Minerva Associates, Inc.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2018

EX (T.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

This Opinion is a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: February 12, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Minerva Associates, Inc.
_____

Serial No. 86430215
_____

Darren B. Cohen of Reed Smith LLP,
for Minerva Associates, Inc.
Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102,
Mitchell Front, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Ritchie, Kuczma and Adlin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Kuczma, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Minerva Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark AWLVIEW (in standard characters) for, inter alia:
Warehouse inventory management software, including
software for wholesale and retail management and supply
chain optimization, computer software for single and
multiple channel retailers, and computer software for use
by specialty and general merchandise retail chains and
outlets, superstores, and department stores, all for sales
and demand forecasting, store and warehouse inventory
management, merchandise planning and allocation, stock
control, product tracking, deliveries, receptions,
replenishment, procurement, merchandising, distribution,
Serial No. 86430215

- 2 -
customer follow-ups, sales analysis across distribution
channels, and customer relationship management (CRM)
and CRM data compilation and analysis, in International
Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark2 on
the ground that Applicant’s specimens do not show the applied-for mark in use in
commerce as a trademark in connection with the goods in International Class 9, citing
Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127.3 When the refusal was
made final, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the Examining
Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. Applicant
and the Examining Attorney have briefed the issues. We reverse the refusal to
register.
A use-based application, statement of use or amendment to allege use, must
include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each class

1 Application Serial No. 86430215 was filed on October 21, 2014, based upon Applicant’s
allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), in International Classes 9 and 42. Applicant filed a
Statement of Use on November 25, 2015, based on Applicant’s allegation of first use and first
use in commerce on the goods and services in International Classes 9 and 42 on November 2,
2014.

2 The final refusal to register applied to the goods in International Class 9 and did not apply
to the following services in International Class 42: Software as a service (SAAS) services,
namely, hosting software for use by others for use in wholesale and retail management and
supply chain optimization, single and multiple channel retailers, specialty and general
merchandise retail chains and outlets, superstores, and department stores, all for sales and
demand forecasting, store and warehouse inventory management, merchandise planning and
allocation, stock control, product tracking, deliveries, receptions, replenishment,
procurement, merchandising, distribution, customer follow-ups, sales analysis across
distribution channels, sales, customer relationship management (CRM) and CRM data
compilation and analysis.

Serial No. 86430215

- 3 -
of goods or services specified in the application. Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 and 1127; see also Trademark Rules 2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56(a);
37 C.F.R. §§ 2.34(a)(1)(iv) and 2.56(a). Specimens serve to demonstrate an applicant’s
“use [of the mark] in commerce” which is defined, in pertinent part, as follows:
... For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to
be in use in commerce—
(1) on goods when—
(A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their
containers or the displays associated therewith or on
the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of
the goods makes such placement impracticable, then
on documents associated with the goods or their
sale, and
(B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce …
Trademark Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
The specimens in a trademark application provide the USPTO with support for
the applicant’s verified statements regarding trademark use. In this regard, the
manner in which an applicant has employed its asserted mark, as evidenced by the
specimens of record, must be carefully considered in determining whether the
asserted mark has been used as a trademark with respect to the goods identified in
the application. In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 192 USPQ 213, 216 (CCPA 1976); In
re Griffin Pollution Control Corp., 517 F.2d 1356, 186 USPQ 166, 167 (CCPA 1975);
In re E. Kahn’s Sons Co., 343 F.2d 475, 145 USPQ 215, 216 (CCPA 1965).
Acceptable trademark specimens include labels, tags, or containers for the goods,
or displays associated with the goods. The Office may accept another document
related to the goods or their sale when it is impracticable to place the mark on the
Serial No. 86430215

- 4 -
goods, packaging for the goods, or associated displays. Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(1) and
(2), 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.56 (b)(1) and (2). Thus, an acceptable specimen for software “might
be a photograph or printout of a display screen projecting the identifying trademark
for a computer program.” Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”)
§ 904.03(e) (Oct. 2017). As the Examining Attorney acknowledges, “[t]his could
include the actual program that shows the mark in the title bar or launch screens
that show the mark in an introductory message box that appears after opening the
program.”4 There is, however, no requirement that the mark be placed in a “title bar”
or any other specific location, but only that the mark be displayed in such a manner
that customers would view it as serving as an indicator of the source of the software.
Here, the goods in the application are “generally identified as ‘Warehouse
inventory management software’ in Class 9.”5 With its Statement of Use, Applicant
submitted a page from its website promoting its AWLVIEW software product which
the Examining Attorney determined to be insufficient to serve as a specimen for the
goods because it failed to display a means by which the goods could be ordered by a
prospective consumer.6 Applicant does not contest this finding7 and subsequently
submitted a copy of a “spec sheet distributed at trade show booths in which the subject
goods are presented and orders processed for purchase of the subject goods.”8 This

4 Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief (9 TTABVUE 6).
5 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 2 (7 TTABVUE 3).
6 January 25, 2016 Office Action.
7 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 3 (7 TTABVUE 4).
8 July 25, 2016 Response to Office Action.
Serial No. 86430215

- 5 -
specimen was also refused as “not acceptable as a point-of-sale display associated
with the goods and appear[s] to be mere advertising material.”9
In its Request for Reconsideration, Applicant submitted a second substitute
specimen consisting of screenshots of the login and search query pages displayed
when a customer uses the downloaded software.10 The Examining Attorney refused
registration of the mark on the ground that this second substitute specimen was
insufficient to show trademark use for the goods because “the applied-for mark
appears above the screenshots. It does not appear in the title bars of the actual
program, nor does it appear on the login or launch screen.”11
The issue before us is whether the second substitute specimen shows use of the
mark AWLVIEW in commerce. A copy of the two-page specimen submitted with the
Request for Reconsideration is shown below:

9 August 10, 2016 Office Action.
10 Applicant maintains that “the same type of specimens” were accepted in connection with
its co-pending application for the mark AWLTEK which has since matured into Registration
No. 5171959. See Applicant’s Brief at 3 (7 TTABVUE 4). (Applicant also cites to Exhibit B
attached to its Appeal Brief which is a copy of the specimen filed in its co-pending application
showing that mark within the launch screen of Applicant’s software. However, Exhibit B
attached to Applicant’s brief has not been considered. Materials not previously made of record
during prosecution of the application are untimely if submitted for the first time at briefing.
See Trademark Rule 2.142(d); 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d); Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Manual of Procedure § 1203.02(e) (June 2017) (and authorities cited therein)).
In any event, the Board is not bound by the prior decisions of examining attorneys in allowing
other marks for registration. It has been noted many times that each case must be decided
on its own facts. See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar to [applicant’s]
application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this
court.”); see also In re Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We are obligated to assess the registrability of Applicant’s mark on its own merits.
11 May 4, 2017 Request for Reconsideration Denied.
Serial No. 86430215

- 6 -

Serial No. 86430215

- 7 -
The first page of the second substitute specimen (the login screen shot) displays the
wording “AWLview WMS for Sterling Jewelers” appearing above “AWL Logon WS
202” shown in the title bar of the login page. The second page (the SKU search query
page) contains the wording “AWLview WMS for Sterling Jewelers WS 202 - LCM”
appearing above “Inventory By SKU Report-WS 202” shown in the title bar of the
SKU search query window.
The Examining Attorney argues that the applied-for mark AWLVIEW shown in
the substitute specimen appears above or outside of the title bars of the window, and
not on the portion of the window that would be viewed by consumers, nor on the login
Serial No. 86430215

- 8 -
or launch screen, concluding that the second substitute specimen does not appear to
be part of the software display.12
Applicant maintains that the second substitute specimen shows the full screen
that Applicant’s consumers view when they open Applicant’s AWLview software, with
the mark AWLVIEW appearing in the header just above the login and search query
windows shown in the specimen.13 According to Applicant, the mark is displayed on
the login page as well as on other pages of the program viewed by users of its
downloaded software, “and would otherwise not be picked up in a ‘screenshot.’”14 By
placing its mark atop its login and search pages of its downloadable software,
Applicant contends that it has placed the mark in a prominent place to catch the eye
of the user/consumer, and thus it serves as a functioning trademark and source
identifier.
As noted, an important function of specimens in a trademark application is to
provide the USPTO with support for the applicant’s verified statements regarding
trademark use. Implicit in the definition of a trademark is a requirement that there
be a direct association between the mark sought to be registered and the goods
specified in the application, that is, that the mark be used in such a manner that it
would be readily perceived as identifying the specified goods and distinguishing them
from the goods of others. Not every word or combination thereof which appears on or

12 Examining Attorney’s Appeal Brief (9 TTABVUE 6).
13 Applicant’s Reply Brief pp. 2-3 (10 TTABVUE 3-4).
14 Applicant’s Appeal Brief p. 4 (7 TTABVUE 5).
Serial No. 86430215

- 9 -
in connection with an entity’s goods functions as a trademark. In re Remington Prods.
Inc., 3 USPQ2d 1714, 1715 (TTAB 1987). The mere fact that a designation appears
on the specimens of record does not make it a trademark. In re Safariland Hunting
Corp., 24 USPQ2d 1380, 1381 (TTAB 1992).
Because software providers have adopted the practice of applying trademarks that
are visible only when the software programs are displayed on a screen, see TMEP
§ 904.03(e)15, an acceptable specimen might be a photograph or screenshot of a
computer screen displaying the identifying trademark while the computer program
is in use. The second substitute specimen features screenshots of Applicant’s mark
appearing on the log-in and search screens viewable by Applicant’s customers
utilizing the downloaded software. Because the mark appears on the login and search
screens of Applicant’s downloadable software when the software is in use, we find
that the second substitute specimen shows the applied-for mark used in connection
with the goods in Class 9 and would be perceived as a trademark identifying the
source of those goods.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark AWLVIEW in International
Class 9 is reversed.

15 Section 904.03(e) also explains that “[i]t is not necessary that purchasers see the mark
prior to purchasing the goods, as long as the mark is applied to the goods or their containers,
or to a display associated with the goods, and the goods are sold or transported in commerce.
See, e.g., In re Brown Jordan Co., 219 USPQ 375 (TTAB 1983) (holding that stamping the
mark after purchase of the goods, on a tag attached to the goods that are later transported
in commerce, is sufficient use).”