TTABlog Test: Is FIRST RESPONDER Merely Descriptive of Customized Motor Vehicles?

The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark FIRST RESPONDER for "Customized and converted motor vehicles, namely, automobiles, trucks, sports utility vehicles and structural parts therefor," deeming it merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1). Applicant Rubitrux mainly argued that the opposed application "has not identified its Goods as having anything to do with 'first responders,'" and that the "broad scope of goods prevents direct descriptiveness." How do you think this came out? In re Rubitrux, LLC, Serial No. 98023094 (January 9, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande).

Examining Attorney Kristin Kuraishi submitted dictionary definitions of "first responder" (“a person whose job is to deal with emergencies when they occur, esp. a firefighter, police officer, or member of the ambulance service."), screenshots of third-party websites referring to "first responder vehicles," and articles describing how a "first responder vehicle is customized" and providing a history of such vehicles.

The Board first pointed out that Rubitrux's goods are identified broadly as "Customized and converted motor vehicles," and include customized and converted motor vehicles that serve as first responder vehicles.

In addition, even if we were to assume that Applicant has never offered and will never offer customized or converted vehicles for first responder use, trademark law would not tolerate attempted usurpation of a term descriptive of others’ converted or customized vehicles.

Rubitrux also argued that competitor can “use other terms like ‘emergency vehicles,’ ‘specialty vehicles,’ or specific descriptors like ‘ambulance’ or ‘fire truck’ to convey the same idea.”

This argument flies in the face not only of the evidence in the record but of the core policy underlying trademark law’s refusal to grant exclusive rights in a descriptive term: allowing market participants and the public the right to freely use descriptive language to describe their goods or services.

The Board shot down several more arguments made by Rubitrux: that consumer might understand FIRST RESPONDER to refer to delivery vehicles or merely as evoking "heroism," and that the term “does not describe the process of customization or conversion, nor does it specify the structural parts of the vehicles.” There was no evidence to support the "heroism argument." Even if consumers perceived FIRST RESPONDER to refer to other types of vehicles, those vehicles would still fall within Rubitrax's broad identification of goods. And, the Board observed, "for a term to be merely descriptive, it 'need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail . . . it need only describe a single feature or attribute.'"

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Is this a WHYA?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.