Alabama Tourism Department

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2020

87599292 (T.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020)

This Opinion Is a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: May 6, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____

In re Alabama Tourism Department
_____

Serial No. 87599292
_____

Jean Voutsinas and Kai-Wen Hsieh of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C.,
for Alabama Tourism Department.
William H. Dawe, III, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 108,
Kathryn E. Coward, Managing Attorney.
_____

Before Mermelstein, Lynch, and Larkin,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Alabama Tourism Department (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark shown below:

Serial No. 87599292
- 2 -

for “Advertising and marketing services, namely, promoting travel and tourism
related to historical information on civil rights in the United States,” in International
Class 35.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b), on the ground that the
mark includes a simulation of the flag of the United States.2
Applicant appealed after the Examining Attorney made the refusal final. The case
is fully briefed.3 We affirm the refusal to register.

1 Application Serial No. 87599292 was filed on September 7, 2017 under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intention
to use the mark in commerce. Applicant disclaimed the exclusive right to use U.S. CIVIL
RIGHTS TRAIL apart from the mark as shown. Applicant’s amended description of its mark
reads as follows: “The mark consists of a circle displaying the wording U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS
TRAIL and design; the design consists of a three concentric circle design in which the wording
U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS TRAIL appears between arched in between the inner most and the
middle concentric circles; the images of two men, one woman and a child walking with the
man in back wearing a hat and the man in front holding a stick bearing flag over his shoulder
appear superimposed on the inner and middle concentric circle; the inner concentric circle is
incomplete on the bottom; the bottom of the middle concentric circle is shaded beneath the
feet of the individuals with two small five point stars on each end and one larger five point
star in the middle.” Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
2 The phrase “flag . . . of the United States” appears in Section 2(b). The flag of the United
States is also referred to, both colloquially and in Section 1204.01(a) of the TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) (Oct. 2018), as the “American flag,” and we
will use the two terms interchangeably.
3 Citations in this opinion to the briefs refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing
system. Turdin v. Tribolite, Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014). Specifically, the
number preceding TTABVUE corresponds to the docket entry number, and any numbers
following TTABVUE refer to the page number(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials
appear.
Serial No. 87599292
- 3 -

I. Record on Appeal4
The record on appeal includes the following:
• A Wikipedia entry entitled “Flag of the United States,” made of record by
the Examining Attorney,5 and Applicant;6
• The first page of search results from the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic
Search System (“TESS”) database listing applications and registrations
that Applicant claims are for marks comprising the American flag in some
form;7
• Copies of pages from the TESS database regarding registrations of marks
comprising the American flag in some form, made of record by Applicant;8
• Pages regarding applications that were refused because they contained the
American flag, made of record by the Examining Attorney;9
• Webpages displaying the American flag, made of record by the Examining
Attorney;10 and

4 Citations in this opinion to the application record are to pages in the Trademark Status &
Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) database of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”). We summarize only those portions of the record that are germane to the appeal.
5 December 19, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 58-68.
6 June 11, 2018 Response to Office Action at TSDR 26-34; January 8, 2019 Response to Office
Action at TSDR 25-33.
7 June 11, 2018 Response to Office Action at TSDR 9, 35; January 8, 2019 Response to Office
Action at TSDR 36-37.
8 June 11, 2018 Response to Office Action at TSDR 37-127; January 8, 2019 Response to
Office Action at TSDR 38-128.
9 July 11, 2018 Office Action at TSDR 2-12.
10 January 31, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 2-13, 21-26.
Serial No. 87599292
- 4 -

• The results of Google database searches regarding the American flag, made
of record by Applicant,11 and the Examining Attorney.12
II. Section 2(b) Refusal
A. Applicable Law
Section 2(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b), prohibits registration, on
either the Principal or Supplemental Register, of a mark that “[c]onsists of or
comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any
State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof.” As the
Board explained in a case involving municipality insignia, the text of Section 2(b) was
carried over from the Trademark Act of 1905 to the Lanham Act of 1946 in
substantially the same form, and the absolute bar that it imposes against registration
of marks that contain flags and other governmental insignia reflects the sentiment
that such insignia are symbols of government authority that ought to be reserved for
signifying the government. In re Dist. of Columbia, 101 USPQ2d 1588, 1597 n.14
(TTAB 2012), aff’d sub nom In re City of Houston, 731 F.3d 1326, 108 USPQ2d 1226
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
There is very little case law discussing the registrability of a mark that “consists
of or comprises the flag . . . of the United States.”13 The Board’s 1973 decision in In re

11 January 8, 2019 Response to Office Action at TSDR 34-35.
12 January 31, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 14-20.
13 In its appeal brief, Applicant cites In re Family Emergency Room LLC, 121 USPQ2d 1886
(TTAB 2017), which involved the Swiss flag; a civil infringement decision, Bros. of the Wheel
M.C. Exec. Council, Inc. v. Mollohan, 909 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D. W. Va. 2012), which discussed
in passing the validity of a registration of a mark containing the American flag; a Board
decision involving the Norwegian flag, Knorr-Nahrmittel A.G. v. Havland Int’l, Inc., 206
Serial No. 87599292
- 5 -

Waltham Watch Co., 179 USPQ 59 (TTAB 1973), clarified that if a flag depicted in a
mark incorporates common elements of flag designs but the flag is readily
distinguishable from any actual flag of a government, refusal under § 2(b) is not
appropriate. Id. at 60. The Board’s most recent precedential decision under § 2(b)
clarified that refusal is appropriate “if the design would be perceived by the public as
a flag, regardless of whether other matter appears with or on the flag,” Family
Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1887-88, and set forth some general principles that
govern the application of § 2(b) to all flags referenced in that section.
As the Board explained in Family Emergency Room, the word “comprises” in the
clause “[c]onsists of or comprises,” which appears in subparts (a)-(d) in § 2 of the
Trademark Act, means “includes.” Family Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1887 n.2
(citation omitted). Section 2(b) thus “prohibits registration of a mark that includes a
flag . . . or any simulation thereof.” Id. The Board also noted that § 2(b) requires that
registration be refused “if the proposed mark includes a true representation of [a] flag
. . . or a simulation thereof,” id. at 1887, and held that the “word ‘simulation’ in the
statute ‘is used in its usual and generally understood meaning, namely, to refer to
something that gives the appearance or effect or has the characteristics of an original
item.’” Id. (quoting Advance Indus., 194 USPQ at 346). “Whether particular matter

USPQ 827 (TTAB 1980); and two non-precedential Board decisions, In re Certa ProPainters,
Ltd., Serial No. 77046679 (TTAB Nov. 14, 2008) and In re 3P Learning Pty Ltd., Serial No.
85641327 (TTAB Sept. 30, 2014), involving the Canadian flag, and a composite mark
containing the flags of 12 different countries, respectively. The only Section 2(b) case cited by
the Examining Attorney in his brief is Family Emergency Room, which in turn cited and
quoted In re Advance Indus. Sec., Inc., 194 USPQ 344 (TTAB 1977), a case involving the Coat
of Arms of the United States.
Serial No. 87599292
- 6 -

is a simulation of a flag is determined by a visual comparison of the matter and the
actual flag.” Id.
The Board in Family Emergency Room held that “the relevant question is whether
consumers will perceive matter in the mark as a flag.” Id. at 1888. The Board further
observed that “[m]arks containing elements of flags in a stylized or incomplete form
are not refused under Section 2(b),” id. (citing Waltham Watch, 179 USPQ at 60), and
held that the “focus of the analysis is on the relevant purchasers’ general recollection
of the flag, ‘without a careful analysis and side-by-side comparison.’” Id. (quoting
Advance Indus., 194 USPQ at 346).
The Board in Family Emergency Room cited the § 2(b) examination guidelines in
the TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”), which the Board
stated were “appropriate under the statute.” Id. The Board noted that the TMEP
“provides applicants and examining attorneys with a reference work on the practices
and procedures relative to prosecution of applications to register marks in the
USPTO,” id., and contains a section “devoted entirely to marks containing the Swiss
federation flag or coat of arms.” Id. (citing TMEP § 1205.01(d)).
The TMEP similarly contains examination guidelines for “Flags and Simulations
of Flags” that discuss the American flag, and display multiple examples of American
flag-related marks that should and should not be refused registration under § 2(b).
TMEP § 1204.01(a)-(b). The TMEP instructs examining attorneys to consider the
following factors that the Board found in Family Emergency Room to be appropriate
in determining whether consumers will perceive matter in the mark as a flag: “(1)
Serial No. 87599292
- 7 -

color; (2) presentation of the mark; (3) words or other designs on the drawing; and (4)
use of the mark on the specimen(s).” TMEP § 1204.01(a) (citing Family Emergency
Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1888 (discussing these factors in the context of the Swiss flag)).
Although black-and-white drawings do not depict color, Section 1204.01(a) instructs
that these factors should be considered “in regard to both color drawings and black-
and-white drawings,” and states that “[g]enerally, a refusal should be made where a
black-and-white drawing contains unmistakable features of the flag, contains
features of the flag along with indicia of a nation, or is shown on the specimen in
appropriate colors of that national flag.” Id. Section 1204.01(a) displays “Examples of
Situations Where Registration Should Be Refused,” including five involving the
American flag.
The TMEP also provides examples of situations where consumers would not
perceive a design as a flag, such that refusal under § 2(b) would not be warranted.
TMEP § 1204.01(b) (stating that “[m]arks containing elements of flags in a stylized
or incomplete form are not refused under §2(b),” and that “[t]he mere presence of
some significant elements of flags, such as stars and stripes (U.S. flag) . . . does not
necessarily warrant a refusal.”). Section 1204.01(b) lists the following scenarios under
which registration should not be refused under § 2(b) and includes seven examples of
registrable stylized designs of the American flag:
• The flag design is used to form a letter, number, or design.
• The flag is substantially obscured by words or designs.
• The design is not in a shape normally seen in flags.
Serial No. 87599292
- 8 -

• The flag design appears in a color different from that normally used in the
national flag.
• A significant feature is missing or changed.
TMEP § 1204.01(b).
“Although the [TMEP] does not have the force of law, it ‘sets forth the guidelines
and procedures followed by the examining attorneys at the’” USPTO. In re Int’l
Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 51 USPQ2d 1513, 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(quoting W. Fla. Seafood, Inc. v. Jet Rests., Inc., 31 F.3d 1122, 31 USPQ2d 1660, 1664
n.8 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). As in Family Emergency Room, we hold that both sets of the
“above standards, as set forth in the TMEP, are appropriate under the statute” to
consider in determining whether consumers will perceive a mark as consisting of or
comprising a flag. Family Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1888. We will apply those
standards in our analysis of the registrability of Applicant’s proposed mark under
§ 2(b).
B. Summary of Arguments
We summarize immediately below the general arguments of Applicant and the
Examining Attorney. We address their specific arguments in our analysis of the
merits of the refusal.
1. Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments address four of the scenarios in TMEP § 1204.01(b),
namely, that the “flag design in Applicant’s Mark (i) is missing significant features of
the U.S. flag, (ii) forms another design, (iii) is substantially obscured by other designs
Serial No. 87599292
- 9 -

in Applicant’s mark, and (iv) is not in a shape normally seen in the U.S. flag.” 4
TTABVUE 6.
Applicant also argues that “the fact that the USPTO has approved numerous
marks with designs that contain obvious depictions of the U.S. flag shows that marks
containing stylized or incomplete flag elements should not be refused registration
under §2(b).” Id. at 6-7. Applicant devotes a significant portion of its reply brief to its
claim that the registration of other marks involving elements of the American flag
justifies registration of Applicant’s mark. 8 TTABVUE 5-9.
2. The Examining Attorney’s Arguments
The Examining Attorney argues that Applicant’s mark includes a simulation of
the U.S. flag under two of the factors set forth in TMEP § 1204.01(a), the presentation
of the flag in the mark and the words associated with the drawing. 6 TTABVUE 5-
7.14 With respect to the factors in TMEP § 1204.01(b), the Examining Attorney argues
that none of the five scenarios in which a § 2(b) refusal should not be issued exists,
id. at 7-8, and that the flag design in Applicant’s mark is not analogous to any of the
examples in § 1204.01(b) of marks that should not be refused registration. Id. at 8.

14 The Examining Attorney argues that the two other factors, the color of the mark and the
use of the mark on a specimen, do not apply to Applicant’s intent-to-use application. 6
TTABVUE 6. We note, however, that merely because Applicant has not claimed that color is
a feature of the mark does not mean that Applicant could not depict the flag design in the
mark in its black-and-white drawing in any color or combination of colors. See In re Data
Packaging Corp., 453 F.2d 1300, 172 USPQ 396, 397 (CCPA 1972) (“there is no reason why
an applicant should not be able to obtain a single registration of a design mark covering all
different colors in which it may appear, that is to say, not limited to a particular color.”).
Accordingly, we must assume that Applicant could display the flag design in its mark in the
traditional red, white, and blue of the U.S. flag.
Serial No. 87599292
- 10 -

With respect to the third-party marks, the Examining Attorney argues that “the
issue for consideration here is whether the U.S. flag depicted in applicant’s mark will
be perceived by the public as a simulation of a U.S. flag; not whether other U.S.
Registrations contain stylized U.S. flags.” Id. at 9. He argues that each application
must be considered on its own merits, and that the issuance of registrations
containing elements of the U.S. flag is not relevant to the registrability of Applicant’s
mark. Id. at 9 n.1. He concludes that “[u]sing the guidelines established by Sections
1204.01(a) and (b) of the TMEP as to when a § 2(b) refusal should and should not be
issued, it is clear that applicant’s mark must denied registration under § 2(b) because
the black-and-white drawing of the mark contains the unmistakable features of the
U.S. flag.” Id. at 10.
C. Analysis of Refusal
1. Whether the flag design would be perceived as a simulation
of an actual U.S. flag, applying the considerations in TMEP
§ 1204.01(a)
We determine whether the flag design in Applicant’s mark is a prohibited
simulation of the U.S. flag “by a visual comparison of the [design] and the actual flag.”
Family Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1887 (citing Waltham Watch, 179 USPQ at
60). We depict below the American flag and Applicant’s mark:
15

15 December 19, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 58.
Serial No. 87599292
- 11 -

Although Applicant’s flag design is not an exact reproduction of the American flag,
it contains “unmistakable features of the flag,” TMEP § 1204.01(a), in the form of the
flag’s stars and stripes in their familiar positions on the flag. These features of
Applicant’s design “give[ ] the appearance or effect or ha[ve] the characteristics of the
original item[s]” on the actual flag. Family Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1887.
Indeed, Applicant’s original description of its mark expressly identified its flag design
as the U.S. flag, referring to “the man in front holding a stick bearing the U.S. flag
over his shoulder.”16
Applicant argues that its flag design does not appear in its mark in what Applicant
claims to be “the typical display of a single U.S. flag show[ing] the front side of the
flag,” 4 TTABVUE 7, but the features of the U.S. flag do not change depending on the
manner of its display. The flag design in Applicant’s mark is displayed on what
Applicant describes as a “stick,” and that manner of display simulates how the U.S.
flag may appear when it is displayed on an angled flagpole, as shown below:

