IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Proposed marks POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL properly refused as merely descriptive, (Jun 24, 2025)

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

The TTAB found the proposed marks ineligible for registration, upholding the examining attorney’s ruling finding the terms merely descriptive of the identified goods.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusals to register the applicant’s proposed marks POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL on the grounds of mere descriptiveness. The TTAB determined that the terms CAPSULE and TUNNEL are merely descriptive of a main feature of the applicant’s goods and the combined terms POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL are merely descriptive of the identified goods (In re Power8 Tech Inc., Nos. 97455448 and 97455459 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2025)).

Background. Power8 Tech Inc. (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard character marks POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL for compressed air containers made of metal for energy storage, water and gas containers made of metal for energy storage, in International Class 6; electricity generators, in International Class 7; compressed air, water, and gas containers for energy storage being an integral component of alternative energy generation power plants, water and gas containers for energy storage being an integral component of alternative energy generation power plants, in International Class 11. The applications were assigned to the same examining attorney who refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the applicant’s proposed marks, POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL, are merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s goods. After the refusals were made final, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration in each application. After the examining attorney denied the requests for reconsideration, the appeals were resumed.

Descriptiveness of component terms. The TTAB found that the term POWER in both marks is merely descriptive of the function of the applicant’s goods – the generating power function of the Class 7 “electricity generators,” as well as the storing power function of the Class 6 “compressed air containers made of metal for energy storage; water and gas containers made of metal for energy storage,” and the Class 11 “compressed air containers for energy storage being an integral component of alternative energy generation power plants; water and gas containers for energy storage being an integral component of alternative energy generation power plants.” Further, the terms CAPSULE and TUNNEL are merely descriptive of a main feature of the applicant’s goods – the containers and/or tube-shaped structures which combine water and air so as to create the pressure necessary to create and store power.

The TTAB rejected the applicant’s argument and evidence that each term also has alternate non-descriptive definitions. The TTAB noted that descriptiveness is considered in relation to the particular goods for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods because of the manner of its use or intended use.

Descriptiveness of combined terms. The TTAB found that based on the descriptiveness of the component terms, and the applicant’s promotional material demonstrating how the terms can be combined to describe energy generation and storage, the combined term POWER CAPSULE is merely descriptive of the applicant’s goods. The TTAB was not convinced by the applicant’s argument that the term POWER CAPSULE is not merely descriptive because it does not have a well-defined meaning in the energy industry; because the combination creates a double entendre; and because similar marks combining POWER and a term for a container (POWERBOX and POWER PUCK) have been registered by third parties. The TTAB found that the registrations for the marks POWERBOX and POWER TUBE do not support finding that the applicant’s mark POWER CAPSULE is not merely descriptive. In addition, though the third-party marks do contain POWER, they are otherwise different in view of the other wording in the marks. Lastly, the TTAB noted that POWER CAPSULE in the abstract has more than one meaning (e.g., health supplements) and the relevant consumer of applicant’s goods will perceive POWER CAPSULE as connoting both generators and containers for power and health supplements.

The TTAB also noted that based on the descriptiveness of the component terms, and the applicant’s promotional material demonstrating how the terms can be combined to describe energy generation and storage, the combined term POWER TUNNEL is merely descriptive as applied to the applicant’s goods. The TTAB was not persuaded by the applicant’s arguments that the term POWER TUNNEL is not merely descriptive because a consumer would not be able to guess what the mark is used for, and similarly situated third party registrations demonstrate that marks containing the terms POWER and a generally descriptive structure are registrable on the Principal Register.

The TTAB found that the prospective purchasers of the identified goods in Class 6, 7, and 11 who encounter the terms POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL will be immediately informed that the applicant’s goods involve generating and storing energy. Thus, the terms are merely descriptive of the goods. Accordingly, the refusals to register the proposed marks POWER CAPSULE and POWER TUNNEL are affirmed as to all three classes of goods in each application.

The Case is Serial Nos. 97455448 and 97455459.

Judge: Dunn, E.

Attorneys: Jonathan O. Owens (Haverstock & Owens LLP) for Power8 Tech Inc. Gisele Agosto Hincapie for the USPTO.

Companies: Power8 Tech Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO