Magic Leap, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

No. 86563601 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: July 19, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Magic Leap, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86563601
_____

Joseph V. Myers III of Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
for Magic Leap, Inc.
Alain Lapter, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 105,
Jennifer Williston, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Taylor, Wellington and Greenbaum,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Magic Leap, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark DIGITAL LIGHTFIELD SIGNAL (in standard characters) for
Wearable computer hardware, namely, an optical display
system incorporating a dynamic light-field display,
namely, a semi-transparent array of many small curved
mirrors which reflect light to create an image in 3-D space,
used in connection with entertainment, education,
marketing, social media, engineering, architecture,
Serial No. 86563601
- 2 -

medicine and business administration in International
Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that
Applicant’s mark, in its entirety, is merely descriptive of the goods identified in the
application.
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. Only the Examining Attorney has filed a
brief.2
We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Applicable Law – Mere Descriptiveness
A mark is merely descriptive of goods or services within the meaning of Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of an
ingredient, quality, characteristic, feature, function, purpose or use of the goods or

1 Application Serial No. 86563601 was filed on March 13, 2015, based on an allegation of a
bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(b).
2 Applicant was granted four extensions of time to file its brief (see 10-17 TTABVUE); in
granting Applicant’s fourth extension request, the Board advised Applicant that “no further
extensions will be granted except for extraordinary circumstances.” 17 TTABVUE 1.
Applicant filed a fifth request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief, essentially
offering the same reasons it gave in the previous requests, and it was denied by the Board.
18 TTABVUE (Applicant’s fifth request) and 19 TTABVUE (Board’s denial of Applicant’s fifth
request). In denying Applicant’s fifth request, the application file was forwarded to the
Examining Attorney to file a brief and Applicant was advised that it may file a reply brief.
19 TTABVUE 1-2. Applicant did not file a reply brief. We have, however, considered, all
arguments made by Applicant during the prosecution of the involved application – this
includes Applicant’s response to an Office action (filed November 4, 2015), its petition to
revive (filed March 8, 2017), and its request for reconsideration (filed February 7, 2017).
Serial No. 86563601
- 3 -

services. In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217,
1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir.
1987). Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods or
services for which registration is sought and the context in which the mark is used,
not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811,
200 USPQ2d 215, 218 (CCPA 1978); In re Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB
2002). In other words, we evaluate whether someone who knows what the goods or
services are will understand the mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS
Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757
(Fed. Cir. 2012). A mark need not immediately convey an idea of each and every
specific feature of the goods or services in order to be considered merely descriptive;
it is enough if it describes one significant attribute, function or property of the goods.
See In re Gyulay, 3 USPQ2d at 1010; In re H.U.D.D.L.E., 216 USPQ 358, 359 (TTAB
1982); In re MBAssociates, 180 USPQ 338, 339 (TTAB 1973).
When two or more merely descriptive terms are combined, the determination of
whether the combined mark is also merely descriptive turns on whether the
combination of terms evokes a non-descriptive 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. In
re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(quoting Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Commr., 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)); see also
In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely
Serial No. 86563601
- 4 -

descriptive of commercial and industrial cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems Inc.,
59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer
programs for use in developing and deploying application programs).
In support of the refusal to registration, the Examining Attorney submitted ample
evidence showing the merely descriptive nature of the component terms in
Applicant’s proposed mark and that the overall mark is merely descriptive.3
Specifically, the Examining Attorney attached a printout from the Quora website
(www.quora.com) that contains the following explanation in response to the query,
“In simple terms, what is a ‘dynamic digitized light field signal?’”:4

3 The Examining Attorney attached evidentiary materials to Office Actions issued on May 4,
2015; November 11, 2015; May 11, 2016; and April 3, 2017.
4 Attached to Office Action, issued May 4, 2015, p. 5.
Serial No. 86563601
- 5 -

