Dr Pepper Co., In re

• Decision Date: 24 December 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-1691,86-1691
• Citation: 836 F.2d 508,5 USPQ2d 1207
• Parties: In re DR PEPPER COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 508

836 F.2d 508

5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1207

In re DR PEPPER COMPANY.

No. 86-1691.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 24, 1987.

Paul F. Kilmer, Mason, Fenwick & Lawrence, of Washington, D.C., argued for appellant.

Albin F. Drost, Asst. Sol., Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol.

Before NIES and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge. ^*

NIES, Circuit Judge.

Dr Pepper Company appeals from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 1 USPQ2d 1421 (TTAB 1986), affirming the examining attorney's refusal to register the mark PEPPER MAN as a service mark on the ground that applicant's asserted service of sponsoring and operating a particular contest to promote its soft drinks was not a service within the contemplation of sections 3 and 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1053 and 1127 (1982 & Supp. III 1985). We affirm.

I

Appellant filed an application, Serial No. 477,600, seeking registration of PEPPER MAN which it asserts is its "service mark for sponsorship and operation of contest services." ¹ To promote its DR PEPPER soft drinks, appellant conducts a promotional contest in which cash prizes are awarded to households found to have on hand certain specified quantities of unopened cans or bottles of DR PEPPER soft drinks, or certain coupons called "I'M A PEPPER" cards, which can be obtained free of charge from Dr. Pepper or its bottlers. Appellant displays the name PEPPER MAN on promotional pieces for the contest.

The examining attorney refused registration, and the board affirmed, on the ground that applicant was not rendering a service within the contemplation of the Act. The crux of the board's reasoning is that

where, as here, an activity claimed to be a service is incidental to the sale of goods, the activity cannot be separately recognizable as a service unless it is shown that the activity constitutes something clearly different from, or over and above, any activity normally involved in promoting the sale of such goods. The running of a contest to advertise and promote the sale of one's goods is not a service over and above, or materially different from, what would normally be expected from one engaged in the sale of goods.

1 USPQ2d at 1422 (citations omitted).

II

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether conducting a contest to promote the sale of one's own goods is a "service" within the meaning of sections 3 and 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1053, 1127 (1982). ² Appellant maintains that sponsorship and operation of a promotional contest is a "service" to the public because some of them will receive the benefit of cash prizes. Thus, it maintains that the name it uses in promoting the contest is registrable as its service mark.

While this court and its predecessor have stated that "services" is a term of "broad scope" under the Lanham Act, In re Advertising & Mktg. Dev., Inc., 821 F.2d 614, 618, 2 USPQ2d 2010, 2013 (Fed.Cir.1987), some business activities which may be described in terms of a "service" to the public do not constitute a service within the intendment of the Act. Appellant does not challenge that general proposition, but urges that contest activities to promote one's products should not be placed in that category, particularly when denominated by a name different from the trademark for the product.

The Act itself provides no definition of a "service" ³ and the legislative history gives no guidance beyond the general principle that, for the first time, marks of businesses engaged in rendering services, such as laundries, were made registrable. ⁴ Further refinement was left to the administrative agency, now the Patent and Trademark Office, and to the courts.

Through a series of decisions it has become a settled principle that the rendering of a service which is normally "expected or routine" in connection with the sale of one's own goods is not a registrable service whether denominated by the same or a different name from the trademark for its product. This interpretation is a refinement of the basic principle that the service for which registration is sought must be rendered to others. ⁵ Merely advertising one's own goods, while, in a sense, an "informational" or in some instances an "entertainment" service to others, was early held not to be a "service" within the purview of sections 3 and 45. In re Tampax Inc., 91 USPQ 215 (Dec.Comm'r Pat.1951).

