A generic term is the common descriptive name of a class of goods or services and cannot be registered as a trademark because it is incapable of indicating the source of goods or services. Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In determining whether a term is generic, the critical issue is whether relevant customers primarily use or understand the term to refer to the genus of goods or services in question. “[A] term can be generic for a genus of goods or services if the relevant public . . . understands the term to refer to a key aspect of that genus—e.g., a key good that characterizes a particular genus of retail services.” In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 603 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); see also 2 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 12:24 (5th ed.) (“A generic name of goods may also be a generic name of the service of selling or designing those goods.”).

The Federal Circuit recently reiterated the need for evidence to establish the “key aspect” for finding genericness in In re Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Co., No. 2024-1118, __ F.4th __ (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025). 

While KAHWA is the name of a specific type of traditional Kashmiri green tea from Central Asia, there was “no record evidence of any café or coffee shop in the United States ever selling kahwa, a specific type of Kashmiri green tea.” 

KAHWA therefore cannot be generic for cafés and coffee shops because there is no evidence selling kahwa is a key aspect of café and coffee shop services, let alone any aspect of these services. In re Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 603. In other words, the fact that relevant customers understand KAHWA to refer to a specific type of Kashmiri green tea is insufficient to establish genericness for cafés and coffee shops selling coffee and other kinds of tea. Accordingly, the Board's finding that relevant customers would understand KAHWA to be generic for cafés and coffee shops is not supported by substantial evidence.

With respect to descriptiveness, the Court found that there was “no evidence selling kahwa is a feature of café and coffee shop services” and “no evidence showing relevant customers would interpret KAHWA— which refers to a specific type of tea—to refer generally to a variety of teas.” Furthermore, the Court noted that “[e]ven if there was such evidence, it would tend to show the mark is suggestive, not descriptive, because the relevant customer would have to make the mental leap from Kashmiri green tea to tea generally, and then to cafés and coffee shops.” See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A term 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.”).

The Court also found that it was “pure speculation” as to whether cafés or coffee shops could sell kahwa in the future. “Mere speculation is not substantial evidence.” OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). 

In addition, the KAHWA mark would not prevent any café that from serving kahwa in the future because such a trademark owner would only have “enforceable rights against an entity that tried to name its café or coffee shop KAHWA; it would not have rights against a café simply for selling kahwa.” 

Accordingly, the Court “reverse[d] the Board's generic and merely descriptive findings based on the Kashmiri green tea meaning.”