Night Shift Brewing, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2020

87321948 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2020)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: March 17, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Night Shift Brewing, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 87321948
_____

Heather E. Balmat of Balmat Law, PLLC
for Night Shift Brewing, Inc.
Evelyn Bradley, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 104,
Zachary Cromer, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Wellington, Greenbaum, and Heasley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Heasley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, Night Shift Brewing, Inc., seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark BEAN PORTER (in standard characters) for “beer; porter,” in
International Class 32.
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on
the ground that it is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of Applicant’s
identified goods.
Serial No. 87321948
- 2 -
We affirm the refusal to register because the mark is merely descriptive of the
goods. In light of this ruling, we do not need to reach the issue of deceptive
misdescriptiveness.
I. Prosecution History
Applicant filed Application Serial No. 87321948 on February 2, 2017, based on its
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of
the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). The Examining Attorney initially refused
registration on the ground that the proposed mark, BEAN PORTER, was merely
descriptive of Applicant’s goods: porter beer infused with vanilla beans and coffee
beans.1 Applicant disputed this ground of refusal, arguing that the term “BEAN” is
suggestive, as “a consumer encountering the applicant’s BEAN PORTER mark will
not automatically know what types of beans are involved … in the applicant’s goods.”2
When the Examining Attorney made the refusal final,3 Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration.4 The Board suspended the appeal and remanded the
application to the Examining Attorney for consideration of the request.5 The
Examining Attorney then issued a nonfinal Office Action superseding the prior final
Office Action.6 This nonfinal Office Action maintained the descriptiveness refusal and

1 May 1, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 2. Page references to the application record are to the
downloadable .pdf version of the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR)
system. References to the briefs, motions and orders on appeal are to the Board’s TTABVUE
docket system.
2 Oct. 31, 2017 Response to Office Action at 2.
3 Dec. 25, 2017 Office Action.
4 June 25, 2018 request for reconsideration. 4 TTABVUE.
5 2 TTABVUE.
6 Aug. 8, 2018 Office Action.
Serial No. 87321948
- 3 -
added another basis for refusal: that the applied-for mark is deceptively
misdescriptive of Applicant goods under Section 2(e)(1), as “it is plausible that the
specified goods would contain vanilla or coffee beans. However, applicant has
indicated that it may use its mark for goods other than those flavored with vanilla or
coffee beans.”7 The Office Action also required Applicant to provide the following
information:
(1) Explain whether the wording in the mark “BEAN” has any meaning or
significance in the trade or industry in which applicant’s goods and/or services
are manufactured or provided, or if such wording is a term of art within
applicant’s industry.
(2) Applicant must explain whether all the identified goods are/will be flavored
with some type of bean. If so, applicant must indicate the type of beans that
are/will be used.
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §814.8

The Office Action also suggested the following substitute wording for Applicant’s
identification of goods: “Beer; porter; the foregoing flavored with vanilla beans
and/or coffee beans”9
Applicant responded to the requests for information:
(1) The word “BEAN” has no meaning or significance in the trade or industry
in which applicant’s goods and/or services are manufactured or provided, and
the word is not a term of art within applicant’s industry.
(2) Applicant currently makes a beer, a porter, that contains vanilla and coffee
flavors. As the Examining Attorney knows, vanilla and coffee come from types

7 Id. at 6.
8 Id. at 6-7.
9 Id. at 7.
Serial No. 87321948
- 4 -
of beans. Applicant cannot say whether all of its goods will be flavored with
some type of bean, as this is an intent-to-use application, and such specificity
is not required under the four corners of the application and the eventual
registration (and under the ID Manual discussed below). However, Applicant
has applied for the mark BEAN PORTER in connection with the goods “beer;
porter,” and will only use such mark on such claimed goods.10
The Examining Attorney made final the refusal based on mere descriptiveness
and deceptive misdescriptiveness,11 and the appeal resumed.
II. Mere Descriptiveness
Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act provides that a term is unregistrable on the
Principal Register if it “[c]onsists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection
with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of
them….” 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(1), cited in In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114
USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The statute’s use of the term “mark” is
anomalous, “[f]or if it is ‘merely descriptive,’ it is not a trademark, and this is so even
though the user intends it to be a trademark.” Otto Roth & Co. v. Universal Foods
Corp., 640 F.2d 1317, 209 USPQ 40, 44 n.3 (CCPA 1981).
“A designation is considered to be merely descriptive under 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. See In re Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America, 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The wording

