IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: PEOPLE BEFORE POLITICS slogan on advertising and apparel failed to function as a mark, (Apr 6, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The TTAB refused registration of the proposed mark PEOPLE BEFORE POLITICS because it was merely informational and constituted a common social or political slogan which would not been by the public as a source indicator.

A political campaign committee would not be allowed to register the proposed mark PEOPLE BEFORE POLITICS, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held. The mark failed to function as a source indicator and would be seen by the public as informational or a common political slogan (In re: Cameron Sexton for State Representative, March 31, 2023, Greenbaum, C.).

Cameron Sexton for State Representative (Sexton), a Tennessee political campaign committee, sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark PEOPLE BEFORE POLITICS for use with a variety of advertising and fundraising goods and services in International Classes 16, 25, 35, 36, and 41. The Examining Attorney refused registration as to each class on the ground that the proposed mark failed to function as a mark but was merely informational and constituted a common slogan that is widely used in the marketplace. The Examining Attorney also refused registration as to classes 35 and 36 on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the existing registered mark PEOPLE BEFORE PARTY. Sexton appealed.

Failure to function. Sexton’s specimen consisted of the proposed mark directly below the name of a candidate running for office, specifically, Cameron Sexton. The board found that this use amounted to a political message or slogan. The Examining Attorney presented voluminous examples of use of this same slogan by other politicians, political commentators, apparel, and a Spotify podcast, all to show that the slogan did not function as a source indicator. Sexton argued that the mark would function as a source indicator because no other political candidates or campaign had used the mark. The board held that this claim of exclusive use was simply incorrect, and that the slogan was in such widespread use it could not be seen as an indicator of the source of goods or services. The Board sustained the refusal to register.

Because the Board sustained the refusal to register as to all classes on the failure to function basis it did not reach the alternative likelihood of confusion argument.

The Case is Serial No. 90211624.

Attorneys: William A. Wooten (Wooten Law Office) for Cameron Sexton for State Representative. K. Margaret Le for the USPTO.

Companies: Cameron Sexton State Representative

Cases: Trademark USPTO GCNNews