IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register ‘BOSTON STRONG’ affirmed, term did not act as source indicator, (Aug 15, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

“The record here supports a finding that BOSTON STRONG conveys a common message of support for the city of Boston and that it is incapable of functioning as a mark.”

A trademark examining attorney properly refused to register the proposed mark “BOSTON STRONG” for the purposes of volleyball entertainment on the ground that the mark is in common use and fails to function as a source indicator, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has ruled. “BOSTON STRONG” was first used after the tragic Boston Marathon terrorist attack in 2013 to support for the city of Boston. The evidence showed its continued use today as a message of support for the city. A variety of products, such as jewelry, mugs, and clothing items, also were presented as evidence to show its common and continued use (In re Franklin Sports, Inc., No. 98326109 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2025)).

Common use. “BOSTON STRONG,” the TTAB noted, is associated even today with sporting events, such as the Boston Red Sox opening day. The 2013 bombing occurred on that year’s opening day for the Boston Red Sox, and the annual remembrance of that day has been continued by the Red Sox baseball team, Marathon competitors, basketball and lacrosse tournaments, and special Olympic events. The TTAB also noted that the record “also includes webpages showing BOSTON STRONG products, such as jewelry, stickers, keychains, masks, mugs, and clothing items including hats, t-shirts, jackets, and hoodies, are currently available online from multiple sources.” In addition, multiple 2024 news articles containing the words showed that uses of “BOSTON STRONG” remain in the public eye, according to the TTAB.

Arguments. The applicant argued that media coverage of its use of “BOSTON STRONG” in connection with a volleyball team would transform the phrase into a source-identifying mark, similar to “BOSTON CELTICS” or “BOSTON BRUINS.” The TTAB disagreed, calling the idea that the words could be changed from common use into a source indicator by the media’s use of them in that way was “entirely speculative.”

The applicant also argued that the reviewing trademark attorney’s failure to function refusal was prematurely issued against its intent-to-use application. However, according to the TTAB, that contention “ignores the more specific guidance pertaining to proposed marks found to be merely informational, a category which includes not just proposed marks conveying general information about the goods or services, but a religious text, or, as here, a common phrase or message.”

The applicant also brought a comparison “CHICAGO FIRE” as an example of how common messages may serve a dual function. The Chicago Fire Football Club is an American professional soccer team based in the city of Chicago. The TTAB agreed that a common message could serve a dual function but noted that the Chicago Fire was an historical event, and that there was no evidence that “Chicago Fire” is a common message.

The Board affirmed the registration refusal.

The Case is Serial No. 98326109.

Judge: Dunn, E.

Attorneys: Michelle Brownlee (General Counsel) for Franklin Sports, Inc. Samantha Agreda for the USPTO.

Companies: Franklin Sports, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO