Blue Planet, Ltd.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

No. 86341516 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 20, 2017

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Blue Planet, Ltd.
_____

Serial No. 86341516
_____

Bret E. Field of Bozicevic Field & Francis LLP,
for Blue Planet, Ltd.
Angela M. Micheli, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 101,
Ronald R. Sussman, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Zervas, Shaw and Kuczma,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Zervas, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Blue Planet, Ltd. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
proposed standard character mark GEOMIMETIC for “Concrete additives; Concrete
admixtures; Cement additives; Cement admixtures; setting liquid for use with
cements and concretes” in International Class 1, and “Concrete; Ready to use
Serial No. 86341516
- 2 -
concrete; Cement; Cement mixes; Filling cement; Hydraulic cement; supplementary
cementitious material” in International Class 19.1
The Examining Attorney determined that GEOMIMETIC is merely descriptive of
a characteristic or feature of Applicant’s identified goods, and refused registration of
Applicant’s mark pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(e)(1).
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed to this
Board and requested reconsideration. On remand, the Examining Attorney denied
the request for reconsideration, eventually issuing a second final Office Action on the
sole ground discussed below. The appeal resumed and both Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed briefs. We reverse the refusal to register.
Preliminary Issue
Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(2), provides that “[w]ithout prior
leave of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a brief shall not exceed twenty-five
pages in length in its entirety, including the table of contents, index of cases,
description of the record, statement of the issues, recitation of the facts, argument,
and summary.”
Applicant’s brief is thirty pages in length. Approximately ten to 15 pages of its
brief are duplications of webpages previously submitted by Applicant. The Examining
Attorney has not objected to the length of Applicant’s brief or to the duplications.

1 Application Serial No. 86341516 was filed on July 18, 2014, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based upon an allegation of a bona fide intention to use
the mark in commerce.
Serial No. 86341516
- 3 -
We exercise our discretion and consider Applicant’s brief because much of the brief
consists of duplications of record evidence. Applicant is advised, however, that future
compliance with the rules is expected.
Mere Descriptiveness
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal
Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the
applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). A term is “merely
descriptive” within the meaning of Section 2(e)(1) if it “immediately conveys
knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services
with which it is used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102
USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82
USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “On the other hand, if one must exercise mature
thought or follow a multi-stage reasoning process in order to determine what product
or service characteristics the term indicates, the term is suggestive rather than
merely descriptive.” In re Tennis in the Round, Inc., 199 USPQ 496, 498 (TTAB 1978);
see also In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363, 364-65 (TTAB 1983); In re Universal Water
Systems, Inc., 209 USPQ 165, 166 (TTAB 1980).
Whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods for
which registration is sought, not in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork.
Descriptiveness must be evaluated “in relation to the particular goods for which
registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible
significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods because
Serial No. 86341516
- 4 -
of the manner of its use or intended use.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 102
USPQ2d at 1219 (quoting In re Bayer AG, 82 USPQ2d at 1831). In other words, we
evaluate whether someone who knows what the goods are will understand the mark
to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices,
Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Tower Tech Inc.,
64 USPQ2d 1314, 1316-17 (TTAB 2002)).
The Examining Attorney maintains that “geo” is a prefix meaning earth, soil or
ground; “mimetic” is defined as “imitative”; and the combination of the two elements,
GEOMIMETIC, “indicates technologies or materials that mimic geophysical
processes or materials.”2 There is no dictionary definition of “geomimetic” in the
record.3 However, the record includes the following uses of “geomimetic”:
● www.openthefuture.com, stating:
GEOMIMICRY
In many sustainability circles, “bioengineering” = “bad and
scary,” while “biomimicry” = “cool and useful.” Biomimicry
usually doesn’t involve bioengineering, and in fact often

