IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register TUGENDHAT for seating furniture affirmed; was ‘primarily merely a surname’, (Apr 8, 2026)

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

Evidence provided by the applicant was insufficient to call into question the primary significance of TUGENDHAT as a surname.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s standard-character mark TUGENDHAT under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act because the evidence of record clearly demonstrated the surname significance of TUGENDHAT. While the mark was not the surname of anyone associated with the applicant, the TTAB found no other demonstrated meaning of the mark and that the consumers are likely to view and understand the mark TUGENDHAT on the identified goods to be primarily merely a surname (In re Knoll, Inc., No. 98370045 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2026)).

Background. Knoll, Inc. (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register of the standard character mark TUGENDHAT for “seating furniture” in International Class 20. The examining attorney refused registration of the applicant’s mark under Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act on the ground that TUGENDHAT is primarily merely a surname. When the examining attorney made the refusal final, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. When the request for reconsideration was denied, the appeal resumed.

Primarily merely a surname. The TTAB considered five factors set forth in In re Benthin Management GmbH, Serial No. 74340080 (T.T.A.B. 1995) to determine whether TUGENDHAT was primarily a surname. Beginning with the first factor, the degree of the surname’s rareness, the TTAB concluded from the evidence of record that while TUGENDHAT is not a common surname, there is meaningful and sufficient exposure to the surname throughout the United States, especially the applicant’s own marketing materials in an online catalog or at the point of sale. Accordingly, the evidence supported a finding that TUGENDHAT is likely to be perceived by the public as a surname.

For the second factor, whether TUGENDHAT is the surname of anyone connected with the applicant, while there was no evidence indicating that anyone connected with the applicant uses the term TUGENDHAT as a surname, the TTAB nevertheless noted that it did not reduce the likelihood that the public would perceive the mark as a surname. The TTAB determined that the purchasing public would understand TUGENDHAT as a family name regardless of whether descendants currently work for the applicant simply because the applicant’s own marketing material ties the mark to the Tugendhat family villa, reinforcing the surname perception of the purchasing public.

Thirdly, the TTAB considered whether TUGENDHAT has any recognized meaning other than a surname. In light of the negative dictionary evidence that there is no other meaning to the term TUGENDHAT, the TTAB concluded that it cannot find that TUGENDHAT has a recognized alternative meaning other than being a surname.

For the fourth factor, the TTAB noted whether TUGENDHAT has the structure and pronunciation of a surname. Based on the record, which included the applicant’s own advertising and marketing material that explicitly tied the TUGENDHAT mark with the Tugendhat family and their historical residence, the TTAB found that the connection signals to consumers that TUGENDHAT functions as a surname, i.e., the name of the family for whom the chair was designed, not as a fanciful word. However, based on the evidence as a whole, and because this is a “decidedly subjective” inquiry, the TTAB found this factor to be neutral.

The TTAB did not consider the fifth factor, whether TUGENDHAT is presented in a stylized form distinctive enough to create a separate non-surname impression, because the mark was in standard character form.

The TTAB concluded that taking all relevant evidence of public perception into consideration and applying all of the factors, the evidence of record clearly demonstrated the surname significance of TUGENDHAT. The applicant’s own promotional materials places emphasis on the Tugendhat family and villa, the historical association, and the surname origins. Accordingly, the mark is primarily merely a surname under the meaning of Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act. Thus, the refusal to register was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98370045.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: Christopher Turk (Belles Group, P.C.) for Knoll, Inc. Philip Liu for the USPTO.

Companies: Knoll, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO