During examination, the USPTO must analyze the specimens of use to determine whether the purported mark would be perceived as a source indicator. A term that is used only to designate a process or method is not a trademark for services.
Applicant Boehringer’s two specimens were website pages. The first consisted of the beginning of an article entitled, “Prevention Chain™ Approach for Systematic Disease Control in Large Farms,” which discussed the “Infection/Prevention Chain Concept” and “Infection and Prevention Chain™ thinking.” The second specimen was a chart showing steps in the “Production Chain,” the “Infection Chain,” and the “Prevention Chain.” [excerpt below].
The Board agreed with Examining Attorney Tejbir Singh that “the proposed mark PREVENTION CHAIN identifies only a concept of disease prevention among swine.”
The first specimen variously identifies PREVENTION CHAIN as an “approach,” a “concept,” and a manner of “thinking” about disease prevention. Nowhere, however, is PREVENTION CHAIN used to identify either educational services or providing veterinary information. Likewise, the second specimen uses PREVENTION CHAIN as the title of a process of swine disease prevention, but not in connection with any of the identified services. While Applicant’s specimens might themselves be characterized as educational or informational materials, they do not evidence use of PREVENTION CHAIN to advertise or sell the educational or informational services identified in the application. It is not enough that the proposed mark merely appear on educational or informational materials. The mark must identify those services and indicate their source.
And so the Board affirmed the refusal.
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: Trademarks 101: just because you coin a term and put it on your website or in an article doesn’t mean it’s a source indicator. If it were your money, would you have appealed this one?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.