A term may be found merely descriptive if it describes at least one feature, characteristic, or purpose of the identified goods. See In re Friends in the West, No. 74584732, 1997 TTAB LEXIS 213, at *5 (“It is sufficient . . . if the designation or term simply describes one significant attribute of the [goods or] services.”). Further, a disclaimer is appropriate if the term at issue is merely descriptive of any of the goods in a class; it need not be merely descriptive of all the identified goods in that class. See In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re UST Global (Sing.) Pte. Ltd., No. 87657822, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 19, at *26; see also In re Sheet Pile, LLC, No. 97010763, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 111, at *6. 

Descriptiveness is assessed not in the abstract, but “in relation to the 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 Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813 (CCPA 1978) (indicating that a term may be descriptive if it conveys information about an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, part, purpose, use, or any other property of the identified goods).

For a trademark consisting of a combination of words, the meaning of each component word is considered; and then whether the combined term, as a whole, is merely descriptive. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That is, whether the combination of component words in the term “conveys any distinctive source-identifying impression contrary to the descriptiveness of the individual parts.” In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *14-15 (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). If each component word “retains its merely descriptive significance in relation to the goods, the combination results in a composite that is itself merely descriptive.” Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *15 (citing In re Tower Tech., Inc., No. 75709532, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 300, at *10).

TTAB recently found CODEBOX to be merely descriptive of digital lockboxes. In re CodeBox, Inc., Ser. No. 98597114 (TTAB Sept. 18, 2026). 

The record included internet evidence showing that that "CODE" is often used to describe using a code to open a lock box, and Applicant's own website states that Applicant's lockboxes feature “code generation technology [that] allows for years of unique codes” and “provide[s] convenient, secure access.” Indeed, Applicant's own specimen of use showed that the goods themselves include instructions to “Enter [the] Code” to open the lockbox. And "BOX" was found to be descriptive of lockable storage devices, namely lockboxes. 

While the record did not establish widespread, or even significant, use of “CODEBOX,” or “CODE BOX,” in connection with digital lockboxes; the Trademark Act “does not exempt from the prohibition against registration of merely descriptive terms those that are not in common or widespread use, simply because of relative infrequency of use.” In re Eximius Coffee, LLC, No. 86262060, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 472, at *20 n.14. And “‘[t]he fact that Applicant may be the first or only user of a term does not render that term distinctive' if . . . it has been shown to be merely descriptive of the goods identified in the application.” In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *32-33 (quoting Fat Boys, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, at *10); see also In re Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. AG, No. 85485359, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 131, at *29 n.50 (“Being ‘the first and only one to adopt and use the mark sought to be registered does not prove that the mark is not descriptive.'”) (quoting In re Bailey Meter Co., 102 F.2d 843, 844 (CCPA 1939)).

The fact that CODE could have other meanings in other contexts is not relevant to our determination here. Coach Servs. v. Triumph Learning LLC, Opp. No. 91170112, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 383, at *52 (“[T]hat a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”). “[S]o long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.” In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., No. 87209946, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 156, at *18 (quoting In re Chopper Indus., No. 73273140, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 118, at *5-6). Here, the record establishes that CODE is commonly used to describe a significant aspect of at least some types of lockboxes.

Furthermore, Applicant failed to identify any relevant incongruity or explain any multistage reasoning that would be required to determine the significance of the term CODEBOX in connection with Applicant's goods, namely digital lockboxes.  

Simply combining CODE and BOX, and omitting the space between them, does not change the meaning of these terms or the overall impression they create. See, e.g., In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 545, at *28, *30-31 (finding NURSECON merely descriptive of “arranging and conducting special events for social entertainment purposes” where the evidence showed nurse conferences were the venue for the special events); Tower Tech, 2002 TTAB LEXIS 300, at *13-14 (finding SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of highly automated cooling towers); see also Minn. Mining & Mfg. v. AddressographMultigraph Corp., 1967 TTAB LEXIS 152, at *5 (“It is almost too well established to cite cases for the proposition that an otherwise merely descriptive term is not made any less so by merely omitting spaces between the words . . . .”) (no number in original).

     Applicant's arguments that CODEBOX is somehow ambiguous or suggestive relies on the mistaken premise that the term is to be considered in the abstract. But “[w]hether consumers could guess what the product is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech. Co. v. Shanghai Zhenglang Tech. Co., No. 91272143, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *24 (quoting In re Am. Greetings Corp., No. 73284539, 1985 TTAB LEXIS 97, at *3-4). Again, the term must be considered “in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in which the [term] is used, and the possible significance that the [term] is likely to have to the average purchaser encountering the goods or services in the marketplace.” Hangzhou Mengku Tech., 2024 TTAB LEXIS 575, at *23-24.

Separately, in addressing whether the design elements were so merged together with the words so as to create a "unitary" mark with the words, the TTAB acknowledged that "the colors and elements in Applicant's mark have been arranged and stylized to suggest the shape of Applicant's product, but the overall effect is very subtle and may not even be immediately recognized by the average purchaser of Applicant's goods." Nor was there any obvious incongruity between the literal portion and design portion of the mark that would render the mark unitary.