Stinger Equipment, Inc.

This opinion is not a
precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: June 24, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Stinger Equipment, Inc.
_____
Serial No. 97662066
_____
Kevin T. Duncan, of Duncan Galloway Greenwald, PLLC,
for Stinger Equipment, Inc.
Harini Ganesh, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 122,
Kristin Dahling, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Allard, Casagrande, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Casagrande, Administrative Trademark Judge:
This appeal concerns a refusal to register on the ground that the specimens do not
show use of the mark on or in connection with the goods identified in the application.
Applicant Stinger Equipment, Inc. seeks to register ONETOUCH (in standard
characters) for “Agricultural machines, namely, aerators, seeders, spreaders,” in
International Class 7.1 After the mark was published in the Official Gazette and
1 Applicant filed Application No. 97662066 on November 3, 2022, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark for the
identified goods.

Serial No. 97662066
- 2 -
nobody opposed it, the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance. Applicant then filed its
Statement of Use and submitted specimens of use.2 The specimens of use include a
photo of a “calibration kit,” shown below, with Applicant’s goods:
3
2 See Oct. 10, 2024, Statement of Use. Citations to the application record refer to the version
of the documents as downloaded in .pdf format from the USPTO’s Trademark Status and
Document Retrieval (TSDR) database.
3 See id. at 22.

Serial No. 97662066
- 3 -
A second specimen consists of a copy of a user manual with instructions for using
the ONETOUCH applicator control system, which is how owners of the goods can pre-
set (or “calibrate”) certain operational aspects of the machines, such as the spray and
spread rates, based on the machines’ speed, position, and direction, without input
from the person operating the machine.4 The first two pages of this ONETOUCH user
manual are depicted below:
5
The Examining Attorney refused registration, under Sections 1 and 45 of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 & 1127, asserting that the specimens did not show
use of the mark in connection with the identified agricultural equipment, but rather
4 See id. at 7-21.
5 See id. at 7-8.

Serial No. 97662066
- 4 -
with a “downloadable software application.”6 Applicant’s response explained that
both the calibration kit and the ONETOUCH calibration user manual are included
with each machine sold and are essential for operation of the machines.7 After the
Examining Attorney made the refusal final,8 Applicant requested reconsideration9
and simultaneously appealed.10 We suspended the appeal so that the Examining
Attorney could decide the reconsideration request.11 Upon denial of reconsideration,12
the appeal resumed.13
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs, and Applicant filed a reply
brief.14 For the reasons explained below, we reverse the refusal.
ANALYSIS
Trademark Act Section 1(d)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(d)(1), requires the filing of “a
verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce and specifying the date of the
applicant’s first use of the mark in commerce and those goods or services specified in
6 See Nov. 11, 2024, Nonfinal Office Action.
7 See Feb. 11, 2025, Response to Nonfinal Office Action, at TSDR 2.
8 See Mar. 21, 2025, Final Office Action.
9 See Sept. 22, 2025, Request for Reconsideration.
10 See 1 TTABVUE. References to the briefs and appeal record cite to the Board’s TTABVUE
electronic docket system. The number preceding “TTABVUE” represents the docket number
assigned to the cited filing in TTABVUE and any number immediately following “TTABVUE”
identifies the specifically-cited page(s), if any.
11 See 2 TTABVUE.
12 See Oct. 27, 2025, Denial of Reconsideration.
13 See 4 TTABVUE.
14 See 6 TTABVUE (Applicant’s brief); 8 TTABVUE (Examining Attorney’s brief); 9
TTABVUE (reply brief).

Serial No. 97662066
- 5 -
the notice of allowance on or in connection with which the mark is used in commerce,”
along with “such number of specimens … of the mark as used in commerce as may be
required by the Director.” Through Trademark Rule 2.56(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(a), the
Director requires applicants to submit a specimen of the mark as used with their
statements of use.15 Under Rule 2.56(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(1), the specimen “must
show use of the mark on the goods, on containers or packaging for the goods, on labels
or tags affixed to the goods, or on a display associated with the goods.”
Regarding specimens, the Federal Circuit’s predecessor court has stated:
An important function of specimens in a trademark
application is, manifestly, to enable the PTO to verify the
statements made in the application regarding trademark use. In
this regard, 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 named in
the application.
In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 897 (CCPA 1976) (citations omitted).
The Examining Attorney asserts that applicant’s specimens do not show
ONETOUCH being used on or in connection with the identified agricultural
machines, but instead show the mark being used to identify a mobile app that users
must download in a distinct transaction.”16 Applicant does not disagree with the
assertion that ONETOUCH is used in connection with the app, downloadable from
an “app store” or Applicant’s website, which enables users to remotely operate and/or
15 See also Trademark Rule 2.34(a)(1)(iv), 37 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(1)(iv) (requiring a specimen in
a use-based application).
16 See 8 TTABVUE 7; see also id. at 4, 6.

Serial No. 97662066
- 6 -
control aspects of the agricultural machines. But Applicant explains that the
ONETOUCH remote calibration system is more than just that: it is “how purchasers
actually operate the [agricultural machines] identified in the application.”17
In assessing specimens, we consider not only the information discernible on the
specimen itself, but also “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.” In re Pitney Bowes, Inc., No. 86502157, 2018 WL 360241, at *3 (TTAB
2018) (citing In re DSM Pharms., Inc., No. 78373640, 2008 WL 2385957, at *2 (TTAB
2008) (“we may consider applicant’s explanations as to how the specimen is used,
along with any other available evidence in the record that shows how the mark is
actually used”)).
The specimens, which bear the ONETOUCH mark and comprise a user manual
for the machine’s calibration system18 and a ONETOUCH calibration kit, together
with Applicant’s explanation, make it clear that ONETOUCH identifies not just an
“app” that has software, but also an integral aspect of Applicant’s agricultural
machines, without which the machines cannot be operated as designed. The fact the
specimens suggest that ONETOUCH hypothetically also could serve as a mark for
downloadable software as well does not detract from the fact that ONETOUCH is
17 See 6 TTABVUE 8; see also Feb. 11, 2025, Response to Nonfinal Office Action, at TSDR 2
(“The user manual, which includes the ‘OneTouch’ mark, is provided with the equipment and
is essential for its operation.”).
18 User manuals bearing the mark of the product can be acceptable specimens where such
a manual “functions as a part of the goods.” See, e.g., In re Ultraflight Inc., No. 73255613,
1984 WL 63097, at *3 (TTAB 1984); see also TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(TMEP) § 904.03(j) (May 2026) (citing Ultraflight).

Serial No. 97662066
- 7 -
being used as a mark for an operating system integral to Applicant’s agricultural
machines.19 We are satisfied that “the asserted mark has been used as a trademark
with respect to the goods named in the application.” Bose, 546 F.2d at 897.
Decision: We reverse the refusal under Trademark Act Sections 1 and 45.
19 It does not matter that the user manual appears limited to one aspect of the agricultural
machines and is not a unified manual for all aspects of the machine. Product sellers can break
up user manuals any way they want.