Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Federal Circuit

Using a Trademark with a Mere Offer of Services Was Insufficient to Support Registration Where No Services Were Actually Provided

March 4, 2015

Federal Circuit

Using a Trademark with a Mere Offer of Services Was Insufficient to Support Registration Where No Services Were Actually Provided

March 4, 2015

Back to Fish's Litigation Blog

 

Couture v. Playdom, Inc., __ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2015) (DYK, Moore, O’Malley) (TTAB) (2 of 5 stars)

Federal Circuit affirms petition to cancel the service mark “PLAYDOM.”  Appellant registered the mark with the PTO but used it only on a website that was “under construction” and encouraged visitors to contact the host about potential services.  This did not constitute the required “use in commerce” necessary to support registration because the mere offering of a service, without actually providing that service, is insufficient.  The statutory text defining when a mark is “used in commerce” requires that “the services are rendered.”  Id. at 5 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127).   Moreover, other circuits have likewise required actual provision of services using the mark.  There was thus no basis to register the mark, as Appellant had not actually rendered any services using it during the relevant period.  Finally, Appellant could not invoke provisions that allow amending the basis of a trademark application, because those provisions apply only to attempts to amend while the application is pending, not after registration.


The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Related Tags

PTO
CAFC Summary
Federal Circuit
use in commerce

Blog Authors

Headshot
Craig Countryman | Principal

Craig Countryman is a Principal in the Southern California office of Fish & Richardson and the Co-Chair of Fish’s Appellate Practice. Craig has been named a Law360 MVP for Appellate work, a Rising Star by Law360, and he has been selected for the “Top 40...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *