Descriptiveness must be determined in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought. In re Omniome, Inc., Ser. No. 87661190, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *30-31 (2019) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., Ser. No. 73131713, 1979 TTAB LEXIS 80, at *7 (1979)). Therefore, the fact that a term may have a different meaning(s) in a different context is not controlling. In re NextGen Mgmt., LLC, Ser. No. 88098031, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *8 (2023) (citing In re RiseSmart Inc., 85050089, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 448, at *8 (2012)); In re Omniome, Inc., 2019 TTAB LEXIS 414, at *12 (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 1979 TTAB LEXIS 80, at *8). If a term has a primary significance that is descriptive in relation to at least one of the recited goods or services, and does not create any double entendre or incongruity, then the term is merely descriptive. See, e.g., In re Calphalon Corp., 122 USPQ2d 1153, 1164 (TTAB 2017) (finding nothing incongruous about the use of the word sharpen (or its phonetic equivalent SHARPIN) to describe the function of knife blocks with built-in sharpeners that automatically sharpen knives).

See TMEP §1213.05(c) regarding wording that constitutes a "double entendre."