Decisions · 87221529
In re TracFone Wireless, Inc.
Serial No. 87221529 · Decided 2019-06-10 · Other
What happened
Refusal upheld — the Board ruled that UNLIMITED CARRYOVER, as it appeared on TracFone’s specimen, would be seen by consumers as an informational description of a wireless-plan feature (carrying over unused data) rather than as a brand identifying the source of TracFone’s telecommunications services, so it cannot be registered as a service mark.
The marks
Applicant
UNLIMITED CARRYOVER
"Telecommunication services, namely, transmission of voice, data, graphics, images, audio and video by means of telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, and the Internet; Telecommunication services, namely, wireless telephone services; Telephone communication services" in Class 38
Why this decision is significant
Precedential and frequently cited for two propositions: matter that consumers would perceive as merely informational fails to function as a mark, and a Section 2(f) acquired-distinctiveness claim cannot rescue a failure-to-function refusal; evaluated from the specimens' real-world presentation.
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 Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd.
The Board refused registration of ZHIMA because the applicant would not add a required statement translating the word (evidence showed ZHIMA is the Chinese word for ‘sesame,’ used across…
86832288 · 2023-01-12 · ZHIMA
Refusal upheld
In re Zuma Array Limited
SMART BEZEL merely describes Zuma Array’s electronic sensor modules, which the company’s own website presents as smart bezels, so the wording cannot be registered as a brand.
79288888 · 2022-08-09 · SMART BEZEL
In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd.
The Board upheld the refusal to register the plain word mark .SUCKS for domain registry and domain-name-registration services, finding that consumers see .SUCKS as just another web-address…
86700941 · 2020-10-29 · .SUCKS (standard characters)
In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd.
The Board also upheld the refusal to register .SUCKS shown in a retro, pixelated ‘LED display’ style font for domain registry services, finding the special lettering was too ordinary…
87187215 · 2020-10-29 · .SUCKS displayed in a stylized "font suggesting an LED display" (retro pixelated font resembling early CRT computer-screen lettering)
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.