Skip to main content
Distinctive Mark™Trademark News & Analysis

TTAB Rulings: June 2026

Every Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision we tracked in June 2026, week by week.

Latest decisions

June 2026

4 decisions · Week by week, precedential first
Issue
Show

Week of June 22, 2026

3 decisions · 3 precedential
  1. Precedential

    Patterns others in the field already use are ornament, judged class by class

    In re Ralph's Famous Italian Ices Franchise Corp. · Ex parte appeal · Serial No. 90302728 · Failure to function, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45 (ornamental trade dress); acquired distinctiveness, §2(f); specimen, Class 35

    A pattern's distinctiveness is judged separately for each class of goods and services. For a basic ornament such as stripes, use by a few others in the field shows it is not inherently distinctive, and widespread third-party use is a nearly insurmountable hurdle to proving acquired distinctiveness.

    Refusal affirmed in part (all classes, ornamental and not shown to have acquired distinctiveness); Class 35 specimen refusal reversedRead the analysis
  2. Precedential

    A famous athlete’s nickname can support both Section 2(a) and 2(c) refusals

    In re Wemby Corporation · Ex parte appeal · Serial No. 97752244 · False suggestion of a connection; identifying a particular living individual without written consent

    A nickname can support both a Section 2(a) false-suggestion refusal and a Section 2(c) consent refusal when the record shows it previously identified a particular living individual, points uniquely and unmistakably to that person, and the person’s fame and relationship to the goods would make consumers presume a connection. In an ex parte appeal, the Board may consider evidence developed during examination for the Section 2(a) inquiry, and Section 2(c) has no filing-date timing component.

    Refusal affirmedRead the analysis
  3. Precedential

    A lapsed registration's years beside a cited mark do not help the refiling

    In re TextNow Inc. · Ex parte appeal · Serial No. 98231457 · Likelihood of confusion, §2(d); indefinite identification of goods and services

    Only a registration that is in force, more than five years old and safe from a priority challenge can carry an applicant past a §2(d) citation under Strategic Partners. A cancelled registration cannot, and coexistence on the register without US use shows nothing about the marketplace.

    Partial refusal affirmed (Classes 9 and 38); application proceeds in Classes 16, 41 and 42Read the analysis

Week of June 1, 2026

1 decision
  1. Brief

    Super Kings International, Inc. v. Shenzhen BMX Network Technology Ltd.

    Cancellation · Cancellation Nos. 92085356 and 92085358 (consolidated) · Nonuse before filing a use-based application, §1(a) (void ab initio); fraud and §2(d) not reached

    Ignoring requests for admission can concede nonuse before the filing date and void a use-based registration; two SUPERKING registrations cancelled.

    Petitions to cancel granted (both registrations)Read the brief