The Board affirmed a refusal to register the mark TRUWALLET for “providing on-line cash account services offered in connection with a network marketing service,” agreeing with Examining Attorney Valerie Kaplan that applicant’s specimen of use failed to show the mark in use for the recited services. In re Porter, Serial No. 87227122 (April 24, 2018) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert H. Coggins).
The Examining Attorney relied on dictionary definitions of “cash account” as an account that settles transactions on a case basis. She argued that Porter’s services “appear to be a reward program using credit that can be used to pay for future transactions.” She pointed to wording in the specimen that explains that a user of applicant’s “Trunited” platform “accumulate[s] points from the 1st of the month until the 31st of the month. You receive your truWallet and Affiliate Cash on the 7th of the following month” and “Your purchases are rewarded with earnings that go into your truWallet. These earnings are good toward future purchases.”
Applicant argued that TRUWALLET “is a ‘cash account,’ regardless of how the money is paid into the account,” “acts as a ‘cash account,'” and “can be used as cash.”
The Board, however, found that applicant’s services did not fit any of the definitions of “cash account.”
The specimen does not indicate that the TRUWALLET account is one in which all transactions are in money, or one in which purchases are paid for in full. There is no indication that a user may deposit or withdraw money from the account, or even withdraw the rewarded earnings for cash; instead the account is limited to a user’s share of Trunited profits that are credited by Applicant based on points earned from using the Trunited platform and which must be used solely for future purchases on the Trunited platform.
The Board agreed with the Examining Attorney that consumers would perceive applicant’s services as a points program or consumer loyalty program in which the user is rewarded with earnings each month that are good only toward future purchases.
And so the Board affirmed the refusal.