Receptor Life Sciences, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2018

No. 86898208 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2018)

Mailed: July 6, 2018
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re Receptor Life Sciences, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86898208
_____

Tiffany Scott Connors of Lane Powell PC,
for Receptor Life Sciences, Inc.
Ellen F. Burns, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 116,
Christine Cooper, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Cataldo, Ritchie and Pologeorgis,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Pologeorgis, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Receptor Life Sciences, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark RECEPTOR LIFE SCIENCES (in standard characters; LIFE
SCIENCES disclaimed) for the following goods and services:1
pharmaceutical preparations for human use for the treatment of pain,
central nervous systems, metabolic disorders, gastrointestinal
disorders, for use in side effects from chemotherapy; inhalers sold pre-
filled with pharmaceutical preparations; namely, pharmaceutical
preparations with plant extracts for the treatment of pain, central

1 Application Serial No. 86898208, filed on February 4, 2016, based on an 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), as to all identified classes.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Serial No. 86898208
-2-
nervous systems, metabolic disorders, gastrointestinal disorders and for
use in side effects from chemotherapy; plant extracts for pharmaceutical
purposes, in International Class 5;

scientific and medical research relating to the diagnosis and treatment
of medical conditions; scientific and medical research relating to plant
extracts for pharmaceutical purposes, in International Class 42; and

providing a website featuring information relating to the diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions, in International Class 44.

The Trademark Examining Attorney 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 and services
identified in its application.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal resumed. The appeal is fully briefed. We affirm the
refusal to register.2
Mere Descriptiveness – Applicable Law
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
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.

2 All TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) citations reference
the docket and electronic file database for Application Serial No. 86898208. All citations to
the TSDR database are to the downloadable .PDF version of the documents.
Serial No. 86898208
-3-
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
descriptive of commercial and industrial cooling towers); In re Sun Microsystems Inc.,
59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer
Serial No. 86898208
-4-
programs for use in developing and deploying application programs).
On the other hand, a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive
components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a
non-descriptive meaning, or if the composite has an incongruous meaning as applied
to the goods or services. See In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382
(CCPA 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE for “bakery products”); In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363,
365 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE for “a snow removal hand tool having a handle with a
snow-removing head at one end, the head being of solid uninterrupted construction
without prongs”). In this regard, “incongruity is one of the accepted guideposts in the
evolved set of legal principles for discriminating the suggestive from the descriptive
mark.” In re Shutts, 217 USPQ at 365; see also In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199
USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB 1978) (the association of applicant's mark TENNIS IN THE
ROUND with the phrase “theater-in-the-round” creates an incongruity because
applicant’s services do not involve a tennis court in the middle of an auditorium).
Thus, we must consider the issue of descriptiveness by looking at the mark in its
entirety.
We initially note that, during the prosecution of Applicant’s mark, the Examining
Attorney required Applicant to disclaim the wording “LIFE SCIENCES” on the
ground that such wording is descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods and services.3

3 May 29, 2016 Office Action, TSDR, pp. 4-5. The Examining Attorney submitted the
dictionary definition of the wording LIFE SCIENCES which is defined as: “a branch of science
(as biology, medicine, and sometimes anthropology or sociology) that deals with living
organisms and life processes – usually used in plural.” Id., Merriam-Webster Online
Serial No. 86898208
-5-
Applicant agreed to enter a disclaimer of “LIFE SCIENCES,”4 and by doing so, has
conceded that this component of its mark is merely descriptive of its identified goods
and services. In re Pollio Dairy Prods. Corp., 8 USPQ2d 2012, 2014 (TTAB 1988) (“By
its disclaimer of the word LITE, applicant has conceded that the term is merely
descriptive as used in connection with applicant's goods.”). We too agree that the term
is merely descriptive based on its dictionary definition. We must therefore determine
whether the term RECEPTOR is also merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods and
services and, if so, whether the combination of the terms RECEPTOR and LIFE
SCIENCES renders the entirety of Applicant’s mark merely descriptive as applied to
Applicant’s identified goods or services or whether the combination evokes a non-
descriptive or incongruous meaning.
In support of her Section 2(e)(1) refusal, the Examining Attorney submitted the
dictionary definition of the term “receptor” which is defined as follows:5
a nerve ending that senses changes in light, temperature, pressure, etc.,
and causes the body to react in a particular way; a cell or group of cells
that receives stimuli; a chemical group or molecule (as a protein) on the
cell surface or in the cell interior that has an affinity for a specific
chemical group, molecule, or virus; a cellular entity (as a beta-receptor
or alphareceptor) that is a postulated intermediary between a chemical
agent (as a neurohormone) acting on nervous tissue and the
physiological or pharmacological response

Dictionary, TSDR p. 9.
4 November 29, 2016 Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 3.
5 May 29, 2016 Office Action, TSDR pp. 7-8 (from www.merriam-webster.com).
Serial No. 86898208
-6-
As further evidence of the descriptiveness of the term “receptor” in the
pharmaceutical and biological fields, the Examining Attorney provided additional
field-specific dictionary definitions of the term “receptor” as follows:
1. PHARMACY SIMPLIFIED: A Glossary of Terms: “The site on a cell
surface or within a cell that binds with specific intrinsic substances
(e.g., hormones) or drugs. Drugs may either stimulate receptors or
block them. For example, beta receptor agonists are drugs that
mimic the effects of epinephrine on receptors and relieve symptoms
of asthma. Beta receptor blockers are drugs that inhibit the effects
of epinephrine on its receptors and are useful for treating
hypertension.”;6
2. COLLINS DICTIONARY OF MEDICINE: “A sensory nerve ending
capable of receiving stimuli of various kinds and responding by the
production of nerve impulses. The receptor has gradually come to
be recognized as one of the fundamentally important entities in
physiology, pathology, pharmacology and medical science
generally.”; 7and
3. DICTIONARY OF PHARMACY: “Molecular structure within or on the
surface of a cell, and with which a drug or drug metabolite may
bind to produce a particular pharmacological response.”8
The Examining Attorney submitted additional evidence that shows that relevant
consumers in the scientific and medical fields have been exposed to use of the term
in the context of pharmaceuticals, and medical and scientific research, which, based
on the Applicant’s identification of goods and services, would be of high importance.
For example, the JOURNAL OF RECEPTOR LIGAND AND CHANNEL RESEARCH is a
publication specifically devoted to “laboratory and clinical findings in the field of

6 August 31, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR pp. 19-21.
7 Id., TSDR p. 5.
8 Id., TSDR pp. 6-8.
Serial No. 86898208
-7-
biological receptors, ligands, channel and signal transduction research.”9 More
specifically, the following excerpts of relevant usage in the field are among the
evidence provided:
• STANFORD MEDICINE: Blocking Receptor in Brain’s Immune
Cells Counters Alzheimer’s in Mice; “We’d previously observed that
if we bioengineered mice so their brain cells lacked this receptor,
there was a huge reduction in inflammatory activity in the
brain…”;10

• MERCK MANUAL PROFESSIONAL VERSION: Drug-Receptor
Interactions, “Receptors are macromolecules involved in chemical
signaling between and within cells; they may be located on the cell
surface membrane or within the cytoplasm. Activated receptors
directly or indirectly regulate cellular biochemical processes.”;11

• CENTER FOR BIOMOLECULAR MODELING: Albuterol: Effects on the
Beta-2 Receptor (Case Study); “Epinephrine is the body’s natural
ligand and full agonist at the Beta-2 receptor…Albuterol treats
asthma by relieving airway constriction through binding of the G-
protein coupled Beta-2 receptor.”;12

• ADVANCED MEDICAL SCIENCE: Medical Implications of Melatonin:
receptor-mediated and receptor-independent actions; “Because of
its ubiquitous benefits, the pharmaceutical industry is developing
melatonin analogues which interact with melatonin receptors.”13

• Scientific Research/ABC: Importance of Integrin Receptors in the
Field of Pharmaceutical & Medical Science; “As a result, integrin
receptors have been extensively evaluated in therapeutic
targeting.”14

9 May 29, 2016 Office Action, TSDR, pp. 14-16 (https://www.dovepress.com/journal-of-
receptor-ligand-and-channel-research-journal).
10 Id., TSDR, pp. 21-24 (http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news).
11 Id., TSDR, pp. 25-29 (http://merckmanuals.com/professional).
12 August 31, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR, p. 28
(http://cbm.msoed.edu).
13 May 29, 2016 Office Action, TSDR pp. 19-20 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed).
14 Id., TSDR, pp. 30-47 (http:/www.scirp/journal).
Serial No. 86898208
-8-

