Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Can a Difference in Punctuation between a Trademark in a Drawing and Specimen of Use be Allowed for Registration?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on August 27, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

By Dan H. Bliss

Suppose you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods/services for your business. What if the trademark on the specimen of use has punctuation that is different from the drawing of the trademark in the trademark application? Does the punctuation in the trademark specimen of use have to match the trademark drawing exactly? The answer is NO! if the trademark drawing is a “substantially exact representation” of the trademark specimen.

Section 1 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a)(1), (2), requires that every use-based trademark application must include a drawing of the applied-for mark and a specimen, showing actual use of the mark in commerce. see Trademark Rule 2.51, 37 C.F.R. § 2.51 (drawing requirement); Trademark Rule 2.56(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(a) (“An application under section 1(a) of the Act … must include one specimen per class showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified.”). “[T]he drawing of the mark must be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on or in connection with the goods and/or services.” Trademark Rule 2.51(a), 37 C.F.R. § 2.51(a). The “drawing depicts the mark sought to be registered.” Trademark Rule 2.52, 37 C.F.R. § 2.52. Failure to comply with these requirements warrants refusal of the application. See, e.g., In re Guitar Straps Online, LLC, Serial No. 85047191, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 287, at *21-22 (TTAB 2012) (affirming refusal where drawing was not a substantially exact representation of the mark as used in commerce); In re Thomas White Int’l, Ltd., Serial No. 77080379, 2013 TTAB LEXIS 8, at *17 (TTAB 2013) (affirming refusal where specimen was unacceptable to support registration of the mark for the identified goods).

Can a difference in the punctuation of your trademark use be different from the trademark drawing in the application to be refused registration? In the recent trademark application of In re C-Sharpe Co., LLC, Serial No. 98269432 (Decided: May 29, 2025, T.T.A.B), C-Sharpe Co., LLC (“C-Sharpe”) filed a use-based trademark application for registration of the mark C SHARPE, in standard characters. In the trademark application, the trademark drawing shows the mark as C SHARPE, in standard characters, with a space between the letter “C” and the word “SHARPE”. C-Sharpe submitted a specimen of use bearing the trademark with punctuation of a forward slash “/” such that the trademark was “C/SHARPE”. The Examining Attorney refused registration under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1127, finding the trademark on the specimen does not match the trademark shown in the drawing of the trademark application. After a final refusal, C-Sharpe appealed.

The Board found that the drawing must be a “substantially exact representation” of the mark in the specimen. “[M]inor alterations” that do not create a new and different mark with a different commercial impression are acceptable. In re MN Apparel LLC, Serial No. 87876633, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 162, at *10 (TTAB 2021) (quoting In re Schecter Bros. Modular Corp., 1974 TTAB LEXIS 84, at *2-3 (TTAB 1974)). The Board determined that the only difference between the marks in the trademark drawing and specimen was a forward slash “/” in place of a blank space “ “. The Board acknowledged that, in some situations, adding punctuation can alter the meaning of a mark. For example, the Board cited to in the above Guitar Straps Online case, in which adding a question mark changed the meaning of the words “Got Straps” from a positive statement to a question and therefore altered the meaning of the mark.

In the In re C-Sharpe Co., LLC appeal, the Board determined that the forward slash was punctuation that did not alter the meaning or commercial impression of the mark as a whole. The Board held that the trademark application drawing and the trademark in the specimen created substantially the same commercial impression. The Board determined that “‘Punctuation, such as quotation marks, hyphens, periods, commas, and exclamation marks, generally does not significantly alter the commercial impression of the mark.’ TRADEMARK MANUAL OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (T.M.E.P.) § 807.14(c) (Oct. 2018).” Peterson v. Awshucks SC, LLC, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 520, at *51 (T.T.A.B. 2020). The Board held that the addition of a forward slash in the trademark specimen does not add distinctive, source-identifying content to the mark and the mark creates substantially the same commercial impression with either a blank space or a forward slash between the two

literal elements of the mark. Thus, the Board reversed the refusal of the Examining Attorney to register the mark.

Trademark use-based trademark applications must include a drawing of the applied-for mark and a specimen, showing actual use of the mark in commerce. The trademark in the specimen and the application drawing should be a substantially exact match. If there is a difference in punctuation between the application drawing and specimen of use, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may accept your specimen of use if the punctuation does not alter the meaning of the trademark or materially alter the commercial impression created by the trademark. As a practice tip, you should avoid the use of punctuation in a trademark such that the application drawing and specimen of use will be an exact match and be accepted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo