TTABlog Test: Is "GREEN COLLECTIVE" Merely Descriptive of Kitchen Utensils?
The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark GREEN COLLECTIVE for various kitchen utensils and gadgets, finding the mark to be merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1). Applicant S3 Design Group LLC argued that "green" and "collective" have a variety of meanings, and that the record lacked "any descriptive meaning of the GREEN COLLECTIVE mark as a whole in connection with Applicant’s Goods." How do you think this came out? In re S3 Design Group LLC, Serial No. 98371771 (August 25, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn).
Examining Attorney Valerie Kaplan submitted dictionary definitions (e.g., "tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting"), a Wikipedia entry, various articles using the word "green" to describe eco-friendly household products, and third-party webpages using GREEN to describe kitchen and office products that are eco-friendly.
The term COLLECTIVE is defined as "an undertaking, such as a business operation, set up on the principles or system of collectivism." The evidence included third-party webpages using COLLECTIVE "to describe business organizations featuring housewares, fashion, music, avian awareness, and furniture."
Based on the evidence of record, we find that the terms GREEN and COLLECTIVE as used on Applicant’s goods would be perceived as describing the entity which is the source of the goods, namely a COLLECTIVE, and a pertinent feature of the entity, GREEN, or an entity "tending to preserve environmental quality."
Considering the proposed mark in its entirety, the Board concluded that "the terms GREEN and COLLECTIVE do not lose their merely descriptive significance when joined together, nor does the composite itself result in a unique or distinctive meaning which differs from the meanings of the terms considered separately."
As to the applicant's argument that the constituent words have "alternative, non-descriptive" meanings, the Board pointed out once again that mere descriptiveness "is considered in relation to the particular goods for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods because of the manner of its use or intended use." The fact that a term may have other meanings in different contexts is irrelevant.
Applicant argues that the record lacked “any descriptive meaning of the GREEN COLLECTIVE mark as a whole in connection with Applicant’s Goods.” The Board, however, pointed out for the umpteenth time that "[t]he fact that an applicant may be the first and only user of a merely descriptive designation does not justify registration if the only significance conveyed by the term is merely descriptive."
We find that prospective purchasers of the identified goods in Class 8, 16, and 21 who encounter the term GREEN COLLECTIVE will be immediately informed that Applicant’s goods emanate from an entity concerned with environmental quality.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: Is this a WYHA?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.
posted by John L. Welch @ 9/03/2025
6 comments
6 Comments:
Apparently this would have not been entirely descriptive if the applicant was an individual rather than a business entity. The Office might ask themselves whether that is a just result, or whether a disclaimer of GREEN would have been adequate. There might have even been room to argue the present applicant was not technically a "collective" as legally defined.
I was not aware the USPTO has been specifically targeting GREEN marks on the grounds that the word “green” is an indicator that the good or service is environmentally friendly.
Is this a USPTO political cause to prevent false claims about being environmentally friendly?
In Australia GREEN COLLECTIVE, the application filed on 14 August 2020 in the name of an individual, was registered in respect of the same or similar goods in Class 21 without any objection being raised. I posit that it would not be different if the Australian applicant had been a corporation. Evidently, the term does not have a relevant signification in relation to the goods under the first leg of the Australian test for capacity to distinguish.
"GREEN COLLECTIVE [XYZ]" yes, "GREEN COLLECTIVE" alone...?
In 2011, the Board found GREEN BANK to be descriptive of banking services: Serial Nos. 78659563 and 78659571
That is entirely understandable. The same result occurred on several occasions in Australia, with different applicants, with GREEN BANK OF AUSTRALIA, GREENBANK solus and with additional indicia, for financial services. Lack of distinctiveness/descriptiveness appear to be relevant.
Post a Comment
<< Home