In the world of trademark disputes, perception often collides with procedural reality. While brand owners may view their products or services through the lens of marketing, consumer impressions, or real-world business practices, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) approaches these matters with clinical precision. At the heart of this disconnect is a common but critical misunderstanding: the TTAB doesn’t care how you actually sell your product—it cares how you described it in your trademark application.

This isn’t just a procedural technicality. The wording you choose in your identification of goods and services can shape the entire outcome of your case. Whether you’re responding to a refusal based on likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) or defending an application in an opposition proceeding, how you frame your offering on paper matters far more than how your brand functions in the real world.

The Importance of Literal Wording in TTAB Disputes

When the TTAB evaluates a case involving two potentially conflicting marks, one of the first things it looks at is the goods or services associated with each mark. However, contrary to what many brand owners expect, the Board does not consider how those goods are marketed, priced, or consumed in reality. Instead, it considers only the literal wording of the goods and services as they appear in the application or registration.

This means that two businesses may serve completely different audiences in the marketplace—yet if their trademark filings describe the same or overlapping goods in broad terms, the TTAB may still find a likelihood of confusion. For instance, a yoga studio catering exclusively to athletes might describe its services as “fitness instruction.” But if another registrant offers meditation classes and also lists “fitness instruction” in its registration, the TTAB may conclude the services are legally identical, regardless of how different they seem in practice.

This principle is a foundational tenet of TTAB jurisprudence, reiterated in case after case. And yet, many applicants and even some practitioners fall into the trap of making real-world distinctions in their legal arguments, expecting the Board to consider factors that simply don’t matter under its framework.

What the TTAB Actually Considers

According to established TTAB Tips and precedent decisions, the Board follows a strict rule: it compares the identifications of goods and services as written in the application and the cited registration. It does not read limitations or implied nuances into those identifications. If the goods are worded broadly, they are presumed to encompass all possible types of those goods, sold through all normal trade channels, to all typical consumers.

For example, if an applicant lists “tea” in Class 30 and a cited registration also includes “tea,” the Board will assume both marks cover the same product, even if one sells imported ceremonial matcha and the other mass-market iced tea. No amount of real-world brand differentiation can override the written equivalence.

Even when the goods are not identical, if they are closely related in category or purpose, the Board may find a likelihood of confusion based on their relatedness. Again, this evaluation is rooted in how the goods are worded—not how they’re positioned in the market.

The same principle applies to services. Describing something as “educational services” could range from Ivy League lectures to TikTok tutorials. Unless the description is narrowed by clear language, the TTAB must interpret it as broadly as possible.

Why Broad Wording Creates Risk

One of the biggest risks for applicants is overbroad wording in their original filings. In an effort to “cover more ground,” many brands include expansive descriptions of their goods or services. But if your description overlaps—even technically—with that of a registered mark, it may be enough for the TTAB to issue or uphold a refusal.

Moreover, this kind of overbreadth creates serious vulnerabilities during TTAB opposition or cancellation proceedings. An opposer may point to overlapping descriptions, even if their actual businesses are unrelated in practice. And because the Board doesn’t consider the marketing context, your nuanced differentiation may fall flat.

Additionally, overly broad descriptions can lock you into a category that later becomes problematic. You cannot retroactively narrow your identification after publication to resolve a refusal or settle a dispute. If your description is too wide, your only option may be to abandon the application and refile.

Drafting Descriptions with the TTAB in Mind

Understanding how the TTAB interprets goods and services should directly inform how you draft them. While marketing teams often favor expansive language to capture a brand’s vision, legal teams must prioritize clarity and accuracy under TTAB standards.

The best approach is to strike a balance: use language that is specific enough to reflect the core nature of your offering, but broad enough to allow for reasonable expansion or business growth. Avoid boilerplate descriptions that lump together multiple products or service types. Instead, break out categories and tailor each one with precise language.

If your business operates in a highly specialized niche, make sure your descriptions reflect that specificity. For example, instead of listing “software,” consider stating “downloadable software for 3D modeling in architectural design.” This type of phrasing can help avoid unnecessary conflict with broader or unrelated registrations.

The same logic applies when you’re evaluating a likelihood of confusion refusal. Instead of arguing that your tea is different because it’s artisanal or imported, your response should focus on how the literal wording differs—or doesn’t. If you failed to narrow your goods initially, you may be stuck trying to distinguish a category that the TTAB deems identical.

Learning from TTAB Practice

The TTAB Tips published by the Board and its staff attorneys repeatedly caution against arguments based on marketing language or real-world consumer impressions. They remind practitioners that the TTAB is not concerned with how goods are positioned in the marketplace, how they are priced, or how sophisticated the typical buyer may be—unless such considerations are reflected in the application or registration itself.

Practitioners who ignore this often waste valuable time and effort arguing points the Board cannot legally consider. Instead, successful strategy begins at the filing stage, where thoughtful descriptions set the tone for any future dispute.

Even in litigation, the best defenses focus on the language in the record. When evaluating a potential opposition, check the identifications first. When deciding whether to settle or fight, consider how the Board will interpret the overlap in language. When arguing against a 2(d) refusal, lead with precision, not marketing.

Final Thoughts

Before you craft your next trademark application or respond to a TTAB action, take a step back and ask yourself a simple question: what does the description literally say?

Because when your case ends up before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, your Instagram feed, packaging design, or press coverage won’t matter. Only the black-and-white language in your goods and services description will.

The TTAB doesn’t care about your marketing—and that’s exactly why your wording must be drafted with surgical precision.