IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register MONSTER TRUCK SHOW and MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW affirmed, (Apr 22, 2025)

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

Refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark MONSTER TRUCK SHOW due to its descriptiveness and generic nature was affirmed, and the amendment of the proposed mark from MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW materially altered the proposed mark.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s mark MONSTER TRUCK SHOW under Section 23(c) and Section 2(e)(1) on the ground that the mark was generic, or alternatively, merely descriptive of the applicant’s ticketing and informational services related to truck shows. The TTAB also affirmed the rejection of the applicant’s attempted amendment of the proposed mark from MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW on the ground that it constituted a material alteration (In re Safonov, No. 90866870 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2025)).

Background. Alexander Safonov (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the mark MONSTER TRUCK SHOW in International Class 41. However, the examining attorney refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) on the ground that the proposed mark is merely descriptive of the applicant’s services. The applicant amended the application to the Supplemental Register and later attempted to amend the drawing of the proposed mark from MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW. The examining attorney rejected the attempted drawing amendment as a material alteration of the proposed mark, but accepted the amendment to the Supplemental Register and refused registration under Trademark Act Section 23(c) on the ground that the proposed mark is generic and thus incapable of distinguishing the applicant’s services.

After the examining attorney issued a final refusal on both grounds and a final rejection of the attempted drawing amendment, the applicant appealed and filed an appeal brief that argued in the alternative that MONSTER TRUCK SHOW has acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f). Since the applicant had not claimed acquired distinctiveness during prosecution, the TTAB treated the new Section 2(f) claim as a request for remand and remanded the application to the examining attorney for consideration of the claim. The examining attorney issued a subsequent final Office action finding the applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctness insufficient, refusing registration under both Section 2(e)(1) and Section 23(c), and rejecting the applicant’s drawing amendment.

The applicant appealed the examining attorney’s refusal to register the standard character proposed mark MONSTER TRUCK SHOW on the Supplemental Register for, as amended, “arranging for online ticket reservations for truck shows; providing online information on the scheduling of truck shows,” in International Class 41.

Material alteration. The applicant asserted that the amendment of the mark drawing from MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW made the proposed mark more consistent with the way the applicant uses and advertises the mark. The examining attorney contended that the amendment must be rejected because it materially alters the proposed mark the applicant originally applied for. The examining attorney argued that in the amended form the applicant sought to create the impression of a website address that did not exist in the mark submitted in the original application. That is, the amended proposed mark would resemble a website address in which MONSTERTRUCK is the domain and.SHOW is the top-level domain, so that those viewing the amended proposed mark would perceive it, and likely pronounce it, as MONSTERTRUCK [dot] SHOW.

The TTAB did not find the applicant’s argument that the amendment was a reasonable evolution persuasive. The TTAB noted that the change from MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW might seem relatively minimal, consisting of the deletion of spaces between the component terms and the addition of a period, or “dot,” between TRUCK and SHOW. However, the resulting change to the proposed mark’s commercial impression was significant. Thus, the amended version of the proposed mark was sufficiently different from the original that republication of the proposed mark would be required to provide fair notice for opposition purposes. Accordingly, the TTAB affirmed the refusal to enter the applicant’s amendment of the proposed mark from MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to MONSTERTRUCK.SHOW because that amendment would constitute a material alteration of the proposed mark.

Genericness. The TTAB noted that generic terms are ineligible for registration on either the Principal Register or Supplemental Register. The TTAB found that MONSTER TRUCK SHOW is commonly used to identify a type of entertainment exhibition featuring specialized off-road vehicles and that the applicant and others in the marketplace provide online ticketing and scheduling information for such entertainment exhibitions. Thus, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the proposed mark MONSTER TRUCK SHOW is understood by the relevant public primarily as referring to a key aspect of the services of “arranging for online ticket reservations for truck shows” and “providing online information on the scheduling of truck shows.” Therefore, the TTAB determined that MONSTER TRUCK SHOW is generic as applied to the applicant’s services and affirmed the refusal under Section 23(c) to register the proposed mark on the Supplemental Register.

Mere descriptiveness and acquired distinctiveness. The TTAB considered the examining attorney’s refusal under Section 2(e)(1) on the ground that MONSTER TRUCK SHOW is merely descriptive of the applicant’s services, as well as the applicant’s claim, made in the alternative, that the proposed mark has acquired distinctiveness. The TTAB rejected the applicant’s argument that MONSTER TRUCK SHOW does not directly describe the applicant’s services and is inherently distinctive and suggestive because the wording MONSTER TRUCK is inherently ambiguous and conveys no concrete information about the applicant’s services. The TTAB noted that as the record established that "MONSTER TRUCK SHOW" is generic for the applicant’s services, it inherently follows that the proposed mark is also at least merely descriptive of those services.

The TTAB also found that the applicant’s evidence of acquired distinctiveness fell short in establishing that the relevant public understands the primary significance of MONSTER TRUCK SHOW to be an indicator of source. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet its burden of showing that the highly descriptive term MONSTER TRUCK SHOW has acquired distinctiveness. Accordingly, the TTAB affirmed the refusal under Section 2(e)(1) because the proposed mark was highly descriptive of the applicant’s services and the applicant had not established that the term has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f).

The Case is Serial No. 90866870.

Judge: Lavache, R.

Attorneys: Ilya Libenzon (The Law Office of Ilya Libenzon) for Alexander Safonov. Howard Levine for the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark USPTO GCNNews