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

TTAB Defines When Catalogs Are Mere Advertising

March 12, 2014

Authored and Edited by Julia Anne Matheson

In a recent precedential decision following an ex parte refusal of registration, the TTAB offered an in-depth analysis of the specific elements required to convert a catalog from “mere advertising” to an acceptable “point of sale” specimen for products. In re Tsubaki Inc., (TTAB March 7, 2014)

In support of its use-based application to register the mark TSUBAKI: THE CHOICE FOR CHAIN for “industrial machine parts, namely, chains and sprockets,” Tsubaki submitted six different specimens, each of which the Examining Attorney rejected each as mere advertising material. On appeal, the TTAB emphasized the distinction between the type of specimens that will support an application for goods versus services. Noting that while Section 45 of the Act specifically provides that use of a mark on advertising will qualify as use in commerce for a service mark, it emphasized that advertising is not included under the provision for marks used on goods.

The Trademark Manual of Examing Procedure (“TMEP”) explains that catalogs can serve as acceptable specimens of trademark use for goods provided they include at least the following information: (1) a picture or sufficient textual description of the relevant goods; (2) the mark in association with the goods; and (3) information necessary to order the goods. In prior decisions, the TTAB emphasized that the mere inclusion of a phone number, Internet address and/or mailing address in an advertisement describing a product will not be sufficient, standing alone, to qualify as an acceptable specimen.

In this case, while each of Applicant’s specimens included customer service team contact information, none included a sales form or ordering information, minimum quantity requirements, pricing details, or shipping information. Nor, the TTAB emphasized, did Applicant produce any evidence to corroborate its counsel’s unsubstantiated claims regarding industry ordering practices and/or Applicant’s marketing and sales processes in particular.

In concluding, the TTAB emphasized that simply stating that customers are invited to contact an Applicant and providing contact information is not sufficient to “transform every catalog, website, advertising brochure, flyer, leaflet, etc. into a display used in association with the goods.” Rather, the Trademark Act requires that an Applicant be able to demonstrate that the materials are “calculated to consummate a sale.” Based upon its conclusion that prospective purchasers would have to contact the Applicant to obtain significant additional information not provided by the specimens, the TTAB upheld the denial of registration.

Tags

ex parte reexamination, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Advertising

Copyright © 2014 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

Articles

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

May 26, 2026

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Ad Law Buzz Blog

How to Survive a Section 230 Defense: Recent Cases Provide Guidance

May 1, 2026

Webinar

Generative AI Meets Copyright Law: US and UK Perspectives

April 1, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Motion to Dismiss Vacated for Implicit Claim Construction Against Non-Movant

March 2, 2026

Ad Law Buzz Blog

“#1” Claims: NAD’s Guardrails on Defining Product Categories

February 27, 2026

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

TTAB Affirms Refusal of MARIO’S for Clothing Due to Likelihood of Confusion with MARIO’S 3.10 for Retail Apparel Stores

February 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses TTAB: Strength of Mark Depends on Commercial Association

January 13, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates TTAB Decision Finding Likelihood of Confusion and Remands for Further Analysis of Third-Party Uses of Similar Marks in Use on Similar Services

October 27, 2025

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