LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

TTAB Test: Is “CAT & CO.” Merely Descriptive of Cat Litter?

September 2, 2016| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

The USPTO refused registration of the mark CAT & CO., in both standard character and design form (shown below), finding the phrase merely descriptive of cat litter, cat beds, cat toys, and cat food [CAT disclaimed]. Applicant appealed, arguing that ” & CO.” is arbitrary, not descriptive, since applicant “is not an organization for or about cats.” How do you think this came out?  In re Sears Brands, LLC, Serial Nos. 86406352, 86406354, 86406361, and 86406370 (August 30, 2016) [not precedential].

CAT AND CO

Since applicant disclaimed “CATS” in all four applications, the Board’s analysis focused on the term “& CO.” The Board noted that business entity designations like “Co.,” “Corp.,” and “Inc.” have no source identifying significance. Applicant, however, pointed to TMEP Section 1203.03(d), which states that “a disclaimer should not be required when the entity designation is used in an arbitrary manner and thus has trademark significance.” It maintained that the use of “.CO” in its mark is arbitrary, since applicant is not an organization for or about cats, and there is no such entity as “CAT & CO.” affiliated with applicant.

The Board agreed with applicant that “Co.” in applicant’s mark “serves not merely as an entity designation, but rather is in arbitrary use in association with the goods identified in the applications.”

As Applicant contends: “Here, the Applicant’s CAT & CO. connotes a faux company name suggesting the goods are produced by a firm where the principal is a cat, which on its face is fancifully absurd.”

The Board therefore found that “& CO.” carries trademark significance as a component of Applicant’s marks and is not merely descriptive. And so the Board reversed the four refusals.

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

TTAB Snuffs Out Two (Non-)Marijuana TM Applications

Next

TTAB Test: Are These Two “K4K & Design” Marks Confusable for Clothing?


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web.