“The Trademark Act is not an act to register mere words, but rather to register trademarks. Before there can be registration, there must be a trademark, and unless words have been so used they cannot qualify.” In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd., Ser. No. 86700941, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 465, at *12 (TTAB 2020) (quoting In re Bose Corp., 546 F.2d 893, 896 (CCPA 1976)).  

It is well settled that common laudatory phrases or statements that would ordinarily be used in business or in the particular trade or industry, are not registrable. See e.g., In re Boston Beer Co. L.P., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Neither are slogans and other terms that are considered to be merely informational in nature. See, e.g., Univ. of Kentucky v. 40-0, LLC, Opp. No. 91224310, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *39-40 (TTAB 2021) (“We agree with Opposer that Applicant's proposed mark “40-0” is merely informational in nature, expressing support, admiration or affiliation with college basketball teams that either have achieved perfect records in a single season or aspire to do so.”). The more commonly a phrase is used, the less likely that the public will use it to identify only one source and the less likely that it will be recognized by purchasers as a trademark. Univ. of Kentucky, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *40. 

The critical inquiry in determining whether a proposed mark functions as a trademark is how the relevant public perceives the proposed mark. Univ. of Kentucky, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *32; In re Greenwood, Ser. No. 87168719, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 499, at *5-6 (TTAB 2020). Consumers understand that a widely used, commonplace phrase as conveying the ordinary concept or sentiment normally associated with it, rather than serving any source-indicating function. See, e.g., Univ. of Kentucky, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *39-40 (“40-0”); In re Mayweather Promotions, LLC, Ser. No. 86753084, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 467, at *3-4 (TTAB 2020) (PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE); In re Greenwood, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 499, at *7-10 (GOD BLESS THE USA). Evidence concerning the use of the phrase to determine how consumers are likely to perceive it as used, both in general parlance and on the goods at issue, is considered. See Univ. of Kentucky, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *33.

In Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority v. Stroll to the Polls, Inc., Opposition No. 91267937 (TTAB July 17, 2025), the TTAB found that "stroll to the polls" was "a widely-used phrase that merely conveys a well-recognized and commonly expressed sentiment, i.e., walking or strolling to the voting location together to encourage voter turnout."  

When purchasers buy goods based on the common message they display, that message fails to function as a trademark, even if it is displayed in a conventional trademark manner. See e.g., In re Team Jesus LLC, Ser. No. 88105154, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 503, at *14 (TTAB 2020) (“Thus, even though Applicant's Class 25 specimen shows its proposed mark on the shirt's outer-neck, this potentially ‘non-ornamental manner [of use] that is conventional for the display of trademarks ... does not require a different result [than the failure to function refusal].'”) (quoting D.C. One Wholesaler, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 536, at *22). Moreover, nothing prevents Applicant from using the term in a location other than the back of a t-shirt, including after registration, if it were successful.

The TTAB sustained the opposition on the ground that the proposed STROLL TO THE POLLS mark for “Aprons; Bibs, not of paper; Bodysuits; Dresses; Footwear; Hats; Jackets and socks; Pants; Shirts; Skirts; Swimwear,” is merely an informational message and fails to function as a mark. 

Notably, the opposer, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, was entitled to a statutory cause of action for the opposition because of its belief that it would be damaged by registration of the proposed STROLL TO THE POLLS mark for t-shirts that would impair its right to use the term on t-shirts and to promote its voter-turnout events. To establish entitlement to bring a statutory cause of action, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the statute, and (ii) a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by registration of the mark. See Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 129-33, 134 S. Ct. 1377, 188 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2014)).

Here, Dr. Nicole Barrett, the sorority's Deputy Director, testified that “[Opposer's] authorized distributors began selling apparel bearing the phrase ‘Stroll to the Polls. It's a Serious Matter.' … at least as early as March 1, 2020.”

The TTAB found that her testimony about the sorority's past and prospective display of the proposed mark on t-shirts and in connection with its voter-turnout events established that the sorority has an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the statute (i.e., an interest in using the phrase “Stroll to the Polls” on t-shirts at a minimum), and had a reasonable belief that it would suffer harm proximately caused by registration of the proposed mark. See Univ. of Kentucky, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 68, at *11-21 (“Opposer may prove its entitlement by establishing that it has a present or prospective interest in using the term in its business.”).