VaLorie L. Fogle

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: September 30, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re VaLorie L. Fogle
_____
Serial No. 98611451
_____
Charisse L. Hines of Charisse Hines Law,
for VaLorie L. Fogle.
Daniel Weiss, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 127,
Scott Kumis, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Cohen, and Stanley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Stanley, Administrative Trademark Judge:
VaLorie L. Fogle (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
standard-character mark CHEF VERIFIED for “Television show production,” in
International Class 41.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Sections 1 and 45
of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, on the ground that the specimen of
record and other materials do not show a direct association between the applied-for
1 Application Serial No. 98611451, filed on June 20, 2024.

Serial No. 98611451
- 2 -
mark and the identified services, and therefore fail to show the mark as actually used
in commerce in connection with those services.
After the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant filed a request for
reconsideration, which was denied, and this appeal followed. The appeal is fully
briefed. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register.2
I. Relevant Prosecution History
Applicant, then proceeding pro se, filed the involved application on June 20, 2024,
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 June 1, 2024. The application form
indicates that Applicant intended to submit a specimen described as a “website
landing page,” identifying the webpage URL as “www.chefverified.com” and the
webpage date of access as June 1, 2024.3 However, no specimen image was attached;
the specimen file in the record reads “No Image Attached”:4
On December 30, 2024, the Examining Attorney issued a Non-Final Office Action
refusing registration under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45 because the application
did not include the required specimen showing the applied-for mark as actually used
in commerce for the Class 41 services, and separately required Applicant to clarify
2 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.
3 June 20, 2024 Application, TSDR at 2.
4 Id. at 6; June 20, 2024 Specimen, TSDR at 1.

Serial No. 98611451
- 3 -
an inconsistency between the identification of an individual as the owner of the mark
and the designation of the legal entity as a limited liability company.5
Applicant responded the same day. She amended the entity type to “individual,”
provided her country of citizenship, and submitted a substitute specimen, supported
by the verification required under Trademark Rules 2.56(a) and 2.59(a), 37 C.F.R.
§§ 2.56(a), 2.59(a), attesting that the specimen was in use in commerce at least as
early as the application filing date.6 Applicant described the substitute specimen as
a “website page,” identifying the webpage URL as “https://www.chefverified.com” and
the webpage date of access as June 1, 2024.7 The substitute specimen appears below:8
5 December 30, 2024 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 1-3.
6 December 30, 2024 Response to Office Action, TSDR at 2.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 8.

Serial No. 98611451
- 4 -
On February 10, 2025, the Examining Attorney issued a Final Office Action
accepting Applicant’s amendment resolving the entity inconsistency, but maintaining
and making final the specimen refusal. The Examining Attorney explained that
“nothing on the specimen shows the mark used in connection with the applied for
services ‘television show production’ because there is no indication of ‘television show
production’ on the specimen” and that the specimen therefore “does not show a direct
association between the mark and services[.]”9
Applicant’s deadline to respond to the Final Office Action or to appeal was May
12, 2025. Applicant did neither. Instead, on May 15, 2025, Applicant filed a “Request
to Restore Filing Date,” attaching two unverified images: an undated screenshot of a
YouTube channel page bearing the wording “Chef Verified” and a copy of the same
chefverified.com screenshot she had submitted on December 30, 2024.10 The Office
denied that request on May 21, 2025, on the ground that it was directed to
“inappropriate subject matter.”11 The YouTube screenshot attached to the May 15,
2025 Request to Restore Filing Date appears below:12
9 February 10, 2025 Final Office Action, TSDR at 3.
10 May 15, 2025 Request to Restore Filing Date, TSDR at 5-6.
11 May 21, 2025 Petition Decision, TSDR at 1.
12 May 15, 2025 Request to Restore Filing Date, TSDR at 5.

Serial No. 98611451
- 5 -
On June 10, 2025, the Office issued a Notice of Abandonment for failure to respond
timely to the Final Office Action. Applicant filed a Petition to Revive on the same day,
indicating that she was separately filing a notice of appeal with the Board.13 On July
25, 2025, the Office issued a Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter, noting that the
notice of appeal referenced in the petition did not appear in the record.14
On August 24, 2025, Applicant, now represented by counsel, filed a Response to
Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter stating that she had filed a notice of appeal and
that she “also submits verified substitute specimens from URL
https://www.chefverified.com/ taken on August 24, 2025 with this response.”15 The
13 June 10, 2025 Petition to Revive, TSDR at 1.
14 July 25, 2025 Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter, TSDR at 1.
15 August 24, 2025 Response to Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter, TSDR at 1.

Serial No. 98611451
- 6 -
images attached to that submission are screenshots of chefverified.com bearing an
on-screen date of August 24, 2025 and referring to a “New show every Mon[day],” a
“NEW SHOW coming,” and content “Coming September 2025 on The Now
Network.”16 Notwithstanding the characterization of these images as “verified
substitute specimens,” they were not accompanied by the verified statement that they
were in use in commerce at least as early as the application filing date, as required
by Trademark Rules 2.56(a) and 2.59(a). Images of the screenshots attached to the
Response to Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter appear below:17
16 Id. at 5-7.
17 Id.

Serial No. 98611451
- 7 -
On August 25, 2025, the application was revived. On January 20, 2026, the
Examining Attorney denied Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration. He explained
that although the “submitted images in the most recent communication show that
applicant’s mark is used in connection with a ‘new show[,]’” “this does not show the
mark in connection with ‘Television show production’ because there is no information

Serial No. 98611451
- 8 -
on the submitted images about the production of television shows.”18 He further noted
that “applicant’s submitted images were not submitted as verified substitute
specimens, rather, they were submitted as stand alone images.”19
II. Applicable Law
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. A mark is used in commerce on services “when it is used or displayed in the
sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce.” Id. An
application filed under Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act must include “one specimen
per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with
the goods or services identified.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(a); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1);
37 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1)(iv).
A service mark specimen “must show the mark as used in the sale of the services,
including use in the performance or rendering of the services, or in the advertising of
the services,” and “must show a direct association between the mark and the
services.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(2). As a practical matter, this means the mark must be
shown “in a manner that would be perceived by potential purchasers as identifying
18 January 20, 2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 2.
19 Id.

Serial No. 98611451
- 9 -
the applicant’s services and indicating their source[.]” In re DSM Pharms., Inc., No.
78373640, 2008 WL 2385957, at *1 (TTAB 2008); see also In re JobDiva, Inc., 843
F.3d 936, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To determine whether a mark is used in connection
with the services described in the registration, a key consideration is the perception
of the user.”). A specimen that “show[s] only the mark with no reference to, or
association with, the services does not show service mark usage.” In re Pitney Bowes,
Inc., No. 86502157, 2018 WL 360241, at *2 (TTAB 2018).
What is necessary to establish a 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) (May 2026) and cases
cited therein. “‘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.’” In re Weiss, No. 88621608, 2024 WL 3617597, at *6 (TTAB
2024) (quoting In re WAY Media, Inc., No. 86325739, 2016 WL 3566131, at *1 (TTAB
2016)). “While the services need not be stated word for word, a sufficient reference to
the services themselves or a general reference to the trade, industry, or field of use is
required.” TMEP § 1301.04(f)(ii); see also In re Osmotica Holdings Corp., No.
77314455, 2010 WL 2513862, at *4 (TTAB 2010) (although the specimens referenced
applicant’s identified consulting services, the mark as used would be perceived as

Serial No. 98611451
- 10 -
identifying only applicant’s drug delivery technology, and thus failed to establish the
required association with the 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, Inc., No. 73836597, 1992 WL 169149, at *2 (TTAB 1992) (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, a 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. See WAY Media, 2016 WL 3566131, at *1
(“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 WL 737607, at *3 (TTAB
1994)).
Where an applicant submits a substitute specimen, the applicant must also
submit a verified statement that the substitute specimen was in use in commerce at
least as early as the filing date of the application. 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.56(a), 2.59(a). Absent

Serial No. 98611451
- 11 -
that verification, the submitted materials cannot be considered as substitute
specimens at all. In re Adair, No. 74402282, 1997 WL 811987, at *1 n.2 (TTAB 1997)
(because “applicant never submitted the required verification … none of the
additional materials which applicant submitted can be considered as substitute
specimens”). If an applicant cannot provide an acceptable, properly verified
substitute specimen, it may amend the basis of the application to Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 2.35(b)(1).
Finally, in determining whether the requisite service mark use has been shown,
we consider the specimen of record and other materials “together with any other
evidence of record,” see Adair, 1997 WL 811987, at *3, as well as “any explanations
offered by Applicant clarifying the nature, content, or context of use of the specimen
that are consistent with what the specimen itself shows,” Pitney Bowes, 2018 WL
360241, at *3. Such explanations, however, cannot excuse a failure to use the mark
in connection with the identified services, id., and attorney argument “is no substitute
for evidence,” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
III. Analysis
A. Applicant’s Arguments
In her main brief, Applicant asserts that she “attached a video of a television show
produced under the mark as her specimen” with the application.20 The record does
not support that assertion. As noted above, no specimen image was attached to the
20 Applicant’s Br., 6 TTABVUE 2.

Serial No. 98611451
- 12 -
application; the specimen file reads: “No Image Attached.”21 Nor does a video appear
anywhere else in the record; Applicant submitted no video at any point during
prosecution. Moreover, Applicant’s own contemporaneous description of the material
she intended to submit with the application was a “website landing page” accessed at
“www.chefverified.com” on June 1, 2024—a description fundamentally inconsistent
with a video of a television show. We accordingly give this assertion no weight. See
Cai, 901 F.3d at 1371.
Applicant’s main brief otherwise sets out the legal standards governing the
sufficiency of service mark specimens, including the requirement of a direct
association between the mark and the services and the relevance of consumer
perception.22 But Applicant does not apply those standards to the specimen or other
materials of record. She identifies no specimen, points to no language or image within
any submission, and offers no explanation of how any submission creates the
requisite direct association between CHEF VERIFIED and “Television show
production.” Applicant advances arguments applying those standards for the first
time in her reply brief, and we would be justified in declining to consider them on
that basis. See TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE (TBMP)
§ 1203.02(g) (2026) (“If an applicant, in its appeal brief, does not assert an argument
21 June 20, 2024 Application, TSDR at 6; June 20, 2024 Specimen, TSDR at 1.
22 Applicant’s Br., 6 TTABVUE 3-5.

Serial No. 98611451
- 13 -
made during prosecution, it may be deemed waived by the Board.”). In any event, we
have considered them and find them unpersuasive for the reasons discussed below.23
B. The Only Verified Specimen of Record
The sole properly verified specimen in the record is the chefverified.com website
screenshot submitted with Applicant’s December 30, 2024 Response to Office Action.
On its face, that specimen is an undifferentiated website landing page. It displays the
term “Chef Verified,” the words “Landing Page,” the phrases “Excellence Meets
Authenticity” and “Discover More,” and a heading, “Top Picks.”24 Nothing else
appears.
Nothing on this specimen refers to a television show, much less to the production
of television shows. There is no reference to any program, series, or episode; no
reference to producing, developing, filming, or distributing television programming;
no reference to any network, broadcaster, streaming platform, or other outlet; and
nothing else one would expect to see referenced in connection with the production of
television shows. Nor is there any general reference to the television production trade,
23 In her reply brief, Applicant seizes on the concluding sentence of the analysis section of the
Examining Attorney’s brief, which states that Applicant “‘has failed to show use of the mark
in connection with the applied for goods.’” Applicant’s Reply Br., 9 TTABVUE 6 (quoting
Examining Attorney’s Br., 8 TTABVUE 4). Because the application identifies services rather
than goods, Applicant contends that the Examining Attorney applied an “overly rigid”
standard. Id. This argument is unavailing. Although the Examining Attorney misdescribes
the identified services as “goods” in that single sentence, his brief otherwise sets out and
applies the correct standard governing the acceptability of service mark specimens, including
the requirement of a direct association between the mark and the services. See Examining
Attorney’s Br., 8 TTABVUE 3-4. Applicant does not explain how the isolated misnomer
reflects any error in the standard actually applied, and in any event we apply the service
mark specimen standard set forth above.
24 December 30, 2024 Response to Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 8.

Serial No. 98611451
- 14 -
industry, or field of use from which a consumer might infer the recited services. See
TMEP § 1301.04(f)(ii).
The specimen accordingly fails under either framework. Considered as an
advertising specimen, it fails because it contains no reference at all to the identified
services. See Weiss, 2024 WL 3617597, at *6. Considered as a rendering specimen, it
fails because there is nothing on it that “creates in the mind of the purchaser an
association between the mark and the service activity.” See WAY Media, 2016 WL
3566131, at *1. At most, the specimen shows that Applicant maintains a website
displaying the term CHEF VERIFIED. But a specimen that “show[s] only the mark
with no reference to, or association with, the services does not show service mark
usage.” Pitney Bowes, 2018 WL 360241, at *2; see also In re Monograms Am., Inc., No.
75089735, 1999 WL 517204, at *2 (TTAB 1999) (specimen unacceptable because there
was “no reference whatsoever” to any type of the recited services).
C. The Unverified Materials
The remaining materials of record—the images attached to the May 15, 2025
Request to Restore Filing Date and those attached to the August 24, 2025 Response
to Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter—cannot be considered as substitute specimens
at all, because they were not verified.
Trademark Rules 2.56(a) and 2.59(a) require that a substitute specimen be
supported by a verified statement that the specimen was in use in commerce at least
as early as the application filing date. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.56(a), 2.59(a). No such
statement accompanies these materials. The August 24, 2025 submission states that

Serial No. 98611451
- 15 -
Applicant “submits verified substitute specimens from URL
https://www.chefverified.com/ taken on August 24, 2025,”25 but the submission
contains no such verification. The declaration signed with that form attests only that
“the facts set forth above are true”;26 it nowhere states that the attached images were
in use in commerce as of the application filing date. As the Examining Attorney
observed, the images “were not submitted as verified substitute specimens, rather,
they were submitted as stand alone images.”27 The YouTube channel screenshot
attached to the May 15, 2025 Request to Restore Filing Date is likewise unverified,
and undated.28
The record thus contains no verified statement that any of these uses occurred on
or before the June 20, 2024 application filing date. To the contrary, the August 2025
materials affirmatively indicate otherwise: the submission states that the images
were “taken on August 24, 2025,” the screenshots bear an on-screen date of August
24, 2025, and their content refers to a “NEW SHOW coming” and programming
“Coming September 2025”—all more than a year after the filing date.29
Unverified materials cannot substitute for a specimen. Where, as here, an
“applicant never submitted the required verification … none of the additional
25 August 24, 2025 Response to Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter, TSDR at 1.
26 Id. at 4.
27 January 20, 2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 2.
28 May 15, 2025 Request to Restore Filing Date, TSDR at 5. The May 15, 2025 Request to
Restore Filing Date also references a “Facebook page” (id. at 1), but no Facebook screenshot
is attached.
29 August 24, 2025 Response to Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter, TSDR at 1, 5-7.

Serial No. 98611451
- 16 -
materials which applicant submitted can be considered as substitute specimens.”
Adair, 1997 WL 811987, at *1 n.2. Applicant was advised of the verification
requirement—and of the alternative of amending the filing basis to Section 1(b), see
37 C.F.R. § 2.35(b)(1)—in the December 30, 2024 Non-Final Office Action, the
February 10, 2025 Final Office Action, and the January 20, 2026 Denial of the
Request for Reconsideration.30 Applicant pursued neither course.
Because the only verified specimen of record does not show the applied-for mark
used in commerce in connection with “Television show production,” the refusal must
be affirmed.
D. The Unverified Materials Would Be Unacceptable in Any Event
Even if we were to consider Applicant’s unverified materials, the result would be
the same, because none of them shows the applied-for mark as actually used in
commerce in connection with “Television show production.”
The YouTube screenshot shows a channel bearing the name “chef verified,” a
channel description stating that “Chef Verified is your ultimate guide to discovering
the best in the culinary world,” and thumbnails for uploaded videos.31 The August
2025 chefverified.com screenshots display a video player, references to “TikTok” and
“YayaTheChef,” an image bearing the wording “COOKING WITH KIDS,” a reference
30 December 30, 2024 Non-Final Office Action, TSDR at 2; February 10, 2025 Final Office
Action, TSDR at 3; January 20, 2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration, TSDR at 2-3.
31 May 15, 2025 Request to Restore Filing Date, TSDR at 5.

Serial No. 98611451
- 17 -
to a “YouTube Channel” and a “New show every Mon[day],” and text indicating that
“Chef Verified” is “Coming September 2025 on The Now Network.”32
These materials indicate that videos bearing the CHEF VERIFIED designation
have been uploaded to YouTube, and that video content of some kind is viewable at
chefverified.com. They do not, however, tie the mark to television show production.
Nothing in them references production activity of any kind. There is no reference to
producing, developing, filming, editing, or post-production; no production credits; no
production company, studio, or facility; and no reference to the television production
trade, industry, or field of use. See TMEP § 1301.04(f)(ii) (requiring “a sufficient
reference to the services themselves or a general reference to the trade, industry, or
field of use”). While one screenshot references a forthcoming show and the network
on which it is to air, a reference to the show is not a reference to the production of the
show. If anything, the materials point elsewhere: the channel description identifies
Applicant as a “guide to discovering the best in the culinary world,” which describes
content, not the rendering of production services to others.
Of these materials, the screenshot stating “NEW SHOW coming” and announcing
that CHEF VERIFIED is “Coming September 2025 on The Now Network” comes
closest to the recited services.33 But it falls short in two respects.
First, this screenshot is, on its face, promotional matter announcing forthcoming
programming, and so must be assessed as an advertising specimen. To create the
32 August 24, 2025 Response to Petition to Revive Deficiency Letter, TSDR at 5-7.
33 Id. at 6.

Serial No. 98611451
- 18 -
requisite direct association, an advertising specimen must both reference the
identified services and show the mark used to identify those services and their source.
Weiss, 2024 WL 3617597, at *6. The services need not be recited word-for-word, but
there must be “a sufficient reference to the services themselves or a general reference
to the trade, industry, or field of use.” TMEP § 1301.04(f)(ii). Here, the screenshot
references a show—that is, the end product—and identifies the network on which
that show is to appear. It does not reference the production of television shows, and
it says nothing that would lead a prospective purchaser of television show production
services to associate CHEF VERIFIED with the rendering of such services. At most,
CHEF VERIFIED is used as the title of forthcoming programming. That is not use as
a service mark for production services. See In re Universal Oil Prods. Co., 476 F.2d
653, 655 (CCPA 1973) (term not registrable as service mark where the specimen
shows use of the term only as the name of a process); Osmotica Holdings, 2010 WL
2513862, at *4 (although specimens referenced the identified consulting services, the
mark as used would be perceived as identifying only applicant’s drug delivery
technology).
Second, and in any event, the screenshot affirmatively undercuts rather than
supports Applicant’s Section 1(a) filing basis. A specimen must show use of the mark
in commerce for the identified services as of the application filing date. 37 C.F.R.
§§ 2.56(a), 2.59(a). This screenshot was captured on August 24, 2025—more than
fourteen months after the June 20, 2024 filing date—and by its own terms announces
a show that was “coming,” not one then being produced, broadcast, or otherwise

Serial No. 98611451
- 19 -
rendered. It therefore does not establish that the mark was in use in commerce in
connection with “Television show production” on or before the application filing date.
We recognize that the unverified materials may well reference CHEF VERIFIED
in connection with some services—for example, entertainment services in the nature
of providing a website featuring non-downloadable videos in the field of cooking.34
But the question before us is not whether Applicant could have identified different
services for which her uses might be acceptable; it is whether the specimen of record
and other materials show use of the mark for the services actually identified in the
application. See In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897 (CCPA 1976) (“the manner in
which an applicant has employed the asserted mark, as evidenced by the specimens
of record, must be carefully considered in determining whether the asserted mark
has been used as a trademark with respect to the goods [or services] named in the
application”). That a different identification of services might have been appropriate
does not render these screenshots acceptable specimens for “Television show
production.” See, e.g., In re Niagara Frontier Servs., Inc., 1983 WL 51843, at *1 (TTAB
1983) (WE MAKE IT, YOU BAKE IT identified pizza, not grocery store services); In
re Info. Builders Inc., 1982 WL 52011, at *2 (TTAB 1982) (mark referred only to
software and not to service for which applicant sought registration).
34 We observe only that these materials appear to reference culinary content services of some
kind; we neither decide nor need to decide whether they would constitute acceptable
specimens for any such services. As discussed above, the materials were never verified, see
37 C.F.R. §§ 2.56(a), 2.59(a), and the dated screenshots do not otherwise demonstrate use of
the mark on or before the application filing date. Those defects would independently preclude
their acceptance as specimens whatever the services identified.

Serial No. 98611451
- 20 -
Finally, to the extent Applicant’s reply brief offers explanations as to the nature
of her business,35 those explanations are unsupported by evidence. Explanations may
clarify the nature, content, or context of use of a specimen, but they cannot excuse
failure to use the mark in connection with the identified services, and must be
consistent with what the specimen itself shows. See Pitney Bowes, 2018 WL 360241,
at *3; see also Cai, 901 F.3d at 1371 (“Attorney argument is no substitute for
evidence.”). Applicant’s explanations satisfy neither condition. The unverified
materials accordingly would not establish use of the mark in connection with the
identified services even if they were properly of record.
IV. Conclusion
Having considered the record, the arguments, and the applicable law, we find that
the only verified specimen of record—the chefverified.com website screenshot
submitted December 30, 2024—does not show a direct association between the mark
CHEF VERIFIED and “Television show production,” and therefore does not show the
applied-for mark as actually used in commerce in connection with the identified
services. The remaining materials of record were never verified and cannot be
considered as substitute specimens, and even if they could, they too fail to show use
of the applied-for mark in connection with the identified services. Applicant has thus
failed to comply with the requirement to submit an acceptable specimen of use for the
35 Applicant’s Reply Br., 9 TTABVUE 5 (“Television show production is commonly promoted
through show pages, video previews, ‘coming soon’ announcements, streaming/network
references, episode clips, and related multimedia materials.”), 6 (“The mark appears in
connection with culinary programming, video content, network-show promotion, and show-
related materials. These are the ordinary channels through which television show production
services are promoted and rendered.”).

Serial No. 98611451
- 21 -
services in International Class 41, and registration must be refused under Trademark
Act Sections 1 and 45.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed.