Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): provided substantial evidence establishing a prima facie case that the primary significance of the applicant’s composite mark is geographic, namely that the mark primarily signifies Venice, Italy. In response to the examiner’s prima facie case, the applicant argues that the strongest part of the proposed mark is its previously registered and incontestable service mark, “SAVE VENICE.” Accordingly, Save Venice contends that consumers would associate the proposed mark with the fundraising activities of Save Venice, rather than with the city of Venice as a geographical origin for the goods. We disagree. A registered mark is incontestable only in the form registered and for the goods or services claimed. See In re Merrill Lynch, 828 F.2d 1567, 1568, 4 USPQ2d 1141, 1141 (Fed.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 873, 227 USPQ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding incontestable mark durango for cigars insufficient to establish distinctiveness of durango for chewing tobacco (B) holding that a failure to update sexoffender registration should not be considered a minor or technical offense when committed as part of a more general course of conduct that demonstrates a deliberate general unwillingness to comply with the sex offender registration requirements (C) holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement (D) holding applicants incontestable registration of a service mark for cash management account did not automatically entitle applicant to registration of that mark for broader financial services (E) holding that sex offender registration and notification do not constitute punishment
Output (English): holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement