1213.05(c)    Double Entendre

A double entendre is a word or expression capable of more than one interpretation. For trademark purposes, a double entendre is an expression that has a double connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services. The mark that comprises the double entendre will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods or services. In re Leonhardt, 109 USPQ2d 2091, 2098 (TTAB 2008) (citing In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (C.C.P.A. 1968); In re Simmons Co., 189 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1976); In re Del. Punch Co., 186 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1975); In re Nat’l Tea Co., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB 1965)).

A true double entendre is unitary by definition. An expression that is a double entendre should not be broken up for purposes of requiring a disclaimer. In In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571, 573 (TTAB 1983), the Board found inappropriate a requirement for a disclaimer of "LIGHT" apart from the mark "LIGHT N’ LIVELY" for reduced calorie mayonnaise, stating as follows:

The mark "LIGHT N’ LIVELY" as a whole has a suggestive significance which is distinctly different from the merely descriptive significance of the term "LIGHT" per se. That is, the merely descriptive significance of the term "LIGHT" is lost in the mark as a whole. Moreover, the expression as a whole has an alliterative lilting cadence which encourages persons encountering it to perceive it as a whole.

See also In re Symbra’ette, Inc., 189 USPQ 448 (TTAB 1975) (holding SHEER ELEGANCE for panty hose to be a registrable unitary expression; thus, no disclaimer of "SHEER" considered necessary).

The multiple interpretations that make an expression a double entendre must be associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent from the mark itself. See, e.g., In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, 2019 USPQ2d 265039, at *7-8 (TTAB 2019) (finding SCOOP for ice cream, which merely described the serving size of the goods, did not present a double entendre because the applicant made no showing that the interpretation of SCOOP in this context was that of a ‘news scoop’); In re RiseSmart Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1931, 1934 (TTAB 2012) (finding that TALENT ASSURANCE does not present a double entendre such that "the merely descriptive significance of the term [TALENT] is lost in the mark as a whole"); In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (TTAB 2005) (holding THE GREATEST BAR laudatory and merely descriptive of restaurant and bar services; the Board stating that "[i]f the alleged second meaning of the mark is apparent to purchasers only after they view the mark in the context of the applicant’s trade dress, advertising materials or other matter separate from the mark itself, then the mark is not a double entendre"); In re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95, 99 (TTAB 1986) (holding EXPRESSERVICE merely descriptive for banking services, despite applicant’s argument that the term also connoted the Pony Express, the Board finding that, in the relevant context, the public would not make that association).

If all meanings of a double entendre are merely descriptive in relation to the goods, then the mark comprising the double entendre must be refused registration as merely descriptive.

In certain cases, marks were considered to be double entendres and, therefore, registrable unitary marks. In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (SUGAR & SPICE for bakery products); In re Tea & Sympathy, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1062 (THE FARMACY for retail store services featuring natural herbs and organic products and related health and information services relating to dietary supplements and nutrition); In re Simmons Co., 189 USPQ 352 (THE HARD LINE for mattresses and bed springs); In re Del. Punch Co., 186 USPQ 63 (THE SOFT PUNCH for noncarbonated soft drink); In re Nat'l Tea Co., 144 USPQ 286 (NO BONES ABOUT IT for fresh pre-cooked ham).