# TMEP § 1207.01(a)(iii): Reliance on Identification of Goods/Services in Registration and Application

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1207.01(a)(iii)

## Section

- **Citation:** TMEP § 1207.01(a)(iii)
- **Heading:** Reliance on Identification of Goods/Services in Registration and Application
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** USPTO TMEP / Chapter 1200 - Substantive Examination of Applications / TMEP § 1207.01(a)(iii)

## Text

The nature and scope of a party’s goods or
services must be determined on the basis of the goods or services recited in
the application and cited registration.
See
,
e.g.
,
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis
Indus., Inc.
, 575 U.S. 138, 143, 113 USPQ2d 2045, 2049 (2015)
(recognizing that an "applicant’s right to register must be made on the
basis of the goods described in the application");
In re Charger
Ventures LLC
, 64 F.4th 1375, 1383, 2023 USPQ2d 451, at *7
(Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
, 903
F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("The relevant
inquiry . . . focuses on the goods and services described in the application
and registration.");
Stone Lion Cap. Partners, L.P. v. Lion Cap.
LLP
, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2014);
Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC
, 668
F.3d 1356, 1370, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press Inc.
, 281 F.3d
1261, 1267, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
J & J Snack
Foods Corp. v. McDonald’s Corp
., 932 F.2d 1460, 1463, 18
USPQ2d 1889, 1892 (Fed. Cir. 1991);
Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous.
Computer Servs., Inc.
, 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787
(Fed. Cir. 1990);
Canadian Imperial Bank of Com., N.A. v. Wells
Fargo Bank
, 811 F.2d 1490, 1493, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1815 (Fed.
Cir. 1987);
Paula Payne Prods. Co. v. Johnson Publ’g Co.
,
473 F.2d 901, 902, 177 USPQ 76, 77 (C.C.P.A. 1973).
If the cited registration describes goods or
services broadly, and there is no limitation as to their nature, type,
channels of trade, or class of purchasers, it is presumed that the
registration encompasses all goods or services of the type described, that
they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to
all classes of purchasers.
See
,
e.g.
,
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading
Co.
, 719 F.3d 1367, 1373, 107 USPQ2d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir.
2013);
New Era Cap Co.
, 2020 USPQ2d 10596, at *15-16
(citing
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp
presumed that the
registration encompasses all goods or services of the type described, that
they move in all normal channels of trade, and that they are available to
all classes of purchasers.
See
,
e.g.
,
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading
Co.
, 719 F.3d 1367, 1373, 107 USPQ2d 1167, 1173 (Fed. Cir.
2013);
New Era Cap Co.
, 2020 USPQ2d 10596, at *15-16
(citing
SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp.
, 697 F.2d 1038, 1042-43,
216 USPQ 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
In re Bercut-Vandervoort &
Co.
, 229 USPQ 763, 764 (TTAB 1986)) ("the [Trademark Trial and
Appeal] Board may not read limitations into [the] unrestricted registration
or [] application");
see also
B & B Hardware, Inc.
, 575 U.S. at 143, 113 USPQ2d at
2049 (quoting 3 J. McCarthy,
Trademarks & Unfair
Competition
§20:15, at 20-45 (4th ed. 2014)) ("if an
'application does not delimit any specific trade channels of distribution,
no limitation will be' applied"). Therefore, if the cited registration has a
broad identification of goods or services, an applicant does not avoid
likelihood of confusion merely by more narrowly identifying its related
goods.
See
,
e.g.
,
In re Linkvest
S.A.
, 24 USPQ2d 1716 (TTAB1992) (noting that, where registrant’s goods are broadly identified
as "computer programs recorded on magnetic disks," without any limitation as
to the kind of programs or the field of use, it must be assumed that
registrant’s goods encompass all such computer programs, including computer
programs of the type offered by applicant, that they travel in the same
channels of trade normal for such goods, and that they are available to all
classes of prospective purchasers of those goods);
In re Diet Ctr.,
Inc
c disks," without any limitation as
to the kind of programs or the field of use, it must be assumed that
registrant’s goods encompass all such computer programs, including computer
programs of the type offered by applicant, that they travel in the same
channels of trade normal for such goods, and that they are available to all
classes of prospective purchasers of those goods);
In re Diet Ctr.,
Inc.
, 4 USPQ2d 1975 (TTAB1987) (noting that, although applicant had limited its
identification to indicate that its goods were sold only through franchised
outlets offering weight-reduction services, the cited registration’s
identification contained no limitations as to trade channels or classes of
customers and thus it must be presumed that registrant’s goods travel
through all the ordinary channels of trade).
Similarly, there may be a likelihood of
confusion where an applicant identifies its goods or services so broadly
that the identification encompasses the goods or services identified in the
registration of a similar mark.
See, e.g.
,
In re
Solid State Design Inc.
, 125 USPQ2d 1409, 1413, 1415 (TTAB
2018) (holding POPULACE and design for computer software intended for travel
and destination marketing organizations and travel marketing professionals,
and POPULACE (stylized) for computer software for visualizing the popularity
of places in real time with an underlying map capability for navigation sold
only as business to consumer software and not as "business to business"
software, likely to cause confusion);
In re Fiesta Palms
LLC
, 85 USPQ2d 1360
(TTAB 2007) (holding CLUB PALMS MVP for casino services, and MVP for
casino services offered to preferred customers identified by special
identification cards, likely to cause confusion);
In re Equitable
Bancorporation
, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986) (holding RESPONSE for
banking services, and RESPONSE CARD for banking services rendered through
24-hour teller machines, likely to cause confusion)
d 1360
(TTAB 2007) (holding CLUB PALMS MVP for casino services, and MVP for
casino services offered to preferred customers identified by special
identification cards, likely to cause confusion);
In re Equitable
Bancorporation
, 229 USPQ 709 (TTAB 1986) (holding RESPONSE for
banking services, and RESPONSE CARD for banking services rendered through
24-hour teller machines, likely to cause confusion).
In addition, language seeking to limit
otherwise identical, or highly similar, goods or services may not be
sufficient to distinguish them so as to avoid a likelihood of confusion.
See
In re i.am.symbolic, llc
, 866 F.3d 1315, 1326, 123 USPQ2d
1744, 1751 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming the Board's finding that an
identification restricting the goods to those "associated with William
Adams, professionally known as ‘will.i.am,’" imposed no meaningful
limitation on the nature of the goods or the trade channels or classes of
purchasers of the goods);
Bd. of Regents v. S. Ill. Miners,
LLC
, 110 USPQ2d 1182,
1190-93 (TTAB 2014)
(finding that although opposer’s clothing items were limited
by the wording "college imprinted" and the applicant’s identical or highly
similar items were limited by the wording "professional baseball imprinted,"
these restrictions did not distinguish the goods, their trade channels, or
their relevant consumers in any meaningful way).
An applicant may not restrict the scope of its
goods and/or the scope of the goods covered in the registration by extrinsic
argument or evidence, for example, as to the quality or price of the goods.
See
,
e.g.
,
In re FCA US
LLC
, 126 USPQ2d 1214, 1217 (TTAB 2018);
In re La Peregrina
Ltd.
, 86 USPQ2d 1645,
1647 (TTAB 2008)
;
In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co.
, 229
USPQ at 764–65;
see also
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
, 903 F.3d at 1308, 128 USPQ2d
at 1052 ("The third DuPont factor—like the second factor—must be evaluated
with an eye toward the channels specified in the application and
registration, not those as they exist in the real world.")
4, 1217 (TTAB 2018);
In re La Peregrina
Ltd.
, 86 USPQ2d 1645,
1647 (TTAB 2008)
;
In re Bercut-Vandervoort & Co.
, 229
USPQ at 764–65;
see also
In re Detroit Athletic Co.
, 903 F.3d at 1308, 128 USPQ2d
at 1052 ("The third DuPont factor—like the second factor—must be evaluated
with an eye toward the channels specified in the application and
registration, not those as they exist in the real world.").
In cases where the terminology in an
identification is unclear or undefined, the Board has permitted an applicant
to provide extrinsic evidence to show that the registrant’s identification
has a specific meaning to members of the trade.
See
,
e.g.
,
In re Thor Tech, Inc.
, 90
USPQ2d 1634, 1638 & n.10 (TTAB 2009) (noting that, although extrinsic
evidence may not be used to limit or restrict the identified goods, it is
nonetheless proper to consider extrinsic evidence in the nature of
dictionary entries to define the terminology used to describe the goods);
In re Trackmobile Inc.
, 15 USPQ2d 1152, 1154 (TTAB
1990) (noting that, "when the description of goods for a cited registration
is somewhat unclear . . . it is improper to simply consider that description
in a vacuum and attach all possible interpretations to it when the applicant
has presented extrinsic evidence showing that the description of goods has a
specific meaning to members of the trade.")

## Nearby sections

- [TMEP § 1201 Ownership of Mark](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.01 Claim of Ownership May Be Based on Use By Related Companies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.01.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(a) Identifying the Applicant Properly](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(c) Correcting Errors in How the Applicant Is Identified](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(c).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(d) Operating Divisions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(d).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.02(e) Changes in Ownership After Application Is Filed](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.02(e).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(a) No Explanation of Use of Mark by Related Companies or Applicant’s Control Over Use of Mark by Related Companies Required](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(b) Wholly Owned Related Companies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(b).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(c) Common Stockholders, Directors, or Officers](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(c).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.03(e) License and Franchise Situations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.03(e).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.04 Inquiry Regarding Parties Named on Specimens or Elsewhere in Record](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.04.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.05 Acceptable Claim of Ownership Based on Applicant’s Own Use](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.05.md)
- [TMEP § 1201.06(a) Applicant Is Merely Distributor or Importer](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.06(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1201.06(b) Goods Manufactured in a Country Other than Where Applicant Is Located](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1201.06(b).md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1207.01(a)(iii). Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.