Specimens 101 - Filing Trademark Applications Correctly with Experienced Trademark Lawyer Nathan Moore

Specimens 101: The Most Common USPTO Refusal—and How to Avoid It

Most trademark applications fail for one simple reason: the specimen doesn’t prove real-world use. A specimen is your evidence—what the customer sees when they meet your brand in the wild. Get it right, and your filing moves. Get it wrong, and you lose time and money.

What the USPTO Wants

  • For goods: the mark on packaging, labels, hangtags, the product itself, or a product page that actually sells (price + cart/ordering info).
  • For services: ads, brochures, or website pages that show the mark while describing the services and how to hire you.
  • Clarity: the mark must look like a brand, not decoration. It should identify who provides the product or service.

What Gets Refused

  • Mockups, Photoshop overlays, printer’s proofs, or “coming soon” pages with no way to buy or hire.
  • Purely ornamental use (e.g., a slogan splashed across the front of a t‑shirt with no brand labeling elsewhere).
  • Invoices, purchase orders, or shipping labels alone with no consumer-facing branding.

Build a Winning Specimen (Step‑by‑Step)

  1. Choose the right basis: If you’re not selling yet, file Intent‑to‑Use and submit your specimen later.
  2. Capture the moment of sale: Screenshot the product page with price and cart, or photograph packaging/labels on real goods.
  3. Show the mark as a brand: Use consistent, readable branding—not just big decoration.
  4. Match the filing: The specimen must show the same mark for the same goods/services you listed.
  5. Keep records: Date-stamped screenshots and photos help if the Examining Attorney asks questions.

Final Checklist

  • Does the specimen face the customer (not internal paperwork)?
  • Is it transactional (price, cart, or hiring instructions when relevant)?
  • Is the mark used as a source identifier (brand) and not just decoration?
  • Does it match the applied-for goods/services and the exact mark?

Quick Q&A

  • What counts as a valid specimen for goods?

    Labels, packaging, hangtags, product photos with the mark, or a live product page with price and a way to order.

  • What works for services?

    Ads, brochures, or website pages that show the mark and clearly offer the services with contact or booking details.

  • Can I use a website screenshot?

    Yes—if it shows the mark plus real buying or hiring signals (price, cart, checkout, order or booking instructions).

  • Are mockups or “coming soon” pages okay?

    No. The USPTO needs current use in commerce, not plans or previews.

  • What if I’m not selling yet?

    File Intent‑to‑Use now and submit your specimen later once sales or services begin.

 

Delays are what you want to avoid is trademark registration. The process is long enough when everything goes perfectly. Experience counts and knowing what specimens are acceptable will, and most importantly, will not work, avoid problems from the start.


Nathan Moore is a trademark attorney located in Nashville. Moore Law PC helps individuals and businesses successfully apply for and register trademarks nationwide.

Read More
Apple Wins Trademark Suit Against USPTO

Apple Wins Court Ruling—‘Reality Composer’ & ‘Reality Converter’ Trademarked

In a major win for Apple, a federal judge has ordered the USPTO to grant federal trademarks for its augmented reality development tools—“Reality Composer” and “Reality Converter.” The decision may reshape how tech companies establish brand distinctiveness in emerging software categories.

🧑‍⚖️ The Legal Backdrop

  • Apple initially applied to register the marks in 2023. The USPTO tribunal sided with Turkish visual‑effects firm Zero Density, finding them too descriptive.:
  • Zero Density argued that “Reality” was generic and Apple’s trademarks would confuse with its own marks like “Reality Engine.”:

⚖️ What Changed in Court

  • In August 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema reversed the USPTO decision, granting Apple’s marks after determining they were “suggestive” and had gained secondary meaning. Apple had successfully framed them as creative coined terms rather than merely functional descriptions.
  • Judge Brinkema explained: “Although the term ‘Reality’ is likely descriptive … the term stretches beyond its descriptive meaning when combined with ‘composer’ and ‘converter.’”

📌 Why This Matters

  • It sets a precedent for tech marks that may appear descriptive—but gain distinctiveness through usage and creative combination.
  • It may embolden tech companies developing AR, AI, or VR tools to pursue more aggressive branding strategies.
  • Zero Density’s own defense benefits: the decision may lend weight in other pending “Reality”-related disputes.

💡 Best Practice Takeaways

  1. Choose names that combine descriptive terms with a creative twist to support a strong argument for suggestiveness.
  2. Build consumer recognition early to support secondary meaning—use consistent branding across platforms, media, and marketing.
  3. Prepared to litigate? Position your application to highlight creativity, not just functionality.

Bottom line: This outcome marks a turning point in how AR and digital tools can achieve trademark protection. Apple’s win illustrates that even potentially descriptive phrases can succeed if presented strategically.

Need support?

Moore Law PC can help evaluate your trademark strategy, assess mark strength, or guide you through arguments focused on suggestiveness and secondary meaning.


Nathan Moore is a trademark attorney located in Nashville. Moore Law PC helps individuals and businesses successfully apply for and register trademarks nationwide.

Read More