TTABlog Test: Is GHOSTWRITTEN INC. Merely Descriptive of Publication of E-books and Blog Posts

The USPTO refused to register the mark GHOSTWRITTEN INC. for various services, including publication of e-books, blogs, and on-line journals, on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive of the services. The Examining Attorney contended that "it is common for blog posts, website content, e-books and written information to be ghostwritten." How do you think this came out? In re Ghostwritten LLC, Serial No. 98199104 (July 11, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge David K. Heasley).

The Board agreed with the Examining Attorney that “GHOSTWRITTEN” is the past participle of “ghostwrite,” meaning “to write a book or article, etc. for another person to publish under his or her own name,” and that “INC.” usually does not add trademark significance to an applied-for mark, taken as a whole. However, the Board agreed with the applicant that the Examining Attorney did not carry her burden of proving that GHOSTWRITTEN INC. would be perceived by relevant consumers as merely descriptive of Applicant’s recited services.

Here, the term GHOSTWRITTEN INC. is too amorphous, nebulous and vague for consumers to immediately understand it as describing a significant feature of Applicant’s recited services. “If the mental leap between the word and the product’s [or services’] attributes is not almost instantaneous, this strongly indicates suggestiveness, not direct descriptiveness.”

The Board noted that the online articles in the record "may show that ghostwriting occurs in these broad creative fields, but they do not show that it is so prevalent and so publicized that the consuming public, encountering Applicant’s mark, would almost instantaneously take it as describing a key attribute of Applicant’s services."

The Board pointed to the applicant statement that it does not offer ghostwriting services and that “none of the services listed in the identification of services are intended to be created for another who is the presumed or credited creator or author. The Board concluded that "the remote, speculative contingency that some works might be ghostwritten is not a key feature of Applicant’s services, but only a bare possibility, incidental to those services."

Looking to third-party registrations for variations of “GHOSTWRITE,” the Board observed that "each identification of goods and services recites creative works; yet none was refused registration, and none was required to show acquired distinctiveness." “While superficially it may be easy to dismiss these [similar third-party] registrations, as we often do, on the basis that the records of these registrations are not before us and that each case must be decided on its own merits, it certainly does appear that the Office has in the past taken a different position with respect to marks of the nature of applicant’s.” In re Waverly Inc., 1993 WL 311934, *5 (TTAB 1993)

"The Examining Attorney’s interpretation that consumers would take the mark that way is speculative, at best." "While our decision is not entirely without doubt, we consider it appropriate to resolve this doubt in favor of Applicant." And so, the Board reversed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Mental leap? I don't see it. Would you think applicant's services include ghostwriting?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.