Opinion ID: 765220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arguments Concerning Registerability of Phantom Marks

Text: 14 This is a case of first impression. IFF argues that it has a property interest in the marks at issue and that the PTO's refusal to register IFF's marks deprives IFF of property without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. IFF further argues that the PTO has granted registration to phantom marks in the past and continues to grant registration to such marks, and that the PTO has no statutory or regulatory basis for granting or denying phantom marks; therefore, the Board's decision to affirm the examining attorney's final rejection denies IFF equal protection under the laws as provided by the Fifth Amendment. 15 The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks (the Commissioner) argues that IFF seeks to obtain registration of an unlimited number of marks in the applications at issue; however, under the Lanham Act, a trademark application may obtain registration of only a single mark in any one application. The Commissioner also notes that IFF's applications are for use-based marks but the applications are written in sufficiently broad terms such that not all of the potential variations of the marks covered by the phantom elements are in use. The Commissioner further argues that if the marks depicted in the three applications were granted registration, the public would not have adequate notice of all marks encompassed within IFF's applications and that the Board correctly determined that the missing phantom elements are so broad that it would be impossible to determine all the combinations and permutations of the marks. Finally, the Commissioner asserts that IFF was not denied due process or equal protection because IFF's applications received complete examination in accordance with PTO procedures and IFF had the opportunity to respond to all PTO actions. The Commissioner argues that prior decisions of examining attorneys do not establish PTO policy and are not binding on the Board or on this court. 4 Each application is considered on its own merits, and absent any PTO policy concerning phantom marks, IFF cannot demonstrate that the Board discriminated against it.