Elliott Goldberg

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2021

88212315 (T.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2021)

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: September 23, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Elliott Goldberg

Serial No. 88212315
_____

Roger Bernstein of Roger J. Bernstein Law Firm
for Elliott Goldberg.

Julie M. Guttadauro, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106,
Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Pologeorgis, Dunn and English,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by English, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Elliott Goldberg (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Supplemental Register of
the designation MULTI-GRIP (in standard characters) for “manually-operated
resistance and stretch bands for physical therapy purposes” in International Class 10
and “exercise equipment, namely, manually operated resistance and stretch band” in
International Class 28.1

1 Application Serial No. 88212315; filed November 30, 2018 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on an allegation of first use and first use in
commerce on September 1, 2018 as to both classes of goods.
On March 21, 2019, Applicant filed a voluntary amendment amending the application to seek
registration on the Supplemental Register, which was approved by the Examining Attorney.
Serial No. 88212315
- 2 -
The Examining Attorney has refused registration on the Supplemental Register
of the designation MULTI-GRIP under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1091(c) and 1127, on the ground that the designation is the generic term
for Applicant’s identified goods and, therefore, is incapable of serving as a source
identifier. When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. The request for reconsideration was denied and the appeal
proceeded. The appeal is fully briefed.
The issue before us is whether MULTI-GRIP is generic or merely descriptive. We
find that the designation is generic for Applicant’s goods and, therefore, we affirm the
refusal to register on the Supplemental Register.
I. Procedural History and Evidence Attached to July 10, 2019
Final Office Action
As an initial matter, we address the procedural history of the involved application
to make clear the evidence that is of record in this appeal.
Applicant initially sought registration of MULTI-GRIP on the Principal Register.2
The Examining Attorney issued an Office action refusing registration under Section
2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2(e)(1), on the ground of mere
descriptiveness.3 In response, Applicant amended its application to seek registration
on the Supplemental Register.4 Subsequently, on July 10, 2019, the Examining
Attorney issued a final Office action refusing registration on the ground of

2 November 30, 2018 Application.
3 March 18, 2019 Office Action.
4 March 21, 2019 Voluntary Amendment.
Serial No. 88212315
- 3 -
descriptiveness.5 Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration arguing
(correctly) that a descriptive mark is entitled to registration on the Supplemental
Register.6 The appeal was suspended7 and the Examining Attorney issued an Office
action “supplemental to and supersed[ing]” the July 10, 2019 final Office action that:
(1) refused registration on the Supplemental Register on the ground that MULTI-
GRIP is generic for Applicant’s goods; and (2) maintained the “issue[s] raised in the
previous July 10, 2019 Office action,” namely, “the Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1)
refusal.” January 23, 2020 Office Action.
The statement that the January 23, 2020 Office action “is supplemental to and
supersedes” the July 10, 2019 is ambiguous. If the January 23, 2020 Office action is
a “supplement,” it adds to the July 19, 2020 final Office action but if it “supersedes”
the July 10, 2019 final Office action, it replaces this document, which is set aside.
Because the January 23, 2020 specifies that the 2(e)(1) refusal in the July 10, 2019 is
“maintained” and because Applicant has treated some of the evidence attached to the
July 10, 2019 Office action as “record evidence,”8 we treat the January 23, 2020 as
supplementing the July 10, 2019 final Office action. Accordingly, the evidence
attached to the July 10, 2019 Office action forms part of the record in this appeal.

5 July 10, 2019 Final Office Action.
6 January 9, 2020 Request for Reconsideration.
7 The appeal resumed on January 29, 2021 solely on the issue of whether MULTI-GRIP is a
generic term for the applied-for goods. 6 TTABVUE.
References to the prosecution history are to the USPTO Trademark Status and Document
Retrieval system (TSDR) by page number in the downloadable .pdf format. All other citations
are to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docket system.
8 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 10.
Serial No. 88212315
- 4 -
II. Arguments and Evidence
Examining Attorney’s Arguments and Evidence
The Examining Attorney argues that MULTI-GRIP is generic because it
“identifies a subcategory or sub-genus of the applicant’s ‘resistance bands’ and
‘stretch bands,’ and is a key feature of the applicant’s goods.”9 In support of this
position, the Examining Attorney submitted dictionary evidence, promotional
materials for Applicant’s goods, and Internet screenshots of third-party product
listings.10
1. Dictionary Definitions:
 “Multi” is defined as “many: multiple: much”;11 and

 “Grip” is defined as: “a part or device for gripping” or “a part by which
something is grasped especially : HANDLE”12

9 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 9 TTABVUE 8.
10 The Examining Attorney submitted numerous duplicate copies of evidence that
complicated our review of the record. In re Virtual Independent Paralegals, LLC, 2019
USPQ2d 111512, at *1 (TTAB 2019). As we have explained, “[a]ttaching previously submitted
evidence a second or third time is neither a courtesy nor a convenience to the Board…. If
evidence that purportedly is the same is presented more than once, the Board must compare
all versions of the evidence to confirm that it is, in fact, identical. This is not an appropriate
use of the Board’s limited resources.” Id.
11 January 23, 2020 Office action, TSDR 6-8 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER Online Dictionary).
12 Id. at TSDR 9-10.
Serial No. 88212315
- 5 -
2. Applicant’s Use of MULTI-GRIP
 Specimen (with highlighting added):13

13 November 30, 2018 Specimen of Use.
Serial No. 88212315
- 6 -
 Applicant’s product listing on the FEI Fabrication Enterprises Inc.
website (with highlighting added):14

14 July 10, 2019 first Final Office Action, TSDR 6.
Serial No. 88212315
- 7 -
 Image of Applicant’s product and product descriptions on
Amazon.com (with arrow added):15

 ONE RESISTANCE BAND ENDLESS USES: Can-do Multi-
Grip Resistance Bands with built in Hands, Foot and Finger
Grips enable an unlimited array of exercise options….

 MULTIPLE RESISTANCE LEVELS: Each Multi Grip [sic]
Resistance Band allows for various degrees of difficulty by simply
moving your Hand, Foot or Finger position up or down on the
multiple loops….

3. Third-Party Use
 “Stretch Exercise Band with Multiple Grip Loops,” from Mars
Wellness described as: “Featur[ing] multiple loops – 1” Wide strap with
tough elastic loops stitched in that provide anchoring position for feet
and/or hands. Benefits include greater flexibility and range of motion,
muscle recovery ….”;16

15 January 23, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 15 (amazon.com).
16 Id. at TSDR 29 (amazon.com); see also id. at 34-35 from Mars Med Supply,
(marsmedsupply.com) (“Features multiple loops – progress to different loop levels to
Serial No. 88212315
- 8 -

 “Gaiam Restore Multi-Grip Stretch Strap” (image below with
highlighting and arrow added):17

 “Peace Yoga Durable 7 ft. Cotton Yoga Stretching Exercise Strap Band
with Multiple Gri[ps]”;18

 “Osave Yoga Multi-Grip Stretch Strap Exercise & Physical Therapy
Belt for Rehab, Stretching Out, Pilates, Dance, Gymnastics …. WHAT
YOU GET: 1” Multi grip stretch strap”;19

 “SunJolly Yoga Stretch Strap with Loops Physical Therapy Multi-Grip
Pilates Stretching Belt-Workout Instruction Included …. Ten integrated
loops are large enough to accommodate most athletic shoes for ultimate
convenience. Loops also provide comfortable handholds the entire length
of the strap for stretching to your personal max”;20

gradually deepen your stretches, add a variety to your yoga practice or workout, and
regularly challenge yourself in a safe and effective manner.”).
17 January 23, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 17-20 (amazon.com).
18 March 18, 2019 Office Action, TSDR 7 (amazon.com).
19 Id. at TSDR 8; see also July 10, 2019 first Final Office Action, TSDR 12 “Fitness Multi-
Grip Exercise Stretching Strap Belt GYM Pilates Handle Loop Band” (ebay.com) and “Multi-
Grip Stretch Strap Stretching Band Fr [sic] Yoga Ballet Pilates Therapy” (ebay).
20 July 10, 2019 first Final Office action, TSDR 9-11 (amazon.com).
Serial No. 88212315
- 9 -

 “ECHAIN Yoga Stretch Strap 12 Loops Physical Therapy Multi-Grip
Pilates Stretching [Band]”;21

 “Wacces Yoga Strap Stretch Restore Multi-Grip Fitness Pilates
Stretching Belt Multicolor …. With 10 fixed loops this band allows deep,
gradual stretching with greater safety and effectiveness than with
unaided stretching…. Use the multiple Loops on the strap to support
you through anything from basic poses to inversions. At 1 inche [sic]
wide, the strap is easy to grab without having to worry about circulation
restriction. This Multigrip Strap is made of durable cotton blend that
will never give out on you.”22

 AGPTEK “Multi-Grip Stretch Strap, Yoga Stretching & Flexibility
Stretch Belt for Exercise Gym Fitness” with the following customer
review: “This is made really well! All the stitching looks secure, and the
straps have no give when you pull on them. The loops allow for a
multitude of different grips.”23

 “Juvale Yoga Stretch Strap” including the following “Item Description
... – 10 Loops Stretching Strap, Multi-Grip Stretch Band Fitness
Pilates stretching belt …. BUILD STRENGTH AND RANGE OF
MOTION: Make every workout a strength building exercise with
durable stretch bands. Improve your flexibility and body muscle with
this multi loops stretching strap.”24

 TAVIEW “Yoga Strap for Stretching – Stretch Band with 10 Loops –
Multi-Grip Pilates Hamstring Stretcher Belt – Physical Therapy
Equipment for Best Flexibility” with the following description: “The
flexibility strap with 10 INDEPENDENT LOOPS helps you stretch
further and hold the pose longer. The only flexibility equipment you’ll
ever need!”;25

21 July 10, 2019 first Final Office Action, TSDR 10 (amazon.com).
22 January 23, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 23-25 (amazon.com).
23 Id. at TSDR 26-27 (walmart.com).
24 Id. at TSDR 31-33 (walmart.com).
25 August 31, 2020 second Final Office Action, TSDR 14.
Serial No. 88212315
- 10 -
 “Spencer Yoga Stretch Strap Multi-Grip 12-Loop Fitness Yoga Stretch
Band for Pilates Practice, Dance and Physical Therapy Rehab” including
the following “Feature”: “Multiple loops to adjust, good for ankles,
calves, knees, thighs or wrists training.”26

 “FoMI Multi-Grip Resistance Band”;27

 “Stretching Strap Exercise Band with Multi Grip 12 Loop for Yoga or
Rehabilitation”;28

 “Yoga Strap Multi-Grip Stretch Band Stretching [sic] Strap Multi-
Grip”;29

 “Durable Cotton Yoga Multi-Grip Stretching Exercise Strap Band with
Multiple Loop[s]”;30

 “Adjustable 6 Sections Stretch Band Multi-Grip Balance Stretching
Strap”;31

 “Black&Grey Yoga Stretch Strap Multi-Grip Resistance Band Gym
Exercise”;32

 “2m/6.5ft Multi-Grip Flexibility Stretch Strap Yoga Stretching Belt
Exercise Band”;33 and

 “Stretching Strap Balance Stretching Stretch Band Yoga Strap Multi-
Grip.”34

26 Id. at TSDR 19-22 (walmart.com).
27 July 10, 2019 first Final Office Action, TSDR 12 (ebay.com).
28 Id. at TSDR 12-13, 15 (ebay.com).
29 Id. at TSDR 13 (ebay.com).
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id. at TSDR 14 (ebay.com).
33 Id. at TSDR 14-15 (ebay.com).
34 Id. at TSDR 15 (ebay.com).
Serial No. 88212315
- 11 -
Applicant’s Arguments and Evidence
In support of its appeal, Applicant argues that: (1) “[t]he Examining Attorney …
erred by failing to use the identification of goods in the registration application to
determine the genus or class of goods, that is, resistance and stretch bands for
physical therapy and exercise. Instead, without a reasoned basis she improperly
narrowed the genus so that it was limited to resistance and stretch bands that feature
multigrips”35; (2) Applicant’s description of goods does not specify that its stretch and
resistance bands have “multiple loops or grips”;36 (3) “the record contains no evidence
at all, let alone the requisite clear and convincing evidence, that ‘Multi-Grip’ is a noun
whose primary meaning to the consuming public is resistance and stretch bands”;37
(4) the designation MULTI-GRIP is not used in connection with all of the stretch
bands shown in the Examining Attorney’s evidence; rather the evidence shows that
the “common – hence generic – name is ‘stretch band’, or ‘stretch strap’, or slight
variations thereon such as ‘Stretching Strap Band’”;38 (5) “‘Multi-Grip’ may be part of
the lengthy verbiage being used to describe [stretch and resistance bands], but it is
not being used to identify the class of goods”;39 (6) “the Examining Attorney focused

35 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 4-5; 18-19; see also Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 6.
36 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 6; Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 4.
37 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 18; see also Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 4 (Applicant asserts that
if a customer were to say to a sales representative at an athletic store “‘I’d like to buy a Multi-
Grip’ the sales representative would respond ‘What is that?’ because “the term ‘Multi-Grip’
is not generally understood to refer to resistance and stretch bands used for exercise and
physical therapy”).
38 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 10-11.
39 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 20; see also id. at 4, 11; Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 11.
Serial No. 88212315
- 12 -
on the separate terms ‘multi’ and ‘grip’ without recognizing that the compound term
is a descriptor for a feature of Applicant’s goods”; and (7) the designation MULTI-
GRIP cannot be generic because it “is not used primarily for resistance or stretch
bands” but rather it describes a feature of a number of different products.40
In support of the last argument listed above, Applicant submitted printouts from
third-party websites showing use of the designation MULTI-GRIP in connection with
a grapple for construction jobs, a technology in tires, a computer gaming mouse, rock
climbing holds, an adhesive, an exercise dip bar attachment, and a pull up bar,41 and
third-party use of the individual terms “multi” and “grip” for unrelated goods.
Applicant also submitted copies of two third-party registrations for the mark MULTI-
GRIP (one for “tire chains” and the other for “general purpose adhesive for use in
hardware and marine applications”) and marks incorporating “multi” or “grip” for
unrelated goods.42

Along the lines of this argument, Applicant asserts that the Examining Attorney has
improperly equated descriptive and generic terms “repeatedly infer[ring] that because ‘Multi-
Grip’ merely describes a feature of Applicant’s goods, it is therefore generic[.]” Appeal Brief,
7 TTABVUE 21; see also id. at 4; Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 9. The Examining Attorney, at
times, did confuse the language pertaining to merely descriptive marks versus generic terms.
See, e.g. Examining Attorney’s Brief, 9 TTABVUE 14-15 (discussing “[t]he question of
whether a mark is merely descriptive”). The Board, however, “need not find that the
examining attorney’s rationale was correct in order to affirm the refusal to register[.]” In re
Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227, 1229 (TTAB 2010). Moreover, the Examining Attorney
made clear during prosecution that the basis for refusing registration is that the term
MULTI-GRIP is generic for Applicant’s goods, and this is the issue that Applicant has briefed.
Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 4 (“The only stated basis for the refusal is the Examining
Attorney’s view that ‘Multi-Grip’ is generic.”).
40 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 5, 8-9, 18; Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 10.
41 July 20, 2020 Office Action Response, TSDR 14-37.
42 November 23, 2020 Request for Reconsideration, TSDR 6-28.
Serial No. 88212315
- 13 -
III. Applicable Law
A mark proposed for registration on the Supplemental Register must be capable
of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1091; U.S. Patent &
Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. ___, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *5
(2020) (“Eligibility for registration … turns on the [term’s] capacity to ‘distinguis[h]’
goods ‘in commerce.’”) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1052). Terms that merely describe the
qualities or characteristics of a good are eligible for protection on the Supplemental
Register. 15 U.S.C. § 1091(a); see also Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *3; Real
Foods Pty Ltd. v Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 128 USPQ2d 1370, 1373 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (a mark that “is ‘merely descriptive’ of the goods or services, may be
registered on the supplemental register”). Generic terms, however, are not registrable
because “by definition [they] are incapable of indicating a unique source[.]” In re La.
Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 116 USPQ2d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(citing In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 4 USPQ2d
1141, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); see also Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *3 (“The
name of the good itself … is incapable of ‘distinguish[ing] [one producer’s goods] from
the goods of others’ and is therefore ineligible for registration.”); Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v.
Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 224 USPQ 327, 329 (1985) (“Generic terms are
not registrable[.]”).
A generic term is “the name of a class of products or services.” Booking.com, 2020
USPQ2d 10729, at *2; see also Park ‘N Fly, 224 USPQ at 329 (“A generic term is one
that refers to the genus of which the particular product is a species.”); Princeton
Serial No. 88212315
- 14 -
Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 114 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“A generic term ‘is the common descriptive name of a class of goods or
services.’”) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d
987, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “The generic name of a thing is in fact the
ultimate in descriptiveness.” Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ at 530; see also Royal Crown
Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 127 USPQ2d 1041, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
There is a two-part test for determining whether a designation is generic: (1) what
is the genus (class or category) of goods or services at issue?; and (2) does the relevant
public understand the designation primarily to refer to that genus of goods or
services? Princeton Vanguard, 114 USPQ2d at 1830-31 (citing Marvin Ginn, 228
USPQ at 530); Couch/Braunsdorf Affinity, Inc. v. 12 Interactive, LLC, 110 USPQ2d
1458, 1462 (TTAB 2014). “The critical issue in genericness cases is whether members
of the relevant public primarily use or understand the term sought to be protected to
refer to the genus of goods or services in question.” In re Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d 594,
118 USPQ2d 1632, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Marvin Ginn, 228 USPQ2d at 530);
see also In re 1800Mattress.com IP LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 92 USPQ2d 1682 1685 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (“The test is not only whether the relevant public itself would use the term
to describe the genus, but also whether the relevant public would understand the
term to be generic.”). “[A] term is generic if the relevant public understands the term
to refer to part of the claimed genus of goods or services, even if the public does not
understand the term to refer to the broad genus as a whole.” Cordua Rests., 118
USPQ2d at 1638 (holding CHURRASCOS, a word that is generic for a type of grilled
Serial No. 88212315
- 15 -
meat, to be generic for restaurant services because it refers to a key sub-aspect of
those services); see also In re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 227
USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (BUNDT generic for ring cake mixes, i.e., the subcategory
“bundt cakes.”). That is, any term that the relevant public uses or understands to
refer to the genus of goods, or a key aspect of a sub-group of the genus, is generic.
Royal Crown, 127 USPQ2d at 1046-47; see also In re Consumer Protection Firm
PLLC, 2021 USPQ2d 123, at *5 (TTAB 2021) (“[I]f the proposed mark defines ‘an
integral, if not the paramount, aspect of … [the] [goods or] services[,] as [the
Applicant] defines … [them,]’ the term or phrase sought for registration may be found
generic for those services.”) (quoting In re Reed Elsevier Props. Inc., 482 F.3d 1376,
82 USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
The Office must demonstrate that a term is generic by “clear and convincing
evidence.” Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1635. Evidence of consumer understanding
of a term may be obtained from any competent source, such as consumer surveys,
dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, the applicant’s usage, trade
journals, newspapers and other publications. Booking.com, 2020 UPSQ2d 10729, at
*7, n.6; Royal Crown, 127 USPQ2d at 1046 (quoting Merrill Lynch, 4 USPQ2d at
1143); see also Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1634; Princeton Vanguard, 114
USPQ2d at 1830; Reed Elsevier 82 USPQ2d at 1380 (holding lawyers.com generic for
information exchange about legal service based, in part on applicant’s “website
mak[ing] clear that an integral, if not the paramount, aspect of ‘information exchange
about legal services ... concerns identifying and helping people to select lawyers”);
Serial No. 88212315
- 16 -
BellSouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp., 60 F.3d 1565, 35 USPQ2d 1554, 1558 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (“[C]ompetitor use is evidence of genericness”); Consumer Protection Firm
PLLC, 2021 USPQ2d 238, at *8 (“In assessing the primary significance of Applicant’s
Proposed Marks to the relevant public, we may also consider Applicant’s use
thereof.”); Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1351 (TTAB
2013) (citing generic use of proposed mark “footlong” by applicant and its competitors
to identify a type of sandwich).
Where, as here, the designation at issue is “a compound term, the distinctiveness
inquiry trains on the term’s meaning as a whole, not its parts in isolation.”
Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *5; see also, e.g. Consumer Protection Firm,
2021 USPQ2d 238, at *16-17. “A compound of generic elements is generic if the
combination yields no additional meaning to consumers capable of distinguishing the
goods or services.” Booking.com, 2020 USPQ2d 10729, at *7.
IV. Analysis
A. Genus of Goods
To determine the genus of goods, we focus on the identifications of goods in the
involved application, namely, manually-operated resistance and stretch bands for
physical therapy and exercise. Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1636; Magic Wand Inc.
v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (a
proper genericness inquiry focuses on the identification set forth in the application or
certificate of registration); In re Serial Podcast, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1061, 1063 (TTAB
2018).
Serial No. 88212315
- 17 -
We agree with Applicant that the identifications of goods in the application
sufficiently identify the genus at issue here: manually-operated resistance and
stretch bands for physical therapy and exercise.43 We disagree, however, with the
assertion that the Examining Attorney “improperly narrowed the genus so that it was
limited to resistance and stretch bands that feature multigrips.”44
As noted, “[a] term is generic if the relevant public understands the term to refer
to part of the claimed genus of goods or services, even if the public does not
understand the term to refer to the broad genus as a whole.” Royal Crown, 127
USPQ2d at 1046 (quoting Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1638); In re Wm. B. Coleman
Co., 93 USPQ2d 2019, 2024-25 (TTAB 2010) (holding ELECTRIC CANDLE
COMPANY generic for electric candles, a subcategory of applicant’s broadly worded
identification of goods as “lighting fixtures”); In re Central Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d
1194, 1197 (TTAB 1998) (“The broad general category of goods involved here is
sprinklers for fire protection. However, a product may be in more than one category,
and here applicant’s goods also fall within the narrower category of sprinklers for fire
protection of attics.”). Accordingly, it was appropriate for the Examining Attorney to
consider whether MULTI-GRIP identifies a sub-group or part of the broad genus of
goods here.

