TTABlog Test: Is NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS Merely Descriptive of Theme Park-Related Services?

The USPTO refused to register NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS as a service mark for cabin rentals, provision of parking spaces, theme park services, and provision of campground facilities (in four classes), on the ground of mere descriptiveness under Section 2(e)(1). Applicant argued that the mark cannot be merely descriptive of the identified services because it is not seeking to register the proposed mark for cave systems or cave tours. How do you think this appeal came out? In re Natural Bridge Caverns, Inc., Serial Nos. 97438479, 97438507, 97546721 & 97546743 (July 24, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache).

Examining Attorney Danielle Anderson submitted dictionary definitions of NATURAL BRIDGE (“a rock formation in which the central bottom part has been completely eroded away, leaving a structure that looks like a bridge”) and CAVERN ("cave"), as well as excerpts from third-party websites using the term "natural bridge" to refer to a type of natural rock formation, and other websites using "cave" interchangeably with "cavern."

The Board found that the combination NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS "connotes a cave system featuring a naturally occurring rock formation with a bridge-like structure." But, the Board asked, what is the relevant consumers’ understanding of the term as used in connection with Applicant’s services?

The Examining Attorney asserted that NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS is merely descriptive of these services because the phrase describes a key aspect or characteristic of them, namely, that they are provided in connection with an attraction consisting of a cave system featuring a naturally occurring bridge-like rock formation. The Board agreed.

In view of the evidence of record, we agree with the Examining Attorney that “a consumer knowing that applicant’s services are being offered for the purposes of viewing a cavern with a natural bridge will immediately understand the wording NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS as conveying information about the services, namely that applicant’s rental cabins[,] [parking facilities, temporary accommodations, campgrounds, social function facilities, and theme-park special event services] are for the purpose of accessing” a cave system featuring a naturally occurring bridge-like rock formation.

The Board rejected applicant's assertion that it was applying a "per se" rule that would find the mark descriptive of any goods or services offered at or near a natural cavern: e.g., snack foods. Not so, said the Board.

In this case, our determination does not rest on such a per se rule, but on the specific relationship between the proposed mark and the particular services identified in each application, as established by this record. *** The third-party evidence of record likewise shows that accommodations, campgrounds, parking facilities, event facilities, and similar services are routinely offered specifically to provide access or proximity to cavern and natural-bridge attractions. This record thus establishes a direct nexus between the proposed mark and a feature, characteristic, or fundamental purpose of these services—not a categorical rule that everything offered on Applicant’s premises is descriptive

With respect to the argument that applicant's recitations of services do not include cave systems or tours, the Board pointed out that the wording of the proposed mark need not actually appear in the identification of services. It is sufficient that the proposed mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, or purpose of the identified services. "Here, the wording used to identify Applicant’s various services is broad enough to include such services offered in connection with an attraction consisting of a cave system featuring a naturally occurring bridge-like rock formation."

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Two significant reasons for not registering merely descriptive marks are: “(1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods [or services]; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products.” *** [W]e agree with the Examining Attorney that other entities in the marketplace who offer the same services in connection with an attraction consisting of, or including, a cave system featuring a naturally occurring bridge-like rock formation, should be free to use NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS in advertising such services.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Rock-solid decision?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.