IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Va.: Apple’s trademarks REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER are registrable, (Aug 4, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

TTAB’s refusal to register marks REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER as descriptive reversed.

The federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, granted summary judgment in favor of Apple Inc. and directed the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER. The district court found that Apple’s marks are both suggestive and have acquired secondary meaning and are therefore registrable (Apple Inc. v. ZeroDensity, No. 1:24-cv-00284-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2025)).

Background. ZeroDensity Yazilim Anonim Sirketi’s (ZeroDensity), a Turkish entity, conducted business in the United States since 2016. ZeroDensity has one registered mark “REALITYHUB” and pending trademark applications for “REALITY ENGINE” and “REALITY KEYER.” ZeroDensity filed an opposition to Apple Inc.’s (Apple’s) trademark application for “REALITY COMPOSER” and “REALITY CONVERTER.” The proposed marks relate to two downloadable computer software products used by developers working on other software applications to produce and/or edit three-dimensional effects in augmented reality. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found that Apple’s marks were descriptive of the goods and services identified in the applications and therefore were not eligible for trademark protection.

When a party is dissatisfied with a TTAB decision, they can appeal to the Federal Circuit on the same record before the TTAB or to a district court for de novo review on new evidence. Apple filed an appeal to the district court and provided new evidence. Among the new evidence produced by Apple were four expert reports by Itamar Simonson, Phillip M. Carter, Ashlee Humphreys, and Garry Kitchen.

Suggestive marks. The district court noted that the first substantive issue in this trademark dispute is whether REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER are descriptive marks or whether they are suggestive and therefore registrable as being “inherently distinctive.” The district court also noted that as the party opposing registration, ZeroDensity bears the burden of proving that Apple’s marks are not suggestive. Apple argued that its marks are suggestive for six reasons, and that ZeroDensity did not carry its burden of proving that the marks are descriptive.

Apple first argued that dictionaries do not contain the phrases “reality composer” or reality converter,” or connect those words together in any way. Secondly, it argued that the lack of third-party usage shows that REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER are suggestive, not descriptive. Further, as ZeroDensity stipulated, no one (press, competitors, consumers, or otherwise) other than Apple uses the phrases “reality composer” or “reality converter” as brand names or descriptive terms. Thirdly, Apple pointed to the survey evidence of its expert Professor Simonson, which showed that software developers did not describe Apple’s product using the terms “reality composer/converter,” nor did they choose to name the products accordingly when presented with a list of possible names. Apple’s fourth and fifth arguments overlaped; Apple’s consistent use of its marks as brands, not descriptions, showed that the marks were suggestive, as did the lack of third-party usage. This argument was bolstered by Professor Humphreys’s expert report, which showed Apple’s “consistent capitalization of the marks, use in connection with logos, and use in headings or otherwise set apart from other text.” Further, Professor Humphreys found that no competitors use the marks or variations thereof to identify their competing products and that press usage of the terms illustrates that the terms are used as branded terms associated with Apple’s marks. Apple also pointed to ZeroDensity’s witnesses and marketing materials, which showed that “neither ‘composer’ nor ‘reality’ independently describe Apple’s product,” nor are these words used in the industry to describe competing products. Finally, Apple argued that its unrebutted experts each found that REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER are not understood as descriptors.

However, the district court found that Apple’s unanimous expert reports were unrebutted by ZeroDensity, which did not produce its own experts but only disputed the relevance and accuracy of a portion of Apple’s experts’ findings. Thus, the evidence established that Apple’s marks are suggestive and therefore registrable.

Secondary meaning. The district court noted that the second issue is whether they have acquired secondary meaning in the minds of the relevant consumer base, in which case the marks are registrable regardless of whether they are descriptive. In addition, to the marks being suggestive, an even stronger reason to grant Apple’s motion is that the evidence shows that these two marks have developed secondary meaning.

In support of its argument, Apple pointed to the parties’ joint stipulation of uncontested facts, which stated that Apple’s REALITY COMPOSER application was based on use in commerce since June 3, 2019, and its REALITY CONVERTER application was based on use in commerce since January 13, 2020. The district court found that at no point in the TTAB proceedings or in this litigation has any evidence been presented challenging Apple’s claim that it has continuously used these marks since those dates, and the parties have further stipulated that Apple’s competitors do not use the composite terms ‘reality composer’ or ‘reality converter. These stipulations constituted sufficient and unrebutted evidence that REALITY COMPOSER has been in substantially exclusive and continuous use for five consecutive years as of June 3, 2024, which date was four months before Apple filed its motion for summary judgment, and REALITY CONVERTER has been in similar use for five years as of January 13, 2025. Therefore, five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use of a mark is prima facie evidence of secondary meaning for purposes of registration.

Additionally, Apple’s expert, Professor Humphreys, gathered vast amounts of media, consumer, and other internet user data showing that consumers associate REALITY COMPOSER and REALITY CONVERTER uniquely with Apple. The district court found that all the evidence strongly supported the finding that Apple’s marks have acquired secondary meaning.

However, ZeroDensity offered no evidence to challenge Apple’s evidence. ZeroDensity also argued that the district court must disregard evidence that post-dates the TTAB testimonial trial period—January 13, 2022 for REALITY COMPOSER and June 3, 2022 for REALITY CONVERTER and conclude that the remaining evidence is insufficient to find that Apple’s marks have acquired secondary meaning. The district court noted that a de novo review properly includes consideration of newly submitted evidence that was not before the TTAB. Therefore, the district court considered all the evidence entered in this proceeding up to October 9, 2024.

In addition, to the unrebutted prima facie evidence for both marks based on their continuous use in commerce, ZeroDensity conceded that no competitors use these two marks and that there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks and ZeroDensity’s marks. Therefore, the district court determined that the evidence in the record created no genuine dispute that Apple’s marks have acquired secondary meaning. Further, Apple’s additional evidence of widespread press coverage, industry awareness of the marks, consistent and pervasive promotional materials, and the expert reports all corroborate the prima facie evidence of continuous use for five years. Since, all of this evidence was essentially unrebutted, the district court concluded that Apple’s marks are both suggestive, and have acquired secondary meaning.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00284-LMB-WEF.

Judge: Brinkema, L.

Attorneys: Abbey Elizabeth Quigley (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for Apple Inc. Jeffrey H. Greger (Jeffrey H. Greger PC) for Zerodensity Yazilim Anonim Sirketi.

Companies: Apple Inc.; ZeroDensity Yazilim Anonim Sirketi

MainStory: TopStory Trademark VirginiaNews GCNNews