Sections 1209 through 1213, extracted
by Jefferson Scher on June 20, 2009. Links in the text return to the USPTO web site. Some citations, paragraphs, and subsections omitted.
[Mere Descriptiveness]
[Geographic]
[Surname]
[Secondary Meaning]
[Disclaimers]
Chapter 1200
Substantive Examination of Applications
Extract from 15 U.S.C. §1052. No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it .... (e) Consists of a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them....
Matter that "merely describes" the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used is not registrable on the Principal Register. As noted in In re Abcor Development Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 813, 200 USPQ 215, 217 (C.C.P.A. 1978):
The major reasons for not protecting such marks are: (1) to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods; and (2) to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark when advertising or describing their own products.
With regard to trademark significance, matter may be categorized along a continuum, ranging from marks that are highly distinctive to matter that is a generic name for the goods or services. The degree of distinctiveness – or, on the other hand, descriptiveness – of a designation can be determined only by considering it in relation to the specific goods or services. Remington Products, Inc. v. North American Philips Corp., 892 F.2d 1576, 13 USPQ2d 1444, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (the mark must be considered in context, i.e., in connection with the goods).
At one extreme are marks that, when used in relation to the goods or services, are completely arbitrary or fanciful. Next on the continuum are suggestive marks, followed by merely descriptive matter. Finally, generic terms for the goods or services are at the opposite end of the continuum from arbitrary or fanciful marks. As stated in H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., "[t]he generic name of a thing is in fact the ultimate in descriptiveness."
Fanciful, arbitrary and suggestive marks, often referred to as "inherently distinctive" marks, are registrable on the Principal Register without proof of acquired distinctiveness. See TMEP §1209.01(a).
Marks that are merely descriptive of the goods or services may not be registered on the Principal Register absent a showing of acquired distinctiveness under 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). See TMEP §1209.01(b) regarding merely descriptive marks, and TMEP §§1212 et seq. regarding acquired distinctiveness. Merely descriptive marks may be registrable on the Supplemental Register in applications under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. §1091.
Matter that is generic for the goods or services is not registrable on either the Principal or the Supplemental Register under any circumstances. See TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq.
Fanciful marks comprise terms that have been invented for the sole purpose of functioning as a trademark or service mark. Such marks comprise words that are either unknown in the language (e.g., PEPSI, KODAK, EXXON) or are completely out of common usage (e.g., FLIVVER).
Arbitrary marks comprise words that are in common linguistic use but, when used to identify particular goods or services, do not suggest or describe a significant ingredient, quality or characteristic of the goods or services (e.g., APPLE for computers; OLD CROW for whiskey).
Suggestive marks are those that, when applied to the goods or services at issue, require imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of those goods or services. Thus, a suggestive term differs from a descriptive term, which immediately tells something about the goods or services. See In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE held not merely descriptive of a snow removal hand tool). See also In re Quik-Print Copy Shop, Inc., 203 USPQ 624 (TTAB 1979), aff'd, 616 F.2d 523, 205 USPQ 505 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (QUIK-PRINT held merely descriptive of printing services); In re Aid Laboratories, Inc., 223 USPQ 357 (TTAB 1984) (BUG MIST held merely descriptive of insecticide). Suggestive marks, like fanciful and arbitrary marks, are registrable on the Principal Register without proof of secondary meaning. Therefore, a designation does not have to be devoid of all meaning in relation to the goods/services to be registrable.
To be refused registration on the Principal Register under §2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), a mark must be merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services to which it relates. A mark is considered merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods or services. See In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (APPLE PIE held merely descriptive of potpourri); In re Bed & Breakfast Registry, 791 F.2d 157, 229 USPQ 818 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY held merely descriptive of lodging reservations services); In re MetPath Inc., 223 USPQ 88 (TTAB 1984) (MALE-P.A.P. TEST held merely descriptive of clinical pathological immunoassay testing services for detecting and monitoring prostatic cancer); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979) (COASTER-CARDS held merely descriptive of a coaster suitable for direct mailing).
The determination of whether or not a mark is merely descriptive must be made in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract. This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used or intended to be used in connection with those goods/services, and the possible significance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods or services in the marketplace. The mark need not describe all the goods and services identified, as long as it merely describes one of them. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1041, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[T]he Trademark Office may require a disclaimer as a condition of registration if the mark is merely descriptive for at least one of the products or services involved.")
It is not necessary that a term describe all of the purposes, functions, characteristics or features of a product to be considered merely descriptive; it is enough if the term describes one significant function, attribute or property.
The great variation in facts from case to case prevents the formulation of specific rules for specific fact situations. Each case must be decided on its own merits.
See TMEP §§1209.03 et seq. regarding factors that often arise in determining whether a mark is merely descriptive or generic.
See also TMEP §§1213 et seq. concerning disclaimer of merely descriptive matter within a mark.
Generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services. These terms are incapable of functioning as registrable trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) or on the Supplemental Register.
There is a two-part test used to determine whether a designation is generic: (1) What is the class of goods or services at issue? and (2) Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that class of goods or services? The test turns upon the primary significance that the term would have to the relevant public.
The examining attorney has the burden of proving that a term is generic by clear evidence. Evidence of the public's understanding of a term can be obtained from any competent source, including dictionary definitions, research databases, newspapers and other publications. Applicant's website and the websites of others are also proper sources of evidence as to the meaning of the proposed mark and the manner in which it is used in relation to the goods/services. In re Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 82 USPQ2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (In holding LAWYERS.COM generic for "providing an online interactive database featuring information exchange in the fields of law, legal news and legal services," the Board properly considered applicant's website and eight other websites containing "lawyer.com" or "lawyers.com to determine the meaning of applicant's "information exchange about legal services.")
When a term is a compound word, the examining attorney may establish that a term is generic by producing evidence that each of the constituent words is generic, and that the separate words retain their generic significance when joined to form a compound that has "a meaning identical to the meaning common usage would ascribe to those words as a compound." In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1111-1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE held generic as applied to premoistened antistatic cloths for cleaning computer and television screens).
However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has expressly limited the holding in Gould to "compound terms formed by the union of words" where the public understands the individual terms to be generic for a genus of goods or services, and the joining of the individual terms into one compound word lends "no additional meaning to the term." Where the mark is a phrase, the examining attorney cannot simply cite definitions and generic uses of the individual components of the mark, but must provide evidence of the meaning of the composite mark as a whole.
In American Fertility Society, the court held that evidence that the components "Society" and "Reproductive Medicine" were generic was not enough to establish that the composite phrase SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE was generic for association services in the field of reproductive medicine. The court held that the examining attorney must show: (1) the genus of services that the applicant provides; and (2) that the relevant public understands the proposed composite mark to primarily refer to that genus of services.
In Dial-A-Mattress, the court held that an alphanumeric phone number "bears closer conceptual resemblance to a phrase than a compound word." The court found that 1-888-M-A-T-R-E-S-S was not generic as applied to "telephone shop-at-home retail services in the field of mattresses," because there was no evidence of record that the public understood the term to refer to shop-at-home telephone mattress retailers. Therefore, to establish that a mnemonic phone number is generic, the examining attorney must show that the relevant public would understand the mark as a whole to have generic significance.
With respect to Internet domain names, even if the evidence shows that the individual components that make up the proposed mark are generic, one must determine whether joining the individual terms creates a composite that is itself generic. In very rare instances, the addition of a top-level domain indicator ("TLD") to an otherwise generic term may operate to create a distinctive mark. In In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1299, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit reversed the Board's determination that STEELBUILDING.COM is generic for "computerized on-line retail services in the field of pre-engineered metal buildings and roofing systems." The Court criticized the Board for considering STEELBUILDING and .COM separately, stating that "[i]n this unusual case, the addition of the TLD indicator expanded the meaning of the mark to include goods and services beyond the mere sale of steel buildings. Specifically, the TLD expanded the mark to include internet services that include 'building' or designing steel structures on the web site and then calculating an appropriate price before ordering the unique structure."
The Court also criticized the Board for relying only on evidence that the separate terms "steel building" or "steel buildings" are generic, where the terms were joined together in the subject mark:
The record does not contain any examination of dictionary definitions or other sources that might have indicated that joining the separate words "steel" and "building" would create a word that, in context, would be generic. The Board merely cited evidence that showed that when customers or competitors talked about a steel building, they used the phrase "steel building." That evidence shows that "steel building" is generic, but does not address directly the composite term STEELBUILDING.
Thus, to establish that a proposed mark comprising an Internet domain name is generic, the examining attorney must show that the relevant public would understand the mark as a whole to have generic significance. See In re DNI Holdings Ltd., 77 USPQ2d 1435 (TTAB 2005) (SPORTSBETTING.COM held generic for "provision of casino games on and through a global computer network wherein there are no actual monetary wagers; provision of contests and sweepstakes on and through a global computer network; providing a web site on and through a global computer network featuring information in the fields of gaming, athletic competition and entertainment...," where the record included multiple examples of use of the terms "sports betting" as well as the jointed terms "sportsbetting" by both applicant and its competitors to refer to both sports wagering and providing information about sports wagering, and there was no indication of a realistic alternative connotation of the compound term. See also TMEP §§1209.03(m) and 1215.05 regarding domain names comprising generic matter.)
The following sections discuss factors and situations that often arise during a determination of whether a mark is descriptive or generic.
Third-party registrations are not conclusive on the question of descriptiveness. Each case must stand on its own merits, and a mark that is merely descriptive should not be registered on the Principal Register simply because other such marks appear on the register. In re Scholastic Testing Service, Inc., 196 USPQ 517 (TTAB 1977) (SCHOLASTIC held merely descriptive of devising, scoring and validating tests for others). The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive must be determined based on the evidence of record at the time registration is sought. See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS held merely descriptive of computer software for use in development and deployment of application programs on a global computer network).
The fact that a term is not found in a dictionary is not controlling on the question of registrability if the examining attorney can show that the term has a well understood and recognized meaning.
The fact that an applicant may be the first and only user of a merely descriptive or generic designation does not justify registration if the only significance conveyed by the term is merely descriptive. See In re National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., 219 USPQ 1018 (TTAB 1983) (SHOOTING, HUNTING, OUTDOOR TRADE SHOW AND CONFERENCE held apt descriptive name for conducting and arranging trade shows in the hunting, shooting and outdoor sports products field). See also TMEP §1212.06(e)(i) and cases cited therein.
When two descriptive terms are combined, the determination of whether the composite mark also has a descriptive significance turns upon the question of whether the combination of terms evokes a new and unique commercial impression. If each component retains its descriptive significance in relation to the goods or services, the combination results in a composite that is itself descriptive. In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (PATENTS.COM merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database of records that could include patents and for tracking the status of the records by means of the Internet); In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110, 1111-1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE held generic as applied to premoistened antistatic cloths for cleaning computer and television screens); In re Cox Enterprises Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040 (TTAB 2007) (THEATL – a compressed version of the term "THE ATL," a recognized nickname for the city of Atlanta – held merely descriptive of printed matter of interest to residents of and tourists and visitors to Atlanta, Georgia); In re King Koil Licensing Co. Inc., 79 USPQ2d 1048 (TTAB 2006) (THE BREATHABLE MATTRESS held merely descriptive of "beds, mattresses, box springs and pillows," based on dictionary definitions of "breathable" and "mattress," and excerpts of web pages that refer to "breathable mattresses" and "breathable bedding"); In re Finisar Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1618 (TTAB 2006), aff'd per curiam, No. 2006-1463, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11535 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2007) (SMARTSFP held merely descriptive of optical transceivers); In re Tower Tech, Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2002) (SMARTTOWER merely descriptive of "commercial and industrial cooling towers and accessories therefor, sold as a unit"); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) (AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer software for use in development and deployment of application programs on global computer network); In re Putman Publishing Co., 39 USPQ2d 2021 (TTAB 1996) (FOOD & BEVERAGE ONLINE merely descriptive of news and information service for the food processing industry); In re Copytele Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1540 (TTAB 1994) (SCREEN FAX PHONE merely descriptive of "facsimile terminals employing electrophoretic displays"); In re Entenmann's Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1750 (TTAB 1990), aff'd per curiam, 928 F.2d 411 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (OATNUT be merely descriptive of bread containing oats and hazelnuts); In re Serv-A-Portion Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1915 (TTAB 1986) (SQUEEZE N SERV merely descriptive of ketchup and thus subject to disclaimer); In re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95 (TTAB 1986) (EXPRESSERVICE merely descriptive of banking and trust services); In re Uniroyal, Inc., 215 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1982) (STEELGLAS BELTED RADIAL merely descriptive of vehicle tires containing steel and glass belts); In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979) (COASTER-CARDS merely descriptive of coasters suitable for direct mailing).
However, a mark comprising a combination of merely descriptive components is registrable if the combination of terms creates a unitary mark with a unique, nondescriptive meaning, or if the composite has a bizarre or incongruous meaning as applied to the goods. See In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE held not merely descriptive of bakery products); In re Shutts, 217 USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983) (SNO-RAKE held not merely descriptive of a snow removal hand tool).
When there is evidence that the composite mark itself has been used together to form a phrase that is descriptive of the goods or services, it is unnecessary to engage in an analysis of each individual component. In re Shiva Corp., 48 USPQ2d 1957 (TTAB 1998) (TARIFF MANAGEMENT merely descriptive of computer hardware and computer programs to control, reduce and render more efficient wide area network usage).
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that the addition of the prefix "e" does not change the merely descriptive significance of a term in relation to goods or services sold or rendered electronically, where the record showed that the "e" prefix has become commonly recognized as a designation for goods or services sold or delivered electronically. In re International Business Machines Corp., 81 USPQ2d 1677, 1679 (TTAB 2006) ("We see no difference in the meaning or connotation of 'e-server' and 'eserver,' and consider them both to be an abbreviated form of 'electronic server.'"); In re SPX Corp., 63 USPQ2d 1592 (TTAB 2002) (E-AUTODIAGNOSTICS merely descriptive of an "electronic engine analysis system comprised of a hand-held computer and related computer software"); In re Styleclick.com Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1445 (TTAB 2000) (E FASHION merely descriptive of software used to obtain beauty and fashion information, and for electronic retailing services); Continental Airlines Inc. v. United Airlines Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1385 (TTAB 1999) (E-TICKET generic for computerized reservation and ticketing of transportation services). Similarly, with appropriate evidence, the prefix "i" or "I" was held to be understood by purchasers to signify Internet, when used in relation to Internet-related products or services. See In re Zanova, Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1300 (TTAB 2000) (ITOOL merely descriptive of computer software for use in creating web pages, and custom design of websites for others). In these situations, the examining attorney should provide evidence of use of the prefix "e" or "i" in relation to the goods or services.
The addition of an entity designator (e.g., Corporation, Corp., Co., Inc., Ltd., etc.) to a descriptive term does not alter the term's descriptive significance, because an entity designation has no source-indicating capacity. See TMEP §1213.03(d) regarding disclaimer of entity designators.
Descriptiveness must be determined in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought. Therefore, the fact that a term may have a different meaning(s) in a different context is not controlling. If a term has a primary significance that is descriptive in relation to at least one of the recited goods/services, and does not create any double entendre or incongruity, then the term is merely descriptive.
See TMEP §1213.05(c) regarding wording that constitutes a "double entendre."
A visual representation that consists merely of an illustration of the goods, or of an article that is an important feature or characteristic of the goods or services, is merely descriptive under §2(e)(1) of the Act. See In re Society for Private and Commercial Earth Stations, 226 USPQ 436 (TTAB 1985) (representation of satellite dish held merely descriptive of services of an association promoting the interests of members of the earth station industry); In re Underwater Connections, Inc., 221 USPQ 95 (TTAB 1983) (pictorial representation of a compressed air gas tank held merely descriptive of travel tour services involving underwater diving). But see In re LRC Products Ltd., 223 USPQ 1250 (TTAB 1984) (stylized hand design found not merely an illustration of the goods, i.e., gloves; thus not merely descriptive).
The foreign equivalent of a merely descriptive English word is no more registrable than the English word itself. Words from modern languages are translated into English to determine descriptiveness or genericness. The test is whether, to those American buyers familiar with the foreign language, the word would have a descriptive or generic connotation. In re Zazzara, 156 USPQ 348 (TTAB 1967) (PIZZA FRITTE, the Italian equivalent of "fried buns," held incapable for fried dough). See In re Oriental Daily News, Inc., 230 USPQ 637 (TTAB 1986) (Chinese characters that translate as ORIENTAL DAILY NEWS held merely descriptive of newspapers); In re Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 227 USPQ 813 (TTAB 1985) (SAPORITO, an Italian word meaning "tasty," held merely descriptive because it describes a desirable characteristic of applicant's dry sausage); In re Optica International, 196 USPQ 775 (TTAB 1977) (OPTIQUE, a French word meaning "optic," held merely descriptive of eyeglass frames).
While foreign words are generally translated into English for purposes of determining descriptiveness, foreign words from dead or obscure languages may be so unfamiliar to the American buying public that they should not be translated into English for descriptiveness purposes. The determination of whether a language is "dead" must be made on a case-by-case basis, based upon the meaning that the term would have to the relevant purchasing public.
Example: Latin is generally considered a dead language. However, if there is evidence that a Latin term is still in use by the relevant purchasing public (e.g., if the term appears in current dictionaries or news articles), then a Latin term is not considered dead. The same analysis should be applied to other uncommon languages.
Arbitrary and incongruous combinations of English terms with terms from a foreign language have been found registrable. See In re Johanna Farms Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1408 (TTAB 1988) (LA YOGURT for yogurt registrable on Principal Register, with a disclaimer of "YOGURT"); In re Universal Package Corp., 222 USPQ 344 (TTAB 1984) (LE CASE not merely descriptive of jewelry boxes and gift boxes and, therefore, registrable with a disclaimer of "CASE").
A term that identifies a group to whom the applicant directs its goods or services is merely descriptive. See In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453 (TTAB 2004) (GASBUYER merely descriptive of risk management services in the field of pricing and purchasing natural gas); Hunter Publishing Co. v. Caulfield Publishing Ltd., 1 USPQ2d 1996 (TTAB 1986) (SYSTEMS USER found merely descriptive of a trade journal directed toward users of large data processing systems; evidence sufficient to establish distinctiveness under §2(f)); In re Camel Mfg. Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 1031 (TTAB 1984) (MOUNTAIN CAMPER held merely descriptive of retail mail order services in the field of outdoor equipment and apparel).
A slight misspelling of a word will not turn a descriptive or generic word into a non-descriptive mark. See C-Thru Ruler Co. v. Needleman, 190 USPQ 93 (E.D. Pa. 1976) (C-THRU held to be the equivalent of "see-through" and, therefore, merely descriptive of transparent rulers and drafting aids); In re Hubbard Milling Co., 6 USPQ2d 1239 (TTAB 1987) (MINERAL-LYX held generic for mineral licks for feeding livestock).
Laudatory terms, those that attribute quality or excellence to goods or services, are merely descriptive under §2(e)(1). See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE ULTIMATE BIKE RACK found to be merely descriptive and, therefore, subject to disclaimer); In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so highly laudatory and descriptive as applied to beer and ale that it is incapable of acquiring distinctiveness); In re Best Software Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 2001) (the words BEST and PREMIER in mark BEST! SUPPORTPLUS PREMIER merely descriptive of computer consultation and support services and thus subject to disclaimer); In re Dos Padres Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1860 (TTAB 1998) (QUESO QUESADILLA SUPREME merely descriptive of cheese); In re Consolidated Cigar Co., 35 USPQ2d 1290 (TTAB 1995) (SUPER BUY merely descriptive of tobacco products); General Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990 (TTAB 1984) (ORIGINAL BLEND merely descriptive of cat food).
If an applicant applies to register a designation that consists of a merely descriptive term with numerals in the form of an alphanumeric telephone number (e.g., 800, 888 or 900 followed by a word), the examining attorney should refuse registration under §2(e)(1). See In re Page, 51 USPQ2d 1660 (TTAB 1999) (888 PATENTS merely descriptive of patent-related legal services). The fact that a designation is in the form of a telephone number is insufficient, by itself, to render it distinctive.
If the relevant term is merely descriptive, but not generic, the mark may be registered on the Principal Register with a proper showing of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f), or on the Supplemental Register if appropriate. See Express Mortgage Brokers Inc. v. Simpson Mortgage Inc., 31 USPQ2d 1371 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (369-CASH held merely descriptive but shown to have acquired distinctiveness as applied to mortgage brokering and mortgage-related services). Of course, the designation must also be used in the manner of a mark. See TMEP §§1202 et seq. regarding use as a mark.
If the proposed mark is generic, the designation is unregistrable on either the Principal or the Supplemental Register. However, to support a refusal of registration on the ground that a telephone number is generic, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that it is not enough to show that the telephone number consists of a non-source-indicating area code and a generic term. The examining attorney must show evidence of the meaning the relevant purchasing public accords the proposed alphanumeric mark as a whole. In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1811 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also Dial-A-Mattress Franchise Corp. v. Page, 880 F.2d 675, 11 USPQ2d 1644 (2d Cir. 1989) (use of confusingly similar telephone number enjoined). But see Dranoff-Perlstein Associates v. Sklar, 967 F.2d 852, 23 USPQ2d 1174, 1178 (3d Cir. 1992) ("[W]e decline to adopt the position espoused by the Second Circuit that telephone numbers which correlate to generic terms may be protectible as trademarks.... If telephone numbers that correlate to generic terms were granted protection, the first firm in a given market to obtain such a telephone number would, merely by winning the race to the telephone company, gain an unfair advantage over its competitors.") (footnotes omitted); 800 Spirits Inc. v. Liquor By Wire, Inc., 14 F. Supp. 2d 675 (D.N.J. 1998) (800 SPIRITS generic for "gift delivery service of alcohol beverages").
A mark comprised of an Internet domain name is registrable as a trademark or service mark only if it functions as an identifier of the source of goods or services. Portions of the uniform resource locator ("URL"), including the beginning, ("http://www.") and the top-level Internet domain name ("TLD") (e.g., ".com," ".org," ".edu,") function to indicate an address on the World Wide Web, and therefore generally serve no source indicating function. See TMEP §§1215 et seq. for further information.
The TLD typically signifies the type of entity for whom use of the cyberspace has been reserved. For example, the TLD ".com" signifies to the public that the user of the domain name constitutes a commercial entity, ".edu" signifies an educational institution, ".biz" signifies a business, and ".net" signifies an Internet business.
