# In re Siny Corp.: When a Webpage Specimen Is Just Advertising

> The Federal Circuit held a webpage lacking price and ordering information is mere advertising, not a point-of-sale display showing use in commerce.

Topic: Trademarks  |  Author: Lidiia Levitska  |  Source: Intellectual Property Law (outsideipcounsel.com)
Canonical: https://outsideipcounsel.com/blog/in-re-siny-webpage-specimen-point-of-sale/


Every use-based trademark application for goods stands or falls on its specimen: real-world evidence that the mark is actually used in commerce on the goods or, under Lanham Act § 45, on "displays associated" with them. In the e-commerce era, applicants overwhelmingly submit webpage printouts, and the USPTO must sort pages that function as electronic points of sale from pages that merely advertise. *In re Siny Corp.*, 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), decided April 10, 2019, is the Federal Circuit's controlling word on where that line falls. Chief Judge Prost, writing for a panel that included Judges Lourie and Stoll, affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal to register CASALANA because the applicant's webpage, which invited customers to call "for sales information," lacked the information a consumer would need to actually make the purchase.

The decision is short, unanimous, and precedential, and it has become a fixture of office-action practice. Examining attorneys cite *Siny* whenever a specimen webpage shows a product without a price, an ordering mechanism, or the practical details of a transaction. For applicants, especially industrial and B2B sellers whose sales genuinely close over the phone, the case defines both the problem and the narrow evidentiary path around it.

## At a glance

- **Case:** *In re Siny Corp.*, 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (No. 2018-1077)
- **Decided:** April 10, 2019; panel of Chief Judge Prost and Judges Lourie and Stoll; opinion by Chief Judge Prost; precedential
- **Holding:** A webpage specimen that does not contain the information essential to a purchasing decision, or a means of ordering the goods, is mere advertising rather than a display associated with the goods, and fails to show use in commerce.
- **Status:** Final; TTAB affirmed. The rule governs specimen examination at the USPTO today.

## The statutory frame: displays associated with the goods

For goods, the Lanham Act does not accept advertising as proof of trademark use. Section 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127, deems a mark used in commerce when "it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto," with sales or transport in commerce. An applicant filing under § 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), must submit a specimen showing that use, and the USPTO's rules at 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(a) demand a specimen "showing the mark as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified," with § 2.56(b)(1) adding that a display associated with the goods must show use "of a point-of-sale nature."

The phrase doing the work in *Siny* is "displays associated therewith." Long before the internet, the doctrine grew up around catalogs and point-of-purchase materials: a display qualifies when it does more than promote, when it puts the mark before the customer at the moment and place of purchase. The catalog cases, most prominently *Lands' End, Inc. v. Manbeck*, 797 F. Supp. 511 (E.D. Va. 1992), established that a mail-order catalog page can be a display associated with the goods because the customer can see the mark, examine the product description, and order directly from the page. Webpages inherited that framework. A page that functions like an electronic catalog or online store can serve as a point-of-sale display; a page that functions like a magazine ad cannot. Board precedent such as *In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc.* had already applied that distinction to webpages that invited inquiries rather than orders. *Siny* is the Federal Circuit's ratification of the line.

## CASALANA and the "for sales information" webpage

Siny Corp. applied on September 11, 2015 (Serial No. 86/754,400) to register CASALANA in standard characters for "knit pile fabric made with wool for use as a textile in the manufacture of outerwear, gloves, apparel, and accessories," asserting use in commerce under § 1(a). Its specimen was a printout from its website showing the fabric and the mark.

The examining attorney refused the specimen as mere advertising material that did not show use in commerce for goods. Siny responded with a substitute specimen: the same webpage, now bearing the text "For sales information:" followed by a telephone number and an email address. That addition framed the legal question perfectly. The examining attorney maintained the refusal, the sole objection being that the page still provided no means of ordering the goods. A divided Board panel affirmed in a decision mailed August 18, 2017, with Judge Lykos dissenting. The majority faulted the page for the absence of information it considered essential to a purchasing decision: no price or even a range of prices, no minimum quantities one may order, no accepted methods of payment, no indication of how the goods would be shipped. Siny appealed to the Federal Circuit.

## The Federal Circuit's reasoning: information essential to the purchasing decision

Reviewing the Board's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence, the Federal Circuit affirmed. The court agreed that the webpage was not placed on the goods, their containers, tags, or labels, so everything turned on whether it crossed the line from advertising to a display associated with the goods. It did not.

The Board's touchstone, which the court found supported by substantial evidence, was that a webpage qualifies as a point of sale only if it contains the information essential to a purchasing decision. Siny's page described the fabric and gave a phone number, but as the Board put it, if virtually all important aspects of the transaction must be determined from information extraneous to the webpage, then the webpage is not a point of sale. The court likewise quoted the Board's earlier precedent in *In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc.*, 109 USPQ2d 2002 (TTAB 2014), for the proposition that "[a] simple invitation to call applicant to get information—even to get quotes for placing orders—does not provide a means of ordering the product." A customer looking at the CASALANA page could learn that the fabric existed and whom to call; the customer could not learn what it cost, how much had to be ordered, or how to pay. The purchase, in every meaningful sense, would happen somewhere else.

