The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has gone to court over its refusal to register Snap Inc.’s trademark
Snap Inc. has filed a lawsuit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for denying federal trademark rights to its ‘Spectacles’ trademark for it’s own popular Eyewear Smart Glasses. Snapchat is most recognised among today’s youth as the creator of the popular Snapchat video app. However, a case was filed in federal court in Los Angeles. Before the court, Snap was represented by David Bernstein of Debevoise & Plimpton. Snap Inc. claims that the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) erred in concluding that its trademark ‘Spectacles’ is a generic name for the category of smart glasses in its case.
Snap, situated in the Californian city of Santa Monica, first released its Spectacles in 2016. It was, however, offered as yet another unique tool for users to capture photographs and videos, which are then immediately published to Snapchat. Snap’s federal trademark application was formally denied by the PTO in 2020, after the PTO determined that Snap’s mark was ineligible for trademark protection since it was either generic or descriptive in character. TTAB, on the other hand, confirmed the same in November.
“The name evokes an incongruity with an 18th-century phrase for corrective eyewear and Snap’s high-tech 21st-century smart glasses,” according to Snap’s lawsuit, and suggests a double meaning by urging users to create “spectacles” of themselves. “Products like Spectacles are often referred to as smart glasses or camera glasses, not spectacles,” according to Snap, adding that “possible purchasers think of a word as just a Snap brand rather than a category of goods.”
In its complaint, it asks the court for the following:
To get the TTAB’s ruling overturned and the PTO accept the company’s trademark application.
Snap’s PTO and attorney both declined to comment on the pending situation. Snap Inc v. Hirshfeld, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case no. 2:22-cv-00085, is the name of the case.