On My Mind Blog

Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed an application to register the stylized letter “V” with three small circles above it for pharmaceuticals and retail services.  The drawing of the mark did not claim color as a feature of the mark.

After the intent to use application was provisionally allowed, the Applicant submitted specimens showing the mark as used on packaging and a website as the first letter of its word mark VERRICA. 

The Trademark Rules of Practice provide that an application must include a drawing of the mark that is “a substantially exact representation” of the mark as intended to be used or as used on or in connection with the goods or services.  Trademark Rule 2.51(b), 37 C.F.R. § 2.51(b).

The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark in the specimens and the drawing did not match.  The Applicant appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

The Applicant argued that the stylized letter “V” clearly stood out from the remainder of the word mark because of the different fonts, colors, shading and the three circles.  The Examining Attorney countered that the stylized letter “V” was not separable from the remainder of the word mark.

The TTAB said that the issue “all boils down to a judgment.” Although the TTAB recited its usual mantra that it looks to the specific facts of the case, it was guided by two prior TTAB decisions involving what it termed similar scenarios.  These decisions were:

• In re Miller Sports Inc., Application No. 75143020 (T.T.A.B. 1999) affirming the refusal to register the letter “M” and skater design apart from the mark MILLE

• In re Yale Sportswear Corp., Application No. 78653373 (T.T.A.B. 2008) affirming the refusal to register the mark UPPER 90 apart from the degree symbol appearing in the proposed mark UPPER 90° indicating that the number meant ninety degrees.

The TTAB ruled that the circumstances in the present appeal were similar to the prior cases, saying that “there is not sufficient space between the letter “V” and the remaining lettering such that consumers would perceive the V and Design as a separate and distinct mark.”  It held that the Applicant’s mark was so intricately intertwined in the word VERRICA as to constitute a single composite mark.

The Applicant argued that elements of composite marks previously had been registered, citing four cases from 1962 and 1976.  The TTAB rejected these cases because they did not involve a letter in the word portion of a composite mark.  Instead, the TTAB said that the additional wording in the specimens in those cases was separable because that wording was descriptive of the goods or services, a house mark, a surname, a series of model numbers, or “appeared separate from the design element.”

Accordingly, the TTAB affirmed the refusal of registration.

In re Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., Application No. 90755123 (T.T.A.B. April 23, 2025).

Author’s Note:

If you want to register a mark consisting of a stylized letter that is incorporated into a word, you might consider submitting a survey demonstrating that consumers recognize the letter as a source identification regardless of the word incorporating it.

Of course, if available, you could submit a specimen showing the applied-for mark standing alone. Then, there would be no question that the mark makes a separate impression. 

In the alternative, cases suggest that the applied-for element may be considered to make a separate impression if the remainder of the word has its own significance because it is descriptive, a house mark, a surname, or a series of model numbers.

If the applied-for element appears in color, or is proposed to appear in color, but not the remaining portion of the word, it also might help if your application claims color as a feature of the mark.

For further information, please contact William M. Borchard or your CLL attorney.