Inmate Photos, LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: January 15, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Inmate Photos, LLC
_____
Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
_____
Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC,
for Inmate Photos, LLC.
Taylor Barrese, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Chris Doninger, Managing Attorney.1
_____
Before Wellington, Elgin, and Stanley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Stanley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Inmate Photos, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Supplemental
Register of the standard-character marks FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS, both
for “printing services for printing photos and personalized items, namely, photo
1 The application was reassigned from the original Examining Attorney for purposes of
appeal. We refer to both Examining Attorneys as “the Examining Attorney.”

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 2 -
albums, photo posters, photo tiles, canvas prints, photo cards, photo blankets, photo
mouse pads, photo magnets, and photo cups,” in International Class 40.2
Registration of each proposed mark was refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that FREE PHOTOS and
FREEPHOTOS are merely descriptive of the identified services.3 The Examining
Attorney further advised that both proposed marks “appear[] to be generic” and
therefore the Examining Attorney could not recommend that Applicant amend the
applications to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f), or on
the Supplemental Register.4
After the mere descriptiveness refusals were made final, Applicant filed an
amendment to allege use and a request for reconsideration, seeking registration on
the Supplemental Register for both proposed marks.5 The Examining Attorney then
refused registration on the Supplemental Register under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1091(c) and 1127, on the ground that FREE PHOTOS
2 Application Serial Nos. 97513508 (FREE PHOTOS) and 97513513 (FREEPHOTOS) were
both filed on July 21, 2022 under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b),
based on Applicant’s allegation of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. On January
23, 2025, Applicant filed an amendment to allege use in both applications.
3 May 10, 2023 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 2-3 (for both applications).
Citations to the prosecution file are to the USPTO’s TRADEMARK STATUS & DOCUMENT
RETRIEVAL (“TSDR”) system in .pdf format. Citations to the appeal record are to TTABVUE,
the Board’s online docketing system
4 Id. at 2.
5 January 23, 2025 Amendment to Allege Use (for both applications); January 24, 2025
Request for Reconsideration (for both applications). The effective filing date of the
applications became January 23, 2025, the date Applicant filed an amendment to allege use
for both proposed marks. See Trademark Rule 2.75(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.75(b). See also
TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) §§ 206.01, 816.02, and 1102.03
(Oct. 2018).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 3 -
and FREEPHOTOS are generic for Applicant’s identified services,6 and also refused
registration of FREE PHOTOS under Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1127,
because the specimen did not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce.7 After
the refusals were made final, Applicant appealed.
These appeals raise common questions of law and fact. The proposed standard-
character marks FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS create the same commercial
impression; the presence or absence of a space between FREE and PHOTOS is not
material. See, e.g., In re Aquamar, Inc., No. 85861533, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 178, at *6-
7 (“There is no evidence that combining ‘mar’ and ‘azul’ into a single term without a
space between the constituent words results in the mark creating a commercial
impression any different from MAR AZUL with a space between the constituent
words[.]”); In re Best W. Fam. Steak House, Inc., No. 315241, 1984 TTAB LEXIS 173,
at *1 (BEEFMASTER and BEEF MASTER are “practically identical”). The
application records likewise are substantially similar. In the interest of judicial
economy, we consolidate the appeals and decide them together. See In re
Pohl‑Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG, No. 85007428, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 7, at *3; see also
TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) §1214 (2025).
We have considered all arguments and evidence filed in each appeal. Where the
6 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 3-7; Serial No.,
97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 3-7.
7 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 7-8. The
Examining Attorney issued the same specimen refusal against FREEPHOTOS, see Serial
No., 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 7-8, but later withdrew
that refusal, noting that it “was issued in error.” Serial No. 97513513, May 16, 2025
Subsequent Final Office Action, TSDR at 1.

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 4 -
evidence or arguments apply to the proposed FREE PHOTOS mark, we cite to the
record and briefs for Serial No. 97513508, and where the evidence or arguments apply
to the proposed FREEPHOTOS mark, we cite to the record and briefs for Serial No.
97513513.
For the reasons below, we affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed
FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS marks on the ground that both are generic as
applied to the identified services. Because that ground is dispositive, we do not reach
the alternative specimen refusal to the proposed FREE PHOTOS mark. See, e.g., In
re Suuberg, No. 88234650, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 459, at *11-12 (exercising discretion to
forgo consideration of a second ground for refusal where the affirmed ground sufficed
to refuse registration); Azeka Bldg. Corp. v. Azeka, No. 91218679, 2017 TTAB LEXIS
123, at *4 (Board has “discretion to decide only those claims necessary to enter
judgment and dispose of the case”) (quoting Multisorb Tech., Inc. v. Pactive Corp., No.
92054730, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 616, at *3).
I. Genericness
“Generic terms are common names that the relevant purchasing public
understands primarily as describing the genus of goods or services being sold.” In re
Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted). Generic terms “are by definition incapable of indicating a particular source
of the goods or services, and cannot be registered as trademarks” on either the

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 5 -
Principal Register or Supplemental Register. Id.; see also USPTO v. Booking.com
B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020) (“Booking.com”).8
Whether a particular term or phrase is generic is a question of fact. In re Cordua
Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 599 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Resolution of that question depends
on the primary significance of the term to the relevant public. Booking.com, 591 U.S.
at 556. More specifically, the genericness inquiry follows a two-part test: “First, what
is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered
… understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or
services?” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., 786
F.3d 960, 966 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]here is only one legal standard for genericness: the
two-part test set forth in Marvin Ginn[.]”).
Importantly, to find a term generic, the evidence need not show that the term
refers to a whole category of services, i.e., the entire genus; rather, genericness may
be found if the term refers to a subcategory of the claimed genus of services or a key
aspect of them. See Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 605 (“[T]he term ‘pizzeria’ would be
generic for restaurant services, even though the public understands the term to refer
to a particular sub-group or type of restaurant rather than to all restaurants.”); In re
1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming that
“mattress” is generic for online retail store services featuring mattresses and related
8 Applicant’s amendment to seek registration of FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS on the
Supplemental Register constitutes an admission that the terms are not inherently
distinctive. See Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Quaker Oil Corp., 453 F.2d 1296, 1299
(1972).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 6 -
goods); In re Twenty-Two Desserts, LLC, No. 86586833, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 269, at *4
(“Any term that the relevant public uses or understands to refer to the genus of goods,
or a key aspect or subcategory of the genus, is generic.”).
A. What is the Genus of the Services and Who is the Relevant
Purchasing Public?
Because the identification of services in an application defines the scope of rights
conferred by Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1057(b), the genericness
inquiry ordinarily “focuses on the description of services set forth in the [application
or] certificate of registration.” Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 602 (quoting Magic Wand
Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In most cases, the application’s
description of services adequately defines the genus. In re Nordic Naturals, Inc., 755
F.3d 1340, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the relevant goods were adequately defined by
“nutritional supplements containing DHA”).
Here, both applications identify the services as “printing services for printing
photos and personalized items, namely, photo albums, photo posters, photo tiles,
canvas prints, photo cards, photo blankets, photo mouse pads, photo magnets, and
photo cups.” We find that “printing services for printing photos and personalized
items, namely, photo albums, photo posters, photo tiles, canvas prints, photo cards,
photo blankets, photo mouse pads, photo magnets, and photo cups” adequately
defines the genus at issue.9
9 Applicant contends that the genus is broader − “printing services.” Applicant’s Br., 6
TTABVUE 4-5 (for both applications). That formulation omits the limitation “for printing
photos and personalized items” in the identifications. It is unnecessary to broaden the genus
beyond Applicant’s identified services. As noted, under the second step of the genericness
inquiry, a term is generic if the relevant public understands it to refer to a subcategory or

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 7 -
Before continuing with the second step in the inquiry, we must identify the
relevant public. See Royal Crown Co. v. Coca‑Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2018). The relevant consumer for a genericness determination is the purchasing or
consuming public for the identified services. Magic Wand, Inc., 940 F.2d at 641.
Because the applications are for printing services for printing photos and
personalized items, the relevant consumers are ordinary purchasers or users of
photo‑printing and personalized‑item printing services. Royal Crown, 892 F.3d at
1367 (“[T]he parties do not dispute the Board’s determination of the relevant
consuming public as ‘ordinary consumers who purchase and drink soft drinks, energy
drinks, or sports drinks.’”).
Thus, the ultimate question is whether consumers who buy or use printing
services for printing photos and personalized items understand FREE PHOTOS and
FREEPHOTOS primarily to refer to a class or category of those services. Loglan Inst.
Inc. v. Logical Language Grp., Inc., 962 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting
Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 641).
B. Does the Relevant Public Understand FREE PHOTOS and
FREEPHOTOS to Primarily Refer to a Class or Category of
Printing Services for Printing Photos and Personalized Items?
Whether a term is generic “turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies
to consumers the class of … services.” Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 557. See also In re
key aspect of the claimed genus, even if not the broad genus as a whole. See Cordua Rests.,
823 F.3d at 605. See also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 15 comment a
(1995) (“A term that denominates a subcategory of a more general class, such as ‘light’ used
with beer or ‘diet’ with cola, is also generic.”). Thus, whether the genus is framed broadly as
Applicant proposes or as stated more narrowly in the identifications, the result is the same.

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 8 -
Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“An inquiry into the public’s
understanding of a mark requires consideration of the mark as a whole.”).
[W]hen a firm wishes to string together two or more generic
terms to create a compound term … courts must determine
whether the combination of generic terms conveys some
distinctive, source-identifying meaning that each term,
individually, lacks. … If the meaning of the whole is no
greater than the sum of its parts, then the compound is
itself generic.
Booking.com, 591 U.S. at 567 (citations omitted). Evidence of the relevant consumer’s
understanding of the proposed marks may be obtained from any competent source.
Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 599.
We begin with dictionary definitions. When a mark is composed of dictionary
words, those definitions generally inform its meaning and connotation. Stratus
Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns Inc., 955 F.3d 994, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“The Board relied on dictionary definitions of the terms ‘stratus’ and ‘strata’ to
evaluate similarities in the connotation of each mark.”). There is no dispute that
“free” means “not costing or charging anything,” and that “photos” is short for
“photographs,” i.e., “a picture or likeness obtained by photography.”10 The Examining
Attorney contends that combining these words into FREE PHOTOS and
FREEPHOTOS “immediately conveys that applicant’s ‘printing services for printing
photos and personalized items...’ feature the service of printing photographs at no
10 Examining Attorney’s Br., 8 TTABVUE 5-6 (for both applications) (quoting screenshots in
the record from merriam-webster.com for definitions of “free,” “photo,” and “photograph”).
See also Applicant’s Br., 6 TTABVUE 6 (for both applications) (quoting the same definitions
from merriam-webster.com).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 9 -
charge to the consumer.”11 Applicant counters that neither “free photos” nor
“freephotos” are defined terms in the dictionary.12 But the absence of a dictionary
definition is not controlling if the record shows the term has a well‑understood,
recognized meaning. Cf. In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
(affirming refusal to register even where there was no evidence that the compound
term SCREENWIPE was a defined word). We agree with the Examining Attorney
that “the individual words within the composite term[s] retain their original meaning
and no additional meaning is created by their combination.”13
The record contains abundant evidence supporting this conclusion. For example,
the attached representative sample of website excerpts shows numerous third parties
using “free photos” to describe a perk or reward offered to consumers:
• FreePrints.com
o “GET FREE PHOTO PRINTS FROM THE 5-STAR FREEPRINTS
APP”;
o “Your free photo prints are printed on your choice of deluxe glossy
or premium matte paper and delivered to your doorstep in just days”;
o “Everything you love about FreePrints - in a FREE PHOTO BOOK!
