“A proposed mark that describes the intended use or purpose of the goods with which it is used is merely descriptive.” In re Zuma Array Ltd., No. 79288888, 2022 WL 3282655, at *8 (TTAB 2022); In re Hunter Fan Co., No. 78195616, 2006 WL 479001, at *4 (TTAB 2006) (ERGONOMIC merely descriptive of ceiling fans); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 1977 WL 22593, at *2 (TTAB 1977) (BREADSPRED merely descriptive of jams and jellies); In re Clorox Co., 1977 WL 22562, at *2 (TTAB 1977) (ERASE merely descriptive of laundry soil and stain remover); TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 1209.03(p) (May 2026) (“Terms that identify the function or purpose of a product or service may be merely descriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1)[.]”). 

The TTAB recently affirmed a refusal of the mark FIND - FETCH - TRANSFER for “self-driving robots for delivery” as being merely descriptive. 

First, the dictionary definitions establish that “find” means to locate, “fetch” means to retrieve, and “transfer” means to convey—meanings that, in the context of selfdriving robots for delivery, plainly describe functions of the robots.

Moreover, the following from Applicant's website was "particulary compelling" (emphasis added):

Our robots are able to operate in tight, cluttered and dynamic environments, such as Manufacturing job shops, where they will find, fetch, and transfer things, not just in a pre-scheduled manner, but also responding to ad hoc requests by shopfloor Operators and Technicians. Our robots don't just navigate between fixed workstations, but also fetch and transfer directly between people who may be moving around the plant.

An applicant's own promotional materials are highly probative of how the relevant purchasing public would perceive the mark. See In re Fallon, No. 86882668, 2020 WL 6255423, at *12 (TTAB 2020) (“the text used on [Applicant's] website is the most compelling evidence of the mere descriptiveness of Applicant's proposed mark”); In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, No. 86358219, 2018 WL 1314995, at *11 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1987)) (“an applicant's own website or marketing materials may be probative, or even, … ‘the most damaging evidence,' in indicating how the relevant public perceives a term”).

The website uses the exact wording of the proposed mark—“find, fetch, and transfer”—in a sentence whose sole purpose is to tell consumers what the robots do. This is not a case of incidental reuse in an unrelated context; the proposed mark and the product description are one and the same. That Applicant uses the exact wording of its proposed mark—without quotation marks, capitalization, or other source-indicating formatting—in ordinary descriptive prose demonstrates that the phrase naturally functions as a description of the goods' capabilities, not as a source identifier. See Fallon, 2020 WL 6255423, at *12.

According to TTABlog, "Drobot had shot itself in the feet and there was no way to avoid the descriptiveness refusal via attorney argument."