• Drugs.Com: “Anticholinergic bronchodilators (or muscarinic
receptor antagonists) block the parasympathetic nerve reflexes that
cause the airways to constrict, so allow the air passages to remain
open.”15

• J. PHARM. BIOALLIED SCI.: An article regarding the effects of
methanolic extracts from edible plants on endogenous secretary
receptor for advanced glycation end products induced by the high
glucose incubation in human endothelial cells.;16

• Inflammation Research: An article entitled “From Medicinal Plant
Extracts to Defined Chemical Compounds Targeting Histamine H4
Receptor: Curacuma longa in the treatment of Inflammation.”;17

• Abstract entitled “Scientific Rationale for Inhaled Combination
Therapy with Long-Acting Beta2-Antagonists and Corticosteroids”
discussing the effects of inhaled corticosteroids on the expression of
beta2-receptors.18

• Arena: “Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. today announced that it has
entered into a receptor discovery research collaboration with Taisho
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.”19

• Vascular Pharmaceuticals: “VPI-2960B represents an entirely new
approach to addressing diabetic neuropathy by down regulating a
specific cell surface receptor present on three key cell types involved
with maintaining effective kidney filtration function.”;20

• Idera: “Toll-like Receptors (TLRs) are a class of proteins that are
an important part of the innate immune system…through our TLR
modulating platform we are designing drugs that are intended to
turn the immune system on and off.”;21

15 August 31, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR, p. 27 (https://drugs.com).
16 Id., TSDR, p. 23 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc).
17 Id., TSDR, p. 24 (https://link.springer.com/article).
18 Id., TSDR p. 26 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed).
19 May 29, 2016 Office Action, TSDR, pp. 48-50 (http://invest.arenapharm.com).
20 Id., TSDR, pp. 51-52 (http://www.vascularpharma.com/science).
21 Id., TSDR, pp. 53-54 (http://www.iderapharma.com).
Serial No. 86898208
-9-

• THE PHARMACOLOGICAL BASIS OF THERAPEUTICS: “Quantitative
Aspects of Drug Interactions With Receptors; “The basic currency
of receptor pharmacology is the dose-response or (concentration-
response) curve, a depiction of the observed effect of a drug as a
function of its concentration in the receptor compartment.”;22 and

• TOXICOLOGY AND CANCER BIOLOGY: “Receptor research at the
Graduate Center for Toxicology involves structure-function studies
of the retinoid X receptor. Another objective of this research is to
develop selective agonists or antagonist compounds for this
receptor for biotechnology applications.”23

Based on the foregoing evidence, the Examining Attorney argues that the term
“receptor” is well-recognized in Applicant’s field of pharmaceutical products, medical
and scientific research, and the provision of information in such fields to reference an
integral element in understanding and responding to diseases in the body. The
Examining Attorney further argues that this evidence demonstrates that the plain
meaning of the term, in the context of Applicant’s goods and services, references
exactly what the relevant consumer would understand it to mean; i.e., goods and
services that relate to receptor cells in the human body that impact bodily responses
to stimuli such as disease.
In traversing the refusal, Applicant argues that (1) its applied-for mark is
suggestive rather than descriptive in that it does not immediately convey a feature
or quality of Applicant’s pharmaceutical goods or medical research services or
information services relating to the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions
provided via a website; (2) the term RECEPTOR has multiple meanings as used in a

22 August 31, 2017 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR, pp. 12-18.
23 December 21, 2016 Office Action, TSDR pp. 9-10 (http://www.toxicology.red.uky.edu).
Serial No. 86898208
-10-
variety of fields; (3) the Examining Attorney’s submitted evidence does not
demonstrate that the term “receptor” is descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods or
services, particularly since it does not show commercial use of the term; (4) the term
“receptor” has nothing to do with inhalers or the use of plant extracts, which are the
primary descriptions of Applicant’s goods and services; and (5) the USPTO has
previously allowed other RECEPTOR-formative marks to register or have approved
pending applications for such marks for publication.
In support of its arguments, Applicant references a dictionary definition from the
Cambridge Dictionary which defines the term “receptor” as “biology a nerve ending
that reacts to change, such as heat or cold, in the body by sending a message to the
central nervous system,” but fails to submit extrinsic evidence of said definition.24
Applicant also submitted copies of third-party registrations (some of which are
cancelled) and abandoned applications which purportedly demonstrate that the
USPTO has not treated the word RECEPTOR as a descriptive term. Additionally,
Applicant cites to two unpublished Board decisions, i.e., In re Armadahealth, LLC,
Serial Nos. 86713902, 86802355 (TTAB June 28, 2017) at 11 (reversing refusal for
TOPDOC CONNECT as merely descriptive and emphasizing that a mark may convey
information and may be typical of many marks that consumers encounter in the
marketplace; “a suggestive mark tells consumers something general about the
services (or goods), without being specific or immediately telling consumers anything

