and DOMAIN are combined, the term LEDGERDOMAIN lends itself to
more than one interpretation: as a double entendre. This was illustrated in In re
Wilderness Group, where the Board found that the mark LET YOUR HIPS
SHOULDER THE LOAD for backpacks:
has multiple connotations or a “double entendre”. Under
these circumstances and in the absence of evidence to
suggest that the slogan constitutes phraseology commonly
employed by others in the industry to describe the
operative mode of their goods, it is concluded that the
slogan “LET YOUR HIPS SHOULDER THE LOAD” is not
merely descriptive of applicant’s goods and does, in fact,
serve as a trademark to identify and distinguish
applicant’s goods in commerce.

In re Wilderness Grp., Inc., 189 USPQ 44, 46 (TTAB 1975).

Here, as in that case, we have found that LEDGERDOMAIN has an alternative
meaning that would be readily perceived by consumers as a double entendre on the
word “legerdemain.” A “double entendre” is defined as “ambiguity of meaning arising
from language that lends itself to more than one interpretation.” In re The Place Inc.,
76 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (TTAB 2005) (quoting WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY (1993)). “For trademark purposes, a ‘double entendre’ is an expression
that has a double connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services.”
TMEP § 1213.05(c), cited in In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB
Serial No. 87159899
- 15 -
2017).
A double entendre may arise where a combination of descriptive components
creates a readily-understood alternative meaning. In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d
2091, 2098 (TTAB 2008). For example:
• SUGAR & SPICE for bakery products;39
• THE SOFT PUNCH for noncarbonated soft drink;40
• NO BONES ABOUT IT for boneless pre-cooked ham;41
• LET YOUR HIPS SHOULDER THE LOAD for backpacks;42
• HAY DOLLY for self-loading trailers for hauling bales;43 and
• NAPSACK for baby carriers.44
The multiple interpretations that make an expression a ‘double entendre’ must be
associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent
from the mark itself. In re S. Malhotra & Co. AG, 128 USPQ2d 1100, 1105 (TTAB
2018); In re Calphalon, 122 USPQ2d at 1163-64; TMEP § 1213.05(c). So even though
Applicant’s chief executive officer, Benjamin James Taylor, attests that “I selected
LEDGERDOMAIN as our mark in 2016 because, in my view, it is a wry and clever
play on the term ‘legerdemain,’ which refers to sleight of hand,”45 it is the public’s

39 In re Colonial Stores Inc., 157 USPQ 382.
40 In re Del. Punch Co., 186 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1975).
41 In re Nat’l Tea Co., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB 1965).
42 In re Wilderness Grp., 189 USPQ 44.
43 In re Priefert Mfg. Co. Inc., 222 USPQ 731, 733 (TTAB 1974).
44 In re Happy Baby Carrier Co., 179 USPQ 864 (TTAB 1973).
45 Taylor declaration ¶ 5, May 7, 2018 request for remand, 23 TTABVUE 5.
Serial No. 87159899
- 16 -
perception, not Applicant’s intent, that controls. Moreover, even though Applicant
has considered and used logos to reinforce its brand’s association with magic, logos
such as 46 and ,47 we must limit our consideration to the mark
as applied for, i.e., the standard character mark LEDGERDOMAIN itself. “A mark
thus is deemed to be a double entendre only if both meanings are readily apparent
from the mark itself. If the alleged second meaning of the mark is apparent to
purchasers only after they view the mark in the context of the applicant’s trade dress,
advertising materials or other matter separate from the mark itself, then the mark
is not a double entendre.” In re The Place, 76 USPQ2d at 1470, quoted in In re
Carlson, 91 USPQ2d at 1202.
Disregarding Applicant’s logos, we find that LEDGERDOMAIN readily conjures
an association with “legerdemain.” The two terms are visually similar, differing only
in two letters. The two terms are also aurally similar―almost phonetic equivalents.
See In re Priefert, 222 USPQ at 733 (HAY DOLLY phonetically equivalent to the
expression “Hey Dolly”). “Legerdemain” is a familiar word that has long been a part
of the English lexicon. According to the MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, English
speakers borrowed “legerdemain” from the French in the fifteenth century and began

