Decisions · 86502157
In re Pitney Bowes, Inc.
Serial No. 86502157 · Decided 2018-01-10 · Other
What happened
Refusal reversed — the Board accepted Pitney Bowes' webpage specimen for its concentric-circles “pb” design mark covering mail and package delivery services, finding that the company’s explanation of how it picks up items left in its kiosks and puts them into the mail stream confirmed the webpage showed Pitney Bowes' own services, so the application can move forward.
The marks
Applicant
a circle containing four partial circles on the left and three partial circles on the right, divided by the lower case letters "p" and "b", all resembling a series of concentric circles (design/special-form mark; color not claimed)
"Mailing services, namely, postal delivery services for mail; postal services, namely, postal delivery services for letters and packages; parcel delivery; packaging materials for transportation; delivery of mail to post offices for posting; shipping of mail, parcels and packages; providing online shipping information, namely, providing online information about the shipping of packages; providing information in the field of residential postal code status and confirmation; providing an internet portal permitting users access to shipping and tracking of packages and managing mail, namely, providing an online portal featuring information in the field of package and mail shipping and delivery; global shipping and delivery services, for cross-border sales, namely, pickup, transportation, and delivery of freight packages by all available means" in International Class 39
Why this decision is significant
Precedential TTAB decision that clarifies a useful, transferable point of specimen practice — that an applicant’s explanation of how it renders a service, when consistent with what the specimen shows, can be considered to resolve ambiguity and make an otherwise-questioned webpage specimen acceptable. Not landmark in scope, but a strong template for service-mark specimen refusals.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
In re National Concessions Group, Inc.
The Board refused BAKKED for an ‘essential oil dispenser’ because the product is actually a cannabis dabbing tool — federal drug-paraphernalia law makes it unlawful in commerce, and…
87168058 · 2023-05-03 · BAKKED (standard characters)
In re National Concessions Group, Inc.
The Board refused the teardrop logo used on the same cannabis dabbing tool as the BAKKED word mark: because the product is federal drug paraphernalia, no federal trademark registration is…
87183434 · 2023-05-03 · Stylized drop design mark -- "The mark consists of two parallel curved lines forming a teardrop, being wrapped around a smaller solid teardrop." Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
In re Erik Brunetti
The Board affirmed the refusal to register FUCK (standard characters) for cell phone and laptop carrying cases, eyewear cases, spectacles and sunglasses, finding the word is such a…
88308426 · 2022-08-22 · FUCK (standard characters)
In re Erik Brunetti
The Board affirmed the refusal to register FUCK (standard characters) for jewelry, earrings, rings, bracelets, lapel pins, watches and watch accessories, finding that widespread third-party…
88308434 · 2022-08-22 · FUCK (standard characters)
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.