Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–46 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. BOOKING.COM B. V. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[June 30, 2020] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring. 
The  question  before  the  Court  here  is  simple:  whether 
there is a nearly per se rule against trademark protection
for  a  “generic.com”  term.    See  ante,  at  7–8;  post,  at  10 
(BREYER, J., dissenting).  I agree with the Court that there 
is no such rule, a holding that accords with how the U. S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has treated such terms 
in the past.  See ante, at 8 (noting that the “PTO’s own past
practice appears to reflect no such comprehensive rule”).  I 
add two observations. 

First, the dissent wisely observes that consumer-survey
evidence  “may  be  an  unreliable  indicator  of  genericness.” 
Post, at 9–10.  Flaws in a specific survey design, or weak-
nesses inherent in consumer surveys generally, may limit
the  probative  value  of  surveys  in  determining  whether  a 
particular  mark  is  descriptive  or  generic  in  this  context.
But I do not read the Court’s opinion to suggest that surveys
are the be-all and end-all.  As the Court notes, sources such 
as “dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, and 
any other source of evidence bearing on how consumers per-
ceive a term’s meaning” may also inform whether a mark is
generic or descriptive.  Ante, at 11, n. 6. 

Second,  the  PTO  may  well  have  properly  concluded, 
based  on  such  dictionary  and  usage  evidence,  that  Book-
ing.com is in fact generic for the class of services at issue