The best way to understand the importance of the website BLOCKCHAIN FOR LAWYERS™ is to recognize that when a concept system is applied for use in commerce, within a government, industry (commerce - finance), there is requirement to understand the distinction that distinguishes generic terms and terminology from non-generic terms and terminology, including proprietary source identifiers that represent certain concept systems on an exclusive basis, namely, trademarks.

For every proprietary source identifier trademark, there is an equivalent, underlying generic concept system.

Let us look at:

1. United States Patent and Trademark Office for Guidance (USPTO).

2. Supreme Court of the United States of America

3. Supreme Court of Canada

To help make sense of the distinction that distinguishes descriptive concepts (borne of natural phenomena or science) from distinctive concepts (applications of natural phenomena or science) in matters of:

• non-novel (exact) conformity science subordinate concept system: Bungay Unification of Quantum Processes Algorithm also represented as "BLOCKCHAIN" (generic applications and non-generic applications)

• "BITCOIN" (generic applications) and Authentic Originating BITCOIN™ (non-generic applications)

• "CRYPTO" (generic applications and non-generic applications)

• Peer-to-Peer Governance, Commerce (Industry and Finance) and Academia

• Non-Bank, Non-Institutional, Non-Syndicated, Non-Regulated or Regulatory Exempt, Free Trading Finance; also known as Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Private/Crypto/Secret/Shadow Governance - Commerce (Industry/Finance) and Academia

• This is not a complete list

1209.01(a) Fanciful, Arbitrary, and Suggestive Marks

Such marks are protected by intellectual property and you may see an incomplete list of MQCC™ Fanciful, Arbitrary, and Suggestive Marks at the following website:

• MQCC Source™ Identification Proof & Anti-Piracy, Anti-Counterfeit System of MQCC Domain Universe™ Use-in-Commerce Trademarks List & Intellectual Property - MQCC Bungay International LLC & Related (Non-Arm's Length) Entities or Persons: www.WIPOBlockChain.com

• Found at www.WIPOBlockChain.com

1209.01(b) Merely Descriptive Marks

A mark is considered merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of the specified goods or services.

1209.01(c) Generic Terms

Generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services.

• A generic term is “the ultimate in descriptiveness” and incapable of acquiring distinctiveness

• Generic terms, by definition incapable of indicating source, are the antithesis of trademarks, and can never attain trademark status.

1209.01(c)(i) Test

A two-part test is used to determine whether a designation is generic:

1. (1) What is the genus of goods or services at issue?

2. (2) Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?

H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int'l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990, 228 USPQ 528, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 1

The genus of the goods and/or services may be defined by an applicant’s identification of goods and/or services. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 602, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing as the “correct approach” the Board’s conclusion that the genus of the services at issue was adequately defined by the wording “restaurant services” in applicant’s identification of services). The relevant public for a genericness determination refers to the purchasing or consuming public for the identified goods and/or services. Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341, 1351 (TTAB 2013) (citing Magic Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 641, 19 USPQ2d 1551, 1553 Fed. Cir. 1991)).

The test for genericness turns upon the primary significance that the wording would have to the relevant public. It is not necessary to show that the relevant public uses the term to refer to the genus. The correct inquiry is whether the relevant public would understand the term to be generic.

The expression “generic name for the goods or services” is not limited to noun forms but also includes “generic adjectives,” that is, adjectives that refer to a:

• genus,

• species,

• category, or

• class

of

• goods or

• services.

See Sheetz of Del., Inc. v. Doctor’s Assocs. Inc., 108 USPQ2d 1341 (TTAB 2013) (holding FOOTLONG generic for sandwiches, excluding hot dogs); In re Reckitt & Colman, N. Am. Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1389 (TTAB 1991) (holding PERMA PRESS generic for soil and stain removers for use on permanent press products). Similarly, evidence showing that a term in singular form is generic typically will suffice to show that the plural also is generic. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 603, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1637 (Fed. Cir 2016) (“While each trademark must always be evaluated individually, pluralization commonly does not alter the meaning of a mark.”); In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (dictionary and other evidence of meaning of “hotel” sufficed to show that the plural form in HOTELS.COM was generic for the information and reservation services at issue).

