TTABlog Test: Is WORLDWIDECRYPTO Merely Descriptive of Cryptocurrency Exchange Services?

The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark WORLDWIDECRYPTO under Section 2(e)(1), finding the mark to be merely descriptive of "cryptocurrency exchange services; cryptocurrency exchange services featuring blockchain technology; cryptocurrency payment processing; cryptocurrency trading services." Applicant VCDF argued that "worldwide" is not descriptive of its services because it is "prohibited by U.S. sanctions from providing such services worldwide."  How do you think this came out? In re VCDF, Serial No. 97795205 (August 21, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Catherine Dugan O'Connor).

Relying on dictionary definitions, third-party registrations that include a disclaimer of "CRYPTO" for identical or closely related services, additional registrations disclaiming "WORLDWIDE," and Internet references, Examining Attorney Gidette Cuello maintained that "each of the individual terms 'worldwide' and 'crypto' merely describes a feature or characteristic of the services and the composite term WORLDWIDECRYPTO does not result in a unitary mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise nondescriptive meaning." The Board agreed.

The Board found unpersuasive Applicant VCDF's argument that “worldwide” is not merely descriptive in the context of its cryptocurrency services. "First, the Examining Attorney provided evidence that consumers are likely to perceive 'worldwide' as meaning 'extending throughout the world,' rather than literally 'extending through every part of the world, with no part left out.'" Also, because Applicant’s services "are performed on the Internet or the 'World Wide Web,' they necessarily 'occur throughout multiple locations around the globe.'" This is reflected in the Office of Foreign Assets Control's guidance, "which acknowledges that people in restricted countries may still be able to access the services, hence the need for vigilance by U.S. companies to monitor and block such persons from using the services."

Indeed, the evidence shows that the World Wide Web and Internet are considered to be worldwide, even if they are not accessible from every part of the world. Thus, consumers are accustomed to seeing “worldwide” used in connection with services that are offered in different parts of the world, even if the services cannot necessarily be offered in every single part of the world. This is supported by evidence of third parties using “worldwide” to denote the scope of their cryptocurrency services, even if that scope does not extend literally “through every part of the world, with no part left out” because of technological or other restrictions.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment:  The services may be "offered" worlwide, but isn't the question, where are they rendered? If only in this country, are they worldwide services? PS: If the mark is not merely descriptive, would it be misdesciptive? Deceptively misdescriptive?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.