February 25, 2022
Authored and Edited by Daniel S. Stringer; Margaret A. Esquenet
Trademark rights in the United States are established through use. As such, trademark applicants are not permitted to register a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to simply reserve rights in a mark that the applicant intends to use at some indeterminate future date. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) reminded applicants of that requirement in In re Alessandra Suuberg, 2021 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 2021) when it affirmed a non-use refusal under Trademark Act Section 1(a).
Suuberg applied to register the mark HAVE SOME DECENCY under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act for use with various charitable fundraising services. Registration was initially refused for failing to function as a trademark under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127, because the mark was found to be a commonplace expression used by a variety of sources. However, during the course of prosecution, the mark was also refused under Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051(a) and 1127, on the grounds that Suuberg had not used the mark in commerce as of the filing date of the application.
By applying under Trademark Act Section 1(a), Suuberg averred that the mark was in use with all of the services in the application as of the filing date. To show use of the mark with charitable fundraising services, Suuberg submitted a specimen consisting of a website screenshot showing the mark on the webpage along with a “Donate” button. The Examining Attorney visited Suuberg’s website and made of record numerous screenshots that called into question whether the mark was currently in use with the applied-for services.
The TTAB highlighted several pieces of this website evidence that cast doubt on whether the mark was in use in commerce, notably:
Such evidence indicated that, at the time the application was filed, Suuberg’s website was under development and Suuberg was not offering any services under the applied-for mark. Further, Suuberg’s explanation regarding use of the mark did little to assuage the concern of the TTAB that the mark was not used in commerce as of the filing date.
Specifically, although Suuberg detailed the steps she had taken to create the charitable organization, such as incorporating as a non-profit organization, applying for tax exempt status, and researching laws concerning charitable donations, the TTAB was not persuaded. These activities were preliminary in nature and did not show the mark was in use in commerce prior to Suuberg filing the application.
Similarly, Suuberg’s website was in its formative stages when she filed the trademark application and did not demonstrate use of the mark with any of the services. Although the website included a “Donate” button, Suuberg acknowledged during the proceedings that she was not actually accepting charitable donations at the time the application was filed. Suuberg tried to minimize this fact by arguing that the solicitation of donations was a relatively minor service in the context of the other services offered under the mark. Nevertheless, the TTAB pointed out that during the course of the proceedings, Suuberg never indicated, by statement or through evidence, that she offered any of the applied-for services.
The TTAB also highlighted that Suuberg was advised by the Examining Attorney of her ability to amend the application from Use in Commerce under Section 1(a) to Intent to Use under Section 1(b) if she was unable to show use. Had Suuberg amended to a Section 1(b) application, she would have preserved her application and filing date, as well as the opportunity to secure registration upon an acceptable showing of use. However, because Suuberg did not offer any of the services in the application as of the filing date, the TTAB affirmed the refusal and found the application void ab initio for non-use of the mark with the applied-for services.
The TTAB did not reach a decision on the merits of the failure to function refusal under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 because it affirmed the non-use refusal.
The case is In re Alessandra Suuberg, 2021 USPQ2d 1209 (TTAB 2021).
Copyright © 2022 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.
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
The Federal Circuit’s Heartfelt Affirmation of Everybody’s Right to Use “Everybody vs. Racism”
March 22, 2024
Ad Law Buzz Blog
“Banning” a Banned Ingredients Claim: NAD’s Application (and Expansion) of the FTC’s Green Guides
March 18, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.