1203.02(a) Types of Deceptive Marks
A deceptive mark may be comprised of: (1) a single deceptive term; (2) a deceptive term embedded in a composite mark that includes additional non-deceptive wording and/or design elements (see In re White Jasmine LLC, 106 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (TTAB 2013); (3) a term or a portion of a term that alludes to a deceptive quality, characteristic, function, composition, or use (see Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Ass’n v. Nat'l Hearing Aid Society, 224 USPQ 798, 808 (TTAB 1984)); (4) the phonetic equivalent of a deceptive term (see In re Organik Technologies, Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (TTAB 1997); Tanners' Council of Am., Inc. v. Samsonite Corp., 204 USPQ 150, 154 (TTAB 1979); or (5) the foreign equivalent of any of the above (see, e.g., Palm Bay Imps., v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although there is no published Board or Federal Circuit decision regarding whether a mark consisting solely of a design can be deceptive, if there is evidence to support such a refusal, it should be issued.
Deceptive marks may include marks that falsely describe the material content of a product (see In re Intex Plastics Corp., 215 USPQ 1045, 1048 (TTAB 1982)) and marks that are geographically deceptive (see Stabilisierungsfonds fur Wein v. Peter Meyer Winery GmbH, 9 USPQ2d 1073, 1076 (TTAB 1988); In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 USPQ 53, 57 (TTAB 1983), recon. denied, 223 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1984)). See TMEP §§1210.05-1210.06(b) regarding geographically deceptive marks.
However, marks containing a term identifying a material, ingredient, or feature should not be refused registration under §2(a) if the mark in its entirety would not be perceived as indicating that the goods contained that material or ingredient. For example, the mark COPY CALF was found not deceptive for wallets and billfolds of synthetic and plastic material made to simulate leather, because it was an obvious play on the expression "copy cat" and suggested to purchasers that the goods were imitations of items made of calf skin. See A. F. Gallun & Sons Corp. v. Aristocrat Leather Prods., Inc., 135 USPQ 459, 460 (TTAB 1962). Note, however, the difference with such marks as TEXHYDE and SOFTHIDE, which were held deceptive as applied to synthetic fabric and imitation leather material, respectively. See Intex Plastics, 215 USPQ at 1048; Tanners' Council of Am., 204 USPQ at 154-55.
In addition, formatives and other grammatical variations of a term may not necessarily be deceptive in relation to the relevant goods. For example, “silky” is defined, inter alia, as “resembling silk.” See The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Ed. 2000. Thus, a mark containing the term SILKY would not be considered deceptive (but might be unregistrable under §2(e)(1)). Dictionary definitions of such terms should be carefully reviewed to determine the significance the term would have to prospective purchasers. For example, although the term GOLD would be considered deceptive for jewelry not made of gold, the term GOLDEN would not be deceptive.