One such enumerated purpose is “making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks” in “commerce within the control of Congress.” Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127; see also Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 784 n.19 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring) (“Trademark law protects the public by making consumers confident that they can identify brands they prefer and can purchase those brands without being confused or misled.”). As pled, BCC’s false association claim advances that purpose.

rk Act § 10; 15 U.S.C. § 1060. [ Note 38.](26) That defendant's mark is generic. [ Note 39.] A mark registered on the Supplemental Register is subject to cancellation on the basis that it is generic. [ Note 40.](27) That defendant's mark is not in lawful use in commerce where the provision of the identified goods and/or services is unlawful under federal law. [ Note 41.](28) That defendant in a cancellation proceeding has never used the mark in commerce on or in connection with some or all of the goods or services recited in the registration. [ Note 42.]A CLOSER LOOK AT A POPULAR GROUND TO SEEK TO CANCEL A MARK - TRADEMARK ABANDONMENTFrom #13 above:"(13) That defendant's mark has been abandoned due to nonuse with intent not to resume use, and nonuse for three consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment, [ Note 25.]; or due to a course of conduct that has caused the mark to lose significance as an indication of source. [ Note 26.]"NOTE 25:First see Trademark Act §45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 which notes the definition of abandonment:Abandonment of mark. A mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" if either of the following occurs:(1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. "Use" of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark. Purchaser motivation shall not be a test for determining abandonment under this paragraph.Attorney Steve® Tip: A mark can become generic if a company fails to "police" its mark (i.e. by sending cease and desist notices to infringers). For pleading purposes

A trademark is defined as a word, symbol, or phrase that is used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another. 15 U.S.C. § 1127. When such marks are used to identify services rather than products, they are called service marks, although they are generally treated the same way as trademarks.

eld of computer games.As described in the application,The mark consists of a woman video game character named Maria, with a tilted head, dark messy hair, dark eyes, thin rimmed glasses and a large toothy smile, with her eyes looking to the side and strands of her hair in front of her eyes.Maria is a main character in the video game “Target of Desire: Episode 1.”The only specimen the applicant submitted of the mark was from a third-party webpage for an electronic retail store for videogames. It depicts her as scantily clothed and describes her as follows:Maria is a cryptic character. The only thing that she reveals about herself is that she ‘works at the University.’ She blogs (and is on social media) under the username of ‘IamNamedMaria’, where she speculates about the nature of reality.”The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark on the ground that it fails to function as a mark under Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052 and 1127, because consumers would perceive it only as identifying a character in Applicant’s video games, and not as a source indicator for Applicant’s goods.The TTAB affirmed the refusal, noting:Section 45 of the Trademark Act defines a “trademark” as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof – (1) used by a person . . . to identify and distinguish his or her goods . . . from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. “[A] proposed trademark is registrable only if it functions as an identifier of the source of the applicant’s goods or services.”There’s no prohibition against registration of fictitious or fanciful “character” marks that serve a dual purpose, i.e., serve both as a character in the goods or services and as a trademark or service mark.However, in order to be registrable, the use of a fictitious or fanciful character[M]ust be perceived by the purchasing public not just as a c

Id. at 10. The court next explored the definition of abandonment in the Lanham Act, which under 15 U.S.C. §1127 occurs when a mark “has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use” and such intent “may be inferred from the circumstances,” with three consecutive years’ nonuse being prima facie evidence of abandonment. Id. at 11.

As a starting point, the Federal Circuit observed that to apply for registration under Lanham Act § 1(a), a mark must be “used in commerce”, which requires – as to services – that, as of the filing date, the mark [1] is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and [2] the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services. 15 U.S.C. § 1127; Aycock Eng’g, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

On March 2, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its first-ever ruling addressing use requirements for registering service marks. The court held that offering a service, without the actual rendering of that service, is not “use in commerce” for the purposes of registering a service mark under Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Because the applicant misunderstood this requirement, his registration is now invalid, and another business is positioned to register the mark.

As a starting point, the Federal Circuit observed that to apply for registration under Lanham Act § 1(a), a mark must be “used in commerce,” which requires – as to services – that, as of the filing date, the mark [1] is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and [2] the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services. 15 U.S.C. § 1127; Aycock Eng’g, Inc. v. Airflite, Inc., 560 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

[13] 17 U.S.C. 410.[14] 15 U.S.C. 1127.[15] 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a).

Id. at 6. Houston reasoned that the introductory sentence of § 45 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, which states that the definitions in that section apply unless the contrary is plainly apparent from the context, indicates that the definition of “applicant” does not include government entities seeking to register their own marks. Houston’s theory was that “government entities use their official insignia to identify their goods and services, and unauthorized use of these insignia confuses the public.”