Plenty of Iowa farm and food businesses carry the family name: the orchard, the meat locker, the roadside stand, the honey operation. That tradition works well for customers. It can cause trouble at the USPTO, though. In a September 22, 2026 decision, In re Hansen Honey Farm, Serial No. 98224899, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a refusal to register HANSEN HONEY FARM for honey products because the mark, taken as a whole, is primarily merely a surname. Adding “honey farm” didn’t change how the Board expected buyers to read “Hansen.” The Board designated the opinion as not precedential, so it doesn’t bind future panels, but it closely tracks how examining attorneys and the Board usually handle surname-plus-descriptor marks. This overview is general information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

The application

The applicant filed an intent-to-use application in October 2023 to register HANSEN HONEY FARM in standard characters for “honey; creamed honey; flavored honey; edible honeycombs containing honey; candy pieces made with honey; candy bars made with honey” in Class 30. The examining attorney refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(4), which bars registration on the Principal Register of a mark that is “primarily merely a surname” unless the owner shows acquired distinctiveness. The applicant appealed.

Step one: HANSEN reads as a surname

The applicant didn’t dispute the key surname facts. HANSEN is a common surname; the record showed more than 286,000 entries in a surname database. It is the surname of the applicant’s president. And the applicant didn’t argue that HANSEN has any other recognized meaning or lacks the structure and pronunciation of a surname. Because the mark was filed in standard characters, stylization played no role. The Board found that buyers would see HANSEN primarily as a surname.

Step two: “Honey farm” was descriptive, so it didn’t help

When a surname is combined with other wording, the Board asks whether the added wording changes the primary significance of the mark as a whole. Nondistinctive additions usually don’t. The applicant argued that “honey farm” is suggestive, even incongruous, since bees make honey in an apiary rather than on a farm where crops are grown. The Board disagreed and found HONEY FARM merely descriptive of the goods. Several kinds of evidence mattered:

• The applicant’s own website. Its slogan, “More Than A Honey Farm,” presented the business as one honey farm among many. The Board treated that as strong evidence that the phrase is descriptive.
• Third-party registrations. Several registrations for honey disclaimed HONEY FARM or HONEY FARMS as descriptive.
• Marketplace usage. Websites and business names used “honey farm” to mean a place where honey and honey products are made and sold, often with the owner’s last name in front.

The existence of other apt terms, such as “apiary” or “bee farm,” didn’t make “honey farm” any less descriptive. The Board also distinguished the applicant’s examples of registered surname-plus-“honey farm” marks. Those registrations disclaimed the descriptive wording, relied on acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f), or included prominent design elements. HANSEN HONEY FARM had none of those features. The Board also rejected the argument that no one would be confused. Lack of confusion with other marks doesn’t override the statutory surname bar.

A procedural lesson, too

The day after filing its appeal brief, the applicant submitted about 805 pages of additional exhibits, followed by DVDs. The Board sustained the examining attorney’s objection and didn’t consider those filings. The record should be complete before an appeal is filed, and briefs are limited in length. Evidence you want the Board to weigh generally needs to be in the record during examination.

Takeaways for Iowa farm and food brands

• Family name plus a product or business descriptor is a known risk. Additions such as “Farm,” “Honey Farm,” “Orchard,” “Meats,” or “Company” often won’t overcome a surname refusal if buyers read them as describing the goods or the kind of business.
• Your own marketing is evidence. Slogans and website copy can show how you use your brand words, including descriptively.
• Look at the paths the law allows. The decision notes several routes other owners have used: showing acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f), adding a distinctive design, or seeking the Supplemental Register with a disclaimer. The examining attorney raised the last option here, but the applicant didn’t pursue it. Which path fits, if any, depends on the facts.
• Build the record early. Arguments and evidence should be developed during examination. Materials filed late on appeal may not be considered at all.

Sources: the Board’s September 22, 2026 opinion (PDF), the TTABVUE appeal docket, and commentary on the TTABlog.

For related reading, see our trademarks overview, the federal vs. Iowa filing resource, and the step-by-step trademark guide.

Talk with Iowa trademark counsel

Jason Sytsma helps Iowa businesses pick, clear, and register brand names, including names built around a family name. Learn more on the About Jason page and the firm bio.

Contact the office to request a consultation. Any engagement is subject to conflicts review, an engagement agreement, and applicable professional-responsibility rules. This article is attorney advertising and is intended for general educational purposes only; results vary, and past experience does not guarantee a particular outcome.