IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘No cigar!’ on that argument, ROUNDS mark found merely descriptive, (Aug 18, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The TTAB declined registration of Kretek’s proposed ROUNDS mark after finding it merely descriptive of cigars absent a claim of acquired distinctiveness.

“Competitors in the cigar industry should be free to use this merely descriptive designation when describing their own cylindrical shaped cigars in advertising and marketing materials,” announced the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in reference to Kretek International, Inc.’s attempt to register the mark ROUNDS in standard characters on the Principal Register for “cigars” in International Class 34. In Kretek’s appeal from the Examining Attorney’s final refusal of the registration, the TTAB found that Kretek’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act in part as to the word ROUNDS in its prior registration for the mark CUBAN ROUNDS constituted a concession that its applied-for mark ROUNDS for cigars was not inherently distinctive. Although Kretek attempted to make arguments based on consumer perception of the plural of the adjective and lack of the required vitalness, immediacy, and particularity element of a “merely-descriptive term,” the Board countered with dictionary definitions, evidence of common cigar marketing and advertising, and record evidence of third-party marketplace use of the term. Kretek’s alternative argument of a double entendre meaning was likewise shot down by the TTAB (In re Kretek International, Inc., No. 98478188 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2026)).

Although Kretek did not claim acquired distinctiveness in its applied-for mark ROUNDS, the Board looked to Kretek’s prior 2022 registration for the mark CUBAN ROUNDS, which was registered with a disclaimer of CUBAN as well as a claim of acquired distinctiveness in part as to the word ROUNDS pursuant to Section 2(f). However, Kretek claimed that this prior registration was “not dispositive and is of minimal persuasive value to a determination of whether ROUNDS is merely descriptive of a quality, feature, or characteristic of cigars at this time and on the record before the Board.” The TTAB disagreed, citing In re Am. Furniture Warehouse Co., wherein the Board explained that such a prior interaction could be viewed as a concession that the wording itself is not inherently distinctive in this situation.

The Board also noted that the Examining Attorney submitted evidence demonstrating that ROUNDS was merely descriptive of “cigars.” “It is well established that a term describing the shape or form of the identified goods is merely descriptive,” stated the Board. The Board used dictionary definitions of the word “round” to counter Kretek’s argument that ROUNDS would never be understood or perceived by consumers as the plural of the adjective “round” because consumers would refer to circular objects such as cigars as “round objects,” not “rounds” or “rounds objects.” Based on the plain meaning of the plural noun “rounds,” the TTAB found Kretek’s mark to be merely descriptive “because it will immediately convey to consumers a key feature of cigars, namely, their circular cross-sectional shape.” Furthermore, the Board found Kretek’s argument that “information about a cigar’s cylindrical nature does not meet the required vitalness, immediacy, and particularity elements of a merely-descriptive term” to be unpersuasive because “[w]ithin the context of the goods, consumers will immediately understand the plural noun ROUNDS as describing cigars round in shape or circular in cross-section.” Record evidence of third-party marketplace use of the term “rounds” to refer to cigar shape also bolstered the Board’s findings.

Kretek’s alternative argument was that ROUNDS was not merely descriptive because it is a double entendre referring to “the types of activities commonly performed or played in ‘rounds, such as rounds of golf, rounds of drinks, or rounds of shooting or ammunition.” The Board, however, was “skeptical” that prospective consumers would attribute any of these meanings to Kretek’s proposed mark. The Board cited its previous guidance in In re The Place Inc. wherein the Board stated that a mark is deemed to be a double entendre only if both meanings are readily apparent from the mark itself. “If the alleged second meaning of the mark is apparent to purchasers only after they view the mark in the context of the applicant’s trade dress, advertising materials or other matter separate from the mark itself, then the mark is not a double entendre,” stated the In re The Place Board. In the appeal at hand, the Board found that Kretek’s own marketing strategy and its advertisements and those of its competitors did not render the mark a double entendre. “Here, the alternate meanings are too attenuated based on the mark itself,” stated the TTAB. “The record... shows that ‘rounds’ in relation to cigars is not a unique, clever play on words but is instead part of the cigar industry’s lexicon. Without additional wording in the mark itself, consumers will not recognize the proposed mark ROUNDS as having this incongruous meaning in relation to cigars.”

Therefore, the TTAB affirmed the mere descriptiveness refusal of Kretek’s proposed ROUNDS mark under Section 2(e)(1).

The Case is Serial No. 98478188.

Attorneys: Joel R. Feldman (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) for Kretek International, Inc. Dannean Hetzel for the USPTO.

Companies: Kretek International, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO