IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Proposed mark PALAPA properly refused as merely descriptive, (Nov 7, 2025)

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

The mark PALAPA was unregistrable for being merely descriptive because it immediately conveyed the feature or characteristic that the applicant’s event services are provided in a palapa.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark PALAPA, in standard characters, for event venue services under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The TTAB determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the highly descriptive word PALAPA has acquired distinctiveness for its identified services (In re Upper Buena Vista Management LLC, No. 97976656 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2025)).

Background. Upper Buena Vista Management LLC (applicant) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard-character mark PALAPA, or pursuant to Trademark Act Section 2(f) in the alternative, for event venue services in International Class 43. After the examining attorney issued a final refusal to register the mark on the ground that it is merely descriptive of the identified services under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, and had not acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act the applicant filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied. The applicant then filed an appeal.

Mere descriptiveness. The TTAB noted that to show the descriptiveness of PALAPA the examining attorney submitted several dictionary entries of the word PALAPA. An entry from THE AMERICAN DICTIONARY defines it as “A structure, such as a bar or restaurant, in a tropical resort, that is open-sided and thatched with palm leaves.” The examining attorney also submitted an entry from the COLLINS DICTIONARY that defines PALAPA as “An open-sided structure with a palm-thatched roof,” and DICTIONARY.COM that defines it as “A simple, thatched-roof dwelling, usually open on the sides” or “any building resembling this, especially in a resort area, as a restaurant, beach house, or the like.” In addition, the examining attorney submitted evidence to show that the applicant’s venue, where it provides its services, has “opens sides.”

Further, the examining attorney provided Internet evidence, which showed that it is common in the industry to refer to event venues and social function facilities using the term ‘palapa’ when such facilities feature a thatched roof and open sides, as the applicant’s venue does.

The TTAB found that the examining attorney’s evidence supported a conclusion that the word ‘PALAPA’ in the applied-for mark merely describes a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s social function facility because the facility includes a thatched roof and open sides, and is therefore a palapa.

Accordingly, the TTAB determined that the examining attorney satisfied her burden to show, prima facie, that the word PALAPA is merely descriptive of the identified services because it immediately conveys the feature or characteristic that the applicant’s services are provided in a palapa.

The burden shifted to the applicant to rebut that showing. The applicant contended that the venue where it provides its services is not a “palapa” as that term is defined. The applicant asserted that the definitions and third-party Internet evidence of record cannot be accepted for the truth of what is included on those pages. However, the definitions of record showed that the applicant’s venue where it provides its services are accurately described as a PALAPA as that term has been defined.

The applicant argued that PALAPA cannot be considered merely descriptive because not a single piece of evidence showed use of the term “palapa” as descriptive of a third party’s banquet or social function facilities, or pavilion facilities used for concerts or exhibitions. However, the TTAB noted that the Internet evidence in this case was filled with third parties renting or otherwise offering venues that they not only refer to the structures as “palapas,” but which are palapas as that term has been defined.

Moreover, the TTAB found no inconsistency with respect to that term PALAPA and the way it is used by the applicant, and did not agree with the applicant’s unsupported contention that “PALAPA is likely suggestive as applied to the Applied-For Services” because it “manifests incongruity.” Thus, the applicant failed to rebut the prima facie case showing that the mark PALAPA is merely descriptive of the identified services under Section 2(e)(1).

Section 2(f) claim. Under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, merely descriptive terms can qualify for registration upon proof that they have acquired distinctiveness. The applicant asserted a claim under Section 2(f) in the alternative. To show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness, an applicant must demonstrate that the relevant public understands the primary significance of the mark as identifying the source of a product or service rather than the product or service itself. In other words, the applicant must demonstrate that consumers have come to associate the mark with a single source. The TTAB found most of the applicant’s evidence showed the applicant’s own social media posts as well as social posts from approximately twenty individuals users which tag or mention the applicant’s venue. Further, the applicant provided no declaration or other competent evidence of its first date of use of PALAPA beyond the five years attested in its declaration of acquired distinctiveness.

Regarding the applicant’s claim that its use of PALAPA has been substantially exclusive, The TTAB agreed with the examining attorney that the record included several other companies that use the word “palapa” descriptively for similar event venue services. Thus, the applicant’s use of PALAPA to describe a social event venue appears not to be substantially exclusive. Therefore, the applicant failed to show that consumers have come to associate the mark with a single source.

Accordingly, the TTAB affirmed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 97976656.

Judge: Lebow, M.

Attorneys: Heidi Tandy (Berger Singerman LLP) for Upper Buena Vista Management LLC. Maureen Reed for the USPTO.

Companies: Upper Buena Vista Management LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO