International FIRST Committee Association

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

THIS OPINION IS NOTA
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Mailed: September 28, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

In re International FIRST Committee Association

Serial No. 98849390

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 DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE 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

Serial No. 98849390
2
programs and competitions in 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. 98849390, 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.31 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. 98849390
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. 98849390
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. 98849390
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. 98849390
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 the Applicant’s
organization [FIRST Global] at the top in the largest print, the applied-for mark
immediately below also in large print, followed by a listing of Applicant’s
organization’s guiding principles and values, and at the bottom is . . . where
10 November 12, 2024 Application at TSDR 7 (red arrow added).

Serial No. 98849390
7
participants sign the plaque to signify they agree to follow these principles and
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 principles and
values indicates the applied-for mark is meant to be associated with the values
statement that has been created by Applicant,” rather than the identified services,
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 statement of the values of Applicant’s
organization FIRST Global. And the wording DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE merely identifies the type and nature of the statement.
Indeed, the preamble that appears below the wording DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE, and above the list of values, explicitly states that “the time
has come for the world to recognize our interdependence on one another” and that
“the people of FIRST Global now declare the following guiding principles.”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. at 11-12.
13 Id. at 12.
14 November 12, 2024 Application at TSDR 7 (italics removed).

Serial No. 98849390
8
In addition, the Examining Attorney has submitted various excerpts from third-
party websites showing that it is common for organizations in various industries to
have and promote a “declaration of interdependence,” listing the ideals and values of
the organization, which are unconnected to any particular services. For example:
• The website for Whole Foods Market includes a “Declaration of
Interdependence” “recogniz[ing] the interdependence among our
stakeholders” and “reflect[ing] the hopes and intentions of many
people.”15
• The David Suzuki Foundation invites people to sign a “Declaration
of Interdependence” that “expresses our values as an organization,”
recognizes that “we are interconnected,” and resolves to “work for an
evolution . . . from insecurity[] to interdependence.”16
• The website for Humanists International includes a document
entitled “Declaration of Interdependence: a new Global Ethics,”
which, among other things, states that there is a “need to recognize
that each of us has responsibilities to the world community” and lists
specific ideals and principles regarding those responsibilities.17
• A website explaining Certified B Corporations includes a “B Corp
Declaration of Interdependence” that lists several principles about
how a business should be conducted, including the principle that “we
should act with the understanding that we are each dependent upon
another and thus responsible for each other and future
generations.”18
• The organization We, The World asks people to sign its “Declaration
of Interdependence,” which is a “guiding set of principles” for “the
people of planet Earth,” which recognizes “the interconnectedness of
all life” and acknowledges “our interdependence.”19
15 October 9, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 9-12.
16 Id. at 14-16.
17 Id. at 20-25.
18 January 14, 2026 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 11-14.
19 Id. at 16.

Serial No. 98849390
9
• The website for One Shared World promotes a “Declaration of
Interdependence” that declares “our interdependence and mutual
duties and responsibilities as individuals and members of distinct
communities, organizations, entities, and nations all in this
together.”20
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
“declaration of interdependence,” we find that the only function the applied-for mark
serves is to identify the type and nature of the statements displayed. Thus, it does
not function as a service 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, reproduced below, was also submitted in
support of both classes of services and consists of a screenshot of a webpage from
Applicant’s website.21 The Examining Attorney points out that “[t]he 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.”22
20 Id. at 21-23.
21 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).
22 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 12 TTABVUE 12.

Serial No. 98849390

[S& er Promams impact Getinclved Rewowces pres Me EX OBES a

DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE AND BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES

WE ARE COMMITTED TO A GREATER PURPOSE.

FIRST Global is the morit's reeponde to urgent chalenges that require @ global sohition Today's challenges do not slop one community, one prownce. or one
country. Global probe
Global is leading Jent 10 promote glabal callaboration and interdependence

call for international efforts 1o develop innovations and the will to apply them. There is a needed rote for every citizen in every country. FIRST

Below are FIRST Global's Deck of and ts acco q Togethes, jocuments represent

of FIRST Globat me ave & community dedicated to the cooperative pursuft of a mare peacetul world, actvewed by Innovating together to ensue the lite bberty
auceess, advaccement, and happiness of al who whare our planet

We ask that all FIST Global students, mentors, volunteers, and supporters read these documents and recommt themselves to the values they uphold. They are more
than just words on paper; Dey are w visible commitment to interdependence and the resporeibéities we al have to one anather

Watch the video below to see the next generation of STEM leaders o themselves to these pi and the pursutt of Ci Gracious

Professsonalian@. and STEM edscation for a better worl

Global’challengeés require
OTP global solutions OL

———>_‘- DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE

> Devclaration of Sutordependence

‘We the peaple of FIRST Global - the students, teachers, the memora, the ther supporters ~ for the world to

loco
ourselves and future generations,

Fist
But when we work together,

ty

* Throughout history. made by

credible accomelishenents of pant mnovators,
© Science
o Now technology,

webbeing in amore sustainable, peacelul world,

Theeetore, and,

0 tenor ly %,

BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES

Bill of Kespousitilities

‘our empathy,

and biggest
to ouraeves, to each

Apert et

7. We lowe what we do. jn 90 dora,

10

Serial No. 98849390
11
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.”23 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.”24 Thus, the Examining Attorney asserts that, like the original specimen, this
substitute specimen “shows the applied-for mark used only to reference the statement
of values and not any actual services, and routinely references Applicant’s
organization ‘FIRST Global’ as the source of the services for which the values
statement applies.”25 The Examining Attorney therefore concludes that “consumers
will perceive the applied-for mark as merely referring to Applicant's statement of its
core values and principles on that webpage and not the source of the services provided
in association with that statement.”26
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.

Serial No. 98849390
12
Applicant, for its part, argues that “[t]he mark appears prominently at the top of
a webpage dedicated to the DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE initiative”
and that “[p]lacement of a designation in a title or heading position is a well-
recognized form of trademark usage.”27 According to Applicant, “[c]onsumers
encountering the phrase DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE within
Applicant’s website and program materials would understand it to refer to a specific
initiative connected to Applicant’s STEM education programs.”28
We are not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. 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
DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE 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 “declaration of interdependence” to refer to an organization’s values and
ideals. And, here, Applicant’s webpage itself uses DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE the same way. Specifically, the introductory text at the top of
the webpage refers to Applicant’s organization’s “Declaration of Interdependence” as
one of two guiding, foundational documents for the organization and its “students,
mentors, volunteers, and supporters,” which reflects “the values they uphold.” And
27 Applicant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 5.
28 Id.

Serial No. 98849390
13
every other instance of DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE on the webpage
reinforces or is otherwise consistent with that usage. Thus, the heading at the very
top of the webpage uses DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE to indicate the
subject matter of the webpage, which explains and displays the full text of Applicant’s
“Declaration of Interdependence.” At the bottom of the webpage, DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE is used as the heading for, and title of, the actual “Declaration
of Interdependence” document.29
Applicant contends that “[t]itles of programs, initiatives, campaigns, and
organized activities routinely function as service marks when they identify a
particular offering associated with a service provider.”30 However, this unsupported
argument about the hypothetical service marks of others is unavailing. See Enzo
Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney
argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Instead, we must consider the relevant
consumer perception of the mark at hand, based on the specimens and evidence of
record. See Eagle Crest, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 346, at *6. The specimens here show the
applied-for mark being used to refer only to a statement of the values and ideals of
Applicant’s organization, which is identified by the wording FIRST GLOBAL and
accompanying design at the top of both specimens. Cf. Keep A Breast, 2017 TTAB
29 Likewise, DECLARATION OF INTERDEPENDENCE 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.
30 Applicant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief, 10 TTABVUE 4.

Serial No. 98849390
14
LEXIS 259, at *15 (finding that consumers would be unlikely to perceive the applied-
for mark as indicating the source of the identified services and noting that “if
anything, the applied-for mark appears to be created as part of” services offered under
another designation appearing on the specimens). And the evidence of record shows
that consumers have been exposed to organizations using DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE to identify their guiding ideals and values, just as Applicant
does. In that context, Applicant’s mere use of DECLARATION OF
INTERDEPENDENCE to refer to its own “foundational credo” or “initiative” 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 DECLARATION
OF INTERDEPENDENCE fails to function as a service mark for the identified
services in Classes 35 and 41.31 See In re Whataburger Sys., Inc., 1980 TTAB LEXIS
31 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 6, 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. 98849390
15
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
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.