How To Select a Specimen (See also Specimens: webpages)
Specimens are required to show the mark as it is seen by the purchasing public and provide evidence for the registration. USPTO trademark examiners look to see if the specimen shows the trademark being used in a merely descriptive way or other reasons for refusal. Marks must be displayed in a manner so the consumer recognizes it as a mark and links it to the goods or services, or in other words-
Acceptable Specimens
GOODS (for a trademark): Acceptable specimens for goods (TMEP 904.03) include such items as “a label, tag, or container for the goods, or a display associated with the goods. A photocopy or other reproduction of a specimen of the mark as actually used on or in connection with the goods is acceptable.”
SERVICES (for a service mark): Acceptable specimens for services normally consist of advertisements, displays, or signage (TMEP 1301). A service mark specimen must show use of the mark “in the sale or advertising of services.” Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56. Therefore, a specimen is unacceptable if it does not show use of the service mark in relation to the identified services. There must be a direct association between the mark sought to be registered and the services specified in the application, with sufficient reference to the services in the specimen to create this association. In re Monograms America, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1999); In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211 (TTAB 1997); In re Restonic Corp., 189 USPQ 248 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
DRAWING SIZE and SPECIMEN SIZE: If filing for a stylized or design mark, ensure that before even attempting to begin the electronic filing process that the required JPG image file is in the proper pixel range (between 250 and 944 pixels, in any direction). If an image for a specimen, the pixel range is not an issue; instead, ensure that the overall size of the attachment does not exceed 5 megabytes.
Unacceptable Specimens
Example of a poor specimen: One typical rejection of marks for t-
Note: A Supplemental Registration is a significant loss of rights (common law rights as well), especially if it could have been avoided by using a better specimen. See Comparison of Principal Register and Supplemental Register. A registration on the Supplemental Registration is an admission that the mark is not inherently distinctive, a slip in the foothold of common law rights.
Another example of a poor specimen is a copy of an advertisement or label that already contains a ® even though the registrant is now just applying for the federal registration for first time. Registration in a state of the United States does not entitle a person to use the federal registration notice. Du-
Improper use of a federal registration symbol that is deliberate and intended to deceive or mislead the public is fraud. TMEP 906.02 Improper Use of Registration Symbol.
A copy of an applicant’s logo is an unacceptable specimen as evidence of actual trademark use unless it is a label. The applicant must submit a specimen showing the mark as it is used in commerce in relation to the goods. 37 C.F.R Section 2.56.
A service mark specimen must show use of the mark “in the sale or advertising of services.” Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56. Therefore, a specimen is unacceptable if it does not show use of the service mark in relation to the identified services. There must be a direct association between the mark sought to be registered and the services specified in the application, with sufficient reference to the services in the specimen to create this association. In re Monograms America, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1999); In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211 (TTAB 1997); In re Restonic Corp., 189 USPQ 248 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
The right to register a mark with the USPTO is determined by both the application and the mark. A proper specimen is a vital part of the application. Many trademark refusals can be avoided or overcome by using Not Just Patents ® Trademark Services. Call us and ask for examples of how we can help at 1-
What Does ‘Use In Commerce’ Mean For a Trademark?
What is the Definition of Use in Commerce? The definition of use in commerce with regards to trademarks is found in 15 USC 1127:
Mark. The term “mark” includes any trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. Use in commerce. The term “use in commerce” means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—
(1) on goods [products] when—
(A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
(B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
(2) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.
Does Registering For a URL (domain name) Using My Trademark Qualify As A Use In Commerce? Just using a name as a domain name is not a trademark use.
TMEP §1215.02: A mark composed of a domain name is registrable as a trademark or service mark only if it functions as a source identifier. The mark, as depicted on the specimen, must be presented in a manner that will be perceived by potential purchasers to indicate source and not as merely an informational indication of the domain name address used to access a website. See In re Roberts, 87 USPQ2d 1474, 1479 (TTAB 2008) (finding that irestmycase did not function as a mark for legal services, where it is used only as part of an address by means of which one may reach applicant’s website, or along with applicant’s other contact information on letterhead); In re Eilberg, 49 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (TTAB 1998).
Is the Date That I Registered My Domain Name My First Use in Commerce? Only if your web site is also using the domain name as a trademark in a valid manner already. Web pages that do not show a proper use in commerce are common refusals as specimen refusals. The date that a domain name was registered may show the first use of the mark anywhere if there was appropriate content associated with the name at the time.
Does My Letterhead Count as a Use In Commerce? Maybe depending on use. If the letterhead just identifies the trade name (business entity), it may not function as a use in commerce. Excerpt from TMEP §1202.01: In re Diamond Hill Farms, 32 USPQ2d 1383 (TTAB 1994). DIAMOND HILL FARMS, as used on containers for goods, found to be a trade name that identifies applicant as a business entity rather than a mark that identifies applicant’s goods and distinguishes them from those of others.
Trademark Use In Commerce [filing basis 1a] Must Be Open and Public (and not just in the planning-
"Mere adoption (selection) of a mark accompanied by preparations to begin its use are insufficient . . . for claiming ownership of and applying to register the mark. “At the very least," in order for an applicant to meet the use requirement, "there must be an open and notorious public offering of the services to those for whom the services are intended." Aycock Engineering, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2009). (internal citations omitted)
Is having my trademark on a business plan a use in commerce? [A] mark is not "used" when it is presented to a potential customer as part of a business plan; it must be employed in commerce such that it distinguishes the goods or services of a seller from others in the marketplace. McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition § 16:1 (4th ed. 1996); see also Allard Enters. v. Advanced Programming Res., 249 F.3d 564, 571-
How Do I Show Use In Commerce for My Product? Specimens on Labels, Containers or Displays Show Use In Commerce for Trademarks (goods or products).
According to the TMEP, "a label is an acceptable specimen" where the mark "is applied to the goods or the containers for the goods," even by shipping or mailing labels. § 904.03(a). On containers, "a showing of the trademark on the normal commercial package for the particular goods is an acceptable specimen." § 904.03(c). Thus, a product box that bears the trademark, but does not display a picture of the goods or allow customers to see the goods, may be an acceptable specimen. "Solid products have greater flexibility, inasmuch as the mark may be impressed directly on them during the manufacturing process. Of course, use on their containers or associated displays is equally acceptable.". As to displays associated with goods, the Board has found that a display bearing a trademark for chemicals at a trade show booth was an adequate specimen, even though the chemicals were not present or visible at the booth. . . Thus, tangible specimens—whether labels, containers, or displays—can show use in commerce by describing the goods in sufficient detail in relation to the marks. (internal citations omitted)
In re Sones, 590 F. 3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
How Do I Show a Use In Commerce for My Services? Acceptable specimens for services normally consist of advertisements, displays, or signage (TMEP 1301). A service mark specimen must show use of the mark “in the sale or advertising of services.” Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. §1127; 37 C.F.R. §2.56. Therefore, a specimen is unacceptable if it does not show use of the service mark in relation to the identified services. There must be a direct association between the mark sought to be registered and the services specified in the application, with sufficient reference to the services in the specimen to create this association. In re Monograms America, Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317 (TTAB 1999); In re Adair, 45 USPQ2d 1211 (TTAB 1997); In re Restonic Corp., 189 USPQ 248 (TTAB 1975); TMEP §§1301.04 et seq.
Are There Other Ways Use In Commerce Can Be Accomplished? Use In Commerce for Goods Can Be Established Is By Transportation.
The requirement for public awareness of the mark is a consistent theme. "The use in commerce required for obtaining a federal registration is generally congruous with the required use of a mark for obtaining ownership under the common law.... Transportation in commerce generally constitutes a `use' without a sale as long as the use is `open and notorious' and before potential customers." Societe de Developments et D'Innovations des Marches Agricoles et Alimentaires-
Gen. Healthcare Ltd. v. Qashat, 254 F.Supp.2d 193, 198 (D.Mass.2003)
My Business is Just Starting Up and We Are Not Making Much Money Yet. Does That Qualify As A Use In Commerce? Trademark Use in Commerce is Not Limited to Profitable Enterprises.
Slow commercial progress, or absence of income or profit, is not a ground of cancellation of registration. Use in commerce under the Lanham Act is not limited to profit-
If A Trademark is Abandoned, Can I Start Using It? Lack of Use in Commerce (nonuse for three years with no intent to resume) Results in Abandonment of a Mark Leaving Room For Another to Use the Mark. [Note that the word ‘Abandoned’ in this context actually means NOT IN USE rather than an application or registration being DEAD which is a failure to have an active registration.]
"An intent to resume use of the mark formulated after more than three years of non-
Once a mark is abandoned, it enters the public domain and another party can appropriate it. Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metro. Baltimore Football Club Ltd. P'ship, 34 F.3d 410, 412 (7th Cir. 1994). With no other parties using a mark, the new user becomes the senior user of the mark. "It is axiomatic in trademark law that the standard test of ownership is priority of use." Sengoku Works v. RMC Int'l, 96 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1996).
See Specht v. Google Inc (N.D. Ill., 2010).
SELF-
Why use self-
Email us at W@TMK.law for a quote for submitting your Statement of Use or Section 8 affidavit.
[The TTAB (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board)] will no longer consider Internet evidence filed by an applicant in an ex parte proceeding to be properly of record unless the URL and access or print date has been identified, either directly on the webpage itself, or by providing this information in a response, except where the examining attorney does not object. In Re I-
Documents obtained from the Internet that identify the date it was accessed and printed and its URL can be self-
CutePDF Writer, which is available for free download from the vendor for use with Windows, can be easily configured to print pages from the internet with the date and URL on the page.
TBMP 704.08(b) Internet Materials
37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) Printed publications and official records.
(2) Internet materials may be admitted into evidence under a notice of reliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, in the same manner as a printed publication in general circulation, so long as the date the internet materials were accessed and their source (e.g., URL) are provided.
In Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc,, 94 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 2010) ("Safer"), the Board changed its practice regarding Internet evidence, holding that if a document obtained from the Internet identifies its date of publication or date that it was accessed and printed, and its source (e.g., the URL), it may be admitted into evidence pursuant to a notice of reliance in the same manner as a printed publication in general circulation in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e). [ Note 1.] Effective January 14, 2017, the Board amended 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e) to add a new subsection (2) to codify the Board’s decision in Safer. [ Note 2.]
A document obtained from the Internet must be publicly available; that is, it must identify its date of publication or the date it was accessed and printed, and its source (URL). [ Note 3.] As with traditional printed publications submitted by notice of reliance, the propounding party must indicate in the notice of reliance generally the relevance of those materials and associate the materials with one or more issues in the case. [ Note 4.] See TBMP § 704.02 and TBMP § 704.08(a).
Internet documents that may be introduced by notice of reliance include websites, advertising, business publications, annual reports, and studies or reports prepared for or by a party or non-
The probative value of Internet documents is limited. They can be used to demonstrate what the documents show on their face. However, documents obtained through the Internet may not be used to demonstrate the truth of what has been printed. A printout from a webpage may have more limitations on its probative value than traditional printed publications. A party may increase the weight the Board will give website evidence by submitting testimony and proof of the extent to which a particular website has been viewed. Otherwise, the document may not be considered to have much probative value.
The nonoffering party may verify the Internet document through the date and source information on the face of the document, and may rebut the probative value of the document by showing that there has been a significant change to the document as submitted by the offering party. Due to the transitory nature of the Internet, the party proffering information obtained from the Internet runs the risk that the website owner may change the information contained therein.
Internet search summaries, which essentially are links to the website pages, are not admissible by notice of reliance. [ Note 5.]
The Board strongly discourages the submission of cumulative evidence. See TBMP § 702.05. The Board has specifically stated that "It is not necessary for the parties to introduce every document obtained from an Internet search especially when it includes duplicative and irrelevant materials." [ Note 6.] Internet documents may be objectionable under Fed. R. Evid. 403 on the ground that they are "needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."
Internet printouts that are otherwise properly authenticated are acceptable to show that the statements contained therein were made or that information was reported, but not to prove the truth of the statements contained therein. [ Note 7.]
NOTES:
1. See, e.g., Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1759 (TTAB 2013) (objection to Internet printouts from petitioner's website showing the dates accessed and printed and URL information on the grounds that petitioner failed to authenticate the documents by testimony overruled), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.); Coach Services Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 96 USPQ2d 1600, 1604 n.4 (TTAB 2010) (excerpts from websites promoting the sale of books and software admitted into evidence pursuant to notice of reliance), aff’d-
2. MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69952 (October 7, 2016). Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 2010) overruled the Board’s holding in Raccioppi v. Apogee Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1368 (TTAB 1998), that Internet materials are not self-
3. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(e)(2). See United Global Media Group, Inc. v. Tseng, 112 USPQ2d 1039, 1046-
4. 37 C.F.R. § 2.122(g). MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69952 (October 7, 2016) ("The Office is adding new § 2.122(g) detailing the requirements for admission of evidence by notice of reliance. Section 2.122(g) provides that a notice must indicate generally the relevance of the evidence offered and associate it with one or more issues in the proceeding, but failure to do so with sufficient specificity is a procedural defect that can be cured by the offering party within the time set by Board order. The amendment codifies current case law and Office practice."). See Barclays Capital Inc. v. Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., 124 USPQ2d 1160, 1164 (TTAB 2017) (Board applied Trademark Rule 2.122(g) in determining whether descriptions of relevance set forth in the notices of reliance were sufficient); Apollo Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc. v. Medical Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 123 USPQ2d 1844, 1847 (TTAB 2017) (opposer’s statement of relevance of Internet evidence introduced under notice of reliance acceptable because sufficiently tailored to issues), on appeal, 3:17-
5. See Edom Laboratories Inc. v. Lichter, 102 USPQ2d 1546, 1550 (TTAB 2012) (search summary inadmissible because it merely offers links to information not otherwise of record); Calypso Technology Inc. v. Calypso Capital Management LP, 100 USPQ2d 1213, 1219 (TTAB 2011). Cf.Frito-
6. Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1031, 1040 n.19 (TTAB 2010). See also Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1759 (TTAB 2013) (relevant, representative sample of articles obtained from Internet database sufficient and preferred; parties discouraged from submitting all results), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.).
7. See, e.g., Ayoub, Inc. v. ACS Ayoub Carpet Serv., 118 USPQ2d 1392, 1399 n.62 (TTAB 2016) (statements made on website constitute hearsay and cannot be used to establish prior use); Alcatraz Media Inc. v. Chesapeake Marine Tours Inc., 107 USPQ2d 1750, 1759 (TTAB 2013) (search engine results are only probative of what they show on their face, not for the truth of the matters contained therein), aff’d, 565 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (mem.); Swiss Watch International Inc. v. Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry, 101 USPQ2d 1731, 1735 (TTAB 2012) (Internet printouts submitted as exhibits to testimony are not hearsay).
→Call us with more questions at 1-
StepsToATrademark.com
66-
TMk®
Not Just Patents®
Aim Higher® Facts Matter
W@TMK.law best or
1-
(Calls are screened for ‘trademark’ and other applicable reasons for the call)