Chapter 900
Use in Commerce

903.06(a) Apparent Discrepancies Between Dates of Use and Date of Execution

Because an application based on §1(a) or an allegation of use under §1(c) or §1(d) must properly allege current use of the mark, an applicant must attest to dates of use in the application or allegation of use that are on or before the date the application or allegation of use was signed; an applicant may not allege use that has not yet occurred. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(1) , 2.76(b)(1)(ii) , 2.88(b)(1)(ii) ; TMEP §§903.04 , 1109.09(a) .

If an application, or an allegation of use under §1(c) or §1(d), specifies a date of first use only by the year, or by the month and the year, and the date would otherwise be interpreted under TMEP §903.06 as later than the date on which the application or allegation of use was signed, the USPTO will presume that the date of first use is the date on which applicant signed the application or allegation of use. For example:

Filing date: January 15, 2015

Signature date: December 27, 2014

First use anywhere: 2014

Presumption of first use anywhere under §903.06: December 31, 2014

Amendment to clarify first use date is not required: Although the presumed date of first use under TMEP § 903.06 (December 31, 2014) is later than the signature date (December 27, 2014), it is not later than the filing date (January 15, 2015). Thus, under TMEP § 903.06(a) , the examining attorney may presume that the use date is the same as the date of signature.

However, if the date of first use would be interpreted under TMEP § 903.06 as later than the filing date of the application or allegation of use, then amendment of the date of use to an earlier date, supported by an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 , is still required. For example:

Filing date: January 15, 2015

Signature date: December 27, 2014

First use anywhere: 2015

Presumption of first use anywhere under §903.06: December 31, 2015

Amendment to clarify first use date is required: The presumed date of first use under TMEP § 903.06 (December 31, 2015) is later than the filing date (January 15, 2015). Thus, under TMEP § 903.06(a) , the examining attorney may not presume that the use date is the date of signature and must require an amendment to indicate the date of use more specifically.

If an application or allegation of use specifies the date of signature only by the year, or by the month and the year, and the date would be interpreted under TMEP §903.06 as later than the date(s) of first use, the USPTO will presume that the date of signature was on or after the date of first use.

904.01(a) More than One Item Specified in a Class

Generally, if more than one item of goods, or more than one service, is specified in one class in an application, it is usually not necessary to have a specimen for each product or service.   When the range of items is wide or contains unrelated articles, the examining attorney may request additional specimen(s) under 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b) .  

If the goods are a “full line of pharmaceuticals,” however, the examining attorney must require the applicant to provide evidence that it uses the mark in connection with pharmaceuticals to treat diseases or health problems in all chapters in the World Health Organization (“WHO”) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b) .

See TMEP §1402.03 regarding broad identifications, TMEP §1402.03(b) regarding house marks, and TMEP §1402.03(c) regarding marks for “a full line of” a genre of products.

904.01(b) Combined or Multiple-Class Applications

A combined or multiple-class application is a request to register the same mark for goods, services, and/or a collective membership organization in multiple classes in a single application.   See 37 C.F.R. §2.86(a) , (b) . In a multiple-class application filed under §1(a), an applicant must provide one specimen of the mark supporting each class.   37 C.F.R. §2.86(a)(3) , (b)(3) .  If a single specimen supports multiple classes, the applicant should indicate which classes are supported by the specimen.  The examining attorney need not require multiple copies of the specimen.  The examining attorney should enter a Note to the File in the record indicating which classes the specimen supports.

See TMEP §§1403-1403.06 regarding the requirements for and examination of multiple-class applications.

904.02(a) Electronically Filed Specimens

In an electronically filed application, allegation of use, affidavit of use under 15 U.S.C. §1058 or §1141k of the Trademark Act (“§8 affidavit” or “§71 affidavit”), or response to an Office action, the specimen(s) must be in .jpg or .pdf format.   37 C.F.R. §§2.56(d)(4) , 2.161(g) , 7.37(g) .  If the nature of the specimen is unclear, the applicant should describe what it is and how it is used.  See TMEP §904.03(d) regarding electronic and digital media attachments and §904.03(f) regarding specimens for sound marks.

Sometimes, although the application indicates that a specimen is included, the specimen is not visible in the record due to a technical problem that occurred during submission of the application.  In this situation, the examining attorney should first send an e-mail to the TEAS mailbox to ask whether the problem can be fixed by uploading the file again.  If it cannot, the examining attorney must request that the applicant submit:  (1) the same specimen (or a true copy) that was attached to the original TEAS submission; and (2) a statement by the person who transmitted the original TEAS submission that the specimen being submitted is a true copy of the specimen originally filed through TEAS.  This statement does not have to be verified.  Alternatively, the applicant may submit a different specimen from that initially filed, together with an affidavit or declaration of use of the substitute specimen.  See TMEP §904.05 regarding the requirements for an affidavit or declaration supporting use of substitute specimens.

The USPTO prefers that the specimen, whether a true copy of the original or a substitute, be submitted electronically via the Trademark Electronic Application System (“TEAS”).  In TEAS, the Response to Office Action form can be accessed by clicking on the link entitled “Response Forms” at http://www.uspto.gov .

904.02(b) Paper-Filed Specimens

In a paper-filed application, allegation of use, affidavit of use under §8 or §71 of the Trademark Act, or response to Office action, the specimen(s) must be flat and no larger than 8½ inches (21.6 cm.) wide by 11.69 inches (29.7 cm.) long.   37 C.F.R. §2.56(d)(1) .  The USPTO may create a photocopy or facsimile for the official record and destroy the original.

When the applicant cannot supply an actual specimen meeting these size requirements due to the nature or manner of use of the mark, the application, allegation of use, affidavit of use, or response must include a facsimile, such as a photograph, photocopy, or other acceptable reproduction, that is a suitable size and clearly shows how the mark is used in commerce.

Facsimiles or photographs of actual specimens are preferred. Facsimiles should show the whole article to which the mark is applied, or enough of the article so that the nature of the article can be identified.  The mark and all other pertinent written matter on the article should be clear and legible.  For example, product photographs appearing on folders or brochures that show the trademark on the applicant's goods are acceptable facsimiles.  It is permissible to show the complete article in one photograph and the written matter in another, so that the written matter will be legible, or to show different views of an article either in a single photograph or in separate photographs.

A photocopy or reproduction of the drawing is not an acceptable specimen or facsimile.   37 C.F.R. §2.56(c) .

If color is a feature of the mark, the applicant should submit facsimiles made by color photography, or by any process that reproduces in color.   See TMEP §904.02(c)(ii) .

If an applicant submits a specimen that exceeds the size requirements (a “bulky specimen”), the USPTO will create a facsimile of the specimen that meets the size requirements of the rule and destroy the original specimen.   37 C.F.R. §2.56(d)(2) .  If the copy of the specimen created by the USPTO does not adequately depict the mark, the examining attorney will require a substitute specimen that meets the size requirements of the rule and an affidavit or declaration verifying the use of the substitute specimen.  See TMEP §904.05 regarding affidavits supporting substitute specimens.

If necessary, the examining attorney may require one actual specimen for examination purposes, under 37 C.F.R. §§2.56(a) and 2.61(b) .

904.02(c) Additional Requirements

904.03(a) Labels and Tags

In most cases, if a trademark is ordinarily applied to the goods or the containers for the goods by means of labels, a label is an acceptable specimen. However, if a mark is merely informational or incapable of functioning as a mark for some other reason, it would not be seen as an indicator of source, and registration must be refused even if the specimen of record shows what would otherwise be acceptable trademark use, including use on tags or labels. See TMEP §1202.04 .

Shipping or mailing labels may be accepted if they are affixed to the goods or to the containers for the goods and if proper trademark usage is shown.   In re A.S. Beck Shoe Corp., 161 USPQ 168 (TTAB 1969); Elec. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Elec. Components for Indus. Co. , 443 F.2d 487, 170 USPQ 118 (8th Cir. 1971).  They are not acceptable if the mark as shown is merely used as a trade name and not as a trademark.  An example of this is the use of the term solely as a return address.   In re Supply Guys, Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1488 (TTAB 2008); Bookbinder’s Sea Food House, Inc. v. Bookbinder’s Rest., Inc. , 118 USPQ 318 (Comm’r Pats. 1958); I. & B. Cohen Bomzon & Co. v. Biltmore Indus., Inc. , 22 USPQ 257 (Comm’r Pats. 1934).  See TMEP §1202.01 regarding trade name refusals.

For labels or tags whose appearance suggests that they are not in actual use in commerce, the examining attorney may, under 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b) , inquire as to how the specimen is used in order to properly examine the application.  For example, an inquiry may be appropriate when the specimen consists of a photograph of the mark reproduced on a plain white label adhered to the goods or printed packaging or a piece of paper bearing the mark placed on top of the goods or packaging. If, based on the available evidence, the examining attorney determines that the specimen is not in actual use in commerce, registration may be refused on that basis instead of issuing an inquiry. See TMEP §904.07(a) .  However, nothing prohibits the registration of a mark in an application that contains only “temporary” specimens, provided that the specimens were actually used in commerce.   See In re Chica , 84 USPQ2d 1845,1847-48 (TTAB 2007) (finding applicant’s specimen unacceptable not because it was temporary but because it comprised a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed and not an actual specimen that applicant used in commerce).

