IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB affirms genericness refusal for Neuropsychiatric Services mark, finding term describes the very services offered, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Each element of the proposed mark does nothing more than name the services the applicant provides, the court concluded.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the refusal to register of an Illinois psychiatric practice seeking to register its business name, NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, S.C., holding that the designation is generic for the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric medical services identified in the application. The Board determined that the relevant genus was defined by the full identification of services and that consumers would understand the applied-for designation primarily as naming that genus, or a significant subcategory of it (In re Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C., No. 98169669 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2026)).

Background. Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C., an Illinois professional service corporation, filed an application seeking registration in International Class 44 for "Psychiatric services; outpatient and inpatient care services; behavioral health services in the nature of psychiatric and outpatient psychiatric care services; neuropsychiatric testing." The application was initially filed on the Principal Register under Section 1(b) of the Lanham Act, reflecting a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. After a lengthy prosecution, the applicant amended its filing to seek placement on the Supplemental Register instead.

The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1091(c) and 1127, on the ground that the applied-for mark is generic for the identified services. The applicant appealed.

Genus and relevant customers. The Board applied the familiar two-part inquiry: first, identifying the genus of goods or services at issue; and second, determining whether the relevant public understood the designation primarily to refer to that genus. The application covered psychiatric services; outpatient and inpatient care services; behavioral-health services in the nature of psychiatric and outpatient psychiatric care services; and neuropsychiatric testing. The Board explained that the identification of services generally defines the genus for purposes of a genericness analysis because the identification establishes the scope of the rights that registration would convey. The Board therefore rejected the applicant’s attempt to narrow the genus to psychiatric services alone or to treat neuropsychiatric services and testing as a separate, more limited category.

The relevant consumers were identified as individuals seeking the types of healthcare services listed in the application. The Board noted that this category was broad enough to include people seeking care for others, such as parents or guardians.

Genericness analysis. With the genus and relevant consumers established, the Board turned to whether those consumers primarily understood NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SERVICES, S.C. to refer to that genus. The Board emphasized that genericness is assessed by considering the designation as a whole. At the same time, combining two generic terms does not create a registrable designation unless the combination conveys a meaning that is distinct from the meanings of its individual components. If the whole conveys no more than the sum of its generic parts, the compound remains generic.

Most damaging to the applicant was its own promotional material. The applicant had submitted a specimen describing itself as "a leader in providing integrated neuropsychiatric services to adult and geriatric patients." The Board noted that an applicant's own use of a term in a descriptive or generic manner is highly probative, because a business would not use terminology in its promotional materials unless it expected customers to understand what those words mean. This specimen alone, the Board suggested, nearly resolved the inquiry.

The record also included multiple definitions and explanations of neuropsychiatry. Merriam-Webster defined it as a branch of medicine concerned with both neurology and psychiatry. The American Neuropsychiatric Association described neuropsychiatry as the integrated study of psychiatric and neurological disorders. Materials from the Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute likewise described neuropsychiatry as involving the interface between psychiatry and neurology and traced the development of the practice area. The Board found this evidence significant because it established neuropsychiatry as an established field of medical practice rather than an arbitrary or coined expression. The existence of a recognized professional association further supported the conclusion that neuropsychiatry was a generic term for a type of medicine. The Board also observed that the applicant’s own characterization of neuropsychiatry as a subspecialty of psychiatry effectively acknowledged that the term identifies a type of medical practice.

Third-party usage evidence further reinforced the Board's conclusion. The Examining Attorney introduced evidence showing that prominent institutions, including Stanford, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and UCLA, use "neuropsychiatry" or "neuropsychiatric" to describe their clinical programs and departments. At least five independent private practice groups were shown to include "neuropsychiatric services" in their business names. The Board also relied on excerpts from technical articles, online publications, and testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, in which "neuropsychiatric services" appeared as a plain descriptive term within a list of services relevant to brain injury care. Collectively, this evidence demonstrated that the phrase "neuropsychiatric services" is used across a wide range of contexts to identify the same type of services the applicant offers.

Applicant’s argument against genericness. The applicant argued that the designation as a whole was not generic because it included the word services and the suffix S.C. The Board rejected both arguments. It reasoned that services is itself a common term for the type of offering at issue and that the applicant was seeking registration of a service mark. The addition of a generic word such as services did not create source-identifying significance.

The Board likewise concluded that S.C., which the record established as an abbreviation for Service Corporation, did not add distinctiveness. The Board reiterated the longstanding principle that adding a generic corporate designation to a generic term does not confer trademark eligibility. The suffix therefore contributed no trademark significance to the designation. The Board concluded with a brief but pointed observation: "nothing plus nothing is still nothing."

“It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of genericness,” stated the Board. Because generic terms are incapable of identifying a particular source and cannot be registered on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register, the Board affirmed the refusal in full.

The Case is Serial No. 98169669.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: Daniel H. Bliss (Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC) for Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C. Evan Federico for the USPTO.

Companies: Neuropsychiatric Services, S.C.

Cases: Trademark USPTO