Brawlerz Box LLC

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: September 8, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Brawlerz Box LLC
_____
Serial No. 98803886
_____
Xavier L. Suarez Esq.,
for Brawlerz Box LLC.
Naakwama Ankrah, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 109,
Michael Kazazian, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Goodman, Thurmon and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Goodman, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Brawlerz Box LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the
mark BRAWLERZ (in standard characters) for “Graphic design of advertising
banners and signs” in International Class 42.1
1 Application Serial No. 98803886 was filed on October 16, 2024, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) based upon Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere and
use in commerce since at least as early as January 1, 2024.
Page references to the application record are to the .pdf version of documents obtained from
the USPTO’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, an online database.
References to the briefs on appeal refer to the Board’s TTABVUE docket system. Applicant’s

Serial No. 98803886
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s mark
because Applicant has not provided acceptable specimens for the services under
Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127.
When the refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and requested
reconsideration. After the Examining Attorney denied the request for
reconsideration, the appeal was resumed. We affirm the refusal to register.
I. Evidentiary Issue
Before proceeding to the merits of the refusal, we address an evidentiary matter.
Applicant attached evidence to its brief. The Examining Attorney has objected to this
evidence as untimely.
Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d), provides that the record should be
complete prior to the filing of an appeal. The evidence attached to the brief was not
made of record during prosecution of the application.2 Therefore, the objection is
sustained and we will not treat the evidence attached to Applicant’s brief as being of
record.
II. Specimen Refusal
Section 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, provides that a service mark
is used in commerce “when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services,
brief is at 8 TTABVUE (originally submitted on paper and rejected, 6 TTABVUE and 7
TTABVUE); the Examining Attorney’s brief is at 10 TTABVUE.
2 If Applicant desired to introduce additional evidence after the appeal was filed, it should
have submitted a request to the Board to suspend the appeal and to remand the application
for further examination.

Serial No. 98803886
- 3 -
and the services are rendered in commerce.” Section 1(d)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1051(d)(1), requires that the applicant file a “specimen” or facsimile “of the
mark as used in commerce.” “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. The specimen must show a direct
association between the mark and the services.” Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(2), 37 C.F.R.
§ 2.56(b)(2).
The specimen provided should be
A clear and legible photocopy, photograph, web page printout, or other
similar type of reproduction of an actual specimen that meets the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section …. The
reproduction must show the entire specimen or enough of the specimen
that the nature of the specimen, the mark, and the good or service with
which the mark is used are identifiable. A web page must include the
URL and access or print date. An artist’s rendering, a printer’s proof, a
computer illustration, digital image, or similar mockup of how the mark
may be displayed, or a photocopy of the drawing required by § 2.51, are
not proper specimens.
Trademark Rule 2.56(c).
Applicant has explained that its originally submitted specimen
is a “BOXING GYMNASIUM SIGN.” October 16, 2024 TEAS application file.

Serial No. 98803886
- 4 -
The Examining Attorney rejected the specimen as “merely a photocopy of the
drawing or a depiction of the applied-for mark” and not showing use of the mark in
commerce.3 April 23, 2025 Office Action p. 2; 10 TTABVUE 3-4.
Here the original specimen does not appear to be an actual sign that is in use but
rather some type of artist proof or rendering of a sign. A printer’s proof of a sign would
not be an acceptable specimen because it does not show actual service mark use in
commerce.
In its May 21, 2025 Response to Office Action, Applicant attached a copy of its
drawing and submitted documents that were docketed as a “drawing” and as an
“amended drawing.” They are identical to the original drawing. Applicant also
submitted a specimen verification, and the form statement for responding to a refusal
based on submission of an illegible specimen: “the attached specimen is a true copy
of the specimen that was originally submitted with the application, amendment to
allege use, or statement of use.” May 21, 2025 Response to Office Action pp. 1-2. No
further information or statement was provided by Applicant.4 In its response,
Applicant did not specifically address the Examining Attorney’s specimen argument
relating to the original specimen.
The attachment to the May 21, 2025 response is:
3 Applicant had the option of amending the application to Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15
U.S.C. § 1051(b), intent to use, but chose not to do so.
4 The filing was generated via the TEAS form. July 7, 2025 Office Action.

Serial No. 98803886
- 5 -
The May 21, 2025 specimen (docketed as a drawing) is as follows:
The additional May 21, 2025 specimen (docketed as an amended drawing) is
displayed as:
’
The drawing, filed October 16, 2024, is displayed as:
.

Serial No. 98803886
- 6 -
The Examining Attorney rejected the materials submitted by Applicant on May
21, 2025 as “merely a photocopy of the drawing or a depiction of the applied-for mark”
and not showing use of the mark in commerce with the services in Class 42. July 7,
2025 Office Action p. 2. In the brief, the Examining Attorney argues that in the July
7, 2025 Response to Office Action that Applicant “submitted an amended rendering
of the mark without addressing the specimen issue.” 10 TTABVUE 5.
These filings are photocopies of the drawing and are not acceptable specimens to
show actual use. To the extent these were submitted as substitute specimens, they
are insufficient to show service mark use of BRAWLERZ in connection with the Class
42 services.
In its August 4, 2025 Request for Reconsideration, Applicant submitted a “whois”
printout for the website brawlerzbox.com. Applicant describes this as “a URL filing
for BRAWLERZBOX.COM created on 06/09/2022 and updated on 06/10/2024.”5
This filing is as follows:
5 We note that the whois registration is not for BRAWLERZ, the applied-for mark.

Serial No. 98803886
- 7 -
The Examining Attorney rejected this submission in the September 3, 2025 Denial
of Reconsideration p. 1 but did not specifically identify the defects with the
submission. In the brief, the Examining Attorney argues that the “substitute
specimen” lacks verification and that it appears to be “simply a domain profile of its
company and thus fails to show the applied-for mark being used in connection with
any graphic design services specified in International Class 42.” 10 TTABVUE 5.
Substitute specimens must be properly verified, and because Applicant never
submitted the required verification, the materials submitted by Applicant would not
be considered substitute specimens. In re Adair, No. 74402282 1997 TTAB LEXIS 49,
at *2.

Serial No. 98803886
- 8 -
But in any event, mere registration of a term as a domain name does not establish
any trademark rights. Brookfield Communs., Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d
1036, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the mere use of a domain name, only as a
domain name, likewise does not establish trademark use. See Lockheed Martin Corp.
v. Network Solutions, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 949, 956, (C.D. Cal. 1997) (“When a domain
name is used only to indicate an address on the Internet, the domain name is not
functioning as a trademark.”).
Therefore, to the extent this submission has been provided as a substitute
specimen for the Class 42 services, it is insufficient to show service mark use for the
foregoing reasons.
III. Conclusion
Applicant did not submit any acceptable specimens showing actual use of
BRAWLERZ in connection with the Class 42 services.
Decision: The Sections 1 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, refusal to register
Applicant’s mark BRAWLERZ based on unacceptable specimens is affirmed.