A term is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of an ingredient, quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the identified goods. In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, a term describing the shape or form of the identified goods is merely descriptive. See, e.g., Scanwell Labs., Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., 181 F.2d 1385 (CCPA 1973) (V RING is merely descriptive of directional antennas, the primary components of which were shaped in the form of a “v” and a “ring”); In re Walker Mfg. Co., 359 F.2d 474 (CCPA 1966) (CHAMBERED PIPE is merely descriptive of an exhaust system consisting of a series of small tuning chambers); In re H.U.D.D.L.E., No. 211831, 1982 TTAB LEXIS 41, at *3-4 (holding TOOBS merely descriptive of bathroom and kitchen fixtures in the shape of tubes).

Whether a proposed mark is merely descriptive is determined in relation to the goods for which registration is sought, not in the abstract. In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This requires consideration of the context in which the putative mark is used or intended to be used in connection with those goods, and the possible significance that it would have to the average purchaser of the goods in the marketplace. Id.; see also Chamber of Commerce, 675 F.3d at 1300. The question is not whether someone presented only with the proposed mark could guess the goods listed in the identification, but rather whether someone who knows what the goods are will understand the proposed mark to convey information about them. DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted). And the question of whether a mark is merely descriptive is determined from the viewpoint of the relevant purchasing public. In re Stereotaxis, Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

The mark ROUNDS for "cigars" was found to be merely descriptive because it will immediately convey to consumers a key feature of cigars, namely, their circular cross-sectional shape. In re Kretek International, Inc., Serial No. 98478188 (TTAB Aug. 11, 2026). 

Competitors in the cigar industry should be free to use this merely descriptive designation when describing their own cylindrical shaped cigars in advertising and marketing materials. See In re Styleclick.com Inc., No. 75459912, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 127, at *15 (“The intent of Section 2(e)(1) is to protect the competitive needs of others …”). We therefore find and have no doubt that Applicant's proposed mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods and ineligible for registration on the Principal Register in the absence of a showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.

The same applicant also had claimed acquired distinctiveness in part under Section 2(f) as to the word ROUNDS in its prior registration for CUBAN ROUNDS for the same goods, which constituted a concession that its applied-for mark ROUNDS is not inherently distinctive. Claiming acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) to overcome a descriptiveness refusal, however, can be viewed as a concession that the term or wording is not inherently distinctive for those goods or services. In re Am. Furniture Warehouse CO, No. 86407531, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 122, at *6-7 (TTAB 2018). The TTAB held that, "on this basis alone," it would affirm the mere descriptiveness refusal under Section 2(e)(1). But the TTAB also noted that such an inference would not be made for a disclaimer in a different application for different goods.