TTAB Reverses Specimen Refusal: User Manual and Calibration Kit Suffice for Agricultural Machinery

The Board overturned a refusal to register the mark ONETOUCH for "Agricultural machines, namely, aerators, seeders, spreaders," finding that Applicant Stinger's specimens of use were acceptable. The examining attorney maintained that the specimens did not show use of the mark in connection with the identified agricultural equipment, but rather with a separately “downloadable software application." Stinger pointed to the user manual and calibration kit that accompanied each machine. In re Stinger Equipment, Inc., Serial No. 97662066 (June 24, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas L. Casagrande).

Rule 2.56(b)(1), requires that the specimen “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 Stinger did not disagree that ONETOUCH is used in connection with the app, downloadable from an “app store” on Stinger’s website, which enables users to remotely operate and/or control aspects of the agricultural machines. In other words, the app is needed to operate the machine.

In assessing specimens, the Board considers 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.”

The specimens, which bear the ONETOUCH mark and comprise a user manual for the machine’s calibration system 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 being used as a mark for an operating system integral to Applicant’s agricultural machines.

The Board was satisfied that "the asserted mark has been used as a trademark with respect to the goods named in the application." and so it reversed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: So are these two items "display[s] associated with the goods?"

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.