IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS affirmed for failure to disclaim, (May 26, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The Examining Attorney argued that the term “DATA STREAMS” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services related to database management and storage.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the mark CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS for database management and storage. The Examining Attorney concluded that the term “DATA STREAMS” is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services and therefore must be disclaimed, and the Board agreed. The Board rejected various arguments advanced by Applicant, including that the mark as a whole is unitary and therefore cannot be descriptive, and that because the mark is subject to multiple interpretations, it is inherently ambiguous (In re SmartContract Chainlink Limited SEZC, No. 98004679 (T.T.A.B. May 7, 2026)).

Background. Applicant, SmartContract Chainlink Limited SEZC, filed an application on the Principal Register for the mark CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS for use in connection with “Database management services, namely, collecting secure data for use by decentralized computing networks” in International Class 35 and “Storing of secure electronic data for use by decentralized computing networks” in International Class 42.

The Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1056(a), based on Applicant’s failure to disclaim the term “DATA STREAMS” in the mark, which the Examining Attorney argued is merely descriptive of Applicant’s services. Applicant requested reconsideration of the final refusal, but the request was denied and the appeal proceeded.

Disclaimer requirement. In the absence of required distinctiveness, which Applicant did not allege, merely descriptive terms are unregistrable under Section 2(e)(1), and therefore are subject to disclaimer if the mark is otherwise registrable. A disclaimer is a statement that an applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark.

Examining Attorney argument. The Examining Attorney argued that the term “DATA STREAMS” is “a well-defined term in the computer industry referring to a manner of transmitting data across computer networks.” The Examining Attorney provided various definitions of the term “DATA STREAMS,” and made record of screenshots from websites showing that companies use the term “DATA STREAMS” descriptively or generically to describe data transmission.

Applicant argument. Applicant did not challenge or dispute the validity of the Examining Attorney’s evidence in showing that “DATA STREAMS” is descriptive. Rather, the Applicant argued that because the wording CHAINLINK DATA STREAMS as a whole is unitary, it cannot be descriptive. Applicant argued that by combining its family mark CHAINLINK with DATA STREAMS, Applicant created a new commercial impression, namely a service of Applicant. Thus, the Applicant argued that when considered in connection with the identified services, the mark creates the commercial impression suggestive of a source identifying brand, namely CHAINLINK with DATA STREAMS. The Board disagreed, writing that the mere addition of CHAINLINK to the descriptive term “DATA STREAMS” does not create a new and unique commercial impression that renders the mark as a whole registrable without a disclaimer.

Applicant raised various other arguments, all of which the Board dismissed. Applicant argued that the term “DATA STREAMS” cannot be descriptive because “it has multiple interpretations and is inherently ambiguous.” However, the Board held that so long as one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered merely descriptive.

Applicant cited Manpower, Inc. v. Driving Force, Inc., [1981 TTAB LEXIS 109], and asserted that “the Board found the mark THE DRIVING FORCE could be interpreted in multiple ways as applied to the defendant’s services and therefore the mark was not merely descriptive.” However, the Board explained that in Manpower, the Board did not find THE DRIVING FORCE non-descriptive merely because it had multiple meanings. Rather, the record showed a wide diversity of potential connotations among witnesses who were intimately familiar with the parties’ businesses and the term’s use. In the instant case, the Board said that the term “DATA STREAMS” has a fairly uniform and established meaning in the computer science and data-processing industry, and this meaning directly and immediately describes a feature of Applicant’s services.

Applicant invoked the non-precedential decision in In re Open Software Foundation, Inc., No. 74672089, 1998 TTAB LEXIS 298, at *3, where the Board found that even though the mark OPENUI had known definitions, “the commercial impression of OPENUI did not immediately convey the goods and services associated with the mark.” Applicant argued that DATA STREAMS similarly refers to a variety of known definitions that do not convey the goods and services recited in Applicant’s identification. However, the Board said that it did not hold OPENUI was registrable because its components had multiple dictionary meanings. Instead, the Board found the mark not merely descriptive because OPENUI is a unitary blended term whose composite commercial impression as a whole did not immediately convey the nature of the applicant’s services. In this matter, the Board said, DATA STREAMS is not a blended or coined unitary term.

Applicant cited Cross Com. Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the term “COLLECTIVE” was not narrowly tailored to the specific goods and services. The Board found this argument inapposite, concluding that DATA STREAMS is precisely and narrowly descriptive of the data-transmission aspect of Applicant’s services.

The Board also said that Applicant could not avoid the descriptiveness of a term by focusing only on one end-result while ignoring the means of achieving that result, and that there is no incongruity in using a term that describes a key feature or function of services simply because the services have multiple aspects.

Decision. The Board affirmed the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register Applicant’s mark on the requirement under Trademark Act § 6(a) to disclaim DATA STREAMS. However, the Board wrote that if Applicant submits a disclaimer of DATA STREAMS to the Board within 30 days, the disclaimer requirement will have been met and the application could proceed. The Board directed the disclaimer to read as follows: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use DATA STREAMS apart from the mark as shown.”

The Case is Serial No. 98004679.

Judge: Lebow, M.

Attorneys: J. Damon Ashcraft (Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.) for Smartcontract Chainlink Ltd. SEZC. David Tooley for the USPTO.

Companies: Smartcontract Chainlink Ltd. SEZC

Cases: Trademark USPTO