IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register 'PROSCIUTTO DI CARPEGNA' mark for Italian ham products affirmed, (Jun 15, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The sequenced green, white, and red colors in the flag elements of the mark’s design were not used as fill for the flourish but rather those design elements appeared as an Italian flag.

The refusal of the application of an Italian ham producer to register the mark “PROSCIUTTO DI CARPEGNA” for its ham products for including a design element that was an Italian flag or simulation of an Italian flag was proper, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has determined in a nonprecedential order. The relevant consumers of prosciutto from Carpegna, Italy would be predisposed to view the mark through an Italian lens and would perceive the design as the Italian flag or a close simulation of an Italian flag. Thus, the refusal to register with respect to the application was affirmed (In re Consorzio Prosciutto di Carpegna, No. 87811048 (T.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2026)).

Consorzio Prosciutto di Carpegna (“Applicant”), a producer of prosciutto from the village of Carpegna in Italy, sought to register on the Principal Register its collective mark PROSCIUTTO DI CARPEGNA and design for “Prosciutto from the Carpegna region of Italy made in accordance with specific standards,” in International Class 200,” with the entire wording in the mark disclaimed. The description of the mark in the application states “The mark consists of the words PROSCIUTTO DI CARPEGNA in stylized black letters, with the work “PROSCIUTTO” at the top of the mark in an arc with gray shadows on the letters “SCIUTTO”, with the words “DI CARPEGNA” beneath the work “PROSCIUTTO” at a slight diagonal angle, with a stylized flourish under the “CARPEGNA”, having a green and a red hash mark with a gap therebetween as part of the stylized flourish, all on the white background.”

The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(b) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the Applicant’s mark included a depiction of the Italian flag. After the refusal was final, the Applicant appealed the refusal to register to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Flag marks. Comparing the Applicant’s design in the mark to an Italian flag, consumers would perceive the design as the Italian flag or a close simulation that gives the appearance or effect of the Italian flag, the Board determined. Section 2(b) “prohibits registration of a mark that includes a flag or any simulation thereof” and the word “simulation” in the statute “is used in its usual and generally understood meaning, namely, to refer to something that gives appearance or effect or has the characteristic of an original item.” Whether the design included in a mark “is or includes a flag is determined by a visual comparison” and the actual flag. The Italian flag is rectangular, wider than it is tall, with equal width vertical parallel stripes of green, white, and red (one each). In the Applicant’s drawing of the mark, the design has green, white, and red parallel stripes (one each) arrayed almost vertically. It is not depicted as a rectangle but looks like a tilted rectangle.

In its application, the Applicant originally described this feature in the mark as “the Italian flag in green, white and red as a part of the stylized underline” of the word Carpegna. The Applicant’s argument that: (1) the design was just part of a “flourish” and not a flag or simulation of a flag; (2) that consumers would not recognize the design as a flag at all since the mark was dominated by the words PROSCIUTTO and CARPEGNA; and (3) the design was only stylized flag elements, had no border around it, and its middle section was merely a gap was rejected. The relevant consumers were consumers of “Prosciutto from the Carpegna region of Italy” which predisposes them to view the mark through an Italian lens. The statutory language of Section 2(b) was clear and left “no room for Applicant’s extra-textual interpretation,” the Board explained.

The Applicant’s argument that the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) stated that if “the flag design is used to form a letter, number, or design,” examining attorneys would not refuse the registration was also rejected. The TMEP does not include marks where the flag is part of the design of the mark. In this matter, the flag elements (the sequenced green, white, and red colors) in the Applicant’s mark are not used as fill for the flourish. Rather, those design elements are portrayed as a quadrilateral composed of one each of vertical parallel green, white, and red stripes that break up the black flourish – meaning it appears as a flag. Thus, the examining attorney correctly found that the mark included an Italian flag, or a simulation of an Italian flag, and the application must be refused, the Board concluded.

The Case is Serial No. 87811048.

Judge: Casagrande, T.

Attorneys: Brian A. Tollefson (Tollefson IP) for Consorzio Prosciutto di Carpegna. Lisa Papale for the USPTO.

Companies: Consorzio Prosciutto di Carpegna

Cases: Trademark USPTO