1209.01(c)(ii) Terminology

As specifically amended by the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, §14 of the Trademark Act provides for the cancellation of a registration of a mark at any time if the mark “becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered . . . .” 15 U.S.C. §1064(3). Previously, that provision had pertained to a mark that “becomes the common descriptive name of an article or substance....” Cases previously distinguished between generic names and “apt or common descriptive names,” which referred to matter that, while not characterized as “generic,” had become so associated with the product that it was recognized in the applicable trade as another name for the product, serving as a term of art for all goods of that description offered by different manufacturers rather than identifying the goods of any one producer. See Questor Corp. v. Dan Robbins & Assocs., Inc., 199 USPQ 358, 364 (TTAB 1978) , aff’d, 599 F.2d 1009, 202 USPQ 100 (C.C.P.A. 1979). In addition, the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 amended §15 of the Trademark Act to adopt the term “generic name” to refer to generic designations.15 U.S.C. §1065(4). In view of the amendment of §§14 and 15, a distinction between “generic” names and “apt or common descriptive” names is inappropriate. Rather, the terminology of the Act must be consistently used, e.g., in refusals to register matter that is a generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof. See In re K-T Zoe Furniture Inc., 16 F.3d 390, 29 USPQ2d 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

1209.03(v) Key Aspect of Goods or Services

A term may be generic for a genus of goods or services if the relevant public understands the term to refer to a key aspect of that genus, such as a key product that characterizes a particular genus of retail services or identifies a category of goods or services within the genus. SeeIn re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 603-04, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1637-38 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that CHURRASCOS is generic because it refers to a key aspect of restaurant services featuring grilled meat); In re 1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 1361, 1363, 92 USPQ2d 1682, 1683-84 (Fed. Cir. 2009_(agreeing with the Board’s determination that “mattress” is generic as applied to online retail mattress store services because the term identifies a key aspect of the services); In re Hotels.com, 573 F.3d 1300, 1304, 91 USPQ2d 1532, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agreeing with the Board’s determination that, when applied to information services and reservation services dealing with hotels, the term “hotels” is generic because it names a key aspect of the services)[see the new 2020 case re: BOOKING.com]; In re Cent. Sprinkler Co., 49 USPQ2d 1194, 1199 (TTAB 1998) (finding ATTIC generic for automatic sprinklers for fire protection because the term “directly names the most important or central aspect or purpose of applicant's goods” and would be understood by the relevant public as referring to a category of sprinklers); see alsoIn re Northland Aluminum Prods., Inc., 777 F.2d 1556, 1559-60, 227 USPQ 961, 963-64 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (affirming the Board’s holding that BUNDT is generic for ring cake mix).

"...trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation."

-- Opinion of the Court

• Serve as a "indicative standard of quality";

• Serve as an "indicator of origin"

"The central purpose of trademark registration is to facilitate source identification."

-- Opinion of KENNEDY, J.

• Serve as a "source identifier";

• Serve as an "indicator of origin"

• “The principle underlying trademark protection is that distinctive marks—words, names, symbols, and the like— can help distinguish a particular artisan’s goods from those of others.” B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 3); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U. S. 205, 212 (2000).

• A trademark “designate[s] the goods as the product of a particular trader” and “protect[s] his good will against the sale of another’s product as his.” United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U. S. 90, 97 (1918); see also Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 240 U. S. 403, 412–413 (1916).

• It helps consumers identify goods and services that they wish to purchase, as well as those they want to avoid. See Wal-Mart Stores, supra, at 212–213; Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985).

• “[F]ederal law does not create trademarks.” B&B Hardware, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 3).

