Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6  PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. BOOKING.COM B. V. 

Opinion of the Court 

  We granted certiorari, 589 U. S. ___ (2019), and now af-
firm the Fourth Circuit’s decision. 

II 
  Although  the  parties  here  disagree  about  the  circum-
stances in which terms like “Booking.com” rank as generic, 
several guiding principles are common ground.  First, a “ge-
neric” term names a “class” of goods or services, rather than 
any particular feature or exemplification of the class.  Brief 
for  Petitioners  4;  Brief  for  Respondent  6;  see  §§1127, 
1064(3),  1065(4)  (referring  to  “the  generic  name  for  the 
goods or services”); Park ’N Fly, 469 U. S., at 194 (“A generic 
term is one that refers to the genus of which the particular 
product is a species.”).  Second, for a compound term, the 
distinctiveness  inquiry  trains  on  the  term’s  meaning  as  a 
whole,  not  its  parts  in  isolation.    Reply  Brief  9;  Brief  for 
Respondent  2;  see  Estate  of  P. D.  Beckwith,  Inc.  v. 
Commissioner  of  Patents,  252  U. S.  538,  545–546  (1920).  
Third,  the  relevant  meaning  of  a  term  is  its  meaning  to 
consumers. 
for 
Respondent 2; see Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505, 
509  (SDNY  1921)  (Hand,  J.)  (“What  do  the  buyers 
understand  by  the  word  for  whose  use  the  parties  are 
contending?”).  Eligibility for registration, all agree, turns 
on  the  mark’s  capacity  to  “distinguis[h]”  goods  “in 
commerce.”  §1052.  Evidencing the Lanham Act’s focus on 
consumer perception, the section governing cancellation of 
registration provides that “[t]he primary significance of the 
registered mark to the relevant public . . . shall be the test 
for  determining  whether  the  registered  mark  has  become 
the generic name of goods or services.”  §1064(3).3 

for  Petitioners  43–44;  Brief 

  Brief 

—————— 

3

 The  U. S.  Patent  and  Trademark  Office  (PTO)  suggests  that  the 
primary-significance  test  might  not  govern  outside  the  context  of 
§1064(3),  which  subjects  to  cancellation  marks  previously  registered 
that have “become” generic.  See Reply Brief 11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 19.  To