43 The Examining Attorney and Applicant do not separately address each class of goods but
rather refer to them collectively. Accordingly, we do the same, although we reach a conclusion
as to each class of goods as identified.
44 Appeal Brief, 7 TTABVUE 4-5; 18-19; see also Reply Brief, 12 TTABVUE 6.
Serial No. 88212315
- 18 -
Relevant Purchasers
“The relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or
consuming public for the identified goods.” Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Princeton
Vanguard LLC, 124 USPQ2d 1184, 1187 (TTAB 2017) (citing Magic Wand, 19
USPQ2d at 1552); Sheetz of Del., 108 USPQ2d at 1351. The relevant consuming
public for Applicant’s goods consists of the public at large, namely, ordinary
consumers who purchase resistance and stretch bands for exercise or physical
therapy. In addition, for Applicant’s Class 10 goods, the relevant consuming public
includes healthcare professionals and businesses providing physical therapy or
exercise services.
Purchaser Perception of the term MULTI-GRIP
In determining consumer perception, we start with the dictionary definitions of
“multi” meaning “multiple” and “grip” meaning “a part by which something is grasped
especially : HANDLE.” As combined in the designation MULTI-GRIP, the terms
retain their dictionary meanings referring to stretch and resistance bands with
multiple grips or handles. No additional meaning is created by their combination.
See, Central Sprinkler, 49 USPQ2d at 1198. (“[T]he separate words ‘attic’ and
‘sprinkler’ joined to form a compound ‘attic sprinkler’ have a meaning identical to the
meaning common usage would ascribe to those words as a compound.”).
The record includes extensive third-party evidence showing that: (1) a number of
third parties market a sub-group of resistance and stretch bands with multiple grips
that allow users to adjust their hand and foot placement providing greater versatility
Serial No. 88212315
- 19 -
of use and varying degrees of difficulty; and (2) “multi-grip” is widely used in the field
to refer primarily to resistance and stretch bands having multiple grips. The evidence
is clear and convincing that MULTI-GRIP does not merely describe a feature of
Applicant’s stretch and resistance bands, but rather identifies a “key aspect” of a
category of stretch and resistance bands within the relevant genus. Applicant’s
competitors should be able to continue to use “multi-grip” to identify this key aspect
of their goods.
Consistent with the third-party use, Applicant does not display “multi-grip” in a
manner likely to be perceived as a trademark. As shown in the below example, “multi-
grip” is in the same font style, size and color as surrounding generic and informational
text (e.g. “exerciser”, “finger” and anchor”). In contrast, the designation CANDO on
Applicant’s product is displayed in significantly larger font on a separate line from
generic and informational text.45 Central Sprinkler, 49 USPQ2d at 1197 (considering
Applicant’s specimen of use; “we cannot overlook how the relevant public will
encounter the matter sought to be registered”).

