TTAB Finds "FIND - FETCH - TRANSFER" Merely Descriptive of Delivery Robots

The Board upheld a Section 2(e)(1) refusal to register the proposed mark FIND - FETCH - TRANSFER, finding it to be merely descriptive of "self-driving robots for delivery." Applicant Drobot's own website provided "particularly compelling" evidence in support of the refusal, and "the most revealing evidence of how the relevant public would understand Applicant’s proposed mark comes from Applicant’s own arguments." In re Drobot, Inc., Serial No. 99010898 (September 1, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.).

Examining Attorney Catherine Lee submitted dictionary definitions of "find," "fetch," and "transfer." The Board found that "[e]ach of these terms describes a function or purpose of Applicant’s self-driving delivery robots. *** These are not tangential or incidental features; they are the core functions that define the very purpose of delivery robots."

As noted, the Board found the evidence from Drobot's own website to be "particularly compelling:" "Our robots are able to operate in tight, cluttered and dynamic environments, such as Manufacturing job shops, where they will find, fetch, and transfer things, not just in a pre-scheduled manner, but also responding to ad hoc requests by shopfloor Operators and Technicians."

This is not a case of incidental reuse in an unrelated context; the proposed mark and the product description are one and the same. That Applicant uses the exact wording of its proposed mark—without quotation marks, capitalization, or other source-indicating formatting—in ordinary descriptive prose demonstrates that the phrase naturally functions as a description of the goods’ capabilities, not as a source identifier.

Third-party evidence corroborated the descriptive nature of the component terms. "The Examining Attorney made of record materials from MIT, IEEE Spectrum, Robots Guide, AutoStore, Fanuc, and AGV Network showing that the terms 'find,' “'fetch,' and 'transfer' are commonly used in the robotics and warehouse automation industries to describe functions of robots — specifically, locating items, retrieving them, and moving them from one place to another."

Drobot asserted that this third-party evidence was insufficient because it showed only that the individual terms are in use, not the composite phrase FIND - FETCH - TRANSFER. The Board pointed out, however, that evidence of third-party use of the exact composite phrase is not required. "Rather, where the individual components each retain their descriptive significance in relation to the goods, the third-party evidence serves to corroborate that the relevant purchasing public encounters these terms in connection with the very functions described by the mark."

During prosecution, Drobot "repeatedly acknowledged—and indeed embraced—the descriptive significance of each component term and of the composite phrase as applied to the identified goods." For example, it stated: "[T]he term ‘FIND’ in the applicant’s mark introduces a unique element that emphasizes the process of locating or identifying items before they are delivered;” “[T]he term ‘FETCH’ is commonly used in various industries, particularly in technology and service sectors, to describe actions related to retrieving or obtaining information or items;" and “[T]he phrase ‘TRANSFER’ in the applicant’s mark further differentiates its meaning by indicating the act of moving or conveying items from one location to another.” Drobot summed it up thusly: "[T]he combination of ‘FIND - FETCH - TRANSFER’ creates a cohesive and descriptive phrase that clearly communicates the functionality and purpose of the applicant’s goods."

These concessions independently confirm what the dictionary definitions and website evidence establish: a consumer who knows the goods are self-driving delivery robots will immediately understand FIND - FETCH - TRANSFER to describe core functions those robots are designed to perform.

Drobot trotted our various other arguments that the Board somewhat robotically tossed aside. Plainly, Drobot had shot itself in the feet and there was no way to avoid the descriptiveness refusal via attorney argument.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: WYHA?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.