46 Taylor decl. ¶ 6, May 7, 2018 request for remand, 23 TTABVUE 5-6, 36.
47 Taylor decl. ¶ 6, May 7, 2018 request for remand, 23 TTABVUE 5-6.
Serial No. 87159899
- 17 -
using it as an alternative to the older “sleight of hand” to denote dexterity or skill in
using one’s hands. “In more modern times, a feat of legerdemain can even be
accomplished without using your hands, as in, for example ‘an impressive bit of
financial legerdemain.’”48 Indeed, as shown above, the AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY also uses the example “financial legerdemain.”49 See In re Virtual Indep.
Paralegals, 2019 USPQ2d 111512, *2 (TTAB 2019) (“Evidence of the public’s
understanding of a term may be obtained from ‘any competent source, such as …
dictionaries, newspapers and other publications.’”) (quoting Princeton Vanguard,
LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The relevant public can readily be expected to grasp the double entendre.
Applicant’s goods and services are directed toward customers seeking software to
participate in financial transactions on electronic distributed ledgers. In addition to
the “financial legerdemain” examples used in MERRIAM-WEBSTER and AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY, customers of that sort—a financially sophisticated
group―have been exposed to financial publications using the term “legerdemain.” To
illustrate:
•“Blockchain Could Make You―Not Equifax―the Owner of Your Data”
Investopedia.com 5/3/2018, (“But no technological legerdemain can
overcome the fact that once the buyer has your data….”);
•“Bored With Banking, This Former Citi Trader Went Full Crypto”
Bloomberg.com 2/1/2018 (“[B]lockchain, an open digital ledger that records
and reveals every transaction executed with Bitcoin, ensures greater
transparency than the crooks’ usual offshore legerdemain.”);

48 Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/legerdemain 6/12/2017, June 20, 2017 Response to Office
Action TSDR 12.
49 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR 163.
Serial No. 87159899
- 18 -
•“Expensive Research and Cheap Hedge Funds” Bloomberg.com 2/28/2017
(quoting Warren Buffet: “There are many ways for practitioners to perform
this legerdemain.”).
•“China’s Fiscal Legerdemain” Wall Street Journal 3/14/2011,
downloaded from WSJ.com 6/10/2018;
•“How UBS Profited from Lehman’s Accounting Duplicity”
SeekingAlpha.com 3/18/2010, downloaded 6/10/2018 (“To dress up its
balance sheet, Lehman engaged in a myriad of ‘Repo 105’ transactions, a
financial legerdemain that allowed the company to raise cash by parking
assets at rival overseas firms and booking the sham swaps as ‘sales.’”);
•“Option-Income CEFs May Be a Smarter Choice” Kiplinger.com 2/1/2012
downloaded 6/10/2018 (“Last month I whistled a flagrant foul on closed-
end funds that use legerdemain to pay fat distributions (not dividends
per se) but do so at the cost of the erosion of the funds’ asset values.”) 50

Even if “legerdemain” sometimes has a negative connotation of “deceitful
cleverness” in these financial publications,51 it also has positive connotations of skill
or adroitness.52 It can convey the connotation that Applicant’s software goods and
services enable one to engage in transactions swiftly and dexterously—in a snap, as
if by digital prestidigitation. This is consistent with a connotation of skill or
adroitness, and with a main function of distributed ledgers: to facilitate transactions.
Moreover, even if LEDGERDOMAIN evokes a negative connotation among some
members of the relevant public, that alternative connotation is still being evoked;
that is to say, the customer must ‘get’ the alternative connotation “legerdemain” in

50 23 TTABVUE 170-202; June 10, 2018 Office Action TSDR 91, 94, 97 (emphases added).
51 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2018), March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR 164,
Examining Attorney’s brief, 37 TTABVUE 18.
52 Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/legerdemain 6/12/2017; June 2- 2017 Response to Office
Action TSDR at 10-11.
Serial No. 87159899
- 19 -
order to attach a positive or negative significance thereto.53 Thus, we do not agree
with the Examining Attorney that the possible negative connotation invalidates it as
a double entendre. Given the obvious play on words, the double entendre would be
readily apparent to prospective purchasers. See In re Grand Metropolitan Foodservice
Inc., 30 USPQ2d 1974, 1976 (TTAB 1994) (because applicant’s inventive MufFuns
mark for baked mini muffins is “an obvious play on the word ‘muffin’ and the word
‘fun,’ we believe that the meaning or commercial impression of applicant’s mark will
be more than that simply of the word ‘muffins.’ Therefore, applicant’s mark is not
merely descriptive.”).
A true double entendre is a rarity—an uncommon creative exception to the general
run of applied-for marks—yet Applicant’s proposed mark so qualifies.
LEDGERDOMAIN readily conveys an alternative meaning, “legerdemain,” which
may be positive or negative, but is not merely descriptive in relation to its identified
goods and services. See In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535-36 (TTAB 1988)
(“[A]pplicant’s mark SHAKE SCATTER & GROW probably does for some consumers
bring to mind a song. … In appropriate cases, the fact that a descriptive word has a
double meaning may indicate that the word is not ‘merely descriptive’ of the goods or
services.”) (citations omitted); In re Comp. Bus. Sys. Grp., 229 USPQ 859, 859-60
(TTAB 1985) (“When a term or phrase, as applied to the goods or services in question,
possesses double meaning; suggests something more than a characteristic of the
goods; and functions as more than a mere description of the goods; it is not merely

