Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

Under these principles, whether “Booking.com” is generic
turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies to
consumers  the  class  of  online  hotel-reservation  services. 
Thus,  if  “Booking.com”  were  generic,  we  might  expect 
consumers  to  understand  Travelocity—another  such 
service—to be a “Booking.com.”  We might similarly expect
that  a  consumer,  searching  for  a  trusted  source  of  online 
hotel-reservation services, could ask a frequent traveler to 
name her favorite “Booking.com” provider. 

in 

the 

fact  perceive 

Consumers  do  not 

term 
“Booking.com” that way, the courts below determined.  The 
PTO  no  longer  disputes  that  determination.    See  Pet.  for 
Cert. I; Brief for Petitioners 17–18 (contending only that a
consumer-perception inquiry was unnecessary, not that the 
lower  courts’  consumer-perception  determination  was 
wrong). 
That  should  resolve  this  case:  Because 
“Booking.com” is not a generic name to consumers, it is not 
generic. 

III 
Opposing that conclusion, the PTO urges a nearly per se
rule  that  would  render  “Booking.com”  ineligible  for  regis-
tration regardless of specific evidence of consumer percep-
tion.  In the PTO’s view, which the dissent embraces, when 
a generic term is combined with a generic top-level domain 

—————— 
so  confine  the primary-significance test, however, would upset the un-
derstanding, shared by Courts of Appeals and the PTO’s own manual for
trademark examiners, that the same test governs whether a mark is reg-
istrable in the first place.  See, e.g., In re Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 823 
F. 3d 594, 599 (CA Fed. 2016); Nartron Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 
305  F. 3d  397,  404  (CA6  2002);  Genesee  Brewing  Co. v.  Stroh  Brewing 
Co.,  124  F. 3d  137,  144  (CA2  1997);  Trademark  Manual  of  Examining
Procedure §1209.01(c)(i), p. 1200–267 (Oct. 2018), http://tmep.uspto.gov.
We need not address today the scope of the primary-significance test’s
application,  for  our  analysis  does not  depend  on  whether  one  meaning 
among several is “primary.”  Sufficient to resolve this case is the undis-
puted principle that consumer perception demarcates a term’s meaning.