A brand name that sounds personal can still fail as a trademark if it already means something in your industry. On September 29, 2026, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a refusal to register JASPE for shirts and pants as deceptively misdescriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1). In In re Teresa Michelle Lee, Serial No. 98081572 (not precedential), the Board found that “jaspe” describes a known fabric or variegated pattern—and that the applicant’s goods do not have that feature. A tribute to the applicant’s son Jasper did not change the analysis. This overview is general information for Iowa apparel, farm, and food brand owners, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

The application and the refusal

Applicant Teresa Michelle Lee sought to register JASPE for clothing items that included shirts and pants. Examining Attorney Akeela Makshood refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) as deceptively misdescriptive. A mark is deceptively misdescriptive if (1) it misdescribes a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods, and (2) consumers would be likely to believe the misrepresentation. Judge Christen M. English wrote the Board’s opinion affirming the refusal. The decision is not precedential, so it does not bind future panels, but it follows familiar Board analysis for industry terms used on goods that lack the named feature.

“Jaspe” already means a fabric or look

The examining attorney’s evidence included industry definitions and third-party sales of “jaspe” clothing. The Board found two immediately descriptive meanings for shirts and pants: (1) a fabric made by dyeing and twisting or weaving different colors or shades of yarn, and (2) a blended, mottled, or variegated appearance resembling jasper stone. The applicant admitted her clothing items do not contain jaspe. That admission mattered: the word describes a significant feature the goods might plausibly have but do not.

Under the second prong, the Board applied a reasonably prudent consumer standard. Because shoppers regularly encounter shirts and pants described as jaspe, they are likely to believe JASPE on those goods signals jaspe fabric or design. The Board therefore affirmed the 2(e)(1) refusal.

Arguments that did not overcome the refusal

• Personal meaning. Choosing JASPE as a tribute to a son named Jasper was irrelevant to how clothing buyers would understand the word on shirts and pants.
• Doctrine of foreign equivalents. The applicant argued that “jaspe” means “jasper” in Spanish and that many U.S. consumers would associate it with the gemstone. The Board held the doctrine inapplicable because the evidence showed “jaspe” is also an English word with a textile meaning.
• Unstable meaning. The Board rejected the claim that “jaspe” lacks a stable, commonly understood meaning in this market.

2(e)(1) versus 2(a): why the difference matters

The examining attorney withdrew a separate Section 2(a) deceptiveness refusal. Deceptiveness under 2(a) requires proof that the misrepresentation would affect purchasing decisions for a significant portion of relevant consumers, and deceptive marks cannot be registered even with acquired distinctiveness. Deceptively misdescriptive marks under 2(e)(1) are different: in appropriate cases, an applicant may later seek registration by showing acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). That path was not the Board’s holding here, but it remains a doctrinal distinction brand owners should understand when an examiner raises both theories.

Takeaways for Iowa apparel, food, and farm brands

• Check whether the name already means something in your industry. Fabric types, food varieties, livestock breeds, manufacturing processes, and trade slang can all create 2(e)(1) risk if your goods do not have the named feature.
• Personal stories do not erase marketplace meaning. A name that honors a family member can still be read as a product description by customers.
• Clearance should include ordinary English and trade dictionaries, not only identical brand searches.
• Know which refusal you face. A 2(e)(1) deceptively misdescriptive refusal and a 2(a) deceptiveness refusal carry different proof requirements and different options later.

Sources: the Board’s September 29, 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 clear and register brand names, including names that look personal but may already have industry meaning. 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.