## Facts

- Bayer Aktiengesellschaft filed an intent-to-use application to register the mark **ASPIRINA** for “analgesic goods.”
- The USPTO refused registration, concluding ASPIRINA is the Spanish word for “aspirin” and thus describes the goods.
- The administrative record included online dictionaries equating “aspirina” with aspirin and usage evidence (news/database excerpts and online references) showing “aspirina” used generically to refer to aspirin-type pain relievers.
- Bayer argued ASPIRINA was a coined term and asserted that translation and search-engine evidence was unreliable.
- Bayer submitted evidence of foreign registrations for ASPIRINA and argued Spanish-speaking consumers associate the term with Bayer as the source.
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the refusal, finding ASPIRINA **merely descriptive** for analgesics and treating it as a foreign-language equivalent of a descriptive/generic English term.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s determination that **ASPIRINA** is **merely descriptive** of analgesic goods under the Lanham Act, including application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents.
2. Whether Bayer’s evidence (including foreign registrations) required reversal of the TTAB’s refusal to register.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit **affirmed** the TTAB’s refusal to register ASPIRINA.
- The court held that **substantial evidence** supported the finding that ASPIRINA is understood by relevant U.S. consumers, including Spanish speakers, as the equivalent of “aspirin.”
- The court agreed that ASPIRINA would be perceived as describing the product (aspirin-type analgesics), not as indicating a single commercial source.
- The court held Bayer’s foreign registration evidence did not control the outcome because U.S. consumer perception governs registrability.

## Legal Principles

- A mark is **merely descriptive** if it immediately conveys information about an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, or feature of the goods; such marks are not registrable on the Principal Register absent acquired distinctiveness.
- Under the **doctrine of foreign equivalents**, a foreign word that translates to a descriptive English term may be refused registration when relevant U.S. consumers would translate it and perceive it as descriptive.
- On appeal from the TTAB, factual findings (including likely consumer perception and descriptiveness) are reviewed for **substantial evidence**; the reviewing court does not reweigh the record if a reasonable factfinder could reach the Board’s conclusion.
- Evidence such as dictionaries and real-world usage can support a finding that a term functions as a product name or descriptor among relevant language-speaking consumers.
- Foreign trademark registrations are **not controlling** on whether a term is descriptive in the United States.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld the refusal to register ASPIRINA for analgesic goods because the record contained substantial evidence that U.S. consumers, particularly Spanish speakers, would understand “aspirina” as the equivalent of “aspirin” and therefore as a merely descriptive term rather than a source-identifying mark.


In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2007)