IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Proposed mark NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS in standard character properly refused as merely descriptive, (Jul 30, 2026)

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

The proposed mark was unregistrable for being merely descriptive because there was no evidence that either “natural bridge” or “caverns” or the combination carries any alternative or ambiguous significance in relation to the applicant’s identified services.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS in standard character in all four applications under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The TTAB determined that NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS, when considered as a whole, is merely descriptive of the applicant’s services (In re Natural Bridge Caverns, Inc., Nos. 97438479, 97438507, 97546721 & 97546743 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2026)).

Background. Natural Bridge Caverns, Inc. (applicant) filed four applications seeking registration on the Principal Register of the proposed standard-character mark NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS for: rental of cabins, in International Class 36; provision of recreational vehicle parking facilities, in International Class 39; entertainment services, namely, arranging and conducting special events at a theme park; rental of theme park facilities for special events, in International Class 41; and providing campground facilities and rental of temporary accommodations; providing social meeting, banquet and social function facilities, in International Class 43. In all four applications, the examining attorney refused registration of the proposed mark under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) on the ground that it is merely descriptive of the applicant’s identified services. After the examining attorney issued a final refusal, the applicant appealed and moved to consolidate the applications for purposes of briefing and final decision on appeal. The TTAB granted the motion and the appeal was fully briefed.

Mere descriptiveness. The TTAB noted that the examining attorney submitted dictionary evidence indicating that a “natural bridge” is “a rock formation in which the central bottom part has been completely eroded away, leaving a structure that looks like a bridge,” and that a “cavern” is a “cave,” which, in turn, is defined as “a natural chamber or series of chambers in the earth or in the side of a hill or cliff.” The TTAB found that the examining attorney’s evidence supported a conclusion that NATURAL BRIDGE describes a naturally occurring bridge-like rock formation and CAVERNS describes a system of subterranean chambers, i.e., caves, and the resulting combination, NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS, connotes a cave system featuring a naturally occurring rock formation with a bridge-like structure. Therefore, dictionary evidence established a single, settled meaning for each component term, and the record contained no evidence that either “natural bridge” or “caverns” or the combination carried any alternative or ambiguous significance in relation to the identified services. Additionally, the TTAB agreed 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.

However, the TTAB rejected the applicant’s argument that it was applying a “per se” rule that that any service or product the applicant offers from premises where its cavern is located would necessarily be merely descriptive. The TTAB contended that in this case, the determination did 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 services at issue, cabin rentals, RV parking facilities, campground facilities, temporary accommodations, social meeting and banquet facilities, and theme-park special event services are not merely co-located with the applicant’s cavern attraction. They are, by the applicant’s own account, marketed to consumers interested in viewing large caves, take place “inside a room within the NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS cave system” or “in proximity to” its bridge-like rock formation, and are directed to consumers looking to hold a group event at the applicant’s NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS theme park. The third-party evidence of record also showed 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 established 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 the applicant’s premises is descriptive.

For the same reasons, the TTAB rejected the applicant’s argument that NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS cannot be merely descriptive as applied to the identified services because the applicant does not seek to register the proposed mark in connection with cave systems, or cave tours. Here, the wording used to identify the 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. Moreover, the applicant’s own responses to the examining attorney’s request for information confirm that the applicant’s services are, in fact, provided in connection with such an attraction. Thus, the proposed mark describes a significant aspect or fundamental purpose of the identified services.

The TTAB also noted that to the extent that the applicant argued that “NATURAL BRIDGE CAVERNS” has acquired distinctiveness among the relevant consumers as a source indicator for its cavern attraction, the applicant has not made a claim of acquired distinctiveness as to the proposed mark in connection with the identified services in any of the involved applications, nor has the applicant otherwise presented any evidence that would support such a claim.

Accordingly, the TTAB affirmed the refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark in all four applications.

The Case is Serial Nos. 97438479, 97438507, 97546721 & 97546743.

Judge: Lavache, R.

Attorneys: Edward B. Marvin (Jackson Walker LLP) for Natural Bridge Caverns, Inc. Danielle Anderson for the USPTO.

Companies: Natural Bridge Caverns, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO