TTABlog Test: Is "ALASKA" Primarily Geographically Descriptive of Camouflage Nets?

The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark ALASKA TRACS for "Camouflage nets; Camouflage nets for radar use, Camouflage nets for visual use," absent a disclaimer of the word ALASKA, which the Office deemed to be primarily geographically descriptive of the goods under Section 2(e)(2). There was no doubt that ALASKA is the name of a place known generally to the public, but would the consuming public make a goods/place association? How do you think this came out? In re AKS Industries, Inc., Serial No. 98516980 (February 13, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman).

In order for a mark or a component of a mark to be considered primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2), it must be shown that (1) the mark sought to be registered is the name of a place known generally to the public, and (2) the public would make a goods/place association, i.e., believe that the goods for which the mark is sought to be registered originate in that place; and (3) the source of the goods is the geographic region named in the mark. [If the goods emanate from the named location, a goods/place association if presumed, but here the applicant is located in Arizona.]

The Examining Attorney contended that, according to the evidence, "ALASKA is famous for hunting and fishing activities for which camouflage nets are often used" and that "“camouflage nets are commonly used by and marketed to hunters and fishers." Therefore, according to the Office, there is "a sufficient nexus to create the goods/place association between camouflage nets, 'an essential tool of hunters and fishers, and Alaska, which is famous for its hunting.'"

Applicant AKS argued that "Alaska is not known as a center for camouflage net manufacturing, retail, or distribution" and "[t]he examining attorney has presented no evidence that Alaska has any particular commercial reputation or specialization related to camouflage nets." The Board agreed with AKS.

[A]lthough the record does reflect that hunting is a popular activity in Alaska and that hunters use camouflage netting, nothing in the record indicates that camouflage nets are manufactured or produced in Alaska. On this record, we have doubt that purchasers would believe that the goods come from Alaska.

Because the Office did not satisfy the second prong of the Section 2(e)(2) test, the Board reversed, finding it unnecessary to consider the third prong.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Would you call the refusal "half-baked ALASKA"?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.