Point to Point Consulting Inc.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: June 4, 2026

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

In re Point to Point Consulting Inc.

Serial No. 98844196

Valerie Del Grosso of Del Grosso Law, Ltd. for
Point to Point Consulting Inc.

Thomas Key, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 130,
John Lincoski, Managing Attorney.

Before Wellington, Goodman, and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Wellington, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Point to Point Consulting (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal

Register of the standard-character mark MODULAR IS BETTER for:

Lights for attachment to firearms for lighting purposes, in Class 11; and

Serial No. 98844196
- 2 -
Firearm attachments, namely, mounts for attaching accessories to a
firearm; Firearm attachments, namely, mounts for attaching lights to a
firearm, in Class 13.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under
Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 and 1127, on
the basis that the specimen of record is unacceptable because it fails to show the
applied-for mark in use in commerce on the goods. After the Examining Attorney
issued a final refusal, Applicant filed a request for reconsideration, which the
Examining Attorney denied. Applicant then filed this appeal and both Applicant and
the Examining Attorney have filed briefs.
We affirm the refusal.
I. Refusal Based on Specimens Requirement -- Applicable Law
As noted above, Sections 1 and 45 of the Act provide the basis for the refusal to
register Applicant’s mark because the specimen submitted does not show Applicant’s
mark in “use in commerce” in connection with Applicant’s identified goods.
Specifically, Section 1(d)(1) of the Act requires applicants to file a “specimen[] or
facsimile[] of the mark as used in commerce[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 1051(d)(1). Trademark
Rule 2.56(b)(1) provides that an acceptable trademark specimen:
must show use of the mark on the goods, on containers or packaging for
the goods, on labels or tags affixed to the goods, or on a display associated
with the goods. To constitute a display associated with the goods, a
specimen must show use of the mark directly associated with the goods and
such use must be of a point-of-sale nature.
1 Application Serial No. 98844196, filed on November 8, 2024, is based on Applicant’s
allegation of first use of the mark anywhere on July 1, 2019 and in commerce on July 24,
2020, under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a).

Serial No. 98844196
- 3 -
37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(1).
Section 45 of the Act defines a “trademark” as “any word, name, symbol, or device,
or any combination thereof ... used by a person ... to identify and distinguish his or
her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and
to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
It further provides that “a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce …on goods
… when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays
associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the
goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the
goods or their sale … [and] the goods are sold or transported in commerce.” Id.
II. Applicant’s Specimens -- Analysis
With its application, Applicant submitted the following specimen that it described
as a “social media screenshot[s]”:2
2 Specimen filed with application on November 8, 2024, TSDR pp. 8-9.

Serial No. 98844196

MODLUITE
(\) x QP revew 8.

15 PERCENT OFF - SITE WIDE

BLACK FRIDAY

SALE

*11/ 27 thru 11/30 - other discounts excluded”

(")) modiitesystems
Shoau beter d we say more? #Modilitesystems

@ oneinsevenstitch Say more please

v Reply

@ edgucci @kaylib_hanson

tlike Reply

GF Founsiic AAAS

soto392 @gunbaka

Raply

Reply
WOmmisbestmm Awww, | just ordered two PLiv2-18350s
from Arisaka on Wednesday at 10% off. This stings a bit, but
won't punish Arisaka by cancelling my order “\_(%)_/” oh

OaYV A

1,129 likes

© ‘1

w®
w®
CN

May 9

V9 AVY

576 likes

modlitesystems + Follow
Original audio

modlitesystems One head, multiple
ions. Because modular 1
better. #modlite

dangit_david_ Hurry up and come
out with the small handheld lights
already

l4w 3likes Reply

View replies (3)

manzano.munitions Love this
because I've changed shit around
just to see what was preference

l4w like Reply

wolf 1775 Video qoals... The liahts

3

© Add a comment..

Serial No. 98844196
- 5 -
The Examining Attorney rejected the above specimens for Classes 11 and 13
because they are “screenshots of Instagram posts” and “appear[ ] to be mere
advertising and do[] not properly show the applied-for mark as actually used in
commerce.”3
Applicant then submitted the following substitute specimen—“a screenshot from
Applicant’s video channel”:4
.
3 Office Action issued on March 26, 2025, TSDR p. 2.
4 Specimen filed with Applicant’s response on June 26, 2025, TSDR pp. 7-8.

Serial No. 98844196
- 6 -
The Examining Attorney rejected the above substitute specimen for both classes
of goods because, again, it is “mere advertising” and does not constitute an “acceptable
specimen.”5
Then, with its request for reconsideration, Applicant submitted the following
“website screenshot” as a substitute specimen:6
[A red oval is supplied to more easily locate Applicant’s proposed mark. The applied-
for mark, as seen in this web page specimen, also appears highlighted in orange and
bolded because it was the subject of a search on the page, as indicated by the search
box at the top of the page with the search term “modular is better 1/1” — in other
5 Office Action issued on July 10, 2025, TSDR p. 2.
6 Specimen filed with Applicant’s request for reconsideration on August 21, 2025, TSDR p. 1.

Serial No. 98844196
- 7 -
words, the applied-for mark would be seen by consumers encountering this page,
without a search, in the same color, font and presentation as surrounding text.]
Thus, and for sake of clarity, we note the text in the above screenshot reads as
follows:
The Piglet™ is an 18650-compatible light head designed for rifle and
handheld applications.
For existing Modlite users familiar with the standard PLHv2 and OKW,
the Piglet™ provides a substantial performance boost in throw and beam
intensity without sacrificing the familiar 18650 form factor. Capable of
pushing light to intermediate rifle ranges of 400yds or more, Piglet™
pushes light farther than any 18650 light we have ever made and is the
new performance flagship for 18650 size lights in the Modlite lineup.
True to our motto, “Modular is Better”, Piglet™ is a direct upgrade for your
existing 18650 Modlite body, enhancing long-range illumination
capabilities for your setup. With less bulk than the HOG, Piglet is ideal for
magnified optic rifles or anywhere else, photonic barriers or getting PID at
distance is critical.
Note: Some low-profile mount/rail combinations may require the use of the
Modlite body standoff adapter to clear some rails & suppressors. (Sold
Separately here)
In the Office Action denying the request for reconsideration, the Examining
Attorney asserted that the above specimen was also “unacceptable” because “the
depicted goods [in the specimen] are not the identified goods in the application (the
specimen depicts a light head, which is an upgrade component for lights, but is not
itself a ‘light for attachment to firearms’ nor a ‘mount for attaching lights to a

Serial No. 98844196
- 8 -
firearm,’ thus the specimens do not show use with the identified goods.”7 And, in the
appeal brief, the Examining Attorney elaborated:8
… the phrase ‘Modular is Better’ is included in the middle of a line of text,
in a paragraph in the middle of the description section, and appears in
quotes, separated by the quotation marks and a comma from ‘Piglet™’. ...
Consumers are unlikely to perceive the phrase ‘Modular is Better’ as an
indication of source for the identified goods, particularly when positioned
nearby but punctuationally distinguished from a term that applicant is
clearly indicating is meant to be a source identifier. Consumers may
perceive the phrase as a statement of design or retail philosophy, or even
as a reminder that applicant’s goods are not complete lights but instead
require multiple modular components. What is not apparent, however, is a
direct association between the mark and the identified goods. Thus, this
specimen fails to evince that the mark is associated with the identified
goods and serves as an indicator of source, and this specimen is not a
‘compliant webpage specimen.’
Applicant contends that its proposed mark is a “registrable slogan that functions
as a trademark,” and that the final specimen it submitted “meets the point-of-sale
criteria because it contains a button that says, ‘Add to Cart.’”9 Applicant claims the
proposed mark “appears on a product page on the retail website which ties the slogan
to the goods, and offers opportunities to purchase,” and thus complies with the
Federal Circuit’s holding in In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), as well
as TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 904.03(g) (May 2026)
(“Displays Associated with Goods”).
7 Office Action issued on September 26, 2025, TSDR p. 1.
8 6 TTABVUE 6-7.
9 4 TTABVUE 7.

Serial No. 98844196
- 9 -
TMEP § 904.03(i) (“Electronic Displays”) provides that a web page, such as
Applicant’s final specimen, may constitute a “display associated with the goods” and
be acceptable if it:
(1) contains a picture, photograph, or textual description of the identified
goods;
(2) shows the mark in association with the goods; and
(3) provides a means for ordering the identified goods.
(citing inter alia In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a website-based
specimen, like any other specimen, “must in some way evince that the mark is
‘associated’ with the goods and serves as an indicator of source”)).
And, in terms of the mark being displayed “in association with the goods,” TMEP
§ 904.03(i)(B) discusses the importance of how the proposed mark is displayed in the
specimen web page—namely, its “prominence” as well as its “placement” and
“proximity” to the goods. The TMEP section provides some acceptable manners in
which a proposed mark may be placed on the web pages in a manner that associates
it with the goods; to wit:
… if a mark appears on a web page in a location where trademarks
normally are not located, a ‘substantially larger and more prominent’
placement of the mark thereon could result in acceptable trademark use,
when the only products on the web page are the identified goods, the
placement of the mark is such that the mark-goods association is evident
and direct, and the web page otherwise meets the elements of an acceptable
display associated with the goods.
-or-
The mark is somewhat physically distant from the goods, but it appears to
be the only mark on the web page associated with the goods, and the only
products shown are the identified goods.

Serial No. 98844196
- 10 -
As the Federal Circuit held in In re Siny, a decision Applicant repeatedly relies
upon in its appeal brief, the determination as to whether a web-page display qualifies
as an acceptable specimen is a “factual question,” and based on the evidence of record.
In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d at 1336, citing In re Marriott Corp., 459 F.2d 525, at 526
(“In our view, ‘association with the goods’ is a relative term amenable to proof.”)
(CCPA 1972); Lands’ End, Inc. v. Manbeck, 797 F. Supp. 511, 514 (E.D. Va. 1992)
(“The determination of whether a specimen is mere advertising or a display
associated with the goods is a factual question amenable to proof.”).
Here, for the reasons stated by the Examining Attorney, we agree that Applicant’s
web page specimen fails to display MODULAR IS BETTER in a manner directly
associating it with any of the identified goods in Classes 11 and 13. Specifically,
Applicant’s placement of its proposed mark in the specimen is hardly noticeable
because it is buried in the middle of a sentence and described merely as a “motto,”
whereas Applicant repeatedly uses “Piglet™” in the web page to identify the mark
under which the product is being sold. This is in sharp contrast to the aforementioned
TMEP examples of how marks may appear on web pages for purposes of constituting
an acceptable point of sale display whereby consumers directly associate the mark
with the goods as an indicator of source. In sum, because of the manner in which it
appears in the specimen, there is no direct association between the proposed mark,
MODULAR IS BETTER, and the goods identified in the application. Accordingly, the
web page specimen does not constitute an acceptable display associated with the

Serial No. 98844196
- 11 -
goods, and does not otherwise demonstrate use of the mark on the goods in Classes
11 and 13.10
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark MODULAR IS
BETTER under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act based on Applicant’s failure
to submit an acceptable specimen for Classes 11 and 13.
10 As to the original and first substitute specimens, Applicant does not argue their
acceptability in its appeal brief. Nevertheless, and for sake of completeness, we agree with
the Examining Attorney that they constitute mere advertising and are not acceptable as
specimens of trademark use on goods. See generally TMEP § 904.04(b) (“Advertising material
is generally not acceptable as a specimen for goods.”)