直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Specimen Showing Display of a Trademark on a Door Insufficient to Show Use of a Service Mark

March 15, 2017

Authored and Edited by Jonathan D. Uffelman; Naresh Kilaru; Julia Anne Matheson

On February 23, 2017, in a non-precedential opinion, the TTAB affirmed a PTO refusal of Republic National LLC’s service mark based upon the failure of its specimen to demonstrate use in connection with the covered services.

Republic sought to register the REPUBLIC NATIONAL mark for a variety of real estate investment services.  As specimens, Republic National submitted two digital photographs of the front door of the facility where it provides its services.

Republic argued that its specimens did not need to include an explicit reference to its services because they demonstrate how its mark is used in connection with its provision of services.  Both the PTO and ultimately the Board disagreed.

According to the Board, the fact that services are rendered within Republic’s office is not a sufficient association or “proximity” to consider the mark as being displayed in the sale or rendering of services.  “Upon seeing this mark . . . a potential consumer could not immediately identify the services being provided beyond the entryway of Applicant’s offices.”  Republic’s mark could refer to any number of undisclosed services.  For comparison, the Board distinguished In re Metriplex, 23 USPQ2d 1315 (TTAB 1992), wherein the applicant submitted a specimen showing a display that appeared on a computer terminal in the course of rendering its services.  Unlike in Metriplex, Republic’s photograph showed a picture of a door that merely directs an existing client to Republic’s location, which the Board analogized to mere advertising.  Because Republic’s specimen did not reference Republic’s real estate investment services, the Examiner’s refusal was affirmed.

The case is In re Republic National LLC, Ser. No. 86513101 (Feb. 23, 2017).

Tags

specimen of use, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Contacts

Jonathan D. Uffelman
Domain Name Specialist / Attorney
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4328
Email
Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP