IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: TTAB reverses specimen refusal, finding multi-page website qualifies as point-of-sale display for pet food mark, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

A multi-page website specimen satisfied the display-associated-with-goods standard despite requiring several clicks to complete a purchase.

In a non-precedential opinion, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed a refusal to register the mark RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT, finding that a website specimen spanning multiple pages adequately functioned as a point-of-sale display even though the applied-for mark appeared only on the first page and consumers had to navigate through additional pages to complete a purchase. The Board concluded that the specimen, viewed as a whole, put prospective purchasers at the point of purchase (In re Raised Right Pets, L.P., No. 98709772 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2026)).

Background. Raised Right Pets, L.P. sought registration of RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT in standard characters on the Principal Register for goods in International Class 31, including cat food, dog food, pet food, and various edible treats. The application was filed on an intent-to-use basis under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act.

After a notice of allowance issued, Applicant filed a statement of use with a two-page brochure described as a sales display. The Managing Attorney rejected it on two grounds: the specimen did not show the mark as it appeared in the drawing, and the brochure was mere advertising rather than a point-of-sale display. Applicant's response to the Office Action was procedurally deficient, as it omitted the referenced substitute specimen entirely, and a Final Office Action followed on the same grounds.

Applicant then pursued two rounds of reconsideration. The First Substitute Specimen consisted of pages from https://www.raisedrightpets.com/veterinary-support. The Managing Attorney rejected it because the product images on the page displayed a different mark, and no ordering mechanism appeared on the page where the applied-for mark appeared.

The Second Substitute Specimen pulled additional pages from the same website. The Managing Attorney again rejected it. The product images still showed a different mark, and consumers had to make three additional mouse clicks from the page displaying the applied-for mark before they could actually buy anything. The applicant appealed.

Waived arguments. The applicant's briefs did not contest the Managing Attorney's finding that the mark on the product packaging in the specimen images, RAISED RIGHT RR, did not match the applied-for mark, RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT. The applicant also said nothing about the Original Specimen or the First Substitute Specimen. The Board deemed those arguments waived and affirmed the refusal as to those specimens. The only question left was the Second Substitute Specimen.

Legal framework. Under Section 45 of the Trademark Act, a mark is in use in commerce on goods when it is placed on the goods, their containers, or the displays associated therewith. The Board applied the three-part test from In re MN Apparel LLC: a website specimen must (1) contain a picture or textual description of the identified goods, (2) show the mark in association with the goods, and (3) provide a means for ordering the goods. The broader standard, drawn from In re Sones and In re Siny Corp., asks whether the specimen associates the mark with the goods as a source indicator and whether the display is calculated to consummate a sale. Mere advertising does not clear that bar.

Second substitute specimen. The Managing Attorney's objection was structural. The applied-for mark appeared only on the first page of the website, while the actual purchase mechanism required navigating through several additional pages. That gap, in the Managing Attorney's view, broke the required connection between the mark and the ordering process.

The Board disagreed after examining the specimen independently. The top of the first webpage displayed RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT in a prominent, stylized format in the upper-center of the page. Immediately adjacent to the mark were a "buy a box" dropdown tab and a shopping cart icon. Lower on the same page, the specimen included descriptions and images of Applicant's goods explaining that the products are human-grade pet food, gently cooked and frozen by Applicant, thawed by the consumer, and then served to the pet. A "choose recipes" button appeared there as well.

The Board acknowledged that "choose recipes" was not a model of clarity as a call to action for adding items to a cart. But the "buy a box" dropdown and the shopping cart icon, sitting directly next to the mark on the same page, resolved any ambiguity. The Board inferred that those elements led consumers to a subsequent page, also part of the specimen, where they could select from 16-bag, 8-bag, or 4-bag box options at stated prices and complete a purchase.

The packaging shown in the product images bore a different mark, RAISED RIGHT RR HUMAN GRADE, not the applied-for mark. The Board did not treat that as fatal. The applied-for mark appeared prominently at the top of the page, directly above product images, descriptions, and purchasing tools. Taken together, those elements showed the mark functioning as a source identifier for goods being offered for sale. The Board cited Sones for the requirement that the USPTO "consider the evidence as a whole to determine if [a] specimen sufficiently associates [the] mark with [the] goods so as to identify and distinguish the goods."

All three MN Apparel elements were satisfied. The page contained pictures and written descriptions of the pet food products. The applied-for mark appeared in the upper-center of the page in close proximity to those products. The "buy a box" dropdown, shopping cart icon, and "choose recipes" button, read together and traced through to the box-selection page included in the specimen, provided a concrete means to purchase the goods.

The Board therefore reversed the refusal and directed the application to proceed to registration.

The Case is Serial No. 98709772.

Judge: Elgin, J.

Attorneys: Tedd S. Levine (Law Offices of Tedd S. Levine, LLC) for Raised Right Pets, L.P. Myriah Habeeb for the USPTO.

Companies: Raised Right Pets, L.P.

Cases: Trademark USPTO