IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK mark for clothing items affirmed, (Jun 9, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Applicant’s proposed mark was unregistrable as consumers perceive the wording LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK as merely ornamental wording on the shirt and patch.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK for various clothing items because the mark would be understood by consumers as merely ornamental and not as a source identifier. The TTAB also determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed mark had acquired distinctiveness due to insufficient evidence (In re City of Laconia, New Hampshire, No. 98201363 (T.T.A.B. May 28, 2026)).

Background. The City of Laconia, New Hampshire (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard-character mark LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK for clothing headwraps; gloves as clothing; headwear for men, women and children; jerseys being clothing; shirts for men, women and children; sweatshirts for men, women and children; t-shirts for men, women and children, in Class 25; and cloth patches for clothing; belt buckles, not of precious metal, for clothing; textile patches for clothing, in Class 26. The applicant disclaimed LACONIA and MOTORCYCLE. The examining attorney refused registration under Sections 1, 2, and 45, of the Trademark Act on the ground that the proposed mark, as used in the specimens of record, is merely an ornamental feature of the identified goods in both classes and thus does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of the applicant’s goods and to identify and distinguish them from those of others. The examining attorney also rejected the applicant’s claim that the proposed mark had acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. After the examining attorney issued a final refusal, the applicant appealed.

Failure-to-function. The TTAB noted that the applicant’s submitted specimen showed the applied-for mark, “LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK,” located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt and the middle of the cloth patch, where ornamental elements often appear. Furthermore, the design element that contains the mark was displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominated the overall appearance of the goods. Lastly, the applied-for mark appeared to be a design and slogan that was used in a merely decorative manner that would be perceived by consumers as having little or no particular source-identifying significance. The examining attorney argued that the applicant’s mark, as used on the specimens, would be viewed by consumers as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of the applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.

On the other hand, the applicant argued that the examining attorney acknowledged the specimens show use on the front of a shirt or patch in the final Office Action but failed to consider whether the public perceived the phrase as identifying a secondary source of the officially licensed goods, as was the case in In re Olin. Additionally, the applicant argued that its use of LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK also served an identifier of secondary source. The applicant contended that the consuming public recognizes LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK as the name of a specific, municipally controlled event and that it exercises quality control such that merchandise bearing the wording is widely understood to be officially licensed goods. The applicant also attempted to rely on several registrations for marks that include LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK. However, the TTAB found that these registrations were cancelled, or USPTO records did not indicate that the applicant is the current owner. Therefore, the TTAB concluded that the applicant’s attempt to prove that its applied-for mark LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK acts as source identifier for the applied-for goods based on secondary source failed because there was no evidence to substantiate its contentions. Accordingly, the TTAB agreed with the examining attorney’s reasoning that the proposed mark, LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK, would be understood by consumers as merely ornamental, rather than as a source identifier for the goods.

Acquired distinctiveness. The applicant sought to overcome the failure to function refusal based on its contention that it had presented substantial evidence of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act for LACONIA MOTORCYCLE WEEK. The applicant claimed that the evidence in the record included: (1) over 100 years of continuous use of the same phrase identifying the same event, (2) exclusive licensing and control by the City of Laconia since at least 2017, (3) chain-of-title assignment evidence, (4) prior USPTO registrations for the identical mark owned by the applicant previously deemed inherently distinctive or sufficiently distinctive for registration, and (5) specimens showing consistent commercial use. However, the applicant’s assertions were not supported by evidence of record. Moreover, the TTAB found that the applicant sought to rely on cancelled registrations and incorrectly claimed that the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1212.04(e) expressly stated that expired or cancelled registrations may support a § 2(f) claim when they concern the same wording for related goods. To the contrary, the TMEP clearly stated “a claim of acquired distinctiveness may not be based on a registration that is cancelled or expired.” Thus, the applicant failed to prove acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act.

Accordingly, the refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 98201363.

Attorneys: Michael J. Persson (Chisholm Persson & Ball, PC) for City of Laconia, New Hampshire. Bianca Allen for the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark NewHampshireNews USPTO