A trademark's descriptiveness must be “considered in relation to the particular goods [or services] for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods [or services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer, 488 F.3d at 964). The determination of mere descriptiveness must not be made in the abstract or on the basis of guesswork. In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA 1978). The question is whether someone who knows what the goods or services
are will understand the term to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Medical Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Evidence of the purchasing public's understanding of a term may be obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers[,] and other publications.” Real Foods Pty Ltd. v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “These sources may include [w]ebsites, publications and use in labels, packages, or in advertising materials directed to the goods [or services].” In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted)). Evidence may also be obtained from Applicant's own website and specimen of use and any explanatory text included therein. Id. (“must consider [the] mark in its commercial context to determine the public's perception”). 

The TTAB recerntly affirmed a descriptiveness refusal for the ‘LAUNDRY CEO' mark for electronic publications and educational and entertainment services (namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of business) because the term immediately conveys to applicant's consumers that applicant's publications and educational and entertainment services are intended for CEOs in the laundry business. In re Laundry CEO LLC, Ser. No. 98382558 (TTAB Dec. 18, 2025). Applicant's own use of the mark indicated that that the LAUNDRY CEO forum is directed to entrepreneurship and being a laundry owner and operator. For example, applicant's website at Laundryceo.com states: “The Laundry CEO Forum is … designed for laundry business owners/operators, and industry professionals who desire to grow their profits and gain more customers.”

The goods and services for the ‘LAUNDRY CEO' trademark application were identified as being in the business field without limitation, the identification must be presumed to include the laundry business. In re AC Webconnecting Holding B.V., No. 85635277, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 428, at *32 (TTAB 2020) (services that are “identified without limitation ... must be presumed to include” all specific subsets of those services within the broad identification). 

Accordingly, the TTAB found that "LAUNDRY is merely descriptive of the subject matter of Applicant's Class 9, 16 and 41 downloadable and nondownloadable electronic publications, printed books, videos, and educational and entertainment services because the evidence shows that Applicant is using its mark within the laundry market."