A trademark can be refused registration if it is merely descriptive; that is, if it immediately conveys knowledge of an ingredient, quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the identified goods. In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

The question of whether a trademark is merely descriptive is not whether  someone presented only with the proposed mark could guess the goods listed in the identification, but rather whether someone who knows what the goods are will understand the proposed mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted); see also In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that whether a proposed mark is merely descriptive must be made in relation to the goods for which registration is sought, not in the abstract). 

In considering the commercial impression of a mark as a whole, the mark is not dissected "into isolated elements" but the individual components of the mark are weighed to determine the overall impression or the descriptiveness of the mark and its various components. Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

Rather, the Trademark Office is “required to examine the meaning of each component individually and then determine whether the mark as a whole is merely descriptive.” DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1255 (citation omitted).

Normally one would first consider the meaning of each component term of a proposed mark and then determine whether the proposed mark as a whole is merely descriptive, but the TTAB found it unnecessary to do so for the applied-for mark CONCERT BLACK for various clothing items because the record demonstrated that "the wording CONCERT BLACK is a unitary phrase that has a distinct meaning to the relevant purchasing public." In re Concert Black LLC, Ser. No. 97921491 (TTAB Aug. 18, 2026). That evidence included websites of clothing manufacturers and retailers, schools, and concert bands showing that the phrase CONCERT BLACK is commonly used in association with clothing to indicate a particular style of dress often required for musical performers. For example, “TYSA concert dress code is transitioning to 'concert black' for all performances.” 

Even though the application had "exclud[ed] formalwear, concert attire, uniforms, concert band uniforms, marching band uniforms, robes, gowns, choir robes, tuxedos, and any other clothing specifically designed for use in musical performances"; the TTAB found that other clothing items such as T-shirts, shirts, long-sleeved shirts, and short-sleeved shirts "can certainly fall within the 'concert black' standard even with the limitations Applicant has put forth in its identification, because black shirts, even when not designed as 'formalwear,' or not specifically designed for use in musical performances, could still be used to create a 'concert black' outfit used for musical performances." 

     Similarly, Applicant's exclusion of categories like formal wear and concert attire all ultimately fail to successfully limit Applicant's goods and obviate the refusal, because none of these categories are definite and they have the potential to overlap. Many clothing items that are not particularly designed to be concert attire or as formal wear can be used to create a “concert black” ensemble, such as black socks and black shirts. Additionally, there is evidence of record of an article detailing how to match street wear with formal wear. This evidence demonstrates that street wear and formal wear are not such different and distinct clothing items and could be worn in combination with each other.

***

      Regarding Applicant's argument that its mark consists of a double-entendre, Applicant has failed to provide any compelling evidence or arguments as to why consumers would perceive any secondary meaning of the wording CONCERT BLACK other than as a dress code for musicians performing at a concert. The fact that Applicant is claiming to use the phrase CONCERT BLACK outside of its traditional context does not mean that the phrase has become a double entendre and that consumers would understand the wording to have a dual meaning, especially here where Applicant has failed to identify what secondary meaning is created.

     Applicant also argues that its mark is incongruous as applied to the identified goods because its goods are street wear. We disagree. While it is true that a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a nondescriptive meaning, see, e.g., In re Shutts, No. 73245440, 1983 WL 51780, at *2-3 (TTAB 1983) (finding SNO-RAKE for “a snow removal hand tool having a handle with a snow-removing head at one end, the head being of solid uninterrupted construction without prongs” suggestive); In re Tennis in the Round Inc., No. unavailable, 1978 WL 21243, at *2-3 (TTAB 1978) (finding TENNIS IN THE ROUND for the service of providing tennis facilities in the form of courts evokes an immediate association with “theatre in the round” and therefore the use of the mark in connection with applicant's services is imaginative and fanciful and not merely descriptive), this is not the case here. As explained above and demonstrated by the record, the phrase CONCERT BLACK is merely descriptive of Applicant's identified clothing items because it immediately informs the consumer that the clothing items identified may be purchased to create a CONCERT BLACK outfit. Thus, we find that there is nothing incongruous or illogical about Applicant's mark when viewed in relation to Applicant's identified clothing items.

Accordingly, the TTAB held that CONCERT BLACK is merely descriptive of Applicant's identified Class 25 clothing items.