Board refuses registration of NATIVE DUAL VOLTAGE and NATIVE DV for battery packs

Decision Desk · August 18, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

Core SWX, LLC sought to register NATIVE DUAL VOLTAGE and NATIVE DV for battery packs. The Board refused registration of both names because they describe how the packs deliver two voltage levels. It also found no acquired distinctiveness, meaning proof that buyers recognized either name as identifying one seller rather than a product feature. Opinion, pp. 1, 46–47.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91287612, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. filed two oppositions, challenges to requests to register marks before registration. Videndum argued that both names described the battery packs. Core SWX argued that NATIVE was a coined word that conveyed no product information to buyers. Opinion, pp. 2, 20.

The Board found that Videndum could bring the challenges because it competed in the battery market, used NATIVE to describe its own products and was developing batteries with two voltage outputs. The Board found that DUAL VOLTAGE describes battery packs that operate at two voltage levels. It found that buyers understood DV as a shortened form of DUAL VOLTAGE. It found that NATIVE refers to voltage produced by a battery’s cell arrangement without conversion circuitry. Opinion, pp. 10, 16, 19–20.

The Board cited a Core SWX email explaining that its packs switch from 14.4 to 28.8 volts without converting the voltage. The Board found that the complete names combine these descriptions without adding a separate meaning that identifies a producer. Opinion, pp. 23, 36.

Core SWX said its commercial use of the names began in July 2022. The Board found no sworn testimony supporting that exact date, although marketing materials showed some commercial activity from about mid-2022. The Board found no buyer surveys or testimony and no advertising or sales figures showing that buyers linked the names to Core SWX. Opinion, pp. 40, 46.

Videndum said it would not pursue a separate claim that the names gave buyers a misleading description, and the Board did not decide that claim. The Board also did not consider Videndum’s later argument that the names failed to identify a seller because Videndum had not made that claim in its original challenges. Opinion, pp. 5–6.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.