Two features of the opinion deserve emphasis. First, the court was careful about industry reality. Siny argued that in the technical fabric trade, sales are consummated through personal contact with sales personnel, so demanding on-page ordering machinery misunderstands the market. The Board did not dismiss that possibility; it noted that where sales are made through direct contact, documentary evidence and verified statements from personnel with actual knowledge of how sales occur might establish that the webpage functions as a display associated with the goods. Siny's problem was proof: it offered attorney argument rather than reliable documentation of how sales actually are made. Second, the court framed the inquiry as case-specific and fact-intensive, reviewed deferentially. That posture means the Board's specimen determinations are hard to dislodge on appeal, and the practical action is at the examination stage.

## Where the line sits after Siny

*Siny* did not invent the advertising/display distinction, but it hardened it into the governing appellate standard, and the USPTO's examination guidance now reflects it. A webpage specimen for goods should show the mark near a picture or description of the goods together with the practical apparatus of purchase: pricing or a price range, a shopping-cart button, ordering instructions, or comparable means of completing the transaction. "Call for a quote," "contact sales," and "request information" formulations are presumptively advertising. The decision also arrived just as the USPTO was tightening specimen scrutiny generally, in response to waves of dubious use claims, and *Siny* supplied the doctrinal spine for those refusals.

For B2B and industrial applicants the case has a second lesson about evidence. The door the Board left open, verified statements from knowledgeable personnel documenting that customers review the webpage and then place orders through it or because of it, is real but narrow. It requires declarations built on actual knowledge of the sales process, not lawyer characterization. Applicants who cannot make that showing have alternatives: specimens showing the mark on the goods themselves, on labels, tags, or packaging, or on order forms and invoices that accompany sales, and, where no acceptable specimen yet exists, converting to an intent-to-use basis rather than forcing a defective use claim.

## Open questions

- **How much ordering information is enough?** *Siny* holds that a bare phone number fails, and the classic online store plainly passes. The middle band, pages with prices but no cart, or carts but no shipping terms, remains a case-by-case judgment on which the Board has continued to elaborate.
- **What exactly satisfies the personal-contact path?** The Board sketched the kind of verified, knowledge-based documentation that might qualify a webpage in phone-sale industries, but no precedential appellate decision has yet found such a record sufficient, so the contours are still being drawn as of July 2026.
- **Does the standard fit services?** Service-mark specimens are judged more leniently, since advertising can show use for services under § 1127. *Siny* polices the goods side of the line, and disputes persist over hybrid offerings such as software delivered as a service.

## Implications for brands and businesses

- **Screenshot the money page, not the marketing page.** For a use-based goods application, capture the page where a customer can actually buy: mark, product, price, and an ordering mechanism visible together. A brochure page with a contact number invites a *Siny* refusal.
- **B2B sellers need a declaration strategy.** If sales genuinely close by phone or through sales reps, prepare verified statements from people who run the sales process, documenting how customers use the webpage in ordering. Attorney argument will not carry the point.
- **Audit specimens before filing, not after the office action.** A defective specimen can cost months and, for marks near the line, can force amendment to intent-to-use with a later constructive-use date. Checking the page against Siny's essential-information test is cheap insurance.
- **Remember the alternatives.** Labels, hang tags, packaging, and point-of-sale signage remain the cleanest goods specimens. When the website is the weakest link, do not use it.

## Frequently asked questions

**What makes a webpage an acceptable specimen for goods?** The page must function as a point-of-sale display: the mark appears in association with the goods, and the page gives consumers the information essential to a purchasing decision and a means of ordering, such as pricing, quantities, payment, and shipping options. A page that only promotes the product is mere advertising.

**Is a phone number or "contact us for sales" line enough?** No. Siny holds that an invitation to call for sales information does not provide a means of ordering the goods. If virtually all important aspects of the transaction must be worked out through channels outside the webpage, the page is not a point of sale.

**Can businesses that close sales by phone ever use webpage specimens?** Possibly, but they need proof. The Board acknowledged that some industries consummate sales through personal contact, yet it requires reliable documentation, such as verified statements from personnel with actual knowledge of how customers order, showing the webpage itself is where the purchasing decision is made.

## Authorities and sources

- [*In re Siny Corp.*, 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), opinion text (FindLaw)](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1991832.html)
- [Justia, opinion summary: In re Siny Corp. (Apr. 10, 2019)](https://usfederalcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2019/04/10/in-re-siny-corp/)
- [Lanham Act § 45, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (definition of "use in commerce") (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127)
- [Lanham Act § 1(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a) (use-based applications) (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1051)
- [37 C.F.R. § 2.56 (specimen requirements) (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/2.56)
- [New York Trademark Attorney Blog, "Advertising Is Not Enough to Qualify as a Display Associated with Goods" (Apr. 25, 2019)](https://www.newyorktrademarkattorneyblog.com/advertising-is-not-enough-to-qualify-as-a-display-associated-with-goods/)