IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Registration denied for LICKMAT and LICK MAT pet products, (Oct 26, 2022)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Proposed marks were merely descriptive of feeding mats designed to encourage pet licking.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s LICKMAT and LICK MAT marks for pet feeding receptacles. In so ruling, the Board concluded that the marks were merely descriptive of the products associated with the marks, that is, mats designed to encourage repetitive licking by a pet (In re Innovative Pet Products Pty Ltd., October 24, 2022, Bergsman, M.).

The applicant, Innovative Pet Products, sought registration on the Principal Register for the marks LICKMAT and LICK MAT for feeding receptacles and amusement mats for pets under International Classes 21 and 28 (App. Serial Nos. 90093231 and 90093238). The application was based on the applicant’s intention to use the marks in commerce.

The examining attorney refused to register the applicant’s marks under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that LICKMAT and LICK MAT are merely descriptive of feeding receptacles for pets and for pet amusement mats and toys. Citing dictionary meanings for “Lick” and “Mat,” the examining attorney stated that both terms, when combined, would convey to the relevant purchasing public that LICKMAT and LICK MAT referred to a mat designed to encourage a pet’s repetitive licking. The examining attorney also offered evidence obtained on the internet that a “lick mat” can be used to encourage repetitive licking, which is pleasurable and calming for pets.

The applicant argued that because LICKMAT and LICK MAT were not in the dictionary, the examining attorney would have to show that the proposed marks have “a well-recognized meaning” to establish mere descriptiveness. The Board rejected this argument, noting that it was not relevant that the marks were not in the dictionary because the examining attorney had established through internet and other evidence that the marks had a well understood and recognized meaning.

The applicant also argued that the proposed marks were not merely descriptive because “both the terms ‘lick’ and ‘mat’ have a wide variety of possible meanings.” The Board also rejected this argument, stating that the only meaning to consider here related to pet feeding receptacles.

The Board upheld the examining attorney’s refusal under Section 2(e)((1) to register the applicant’s proposed marks.

The case is Serial Nos. 90093231 and 90093238.

Attorneys: Samantha C. Markley (Loza & Loza LLP) for Innovative Pet Products Pty Ltd. Natalie M. Polzer for the USPTO.

Companies: Innovative Pet Products Pty Ltd.

Cases: Trademark USPTO