What is a Trademark Disclaimer (with regards to a USPTO trademark application)?

(From uspto.gov/trademarks/DisclaimerPaper.doc)

A disclaimer states that the applicant or registrant does not claim the exclusive right to use a specified element or elements of the mark in a trademark application or registration, apart from the mark as a whole.

One purpose of a disclaimer is to permit the registration of a mark that is registrable as a whole but contains matter that would not be registrable standing alone, without creating a false impression of the extent of the registrant’s right with respect to certain elements in the mark.  

In describing this purpose, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has noted that disclaimers may serve to “…facilitate the commercial purposes of the trademark law.” In re K-T Zoe Furniture Inc., 16 F.3d 390 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  Because disclaimers identify descriptive, generic, and informational components of marks, disclaimers may be relied upon when assessing marks for clearance purposes, in likelihood of confusion analyses in trademark prosecution or enforcement situations, and in assessing the availability to engage in fair use of the components.  Disclaimers may also impact trademark litigation by offering guidance to courts as to which elements are entitled to greater or lesser weight when comparing marks.

Some disclaimer to registration is filed in about 19.6 percent of  USPTO applications and registrations according to a 2013 USPTO study.  (Graham, Stuart J. H., Hancock, Galen, Marco, Alan C. and Myers, Amanda F., The USPTO Trademark Case Files Dataset: Descriptions, Lessons, and Insights (January 31, 2013))

Is the Evidence Conclusive and Persuasive That A Disclaimer is Required?

What About Third Party Registrations?

Third-party registrations can be used by a trademark examiner in the manner of a dictionary definition to illustrate how a term is perceived in the trade or industry. In re J.M. Originals Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (TTAB 1987) (“Said third party registrations are of use only if they tend to demonstrate that a mark or a portion thereof is suggestive or descriptive of certain goods and hence is entitled to a narrow scope of protection. Used in this limited manner, ‘third party registrations are similar to dictionaries showing how language is generally used.’”) In re Box Solutions Corp.  (TTAB 2006).

But each case must be decided on its own merits and what is descriptive and requiring a disclaimer in one case does not necessarily hold for another.

TMEP 1209.03(a)   Third-Party Registrations

Third-party registrations are not conclusive on the question of descriptiveness. Each case must stand on its own merits, and a mark that is merely descriptive must not be registered on the Principal Register simply because other such marks appear on the register. In re theDot Commc’ns Network LLC, 101 USPQ2d 1062, 1067 (TTAB 2011) (holding .music merely descriptive for, inter alia, on-line social networking services, domain registration services, interactive hosting services, electronic publishing, recording, and production services, online retail store and promotional services, and downloadable files and recordings despite the presence of third-party registrations for marks consisting of “dot ____” or “.____”); In re Scholastic Testing Serv., Inc., 196 USPQ 517, 519 (TTAB 1977) (holding SCHOLASTIC merely descriptive of devising, scoring, and validating tests for others despite the presence of other marks on the Register using the word “Scholastic”). The question of whether a mark is merely descriptive must be determined based on the evidence of record at the time registration is sought. See In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding ULTIMATE BIKE RACK merely descriptive of “bicycle racks” despite the presence of “ultimate” without a disclaimer in other marks on the Principal Register); In re Sun Microsystems Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1084 (TTAB 2001) (holding AGENTBEANS merely descriptive of computer software for use in software development and deployment where the Board found that changes in the vocabulary of the field reduced the relevance of third-party registrations).

Trademark Disclaimers and Unitary Marks

The Trademark Act provides for a way for trademarks containing unregisterable matter to be registered on the Principal Register or Supplemental Register (In re Carolyn’s Candies, Inc., 206 USPQ 356, 360 (TTAB 1980)) by requiring that the unregisterable part of the mark be disclaimed. Every rule has exceptions, if the unregisterable part and the registerable part together create a “unitary” mark, the otherwise unregisterable part does not have to be disclaimed. A mark or portion of a mark is considered “unitary” when it creates a commercial impression separate and apart from any unregistrable component (TMEP 1213.05).

Specific categories of unitary matter has emerged through case law and USPTO policy, such as compound word marks, telescoped words, hyphenated terms, slogans, double entendre, incongruity, and visual display of the mark conveying a unitary whole. See TMEP 1213 Disclaimer of Elements in Marks for more information. Unitary mark claiming can also eliminate problems with merely-desciptive refusals in some cases. See How to Analyze If A Trademark Is A Unitary Mark.

How Common are Problems With Disclaimers? Very Common

Between April 16, 2008 and October 16, 2010, approximately 29% of first Office actions (not including examiner’s amendments), 6% of final Office actions, and 5.5% of appeals to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board contained a disclaimer requirement. (From uspto.gov/trademarks/DisclaimerPaper.doc)

Standard Disclaimer Form

The standardized disclaimer text is as follows:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ____________, apart from the mark as shown.

Where non-adjacent components of a mark, or adjacent components that do not form a grammatically or otherwise unitary expression must be disclaimed, the following format is suggested:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ________ or ________, apart from the mark as shown.

The standard wording required for a design element is:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the design of “____” apart from the mark as shown.

For non-Latin characters, the following format is suggested:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the non-Latin characters that transliterate to “[specify Latin character transliteration]” apart from the mark as shown.  

Refusal to Register Because of Failure to Disclaim

 Registration may be refused if an applicant does not comply with a requirement for a disclaimer made by the examining attorney. See In re Slokevage, 441 F.3d 957, 78 USPQ2d 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 77 USPQ2d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Omaha Nat’l Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 2 USPQ2d 1859 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Richardson Ink Co., 511 F.2d 559, 185 USPQ 46 (C.C.P.A. 1975); In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 197 USPQ 188 (TTAB 1977); In re Pendleton Tool Industries, Inc., 157 USPQ 114 (TTAB 1968). If an applicant fails to comply with the examining attorney’s requirement for a disclaimer, the examining attorney should make the requirement final if the application is otherwise in condition for a final action. TMEP 1213.01(b) Refusal to Register Because of Failure to Disclaim

Examples of Disclaimers Required/Not Required by the USPTO


TTAB Decision or Case

BEIN creates a different commercial impression than does BEIN SPORT. While SPORT may be descriptive and both parties disclaimed SPORT in the involved and pleaded applications, “a disclaimer with the Patent and Trademark Office does not remove the disclaimed matter from the purview of determination of likelihood of confusion.”


In the context of computer goods, SOLUTIONS is a term that is used to describe the purpose of the computer to resolve a problem. In view thereof, we find that SOLUTIONS is descriptive of applicant’s goods and that the required disclaimer is appropriate.

In re Box Solutions Corp.  (TTAB 2006)

The generic top-level domain (TLD) “.com” merely indicates an Internet address for use by commercial, for-profit organizations and, in general, adds no source identifying significance and must be disclaimed unless it is part of a unitary expression.

In re Oppedahl & Larsen LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1175-76, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 87 USPQ2d 1100, 1105 (TTAB 2008); see  TMEP §§1209.03(m).

BEER 1 with "BEER" disclaimer

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Kelly J. Holt (TTAB 2009)

Mark comprising stylized lettering of BALSAM, with disclaimer of “BALSAM,” found registrable on Supplemental Register for hair conditioner and hair shampoo.

In re Wella Corp., 565 F.2d 143, 196 USPQ 7 (C.C.P.A. 1977)

Thistle design found synonymous to the word “thistle,” which is used in a descriptive sense to designate a class of sailboats. No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the design of “thistle” apart from the mark as shown.

Thistle Class Ass’n v. Douglass & McLeod, Inc., 198 USPQ 504 (TTAB 1978)

Words or abbreviations in a trade name designating the legal character of an entity (e.g., Corporation, Corp., Co., Inc., Ltd., etc.) must be disclaimed because an entity designation has no source-indicating capacity.

In re Piano Factory Group, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522 (TTAB 2006)

The familial business structure of an entity (e.g., “& Sons” or “Bros.”) must be disclaimed because an entity designation has no source-indicating capacity.

In re Piano Factory Group, Inc., 85 USPQ2d 1522 (TTAB 2006)

PRESS as applied to a printing or publishing establishment, “is in the nature of a generic entity designation which is incapable of serving a source-indicating function.”

In re Taylor & Francis [Publishers] Inc., 55 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (TTAB 2000)

PAINT PRODUCTS CO. is no more registrable for goods emanating from a company that sells paint products than it would be as a service mark for the retail paint store services offered by such a company.

In re The Paint Products Co., 8 USPQ2d 1863, 1866 (TTAB 1988)

DESIGNERS PLUS+ for sweaters held unitary; thus, no disclaimer of “DESIGNERS” deemed necessary.

In re Hampshire-Designers, Inc., 199 USPQ 383 (TTAB 1978)

AMERICA’S FRESHEST ICE CREAM for flavored ices, etc., held incapable of distinguishing applicant’s goods and unregistrable on the Supplemental Register.

In re Carvel Corp., 223 USPQ 65 (TTAB 1984)

WHY PAY MORE! held to be an unregistrable common commercial phrase.

In re Wakefern Food Corp., 222 USPQ 76 (TTAB 1984)

GALA ROUGE is NOT a unitary mark, such that the admittedly descriptive word ROUGE need be disclaimed. Purchasers encountering GALA ROUGE, as applied to wine, will view GALA as the brand name, and ROUGE as the color or type of wine.

In re Brown-Forman Corporation (TTAB 2006)

SNAP ON 3000 AIRMATIC (in standard character form) for various items of furniture hardware and fittings. The requirement for a disclaimer of “SNAP ON 3000” reversed and “SNAP ON and 3000” were required to be disclaimed.

In re Grass GmbH (TTAB 2006)

ALPHA ANALYTICS directly and immediately informs the investor/purchaser of applicant’s investment advisory and mutual fund investment services that a salient feature or characteristic of those services is that applicant, in determining the desirability of a potential investment for the investor/purchaser and in order to maximize the investor/purchaser’s return on investment, performs “analytics” of the “alpha” of the potential investment.

In re Alpha Analytics Investment Group, LLC (TTAB 2002)

Call us at 1-651-500-7590 to help eliminate problems with disclaimers and register a strong trademark. A plan for a strong trademark is one that looks ahead to issues like:

Can I claim exclusive rights to use this trademark?

Does this trademark meet the qualifications for being registered on the USPTO Principal Register?

Is this trademark strong enough that others would want to license it from me?

Does this trademark have potential to extend to other product lines?

Is this mark inherently distinctive?

Are there others users of this mark that could prevent me from using this mark or would sue me or prevent me from getting federal registration because they can prove they are prior users?

Are there valid reasons for someone to oppose or cancel the mark because the mark doesn’t qualify for protection or because they have superior rights?

Would the USPTO find a likelihood of confusion with someone else’s registered or pending trademark and prevent my registration of this mark?

Would a court enforce the use of this trademark?

Do I have to somehow acquire distinctiveness for this mark before it would be recognized as being protectable? Does this mark use such common terms that it would be called a weak trademark?

Is this mark descriptive or deceptive or geographically descriptive?

Do I use the mark in a way that increases my rights or am I using it in a way where it does not function as a trademark?

Our rates are very reasonable and we support your application all the way through a normal prosecution including responding to refusals for the fixed application price. Our fixed price per classification for the whole package may be less than what you might pay to another attorney or law firm just to answer a USPTO Office Action Refusal at an hourly rate.

If you have already received a refusal, we can provide a quick and economical Response to Office Action (ROA). If someone is using your trademark in a way that harms you, we may be able to stop them through an opposition or a cancellation proceeding. If you are being opposed or are threatened with cancellation, we may be able to help as well. Timing is very important for a bunch of reasons: Opposition times are very short, times to answer Petitions to Cancel are only 40 days from when the petitions are filed, times to answer Oppositions can be very short, and sitting on your rights in general can cause problems. Don’t delay calling. We can help.


Not Just Patents®

Aim Higher® Facts Matter

Not Just Patents® LLC

PO Box 18716

Minneapolis, MN 55418



Call 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal for Responses to Office Actions; File or Defend an Opposition or Cancellation; Trademark Searches and Applications; Send or Respond to Cease and Desist Letters.

For more information from Not Just Patents, see our other sites:      

Evolved Means, Method or Format-Is your trademark registration obsolete?

Trademark e Search    Strong Trademark     Enforcing Trade Names

Common Law Trademarks  Trademark Goodwill   Abandoned Trademarks

Chart of Patent vs. Trade Secret

Patent or Trademark Assignments

Trademark Disclaimers   Trademark Dilution     TSDR Status Descriptors

Oppose or Cancel? Examples of Disclaimers  Business Cease and Desist

Patent, Trademark & Copyright Inventory Forms

USPTO Search Method for Likelihood of Confusion

Verify a Trademark  Be First To File    How to Trademark Search

Are You a Content Provider-How to Pick an ID  Specimens: webpages

How to Keep A Trade Secret

Decrease Your Vulnerability to Cancellation

Using Slogans (Taglines), Model Numbers as Trademarks

Which format? When Should I  Use Standard Characters?

Opposition Pleadings    UDRP Elements    

Oppositions-The Underdog    Misc Changes to TTAB Rules 2017

How To Answer A Trademark Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Integrity: Are your IP Assets Vulnerable?

Trademark Refusals    Does not Function as a Mark Refusals

Insurance Extension  Advantages of ®  ApplyTM.com

How to Respond to Office Actions  Final Refusal

What is a Compact Patent Prosecution?

Acceptable Specimen       Supplemental Register   $224 Statement of Use

How To Show Acquired Distinctiveness Under 2(f)

Trademark-Request for Reconsideration

Why Not Just Patents? Functional Trademarks   How to Trademark     

What Does ‘Use in Commerce’ Mean?    

Grounds for Opposition & Cancellation     Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Incontestability  TTAB Manual (TBMP)

Valid/Invalid Use of Trademarks     Trademark Searching

TTAB/TBMP Discovery Conferences & Stipulations

TBMP 113 TTAB Document Service  TBMP 309 Standing

Examples and General Rules for Likelihood of Confusion

Examples of Refusals for Likelihood of Confusion   DuPont Factors

What are Dead or Abandoned Trademarks?

 Can I Use An Abandoned Trademark?

Color as Trade Dress  3D Marks as Trade Dress  

Can I Abandon a Trademark During An Opposition?

Differences between TEAS, TEAS RF and TEAS plus  

Extension of Time to Oppose?

Ornamental Refusal  Standard TTAB Protective Order

SCAM Letters Surname Refusal

What Does Published for Opposition Mean?

What to Discuss in the Discovery Conference

Descriptive Trademarks Trademark2e.com  

Likelihood of Confusion 2d  TMOG Trademark Tuesday

Acquired Distinctiveness  2(f) or 2(f) in part

Merely Descriptive Trademarks  

Merely Descriptive Refusals

ID of Goods and Services see also Headings (list) of International Trademark Classes

Register a Trademark-Step by Step  

Protect Business Goodwill Extension of Time to Oppose

Geographically Descriptive or Deceptive

Change of Address with the TTAB using ESTTA

Likelihood of confusion-Circuit Court tests

Pseudo Marks    How to Reply to Cease and Desist Letter

Not Just Patents Often Represents the Underdog

 Overcome Merely Descriptive Refusal   Overcome Likelihood Confusion

Protecting Trademark Rights (Common Law)

Steps in a Trademark Opposition Process   

Section 2(d) Refusals   FilingforTrademark.com

Zombie Trademark  

What is the Difference between Principal & Supplemental Register?

Typical Brand Name Refusals  What is a Family of Marks? What If Someone Files An Opposition Against My Trademark?

How to Respond Office Actions  

DIY Overcoming Descriptive Refusals

Trademark Steps Trademark Registration Answers TESS  

Trademark Searching Using TESS  Trademark Search Tips

Trademark Clearance Search   DIY Trademark Strategies

Published for Opposition     What is Discoverable in a TTAB Proceeding?

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses

©2008-2018 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.

Call: 1-651-500-7590 or email: WP@NJP.legal. This site is for informational purposes only and is provided without warranties, express or implied, regarding the information's accuracy, timeliness, or completeness and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship exists without a written contract between Not Just Patents LLC and its client. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Privacy Policy Contact Us