On December 9, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision reversing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) refusal to register the trademark KAHWA for use in connection with cafes and coffee shops.
This decision clarifies how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office evaluates marks that involve foreign words and reinforces important principles about genericness and descriptiveness under U.S. trademark law.
Background: How KAHWA Was Initially Refused
Bayou Grande Coffee Roasting Company sought federal trademark registration for the mark KAHWA covering cafe and coffee shop services. The examining attorney refused the application, asserting that the term was either generic or merely descriptive.
Why? The refusal relied on the doctrine of foreign equivalents, which directs trademark examiners and courts to translate foreign words to determine whether they describe the goods or services at issue.
Specifically, the examining attorney argued that kahwa means “coffee” in Arabic and therefore simply described cafe services. Bayou responded that the term refers to a specific traditional Kashmiri green tea beverage and does not function as a generic or descriptive term for cafes or coffee shops. The TTAB ultimately upheld the refusal on both genericness and descriptiveness grounds.
The Appeal: Key Legal Questions
Bayou appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit, challenging both the factual findings and the legal framework used by the Board. The company argued that the Board relied on meanings that were not supported by the evidentiary record and that the doctrine of foreign equivalents was misapplied.
Central to the appeal was whether there was substantial evidence showing that relevant consumers understood KAHWA as the common name for cafe services or as a term that immediately described a characteristic of those services.
The Federal Circuit’s Analysis
The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s decision on all grounds.
Why? First, the court explained that a finding of genericness requires evidence that consumers perceive the term as the common name for the goods or services. The record contained no evidence that cafes or coffee shops in the United States sell kahwa as a product or that consumers understand the term as the generic name for cafe services. Without evidence of consumer perception, the genericness refusal could not stand.
The court also rejected the Board’s descriptiveness finding. To be merely descriptive, a term must immediately convey information about a feature or characteristic of the services. The Federal Circuit found no evidence that consumers would instantly understand KAHWA to describe cafes or coffee shops, particularly where the alleged meaning referred to a specific beverage that was not shown to be commonly offered by such businesses.
Finally, the court addressed the doctrine of foreign equivalents. Because the parties did not dispute that kahwa has an established English meaning referring to a particular tea, the court held that translation was unnecessary. As a result, the doctrine of foreign equivalents did not apply and could not support the refusal.
Why This Decision Matters
The KAHWA decision offers several important takeaways for businesses and brand owners:
Consumer perception is critical. Genericness and descriptiveness depend on how real consumers understand a term, not on assumptions or dictionary translations alone.
Evidence matters. The USPTO must support refusals with concrete evidence showing how a term is used and understood in the marketplace.
Foreign-word marks are not automatically unregistrable. When a term has an established English meaning, the doctrine of foreign equivalents may not apply.
For businesses seeking trademark protection, this case underscores the importance of challenging unsupported refusals and building a record that reflects how consumers actually encounter and interpret a brand. It also highlights that trademark law focuses on marketplace reality, not theoretical meanings.
Want help making sure you create a strong trademark? Get in touch.