IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Proposed mark SHIPPERSCOPILOT properly refused as merely descriptive, (Oct 21, 2025)

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

The individual components of the applicant’s proposed mark and the combination of individual components into the SHIPPERSCOPILOT were merely descriptive of the applicant’s AI shipping software 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In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark SHIPPERCOPILOT, in standard characters, under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. The TTAB determined that the applicant’s proposed mark SHIPPERCOPILOT is merely descriptive because it immediately conveys knowledge to consumers that a feature, function or characteristic of the applicant’s service—the use of artificial intelligence software to assist shippers. Both the individual components of the applicant’s proposed mark and the combination of individual components into the SHIPPERSCOPILOT mark are merely descriptive (In re Eshipjet Software Inc., No. 98708838 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2025)).

Background. Eshipjet Software Inc. (applicant) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard-character mark SHIPPERCOPILOT for artificial intelligence as a service (AIAAS) services featuring software using artificial intelligence (AI) for facilitating radio frequency identification (RFID), warehouse management, shipping, picking, packing, transfer of stock, storing of goods, planning, workflow optimization, tracking, alerts, inventory monitoring, outbound and inbound delivery, parcel tracking, and parcel tracing in the logistics industry in International Class 42. The examining attorney refused registration. 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, the applicant filed an appeal.

Mere descriptiveness. The TTAB noted that to show the descriptiveness of SHIPPERCOPILOT the examining attorney submitted an entry from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that defined the noun “shipper” as “one that sends goods by any form of conveyance,” and articles that showed use of “co-pilot” as “a term of art for an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered assistant designed to help users with various”.

The TTAB found that the examining attorney’s evidence supported a conclusion that the term SHIPPERCOPILOT conveyed to consumers a feature, function, or characteristic of artificial intelligence as a service (AIAAS) services featuring software using artificial intelligence (AI) for facilitating radio frequency identification (RFID), warehouse management, shipping, picking, packing, transfer of stock, storing of goods, planning, workflow optimization, tracking, alerts, inventory monitoring, outbound and inbound delivery, parcel tracking, and parcel tracing in the logistics industry.

While the applicant conceded its mark comprises descriptive wording, it argued that the combination of descriptive wording evokes a new and unique commercial impression such that applicant’s mark is not merely descriptive. The applicant contended that its proposed mark is suggestive of the fact that applicant’s software acts like a real shipper copilot helping a user to navigate through a difficult shipping process. But the applicant provided no evidence for this theory, and the relevant dictionary definitions of the composite terms indicate otherwise.

The TTAB also noted that the wording “SHIPPERSCOPILOT,” when used in connection with the applicant’s computer AI software services, immediately conveyed information about the applicant’s services, namely, an AI computer assistant otherwise known as a “copilot” that assists shippers with their shipping logistics. Consequently, the TTAB determined that the individual components of the applicant’s proposed mark are merely descriptive of the applicant’s services based on the evidence of record, but when these individually descriptive components are combined, the result, SHIPPERSCOPILOT, is also merely descriptive.

Therefore, the TTAB affirmed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 98708838.

Judge: Lebow, M.

Attorneys: John Alumit (Alumit IP) for Eshipjet Software Inc. James Sensor for the USPTO.

Companies: Eshipjet Software Inc.

Cases: AINews TechnologyInternet Trademark USPTO