Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration on the Principal Register of a term that is deceptively misdescriptive of the goods to which it is applied unless it has acquired distinctiveness. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). 

A proposed mark is deceptively misdescriptive if: (1) it misdescribes a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used; and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. In re Dolce Vita Footwear, Inc., No. 88554722, 2021 WL 2285578, at *3 (TTAB 2021) (stating a proposed mark is misdescriptive when it is “merely descriptive, rather than suggestive, of a significant aspect of the goods or services which the goods or services plausibly possess but in fact do not” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 774-75 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re White Jasmine LLC, No. 77115548, 2013 WL 2951788, at *10 (TTAB 2013). 

If there is evidence that a mark has a descriptive meaning, arguing that the mark may have an alternative meaning is often unsuccessful. “It is well settled that so 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 WL 2277503, at *6 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., No. 73273140, 1984 WL 63033, at *2 (TTAB 1984)); In re Nursecon, LLC, No. 88052194, 2024 WL 5265079, at *7 (TTAB 2024) (“The fact that a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”); Robinson v. Hot Grabba Leaf, LLC, No. 92060394, 2019 WL 1915759, at *6 (TTAB 2019). 

The TTAB recently held that the JASPE mark was deceptively misdescriptive of clothing items where "jaspe" is a type of fabric made from unique dyeing and weaving techniques, and the applicant's clothing items do not contain jaspe. In re Teresa Michelle Lee, Ser. No. 98081572 (TTAB Sept. 29, 2026). 

Applicant's argument that the proposed JASPE mark was intended as “a meaningful tribute to her son, Jasper” was not successful. The TTAB cited In re Water Gremlin Co., 635 F.2d 841, 843-44 (CCPA 1980) for the proposition that “intent or lack of intent at the time of adoption of a particular [mark] is not controlling.” 

The TTAB also noted that, even though “jaspe” means “jasper” in Spanish, the doctrine of foreign equivalents did not apply because “jaspe” also is an English word. 

While the TTAB found that JASPE was deceptively misdescriptive, it was conceded that the mark was not deceptive under Section 2(a) because that would have required showing the misrepresentation was more than simply a relevant factor that may be considered in purchasing decisions, but a material factor, for a significant or substantial portion of relevant consumers. See In re Spirits Int'l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1392 (TTAB 2013) (requiring evidence that the misdescriptive quality or characteristic would make the product or service more appealing or desirable to prospective purchasers). 

The TTABlog noted that "deceptively misdescriptive marks may be registered with acquired distinctiveness. Deceptive marks cannot be." See also TMEP 1203.03(c) ("Marks that are deceptive under §2(a) are unregistrable on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register, whereas marks that are deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(1) may be registrable on the Principal Register with a showing of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f)").