Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

No. 85164876 (T.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

Mailed:
May 11, 2016

United States Patent and Trademark Office
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________
In re Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc.
________
Serial No. 85164876
_______
Scott J. Major of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C. for Florists’
Transworld Delivery, Inc.
Seth A. Rappaport, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 103 (Michael
Hamilton, Managing Attorney).
_______
Before Wolfson, Shaw and Hightower, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Wolfson, Administrative Trademark Judge:
When an applicant sets up a social media account on Twitter in order to
advertise or promote its business via a social-networking website, is it the
applicant or Twitter that is providing the service of “creating an on-line
community for users” interested in the applicant’s business? That is the main
question presented by this appeal, and has been addressed by a recent revision
of Section 1301.04(h)(iv)(C) of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure
(“TMEP”) (April 2016). We hold that often the answer will be Twitter, not the
applicant. Therefore, an applicant generally will not be able to rely on use of
its social media account to support an application for registration of a mark for
such a service.
This Opinion is a
Precedent of the TTAB
Serial No. 85164876

- 2 -
Florists’ Transworld Delivery, Inc. (“Applicant”) filed an intent-to-use
application to register the mark SAY IT YOUR WAY in standard character
format for, as amended, “Online retail store services featuring flowers and gifts,
and promoting the retail services of member florists” in International Class 35
and “Creating an on-line community for registered users to participate in
discussions, get feedback from their peers, form communities, and engage in
social networking featuring information on flowers, floral products and gifts” in
International Class 42.1 Following issuance of a notice of allowance on
November 8, 2011, and approval of requested extensions of time within which
to file its statement of use, Applicant submitted its statement of use on October
26, 2014, accompanied by the following specimen, which appears to consist of a
screenshot of a “profile” page from Applicant’s Twitter account. (A “profile” page
is a publically accessible page on a user’s account. As shown by the record,
Applicant’s profile page is located at https://twitter.com/ftdflowers).

1 Serial No. 85164876 was filed on October 29, 2010 on the basis of Applicant’s bona
fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 85164876

- 3 -

The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under
Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 and 1127, on the ground
that Applicant’s specimen failed to show the applied-for mark used in
connection with the identified services. In response thereto, Applicant
submitted a substitute specimen consisting of a total of seven pages printed
from the Twitter online social networking site at https://twitter.com/ftdflowers.
Applicant described its Twitter pages as “reflecting conversations on the
Twitter page involving FTD and FTD fans and customers.”2
The first three pages from the substitute specimen follow.

2 Applicant’s January 18, 2015 Response at 1.
Serial No. 85164876

- 4 -

Serial No. 85164876

- 5 -

Serial No. 85164876

- 6 -

Serial No. 85164876

- 7 -
In the final Office action, the Examining Attorney maintained the refusal
to register Applicant’s mark because neither specimen evidenced use of the
mark in connection with any of the identified services. However, following
Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, the Examining Attorney accepted the
substitute specimen in its entirety3 as sufficient for International Class 35
(“Online retail store services . . .”), and the Examining Attorney withdrew the
refusal with respect to that class. The Examining Attorney maintained the
refusal in Class 42 (“Creating an on-line community . . .”) and this appeal
resumed. Thus, the only issue on appeal is whether the substitute specimen is
acceptable to show use of the mark in Class 42. We affirm that refusal.
The Examining Attorney argues that the substitute specimen does not
show the applied-for mark being used in connection with the identified Class
42 services. More specifically, the Examining Attorney contends that Twitter
is a “social-media service that allows users to post short messages and have
them be seen by individuals who follow that users’ [sic] account,” and that

3 Both the original specimen and page one of the substitute specimen appear to be
virtually identical profile pages from Applicant’s Twitter account. The original
specimen was a single page only. Because the original specimen does not evidence use
of the mark in association with the Class 42 recited services and further because it is
subsumed within Applicant’s substitute specimen, we have given it no further
consideration.
The substitute specimen included several profile pages as well as copies of additional
pages accessed via links from Applicant’s profile pages. These additional pages (not
shown) demonstrated Applicant’s rendering of online retail store services.
Serial No. 85164876

- 8 -
Applicant is merely a user of such online services provided by Twitter.4
According to the Examining Attorney, Applicant’s substitute specimen shows
only that Applicant promotes its retail services and communicates with its
customers and potential customers over the forum created by Twitter, which
is facilitated by Applicant’s having a Twitter account. The specimen does not
show that Applicant has independently set up an online community for others
(even, as Applicant contends, one within the Twitter environment). “Twitter
has created the community for registered users to interact with each other via
social networking. The applicant is merely one of those users. Therefore, the
specimen of record does not show the mark used in connection with the
identified services in International Class 042.”5
Applicant contends that it has “established an online community under
the SAY IT YOUR WAY mark that allows for, among other things,
conversations involving it and its fans and customers about Applicant’s flowers
and other products.”6 Applicant suggests that Twitter’s role is to have created
the forum within which Applicant, and others, may create their own virtual
communities and that Applicant “has created its own smaller community,

4 8 TTABVUE 5-6. The citations to “TTABVUE” throughout the decision are to the
Board’s public online database that contains the proceeding file, available on the
USPTO website, www.USPTO.gov. The first number represents the prosecution
history number listed in the electronic case file and the second represents the page
number(s).
5 Id. at 6.
6 6 TTABVUE 3.
Serial No. 85164876

- 9 -
within the much broader Twitter sphere, for persons with an interest in flowers
and related items.”7 In its reply brief, Applicant submits that its presence on
Twitter is not merely to advertise its own products, but to foster a dialogue
among persons interested in flowers, such as that provided by the “Q&A”
session with Applicant’s chief floral designer, which is located on Applicant’s
Twitter page.8
We agree with the Examining Attorney that the substitute specimen does
not show service mark use for the identified services in Class 42. The seven
pages that comprise the substitute specimen were generally identified by
Applicant as (1) pages that contain links to pages on Applicant’s retail website,
and (2) a page that reflects conversations between Applicant and its customers.
Examining them more closely, the first page appears to be a copy of page one
(of 34) of Applicant’s Twitter profile. The mark is displayed thereon as follows:
“Welcome to Say it Your Way™, the official Twitter page of FTD Flowers.
Follow us to learn about our latest promotions and for customer service.” The
second page (which is page 24 of Applicant’s Twitter profile) includes an entry
(a “tweet”) from Applicant dated September 10, 2014. The tweet invites a
follower to “check out a list of your local participating florist[s]” in connection
with Applicant’s “annual Good Neighbor Day.” By clicking on the link provided
within the tweet (i.e., ow.ly/BiPGb), the follower can access the specific page on

7 Id.
8 9 TTABVUE 2.
Serial No. 85164876

- 10 -
Applicant’s corporate website (at http://www.ftd.com) that lists those florists
participating in Applicant’s “Good Neighbor Day” event. The third page of the
substitute specimen is a copy of that linked page from the retail website.
Thus, a follower who discovered the September 10, 2014 tweet inviting
him or her to “check out a list of your local participating florist[s]” in connection
with Applicant’s “annual Good Neighbor Day” would be directed to Applicant’s
corporate website for the information. Likewise, another tweet from Applicant’s
profile would connect a user who clicks on the shortened URL link
“ow.ly/ByJdQ” to a “Q&A session” with “the man behind the bouquets,” who is
identified in Applicant’s reply brief as its chief floral designer.9 This tweet is
reproduced below:

The substitute specimen consisted of a total of seven pages. The fourth
and fifth pages are not relevant to Class 42, the sixth page is another copy of

9 Not included, however, is a copy of the page to which a follower would presumably be
linked upon opening “ow.ly/ByJdQ,” the Q&A session link.
Serial No. 85164876

- 11 -
Applicant’s profile page (in this case, the first of 47), and the seventh page (the
45th of 47) purportedly reflects “conversations on the Twitter page involving
FTD and FTD fans and customers.”10 However, the tweets on this page are all
Applicant’s responses to customer comments; although each entry is marked
“view conversation,” no conversations are shown on the page, nor are any
conversations provided.
An application initially based on Trademark Act Section 1(b) must, upon
the filing of an allegation of use under Section 1(c) or a statement of use under
Section 1(d), include one specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in
commerce, on or in connection with those goods or services identified in the
application, for each international class identified in the allegation or
statement of use. Trademark Act Sections 1(c) and 1(d)(1), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(c)
and 1051(d)(1); see also Trademark Rules 2.76(b)(2) and 2.88(b)(2), 37 CFR
§§ 2.76(b)(2) and 2.88(b)(2). In the case of a service mark application, the
specimen of use “must show the mark as used in the sale or advertising of the
services.” Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(2), 37 CFR § 2.56(b)(2).
Section § 904.07(a) of the TMEP directs the examining attorney to “review
the specimen to determine whether ... the specimen shows use for the specific
goods/services identified.” (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant must show that
the mark SAY IT YOUR WAY is being used to identify the services of “creating