2 8 TTABVUE 4. See definitions from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of “geo” (“: earth : ground
: soil”) and “mimetic” (“: imitative”) submitted with October 31, 2014 Office Action, TSDR 2-
6.
3 “Biomimetics,” which has a similar construction to “geomimetics,” is a defined term meaning
“the study of the formation, structure, or function of biologically produced substances and
materials (such as enzymes or silk) and biological mechanisms and processes (such as protein
synthesis or photosynthesis) especially for the purpose of synthesizing similar products by
artificial mechanisms which mimic natural ones” in the online version of Merriam-Webster
Dictionary accessed at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biomimetics. The Board
may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet
Food Imp. Co., 213 USPQ 594, 596 (TTAB 1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), including online dictionaries with regular fixed editions. In re Red Bull GmbH, 78
USPQ2d 1375 (TTAB 2006).
Serial No. 86341516
- 5 -
relies upon completely non-biological processes to mimic
biological effects. And it is, in fact, pretty cool and useful.
***
There’s no doubt that some forms of geoengineering
involves the direct manipulation of geophysical systems,
and (in general) the term remains the most appropriate
one. But there’s a very wide variety of approaches and
ideas that fall under the geoengineering umbrella. Some -
but not all - of them actually intentionally mimic existing
geophysical processes with the intent of producing similar
geophysical effects.
A proposal, then it might make sense to start referring to
the forms of geoengineering that intentionally attempt to
reproduce known geophysical processes as geomimetic
technologies, or more generally, geomimcry.
***
Geomimetic technologies would be those that seek to
replicate known geophysical processes, so stratospheric
sulfate injection (which attempts to reproduce the high-
atmosphere effects of a large volcanic eruption) is
geomimetic SRM [Solar Radiation Modification], which
white-rooftop programs (which attempt to increase
urban/suburban albedo [sic] by literally painting rooftops
white) would be, um, let’s call it infrastructure SRM.
Similarly, large-scale tree-planting projects could be called
geomimetic CDR [Carbon Dioxide Removal], while CO2
scrubber towers would be infrastructure CDR.4
● www.tececo.com, stating:
The term geomimicry is used by John Harrison to describe
processes and technologies that mimic long term geological
processes.
During earth’s geological history, large tonnages of carbon
were put away as limestone and coal by the activity of

4 www.openthefuture.com/2011/08/geomimicry.html, March 18, 2015 Office Action,
TSDR 21-22.
Serial No. 86341516
- 6 -
plants and animals. Shellfish build shells from it and trees
turned it into wood.
These same plants and animals wasted nothing, the waste
from one was the food or home for another.
The solution to problems of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas
and waste is to mimic nature and use them both to make
building materials. Because of the size of the potential
reverse flows the built environment is the ideal place to
start. Such a paradigm shift in resource usage will not
occur because it is the right thing to do. It can only happen
if people can make money making it happen.
To succeed this process of reversal must be profitable.
TecEco and other Global Engineering Alliance members
have developed new technical paradigms that working
together in a tececology [sic] can resolve the problem of
excess CO2, waste and water shortages. By using carbon
dioxide and other wastes as a building materials we can
economically reduce their concentration in the global
commons.5
● Warner, Terence E., “Synthesis, Properties and Mineralogy of Important
Inorganic Materials” (John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.), stating:

Certain workers have even coined the expression,
geomimetics, to describe the imitation of geological
materials, in an attempt to promote the subject from this
perspective.6
● “Vision 2030: A Vision for the U.S. Concrete Industry (Jan. 2001),” stating:
The concrete industry envisions significant strides in
process improvements over the next thirty years. In the
industry’s vision for 2030:
• A variety of byproducts from other industries as
well as recycled concrete are used as constituent
materials for concrete production.

5 http:/ www.tececo.com/sustainability.geomimicry.php, March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR
24-25.
6 March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 47.
Serial No. 86341516
- 7 -
• Synthetic or bio-based materials are commonly
used in concrete production.
• Biomimetic processes, or processes which mimic
natural mechanisms, are used to create concrete.
• A geomimetic approach is used to tailor mix design
to specific structural environments.7
● U.S. Army Corps of Engineers job announcement, stating:
The Biogeochemical Processes in Earth Materials technical
area focuses on understanding the interaction of biological
systems, in particular the establishment, growth, and
dynamics of plant and microbial communities, with a
variety of earth materials such as soil, rocks, sediment,
dust, and with engineered materials that mimic properties
of these natural materials (i.e., geomimetics), such as high
surface area and reactivity.8
● Goure-Doubi, H. et al., “Understanding the strengthening of a lateritic
‘geomimetic’ material,” stating:

From this perspective a processing for “geomimetic”
materials has been developed in a previous study, derived
from the formation of lateritic concretions within some
iron-rich soils. The term “geomimetic” was adopted in
reference to mimicking the consolidation observed with
naturally occurring lateritic concretions in soils (“geo”).
The “geomimetic” material processing implies the use of a
lateritic clay together with fulvic acid and lime. The
consolidated products are obtained after a curing period of
18 days at 60 °C under water saturated atmosphere. These
as-obtained products present interesting properties with
respect to a potential use as building materials, namely: a
compressive strength of 12 MPa, and a good durability
when immersed in water.9

7 March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 58-59.
8 March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 75.
9 http://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061814000981, October 31, 2014 Office
Action, TSDR 9-23.
Serial No. 86341516
- 8 -
● Abstract for Baumgartner, B., et al., “Geomimetics for green polymer synthesis:
highly ordered polyimides via hydrothermal techniques,” Polymer Chemistry
(2014), stating, “[i]nspired by geological ore formation processes, we apply one-
step hydrothermal (HT) polymerization to the toughest existing high-performance
polymer, poly(p-phenyl pyromellitimide) (PPPI).”10

● Webpage for Materials Research Society Symposium, Singapore, mentioning
without elaboration “Biomimetic, Nature inspired Bio-inspired, Geomimetic
techniques.”11

● Hua, Q, “Morphological Evolution of Cu2O Nanocrystals in an Acid Solution:
Stability of Different Crystal Planes” (2010), stating, “These results clearly
exemplify that the morphology of inorganic crystals will evolve with the change of
local chemical environment, shedding light on fundamentally understanding the
morphological evolution of natural minerals and providing novel insights into the
geomimetic synthesis of inorganic materials in the laboratory.”12

From this evidence, we find that “geomimetic” is a recognized term which is
applicable to a variety of disciplines, including the U.S. concrete industry, meaning
“forms of geoengineering13 that intentionally attempt to reproduce known
geophysical processes.”14

10 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/py/c4py00263f#!divAbstract, October 31,
2014 Office Action, TSDR 30-33.
11 http://www.mrs.org.sg/icmat2015/public.asp?page=session.asp&sld=18, October 31, 2014
Office Action, TSDR 33-34. We consider this foreign webpage in light of the technical nature
of the subject matter. “Information originating on foreign websites or in foreign news
publications that are accessible to the United States public may be relevant to discern United
States consumer impression of a proposed mark.” In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d
960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1835 (TTAB 2007).

12 March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 18.
13 “Geoengineering” is defined in McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
(6th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2003) as “Artificial modification of earth
systems to counteract anthropogenic effects, such as increasing carbon dioxide uptake by
fertilizing ocean surface waters or screening out sunlight with orbiting mirrors.” We take
judicial notice of this definition.
14 www.openthefuture.com/2011/08/geomimicry.html, March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR
21-22.
Serial No. 86341516
- 9 -
The Examining Attorney maintains that “geomimetic” has significance to the
purchasing public of Applicant’s goods. Before reaching her arguments which involve
the science of concrete production, we provide a description of the process of
manufacturing concrete:
Portland cement is the most common type of cement in
general usage. It is a basic ingredient of concrete, mortar
and many plasters. … It consists of a mixture of calcium
silicates (alite, belite), aluminates and ferrites - compounds
which combine calcium, silicon, aluminum and iron in
forms which will react with water. Portland cement and
similar materials are made by heating limestone (a source
of calcium) with clay and/or shale (a source of silicon,
aluminum and iron) and grinding this product (called
clinker) with a source of sulfate (most commonly gypsum).
***
To produce concrete from most cements (excluding
asphalt), water is mixed with the dry powder and
aggregate, which produces a semi-liquid that workers can
shape, typically by pouring it into a form. The concrete
solidifies and hardens through a chemical process called
hydration. The water reacts with the cement, which bonds
the other components together, creating a robust stone-like
material.
However, there is an energy and environmental cost to the production of concrete:
The production of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) - which
binds the aggregate and other materials together in most
concrete-is responsible for an estimated 5% of the world’s
anthropogenic carbon emissions. In 2012, the industry
produced about 3.7 billion tons of cement, according to the
U.S. Geological Survey, and producing one pound of cement
generates slightly under a pound of CO2. About half of that
CO2 is produced when limestone undergoes calcination; the
Serial No. 86341516
- 10 -
rest comes from fossil fuel use, transportation, and other
factors.15
“During the calcination process, limestone (calcium carbonate, CaCO3 and other
materials are heated to about 1,650°F (900°C), transforming it into lime (calcium
oxide, CaO) and CO2. As concrete cures, the calcination process is essentially
reversed, and the calcium oxide reacts with CO2 in the atmosphere via carbonation
to produce calcium carbonate.”16
With this in mind, we consider the information in the record regarding Applicant
and its activities. Applicant is seeking to develop a method to reduce CO2 emitted in
producing cement. According to Wilson, A., “Can This Man Reinvent Concrete?”
BuildingGreen (2014):17
Constantz [Applicant’s principal] is focusing on a very
different type of cement: a calcium carbonate cement. The
calcium is derived either from seawater or – in more inland
locations – from brine, and the carbonate comes from the
carbon dioxide in power plant flue gases. He envisions a
system in which the CO2 is extracted from flue gases to
produce both a calcium carbonate cement and limestone
aggregate.
Blue Planet, [Applicant] which has attracted some large
investors, believes that concrete produced with its
CarbonMix cement and limestone aggregate would be
carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative, meaning that the
more of it you use the more carbon is sequestered-or pulled
out of the atmosphere and forever locked up.

15 “Ehrlich, B., “Can Concrete Save Us? Locking Up Carbon in Building Materials.”
Environmental Building News (https://www2.buildinggreen.com/article/can-concrete-save-
us-locking-carbon-building-materials), April 8, 2016 Office Action, TSDR 39.
16 Id. at TSDR 39-40.
17 http://www2.buildinggreen.com/blogs/can-man-reinvent-concrete?, April 8, 2016 Office
Action, TSDR 52-53.
Serial No. 86341516
- 11 -
Blue Planet is carrying out research at one of
California’s largest power plants: a natural-gas-fired plant
on the coast at Moss Landing (south of San Francisco). The
Moss Landing power plant, now owned by Dynegy, power
plant [which] produces four million tons of CO2 per year –
CO2 that is contributing to global warming.
In producing concrete from CarbonMix cement, carbon
emission reductions would be achieved in multiple ways:
the production of Portland cement would be reduced; CO2
would be chemically tied up in the calcium carbonate
cement: and the aggregate (a far larger constituent of
concrete) would be limestone.
Using limestone as aggregate could be done
immediately, with no changes in highway standards and
concrete engineering standards.18
The article entitled “Can Concrete Save Us? Locking Up Carbon in Building
Materials”19 explains Applicant’s process:
In Blue Planet’s process, “we trap the CO2 (from flue gases]
directly in the micro-emulsion,” claims Constanz. “We then
take in seawater and put it through the membrane. On one
side, you get potable water that is now acidic; the other half
becomes brine, which is alkaline and about twice as salty
as seawater” and is also the source of the calcium. (The
membrane is basically a reverse osmosis system that can
remove select molecules and ions from solution.) In regular
desalination, the concentrated saltwater gets put back into
the sea, with questionable environmental impacts, but
Blue Planet uses that mineral-rich water to form the
carbonates, and the fresh water becomes the “waste
product.”
Constanz said the process does not require
electrochemistry or sodium hydroxide and does not produce
hydrochloric acid. Instead, Blue Planet creates the

18 Thus, “[c]alcium carbonate, along with other minerals such as sodium bicarbonate (baking
soda), can be formed through a number of chemical reactions, such as by adding CO2 to
calcium-rich water along with sodium hydroxide.” Id.
19 (https://www2.buildinggreen.com/article/can-concrete-save-us-locking-carbon-building-
materials), April 8, 2016 Office Action, TSDR 37 et seq.
Serial No. 86341516
- 12 -
necessary alkalinity by removing hydrogen through its
membrane process, and since there is no CO2, that needs
to be compressed and purified, and the precipitate does not
need as much dewatering and drying, the system
dramatically reduces overall energy consumption
compared with … similar systems. The process also
removes SO2, NOX, and other contaminants as it captures
CO2.
Blue Planet’s liquid-condensed-phase process holds enough
promise that it too was selected as a first-round winner of
the Grand Challenge. The company is currently focusing
on creating a limestone (calcium carbonate) aggregate-
because aggregate makes up more than 70% of the overall
concrete mix- and a liquid emulsion admixture for concrete,
CarbonMix. Constanz reasons that in order to reduce
carbon in the atmosphere before we reach a tipping point,
“we need to be able to sequester 10 billion tons annually on
a sustainable basis. You aren’t going to get there with just
cement, but you can get there with aggregate.” Blue
Planet’s calcium carbonate is also highly reflective, so it
can be used in pavement and in cool-roof coatings.20
Applicant’s website explains its processes, and uses the term “geomimetic” at one
spot in its website as appearing in the record:
LCPTM Concentrate – A Scientific Breakthrough
Liquid condensed phase (LCP) droplets – nanometer-
sized pockets of liquid that contain high concentrations of
sequestered CO2 – are manipulated and isolated by Blue
Planet using established water process technologies. A
single feed solution containing LCP droplets is treated by
nanofiltration, a low-energy alternative to reverse osmosis,
which results in two output solutions; one is softened,
nearly potable water, and the other is a concentrated
solution of LCP droplets that Blue Planet uses for direct
geomimetic mineralization of CaCO3.21

20 April 8, 2016 Office Action, TSDR 42-43.
21 In the August 19, 2015 request for reconsideration, Applicant explains, “With respect to
the use of the term as employed on the Applicant’s website, the Applicant employs the term
to describe the process by which calcium carbonate is coated onto rocks by a process that is
Serial No. 86341516
- 13 -
Biomimetic & Geomimetic Mineralization
The White Cliffs of Dover are a visual example of earth’s
process of converting CO2 into limestone, calcium
carbonate. They are composed of carbon as calcium
carbonate, safely stored for over 100 million years
representing about 10 billion tons of CO2. The Earth’s
atmosphere contains approximately 70,000,000 billion tons
of CO2 as carbonate rocks. This naturally occurring process
forms the basis for the Blue Planet mineralization process.
Aggregates
Blue Planet produces lightweight coarse and fine
aggregate, available for residential and commercial
construction. Made from sequestered CO2 utilizing the
biomineralization process, the use of Blue Planet aggregate
is the most effective way to achieve carbon neutral and
carbon negative concrete. Standard concrete, by
comparison, has the highest CO2 footprint of all building
materials.
***
Blue Planet’s direct mineralization of CaCO3 mimics
nature itself, with purified CO2 being produced as a by-
product at no extra cost. This is in contrast to state-of-the-
art CCS technologies that require significant amounts of
energy to produce pure CO2 as the only product. In Blue
Planet’s technology, pure CO2 may be recycled in the
process or sold to existing markets for enhanced oil
recovery or geologic sequestration.
***
What is Blue Carbon?
Blue carbon is the carbon captured by the world’s
oceans and coastal ecosystems. Most blue carbon is in the
form of calcium carbonate skeletons of marine organisms
like corals and other marine invertebrates and plants. Blue
Planet’s process captures carbon dioxide in marine waters

similar to the process by which ooids are produced in nature. However, the calcium carbonate
that is deposited onto the rocks is identical to naturally occurring calcium carbonate, and
therefore is not a mimetic of calcium carbonate.” TSDR 3.
Serial No. 86341516
- 14 -
using a biomimetic process inspired by marine
biomineralization forming calcium carbonate under very
similar physical and chemical condition, using the same
underlying fundament mechanism.22
The Examining Attorney asserts that “Applicant’s website shows that Applicant
uses a geomimetic process to create calcium carbonate and concrete pigments, which
are concrete additives,”23 and explains:
The process applicant uses traps carbon dioxide from flue
gases produced by industrial processes, then mixes the
carbon dioxide with seawater. The combination of seawater
and carbon dioxide creates calcium carbonate in a man-
made process. The natural process of creating limestone is
by direct crystallization usually from seawater, or by the
accumulation of sea animal shells and shell fragments. In
the direct crystallization case calcium ions in the seawater
combine with atmospheric or dissolved carbon dioxide to
form calcium carbonate, which being insoluble,
precipitates out. Over time, layers of the calcium carbonate
form, and with sufficient time and pressure from overlying
materials, are transformed to solid rock. … Instead of
having to excavate naturally occurring calcium carbonate
for use in its goods, the applicant engineers it using a
geomimetic process. 24
The Examining Attorney concludes, “Applicant’s goods will be made using calcium
carbonate that may contain the same molecular structure of naturally occurring
calcium carbonate, but that has been artificially created using a process that imitates
a naturally occurring process. Thus, the wording ‘geomimetic’ describes a feature or
characteristic of the goods.”25

22 March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 3-4.
23 Applicant’s brief at 4, 4 TTABVUE 5.
24 Examining Attorneys brief at 5, 8 TTABVUE 6.
25 Examining Attorney’s brief at 6, 8 TTABVUE 7.
Serial No. 86341516
- 15 -
Applicant maintains:
With respect to the goods of Class 1, these goods do not
include calcium carbonate. Furthermore, there is no
naturally occurring counterpart to any of these goods of
Class 1, and therefore the goods in Class 1 for which
Applicant is seeking registration cannot be “engineered
materials that mimic the properties of natural materials.”
As such, with respect to the goods of Class 1, the mark
GEOMIMETIC is not descriptive.
Furthermore, with respect to the goods of Class 19, there
is no naturally occurring counterpart to any of these goods,
and therefore the goods for which Applicant is seeking
registration cannot be “engineered materials that mimic
the properties of natural materials.” Applicant is not
seeking registration for calcium carbonate per se, but
instead with respect to the Class 19 goods, compositions
that include calcium carbonate with other components.26
We see three problems with the Examining Attorney’s position; first, much of the
evidence pertains to the production of calcium carbonate, which the Examining
Attorney maintains is being produced geomimetically. Applicant states calcium
carbonate is not a component of the International Class 1 goods. Pursuant to the
Examining Attorney’s request, Applicant placed some materials in the record
regarding each of the items set forth in the identifications; they do not identity
calcium carbonate as an ingredient.27
Second, many of the references to the production of calcium carbonate are in the
context of the production of aggregate made of calcium carbonate. (See, e.g., “The

26 Applicant’s brief at 28-29, 4 TTABVUE 29-30.
27 The Examining Attorney maintains, however, that “this information is not helpful because
the products are for regular cement and concrete as opposed to more environmentally friendly
concrete, cement and admixture products that contain calcium carbonate and are to be
produced by applicant.” Examining Attorney’s brief at 9, 8 TTABVUE 10.
Serial No. 86341516
- 16 -
company is currently focusing on creating a limestone (calcium carbonate) aggregate
- because aggregate makes up more than 70% of the overall concrete mix - and a liquid
emulsion admixture for concrete, CarbonMix.”).28 Applicant deleted “aggregates” it in
its request for reconsideration.29
Third, it is not immediately apparent what the natural process is that Applicant
allegedly is seeking to duplicate, in the creation of calcium carbonate. The tececo.com
webpage states:
During earth’s geological history, large tonnages of carbon
were put away as limestone and coal by the activity of
plants and animals. Shellfish build shells from it and trees
turned it into wood.
These same plants and animals wasted nothing, the waste
from one was the food or home for another.
The solution to problems of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas
and waste is to mimic nature and use them both to make
building materials. Because of the size of the potential
reverse flows the built environment is the ideal place to
start. Such a paradigm shift in resource usage will not
occur because it is the right thing to do. It can only happen
if people can make money making it happen.
… By using carbon dioxide and other wastes as a building
materials we can economically reduce their concentration
in the global commons.30
There are differences between Applicant’s described process for creating calcium
carbonate and the natural process of forming calcium carbonate. The Examining

28 April 8, 2016 Office Action, TSDR 43.
29 August 19, 2015 Req. for Recon., TSDR 1.
30 http:/ www.tececo.com/sustainability.geomimicry.php, March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR
25.
Serial No. 86341516
- 17 -
Attorney maintains that the natural process of creating limestone (or calcium
carbonate) is by direct crystallization usually from seawater; and that in the case of
direct crystallization, calcium ions in the seawater combine with atmospheric or
dissolved carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate which precipitates out.31 With
Applicant’s process, calcium carbonate is created through the combination of carbon
dioxide produced by industrial processes and seawater. We are not persuaded from
the evidence in the record that consumers of Applicant’s goods (who are not scientists
and would not be reviewing many of the materials placed into the record by the
Examining Attorney that are scientific in nature), would perceive the term
GEOMIMETIC, which on this record has no dictionary definition, as identifying a
feature or characteristic of the goods. Moreover, Applicant describes the natural
process akin to its process as “biomineralization”; its webpage states, “Blue Planet’s
process captures carbon dioxide in marine waters using a biomimetic process inspired
by marine biomineralization forming calcium carbonate under very similar physical
and chemical condition, using the same underlying fundament[al] mechanism.”32
For these reasons, we have doubts as to whether purchasers of Applicant’s goods,
upon perceiving Applicant’s mark, will immediately associate GEOMIMETIC with
the process mentioned by the Examining Attorney. It is the practice of this Board to
resolve doubts in favor of the applicant and pass the application to publication. See,
e.g., In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ 1141,

31 Examining Attorney’s brief at 5, 8 TTABVUE 6.
32 March 18, 2015 Office Action, TSDR 6.
Serial No. 86341516
- 18 -
1144 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Gourmet Bakers Inc., 173 USPQ 565 (TTAB 1972). In this
way, anyone who believes that the term is, in fact, merely descriptive, may oppose
and present evidence on this issue to the Board.
We therefore reverse the Examining Attorney’s refusal to register Applicant’s
mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark is reversed for the goods in
both International Classes 1 and 19.