53 See Applicant’s reply brief, 38 TTABVUE 8.
Serial No. 87159899
- 20 -
descriptive….”).
II. Conclusion

Upon consideration of the applicable law, the evidence and the arguments of
Applicant and the Examining Attorney, including those not specifically discussed in
this opinion, we find that Applicant’s proposed mark LEDGERDOMAIN is a double
entendre. Thus, it is not merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark LEDGERDOMAIN
is reversed.
Opinion by Adlin, Administrative Trademark Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent because we “must consider the mark as a whole and do so in
the context of the goods or services at issue.” DuoProSS, 103 USPQ2d at 1757
(emphasis added); In re Calphalon, 122 USPQ2d at 1162. The majority’s treatment
of the evidence of record does not fully account for the “context” of Applicant’s
identified goods and services.
I therefore part from the majority for three reasons, each related to the nature
and “context” of Applicant’s blockchain-related goods and services. First, the majority
considered several dictionary definitions of the term DOMAIN, but was not
persuaded that they establish that the proposed mark is descriptive; I find the
definitions probative and persuasive. Second, the majority considered but found
unpersuasive fairly extensive evidence of third-party use of DOMAIN with LEDGER
in the context of blockchain-related goods and services; I find this evidence
compelling. Third, the majority found that LEDGERDOMAIN is a double entendre
because its second meaning would be readily apparent to consumers; I disagree that
Serial No. 87159899
- 21 -
the second meaning would be apparent, because it is inconsistent with one of
blockchain technology’s main functions: security and verification of transactions.
Applicant acknowledges that it intends to use LEDGERDOMAIN “in connection
with a wide array of blockchain-related goods and services (which goods and services
concern, inter alia, the use of distributed ledger databases).” 35 TTABVUE 3
(Applicant’s Appeal Brief at 2) (parenthetical in original). In fact, all of the goods and
services identified in the involved application ─ from the “downloadable software” in
Class 9 to the “application service provider,” “software as a service” and “platform as
a service” services in Class 42 − specifically relate to the fields of “blockchains” and
“distributed ledgers.” Thus, blockchain technology is the prism through which we
must consider whether the proposed mark has been shown to be merely descriptive.
Descriptiveness of DOMAIN.
Applicant and the majority recognize that LEDGER is descriptive, but find
DOMAIN too vague to be descriptive. In my view, the dictionary definitions of record,
when given proper weight, reveal otherwise. The following dictionary definitions of
DOMAIN are relevant here:
The definition of a domain is a group of workgroups within
the same company or organization that governs the ability
of all the computers to communicate with other groups of
computers both within and outside of the organization

1. An example of a domain is the overall decision point that
defines which resources on the network are accessible to a
given user and keeps track of login and password
information for all users within a set of workgroups in an
organization …

noun

Serial No. 87159899
- 22 -
1. The definition of a domain is the area a given person or
people rules or an area of knowledge …

March 13, 2018 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 109
(“yourdictionary.com/domain”). The same “yourdictionary.com” entry also includes
definitions from other sources:
(computing) A collection of information having to do with a
domain, the computers named in the domain, and the
network on which the computers named in the domain
reside

(computing) The collection of computers identified by a
domain’s domain names

(data processing) a form of technical metadata that
represent the type of data item, its characteristics, name,
and usage

id. at 111 (from Wiktionary); and
(computer definition) Sphere of influence
id. at 112 (from Webster’s New World Telecom Dictionary); and, perhaps most
importantly here:
(1) In a LAN, a subnetwork made up of a group of clients and
servers under the control of one security database.
Dividing LANs into domains improves performance and
security.

(2) In a communications network, all resources under the
control of a single computer system.

(4) In database management, all possible values contained in
a particular field for every record in the file.

(7) In a hierarchy, a named group that has control over the
groups under it, which may be domains themselves.

Id. at 112-113 (from Computer Desktop Encyclopedia).
Serial No. 87159899
- 23 -
While many of these definitions are technical and may be difficult to parse, at the
same time they make clear that whether used to describe a network, a database, a
computer hierarchy or sphere of influence, an industry, or a collection of computers
or information, DOMAIN describes features of blockchain/distributed ledger
software. In other words, while the evidence reveals that DOMAIN has multiple
meanings, most if not all of those meanings are descriptive of Applicant’s identified
goods and services.
Use of DOMAIN with LEDGER in the context of blockchain goods and services.
While the question is whether the proposed mark LEDGERDOMAIN in its
entirety is merely descriptive, the third-party uses in the record show that it is. For
example, the “zenithtradingcircle.com” article states “Someone created an
electronic ledger domain (a blockchain) ….” March 13, 2018 Office Action TSDR
26-27 (emphasis added). This use of parentheses around “a blockchain” makes clear
that the publication defines “electronic ledger domain” as a blockchain, which is an
undisputed (and primary) feature of Applicant’s software and identified services. The
“strategy-business.com” article (“A Strategist’s Guide to Blockchain”) refers to “More
startups in the distributed ledger domain.” August 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR
21 (emphasis added). This makes clear that “distributed ledger domain” describes the
field of distributed ledgers/blockchain. The “exchangeinvest.com” article about
Blockchain refers to “ledger domain experts ….” Id. at 62 (emphasis added).54

54 While some evidence of record is from foreign sources, that should not prevent us from
considering the evidence, especially given the highly technical nature of Applicant’s software
and services. See e.g. In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
In re Well Living Lab Inc., 122 USPQ2d 1777, 1781 n.10 (TTAB 2017); In re Int’l Bus.
Serial No. 87159899
- 24 -
There are many other similar examples.
While the majority is correct that in some of the examples of record the term
“domain” does not modify “ledger,” there are more than enough examples where
“domain” does clearly modify “ledger” to support a finding of descriptiveness.
Moreover, even in the examples where “domain” does not appear to necessarily
modify “ledger,” the terms are used in such a way that the composite “ledgerdomain”
would appear to have a merely descriptive meaning to the relevant consumers of
Applicant’s blockchain-related goods and services. Whether that meaning is a
computer network or database featuring distributed ledgers, or the distributed ledger
field or industry, it is still descriptive. Moreover, the evidence reveals use of
“electronic ledger domain,” “public ledger domain,” “digital ledger domain” and
“distributed ledger domain” as phrases, and in the context of Applicant’s identified
goods and services, the terms “electronic,” “public,” “digital” and “distributed” are, if
not generic, then at best merely descriptive of the referenced ledger domain. These
uses of record also reveal the merely descriptive nature of “ledger domain.”

Machines Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1677, 1681 n.7 (TTAB 2006) (“it is reasonable to consider a
relevant article” regarding computer technology from a foreign English-language website);
Indeed, we must consider whether LEDGERDOMAIN is descriptive to purchasers of
Applicant’s distributed ledger software and services, by definition a technologically
sophisticated group which would be expected to consider materials about their highly
specialized field from many sources, foreign and domestic. See In re Cell Therapeutics Inc.,
67 USPQ2d 1795, 1797-98 (TTAB 2003); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 n.5 (TTAB
2002) (“it is reasonable to assume that professionals in medicine, engineering, computers,
telecommunications and many other fields are likely to utilize all available resources,
regardless of country of origin or medium”).

Serial No. 87159899
- 25 -
LEDGERDOMAIN is not a double entendre
As for whether LEDGERDOMAIN is a double entendre sufficient to overcome the
descriptiveness refusal, we must keep in mind that “[a] double entendre is registrable
only if the second, non-descriptive meaning would be readily apparent to the
consumer from the mark itself.” In re S. Malhotra, 128 USPQ2d at 1105; In re
Calphalon 122 USPQ2d at 1163 (“The multiple interpretations that mark an
expression a ‘double entendre’ must be associations the public would make fairly
readily ….”). In this case, Applicant’s proffered secondary meaning is inconsistent
with one of the most important features of blockchains and distributed ledgers, and
perhaps even their “key differentiating attribute” − security and trust, arising from
the decentralized nature of blockchain technology and the “indelible record” it
creates. August 17, 2017 Office Action TSDR 14 (article stating “decentralized
verification” is “the key differentiating attribute” of blockchains). This feature has
been repeatedly noted by the evidence of record:
a digital database containing information (such as
records of financial transactions) that can be
simultaneously used and shared within a large
decentralized, publicly accessible network; also: the
technology used to create such a database

─ The technology at the heart of bitcoin and other virtual
currencies, blockchain is an open, distributed ledger that
can record transactions between two parties efficiently and
in a verifiable and permanent way.

─ Marco Iansiti and Karim R. Lakhani

March 13, 2018 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 88 (“merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/blockchain”) (emphasis added).
Serial No. 87159899
- 26 -
A blockchain is a digitized, decentralized, public ledger
of all cryptocurrency transactions … Originally developed
as the accounting method for the virtual currency Bitcoin,
blockchains ─ which use what’s known as distributed
ledger technology (DLT) ─ are appearing in a variety of
commercial applications today. Currently, the technology
is primarily used to verify transactions …. Doing so
creates an indelible record that cannot be changed;
furthermore, the record’s authenticity can be verified
by the entire community using the blockchain instead of a
single centralized authority.

June 10, 2018 Request for Remand ─ Reconsideration Denied, TSDR 48
(“Investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain/asp”) (emphasis added).
Applicant focuses on this key attribute on its website, in offering “to bring the
power and security of blockchain to enterprises and trading communities across the
globe.” June 10, 2018 Request for Remand—Reconsideration Denied TSDR 18
(emphasis added). Because most or all relevant purchasers of blockchain and
distributed ledger software and services are interested in security and trust, the
alleged “second, non-descriptive meaning” of LEDGERDOMAIN would not be readily
apparent, even to those familiar with the term “legerdemain.”55 See In re Polo Int’l
Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1061, 1063 (TTAB 1999) (“If applicant produced goods related to the
medical field, or specifically related to physicians, then the term ‘DOC’ would be
readily understood by the public as referring to ‘doctor.’ However, here applicant’s
goods are computer software for document management, and ‘DOC’ will be readily
understood as referring to documents.”); cf. In re RiseSmart, Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931,

55 Dictionaries include many obscure words, and here there is no evidence regarding how
many relevant United States consumers are familiar with the term “legerdemain.”
Serial No. 87159899
- 27 -
1934 (TTAB 2012) (“the fact that a term may have different meanings in other
contexts is not controlling on the question of descriptiveness”).56 That is, sleight of
hand is exactly the opposite of what relevant purchasers would be looking for, and as
Applicant uses the term LEDGERDOMAIN, it is spelled the same way as it is in the
third party uses of record in which the term “ledger domain” refers to blockchains
and distributed ledgers.57 In short, Applicant’s proffered second meaning would not
be “readily apparent” from the proposed mark itself. In re S. Malhotra, 128 USPQ2d
at 1105; In re Calphalon, 122 USPQ2d at 1163.
This case calls to mind In re Ethnic Home Lifestyles Corp., 70 USPQ2d 1156
(TTAB 2003), in which we affirmed a Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register ETHNIC
ACCENTS for television programs in the field of home décor, over the Applicant’s
“double entendre” arguments, which were closely analogous to those Applicant makes
here.
… To have a double entendre, both meanings must be
readily apparent, but the meaning suggested by applicant
is not apparent upon seeing the mark in connection with
the services. Contrary to applicant’s illogical contention,
the Examining Attorney’s “failure to understand the
double entendre created by Applicant’s mark” does not
“demonstrate that the mark is not merely descriptive.”
(Reply brief, p. 2). On the contrary, it shows that the mark
does not create a double entendre.

56 While an apparently secondary definition of “legerdemain” is “skill and adroitness,” that
is not the meaning Applicant claims that consumers would perceive, except perhaps in its
“deceptive sense.” 35 TTABVUE 16. In any event this secondary meaning would be
laudatory and thus also descriptive.
57 This differentiates Applicant’s proposed mark from the misspelled terms in several of the
double entendre cases upon which the majority relies.

Serial No. 87159899
- 28 -
Similarly, that applicant can take the dictionary
definitions of the individual words in the term and come up
with a meaning that makes no sense in connection with the
services recited in the application does not mandate a
different conclusion on the issue of mere descriptiveness.

Applicant’s argument that the term is too broad to
identify with any specificity or particularity the subject of
its programs is not well taken either. We do not dispute the
fact that there are a great number of ethnicities, nor do we
dispute the fact that each may have its own distinctive
racial, national, religious, linguistic or cultural heritage,
but we cannot adopt applicant’s argument that because of
this fact, “ethnic” describes virtually everyone, and
therefore does not describe anything with the specificity or
particularity required in order for the refusal under
Section 2(e)(1) to be appropriate in this case.

Id. at 1158-59.

As there, so here. I would affirm.