Descriptive. As a general rule, an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism cannot be considered descriptive unless the wording it stands for is merely descriptive of the goods or services, and the abbreviation, acronym, or initialism is readily understood by relevant purchasers to be substantially synonymous with the merely descriptive wording it represents. See Modern Optics Inc. v. Univis Lens Co., 234 F. 2d 504, 506 (C.C.P.A. 1956); Baroness Small Ests., Inc. v. Am. Wine Trade, Inc., 104 USPQ2d 1224, 1230-31 (TTAB 2012) (holding CMS not substantially synonymous with the grape varietals cabernet, merlot, and syrah and therefore not merely descriptive for wine); In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d 1712, 1715 (TTAB 2011) (holding NKJV substantially synonymous with merely descriptive term "New King James Version" and thus merely descriptive of bibles). A mark consisting of an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism will be considered substantially synonymous with descriptive wording if: (1) the applied-for mark is an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism for specific wording; (2) the specific wording is merely descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services; and (3) a relevant consumer viewing the abbreviation, acronym, or initialism in connection with applicant’s goods and/or services will recognize it as an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism of the merely descriptive wording that it represents. See In re Thomas Nelson, Inc., 97 USPQ2d at 1715-16 (citing In re Harco Corp., 220 USPQ 1075, 1076 (TTAB 1984) ). Thus, without additional evidence, an applicant’s proprietary use of an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism is not sufficient to establish that the abbreviation, acronym, or initialism is readily understood to be substantially synonymous with the descriptive wording it represents. Modern Optics, 234 F.2d 504, 506 (finding the record unconvincing that CV is a generally recognized term for multifocal lenses and lens blanks); see also In re BetaBatt Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1152 (TTAB 2008) (DEC found to be routinely used as an abbreviation for "direct energy conversion"); In re The Yacht Exch., Inc., 214 USPQ 406 (TTAB 1982) (MLS held descriptive for multiple listing services for yachts and boats); cf. In re Harco Corp.,220 USPQ 1075 (TTAB 1984) (record insufficient to establish that CPL would be commonly understood as no more than an abbreviation of "computerized potential log").

Generic. As a general rule, an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism is considered generic if "the wording it stands for is generic of the goods or services, and the abbreviation, acronym, or initialism is understood by relevant purchasers to be substantially synonymous with the generic wording it represents." In re Uman Diagnostics AB, Ser. No. 88960633, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 77, at *4-5, *45-46 (2023) (citing Baroness Small Ests., Inc. v. Am. Wine Trade, Inc., Can. No. 92051369, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 335, at *6-7 (2012)) (holding NF-LIGHT substantially synonymous with the generic term "neurofilament light" and thus generic for specimen analysis kits where neurofilament light is the target analyte in the kit); Cap. Project Mgmt. Inc. v. IMDISI Inc., Opp. No. 91121819, 2003 TTAB LEXIS 355, at *16-19 (2003) (holding TIA substantially synonymous with the generic term "time impact analysis" and thus generic for a type of construction project schedule analysis services); In re Gen. Aniline & Film Corp., Ser. No. 72100698, 1962 TTAB LEXIS 173, at *1-4 (1962) (holding PVP substantially synonymous with generic term "polyvinylpyrrolidone" and therefore generic for the synthetic resin polyvinylpyrrolidone).