Decisions · 86440401
In re Well Living Lab Inc.
Serial No. 86440401 · Decided 2017-06-07 · Other
What happened
The Board refused registration of WELL LIVING LAB for scientific research, product testing, and accreditation services focused on health and wellness in indoor environments, finding the name simply describes a laboratory that researches healthy living rather than identifying a single source.
The marks
Applicant
WELL LIVING LAB
"Scientific research in the field of human health and wellness in indoor environments; product testing, research and development designed to improve the health and well-being of product users; design and testing for new product development for others in the field of health and wellness; testing, research and development of products designed to improve the health and wellness of individual users; product testing, research and development relating to technology designed to monitor and control environmental characteristics of buildings and indoor spaces; accreditation services, namely, developing protocols and evaluating and testing conformance to protocols for products designed to improve the health and wellness of individual users" in Class 42
Why this decision is significant
Precedential decision confirming there is no per se rule against foreign-website evidence and articulating the case-by-case factors (English language, accessibility, likelihood U.S. consumers encounter the site) that govern its probative value — a recurring evidentiary citation — while affirming WELL LIVING LAB as merely descriptive.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Disclaimer requirement upheld
In re Brainlab SE
The Board agreed that DYNAMIC SURFACE merely describes what Brainlab’s radiotherapy patient-tracking systems do (continuously track a moving patient’s body surface), so Brainlab must…
79371727 · 2026-05-26 · EXACTRAC DYNAMIC SURFACE
In re Nursecon, LLC
The Board affirmed the refusal to register NURSECON for arranging and conducting special events for social entertainment purposes, finding the mark merely descriptive because NURSE names…
88052194 · 2024-12-26 · NURSECON (standard characters)
In re Chestek PLLC
The Board affirmed the refusal to register CHESTEK LEGAL for legal services because the applicant law firm gave only a post office box instead of the required domicile street address…
88938938 · 2022-03-30 · CHESTEK LEGAL (standard characters; LEGAL disclaimed)
In re The Consumer Protection Firm PLLC
The Board found the wording in this law firm’s colorful square logo, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM, was simply the common name for consumer-protection legal services rather than a brand…
87444846 · 2021-03-02 · THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM & Design ("Applicant's Proposed Word-and-Design Mark") -- a square outlined in navy blue containing the words "THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM.COM" vertically stacked; "THE" in green above "CONSUMER" in navy blue above "PROTECTION" in red above "FIRM.COM," with "FIRM" in green and "COM" in yellow separated by a yellow period; colors green, navy blue, red, and yellow claimed; "Firm.com" disclaimed
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.