• Trademarks and their precursors have ancient origins, and trademarks were protected at common law and in equity at the time of the founding of our country. 3 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition §19:8 (4th ed. 2017) (hereinafter McCarthy); 1 id., §§5:1, 5:2, 5:3; Pattishal, The Constitutional Foundations of American Trademark Law, 78 Trademark Rep. 456, 457–458 (1988); Pattishall, Two Hundred Years of American Trademark Law, 68 Trademark Rep. 121, 121–123 (1978); see Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 92 (1879).

• For most of the 19th century, trademark protection was the province of the States. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U. S. 763, 780– 782 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 785 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment).

• Eventually, Congress stepped in to provide a degree of national uniformity, passing the first federal legislation protecting trademarks in 1870. See Act of July 8, 1870, §§77–84, 16 Stat. 210–212.

• The foundation of current federal trademark law is the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946. See Act of July 5, 1946, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427.

• By that time, trademark had expanded far beyond phrases that do no more than identify a good or service. Then, as now, trademarks often consisted of catchy phrases that convey a message.

• Under the Lanham Act, trademarks that are “used in commerce” may be placed on the “principal register,” that is, they may be federally registered. 15 U. S. C. §1051(a)(1).

• And some marks “capable of distinguishing [an] applicant’s goods or services and not registrable on the principal register . . . which are in lawful use in commerce by the owner thereof ” may instead be placed on a different federal register: the supplemental register. §1091(a). There are now more than two million marks that have active federal certificates of registration. PTO Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2016, p. 192 (Table 15), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/USPTOFY16PAR.pdf (all Internet materials as last visited June 16, 2017).

• This system of federal registration helps to ensure that trademarks are fully protected and supports the free flow of commerce. “[N]ational protection of trademarks is desirable,” we have explained, “because trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation.” San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U. S. 522, 531 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Park ’N Fly, Inc., supra, at 198 (“The Lanham Act provides national protection of trademarks in order to secure to the owner of the mark the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers”).

• Without federal registration, a valid trademark may still be used in commerce. See 3 McCarthy §19:8.

• And an unregistered trademark can be enforced against would-be infringers in several ways. Most important, even if a trademark is not federally registered, it may still be enforceable under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, which creates a federal cause of action for trademark infringement. See Two Pesos, supra, at 768 (“Section 43(a) prohibits a broader range of practices than does §32, which applies to registered marks, but it is common ground that §43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).1 {1 In the opinion below, the Federal Circuit opined that although “Section 43(a) allows for a federal suit to protect an unregistered trademark,” “it is not at all clear” that respondent could bring suit under §43(a) because “there is no authority extending §43(a) to marks denied under §2(a)’s disparagement provision.” In re Tam, 808 F. 3d 1321, 1344–1345, n.11 (en banc), as corrected (Feb. 11, 2016). When drawing this conclusion, the Federal Circuit relied in part on our statement in Two Pesos that “the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under §2 of the Lanham Act are for the most part applicable in determining whether an unregistered mark is entitled to protection under §43(a).” 505 U. S., at 768. We need not decide today whether respondent could bring suit under §43(a) if his application for federal registration had been lawfully denied under the disparagement clause. } Unregistered trademarks may also be entitled to protection under other federal statutes, such as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U. S. C. §1125(d). See 5 McCarthy §25A:49, at 25A–198 (“[T]here is no requirement [in the Anticybersquatting Act] that the protected ‘mark’ be registered: unregistered common law marks are protected by the Act”).

• And an unregistered trademark can be enforced under state common law, or if it has been registered in a State, under that State’s registration system. See 3 id., §19:3, at 19–23 (explaining that “[t]he federal system of registration and protection does not preempt parallel state law protection, either by state common law or state registration” and “[i]n the vast majority of situations, federal and state trademark law peacefully coexist”); id., §22:1 discussing state trademark registration systems).

• Federal registration, however, “confers important legal rights and benefits on trademark owners who register their marks.” B&B Hardware, 575 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). Registration on the principal register (1) “serves as ‘constructive notice of the registrant’s claim of ownership’ of the mark,” ibid. (quoting 15 U. S. C. §1072); (2) “is ‘prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the owner’s ownership of the mark, and of the owner’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate,’” B & B Hardware, 575 U. S. ___ (slip op., at 3) (quoting §1057(b)); and (3) can make a mark “‘incontestable’” once a mark has been registered for five years,” ibid. (quoting §§1065, 1115(b)); see Park ’N Fly, 469 U. S., at 193.

• Registration also enables the trademark holder “to stop the importation into the United States of articles bearing an infringing mark.” 3 McCarthy §19:9, at 19–38; see 15 U. S. C. §1124.

Syllabus

Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598. Goodyear, the PTO maintains, established that adding a generic corporate

designation like “Company” to a generic term does not confer trademark eligibility. According to the PTO, adding “.com” to a generic

term—like adding “Company”—can convey no source-identifying meaning. That premise is faulty, for only one entity can occupy a particular Internet domain name at a time, so a “generic.com” term could convey to consumers an association with a particular website. Moreover, an unyielding legal rule that entirely disregards consumer perception is incompatible with a bedrock principle of the Lanham Act: The generic (or nongeneric) character of a particular term depends on its meaning to consumers, i.e., do consumers in fact perceive the term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class. Pp. 8–11.

(2) The PTO’s policy concerns do not support a categorical rule against registration of “generic.com” terms. The PTO asserts that trademark protection for “Booking.com” would give the mark owner undue control over similar language that others should remain free to use. That concern attends any descriptive mark. Guarding against the anticompetitive effects the PTO identifies, several doctrines ensure that registration of “Booking.com” would not yield its holder a monopoly on the term “booking.” The PTO also doubts that owners of “generic.com” brands need trademark protection in addition to existing competitive advantages. Such advantages, however, do not inevitably disqualify a mark from federal registration. Finally, the PTO urges that Booking.com could seek remedies outside trademark law, but there is no basis to deny Booking.com the same benefits Congress accorded other marks qualifying as nongeneric. Pp. 11–14.

915 F. 3d 171, affirmed.

Opinion of the Court

“Booking.com” to signify online hotel-reservation services as a class. In circumstances like those this case presents, a “generic.com” term is not generic and can be eligible for federal trademark registration.

Selected Extracts

• I / A

A trademark distinguishes one producer’s goods or services from another’s. Guarding a trademark against use by others, this Court has explained, “secure[s] to the owner of the mark the goodwill” of her business and “protect[s] the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers.” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985); see S. Rep. No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1946) (trademark statutes aim to “protect the public so it may be confident that, in purchasing a product bearing a particular trade-mark which it favorably knows, it will get the product which it asks for and wants to get”). Trademark protection has roots in common law and equity. Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 2). Today, the Lanham Act, enacted in 1946, provides federal statutory protection for trademarks. 60 Stat. 427, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1051 et seq. We have recognized that federal trademark protection, supplementing state law, “supports the free flow of commerce” and “foster[s] competition.” Matal, 582 U. S., at ___, ___–___ (slip op., at 3, 4–5) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Lanham Act not only arms trademark owners with federal claims for relief; importantly, it establishes a system of federal trademark registration. The owner of a mark on the principal register enjoys “valuable benefits,” including a presumption that the mark is valid. Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 2); see §§1051, 1052. The supplemental register contains other product and service designations, some of which could one day gain eligibility for the principal register. See §1091.

• Booking.com sought review in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, invoking a mode of review that allows Booking.com to introduce evidence not presented to the agency. See §1071(b). Relying in significant part on Booking.com’s new evidence of consumer perception, the District Court concluded that “Booking.com”—unlike “booking”—is not generic. The “consuming public,” the court found, “primarily understands that BOOKING.COM does not refer to a genus, rather it is descriptive of services involving ‘booking’ available at that domain name.” Booking.com B.V. v. Matal, 278 F. Supp. 3d 891, 918 (2017). Having determined that “Booking.com” is descriptive, the District Court additionally found that the term has acquired secondary meaning as to hotel-reservation services. For those services, the District Court therefore concluded, Booking.com’s marks meet the distinctiveness requirement for registration.