45 January 23, 2020 Office Action, TSDR 15 (amazon.com).
Serial No. 88212315
- 20 -

Applicant’s argument that MULTI-GRIP cannot be generic for its goods because
the application does not specify that Applicant’s stretch and resistance bands have
“multiple grips” is without merit. The genus at issue here, manually-operated
resistance and stretch bands is broad enough to include, and the evidence shows does
in fact include, resistance and stretch bands with “multiple grips.” Cordua Rests., 118
USPQ2d at 1638 (explaining that “the term ‘pizzeria’ would be generic for restaurant
services, even though the public understands the term to refer to a particular sub-
group or type of restaurant rather than to all restaurants”); Wm. B. Coleman, 93
USPQ2d at 2024-25 (ELECTRIC CANDLE COMPANY generic for “lighting fixtures”
because such goods encompassed electric candles); Central Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d
at 1197 (ATTIC generic for “automatic sprinklers for fire protection” because term
identified a category of such goods, namely, sprinklers for fire protection used in the
attic).
Serial No. 88212315
- 21 -
Similarly unpersuasive is Applicant’s argument that MULTI-GRIP is not generic
because not all resistance and stretch bands are “multi-grip” bands. A term “need not
be equated by the general public with the entire broad genus ... in order for the term
to be generic.” Royal Crown, 127 USPQ2d at 1046-47 (explaining that “if the public
understands ZERO when used in combination with a designated beverage name to
refer to a sub-group or type of beverage that carries specific characteristics, that
would be enough to render the term generic” for the claimed genus of beverages); see
also Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1638 (“There is no logical reason to treat
differently a term that is generic of a category or class of products where some but
not all of the goods identified in an application fall within that category.”); Northland
Aluminum, 227 USPQ at 964 (BUNDT generic for ring cake mixes, i.e., the
subcategory “bundt cakes.”); Consumer Protection Firm PLLC, 2021 USPQ2d 238, at
*23 (THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM generic for “legal services” referring to
“a ‘class’ or ‘category’ of ‘legal services,’ namely, legal services concerning the laws
related to consumer production”).
We acknowledge that “multi-grip” modifies the term “band” and so functions as
an adjective, but this also does not foreclose a determination that MULTI-GRIP is
generic. Both nouns and adjectives can be generic. Serial Podcast, 126 USPQ2d at
1067-68; Sheetz of Del., 108 USPQ2d at 1366 (“We readily acknowledge that ‘Footlong’
is not the name of a food product; rather it is an adjective referring to the length of
the sandwich. This adjectival use, however, does not remove ‘Footlong’ from being
generic when used in connection with sandwiches.”); Central Sprinkler, 49 USPQ2d
Serial No. 88212315
- 22 -
1194, 1199 (TTAB 1998) (“[A]pplicant’s mark does not present the classic case of a
generic noun, but rather a generic adjective.”); TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) § 1209.01(c)(ii) (July 2021) (“The expression ‘generic name for
the goods or services’ is not limited to noun forms but also includes ‘generic
adjectives,’ that is, adjectives that refer to a genus, species, category, or class of goods
or services.”). Moreover, the fact that Applicant has not chosen to include the term
“band(s)” in the matter sought to be registered does not justify the registration of
MULTI-GRIP alone where, as here, the evidence establishes that it identifies a key
aspect of a sub-group of resistance and stretch bands. Central Sprinkler, 49 USPQ2d
at 1198.
As an adjective, multi-grip may be used and, as Applicant’s evidence shows, is in
fact used to modify other types of goods, including goods unrelated to resistance and
stretch bands. But this also does not preclude a finding that MULTI-GRIP is generic
for manually operated resistance and stretch bands for physical therapy and exercise.
The issue before us is whether MULTI-GRIP is generic for the genus of goods defined
in Applicant’s application. The evidence establishes by clear and convincing
evidence that MULTI-GRIP bands are encompassed within Applicant’s broadly
identified genus of goods.
Further, we are unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument that MULTI-GRIP is not
generic because not all third-parties use MULTI-GRIP to identify their resistance
and stretch bands. Many of the product listings Applicant points to as not using
“multi-grip” are truncated so we cannot conclude that “multi-grip” is not being used
Serial No. 88212315
- 23 -
to identify the type of resistance or stretch band. Moreover, because “multi-grip”
identifies a subcategory of resistance and stretch bands it is not an accurate generic
term for all resistance and stretch bands. A product may have more than one generic
name. See, e.g., 1800Mattress.com, 92 USPQ2d at 1685; Consumer Protection Firm,
2021 USPQ2d 238, at *6; Central Sprinkler, 49 USPQ2d at 1197.
As for the third-party registrations Applicant submitted, only two registrations
are for the mark MULTI-GRIP, both covering goods different from resistance and
stretch bands for exercise and physical therapy. We are not privy to the record in
those cases and, in any event, each case must be decided on its own merits. Consumer
Protection Firm, 2021 USPQ2d 238, at *22; Central Sprinkler, 49 USPQ2d at 1197.
The evidence here is sufficient to support a determination that MULTI-GRIP is
generic for the genus of goods in the involved application.
V. Conclusion
The record as a whole establishes by clear and convincing evidence that MULTI-
GRIP refers to a “class or category” of “stretch and resistance bands” for physical
therapy and exercise, namely, stretch and resistance bands with multi-grips, and
would be understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that sub-group of
stretch and resistance bands. Accordingly, we find that “multi-grip” is generic for both
classes of goods in the involved application and is incapable of distinguishing
Applicant’s goods.
Serial No. 88212315
- 24 -
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s applied-for mark on the
Supplemental Register under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act is affirmed
with respect to both International Classes 10 and 28.