The interpretation that a company's promotional activities are not services to others under the Act was subsequently endorsed in judicial decisions of our predecessor, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. In re Radio Corp. of Am., 205 F.2d 180, 182, 98 USPQ 157, 158 (CCPA 1953) (supplying radio stations with packaged radio programs of records is mere advertising of record company, not a "service" to consumers). See also In re Orion Research Inc., 523 F.2d 1398, 1400, 187 USPQ 485, 487 (CCPA 1975) (Orion I ) (the repair or replacement of one's own merchandise or "guaranteeing" same held not a registrable "service" because it is normally expected by purchasers from the purveyor of goods); In re Orion Research Inc., 669 F.2d 689, 691, 205 USPQ 688, 690 (CCPA 1980) (Orion II ) (same). Thus, our precedent has drawn the line in connection with promotional activities that those which are "ordinary or routine" are not registrable services, despite some extra benefit to the public beyond the existence of the goods themselves. The public does not, per our precedent, perceive such activity as a service to the public but as mere sales activity by and for the benefit of the offerer of the goods.

In several decisions the board has specifically addressed the registrability of the name for a contest promoting the goods of the company conducting the contest. In In re Johnson Publishing Co., 130 USPQ 185 (TTAB 1961), the board held that the publisher of a magazine which offered prizes to readers who submitted at least one paid subscription and solved a puzzle was not providing a registrable service. This interpretation was followed and reaffirmed in In re Loew's Theatres, Inc., 179 USPQ 126, 127 (TTAB 1973), where the board stated:

The lottery type contest, as conducted by applicant, is incidental to the sale of goods, and it is not a service over and above that normally involved in the promotion and sale of its goods. It is directly related to and tied to applicant's "KENT" cigarettes, and it is nothing more and would not be recognized as anything more than a promotional gimmick or device used to advertise and foster the sale of these cigarettes. Benefits do accrue to winners of the contest, but this is true generally of all promotional devices, but this fact alone cannot serve to obfuscate the true nature and character of applicant's contest.

While the interpretations of the statute by the board are not binding on this court, under general principles of administrative law, deference should be given by a court to the interpretation by the agency charged with its administration. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 131, 106 S.Ct. 455, 461, 88 L.Ed.2d 419 (1985) ("An agency's construction of a statute it is charged with enforcing is entitled to deference if it is reasonable and not in conflict with the expressed intent of Congress."). We conclude that the board reasonably has treated promotional contests as "routine" sales activity for a producer's goods.

Acknowledging that "routine and ordinary" sales activities have not been registrable services in the past, appellant argues that the board adopted a more "modern" standard with respect to what constitutes a registrable service in In re Landmark Communications, Inc., 204 USPQ 692, 696 (TTAB 1979), and urges that we endorse that new standard. In Landmark, the board found that the publisher of a newspaper was not entitled to register the name of a section of its newspaper for "educational and entertainment services," stating that for a service to be registrable, an "activity must be qualitatively different from anything necessarily done in connection with the sale of goods." 204 USPQ at 695 (emphasis added).

Focusing on the word "necessarily," appellant asserts that because its contest is not necessary to the sale of its goods, the conduct of its contest must be held to constitute a registrable service under the Landmark test. A closer reading of Landmark in the light of prior case law, however, dispels this facial inconsistency. First, it must be noted that neither this panel nor the board can depart from the above precedent of this court which holds that ordinary or routine promotional activities of one's own goods do not constitute a registrable service. South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 1369, 215 USPQ 657, 657 (Fed.Cir.1982). Equally important, the board's decision in Landmark addresses a somewhat different facet of the problem.

Some purported services by a seller of goods simply are inherent in the goods. The service of "designing," "manufacturing," "packaging," or "distribution" of one's own goods or, as in Landmark, the collation of articles and features for a newspaper, are "necessarily done" to have goods to sell. Such activities are clearly performed for one's self, not offered to others. Advertising and other promotional activities are not "necessary" in the sense that the goods would not exist without them. Thus, the goods and associated promotional activities can more easily be seen as separable, and, depending on the nature of the activity, some degree of service may be rendered to the public, not merely to one's self. Thus, while "routine and ordinary" activities are not "necessary," activities which are "necessarily done" in connection with the sale of one's goods are the quintessential "routine or ordinary" activities associated with the...