10 January 18, 2015 Response to Office Action at 1. We have not reproduced pages 4-7
herein.
Serial No. 85164876

- 12 -
an on-line community for registered users to participate in discussions, get
feedback from their peers, form communities, and engage in social networking
featuring information on flowers, floral products and gifts.” See, e.g., In re
Graystone Consulting Assocs., Inc., 115 USPQ2d 2035, 2036 (TTAB 2015) (“A
service mark must be ‘used in such a manner that it would be readily perceived
as identifying’ the services, which is ‘determined by examining the specimens
of record in the application.’”) (citing In re Moody’s Investors Serv. Inc., 13
USQP2d 2043, 2047 (TTAB 1989)); In re Chengdu AOBI Info. Tech. Co., 111
USPQ2d 2080, 2082 (TTAB 2011) (specimens that show applicant was offering
a product, not a service, cannot support service mark application); In re Supply
Guys Inc., 86 USPQ2d 1488, 1495 (TTAB 2008) (distributor of the products of
others may not claim trademark use based on a display of those goods on its
website; applicant’s mark identified retail store services, not goods); In re
Monograms America Inc., 51 USPQ2d 1317, 1319 (TTAB 1999) (letterhead
specimen failed to create an association between the mark MONOGRAMS
AMERICA and the consultation services set forth in the application); TMEP
§ 1301.04(d) (“[R]egistration must be refused if the specimen shows the mark is
used only to promote goods rather than the identified services, or the mark is
used as a service mark but not for the identified services (i.e., the applicant
misidentified the services).”).
Service mark specimens consisting of advertising, promotional or
informational material, such as website or Twitter pages, are routinely
Serial No. 85164876

- 13 -
submitted as advertising. Such specimens normally are acceptable when they
show the mark in advertising the service(s) identified in the application, and
create the required direct association by containing a reference to the specified
service(s) as well as using the mark in such a way as to identify and distinguish
the service(s) and source thereof. In re Osmotica Holdings Corp., 95 USPQ2d
1666, 1668 (TTAB 2010). Specimens that make no reference to the identified
service(s) may be accepted if they show the applicant using the mark in the
course of rendering the service(s) identified in the application. In re Metriplex,
Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1315, 1316-17 (TTAB 1992) (indicating that a specimen that
does not explicitly refer to the services may be acceptable if it “show[s] use of
the mark in the rendering, i.e., sale, of the services”); In re Red Robin Enters.,
222 USPQ 911, 914 (TTAB 1984) (stating that “rendition” of services is properly
viewed as an element of the “sale” of services). In such case, “there must be
something which creates in the mind of the purchaser an association between
the mark and the service activity.” In re Johnson Controls, Inc., 33 USPQ2d
1318, 1320 (TTAB 1994).
Here, the substitute specimen does not advertise or offer for sale the
service of “creating an online community.” Nor does it show that Applicant is
rendering the applied-for Class 42 services under the mark SAY IT YOUR
WAY. The first, second, and third pages of the substitute specimen, taken
together, show only that Applicant is using the online community created by
Twitter to provide information to its customers, to answer inquiries and
Serial No. 85164876

- 14 -
respond to complaints, and to advertise promotional events. But by
participating in the online community created by Twitter, Applicant has not
thereby created an online community that others can use in the same fashion,
i.e., Applicant does not provide a platform by which its followers can create a
profile, establish a homepage, and attract further followers. We agree with the
Examining Attorney that the substitute specimen shows that Applicant is
simply acting to further the sale of its flowers, floral products and gifts by using
its Twitter account to engage with consumers and potential consumers and
promote its retail services. Twitter Inc. has created the online community for
registered users to interact with each other via social networking, and
Applicant’s mark SAY IT YOUR WAY simply advertises Applicant’s presence
on the online community created by Twitter. Section 1301.04(h)(iv)(C) of the
TMEP cautions examining attorneys to carefully scrutinize webpages from
social-networking websites
to ensure that the mark is properly associated with the
identified services. Some applicants may mistakenly
mischaracterize their services as ‘social networking’
because they assume that advertising or promoting their
non-social-networking services via a social-networking
website means they are providing social-networking
services. For instance, an applicant may mistakenly file an
application for ‘online social-networking services’ and
provide a Facebook® webpage as a specimen when, in fact,
they operate a pet store and are only using the Facebook®
website to advertise the pet store and communicate
information to and messages with actual and potential
customers. Such a specimen is not acceptable for the social-
Serial No. 85164876

- 15 -
networking services since it does not demonstrate that the
applicant is providing these services.11
Applicant points to Twitter Inc.’s registration for the mark TWITTER for
“providing an online community forum for registered users … to form virtual
communities,” and argues that Twitter Inc. has provided the forum within
which Applicant has created its own virtual sub-community, and that it is the
services of creating this sub-community which is covered by Applicant’s
application. We disagree with Applicant’s contention that its mere presence on
the Twitter platform amounts to the rendering of a separately registrable
service. Applicant has not created a sub-community forum; to the extent that
Applicant has carved out a smaller, online “community” of persons with an
interest in flowers and related items, made up of its customers and prospective
customers, Applicant has done nothing more than use the Twitter online
community forum to engage in social-networking for its own benefit,12 and to
advertise its online retail store services, which are rendered over its own
corporate website at http://www.ftd.com. See In re Canadian Pacific Ltd., 754

11 See also TMEP § 1301.04(h)(iii) (“Similarly, the applicant may be using social net-
working websites to advertise non-social networking services (e.g., operating a pet
store) and communicate with customers, leading the applicant to misidentify the ser-
vices as ‘online social networking services’ in Class 45.”).
12 Page seven of Applicant’s substitute specimen is entitled “tweets with replies by FTD
Flo….” On the page itself, only tweets originating from Applicant are displayed. This
page does not evidence any social-networking conducted by Applicant for the benefit of
someone else. It does not show any conversations, just Applicant’s answers to questions
or concerns presumably voiced by customers or prospective customers. Although there
is a link to “view conversation,” Applicant has not provided the page or pages of linked
material that might show any conversations. And the specimen does not show people
using Applicant’s profile page to discuss or get feedback from their peers, form com-
munities, or exchange information pertaining to flowers, floral products or gifts.
Serial No. 85164876

- 16 -
F.2d 992, 224 USPQ 971 (Fed. Cir. 1985); IdeasOne Inc. v. Nationwide Better
Health Inc., 89 USPQ2d 1952, 1954 n.4 (TTAB 2009) (to qualify as a separately
registrable service, activity “must be qualitatively different from anything
necessarily done in connection with the sale of the applicant’s goods or the
performance of another service”).
Moreover, to the extent Applicant provides information regarding flowers
(the “Q&A session”) or conducts promotional events to promote the sale of its
flowers (the annual Good Neighbor Day), such advertising and promotional
activities do not, on this record, appear to constitute a separately registrable
service, but are merely incidental to the production or sale of goods.13 In re Dr.
Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 5 USPQ2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (running of
promotional contests is not a registrable service since promotional activity is
performed for benefit of seller); In re Moore Bus. Forms Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1638
(TTAB 1992) (paper manufacturer that rates the recycled content and
recyclability of its own products is merely providing information about its
goods, not rendering a separate service to others); see also In re Adver. & Mktg.
Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d 614, 2 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (distinguishing
advertising for services from actually providing advertising services); TMEP
§ 1301.01(b). Cf. In re HSB Solomon Assocs., 102 USPQ2d 1269, 1274 (TTAB
2012) (CEI, an initialism for a “carbon emissions index,” used only to identify

13 There is also nothing in the record to suggest that the “Q&A session,” which users
are invited to join (shown on page two of the substitute specimen), fosters a dialogue
or otherwise allows for communication among participants.
Serial No. 85164876

- 17 -
process by which applicant derives a particular measurement and not applied-
for services).
We find that the substitute specimen fails to show use of the mark in
association with the online community services listed in the application.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark SAY IT YOUR WAY
under Sections 1 and 45 is affirmed as to the services recited in International
Class 42. Accordingly, because the examining attorney withdrew the refusal
with respect to the services in International Class 35,14 the application will
proceed to publication for those services only, namely, “online retail store
services featuring flowers and gifts, and promoting the retail services of
member florists.”

14 See n.3 supra.