Source: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1212_02_c.html
Timestamp: 2018-05-26 15:27:32
Document Index: 350170571

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§1212', '§1212', '§2', '§2', '§2']

TMEP 1212.02(c): Claiming §2(f) Distinctiveness in the Alternative, Oct. 2017 Ed. (BitLaw)
TMEP 1212.02(c): Claiming §2(f) Distinctiveness in the Alternative
Previous: §1212.02(b) | Next: §1212.02(d)
1212.02(c) Claiming §2(f) Distinctiveness in the Alternative
When an applicant claims acquired distinctiveness in the alternative, the examining attorney must treat separately the questions of: (1) the underlying basis of refusal; and (2) assuming the matter is determined to be registrable, whether acquired distinctiveness has been established. If the applicant has one or more prior registrations under §2(f) for a different depiction of the same mark (e.g., stylized vs. standard character) or a portion of the proposed mark, and for the same goods/services, the examining attorney’s review of the records of the registrations would reveal whether the applicant previously conceded descriptiveness or whether the Board found the mark descriptive on appeal. See In re Thomas Nelson, 97 USPQ2d at 1713. Such an assessment of the probative value of the prior registrations might also assist in resolving whether the mark in question has acquired distinctiveness, thereby obviating the necessity of determining that issue on appeal as well. Id.
In the event of an appeal on both grounds, the Board will use the same analysis, provided the evidence supporting the §2(f) claim is in the record and the alternative grounds have been considered and finally decided by the examining attorney. In re Harrington, 219 USPQ 854, 855 n.1 (TTAB 1983). If the appeal results in a finding of descriptiveness, and also that the mark has acquired distinctiveness, then descriptiveness would be present, even though not conceded by the applicant. In re Thomas Nelson, 97 USPQ2d at 1713.
Accordingly, the applicant may submit an amendment to the Supplemental Register, and continue to argue entitlement to registration on the Principal Register in an appeal. An applicant may not, however, state that it "reserves the right" to amend to the Supplemental Register if the refusal is not withdrawn or is affirmed on appeal. In re Integrated Embedded, 120 USPQ2d 1504, 1511(TTAB 2016) (stating the "[a]pplicant cannot ‘reserve a right’ that does not exist").