Narender Reddy

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: July 17, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Narender Reddy
_____
Serial No. 98216978
_____
Narender Reddy, pro se.
Caitlan Watts-Fitzgerald, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Chris Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Larkin, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Narender Reddy (“Applicant”), appearing pro se, seeks registration on the
Principal Register of the proposed standard-character mark ECOMPUBILL.COM for
services originally identified as “billing” and later amended to “Medical practices
revenue cycle management and billing; Filing electronic claims and processing
electronic reimbursements from insurance companies; Preparing and submitting

Serial No. 98216978
- 2 -
electronically secure financial reports and status of patient accounts receivables” in
International Class 35.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark on three grounds: (1) under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, and 1127, on the ground that Applicant’s proposed mark
fails to function as a mark; (2) under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, on the
ground that Applicant’s specimens fail to show use of the proposed mark in commerce
in connection with the identified services; and (3) under Trademark Rule 2.71(a), 37
C.F.R. § 2.71(a), on the ground that Applicant’s amendment of his identification of
services exceeds the scope of his original identification.
Applicant appealed when the Examining Attorney made the refusals final.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs.2 We affirm the three refusals
to register.
1 Application Serial No. 98216978 was filed on October 10, 2023 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claim of first use of the proposed
mark and first use of the proposed mark in commerce at least as early as January 20, 1980.
As noted, Applicant originally sought to register his proposed mark for services identified as
“billing,” and the amended identification of services set forth above is the subject of one of
the refusals to register at issue in this appeal.
2 Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other materials in the case docket refer to
TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. The number preceding TTABVUE
corresponds to the docket entry number, and any numbers following TTABVUE refer to the
page(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear. Applicant’s operative appeal
brief appears at 10 TTABVUE and the Examining Attorney’s brief appears at 18 TTABVUE.
Applicant filed a document on April 10, 2026 purporting to be a reply brief, 19 TTABVUE,
but it is nothing more than another version of Applicant’s appeal brief, as it is dated October
3, 2025 and does not address any arguments in the Examining Attorney’s brief.
We note that Applicant’s appeal brief contains several references to patent law (and one to
copyright law), including Applicant’s characterization of himself as “the sole named
inventor,” 10 TTABVUE 2, his reference to “Related Appeals and Interferences” and his
appeal of “a non-final rejection of then-pending claims as allegedly unpatentable under

Serial No. 98216978
- 3 -
I. Prosecution and Procedural History, and Record on Appeal3
We briefly summarize below the prosecution history of the application and the
procedural history of the appeal because they provide useful background to our
disposition of the appeal.
As noted above, Applicant initially applied to register his proposed mark for
services described as “billing” based on the specimen of use shown below:
4
A few days after filing the application, Applicant filed a Request to Make Special
requesting the USPTO to examine his application out of order due to the cancellation
of Registration No. 2741343, which Applicant had claimed in his application.
Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053,” id., his statement that “[t]his brief is being
filed, as instructed by one of the paralegal attorney [sic] to prevent the abandonment of my
claim,” id. at 5, and his inclusion of a “Claims Appendix” that recites what appear to be patent
claims. Id. at 6-9. These references are repeated in his “reply” brief. 19 TTABVUE 2, 6, 7-10.
3 Citations in this opinion to the application record are to pages in the downloadable .pdf
version of the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) database of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
4 October 10, 2023 Application at 2, 7 (emphasis in original).

Serial No. 98216978
- 4 -
Applicant argued that Registration No. 2741343 involved the same mark and the
same services as his new application.5 The USPTO denied his request on the ground
that “[a]lthough the marks in the prior registration and the present application are
the same, the goods and/or services in the new application are beyond the scope of the
goods and/or services listed in the cancelled registration,” and “a request to make
special cannot be granted where, as in the instant case, the goods and/or services
exceed the scope of those in the cancelled registration.”6
The Examining Attorney then issued an Office Action refusing registration on the
grounds that the proposed mark failed to function as a mark and that Applicant’s
specimen did not show use of the proposed mark with the identified “billing” services.7
Applicant responded by amending his identification of services to “Medical practices
revenue cycle managment [sic] and billing. Filing electronic claims and processing
electronic reimbursemnts [sic] from insurance companies. Preparing and submitting
electronically secure financila [sic] reports and status of patient accounts
receivables,”8 and by making of record copies of his original specimen,9 as well as an
additional purported specimen, which we reproduce below:
5 October 12, 2023 Request to Make Special at 3.
6 November 14, 2023 Petition Decision at 1.
7 May 29, 2024 Office Action at 1-4.
8 August 8, 2024 Response to Office Action at 1.
9 Id. at 6, 8.

