TTAB Sustains Genericness Opposition to MLD FAMILY for Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (MLD) Advocacy

The Board sustained this opposition to registration of the proposed mark MLD FAMILY for "Promoting the interests of patients, families, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers affected by metachromatic leukodystrophy by means of public advocacy," finding the phrase to be generic for the services, or alternatively, merely descriptive and lacking acquired distinctiveness. "[T]he relevant consumers of Applicant’s services would readily understand MLD FAMILY to refer to a key aspect of Applicant’s identified public advocacy services, namely, that a primary or central focus of the services is to promote the interests of such groups of people." The Calliope Joy Foundation v. MLD Foundation, Opposition No. 91274114 (September 22, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache).

The fact that applicant sought registration under Section 2(f) is an admission that the proposed mark is not inherently distinctive. Applicant’s own testimony and evidence indicated that “MLD” refers to “metachromatic leukodystrophy,” as “a rare genetic neurometabolic disorder that affects approximately 1 in 40,000 babies born worldwide." Opposer submitted dictionary definitions of "family" as "a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation," and "a group of people who care about each other because they have a close relationship or shared interests."

[T]his evidence supports a finding that, when MLD and FAMILY are combined, the combination, MLD FAMILY, refers to a particular kind of related or affiliated group, namely, one that is affected by, or otherwise has a shared interest in, metachromatic leukodystrophy.

Third-party use of "MLD family" or "MLD families" as well as Applicant's own use of MLD FAMILY in a generic manner in its own communications, further supported that conclusion.

In view of the evidence, we find that the relevant consumers of Applicant’s services would readily understand MLD FAMILY to refer to a key aspect of Applicant’s identified public advocacy services, namely, that a primary or central focus of the services is to promote the interests of such groups of people.

The Board rejected the argument that evidence of use of "families" in the plural was not probative. "E]vidence that the word in singular form is generic typically will suffice to show that the plural also is generic." Likewise, the Board pooh-poohed applicant's argument that use of an upper case "F" in FAMILY renders the proposed mark registrable. The Board observed that "mere capitalization does not necessarily transform a generic term into a distinctive one," and in any case, applicant sought a standard character mark with no difference in capitalization.

With respect to acquired distinctiveness, assuming arguendo that MDL FAMILY is not generic, applicant claimed 20 years of use of the proposed mark, but "the record actually contains relatively little evidence of Applicant’s attempts to use MLD FAMILY as a service mark for the identified services." Moreover, the evidence of third-party use of MLD FAMILY by various third parties in a variety of contexts "significantly undercuts Applicant’s assertion that its use of MLD FAMILY is substantially exclusive."

Applicant did not provide revenue figures or advertising data. Two ambiguous declarations, even if considered probative, were too few to be meaningful.

And so, the Board found that applicant had failed to prove acquired distinctiveness.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: There does seem to be much room between "key aspect" genericness and mere descriptiveness. Once the former is established, the latter seems almost inevitable.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.