24 November 29, 2016 Response to Office Action, TSDR p. 5. Applicant noted that this
definition is just one of many examples found via online dictionaries, yet Applicant did not
submit any other dictionary definitions for the term “receptor.” Id.
Serial No. 86898208
-11-
with a degree of particularity”) and In re Panasonic Avionics Corp., Serial No.
86499954 (TTAB Jan. 5, 2017) at 8-9 (rejecting Examining Attorney’s argument that
FLIGHTLINK was merely descriptive where conclusion was based on dictionary
definitions and internet research/statements showing a connection between mark
and services) for the proposition that dictionary definitions alone is insufficient
evidence to demonstrate that a particular term is descriptive.
We find Applicant’s arguments and supporting evidence unpersuasive. First,
while the designation RECEPTOR may have other meanings in different contexts,
that is irrelevant in our analysis since our descriptiveness inquiry is not conducted
in the abstract but focuses on the description of goods and services in Applicant’s
application, see Magic Wand v. RDB Inc. 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed.
Cir. 1991), and how consumers would perceive the mark in connection with those
goods and services. See, e.g., Remington-Prods. Inv. v. North Am. Philips Corp., 892
F.2d 1576, 13 USPQ2d 1444, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (assessing descriptiveness and
genericness by looking at how a consumer would perceive the mark “in connection
with the products”). In any event, the definition referenced by Applicant provides
essentially the same meaning as the definition provided by the Examining Attorney,
further emphasizing the direct relationship between the term “receptor” and its use
in the Applicant’s field of life sciences.
Applicant states that it “agrees that the word ‘receptor’ can be used to reference
goods and services in the medical, scientific, and pharmaceutical fields,”25 but

25 June 21, 2017 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR p. 6.
Serial No. 86898208
-12-
maintains, without support or evidence, that use in these fields “has nothing to do
with inhalers or the use of plant extracts, which are the primary descriptions of
Applicant’s goods and services.”26 It is unclear as to why Applicant maintains that
inhalers or plant extracts would somehow be excluded from this meaning,
particularly since the evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney demonstrates
the relationship of both plant extracts and inhaled preparations to various receptors
in the body, both in research and in drug information. Further, Applicant’s
characterization of “inhalers and plant extracts” as the “primary descriptions” in the
goods and services, is not accurate, as there is no mention of either in the Class 44
identification, nor in the entire leading clauses of the Class 5 and Class 42
identifications.
Applicant’s argument that the evidence does not show commercial use of the word
“receptor” but instead is only used in a technical, scientific sense in medical research
journal articles is unavailing. There is no requirement that the Examining Attorney
prove that others have used the mark at issue commercially or that they need to use
it, although such proof would be highly relevant to an analysis under Section 2(e)(1).
See In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016). Indeed,
the fact that Applicant may be the first or only user of a descriptive term does not
necessarily render that term distinctive. In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822,
1826 (TTAB 2012); In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084, 1087 (TTAB 2001).
We next turn to Applicant’s argument that because the USPTO has previously

26 Applicant’s Appeal Brief, p. 10, 7 TTABVUE 11.
Serial No. 86898208
-13-
allowed other RECEPTOR-formative marks to register or have approved pending
applications for such marks for publication, the term “receptor” cannot be viewed as
descriptive of Applicant’s goods and services. As noted above, Applicant submitted
live and cancelled registrations, as well as abandoned applications to support its
argument. With regard to the cancelled third-party registrations and abandoned
applications submitted by Applicant, we note that a canceled registration is generally
evidence only of the fact that that registration issued and therefore is not evidence
that a mark is not descriptive. See Bond v. Taylor, 119 USPQ2d 1049, 1054-55 (TTAB
2016); In re Kysela Pere et Fils Ltd., 98 USPQ2d 1261, 1264 (TTAB 2011) (“‘dead’ or
cancelled registrations have no probative value at all”); In re Brown Forman Corp.,
81 USPQ2d 1284, 1286 n.3 (TTAB 2006). Furthermore, an application, whether live
or abandoned, is not evidence of anything except that it was filed on a certain date.
In re Mr. Recipe, LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1084, 1089 (TTAB 2016); Interpayment Services
Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463, 1467 n.6 (TTAB 2003) (applications are
only probative to show that the application has been filed). It is certainly not evidence
that the mark is not descriptive of the applied-for goods and services. Thus, we accord
the canceled registrations and the abandoned applications submitted by Applicant
little, if any, probative value.
The only live third-party registrations cited by Applicant in support of its position
are READYRECEPTOR (Reg. No. 4075245) for “cellular and viral membrane proteins
for use in scientific and biomedical research and drug discovery,” and RECEPTORS
(Reg. No. 4739320) for “nutritional product for use in agriculture and domestic use,
Serial No. 86898208
-14-
namely, plant growth nutrients and fertilizers.” While, in the case of the registered
mark READYRECEPTOR, the field is related to Applicant’s, this mark incorporates
the descriptive term RECEPTOR in a unitary presentation with the suggestive term
READY. Therefore, this registration does not indicate that the term RECEPTOR was
not considered descriptive at the time of registration. With respect to the registration
of the mark RECEPTORS, the goods identified therein, i.e., plant growth nutrients
and fertilizers, are not related to those of Applicant and, therefore, is not relevant to
our analysis herein.
In any event, prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys
in registering other marks or approving marks for registration have little evidentiary
value and are not binding upon the USPTO or the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board. See In re Cordua Rest. Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (existence of a registration for a standard character mark does not preclude a
finding that the stylized form of the same mark is generic) (citing In re Nett Designs,
Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior
registrations had some characteristics similar to Nett Design’s application, the PTO's
allowance of such registrations does not bind the Board or this court.”)). Each case is
decided on its own facts, and each mark stands on its own merits. See In re Shinnecock
Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 91 USPQ2d 1218, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Applicant's
allegations regarding similar marks are irrelevant because each application must be
considered on its own merits.”); In re Binion, 93 USPQ2d 1531, 1536 (TTAB 2009).
Finally, with regard to Applicant’s reliance on two unpublished Board decisions,
Serial No. 86898208
-15-
we initially note that unpublished decisions have no precedential value and have no
bearing on the ultimate resolution of the issues in this matter. See General Mills Inc.
v. Health Valley Foods, 24 USPQ2d 1270 (TTAB 1992); TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 101.03 (June 2018). Even if we were to
consider these two cases, Applicant’s reliance thereon is misplaced. In each of the
unpublished decisions, the Board found, based on the overwhelming weight of
evidentiary record of each case, that the marks at issues were not descriptive but
suggestive of the services at issue. Here, by contrast, the evidence of record clearly
demonstrates that the term “receptor” is merely descriptive and not suggestive of
Applicant’s goods and services.
After careful consideration of the arguments and evidentiary record, we find that
the term RECEPTOR is merely descriptive of Applicant’s goods and services
inasmuch as Applicant’s pharmaceutical products and medical research and
information services concern, in part, human cell receptors. We further find that the
combination of the descriptive term RECEPTOR and the descriptive, disclaimed
wording LIFE SCIENCES does not create a non-descriptive or incongruous meaning.
Instead, we find that each component retains its merely descriptive significance in
relation to the Applicant’s identified goods or services, the combination of which
results in a composite mark that is itself merely descriptive. In other words, we find
that the mark RECEPTOR LIFE SCIENCES, in its entirety, merely describes a
characteristic or feature of Applicant’s pharmaceutical products, as well as its
medical research and medical information services, in that Applicant’s goods and
Serial No. 86898208
-16-
services concern types of human or bodily cells known as receptors in the context of
the field of life sciences.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s RECEPTOR LIFE SCIENCES mark
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the designation, in its
entirety, is merely descriptive of the identified goods and services is affirmed.27

27 The issue of acquired distinctiveness and the capability of the mark to be registered on the
Supplemental Register were not before us and, therefore, our decision does not impact
Applicant’s ability to file a subsequent application on those bases, if applicable.