See TMEP §904.04(a) regarding digitally created or altered specimens and §904.07(a) regarding “use-in-commerce” issues that may be raised on initial review of specimens.

904.03(b) Stampings

Stamping a trademark on the goods, on the container, or on tags or labels attached to the goods or containers, is a proper method of trademark affixation.   See In re Crucible Steel Co. of Am., 150 USPQ 757 (TTAB 1966).  The trademark may be imprinted in the body of the goods, as with metal stamping; it may be applied by a rubber stamp; or it may be inked on by using a stencil or template.

When a trademark is used in this manner, photographs or facsimiles showing the actual stamping or stenciling are acceptable as specimens.

When the specimen consists of a stamp on paper, the applicant must explain the nature of the specimen and how it is used.

904.03(c) Commercial Packaging

The terminology “applied to the containers for the goods” means applied to any type of commercial packaging that is normal for the particular goods as they move in trade.  Thus, a showing of the trademark on the normal commercial package for the particular goods is an acceptable specimen.   In re Brown Jordan Co. , 219 USPQ 375 (TTAB 1983) (holding that stamping the mark after purchase of the goods, on a tag attached to the goods that are later transported in commerce, is sufficient use). For example, gasoline pumps are normal containers or “packaging” for gasoline.

A specimen showing use of the trademark on a vehicle in which the goods are marketed to the relevant purchasers may constitute use of the mark on a container for the goods, if this is the normal mode of use of a mark for the particular goods.   In re E.A. Miller & Sons Packing Co. , 225 USPQ 592 (TTAB 1985).   But see In re Lyndale Farm , 186 F.2d 723, 88 USPQ 377 (C.C.P.A. 1951).

904.03(d) Electronic and Digital Media Attachments to Paper Filings

In the absence of alternative specimens, the USPTO will accept specimens consisting of compact discs (“CDs”), digital video discs (“DVDs”), videotapes, and audiotapes.   See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(d)(3) .  Equipment for viewing or listening to these materials is available at the USPTO.

Compact discs, DVDs, audiotapes, and videotapes may contain files in .jpg, .pdf, .wav, .wmv, .wma, .mp3, .mpg, or .avi format.  The USPTO is unable to review files in any other format. The USPTO prefers that the applicant submit small files of less than two minutes in duration.  Only one specimen should be included on each tape or disc; however, in a multiple-class application, the applicant may include more than one specimen on the same disc or tape.  If the nature of the specimen is unclear, the applicant should explain what it is and how it is used.

See TMEP §904.02(a) regarding electronically filed specimens, TMEP §904.03(f) regarding specimens for sound marks, and TMEP §904.03(l) regarding specimens for motion marks.  See also 37 C.F.R. §§2.56(d)(1) and (d)(2) and TMEP §904.02(b) regarding the size requirements for specimens attached to paper filings, and the procedures for handling specimens that exceed these requirements.  

904.03(e) Specimens for Trademarks Identifying Computer Programs, Movies, and Videos, or Audio Recordings

The computer program, video, and movie industries have adopted the practice of applying trademarks that are visible only when the goods, that is, programs or movies, are displayed on a screen (e.g., on the first several frames of a movie).

An acceptable specimen might be a photograph or printout of a display screen projecting the identifying trademark for a computer program, or a photograph of a frame(s) of a movie or video bearing the mark.  It is not necessary that purchasers see the mark prior to purchasing the goods, as long as the mark is applied to the goods or their containers, or to a display associated with the goods, and the goods are sold or transported in commerce.   In re Brown Jordan Co. , 219 USPQ 375 (TTAB 1983) (holding that stamping the mark after purchase of the goods, on a tag attached to the goods that are later transported in commerce, is sufficient use).

For downloadable computer software, an applicant may submit a specimen that shows use of the mark on an Internet website.  Such a specimen is acceptable only if it creates an association between the mark and software and provides sufficient information to enable the user to download or purchase the software from the website.   See In re Azteca Sys., Inc. , 102 USPQ2d 1955 (TTAB 2012) . If the website simply advertises the software without providing a way to download, purchase, or order it, the specimen is unacceptable.   See In re Dell Inc. , 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004) ; see also In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1224 (TTAB 2007) .  See TMEP §904.03(i) regarding electronic displays as specimens for trademarks.

Similarly, a specimen for audio recordings in Class 9 that shows use of the mark on an internet website must include a “download” or similar link to put the consumer on notice that the identified goods are available for download. Absent such a link or the equivalent thereof, the specimen on its face fails to show use of the mark in commerce for the goods. In re Rogowski , 104 USPQ2d 2012, 2014-15 (TTAB 2012) .

Specimens for software may also indicate that the software is a “beta” version. This term is commonly used in the software field to identify a preliminary version of a product. Although some beta products may not be made available to consumers, others are. Thus, the appearance of this term on a specimen for software does not, by itself, necessarily mean that the relevant goods are not in actual use in commerce or that the specimen is unacceptable. However, if examination of the specimen indicates that the beta version is not in actual use in commerce, the examining attorney must refuse registration under §§1 and 45 of the Trademark Act because the applicant has not provided evidence of use of the applied-for mark in commerce. 15 U.S.C. §§1051 ,  1127 . See TMEP §1301.03(a) regarding service mark specimens containing the term “beta.”

904.03(f) Specimens for Sound Marks

To show that a sound mark actually identifies and distinguishes the goods/services/collective membership organization and indicates their source, an applicant must submit a specimen that contains a sufficient portion of the audio or video content to show how the mark is used on or in connection with the goods/services/collective membership organization.

For paper filings, specimens for sound marks must be submitted on CDs, DVDs, videotapes, or audiotapes.   See 37 C.F.R. §2.56(d)(3) ; TMEP §904.03(d) .  

For TEAS applications under §1(a), as well as response, statement of use/amendment to allege use, petition, and registration maintenance/renewal forms, the specimen can be attached to the TEAS form and must be an electronic file in .wav, .wmv, .wma, .mp3, .mpg, or .avi format.  Audio files should not exceed 5 MB in size, and video files should not exceed 30 MB, because TEAS cannot accommodate larger files.

See TMEP §904.02(a) regarding specimens filed electronically. See also TMEP §807.09 and TMEP §1202.15 regarding sound marks.

904.03(g) Displays Associated with Goods

A display must be associated directly with the goods offered for sale.   See In re Kohr Bros., Inc., 121 USPQ2d 1793 (TTAB 2017). It must bear the trademark prominently.  However, it is not necessary that the display be in close proximity to the goods.   See In re Marriott Corp. , 459 F.2d 525, 173 USPQ 799 (C.C.P.A. 1972); Lands’ End Inc. v. Manbeck , 797 F. Supp. 511, 24 USPQ2d 1314 (E.D. Va. 1992).

Displays associated with the goods essentially comprise point-of-sale material such as banners, shelf-talkers, window displays, menus, and similar devices.

These items must be designed to catch the attention of purchasers and prospective purchasers as an inducement to make a sale.   See In re Kohr Bros., 121 USPQ2d at 1796 (finding that an envelope-sized sign placed on a wall next to a business license and health department certificate would not catch the attention of consumers or be regarded as a trademark for applicant’s goods). Further, the display must prominently display the mark in question and associate it with, or relate it to, the goods. See id. at 1795;  In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220 (TTAB 2007) ; In re Morganroth , 208 USPQ 284 (TTAB 1980) (purported mark was so obfuscated on the specimen that it was not likely to make any impression on the reader).  The display must be related to the sale of the goods such that an association of the two is inevitable.   See In re Bright of Am., Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979) , and cases cited therein;  see also In re ITT Rayonier Inc., 208 USPQ 86 (TTAB 1980) ;  cf. In re Shipley Co., 230 USPQ 691 (TTAB 1986); In re Jones,216 USPQ 328 (TTAB 1982).

Folders, brochures, or other materials that describe goods and their characteristics or serve as advertising literature are not per se “displays.”   In re Schiapparelli Searle, 26 USPQ2d 1520 (TTAB 1993) ; In re Drilco Indus. Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1671 (TTAB 1990).  In order to rely on such materials as specimens, an applicant must submit evidence of point-of-sale presentation.  Such evidence must consist of more than an applicant's statement that copies of the material were distributed at sales presentations or tradeshows.  A mere statement that advertising and promotional materials are used in connection with sales presentations is not sufficient, in and of itself, to transform advertising and promotional materials into displays used in association with the goods.   In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1224 (“Applicant's declaration lacks sufficient detail to transform the web page from advertising into a display used in association with the goods.  For example, there is no discussion regarding how the applicant used the web page at sales presentations to make an association between the mark and the products or whether consumers, in fact, associated the mark with the products.  The use of advertising material in connection with the sales of a product does not ipso facto make it a display used in association with the goods sufficient to support technical trademark use for registration.”); see also In re Anpath Grp., Inc., 95 USPQ2d 1377 (TTAB 2010) (holding that pamphlet and flyer listing the URL of applicant’s website and/or a telephone number for contacting sales representatives does not create the same point-of-sale situation as a detailed catalogue, a detailed web page, or a situation where there is the option of placing an order based upon detailed information from the specimen); In re Ancha Elecs. Inc. , 1 USPQ2d 1318 (TTAB 1986) ; (holding that a photograph showing an informational flyer or leaflet clearly depicting the mark and presented on the goods at a trade show exhibit was an acceptable display associated with the goods); In re Columbia Chase Corp. , 215 USPQ 478 (TTAB 1982) (holding that folders and brochures describing goods and their characteristics or serving as advertising literature are not displays, and the appearance of marks and product photographs in such literature does not per se amount to use of a mark on displays without evidence of point-of-sale presentation).

An infomercial was held to be a display associated with the goods, where the goods were shown either immediately before or immediately after the trademark was displayed, and the information on how to order the goods was given within a reasonable time after the goods were shown. In re Hydron Techs., Inc. , 51 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB 1999) . The Board found that the infomercial created an association between the trademark and the goods, and the test for constituting a display associated with the goods was, therefore, satisfied.   Id.

Displays associated with the goods also exist in an electronic or online environment in the form of web pages. These “electronic displays” perform the same function as traditional displays and must meet the same standards for an acceptable specimen as traditional displays. See In re Sones , 590 F.3d 1282, 1288, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Dell Inc ., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004) . See TMEP §904.03(i) regarding electronic displays.

904.03(h) Catalogs

In appropriate cases, catalogs are acceptable specimens of trademark use.   See Lands’ End Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 24 USPQ2d 1314 (E.D. Va. 1992).  In that case, the applicant had applied to register “KETCH” for purses.  The specimen was a catalog page that included a picture of the goods and, below the picture, the mark and a description of the goods.  The Court stated, “The alleged trademark ‘KETCH’ appears prominently in large bold lettering on the display of purses in the Lands’ End specimen in a manner which closely associates the term with the purses.”  24 USPQ2d at 1315.

The Court determined that the catalog was not mere advertising and that it met the relevant criteria for displays associated with the goods.  The Court evaluated the catalog specimen as follows:

A customer can identify a listing and make a decision to purchase by filling out the sales form and sending it in or by calling in a purchase by phone.  A customer can easily associate the product with the word “KETCH” in the display . . . . The point of sale nature of this display, when combined with the prominent display of the alleged mark with the product, leads this court to conclude that this mark constitutes a display associated with the goods.

24 USPQ2d at 1316.

Accordingly, examining attorneys may accept any catalog or similar specimen as a display associated with the goods, provided that it:  (1)  includes a picture or a sufficient textual description of the relevant goods; (2)  shows the mark in association with the goods; and (3)  includes the information necessary to order the goods (e.g., an order form or a phone number, mailing address, or e-mail address for placing orders).

However, the inclusion of a phone number, Internet address, and/or mailing address merely as part of corporate contact information on an advertisement describing the product is not in itself sufficient to meet the criteria for a display associated with the goods.  There must be an offer to accept orders or instructions on how to place an order.   See In re MediaShare Corp. , 43 USPQ2d 1304,1306 (TTAB 1997) (finding applicant’s fact sheet brochure, which included an address and phone number but omitted any information as to product price and how to order applicant's software, was merely advertising material).  It is not necessary that the specimen list the price of the goods.

904.03(i) Electronic Displays

A web page that displays a product can constitute a “display associated with the goods” if it:

• (1) contains a picture or textual description of the identified goods;
• (2) shows the mark in association with the goods; and
• (3) provides a means for ordering the identified goods.

See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1288, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed Cir. 2009); In re Azteca Sys., Inc ., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1957-58 (TTAB 2012) ; In re Dell Inc ., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004) ; Lands’ End v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514, 24 USPQ2d 1314, 1316 (E.D. Va. 1992).  

The mark must also be displayed on the web page in a manner in which customers will recognize it as a mark. See In re Morganroth , 208 USPQ 284, 287-88 (TTAB 1980) ; see also In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1223 (TTAB 2007) (finding that CONDOMTOY CONDOM was not displayed so prominently on web page specimen that consumers would recognize it as a trademark for condoms). See TMEP §1202.04 regarding matter that is merely informational in nature.

Generally, a web page will display the trademark in association with a picture of the goods. However, in Sones, the Federal Circuit held that although a visual depiction of the goods “is an important consideration in determining whether a submitted specimen sufficiently associates a mark with the source of the goods,” a picture of the goods on the web page is not mandatory. In re Sones at 1288, 93 USPQ2d at 1123.  A textual description may suffice where “the actual features or inherent characteristics of the goods are recognizable from the textual description, given that the more standard the product is, the less comprehensive the textual description need be.”   Id. at 1289, 93 USPQ2d at 1124.

An applicant need not describe a web-page specimen as a “display” for it to qualify as an acceptable display specimen, nor must the web page come from an applicant’s own website. A web page from a third-party website may be acceptable as a display if the mark is sufficiently associated with the applicant’s goods. See In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at1221, 1223-24 (finding the specimen unacceptable not because it was a web page from a third-party website, but because it neither showed the mark in association with the goods nor provided a means for ordering the goods). For instance, a manufacturer of bed linens may rely on a third-party retail vendor’s web page when the web page shows a picture of the bed linens in association with the mark and provides a means for ordering them, as shown in Example 1.

Example 1: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: LACOSTE

Goods: Coverlets, duvet covers, duvets, bed blankets, bed linen, bed sheets, pillow cases, bath linen, washing mitts

• The mark is placed below the website navigation tabs and is prominently displayed.
• The mark is physically close to the goods and is repeated in the links located under each product, indicating a direct association with the goods.
• No other marks appear to be used in connection with the goods apart from the alligator design and the product style names, all of which are associated with the goods.
• Product information is provided in the form of pictures and descriptions of the goods along with prices.
• There is a “shopping bag” at the top of the web page to enable direct ordering.
• Even if the web page did not include the larger LACOSTE mark, the LACOSTE marks depicted under the photographs of the goods (e.g., Lacoste “Brighton” Comforter Set or Lacoste “Confetti” Comforter Set) would be acceptable to show trademark use for the goods.
• If the proposed mark were “Macy’s” (as it appears in the upper-left corner), the web page would not be acceptable for goods because of the closer proximity and association of the other marks with the goods (i.e., the LACOSTE and alligator).

Similarly, a web page from a third–party, social-media website may also be accepted provided the web page satisfies the elements of a display specimen.

However, while a web page display associated with the goods is an acceptable specimen for goods, mere advertising material is not. In re Anpath Grp ., 95 USPQ2d 1377, 1380 (TTAB 2010) ; In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010); In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1224; In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d at 1727; In re MediaShare Corp ., 43 USPQ2d 1304, 1307 (TTAB 1997) . Acceptable web-page displays are not merely advertising, but instead serve as point-of-sale displays, because the website on which the web page appears is, in effect, an electronic retail store, and the web page is a shelf-talker or banner which encourages the consumer to buy the product and provides the information necessary to do so. A consumer using the link on the web page to purchase the goods is the equivalent of a consumer seeing a shelf-talker and taking the item to the cashier in a store to purchase it. See In re Dell Inc., 71 USPQ2d at 1727. The web page is, thus, a point-of-sale display by which an actual sale is made.

A point-of-sale display is “‘calculated to consummate a sale’”; that is, it includes the information necessary for the consumer to decide to purchase the goods, and it appears in a setting that allows the consumer to immediately buy the goods. In re Quantum Foods, Inc ., 94 USPQ2d at 1379 (quoting In re Bright of Am., Inc ., 205 USPQ 63, 71 (TTAB 1979) ); In re Anpath Grp., 95 USPQ2d at 1382; In re MediaShare Corp., 43 USPQ2d at 1305; Lands’ End Inc., 797 F. Supp. at 514, 24 USPQ2d at 1316. An advertisement, however, merely describes or touts the benefits of the goods, influences people to buy them, or informs the public about the goods and the company that provides them. In re Anpath Grp., 95 USPQ2d at 1381-82; In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1379. It does not offer a way to directly purchase the goods, because it either does not contain an offer to accept orders for the goods or does not provide special instructions for placing orders for the goods. In re Quantum Foods, Inc ., 94 USPQ2d at 1380; In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1224.

Therefore, a web page that merely provides information about the goods, but does not provide a means of ordering them, is viewed as promotional material, which is not acceptable to show trademark use on goods.   See In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006) (“[T]he company name, address and phone number that appears at the end of the web page indicates only location information about applicant; it does not constitute a means to order goods through the mail or by telephone, in the way that a catalog sales form provides a means for one to fill out a sales form or call in a purchase by phone.”).  Merely providing a link to the websites of online distributors is not sufficient.  There must be a means of ordering the goods directly from the applicant’s web page, such as a telephone number for placing orders or an online ordering process.   In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1380; In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1224.

When a web-page specimen appears to be merely advertising, statements by the applicant that the specimen is used in connection with the sale of the goods, without evidence or a detailed explanation of the manner of use, will not suffice to establish that the specimen is a display associated with the goods. In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1224 (finding that applicant’s mere statement in a signed declaration that copies of the web page were distributed at sales presentation lacked sufficient detail to transform the web page from an advertisement into a display associated with the goods).

Whether a web-page display qualifies as an acceptable specimen is a question of fact, based on the evidence of record. In re Azteca Sys., Inc., 102 USPQ2d at 1957 (citing Lands’ End, 797 F. Supp. at 514, 24 USPQ2d at 1316); In re Hydron Techs. Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1531, 1533 (TTAB 1999). The presentation on the web page of the picture or description of the goods, the manner of the mark’s use in association with those goods, and the nature of the ordering information affect the specimen’s acceptability. Thus, a specimen that describes or displays a picture of the goods, shows the mark, and provides ordering information may nonetheless be unacceptable because it fails to demonstrate an association between the mark and the goods. Sometimes, a single fact or piece of evidence may be dispositive. Often, however, a combination of facts and evidence of record may be required to establish the acceptability of the specimen. If ordering information is not readily discernible from the submitted web page, the applicant may provide multiple, sequential web pages as part of the specimen to clarify the ordering process on the website.

See TMEP §904.03(i)(A)–(i)(C)(3) for further discussion of the various factors for assessing whether a web-page display is an acceptable specimen.

904.03(i)(B) Show the Mark in Association with the Goods

A web-page display specimen “must in some way evince that the mark is ‘associated’ with the goods and serves as an indicator of source.” In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1288, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Assessing the “mark-goods” association on a web page involves many variables, including the prominence and placement of the mark, the content and layout of the web page, and the overall impression the web page creates. Web-page content and layout may sometimes distract consumers and prevent them from making the necessary connection between the mark and the identified goods. In re Azteca Sys., Inc ., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1958 (TTAB 2012) . Factors such as the proximity of the mark to the goods, the presence of other marks, intervening text between the mark and the goods, and the inclusion of other material that is unrelated or marginally related to the identified goods, tend to disrupt purchasers from making the mark-goods association, as shown in Example 2. Id.

Example 2: Applied-for mark is not associated with the goods.

Mark: GIS EMPOWERED BY CITYWORKS

Goods: Computer software for management of public works and utilities assets

• The applied-for mark is distant from the description of the software, and is separated from the description by more than fifteen lines of text concerning marginally related topics;
• Due to the appearance of a number of other marks on the web page, it is unclear whether any particular mark is associated and used in connection with the identified goods;
• The left sidebar includes links to articles and news about applicant’s business and is not limited to the software goods.

The following features of a specimen particularly influence the mark-goods association analysis.

904.03(i)(B)(1) Prominence of Mark

When determining whether a web-page display specimen shows the mark in association with the identified goods, the examining attorney may consider the prominence of the mark. See In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1223 (TTAB 2007) (“Another factor in the analysis of whether a specimen is an acceptable display used in association with the goods is whether the mark is displayed in a such a way that the customer can easily associate the mark with the goods.” (citing 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1223 (TTAB 2007) (“Another factor in the analysis of whether a specimen is an acceptable display used in association with the goods is whether the mark is displayed in a such a way that the customer can easily associate the mark with the goods.” (citing In re Dell Inc. , 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1728 (TTAB 2004) ).

The more prominently an applied-for mark appears on a web page, the more likely the mark will be perceived as a trademark. A mark may appear more prominent when the specimen:

• presents the mark in larger font size or different stylization or color than the surrounding text;
• places the mark at the beginning of a line or sentence;
• positions the mark next to a picture or description of the goods; or
• uses the “TM” designation with the applied-for mark (however, the designation alone does not transform a mark into a trademark if other considerations indicate it does not function as a trademark).

Compare In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (TTAB 2010) (describing an applied-for mark as “prominently displayed” on the specimen when the mark appeared by itself above pictures relating to applicant’s goods in relatively large font and in a different color than some of the other text on the page), with In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1223 (finding the applied-for mark not so prominently displayed that customers would easily associate the mark with the goods, because it was buried in the middle of text describing the goods and, while the mark was shown in bold font, so was other matter). See In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1289, 93 USPQ2d 1118, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Though not dispositive, the ‘use of the designation “TM” . . . lends a degree of visual prominence to the term.’” (quoting In re Dell Inc ., 71 USPQ2d at 1729 )); In re Quantum Foods, Inc ., 94 USPQ2d at 1378-79 (concluding that applicant’s specimen did not show use of the applied-for mark as a trademark for the goods, despite the mark’s “TM” designation); In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220 at 1224, n.4 (“The mere use of a superscript ‘tm’ cannot transform a nontrademark term into a trademark.” (citing In re Brass-Craft Mfg. Co ., 49 USPQ2d 1849, 1853 (TTAB 1998) ).

These factors are not dispositive, and the web page as a whole must be assessed to determine whether the applied-for mark functions as a trademark for the identified goods. Alternatively, a mark may appear less prominent and less likely to be perceived as a trademark if it is:

• shown in the same font size, stylization, or color as the surrounding text;
• buried in a sentence; or
• encompassed within descriptive text such that the commercial impression of the mark is that of a descriptive term for the goods and not as a trademark.

See In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1223.

904.03(i)(B)(2) Placement of Mark and Proximity to the Goods

Appearance in Website and E-mail Addresses . When a mark appears in the computer browser area as part of the URL, Internet address, or domain name of the website that houses the web page, consumers generally do not recognize this as trademark use. Instead, this use merely identifies the Internet location of the website where business is conducted and goods or services are offered. See, e.g., In re Roberts , 87 USPQ2d 1474, 1479-80 (TTAB 2008) (concluding that the mark IRESTMYCASE, which appeared as part of a website address, www.irestmycase.com, on applicant’s specimens, merely served as a contact address to reach the applicant and failed to function as a service mark for applicant’s services); In re Supply Guys, Inc ., 86 USPQ2d 1488, 1493 (TTAB 2008) ( “[A]pplicant’s use of the term LEADING EDGE TONERS as part of the internet address, www.leadingedgetoners.com, . . . identifies the website where applicant conducts its retail sales services. Obviously, a website can be used for multiple purposes and the simple fact that a term is used as part of the internet address does not mean that it is a trademark for the goods sold on the website.”); In re Eilberg , 49 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (TTAB 1998) (finding that the mark WWW.EILBERG.COM, when displayed in relatively small and subdued typeface below other contact information on applicant’s letterhead, merely indicated the Internet location of applicant’s website rather than functioning as a service mark for applicant’s legal services). Similarly, the use of the mark embedded in an e-mail address would be viewed as part of the website address where applicant may be contacted, rather than as a trademark.

Placement in a Location Typical for a Retail-Store Service Mark . A mark may be displayed at the top of a web page, separated from the relevant goods by the website navigation tabs, which may direct consumers to information about the goods, the applicant, and the website. Since it is customary for retailers to place their store marks in this location, such use of the applied-for mark is likely be recognized as an online retail-store service mark, as shown in Example 3.

Example 3: Mark is associated with the services, but the specimen would not be acceptable as evidence of use of the mark as a trademark for the goods shown.

Mark: MACYS.COM

Services: Electronic retail department-store services

• The web page is not acceptable as evidence of use of the mark as a trademark for the goods shown because the mark is serving only as a service mark for retail store services featuring the goods of others (e.g., “Cuisinart” or “Polo by Ralph Lauren”).
• The mark is located in the upper-left corner where retail service marks usually appear and is adjacent to the greeting “Welcome to macys.com.”
• Other trademarks for various goods appear on the web page, such as “Cuisinart,” “Club Room,” “Charter Club,” and “Polo by Ralph Lauren,” which appear to be more directly associated with the goods.
• Retail store services indicia appear, such as “departments” on the right and “expresscheckout sign-in,” “bridal registry,” and “want a card? get one here” on the left.

The mark may also include wording (e.g., “market,” “store,” or “depot”) that indicates use as a service mark. Nevertheless, a mark appearing in a location where service marks normally appear may qualify as a trademark if the web page demonstrates an association between the applied-for mark and the identified goods, and otherwise meets the elements of an acceptable display specimen, as shown in Example 4. See In re Supply Guys, Inc., 86 USPQ2d at 1495-96 (noting that “a mark may serve both as a trademark and service mark” and that one “must look to the perception of the ordinary customer to determine whether the term functions as a trademark”).

Example 4: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: HAPPY SOCKS

Goods: Clothes, namely, socks

• The mark is shown prominently in the upper-left corner of the web page, is followed by the “TM” designation, is placed in close proximity to the goods, and appears to be the only mark on the web page associated with the goods.
• The reference to “our socks” under “Add to cart” button reinforces trademark use of the mark because it conveys that the socks sold on the web page are produced by HAPPY SOCKS.
• The web page contains sufficient product details to make the decision to purchase the goods, including picture and description; size, color, and quantity options; price; and material content of the goods.
• The ordering information is in the form of an “Add to cart” button adjacent to the picture and description of goods.

Furthermore, if a mark appears on a web page in a location where trademarks normally are not placed, a “substantially larger and more prominent” placement of the mark thereon could result in acceptable trademark use, when the only products on the web page are the identified goods, the placement of the mark is such that the mark-goods association is evident, and the web page otherwise meets the elements of an acceptable display specimen. See Examples 5 and 6.

Example 5: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: COLE HAAN

Goods: Eyeglasses, sunglasses, cases for spectacles and sunglasses

• The mark is located in the upper-left corner of the web page and is prominently displayed.
• The mark is somewhat physically distant from the goods, but it appears to be the only mark on the web page associated with the goods, and the only products shown are the identified goods.
• Although the menu on the left, under “COLLECTIONS,” does include other marks, these marks do not appear to be used in connection with the goods (i.e., the other marks are not placed directly next to the pictures and descriptions of the goods) and the menu simply appears to inform consumers that they may also purchase from other brand-name “collections” on the website.
• Ordering information in the form of a “SHOPPING BAG” is included near the top of the web page.
• The mark may also function as a service mark for retail store services since the menu on the left of the web page contains various categories of goods sold in the store, identifies other brand names carried by the store, and provides a “STORES” link on the bottom for locating physical stores.

Example 6: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: BROOKS BROTHERS

Goods: Bed sheets, dust ruffles, duvet covers, pillow cases, pillow shams, bed shams, bed spreads, towels, and wash cloths

• The mark is displayed prominently in large font and placed above the pictures of the goods.
• No other marks appear to be used in connection with the identified goods apart from the sheep design placed near the goods, which is also associated with the goods.
• The web page contains pictures and descriptions of the goods, size and color selections, and price information.
• The web page would also be an acceptable specimen if the mark were for retail store services because the mark is located where retail service marks are typically placed and the “FIND A STORE” tab indicates the presence of physical stores, thus reinforcing service mark usage.

Displayed in or Near Corporate Contact Information . A mark that appears on a web page only in conjunction with the corporate address, telephone number, and website and e-mail addresses, and/or is placed on the web page near boilerplate and standard information about the applicant or the website (e.g., “Home” and “About Us” links, legal notices, or technical requirements of the website) is less likely to be seen as a trademark and more likely to be perceived as a trade name under which the applicant conducts business. See In re Walker Process Equip. Inc. , 233 F.2d 329, 331-32, 110 USPQ 41, 43 (C.C.P.A. 1956) (indicating that the placement of the applied-for mark WALKER PROCESS EQUIPMENT INC. above wording denoting applicant’s location suggested that the mark was not used as a trademark, but as a trade name).

Presence of Other Marks . In some instances, the appearance of more than one mark (whether word or design marks) on the web page may distract consumers and make it less likely that they will perceive an association between the applied-for mark and the relevant goods. See In re Azteca Sys., Inc ., 102 USPQ2d 1955, 1958 (TTAB 2012) . The placement of each mark, particularly the applied-for mark, in relation to the identified goods may affect whether it is associated with the goods and functions as a trademark (see Example 7) or, instead, serves as a service mark or trade name.

Example 7: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: KEEPING YOU COZY.

Goods: Jackets

• The mark is placed below the website navigation tabs and is prominently displayed in large font followed by the “TM” designation.
• The mark is physically close to the goods and would be perceived to be associated with them.
• The web page features product information in the form of pictures and descriptions of the goods along with prices.
• The links under each product combined with the “BUY ONLINE NOW!” instruction indicate that direct ordering is possible.
• If the proposed mark were “T. Markey Your Clothing Emporium” (as it appears in the upper-left corner), the web page would not be acceptable for goods because it is located where service marks are commonly placed and seems to function as a retail store service mark, there is other matter separating the mark from the goods, and there are other marks placed closer to the goods and better associated with the goods.

The nature of the wording and design elements of each mark on the specimen and the appearance of the same or similar elements in the various marks may also influence whether the applied-for mark would be perceived as a trademark for the relevant goods, as in Example 8.

Example 8: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: T.MARKEY YOUR CLOTHING EMPORIUM

Goods: Shirts

• The mark is located on the top of the web page and is prominently displayed.
• Although the mark is placed above the website navigation tabs and appears in conjunction with a slogan that refers to retail store services (i.e., “Your Clothing Emporium”), the mark still appears to be associated with the goods because the goods are shown immediately below the navigation tabs and the identified goods are the only products displayed.
• Another mark appears to be used in connection with the goods (i.e., “Let T.Markey Bundle You Up.” and design). However, multiple marks may function as a source indicator for the same goods. Here, both marks contain the same term “T.Markey,” suggesting the marks indicate the same source, and both are placed near and in association with the goods.
• The web page provides product information in the form of pictures and descriptions of the goods, prices, and size options.
• The telephone number is an acceptable means of ordering, even though it is not accompanied with special ordering instructions, because there is sufficient product information to make the decision to purchase the goods and the telephone number is prominently displayed and positioned in close proximity to the product information, implying that the goods may be ordered by calling the telephone number. If the telephone number had been listed near or as part of applicant’s address, it would not be sufficient ordering information since it would be perceived as part of the corporate contact information and not as a means for purchasing the goods.

Association is more likely when the applied-for mark is physically near the goods and no other marks appear to be used in connection with the goods, as in Example 9.

Example 9: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: TEEYAK

Goods: Sunglasses and hats

• The mark appears below the website navigation tabs and is prominently displayed in large font followed by the “TM” designation.
• The mark is physically close to the goods and is directly associated with them.
• Although another mark (i.e., “T.Markey Your Clothing Emporium”) appears on the web page, it seems to function as a retail store service mark since it is located where service marks are commonly placed, there is other matter separating the mark from the goods, and there is another mark placed closer to the goods and better associated with them.
• Product information is provided in the form of pictures and descriptions of the goods along with prices.
• The links under each product combined with the “BUY ONLINE NOW!” instruction indicate that direct ordering is possible.
• In the absence of links and the “BUY ONLINE NOW!” instruction, the telephone number would not be acceptable ordering information because it appears to be part of corporate contact information provided to obtain information about the product or the company and not intended as a means of placing or accepting orders.

Association becomes less likely if other marks are used in connection with the goods and appear to be trademarks for those goods, as in Example 10.

Example 10: Applied-for mark does not function as a trademark.

Mark: LEADING EDGE TONERS

Goods: Numerous goods including toner, toner cartridges, ink sticks, components for laser toner cartridges, and printer parts

• Use of the applied-for mark in the URL identifies the website where applicant’s retail services are conducted and does not show trademark use.
• The applied-for mark functions as a service mark for retail store or distributorship services, rather than as a trademark, because it appears in the upper-left corner of the web page where service marks normally appear and there are other marks that appear to be used in connection with the goods.
• The use of the applied-for mark in phrases containing third-party trademarks that are used to identify goods of third parties (e.g., "Leading Edge Toners Best Prices for Tektronix Toners" or "The Price Leader for Xerox/Tektronix Toner.”) does not constitute trademark use and, instead, signifies that the applicant is a retail store or distributorship that sells the goods of others.

904.03(i)(C) Ordering Information

A point-of-sale web-page display must provide a means of ordering the goods, either directly from the web page itself (e.g., web page contains a “shop online” button or link) or from information gleaned from the web page (e.g., web page lists a telephone number designated for ordering). See In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1378-79 (TTAB 2010); In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1224 (TTAB 2007) . If the web page offers no way to purchase the goods, the web page is merely an advertisement and not a display associated with the goods. See In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1378-80; In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1224; In re Genitope Corp ., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006).

Indicators of the ability to buy the goods via the web page may include:

• a sales order form to place an order, an online process to accept an order, such as “shopping cart” functionality, or special instructions on how to order;
• information on minimum quantities;
• indication of methods of payment;
• information about shipment of the goods; and/or
• means of contacting the applicant to place an order.

See In re Anpath Grp ., 95 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (TTAB 2010) ; In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1379.

Determining the sufficiency of ordering information is a nuanced analysis requiring an examination of the web page content and layout in terms of the level of detail provided about both the goods and the means for ordering them. The more specific and clear the means of immediately and directly ordering the goods on the web page (e.g., “shopping cart” or “Call 1-800-xxx-xxxx to Order Now”), the less detailed the information about the product features and specifications needs to be (e.g., price, size, color, or style), as shown in Example 11.

Example 11: Mark is associated with the goods, goods are pictured and described, and ordering information is provided.

Mark: RING IN THE NEW YEAR WITH OUR RINGS

Goods: Rings

• The mark is placed on the bottom of the web page and is followed by the “TM” designation.
• The mark is close to the picture of the goods and contains the term “RINGS” which references the goods.
• The “SHOP ONLINE” tab and the “SHOP” link indicate direct ordering via the web page.
• Web page is also acceptable for goods if the proposed mark were “T.Markey Jewelry” (in upper-left corner) because it is located close to the picture of the goods and both the proposed mark and the “T.Markey Jewelry” mark indicate common origin since it can be inferred that the wording “OUR RINGS” in the proposed mark refers to rings by T.Markey Jewelry.

Conversely, the more detailed the product information is on the web page, the less detailed the ordering information needs to be (e.g., providing a telephone number without specifically stating that it be used to place orders). See Example 8 at TMEP §904.03(i)(B)(2) . Although pricing information is normally associated with ordering goods, the presence or absence of pricing on its own is not determinative of whether the web page provides sufficient ordering information. Compare In re Dell Inc ., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1728-29 (TTAB 2004) (concluding that a web-page specimen used in connection with applicant’s computer hardware, which provided information about the goods but did not show the price of the goods, met the requirements for a display associated with the goods), and TMEP §904.03(h) (indicating that it is not necessary for a catalog specimen to list the price of the goods in order to meet the criteria for a display associated with the goods), with In re Quantum Foods, Inc., 94 USPQ2d at 1379 (listing pricing information as information normally associated with ordering goods and noting the absence of pricing or other ordering information on the applicant’s web page specimen to purchase the goods), and In re MediaShare Corp ., 43 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (TTAB 1997) (concluding that applicant’s specimen was merely advertising material because it lacked the price of the goods and other information normally associated with ordering goods). If the goods can be ordered via the information contained on the web page, then, presumably, the price will be presented at some point before the order is completed.

See TMEP §§904.03(i)(C)(1)-904.03(i)(C)(3) for a discussion of the common features of websites and the issues to consider when determining whether these features constitute sufficient means of ordering the goods.

904.03(i)(C)(1) “Shopping Cart” and “Shopping Bag” Buttons and Links

Frequently used methods of ordering goods online include buttons and links identified as “shopping cart,” “shopping bag,” “add to cart,” and “buy” that permit a consumer to directly purchase the goods. See Example 3 at TMEP §904.03(i)(B)(2) . The presence of these features conveys the web page’s point-of-sale character. For intangible goods, such as downloadable computer software programs, buttons and links for downloading, buying, or ordering goods should be considered sufficient ordering information. See TMEP §904.03(e) .

“Where to buy” buttons and links are usually unacceptable since they typically provide only contact information for the retailers, wholesalers, or distributors of the goods instead of functioning as a means of directly ordering the goods, as shown in Example 12. See In re Osterberg , 83 USPQ2d 1220, 1224 (TTAB 2007) (finding a “Where to Buy” link insufficient ordering information since the record contained no information about what the link included and applicant’s explanation in the appeal brief indicated that the link provided consumers a list of distributors and their websites from whom goods may be purchased).

Example 12: Web page specimen is not acceptable because, among other things, it lacks ordering information.

Mark: CONDOMTOY CONDOM

Goods: Condoms

• The web page provides no means of ordering goods. While there is a “Where to Buy” button at the top, the record does not contain the underlying page the button would lead consumers to. While the applicant explained in the appeal brief that the link connects shoppers with distributors of the goods, the TTAB found this to be insufficient because consumers were not able to immediately and directly purchase the goods.
• The applied-for mark is not associated with the goods because (1) the packaging for the goods shown on the web page shows the trademark “Inspiral” and not the applied-for mark, (2) the applied-for mark is not prominently displayed since it is buried in text and is not the first word of a sentence, and (3) while the applied-for mark is shown in bold font, the web page contains other descriptive terms that also appear in bold font.
• The applicant submitted a declaration that lacked sufficient detail or explanation of how the web page is used at the point of sale.

904.03(i)(C)(2) Telephone Numbers and E-mail Addresses

In most cases, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses alone will not transform mere advertising into point-of-sale displays even though it is common to sell products on-line or over the telephone. See In re Anpath Grp ., 95 USPQ2d 1377, 1382 (TTAB 2010) . However, they may suffice if accompanied by special instructions for placing or accepting orders, such as “call now to buy” or “e-mail your order.” If no ordering instructions appear, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses may be sufficient if: (1) the web page contains enough product and ordering information to enable the consumer to buy the goods (e.g., the web page shows the goods; offers size, color, or quantity selections; price; identifies credit card payment options; or states shipping methods); (2) the record contains an explanation or evidence that clearly supports the conclusion that the telephone number or e-mail address can be used for ordering, rather than merely for obtaining information about the goods or the ordering process; or (3) the telephone number or e-mail address is prominently placed close to the goods, indicating it as a means of ordering (see Example 8). See In re Valenite Inc ., 84 USPQ2d 1346, 1349 (TTAB 2007) ; In re Osterberg, 83 USPQ2d at 1224 (indicating that applicant’s web-page specimen might have met the ordering information requirement for a point-of-purchase display if the web page had contained a telephone number or online process for ordering the goods, or if the record otherwise showed that “a purchase [could] be made directly from the webpage or from information provided in the webpage”).

However, even where a web page provides sufficient product information for the consumer to make the decision to purchase the goods, a telephone number or e-mail address may not show the requisite means of ordering if it only appears with applicant’s corporate contact information, as shown in Example 13. See In re Genitope Corp ., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006) (concluding that the company name, address, and phone number appearing at the end of applicant’s web page “indicate[d] only location information about applicant; it [did] not constitute a means to order goods through the mail or by telephone, in the way that a catalog sales form provides a means for one to fill out a sales form or call in a purchase by phone”).

Example 13: Web-page specimen is not acceptable because it lacks ordering information.

Mark: Design of “fingerprint man”

Goods: Biopharmaceutical preparations used to treat cancer in humans, namely, individualized cancer treatments prepared specifically for each individual patient from whom tumor tissue has been received.

• The web page provides no actual means of ordering goods since it states that the study is closed to patient registration and provides a link to “click here for more information” about the product instead of to order the product, and the page to which the link leads is not of record.
• The company name, address, and telephone number at the bottom is only information about applicant’s location and not a means of ordering goods.

By contrast, an e-mail address may be an acceptable means of ordering if the address itself indicates that orders may be placed or are accepted via e-mail (e.g., order@t.markey.com).

The rare case of specialized industrial goods or similarly complex or sophisticated goods for which technical assistance is required in selecting the product or determining the product specifications may present a special situation as to a telephone number showing the requisite ability to order. In such a special situation, the telephone number would suffice if product information is available on the web page or website and the evidentiary record adequately explains the specialized nature of the goods, the industry practice for ordering them, and the need to consult with sales staff over the telephone to place customized orders. In the case In re Valenite Inc., the Board found a web page containing a link to an online catalog, along with a toll-free number and links to customer service and technical support, to be an acceptable specimen, where the goods (industrial tools) were specialized industrial goods, and the record contained declaration evidence that purchase of the goods requires careful calculation and technical knowledge, and that the phone numbers were in fact used to order the goods.   In re Valenite Inc. , 84 USPQ2d at 1349-50 (“[A]pplicant’s website, in addition to showing pictures of the goods, provides an on-line catalog, technical information apparently intended to further the prospective purchaser’s determination of which particular product to consider, an online calculator and both a link to, and phone number for, customer service representatives.  Therefore, applicant’s website provides the prospective purchaser with sufficient information that the customer can select a product and call customer service to confirm the correctness of the selection and place an order.”); cf. In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., 109 USPQ2d 2002, 2007 (TTAB 2014) (stating that “where it is asserted that the nature of the goods and the consumers . . . require more involved means for ordering products, it is critical that the examining attorney be provided with detailed information about the means for ordering goods, and that such information be corroborated by sufficient evidentiary support.”). The Valenite decision should not be interpreted as a broad-reaching change in USPTO practice regarding the determination of whether a website page constitutes a display associated with the goods.  If it appears that the web page merely provides information about the goods, but does not provide a means of ordering the goods directly from the applicant’s web page, it should be viewed as promotional material and a refusal should be issued. Id. at 2009 (finding that specimens did not contain adequate information for making a decision to purchase the goods and placing an order and, therefore, were advertisements). Given the narrow range of scenarios to which this decision applies, examining attorneys generally should avoid suggesting reliance on Valenite to overcome a specimen refusal.

904.03(i)(C)(3) “Contact Us,” “Customize,” or “Configure” Buttons and Links

“Contact Us” buttons and links usually are not acceptable because they generally do not enable direct ordering of the goods. These buttons and links typically route consumers to a different web page that offers only an invitation to obtain more information about the goods, or about the retailers, wholesalers, or distributors who actually sell the goods, as shown in Example 14. See, e.g., In re Quantum Foods, Inc ., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1379 (TTAB 2010) (noting that the “contact us” link on applicant’s web-page specimen did not take customers to an order form, but instead routed to a web page with applicant’s e-mail address and telephone number); cf. In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d 1819, 1822 (TTAB 2006) (stating that the web page did not provide a link to order the goods or explain how to order them, where the web page contained a link for “click here for more information” and provided links for “Patient Backgrounder” and “Patient Resources” for “more information on personalized immunotherapy and our products”).

Example 14: Web-page specimen is not acceptable because it lacks ordering information.

Mark: PROVIDING PROTEIN AND MENU SOLUTIONS

Goods: Processed meats, beef, pork, poultry and seafood sold in portions; fully cooked entrees consisting primarily of meat, beef, pork, poultry or seafood

• The web page provides no means of ordering goods (e.g., no sales form, pricing, offers to accept orders, special instructions for ordering, or opportunity and means to order online) and the minimal product information makes it unclear what the goods are.
• The TTAB found insufficient applicant’s claims that placing the cursor over “FOODSERVICE” reveals a drop-down menu from which the “contact us” link is selected, which brings up a web page containing an e-mail address and telephone number for applicant’s customer service department for ordering the goods.
• Simply providing a “contact us” link does not convert advertising into a display and, in fact, the “contact us” link here does not even enable ordering, but only leads to applicant’s contact information. While the “Contact Us” web page was rejected as untimely, the TTAB stated that, although it may ultimately result in a sale, the “Contact Us” web page “appears to be no more calculated to do so than any corporate contact e-mail address or phone number that would result in the call or e-mail being referred to the sales office.” In re Quantum Foods, Inc ., 94 USPQ2d 1375, 1377 n.2 (TTAB 2010) .

By analogy, a seller’s contact information that often appears in advertisements does not provide a sufficient means of ordering, in contrast to a telephone number on a sales form designated to accept orders. In re Genitope Corp., 78 USPQ2d at 1822.

Similarly, “Customize” and “Configure” buttons and links that allow customers to configure the goods generally are insufficient by themselves, since such features only enable personalization and not necessarily purchase of the goods. For these buttons and links to be deemed adequate means of ordering, the record must contain evidence that they permit customers to actually buy the goods. See In re Dell Inc ., 71 USPQ2d 1725, 1727 (TTAB 2004) (finding that a “Customize It” link was sufficient ordering means when the information on the website clearly indicated that the goods could be bought online via the link).

904.03(j) Manuals  

If printed matter included with the goods functions as a part of the goods, such as a manual that is part of a kit for assembling the product, then placement of the mark on that printed matter does show use on the goods.   In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903, 906 (TTAB 1984) (“We believe the instruction manual is as much a part of applicant’s goods as are the various parts that are used to build the gliders.  Application of the mark to the manual of assembly instructions, then, must be considered affixation to the goods.”).

904.03(k) Specimens for Marks that are Impracticable to Place on Goods, Packaging, or Displays

The USPTO may accept another document related to the goods or the sale of the goods when it is impracticable to place the mark on the goods, packaging, or displays associated with the goods.   15 U.S.C. §1127 (definition of “use in commerce”); 37 C.F.R. §2.56(b)(1) .  This provision is not intended as a general alternative to submitting labels, tags, containers, or displays associated with the goods; it applies only to situations when the nature of the goods makes use on these items impracticable.  For example, in rare circumstances it may be impracticable to place the mark on the goods or packaging for the goods if the goods are natural gas, grain that is sold in bulk, or chemicals that are transported only in tanker cars.  In such instances, an acceptable specimen might be an invoice, a bill of lading, or a shipping document that shows the mark for the goods.

A mere assertion of impracticability does not suffice to establish that traditional trademark use is impracticable.  Rather, the record must indicate that the goods are, in fact, of such a nature.  In  In re Settec, Inc., 80 USPQ2d 1185 (TTAB 2006) , the applicant asserted that placing the mark on the goods or on displays associated with the goods in the traditional manner was impracticable because the purpose of the goods was to provide digital media copy protection to media content providers, and placing the mark on the final product available to the ultimate end-user would impair the value of the goods, because the end-user would thereby be armed with an additional piece of the encryption puzzle.  The Board rejected this contention, finding that there were a variety of ways in which applicant could use its mark in the traditional manner without making it available to the end-user.

904.03(l) Specimens for Motion Marks

To show that a motion mark actually identifies and distinguishes the goods/services and indicates their source, an applicant must submit a specimen that depicts the motion sufficiently to show how the mark is used on or in connection with the goods/services, and that matches the required description of the mark.  Although the drawing for a motion mark may depict a single point in the movement, or up to five freeze frames showing various points in the movement, an acceptable specimen should show the entire repetitive motion in order to depict the commercial impression conveyed by the mark (e.g. , a video clip, a series of still photos, or a series of screen shots).

For TEAS applications under §1(a), as well as response, statement of use/amendment to allege use, petition, and registration maintenance/renewal forms, the specimen can be attached to the TEAS form and must be an electronic file in .wav, .wmv, .wma, .mp3, .mpg, or .avi format. Audio files should not exceed 5 MB in size and video files should not exceed 30 MB because TEAS cannot accommodate larger files.

See TMEP §807.11 regarding drawings for motion marks and TMEP §904.02(a) regarding specimens filed electronically.

904.03(m) Specimens for Scent and Flavor Marks

To show that the specimen for a scent or flavor mark actually identifies and distinguishes the goods and indicates their source, an applicant must submit a specimen that contains the scent or flavor and that matches the required description of the scent or flavor.  In most cases, the specimen will consist of the actual goods themselves because the examining attorney must be able to smell or taste the scent or flavor in order to determine whether the specimen shows use of the mark in connection with the goods.  When submitting such a specimen, the applicant should clearly indicate on the specimen itself that it is a specimen for a scent or flavor mark application so that the USPTO will properly route the actual specimen to the examining attorney.

A “scratch and sniff” sticker for a scent mark is an acceptable specimen, provided that it is part of the packaging for the goods or is used in such a manner as to identify the goods and indicate their source.

See also TMEP §§807.09 and 1202.13 regarding scent and flavor marks.

904.04(a) Drawing or “Picture” of the Mark; Digitally Created or Altered Specimen

A photocopy of the drawing required by 37 C.F.R §2.51 is not a proper specimen.   37 C.F.R. §2.56(c) .  Similarly, the specimen may not be a “picture” of the mark, such as an artist’s rendering, a printer’s proof, a computer graphic that merely illustrates what the mark looks like, or an image of the goods or its packaging or advertising matter for services that has been digitally created or altered to include the mark. Such items do not show actual use of the mark on or in connection with the goods or services in commerce and registration must be refused under Sections 1 and 45 of the Act. 15 U.S.C. §§1051 , 1127 ;   see In re Chica , 84 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (TTAB 2007) (holding that “a mere drawing of the goods with an illustration of how the mark may be displayed” was not an acceptable specimen because it did not show actual use in commerce); In re The Signal Cos. , 228 USPQ 956, 957-58 n.4 (TTAB 1986) (noting that a printer’s proof of an advertisement would not be an acceptable specimen because it is does not show actual use in commerce). See TMEP §901.01 regarding the definition of “use in commerce” and §904.07(a) for further discussion of “use-in-commerce” refusals.

904.04(b) Advertising Material

Advertising material is generally not acceptable as a specimen for goods.  Any material whose function is merely to tell the prospective purchaser about the goods, or to promote the sale of the goods, is unacceptable to support trademark use.  Similarly, informational inserts are generally not acceptable to show trademark use.   In re MediaShare Corp. , 43 USPQ2d 1304 (TTAB 1997); In re Schiapparelli Searle, 26 USPQ2d 1520 (TTAB 1993) ; In re Drilco Indus. Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1671 (TTAB 1990); In re ITT Rayonier Inc., 208 USPQ 86 (TTAB 1980); In re Bright of Am., Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979).  However, an instruction sheet may be an acceptable specimen. See  In re Ultraflight Inc., 221 USPQ 903 (TTAB 1984).  See TMEP §904.03(j) regarding manuals and TMEP §904.04(c) regarding package inserts.

The following types of items are generally considered advertising, and unless they comprise point-of-sale material, are not acceptable as specimens of use on goods:  advertising circulars and brochures; price lists; announcements; press releases; listings in trade directories; business cards; and online advertising banners appearing on search-engine results pages or in social media.  Moreover, material used by the applicant to conduct its internal business is unacceptable as a specimen of use on goods.  These materials include all documents whose sole function is to carry out the applicant’s business dealings, such as invoices, bill heads, waybills, warranties, and business stationery.   See In re Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 455 F.2d 563, 173 USPQ 8 (C.C.P.A. 1972) ; In re Bright of Am., 205 USPQ at 65; Upco Co. v. Speed Crete of La., Inc., 154 USPQ 555 (TTAB 1967); Dynacolor Corp. v. Beckman & Whitley, Inc. , 134 USPQ 410 (TTAB 1962); Pendleton Woolen Mills v. Eloesser-Heynemann Co., 133 USPQ 211 (TTAB 1962); Varian Assocs. v. IMAC Corp., 160 USPQ 283 (N.D. Ill. 1968); Boss Co. v. Homemaker Rugs, Inc., 117 USPQ 255 (N.D. Ill. 1958).

Material that would otherwise be considered mere advertising may be acceptable as a specimen of use for goods if it includes a photograph of the applied-for mark appearing on the goods or on packaging for the goods. See TMEP §§904.02(b) , 904.03 , 904.03(b) , 904.03(c) .

As to display of trademarks on company uniforms, see In re McDonald’s Corp., 199 USPQ 702 (TTAB 1978); Toro Mfg. Corp. v. John B. Stetson Co., 161 USPQ 749 (TTAB 1969) .

Bags and other packaging materials bearing the name of a retail store and used by the store merely for packaging items of sold merchandise are not acceptable to show trademark use of the store name for the products sold by the store (e.g., bags at cash register).  When used in this manner, the name merely identifies the store.   See In re The Pa. Fashion Factory, Inc., 198 USPQ 568 (TTAB 1978) , aff’d,588 F.2d 1343, 200 USPQ 140 (C.C.P.A. 1978).

904.04(c) Package Inserts

If material inserted in a package with the goods is merely advertising material, then it is not acceptable as a specimen of use on or in connection with the goods.  Material that is only advertising does not necessarily cease to be advertising because it is placed inside a package.

Package inserts such as invoices, announcements, order forms, bills of lading, leaflets, brochures, printed advertising material, circulars, press releases, and the like are not acceptable specimens to show use on goods.   See In re Bright of Am., Inc., 205 USPQ 63 (TTAB 1979).

904.07(a) Whether the Specimen Shows the Mark Used in Commerce

A §1(a) application for registration or an allegation of use submitted in a §1(b) application for a trademark or service mark must include one specimen per class, showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods, or in the sale or advertising of the services. 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(1) , (c) , (d)(1) , 1127 ; 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv) , 2.56(a)-(b)(2) , 2.76(b)(2) , 2.88(b)(2) .  Initially, the examining attorney must review the specimen to determine whether the applied-for mark appears on the specimen, the specimen shows use for the specific goods/services identified, and the specimen otherwise shows the applied-for mark in “use in commerce.”

The following non-exhaustive list reflects examples of "use-in-commerce" problems that may be raised on initial review of specimens:

• No specimen is submitted;
• The applied-for mark does not appear on the specimen;
• The specimen does not show use of the applied-for mark on or in connection with any of the relevant goods or in the sale or advertising of the services;
• The specimen is a printer’s proof of an advertisement for services;
• The specimen is a digitally created or altered image of the goods;
• The specimen is unreadable/illegible;
• The specimen is merely advertising material for goods;
• The specimen is merely a picture or drawing of the mark;
• The specimen is a photocopy of the drawing;
• The specimen is an electronic display associated with the goods (e.g., an online catalog, or web page display for goods), and fails to include ordering information or pricing;
• The specimen is a non-electronic point of sale display and fails to show use of the mark as a "display associated with the goods."

In an Office action addressing such specimen issues, the examining attorney must indicate that registration is refused because the applicant has not provided evidence of use of the applied-for mark in commerce. The statutory bases for refusal are §§1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 , 1127 . The examining attorney must also require the applicant to submit a substitute specimen and, if necessary, a supporting affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 .   See 37 C.F.R. §2.59 . If the refusal is made because the specimen is unreadable/illegible, the applicant may respond by submitting a true copy of the originally submitted specimen that is clear and readable, with a statement by the person who transmitted it that it is a true copy of the specimen that was originally submitted. TMEP §904.02(a) ; see TMEP §904.02(b) .

This specimen refusal, based on an applicant’s not providing the required evidence of use of the applied-for mark in commerce, also applies to specimens for collective and certification mark applications. A §1(a) application for registration or an allegation of use for a collective or certification mark must include one specimen per class, showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce on or in connection with an applicant’s member’s or authorized user’s goods or in the sale or advertising of the services by an applicant’s member or authorized user, for a collective trademark, collective service mark, or certification mark specimen, or to indicate membership in a collective membership organization, for a collective membership mark specimen. 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a)(1) ,  (c) , (d)(1) , 1054 , 1127 ; 37 C.F.R. §§2.44(a)(4)(i)(C) , 2.45(a)(4)(i)(E) , 2.56(a) , (b)(3)-(b)(5) , 2.76(b)(2) , 2.88(b)(2) . If the specimen submitted does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce, the examining attorney must refuse registration because the applicant has not provided evidence of use of the applied-for mark in commerce. The statutory bases for refusal are §§1, 4, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 ,  1127 . The examining attorney must also require the applicant to submit a substitute specimen and, if necessary, a supporting affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 . See 37 C.F.R. §2.59 . If the refusal is made because the specimen is altered, mutilated, or illegible, the applicant may respond by submitting a true, unaltered copy of the originally submitted specimen that is clear and readable, with a statement by the person who transmitted it that it is a true copy of the specimen that was originally submitted. TMEP §904.02(a) ; see TMEP §904.02(b) .

For more information regarding specimens for collective trademarks and collective service marks see TMEP §1303.01(a)(i)(C) , for collective membership marks see TMEP §1304.02(a)(i)(C) , and for certification marks see TMEP §§1306.02(a)(i)(B) , 1306.04(c)-(d) .

904.07(b) Whether the Specimen Shows the Applied-for Mark Functioning as a Mark

In a §1(a) application for registration or an allegation of use submitted in a §1(b) application for a trademark or service mark, the examining attorney must also evaluate the specimen to determine whether the applied-for mark is used in a way that shows that:  (1) the applied-for mark identifies the goods/services of the applicant and distinguishes them from the goods/services of others; and (2) the applied-for mark indicates the source of those goods/services.   See 15 U.S.C. §1127 .  If use on the specimen fails in either regard, the record lacks the requisite evidence that the applied-for mark functions as a mark.  The following non-exhaustive list reflects examples where review of the specimen would indicate a failure to function as a mark:

• Applied-for mark is used solely as a trade name ( see TMEP §1202.01 );
• Applied-for mark is mere ornamentation ( see TMEP §1202.03 );
• Applied-for mark is merely informational matter ( see TMEP §§1202.04 , 1301.02(a) );
• Applied-for mark identifies the name or pseudonym of a performing artist or author ( see TMEP §1202.09(a) );
• Applied-for mark identifies the title of a single creative work ( see TMEP §1202.08 );
• Applied-for mark identifies a model number or grade designation ( see TMEP §1202.16 );
• Applied-for mark is merely a background design or shape that does not create a commercial impression separable from the entire mark ( see TMEP §1202.11 );
• Applied-for mark identifies a process, system, or method ( see TMEP §1301.02(e) );
• Applied-for mark is used to refer to activities that are not considered “services” ( see TMEP §§1301.01 et seq.);
• Applied-for mark is used solely as a domain name ( see TMEP §1215.02 );
• Applied-for mark is used solely to identify a character ( see TMEP §1301.02(b) ).

If the deficiency in a specimen amounts to failure to demonstrate use of the applied-for mark as a trademark and/or service mark, the examining attorney must issue a "failure-to-function" refusal of registration on the ground that the applied-for mark does not function as a trademark or service mark, in addition to advising the applicant of the appropriate response options, which may include requiring the applicant to submit a substitute specimen.  The statutory bases for refusal are §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 , 1052 , 1127 , for trademarks, or §§1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 , 1052 , 1053 , 1127 , for service marks.   See In re Osmotica Holdings Corp., 95 USPQ2d 1666 (TTAB 2010) ; In re Supply Guys, Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1488 (TTAB 2008); In re wTe Corp ., 87 USPQ2d 1536 (TTAB 2008) ; In re DSM Pharms., Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1623 (TTAB 2008).  Generally, when initially refusing registration on the ground that the subject matter does not function as a trademark or service mark, the examining attorney should advise the applicant that the refusal will be reconsidered if the applicant submits a substitute specimen showing proper use of the applied-for mark as a trademark or service mark and, if necessary, a supporting affidavit or declaration.  See TMEP §904.05 regarding affidavits supporting new specimens.  However, in instances where the nature of the mark, such as with informational marks, indicates that consumers would never perceive the mark as source indicating, regardless of the manner of use, no such advisory need be given.

This “failure-to-function” specimen refusal also applies to specimens for collective and certification mark applications. If the deficiency in a specimen amounts to failure to demonstrate use of the applied-for mark as a collective or certification mark, the examining attorney must issue a “failure-to-function” refusal of registration on the ground that the applied-for mark does not function as a collective or certification mark and advise the applicant of the appropriate response options, which may include requiring the applicant to submit a substitute specimen. The statutory bases for refusal are §§1, 2, 4, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051 ,  1052 , 1053 , 1127 . See In re Int’l Inst. of Valuers , 223 USPQ 350 (TTAB 1984) ; In re Mountain Fuel Supply Co. , 154 USPQ 384 (TTAB 1967) ; Ex parte Van Winkle, 117 USPQ 450 (Comm’r Pats. 1958). Generally, when initially refusing registration on the ground that the subject matter does not function as a collective or certification mark, the examining attorney should advise the applicant that the refusal will be reconsidered if the applicant submits a substitute specimen showing proper use of the applied-for mark as a collective or certification mark and, if necessary, a supporting affidavit or declaration. See TMEP §904.05 regarding affidavits supporting new specimens. However, in instances where the nature of the mark, such as with informational marks, indicates that consumers would never perceive the mark as source indicating, regardless of the manner of use, no such advisory need be given.

For additional specimen refusals for collective and certification marks and more information regarding whether the specimen shows the applied-for mark functioning as a collective or certification mark, see TMEP §1303.01(a)(i)(C) for collective trademark and collective service mark specimens, see TMEP §1304.03(b) for collective membership mark specimens, and see TMEP §1306.04(c)-(d) for certification mark specimens.