“A mark is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it is used.” Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, LLC, 17 F.4th 129, 146 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007)) (internal punctuation omitted). 

“[T]he ‘merely descriptive' (or ‘descriptiveness') refusal is based on Section 2(e)(1) of the Act and involves a mark that merely describes a key feature, ingredient or quality of the application's recited goods or services.” In re Accelerate S.a.l., 2012 WL 684459, *6 (TTAB 2012). See In re Gilbert Eiseman, P.C., 1983 WL 51874, *2 (TTAB 1983) (“It is well established that descriptiveness can inhere in a trademark or service mark designation if it describes a key feature, characteristic, aspect or ingredient of the goods or services with which used rather than the total service or product.”). See, e.g., In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (APPLE PIE is merely descriptive of potpourri because it conveys the key characteristic of the product, its scent). “A term “need not immediately convey an idea of each and every specific feature of the [services] in order to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if it describes one significant attribute, function or property of the [services].” In re Korn Ferry, 2024 WL 3219482, *2 (TTAB 2024) (quoting In re Zuma Array Ltd., 2022 WL 3282655, *3 (TTAB 2022)).

Descriptiveness is not evaluated “in the abstract,” or broadly as to the “class” of goods or services sold by the trademark owner; but rather it must be evaluated “in relation to” the “particular” goods or services sold by them—where a descriptive mark is one that conjures up the image of the precise good or service with which it is associated. Brooklyn Brewery, 17 F.4th at 147 (citation omitted). 

The TTAB recently considered whether GHOSTWRITTEN INC. was merely descriptive of services featuring creative works that are commonly ghostwritten, including, “blogs and nondownloadable publications in the nature of articles and blog posts” and “online non-downloadable electronic books.” In re Ghostwritten LLC, Ser. No. 98199104 (TTAB July 11, 2025). 

While “GHOSTWRITTEN” is the past participle of “ghostwrite,” meaning “to write a book or article, etc. for another person to publish under his or her own name,” and “INC.” usually does not add trademark significance to an applied-for mark; the TTAB nonetheless held that the evidence of record did not establish that GHOSTWRITTEN INC. would be perceived by relevant consumers as merely descriptive of Applicant's recited services.

      Here, the term GHOSTWRITTEN INC. is too amorphous, nebulous and vague for consumers to immediately understand it as describing a significant feature of Applicant's recited services. “If the mental leap between the word and the product's [or services'] attributes is not almost instantaneous, this strongly indicates suggestiveness, not direct descriptiveness.” Brooklyn Brewery, 17 F.4th at 146 (citing 2 MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 11:67 (5th ed.)). The recited services here include providing such general fare as “blogs,” “podcasts,” “videos,” “publishing services,” “electronic books,” “live performances by a musical band,” and “music production services.” The online articles in the record may show that ghostwriting occurs in these broad creative fields, but they do not show that it is so prevalent and so publicized that the consuming public, encountering Applicant's mark, would almost instantaneously take it as describing a key attribute of Applicant's services. Id. 

Applicant stated that it does not offer ghostwriting services, and “[t]he remote, speculative contingency that some works might be ghostwritten is not a key feature of Applicant's services, but only a bare possibility, incidental to those services.” For example, in In re The Registry Hotel Corp., 1983 WL 51821 (TTAB 1983), LA CHAMPAGNE  was not descriptive of restaurant services, as the serving of Champagne was incidental to the rendering of those services; rather, the mark was suggestive of French cuisine. 

The TTAB also noted that four registrations of record were for a variation of “GHOSTWRITE” and, as here, identified creative words as the goods and services; yet none were required to show acquired distinctiveness. Prior registrations often do not carry much weight with the TTAB, except when they do. 

“While superficially it may be easy to dismiss these [similar third-party] registrations, as we often do, on the basis that the records of these registrations are not before us and that each case must be decided on its own merits, it certainly does appear that the Office has in the past taken a different position with respect to marks of the nature of applicant's.” In re Waverly Inc., 1993 WL 311934, *5 (TTAB 1993). 

The TTAB further noted that doubts as to the descriptiveness of a mark are resolved in favor of the Applicant, citing In re Fallon, 2020 WL 6255423, *10 (TTAB 2020).