IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘Supersalt’ mark is merely descriptive for hydration supplements, (Jul 27, 2022)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

The mark’s combined terms retained their descriptive significance for hydration supplements.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has affirmed a trademark examining attorney’s refusal to register the proposed mark SUPERSALT on the ground that it was merely descriptive of the applicant’s hydration supplements. The TTAB held that the combination of the descriptive term “salt” with the laudatory term “super” retained the descriptive significance. The Board was not persuaded by the applicant’s argument that multi-step reasoning would be required for a consumer to understand how the product pertained to hydration supplements. However, the Board granted the applicant’s request to amend its application for registration on the Supplemental Register (In re Super Salt, LLC, July 22, 2022, Goodman, G.).

Background. The applicant, Super Salt, LLC sought to register the mark SUPERSALT in standard characters for dietary supplements in International Class 5. The examining attorney refused registration on the grounds that the mark was merely descriptive. The applicant appealed and requested reconsideration, alternatively requesting amendment to the Supplemental Register. When reconsideration was denied, the applicant appealed to the TTAB.

Analysis. Section 2(e)(1) of Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark which, when used on or in connection with an applicant’s goods, is merely descriptive of them, unless the mark has been shown to have acquired distinctiveness. A merely descriptive term immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used, the TTAB noted.

The examining attorney introduced dictionary evidence for the words “super” and “salt,” along with third party examples of salt supplements that are electrolyte replacements or replenishers, much like the applicant’s product. The applicant, in turn, submitted printouts of Principal Register third-party registrations for marks that are comprised in part of the term “super,” mostly for dietary and nutritional supplements, as well as registrations for non-supplement goods that contained the term “super.”

The applicant argued that SUPERSALT was a unitary mark that was suggestive of the goods and “creates a unique and unitary commercial impression separate from its individual components due to its distinct structure and cadence.” The TTAB disagreed, finding that the word “salt” was descriptive of the applicant’s electrolyte salt dietary supplements. Moreover, the word “super” was also descriptive as it related to the applicant’s product, as it described the main ingredient, pink sea salt, as being superior, first-rate, and high quality.

When those two words combined as SUPERSALT, the constituent elements retained their descriptive significance, the TTAB found. The Board was not persuaded by the applicant’s argument that multi-step reasoning would be required for a consumer to understand how the product pertained to hydration supplements, finding that there was nothing in SUPERSALT requiring imagination or mental thought for purchasers and prospective customers to readily understand the nature of the goods. Moreover, nothing in the visual and aural aspects of the purported alliteration created a unique and unitary commercial impression.

The third party registrations of record did not serve to create any doubt as to the mere descriptiveness of the term SUPERSALT when used in connection with the applicant’s dietary supplements, the Board stated. Having found the mark to be entirely descriptive, the TTAB denied registration; however, it did grant the applicant’s request, in the alternative, to amend the application to the Supplemental Register.

Board action. The registration refusal was affirmed by the TTAB.

The Case is Serial No. 88143498.

Attorneys: Carolyn R. Detmer for the USPTO. Kaitlyn M. Garvin (Saunders & Silverstein LLP) for Super Salt, LLC.

Companies: Super Salt, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO