IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘TURNKEY STORAGE’ mark for self-storage services properly denied registration, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Board found the applied-for mark merely descriptive of self-storage services and lacking acquired distinctiveness.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed a Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal to register the term TURNKEY STORAGE under Sections 2(e)(1) and 2(f) of the Trademark Act, concluding that the phrase immediately describes a key feature of the applicant’s services, ready-to-use storage facilities, and that the applicant failed to prove that the mark had acquired distinctiveness among consumers (In re Turnkey Storage, LLC, Serial No. 97796315 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2026)).

Background. The applicant, Turnkey Storage, LLC, applied to register the standard character mark TURNKEY STORAGE on the Principal Register under International Class 39 for services including “providing self-storage facilities for others,” with variants covering goods, vehicles, and climate-controlled units. The application was filed under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, asserting use in commerce since June 1, 2015. The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1), holding that the mark was merely descriptive of the services. The applicant argued that the term was at most suggestive, and in the alternative, claimed acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). When these arguments were rejected, the applicant appealed to the TTAB.

Mere descriptiveness. In assessing whether the mark was merely descriptive, the TTAB applied the established test of whether the proposed mark “immediately conveys information concerning a feature, quality, or characteristic of the services,” citing In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board concluded that TURNKEY STORAGE directly described a key feature of the applicant’s services—that the storage units are ready for immediate use, requiring no additional preparation. The Board drew on dictionary definitions of “turnkey” and emphasized extensive third-party use of the phrase “turnkey storage” across industries, especially in the self-storage and logistics sectors.

The Board cited examples such as “Turnkey Storage Solutions” used in marketing by Reconxx.com, DogPatchPaddle.com, and SelfStorageCanyonLake.com, and found that consumers were likely to perceive TURNKEY STORAGE as describing the nature of the service rather than identifying a particular source. The Board reaffirmed that even if a term has multiple meanings, it may still be held descriptive if one of those meanings is descriptive in context.

Composite mark argument. The TTAB rejected the argument that the combination of “turnkey” and “storage” created a unitary or suggestive mark. Citing In re Zuma Array Ltd., 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, the Board reiterated that combining descriptive terms does not yield a distinctive mark if each element retains its descriptive meaning. Since “turnkey” described the state of readiness and “storage” described the services, the combination did not create a new or incongruous commercial impression.

Expert testimony. Turnkey Storage submitted expert testimony from Professor Michael Bond, who argued that the term was suggestive from a marketing perspective. The Board gave little weight to this testimony, finding that Professor Bond lacked relevant legal expertise and misunderstood core trademark concepts, such as the distinction between descriptiveness and genericness. Citing Quaker Oats Co. v. St. Joe Processing Co., 232 F.2d 653, 655 (C.C.P.A. 1956), the Board reaffirmed that the opinion of an expert cannot replace the Board’s legal analysis.

Acquired distinctiveness. Under Section 2(f), the applicant alternatively argued that TURNKEY STORAGE had acquired distinctiveness based on prolonged use, substantial advertising, and customer volume. The TTAB acknowledged over ten years of use, $1.2 million in advertising, and over 11,000 customers generating $38 million in revenue. However, the Board emphasized that the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness increases with the degree of descriptiveness, citing Royal Crown Cola Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Given TURNKEY STORAGE’s high descriptiveness, the Board found the evidence insufficient to establish secondary meaning. The Board also noted that the applicant’s use was not “substantially exclusive” due to widespread third-party use of the same term in the same industry. Referencing Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Board emphasized that consumer exposure to multiple independent uses of a term undermines the ability to establish source-identifying significance.

Lack of persuasive declarations. The applicant relied on declarations from its CEO and Professor Bond to establish market recognition. The TTAB gave limited weight to both, observing that neither included consumer survey data or direct evidence that the public identified TURNKEY STORAGE as a brand. Citing In re Chem. Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the Board reiterated that self-interested declarations are insufficient without objective support.

Advertising and media. While acknowledging the applicant's advertising investments and customer volume, the Board held that the applicant failed to provide any industry benchmarks to contextualize these figures. Citing Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the TTAB found that without evidence of market share or relative performance, advertising expenditures were of limited probative value. A single 2016 newspaper article about the applicant’s business was also deemed insufficient to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness.

Conclusion. Thus, the TTAB concluded that TURNKEY STORAGE is merely descriptive of the applicant’s services and lacks acquired distinctiveness sufficient to support registration under Section 2(f). The Board emphasized that the combination of a highly descriptive adjective and a generic term did not create a protectable mark and that the applicant’s evidence of distinctiveness was insufficient to overcome the descriptive nature of the term.

The Case is Serial No. 97796315.

Judge: Moore, K.

Attorneys: Terrence J. Edwards (TechLaw Ventures, PLLC) for Turnkey Storage, LLC. Wade Speake for the USPTO.

Companies: Turnkey Storage, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO