Data Network Marketing Inc.

This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: February 27, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Data Network Marketing, Inc.
_____
Serial No. 97817090
_____
Michael F. Hoffman of Hoffman Warnick, LLC, for Data Network Marketing, Inc.
Deborah Meiners, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110, Loksye Lee
Riso, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Thurmon and Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Thurmon, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Data Network Marketing, Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the
Supplemental Register of the mark TARGETED DELIVERY, in standard characters,
for “Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software tools for
implementing a production and delivery timeline for direct mail campaigns with
enhanced scheduling and pricing options to ensure delivery to household mailboxes
nationwide within a three-day time window,” in International Class 42.1 The
1 Application Serial No. 97817090 was filed on March 1, 2023 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), claiming first use anywhere and in commerce at least
as early as February 28, 2023.

Serial No. 97817090
- 2 -
Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under Sections
23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1091(c), 1127, finding the applied-for
mark is generic for the identified services.2
The appeal is fully briefed and ready for final decision. We affirm the refusal to
register.
Genericness – Applicable Law
“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
Citations to the prosecution file are to entries in 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.
2 The original Application sought registration on the Principal Register. The Trademark
Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1). Office Action dated December 13, 2023. Applicant responded with
arguments against the refusal. Response to Office Action dated March 5, 2024. The
Trademark Examining Attorney issued a second non-final Office Action maintaining the
Section 2(e)(1) refusal, and in response, the Applicant amended the Application to seek
registration on the Supplemental Register. Office Action dated April 27, 2024; Response to
Office Action and Amendment dated July 9, 2024. The Trademark Examining Attorney then
issued the refusal at issue in this appeal, that the mark is generic for the identified services.
Office Action dated September 17, 2024. Applicant argued against the refusal and amended
the identified services. Response to Office Action dated December 10, 2024. A final Office
Action was issued maintaining the genericness refusal. Final Office Action dated April 14,
2025. Applicant requested reconsideration, which was denied, and pursued this appeal. The
sole issue before the Board is the genericness refusal.

Serial No. 97817090
- 3 -
Principal Register or Supplemental Register. Id.; see also USPTO v. Booking.com
B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020) (“Booking.com”).3
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[.]”).
A term is generic if the term refers to a subcategory of the claimed genus of
services or a key aspect of them; there is no requirement that the term refer to the
entire genus. 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
3 Applicant’s amendment to seek registration 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). Applicant’s statement, submitted with the
amendment, that it “is not conceding any legal findings,” does not alter the legal
consequences of its decision to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. Response to
Office Action dated July 9, 2024, at 1.

Serial No. 97817090
- 4 -
“mattress” is generic for online retail store services featuring mattresses and related
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. Defining the Genus and the Relevant Consumers.
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”). The
Application identifies the services, which define the scope of rights potentially
obtained through registration. For that reason, we use the identification as the genus
of the services. Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 602 (quoting Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc.,
940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The genus of the services, therefore, is: “Providing
temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software tools for implementing a
production and delivery timeline for direct mail campaigns with enhanced scheduling
and pricing options to ensure delivery to household mailboxes nationwide within a
three-day time window.”
The relevant consumers of this genus of services are individuals and businesses
that use direct mail campaigns for marketing or informational purposes. Royal Crown
Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting the need to identify
the relevant consumer group in a genericness analysis); Magic Wand, Inc., 940 F.2d
at 641 (finding the relevant consumer group consists of the purchasers or consumers

Serial No. 97817090
- 5 -
of the identified services). Applicant does not dispute either the genus of the services
or the relevant consumer group. 6 TTABVUE 9-10.
B. Do the Relevant Consumers Primarily Understand TARGETED
DELIVERY to Primarily Refer to the Genus or a Class or
Category of the Genus?
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
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 words defined
in a dictionary, such definitions are strong evidence of what the words mean to typical
consumers. 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.”). “A target is a result
that you are trying to achieve.” Office Action dated December 13, 2023, at 8 (from

