MEMORANDUM **
The Herbal Chef, LLC (“The Herbal Chef”) appeals the district courts summary judgment holding that its mark, THE HERBAL CHEF, is not inherently distinctive and the subsequent dismissal of its federal and state unfair-competition and trademark infringement claims. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Zobmondo Entmt., LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, 602 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
1. We agree with the district court that THE HERBAL CHEF is at most descriptive, rather than suggestive, of The Herbal Chefs catering, educational, and advocacy services involving cooking with infused cannabis. A descriptive mark “define[s] qualities or characteristics of a product in a straightforward way,” whereas a suggestive mark “convey[s] impressions of goods that require the consumer to ‘use imagination or any type of multistage reasoning to understand the marks significance.’ ” Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1141–42 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Zobmondo, 602 F.3d at 1114.
Neither party disputes that the dictionary definitions of “herbal”—which include a slang term for marijuana—and “chef,” when combined, directly describe The Herbal Chefs services, which include cooking with marijuana. Rather, The Herbal Chef argues that its mark is suggestive because it offers goods and services in addition to cooking with cannabis. This argument fails both because “a mark ‘need not recite each feature of the relevant goods or services in detail to be descriptive,’ ” Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Dial–A–Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001)), and also because The Herbal Chef submitted no evidence that it actually sold cookware at the relevant time.
Nor does the fact that THE HERBAL CHEF abbreviates to THC, an acronym for one of the psychoactive ingredients in cannabis, mean that an imaginative or mental leap is required to understand the nature of The Herbal Chefs cannabis-related services. See Zobmondo, 602 F.3d at 1116 (“The imagination test does not ask what information about the product could be derived from a mark, but rather whether ‘a mental leap is required’ to understand the marks relationship to the product.” (quoting Rudolph Intl, Inc. v. Realys, Inc., 482 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2007))).
2. The district court did not err in considering the United States Patent and Trademark Offices (“PTO”) non-final denial of The Herbal Chefs federal trademark registration based in part on its determination that THE HERBAL CHEF was descriptive of a chef who specializes in cooking with infused marijuana. The district court addressed all of the record evidence, which included the relevant trademark prosecution history. Moreover, consideration of the PTOs determination as to whether a mark is descriptive or suggestive “is sensible because the PTO has special expertise that we lack on this fact-intensive issue.” Lahoti, 586 F.3d at 1199.
3. The Herbal Chef further argues that its mark should be presumed inherently distinctive because the PTO registered AFG Distribution, Inc.’s nearly identical mark, “Herbal Chef,” for baking and cooking products, including herb and cannabis infusers. See id. (“Although the statutory presumption of distinctiveness applies only when the mark holders own mark has been registered, courts may also defer to the PTOs registration of highly similar marks.”). On the record before us, however, The Herbal Chefs catering and educational services are not the same as AFGs cooking products, and “[w]hether a mark is suggestive or descriptive ‘can be determined only by reference to the goods or services that it identifies.’ ” Id. at 1201 (quoting Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 1987)). Consequently, we agree with the district court that AFGs registration does not bear on the distinctiveness of The Herbal Chefs mark.
AFFIRMED.