A mark that comprises a double entendre will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods or services. In re Leonhardt, No. 78666879, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *21 (citing, inter alia, In re Colonial Stores, Inc., 394 F.2d 549 (CCPA 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE registrable for bakery products)). 

The multiple interpretations that make an expression a double entendre must be associations that the public would make fairly readily and must be readily apparent from the mark itself without the benefit of the applicant's trade dress or advertising. See, e.g., In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, No. 86824279, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 208, at *23-24 (SCOOP not a double entendre for ice cream; applicant made no showing that public likely to perceive term as indicating a news scoop in addition to a serving size); In re The Place, Inc., No. 76436826, 2005 TTAB LEXIS 451, at *10 (THE GREATEST BAR held laudatory and merely descriptive of restaurant and bar services; “If the alleged second meaning of the mark is apparent to purchasers only after they view the mark in the context of the applicant's trade dress, advertising materials or other matter separate from the mark itself, then the mark is not a double entendre”); In re Wells Fargo & Co., No. 73256714, 1986 TTAB LEXIS 130, at *13-15 (EXPRESSERVICE found merely descriptive for banking services, despite applicant's argument that the term also connoted the Pony Express; Board found that in the relevant context, the public would not make that association). If all meanings of a double entendre are merely descriptive in relation to the goods, then the mark comprising the double entendre must be refused registration as merely descriptive.

The TTAB recently held that the mark SP-Y-KE for goods such as "closing wheels for use with agricultural seed planting machines" and a "spiked closing wheel" were merely descriptive of the goods. 

Applicant argued that the letter “Y” is often used to represent plant growth, with the base of the Y representing the stem and the branches of the Y representing the leaves or branches of the plant. And that a closing wheel is used to close a seed in a furrow and ensure optimal seed-to-soil contact for uniform germination and emergence. Accordingly, "the intentional misspelling together with the hyphenation to isolate the “Y” represents an obvious play on the intended result of a closing wheel, which is the growth of a plant (the “Y”) from a furrow (the hyphenation)" such that the misspelling in combination with the hyphenation conveys a dual meaning that is not merely descriptive. 

     The trouble with Applicant's argument is it failed to make of record any evidence showing that consumers of agricultural closing wheels would associate the letter “Y” in the mark with the leaves and branches of a plant. . . . Unsupported attorney arguments are no substitute for evidence. In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, No. 90522364, 2025 TTAB LEXIS 412, at *13-14 n.15 (citing Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).

***

[I]t is not readily apparent on the face of Applicant's mark that SP-Y-KE has an alternative connotation beyond that of the descriptive word “spike.” Nor is there any evidence from third parties or evidence of Applicant's use that confirms an alternative understanding.

Thus, with no evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion, the TTAB affirmed the refusal to register the mark under Section 2(e)(1).