Raised Right Pets, L.P.

THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
Mailed: August 3, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Raised Right Pets, L.P.
_____
Serial No. 98709772
_____
Tedd S. Levine of Law Offices of Tedd S. Levine, LLC,
for Raised Right Pets, L.P.
Myriah Habeeb, Managing Attorney, Law Office 113.
_____
Before Lebow, Elgin, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Elgin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Raised Right Pets, L.P. (“Applicant”) seeks registration of the mark RAISED
RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT (in standard characters, VETERINARY
SUPPORT disclaimed) on the Principal Register for “Cat food; Dog food; Pet food;
Edible cat treats; Edible chews for dogs; Edible dog treats; Edible pet treats,” in
International Class 31.1
1 Application Serial No. 98709772 was filed on August 21, 2024, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), based upon Applicant’s bona fide intent to use the mark
in commerce.

Serial No. 98709772
- 2 -
The Managing Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark under
Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, because the
specimen and substitute specimens provided in support of Applicant’s statement of
use do not show the applied-for mark used in commerce in connection with the goods.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant requested reconsideration twice,
providing additional substitute specimens. After the Managing Attorney denied both
requests for reconsideration, Applicant appealed. The appeal is fully briefed.2 We
have carefully considered all of the evidence and argument properly presented,
including any matters we do not specifically discuss below.
We reverse the refusal to register.
I. Prosecution History
Applicant initially filed the application based on an allegation of its bona fide
intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(b). After a notice of allowance issued, Applicant filed a statement of use
with a specimen in the form of a two-page brochure, which it described as “[s]ales
displays where the goods are sold (the “Original Specimen”).3
The Managing Attorney refused registration under Sections 1 and 45 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, on the ground that (1) the specimen does
2 Applicant’s brief and reply brief are at 4 TTABVUE and 7 TTABVUE, respectively. The
Managing Attorney’s brief is at 6 TTABVUE. Citations to the briefs in the appeal record refer
to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Citations to the prosecution record refer to the .pdf
version of the TSDR system. See, e.g., In re Seminole Tribe of Fla., No. 87890892, 2023 TTAB
LEXIS 184, at *1 n.1.
3 May 28, 2025 Statement of Use at TSDR 2.

Serial No. 98709772
- 3 -
not show the mark in the drawing in use in commerce (referring to the images of the
goods contained in the specimen); and (2) the specimen appears to be mere
advertising and does not properly show the applied-for mark as actually used in
commerce.4 The Managing Attorney advised Applicant that acceptable specimens for
goods
include a photograph of (1) the actual goods bearing the
mark; (2) an actual container, packaging, tag or label for
the goods bearing the mark; or (3) a point-of-sale display
showing the mark directly associated with the goods.… A
webpage specimen submitted as a display associated with
the goods must show the mark in association with a picture
or textual description of the goods and include information
necessary for ordering the goods.5
Applicant submitted a response to the Office Action but failed to include an
argument or the referenced substitute specimen,6 upon which the Managing Attorney
issued a Final Office Action on the same grounds.7 To overcome the refusal, Applicant
requested reconsideration and submitted a substitute specimen described as “Copy of
website pages for the URL https://www.raisedrightpets.com/veterinary-support” (the
“First Substitute Specimen”).8
The Managing Attorney found the First Substitute Specimen unacceptable on the
ground that it is “advertising material for the goods. In particular, while the mark
appears at the top of the website in large size in the center, this webpage fails to
4 November 13, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 2-3.
5 Id. at TSDR 3-4.
6 November 18, 2025 Office Action.
7 December 3, 2025 Final Office Action.
8 December 3, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 3.

Serial No. 98709772
- 4 -
either (1) show the mark appearing on the goods or (2) provide a means for ordering
the goods. While the specimen includes pictures of the goods, those pictures show a
different mark.”9
Applicant again attempted to overcome the refusal by requesting reconsideration
and submitting another substitute specimen from the same website described as
“Relevant pages of the website showing use of the Trademark in connection with the
goods listed in the application.” (the “Second Substitute Specimen”).10 The Managing
Attorney found the Second Substitute Specimen unacceptable on the same grounds
as the first: (1) the goods depicted in the specimen show a different mark; and (2) the
website “display” associated with the goods is mere advertising; that is, because
consumers must engage in “three additional mouse clicks … [they] cannot actually
order the goods from the webpage displaying the mark.”11
II. Waived Arguments
Applicant’s appeal briefs fail to address the Managing Attorney’s argument that
the trademark appearing on the packaging for the goods that appear in pictures in
the website specimens (RAISED RIGHT RR) does not match the drawing (RAISED
9 December 9, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 2.
10 December 16, 2025 Specimen of Use. The URL and date of access were provided in the
December 16, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 2. We have not considered the
materials attached to Applicant’s brief, as the record must be complete prior to appeal.
Trademark Rule 2.142(d); 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d); see also In re Fitch IBCA, Inc., No. 75628232,
2002 TTAB LEXIS 70, at * 1 n.2 (exhibits that are attached to a brief but not made of record
during examination are untimely and will not be considered).
11 January 15, 2026 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 3.

Serial No. 98709772
- 5 -
RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT). Applicant also does not address whether the
Original or First Substitute Specimens are acceptable specimens.
If an applicant does not assert an argument in its appeal brief, the argument may
be deemed waived by the Board, and we find Applicant has done so here. See, e.g., In
re Black Card LLC, No. 90641690, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 478, at *29 (applicant that did
not address identification of services issue in its appeal brief waived ability to contest
the refusal based on that ground); In re Katch, LLC, No. 86301765, 2019 TTAB LEXIS
154, at *3-4 (applicant who briefed only the refusal under Section 23(c) waived its
appeal of refusal under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45). See also TRADEMARK
TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE § 1203.02(g) (June 2026) (“If an
applicant, in its appeal brief, does not assert an argument made during prosecution,
it may be deemed waived by the Board.”). Thus, we find that the mark displayed on
the product packaging in all the submitted specimens does not match the mark
depicted in the mark drawing, and the Original and First Substitute specimens are
otherwise unacceptable to show use of the applied-for mark in connection with
identified goods.
But that does not answer the question of whether the Second Substitute Specimen
is acceptable as a “display associated with the goods.” For the reasons set forth below,
we find that it is.
III. Applicable Law
Under Section 45 of the Trademark Act, a mark is deemed in use in commerce on
goods when, among other things, “it is placed in any manner on the goods or their

Serial No. 98709772
- 6 -
containers or the displays associated therewith ....” 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis
added); see also In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The issue is
whether Applicant’s Second Substitute Specimen qualifies as a display associated
with the goods under the Trademark Act.
Whether a specimen serves the function of a display associated with the goods is
a question of fact. Siny Corp., 920 F.3d at 1335-36; In re MN Apparel LLC, No.
87876633, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *14. “Factually, we need to ask whether the
purported point-of-sale display provides the potential purchaser with the information
normally associated with ordering products of that kind.” MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB
LEXIS 162, at *14 (quoting In re Anpath Grp., No. 77004809, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 130,
at *10).
“The test for an acceptable website-based specimen, just as any other specimen, is
simply that it must in some way evince that the mark is ‘associated’ with the goods
and serves as an indicator of source.” In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2009). 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. Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(1); see also Siny Corp., 920
F.3d at 1336 (“In determining whether a specimen qualifies as a display associated
with the goods, one important consideration is whether the display is at a point-of-
sale location.”). To be “of a point-of-sale nature,” the use must be “calculated to
consummate a sale.” In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, No. 86824279, 2019 TTAB LEXIS
208, at *50 (quoting In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., No. 85267349, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 88, at

Serial No. 98709772
- 7 -
*21). That is, it “must contain sufficient practical information about the goods and a
way to order the goods, so as to put the prospective customer at the point of purchase.”
MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *15.
A specimen that does not put the prospective purchaser at the point of purchase
is mere advertising, and “[m]ere advertising is not enough to qualify as such a
display.” Siny Corp., 920 F.3d at 1336; see also Anpath Grp., 2010 TTAB LEXIS 130,
at *5 (“[A] clear ‘line of demarcation’ has been drawn between mere advertising
materials, which have been found unacceptable as specimens showing use of a mark
for goods, and point-of-purchase promotional materials which have been found
acceptable as a display associated with the goods.”). See generally TRADEMARK
MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 904.04(b) (May 2026) (“Advertising
material is generally not acceptable as a specimen for goods.”).
To establish that a webpage constitutes a “display associated with the goods,” the
following criteria must be met:
(1) the website contains a picture or textual description of the identified goods;
(2) the website shows the mark in association with the goods; and
(3) the website provides a means for ordering the identified goods.
MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *19 (citing TMEP § 904.03(i)).
IV. Analysis
The key issue in this appeal is whether the Second Substitute Specimen is a
“display associated with the goods” or “mere advertising.” The Managing Attorney
argues that this specimen is split across five different pages, requiring multiple

Serial No. 98709772
- 8 -
“clicks” to purchase the pet foods products; but only the first page displays the
applied-for mark.12 Applicant counters that, considered together, the website is an
acceptable display associated with the goods: the mark appears at the top of the page;
the “corresponding contiguous webpages display and describe the goods identified in
the application”; and “the adjoining webpages provide a direct purchasing
mechanism.”13
At the outset, we note that the Board is tasked with reviewing the evidence of
record and arriving at an independent conclusion based thereon. Thus, we are not
bound by the specific arguments made by Applicant or the Managing Attorney.
Examining the Second Substitute Specimen, the top of the webpage shows the
mark RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT in a stylized format along with
the menu for “buy a box” and a shopping cart symbol:14
12 6 TTABVUE 6-7.
13 4 TTABVUE 13-14.
14 December 16, 2025 Specimen at TSDR 1 (circles added). Because the applied-for mark is
depicted in standard characters, it can appear in any font, color, or stylization. In re Aquitaine
Wine USA, LLC, No. 86928469, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 108, *13 (“[T]he rights associated with a
standard character mark reside in the wording per se and not in any particular font style,
size, or color….”).

Serial No. 98709772
- 9 -
Further down the webpage we find explanations and pictures which make clear
to the consumer that Applicant’s goods are human-grade pet food that is cooked and
frozen by Applicant; thawed by the consumers; and then served to the pet:15
15 December 16, 2025 Specimen at TSDR 2-3.

Serial No. 98709772
- 10 -
Applicant explained that the button “choose recipes” may be used by consumers
to proceed to purchase the goods.16 This button is not a model of clarity in terms of
16 If the nature of a specimen is unclear, the applicant may explain what it is and how it is
used. See TMEP § 904. Along with the specimen, Applicant submitted a flowchart to explain
the way goods are purchased on its website, that is, selecting “choose recipes” below the

Serial No. 98709772
- 11 -
directing consumers to add the pet food items sold under the mark to the shopping
cart. But the “buy a box” dropdown tab and the shopping cart, which appear in close
association with the mark, fill in the blanks. We infer that the drop-down options lead
consumers to a webpage on Applicant’s website, as presented in the specimen, from
which they can select a box of bagged pre-cooked and frozen pet food to purchase (i.e.,
the “recipes you’d like to receive of human grade dog food”):17
Although the packaging shown in the specimen images bears a different mark
(RAISED RIGHT RR HUMAN GRADE), the applied-for mark appears prominently
at the top of the webpage, in close association with the product images, descriptions,
and ordering mechanisms. Viewed as a whole, the specimen demonstrates that the
applied-for mark, which leads the consumer through a multistep process to purchase
Applicant’s pet food goods. December 16, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 20-21.
17 December 16, 2025 Specimen at TSDR 5.

Serial No. 98709772
- 12 -
mark functions as a source identifier for the goods being offered for sale. See Sones,
590 F.3d at 1289 (“The PTO must consider the evidence as a whole to determine if
Sones’ specimen sufficiently associates his mark with his charity bracelets so as to
‘identify and distinguish the goods.’”) (quoting BellSouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp.,
60 F.3d 1565, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
We find that the three-part test for a display associated with the goods as set forth
in MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *19, is satisfied because the Second
Substitute Specimen includes:
(1) A picture or textual description of identified goods (images of pet food
and descriptions of human-grade pet food that is cooked, frozen,
thawed, and served);
(2) The mark shown in association with the goods (mark in upper-center
portion of webpage in close proximity to images of the goods); and
(3) A means for ordering the goods (collectively, the “buy a box”
dropdown, shopping cart icon, and “choose recipes” button, leading to
an ordering page).
Based on the particular facts of this case, relevant purchasers would perceive that
RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT as used in the specimen is a mark
identifying and distinguishing Applicant’s goods, and the use is calculated to
consummate a sale of such goods. Accordingly, we find the Second Substitute
Specimen acceptable and reverse the refusal to register Applicant’s mark based on
the adequacy of this specimen.

Serial No. 98709772
- 13 -
V. Decision
The refusal to register Applicant’s mark RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY
SUPPORT in International Class 31 is reversed. Application Serial No. 98709772
will proceed to registration.