A trademark that is “primarily merely a surname” may not be registered on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). See also Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt, Inc., 864 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (considering whether term is primarily merely a surname when viewed in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought); In re Beds & Bars Ltd., No. 85597669, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 141, at *5. 

The USPTO often considers one or more of the following inquiries to determine whether a mark is primarily merely a surname: (1) the degree of a surname's rareness (although being a rare surname is not dispositive); (2) whether anyone connected with applicant has that surname (which would be evidence of the mark's surname significance); (3) whether the term has any recognized meaning other than that of a surname (which may suggests the public would not perceive the mark as being primarily merely a surname); (4) whether the term has the “structure and pronunciation” of a surname (that is, if the mark looks like a surname, then it is evidence the mark would be perceived as being a surname); and, (5) whether the stylization of lettering is distinctive enough to create a separate commercial impression (rather than being primarily a surname). See In re Benthin Mgmt. GmbH, No. 74340080, 1995 TTAB LEXIS 10, at *1-3 (the “Benthin factors”); see also In re Colors in Optics, Ltd., No. 87558653, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 4, at *4-5. “These inquiries are not exclusive, nor are they presented in order of importance; any of the inquiries – singly or in combination – as well as any other relevant circumstances, may shape the analysis in a particular case.” In re Six Continents Ltd., No. 88430142, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *6 (citations omitted).

“[W]hen the mark consists of a surname and another term, the Board must evaluate the source-identifying significance of the additional term and determine whether adding the additional term to the surname alters the primary significance of the mark as a whole to the purchasing public.” Six Continents, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *6. A key element in this determination is the relative distinctiveness of the additional terms in the mark. Earnhardt, 864 F.3d at 1377-78 (citing In re Hutchinson Tech. Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Nondistinctive terms typically are accorded less weight and are not likely to detract from the primary surname significance of the mark. See Six Continents, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *32-33 (finding ATWELL SUITES primarily merely a surname); see also, e.g., In re Weiss Watch Co., No. 86782562, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 183, at *23-24 (“There can be no dispute that when used in connection with watches, the additional words WATCH COMPANY are incapable of source-identifying function and, viewing the mark as a whole in the context of the identified goods, do not alter the primary significance of the proposed mark WEISS WATCH COMPANY as primarily merely a surname.”); Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, No. 91218679, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 123, at *17 (“[T]he addition of RIBS in the mark does not detract from the primary significance of the surname AZEKA”).

Recently, for HANSEN HONEY FARM, there was no dispute that "Hansen" was a surname and the TTAB affirmed that the addition of "honey farm" did not alter the primary significance of the mark as a whole as being merely a surname. In re Hansen Honey Farm, Ser. No. 98224899 (TTAB Sept. 22, 2026). 

While the evidence of record showed that the public and industry used the terms “apiary” or “bee farm” rather than “honey farm” to describe a facility where honey is produced and bees are raised, "Applicant's website uses the phrase in a descriptive slogan – 'More Than A Honey Farm' – which indicates that Applicant views itself as 'A' (i.e., one among many) honey farm." The TTAB found this to be "strong evidence of descriptiveness," citing In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The commercial context here demonstrates that a consumer would immediately understand the intended meaning of FIRST TUESDAY”); In re Hunter Fan Co., No. 78195616, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 140, at *8 (“applicant's own use of the term ERGONOMIC … highlights the descriptive nature of this term used in connection with applicant's ceiling fans”). 

     Applicant, however, argues that the proper name for a business of this type is an “apiary” or “bee farm,” not a “honey farm.” We do not question that those terms are also used. But the existence of other apt names does not make HONEY FARM less apt or descriptive. A term that immediately describes the goods, or the place from which they come, is merely descriptive even if another term also would describe them. Cf. Genesee Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co., 124 F.3d 137, 149 n.15 (2d Cir. 1997) (possible alternatives may not be as effective in communicating information to prospective purchasers).

***

Businesses producing honey from beekeeping use the phrase HONEY FARM[S] as part of their business names, supporting a finding that the phrase is merely descriptive. 

***

Businesses use the phrase HONEY FARM in their names because it is an apt phrase conveying an immediate impression of honey and honey-based products produced on a farm by “farmers.”

Because "(1) HANSEN is a common surname; (2) the mark is standard characters, not part of a composite mark; (3) Applicant has not disclaimed HONEY FARM; and (4) Applicant has not proven acquired distinctiveness as to the surname HANSEN" – the TTAB concluded "there is nothing in the combination of the term HONEY FARM with the term HANSEN that diminishes the immediate connotation that Applicant's products come from a honey farm owned by a person named Hansen." The TTAB further noted that "the record shows it is very common for businesses to use the last names of their owners along with the descriptive phrase 'honey farm[s]' in their names. 

The TTAB, however, also noted that “a word which, by itself, is primarily merely a surname is no longer such when coupled with a distinctive design, even if the distinctive design is incorporated into the letters of the word,” citing Benthin, 1995 TTAB LEXIS 10, at *6 n.2. This is analogous to composite marks comprising merley descriptive terms coupled with a distinctive design, even if the distinctive design is incorporated into the letters of a descriptive term.