A trademark is deemed in use in commerce for goods when, among other things, "it is placed on goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith ..." 15 U.S.C. § 1127; see also In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Use of a mark for services, on the other hand, abide by different less-restrictive rules which will not be addressed here. 

Whether a specimen serves the function of a display associated with the goods depends on "whether the purported point-of-sale display provides the potential purchaser with the information normally associated with ordering products of that kind." In re MN Apparel LLC, No. 87876633, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *14 (TTAB 2021) (quoting In re Anpath Grp., No. 77004809, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 130, at *10). 

“The test for an acceptable website-based specimen, just as any other specimen, is simply that it must in some way evince that the mark is ‘associated' with the goods and serves as an indicator of source.” In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To constitute a display associated with the goods, a specimen must show use of the mark directly associated with the goods and such use must be of a point-of-sale nature. Trademark Rule 2.56(b)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(b)(1); see also Siny Corp., 920 F.3d at 1336 (“In determining whether a specimen qualifies as a display associated with the goods, one important consideration is whether the display is at a point-ofsale location.”). To be “of a point-of-sale nature,” the use must be “calculated to consummate a sale.” In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, No. 86824279, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 208, at *50 (quoting In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., No. 85267349, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 88, at 21). That is, it “must contain sufficient practical information about the goods and a way to order the goods, so as to put the prospective customer at the point of purchase.” MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *15.

But “[m]ere advertising is not enough to qualify as such a display” because it does not put the prospective purchaser at the point of purchase. Siny Corp., 920 F.3d at 1336; see also Anpath Grp., 2010 TTAB LEXIS 130, at *5 (“[A] clear ‘line of demarcation' has been drawn between mere advertising materials, which have been found unacceptable as specimens showing use of a mark for goods, and point-of-purchase promotional materials which have been found acceptable as a display associated with the goods.”). See generally TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (TMEP) § 904.04(b) (May 2026) (“Advertising material is generally not acceptable as a specimen for goods.”). 

To establish that a webpage constitutes a “display associated with the goods,” the following criteria must be met:

1. the website contains a picture or textual description of the identified goods;
2. the website shows the mark in association with the goods; and
3. the website provides a means for ordering the identified goods.

MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *19 (citing TMEP § 904.03(i)).

For a webpage selling the goods, a specimen of use typically consists of a single webpage showing the goods for sale, the trademark on or in close proximity to the goods, the price, and a shopping-cart button. But interlinked webpages sometimes can be acceptable. 

In the recent non-precedential Board decision, In re Raised Right Pets, L.P., Ser. No. 98709772 (TTAB Aug. 3, 2026), the specimen was split across five different webpages, requiring multiple “clicks” to purchase the pet foods products; but only the first page displayed the applied-for RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT mark. 

The first webpage showed the mark RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT in a stylized format along with the menu for “buy a box” and a shopping cart symbol at the top of the webpage. Explanations of the goods (namely, pet food) were found "further down the webpage." 

In accordance with TMEP § 904, Applicant submitted a flowchart to explain the way goods are purchased on its website, that is, selecting “choose recipes” below the applied-for mark, which leads the consumer through a multistep process to purchase the goods. 

Viewed as a whole, the specimen demonstrates that the mark functions as a source identifier for the goods being offered for sale. See Sones, 590 F.3d at 1289 (“The PTO must consider the evidence as a whole to determine if Sones' specimen sufficiently associates his mark with his charity bracelets so as to ‘identify and distinguish the goods.'”) (quoting BellSouth Corp. v. DataNational Corp., 60 F.3d 1565, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). 

     We find that the three-part test for a display associated with the goods as set forth in MN Apparel, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *19, is satisfied because the [specimen] includes:

(1) A picture or textual description of identified goods (images of pet food and descriptions of human-grade pet food that is cooked, frozen, thawed, and served);

(2) The mark shown in association with the goods (mark in upper-center portion of webpage in close proximity to images of the goods); and

(3) A means for ordering the goods (collectively, the “buy a box” dropdown, shopping cart icon, and “choose recipes” button, leading to an ordering page).

     Based on the particular facts of this case, relevant purchasers would perceive that RAISED RIGHT RR VETERINARY SUPPORT as used in the specimen is a mark identifying and distinguishing Applicant's goods, and the use is calculated to consummate a sale of such goods.

Accordingly, the Board found that the specimen was adequate.