In re Aloe Bioscience, LLC

85531266 · Decided 2015-05-13

What happened

Genericness refusal REVERSED for ALOE BIOSCIENCE for aloe-containing dietary supplements, dermatologicals, pharmaceuticals, mouth/teeth preparations, and cosmeceuticals. Two-step H. Marvin Ginn test applied. Genus: dietary drinks and supplements, dermatologicals, pharmaceuticals, mouth and teeth preparations, and cosmeceuticals, all containing aloe. Board found: (1) ‘Aloe’ is generic for goods containing aloe (ingredient/feature); (2) ‘Bioscience’ means ‘life science’ / ‘biological sciences collectively’ — describes broad category of sciences, merely descriptive but NOT generic for goods; use in company names does not make it generic entity designator; (3) ALOE BIOSCIENCE as compound word (analogous to In re Gould Paper) — not mere phrase of constituent generic terms; no evidence of anyone using unitary term ‘ALOE BIOSCIENCE’ generically; evidence describes but does not identify genus; (4) Office failed to meet burden of proving genericness by clear evidence. Reversed contingent on applicant filing disclaimer of ‘Aloe.’ Third-party BIOSCIENCE registrations: 14 of 15 disclaim BIOSCIENCE, offering little support either way.