No subscriptions. No commitments. Just free photo books!”14
11 Examining Attorney’s Br., 8 TTABVUE 5-6 (for both applications).
12 Applicant’s Br., 6 TTABVUE 6 (for both applications).
13 Examining Attorney’s Br., 8 TTABVUE 6 (for both applications).
14 May 10, 2023 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 7-9 (for both applications) (emphasis
added);

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 10 -
• SnapFish
o SnapFish.com: “Make the most of your monthly Free Photo Prints
allowance”;15
o Apple Store Preview for SnapFish app: “Get your monthly 50 free
photos now!”16
• MSLPhotography.com
o “Get a FREE photo gift with every photo session!”17
• PrestoPhoto.com
o “You can get 5 Free Photo Prints with any purchase of $15 or
more.”18
• YourDigitalExperts.com
o “Free photos! Any photos needed for newspapers, yearbooks, etc.
will be provided free of charge!”19
• PhotoAffections.com
o “Giving you free photo prints is our way of introducing you to
PhotoAffections and our line of exciting and stylish photo products.
We sincerely hope that you’ll become a regular PhotoAffections
customer in the near future!”20
Additional third-party uses of the phrase “free photos” appear in blogs and articles
that recommend photo‑printing services offering free photos:
15 Id. at 28 (emphasis added).
16 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 44 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 49
(emphasis added).
17 January 18, 2024 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 11 (for both applications) (emphasis
added).
18 Id. at 20 (emphasis added).
19 Id. at 28 (emphasis added).
20 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 74 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 74
(emphasis added).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 11 -
• Hip2Save.com
o “CVS Photo occasionally has offers for completely FREE photo
prints!”;
o “Walgreens Photo often offers deals for completely FREE photo
prints!”21
• AllSortsOfGoodies.com
o “Finding a free photo printing service can take a lot of searching”;
o “One of the leading online photo printing services is Snapfish and
they also offer free photo prints”;
o “Here’s one advantage of being a Sam’s Club member over Costco and
that’s free photo printing.”22
• MoneyPantry.com
o “10 Places to Order Free Photo Prints (Online or Near You!);
o “With the companies on the list below, though, you can actually get
free photo prints”;
o “FreePrints Photo Tiles is another app that’s great for getting free
physical copies of your photographs. … You can get one 8x8 inch
premium free photo tile each month”;
o “As you can see, there are lots of places and apps where you can get
free photo prints online and near you.”23
• Quora.com
o “[Freeprints] make money from the products they sell, such as
personalized photo products and the cost to upsize the free photos”;
21 May 10, 2023 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 12, 17 (for both applications) (emphasis
added).
22 Id. at 36, 38, 39 (emphasis added).
23 Id. at 47, 50-51 (emphasis added).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 12 -
o “The free photos are their marketing method and a great way to
attract people to their app who will likely become customers for their
other products.”24
• ArtBox.Direct
o “With the Freeprints app, you get 600 free prints a year and only pay
for delivery. You can go with glossy or matt paper for the photos. If
you run out of free photos, you’ll have to pay for the rest.”25
• Cheap-Photoprints.com
o “Free photo printing - too good to be true? … The free deals on this
page are not fraud. Many companies offer free photo prints because
they want to find new customers who have not heard of their services
before. The photo printing market is competitive and freebies are one
way for companies to spark your interest!”26
• Cherish365.com
o “100 free photos shipped to you for $2.99...”27
• TheNewsprint.co
o “Flag - The App That Will Print and Mail Your Photos For Free,
What’s the catch for this Kickstarter product? A small advertisement
on the back of the photo. Hard to beat free photos via an
advertisement nobody will notice.”28
24 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 51 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 51
(emphasis added).
25 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 63 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 63
(emphasis added).
26 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 89 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 89
(emphasis added).
27 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 103 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 103
(emphasis added).
28 Serial No. 97513508, February 13, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 112 (emphasis
added); Serial No. 97513513, February 14, 2025 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 112
(emphasis added).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 13 -
Finally, an applicant’s own website and marketing materials can be probative −
and even “the most damaging evidence” − of how the relevant public perceives a term.