Serial No. 98216978
- 5 -
10
The Examining Attorney then issued another non-final Office Action maintaining
the failure-to-function and specimen refusals to register, and refusing registration on
the additional ground that Applicant’s purported amendment to his identification of
services exceeded the scope of his original identification.11
The application became abandoned when Applicant did not timely file a response
to the Office Action, but Applicant successfully petitioned to revive the application,
making of record additional copies of his original and substitute specimens.12 The
Examining Attorney then issued an Office Action making final all three refusals to
register.13
10 Id. at 7, 9 (emphasis in original). Applicant described the original and new specimen as
follows: “Proof of domain ECOMPUBILL.COM name being used in conducting electronic
commerce on a regular basis. Our domain is based on electronic data processing and
bidirectional transmission of data, either via the internet of via VPN is based on using the
domain name, either in itself or as an extension.” Id. at 1.
11 November 4, 2024 Office Action at 1-5.
12 July 10, 2025 Petition to Revive Abandoned Application at 1-8.
13 July 14, 2025 Final Office Action at 1-5.

Serial No. 98216978
- 6 -
Applicant then appealed. 1 TTABVUE. About a month later, Applicant requested
remand of the application to the Examining Attorney for consideration of additional
specimens,14 which we reproduce below:
14 Applicant filed two requests for remand at 4-5 TTABVUE. We discuss the first such filing,
which covers multiple new purported specimens. The second such filing appears to be
duplicative, but covers only a few of those claimed specimens.

Serial No. 98216978
- 7 -
4 TTABVUE 4-6.
Id. at 7.
Id. at 8.15 Before the Board acted on his remand request, Applicant filed an appeal
brief, 6 TTABVUE, which is the original version of the briefs that Applicant later
filed at 10 and 17 TTABVUE.
15 This document is the cover page of a six-page document. We have not reproduced the five
subsequent pages because, like the cover page itself, they do not display the proposed applied-
for ECOMPUBILL.COM mark.

Serial No. 98216978
- 8 -
The subsequent history of the appeal involves multiple twists and turns. After
Applicant filed his appeal brief, it was transmitted to the Examining Attorney, 7
TTABVUE, but that same day the Examining Attorney issued a denial of a request
for reconsideration, which Applicant had never filed.16 A week later, the Board
resumed the appeal and gave Applicant time to file an appeal brief even though he
had already filed one. 9 TTABVUE 1. Applicant filed his appeal brief a second time
ten days later at 10 TTABVUE.
A few days after Applicant filed his appeal brief a second time, the Board issued
an order vacating its orders transmitting Applicant’s first appeal brief to the
Examining Attorney and granting Applicant additional time to file his appeal brief.
11 TTABVUE 1. In that order, the Board noted that “the Trademark Examining
Attorney issued a Request for Reconsideration Denied on October 7, 2025 despite the
fact that the Examining Attorney lacked jurisdiction over the application at that
time,” and held that “good cause has been shown for consideration of Appellant’s
outstanding submissions, which the Board collectively treats as a request for remand.
Action on the appeal is suspended, and the file is remanded to the Examining
Attorney for consideration of Appellant’s request for remand located at 4-6, 10
TTABVUE.” Id.
The Examining Attorney subsequently issued an Office Action maintaining and
continuing all three refusals based on a rejection of Applicant’s additional
16 October 7, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 1-5.

