“A generic name--the name of a class of products or services--is ineligible for federal trademark registration.” In re Uman Diagnostics AB, No. 88960633, 2023 WL 2039689, at *1 (TTAB 2021) (quoting U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020)). “A generic mark, being the ‘ultimate in descriptiveness, cannot acquire distinctiveness,' and is not entitled to registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register under any circumstances.” Id. (quoting In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1982)). “A term is generic if it refers to the class or category of goods or services on which it is used.” Id. (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted)). 

“Determining whether a mark is generic … involves a two-step inquiry: First,
what is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered … understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?” In re PT Medisafe Techs., 134 F.4th 1368, 13734(Fed. Cir. 2025)(quoting Marvin Ginn, 782 F.2d at 990). A “registration is properly refused if the word is the generic name of any of the goods or services for which registration is sought.” In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 605 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation and quotation marks omitted) (“[T]he term ‘pizzeria' would be generic for restaurant services, even though the public understands the term to refer to a particular sub-group or type of restaurant rather than to all restaurants.”). Before continuing with the second step in the inquiry, the relevant public must be identified. See Royal Crown Co. v. Coca‑Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he parties do not dispute the Board's determination of the relevant consuming public as ‘ordinary consumers who purchase and drink soft drinks, energy drinks, or sports drinks.'”). 

The TTAB recently addressed whether consumers who buy, use, or provide
diagnostic testing and analysis services for food sensitivity testing understand the term FOODANALYZER primarily to refer to a class or category of those services. In re Access Medical Laboratories, Inc., Ser. No. 97708719 (TTAB Jun. 9, 2026). 

     The record is mixed. On one side, we have: the absence of any dictionary definition of FOODANALYZER; the absence of the compound term in industry glossaries, trade publications, or media articles; the semantic ambiguity of the compound term (which could refer to analyzing food itself, analyzing reactions to food, or analyzing dietary patterns); evidence that some third-party uses may refer to Applicant's own branded test distributed throughpartners and resellers; and several third-party uses that appear source identifying (albeit descriptive), often used alongside house marks, trademark symbols, or other source identifiers. On the other side, we have a handful of third-party uses that may identify a type of service being offered − particularly those appearing in service lists alongside other apparently generic terms. But even for those uses, the context does not clearly distinguish between descriptive and generic use. And the total volume of third-party evidence − approximately fifteen references, some of which describe a test with specifications identical to Applicant's own offering and using the same formatting (“foodAnalyzer”) − does not establish that the relevant consuming public understands FOODANALYZER as the generic name for a class of food sensitivity testing services.

    We acknowledge that FOODANALYZER bears a close descriptive relationship to the identified services and that “food” and “analyzer” individually have descriptive significance for those services. But descriptiveness, even high descriptiveness, is not tantamount to genericness. 

Based on "the limited record evidence," the TTAB held that "where the record is insufficient to establish with confidence that consumers perceive a compound term as a generic name − as distinct from a merely descriptive term capable of indicating source − doubt must be resolved in favor of the
applicant." Thus the applicant was allowed to register the FOODANALYZER mark on the Supplemental Register. 

The TTABlog noted that "the 'mixed record' approach is probably the best get-out-of-jail-free card for genericness refusals."