In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, No. 86358219, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 64, at *25 (citing
Princeton Vanguard, 786 F.3d at 966; Gould Paper, 834 F.2d at 1019). That is the
case here. Applicant’s own statements and marketing show it uses “free photos” in a
non‑source‑identifying manner to describe a perk of its services − printing
photographs at no charge to the consumer. In response to the Examining Attorney’s
request for information, Applicant explained:
Applicant intends to offer users an allotment of free
photos each month, where they only pay for shipping and
handling. Additionally, Applicant intends to implement a
reward system where users can earn free photo prints on
a future order when they purchase personalized items such
as coffee cups.29
Applicant’s specimen, depicted below, confirms Applicant’s response to the
Examining Attorney. The specimen uses “free photos” generically, asking “Who
Doesn’t Love Free Photos?” and explaining: “In addition to receiving a monthly
allotment of free photo prints, you will earn free photos each time you purchase a
personalized item from us.”30
29 August 10, 2023 Response Office Action, TSDR at 7 (for both applications) (emphasis
added).
30 January 23, 2025 Specimen of Use (for both applications) (emphasis added).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 14 -
Based on dictionary definitions, third‑party uses, and Applicant’s own materials,
we find that “free photos” is commonly used to identify a perk or reward in connection
with printing services for printing photos and personalized items, and that both
Applicant and other market participants offer such services. Ordinary consumers of
these services would therefore understand FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS to
refer primarily to a key aspect of the services − namely, that the provider supplies
free photo prints as a reward or promotional benefit. See, e.g., Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d
at 604 (CHURRASCOS generic because it identifies a key aspect of a class of
restaurants); 1800Mattress.com, 586 F.3d at 1361, 1364 (MATTRESS.COM generic
because “mattress” identifies a key aspect of online retail store services in the field of
mattresses, beds, and bedding); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1304, 1306
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (HOTELS.COM generic because “hotels” identifies a key aspect of
“providing information for others about temporary lodging” and “making reservations

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 15 -
and bookings for temporary lodging for others”); In re Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s
Assocs. Inc., No. 91192657, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 468, at *61-62 (finding “footlong”
generic in connection with sandwiches); In re A La Vieille Russie Inc., No. 75609153,
2001 TTAB LEXIS 541, at *14 (RUSSIANART generic for “dealership services in the
field of fine art, antiques, furniture and jewelry”); In re Log Cabin Homes Ltd., No.
74682845, 1999 TTAB LEXIS 425, at *6-10 (LOG CABIN HOMES generic for a
particular type of building and therefore also generic for architectural design services
directed to that type of building); In re Cent. Sprinkler Co., No. 74505190, 1998 TTAB
LEXIS 386, at *13-14 (finding ATTIC generic for automatic sprinklers for fire
protection in attics where ATTIC functions as a “generic adjective”).
As to Applicant’s contention that any doubt as to the question of genericness
should be resolved in Applicant’s favor,31 after carefully reviewing the entire record
for both applications, we have no such doubt. We are firmly of the opinion that
Applicant’s proposed marks FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS, as applied to the
identified printing services for printing photos and personalized items, are generic.
II. Conclusion
After carefully considering all arguments and evidence of record, we find that the
proposed marks FREE PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS would be understood by the
relevant public primarily to refer to a key aspect of “printing services for printing
photos and personalized items, namely, photo albums, photo posters, photo tiles,
canvas prints, photo cards, photo blankets, photo mouse pads, photo magnets, and
31 Applicant’s Br., 6 TTABVUE 11 (for both applications).

Serial Nos. 97513508 and 97513513
- 16 -
photo cups,” i.e., the provision of photographs free of charge in connection with those
services. Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 603-04. Accordingly, the proposed marks FREE
PHOTOS and FREEPHOTOS are generic as applied to Applicant’s services, and we
affirm the refusal under Trademark Act Sections 23(c) and 45 to register the proposed
marks on the Supplemental Register.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s proposed marks FREE PHOTOS
(Serial No. 97513508) and FREEPHOTOS (Serial No. 97513513) on the
Supplemental Register on the ground of genericness under Trademark Act Sections
23(c) and 45 is affirmed.32
32 In light of this disposition, we do not reach the additional refusal under Trademark Act
Sections 1 and 45 on the ground that the specimen for FREE PHOTOS (Serial No. 97513508)
fails to show use of the proposed mark in commerce.