The fact that an applicant may be the first and only user of a merely descriptive designation does not justify registration if the only significance conveyed by the term is merely descriptive. See In re Nursecon, LLC, Ser. No. 88052194, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 545, at *30 (2024) (quoting In re Zuma Array Ltd., Ser. No. 79288888, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *21 (2022); In re Fallon, 2020 USPQ2d 11249, at *11 (TTAB 2020); In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016) ; In re Nat'l Shooting Sports Found., Inc., 219 USPQ 1018, 1020 (TTAB 1983); see also KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 122 (2004) (trademark law does not countenance someone obtaining "a complete monopoly on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first"); Clairol, Inc. v. Roux Distrib. Co., 280 F.2d 863, 865 (C.C.P.A. 1960) (even novel ways of referring to the goods may nonetheless be descriptive); In re Bailey Meter Co., 102 F.2d 843 (C.C.P.A. 1939) ("The fact that appellant may have been the first and only one to adopt and use the mark sought to be registered does not prove that the mark is not descriptive . . . ."). Likewise, the fact that an applicant may be the first or only user of a generic designation does not justify registration if the only significance conveyed by the term is that of a category of goods. In re Uman Diagnostics AB, Ser. No. 88960633, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 77, at *32 (2023); In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, 123 USPQ2d 1544, 1549 (TTAB 2017) (citing In re Greenliant Systems Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1083 (TTAB 2010)); see also In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1569(Fed. Cir. 1987) ("To allow trademark protection for generic terms, i.e., names which describe the genus of goods being sold, even when these have become identified with a first user, would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are."); In re Preformed Prods. Co., 323 F.2d 1007, 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1963) (quoting J. Kohnstam, Ltd. v. Louis Marx & Co., 280 F.2d 437, 440 (C.C.P.A. 1960))(exclusive use, even when coupled with "large sales volume of such goods and its substantial advertising expenditure . . . cannot take the common descriptive name of an article out of the public domain and give the temporarily exclusive user of it exclusive rights to it, no matter how much money or effort it pours into promoting the sale of the merchandise"); TMEP §1212.06(e)(i).