IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: RODEO TEXAS marks are primarily geographically descriptive, (Nov 21, 2025)

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

Refusal to register the applicant’s RODEO TEXAS marks due to geographical descriptiveness affirmed because the relevant purchasers can make the requisite association between Texas and the identified goods and services.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the applicant’s standard character mark and composite mark on the ground that the marks are primarily geographically descriptive. The TTAB determined that RODEO TEXAS was primarily geographically descriptive of the goods and services but allowed the application to proceed to registration on the Supplemental Register in view of the applicant’s proposed amendment and upheld the disclaimer requirement regarding the proposed composite mark (In re Fantasy Rodeo, LLC, Nos. 90531680 and 90531699 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2025)).

Background. Fantasy Rodeo, LLC (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard character mark RODEO TEXAS for “Clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, hats, and jackets not for use by rodeo competitors,” in International Class 25, and for “Entertainment services, namely, conducting special events in the nature of pre event [sic] parties, watch parties, and after parties in connection with sports and entertainment events” in International Class 41; and a composite mark for "Clothing and apparel, namely, shirts, hats, and jackets, all of the foregoing not for use by rodeo competitors,” in International Class 25 absent a disclaimer of RODEO TEXAS. The examining attorney refused registration of the applicant’s proposed standard character mark under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act on the ground that it is primarily geographically descriptive. For the same reason, the examining attorney refused registration of the proposed composite mark under Trademark Act Section 6(a), in the absence of a disclaimer of RODEO TEXAS. When the refusals were made final in both applications, the applicant appealed and requested reconsideration in each application. After the examining attorney denied the requests for reconsideration, the appeal resumed.

Geographically descriptive. Under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, a mark may not be registered on the Principal Register if the mark, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them and has not acquired distinctiveness. The elements for proving that a mark is primarily geographically descriptive are: (1) the mark sought to be registered or a portion thereof is the name of a place generally known to the public; (2) the source of the goods or services is the geographic region named in the mark; and (3) the public would believe that the goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered originate in that place.

With regard to the first prong of the primarily geographically descriptiveness test, the examining attorney argued that “Texas” is “a state in the southern U.S.,” and provided an excerpt from Britannica Academic, indicating that Texas is the second-largest U.S. state in terms of area. As to RODEO, the examining attorney provided dictionary evidence, defining the term as “a public performance featuring bronco riding, calf roping, steer wrestling, and Brahma bull riding.” The examining attorney contended that the wording in the marks is merely a combination of a descriptive term, “RODEO,” and a geographic term, “TEXAS,” which together are primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of Applicant’s goods and services. The applicant argued that RODEO does not merely describe these services because it does not render rodeo services. However, the examining attorney pointed out that the Class 41 specimen of use provided in support of the services advertises the “HOOEY FEST for RODEO TEXAS,” which was described as the “LARGEST NFR WATCH PARTY and CONCERT.” Thus, while the applicant may not itself be staging live, in-person rodeo competitions, it is presenting such competitions through watch parties. Therefore, as to the applicant’s Class 41 services, the term RODEO does not detract from the primarily geographically descriptive significance of RODEO TEXAS as a whole.

As to the Class 25 goods, the applicant argued that RODEO is not merely descriptive of its goods because it does not sell clothing to wear in rodeo competitions. However, the TTAB noted that there is no reason to conclude that RODEO is only descriptive as to clothing when that clothing is specifically worn or used in rodeo competitions; in fact, the record suggests otherwise. Here, the evidence of record, considered as a whole, indicated that RODEO can be used to refer to rodeo-themed or rode-appropriate attire, or to clothing items that are otherwise associated with rodeo events. Further, it is well-established that a term which describes the provider of goods or services is also merely descriptive of those goods and services. Therefore, the relevant consumers may view RODEO, when it appears in the phrase RODEO TEXAS, as indicating that the goods are provided by a rodeo exhibitor (albeit one who exhibits rodeo events through watch parties). Accordingly, the TTAB found that RODEO is merely descriptive in that it immediately conveys information about a feature or characteristic of the applicant’s identified shirts, hats, and jackets; and when considered in connection with the nature of the goods, the addition of the term RODEO does not detract from the primarily geographic descriptiveness of RODEO TEXAS as a whole.

With respect to the second prong, the examining attorney noted that the applicant is organized in Texas and has a domicile address in Decatur, Texas, and one of the specimens of use indicated that at least some of its services are rendered in Fort Worth, Texas. Thus, the TTAB agreed with the examining attorney that this was a sufficient basis to find that the applicant’s Class 41 services originated in Texas. As to the origin of applicant’s Class 25 goods, the examining attorney relied not only on the fact that the applicant is organized and located in Texas, but also argued that the relevant specimens of use indicate that its goods are sold online without any apparent restrictions regarding where consumers can purchase the goods, which means the applicant sells its goods in Texas. The TTAB found that there is a sufficient nexus between the applicant’s goods and the state of Texas such that the goods originate there for purposes of the Section 2(e)(2) analysis.

With respect to the third prong, the TTAB concluded that because the applicant is organized and located in Texas and the identified goods and services are offered in and originate from Texas, it can presume that the relevant purchasers will make the requisite association between Texas and the identified goods and services.

Accordingly, the TTAB upheld the refusal of the applicant’s proposed standard character mark RODEO TEXAS under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2) but allowed the application to proceed to registration on the Supplemental Register in view of the applicant’s proposed amendment in the alternative to that register during prosecution. The TTAB also upheld the disclaimer requirement regarding the proposed composite mark but allowed the applicant 30 days to submit the required disclaimer in which case the application will be forwarded to publication for registration.

The Case is Serial Nos. 90531680 and 90531699.

Judge: Lavache, R.

Attorneys: Carla Calcagno (Calcagno Law PLLC) for Fantasy Rodeo, LLC. Tara Nielson for the USPTO.

Companies: Fantasy Rodeo, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO