In a 2021 precedential case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed two §2(e)(1) registration refusals for the mark CLEAR finding it deceptively misdescriptive for footwear, lingerie, and other clothing items, and for handbags, purses, wallets and related items, all “excluding transparent goods.”

Under §2(e)(1) a mark is considered deceptively misdescriptive if: (1) The mark misdescribes a quality, feature, function or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used, and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. “[T]he reasonably prudent consumer test is applied in assessing whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation.” See In re Hinton, 116 USPQ2d at 1052 (citing R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 226 USPQ 169, 179 (TTAB 1985)).

The Board began its analysis of the proposed mark by determining whether or not the mark was misdescriptive of the goods with which it was used. After reviewing the evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney, which included the dictionary definition of the term “clear” and third-party website submissions, it considered Applicant’s argument that “it is only seeking to register it for non-transparent footwear.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the Applicant argued that its proposed mark did not describe a plausible feature of its goods because the goods recited in the application did not include transparent clothing, footwear or accessories. However, the Board found that argument ineffective and stated, “We cannot assume that consumers of Applicant’s goods will be aware that its identification is so restricted, and the restriction is not controlling of public perception.” See In re Aquitaine Wine USA, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1181, 1187-88 (TTAB 2018).  The Board was similarly unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument that the term “clear” had other meanings when used in connection with its goods.  Accordingly, the Board found the first prong of the test was satisfied and concluded that the Applicant “cannot avoid a finding of deceptive misdescriptiveness by excluding from its identification the very characteristic that its mark is misdescribing.” Cf. In re ALP of South Beach, Inc., 79 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (TTAB 2006).

The Board then considered the second prong of the test: whether or not consumers were likely to believe the misrepresentation. The evidence submitted by the Examining Attorney showed that Applicant’s goods could indeed be transparent, “clear” or include “clear” elements. Moreover, the record indicated that “clear shoes were one of the big breakout trends on the spring/summer runways.” The Board found that as a result of the evidence submitted, consumers would likely believe that the items under the proposed mark CLEAR were clear or transparent even when they were not. The Applicant contended that consumers were unlikely to believe the misrepresentation because they would be “visually inspecting” the items prior to the purchase. This argument did not sway the Board and it found that just because consumers would understand that the goods were not made of, and/or did not contain, clear or transparent elements it did not negate their understanding of the misdescription prior to visual inspection. The Board stated, “If Applicant’s goods were to be promoted by word-of-mouth or on social media or in print (e.g., in fashion blogs, magazine articles, or even Applicant’s future advertising) without an image of the goods, a reasonable consumer seeking what the record shows to be a fashion trend would believe that Applicant’s goods, promoted under the proposed CLEAR mark, would feature transparent or clear attributes.” See, e.g., In re Woodward & Lothrop Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1412, 1414 (TTAB 1987). So, the Board found that the second prong of the test was satisfied.

In conclusion, the Board found that both prongs of the deceptively misdescriptive test were satisfied, and therefore affirmed both of the §2(e)(1) refusals of registration for the Applicant’s proposed mark CLEAR.

An earlier post discussed deceptive marks, marks that may not be registered with the USPTO under §2(a) of the Lanham Act. This post will discuss marks that are geographically deceptive, which may not be registered on the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register.

There are four elements of a §2(e)(3) refusal under the Lanham Act: (1) The primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (2) The goods or services do not originate in the place identified in the mark (3) Purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (4) The misrepresentation would be a material factor in a significant portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to buy the goods or use the services.

In regard to the first three elements, the determination of whether the primary significance of the mark is a generally known location can be made “by showing that the mark in question consists of or incorporates a term that denotes a geographical location which is neither obscure or remote.” See In re Sharky’s Drygoods Co., 23 USPQ2d 1061, 1062 (TTAB 1992). For this element, the inquiry is whether the term at issue is primarily geographic respective to the mark, not whether the geographic reference dominates the mark. Thereafter, the focus shifts to the fourth element: determining materiality – whether a known or possible misdescription in the mark would affect a substantial portion of the relevant consumers’ decision to purchase the goods or services.

When it comes to determining materiality, which must be established to prove a geographic term is primarily deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) of the Act, or deceptive under §2(a), the tests differ slightly between determining materiality in cases involving goods, and those involving services.  To establish the materiality portion for goods, the evidence must show that: (1) The place named in the mark is famous as a source of the goods at issue, (2) The goods in question are a principal product of the place named in the mark; or (3) The goods are, or are related to, the traditional products of the place named in the mark, or are an expansion of the traditional products of the place named in the mark.

In terms of determining materiality in cases involving goods, the Board has stated that it “looks to evidence regarding the probable reaction of purchasers to a particular geographical term when it is applied to particular goods.” Evidence to establish a basis for materiality may be found on places such as third-party websites and magazine/gazetteer entries. If the evidence shows that the geographic area named in the mark is sufficiently known to lead purchasers to make a goods/place association, yet the record does not show that the relevant goods are a principal product of the location, the deception will likely be found not material. However, deception will most likely be found to be material if the relevant, or related goods, are a principal product of the geographic location named in the mark. Where locations that are “famous,” “renowned,” “well-known,” or “noted for” goods are in the mark, the location is clearly material.

Determining materiality in services is similar to the process used when determining the materiality in goods. However, when it comes to cases involving services, simply showing that the geographic location named in the mark offers a service is not sufficient, except for in cases where it rises to the level of fame. This quantifier is especially true when dealing with restaurant services. When customers attend a restaurant, they are aware of the location of the services and are less likely to associate the services with the place identified in the mark. However, if a customer sitting in a restaurant in one location would believe that: (1) The food came from the place named in the mark; or (2) The chef received specialized training in the place identified in the mark; or (3) The menu is identical to a known menu from the geographic location named in the mark. Regarding the question of fame, it can heighten the association between the services and the geographic location identified in the mark, which then raises the possibility of deception or materiality in the service mark, the location is material.  The Federal Circuit stated that “the record might show that customers would patronize the restaurant because they believed the food was imported from, or the chef was trained in, the place identified by the restaurant’s mark. The importation of food and culinary training are only examples, not exclusive methods of analysis…” See Les Halles De Paris, 334

Under §2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act, there are several types of marks that may not be registered with the USPTO: merely descriptive marks, deceptively misdescriptive marks, primarily geographically descriptive marks, geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks, marks that are primarily a surname and marks that compromise any matter, used wholly, is functional. This article will explore marks that are deceptively misdescriptive. A mark is deceptively misdescriptive if it immediately conveys a certain idea, but the idea is false, although plausible. Simply, a mark may not be registered, if people who encounter the mark, in connection with the goods or services for which it is being used, are likely to believe the misrepresentation. Deceptively misdescriptive marks fall somewhere between marks that consist of (or) comprise immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, which may not be registered under §2(a), and arbitrary marks which may be registered on the Principal Register.

The Federal Circuit devised a two-prong test to determine whether a mark is deceptively misdescriptive or merely deceptive.

The trademark examining attorney must first decide if the term is misdescriptive of the character, quality, function, composition or use of the goods or services for which it is being used.  It is the examining attorney’s job to record evidence demonstrating why the mark is misdescriptive. Specifically, the record must show the meaning of the term in question, and that the identification indicates that the applicant’s goods or services do not have the feature or characteristic. Several examples of evidence are dictionary definitions, Internet websites, point-of-purchase displays, advertising materials, product information sheets, hang tags and trade journals. An applicant’s statement in reference to his/her goods or services may also satisfy the first component of the test. An example of a misdescriptive term is APPLE for computer products. However, the consuming public is unlikely to believe the misrepresentation conveyed through the mark. This would make the misdescriptive term an arbitrary mark.

The second component of the test examines whether the idea conveyed is plausible, and how likely the consuming public would be to believe the misrepresentation of the mark in connection with goods or services for which it is being used. In order to prove this prong of the test, an examining attorney must provide evidence that the description conveyed by the mark is plausible by demonstrating that potential consumers regularly encounter goods or services that contain the features or services in the mark. For example, in a 1988 Federal Circuit case, an applicant attempted to register the mark LOVEE LAMB for seat covers that were not made of the lamb. In order to demonstrate the believability of the idea conveyed in the mark, the examining attorney provided evidence that seat covers can be made of lambskin and sometimes are made of lambskin, therein proving that the consuming public would be likely to believe the misrepresentation conveyed by the mark. Much like the first prong, an applicant’s hangtags, labels, advertising and product information may also provide evidence of the believability of the misdescription.

Furthermore, the fact that the true nature of the goods or services is revealed by other elements on the labels, advertisements or other materials with which the mark is connected does not preclude a determination that a mark is deceptively misdescriptive.

Following is an example of a mark that was refused registration because it was deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.

In a 2006 precedential opinion by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Board affirmed refusal for registration of the deceptively misdescriptive mark SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, for books and media services. The examining attorney provided evidence that established that the date of Sept. 11, 2001, “acquired special significance in America.” The examining attorney went on to clarify that the date was used as a common reference to the terrorist attacks that occurred on that date. In satisfying the first prong of the two-prong test, the Board determined that the term was misdescriptive in connection to the applicant’s goods which did not in any way cover the events that took place on Sept. 11, 2001. In a similar fashion, the second prong was satisfied when the Board ruled that in light of the many books, articles and shows about the events that took place on that date, it would be likely for consumers to believe the misdescription of the mark. The Board concluded, “While the nature of the misdescription would become known after consumers studied applicant’s books and entertainment services, that does not prevent the mark from being deceptively misdescriptive.”

Marks that have been refused registration under §2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act on the ground of deceptive misdescriptiveness may be registerable under §2(f) of the Act if they have acquired distinctiveness, or on the Supplemental Register if appropriate. Marks that have been found deceptive under §2(a) of the Act may not be registered on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register in any case.