Bad Dog Games, LLC

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: April 29, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Bad Dog Games, LLC
_____
Serial No. 98353116
_____
Brian D. Owens, John D. Goodhue and Kyle S. Coleman of Goodhue,
Coleman & Owens, P.C., for Bad Dog Games, LLC.
Christopher Buongiorno, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102,
Mitchell Front, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before English, Allard, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Allard, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Bad Dog Games, LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of
the standard character mark BAD DOG GAMES (GAMES disclaimed) for services
ultimately identified as “Betting services; gambling services; entertainment services,
namely, providing casino gaming featuring slot machine-style games; online gaming
services in the nature of computer games of chance,” in International Class 41.1
1 Application Serial No. 98353116 was filed on January 11, 2024, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and in
commerce since February 14, 2020.

Serial No. 98353116
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Sections 1 and 45
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, on the basis that the specimen and
the substitute specimens do not show the proposed mark in use in commerce in
connection with the identified services.
After the refusal was made final,2 Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration two times.3 Because the Examining Attorney considered
unacceptable the substitute specimens filed concurrently with the requests for
reconsideration, the Examining Attorney denied both of them and, as a result, the
appeal resumed.4 The appeal is fully briefed.5 For the reasons explained below, we
affirm the refusal to register.
After Applicant filed its notice of appeal (1 TTABVUE), Applicant filed a request to divide
the application, as the refusal pertained only to the services identified in Class 41 and not
the goods identified in Class 28. 6 TTABVUE. The request to divide was granted by placing
the Class 28 goods, namely, “gambling machines and video gaming consoles for gambling” in
application Serial No. 98975824, also referred to as the “Child Application.” 8 TTABVUE.
According to the Examining Attorney, the Child Application has since matured to
registration. 11 TTABVUE 3. After the request to divide was granted, the appeal with respect
to the services identified in the involved application resumed. 8 TTABVUE 1.
References to the briefs on appeal refer to TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system.
The number preceding “TTABVUE” corresponds to the docket entry number; the number(s)
following “TTABVUE” refer to the page number(s) of that particular docket entry.
2 September 3, 2024 Final Office Action.
Page references herein to the application record refer to the online database of the USPTO’s
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) system. All citations to documents
contained in the TSDR database are to the downloadable .pdf versions of the documents in
the USPTO TSDR Case Viewer.
3 1 TTABVUE; November 20, 2024 Request for Reconsideration and substitute specimen;
February 25, 2025 Request for Reconsideration and substitute specimen.
4 December 11, 2024 Denial of Request for Reconsideration; March 10, 2025 Denial of Request
for Reconsideration.
5 Applicant’s brief appears at 9 TTABVUE, the Examining Attorney’s brief appears at 11
TTABVUE, and Applicant’s reply brief appears at 12 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 98353116
- 3 -
I. Preliminary Matters
Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we address two preliminary matters.
A. Length of Applicant’s Reply Brief
Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(2), in relevant part, provides:
“[a] reply brief from the appellant, if any, shall not exceed ten pages in length in its
entirety.” Applicant’s reply brief is eleven pages long. Because it exceeds this page
limit, and because Applicant did not request leave of the Board to file it, we do not
consider it. TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 1203.01 (2025) (“If an applicant files a … reply brief that exceeds the ten-page limit
without prior leave of the Board, the brief will not be considered.”). Cf. In re Dimarzio,
Inc., No. 87213400, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 457, at *6-7 (TTAB 2021) (sustaining
examining attorney’s objections to form and length of applicant’s opening brief); In re
Thomas, No. 78334625, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 135, at *3-4 (TTAB 2006) (Board refused
to consider applicant’s 29-page main brief). Even had we considered Applicant’s reply
brief, it would not have changed the result of this appeal.
B. Evidentiary Issues - Duplicative Evidence
During prosecution, Applicant submitted multiple copies of the same evidence.
For example, Applicant made of record multiple copies of invoice no. 1112 to Premier
Vending Group, LLC, dated February 23, 2024;6 multiple printouts of select Facebook
6 November 20, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 4-5; November 20, 2024 Request for
Reconsideration After Final at 15-16 and 33-34; February 25, 2025 Request for
Reconsideration After Final at 24-25 and 59-60.

Serial No. 98353116
- 4 -
pages;7 and multiple printouts of select pages from the LuckyCafe.com website.8 Such
duplicative submissions are discouraged. In re Virtual Indep. Paralegals, LLC, No.
86947786, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 74, at *2-3 (TTAB 2019) (multiple submissions of the
same evidence is discouraged because it is unnecessarily cumulative); see also In re
Six Continents Ltd., No. 88430142, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 35, at *4 (TTAB 2022) (“Suffice
it to say, the probative value of documentary evidence does not increase with
repetition, it needlessly increases the size of the record, and makes review of the
record more difficult.”).
II. Specimen Refusal
The Trademark Act “provides for registration of a mark based on use of the mark
in commerce.” In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019). A service mark
is defined as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof ... [used]
to identify and distinguish the services of one person ... from the services of others
and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1127. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) “requires an applicant to
submit a specimen of use ‘showing the mark as used on or in connection with the
goods [or services].’” In re Siny, 920 F.3d at 1335 (quoting In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282,
1284 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
7 January 11, 2024 Specimen at 6-9 and 49-51.
8 August 16, 2024 Response to Office Action at 48; August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at
37 and 74; February 25, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at 69 and 222; February 25, 2025
Substitute Specimen at 76.

Serial No. 98353116
- 5 -
To be an acceptable specimen of use for services, the specimen must show a direct
association between the applied-for mark and the services identified in the
application. Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(2), 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(2); see also In re Weiss,
No. 88621608, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 277, at *5-6 (TTAB 2024); In re JobDiva, Inc., 843
F.3d 936, 941-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he question is whether the evidence of
JobDiva’s use of its marks ‘sufficiently creates in the minds of purchasers an
association between the mark[s] and [JobDiva’s personnel placement and
recruitment] services.’”) (quoting In re Ancor Holdings, LLC, No. 76213721, 2006
TTAB LEXIS 152, at *7 (TTAB 2006)).
What is necessary to establish direct association differs depending on the type of
specimen submitted, that is, whether the specimen consists of advertising or whether
the specimen is used in the rendering of the services. See TRADEMARK MANUAL OF
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 1301.04(f)(ii) (2025) and cases cited therein.
Compare In re Weiss, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 277, at *12 (“For specimens showing the
mark in advertising the services, in order to create the required ‘direct association,’
the specimen must not only contain a reference to the service, but also the mark must
be used on the specimen to identify the service and its source.”) (quoting In re WAY
Media, Inc., No. 86325739, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 201, at *4-5 (TTAB 2016)) with In re
Metriplex, Inc., No. 73836597 1992 TTAB LEXIS 5, at *5 (TTAB 1992) (“Because the
specimens show use of the mark in the rendering or selling of applicant’s services,
not in the advertising thereof, the requirements specific to specimens which are

Serial No. 98353116
- 6 -
advertising [namely, that the specimen make a reference to the service identified in
the application] are not applicable.”).
For specimens showing the mark used in advertising the identified services, to
establish the requisite direct association the specimen must contain a reference to
the services and the mark must be used on the specimen to identify the services and
their source. In re Weiss, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 277, at *12; In re Osmotica Holdings
Corp., No. 77314455, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 222, at *6-9 (TTAB 2010) (finding that,
although the specimens referenced the identified consulting services, the applied-for
mark, as used on the specimens, would be perceived by the relevant public as
identifying only applicant’s drug technology and thus failed to establish the required
association between the mark and the identified services).
For specimens showing the mark used in rendering the identified services, the
services need not be explicitly referenced to establish the requisite direct
association. See In re Metriplex, 1992 TTAB LEXIS 5, at *4-5 (noting that “the
requirements specific to specimens which are advertising are not applicable” and
finding the submitted specimens acceptable to show use of applicant’s mark in
connection with data transmission services because the specimens showed “the mark
as it appears on a computer terminal in the course of applicant’s rendering of the
service”). Rather, direct association may be indicated by the context or environment
in which the services are rendered, or may be inferred based on the consumer’s
general knowledge of how certain services are provided or from the consumer’s prior
experience in receiving the services. In re WAY Media, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 201, at *4

Serial No. 98353116
- 7 -
(“Specimens showing the mark used in rendering the identified services need not
explicitly refer to those services in order to establish the requisite direct association
between the mark and the services, but ‘there must be something which creates in
the mind of the purchaser an association between the mark and the service activity.’”)
(quoting In re Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 74195251, 1994 TTAB LEXIS 25, at * 7
(TTAB 1994)).
Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney “is taking a far too rigid view of
Applicant’s services and is additionally misunderstanding the nature of Applicant’s
services and specimens, for while Applicant does manufacture and sell gambling
machines under the mark, Applicant additionally offers entertainment services
where Applicant provides casino gaming featuring slot machine style games to
consumers.”9 The gist of Applicant’s argument is that “Applicant’s mark is clearly
displayed where the services are rendered, as Applicant is providing the identified
services through Applicant’s own manufactured gaming cabinets, which bear
Applicant’s mark where the services are rendered.”10 In short, Applicant’s identified
services are “provided on and through Applicant’s goods.”11 “As such,” Applicant
continues, “[its] specimens, especially the specimen that shows Applicant’s services
being actively provided on a machine in public, sufficiently show Applicant’s mark
9 9 TTABVUE 2-3; see also 9 TTABVUE 6.
10 9 TTABVUE 13.
11 9 TTABVUE 4, 6. See also 9 TTABVUE 19 (“Applicant’s specimens indicate that Applicant’s
services are provided on and through gambling machines, which is typical in Applicant’s
industry[.]” (emphasis added)).

Serial No. 98353116
- 8 -
being used in commerce with Applicant’s services listed in Class 41.”12 As support for
its argument, Applicant relies on the below photograph that is representative of the
photographs of Applicant’s gaming machines:
13
The above photograph shows the BAD DOG GAMES mark in one location, i.e., on
the cabinet of the gaming machine (shown here circled in red), which supports
registration of the mark for goods, such as those divided from the present application,
12 9 TTABVUE 8 (citing August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 33).
13 August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 33 (red circle added).

Serial No. 98353116
- 9 -
i.e., “gambling machines” in Class 28.14 The screen of the cabinet, where a viewer
would watch or play the game states: “BIG WIN,” “CASH”, “[illegible] BLANKS
GUARANTEES A [illegible],” “3RD REEL YOU WIN THE SUM,” “ON THE
PLAYLINE WINS THE JACKPOT,” “TOUCH SCREEN TO START,” and “FOR
ENTERTAINMENT ONLY”.15 While we agree that Applicant’s games are available
for play, and while these games may indeed be “entertaining,” allowing a user the
ability to play a game via the cabinet does not constitute an “entertainment service”
as defined by the Trademark Act. In considering this photograph as a potential
specimen of use in the course of rendering the identified entertainment or gambling
services, we find a lack of a direct association between BIG DOG GAMES and any
such service. Thus, as distinct from the gambling machines for which Applicant
already registered this mark, display of the mark on the cabinet itself does not suffice
to show use with the identified services.
In the Final Office Action, the Examining Attorney made of record third-party
webpages of casino operators in an attempt to show Applicant an example of a
specimen that would be acceptable to support registration of its identified services,
such as “betting services; gambling services; entertainment services, namely,
providing casino gaming featuring slot machine-style games.”16 Applicant took issue
with this evidence, arguing that the Examining Attorney “has taken a very narrow
14 April 24, 2025 Notice that Processing of Request to Divide Application is Completed at 1;
April 11, 2015 Request to Divide at 3.
15 August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 33.
16 September 3, 2024 Final Office Action at 2, 5-14.

Serial No. 98353116
- 10 -
view of ‘gambling’ and ‘betting’ services, and seems to expect these services to …
[require] Applicant [to] function as a literal, physical casino.”17 We disagree. Because
the wording “casino gaming” in the identification denotes games in a casino setting
or style, the webpages are an example of how one would advertise such services in a
casino environment, and they are examples of a suitable specimen that makes an
explicit reference to the services identified in the application. They are exemplary
only. Considering that Applicant’s services are described in part in the application as
“entertainment services, namely, providing casino gaming featuring slot machine-
style games,” there is nothing “narrow” about the Examining Attorney’s view.
These third-party webpages also serve another important purpose: they show that
manufacturers of gambling products customarily supply equipment to licensed
gambling operators, but the manufacturers do not themselves offer gambling or
betting services to the public. Although Applicant makes certain assertions in its brief
about “standard practice in Applicant’s industry,”18 there is no evidence that an
association may be inferred by consumers that the brand names that appear on the
gaming machines also serve to identify the sources of gambling services.19 We agree
with the Examining Attorney that there is also a practical problem raised by
Applicant’s position that trademarks that appear on gambling machines also serve
as service marks for gambling services: this argument fails to address how consumers
17 9 TTABVUE 6.
18 9 TTABVUE 7, 9-10.
19 Regarding Applicant’s third-party registration evidence, see infra nn.52-55 and related
discussion.

Serial No. 98353116
- 11 -
would discern which services originate from which manufacturer in a casino
environment where various forms of gambling services are offered through machines
manufactured by a variety of manufacturers.20 Similarly, consumers would be unable
to discern between the services provided by the casino operators in the form of taking
bets and paying winners, for example, from those services purportedly originating
from the various manufacturers providing gambling services offered through their
own gaming machines.
Simply put, whatever service Applicant may be rendering is directly related to the
use and operation of Applicant’s own gaming machines and is not a service
separate from those goods. “It is well settled that promoting the sale and use of one’s
goods is not, per se, a service within the meaning of the statute.” In re Reichhold
Chems., Inc., 1970 TTAB LEXIS 244, at *5 (TTAB 1970). Considering the use of the
games on Applicant’s own gaming machines as a separate service apart from the sale
of the gaming machines themselves ignores the fact that gaming machines are
purchased because of the games installed on them. In re Landmark Comms., Inc.,
1979 TTAB LEXIS 84, at *12-13 (TTAB 1979) (“Applicant sells goods, not services,
and already owns a registration for the trademark used on the goods here in issue.
There is no significant economic difference between applicant as a publisher
(manufacturer) of a periodical (tangible product) and applicant as a provider of its
alleged services.”).
20 11 TTABVUE 14.

Serial No. 98353116
- 12 -
Second, Applicant relies on an invoice, where “[t]he sale of Applicant’s services
were listed deliberately and separately from Applicant’s goods[:]”21
22
21 9 TTABVUE 10.
22 August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 17-18, 54-55.

Serial No. 98353116
- 13 -
This invoice merely lists games that the consumer has selected presumably to have
preinstalled and available for play via Applicant’s gaming cabinet. Each individual
game entry lists a tracking number of some type and the name of the game, such as
“Cast ‘N’ Blast GA Skill.” The line below each of these entries repeats a portion of the
game name and indicates that each is a “3-reel, single payline, nudge skill, Georgia
Edition.” Nothing on this invoice indicates that services of any kind are provided. At
best, consumers would view BAD DOG GAMES as a trademark for Applicant’s
games, rather than as a service mark for its identified “entertainment services,
namely, providing casino gaming featuring slot machine-style games” services.
Separately listing the games on the invoice does not require a different result, nor
are we bound to characterize the games as “services” merely because Applicant’s
invoice uses what Applicant calls “clear language ‘Product or Service’ as the column
heading for the products and services.”23 Rather, we must consider the perception of
the relevant consumer. See, e.g., In re Osmotica Holdings, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 222, at
*6-9.
It is generally true, as Applicant states, that in considering whether a specimen
is acceptable, the Examining Attorney may consider Applicant’s explanation as to
how the specimen is used along with other evidence available in the record that shows
how the mark is actually used.24 In re Cardio Grp., LLC, No. 86840860, 2019 TTAB
LEXIS 153, at *6 (TTAB 2019); In re DSM Pharms., Inc., No. 78373640, 2008 TTAB
23 9 TTABVUE 12 (emphasis added).
24 9 TTABVUE 11.

Serial No. 98353116
- 14 -
LEXIS 29, at *6 (TTAB 2008) (“In determining whether a specimen is acceptable
evidence of service mark use, we may consider applicant’s explanations as to how the
specimen is used, along with any other available evidence in the record that shows
how the mark is actually used.”). Here, Applicant explains that “Applicant believes
that it is providing gambling services and betting services in its provision of casino
gaming featuring slot-machine style games and online gaming services in the nature
of computer games of chance to consumers” and that “[c]onsumers engage with and
purchase Applicant’s services where Applicant’s services (provided by Applicant) are
available at gaming terminals.”25 However, Applicant’s explanation fails to clarify
how the specimen and substitute specimens show Applicant’s mark used in
advertising or rendering its identified services.
In its brief, Applicant argues that its original specimen–consisting of an excerpt
from its website–shows a direct association between the mark and the identified
services.26 In support of its argument, Applicant points to its mark in the upper left-
hand corner of the website printout and text on the site that expressly states: “We
focus on delivering high quality gaming and frictionless, ethical service at an
affordable price[:]”27
25 9 TTABVUE 11.
26 9 TTABVUE 11 (citing January 11, 2024 Specimen at 29).
27 9 TTABVUE 11 (citing January 11, 2024 Specimen at 29 (emphasis added)).

Serial No. 98353116
- 15 -
28
Applicant contends that this website language clearly differentiates between the
“hardware/goods” that its manufactures and sells (listed separately and elsewhere on
Applicant’s website)29 and its games that are provided in the provision of its identified
services, i.e., “entertainment services, namely, providing casino gaming featuring slot
machine-style games.”30
We disagree. As an initial matter, considering the circled language on the website
screen shot above, the use of the term “service” here does not dictate a finding that a
28 January 11, 2024 Specimen at 29 (red circle added).
29 9 TTABVUE 11 (citing Applicant’s January 11, 2024 Specimen at 3-5).
30 9 TTABVUE 11-12 (citing Applicant’s January 11, 2024 Specimen at 20-29).

Serial No. 98353116
- 16 -
service as defined by the Trademark Act is offered. Even considering that as a
possibility, Applicant does not explain the particular service identified in Class 41
that this language, i.e., “ethical service,” supports. Moreover, the language
immediately preceding the circled language provides important context; it states:
“Bad Dog Games designs and builds hardware and software for the gaming industry.
With over 50 years of combined experience, Bad Dog brings innovation to every aspect
of our business.”31 Here, “ethical service” seems to suggest something more akin to
“fair dealing,” which is important in every business setting and possibly worth
emphasizing in the gaming industry.
We acknowledge that the terms “ethical service” appear under the phrase “BAD
DOG GAMES IS WINNING ENTERTAINMENT.” However, we do not consider this
combination to indicate that entertainment services are advertised or rendered. Here,
the term “entertainment” as part of the phrase “winning entertainment” suggests
Applicant’s games appeal to the consumer. And, contrary to Applicant’s arguments,
Applicant’s listing its games separately on its website apart from its
“hardware/goods” does not render the games a separate service.
Applicant next argues that its substitute specimen showing the mark used for a
gambling tournament hosted by Applicant should have been accepted.32 In refusing
the specimen, the Examining Attorney determined that Applicant’s own materials
describe the tournament as a “promotional tournament that features applicant’s own
31 January 11, 2024 Specimen at 29.
32 9 TTABVUE 16.

Serial No. 98353116
- 17 -
goods,” and concluded that a promotional tournament featuring Applicant’s own
games is not evidence of use of the mark in connection with Applicant’s identified
services because it promotes Applicant’s own goods to Applicant’s own potential
consumers.33 The substitute specimen consists of a printout from Applicant’s website
outlining the tournament parameters:
33 March 10, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 2-3.

Serial No. 98353116
- 18 -
34
The official rules, set out below, are included as part of the specimen:
34 November 20, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 1; see also February 25, 2025 Request for
Reconsideration After Final at 218-220.

Serial No. 98353116
- 19 -
35
We agree with the Examining Attorney that this tournament constitutes a
promotion of Applicant’s own goods, i.e., gaming machines, and does not constitute a
service for others. In re Radio Corp. of Am., 205 F.2d 180, 183 (CCPA 1953) (record
manufacturer who prepares radio programs primarily designed to advertise and sell
records is not rendering a service); In re SCM Corp., 1980 TTAB LEXIS 64, at *2-5
(TTAB 1980) (supplying merchandising aids and store displays to retailers does not
constitute separate service). See also Blizzard Entm’t, Inc. v. Ava Labs, Inc., No.
91285851, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 259, *10, (TTAB 2024) (explaining that “a service must
be performed to the order of, or for the benefit of, someone other than the applicant”).
As shown above, the official rules expressly state that “No Purchase is Necessary
to Enter or Win” and the tournament is expressly open to “all registered attendees
of the 2024 Southern Expo by GAMOA.”36 By limiting participation to registered
attendees of the expo, Applicant’s tournament markets its own gambling machines to
35 November 20, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 2.
36 November 20, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 2 (emphasis added).

Serial No. 98353116
- 20 -
its own potential purchasers. Thus, hosting the tournament does not constitute a
service because marketing to one’s own potential purchasers is expected and is done
in furtherance of the sale of Applicant’s gambling machines. Ex parte Wembley, Inc.,
1956 Commr. Pat. LEXIS 20, at *2-3 (Comm’r Pats. 1956) (national advertising
program designed to sell manufacturer’s goods to ultimate purchasers is not service
to wholesalers and retailers, because national product advertising is normally
expected of manufacturers of nationally distributed products, and is done in
furtherance of the sale of the advertised products); see also TMEP § 1301(b)(i) (“[T]he
promotion of one’s own goods is not a service.”) and authorities cited therein.
Moreover, in its official rules, Applicant expressly characterizes the tournament
as a “promotion[al]” two times: (1) “Entrants must be at least of 18 years old as of
their date of entry in the promotion in order to qualify[;]” and (2) “The promotion
is subject to federal, state and local laws.”37 Here, even assuming benefits may accrue
to the winner of the tournament, Applicant conducts the tournament to promote its
own goods. In re Dr. Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 510 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (contest promoting
applicant’s goods not a service, even though benefits accrue to winners of contest).
This is true if the tournament takes place only once, or even if it occurs more
frequently, as Applicant contends that it “may host other tournaments.”38 The
frequency of the tournaments is not the problem for Applicant;39 rather the problem
37 November 20, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 31 (emphasis added).
38 9 TTABVUE 17.
39 9 TTABVUE 17.

Serial No. 98353116
- 21 -
is that the tournament merely serves to promote Applicant’s own goods to its own
potential purchases.
Applicant also argues that any of the several issues of the Georgia Amusement
Journal which contain advertisements of Applicant’s goods and services should have
been accepted as suitable specimens.40 We disagree: these journal articles about
various games offered by Applicant, and screenshots that point to Applicant as a
manufacturer of games, do not constitute evidence of the mark in connection with any
of Applicant’s Class 41 services. In fact, none of the articles or advertisements
contains any explicit reference to Applicant’s Class 41 services, as would be required
for an advertising specimen. For example, the Georgia Amusement Journal article
titled, “Bad Dog enters market,” dated August 2021, describes Applicant as “an
innovative gaming manufacturer”41 and as having “over 20 years’ experience
designing and building products for the gaming and amusement industries”42 do not
describe the identified Class 41 services.
Other substitute specimens, such as Applicant’s own advertisements, fare no
better. In one ad (below), Applicant advertises its HOLLYWOOD SKILL game and
makes a QR code available but does not mention any services:
40 9 TTABVUE 18 (citing February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 1, 11, 13, 20, 35, and 52).
41 February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 1.
42 February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 11.

Serial No. 98353116
- 22 -
43
Similarly, a second advertisement, featuring enlarged game screens, does not
mention any services (below):
44
43 February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 13.
44 February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 20. A similar half-page advertisement is also of
record. February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 35.

Serial No. 98353116
- 23 -
Finally, in a third ad, Applicant’s offers “12 Months No Interest” for “Hollywood
Boards” and “Presto Skill Cabinets.”45
Applicant argues that these advertisements and others46 provide potential
consumers “with QR codes and links to Applicant’s websites, videos, and company
pages showing Applicant’s goods and services, and provide[ ] sufficient detail
regarding Applicant’s goods and services such that the relevant consumers would
logically draw the connection between Applicant’s mark and Applicant’s goods and
services.”47 However, making a QR code or a link to a website of record does not make
of record the information at the end of the link of record. Cf. In re Olin Corp., No.
86651083, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 337, at *15 n.15 (TTAB 2017) (“Because the
information displayed at a link’s Internet address can be changed or deleted, merely
providing a link to a website is insufficient to make information from that site of
record.”). Applicant’s assurances that the QR CODE is still active does not overcome
this.48 In short, none of these advertisements reference Applicant’s Class 41 services,
as is required for an advertising specimen, and are, therefore, insufficient to support
registration of the mark for the identified services.
Applicant’s social media pages are similarly of no help. Applicant’s LinkedIn page,
stating that “[w]e build winning entertainment[,]”49 and its X account which uses
45 February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 52.
46 See e.g., February 25, 2025 Substitute Specimen at 25-28.
47 9 TTABVUE 18.
48 9 TTABVUE 18 n.5.
49 August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 20.

Serial No. 98353116
- 24 -
similar language,50 are both too vague to support registration of the mark for the
identified services. Moreover, that same LinkedIn page provides additional important
context, describing Applicant as “a disruptive new company that designs and builds
products for the gaming and amusement industry.”51
Applicant’s evidence consisting of third-party registrations does not persuade us
to arrive at a different outcome. Applicant argues that “Applicant’s services can be
and are typically provided through Applicant’s goods, similar to how other
companies provide both their Class 28 goods and Class 41 services.”52 To support its
argument, Applicant relies on the TSDR printouts of the registrations for the
PLAYSTATION and PS (Stylized) marks in the name of Sony Interactive
Entertainment, Inc. together with some website printouts showing the marks,53 and
registrations in the name of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd and Light &
Wonder, Inc. and website printouts bearing their respective marks.54 However, the
nature of their identified services differs from those offered by Applicant. For
example, the LIGHT & WONDER registration identifies “entertainment services,
namely, providing live, in person electronic games of chance with live dealers.”55
More importantly, however, the registration of the third-party marks is simply not
50 August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 23.
51 August 16, 2024 Substitute Specimen at 20 (emphasis added). See also Applicant’s August
16, 2024 Response to Office Action at 85 (Applicant highlighted this same language).
52 9 TTABVUE 7 (emphasis in original).
53 February 25, 2025 Request for Reconsideration after Final at 26-47.
54 February 25, 2025 Request for Reconsideration after Final at 101-33.
55 February 25, 2025 Request for Reconsideration after Final at 125 (emphasis added).

Serial No. 98353116
- 25 -
probative of the sufficiency of Applicant’s specimen of use in this case. See In re Nett
Designs Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The Board must decide each case
on its own merits.”); see also In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 600 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“The PTO is required to examine all trademark applications for compliance
with each and every eligibility requirement . . . .”).
For the reasons discussed above, we find that none of Applicant’s specimens show
the requisite “direct association” between the BAD DOG GAMES mark and
Applicant’s identified services. Nothing in the original specimen or in the substitute
specimens demonstrates that consumers would perceive the mark BAD DOG GAMES
as a source indicator for Applicant’s identified services.
Decision
The refusal to register the mark in International Class 41 is affirmed.