IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register JASPE mark for clothing affirmed as deceptively misdescriptive, (Oct 6, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The Board found that “jaspe” is a type of fabric, but the Applicant’s products do not contain it.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the proposed mark JASPE on the ground that it is deceptively misdescriptive of the Applicant’s goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. Applicant sought registration of the standard-character mark for various clothing, including shirts and pants. Citing third-party evidence, the Board found that the term “jaspe” is a type of fabric and that the Applicant’s products do not contain it. Further, the Board concluded that reasonably prudent consumers encountering the proposed mark for shirts and pants identified in the Applicant’s application are likely to mistakenly believe that these goods are made from or feature jaspe (In re Teresa Michelle Lee, No. 98081572 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2026)).

Background. Applicant, Teresa Michelle Lee, sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard-character mark JASPE for the following goods in International Class 25: “Clothing, namely, tops as clothing, bottoms as clothing, coats, dresses, clothing jackets, sweaters, shirts, t-shirts, shorts, pants, leggings, trousers in the nature of leggings, leg warmers, overalls, smocks, jumper dresses, pajamas, ponchos, pullovers, hoods, jumpsuits, cardigans, skirts; beach clothes, namely, beach cover-ups; swimwear; knitwear, namely, pullovers, cardigans, dresses, skirts, shirts, pants, sweaters; hats; headwear; headbands; slippers; socks; footwear.”

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on grounds that Applicant’s proposed mark is: (1) deceptive under Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a); and (2) deceptively misdescriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).

After the Examining Attorney issued a final refusal, the Applicant appealed and filed a request for reconsideration, which the Examining Attorney denied. The Examining Attorney subsequently withdrew the deceptive ground for refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(a), leaving only the question of whether Applicant’s proposed mark is deceptively misdescriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).

Analysis. The Board affirmed the refusal, finding that the proposed mark is deceptively misdescriptive of Applicant’s identified shirts and pants under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1).

A proposed mark is deceptively misdescriptive if: (1) it misdescribes a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used; and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. The Board wrote it had no doubt that (1) the proposed mark JASPE misdescribes a significant quality, feature, function, or characteristic that Applicant’s shirts and pants might possess but do not; and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. The Board focused on “shirts” and “pants” identified in the involved application because the evidence of record substantially involved these goods.

Misdescription. The Board found that the first part of the test was met. The word “jaspe” merely describes a significant feature—jaspe fabric or a jaspe design—that the Applicant’s shirts and pants might plausibly possess but do not in fact possess. The evidence of record shows that the proposed mark immediately describes shirts and pants that are made from or feature jaspe fabric or design.

Further, there are no restrictions on the shirts and pants identified in the Applicant’s application. The Board found these identified clothing items are broad enough to encompass items featuring a jaspe fabric or design, and that “jaspe” would be a significant feature of such goods. The Board concluded that the Applicant’s goods do not feature “jaspe” and are not intended to feature “jaspe” in the future.

Likelihood to believe misrepresentation. The Board found that the second prong of the test was met. Under the second prong, the Board applied the reasonably prudent consumer test to assess whether consumers are likely to believe the misrepresentation. The Board found that reasonably prudent consumers encountering the proposed mark for the shirts and pants identified in Applicant’s application are likely to mistakenly believe that the goods are made from or feature jaspe.

The Case is Serial No. 98081572.

Attorneys: Rosaleen H. Chou (Olson & Bear, LLP) for Teresa Michelle Lee. Akeela Makshood for the USPTO.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark USPTO GCNNews