Because TLDs generally serve no source-indicating function, their addition to an otherwise unregistrable mark typically cannot render it registrable. In re Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., 482 F.3d 1376, 82 USPQ2d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (LAWYERS.COM generic for "providing an online interactive database featuring information exchange in the fields of law, legal news and legal services"); In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 71 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (PATENTS.COM merely descriptive of computer software for managing a database of records and for tracking the status of the records by means of the Internet); In re Eddie Z's Blinds and Drapery, Inc., 74 USPQ2d 1037 (TTAB 2005) (BLINDSANDDRAPERY.COM generic for retail store services featuring blinds, draperies and other wall coverings, sold via the Internet); In re Microsoft Corp., 68 USPQ2d 1195, 1203 (TTAB 2003) ("The combination of the specific term and TLD at issue, i.e., OFFICE and .NET, does not create any double entendre, incongruity, or any other basis upon which we can find the composite any more registrable than its separate elements. The combination immediately informs prospective purchasers that the software includes 'office suite' type software and is from an Internet business, i.e., a '.net' type business."); In re CyberFinancial.Net, Inc., 65 USPQ2d 1789, 1792 (TTAB 2002) ("Applicant seeks to register the generic term 'bonds,' which has no source-identifying significance in connection with applicant's services, in combination with the top level domain indicator ".com," which also has no source-identifying significance. And combining the two terms does not create a term capable of identifying and distinguishing applicant's services."); In re Martin Container, Inc., 65 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (TTAB 2002) ("[N]either the generic term nor the domain indicator has the capability of functioning as an indication of source, and combining the two does not result in a compound term that has somehow acquired this capability.").
However, there is no bright-line, per se rule that the addition of a TLD to an otherwise descriptive mark will never, under any circumstances, operate to create a registrable mark. The Federal Circuit has cautioned that in rare, exceptional circumstances, a term that is not distinctive by itself may acquire some additional meaning from the addition of a TLD such as ".com" or ".net." In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (STEELBUILDING.COM for "computerized on line retail services in the field of pre-engineered metal buildings and roofing systems" held highly descriptive, but not generic).
Thus, when examining domain name marks, it is important to evaluate the commercial impression of the mark as a whole to determine whether the composite mark conveys any distinctive source-identifying impression apart from its individual components. The examining attorney should introduce evidence as to the significance of the individual components, including the TLD, but must also consider the significance of the composite to determine whether the addition of a TLD has resulted in a mark that conveys a source-identifying impression. See In re DNI Holdings Ltd., 77 USPQ2d 1435 (TTAB 2005) (SPORTSBETTING.COM held generic for "provision of casino games on and through a global computer network wherein there are no actual monetary wagers; provision of contests and sweepstakes on and through a global computer network; [and] providing a web site on and through a global computer network featuring information in the fields of gaming, athletic competition and entertainment....").
See TMEP §§1215.04 and 1215.05 for further discussion of TLDs combined with descriptive or generic terminology.
If "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" appears in a phrase or slogan, the examining attorney must evaluate the entire mark to determine whether it is merely descriptive as laudatory or even incapable. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so highly laudatory and descriptive as applied to beer and ale that it is incapable of acquiring distinctiveness); In re Carvel Corp., 223 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1984) (AMERICA'S FRESHEST ICE CREAM held incapable); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1978) (AMERICA'S FAVORITE POPCORN held merely descriptive). Typically, these marks primarily extol the quality or popularity of the goods or services and secondarily denote geographic origin. The examining attorney must look at each mark to determine whether it is capable, considering all relevant circumstances and case law.
See TMEP §1210.02(b)(iv) and cases cited therein regarding use of terms such as "AMERICA," "AMERICAN," and "USA" in a way that is primarily geographically descriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2), primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3), or deceptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).
The terms "NATIONAL" and "INTERNATIONAL" have been held to be merely descriptive of services that are nationwide or international in scope. See Jefferson Bankshares Inc. v. Jefferson Savings Bank, 14 USPQ2d 1443 (W.D. Va. 1989) (NATIONAL BANK merely descriptive of banking services); National Automobile Club v. National Auto Club, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 879, 180 USPQ 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'd, 502 F.2d 1162 (2d Cir. 1974) (NATIONAL merely descriptive of auto club services); In re Institutional Investor, Inc., 229 USPQ 614 (TTAB 1986) (INTERNATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTE for organizing seminars for bank leaders of major countries held incapable); In re Billfish International Corp., 229 USPQ 152 (TTAB 1986) (BILLFISH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION merely descriptive of corporation involved with billfish on an international scale); In re National Rent A Fence, Inc., 220 USPQ 479 (TTAB 1983) (NATIONAL RENT A FENCE merely descriptive of nationwide fence rental services); BankAmerica Corp. v. International Travelers Cheque Co., 205 USPQ 1233 (TTAB 1979) (INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS CHEQUE merely descriptive of financial consulting services that are international in scope); National Fidelity Life Insurance v. National Insurance Trust, 199 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1978) (NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST merely descriptive of services of handling administrative matters in locating suitable insurance coverage for attorneys).
Terms that identify the function or purpose of a product or service may be merely descriptive or generic under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (SCREENWIPE held generic for an anti-static cloth used for cleaning computer and television screens); In re Box Solutions Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1953 (TTAB 2006) (SOLUTIONS merely descriptive of the purpose of applicant's computer hardware – to resolve a problem – and must be disclaimed); In re Hunter Fan Co., 78 USPQ2d 1474 (TTAB 2006) (ERGONOMIC held merely descriptive of ceiling fans); In re Central Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d 1194 (TTAB 1998) (ATTIC generic for sprinklers installed primarily in attics); In re Reckitt & Colman, North America Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1389 (TTAB 1991) (PERMA PRESS generic for soil and stain removers for use on permanent press products); In re Wallyball, Inc., 222 USPQ 87 (TTAB 1984) (WALLYBALL held descriptive of sports clothing and game equipment); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977) (BURGER held merely descriptive of cooking utensils); In re Orleans Wines, Ltd., 196 USPQ 516 (TTAB 1977) (BREADSPRED held merely descriptive of jams and jellies).
Terms that identify the source or provider of a product or service may be merely descriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1) or generic. In re Major League Umpires, 60 USPQ2d 1059 (TTAB 2001) (MAJOR LEAGUE UMPIRE merely descriptive of clothing, face masks, chest protectors and skin guards); In re Taylor & Francis [Publishers] Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1213 (TTAB 2000) (PSYCHOLOGY PRESS merely descriptive of books in the field of psychology); In re The Paint Products Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863 (TTAB 1988) (PAINT PRODUCTS COMPANY incapable for paint); In re The Phone Co., Inc., 218 USPQ 1027 (TTAB 1983) (THE PHONE COMPANY merely descriptive of telephones).
A term that is generic for goods is descriptive of retail store services featuring those goods, when the goods are not a significant item typically sold in the type of store in question. In re Pencils Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1410 (TTAB 1988) (PENCILS held merely descriptive of office supply store services). However, where the matter sought to be registered identifies the primary articles of a store or distributorship service, the term is considered generic. In re Lens.com, Inc., 83 USPQ2d 1444 (TTAB 2007) (LENS generic for "retail store services featuring contact eyewear products rendered via a global computer network"); In re Eddie Z's Blinds and Drapery, Inc., 74 USPQ2d 1037 (TTAB 2005) (BLINDSANDDRAPERY.COM generic for retail store services featuring blinds, draperies and other wall coverings, conducted via the Internet); In re Candy Bouquet International, Inc., 73 USPQ2d 1883 (TTAB 2004) (CANDY BOUQUET generic for "retail, mail, and computer order services in the field of gift packages of candy"); In re A La Vieille Russie, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 2001) (RUSSIANART generic for dealership services in the field of fine art, antiques, furniture and jewelry); In re Log Cabin Homes Ltd., 52 USPQ2d 1206 (TTAB 1999) (LOG CABIN HOMES generic for retail outlets selling kits for building log homes); In re Bonni Keller Collections Ltd., 6 USPQ2d 1224 (TTAB 1987) (LA LINGERIE generic for retail stores specializing in the sale of lingerie); In re Wickerware, Inc., 227 USPQ 970 (TTAB 1985) (WICKERWARE generic for mail order and distributorship services in the field of products made of wicker); In re Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc., 225 USPQ 219 (TTAB 1984) (HALF PRICE BOOKS RECORDS MAGAZINES generic for retail book and record store services). The examining attorney, therefore, must analyze the term in relation to the services recited, the context in which it is used and the possible significance it would have to the recipient of the services.
Slogans that are considered to be merely informational in nature, or to be common laudatory phrases or statements that would ordinarily be used in business or in the particular trade or industry, are not registrable. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so highly laudatory and descriptive as applied to beer and ale that it is incapable of acquiring distinctiveness). See TMEP §1202.04 and cases cited therein.
The mere repetition of a merely descriptive term does not negate the mere descriptiveness of the mark as a whole, unless the combination is such as to create a new and different commercial impression from that which is engendered by the separate components. See In re Litehouse, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1471 (TTAB 2007) (CAESAR! CAESAR! merely descriptive of salad dressing); In re Disc Jockeys, Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1715 (TTAB 1992) (DJDJ merely descriptive of disc jockey services).
The use of a common punctuation mark is not sufficient to negate the mere descriptiveness of a term. See In re Litehouse, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1471 (TTAB 2007) (CAESAR! CAESAR! merely descriptive of salad dressing); In re Vanilla Gorilla, L.P., 80 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 2006) (presence of punctuation mark (a hyphen) in the mark "3-0's" does not negate mere descriptiveness of mark for automobile wheel rims); In re Promo Ink, 78 USPQ2d 1301 (TTAB 2006) (PARTY AT A DISCOUNT! merely descriptive of preparation and dissemination for others of advertising and promotional matter via global computer communications networks in the field of shopping for goods and services); In re S.D. Fabrics, Inc., 223 USPQ 54 (TTAB 1984) (presence of slash in the mark "designers/fabric" does not negate mere descriptiveness of mark for retail store services in field of fabrics); In re Brock Residence Inns, Inc., 222 USPQ 920 (TTAB 1984) (FOR A DAY, A WEEK, A MONTH OR MORE! merely descriptive of hotel services); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1978) (AMERICA'S BEST POPCORN! and AMERICA'S FAVORITE POPCORN! merely descriptive of unpopped popcorn); In re Samuel Moore & Co., 195 USPQ 237 (TTAB 1977) (SUPERHOSE! merely descriptive of hydraulic hose made of synthetic resinous material).
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), also prohibits registration of designations that are deceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services to which they are applied. The examining attorney must consider the mark in relation to the applicant's goods or services to determine whether a mark is deceptively misdescriptive.
The examining attorney must first determine whether a term is misdescriptive as applied to the goods or services. A term that conveys an immediate idea of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function or feature of the goods or services with which it is used is merely descriptive. See TMEP §1209.01(b). If a term immediately conveys such an idea but the idea is false, although plausible, then the term is deceptively misdescriptive and is unregistrable under §2(e)(1). See In re Woodward & Lothrop Inc., 4 USPQ2d 1412 (TTAB 1987) (CAMEO deceptively misdescriptive of jewelry); In re Ox-Yoke Originals, Inc., 222 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1983) (G.I. deceptively misdescriptive of gun cleaning patches, rods, brushes, solvents and oils).
The Trademark Act does not prohibit the registration of misdescriptive terms unless they are deceptively misdescriptive, that is, unless persons who encounter the mark, as used on or in connection with the goods or services in question, are likely to believe the misrepresentation. See Binney & Smith Inc. v. Magic Marker Industries, Inc., 222 USPQ 1003 (TTAB 1984) (LIQUID CRAYON held neither common descriptive name, nor merely descriptive, nor deceptively misdescriptive of coloring kits or markers).
As explained in the case of In re Quady Winery Inc., 221 USPQ 1213, 1214 (TTAB 1984):
The test for deceptive misdescriptiveness has two parts. First we must determine if the matter sought to be registered misdescribes the goods. If so, then we must ask if it is also deceptive, that is, if anyone is likely to believe the misrepresentation. A third question, used to distinguish between marks that are deceptive under Section 2(a) and marks that are deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(1), is whether the misrepresentation would materially affect the decision to purchase the goods.
If the misdescription represented by the mark is material to the decision to purchase the goods or use the services, then the mark should be refused registration under §2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a). See TMEP §1203.02 regarding deceptive marks, and 1203.02(a) regarding the distinction between deceptive marks and deceptively misdescriptive marks.
The examining attorney should consider and make of record, or require the applicant to make of record, all available information that shows the presence or absence, and the materiality, of a misrepresentation. See Glendale International Corp. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 374 F. Supp. 2d 479, 75 USPQ2d 1139 (E.D. VA 2005) (TITANIUM deceptively misdescriptive of recreational vehicles that do not contain titanium, where the examining attorney made of record articles which showed that titanium is a lightweight metal, and discussed the use or potential use of titanium in the automotive industry).
The mere fact that the true nature of the goods or services is revealed by other matter on the labels, advertisements or other materials to which the mark is applied does not preclude a determination that a mark is deceptively misdescriptive. See R. Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc., 326 F.2d 786, 140 USPQ 276 (C.C.P.A. 1964) (DURA-HYDE held deceptive and deceptively misdescriptive of plastic material of leather-like appearance made into shoes); In re Shniberg, 79 USPQ2d 1309 (TTAB 2006) (SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 held deceptively misdescriptive of books and entertainment services which did not in any way cover the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; the fact that the nature of the misdescription would become known after consumers studied applicant's books and entertainment services does not prevent the mark from being deceptively misdescriptive); In re Woolrich Woolen Mills Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1235 (TTAB 1989) (WOOLRICH for clothing not made of wool found not to be deceptive under §2(a)); Tanners' Council of America, Inc. v. Samsonite Corp., 204 USPQ 150 (TTAB 1979) (SOFTHIDE held deceptive within the meaning of §2(a) for imitation leather material).
Marks that have been refused registration pursuant to §2(e)(1) on the ground of deceptive misdescriptiveness may be registrable under §2(f) upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness, or on the Supplemental Register if appropriate. 15 U.S.C. §§1052(f) and 1091. Marks that are deceptive under §2(a) are not registrable on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register under any circumstances.
Extract from 15 U.S.C. §1052. No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it–
(a) Consists of or comprises ... deceptive ... matter;... or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after [January 1, 1996]....
(e) Consists of a mark which ... (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them, except as indications of regional origin may be registrable under section 4, (3) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them....
Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2), prohibits registration on the Principal Register of a mark that is primarily geographically descriptive of the goods or services named in the application. See TMEP §1210.01(a).
Section 2(e)(3) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3), prohibits registration of a mark that is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services named in the application. See TMEP §1210.01(b). Prior to the amendment of the Trademark Act on January 1, 1994, by the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, the statutory basis for refusal to register primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks was §2(e)(2).
Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibits registration of a designation that consists of or comprises deceptive matter, as well as geographical indications which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identify a place other than the origin of the goods. See TMEP §1210.01(c).
See TMEP §1210.05(a) regarding the distinction between marks that are primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) and marks that are deceptive under §2(a).
To establish a prima facie case for refusal to register a mark as primarily geographically descriptive, the examining attorney must show that:
(1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (see TMEP §§1210.02et seq.);
(2) the goods or services originate in the place identified in the mark (see TMEP §1210.03); and
(3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (see TMEP §§1210.04 et seq.). Note: If the mark is remote or obscure, the public is unlikely to make a goods/place or services/place association (see TMEP §1210.04(c)).
To support a refusal to register a mark as primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, the examining attorney must show that:
(1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (see TMEP §§1210.02 et seq.);
(2) the goods or services do not originate in the place identified in the mark (see TMEP §1210.03);
(3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (see TMEP §§1210.04 et seq.). Note: If the mark is remote or obscure, the public is unlikely to make a goods/place or services/place association (see TMEP §1210.04(c)); and
(4) the misrepresentation is a material factor in the consumer's decision to buy the goods or use the services (see TMEP §§1210.05(b)et seq.).
Prior to the amendment of the Trademark Act by the NAFTA Implementation Act, it was not necessary to show that the misrepresentation was likely to be a material factor in the consumer's decision to buy the goods or use the services in order to establish that a mark was primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive. However, in California Innovations, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that in view of the NAFTA amendments, a showing of public deception is required to establish that a mark is unregistrable under §2(e)(3).
See TMEP §1210.05(a) for further information regarding the distinction between marks comprising deceptive matter under §2(a) and marks comprising primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive matter under §2(e)(3), and TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq. regarding the showing that a misrepresentation of the origin of the goods or services is likely to affect the purchaser's decision to buy the goods or use the services.
As noted in TMEP §1210.05(a), the test for determining whether a mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) is the same as the test for determining whether a mark is deceptive under §2(a). To support a refusal of registration on the ground that a geographic term is deceptive under §2(a), the examining attorney must show that:
(1) the primary significance of the mark is a generally known geographic location (see TMEP §§1210.02 et seq.);
(2) the goods or services do not originate in the place named in the mark (see TMEP §1210.03);
(3) purchasers would be likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark (see TMEP §§1210.04 et seq.). Note: If the mark is remote or obscure, the public is unlikely to make a goods/place or services/place association (see TMEP §1210.04(c)); and
(4) the misrepresentation is a material factor in the consumer's decision to buy the goods or use the services (see TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq.).
See TMEP §1210.05(a) for further information regarding the distinction between marks comprising deceptive matter under §2(a) and marks comprising primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive matter under §2(e)(3), and TMEP §§1210.05(b) et seq. regarding the showing that a misrepresentation of the origin of the goods or services is likely to affect the purchaser's decision to buy the goods or use the services.
A mark is primarily geographic if it identifies a real and significant geographic location, and the primary meaning of the mark is the geographic meaning.
A geographic location may be any term identifying a country, city, state, continent, locality, region, area or street.
Region. A particular, identifiable region (e.g., "Midwest" or "Mid-Atlantic") is a geographic location. In re Pan-O-Gold Baking Co., 20 USPQ2d 1761 (TTAB 1991) (primary significance of "New England" is geographic). On the other hand, vague geographic terms (e.g., "Global," "National," "International," or "World") are not considered to be primarily geographic, though they may be merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(1). See TMEP §1209.03(o).
Nicknames. A geographic nickname (e.g., "Big Apple" or "Motown"), or an abbreviation or other variant of the name of a geographic location, is treated the same as the actual name of the geographic location, if it is likely to be perceived as such by the purchasing public. See In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1998) (CAROLINA APPAREL primarily geographically descriptive of retail clothing store services, where the evidence showed that "Carolina" is used to indicate either the state of North Carolina or the state of South Carolina). Cf. In re Trans Continental Records, Inc., 62 USPQ2d 1541 (TTAB 2002) (O-TOWN found to be a "relatively obscure term" that would not be perceived by a significant portion of the purchasing public as a geographic reference to Orlando, Florida).
Adjectives. The adjectival form of the name of a geographic location is considered primarily geographic if it is likely to be perceived as such by the purchasing public. See In re Joint-Stock Company "Baik," 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (BAIKALSKAYA – the Russian equivalent of "from Baikal" or "Baikal's" – held primarily geographically descriptive of vodka); In re Jack's Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 USPQ 1028 (TTAB 1985) (NEAPOLITAN held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of sausage emanating from the United States, where the term is defined as "of or pertaining to Naples in Italy"); American Paper & Plastic Products, Inc. v. American Automatic Vending Corp., 152 USPQ 117 (TTAB 1966) (AMERICAN AUTOMATIC VENDING held primarily geographically descriptive).
Maps. A map or outline of a geographic area is also treated the same as the actual name of the geographic location if it is likely to be perceived as such. See In re Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., 86 F.2d 830, 32 USPQ 49 (C.C.P.A. 1936) (map of Canada held to be the equivalent of the word "Canada"). Cf. In re Texsun Tire and Battery Stores, Inc., 229 USPQ 227 (TTAB 1986) (indicating that if the depiction of a map is fanciful or so integrated with other elements of a mark that it forms a unitary whole, then the map should not be considered primarily geographically descriptive).
Coined Locations. The mere fact that a term may be the name of a place that has a physical location does not necessarily make that term geographic under §2(e)(2). For example, names of amusement parks, residential communities, and business complexes which are coined by the applicant, should not be refused. In re Pebble Beach Co., 19 USPQ2d 1687 (TTAB 1991) (17 MILE DRIVE not a geographic term, where it refers to a specific location wholly owned by applicant, and was coined by applicant to refer both to applicant's services and the place where the services were performed).
To support a refusal to register geographic matter, the Trademark Act requires that the mark be primarily geographic, that is, that its primary significance be that of a geographic location. 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(2) and (3). See, e.g., In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (primary significance of NEW YORK held to geographic; Court was not persuaded by assertions that the composite NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY evokes a gallery that features New York "ways" or "styles"); In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (evidence insufficient to establish that public in United States would perceive VITTEL as the name of a place where cosmetic products originate; Vittel, France found to be obscure); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202 (TTAB 1985) (the primary significance of WESTPOINT is as the name of the United States Military Academy rather than the town in New York).
The fact that the proposed mark has meaning or usage other than as a geographic term does not necessarily alter its primarily geographic significance. See TMEP §§1210.02(b)(i) et seq.
When a geographic term is combined with additional matter (e.g., wording and/or a design element), the examining attorney must determine the primary significance of the composite. See TMEP §§1210.02(c) et seq.
See TMEP §1210.04(c) regarding obscure or remote geographic marks.
The fact that the mark has meaning or usage other than as a geographic term does not necessarily alter its primarily geographic significance. Thus, if a geographic term has another meaning, the examining attorney must determine whether the primary significance is geographic. If so, registration should be refused under §2(e)(2), §2(e)(3), or §2(a). See, e.g., In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 USPQ2d 1409 (TTAB 1986) (THE NASHVILLE NETWORK held primarily geographically descriptive of television program production and distribution services, the Board finding that the primary significance of the term was Nashville, Tennessee, and not that of a style of music); In re Cookie Kitchen, Inc., 228 USPQ 873, 874 (TTAB 1986) (the fact that MANHATTAN identifies an alcoholic cocktail does not alter the primary significance of that term as a borough of New York City); In re Jack's Hi-Grade Foods, Inc., 226 USPQ 1028, 1029 (TTAB 1985) (the fact that NEAPOLITAN identifies, among other things, a type of ice cream, does not alter the primary significance of that term as meaning "of or pertaining to Naples in Italy").
However, if the most prominent meaning or significance of the mark is not geographic, or if the mark creates a separate readily understood meaning that is not geographic, registration should not be refused under §2(e)(2), §2(e)(3), or §2(a). See Hyde Park Clothes, Inc. v. Hyde Park Fashions, Inc., 93 USPQ 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1951), aff'd, 204 F.2d 223, 97 USPQ 246 (2d Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 827, 99 USPQ 491 (1953) (primary significance of HYDE PARK for men's suits is to suggest that the product is stylish or of high quality rather than to provide information about geographic origin); In re International Taste Inc., 53 USPQ2d 1604, 1605-06 (TTAB 2000) (because of other prominent, significant meaning of HOLLYWOOD as referring to the entertainment industry in general, doubt about the primary significance of HOLLYWOOD was resolved in favor of the applicant); In re Urbano, 51 USPQ2d 1776, 1780 (TTAB 1999) (primary significance of SYDNEY 2000, used for advertising and business services and communication services, is as a reference to the Olympic Games, not to the name of a place); In re Municipal Capital Markets Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1369, 1371 (TTAB 1999) (primary significance of COOPERSTOWN is that of "an institution, namely, the Baseball Hall of Fame" rather than a geographic location); In re Jim Crockett Promotions Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1455 (TTAB 1987) (primary significance of THE GREAT AMERICAN BASH for promoting, producing and presenting professional wrestling matches, is to suggest something of desirable quality or excellence rather than to describe the geographic origin of the services); In re Dixie Insurance Co., 223 USPQ 514, 516 (TTAB 1984) (DIXIE held not primarily geographically descriptive of property and casualty underwriting services, where the examining attorney provided no evidence to show that the geographical significance of DIXIE was its primary significance).
A term's geographic significance may not be its primary significance if the term also has surname significance. Cf. In re Hamilton Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939, 1943 (TTAB 1993) (HAMILTON held primarily merely a surname, even though the term had some geographical connotations); In re Colt Industries Operating Corp., 195 USPQ 75 (TTAB 1977) (FAIRBANKS held not primarily merely a surname because the geographical significance of the mark was determined to be just as dominant as its surname significance).
The fact that the mark identifies more than one geographic location does not necessarily detract from the term's primary geographic significance. See, e.g., In re Loew's Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 226 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (DURANGO held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of chewing tobacco not grown in Durango, Mexico, where the evidence of record showed that tobacco is a crop produced and marketed in that area, even though there is more than one place named Durango); In re Cambridge Digital Systems, 1 USPQ2d 1659, 1662 (TTAB 1986) (CAMBRIDGE DIGITAL and design held primarily geographically descriptive of computer systems and parts thereof, where applicant's place of business is Cambridge, Massachusetts, even though there is more than one Cambridge).
Geographic matter may serve to designate a kind or type of goods or services, or to indicate a style or design that is a feature of the goods or services, rather than to indicate their geographic origin. For example, the geographic components in terms such as "dotted swiss," "Boston baked beans," "Swiss cheese," "Early American design" and "Italian spaghetti" are not understood as indicating the geographic origin of the goods but, rather, a particular type or style of product (regardless of where the product is produced). See Forschner Group Inc. v. Arrow Trading Co. Inc., 30 F.3d 348, 31 USPQ2d 1614 (2d Cir. 1994), aff'd, 124 F.3d 402, 43 USPQ2d 1942 (2d Cir. 1997) (SWISS ARMY KNIFE); Institut National des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners Int'l Co., Inc., 958 F.2d 1574, 1580, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (evidence showing that Chablis is the name of a region in France insufficient to establish that CHABLIS WITH A TWIST is geographically deceptive of wine under §2(a), where evidence showed that the term "Chablis" would be perceived by consumers in the United States as the generic name for a type of wine with the general characteristics of French chablis); Hyde Park Clothes, Inc. v. Hyde Park Fashions, Inc., 93 USPQ 250 (S.D.N.Y. 1951), aff'd, 204 F.2d 223, 97 USPQ 246 (2d Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 827, 99 USPQ 491 (1953) (primary significance of HYDE PARK for men's suits is to suggest that the product is stylish or of high quality rather than to provide information about geographic origin).
When geographic terms are used in circumstances in which it is clear that they are meant to convey some meaning other than geographic origin, registration should not be refused on the basis of geographical descriptiveness or misdescriptiveness. However, there may be some other basis for refusal; for example, the terms may be merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services under §2(e)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1). In re MBNA America Bank, N.A., 340 F.3d 1328, 67 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2003), reh'g denied, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2187 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2004) (MONTANA SERIES and PHILADELPHIA SERIES are merely descriptive of "credit card services featuring credit cards depicting scenes or subject matter of, or relating to" the places named in the marks); In re Cox Enterprises Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040 (TTAB 2007) (applicant's mark, THEATL, is simply a compressed version of the term "THE ATL," which is a nickname for the city of Atlanta, and is merely descriptive of the subject matter of applicant's publications); In re Busch Entertainment Corp., 60 USPQ2d 1130 (TTAB 2000) (EGYPT merely descriptive of subject matter or motif of amusement park services). See TMEP §§1209 et seq. regarding marks that are merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(1).
If it is unclear whether the primary significance of the term is geographic or merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive, the examining attorney may refuse registration on both grounds in the alternative.
When terms such as "AMERICA," "AMERICAN" and "USA" appear in marks, the determination as to whether the term or the entire mark should be considered geographic can be a particularly difficult one. There is no simple or mechanical answer to the question of how to treat "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" in a mark. The examining attorney must evaluate each mark on a case-by-case basis. The examining attorney must consider the entire context, the type of goods or services at issue, the geographic origin of the goods or services and, most importantly, the overall commercial impression engendered by the mark at issue. The following principles, developed in the case law, should provide guidance in reaching a judgment in a given case.
(1) If "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" is used in a way that primarily denotes the United States origin of the goods or services, then the term is primarily geographically descriptive. See, e.g., American Diabetes Association, Inc. v. National Diabetes Association, 533 F. Supp. 16, 214 USPQ 231 (E.D. Pa. 1981), aff'd,681 F.2d 804 (3d Cir. 1982) (AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION held primarily geographically descriptive); In re Monograms America, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1999) (MONOGRAMS AMERICA primarily geographically descriptive of consultation services for owners of monogramming shops); In re BankAmerica Corp., 231 USPQ 873 (TTAB 1986) (BANK OF AMERICA held primarily geographically descriptive); American Paper & Plastic Products, Inc. v. American Automatic Vending Corp., 152 USPQ 117 (TTAB 1966) (AMERICAN AUTOMATIC VENDING held primarily geographically descriptive). One commentator refers to such marks as exhibiting an "unadorned" use of "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN." J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §14:11 (4th ed. 2006). Many service marks (e.g., association-type marks) fall squarely into this category. See also In re U.S. Cargo, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1702 (TTAB 1998) (U.S. CARGO primarily geographically descriptive of towable trailers carrying cargo and vehicles).
(2) If a composite mark does not primarily convey geographic significance overall, or if "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" is used in a nebulous or suggestive manner, then it is inappropriate to treat "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" as primarily geographically descriptive. See, e.g., Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co., 240 U.S. 251 (1916) (THE AMERICAN GIRL held not primarily geographically descriptive for shoes); American Plan Corp. v. State Loan & Finance Corp., 365 F.2d 635, 150 USPQ 767 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1011, 152 USPQ 844 (1967) (AMERICAN PLAN CORPORATION held not primarily geographically descriptive); Wilco Co. v. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc., 255 F. Supp. 625, 151 USPQ 24 (D. Mass. 1966) (ALL AMERICAN held not primarily geographically descriptive); In re Jim Crockett Promotions Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1455 (TTAB 1987) (THE GREAT AMERICAN BASH held not primarily geographically descriptive of wrestling exhibitions). The introduction of a nuance, even a subtle one, may remove a mark from the primarily geographically descriptive category. This area calls for the most difficult analysis. The examining attorney must determine whether the overall commercial impression is something other than primarily geographic – for example, due to double meanings or shades of suggestive meanings.
(3) If "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" is used in virtually any manner with goods or services that are not from the United States, then the examining attorney should determine whether the term is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) and/or deceptive under §2(a). See, e.g., Singer Mfg. Co. v. Birginal-Bigsby Corp., 319 F.2d 273, 138 USPQ 63 (C.C.P.A. 1963) (AMERICAN BEAUTY held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive when used on Japanese-made sewing machines); In re Biesseci S.p.A., 12 USPQ2d 1149 (TTAB 1989) (AMERICAN SYSTEM and design ("AMERICAN" disclaimed) held deceptive for clothing manufactured in Italy). Cf. In re Salem China Co., 157 USPQ 600 (TTAB 1968) (AMERICAN LIMOGES held deceptive under §2(a) when used on china not made in Limoges, France). In this situation, even marks that arguably convey a non-geographic commercial impression must be viewed with great skepticism.
(4) If "AMERICA" or "AMERICAN" appears in a phrase or slogan, the examining attorney must evaluate the entire mark to determine whether it is merely descriptive as laudatory, or even incapable. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA so highly laudatory and descriptive as applied to beer and ale that it is incapable of acquiring distinctiveness); In re Carvel Corp., 223 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1984) (AMERICA'S FRESHEST ICE CREAM held incapable); In re Wileswood, Inc., 201 USPQ 400 (TTAB 1978) (AMERICA'S FAVORITE POPCORN held merely descriptive); Kotzin v. Levi Strauss & Co., 111 USPQ 161 (Comm'r Pats. 1956) (AMERICA'S FINEST JEANS and AMERICA'S FINEST for overalls held not confusingly similar and incapable by inference). Typically these marks primarily extol the quality or popularity of the goods or services and secondarily denote geographic origin. See TMEP §1209.03(n) regarding use of terms such as "AMERICA" and "AMERICAN" in a way that is merely descriptive or generic.
A geographic composite mark is one composed of geographic matter coupled with additional matter (e.g., wording and/or a design element). When examining such a mark, the examining attorney must determine the primary significance of the composite. See In re Save Venice New York Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 59 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE VENICE COLLECTION and SAVE VENICE INC. with an image of the winged Lion of St. Mark, for various goods, held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of products that do not originate in Venice, Italy); In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY ("NEW YORK" disclaimed) held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of backpacks, handbags, purses and similar items); In re Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 48 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 1997) (HAVANA SELECT, HAVANA CLASICO, OLD HAVANA, HAVANA PRIMO, and HAVANA CLIPPER primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of rum); In re Perry Mfg. Co., 12 USPQ2d 1751 (TTAB 1989) (PERRY NEW YORK and design ("NEW YORK" disclaimed) held deceptive for various items of clothing that originate in North Carolina, and have no connection with New York, because of the renown of New York in the apparel industry); In re Biesseci S.p.A., 12 USPQ2d 1149 (TTAB 1989) (AMERICAN SYSTEM and design of running man, for clothing manufactured in Italy, held deceptive).
See TMEP §§1210.06 et seq. regarding the procedure for examining geographic composites.
When two geographic terms are combined in the same mark, the primary significance of the composite may still be geographic, if purchasers would believe that the goods/services originate from or are rendered in both of the locations named in the mark. See In re Narada Productions, Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1801, 1803 (TTAB 2001) (CUBA L.A. primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of musical recordings and live musical performances that do not originate in Cuba or Los Angeles, the Board finding that purchasers would understand the composite as a reference to the two places named rather than to "some mythical place called 'Cuba L.A.'"); In re London & Edinburgh Insurance Group Ltd., 36 USPQ2d 1367 (TTAB 1995) (LONDON & EDINBURGH INSURANCE primarily geographically descriptive of insurance and underwriting services that are rendered or originate in the cities of London and Edinburgh).
Repeating a geographical term does not alter the geographical significance of that term. In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694 (TTAB 1992) (LONDON LONDON held deceptive for clothing having no connection with London, given the renown of London as a center for contemporary as well as traditional fashions).
Generally, the addition of a highly descriptive or generic term to the name of a geographic place does not alter its primarily geographic significance. In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2001) (MINNESOTA CIGAR COMPANY primarily geographically descriptive of cigars); In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1998) (CAROLINA APPAREL primarily geographically descriptive of retail clothing store services); In re Chalk's International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991) (PARADISE ISLAND AIRLINES held primarily geographically descriptive of the transportation of passengers and goods by air); In re Wine Society of America Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1139 (TTAB 1989) (THE WINE SOCIETY OF AMERICA held primarily geographically descriptive of wine club membership services); In re California Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1988) (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN ("PIZZA KITCHEN" disclaimed) held primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services); In re Cambridge Digital Systems, 1 USPQ2d 1659 (TTAB 1986) (CAMBRIDGE DIGITAL and design ("DIGITAL" disclaimed) held primarily geographically descriptive of computer systems and parts thereof).
If, when viewed as a whole, a composite mark would not be likely to be perceived as identifying the geographic origin of the goods or services (i.e., the mark as a whole is not primarily geographically descriptive, primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, or deceptive), then the mark is regarded as arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive. See In re Sharky's Drygoods Co., 23 USPQ2d 1061 (TTAB 1992) (PARIS BEACH CLUB, applied to T-shirts and sweatshirts, not deceptive under §2(a), the Board reasoning that because Paris is not located on an ocean or lake, and does not have a beach, the juxtaposition of "Paris" with "Beach Club" results in an incongruous phrase which purchasers would view as a humorous mark, a take off on the fact that Paris is known for haute couture. Thus purchasers would not expect T-shirts and sweatshirts to originate in the city of Paris).
The question of whether a term is primarily geographically descriptive under §2(e)(2), primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3), or geographically deceptive under §2(a) depends on whether or not the mark identifies the place from which the goods or services originate. Goods or services may be said to "originate" from a geographic location if, for example, they are manufactured, produced or sold there. See Fred Hayman Beverly Hills Inc. v. Jacques Bernier Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1691 (TTAB 1996) (RODEO DRIVE held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of perfume, where opposer's evidence showed that a significant number of Rodeo Drive retailers sell "prestige" fragrances, and that the public would be likely to make the requisite goods/place association between perfume and Rodeo Drive). Cf. In re Jacques Bernier Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 13 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (RODEO DRIVE held not primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of perfume because of the lack of persuasive evidence of a goods/place association in the ex parterecord).
A geographic designation for a large city (e.g., Washington, D.C., Boston, San Francisco) may include locations in the metropolitan area.
A wide variety of factors must be considered in determining the origin of a product or service. For example, a product might be found to originate from a place if the main component or ingredient is made in that place. See In re Joint-Stock Company "Baik," 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (BAIKALSKAYA – the Russian equivalent of "from Baikal" or "Baikal's" – held primarily geographically descriptive of vodka, where the record showed that applicant was located in Irkutsk, Russia, a city near Lake Baikal, and that applicant's vodka is made from the water of Lake Baikal).
Goods and services do not always originate in the applicant's place of business. See In re John Harvey & Sons Ltd.,32 USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (TTAB 1994) (HARVEYS BRISTOL CREAM not primarily geographically descriptive of cakes flavored with sherry wine, the Board finding that neither applicant's sherry wines nor applicant's cakes come from Bristol, England, where "the only connection appears to be that applicant's headquarters are located there and that applicant's sherry wine was bottled there at one time"); In re Nantucket Allserve Inc., 28 USPQ2d 1144 (TTAB 1993) (NANTUCKET NECTARS held primarily geographically descriptive of soft drinks, even though the goods were manufactured elsewhere, where the record showed that applicant's headquarters and research and development division were on Nantucket; the distributor of the goods was located on Nantucket; the goods were sold in the applicant's store on Nantucket; and the specimens were labels that bore a picture of Nantucket, stated that the goods were "born" or "created" on Nantucket, and mentioned no other geographic location); In re Chalk's International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991) (PARADISE ISLAND AIRLINES held primarily geographically descriptive of the transportation of passengers and goods by air, because the applicant's services included flights to and from Paradise Island, Bahamas, even though the flights were not based there); In re Fortune Star Products Corp., 217 USPQ 277 (TTAB 1982) (NIPPON held not deceptive of, inter alia, radios and televisions because, although the applicant is an American corporation, the goods are made in Japan).
When the goods or services may be said to originate both in the geographic place named in the mark and outside that place, registration will normally be refused on the ground that the mark is primarily geographically descriptive under §2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act. In re California Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704, 1706 n.2 (TTAB 1988) (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN for restaurant services held primarily geographically descriptive, where the services were rendered both in California and elsewhere).
Refusal of registration under §2(e)(2), §2(e)(3), or §2(a) requires that there be a goods/place or services/place association such that the public is likely to believe that the goods or services originate in the place identified in the mark.
To show that there is a goods/place or services/place association, the examining attorney may provide such evidence as excerpts from telephone directories, gazetteers, encyclopedias, geographic dictionaries, the LEXIS-NEXIS® database, or the results of an Internet search.
The examining attorney should also examine the specimen(s) and any other evidence in the record that shows the context in which the applicant's mark is used. See In re Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc., where the Board noted that applicant's point of purchase display catalogs "foster a goods/place association between its furniture and Tuscany by referring to 'Europe's Mediterranean coast' and 'European sensibility;'" and In re Nantucket Allserve Inc., where the Board noted that the applicant's product labels bore a picture of Nantucket, stated that the goods were "born" or "created" on Nantucket and "[embody] the wholesome quality of the Island whose name they bear," and mentioned no other geographic location).
When the geographic significance of a term is its primary significance and the geographic place is neither obscure nor remote, for purposes of §2(e)(2) the goods/place or services/place association may ordinarily be presumed from the fact that the applicant's goods or services originate in the place named in the mark. In re Joint-Stock Company "Baik", 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (BAIKALSKAYA – the Russian equivalent of "from Baikal" or "Baikal's" – held primarily geographically descriptive of vodka made from water piped from Lake Baikal); In re JT Tobacconists, 59 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2001) (MINNESOTA CIGAR COMPANY primarily geographically descriptive of cigars); In re U.S. Cargo, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1702 (TTAB 1998) (U.S. CARGO primarily geographically descriptive of towable trailers carrying cargo and vehicles); In re Carolina Apparel, 48 USPQ2d 1542 (TTAB 1998) (CAROLINA APPAREL primarily geographically descriptive of retail clothing store services); In re Chalk's International Airlines Inc., 21 USPQ2d 1637 (TTAB 1991) (PARADISE ISLAND AIRLINES held primarily geographically descriptive of the transportation of passengers and goods by air); In re California Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1704 (TTAB 1988) (CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN held primarily geographically descriptive of restaurant services that originate in California); In re Handler Fenton Westerns, Inc., 214 USPQ 848, 849-50 (TTAB 1982) (DENVER WESTERNS held primarily geographically descriptive of western-style shirts originating in Denver). This presumption is rebuttable. See TMEP §1210.04(c) regarding obscure or remote places, and TMEP §§1210.02 et seq. regarding the primary significance of a geographic term.
To establish a goods/place association, it is not necessary to show that the place identified in the mark is well known or noted for the goods. In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 1374, 67 USPQ2d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[T]he goods-place association often requires little more than a showing that the consumer identifies the place as a known source of the product."). See In re Save Venice New York Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 59 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE VENICE COLLECTION and design held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of products that do not originate in Venice, Italy, where an atlas and a gazetteer showed that Venice was a large metropolitan area where fine art objects, glassware and decorative items had been made and sold for centuries, and a popular tourist destination); In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive where manufacturing listings and Nexis® excerpts showed that handbags and luggage are designed and manufactured in New York); In re Loew's Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 226 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (evidence from a gazeteer and dictionary showing that tobacco is a crop produced and marketed in Durango, Mexico held sufficient to establish a prima facie goods/place association); In re Joint-Stock Company "Baik", 80 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2006) (BAIKALSKAYA held primarily geographically descriptive of vodka where record the showed that applicant is located in Irkutsk, Russia, a city near Lake Baikal and one of the main export regions of Russian vodka, applicant's vodka is made from water piped directly from Lake Baikal, Lake Baikal is the world's largest fresh water lake, and there are numerous references to "Baikal" in publications from various cities throughout the United States and in national publications); In re Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1511 (TTAB 2001) (evidence that Tuscany, Italy is an important industrial center that produces a variety of products including furniture, and that several businesses advertise the sale of furniture from Tuscany on the Internet, held sufficient to establish a goods/place association between Tuscany and furniture, even though Tuscany is not famous for its furniture); In re Boyd Gaming Corp., 57 USPQ2d 1944 (TTAB 2000) (HAVANA RESORT & CASINO and ROYAL HAVANA RESORT & CASINO held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of wearing apparel, beauty products and perfume that do not come from Havana, Cuba, where the record showed that Havana produces a variety of goods, including clothing and cosmetic items); In re Bacardi & Co. Ltd., 48 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 1997) (HAVANA SELECT, HAVANA CLASICO, OLD HAVANA, HAVANA PRIMO, and HAVANA CLIPPER all held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of rum that does not originate in Havana, Cuba, where the evidence showed that Havana is a major city and rum is a significant product).
In Save Venice, the court noted that in the modern marketing context, geographic regions that are noted for certain products or services are likely to expand from their traditional goods or services into related goods or services, and that this would be expected by consumers. Accordingly, the court held that "[t]he registrability of a geographic mark may be measured against the public's association of that region with both its traditional goods and any related goods or services that the public is likely to believe originate there."
However, a showing that the geographic place is known to the public and could be the source of the goods or services may not be enough in itself to establish a goods/place or services/place association in all cases. See In re John Harvey & Sons Ltd.,32 USPQ2d 1451 (TTAB 1994) (HARVEYS BRISTOL CREAM not primarily geographically descriptive of cakes flavored with sherry wine, the Board finding evidence that applicant's headquarters are located in Bristol, England and that applicant's sherry wine was once bottled there insufficient to show that American consumers are likely to think that "Bristol" refers to a place from which the goods originate); In re Gale Hayman Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1478 (TTAB 1990) (SUNSET BOULEVARD held not primarily geographically descriptive of perfume and cologne, the Board holding that the mere fact that applicant's principal offices are in Century City, close to Sunset Boulevard does not mandate a finding that a goods/place association should be presumed, determining that the public would not make a goods/place association, and noting that there was no evidence that any perfume or cologne is manufactured or produced on Sunset Boulevard or that applicant's goods are sold there); Philip Morris Inc. v. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH, 14 USPQ2d 1487 (TTAB 1990) (PARK AVENUE held neither deceptive nor geographically deceptively misdescriptive as applied to cigarettes and smoking tobacco, the Board finding no goods/place association between tobacco products and Park Avenue in New York City, on which opposer's world headquarters was located); In re Venice Maid Co., Inc., 222 USPQ 618, 619 (TTAB 1984) (VENICE MAID held not primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of canned foods, including, inter alia, lasagna and spaghetti, where the evidence of a goods/place association was found insufficient, the Board stating that "we are unwilling to sustain the refusal to register in this case simply on the basis that Venice is a large Italian city that could, conceivably, be the source of a wide range of goods, including canned foods").
The question of whether there is a goods/place association is determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the evidence in the record. Compare Fred Hayman Beverly Hills Inc. v. Jacques Bernier Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1691 (TTAB 1996) (RODEO DRIVE held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of perfume, where opposer's evidence showed that a significant number of Rodeo Drive retailers sell "prestige" fragrances, and that the public would be likely to make the requisite goods/place association between perfume and Rodeo Drive) with In re Jacques Bernier Inc., 894 F.2d 389, 13 USPQ2d 1725 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (RODEO DRIVE held not primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of perfume because of the lack of persuasive evidence of a goods/place association in the ex parterecord).
It is more difficult, with respect to refusals under §2(e)(3) and §2(a), to establish a services/place association than a goods/place association. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has provided the following guidance for refusals under §2(e)(3):
Application of the second prong of this test – the services-place association – requires some consideration. A customer typically receives services, particularly in the restaurant business, at the location of the business. Having chosen to come to that place for the services, the customer is well aware of the geographic location of the service. This choice necessarily implies that the customer is less likely to associate the services with the geographic location invoked by the mark rather than the geographic location of the service, such as a restaurant. In this case, the customer is less likely to identify the services with a region of Paris when sitting in a restaurant in New York.
[T]he services-place association operates somewhat differently than a goods-place association.... In a case involving goods, the goods-place association often requires little more than a showing that the consumer identifies the place as a known source of the product [citations omitted]. Thus, to make a goods-place association, the case law permits an inference that the consumer associates the product with the geographic location in the mark because that place is known for producing the product.... In the case of a services-place association, however, a mere showing that the geographic location in the mark is known for performing the service is not sufficient. Rather the second prong of the test requires some additional reason for the consumer to associate the services with the geographic location invoked by the mark. See In re Municipal Capital Markets, Corp., 51 USPQ2d 1369, 1370-71 (TTAB 1999) ("Examining Attorney must present evidence that does something more than merely establish that services as ubiquitous as restaurant services are offered in the pertinent geographic location."). Thus, a services-place association in a case dealing with restaurant services ... requires a showing that the patrons of the restaurant are likely to believe the restaurant services have their origin in the location indicated by the mark. In other words, to refuse registration under section 2(e)(3), the PTO must show that patrons will likely be misled to make some meaningful connection between the restaurant (the service) and the relevant place.
For example, the PTO might find a services-place association if the record shows that patrons, though sitting in New York, would believe the food served by the restaurant was imported from Paris, or that the chefs in New York received specialized training in the region in Paris, or that the New York menu is identical to a known Parisian menu, or some other heightened association between the services and the relevant place....
In re Les Halles De Paris J.V., 334 F.3d 1371, 1373-74, 67 USPQ2d 1539, 1541-42 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (LE MARAIS held not primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of restaurant services. Evidence that "Le Marais" was a fashionable Jewish area in Paris was insufficient to establish that the public would believe that "Le Marais" was the source of New York restaurant services featuring a kosher cuisine).
What constitutes a "heightened association" between the services and the place will vary depending on the nature of the services. There may be situations where the fact that the geographic location is known or famous for performing the service would be sufficient to establish a services/place association (e.g., "Texas" for cattle breeding services).
The burden is greater for restaurant services, due to their ubiquitous nature. In In re Consolidated Specialty Restaurants, Inc.,71 USPQ2d 1921 (TTAB 2004) (COLORADO STEAKHOUSE and design held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of restaurant services), the Board found that the examining attorney had established an "additional reason" why purchasers would mistakenly believe that the food served in the restaurant was from Colorado, where the record contained the following evidence: gazetteer and dictionary definitions of "Colorado" and "steakhouse;" a United States Department of Agriculture report on cattle inventory; stories excerpted from the LEXIS-NEXIS® database; and Internet excerpts showing that Colorado was one of the 11 top cattle states in the United States, that Colorado was known for its steaks, that "Colorado steaks" are featured food items in restaurants outside the state, and that politicians from Colorado use "Colorado steaks" as the basis for wagers on sporting events.
Geographic matter may be so obscure or remote that it would not be recognized as an indication of the geographic source of the goods or services. In such a case, the mark is treated as an arbitrary designation because its geographic meaning is likely to be lost on consumers. Thus consumers will not perceive the geographic significance of the term as its primary significance and will not make a goods/place or services/place association. See In re Brouwerij Nacional Balashi NV, 80 USPQ2d 1820 (TTAB 2006) (Balashi, Aruba deemed to be so obscure or remote that purchasers in the United States would not recognize it as indicating the geographical source of applicant's beer); ConAgra Inc. v. Saavedra, 4 USPQ2d 1245 (TTAB 1987) (TAPATIO held not primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of meatless hot sauce, despite the fact that the mark is a Spanish term meaning "of or pertaining to Guadalajara, Mexico" and the goods did not originate from Guadalajara, the Board finding that the significance of the term is lost on the public because of its obscurity); In re Bavaria St. Pauli Brauerei AG, 222 USPQ 926 (TTAB 1984) (reversing examining attorney's requirement for disclaimer of "JEVER" in application to register JEVER and design for beer originating in Jever, West Germany, where the sole evidence of a goods/place association was an entry from a 32-year-old geographic index); In re Brauerei Aying Franz Inselkammer KG, 217 USPQ 73 (TTAB 1983) (AYINGER BIER ("BIER" disclaimed) held not primarily geographically descriptive of beer emanating from Aying, West Germany, a hamlet of 500 inhabitants, where the examining attorney's only evidence of a goods/place association was the specimen label identifying Aying as the place of origin).
Remoteness or obscurity is determined from the perspective of the average American consumer. See In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel, S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (VITTEL and design held not primarily geographically descriptive of cosmetic products because of lack of goods/place association between the goods and the applicant's place of business in Vittel, France). However, the examining attorney does not necessarily have to show that the nationwide general public would associate the mark with the place. The significance of the term is determined not in the abstract, but from the point of view of the consumers of the particular goods or services identified in the application. In re MCO Properties Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1154 (TTAB 1995) (FOUNTAIN HILLS held primarily geographically descriptive of real estate development services rendered in Fountain Hills, Arizona, where the record showed that Fountain Hills was the name of the town where the applicant was located and rendered its services, and that the purchasers who came in contact with the mark would associate that place with the services).
The name of a geographic location that has no significant relation to commercial activities or the production of the relevant goods or services, such as ALASKA for bananas, is treated as an arbitrary mark because it is unlikely that consumers would believe that the mark identifies the place from which the goods originate.
Often names of mountains or rivers are arbitrary for goods because no commercial activity is performed there. For example, "Colorado River" for candy bars or "Mount Rushmore" for automobiles would be arbitrary. See In re Nantucket, Inc., 677 F.2d 95, 105, 213 USPQ 889, 897 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (Nies, J., concurring) ("Thus, the names of places devoid of commercial activity are arbitrary usage. In this category are names of places such as ANTARCTICA, MOUNT EVEREST, or GALAPAGOS, at least when used for ordinary commercial products, such as beer and shoes. Names such as SUN, WORLD, GLOBE, MARS, or MILKY WAY are also arbitrary, not informational; competitors do not need to use the terms to compete effectively.").
Although the test for determining whether a mark is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) is now the same as the test for determining whether a mark is deceptive under §2(a), the statutory provisions with respect to registrability on the Supplemental Register and on the Principal Register under §2(f) are different:
Accordingly, because the statute expressly prohibits registration of deceptive marks on the Supplemental Register or on the Principal Register under §2(f), the examining attorney will initially refuse registration of geographically deceptive marks under both §§2(a) and 2(e)(3). If the applicant alleges use in commerce prior to December 8, 1993 and amends to the Supplemental Register, or establishes that the proposed mark acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) before December 8, 1993, the examining attorney will withdraw the §2(e)(3) refusal, but will not withdraw the §2(a) refusal.
Conversely, if the applicant is not seeking registration on the Supplemental Register with a claim of first use in commerce prior to December 8, 1993, or registration on the Principal Register under §2(f) based on a claim that the mark had acquired distinctiveness prior to December 8, 1993, the examining attorney will withdraw the §2(a) refusal. In re South Park Cigar, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1507, 1509, n.3 (TTAB 2007).
To establish that a geographic term is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3) or deceptive under §2(a), it must be shown that the goods/place or services/place association made by a consumer is material to the consumer's decision to purchase those goods/services.
In a case involving goods, if there is evidence that the relevant goods, or related goods, are a principal product of the geographical area named by the mark, then the deception will most likely be found to be material. In re Save Venice New York Inc., 259 F.3d 1346, 59 USPQ2d 1778 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (THE VENICE COLLECTION and design held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of products that do not originate in Venice, Italy, where an atlas and a gazetteer showed that Venice was a well known center for the manufacture of glass, lace, art objects, jewelry, cotton and silk textiles); In re Wada, 194 F.3d 1297, 52 USPQ2d 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (NEW YORK WAYS GALLERY held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive where manufacturing listings and Nexis® excerpts showed that New York was well known as a place where leather goods and handbags are designed and manufactured); In re South Park Cigar, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1507 (TTAB 2007) (YBOR GOLD held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of cigars and tobacco that do not come from the Ybor City area of Tampa, Florida, given the prominence of Ybor City as a current and historical source of cigars); In re Juleigh Jeans Sportswear Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1694 (TTAB 1992) (LONDON LONDON held deceptive for clothing having no connection with London, given the renown of London as a center for contemporary as well as traditional fashions); In re Perry Mfg. Co., 12 USPQ2d 1751 (TTAB 1989) (PERRY NEW YORK and design ("NEW YORK" disclaimed) held deceptive for various items of clothing that originate in North Carolina, and have no connection with New York, because of the renown of New York in the apparel industry); In re House of Windsor, Inc., 221 USPQ 53 (TTAB 1983), recon. denied, 223 USPQ 191 (TTAB 1984) (BAHIA held deceptive of cigars that do not originate in the Bahia province of Brazil, where the evidence of record was "unequivocal" that tobacco and cigars are important products in the Bahia region).
In U.S. Playing Card Co. v. Harbro, LLC, the Board held that the mark VEGAS was not primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of playing cards that do not originate in Las Vegas, finding that the opposer failed to establish that the misleading goods-place association would be a material factor in the customer's decision to purchase the goods. The Board rejected opposer's argument that it had met the materiality factor by proving that there is a market for cancelled casino cards from Las Vegas casinos, stating that "[a]lthough the evidence demonstrates that consumers are interested in obtaining cards that were used in casinos, the evidence does not establish that they are interested in purchasing playing cards that were manufactured or used in Las Vegas." The Board also disagreed with opposer's contention that the goods-place association between Las Vegas and playing cards was so strong that materiality could be presumed.
In a case involving services, a showing that the geographic location in the mark is known for performing the service is not sufficient, unless it rises to the level of fame. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has provided the following guidance:
To raise an inference of deception or materiality for a service mark, the PTO must show some heightened association between the services and the relevant geographic denotation.... For restaurant services, the materiality prong might be satisfied by a particularly convincing showing that identifies the relevant place as famous for providing the specialized culinary training exhibited by the chef, and that this fact is advertised as a reason to choose this restaurant. In other words, an inference of materiality arises in the event of a very strong services-place association. Without a particularly strong services-place association, an inference would not arise, leaving the PTO to seek direct evidence of materiality. In any event, the record might show that customers would patronize the restaurant because they believed the food was imported from, or the chef was trained in, the place identified by the restaurant's mark. The importation of food and culinary training are only examples, not exclusive methods of analysis....
In In re Consolidated Specialty Restaurants, Inc., 71 USPQ2d 1921 (TTAB 2004) (COLORADO STEAKHOUSE and design held primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of restaurant services), the Board found that a mistaken belief that the steaks served in applicant's restaurant were from Colorado would be material to the customer's decision to patronize the restaurant, where the record contained the following evidence: gazetteer and dictionary definitions of "Colorado" and "steakhouse;" a United States Department of Agriculture report on cattle inventory; stories excerpted from the LEXIS-NEXIS® database; and Internet excerpts showing that Colorado was one of the 11 top cattle states in the United States, that Colorado was known for its steaks, that "Colorado steaks" are featured food items in restaurants outside the state, and that politicians from Colorado use "Colorado steaks" as the basis for wagers on sporting events. The Board stated that "an inference of materiality arises where there is a showing of a 'heightened association' between the services and the geographic place or, in other words, a showing of 'a very strong services-place association.'"
See also TMEP §§1203.02 et seq. regarding deceptive marks, and TMEP §1210.08 regarding geographical designations used on or in connection with wines or spirits that identify a place other than the origin of the goods.
A geographic composite mark is one composed of geographic matter coupled with additional matter (e.g., wording and/or a design element). When examining such a mark, the examining attorney must first determine the primary significance of the composite. See TMEP §§1210.02(c) et seq.
Depending on the primary significance of the composite, the examining attorney will handle the geographic issue in a geographic composite mark in one of the following ways:
(1) If the examining attorney finds that the mark, when viewed as a whole, is arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive, he or she will approve the mark for publication without evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f);
(2) If the examining attorney finds that the mark is primarily geographically descriptive under §2(e)(2) without a showing of acquired distinctiveness, primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3), or deceptive under §2(a), he or she will refuse registration of the mark as a whole; or
(3) If the examining attorney finds that the geographic matter is a separable part of the mark, the examining attorney's action will depend on whether the matter is primarily geographically descriptive, primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, or deceptive. See TMEP §1210.06(a) regarding primarily geographically descriptive composites, and TMEP §1210.06(b) regarding primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive and deceptive composites.
If a composite mark comprises a geographic term that is primarily geographically descriptive of the goods or services under §2(e)(2), and the mark as a whole would be likely to be perceived as indicating the geographic origin of the goods or services, then the examining attorney must consider: (1) whether the geographic term is a separable element in the mark; and (2) the nature of the additional matter that makes up the composite mark.
If the geographic term is not a separable element or if none of the additional matter that makes up the composite mark is inherently distinctive (e.g., it is merely descriptive or incapable), then the examining attorney should refuse registration of the entire mark on the Principal Register pursuant to §2(e)(2).
If the geographic term is a separable element and the additional matter making up the mark is inherently distinctive as applied to the goods or services (i.e., coined, arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive), the applicant may either: (1) register the mark on the Principal Register with a disclaimer of the geographic term; or (2) establish that the geographic term has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f).
A disclaimer is appropriate where the geographic component is a separable feature of the mark, and the composite mark includes an inherently distinctive, non-disclaimed component (e.g., coined, arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive wording or design). The composite mark must include a nondisclaimed component because a mark cannot be registered if all the components have been disclaimed. See TMEP §§1213 et seq. regarding disclaimer.
When the examining attorney requires a disclaimer of primarily geographically descriptive matter, the applicant may seek to overcome the disclaimer requirement by submitting a showing that the geographic term has become distinctive under §2(f). See TMEP §§1210.07(b) and 1212.02(f) regarding §2(f) claims as to a portion of the mark.
A term that is primarily geographically descriptive of the goods or services under §2(e)(2) may be registered on the Supplemental Register in an application under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act, if it is not barred by other section(s) of the Act. See TMEP §1210.07(a).
If a composite mark includes matter that is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive within the meaning of §2(e)(3) or deceptive under §2(a), and the mark as a whole would be likely to be perceived as indicating the geographic origin of the goods or services, then the examining attorney should refuse registration of the mark as a whole under both §2(e)(3) and §2(a). See TMEP §1210.05(a).
A composite mark that is deceptive under §2(a) cannot be registered, even with a disclaimer of the geographic component.
A disclaimer of the geographic matter will not overcome a §2(e)(3) refusal, even if the mark was in use prior to December 8, 1993.
See TMEP §1210.05(a) regarding the basis for refusal of marks that are primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive.
Primarily Geographically Descriptive Marks.A term that is primarily geographically descriptive of the goods/services under §2(e)(2) may be registered on the Supplemental Register, if it is not barred by other section(s) of the Act.
Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks.A mark that is found to be primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) may not be registered on the Supplemental Register unless the mark has been in lawful use in commerce since before December 8, 1993, the date of enactment of the NAFTA Implementation Act. Section 23(a) of the Trademark Act; 15 U.S.C. §1091(a).
Geographically Deceptive Marks.A mark that is deceptive under §2(a) may not be registered on the Supplemental Register.
NOTE: A mark in a §66(a) application cannot be registered on the Supplemental Register under any circumstances. 15 U.S.C. §1141h(a)(4); 37 C.F.R. §§2.47(c) and 2.75(c).
Primarily Geographically Descriptive Marks.A term that is primarily geographically descriptive of the goods/services under §2(e)(2) may be registered on the Principal Register if it is shown to have acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). See TMEP §§1212 et seq. regarding §2(f).
Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks.A mark that is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under §2(e)(3) may not be registered under §2(f) unless the mark became distinctive of the goods or services in commerce before December 8, 1993, the date of enactment of the NAFTA Implementation Act.
Geographically Deceptive Marks.A mark that is deceptive under §2(a) may not be registered on the Principal Register even under §2(f).
Section 2(f) in Part. An applicant may claim that a geographic component of a mark has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). See TMEP §1212.02(f) regarding claims of acquired distinctiveness as to a portion of a mark. Thus, if the examining attorney requires a disclaimer of matter that is primarily geographically descriptive under §2(e)(2), the applicant may seek to overcome the disclaimer requirement by submitting a showing that the geographic component has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). If the applicant is able to establish to the satisfaction of the examining attorney that the geographic component has acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney will approve the mark for publication with a notation that there is a claim of distinctiveness under §2(f) as to the geographic component, if appropriate.
Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibits the registration of a designation that consists of or comprises "a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after [January 1, 1996]." This provision was added by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, implementing the Trade-Related Intellectual Property ("TRIPs") portions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT"). This provision does not apply to geographic indications that were first used in commerce on or in connection with wines or spirits prior to January 1, 1996.
Under certain circumstances, the name of the place from which goods or services originate may function as a certification mark. When geographic terms are used to certify regional origin (e.g., "Idaho" used to certify that potatoes are grown in Idaho), registration of certification marks should not be refused and, in applications to register composite certification marks, disclaimers of these geographic terms should notbe required on the ground of geographical descriptiveness. See TMEP §§1306.02 et seq. concerning procedures for registration of certification marks that certify regional origin.
When a geographical term used in a composite certification mark is not used to certify regional origin (e.g., "California" used to certify that fruit is organically grown), appropriate refusals pursuant to §§2(e)(2), 2(e)(3) or 2(a) should be made.
Extract from 15 U.S.C. §1052. No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it ... (e) Consists of a mark which ... (4) is primarily merely a surname.
Under §2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4), a mark that is primarily merely a surname is not registrable on the Principal Register absent a showing of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). See TMEP §§1212 et seq. regarding acquired distinctiveness. Formerly §2(e)(3) of the Act, this section was designated §2(e)(4) when the NAFTA Implementation Act took effect on January 1, 1994. A mark that is primarily merely a surname may be registrable on the Supplemental Register in an application under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act.
The Trademark Act, in §2(e)(4), reflects the common law that exclusive rights in a surname per se cannot be established without evidence of long and exclusive use that changes its significance to the public from that of a surname to that of a mark for particular goods or services. The common law also recognizes that surnames are shared by more than one individual, each of whom may have an interest in using his surname in business; and, by the requirement for evidence of distinctiveness, the law, in effect, delays appropriation of exclusive rights in the name.
The question of whether a mark is primarily merely a surname depends on the mark's primary significance to the purchasing public. Each case must be decided on its own facts, based upon the evidence in the record.
The legislative history of the Trademark Act of 1946 indicates that the word "primarily" was added to the existing statutory language "merely" with the intent to exclude registration of names such as "Johnson" or "Jones," but not registration of names such as "Cotton" or "King" which, while surnames, have a primary significance other than as a surname.
The question of whether a term is primarily merely a surname depends on the primary, not the secondary, significance to the purchasing public. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has identified five factors to be considered in making this determination:
(1) whether the surname is rare (see TMEP §1211.01(a)(v));
(2) whether the term is the surname of anyone connected with the applicant;
(3) whether the term has any recognized meaning other than as a surname (see TMEP §§1211.01(a) et seq.);
(4) whether it has the "look and feel" of a surname (see TMEP §1211.01(a)(vi)); and
(5) whether the stylization of lettering is distinctive enough to create a separate commercial impression (see TMEP §1211.01(b)(ii).
Often a word will have a meaning or significance in addition to its significance as a surname. The examining attorney must determine the primary meaning of the term to the public.
If there is a readily recognized meaning of a term, apart from its surname significance, such that the primary significance of the term is not that of a surname, registration should be granted on the Principal Register without evidence of acquired distinctiveness. See In re Isabella Fiore, LLC, 75 USPQ2d 1564 (TTAB 2005) (FIORE is not primarily merely a surname where it is also the Italian translation of the English word "flower" and the non-surname meaning is not obscure); In re United Distillers plc, 56 USPQ2d 1220 (TTAB 2000) (the relatively rare surname HACKLER held not primarily merely a surname, in light of dictionary meaning); Fisher Radio Corp. v. Bird Electronic Corp., 162 USPQ 265 (TTAB 1969) (BIRD held not primarily merely a surname despite surname significance); In re Hunt Electronics Co., 155 USPQ 606 (TTAB 1967) (HUNT held not primarily merely a surname despite surname significance). However, this does not mean that an applicant only has to uncover a non-surname meaning of the proposed mark to obviate a refusal under §2(e)(4). See In re Nelson Souto Major Piquet, 5 USPQ2d 1367, 1368 (TTAB 1987) (N. PIQUET (stylized) held primarily merely a surname despite significance of the term "piquet" as "the name of a relatively obscure card game").
A term may be primarily merely a surname even if it is the phonetic equivalent of a word that has an ordinary meaning (e.g., Byrne/burn; Knott/not or knot; Chappell/chapel). See In re Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760 (TTAB 1986) (PICKETT SUITE HOTEL held primarily merely a surname despite applicant's argument that PICKETT is the phonetic equivalent of the word "picket"). Cf. In re Monotype Corp. PLC, 14 USPQ2d 1070, 1071 (TTAB 1989) (CALISTO held not primarily merely a surname, the Board characterizing the telephone directory evidence of surname significance as "minimal" and in noting the mythological significance of the name "Callisto," stating that it is common knowledge that there are variations in the rendering of mythological names transliterated from the Greek alphabet (distinguishing In re Pickett Hotel Co., supra)). Similarly, the fact that a word that has surname significance is also a hybrid or derivative of another word having ordinary language meaning is insufficient to overcome the surname significance, unless the perception of non-surname significance would displace the primary surname import of the word. See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 225 USPQ 652 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (DARTY held primarily merely a surname despite applicant's argument that the mark is a play on the word "dart"); In re Petrin Corp., 231 USPQ 902 (TTAB 1986) (PETRIN held primarily merely a surname despite applicant's argument that the mark represents an abbreviation of "petroleum" and "insulation").
A term with surname significance may not be primarily merely a surname if that term also has a well-known geographical meaning. In re Colt Industries Operating Corp., 195 USPQ 75 (TTAB 1977) (FAIRBANKS held not primarily merely a surname because the geographical significance of the mark was determined to be just as dominant as its surname significance). However, the fact that a term is shown to have some minor significance as a geographical term will not dissipate its primary significance as a surname. In re Hamilton Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939, 1943 (TTAB 1993) (HAMILTON held primarily merely a surname).
A term with surname significance may not be primarily merely a surname if that term also identifies a historical place or person. See Lucien Piccard Watch Corp. v. Since 1868 Crescent Corp., 314 F. Supp. 329, 165 USPQ 459 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (DA VINCI not primarily merely a surname because it primarily connotes Leonardo Da Vinci); In re Pyro-Spectaculars, Inc., 63 USPQ2d 2022, 2024 (TTAB 2002) (SOUSA for fireworks and production of events and shows featuring pyrotechnics not primarily merely a surname, where the evidence showed present day recognition and continuing fame of John Philip Sousa as a composer of patriotic music, and the applicant's goods and services were of a nature that "would be associated by potential purchasers with patriotic events such as the Fourth of July, patriotic figures, and patriotic music"); Michael S. Sachs Inc. v. Cordon Art B.V., 56 USPQ2d 1132 (TTAB 2000) (primary significance of M. C. ESCHER is that of famous deceased Dutch artist). Cf. In re Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760 (TTAB 1986) (PICKETT SUITE HOTEL held primarily merely a surname despite applicant's evidence that PICKETT was the name of a famous Civil War general); In re Champion International Corp., 229 USPQ 550 (TTAB 1985) (McKINLEY held primarily merely a surname despite being the name of a deceased president).
Evidence that that an individual is famous in a particular field does not necessarily establish that he or she is a historical figure. In re Thermo LabSystems Inc., ___ USPQ2d ___, Serial No. 78204502 (TTAB March 15, 2007) (WATSON held primarily merely a surname). Furthermore, the Board has held that a surname that would be evocative of numerous individuals, rather than one particular historical individual, does not qualify as a historical name and is merely a surname of numerous individuals with varying degree of historical significance. Id.
The rarity of a surname is a factor to be considered in determining whether a term is primarily merely a surname. In re Benthin Management GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 1995) (the fact that BENTHIN was a rare surname found to be a factor weighing against a finding that the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname); In re Sava Research Corp., 32 USPQ2d 1380 (TTAB 1994) (SAVA not primarily merely a surname, where there was evidence that the term had other meaning, no evidence that the term was the surname of anyone connected with applicant, and the term's use as a surname was very rare); In re Garan Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1537 (TTAB 1987) (GARAN held not primarily merely a surname). However, the fact that a surname is rare does not per se preclude a finding that a term is primarily merely a surname. Even a rare surname may be held primarily merely a surname if its primary significance to purchasers is that of a surname. See In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 225 USPQ 652 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (DARTY held primarily merely a surname); In re Rebo High Definition Studio Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1314 (TTAB 1990) (REBO held primarily merely a surname); In re Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., 230 USPQ 79 (TTAB 1986) (POSTEN held primarily merely a surname). Regardless of the rarity of the surname, the test is whether the primary significance of the term to the purchasing public is that of a surname.
An issue to be considered in determining how rarely a term is used is the media attention or publicity accorded to public personalities who have the surname. A surname rarely appearing in birth records may nonetheless appear more routinely in news reports, so as to be broadly exposed to the general public.
There are some names which by their very nature have only a surname significance even though they are rare surnames. See In re Industrie Pirelli Societa per Azioni, 9 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (TTAB 1988), aff'd,883 F.2d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (PIRELLI held primarily merely a surname, the Board stating that "certain rare surnames look like surnames and certain rare surnames do not and ... 'PIRELLI' falls into the former category...."); In re Petrin Corp., 231 USPQ 902 (TTAB 1986) (PETRIN held primarily merely a surname). Conversely, there is a category of surnames that are so rare that they do not even have the appearance of surnames. Where these are involved, even in the absence of non-surname significance, a reasonable application of the test of "primary significance to the purchasing public" could result in a finding that such a surname, when used as a mark, would be perceived as arbitrary or fanciful. In re United Distillers plc, 56 USPQ2d 1220 (TTAB 2000) (HACKLER does not have the look and feel of a surname).
In determining whether a term is primarily merely a surname, the examining attorney must consider whether the term has any meaning in a foreign language. This determination is made from the point of view of American buyers familiar with the foreign language.
The doctrine of foreign equivalents is not an absolute rule, but merely a guideline, which should be applied only when it is likely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the foreign word into its English equivalent. To support a refusal under §2(e)(4), the record must show that the surname significance is the primarysignificance. See In re Picone,221 USPQ 93 (TTAB 1984) (evidence that "PICON" is the name of a town and a mountain in Spain and that "piccone" is an Italian word meaning "pick" or "pickax" insufficient to overcome a refusal on the ground that PICONE is primarily merely a surname).
In Fiore, the Board noted that applicant had produced evidence that Italian is a popular language in the United States, such that the meaning of the term would be recognized by a wide variety of people; that "Fiore" is "listed as the only translation of the common English word "flower;" that Italian is a major, modern language, not an obscure language; and that the non-surname meaning of the term in Italian is not obscure. The Board found that FIORE "is the type of term that potential customers would stop and translate," and that "there is no question of whether the term would be recognized in its current form as the Italian word for 'Flower.'"
The fact that a term has no meaning in a foreign language may also be relevant to a determination of whether a term is primarily merely a surname. In holding that PIRELLI was primarily merely a surname, the Board noted that the term "has no ordinary meaning in the Italian language, as the Italian dictionary excerpt, made of record by the Examining Attorney, shows."
See also TMEP §§1207.01(b)(vi) and 1209.03(g) regarding the doctrine of foreign equivalents.
Often a mark will be comprised of a word that, standing by itself, would be primarily merely a surname, coupled with additional matter (e.g., letters, words, designs). The question remains whether the mark sought to be registered would be perceived by the public primarily merely as a surname. In re Hutchinson Technology Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 7 USPQ2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See TMEP §§1211.01(b)(i) et seq. for additional information about surnames combined with additional matter.
A combination of two surnames is not primarily merely a surname, within the meaning of §2(e)(4), unless there is evidence of record showing that the combination would be perceived by the public primarily merely as a surname. See In re Standard Elektrik Lorenz A.G., 371 F.2d 870, 152 USPQ 563 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (SCHAUB-LORENZ held not primarily merely a surname, the Court noting that there was no evidence submitted that the mark sought to be registered was primarily merely a surname; that the only evidence of surname significance related to the individual "SCHAUB" and "LORENZ" portions of the mark; and that the mark must be considered in its entirety rather than dissected).
A mark comprised of a word that, standing by itself, would be considered primarily merely a surname, but which is coupled with a distinctive stylization or design element, is not considered primarily merely a surname. In re Benthin Management GmbH, 37 USPQ2d 1332 (TTAB 1995) (stylized display of term BENTHIN found to be a factor weighing against a finding that the term would be perceived as primarily merely a surname). However, the addition of a nondistinctive design element or stylization to a term that, standing by itself, is primarily merely a surname does not remove the term from that category. The primary significance of the mark, in its entirety, would be merely that of a surname. See In re Pickett Hotel Co., 229 USPQ 760, 763 (TTAB 1986) (PICKETT SUITE HOTEL held primarily merely a surname despite the stylization of the lettering, which was considered "insignificant, in that it is clearly not so distinctive as to create any separate commercial impression in the minds of purchasers of appellant's services").
The display of a term in lower-case lettering does not detract from its surname significance.
The addition of initials to a term that, standing by itself, is primarily merely a surname does not remove the term from that category. In fact, the use of the first name initial followed by a surname has been held to reinforce, rather than diminish, the surname significance of a term. See In re I. Lewis Cigar Mfg. Co., 205 F.2d 204, 98 USPQ 265 (C.C.P.A. 1953) (S. SEIDENBERG & CO'S. held primarily merely a surname); In re Nelson Souto Major Piquet, 5 USPQ2d 1367 (TTAB 1987) (N. PIQUET held primarily merely a surname); In re Taverniti, SARL, 225 USPQ 1263 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied 228 USPQ 975 (TTAB 1985) (J. TAVERNITI held primarily merely a surname).
A title, such as "Mr.," "Mrs.," "Mlle., "Dr.," or "MD" does not diminish the surname significance of a term; rather, it may enhance the surname significance of a term. In re Rath, 402 F.3d 1207, 74 USPQ2d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Federal Circuit affirmed Board decision holding that DR. RATH was primarily merely a surname); In re Giger, 78 USPQ2d 1405 (TTAB 2006) (GIGER MD primarily merely a surname); In re Revillon, 154 USPQ 494 (TTAB 1967) (MLLE. REVILLON primarily merely a surname). Cf. In re Hilton Hotels Corp., 166 USPQ 216 (TTAB 1970) (LADY HILTON held not primarily merely a surname because it suggests a person or lady of nobility).
The surname significance of a term is not diminished by the fact that the term is presented in its plural or possessive form. See In re Woolley's Petite Suites, 18 USPQ2d 1810 (TTAB 1991) (WOOLLEY'S PETITE SUITES for hotel and motel services held primarily merely a surname); In re McDonald's Corp., 230 USPQ 304, 306 (TTAB 1986) (MCDONALD'S held primarily merely a surname based on a showing of surname significance of "McDonald," the Board noting that "it is clear that people use their surnames in possessive and plural forms to identify their businesses or trades"); In re Luis Caballero, S.A., 223 USPQ 355 (TTAB 1984) (BURDONS held primarily merely a surname based in part on telephone listings showing surname significance of "Burdon"); In re Directional Marketing Corp., 204 USPQ 675 (TTAB 1979) (DRUMMONDS held primarily merely a surname based on a showing of surname significance of "Drummond").
The treatment of marks that include wording in addition to a term that, standing by itself, is primarily merely a surname, depends on the significance of the non-surname wording.
If the wording combined with the surname is incapable of functioning as a mark (i.e., a generic name for the goods or services), the examining attorney should refuse registration on the ground that the entire mark is primarily merely a surname under §2(e)(4). If the policy were otherwise, one could evade §2(e)(4) by the easy expedient of adding the generic name of the goods or services to a word that is primarily merely a surname. In re Hamilton Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 27 USPQ2d 1939 (TTAB 1993) (HAMILTON PHARMACEUTICALS for pharmaceutical products held primarily merely a surname); In re Cazes, 21 USPQ2d 1796, 1797 (TTAB 1991) (BRASSERIE LIPP held primarily merely a surname where "'brasserie' is a generic term for applicant's restaurant services"); In re Woolley's Petite Suites, 18 USPQ2d 1810 (TTAB 1991) (WOOLLEY'S PETITE SUITES for hotel and motel services held primarily merely a surname); In re Possis Medical, Inc., 230 USPQ 72, 73 (TTAB 1986) (POSSIS PERFUSION CUP held primarily merely a surname, the Board finding that "[a]pplicant's argument that PERFUSION CUP is not a generic name for its goods ... is contradicted by the evidence the Examining Attorney has pointed to"); In re E. Martinoni Co., 189 USPQ 589, 590-91 (TTAB 1975) (LIQUORE MARTINONI (stylized) for liqueur held primarily merely a surname, with "liquore" being the Italian word for "liqueur").
If the wording combined with the surname is capable of functioning as a mark (i.e., matter that is arbitrary, suggestive or merely descriptive of the goods or services), the mark is not considered to be primarily merely a surname under §2(e)(4). However, if the additional wording is merely descriptive or the equivalent, and a disclaimer is otherwise proper, the examining attorney should require a disclaimer of the additional wording. See In re Hutchinson Technology Inc., 852 F.2d 552, 7 USPQ2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY for computer components held not primarily merely a surname when the mark is considered as a whole, the Court remanding the case for entry of a disclaimer of "TECHNOLOGY" before publication).
A surname combined with a top-level domain name (e.g., JOHNSON.COM) is primarily merely a surname under §2(e)(4). See TMEP §1215.03.
The burden is initially on the examining attorney to establish a prima facie case that a mark is primarily merely a surname. The burden then shifts to the applicant to rebut this showing.
There is no rule as to the kind or amount of evidence necessary to make out a prima facie showing that a term is primarily merely a surname. This question must be resolved on a case-by-case basis. The entire record is examined to determine the surname significance of a term. The following are examples of evidence that may be relevant: telephone directory listings; excerpted articles from computerized research databases; evidence in the record that the term is a surname; the manner of use on specimen; dictionary definitions of the term and evidence from dictionaries showing no definition of the term. The quantum of evidence that is persuasive in finding surname significance in one case may be insufficient in another because of the differences in the names themselves.
See TMEP §§710 et seq. and 1211.02(b) et seq. for additional information about evidence.
In appropriate cases, the examining attorney may present evidence that may appear contrary to his or her position, with an appropriate explanation as to why, in view of other evidence presented, this evidence was not considered controlling. In some cases, this may foreclose objections from an applicant and present a more complete picture in the event of an appeal.
See TMEP §§1211.02(b)(i) et seq. regarding types of evidence that may be relevant to a refusal of registration under §2(e)(4).
Telephone directory listings from telephone books or electronic databases are one type of credible evidence of the surname significance of a term. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has declined to hold that a minimum number of listings in telephone directories must be found to establish a prima facie showing that the mark is primarily merely a surname.
It is the American public's perception of a term that is determinative. Therefore, foreign telephone directory listings are not probative of the significance of a term to the purchasing public in the United States, regardless of whether the applicant is of foreign origin.
Excerpted articles from the LEXIS-NEXIS® research database are one type of credible evidence of the surname significance of a term. There is no requirement that the examining attorney make of record every story found in a LEXIS-NEXIS® search. However, the examining attorney is presumed to make the best case possible. See In re Federated Department Stores Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1541, 1542 n.2 (TTAB 1987). See also In re Monotype Corp. PLC, 14 USPQ2d 1070, 1071 (TTAB 1989) ("We must conclude that, because the Examining Attorney is presumed to have made the best case possible, the 46 stories not made of record [the search yielded 48 stories] do not support the position that CALISTO is a surname and, indeed, show that CALISTO has non surname meanings.") An Office action that includes any evidence obtained from a research data base should include a citation to the research service and a clear record of the specific search that was conducted, indicating the libraries or files that were searched and the date of the search (e.g., LEXIS®, News and Business, All News, Aug. 5, 2007). The electronic record or printout summarizing the search should be made a part of the record. Relevant information not included on the summary, such as the number of documents viewed, should be stated in narrative in the Office action. See TMEP §710.01(a).
See TMEP §710.01(b) regarding evidence originating in foreign publications.
The fact that a term is the surname of an individual associated with the applicant (e.g., an officer or founder) is evidence of the surname significance of the term.
The fact that a term appears on the specimen of record in a manner that confirms its surname significance is evidence of the surname significance of a term. See Société Civile Des Domaines Dourthe Frères v. S.A. Consortium Vinicole De Bordeaux Et De La Gironde, 6 USPQ2d 1205, 1208 (TTAB 1988) (DOURTHE found primarily merely a surname, the Board noting applicant's references to "Dourthe" as the name of a particular family and finding the surname significance of the term to be reinforced by the appearance on applicant's wine labels of the name and/or signature of an individual named Pierre Dourthe); In re Taverniti, SARL, 225 USPQ 1263, 1264 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied, 228 USPQ 975 (TTAB 1985) (J. TAVERNITI held primarily merely a surname, the Board considering, among other factors, the presentation of the mark on the specimen in signature form); In re Luis Caballero, S.A., 223 USPQ 355, 356-57 (TTAB 1984) (BURDONS held primarily merely a surname, the Board weighting heavily the applicant's use of "Burdon" on the specimen as a surname, albeit of a fictitious character ("John William Burdon")).
Negative dictionary evidence (i.e., evidence that a term is absent from dictionaries or atlases) may demonstrate the lack of non-surname significance of a term.
Evidence of the fame of a mark (e.g., evidence of consumer recognition of a mark, or expenditures made in promoting or advertising a mark) is not relevant unless registration is sought under §2(f). In re McDonald's Corp., 230 USPQ 304, 307 (TTAB 1986) (McDONALD's held primarily merely a surname in spite of strong secondary meaning, with the Board stating that "the word 'primarily' refers to the primary significance of the term, that is, the ordinary meaning of the word, and not to the term's strength as a trademark due to widespread advertising and promotion of the term as a mark to identify goods and/or services.")
15 U.S.C. §1052(f). Except as expressly excluded in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of this section, nothing herein shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce. The Director may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as used on or in connection with the applicant's goods in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made. Nothing in this section shall prevent the registration of a mark which, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, and which became distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce before the date of the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
If a proposed mark is not inherently distinctive, it may be registered on the Principal Register only upon proof of acquired distinctiveness, or "secondary meaning," that is, proof that it has become distinctive as applied to the applicant's goods or services in commerce. If the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the examining attorney, that the matter in question has acquired distinctiveness as a mark in relation to the named goods or services, then the mark is registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(f).
Within the context of the Trademark Act, §2(f) may be described as follows:
[U]nlike the first five sections of 15 U.S.C. §1052 which define the grounds upon which a trademark registration is to be refused, Section 2(f) serves as an exception to a rejection under the provisions of one of the other sections, Section 2(e) (citation omitted). Section 2(f) permits registration of marks that, despite not qualifying for registration in light of Section 2(e), have nevertheless "become distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce." Thus, "Section 2(f) is not a provision on which registration can be refused," ... but is a provision under which an applicant has a chance to prove that he is entitled to a federal trademark registration which would otherwise be refused.
The purpose and significance of secondary meaning may be described as follows:
A term which is descriptive ... may, through usage by one producer with reference to his product, acquire a special significance so that to the consuming public the word has come to mean that the product is produced by that particular manufacturer. This is what is known as secondary meaning.
The crux of the secondary meaning doctrine is that the mark comes to identify not only the goods but the source of those goods. To establish secondary meaning, it must be shown that the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is not the product but the producer (citations omitted). This may be an anonymous producer, since consumers often buy goods without knowing the personal identity or actual name of the manufacturer.
There are three basic types of evidence that may be used to establish acquired distinctiveness under §2(f):
(1) A claim of ownership of one or more prior registrations on the Principal Register of the same mark for goods or services that are the same as or related to those named in the pending application (see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b); TMEP §§1212.04 et seq.);
(2) A statement verified by the applicant that the mark has become distinctive of the applicant's goods or services by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce by the applicant for the five years before the date when the claim of distinctiveness is made (see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b); TMEP §§1212.05 et seq.); and
(3) Actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness (see 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a); TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.).
The applicant may submit one or any combination of these types of evidence, which are discussed below. Depending on the nature of the mark and the facts in the record, the examining attorney may determine that a claim of ownership of a prior registration(s) or a claim of five years' substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of acquired distinctiveness. The applicant may then submit actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
Whether acquired distinctiveness has been established is a question of fact. The record must contain facts or evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
The burden of proving that a mark has acquired distinctiveness is on the applicant.
The applicant may present any competent evidence to establish that a mark has acquired distinctiveness. Actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness may be submitted regardless of the length of time the mark has been used.
The amount and character of evidence required to establish acquired distinctiveness depends on the facts of each case and particularly on the nature of the mark sought to be registered.
Typically, more evidence is required where a mark is so highly descriptive that purchasers seeing the matter in relation to the named goods or services would be less likely to believe that it indicates source in any one party.
Facts based on events that occurred subsequent to the filing date of the application may be considered. Whether acquired distinctiveness has been established is determined in view of the facts that exist at the time registrability is being considered.
A claim of distinctiveness by the applicant under §2(f) is usually made either in response to a statutory refusal to register or in anticipation of such a refusal. A claim of distinctiveness is appropriately made in response to, or in anticipation of, only certain statutory refusals to register. For example, it is inappropriate to assert acquired distinctiveness to contravene a refusal under §2(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e)(5), 15 U.S.C. §§1052(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e)(5). Furthermore, acquired distinctiveness may not be asserted to contravene a refusal under §2(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3), unless the mark became distinctive of the applicant's goods in commerce before December 8, 1993, the date of enactment of the NAFTA Implementation Act (see TMEP §1210.07(b)).
In In re Soccer Sport Supply Co., the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals noted as follows:
[T]he judicially developed concept of "secondary meaning," codified by section 2(f) (15 U.S.C. 1052(f)), relates to descriptive, geographically descriptive, or surname marks which earlier had a primary meaning which did not indicate a single source and were, therefore, unregistrable because of section 2(e) (citation omitted). Additionally, section 2(f) has been applied to permit registration of a mark consisting solely of a design and, therefore, not within the purview of section 2(e).
For procedural purposes, a claim of distinctiveness under §2(f), whether made in the application as filed or in a subsequent amendment, may be construed as conceding that the matter to which it pertains is not inherently distinctive (and thus not registrable on the Principal Register absent proof of acquired distinctiveness). Once an applicant has claimed that matter has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f), the issue to be determined is not whether the matter is inherently distinctive but, rather, whether it has acquired distinctiveness.However, claiming distinctiveness in the alternative is not an admission that the proposed mark is not inherently distinctive. TMEP §1212.02(c).
For the purposes of establishing that the subject matter is not inherently distinctive, the examining attorney should not rely on this concession alone, but should provide other appropriate evidence.
See TMEP §1212.02(d) regarding unnecessary §2(f) claims.
An applicant may argue the merits of an examining attorney's refusal and, in the alternative, claim that the matter sought to be registered has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). Unlike the situation in which an applicant initially seeks registration under §2(f) or amends its application without objection, the alternative claim does not constitute a concession that the matter sought to be registered is not inherently distinctive.
When an applicant claims acquired distinctiveness in the alternative, the examining attorney should treat separately the questions of: (1) the underlying basis of refusal and; (2) assuming the matter is determined to be registrable, whether acquired distinctiveness has been established. In the event of an appeal, the Board will use the same analysis, provided the evidence supporting the §2(f) claim is in the record and the alternative grounds have been considered and finally decided by the examining attorney.
In In re Capital Formation Counselors, Inc., the Board outlined its procedure in situations where the applicant maintains the position that the underlying refusal is improper and alternatively seeks registration pursuant to §2(f) in the interest of advancing the prosecution of the application:
If we decide that the mark as applied to the services is arbitrary or suggestive of the services, as applicant claims, we must reverse the refusal of registration under Section 2(e)(1) and we need not consider any of the affidavits or other material made of record by applicant in support of its Section 2(f) claim of distinctiveness. If, on the other hand, we find the mark to be merely descriptive of the services and, in fact, so highly descriptive of them that no amount of evidence could persuade us that the mark has become distinctive, we must affirm the refusal of registration. Similarly, in this situation, we need not consider any of the affidavits or other material made of record by applicant in its Section 2(f) claim of distinctiveness. If we find that the mark is merely descriptive of the goods for purposes of Section 2(e)(1), but not so highly descriptive as to be incapable of functioning as a service mark to identify applicant's services and distinguish them from like services of others, we must determine whether the evidence in support of applicant's claim of distinctiveness is sufficient to warrant registration under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.
Similarly, in an application under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act, the applicant may seek registration on the Principal Register under §2(f) and, in the alternative, on the Supplemental Register. Depending on the facts of the case, this approach may have limited practical application. If the examining attorney finds that the matter sought to be registered is not a mark within the meaning of §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127 (e.g., is generic or purely ornamental), the examining attorney will refuse registration on both registers.
However, if the issues are framed in the alternative (i.e., whether the matter sought to be registered has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) or, in the alternative, whether it is capable of registration on the Supplemental Register), and it is ultimately determined that the matter is a mark within the meaning of the Act (e.g., that the matter is merely descriptive rather than generic), then the evidence of secondary meaning will be considered. If it is determined that the applicant's evidence is sufficient to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the application will be approved for publication on the Principal Register under §2(f). If the evidence is determined to be insufficient, the mark may be registered on the Supplemental Register in an application under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act.
Accordingly, the applicant may submit an amendment to the Supplemental Register, and continue to argue entitlement to registration on the Principal Register in an appeal.
If the applicant files a notice of appeal in such a case, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will institute the appeal, suspend action on the appeal and remand the application to the examining attorney to determine registrability on the Supplemental Register.
If the examining attorney determines that the applicant is entitled to registration on the Supplemental Register, the examining attorney should send a letter notifying the applicant of the acceptance of the amendment and telling the applicant that the application is being referred to the Board for resumption of the appeal. If the examining attorney determines that the applicant is not entitled to registration on the Supplemental Register, the examining attorney will issue a nonfinal action refusing registration on the Supplemental Register. If the applicant fails to overcome the refusal, the examining attorney will issue a final action, and refer the application to the Board to resume action on the appeal with respect to entitlement to registration on either the Principal or the Supplemental Register.
Rather than framing the issues in the alternative (i.e., whether the matter has acquired distinctiveness pursuant to §2(f) or, in the alternative, whether it is capable of registration on the Supplemental Register), the applicant may amend its application between the Principal and Supplemental Registers. 37 C.F.R. §2.75.
See TMEP §§816 et seq. and 1102.03 regarding amending a §1(b) application to the Supplemental Register.
If the applicant specifically requests registration under §2(f), but the examining attorney considers the entire mark to be inherently distinctive and the claim of acquired distinctiveness to be unnecessary, the examining attorney should so inform the applicant and inquire whether the applicant wishes to delete the statement or to rely on it.
If the applicant specifically requests registration of the entire mark under §2(f), but the examining attorney believes that part of the mark is inherently distinctive, the examining attorney should give the applicant the option of limiting the §2(f) claim to the matter that is not inherently distinctive. (See TMEP §1212.02(f) regarding claims of §2(f) distinctiveness as to a portion of a mark.) However, if the applicant wishes, a claim of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) may be made as to an entire mark or phrase that contains both inherently distinctive matter and matter that is not inherently distinctive.
If the application contains statements that seem to relate to acquired distinctiveness or §2(f) but do not actually amount to a request for registration under §2(f), and the examining attorney does not believe that resort to §2(f) is necessary, the examining attorney may treat the statements as surplusage. If it is necessary to communicate with the applicant about another matter, the examining attorney should inform the applicant that the statements are being treated as surplusage. If it is otherwise unnecessary to communicate with the applicant, the examining attorney may delete the statements from the TRAM database, enter a note to the file that this has been done, and approve the application for publication. The documents containing the unnecessary §2(f) claim will remain in the record, but the claim will not be printed in the Official Gazette or on the certificate of registration. See TMEP §817 regarding preparation of applications for publication or issuance.
Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1056(a), states, in part, "The Director may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable." See In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington, Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986) ("[W]e conclude that it is within the discretion of an Examining Attorney to require the disclaimer of an unregistrable component (such as a common descriptive, or generic, name) of a composite mark sought to be registered on the Principal Register under the provisions of Section 2(f).").
A claim of acquired distinctiveness may apply to a portion of a mark. The applicant must clearly identify the portion of the mark for which distinctiveness is claimed. The standards for establishing acquired distinctiveness are the same whether the claim of distinctiveness pertains to the entire mark or to a portion of it. See TMEP §§1212.09 et seq. regarding claims of acquired distinctiveness in intent-to-use applications under §1(b) of the Act.
Generally, the element that is the subject of the §2(f) claim must present a distinct commercial impression apart from the other elements of the mark. That is, it must be a separable element.
If the examining attorney determines that the claim of distinctiveness as to a portion of the mark is appropriate, the examining attorney should ensure that the record reflects that the §2(f) claim applies to the mark "in part" and that the relevant portion of the mark is identified.
If a claim of distinctiveness applies to only part of a mark and the examining attorney determines (1) that the claimed portion of the mark is unregistrable even under §2(f) (e.g., because it is generic or functional), or (2) that, although the claimed portion is registrable, the applicant has failed to establish acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney may require a disclaimer of that portion of the mark, if a disclaimer is otherwise appropriate. See In re Lillian Vernon Corp., 225 USPQ 213 (TTAB 1985) (requirement for disclaimer of PROVENDER affirmed in application to register PROVENDER and design for "mail order services in the gourmet, bath and gift item field," "provender" meaning "food" (claim of §2(f) distinctiveness in part held unacceptable)). Cf. In re Chopper Industries, 222 USPQ 258 (TTAB 1984) (requirement for disclaimer of CHOPPER reversed in application to register CHOPPER 1 and design for wood log splitting axes (claim of §2(f) distinctiveness in part held acceptable)).
In a first action refusing registration, the examining attorney should suggest, where appropriate, that the applicant amend its application to seek registration under §2(f). For example, this should be done as a matter of course, if otherwise appropriate, in cases where registration is refused under §2(e)(4) on the ground that the mark is primarily merely a surname, and the applicant has recited dates of use that indicate that the mark has been in use in commerce for at least five years.
If the examining attorney determines that an applicant's evidence is insufficient to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney should suggest, where appropriate, that the applicant submit additional evidence. See In re Half Price Books, Records, Magazines, Inc., 225 USPQ 219, 220 n.2 (TTAB 1984) (Noting that applicant was specifically invited to seek registration pursuant to §2(f) but, after amending its application to do so, was refused registration on the ground that the mark was incapable of acquiring distinctiveness, the Board stated that, in fairness to applicant, this practice should be avoided where possible).
The examining attorney should not "require" that the applicant submit evidence of secondary meaning. There would be no practical standard for a proper response to this requirement; nor would there be a sound basis for appeal from the requirement.
The examining attorney should not specify the kind or the amount of evidence sufficient to establish that a mark has acquired distinctiveness. It is the responsibility of the applicant to submit evidence to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness. See TMEP §1212.01. However, the examining attorney may make a suggestion as to a course of action, if the examining attorney believes this would further the prosecution of the application.
If an application is filed under §2(f) of the Trademark Act and the examining attorney determines that (1) the mark is not inherently distinctive, and (2) the applicant's evidence of secondary meaning is insufficient to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney will issue a non-final action refusing registration on the Principal Register pursuant to the appropriate section of the Trademark Act (e.g., §2(e)(1)), on the ground that the applicant's evidence of secondary meaning is insufficient to overcome the stated refusal. The examining attorney should suggest, where appropriate, that the applicant submit additional evidence. See TMEP §1212.02(g) concerning the examining attorney's role in suggesting a claim of distinctiveness under §2(f).
If an application is not filed under §2(f) and the examining attorney determines that the mark is not inherently distinctive, the examining attorney should issue a non-final action refusing registration on the Principal Register under the appropriate section of the Act (e.g., §2(e)(1)). The examining attorney should suggest, where appropriate, that the applicant amend its application to claim distinctiveness under §2(f).
Thereafter, if the applicant amends its application to seek registration under §2(f), a new issue is raised as to the sufficiency of the applicant's evidence of secondary meaning (see TMEP §714.05(a)(i)). The underlying statutory basis for refusal remains the same (e.g., §2(e)(1)), but the issue changes from whether the underlying refusal is warranted to whether the matter has acquired distinctiveness. If the examining attorney is persuaded that a prima facie case of acquired distinctiveness has been established, the examining attorney will approve the application for publication under §2(f). If the examining attorney determines that the applicant's evidence is insufficient to establish that the matter has acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney will issue a second non-final action repeating the underlying statutory basis for refusal (e.g., §2(e)(1)), and explaining why the applicant's evidence is insufficient to overcome the stated refusal.
The examining attorney cannot issue a final refusal on the underlying statutory basis of the original refusal, upon an applicant's initial assertion of a §2(f) claim. The mere assertion of distinctiveness under §2(f) raises a new issue. Even if the applicant has submitted, in support of the §2(f) claim, a statement of five years' use that is technically defective (e.g., not verified or comprising incorrect language), the assertion of §2(f) distinctiveness still constitutes a new issue.
Exception: The examining attorney may issue a final refusal upon an applicant's initial assertion of a §2(f) claim if the amendment is irrelevant to the outstanding refusal. See TMEP §714.05(a)(1). See also TMEP §§1212.02(a) and 1212.02(i) regarding situations where it is and is not appropriate to submit a claim of acquired distinctiveness to overcome a refusal.
After the examining attorney has issued a non-final action refusing registration on the Principal Register with a finding that the applicant's evidence of secondary meaning is insufficient to overcome the stated refusal, the applicant may elect to submit additional arguments and/or evidence regarding secondary meaning. If, after considering this submission, the examining attorney is persuaded that the applicant has established a prima facie case of acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney will approve the application for publication under §2(f). If the examining attorney is not persuaded that the applicant has established a prima facie case of acquired distinctiveness, and the application is otherwise in condition for final refusal, the examining attorney will issue a final refusal pursuant to the appropriate section of the Act (e.g., §2(e)(1)), with a finding that the applicant's evidence of acquired distinctiveness is insufficient to overcome the stated refusal. See In re Capital Formation Counselors, Inc., 219 USPQ 916, 917 n.2 (TTAB 1983).
In any action in which the examining attorney indicates that the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, the examining attorney must specify the reasons for this determination.
If matter is generic, functional or purely ornamental, or otherwise fails to function as a mark, the matter is unregistrable. See, e.g., In re Bongrain International Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 1317 n.4, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1728 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("If a mark is generic, incapable of serving as a means 'by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others' ... it is not a trademark and can not be registered under the Lanham Act."); H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.,782 F.2d 987, 989, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986), and cases cited therein ("A generic term ... can never be registered as a trademark because such a term is 'merely descriptive' within the meaning of §2(e)(1) and is incapable of acquiring de jure distinctiveness under §2(f). The generic name of a thing is in fact the ultimate in descriptiveness."). See also In re Melville Corp., 228 USPQ 970, 972 (TTAB 1986) (BRAND NAMES FOR LESS, for retail store services in the clothing field, "should remain available for other persons or firms to use to describe the nature of their competitive services.").
An underlying basis of refusal common in each of the situations referred to above is the failure of the matter to function as a mark within the meaning of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052 and 1127).
It is axiomatic that matter may not be registered unless it is used as a mark, namely, "in a manner calculated to project to purchasers or potential purchasers a single source or origin for the goods in question." In re Remington Products Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB 1987). See, e.g., In re Melville Corp., 228 USPQ 970, 970 n.2 (TTAB 1986) ("If matter proposed for registration does not function as a mark, it is not registrable in accordance with Sections 1 and 2 of the Act because the preambles of those sections limit registration to subject matter within the definition of a trademark."); In re Whataburger Systems, Inc., 209 USPQ 429, 430 (TTAB 1980) ("[A] designation may not be registered either as a trademark or as a service mark unless it is used as a mark, in such a manner that its function as an indication of origin may be readily perceived by persons encountering the goods or services in connection with which it is used.").
Therefore, where the examining attorney has determined that matter sought to be registered is not registrable because it is not a mark within the meaning of the Trademark Act, a claim that the matter has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) as applied to the applicant's goods or services does not overcome the refusal. See, e.g., TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2001) ("Functionality having been established, whether MDI'S dual spring design has acquired secondary meaning need not be considered."); In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 1484-85, 222 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("Evidence of distinctiveness is of no avail to counter a de jure functionality rejection."); In re Tilcon Warren, Inc., 221 USPQ 86, 88 (TTAB 1984) ("Long use of a slogan which is not a trademark and would not be so perceived does not, of course, transform the slogan into a trademark."); In re Mancino, 219 USPQ 1047, 1048 (TTAB 1983) ("Since the refusal ... was based on applicant's failure to demonstrate technical service mark use, the claim of distinctiveness under Section 2(f) was of no relevance to the issue in the case.").
As discussed above, evidence of acquired distinctiveness will not alter the determination that matter is unregistrable. Nevertheless, the evidence submitted by the applicant should be reviewed to determine whether it has any bearing on the underlying basis of refusal.
See also In re Wakefern Food Corp., 222 USPQ 76, 79 (TTAB 1984) (the Board, while finding applicant's evidence relating to public perception of WHY PAY MORE! entitled to relatively little weight, noting that the evidence is relevant to the issue of whether the slogan functions as a mark for applicant's supermarket services).
37 C.F.R. §2.41. Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f).
(a) When registration is sought of a mark which would be unregistrable by reason of section 2(e) of the Act but which is said by applicant to have become distinctive in commerce of the goods or services set forth in the application, applicant may, in support of registrability, submit with the application, or in response to a request for evidence or to a refusal to register, affidavits, or declarations in accordance with §2.20, depositions, or other appropriate evidence showing duration, extent and nature of use in commerce and advertising expenditures in connection therewith (identifying types of media and attaching typical advertisements), and affidavits, or declarations in accordance with §2.20, letters or statements from the trade or public, or both, or other appropriate evidence tending to show that the mark distinguishes such goods.
(b) In appropriate cases, ownership of one or more prior registrations on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905 of the same mark may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness. Also, if the mark is said to have become distinctive of applicant's goods by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made, a showing by way of statements which are verified or which include declarations in accordance with §2.20, in the application may, in appropriate cases, be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness. In each of these situations, however, further evidence may be required.
"To establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself." Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
Trademark Rule 2.41(b), 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b), provides that the examining attorney may accept, as prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness, ownership by the applicant of one or more prior registrations of the same mark on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905. See TMEP §1212.04(b) as to what constitutes the "same mark," and TMEP §§1212.09 et seq. concerning §1(b) applications.
The rule states that ownership of existing registrations to establish acquired distinctiveness "may" be considered acceptable in "appropriate cases," and that the Office may, at its option, require additional evidence of distinctiveness.
The following are general guidelines regarding claiming ownership of prior registrations as a method of establishing acquired distinctiveness.
The examining attorney has the discretion to determine whether the nature of the mark sought to be registered is such that a claim of ownership of a prior registration for the same or similar goods or services is enough to establish acquired distinctiveness. For example, if the mark sought to be registered is deemed to be highly descriptive or misdescriptive of the goods or services named in the application, the examining attorney may require additional evidence of acquired distinctiveness. See In re Loew's Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764, 226 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (claim of ownership of a prior registration held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness where registration was refused as primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive); In re Kerr-McGee Corp., 190 USPQ 204 (TTAB 1976) (claim of ownership of prior registrations held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness where registration was refused on ground that the subject matter was merely an ornamental border or "carrier" for words and symbols appearing within).
If the term for which the applicant seeks to prove distinctiveness was disclaimed in the prior registration, the prior registration may not be accepted as prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
A proposed mark is the "same mark as a previously registered mark for the purpose of 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b)" if it is the "legal equivalent" of such a mark. A mark is the legal equivalent of another if it creates the same, continuing commercial impression such that the consumer would consider them both the same mark. Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1475, 1477 (TTAB 1988) ("The words GOLDEN RING, while they are used to describe the device, are by no means identical to or substantially identical to the gold ring device trademark."); In re Best Products Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 988, 989 n.6 (TTAB 1986) ("[W]e infer in the instant case that the differences between the marks BEST & Des. and BEST JEWELRY & Des., and between the identifications of services in their respective registrations, were deemed to be immaterial differences."); In re Flex-O-Glass, Inc., 194 USPQ 203, 205-06 (TTAB 1977) ("[P]ersons exposed to applicant's registered mark ... would, upon encountering [applicant's yellow rectangle and red circle design] ..., be likely to accept it as the same mark or as an inconsequential modification or modernization thereof.... [A]pplicant may 'tack on' to its use of the mark in question, the use of the registered mark ... and therefore may properly rely upon its registration in support of its claim of distinctiveness herein.").
The examining attorney should determine whether the goods or services named in the application are sufficiently similar to the goods or services named in the prior registration(s). See Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1475, 1478 (TTAB 1988) ("Applicant's almost total reliance on the distinctiveness which its gold ring device has achieved vis-à-vis rifle scopes and handgun scopes is simply not sufficient by itself to establish that the same gold ring device has become distinctive vis-à-vis binoculars and spotting scopes."); In re Best Products Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 988, 989 n.6 (TTAB 1986) ("[W]e infer in the instant case that the differences between the marks BEST & Des. and BEST JEWELRY & Des., and between the identifications of services in their respective registrations ['mail order and catalog showroom services' and 'retail jewelry store services'], were deemed to be immaterial differences."); In re Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 143 USPQ 431, 432 (TTAB 1964) (applicant's ownership of prior registration of LIBBEY for cut-glass articles held acceptable as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness of identical mark for plastic tableware, the Board stating, "Cut-glass and plastic articles of tableware are customarily sold in the same retail outlets, and purchasers of one kind of tableware might well be prospective purchasers of the other."); In re Lytle Engineering & Mfg. Co., 125 USPQ 308, 309 (TTAB 1960) (applicant's ownership of prior registration of LYTLE for various services, including the planning, preparation and production of technical publications, held acceptable as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness of identical mark for brochures, catalogues and bulletins).
Trademark Rule 2.41(b), 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b), states that ownership of a prior registration "on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905" may be accepted as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness. Therefore, claims of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) cannot be based on ownership of registrations on the Supplemental Register.
Moreover, a claim of acquired distinctiveness cannot be based on a registration that is cancelled or expired. When an examining attorney considers a §2(f) claim based on ownership of one or more prior registrations, the examining attorney must confirm, in the records of the Office, that the claimed registrations were issued on the Principal Register or under the Act of 1905 and that they are in full force and effect.
The following language may be used to claim distinctiveness under §2(f) on the basis of ownership of one or more prior registrations:
The mark has become distinctive of the goods (or services) as evidenced by ownership of U.S. Registration No(s). __________ on the Principal Register for the same mark for related goods or services.
If the applicant is relying solely on its ownership of one or more prior registrations as proof of acquired distinctiveness, the §2(f) claim does not have to be verified. Therefore, an applicant or an applicant's attorney may authorize amendment of an application to add such a claim through an examiner's amendment, if otherwise appropriate.
Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(f), provides that "proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use" of a designation "as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made" may be accepted as prima facie evidence that the mark has acquired distinctiveness as used with the applicant's goods in commerce. See also 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b).
The Trademark Act previously required that the relevant five-year period precede the filing date of the application. The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 revised §2(f) of the Act to provide for a prima facie showing of acquired distinctiveness based on five years' use running up to the date the claim is made. Under the revised provision, any five-year claim submitted on or after November 16, 1989, is subject to the new time period. This applies even if the application was filed prior to that date.
Section 2(f) of the Act and 37 C.F.R. §2.41(b) state that reliance on a claim of five years' use to establish acquired distinctiveness "may" be acceptable in "appropriate cases." The Office may, at its option, require additional evidence of distinctiveness. Whether a claim of five years' use will be deemed acceptable to establish that the mark has acquired distinctiveness depends largely on the nature of the mark in relation to the specified goods or services.
The following are general guidelines regarding the statutorily suggested proof of five years' use as a method of establishing acquired distinctiveness.
For most surnames, the statement of five years' use will be sufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness.
The amount of evidence necessary to establish secondary meaning varies – "the greater the degree of description a term has, the heavier the burden to prove it has attained secondary meaning."
Accordingly, for marks refused under §§2(e)(1) or 2(e)(2), whether the statement of five years' use is sufficient in and of itself to establish acquired distinctiveness depends on the degree to which the mark is descriptive or misdescriptive. If the mark is highly descriptive or misdescriptive of the goods or services named in the application, the statement of five years' use alone will be deemed insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness. See In re Kalmbach Publishing Co., 14 USPQ2d 1490 (TTAB 1989) (applicant's sole evidence of acquired distinctiveness, a claim of use since 1975, held insufficient to establish that the highly descriptive, if not generic, designation RADIO CONTROL BUYERS GUIDE had become distinctive of applicant's magazines); In re Gray Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1558, 1559 (TTAB 1987) ("[T]o support registration of PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT [for burglar and fire alarms and burglar and fire alarm surveillance services] on the Principal Register a showing considerably stronger than a prima facie statement of five years' substantially exclusive use is required."). Cf. In re Synergistics Research Corp., 218 USPQ 165 (TTAB 1983) (applicant's declaration of five years' use held sufficient to support registrability under §2(f) of BALL DARTS for equipment sold as a unit for playing a target game, in view of lack of evidence that the term is highly descriptive (e.g., no dictionary evidence of any meaning of BALL DARTS and no evidence of use of the term by competitors or the public)).
For matter that does not inherently function as a mark because of its nature (e.g., nondistinctive product container shapes, overall color of a product, mere ornamentation), evidence of five years' use is not sufficient to show acquired distinctiveness. In such a case, actual evidence that the mark is perceived as a mark for the relevant goods or services would be required to establish distinctiveness. See generally In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (color pink as uniformly applied to applicant's fibrous glass residential insulation); In re R.M. Smith, Inc., 734 F.2d 1482, 222 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (configuration of pistol grip water nozzle for water nozzles); Edward Weck Inc. v. IM Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1142 (TTAB 1990) (color green for medical instruments); In re Cabot Corp., 15 USPQ2d 1224 (TTAB 1990) (configuration of a pillow-pack container for ear plugs and configuration of a pillow-pack container with trade dress (white circle surrounded by blue border) for ear plugs); In re Star Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 225 USPQ 209 (TTAB 1985) (color combination of drug capsule and seeds therein for methyltestosterone); In re Craigmyle, 224 USPQ 791 (TTAB 1984) (configuration of halter square for horse halters).
The five years of use does not have to be exclusive, but may be "substantially" exclusive. This makes allowance for use by others that may be inconsequential or infringing, which does not necessarily invalidate the applicant's claim.
The existence of other applications to register the same mark, or other known uses of the mark, does not automatically eliminate the possibility of using this method of proof, but the examining attorney should inquire as to the nature of such use and be satisfied that it is not substantial or does not nullify the claim of distinctiveness. See Levi Strauss & Co. v. Genesco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1401, 1403, 222 USPQ 939, 940-41 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("When the record shows that purchasers are confronted with more than one (let alone numerous) independent users of a term or device, an application for registration under Section 2(f) cannot be successful, for distinctiveness on which purchasers may rely is lacking under such circumstances."); Marshall Field & Co. v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 11 USPQ2d 1355, 1357-58 (TTAB 1989) ("[T]he existence of numerous third party users of a mark, even if junior, might well have a material impact on the Examiner's decision to accept a party's claim of distinctiveness."); Flowers Industries Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 5 USPQ2d 1580, 1588-89 (TTAB 1987) ("[L]ong and continuous use alone is insufficient to show secondary meaning where the use is not substantially exclusive.").
The use of the mark during the five years must be continuous, without a period of "nonuse" or suspension of trade in the goods or services in connection with which the mark is used.
The substantially exclusive and continuous use must be "as a mark." 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). See In re Craigmyle, 224 USPQ 791 (TTAB 1984) (registrability under §2(f) not established by sales over a long period of time where there was no evidence that the subject matter had been used as a mark); In re Kwik Lok Corp., 217 USPQ 1245, 1248 (TTAB 1983) (declarations as to sales volume and advertising expenditures held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness. "The significant missing element in appellant's case is evidence persuasive of the fact that the subject matter has been used as a mark.").
If the applicant chooses to seek registration under §2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f), by using the statutory suggestion of five years of use as proof of distinctiveness, the applicant should submit a claim of distinctiveness that reads as follows, if accurate:
The mark has become distinctive of the goods (or services) through the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement.
The claim of five years of use is generally required to be supported by an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, signed by the applicant.
The following are guidelines regarding the form and language appropriate for a claim of five years of use:
(1) Use of the precise statutory wording is desirable, but variations may be accepted if they do not affect the essential allegations.
(2) The wording "substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce" is essential.
(3) It must be clear from the record that the five years of use has been in commerce that may lawfully be regulated by Congress.
(4) The use of the mark must cover the five years before the date of the statement of five years' use. Thus wording that indicates that the use referred to is before the date of the statement is essential. Its omission can only be excused if the facts in the record clearly show that the use includes the five years before the date of the statement.
(5) The affidavit or declaration should include a statement that the mark has become distinctive or that the applicant believes that the mark has become distinctive, but absence of this statement is not fatal..
(6) The affidavit or declaration should contain a reference to distinctiveness as applied to the applicant's goods or services, or to use with the applicant's goods or services, because the distinctiveness created by the five years' use must relate to the goods or services specified in the application. If there is doubt that the distinctiveness pertains to either all or any of the goods or services specified in the application, the examining attorney should inquire regarding that issue. While a clarifying response does not have to be verified, a substitute statement must be verified, i.e., supported by an affidavit or a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, signed by the applicant.
Under Trademark Rule 2.41(a), 37 C.F.R. §2.41(a), an applicant may submit affidavits, declarations under 37 C.F.R. §2.20, depositions or other appropriate evidence showing the duration, extent and nature of the applicant's use of a mark in commerce that may lawfully be regulated by Congress, advertising expenditures in connection with such use, letters or statements from the trade and/or public, or other appropriate evidence tending to show that the mark distinguishes the goods or services.
Establishing acquired distinctiveness by actual evidence was explained as follows in In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.:
An evidentiary showing of secondary meaning, adequate to show that a mark has acquired distinctiveness indicating the origin of the goods, includes evidence of the trademark owner's method of using the mark, supplemented by evidence of the effectiveness of such use to cause the purchasing public to identify the mark with the source of the product.
The kind and amount of evidence necessary to establish that a mark has acquired distinctiveness in relation to goods or services depends on the nature of the mark and the circumstances surrounding the use of the mark in each case.
In considering a claim of acquired distinctiveness, the issue is whether acquired distinctiveness of the mark in relation to the goods or services has in fact been established in the minds of the purchasing public, not whether the mark is capable of becoming distinctive.
The following are some examples of different types of evidence that have been used, alone or in combination, to establish acquired distinctiveness. No single evidentiary factor is determinative. The value of a specific type of evidence and the amount necessary to establish acquired distinctiveness will vary according to the facts of the specific case.
Long use of the mark is one relevant factor to consider in determining whether a mark has acquired distinctiveness. See In re Uncle Sam Chemical Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 233 (TTAB 1986) (§2(f) claim of acquired distinctiveness of SPRAYZON for "cleaning preparations and degreasers for industrial and institutional use" found persuasive where applicant had submitted declaration of its president supporting sales figures and attesting to over eighteen years of substantially exclusive and continuous use); In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 USPQ 917, 920 (TTAB 1984) (evidence submitted by applicant held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness of PACKAGING SPECIALISTS, INC., for contract packaging services, notwithstanding, inter alia, continuous and substantially exclusive use for sixteen years, deemed "a substantial period but not necessarily conclusive or persuasive").
Large scale expenditures in promoting and advertising goods and services under a particular mark are significant to indicate the extent to which a mark has been used. However, proof of an expensive and successful advertising campaign is not in itself enough to prove secondary meaning. In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim based on annual sales under the mark of approximately eighty-five million dollars, and annual advertising expenditures in excess of ten million dollars – two million of which were spent on promotions and promotional items which included the phrase THE BEST BEER IN AMERICA – found insufficient to establish distinctiveness, in view of the highly descriptive nature of the proposed mark). The ultimate test in determining whether a designation has acquired distinctiveness is applicant's success, rather than its efforts, in educating the public to associate the proposed mark with a single source. The examining attorney must examine the advertising material to determine how the term is being used, the commercial impression created by such use, and what the use would mean to purchasers. In re Redken Laboratories, Inc., 170 USPQ 526, 529 (TTAB 1971) (evidence adduced by applicant pursuant to §2(f) held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness of THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, for lectures concerning hair and skin treatment, notwithstanding ten years of use, over $500,000 in promotion and sponsorship expenses, and the staging of over 300 shows per year). See also In re E.I. Kane, Inc., 221 USPQ 1203, 1206 (TTAB 1984) (refusal to register OFFICE MOVERS, INC., for moving services, affirmed notwithstanding §2(f) claim based on, inter alia, evidence of substantial advertising expenditures. "There is no evidence that any of the advertising activity was directed to creating secondary meaning in applicant's highly descriptive trade name."); In re Kwik Lok Corp., 217 USPQ 1245 (TTAB 1983) (evidence held insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness for configuration of bag closures made of plastic, notwithstanding applicant's statement that advertising of the closures involved several hundred thousands of dollars, where there was no evidence that the advertising had any impact on purchasers in perceiving the configuration as a mark). Cf. In re Haggar Co., 217 USPQ 81, 84 (TTAB 1982) (background design of a black swatch held registrable pursuant to §2(f) for clothing where applicant had submitted, inter alia, evidence of "very substantial advertising and sales," the Board finding the design to be, "because of its serrated left edge, something more than a common geometric shape or design").
If the applicant prefers not to specify the extent of its expenditures in promoting and advertising goods and services under the mark because this information is confidential, the applicant may indicate the types of media through which the goods and services have been advertised (e.g., national television) and how frequently the advertisements have appeared.
Affidavits or declarations that assert recognition of the mark as a source indicator are relevant in establishing acquired distinctiveness. The value of the affidavits or declarations depends on the statements made and the identity of the affiant or declarant. In re Chemical Dynamics Inc., 839 F.2d 1569, 5 USPQ2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (conclusionary declaration from applicant's vice-president held insufficient without the factual basis for the declarant's belief that the design had become distinctive). Proof of distinctiveness requires more than proof of the existence of a relatively small number of people who associate a mark with the applicant. In re The Paint Products Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988) ("Because these affidavits were sought and collected by applicant from ten customers who have dealt with applicant for many years, the evidence is not altogether persuasive on the issue of how the average customer for paints perceives the words 'PAINT PRODUCTS CO.' in conjunction with paints and coatings."). See also In re Gray Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1558, 1560 (TTAB 1987) (affidavit of applicant's counsel expressing his belief that the mark has acquired secondary meaning accorded "no probative value whatsoever" because, among other reasons, the statement is subject to bias); In re Petersen Mfg. Co., 2 USPQ2d 2032 (TTAB 1987) (declarations from customers which stated that designs used by applicant indicate to the declarant that the applicant is the source of the goods, but which did not refer to or identify the designs with any specificity, not considered persuasive); In re Bose Corp., 216 USPQ 1001, 1005 (TTAB 1983), aff'd, 772 F.2d 866, 227 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (retailer's statement that he has been in contact with many purchasers of loudspeaker systems of whom a substantial number would recognize depicted design as originating with applicant deemed competent evidence of secondary meaning); In re Flex-O-Glass, Inc., 194 USPQ 203, 206 (TTAB 1977) ("[T]he fact that the affidavits may be similar in format and expression is of no particular significance ... since the affiants have sworn to the statements contained therein.").
Survey evidence, market research and consumer reaction studies are relevant in establishing acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning.
To show secondary meaning, the survey must show that the public views the proposed mark as an indication of the source of the product or service. Boston Beer Co. L.P. v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 175, 28 USPQ2d 1778 (1st Cir. 1993) (survey found insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness where survey demonstrates product-place association rather than product-source association). The applicant must document the procedural and statistical accuracy of this type of evidence and carefully frame the questions contained therein. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (applicant's Internet poll on name recognition deemed unreliable, where the poll did not attempt to prevent visitors from voting more than once or to prevent interested parties such as friends or associates or employees of the applicant from voting multiple times, and the poll results did not indicate the number of actual participants); In re E.I. Kane, Inc., 221 USPQ 1203, 1206 (TTAB 1984) ("[T]he survey asked the wrong question. The issue is not whether the term 'Office Movers' identifies a specific company. Rather, it is whether the term 'OFFICE MOVERS, INC.' identifies services which emanate from a single source."); General Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990, 994 n.7 (TTAB 1984) ("[W]here ... [reports of market research, consumer reaction studies] have been conducted for marketing reasons rather than directly to assist in resolving the issues in proceedings before us, their value will almost always depend on interpretations of their significance by witnesses or other evidence."); Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Spiceseas, Inc., 220 USPQ 73, 74 n.4 (TTAB 1983) (testimony concerning survey results, unsupported by documentation, considered unreliable hearsay).
When the applicant is the only source of the goods or services, use alone does not automatically represent trademark recognition and acquired distinctiveness.
State trademark registrations are of relatively little probative value. See, e.g., In re Vico Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 229 USPQ 364, 370 (TTAB 1985), recon. denied, 229 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1986) ("While applicant's design may be registrable under the provisions of California trademark law, it is the federal trademark statute and the cases interpreting it by which we must evaluate the registrability of applicant's asserted mark."); In re Craigmyle, 224 USPQ 791, 794 (TTAB 1984).
The fact that a device is the subject of a design patent does not, without more, mean that it functions as a mark or has acquired distinctiveness.
Acquiescence to demands of competitors to cease use of a term can be equally viewed as simply a desire to avoid litigation.
In applications based on §44(d), §44(e), or §66(a) of the Trademark Act, registration may be sought under §2(f) on a showing that the mark has acquired distinctiveness in commerce that may lawfully be regulated by Congress. In re Etablissements Darty et Fils, 759 F.2d 15, 225 USPQ 652 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Dates of first use do not have to be stated in an application based solely on §44 or §66(a). However, reference to length of use or information as to specific dates of use will be important as part of the evidence presented in support of the claim of acquired distinctiveness.
The applicant may not rely on use other than use in commerce that may be regulated by the United States Congress in establishing acquired distinctiveness. Evidence of use solely in a foreign country, or between two foreign countries, is not evidence of acquired distinctiveness in the United States.
Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. §1052(f), is limited by its terms to "a mark used by the applicant." A claim of distinctiveness under §2(f) is normally not filed in a §1(b) application before the applicant files an amendment to allege use or a statement of use, because a claim of acquired distinctiveness, by definition, requires prior use.
However, an intent-to-use applicant who has used the mark on related goods or services may file a claim of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) before filing an amendment to allege use or statement of use, if the applicant can establish that, as a result of the applicant's use of the mark on other goods or services, the mark has become distinctive of the goods or services in the intent-to-use application, and that this previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods and services in the intent-to-use application when use in commerce begins.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has set forth the requirements for showing that a mark in an intent-to-use application has acquired distinctiveness:
The required showing is essentially twofold. First, applicant must establish, through the appropriate submission, the acquired distinctiveness of the same mark in connection with specified other goods and/or services in connection with which the mark is in use in commerce. All of the rules and legal precedent pertaining to such a showing in a use-based application are equally applicable in this context.... Second, applicant must establish, through submission of relevant evidence rather than mere conjecture, a sufficient relationship between the goods or services in connection with which the mark has acquired distinctiveness and the goods or services recited in the intent-to-use application to warrant the conclusion that the previously created distinctiveness will transfer to the goods or services in the application upon use.
To satisfy the first element, the applicant must establish acquired distinctiveness as to the other goods or services by appropriate evidence, such as ownership of a prior registration for the same mark for related goods or services (see TMEP §§1212.04 et seq.), a prima facie showing of acquired distinctiveness based on five years' use of the same mark with related goods or services (see TMEP §§1212.05 et seq.), or actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness for the same mark with respect to the other goods or services (see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.).
To satisfy the second element, applicant must show "the extent to which the goods or services in the intent-to-use application are related to the goods or services in connection with which the mark is distinctive, and that there is a strong likelihood that the mark's established trademark function will transfer to the related goods or services when use in commerce occurs."
The showing necessary to establish relatedness will vary from case to case, depending on the nature of the goods or services involved and the language used to identify them. There is no absolute rule that applicant must submit extrinsic evidence to support its contention that the goods are related in every case. Kellogg Co. v. General Mills, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1766 (TTAB 2007) (close relationship between cereal and food bars derived from cereal deemed "self evident from the respective identifications of goods").
The fact that a mark is famous in connection with certain goods or services does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that, upon use, distinctiveness will transfer to use of the mark in connection with unrelated goods or services in an intent-to-use application. In Rogers, the Board stated that:
The owner of a famous mark must still establish a strong likelihood of transference of the trademark function to the goods or services identified in the intent-to-use application. This factually-based determination will still involve establishing some degree of relationship between the goods or services for which the mark is famous and the goods or services in the intent-to-use application.
An applicant whose application is based on use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. §1051(a) may also base a claim of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) on long use of the mark on related goods or services, if the applicant meets the requirements set forth above.
An intent-to-use applicant may also file a claim of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) of the Trademark Act as to part of a mark before filing an acceptable amendment to allege use or statement of use. The claim must indicate that the applicant has already used the relevant part of the mark in commerce on or in connection with the specified goods or services, or related goods or services as discussed above. See TMEP §1212.02(f) regarding claims of §2(f) distinctiveness "in part."
Evidence in support of such a claim may consist of: (1) ownership of a prior registration covering the relevant part of the mark and the same or related goods or services (see TMEP §§1212.04 et seq.); (2) a prima facie showing of distinctiveness based on five years' use of the relevant part of the mark with the same or related goods or services (see TMEP §§1212.05 et seq.); or (3) actual evidence of acquired distinctiveness of the relevant part of the mark with respect to the same or related goods or services (see TMEP §§1212.06 et seq.). The examining attorney should consider the claim in the same manner as any other claim under §2(f).
If the examining attorney determines that the applicant has established acquired distinctiveness as to the relevant part of the mark, the examining attorney should withdraw any refusal related to the nondistinctive character of that part of the mark.
Currently, when a mark is registered under §2(f), the Office prints a "2(f)" notation in the Official Gazette and on the certificate of registration. The examining attorney should ensure that the §2(f) claim has been entered into the TRAM database, so that it will be printed in the Official Gazette and on the certificate of registration. See TMEP §817 regarding preparation of an application for publication or issuance.
There was a period of time in the past when the Office did not print §2(f) notations. Therefore, the absence of a "§2(f)" notation on an older registration does not necessarily mean that the mark was registered without resort to §2(f).
15 U.S.C. §1056. Disclaimers.
(a) The Director may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable. An applicant may voluntarily disclaim a component of a mark sought to be registered.
(b) No disclaimer, including those made under subsection (e) of section 7 of this Act, shall prejudice or affect the applicant's or registrant's rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, or his right of registration on another application if the disclaimed matter be or shall have become distinctive of his goods or services.
In a trademark application or registration, a disclaimer is a statement that the applicant or registrant does not claim the exclusive right to use a specified element or elements of the mark. A disclaimer may be included in an application as filed or may be added by amendment, e.g., to comply with a requirement by the examining attorney.
The purpose of a disclaimer is to permit the registration of a mark that is registrable as a whole but contains matter that would not be registrable standing alone, without creating a false impression of the extent of the registrant's right with respect to certain elements in the mark. As stated in Horlick's Malted Milk Co. v. Borden Co.:
[T]he fact that a mark contains descriptive words is not enough to warrant a refusal to register it. Unless it consists only of such words, it may not be refused a place on the registry of the Patent Office.
The significance of a disclaimer is conveyed in the following statement:
As used in trade mark registrations, a disclaimer of a component of a composite mark amounts merely to a statement that, in so far as that particular registration is concerned, no rights are being asserted in the disclaimed component standing alone, but rights are asserted in the composite; and the particular registration represents only such rights as flow from the use of the composite mark.
A disclaimer may be limited to pertain to only certain classes, or to only certain goods or services.
There was no statutory authority for disclaimer prior to 1946. As various court decisions were rendered, Office practice fluctuated from, first, registering the composite mark without a qualifying statement; later, requiring a statement in the application disclaiming the unregistrable matter in the mark; and, finally, requiring removal of the unregistrable matter from the mark on the drawing. This fluctuation ended with the decision of Estate of P.D. Beckwith v. Comm'r of Pats., 252 U.S. 538, 1920 C.D. 471 (1920), in which the United States Supreme Court held that to require the removal of descriptive matter from a composite mark was erroneous, and commended the practice of a statement of disclaimer. Thus the practice of disclaimer was established officially in the Office, although still without statutory support.
The Trademark Act of 1946 created a statutory basis for the practice of disclaimer in §6, 15 U.S.C. §1056.
When first incorporated in the Trademark Act in 1946, §6 stated that the Director shall require unregistrable matter to be disclaimed. Under the impetus of the mandatory word "shall," it became customary to require a disclaimer for every occurrence, in any type of combination, of every term or symbol which by itself might be refused registration in the first instance under the 1946 Act.
In 1962, §6 was amended to state that the Director may require the applicant to disclaim an unregistrable component of a mark otherwise registrable. The change from "shall" to "may" justifies the exercise of greater discretion by examining attorneys in determining whether a disclaimer is necessary.
Examining attorneys should keep in mind the basic purpose of disclaimers, which is to indicate in the record that a significant element of a composite mark is not being appropriated apart from the composite. The examining attorney should not require that an element of a mark be disclaimed when a disclaimer would be unnecessary, e.g., when the form or degree of integration of an element in the composite makes it obvious that no claim is being made in any element apart from the composite.
Failure to comply with a requirement to disclaim was held to be a basis for refusal to register before the Act of 1946. Failure to comply with a requirement to disclaim also was held to justify a refusal after the 1946 Act. Even after amendment of the pertinent language of §6 of the 1946 Act to the discretionary wording "may require the applicant to disclaim," registration may be refused if an applicant does not comply with a requirement for a disclaimer made by the examining attorney.
If an applicant fails to comply with the examining attorney's requirement for a disclaimer, the examining attorney should make the requirement final if the application is otherwise in condition for a final action.
Section 6(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1056(a), was amended in 1962 to add the sentence, "An applicant may voluntarily disclaim a component of a mark sought to be registered." Disclaimers volunteered by applicants generally should conform to the guidelines set forth in this Manual. See TMEP §§1213.08 et seq.
In In re MCI Communications Corp., the Commissioner held that §6 of the Act permits an applicant to disclaim matter voluntarily, regardless of whether the matter is registrable or unregistrable. The Commissioner specifically overruled all previous Office authority holding otherwise. (Previous practice prohibited the entry of disclaimers of registrable components of marks.) Therefore, if an applicant offers a disclaimer of any matter in a mark, the Office will accept the disclaimer.
The MCIdecision states emphatically that the entry of a voluntary disclaimer does notrender registrable a mark that is otherwise unregistrable under relevant sections of the Trademark Act, such as §2(d) and §2(e). The examining attorney must evaluate the entire mark, including any disclaimed matter, to determine registrability. Furthermore, the decision states that the applicant may not disclaim the entire mark. See TMEP §1213.06.
An applicant may volunteer a disclaimer in the mistaken belief that a disclaimer would be required when, in fact, Office policy would not require a disclaimer. If this appears to be the case, the examining attorney should offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the disclaimer.
A "composite" mark may consist of a word or words combined with a design or designs; it may consist solely of words, when there are separable word elements; or it may consist solely of separable design elements. An unregistrable component of a composite mark is subject to disclaimer. However, if a composite mark (or portion thereof) is "unitary," an individual component of the mark (or of the unitary portion) that would otherwise be unregistrable need not be disclaimed. See TMEP §§1213.05 et seq.
The same principles apply to disclaimer of an unregistrable component of a composite mark, whether the mark is a combination of wording and designs or consists entirely of wording or entirely of designs.
Estate of P.D. Beckwith v. Comm'r of Pats., and other disclaimer decisions before the Trademark Act of 1946 dealt with disclaiming descriptive or generic matter. Section 6 of the Act referred initially to "unregistrable matter" and, since the 1962 amendment, now refers to "an unregistrable component."
Typically an unregistrable component of a registrable mark is the name of the goods or services, other matter that does not indicate source, or matter that is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the goods or services, or primarily geographically descriptive of them.
Office practice does not require disclaimer of a surname. Ex parte Norquist Products, Inc., 109 USPQ 399 (Comm'r Pats. 1956) (disclaimer of "NORQUIST" found unnecessary in application to register mark comprising "NORQUIST CORONET" on an oval background featuring a coronet, for tables and chairs). In that decision, the Commissioner stated as follows:
Section [2(e)(4)] of the statute does not contemplate the dissection of a composite mark to determine whether a word which constitutes an integral part of the mark is primarily merely a surname. Rather, it contemplates an examination of the mark in its entirety and an evaluation of the commercial impression created by the entire mark. A word which is primarily merely a surname may lose that significance when it appears in a distinctive composite.
The addition of other registrable matter creates a composite mark with an overall impression that is not primarily merely that of a surname. If the additional matter is minimal or unregistrable, then the mark is primarily merely a surname and refusal under §2(e)(4) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(4) (formerly §2(e)(3), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(3)), should be made. See In re E. Martinoni Co., 189 USPQ 589 (TTAB 1975). See TMEP §§1211.01(b) et seq. regarding the combination of a surname with additional matter.
In cases where registration of a mark is barred under the Trademark Act (e.g., under §§2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e)(3)), a disclaimer of an unregistrable component will not render the mark registrable. See, e.g., American Speech-Language-Hearing Association v. National Hearing Aid Society, 224 USPQ 798, 808 (TTAB 1984) ("While the disclaimer is appropriate to indicate that respondent claims no proprietary right in the disclaimed words, the disclaimer does not affect the question of whether the disclaimed matter deceives the public, since one cannot avoid the Section 2(a) deceptiveness prohibition by disclaiming deceptive matter apart from the mark as a whole."). See TMEP §1213.10 concerning disclaimers with regard to likelihood of confusion, and TMEP §§1210.06(a) and (b) regarding disclaimer of geographic terms in composite marks.
If a mark is comprised in part of matter that, as applied to the goods/services, is generic or does not function as a mark, the matter must be disclaimed to permit registration on the Principal Register (including registration under §2(f) of the Act) or on the Supplemental Register. If, however, matter that would otherwise be generic or would not function as a mark is part of a unitary mark or part of a separable unitary element of a mark, the examining attorney should not require a disclaimer of the matter. See TMEP §1213.05.
See TMEP §1212.02(e) regarding disclaimers of unregistrable components in applications to register marks on the Principal Register under §2(f). See also In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington, Inc., 229 USPQ 766, 768 (TTAB 1986) ("[I]t is within the discretion of an Examining Attorney to require the disclaimer of an unregistrable component (such as a common descriptive, or generic, name) of a composite mark sought to be registered on the Principal Register under the provisions of Section 2(f).").
Regarding disclaimers of unregistrable components in applications to register marks on the Supplemental Register, see In re Water Gremlin Co., 635 F.2d 841, 845 n.6, 208 USPQ 89, 91 n.6 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("Section 6 is equally applicable to the Supplemental Register."); In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 196 USPQ 7 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (mark comprising stylized lettering of BALSAM, with disclaimer of "BALSAM," found registrable on Supplemental Register for hair conditioner and hair shampoo); In re Carolyn's Candies, Inc., 206 USPQ 356, 360 (TTAB 1980) ("Section 6 of the Trademark Act of 1946, which provides for the disclaimer of 'unregistrable matter', does not limit the disclaimer practice to marks upon the Principal Register.").
An accurate pictorial representation of descriptive matter is equivalent to the written expression and, therefore, must be disclaimed pursuant to the same rules applicable to merely descriptive wording. See Thistle Class Association v. Douglass & McLeod, Inc., 198 USPQ 504 (TTAB 1978) (thistle design found synonymous to the word "thistle," which is used in a descriptive sense to designate a class of sailboats).
No disclaimer of highly stylized pictorial representations of descriptive matter should be required because the design element creates a distinct commercial impression. See In re LRC Products Ltd., 223 USPQ 1250, 1252 (TTAB 1984) (outline of two gloved hands held arbitrary and fanciful), and cases cited therein.
Words or abbreviations in a trade name designating the legal character of an entity (e.g., Corporation, Corp., Co., Inc., Ltd., etc.) must be disclaimed because an entity designation has no source-indicating capacity. In re Taylor & Francis [Publishers] Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (TTAB 2000) ("PRESS," as applied to a printing or publishing establishment, "is in the nature of a generic entity designation which is incapable of serving a source-indicating function"); In re The Paint Products Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988) ("'PAINT PRODUCTS CO.' is no more registrable for goods emanating from a company that sells paint products than it would be as a service mark for the retail paint store services offered by such a company"); In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 USPQ 917, 919 (TTAB 1984) ("the element 'INC.' [in PACKAGING SPECIALISTS, INC.] being recognized, in trademark evaluation, to have no source indication or distinguishing capacity").
The only exception to this practice is where the entity designation is used in an arbitrary manner (e.g., "THE LTD." or "KIDS INC." for clothing). In this case the term has trademark significance and a disclaimer should not be required.
Unregistrable components of trade names or company names shall be disclaimed pursuant to the same rules that apply generally to trademarks.
A mark or portion of a mark is considered "unitary" when it creates a commercial impression separate and apart from any unregistrable component. That is, the elements are so merged together that they cannot be divided to be regarded as separable elements. If the matter that comprises the mark or relevant portion of the mark is unitary, no disclaimer of an element, whether descriptive, generic or otherwise, is required.
The examining attorney must consider a number of factors in determining whether matter is part of a single or unitary mark: whether it is physically connected by lines or other design features; the relative location of the respective elements; and the meaning of the terminology as used on or in connection with the goods or services.
For example, a descriptive word can be combined with nondescriptive wording in such a way that the descriptive significance of the word in relation to the goods is lost and the combination functions as a unit. This happens when the combination itself has a new meaning. An example is the term "Black Magic," which has a distinct meaning of its own as a whole. The word "black" is not intended to have color significance in relation to the goods, and should not be disclaimed even if the mark is applied to goods that are black in color.
In the following cases, marks were considered unitary: B. Kuppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 326 F.2d 820, 822, 140 USPQ 262, 263 (C.C.P.A. 1964) (KUPPENHEIMER and SUP-PANTS combined so that they shared the double "P," making "an indivisible symbol rather than two divisible words"); In re Hampshire-Designers, Inc., 199 USPQ 383 (TTAB 1978) (DESIGNERS PLUS+ for sweaters held unitary; thus, no disclaimer of "DESIGNERS" deemed necessary); In re J.R. Carlson Laboratories, Inc., 183 USPQ 509 (TTAB 1974) (E GEM for bath oil containing vitamin E held unitary; thus, no disclaimer of "E").
In the following cases, marks were found not to be unitary: In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 78 USPQ2d 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (trade dress for clothing consisting of a label with the words "FLASH DARE!" in a V-shaped background and cut-out areas located on each side of the label, with the cut-out areas consisting of a hole in a garment and a flap attached to the garment with a closure device held not unitary); In re Brown-Forman Corporation, 81 USPQ2d 1284 (TTAB 2006) (GALA ROUGE for wine not unitary; requirement for disclaimer of "ROUGE" affirmed); Dena Corp., supra (EUROPEAN FORMULA above a circular design on a dark square or background considered not unitary); In re Lean Line, Inc., 229 USPQ 781 (TTAB 1986) (LEAN LINE for low calorie foods considered not unitary; requirement for disclaimer of "LEAN" held proper); In re IBP, Inc., 228 USPQ 303 (TTAB 1985) (IBP SELECT TRIM for pork considered not unitary; refusal of registration in the absence of a disclaimer of "SELECT TRIM" affirmed); In re Uniroyal, Inc., 215 USPQ 716 (TTAB 1982) (UNIROYAL STEEL/GLAS for vehicle tires considered not unitary; requirement for disclaimer of "STEEL/GLAS" deemed appropriate); In re EBS Data Processing, Inc., 212 USPQ 964, 966 (TTAB 1981) (PHACTS POCKET PROFILE, for personal medication history summary and record forms, considered not unitary; refusal to register in the absence of a disclaimer of "POCKET PROFILE" affirmed. "A disclaimer of a descriptive portion of a composite mark is unnecessary only where the form or degree of integration of that element in the composite makes it obvious that no claim other than of the composite would be involved. That is, if the elements are so merged together that they cannot be regarded as separable elements, the mark is a single unitary mark and not a composite mark and no disclaimer is necessary."); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977) (PRESTO BURGER for electrical cooking utensils not unitary; requirement for disclaimer of "BURGER" affirmed).
The examining attorney must exercise discretion in determining whether a mark or portion of a mark is unitary, in which case a disclaimer of a nondistinctive component should not be required. It is not always easy to articulate why matter is unitary. However, if one cannot spell out exactly why a mark is unitary, then the mark is probably not unitary and nondistinctive elements within the mark must be disclaimed. In general, a mark is unitary if the whole is something more than the sum of its parts.
See TMEP §§1213.05(a) et seq. for examples of different types of unitary marks.
A compound word mark is comprised of two or more distinct words (or words and syllables) that are represented as one word (e.g., BOOKCHOICE, PROSHOT, MAXIMACHINE, PULSAIR).
If a compound word mark consists of an unregistrable component and a registrable component combined into a single word, no disclaimer of the unregistrable component of the compound word will be required.
If a composite mark consists of a compound word combined with arbitrary matter, and the compound word is unregistrable, a disclaimer of the compound word may be required.
See TMEP §807.12(e) regarding drawings of compound word marks.
A telescoped mark is one that comprises two or more words that share letters (e.g., HAMERICAN, ORDERECORDER, SUPERINSE, VITAMINSURANCE, POLLENERGY). See TMEP §807.12(e) regarding drawings for telescoped marks.
A telescoped word is considered unitary. Therefore, no disclaimer of an individual portion of a telescoped word is required, regardless of whether the mark is shown in a standard character or special form drawing.
However, if a telescoped word is itself unregistrable, a disclaimer of the telescoped word may be required. See In re Omaha National Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (affirming refusal to register FIRSTIER and design for banking services in the absence of a disclaimer of "FIRST TIER," in view of evidence that the term describes a class of banks). See TMEP §1213.08(c) regarding disclaimers of misspelled words in general.
When a compound word is formed by hyphenating two words or terms, one of which would be unregistrable alone, no disclaimer is necessary. "X" Laboratories, Inc. v. Odorite Sanitation Service of Baltimore, Inc., 106 USPQ 327, 329 (Comm'r Pats. 1955) (requirement for a disclaimer of "TIRE" deemed unnecessary in application to register TIRE-X for a tire cleaner).
Word marks consisting of two terms joined by an asterisk (e.g., RIB*TYPE), a slash (e.g., RIB/TYPE) or a raised period (e.g., RIB°TYPE) are analogous to hyphenated words. Therefore, no disclaimer of portions of marks formed by asterisks, slashes or raised periods is necessary.
If a hyphenated term comprising part of a mark is unregistrable, then a disclaimer of the hyphenated term may be required. See TMEP §1209.03(d) regarding determinations of whether a composite comprising two descriptive terms is itself descriptive. In this situation, the examining attorney should require a disclaimer of the words in the correct spelling. Cf. TMEP §1213.08(c) regarding disclaimer of misspelled words.
Example 1: If the mark includes the term SOFT-TOYS for stuffed animals, the applicant must disclaim the two separate words "SOFT TOYS" apart from the mark as shown.
Example 2: If the mark includes the term OVER-COAT for winter coats, the applicant must disclaim the compound word "OVERCOAT," because this is how the term is commonly spelled.
A registrable slogan is one that is used in a trademark sense. A registrable slogan is considered unitary and should not be broken up for purposes of requiring a disclaimer.
If an unregistrable slogan is a component of a registrable mark, then the examining attorney should require that the slogan be disclaimed.
If a mark consists entirely of a slogan that is merely descriptive or that is not being used as a mark, then registration should be refused. See In re Carvel Corp., 223 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1984) (AMERICA'S FRESHEST ICE CREAM for flavored ices, etc., held incapable of distinguishing applicant's goods and unregistrable on the Supplemental Register); In re Wakefern Food Corp., 222 USPQ 76 (TTAB 1984) (WHY PAY MORE! held to be an unregistrable common commercial phrase).
A "double entendre" is a word or expression capable of more than one interpretation. For trademark purposes, a "double entendre" is an expression that has a double connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services. The mark that comprises the "double entendre" will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods or services.
A true "double entendre" is unitary by definition. An expression that is a "double entendre" should not be broken up for purposes of requiring a disclaimer. See In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571, 573 (TTAB 1983), where the Board found inappropriate a requirement for a disclaimer of "LIGHT" apart from the mark "LIGHT N' LIVELY" for reduced calorie mayonnaise, stating as follows:
The mark "LIGHT N' LIVELY" as a whole has a suggestive significance which is distinctly different from the merely descriptive significance of the term "LIGHT" per se. That is, the merely descriptive significance of the term "LIGHT" is lost in the mark as a whole. Moreover, the expression as a whole has an alliterative lilting cadence which encourages persons encountering it to perceive it as a whole.
See also In re Symbra'ette, Inc., 189 USPQ 448 (TTAB 1975) (SHEER ELEGANCE for panty hose held to be a registrable unitary expression; thus, no disclaimer of "SHEER" considered necessary).
The multiple interpretations that make an expression a "double entendre" must be associations that the public would make fairly readily, and must be readily apparent from the mark itself. See In re The Place, Inc., 76 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (TTAB 2005) (THE GREATEST BAR held laudatory and merely descriptive of restaurant and bar services; the Board stating that "[i]f the alleged second meaning of the mark is apparent to purchasers only after they view the mark in the context of the applicant's trade dress, advertising materials or other matter, then the mark is not a double entendre"); In re Wells Fargo & Co., 231 USPQ 95 (TTAB 1986) (EXPRESSERVICE held merely descriptive for banking services, despite applicant's argument that the term also connotes the Pony Express, the Board finding that, in the relevant context, the public would not make that association). See also In re Ethnic Home Lifestyles Corp., 70 USPQ2d 1156 (TTAB 2003) (ETHNIC ACCENTS held merely descriptive of "entertainment in the nature of television programs in the field of home décor," because the meaning in the context of the services is home furnishings or decorations which reflect or evoke particular ethnic traditions or themes, which identifies a significant feature of applicant's programs; viewers of applicant's programs deemed unlikely to discern a double entendre referring to a person who speaks with a foreign accent).
If all meanings of a "double entendre" are merely descriptive in relation to the goods, then the mark comprising the "double entendre" should be refused registration as merely descriptive.
The following cases illustrate situations where marks were considered to be "double entendres" and, therefore, registrable unitary marks: In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394 F.2d 549, 157 USPQ 382 (C.C.P.A. 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE for bakery products); In re Simmons Co., 189 USPQ 352 (TTAB 1976) (THE HARD LINE for mattresses and bed springs); In re Delaware Punch Co., 186 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1975) (THE SOFT PUNCH for noncarbonated soft drink); In re National Tea Co., 144 USPQ 286 (TTAB 1965) (NO BONES ABOUT IT for fresh pre-cooked ham).
If two or more terms are combined in a mark to create an incongruity (e.g., URBAN SAFARI, MR. MICROWAVE, DR. GRAMMAR), the mark is unitary and no disclaimer of nondistinctive individual elements is necessary.
At times a mark will form a unitary whole through a rhyming pattern, use of alliteration or some other use of sound that creates a distinctive impression. In such a case, the mark is regarded as unitary and individual elements should not be disclaimed. See In re Kraft, Inc., 218 USPQ 571 (TTAB 1983) (LIGHT N' LIVELY found to be a unitary term not subject to disclaimer). Compare In re Lean Line, Inc., 229 USPQ 781, 782 (TTAB 1986) (LEAN LINE not considered unitary; "there is nothing in the record to suggest that the mere fact that both words which form the mark begin with the letter 'L' would cause purchasers to miss the merely descriptive significance of the term 'LEAN' or consider the entire mark to be a unitary expression.")
The visual presentation of a mark may be such that the words and/or designs form a unitary whole. In such a case, disclaimer of individual nondistinctive elements is unnecessary. See, e.g., In re Texsun Tire and Battery Stores, Inc., 229 USPQ 227, 229 (TTAB 1986) ("[T]he portion of the outline of the map of Texas encircled as it is with the representation of a tire and surrounded by a rectangular border results in a unitary composite mark which is unique and fanciful."); cf. In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 78 USPQ2d 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (trade dress configuration of product design consisting of a label with the words "FLASH DARE!" in a V-shaped background, and cut-out areas located on each side of the label, with the cut-out areas consisting of a hole in a garment and a flap attached to the garment with a closure device held not to be unitary where applicant owned separate registrations for some of the elements and in view of the separate locations of the words and design elements).
An entire mark may not be disclaimed. If a mark is not registrable as a whole, a disclaimer will not make it registrable. There must be something in the combination of elements in the mark, or something of sufficient substance or distinctiveness over and above the matter being disclaimed, that would make the composite registrable.
When it is not clear that matter forms part of a mark, the examining attorney must consider whether it is appropriate for the applicant to amend the drawing of the mark to remove the matter, rather than to disclaim it. See TMEP §807.14(a) regarding deletion of matter from the mark on a drawing. An applicant may not amend the drawing if the amendment would constitute a material alteration of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.72; TMEP §§807.14 et seq.
There are circumstances under which the applicant may omit or remove matter from the mark shown in the drawing, if the overall commercial impression is not altered. See Institut National Des Appellations D'Origine v. Vintners International Co. Inc., 958 F.2d 1574, 1582, 22 USPQ2d 1190, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Servel, Inc., 181 F.2d 192, 85 USPQ 257 (C.C.P.A. 1950). However, matter may not be omitted from the drawing if the omission would result in an incomplete representation of the mark, sometimes referred to as "mutilation." See TMEP §807.12(d). In other words, the matter presented for registration must convey a single distinct commercial impression. If a mark is not unitary in this sense, it cannot be registered.
Since November 9, 1982, disclaimers for marks published for opposition and those registered on the Supplemental Register are printed in a standardized form in the Official Gazette, regardless of the text submitted. Disclaimers are in the standardized format in certificates of registration on the Supplemental Register issued as of that date. Disclaimers are in the standardized format in certificates of registration on the Principal Register issued as of February 1, 1983. The disclaimed matter is taken from the disclaimer of record and inserted into the standardized disclaimer format for printing and data base purposes. The standardized disclaimer text is as follows:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ____________, apart from the mark as shown.
For the record only, examining attorneys will accept disclaimers with additional statements pertaining to reservation of common law rights, although §6 of the Trademark Act of 1946 states that no disclaimer shall prejudice or affect the applicant's or registrant's rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter. Disclaimers with these additional statements can be entered by examiner's amendment. The examining attorney must inform the applicant or attorney who authorizes the amendment that the disclaimer will be printed in the standardized format.
Wording that claims matter, rather than disclaims it, is not acceptable. A disclaimer should be no more than a statement that identifies matter to which the applicant may not have exclusive rights apart from what is shown on the drawing.
Therefore, statements that the applicant "claims" certain matter in the association shown are not acceptable. The examining attorney should require correction of this wording and of variations that amount to the same thing. Likewise, a statement that the mark is "not claimed except in the association shown," or similar wording, is not acceptable, and the examining attorney should require correction. See Textron Inc. v. Pilling Chain Co., Inc., 175 USPQ 621, 622 (TTAB 1972), concerning an application which included the statement, "The mark is not to be claimed except in the setting presented." The Board found this wording unacceptable, noting, "The alleged disclaimer filed by applicant is in such vague terms that it actually disclaims nothing."
Unregistrable matter must be disclaimed in its entirety. For example, when requiring a disclaimer of terms that form a grammatically or otherwise unitary expression (e.g., "SHOE FACTORY, INC."), the examining attorney must require that they be disclaimed in their entirety. See, e.g., In re Medical Disposables Co., 25 USPQ2d 1801 (TTAB 1992) (MEDICAL DISPOSABLES is a unitary expression that must be disclaimed as a composite); In re Wanstrath, 7 USPQ2d 1412, 1413 (Comm'r Pats. 1987) (denying petitioner's request to substitute separate disclaimers of "GLASS" and "TECHNOLOGY" for the disclaimer of "GLASS TECHNOLOGY" in its registration of GT GLASS TECHNOLOGY in stylized form, the Commissioner finding "GLASS TECHNOLOGY" to be a unitary expression and noting, "Disclaimers of individual components of complete descriptive phrases are improper."); American Speech-Language-Hearing Association v. National Hearing Aid Society, 224 USPQ 798, 804 n.3 (TTAB 1984) ("CERTIFIED HEARING AID AUDIOLOGIST" found to be "a unitary expression that should be disclaimed in its entirety"); In re Surelock Mfg. Co., Inc., 125 USPQ 23, 24 (TTAB 1960) (proposed disclaimer of "THE" and "RED" and "CUP" held unacceptable to comply with requirement for disclaimer of "THE RED CUP," the Board concluding, "A disclaimer of the individual components of the term 'THE RED CUP,' under the circumstances, is meaningless and improper"). However, separate disclaimers of adjacent components of a mark may be accepted where they do not form a grammatically or otherwise unitary expression. In re Grass GmbH, 79 USPQ2d 1600 (TTAB 2006) (Board reversed requirement for unitary disclaimer of "SNAP ON 3000," and accepted separate disclaimers of "SNAP ON" and "3000.")
This standard should be construed strictly; therefore, disclaimer of individual words separately will usually be appropriate only when the words being disclaimed are separated by registrable wording.
Marks often comprise words that may be characterized as "misspelled." For example, marks may comprise terms that are "telescoped" (see TMEP §1213.05(a)(i)) or terms that are phonetic equivalents of particular words but spelled in a manner that varies from the ordinary spelling of such words.
If a mark comprises a word or words that are misspelled but nonetheless must be disclaimed, the examining attorney should require disclaimer of the word or words in the correct spelling. The entry of a disclaimer does not necessarily render registrable a mark that is otherwise unregistrable.
If the examining attorney has not required any disclaimer of misspelled wording because a disclaimer is not necessary under Office policy, the applicant may provide a disclaimer of the wording as spelled in the mark or in its correct spelling voluntarily. In such a case, the examining attorney should accept the disclaimer. Again, the disclaimer does not necessarily render an otherwise unregistrable mark registrable. The examining attorney must consider the entire mark, including the disclaimed matter, to determine whether the entire mark is registrable.
Non-English wording that comprises an unregistrable component of a mark is subject to disclaimer. See Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. v. Overseas Finance & Trading Co. Inc., 112 USPQ 6, 8 (Comm'r Pats. 1956) (noting that "Kogaku," the transliteration of the Japanese word for "optical," was properly disclaimed).
If translated non-English wording must be disclaimed, the actual non-English wording should be disclaimed, not the English translation. The applicant must disclaim the wording that actually appears in the mark, not the translated version. For non-Latin characters, the following format is suggested:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the non-Latin characters that mean "[specify English translation]" apart from the mark as shown.
See TMEP §§809 et seq. regarding translation of non-English wording in marks.
Normally, a mark that includes a mark registered by another person must be refused registration under 15 U.S.C. §1052(d) based on likelihood of confusion. A refusal of registration under §2(d) may not be avoided by disclaiming the mark of another. Cf. In re Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 201 USPQ 662 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (permitting disclaimer of informational phrase indicating that applicant's employees are represented by certain labor organizations). See TMEP §1213.10 regarding disclaimer in relation to likelihood of confusion.
A disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. The mark must still be regarded as a whole, including the disclaimed matter, in evaluating similarity to other marks.
Typically, disclaimed matter will not be regarded as the dominant, or most significant, feature of a mark. However, since the Trademark Act permits an applicant to voluntarily disclaim registrable matter (see TMEP §1213.01(c)), disclaimed matter may be dominant or significant in some cases. As noted in In re MCI Communications Corp., "Examining Attorneys will continue to consider the question of likelihood of confusion, under Section 2(d) of the statute, in relation to the marks as a whole, including any voluntarily disclaimed matter."
In Estate of P.D. Beckwith v. Comm'r of Pats.,the United States Supreme Court stated, regarding registration of a mark with a disclaimer, that "the registrant would be precluded by his disclaimer from setting up in the future any exclusive right to the disclaimed part of it." Subsequently, that principle was applied literally; registrants were prohibited from asserting that disclaimed matter had acquired secondary meaning.
The situation was changed by the Trademark Act of 1946, which provided that "disclaimer shall not prejudice or affect the applicant's or owner's rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, nor shall such disclaimer prejudice or affect the applicant's or owner's rights of registration on another application of later date if the disclaimed matter has become distinctive of the applicant's or owner's goods or services." In 1962, the statutory provision was amended to read, "No disclaimer ... shall prejudice or affect the applicant's or registrant's rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, or his right of registration on another application if the disclaimed matter be or shall have become distinctive of his goods or services." 15 U.S.C. §1056(b).
It is now clear that, aside from generic matter, disclaimed matter is not forever barred from registration, and it can subsequently be considered for registration on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register. When an application is filed seeking registration of matter previously disclaimed, it should be examined in the same manner as other applications.
Whether or not previously disclaimed matter has become eligible for registration depends on the circumstances and the evidence adduced in the examination process.