International First Committee Association

Mailed: September 28, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re International FIRST Committee Association
————
Serial No. 98849414
————
Mark E. Tetreault for International FIRST Committee Association.
Joseph Greene, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 125,
Robin Mittler, Managing Attorney.
————
Before English, Thurmon, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant International FIRST Committee Association seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the standard-character mark BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES for
“Promoting educational programs and competitions for others in the fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics,” in International Class 35, and
“Education services, namely, conducting educational programs and competitions in
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 98849414
2
the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,” in International
Class 41.1
Applicant appeals the Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal of registration on
the grounds that (1) under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-
1053, 1127, the applied-for mark fails to function as a service mark because it merely
provides information about the identified services; (2) under Trademark Act Sections
1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1053, 1127, the applied-for mark fails to function
as a service mark because, as used on the specimens of record, it does not show the
mark functioning as a source identifier for Applicant’s services; and (3) under
Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, the specimens of record
fail to show a direct association between the applied-for mark and the identified
services.2
1 Application Serial No. 98849414, filed on November 12, 2024, based on Applicant’s
allegation of use in commerce under Trademark Act Section 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a),
claiming October 1, 2022, as both the date of first use anywhere and the date of first use in
commerce for both classes of services. Applicant claims acquired distinctiveness in the
applied-for mark as a whole under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). See
n.29 below.
2 For brevity, we have simplified our summary of the procedural history, which includes a
request for remand by the Examining Attorney, a subsequent final Office action, and the
filing of a supplemental appeal brief by Applicant. For a more detailed review of the events
following the filing of the appeal, see 4 TTABVUE through 12 TTABVUE.
The TTABVUE and Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) citations in this
opinion refer respectively to entries in the Board’s electronic docket and the downloadable
PDF version of the electronic application file. For TTABVUE citations, the number preceding
the TTABVUE designation is the docket entry number and any numbers following indicate
the relevant page numbers within the docket entry.

Serial No. 98849414
3
Both Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs.3 As explained
below, we affirm the refusal of registration under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 on the
ground that the applied-for mark fails to function as a service mark because, as used
on the specimens of record, it does not show the mark functioning as a source
identifier for the identified services. We do not reach the other grounds for refusal.
I. Evidentiary Objection
Before turning to our analysis, we address the Examining Attorney’s objection to
evidence submitted during prosecution that was never properly introduced into the
record.4 Specifically, the Examining Attorney previously objected to a screenshot of
an internet search engine “AI Overview,” which was included in Applicant’s response
to a nonfinal Office action, because it lacked the date of access and a complete URL.5
As the Examining Attorney explained to Applicant in a subsequent final Office
action,6 to properly introduce internet evidence into the record, a party must provide
(1) an image file or printout of the downloaded webpage, (2) the date the evidence was
downloaded or accessed, and (3) the complete URL address of the webpage. See In re
I-Coat Co., No. 86802467, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 171, at *7-9; see also TRADEMARK TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP) § 1208.03 (2026); TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 710.01(b) (May 2026).
3 Applicant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12
TTABVUE.
4 See Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12 TTABVUE 4.
5 See January 14, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 3.
6 Id.

Serial No. 98849414
4
The Board will not consider internet evidence that does not comply with these
requirements, except where the examining attorney does not object. See I-Coat, 2018
TTAB LEXIS 171, at *9. Here, the Examining Attorney timely and properly objected
to the internet evidence and advised Applicant how to correct the deficiency.7
Applicant, however, failed to do so.8 We therefore sustain the Examining Attorney’s
objection and have not considered this evidence.9
II. Failure to Function as a Service Mark
A. Applicable Law
The Examining Attorney’s second ground for refusal is that the applied-for mark
fails to function as a service mark under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1051-1053, 1127, because, as used on the specimen of record, it does not
show the mark functioning as a source identifier for Applicant’s services.
A service mark is “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof
. . . used by a person . . . to identify and distinguish the services of one person,
including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of
the services.” Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Not every word,
combination of words, or other designation used in the advertising or rendering of
7 See id.
8 Although the Examining Attorney’s objection to the evidence was raised in a subsequent
final Office action and the application was then immediately returned to the Board for
resumption of the appeal, Applicant could have requested remand to correct the deficiency.
See TBMP § 1209.04.
9 In any event, Applicant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief does not rely on or otherwise reference
this evidence, which appears to have been submitted in support of Applicant’s claim of
acquired distinctiveness.

Serial No. 98849414
5
services performs a source-indicating function, even if adopted with that purpose in
mind. See In re The Ride, LLC, No. 86845550, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 2, at *18-19; D.C.
One Wholesaler, Inc. v. Chien, No. 91199035, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 536, at *8 (citing In
re Eagle Crest, Inc., No. 77114518, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 346, at *6); Am. Velcro, Inc. v.
Charles Mayer Studios, Inc., 1973 TTAB LEXIS 11, at *19 (no number in original).
Thus, a designation is not a service mark merely because it appears or is otherwise
used on a specimen. See In re Aerospace Optics, Inc., No. 76171288, 2006 TTAB
LEXIS 126, at *3-4 (“The mere fact that a designation appears on the specimen of
record does not make it a trademark.”).
Rather, to function as a service mark, a designation must be used in a manner
that would be perceived by purchasers as identifying and distinguishing the source
of the services recited in the application. See The Ride, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 2, at *10;
In re Keep A Breast Found., No. 85316199, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 259, at *7 (“[A] service
mark must be ‘used in such a manner that it would be readily perceived as identifying’
the services . . . .” (quoting In re Moody’s Inv’rs Serv. Inc., No. 73565540, 1989 TTAB
LEXIS 53, at *10-11)). Accordingly, “the central question in determining whether
Applicant’s proposed mark functions as a service mark is the commercial impression
it makes on the relevant public (e.g., whether the term sought to be registered would
be perceived as a mark identifying the source of the services).” Keep A Breast, 2017
TTAB LEXIS 259, at *14. “To make this determination we look to the specimens and
other evidence of record showing how the designation is actually used in the
marketplace.” Eagle Crest, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 346, at *6.

Serial No. 98849414
6
B. Analysis
Applicant’s original specimen of use, which was submitted in support of both
identified classes of services, shows the applied-for mark appearing on what the
Examining Attorney characterizes as a plaque.10
As the Examining Attorney notes, the “plaque features the name of Applicant’s
organization [FIRST Global] at the top in the largest print, the applied-for mark
immediately below also in large print, then below that a listing of Applicant’s values
as they relate to accountability for others, and at the bottom a place where
10 November 12, 2024 Application at TSDR 7 (red arrow added).

Serial No. 98849414
7
participants sign to signify they agree to follow these values.”11 The Examining
Attorney argues that “[t]he placement of the applied-for mark below the Applicant[’s]
name and immediately before the listing of accountability values indicates the
applied-for mark is meant to be associated with the list of responsibilities that has
been created by the Applicant, and not as the source of Applicant’s services
themselves,” which are not referenced at all.12 Thus, the Examining Attorney
concludes, “consumers will perceive the applied-for mark on the original specimen as
merely identifying or referring to the statement of values, and not as the source of
any services.”13
We agree with the Examining Attorney’s analysis and conclusion. When viewed
in its entirety, the specimen is simply a list of the responsibilities that members of
Applicant’s organization, FIRST Global, pledge to uphold, and the wording BILL OF
RESPONSIBILITIES merely identifies those responsibilities. Indeed, the preamble
that appears directly below the wording BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES, and above
the members’ signatures, explicitly states that the signing members “mutually pledge
to each other . . . our undertaking of the responsibilities set forth below.”14 The fact
that the applied-for mark appears on a wall-mounted plaque, where such statements
typically appear, reinforces this conclusion.
11 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12 TTABVUE 11.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 November 12, 2024 Application at TSDR 7.

Serial No. 98849414
8
In addition, the Examining Attorney has submitted various excerpts from third-
party websites showing that it is common for organizations, including those offering
educational programs, to create a “bill of responsibilities,” listing the ideals of, and
expectations for, the organization and its members. For example:
• The website for the Stillmeadow Elementary School states that the
school “utilizes a Bill of Responsibilities that clearly defines
expectations for student conduct, including treating others with
respect, fairness, compassion, and courtesy.”15
• The Happy Valley Comedy Training Center requires its students to
agree to the “HVC Training Center Student Bill of Responsibilities
& Rights,” which lists various responsibilities for a student’s “role in
the learning process.”16
• South Africa’s Department of Basic Education developed a “Bill of
Responsibilities for schools and learners,” focusing on what “good
and loyal South African citizens” “are responsible for.”17
• The website for Founding Forward includes a webpage explaining its
“Bill of Responsibilities,” which identifies the “responsibilities as
individual members of a free society.”18
• Another organization, Convention of States Action, explains and
displays a similarly themed “Bill of Responsibilities” on its website.19
When the applied-for mark, as shown in the original specimen, is considered
against the backdrop of the evidence indicating the likely perception of the term “bill
of responsibilities,” we find that the only function the applied-for mark serves is to
identify the nature of the document displayed. Thus, it does not function as a service
15 January 14, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 13-15.
16 October 9, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 9.
17 Id. at 13.
18 Id. at 10-11.
19 January 14, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 25.

Serial No. 98849414
9
mark to identify the source of Applicant’s identified services in Classes 35 and 41 and
distinguish them from the services of others.
Applicant’s substitute specimen of use, which was also submitted in support of
both classes of services, consists of a screenshot from Applicant’s website:20
20 Applicant submitted this same substitute specimen in three different filings during
prosecution. See May 14, 2025 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 7; June 5, 2025
Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 7; November 21, 2025 Response to Nonfinal Office
Action at TSDR 14. The version of the specimen displayed above most clearly shows all the
relevant content on a single page. See November 21, 2025 Response to Nonfinal Office Action
at TSDR 14 (red arrows added).

Serial No. 98849414
10
The Examining Attorney points out that the “webpage is presented in a similar
layout as the plaque [in the original specimen], showing the applied-for mark used at
the top of the webpage and again in the middle of the webpage where it shows a
digital version of the same values and principles statement that appears on the
plaque.”21 According to the Examining Attorney, “[w]hile the webpage shows
additional information immediately before the values statement, this information is
merely a broader discussion of the value[s] of Applicant’s organization ‘FIRST Global’
and regularly references the values statement associated with the mark and not any
services Applicant provides.”22 In support, the Examining Attorney notes that the
webpage states that “[b]elow are FIRST Global’s Declaration of Interdependence and
its accompanying Bill of Responsibilities”; that, “[t]ogether, these documents
represent the foundation[al] credo of FIRST Global”; and that Applicant’s
organization “[a]sk[s] that all FIRST Global students, mentors, volunteers, and
supporters read these documents and recommit themselves to the values they
uphold.”23 Thus, the Examining Attorney concludes that, like the original specimen,
this substitute specimen “shows the applied-for mark used only to reference the
statement and listing of values,” and therefore “consumers will perceive the applied-
for mark as merely referring to the values statement and not the source of the services
provided in association with that statement.”24
21 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12 TTABVUE 11.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 11-12.
24 Id. at 12.

Serial No. 98849414
11
Applicant, for its part, argues that “the mark appears prominently within
Applicant’s official website and is presented as the title of a structured initiative
associated with Applicant’s educational programs,” and “[i]n that context, consumers
would reasonably perceive the phrase as identifying Applicant’s initiative rather than
merely conveying general information.”25
Applicant’s arguments are unavailing. Again, the mere fact that the applied-for
mark appears on the specimen does not make it a service mark. See Aerospace Optics,
2006 TTAB LEXIS 126, at *3-4. While the wording BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES
appears in various places on Applicant’s webpage, in none of these appearances does
the wording serve as a service mark for any of Applicant’s identified services. As
discussed above, the evidence of record indicates that consumers have been exposed
to various organizations using the wording “bill of responsibilities” to refer to an
organization’s ideals for itself and its members. And, here, Applicant’s webpage itself
uses BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES the same way. Specifically, the introductory text
at the top of the webpage refers to Applicant’s organization’s “Bill of Responsibilities”
as one of two guiding, foundational documents for the organization and its “students,
mentors, volunteers, and supporters,” which reflects “the values they uphold.” And
every other instance of BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES on the webpage reinforces or
is otherwise consistent with that usage. Thus, the heading at the very top of the
webpage uses BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES to indicate the subject matter of the
webpage, which explains and displays the full text of Applicant’s “Bill of
25 Applicant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 98849414
12
Responsibilities.” At the bottom of the webpage, BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES is
used as the heading for, and title of, the actual “Bill of Responsibilities” document.26
Applicant contends that the evidence of record, showing other organizations using
BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES “actually reinforces Applicant’s position.”27
Specifically, Applicant claims that, because “organizations often name their
initiatives or frameworks using distinctive titles,” “[c]onsumers encountering the
phrase within Applicant’s website would therefore understand BILL OF
RESPONSIBILITIES as the title of Applicant’s own initiative.”28 This argument is
misguided. The evidence does not show other organizations “using distinctive titles”;
it shows them using BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES to identify their guiding
principles, just as Applicant does. Cf. Keep A Breast, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 259, at *15
(finding that consumers would be unlikely to perceive the applied-for mark as
indicating the source of the identified services, suggesting that “if anything, the
applied-for mark appears to be created as part of” services offered under another
designation appearing on the specimens, and noting that other organizations engaged
in similar activities in connection with their services). And, in that context,
Applicant’s mere use of BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES to refer to one of its own
26 Likewise, BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES appears in the title of the YouTube video that
can apparently be accessed through the webpage. While the Board will consider video
evidence if properly made of record during prosecution, see In re Jimenez, No. 97551823, 2025
TTAB LEXIS 441, at *6, Applicant did not make of record a copy of the relevant video here.
Thus, we are unable to determine whether the video shows use of the applied-for mark as a
source identifier for Applicant’s services.
27 Applicant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 7.
28 Id.

Serial No. 98849414
13
foundational documents reflecting the values upheld by the organization (and its
students, mentors and volunteers) does not transform the wording into something
that the relevant consumers would recognize as a source indicator that serves to
identify and distinguish Applicant’s identified services from the services of others.
Trademark Act Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
III. Conclusion
As used on the specimens of record, Applicant’s applied-for mark BILL OF
RESPONSIBILITIES fails to function as a service mark for the identified services in
Classes 35 and 41.29 See In re Whataburger Sys., Inc., 1980 TTAB LEXIS 73, at *3
(“[A] designation may not be registered either as a trademark or as a service mark
unless it is used as a mark, in such a manner that its function as an indication of
origin may be readily perceived by persons encountering the goods or services in
connection with which it is used.”) (no number in original). As this is a sufficient basis
for refusing registration, we do not reach the other grounds for refusal. See In re
Everson, No. 97104306, 2026 TTAB LEXIS 75, at *3 (finding one ground sufficient to
29 Applicant has claimed acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f), 15
U.S.C. § 1052(f). See November 21, 2025 Response to Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 5.
However, as the Examining Attorney points out in his brief at 12 TTABVUE 4-5, matter that
does not function as a service mark is unregistrable and thus a claim of acquired
distinctiveness cannot overcome a refusal on that basis. See The Ride, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 2,
at *34 (“[N]o amount of evidence of acquired distinctiveness can overcome a failure to function
refusal.”); In re Mancino, No. 73327710, 1983 TTAB LEXIS 90, at *5-6 (“Since the refusal to
register in this case was based on applicant’s failure to demonstrate technical service mark
use, the claim of distinctiveness under Section 2(f) was of no relevance to the issue in the
case.”); TMEP § 1212.02(i) (“[W]here the examining attorney has determined that matter
sought to be registered is not registrable because it is not a mark within the meaning of the
Trademark Act, a claim that the matter has acquired distinctiveness under §2(f) as applied
to the applicant’s goods or services does not overcome the refusal.”).

Serial No. 98849414
14
refuse registration and declining to reach the other ground); see also TBMP § 1217
(noting the Board’s discretion to affirm a refusal of registration based on one of
multiple grounds).
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s applied-for mark for both
classes of services under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, because, as used on
the specimens of record, it does not function as a service mark to identify the source
of the identified services and distinguish them from the services of others.