16 September 7, 2017 Application at TSDR 1.
Serial No. 87599292
- 12 -

17
By Applicant’s own admission in its original description of its mark, in its particular
orientation in Applicant’s mark, Applicant’s flag design is intended to depict or
simulate the U.S. flag.
The words in Applicant’s mark reinforce the perception of the design as at least a
simulation of the U.S. flag. Section 1204.01(a) of the TMEP displays as examples of
marks that should be refused registration under § 2(b) the designs shown below:

According to TMEP § 1204.01(a), the design on the left “is refused because the word
SWISS emphasizes that the design is intended to be a simulation of the Swiss flag,”
while the design on the right “is refused because the word Texas emphasizes that the
design is intended to be the state flag of Texas.” Id. In both examples, as here, the

17 January 31, 2019 Final Office Action at TSDR 24.
Serial No. 87599292
- 13 -

wording names the nation or state whose flag is depicted in the mark and reinforces
a consumer’s perception of the design as that nation’s or state’s flag or a simulation
thereof.
In Applicant’s mark, the features of the U.S. flag are similarly accompanied by
“indicia of a nation,” id., the letters “U.S.,” which abbreviate the words “United
States,”18 in the words “U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS TRAIL.” The reference to the United
States leaves no doubt, in the words of Applicant’s original description of its mark,
that “the man in front [is] holding a stick bearing the U.S. flag over his shoulder.”19
Taking into account “the relevant purchasers’ general recollection of the [U.S.]
flag, ‘without a careful analysis and side-by-side comparison,’” Family Emergency
Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1888, when we view Applicant’s flag design against the
backdrop of the “words or other designs on the drawing,” TMEP § 1204.01(a), and in
the context of the intended use of Applicant’s mark in “promoting travel and tourism
related to historical information on civil rights in the United States,” we find that the
U.S. flag and Applicant’s flag design are highly similar and that the average member
of the public would perceive Applicant’s flag design to be a simulation of an actual

18 December 19, 2017 Office Action at TSDR 48 (acronymfinder.com).
19 In its reply brief, Applicant argues that the “term ‘U.S.’ modifies the wording ‘CIVIL
RIGHTS TRAIL,’ not the flag elements,” and that “[u]pon seeing the term ‘U.S.,’ consumers
would not think about the U.S. flag,” but “would consider ‘U.S.’ as an indicator of the civil
rights movement in the United States.” 8 TTABVUE 3-4. We disagree. Applicant is correct
that “U.S.” modifies “CIVIL RIGHTS TRAIL,” in the same way that “Swiss” modifies “Guard”
and “Texas” modifies “Rock Association” in the examples given in TMEP § 1204.01(a), but as
in those examples, the abbreviation “U.S.” “emphasizes that the design is intended to be” the
U.S. flag or “a simulation of the” U.S. flag. Id. We would find, in any event, that the flag
design in Applicant’s mark is a simulation of the U.S. flag even absent the reference to the
U.S.
Serial No. 87599292
- 14 -

U.S. flag.20 We add that we would make the same finding even if the relevant
purchasers engaged in a more careful analysis and compared Applicant’s design to
the U.S. flag. “[T]he matter sought to be registered, when considered in its entirety,
is prohibited under Section 2(b) because the proposed mark includes a design
consisting of or comprising a simulation of the flag of [the United States].” Family
Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1889.
2. Whether the elements of the flag create a distinct
commercial impression other than as the U.S. flag, applying
the considerations in TMEP § 1204.01(b)
We turn now to Applicant’s arguments that its mark contains a stylized flag
design and is thus registrable under four of the five scenarios set forth in TMEP
§ 1204.01(b) because consumers would not perceive the design as the U.S. flag or a
simulation thereof.
a. Whether Significant Features of the U.S. Flag Are
Missing or Changed
Applicant first argues that significant features of the U.S. flag are missing or
changed in its flag design. 4 TTABVUE 7. Applicant cites a WIKIPEDIA description of
the U.S. flag as “consist[ing] of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and
bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton (referred to
specifically as the ‘union’) bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in
nine offset horizontal rows, where rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternate with

20 In the absence of restrictions on the classes of consumers of the services identified in the
application, we find that the services are directed to members of the general public. See
Family Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1888 (finding that consumers of hospital services
were the general public).
Serial No. 87599292
- 15 -

rows of five stars.” Id.21 As noted above, Applicant claims that “the typical display of
a single U.S. flag shows the front side of the flag” and that “[o]rdinary consumers
would therefore expect to see the stars at the top left corner of the flag, followed by
the red and white stripes,” citing the results of a “Google image search of the U.S.
flag.” Id.22
Applicant argues that “[u]pon encountering Applicant’s mark, consumers will
readily find that a number of [the] well-known features of the U.S. flag are missing,”
id. at 8, because its flag design (1) “is not in a rectangular shape and does not have
four corners;” (2) “[m]ultiple stripes are missing, and the stripes that do appear in the
flag design are all slanted in varying directions, and are not horizontal;” (3) “white
dots appear on the flag design” instead of “the well-known five-pointed stars in a U.S.
flag;” (4) the “rectangular shape of the union in the U.S. flag is also missing—in
Applicant’s mark, the union appears as a triangle;” and (5) “instead of facing the
front, the flag in Applicant’s mark is backward facing (the ‘union’ appears in the right
corner, not the traditional left), which is different from how U.S. flags are commonly
displayed.” Id. Applicant analogizes its flag design to the following example in TMEP
§ 1204.01(b) of a registrable design in which a significant feature of the U.S. flag has
been changed:

21 January 8, 2019 Response to Office Action at TSDR 26. As noted above, we must assume
that the flag design in the mark may be depicted in the red, white, and blue of the U.S. flag.
22 Id. at TSDR 34-35.
Serial No. 87599292
- 16 -

Id. at 7.
Applicant’s arguments miss the mark. As discussed above, what Applicant calls
the “well-known features of the U.S. flag,” 4 TTABVUE 8, do not disappear or change
depending on the particular manner of the flag’s display. In certain manners of
display, such as that shown in Applicant’s mark and below

some features of the U.S. flag may not be entirely visible or may appear in different
orientations than when they appear in what Applicant claims is the “the typical
display of a single U.S. flag shows the front side of the flag,” id. at 7,23 but they are
not “missing” or “changed” in the manner contemplated by TMEP § 1204.01(b). The

23 In that regard, we note that the position and manner of display of the U.S. flag prescribed
by 4 U.S.C. § 7 varies depending on the circumstances of the flag’s display.
Serial No. 87599292
- 17 -

flag displayed immediately above shares many of the characteristics that Applicant
attributes to its flag design, including a “triangular” display of the union, non-
horizontal stripes slanted in varying directions, and a “backward facing display,” id.
at 8, but no reasonable observer of that flag would believe that features are missing
or changed, or view it as something other than the U.S. flag.
The scenario in TMEP § 1204.01(b) in which a “significant feature is missing or
changed” is exemplified by the design shown above, in which the stars in the union
of the U.S. flag have been rearranged to form what appears to be the letter “U.” That
rearrangement changes a “significant feature” of the U.S. flag, the layout of the rows
of stars, to create a new design that does not simulate the actual flag. Applicant’s flag
design does not change the U.S. flag in this manner, and this scenario in TMEP
§ 1204.01(b) does not apply to Applicant’s mark.
b. Whether the Flag Design is Used to Form a Letter,
Number, or Design
Applicant next argues that “the flag element in Applicant’s Mark forms and is
incorporated in a greater overall design, namely, a depiction of a scene from the civil
rights movement.” 4 TTABVUE 10. Applicant analogizes its mark to one of the two
marks that are shown in TMEP § 1204.01(b) as examples of this scenario:24

24 Applicant does not address the other example, but we show and discuss it below following
our discussion of the example cited by Applicant and the mark in a non-precedential decision
cited by Applicant.
Serial No. 87599292
- 18 -

Applicant argues that in the example above, “[t]here is no doubt that the mark depicts
a U.S. flag, especially in view of the term ‘U.S.A.’ located directly below the flag
design,” but claims that the mark is registrable “because its flag component is
incorporated in a design, namely, a map of the continental United States.” Id.
Applicant also analogizes its mark to the mark at issue in the Board’s non-
precedential decision in 3P Learning:25

25 “Board decisions which are not designated as precedent are not binding on the Board, but
may be cited and considered for whatever persuasive value they may hold.” In re Soc’y of
Health & Physical Educators, 127 USPQ2d 1584, 1587 n.7 (TTAB 2018).
Serial No. 87599292
- 19 -

4 TTABVUE 9. Applicant argues that “[a]lthough the mark contains multiple
countries’ national flags in their entireties (including the U.S. flag), the Board
reversed the refusal to register under §2(b) because the flags form another design,”
because “the flags ‘do not have the commercial impression of national flags but rather
as designations of individuals from various nations,’” and because the other elements
of the mark minimize the flags’ individual impact and “emphasize[ ] the international
aspect of the applied-for goods and services.” Id. at 9-10 (quoting 3P Learning, 12
TTABVUE 11-12 (Serial No. 85641327) (amended decision)).
Applicant argues that when “[e]ncountering Applicant’s Mark, consumers would
first notice the four walking human figures, prominently displayed in the front and
center of the Mark” and that “[s]eeing those figures in conjunction with the phrase
U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS TRAIL and the flag design, consumers would immediately
understand Applicant’s Mark to be a symbol of the civil rights movement.” Id. at 10.
Applicant contends that “[t]he flag design, which takes up less than one fourth of
Applicant’s Mark, merely completes such symbol” and that its “purpose is to describe
and emphasize the other design elements, such as the significance of the walking
figures and who they portray (civil rights activists).” Id.
Applicant claims that “[l]ike the national flags in the mark in In re 3P Learning
PTY Ltd., Applicant’s flag design signifies something other than a national flag,”
specifically, “the hard work, sacrifice, long journey, and emotions that civil rights
activists encountered while fighting to obtain equal rights for African Americans in
the United States,” id., and that the “flag design and component term U.S. are mere
Serial No. 87599292
- 20 -

background characters that provide information and support for that depiction.” Id.
at 10-11.
As noted above, we are not bound by the decision or analysis in 3P Learning, but
the case is easily distinguishable. The Board found that in the subject mark, each
national flag was “use[d] as the torso of each figure” and that such use was “use ‘to
form a design’” within the meaning of that particular scenario in TMEP § 1204.01(b).
12 TTABVUE 10 (Serial No. 85641327). The Board noted that “the use of the flag in
a manner that serves as the torso of the individuals is not a traditional flag design
and while they may be generally recognizable, as incorporated in this mark, they do
not have the commercial impression of national flags but rather as designations of
individuals from various nations.” Id. at 11. The Board concluded that
the flags are not being displayed as flags, but rather are
incorporated into the design as torsos of individuals. In this
case, where each flag forms the torso of individuals
positioned in a circle around a globe signifying the
international aspect of Applicant’s goods and services we
find that it is not barred by Section 2(b).
Id. at 12.
Unlike the flag designs in the mark in 3P Learning, or in the marks in TMEP
§ 1204.01(b), the first of which is shown above and the second of which is shown
below,
Serial No. 87599292
- 21 -

Applicant’s flag design is not incorporated into wording or another design element,
but is a self-standing design within Applicant’s mark. Although the flag design is
conceptually related to the design elements of the mark, that alone is insufficient to
implicate this scenario in TMEP § 1204.01(b). The American flag is similarly part of
the designs in the examples of unregistrable marks in TMEP § 1204.01(a) depicted
below, which we consider more analogous because all significant features of the flag
are present and the words or designs in the marks do not affect the flag designs in
such a way that significant features of the U.S. flag are changed or missing:

Serial No. 87599292
- 22 -

The flag design in Applicant’s marks does not “form[ ] another design,” TMEP
§ 1204.01(b) (emphasis added), specifically, “a letter, number, or design,” id., such as
“USA,” a map, or a torso, as contemplated under TMEP § 1204.01(b). As a result, this
scenario is inapplicable to Applicant’s mark.
c. Whether the Flag Design is Substantially Obscured by
Words or Designs
Applicant’s third argument is that “TMEP §1204.01(b) specifies that registration
should not be refused where the flag in a mark is substantially obscured by designs.”
4 TTABVUE 11. Applicant analogizes its mark to the mark shown below, which is
displayed in TMEP §1204.01(b) as an example of a mark that fits this scenario:

Applicant argues that “just like the example from the TMEP above, registration
should not be refused here because the flag in Applicant’s Mark is substantially
obscured by other designs.” 4 TTABVUE 12. Applicant claims that “the designs of two
adult figures cover both sides of the flag design, and the design of a child figure
conceals almost all of the bottom half of the flag.” Id.
Serial No. 87599292
- 23 -

The adverb “substantially” in TMEP § 1204.01(b) means “to a large degree.”26
Unlike the flag design in the example shown immediately above, the flag design in
Applicant’s mark is not obscured to a large degree by other elements of the mark:

Although portions of some of the stripes in the flag disappear behind the silhouette
of the walking child and certain edges of the unfurled banner disappear behind the
silhouettes of two of the walking adults, the simulations of the stars in the “union”
and most of the stripes, as well as the flag as a whole, remain clearly visible, and the
flag is immediately recognizable as such. As evidenced by the example accompanying
this scenario in § 1204.01(b), as well as the examples of registrable marks in the
preceding section, in which depictions of people or other elements appear in front of
the flag designs, this scenario contemplates marks in which a significant portion of a
flag design is not visible. The flag design in Applicant’s mark does not meet that
criterion, and this scenario is inapplicable, because the flag design is not so obscured
that consumers would not perceive it as the U.S. flag or a simulation thereof.

26 CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY (dictionary.cambridge.org/us, last accessed on May 1, 2020. The
Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including online dictionaries. See,
e.g., In re Omniome, Inc., 2020 USPQ2d 3222, *2 n.17 (TTAB 2020).
Serial No. 87599292
- 24 -

d. Whether the Flag Design is Not in a Shape Normally
Seen in the U.S. Flag
Finally, Applicant invokes the scenario in TMEP § 1204.01(b) that states that
registration should not be refused “where the flag in a mark is not in a shape normally
seen in flags.” 4 TTABVUE 12. Applicant analogizes its mark to the two examples of
such marks shown in TMEP § 1204.01(b). The first example is shown below:

Applicant argues that in this mark, “only a corner of the flag is depicted, without
all the stripes and stars traditionally associated with the U.S. flag,” and that
“[s]imilarly, in Applicant’s Mark, only a small triangular portion of the flag appears,
and not all the stars and stripes are visible. Approximately only one third of the stars
that normally appear on the U.S. flag are visible in Applicant’s Mark, and only a
small portion of stripes can be seen.” 4 TTABVUE 12. Applicant also argues that
“whereas the American flag ordinarily appears as a rectangle, Applicant’s Mark
contains a small triangular portion of the U.S. flag, followed by some stripes located
behind one of the walking figures and angled sideways and downward.” Id. at 12-13.
The second example in this scenario in TMEP § 1204.01(b) is shown below:
Serial No. 87599292
- 25 -

Applicant argues that this example
consists of two rectangular U.S. flags that display parallel
rows of stars and stripes. However, because the flags are
vertical and elongated, they are not considered to be in the
normal flag shape and therefore the mark is registrable.
Similarly, the flag in Applicant’s Mark is not displayed
horizontally and is not in the normal flag shape. In fact, the
flag in Applicant’s Mark is even less similar to an actual
U.S. flag than the example in the TMEP and noted above
because, unlike the above example, the flag in Applicant’s
Mark is not rectangular, does not have four corners, and
does not display the requisite parallel rows of stars and
stripes in a U.S. flag. . . . Applicant’s Mark is not in a shape
normally seen in flags.
Id. at 13.
Applicant’s arguments that its flag design is “not in the normal flag shape” of the
U.S. flag because the design “is not rectangular, does not have four corners, and does
not display the requisite parallel rows of stars and stripes in a U.S. flag,” id., are
similar in nature to its arguments that significant elements of the U.S. flag are
missing or changed due to the manner of display of the flag design in Applicant’s
Serial No. 87599292
- 26 -

mark. As shown and discussed above, the particular manner in which the flag design
is displayed in Applicant’s mark is consistent with the manner in which the U.S. flag
appears when it is displayed on a flagpole. The required “visual comparison of the
[design] and the actual flag,” Family Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1887, may
take into account any reasonable form in which the actual flag may appear or be
displayed. Applicant’s flag design is not artificially elongated or strangely shaped, as
in the examples in TMEP § 1204.01(b) shown above, and there is thus no basis for
finding that the design is “not in a shape normally seen in” the U.S. flag as
contemplated in TMEP § 1204.01(b). This scenario also does not apply to Applicant’s
mark because Applicant’s design would be perceived as the U.S. flag or a simulation
thereof.
e. Summary
None of the four asserted scenarios in TMEP § 1204.01(b) applies to Applicant’s
mark because the flag “design shown in the proposed mark is not sufficiently altered,
stylized, or merged with the other elements in the mark, so as to create a distinct
commercial impression, other than as a simulation of the [U.S.] flag.” Family
Emergency Room, 121 USPQ2d at 1889.
3. The Existence of Third-Party Registrations of Marks
Containing Elements of the U.S. Flag
In its appeal brief, Applicant cites and depicts more than 30 registered marks that
contain elements of the U.S. flag. 4 TTABVUE 15-22.27 Applicant argues that “the

27 Applicant also cites and displays marks in pending applications. 4 TTABVUE 14-16. We
need not consider the applications because “[a]n application is not evidence of anything
Serial No. 87599292
- 27 -

Examining Attorney ignored the numerous registrable, stylized marks that contain
unmistakable features of the U.S. flag,” id. at 14, which “include the seven registrable
marks featured in TMEP § 1204.01(b) as well as many marks registered and applied-
for on the U.S. Trademark Register that contain recognizable U.S. flags.” Id.
Applicant claims that these registrations and applications show that “stylized marks
with designs that include flags are generally not refused registration under § 2(b).”
Id. at 22.
Applicant argues that most of the examples
contain much more complete depictions of U.S. flags than
Applicant’s Mark. To refuse registration of Applicant’s
Mark while permitting registration of the foregoing marks
would be to treat Applicant’s Mark inconsistently with
Trademark Office practice. Applicant should be permitted
to rely on the Trademark Office’s practice with respect to
the foregoing marks. The courts and the TTAB encourage
the Trademark Office to use a uniform standard in
assessing marks and Applicant is entitled to such
consistent treatment.
Id. (citing In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir.
2001)).
In its reply brief, Applicant argues that the
Examining Attorney does not address the Board’s and
courts’ desire for consistent treatment of marks that are
similar in nature, merely stating that “each application
must be considered on its own record” (Footnote 1,
Examining Attorney’s brief). The Examining Attorney’s
refusal to address this need for consistent treatment at the
Trademark Office is surely not an oversight as indeed, it
would be impossible for the Examining Attorney to

except that the application was filed on a certain date . . . .” Wet Seal, Inc. v. FD Mgmt., Inc.,
82 USPQ2d 1629, 1634 n.11 (TTAB 2007).
Serial No. 87599292
- 28 -

reconcile his decision to deny registration here with the
decision to register or allow these other marks.
8 TTABVUE 5.
Applicant acknowledges that “the Board and courts are not bound by prior
registrations for analogous marks,” but argues that the Board and the courts
“encourage consistency in the Trademark Office’s assessment of the registrability of
marks, and on numerous occasions have looked at prior registrations and/or
applications to determine the registrability of a particular mark.” Id.28 Applicant
contends that “[w]hen those other flag marks are considered, it is clear that the
Examining Attorney’s refusal in this case ‘is clearly inconsistent with what this
applicant had come to expect from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
over the past decade of prosecuting several similar applications.’” 8 TTABVUE 6
(quoting Alphonse Capone Enters., 10 TTABVUE 7 (Serial No. 85453371)).
Applicant’s rely brief concludes with the argument that
[t]here is simply no justification for why these marks,
which contain in many cases complete and accurate
depictions of American flags with all of their elements
plainly visible and which form the centerpiece of the
marks, were permitted registration but Applicant’s Mark
was refused. Based on and in reliance on the numerous
federal registrations and allowed applications for marks
containing obvious U.S. flag designs, it is reasonable for
Applicant to think that Applicant’s Mark would not
encounter a § 2(b) refusal.
Id. at 9.

28 In support, Applicant cites In re Women’s Publ’g Co., 23 USPQ2d 1876 (TTAB 1992), and
three non-precedential cases, In re Armadahealth, LLC, Serial No. 86713902 (TTAB June 28,
2017), In re Alphonse Capone Enters., Inc., Serial No. 85453371 (TTAB Apr. 19, 2013), and
HEB Growers Co., Serial No. 85027087 (TTAB June 29, 2012). 8 TTABVUE 5.
Serial No. 87599292
- 29 -

These arguments, particularly Applicant’s accusation that the Examining
Attorney’s “refusal to address this need for consistent treatment at the Trademark
Office is surely not an oversight as indeed, it would be impossible for the Examining
Attorney to reconcile his decision to deny registration here with the decision to
register or allow these other marks,” id. at 5, are misplaced. The Examining
Attorney’s obligation was to determine the registrability of the applied-for mark
under § 2(b) based on the appearance of the flag design in Applicant’s mark and a
comparison of that design to the American flag, Family Emergency Room, 121
USPQ2d at 1887, taking into account the considerations and examples of registrable
and unregistrable marks set forth in TMEP § 1204.01 and the record made during
prosecution. He properly determined that the mark was unregistrable under the
statute, and neither he nor we have any obligation “to reconcile his decision to deny
registration here with the decision to register or allow . . . other marks.” 8 TTABVUE
5.29 In addition, Applicant’s evidentiary submission almost certainly presents an

29 The cases cited by Applicant in support of its argument that “on numerous occasions [the
Board and courts] have looked at prior registrations and/or applications to determine the
registrability of a particular mark,” 8 TTABVUE 5, are distinguishable because none of them
involved a Section 2(b) refusal. The precedential Women’s Publ’g decision involved
genericness, descriptiveness, and acquired distinctiveness, while the non-precedential
decisions in Armadahealth and HEB Grocery involved descriptiveness. The Board noted in
Armadahealth and HEB Grocery that in descriptiveness cases such as those two and Women’s
Publ’g, “[c]ase law recognizes that [third-party] registrations can be used as a form of
dictionary definition to illustrate how a term is perceived in the trade or industry.” 15
TTABVUE 11 (Serial Nos. 86713902 and 86802355); 10 TTABVUE 9 (Serial No. 85027087).
The non-precedential decision in Alphonse Capone Enters. involved a refusal to register on
the ground that the applicant sought “registration of more than one mark.” 10 TTABVUE 1
(Serial No. 85453371). The Board noted in that case that the applicant had previously
registered similar marks based “upon one substantially similar, and another identical
specimen,” to the one at issue on appeal, id. at 7, and that the refusal was “clearly
inconsistent with what this applicant had come to expect from the United States Patent and
Serial No. 87599292
- 30 -

incomplete picture of USPTO practice, as it omits marks in applications that were
refused registration under § 2(b) in a manner likely to be highly consistent with the
action in this case.
Applicant cites the Federal Circuit’s decision in Nett Designs for the proposition
that the “court encourages the PTO to achieve a uniform standard for assessing
registrability of marks.” 4 TTABVUE 22 (citing Nett Designs, 57 USPQ2d at 1566).
In the very next sentence in the opinion, however, the court held that “[n]onetheless,
the Board (and this court in its limited review) must assess each mark on the record
of public perception submitted with the application,” id., and the court subsequently
held that the third-party “registrations that Nett Designs submitted to the examiner”
had “little persuasive value” even on the issue of whether the phrase THE
ULTIMATE BIKE RACK in the applied-for mark was merely descriptive of bicycle
racks and had to be disclaimed. The court held that “[e]ven if some prior registrations
had some characteristics similar to Nett Designs’ application, the PTO’s allowance of
such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this court.” Id.
The Board recently reiterated that “[w]hile we recognize that ‘consistency is highly
desirable,’ . . . consistency in examination is not itself a substantive rule of trademark
law, and a desire for consistency with the decisions of prior examining attorneys must
yield to proper determinations under the Trademark Act and rules.” In re Am.
Furniture Warehouse Co., 126 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Omega

Trademark Office over the past decade of prosecuting several similar applications, and even
one identical application.” Id.
Serial No. 87599292
- 31 -

SA, 494 F.3d 1362, 83 USPQ2d 1541, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and citing In re Cordua
Rests., 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1635 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We do not believe that
our decision here is inconsistent with the registration of the third-party marks cited
by Applicant, but to the extent that it is, it is the decision required under the statute
on the record before us.
For the reasons discussed above, the Examining Attorney properly determined
that Applicant’s mark is unregistrable under § 2(b) based on our precedent and
applying the examination guidelines set forth in TMEP § 1204.01. We need to go no
further to affirm the refusal to register.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.