# TMEP § 1402.01: Specifying the Goods and/or Services - in General

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1402.01

## Section

- **Citation:** TMEP § 1402.01
- **Heading:** Specifying the Goods and/or Services - in General
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** USPTO TMEP / Chapter 1400 - Classification and Identification of Goods and Services / TMEP § 1402.01

## Text

A written application must specify the particular goods
and/or services on or in connection with which the applicant uses, or has a bona fide
intention to use, the mark in commerce.
15 U.S.C.
§1051(a)(2)
,
(b)(2)
;
37 C.F.R.
§2.32(a)(6)
.  To "specify" means to name in an explicit manner.
The identification should set forth common names, using terminology that is generally
understood.  For goods or services that do not have common names, the applicant should
use clear and succinct language to describe or explain the item.  Technical or esoteric
language and lengthy descriptions of characteristics or uses are not appropriate.
The language used to describe goods and/or services
should be understandable to the average person and should not require an in-depth
knowledge of the relevant field.  An identification may include terms of art in a
particular field or industry that are definite and limited to a single class, but, if
these terms are not widely understood by the general population, the identification
should include an explanation of the specialized terminology.
"The identification of goods and/or services must be
specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise."
In re Carlton Cellars,
LLC
, 2020 USPQ2d 10150, at *3 (TTAB 2020) (citing
In re Societe
Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A.
, 1 USPQ2d 1296 (TTAB 1986),
rev’d on other grounds
, 824 F.2d 957, 3 USPQ2d 1450 (Fed. Cir.
1987));
see
In re tapio GmbH
, 2020 USPQ2d 11387, at *6 (TTAB 2020) (quoting
In re Cordua Rests., Inc.
, 823 F.3d 594, 605, 118 USPQ2d 1632,
1639 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
"[The] applicant must identify the goods and services
specifically to provide public notice and to enable the USPTO to classify the goods and
services properly and to reach informed judgments concerning likelihood of confusion
under
15 U.S.C. §1052(d)
."
In re SICPA Holding SA
,
2021 USPQ2d 613, at *4 (TTAB 2021) (quoting
In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp.
Commc’ns S.p.A.
, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014);
In re Faucher
Indus.
, 107 USPQ2d 1355, 1358 (TTAB 2013))
ly to provide public notice and to enable the USPTO to classify the goods and
services properly and to reach informed judgments concerning likelihood of confusion
under
15 U.S.C. §1052(d)
."
In re SICPA Holding SA
,
2021 USPQ2d 613, at *4 (TTAB 2021) (quoting
In re Fiat Grp. Mktg. & Corp.
Commc’ns S.p.A.
, 109 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (TTAB 2014);
In re Faucher
Indus.
, 107 USPQ2d 1355, 1358 (TTAB 2013)). "An identification that fails
to identify the goods and services with specificity is indefinite, either because the
nature of the goods or services is not clear or because the wording is so broad that it
may include goods or services in more than one class."
In re Carlton Cellars,
LLC
, 2020 USPQ2d 10150, at *3. The USPTO has discretion to require the
degree of particularity deemed necessary to clearly identify the goods or services
covered by the mark.
In re Black Card, LLC
, 2023 USPQ2d 1376, at *11
(TTAB 2023) (quoting
In re Omega SA
, 494 F.3d 1362, 1365, 83 USPQ2d
1541, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 2007));
In re SICPA Holding
, 2021 USPQ2d 613,
at *4.
As indicated above, an identification should set forth
the common name of a good or service using terminology that is generally understood.
Wording such as "included in this class" is not the common name of particular goods or
services and would not be understood by those unfamiliar with the Nice Classification.
If an identification includes wording such as "included in this class," "belonging in
this class," "excluding goods/services in other classes," or the like, the examining
attorney will require the applicant to delete such wording because it does not identify
a particular good or service.
The identification itself must not include references to
specific class numbers. Examining attorneys may delete wording related to the class
number from the identification by no-call examiner’s amendment and must ensure that such
wording is removed from the identification prior to approving a mark for publication or
registration
ch wording because it does not identify
a particular good or service.
The identification itself must not include references to
specific class numbers. Examining attorneys may delete wording related to the class
number from the identification by no-call examiner’s amendment and must ensure that such
wording is removed from the identification prior to approving a mark for publication or
registration. See
TMEP §707.02
regarding examiner’s amendments
without prior authorization. See generally
TMEP §817
regarding
preparation of an application for publication or registration.
Terminology that includes items in more than one class is
considered indefinite, even with such additional wording as "included in this class" at
the end of the identification.
See
In re Omega SA
, 494 F.3d at 1365, 83 USPQ2d at 1544 ("chronographs"
includes both time recording devices in Class 9 and watches in Class 14; merely
classifying the goods in only one of the classes does not preclude a requirement for
further specificity in the identification).
Example
:  "Blankets" is not acceptable without qualifying wording
because it is not particular enough to identify the kind of blanket on which the mark
is used, e.g., fire blankets (Class 9), electric blankets for household purposes
(Class 11), horse blankets (Class 18), and bed blankets (Class 24).
Example:
"Insulin injectors" is
not acceptable because appropriate classification of the goods depends upon whether
the injectors are sold filled with insulin or sold empty. Generally, goods that are
sold filled with another item are classified in the class of the goods with which
they are filled. Thus, "insulin injectors sold filled with insulin" are classified in
Class 5, the class of the insulin with which the injectors are filled, while "insulin
injectors sold empty" are classified in Class 10, the general class for medical
apparatus
ed with insulin or sold empty. Generally, goods that are
sold filled with another item are classified in the class of the goods with which
they are filled. Thus, "insulin injectors sold filled with insulin" are classified in
Class 5, the class of the insulin with which the injectors are filled, while "insulin
injectors sold empty" are classified in Class 10, the general class for medical
apparatus. Similarly, "powder compacts" is not acceptable because it encompasses both
"powder compacts sold empty" in Class 21 and "compacts sold filled with cosmetic
powder" in Class 3.
However, the conclusion that a term would clearly include
items classified in more than one class should not be drawn unless reasonable, in light
of the evidence of record.
See
In re Thor Tech,
Inc.,
85 USPQ2d 1474
(TTAB 2007) ("park trailer" held to be an acceptable identification, where the
applicant’s evidence showed that it is a term of art generally understood by those in
the industry and by consumers as a designation for a type of recreational vehicle, which
unambiguously places it in Class 12; Board was not persuaded by the examining attorney’s
argument that the identification  was indefinite because it could also encompass mobile
homes in Class 19.).
In applications based on a single filing basis, each good
or service should be listed only once in the identification. If an application is based
on multiple filing bases, the identification should list each good or service only once
for each applicable basis. See
TMEP §806.02(a)
regarding the procedure for asserting more than one filing basis. Redundancies in the
identification of goods or services may be corrected by no-call examiner’s amendment.
See
TMEP
§707.02
.
The accuracy of identification language in the original
application is important because the identification cannot later be expanded.
Fender Musical Instruments Corp. v. Win-D-Fender, LLC
, 2023 USPQ2d
61, at *3 (TTAB 2023);
see
37
C.F.R. §2.71(a)
;
In re M.V Et Associes
, 21
USPQ2d 1628, 1630 (Comm’r Pats
on of goods or services may be corrected by no-call examiner’s amendment.
See
TMEP
§707.02
.
The accuracy of identification language in the original
application is important because the identification cannot later be expanded.
Fender Musical Instruments Corp. v. Win-D-Fender, LLC
, 2023 USPQ2d
61, at *3 (TTAB 2023);
see
37
C.F.R. §2.71(a)
;
In re M.V Et Associes
, 21
USPQ2d 1628, 1630 (Comm’r Pats. 1991);
TMEP §§1402.06-1402.06(b)
,
1402.07-1402.07(e)
.
See
TMEP
§1306.02(c)
regarding the identification of goods and services
in certification mark applications and
§1304.02(c)
regarding identification language in collective
membership mark applications.

## Nearby sections

- [TMEP § 1401.01 Statutory Authority](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.01.md)
- [TMEP § 1401.02 International Trademark Classification Adopted](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.02.md)
- [TMEP § 1401.02(a) Headings of International Trademark Classes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.02(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.02(b) Short Titles for International Trademark Classes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.02(b).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.02(c) International Alphabetical List](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.02(c).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.03 Designation of Class](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.03.md)
- [TMEP § 1401.03(a) Designation of Class by Applicant Normally Initially Accepted in Applications Under §§1 and 44](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.03(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.03(b) Designation of Class by USPTO When Class Number Is Not Designated or Is Inaccurate in Application Under §1 or §44](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.03(b).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.03(c) Failure to Classify May Delay Action in Applications Under §§1 and 44](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.03(c).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.03(d) Classification Determined by World Intellectual Property Organization in §66(a) Applications](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.03(d).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.04 Classification Determines Number of Fees](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.04.md)
- [TMEP § 1401.04(a) Prior United States Classification System](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.04(a).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.04(b) Limiting Goods and Services to the Number of Classes for Which Filing Fees Are Paid](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.04(b).md)
- [TMEP § 1401.05 Criteria on Which International Classification Is Based](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1401.05.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/TMEP_S1402.01. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.