Serial No. 97817090
- 6 -
Collins online dictionary). Targeted is the past tense or past participle of target. Id.
“Delivery” means, among other things, “a distributing, as of goods or mail.” Id. at 10.
Applicant does not dispute these definitions, but argues that the Trademark
Examining Attorney used an “overly broad definition to the term TARGETED
DELIVERY,” by using a date-range as the target. 6 TTABVUE 10. According to
Applicant, “the term TARGETED DELIVERY is almost exclusively used in
conjunction with targeting specified individuals or audiences to receive direct mail.”
Id. (emphasis in original). Both the record and common sense refute this argument.
We begin with common sense. Consider a direct mail campaign aimed at voters in
an election. Surely, the date-range of the deliveries of such mail are important,
perhaps just as important as “targeting specified individuals or audiences.” If the
election is on date X, it would be of little value to deliver mail promoting a particular
candidate or issue days or weeks after the election. Or consider a direct mail
advertising campaign for a President’s Day sale. Surely it is important that such mail
be delivered prior to the President’s Day holiday, that is before the sale ends. It simply
makes no sense to structure these common types of direct mail campaigns without
targeting a date-range for delivery of the mail. Applicant’s arguments to the contrary
are not credible.
The record confirms what common sense tells us. We begin with excerpts from
Applicant’s website, the same source Applicant used for its specimen. “Targeted
Delivery is our proprietary program that ensures you land in mailboxes—
nationwide—within a three-day window.” Office Action dated December 13, 2023, at

Serial No. 97817090
- 7 -
11; Specimen dated July 9, 2024. This statement makes clear that the target of
Applicant’s direct mail program is a date range. There is nothing distinctive about
calling your service what it is, and that is exactly what Applicant has done here.
Indeed, even if Applicant were the first business to use the “targeted delivery” phrase
for? such services, that would not mean the phrase is distinctive. See, e.g., In re Fat
Boys Water Sports LLC, No. 86490930, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 150, *10 (noting that even
the first user of a merely descriptive term or phrase does not avoid a Section 2(e)(1)
refusal).
But Applicant is not the only direct mail business using date ranges as part of the
targeting of the direct mail.
• MSP, another direct mail business, states on its website that its service
“also provides targeted delivery windows, which can improve your
campaign’s time to market and response rates.” Office Action dated
December 13, 2023, at 15.
• Anchor, a software business that provides direct mail software, refers to
“targeted delivery,” and notes the importance of timing for election-related
direct mail campaigns. Office Action dated April 27, 2024, at 13-14.
• Prolist, a direct mail business, provides a list of the capabilities of its
services. The first bullet entry on this list is “View results by Targeted
Delivery Date Range. Id. at 15.
• The Clark Group, a logistics business, refers to the “targeted delivery date”
for shipping goods. Id. at 16.
• Lob, another direct mail business, describes its services as “meticulously
targeted and timed to make an impact when it matters most. Our approach
transforms conventional direct mail into a targeted marketing too, fine-
tuned to enhance your promotional strategy.” Id. at 44. This business also
refers to “strategic timing” as one feature of its services. Id. at 46.
• Zahub, a marketing business focused on pizza shops, states “Pizza shops
can gain an edge by partnering with a direct mail vendor who’s perfected
targeted delivery dates.” Id. at 108.

Serial No. 97817090
- 8 -
• Capital Imaging, discussing use of door-hanger marketing, refers to
“Targeted Delivery: Distribute in areas where your target audience is most
likely to be, and consider timing for maximum impact (e.g., during peak
hours or before a special event).” Id. at 112.
These examples confirm the importance of timing in direct mail, and related,
marketing activities. Applicant’s argument that “targeted delivery” is used “almost
exclusively” to refer to customer targeting is misplaced. The evidence shows that
multiple targets may be used in direct mail marketing, and that timing is a key target
for many such campaigns. To claim exclusive rights to use the phrase “Targeted
Delivery” is clearly inconsistent with the reality of this business segment.
The evidence of record shows that one meaning of “targeted delivery” is “targeting
individuals or audiences to receive direct mail,” as Applicant argues. 6 TTABVUE
10. The Trademark Examining Attorney submitted numerous examples of such uses.
See, e.g., Office Action dated December 13, 2023, at 17, 18; Office Action dated April
27, 2024, at 9, 10; Final Office Action dated April 14, 2025, at 39. This fact, however,
does not undermine the refusal because terms often have multiple meanings. The
evidence of record shows that one established meaning of “Targeted Delivery” in the
direct mail business segment is for mailings targeted to a delivery date or range of
dates, which is exactly how Applicant uses the phrase. It is irrelevant that one use
might be more common. This evidence simply shows that relevant consumers are
likely to understand that there is more than one kind of direct mail targeting. The
reference to the “primary” meaning of the phrase in the genericness standard does
not mean that only one meaning of a word or phrase is generic. Consumers who know

Serial No. 97817090
- 9 -
that Applicant provides targeted delivery based on a date range (i.e., the relevant
genus for our analysis), will understand the applied-for mark to refer to that genus.
Decision: The genericness refusal is affirmed.