TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Mere Descriptiveness Appeals Turn Out?

Affirmances in Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness cases are running at about 90% this year (as usual). Here are three recent appeals. No hints this time. How do you think they came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Asthetik Skin LLC, Serial No. 98004456 (December 19, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jessica B. Bradley). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of ÄSTHETIK for "Eye gels; Lip balm; Non-medicated skin toners; Skin care products, namely, non-medicated skin serum; Skin cleansers; Skin masks; Skin moisturizer," and for "Cosmetic skin care services, namely, facials, chemical peels, microdermabrasion; Health spa services for health and wellness of the body and spirit, namely, providing massage, facial and body treatment services, cosmetic body care services; Permanent makeup services." Applicant argued that "[d]ue to the prominent use of an umlaut on the ‘A,’ even to non-German speakers, this term is recognizable as a German term, not an American English term," that "ÄSTHETIK" is not pronounced like the English word "AESTHETIC," and that "'ÄSTHETIK’ is a noun in German, which means '[the] study of beauty, especially in art'" which is "used in a purely philosophical context."]

In re Laundry CEO LLC, Serial No. 98382558 (December 18, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman). [Mere descriptiveness refusal of LAUNDRY CEO (in standard character form) for "Downloadable non-fiction books on a variety of topics; Electronic publications, namely, books, magazines, manuals, e-books, newsletters, e-journals, and training videos featuring business, all recorded on computer media," for a "Series of printed non-fiction books in the field of business," and for "Education services, namely, providing classes, seminars, and workshops in the field of business; Educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of business; Providing online non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of books, magazines, manuals, e-books, blogs, newsletters, e-journals, and training videos in the field of business." Applicant argued that LAUNDRY "has no immediate meaning in connection with entertainment and educational services, and books relating to business" and that CEO "does not immediately bring to mind a specific meaning in connection with its identified goods and services."]

In re LumaClean, LLC, Serial No. 98444087 (December 8, 2025) (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley) [Mere descriptiveness refusal of STOMADISC for "wound dressings; wound dressings, namely, pledgets; sterile wound dressings." Applicant argued that the term is suggestive, unitary, and/or incongruous. It also argued that STOMADISC functions as a double entendre, "with one meaning possibly suggestive of a product related to stoma care and another as a coined brand name."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.