Color marks are marks that consist solely of one or more colors used on particular objects. For marks used in connection with goods, color may be used on the entire surface of the goods, on a portion of the goods, or on all or part of the packaging for the goods. For example, a color trademark might consist of purple used on a salad bowl, pink used on the handle of a shovel, or a blue background and a pink circle used on all or part of a product package. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161 (1995) (green-gold used on dry cleaning press pads held to be a protectible trademark where the color had acquired secondary meaning); In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (the color pink as applied to fibrous glass residential insulation registrable where the evidence showed the color had acquired secondary meaning). Similarly, service marks may consist of color used on all or part of materials used in the advertising and rendering of the services.
The registrability of a color mark depends on the manner in which the proposed mark is used. Owens-Corning, 774 F.2d at 1120, 227 USPQ at 419. A color(s) takes on the characteristics of the object or surface to which it is applied, and the commercial impression of a color will change accordingly. See In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1353, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("a word mark retains its same appearance when used on different objects, but color is not immediately distinguishable as a service mark when used in similar circumstances").
Color marks are never inherently distinctive, and cannot be registered on the Principal Register without a showing of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(f). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 211-12, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000). See TMEP §1202.05(a) and cases cited therein. However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in In re Forney Industries, Inc., 955 F.3d 940, 945, 2020 USPQ2d 10310, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2020), stated a limited exception where a multiple-color mark may be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging, depending on the character of the color design. See also TMEP §1202.02(b)(ii).
Color, whether a single overall color or multiple colors applied in a specific and arbitrary fashion, is usually perceived as an ornamental feature of the goods or services. Owens-Corning, 774 F.2d at 1124, 227 USPQ at 422; In re Hudson News Co., 39 USPQ2d 1915, 1923 (TTAB 1996) , aff’d per curiam, 114 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("blue motif" used in retail stores would likely be perceived by prospective purchasers as "nothing more than interior decoration" that "could be found in any number of retail establishments. Undoubtedly such features are usually perceived as interior decoration or ornamentation."). However, color can function as a mark if it is used in the manner of a trademark or service mark and if it is perceived by the purchasing public to identify and distinguish the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used and to indicate their source. The United States Supreme Court has held that color alone may, sometimes, meet the basic legal requirements for a trademark. When it does, there is no rule that prevents color from serving as a mark. Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 161, 34 USPQ2d at 1162. If a color is not functional and is shown to have acquired distinctiveness on or in connection with the applicant’s goods or services, it is registrable as a mark.
Functional color marks are not registrable. See TMEP §1202.05(b) and cases cited therein.
Color marks normally are not inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 211-12, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000) (citing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162-63, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (1995)); In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1353, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Dimarzio, Inc., 2021 USPQ2d 1191, at *6 (TTAB 2021); In re Hodgdon Powder Co., 119 USPQ2d 1254, 1255 (TTAB 2016). Single color marks are never inherently distinctive and can only be registered upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness. Dimarzio, 2021 USPQ2d at *6. A multiple-color mark may be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging, depending on the character of the color design. In re Forney Industries, Inc., 955 F.3d 940, 945, 2020 USPQ2d 10310, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also TMEP §1202.02(b)(ii).
Generally, the examining attorney must refuse to register a color mark on the Principal Register, unless the applicant establishes that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). The examining attorney must issue this refusal in color mark applications where acquired distinctiveness has not been shown, regardless of the filing basis of the application. The ground for refusal is that the color is not inherently distinctive and, thus, does not function as a trademark under §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, and 1127, or does not function as a service mark under §§1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053, and 1127.
If the proposed color mark is not functional, it may be registrable on the Principal Register if it is shown to have acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). See In re Hodgdon Powder Co., 119 USPQ2d at 1255-59. If it is not distinctive, it is registrable only on the Supplemental Register. See In re Hudson News Co., 39 USPQ2d 1915, 1923 (TTAB 1996) ("blue motif" applied to retail store services not registrable on Principal Register without resort to Section 2(f)), aff’d per curiam, 114 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Edward Weck Inc. v. IM Inc., 17 USPQ2d 1142, 1145 (TTAB 1990) (the color green, as uniformly applied to medical instruments, not barred from registration on the basis of functionality; however, evidence failed to establish the color had become distinctive of the goods); In re Deere & Co., 7 USPQ2d 1401, 1403-04 (TTAB 1988) (the colors green and yellow, as applied to the body and wheels of machines, respectively, not barred from registration on the basis of functionality; evidence established the colors had become distinctive of the goods).
The burden of proving that a color mark has acquired distinctiveness is substantial. See In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 227 USPQ 417 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding applied-for mark consisting of the color pink, as uniformly applied to fibrous glass residential insulation, had acquired distinctiveness); In re Gen. Mills IP Holdings II, LLC, 124 USPQ2d 1016, 1028 (TTAB 2017) (holding applied-for mark consisting of "the color yellow appearing as the predominant uniform background color on product packaging" for cereal had not acquired distinctiveness); In re Lorillard Licensing Co., 99 USPQ2d 1312 (TTAB 2011) (holding applied-for mark consisting of "any orange text appearing on a green background," for cigarettes had not acquired distinctiveness); In re Benetton Grp. S.p.A., 48 USPQ2d 1214 (TTAB 1998) (holding applied-for mark consisting of a green rectangular background design for clothing and footwear had not acquired distinctiveness); In re Am. Home Prods. Corp., 226 USPQ 327 (TTAB 1985) (holding applied-for mark consisting of tri-colored, three-dimensional, circular-shaped design for analgesic and muscle relaxant tablets had acquired distinctiveness); In re Star Pharms., Inc., 225 USPQ 209 (TTAB 1985) (holding applied-for mark consisting of two-colored drug capsules and multi-colored seeds or granules contained therein for methyltestosterone had acquired distinctiveness). A mere statement of long use is not sufficient. Benetton, 48 USPQ2d at 1216-17 (despite long use, record devoid of any evidence that the green rectangular background design has been used, promoted, or advertised as a mark). The applicant must demonstrate that the color has acquired source-indicating significance in the minds of consumers.
As noted above, the commercial impression of a color may change depending on the object to which it is applied. Therefore, evidence submitted to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of a color may show consumer recognition with respect to certain objects, but not for other objects. See Thrifty, 274 F.3d at 1353, 61 USPQ2d at 1124. Cf. Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 163, 34 USPQ2d at 1162-63 ("The imaginary word ‘Suntost,’ or the words ‘Suntost Marmalade,’ on a jar of orange jam immediately would signal a brand or a product ‘source’; the jam’s orange color does not do so. But, over time, customers may come to treat a particular color on a product or its packaging (say, a color that in context seems unusual, such as pink on a firm’s insulating material or red on the head of a large industrial bolt) as signifying a brand. And, if so, that color would have come to identify and distinguish the goods -- i.e., ‘to indicate’ their ‘source’").
A color mark is not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f), or the Supplemental Register, if the color is functional. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165-66, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1164 (1995); Brunswick Corp. v. Brit. Seagull Ltd., 35 F.3d 1527, 1530, 32 USPQ2d 1120, 1121-22 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116, 1120-21, 227 USPQ 417, 419 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A color may be functional if it yields a utilitarian or functional advantage, for example, yellow or orange for safety signs. Brunswick, 35 F.3d 1527, 32 USPQ2d 1120 (holding the color black functional for outboard motors because, while the color did not provide utilitarian advantages in terms of making the engines work better, it nevertheless provided recognizable competitive advantages in terms of being compatible with a wide variety of boat colors and making the engines appear smaller); In re Integra Biosciences Corp., 2022 USPQ2d 93, at *40-41 (TTAB 2022) (holding five different pastel colors for disposable pipette tips in colored rack inserts were functional as they were part of applicant’s color coding scheme to ensure that customers used the proper size pipette tips on the respective pipettes); In re Florists’ Transworld Delivery Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1784, 1791 (TTAB 2013) (holding the color black for floral packaging functional because there was a competitive need for others in the industry to use black in connection with floral arrangements and flowers to communicate a desired sentiment or occasion, such as elegance, bereavement, or Halloween); Saint-Gobain Corp. v. 3M Co., 90 USPQ2d 1425, 1446-47 TTAB 2007 (holding a deep purple shade functional for coated abrasives, because opposer had established a prima facie case that coated abrasive manufacturers had a competitive need to be able to use various shades of purple, including applicant’s shade, and that "[i]n the field of coated abrasives, color serves a myriad of functions, including color coding"); In re Ferris Corp., 59 USPQ2d 1587 (TTAB 2000) (holding the color pink functional for surgical wound dressings because the actual color of the goods closely resemble[d] Caucasian human skin); In re Orange Commc'ns, Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1036 (TTAB 1996) (holding the colors yellow and orange functional for public telephones and telephone booths, because they are more visible in the event of an emergency under all lighting conditions); In re Howard S. Leight & Assocs., 39 USPQ2d 1058 (TTAB 1996) (holding the color coral functional for earplugs, because they are more visible during safety checks). A color may also be functional if it is more economical to manufacture or use. For example, a color may be a natural by-product of the manufacturing process for the goods. In such a case, appropriation of the color by a single party would place others at a competitive disadvantage by requiring them to alter the manufacturing process. See also In re Pollak Steel Co., 314 F.2d 566, 136 USPQ 651 (C.C.P.A. 1963) (reflective color on fence found to be functional); Kasco Corp. v. S. Saw Serv. Inc., 27 USPQ2d 1501 (TTAB 1993) (color green used as wrapper for saw blades is functional when the color is one of the six colors used in a color-coding system to identify the type of blade).
The doctrine of "aesthetic functionality" may apply in some cases where the evidence indicates that the color at issue provides specific competitive advantages that, while not necessarily categorized as purely "utilitarian" in nature, nevertheless dictate that the color remain in the public domain. Brunswick, 35 F.3d at 1533, 32 USPQ2d at 1124; In re Florists’ Transworld Delivery Inc., 106 USPQ2d at 1787-88; see TMEP §1202.02(a)(vi); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33, 58 USPQ2d 1001, 1006 (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court discussed aesthetic functionality, distinguishing Qualitex, 514 U.S. 159, 34 USPQ2d 1161, as a case where "[a]esthetic functionality was the central question").
As with all trademarks and service marks, a color mark may contain only those elements that make a separable commercial impression. See TMEP §807.12(d). Accordingly, an applicant may not seek to register the color of the wording or design apart from the words or designs themselves if the color does not create a separate commercial impression. However, the applicant may register the color of the background material on which the words or design appear apart from the words or design. See TMEP §1202.11 regarding background designs and shapes.
The commercial impression of a color may change depending on the object to which it is applied. In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 61 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Hayes, 62 USPQ2d 1443 (TTAB 2002). Granting an application for registration of color in the abstract, without considering the manner or context in which the color is used, would be contrary to law and public policy, because it would result in an unlimited number of marks being claimed in a single application. Cf. In re Int'l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1368, 51 USPQ2d 1513, 1517-18 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (mark with changeable or "phantom" element unregistrable because it would "encompass too many combinations and permutations to make a thorough and effective search possible" and, therefore, would not provide adequate notice to the public); In re Upper Deck Co., 59 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (TTAB 2001) (hologram of varying shapes, sizes, content, and positions used on trading cards constitutes more than one "device," as contemplated by §45 of the Trademark Act). Only one mark can be registered in a single application. TMEP §807.01.
All marks, other than sound and scent marks, require a drawing. TMEP §807. An application for a color mark that is filed without a drawing will be denied a filing date. 37 C.F.R. §2.21(a)(3). Similarly, an application for a color mark with a proposed drawing page that states "no drawing," or sets forth only a written description of the mark, will be denied a filing date. The drawing provides notice of the nature of the mark sought to be registered. Only marks that are not capable of representation in a drawing, such as sound or scent marks, are excluded from the requirement for a drawing. Color marks are visual and should be depicted in color drawings, accompanied by: (1) a color claim naming the color(s) that are a feature of the mark; and (2) a separate statement naming the color(s) and describing where the color(s) appear and how they are used on the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1). See TMEP §§807.07–807.07(g) for color mark drawings and 808–808.03(f) for description of the mark.
In most cases, the proposed color mark drawing will consist of a representation of the product or product package. The drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used, or intended to be used, on the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.51. A depiction of the object on which the color is used is needed to meet this requirement.
The object depicted on the drawing should appear in broken or dotted lines. The broken or dotted lines inform the viewer where and how color is used on the product or product package, while at the same time making it clear that the shape of the product, or the shape of the product package, is not claimed as part of the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(4); TMEP §807.08. In the absence of a broken-line drawing, the USPTO will assume that the proposed mark is a composite mark consisting of the product shape, or the product package shape, in a particular color.
Color used on multiple goods
If the proposed color mark is used on multiple goods, the drawing required will depend on the nature of the goods. The drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used, or intended to be used, on the goods. 37 C.F.R. §2.51. A drawing consisting of a depiction of only one of the goods will be accepted if the goods, or the portions of the goods on which the color appears, are similar in form and function so that a depiction of only one of the goods is still a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on all of the goods. For example, if the mark is the color purple used on refrigerators and freezers, a drawing of a purple freezer shown in broken lines (with a description of the mark claiming the color purple and indicating that it is used on the freezer) would be sufficient. Or, if the mark is the color pink used on the handles of rakes, shovels, and hoes, a drawing of any of those items depicted in dotted lines (with a description of the mark claiming the color pink and stating that the handle is pink) would be sufficient. Or, if the mark consists of product packaging for various food items that is always blue with a pink circle, a drawing of any one of the packages shown in dotted lines (with a description of the mark claiming the colors blue and pink and describing the location of the colors on the packaging) would be sufficient.
If the proposed color mark is used on multiple goods that are dissimilar or unrelated, or if color is used in different ways on different goods, so that a depiction of one of the goods is not a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on all of the goods (e.g., the color purple used on microscopes and vending machines), a separate application must be submitted for each item.
Color used on liquids or powders
Sometimes a color mark consists of color(s) used on liquids or powders. For example, the mark might consist of fuchsia body oil or red, white, and blue granular washing machine detergent. In these cases, the nature of the drawing will depend on the manner of use of the liquid or powder. If the liquid or powder is visible through the product package, the drawing should consist of the shape of the product package shown in broken or dotted lines, with the description of the mark identifying the color(s) of the liquid or powder.
It is difficult to anticipate all of the issues that may arise when examining a proposed color mark for services because there are a myriad of ways that color can be used in connection with services. However, the following general guidelines will be used to determine the sufficiency of drawings in these cases:
Because color marks are comprised solely of the color as applied to the product or product package, in the manner depicted on the drawing and explained in the description of the mark, amending the color of the proposed mark will always change the commercial impression of the mark. Thus, the amendment of any color in a color mark is a prohibited material alteration. Similarly, the amendment of the color mark to show the same color on a different object is also, generally, a material alteration, e.g., an amendment of a drawing of a blue hammer to a blue saw is a material alteration.
Sometimes, a product or advertisement for a service will include both color and words or a design. For example, the surface of a toaster might be green, with the letters "ABC" and a design displayed on the toaster. In this situation, the applicant must decide whether to seek registration for the color green used on toasters, the letters "ABC" with or without the design, the design alone, or some combination of these elements. If applicant only seeks registration for the use of the color, no word or design elements should appear on the drawing.
The drawing of a proposed color mark must be supplemented with: (1) a claim that the color(s) is a feature of the mark; and (2) a statement in the "Description of the Mark" field naming the color(s) and describing where the color(s) appear(s) and how they are used on the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1). See TMEP §§807.07–807.07(g) for color mark drawings and 808–808.03(f) for description of the mark.
The description of the mark must be clear and specific, use ordinary language, and identify the mark as consisting of the particular color as applied to the goods or services. If the color is applied only to a portion of the goods, the description must indicate the specific portion. Similarly, if the mark includes gradations of color, the description should so indicate. If the applicant is claiming a shade of color, the shade must be described in ordinary language, for example, "maroon," "turquoise," "navy blue," "reddish orange." This is required even if the applicant also describes the color using a commercial coloring system.
The applicant may not amend the description of the mark if the amendment is a material alteration of the mark on the drawing filed with the original application. 37 C.F.R. §2.72. See In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 61 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Cf. In re Hacot-Colombier, 105 F.3d 616, 41 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See TMEP §§807.14–807.14(f) regarding material alteration.
The description of a color mark must be limited to a single mark, because only one mark can be registered in a single application. See In re Int'l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 51 USPQ2d 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Hayes, 62 USPQ2d 1443 (TTAB 2002) . See TMEP §§807.01 regarding drawing must be limited to a single mark and 1202.05(c) regarding color as a separable element.
An application under §1 of the Trademark Act must be supported by a specimen that shows use of the proposed mark depicted on the drawing. Therefore, an applicant who applies to register a color mark must submit a specimen showing use of the color, either with a §1(a) application or with an allegation of use (i.e., either an amendment to allege use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c) or a statement of use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d) ), in a §1(b) application. If a black-and-white specimen is submitted, the examining attorney will require a substitute specimen displaying the proposed color mark. See TMEP §904.02(c)(ii).
See TMEP §§904.03–904.07(b) regarding trademark specimens and 1301.04–1301.04(d) regarding service mark specimens.
Although the applicant in In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 61 USPQ2d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2001), argued that it applied for the color blue per se as a service mark, the Court determined that the drawing controlled, such that the application was for the color blue applied to a building. Although the Court did not reach the issue of color per se as a service mark, the Court acknowledged the special evidentiary problem associated with showing acquired distinctiveness in this context. Id. at 1353, 61 USPQ2d at 1124 ("[E]vidence submitted to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness of a color may show consumer recognition with respect to certain objects (e.g., blue vehicle rental centers), but not for other objects (e.g., blue rental cars)."). Accordingly, any claim to color per se must be specific as to use and include evidence of acquired distinctiveness for each claimed use.
A color mark can never be inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 211-12, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000) (citing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162-63, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (1995)); TMEP §1202.05(a). But see In re Forney Indus., Inc., 955 F.3d 940, 945, 2020 USPQ2d 10310, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (a multiple-color mark used on product packaging may be inherently distinctive, depending on the character of the color design); TMEP §§1202.02(b)(ii); 1205.05(a). Generally, the examining attorney must refuse to register a color mark on the Principal Register unless the applicant establishes that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). The ground for refusal is that the color is not inherently distinctive and, thus, does not function as a trademark under §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, and 1127, or does not function as a service mark under §§1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053, and 1127.
The issue of whether the proposed color mark is functional requires consideration of the manner in which the mark is used. Generally, no refusal on these grounds will be issued in a §1(b) application until the applicant has submitted specimen(s) of use with an allegation of use (i.e., either an amendment to allege use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c) or a statement of use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d)). See TMEP §§1102.01, 1202.02(d), 1202.03(e), 1202.05(b). The specimen(s) provide a better record upon which to determine the registrability of the mark. In appropriate cases, the examining attorney will bring the potential refusal to the applicant’s attention in the initial Office action. This is done strictly as a courtesy. If information regarding this possible ground for refusal is not provided to the applicant before the allegation of use is filed, the USPTO is not precluded from refusing registration on this basis.
A color mark can never be inherently distinctive. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 211-12, 54 USPQ2d 1065, 1068 (2000) (citing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162-63, 34 USPQ2d 1161, 1162-63 (1995)); TMEP §1202.05(a). But see In re Forney Indus., Inc., 955 F.3d 940, 945, 2020 USPQ2d 10310, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (a multiple-color mark used on product packaging may be inherently distinctive, depending on the character of the color design); TMEP §§1202.02(b)(ii); 1205.05(a). Generally, the examining attorney must refuse to register a proposed color mark on the Principal Register unless the applicant establishes that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f). The ground for refusal is that the color is not inherently distinctive and, thus, does not function as a trademark under §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, and 1127, or does not function as a service mark under §§1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053, and 1127.
If the record indicates that the proposed mark is functional, the examining attorney should issue a refusal of registration on the Principal Register under §2(f), or on the Supplemental Register. See TMEP §§1202.02(e), 1202.03(e), 1202.05(b). However, a mark in a §66(a) application cannot be registered on the Supplemental Register under any circumstances. 15 U.S.C §1141h(a)(4); 37 C.F.R. §§2.47(c), 2.75(c).
Section 45 of the Trademark Act defines a "trademark" as a "word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof" that is used or intended to be used in commerce "to identify and distinguish his or her goods." 15 U.S.C §1127 (emphasis added). Before rights in a term as a trademark can be established, the subject matter to which the term is applied must be "goods in trade." Incidental items that an applicant uses in conducting its business (such as letterhead, invoices, reports, boxes, and business forms), as opposed to items sold or transported in commerce for use by others, are not "goods in trade." See In re S'holders Data Corp., 495 F.2d 1360, 1361, 181 USPQ 722, 723 (C.C.P.A. 1974) (finding that reports are not goods in trade, where applicant is not engaged in the sale of reports, but solely in furnishing financial reporting services, and reports are merely conduit through which services are rendered); In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., 106 USPQ2d 1158, 1162-63 (TTAB 2013) (finding that applicant’s annual report does not constitute a "good in trade," but rather "is a common and necessary adjunct to the rendering of applicant's investment management and research services, that is, it is one of the means through which it provides investment services"); In re Ameritox Ltd., 101 USPQ2d 1081, 1085 (TTAB 2011) (finding no evidence that applicant was engaged in selling printed reports apart from its laboratory testing services and that the reports were part and parcel of the services); In re MGA Ent., Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1743, 1746-47 (TTAB 2007) (applicant’s trapezoidal cardboard boxes for toys, games, and playthings held to be merely point of sale containers for applicant’s primary goods and not separate goods in trade, where there was no evidence that applicant is a manufacturer of boxes or that applicant is engaged in selling boxes as commodities in trade); In re Compute-Her-Look, Inc., 176 USPQ 445, 446-47 (TTAB 1972) (finding that reports and printouts are not goods in trade, where they are merely the means by which the results of a beauty analysis service is transmitted and have no viable existence separate and apart from the service); Ex parte Bank of Am. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n, 118 USPQ 165, 165 (Comm’r Pats. 1958) (mark not registrable for passbooks, checks, and other printed forms, where forms are used only as "necessary 'tools' in the performance of [banking services], and [applicant] is not engaged either in printing or selling forms as commodities in trade.").
The determination of whether an applicant's identified goods comprise independent goods in trade, or are merely incidental to the applicant's primary goods and/or services, is a factual determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., 106 USPQ2d at 1161 (citing Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, 1381-82, 103 USPQ2d 1672, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see In re MGA Ent., Inc., 84 USPQ2d at 1746. Factors to consider include "whether [applicant's good]: (1) is simply the conduit or necessary tool useful only to obtain applicant’s [primary goods and/or] services; (2) is so inextricably tied to and associated with the [primary goods and/or] service as to have no viable existence apart therefrom; and (3) is neither sold separately from nor has any independent value apart from the [primary goods and/or] services." In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., 106 USPQ2d at 1162 (citing Lens.com, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676); see In re MGA Ent., Inc., 84 USPQ2d at 1746-47. None of these factors is dispositive. Lens.com, Inc., 686 F.3d at 1382, 103 USPQ2d at 1676.
Affixing a mark to an item that is transported in commerce does not in and of itself establish that the mark is used on "goods." While a formal sale is not always necessary, items sold or transported in commerce are not "goods in trade" unless they have utility to others as the type of product named in the trademark application.
Example: Holiday greeting cards sent by a law firm to its clients are not "goods," where applicant is merely sending its own cards through the mail as a holiday greeting, and the cards are not suitable for use by the recipients as a greeting card.
See Gay Toys, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 585 F.2d 1067, 199 USPQ 722 (C.C.P.A. 1978) (holding plaster mockup of toy truck not goods in trade where there was no evidence the mockup was actually used as a toy); Paramount Pictures Corp. v. White, 31 USPQ2d 1768 (TTAB 1994) , aff’d, 108 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding mark not registrable for games, where purported games were advertising flyers used to promote applicant’s services and had no real utilitarian function or purpose as games); In re Douglas Aircraft Co., 123 USPQ 271 (TTAB 1959) (holding books, pamphlets, and brochures that served only to explain and advertise the goods in which applicant dealt were not "goods"); cf. In re Snap-On Tools Corp., 159 USPQ 254 (TTAB 1968) (holding ball point pens used to promote applicant’s tools were goods in trade, where they had a utilitarian function and purpose, and had been sold to applicant’s franchised dealers and transported in commerce under mark); In re United Merchs. & Mfrs., Inc., 154 USPQ 625 (TTAB 1967) (holding calendar used to promote applicant’s plastic film constituted goods in trade, where calendar had a utilitarian function and purpose in and of itself, and had been regularly distributed in commerce for several years).
In In re MGA Entertainment, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1743, 1746 (TTAB 2007) , the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejected applicant’s argument that trapezoidal cardboard boxes for toys, games, playthings, puzzles, and laptop play units had use beyond holding the goods at the point of sale, in that the laptop play-unit box functions as an ongoing carrying case for the unit, and the puzzle box might be used to store puzzle pieces when not in use. Finding the boxes to be merely point-of-sale containers for the primary goods and not separate goods in trade, the Board stated that "the mere fact that original boxes or packaging may be used to store products does not infuse such boxes or packaging with additional utility such that they constitute goods in trade," and that there was neither any indication that the laptop computer boxes were labeled as a carrying case nor any evidence that applicant promoted the boxes as carrying cases or that children actually used them as carrying cases.
If the specimen, identification of goods, or other evidence in the record indicate that the applicant uses the proposed mark only on items incidental to conducting its own business, as opposed to items intended to be used by others, the examining attorney must refuse registration on the Principal Register under §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, and 1127, on the ground that the proposed mark is not used on "goods in trade."
If a mark is not used on "goods in trade," it is not registrable on the Principal Register under §2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(f), or on the Supplemental Register.
If some but not all of the items listed in the identification of goods are found not to be "goods in trade," it is not necessary to refuse registration of the entire application, but the examining attorney must require that these items be deleted from the identification of goods before approving the mark for publication or registration.
In an intent-to-use application under §1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051(b), the question of whether a proposed mark is used on goods in trade usually does not arise until the applicant files an allegation of use (i.e., either an amendment to allege use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(c) or a statement of use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d) ) because this issue is based on the manner in which the mark is used. However, if the identification of goods in a §1(b) application includes items that do not appear to be goods in trade, the potential refusal should be brought to the applicant’s attention in the first Office action. This is done strictly as a courtesy. If information regarding this possible ground for refusal is not provided to the applicant before the allegation of use is filed, the USPTO is not precluded from refusing registration on this basis. If the record indicates that the mark will not be used on goods in trade, without the need to await consideration of the specimen(s), the examining attorney may issue the refusal prior to the filing of the allegation of use.
In an application under §44 or §66(a), where a specimen of use is not required prior to registration, it is appropriate for the examining attorney to issue a refusal based on the lack of use on goods in trade where the record clearly indicates that the mark will not be used on goods in trade. Cf. In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156-57 (TTAB 2008) (noting the propriety of and affirming an ornamentation refusal, which is otherwise typically specimen-based, in a §66(a) application).
