TTAB Finds "JASPE" Deceptively Misdescriptive of Clothing
The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark JASPE for various clothing items, finding the mark to be deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(1). The evidence established that Jaspe is a type of textile fabric, and Applicant Lee admitted that her clothing items do not contain jaspe. In re Teresa Michelle Lee, Serial No. 98081572 (September 29, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christen M. English).
A proposed mark is deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(1) if: (1) it misdescribes a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used; and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation.
Examining Attorney Akeela Makshood relied on definitions of the term "jaspe" provided by third parties in the clothing industry (e.g., "Jaspe is a type of fabric characterized by its unique pattern. The fabric is made by weaving together different colors of thread, creating a variegated effect"), as well as on evidence of 13 third parties selling "jaspe" clothing.
The Board disagreed with Applicant Lee’s assertion that the word “jaspe” lacks a stable, commonly understood meaning. The Board found that the word “jaspe” has two descriptive meanings applicable to shirts and pants, as identified in the subject application. First, “jaspe” is a fabric made from unique techniques in dyeing yarn and twisting or weaving two different colors or shades of the dyed yarn. Second, it also means a blended, veined, spotted, mottled or variegated appearance resembling or imitating jasper (a mottled gemstone, shown above). Both meaning are immediately descriptive of clothing with a “jaspe” design or appearance.
Applicant Lee argued that she chose the proposed mark as "a meaningful tribute to her son, Jasper," and not to convey some descriptive meaning in connection with clothing. Irrelevant, said the Board.
Applicant Lee invoked the doctrine of foreign equivalents, arguing that “jaspe” means “jasper” in Spanish and because “Spanish is the most commonly spoken language in the United States after English … a very large population of United States consumers will immediately associate the JASPE mark with the jasper gemstone.” The Board was unimpressed: "the evidence shows that Applicant’s proposed mark is an English word, so the doctrine of foreign equivalents has no application here."
In sum, based on the evidence of record discussed above, we find that the proposed mark JASPE immediately describes shirts and pants that are made from or feature a jaspe fabric or design. * * * The word “jaspe” merely describes a significant feature—jaspe fabric or a jaspe design—that Applicant’s shirts and pants might plausibly possess but do not in fact possess. Accordingly, the first part of the test is met.
Under the second prong of the test, the Board applied the reasonably prudent consumer standard to assess whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation. The evidence showed that consumers are likely to regularly encounter shirts and pants described as “jaspe.” As a result, the Board found that reasonably prudent consumers encountering the proposed mark JASPE for the shirts and pants identified in Applicant’s application are likely to mistakenly believe that these goods are made from or feature jaspe.
And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlogger comment: The Examining Attorney withdrew a Section 2(a) deceptiveness refusal. That would have required proof that the misrepresentation was likely to affect the purchasing decision of a significant or substantial portion of relevant consumers. As you know, deceptively misdescriptive marks may be registered with acquired distinctiveness. Deceptive marks cannot be.
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.
posted by John L. Welch @ 10/02/2026
0 comments