This is perhaps the most simplified explanation of the meaning of the terms “digital
(or digitized) light field.” Other materials, including those not mentioned in this
decision, were also attached to Office Actions and they explain in more detail this
type of technology and how it is used in virtual reality devices.5 The record also
includes an article from the website Extreme Tech (www.extremtech.com), “Google
joins the VR war, invests in light field ‘cinematic reality’ company Magic Leap
[Applicant],” which describes “a startup called Magic Leap, a secretive company that
is developing some kind of ‘cinematic reality’ headset, which uses a ‘digital light field’
to project ultra-realistic images into your eyeballs.”6 Illustrating the descriptive
nature of the proposed mark, the article notes that there is some mystery concerning
the company but concludes that “[Applicant’s own] write-up includes a key phrase
that tells us much of what we need to know [about] its mysterious magical technology:
Magic Leap [Applicant] uses a digital light field to create ‘cinematic reality.’”7 The
article then goes on to describe this technology (“an array of microlenses is placed in
front of each display, so that each eye actually sees hundreds (or thousands or
millions) of individual images … creating a viewing experience that is much closer to
actually looking at the real world”).8 It is also evident that the addition of the
descriptive term SIGNAL, following DIGITAL LIGHTFIELD in Applicant’s applied-

5 See, e.g., “Tensor Displays: Compressive Light Field Synthesis using Multilayer Displays
with Directional Backlighting” (attached to Office Action issued November 11, 2015, pp. 36-
46).
6 Attached to Office Action issued May 11, 2016, pp. 10-14.
7 Id. at p. 11.
8 Id.
Serial No. 86563601
- 6 -

for mark, further emphasizes or enhances the descriptive nature of the overall mark
– that is, for virtual reality purposes, the digital light field involves the transmission
of a digitized signal (image) to a wearable device, e.g., a headset. As aptly stated by
the Examining Attorney, the term SIGNAL “merely identifies the manner in which
the digital lightfield presents itself to the user through Applicant’s system,”9 as
described in the Quora website excerpt, supra, and conforming to the defined
meaning of the term “signal.”10
By Applicant’s own identification of its goods in the application, the product it
intends to use the proposed mark on is “wearable computer hardware” that is further
described as “an optical display system incorporating a dynamic light-field display.”
The description, as well as the evidence of record, further show that “digital light
field” technology will be an integral part and a key feature of the goods.
After careful consideration of the arguments and evidentiary record, we find that
the proposed mark DIGITAL LIGHTFIELD SIGNAL is merely descriptive of
Applicant’s goods for the aforementioned reasons. We have reviewed Applicant’s
arguments and none of them persuade us to reach a different conclusion.11 Rather,

9 20 TTABVUE 6.
10 We take judicial notice of the following definition attached to Applicant’s brief (20
TTABVUE 11-12): “Signal: The sound, image, or message transmitted or received by means
of telecommunications,” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth
Edition (www.ahdictionary.com). The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions,
Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594 (TTAB 1982),
aff'd, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983), including online dictionaries that exist
in printed format or regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78 USPQ2d 1375, 1377
(TTAB 2006).
11 One such argument set forth by Applicant in its request for reconsideration is that although
the component terms in its proposed mark “taken apart, may have clear definitions, contrary
to the [Examining Attorney’s] statement, their combination does not result in a descriptive
Serial No. 86563601
- 7 -

the record before us overwhelmingly supports the refusal in this matter. Ultimately,
we agree with the Examining Attorney’s conclusion that the proposed mark merely
identifies a key product feature, namely that Applicant’s wearable computer
hardware creates images through the use of a signal that incorporates digital light
fields.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s DIGITAL LIGHTFIELD SIGNAL
mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act is affirmed on the ground that the
designation, in its entirety, is merely descriptive of the identified goods.

mark because it fails to convey to the consumer the very essence of Applicant’s goods – a
wearable optical display system.” 4 TTABVUE 12. However, for a mark to be held merely
descriptive, it need not convey “the very essence of the goods,” but only an immediate idea of
an ingredient, quality, characteristic, or feature of the goods. In re Chamber of Commerce of
the U.S., 102 USPQ2d at 1219. Furthermore, as noted supra, we take into consideration
context; we evaluate whether a consumer who already knows what the goods are will
understand the mark to convey information about them.