TTAB Finds UX ACADEMY Generic for . . . . Guess What?

The Board affirmed a genericness refusal of the proposed mark UX ACADEMY for "Education services, namely, providing live and on-line classes, seminars, workshops in the field of user interface and user experience design" [ACADEMY disclaimed]. Alternatively, the Board considered Applicant Designlab's claim that the term is at most descriptive and has acquired distinctiveness, but the Board rejected that claim as well. In re Designlab Learning, Inc., Serial No. 98192682 (September 13, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jennifer L. Elgin).

"Whether a term is generic 'turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies to consumers the class of ... services.'" Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 557. The Board found, as usual, that the recitation of services in the application defined the genus. The relevant consumers comprise "all potential purchasers of these services, given that the identification of services contains no limitations as to channels of trade or classes of consumers."

The Board first considered each term in the proposed mark "as a step on the way to an ultimate determination of whether the proposed mark, as a whole, is generic." The evidence submitted by Examining Attorney Drew Sander showed that "UX has a well-recognized meaning and is substantially synonymous with 'user experience.'" Designlab's specimen of use (shown above) offered courses in UX design.

The Board found that "UX" is generic because it "would immediately understand UX as referring to the subject matter of the courses." [Note: Professor McCarthy has repeatedly pointed out that "referring to" is not the test for genericness -- ed.]. Based on dictionary definitions, the Board found that ACADEMY is also generic, a point that Designlab appeared to concede.

As to the combined term, the evidence showed that third parties use UX and ACADEMY together "to refer to services that are effectively identical to Applicant’s, namely, educational services in the field of user experience design." [refer to? - ed.].

Designlab argued that UX "suggests or describes the training services offered by Applicant,” and when combined with ACADEMY creates a non-generic term. It pointed to a number of registrations for ACADEMY-formative marks (such as ALARM ACADEMY and GRILL ACADEMY) that include a disclaimer of “academy” and a claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). The Board brushed them off: "Marks that are merely descriptive or generic do not become registrable simply because other seemingly similar marks appear on the register.” Also, for the umpteenth time the Board stated that it is "not bound by prior decisions made in connection with different marks, and each case must be decided on the proceeding record before us and on its own merits."

And so, the Board found "the meaning of the compound term UX ACADEMY to be no more than the sum of its individual generic parts, and thus it is generic and not registrable as a whole."

Assuming arguendo that UX ACADEMY is not generic but only highly descriptive, the Board considered Designlab's Section 2(f) claim and found the evidence wanting. "Despite Applicant’s arguably substantial gross sales and length of use, there is no evidence of the extent to which the public perceives the term UX ACADEMY as indicating source in Applicant." Its evidence of sales and advertising were imprecise, its own use of the term UX ACADEMY was preceded by the word Designlab, diluting the impact of UX ACADEMY. Moreover, there was evidence of third parties using names "highly similar to or including UX ACADEMY for related services."

[Designlab's] evidence, much of which is vague, is outweighed by other evidence showing that the phrase UX ACADEMY is – at best – highly descriptive, coupled with the absence of any direct evidence from relevant consumers showing recognition of the wording by consumers as a source indicator for Applicant’s services.

The Board concluded that "given the highly descriptive nature of the term, much more evidence (especially in the form of direct evidence from customers) than what Applicant has submitted would be necessary to show that the designation has become distinctive as an identifier of the source of Applicant’s services."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Is UX ACADEMY the "generic name for the . . . services" (See Section 14(3))? I think not. 

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.