10 Feb 8, 2019 Response to Office Action at 1-2.
11 March 7, 2019 Office Action. 5 TTABVUE. In her final Office Action, the Examining
Attorney maintained the requirement that Applicant amend its identification of goods. Id., 5
TTABVUE 5. In her brief on appeal, however, the Examining Attorney states that she “has
withdrawn the requirement pertaining to the identification of goods.” 9 TTABVUE 2.
Serial No. 87321948
- 5 -
need not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the
applicant’s goods in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough that the
terminology describes one significant attribute or function of the goods.” Apollo
Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc. v. Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 123
USPQ2d 1844, 1849 (TTAB 2017).
Here, there is no dispute that PORTER describes the goods, identified in part as
porter—a dark colored beer.12 The issue is whether the mark as a whole, BEAN
PORTER, is merely descriptive. The Examining Attorney argues that BEAN
describes the vanilla and coffee beans used as flavoring ingredients of Applicant’s
porter.13 Applicant’s bottle label touts its “porter aged in bourbon barrels with vanilla
and coffee beans”:
14

12 Webstaurantstore.com June 24 request for reconsideration at 39; Applicant’s brief, 7
TTABVUE 9 (“In sum, the generic term for Applicant’s goods is beer, and the descriptive term
for Applicant’s goods is porter.”); Examining Attorney’s brief, 9 TTABVUE 8 (“Applicant has
indicated that its goods are a porter style beer. Therefore, the term “PORTER” in Applicant’s
mark identifies the goods in the application.”).
13 May 1, 2017 Office Action.
14 BeerAdvocate.com, id. at 5.
Serial No. 87321948
- 6 -
Reviews of Applicant’s BEAN PORTER beer note that it is “infused with vanilla
beans and coffee beans”:
15

16

15 RateBeer.com, id. at 7.
16 Untappd.com, id. at 18.
Serial No. 87321948
- 7 -
The Examining Attorney has also submitted third-party website evidence showing
that vanilla and/or coffee beans are frequently used as flavor extracts for beer,
particularly porter, e.g.:
17
18
19

17 CapeCodBeer.com, id. at 11.
18 WilliamsDistributing.com, id. at 13.
19 RateBeer.com, Dec. 25, 2017 Office Action at 7.
Serial No. 87321948
- 8 -

20

21

20 AveryBrewing.com, id. at 15.
21 FloridaBeerBlog.wordress.com, Aug. 8, 2018 Office Action at 16-17.
Serial No. 87321948
- 9 -
22
23
24
In almost every case, the third-party webpages emphasize the beans from which
the vanilla or coffee flavor emanates. The Examining Attorney adds—almost
unnecessarily—dictionary evidence showing that coffee and vanilla come from beans,
e.g.:

22 BrooklynBrewery.com, id. at 25.
23 BeerMenus.com, id. at 26.
24 CraftBeerAustin.com id. at 47
Serial No. 87321948
- 10 -
Bean: “3. Beans such as coffee beans or cocoa beans are the seeds of plants that
are used to produce coffee, cocoa, and chocolate.”25

26

Thus, the Examining Attorney concludes, “BEAN,” when used on or in connection
with Applicant’s goods, particularly porter, merely describes ingredients used in
Applicant’s BEAN PORTER.27 See, e.g., Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay North
America, Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Indeed, the
terms corn and rice in Real Foods’ proposed marks [CORN THINS and RICE THINS]
are descriptive because they identify ‘ingredients,’ which are ‘qualities or properties’
of Real Foods’ goods.”); In re TriVita, 114 USPQ2d 1574 (holding NOPALEA merely
descriptive of dietary and nutritional supplements containing nopal juice, an extract
of the nopalea plant); In re Andes Candies Inc., 478 F.2d 1264, 178 USPQ 156 (CCPA
1973) (holding CREME DE MENTHE merely descriptive of candy’s flavor); Flowers
Indus., Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ 2d 1580 (TTAB 1987) (holding
HONEY WHEAT merely descriptive of bread containing honey and wheat).

25 COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY CollinsDictionary.com Aug. 8, 2018 Office Action at 56.
26 Collins English Dictionary CollinsDictionary.com, id. at 60.
27 Examining Attorney’s brief, 9 TTABVUE 7.
Serial No. 87321948
- 11 -
Applicant counters that the third-party examples all state the flavors, VANILLA
BEAN or COFFEE BEAN; they do not use BEAN alone to describe the style of beer.28
Unlike those examples, it argues, BEAN is too broad, general and ambiguous to be
descriptive:
“BEAN” cannot be considered descriptive, as it is too broad and general
when it comes to describing Applicant’s goods. The term “BEAN,” even
when viewed in conjunction with Applicant’s goods, may suggest a variety
of different flavors or ingredients, and does not describe any specific
flavor with immediacy and particularity. “BEAN” could refer to cacao,
coffee, vanilla, Romano, or black cardamom or any other types of beans
one might want to use in a beer (separately or in combination). At most it
evokes the flavors of something that comes in bean form, but does not tell
a customer immediately what ingredients or flavors the beer may have.
…
[H]ow would a consumer know the flavors were coffee and vanilla from
the word BEAN? It is true, as the evidence has shown, that vanilla is a
common flavor used in certain types of beer, like stouts and porters. It is
also true that coffee is a common flavor used in certain beers. However,
the combination is not necessarily common. … Moreover, chocolate is
another common ingredient in certain types of beer, such as porters and
stouts, and that also comes from a bean. A consumer simply cannot know
what flavor a beer is by the word “BEAN” alone. It requires imagination,
and mental leaps to get from the mark to the actual nature of the goods,
and therefore the mark is suggestive….29

We disagree. Applicant’s theory gained some acceptance in an early Board
decision, RJR Foods, Inc. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 174 USPQ 244 (TTAB
1972), which found GRAPEBERRY not merely descriptive of a beverage consisting of

28 Applicant’s brief, 7 TTABVUE 9.
29 Id. at 11, 13. Applicant also devotes part of its brief to whether its proposed mark is generic.
Id. at 6-9. The Examining Attorney maintains, however, that “at no point during the
prosecution of this application did the Examining Attorney refuse registration of Applicant’s
mark based on genericness. As such, no arguments or evidence regarding the genericness of
the mark were necessary. The reference to genericness [in the Office Actions] was merely
advisory and was intended to inform Applicant that an amendment under Section 2(f) or on
the Supplemental Register could not be recommended since the mark appeared to be generic
as used with the specified goods.” Examining Attorney’s brief, 9 TTABVUE 14. Hence, we
focus on the descriptiveness vel non of the proposed mark.
Serial No. 87321948
- 12 -
concord grape juice, cranberry juice, water and lesser ingredients. The Board
declared, “The mark tells us that applicant’s product comprises a blend of grape and
some type of berry juice. But which berry, strawberry, boysenberry, raspberry, hip of
the rose or perhaps cranberry? As applicant states ‘a term which leaves so much
unsaid is scarcely merely descriptive.’ … A registration to applicant of
‘GRAPEBERRY’ could in no way prevent opposer from making a fair use of the
individual components of said mark, “grape” and “berry” to describe its goods.’” Id. at
245-46. This viewpoint, however, was short-lived.
The next year, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals issued In re Keebler Co.,
479 F.2d 1405, 178 USPQ 155 (CCPA 1973):
This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board … sustaining the examiner’s refusal to register RICH ‘N CHIPS
for “cookies.” The specimen filed by appellant shows the use of the mark
on a package of chocolate chip cookies…
…
Appellant contends that where the average purchaser has to
mentally sort through various meanings of the words which
comprise the trademark to arrive at that meaning which is
descriptive of the goods to which the mark applies, the mark
cannot be considered merely descriptive in the sense of § 2(e).
Such a proposition cannot be held to be either universally true or
universally false.
…
We agree that as applied to chocolate chip cookies, the phrase RICH ‘N
CHIPS plainly conveys the impression that the cookies are abundant in
the chips which they contain, i. e. chocolate chips. The phrase therefore
describes to the consumer a purported quality of the product which would
tend to entice the purchase of the product. As such, we agree that the
phrase would not inherently serve to distinguish appellant’s goods from
similar goods of others, but rather would be recognized as connoting a
common quality which all such goods could be asserted to have.

Id. at 155-56 (emphasis added).

Serial No. 87321948
- 13 -
Years later, in In re Entenmann’s Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990), an
applicant, relying on RJR Foods, argued that its mark, OATNUT for bread, was not
descriptive because the term OATNUT “does not tell purchasers which type of nut is
used in the bread, for example, walnuts, almonds or pecans.” The Board rejected this
approach:
While it is true that in order to be held merely descriptive, a term must
describe with some particularity a quality or ingredient of the product in
question, it need not describe it exactly.
…
We believe that the term OATNUT readily informs purchasers, with the
required degree of particularity, of two not inconsequential ingredients in
applicant’s bread. By way of analogy, the term “nut bread” does not
inform purchasers of the particular type of nuts found in a particular loaf
of nut bread. Nevertheless, the fact that the term “nut bread” does not
inform purchasers of the precise type of nuts in the bread does not mean
that the term “nut bread” is not descriptive of, and indeed generic for,
bread. To the extent that our 1972 decision in RJR Foods sets forth
a rule of law that in order to be held merely descriptive, a term
must describe with absolute exactness an ingredient of the
product, we decline to follow that rule.

Id. at 1751 (emphasis added).

Similarly, Applicant cannot avoid a finding of descriptiveness by omitting the
exact wording “VANILLA” and “COFFEE” before BEAN PORTER. “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 of the manner of its use or
intended use.’” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d
1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82
USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Here, it is apparent from the third-party
evidence that average purchasers are frequently exposed to descriptive uses of vanilla
Serial No. 87321948
- 14 -
and coffee bean as ingredients in porter, and would understand the applied-for mark
as another example of such use. Indeed, Applicant’s own labeling touts its use of
“vanilla and coffee beans” as brewing ingredients.30 See In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588
F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA 1978) (“Evidence of the context in which a mark
is used on labels, packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods is
probative of the reaction of prospective purchasers to the mark.”).
Moreover, third-party competitors’ advertising and labeling, shown above,
indicates that these “descriptive terms are in the public domain and should be free
for use by all who can truthfully employ them to describe their goods.” Hoover Co. v.
Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357, 57 USPQ2d 1720, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543-44
(1920)). “The major reasons for not protecting such [merely descriptive] marks are:
(1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular
goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus
avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against
others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products.” In re
Abcor, 200 USPQ at 217, quoted in In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d
1087, 1089-90 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Apollo Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc. v.
Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1851 (TTAB 2017).
Registering BEAN PORTER would pose a broad risk to competition, as it could
preempt competitors’ use of “vanilla bean porter,” “coffee bean porter,” or any other

30 BeerAdvocate.com, id. at 5.
Serial No. 87321948
- 15 -
flavor extracted from beans. That would clearly contravene the purpose of Section
2(e)(1).
Applicant submits evidence of four third-party marks on the Principal Register
containing the word “bean” for beer where “bean” is not disclaimed: BEAN GENE
(Reg. No. 4,419,951), BEAN COUNTER (Reg. No. 5,124,456), PORK & BEANS (Reg.
No. 5,059,548), and BEAN MACHINE (Reg. No. 5,261,158). “Such registrations
demonstrate that the USPTO has found ‘bean’ to be inherently distinctive when used
in connection with beer,” Applicant argues.31
However, these third-party marks use “BEAN” in different senses; that is, two
marks play on the phrases “bean counter” and “pork & beans,” and the other two
modify the rhyming words “GENE” and “MACHINE.” In BEAN PORTER, by
contrast, “BEAN” is an adjective directly modifying “PORTER.” The words describe
an ingredient frequently used in porter. Competitors use the words that way, and
consumers would perceive the words that way. Each component of the mark retains
its descriptive significance in relation to the goods at issue and thus, the mark as a
whole is merely descriptive. See In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71
USPQ2d 1370, 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med.
Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The Board,
however, ultimately must consider the mark as a whole and do so in the context of
the goods or services at issue.”). As the Federal Circuit has made clear, “The Board
must decide each case on its own merits. … Even if some prior registrations had some

31 Applicant’s brief, 7 TTABVUE 14; June 25, 2018 Response to Office Action at 18, 53-158.
Serial No. 87321948
- 16 -
characteristics similar to [the present] application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior
registrations does not bind the Board or this court.” In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001). None of the third-party marks
establish that BEAN, as used in BEAN PORTER, is anything other than
descriptive.32
Applicant, during examination of its application, asserted that its proposed mark
is a double entendre. Applicant contends the word BEAN evokes the city of Boston
(oft nicknamed “Beantown”), as it is located in Everett, Massachusetts, on the
outskirts of the greater Boston metropolitan area, and uses BEAN PORTER in
collaboration with Bean Snowboards, also located in the Boston area.33 “For
trademark purposes, a ‘double entendre’ is an expression that has a double
connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services.” TRADEMARK MANUAL
OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1213.05(c), cited in In re Calphalon Corp., 122
USPQ2d 1153, 1163 (TTAB 2017). As the Examining Attorney correctly observes,
the multiple interpretations that make an expression a ‘double entendre’ must be
associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent
from the mark itself. In re S. Malhotra & Co. AG, 128 USPQ2d 1100, 1105 (TTAB
2018); In re Calphalon, 122 USPQ2d at 1163-64; TMEP § 1213.05(c). Nothing about

32 Applicant also cites to a dozen third-party Principal Register registrations of marks that
contain “bean” for coffee or coffee-related goods and services, yet do not disclaim “bean.” E.g.,
BEAN STREET (Reg. no. 4,845,122), THE BEAN MAGAZINE (Reg. no. 5,662,908), and
JITTER BEAN (Reg. no. 5,478,319). Applicant’s brief, 7 TTABVUE 15; Feb. 8, 2019 Response
to Office Action at 45-68. But these third-party registrations, like those cited for beer, do not
use “bean” in the same context as the applied-for mark, which describes a common ingredient
in a generic good. They are similarly unavailing.
33 Applicant’s brief, 7 TTABVUE 14; June 25, 2018 Response to Office Action at 6, 45-52; Feb
8, 2019 Response to Office Action at 6-7, 24-42.
Serial No. 87321948
- 17 -
the mark itself suggests Applicant’s location; it does not mention “Beantown” or a
collaboration with another entity; nor does it mention “snowboards.” Consequently,
we find that BEAN PORTER is not a double entendre.
III. Conclusion

Applicant’s proposed mark, BEAN PORTER, is merely descriptive within the
meaning of Section 2(e)(1). Because the proposed mark merely describes an
ingredient of Applicant’s porter—vanilla and coffee bean flavoring—the proposed
mark is unregistrable as to Applicant’s entire class of identified goods in
International Class 32: “beer; porter.” See In re Analog Devices Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1808,
1810 (TTAB 1988), aff’d without pub. op., 871 F.2d 1097, 10 USPQ2d 1879 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (if the mark is descriptive of any of the goods or services for which registration
is sought, it is proper to refuse registration as to the entire class), cited in In re White
Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (TTAB 2013). In view of this ruling, we find
it unnecessary to reach the issue of deceptive misdescriptiveness. In re Mueller Sports
Medicine, Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (“Having found that Applicant's
mark is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the goods, we need not
reach the alternative ground for refusal that Applicant’s mark is deceptively
misdescriptive.”).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark is affirmed on the
ground of mere descriptiveness under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1).