Serial No. 98216978
- 9 -
specimens.17 The Examining Attorney made of record pages from the website at
one.com discussing the various components of an email address,18 and a Wikipedia
entry captioned “Email address.”19
The appeal was resumed and Applicant was once again given time to file an appeal
brief. 14 TTABVUE 1. When Applicant did not do so within the allowed time, the
appeal was dismissed and the case was terminated. 15 TTABVUE 1; 16 TTABVUE.
The Board subsequently issued an order that vacated its orders requiring Applicant
to file an appeal brief and dismissing the appeal, and reinstated and resumed the
appeal. 17 TTABVUE 1. The Examining Attorney then filed her brief, and Applicant
filed what purported to be the “reply” brief noted above. The case is now ready for
decision.
II. Analysis of the Failure-to-Function Refusal
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s proposed mark
ECOMPUBILL.COM on the ground that Applicant’s multiple specimens do not show
that ECOMPUBILL.COM is being used as a mark. There is no per se prohibition on
the registration of domain names as trademarks and service marks, see, e.g., U.S.
Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 564 (2020) (finding
booking.com capable of being registered as a service mark for travel-related services),
17 November 19, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at 1-5. The Examining Attorney
noted Applicant’s references to patents and copyrights during prosecution and on appeal, and
reminded Applicant that he was seeking a service mark registration under the Trademark
Act, not a patent or copyright registration. Id. at 2.
18 Id. at 6-14.
19 Id. at 16-25.

Serial No. 98216978
- 10 -
but a domain name, like all subject matter proposed for registration, must function
as a trademark or service mark to be registrable. “Consistent with trademark law’s
basic purpose, the lead criterion for registration is that the mark in fact serve as a
‘trademark’ [or ‘service mark’] to identify and distinguish goods [or services].” Jack
Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 146 (2023) (citation omitted).
“In analyzing whether a proposed mark functions as a source identifier, the Board
focuses on consumer perception.” In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd., 25 F.4th 1348, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “The Board looks to the [Applicant’s] specimens
and other evidence of record showing how the designation is actually used in the
marketplace to determine how the designation would be perceived by the relevant
public.” Id. (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted).
Applicant argues that
[t]his COMPUBILL.COM [sic] service-mark is functional,
and its use has been extremely beneficial for conducting
our business. Correspondence for solicitation of new
business using ECOMPUBILL.COM as an email return
address to the staff at CompuBill has been a boon. This
service mark is used in all office correspondence whether
via email or hard copy memo.
10 TTABVUE 3. According to Applicant, “ECOMPUBILL.COM clearly indicates that
all electronic and internet correspondence with CompuBill is via using this service
mark. This mark in [sic] clearly indicated in all CompuBill marketing material. Even
USPTO is using this service mark by appending it to my name, Narender Reddy, in
all electronic correspondence.” Id. at 4.
The Examining Attorney responds that “the specimens which show the mark as
depicted in the drawing, only show the applied-for mark used as an Internet domain

Serial No. 98216978
- 11 -
name, and not as a source indicator,” and that “the mark consists only of wording
coupled with a non-source-identifying generic top-level domain (gTLD) and, as used
on the specimen of record, would be perceived by the relevant public as the domain
name where applicant’s website would appear on the Internet, and not as a service
mark for particular services.” 18 TTABVUE 3-4. She discusses each of the various
specimens, id. at 4-5, and concludes that because “none of the specimens show use of
the mark as anything other than an internet domain, there is no proper use of the
proposed language as a service mark in commerce on the identified billing services.”
Id. at 5.
Applicant’s multiple specimens do not show use of the proposed mark as a service
mark. Specimens 1 and 3 shown above reflect Applicant’s payment to maintain his
registration of the domain name ecompubill.com, and simply confirm the proposed
mark’s status as a domain name. Specimen 2 shown above consists of a list of email
addresses (including Applicant’s), and simply reflects use of ecompubill.com as a
domain name through which email can be sent and received. Specimen 4 shown
above, which appears to be Applicant’s business card, shows Applicant’s email
address, and similarly reflects use of ecompubill.com as a domain name through
which Applicant can be reached by email. Specimen 5 shown in part above does not
contain the proposed mark at all. Although two of the specimens display “CompuBill”
or “COMPUBILL” in stylized or block lettering in the nature of a service mark, as
shown in pertinent part below,

Serial No. 98216978
- 12 -
“Compubill” is not the proposed applied-for mark.
There is simply no evidence in Applicant’s multiple specimens or elsewhere in the
record that consumers of Applicant’s services would view the proposed mark
ECOMPUBILL.COM as a mark identifying the source of Applicant’s services rather
than as a non-source-identifying domain name.20 See Vox Populi, 25 F.4th at 1352
(finding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that “consumers will
view [the standard character mark .SUCKS] as only a non-source identifying part of
a domain name, rather than as a mark.”) (citation omitted). On this record, we find
that Applicant’s proposed mark ECOMPUBILL.COM fails to function as a mark for
the services identified in the application.
III. Analysis of the Specimen Refusal
“The Trademark Act ‘provides for registration of a mark based on use of the mark
in commerce.’” In re Weiss, No. 88621608, 2024 WL 3617597, at *2 (TTAB 2024)
(quoting In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). “A service mark is
20 As discussed above, Applicant’s own description of the use of ecompubill.com as the means
by which Applicant receives information confirms the use of the proposed mark merely as a
domain name. 10 TTABVUE 4. Listed claims 4, 9, 15, and 21 in the “Claims Appendix” in
Applicant’s brief similarly reflect Applicant’s use of ecompubill.com as the means for
receiving information from clients. Id. at 6-9.

Serial No. 98216978
- 13 -
‘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.’” Id. (quoting 15
U.S.C. § 1127). “The USPTO ‘requires an applicant to submit a specimen of use
‘showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods [or services].”’ Id.
(quoting Siny Corp., 920 F.3d at 1335 (quoting In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1284 (Fed.
Cir. 2009)). “The specimen of use, which is required by Section 1 of the Trademark
Act and Trademark Rule 2.56, 37 C.F.R. § 2.56, must display the applied-for mark
and show an association between the mark and the services.” Id. “To be acceptable, a
service-mark specimen must show the mark sought to be registered used in a manner
that demonstrates a direct association between the mark and the services.” Id. at *3
(quoting TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) Section 1301.04(f)
(citing 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(2)).
Applicant argues that he “has presented evidence of use listing all CompuBill
staff, clients and patients who use this service-mark and domain name in all
correspondence,” and that “[e]vidence of formal registration of ECOMPUBILL.COM
with internet monitoring services and protection of unauthorized use has been duly
presented.” 10 TTABVUE 4. Applicant further states that “[i]t is my understanding
that the internation [sic] class includes all services related to Revenue Cycle
Management and patient billing” and “includes filing insurance claims electronically,
using ECOMPUBLL.COM for return correspondence and further internet exchange

Serial No. 98216978
- 14 -
of information and data,” and argues that the “services are clearly identified in our
application and samples of such correspondence are included.” Id.
The Examining Attorney summarizes Applicant’s specimens shown and discussed
above, and argues that “none of these demonstrate proper specimen use on the
identified services in commerce.” 18 TTABVUE 5. According to the Examining
Attorney, “none of the specimens submitted show use in commerce at all, saving the
business card, and instead merely repeatedly reiterate that the domain itself is owned
and in use.” Id. (emphasis in bold here in italics in the Examining Attorney’s brief).
Applicant’s multiple specimens do not show use of the proposed mark in
connection with the services as originally identified or as purportedly amended.
Specimens 1-3 do not refer to any services provided by Applicant. Specimen 4,
Applicant’s business card, lists “Patient Accounts Receivable” and “Management and
Billing,” which may identify services provided by Applicant, but the mark used in
direct proximity to those listings is CompuBill, not ECOMPUBILL.COM. As
discussed above, “ecompubill.com,” the proposed applied-for mark, appears on
Applicant’s business card only as part of his email address. We have found above that
such use is not use as a service mark, but even if it were, “[a] specimen that shows
only the mark with no reference to, or association with, the services does not show
service mark usage.” Weiss, 2024 WL 3617597, at *3 (quotation and quotation marks
omitted). As noted above, Specimen 5 does not show the proposed applied-for mark
at all.

Serial No. 98216978
- 15 -
We find that Applicant did not provide a specimen of use that “display[s] the
applied-for mark [ECOMPUBILL.COM] and show[s] an association between the
mark and the services” as originally identified or as identified following Applicant’s
amendment. Id. at *2. Applicant’s specimens are therefore unacceptable for purposes
of complying with Section 1(a) of the Trademark Act.
IV. Analysis of the Refusal Based on Applicant’s Unacceptable
Amendment to the Identification of Services
“Under Trademark Rule 2.71(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.71(a), ‘[t]he applicant may amend
the application to clarify or limit, but not to broaden, the identification of goods
and/or services . . . .’” In re Tapio GmbH, No. 87941532, 2020 WL 6938377, at *6
(TTAB 2020) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 2.71(a) and citing In re Jimmy Moore LLC, No.
86353015, 2016 WL 6819242, at *7 (TTAB 2016) (finding that “pitch training and
educational seminars for baseball and pitching” exceeded the scope of the original
identification of “entertainment in the nature of baseball games”)). “In making our
determination as to whether [the amendment] language exceeds the scope of the
original identification, we look to the ordinary meaning of the words.” Id. (citation
omitted).
Applicant originally applied to register his proposed mark for “billing.” The
Examining Attorney attached to her brief definitions of “billing” from the CAMBRIDGE
DICTIONARY as the “process of sending people bills asking them to pay money owed,”
and from the OXFORD LEARNERS DICTIONARIES as “the act of preparing and sending
bills to customers,” and requests that we take judicial notice of these definitions. 18
TTABVUE 7, 9, 14. We grant the Examining Attorney’s request, see Jimmy Moore,

Serial No. 98216978
- 16 -
2016 WL 6819242, at *4, and will use these definitions as the “ordinary meaning” of
“billing.”
Applicant’s purported amended identification of services is “Medical practices
revenue cycle management and billing; Filing electronic claims and processing
electronic reimbursements from insurance companies; Preparing and submitting
electronically secure financial reports and status of patient accounts receivables.”21
Applicant argues that “[i]t is rather perplexing that the examining attorney would
deem this service-mark as unacceptable for registration and copyright protection,” 10
TTABVUE 3, and, under the heading “Status of Amendments,” states that “[i]f an
amendment is needed to reclassify the international class of 35, or to add additional
classes please do make the necessary changes.” Id. at 5.
The Examining Attorney responds that
[b]illing is defined . . . as “the process of sending people bills
asking them to pay money owed” and “the act of preparing
and sending bills to customers.” This is an extremely
limited services which, while included in some of the
broader, adopted phrasing by the applicant, is a narrower
form of these broader recitations. For example,
management of a revenue cycle might include sending
bills, but clearly implicates a broader service that would
include other aspects of that cycle such as revenue
reporting requirements. Similarly, claims filing, form
preparation, the preparation of financial reports, etc.
appear to be broader categories of financial services that at
best would include the service of bill-sending within their
21 As discussed above, in purporting to amend his identification of services during
prosecution, Applicant separated the proposed amended services by periods. August 8, 2024
Response to Office Action at 1. “Under standard examination practice, a semicolon is used to
separate distinct categories of goods or services.’” Monster Energy Co. v. Lo, No. 91225050,
2023 WL 417620, at *7 n.35 (TTAB 2023) (quoting In re Midwest Gaming & Ent. LLC, No.
85111552, 2013 WL 1442237, at *4 (TTAB 2013) (internal citation omitted)). The proposed
amended services are separated by semicolons in the pertinent TSDR records.

Serial No. 98216978
- 17 -
purview, but appear to likewise again encapsulate services
well beyond that scope.
18 TTABVUE 7-8 (emphasis in bold here in italics in the Examining Attorney’s brief).
Applicant’s proposed amended identification of services exceeds the scope of his
original identification of “billing” services. The first amended services, “Medical
practices revenue cycle management and billing,” expressly add “Medical practices
revenue cycle management” to the original “billing” services. The second amended
services, “Filing electronic claims and processing electronic reimbursements from
insurance companies,” involve activities having nothing to do with “sending people
bills asking them to pay money owed” and “preparing and sending bills to customers,”
because “filing electronic claims and processing electronic reimbursements from
insurance companies” involve transactions with third-party insurance companies.
The third amended services, “Preparing and submitting electronically secure
financial reports and status of patient accounts receivables,” also involve activities
beyond merely “sending people bills asking them to pay money owed” and “preparing
and sending bills to customers.” “Accordingly, we affirm the Examining Attorney's
decision, pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.71(a), not to allow . . . Applicant’s proposed
amendments to the identification of services on the basis that they would broaden the
identification of services.” Jimmy Moore, 2016 WL 6819242, at *9.
Decision: The failure-to-function, specimen, and identification-based refusals to
register are all affirmed.