1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Circuit Finds Varietal Names Generic

Federal Circuit Finds Varietal Names Generic

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.24.06

In In re Pennington Seed Inc. (No. 06-1133; October 19, 2006), the Federal Circuit affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's refusal of registration of the mark REBEL as generic for a variety of grass seed.

Pennington Seed Inc. (“Pennington”) had previously designated the term “Rebel” as the varietal name for a grass seed that was the subject of a plant variety protection (“PVP”) certificate. The TTAB refused registration pursuant to long-standing precedent and policy of treating varietal names as generic, holding that an applicant must provide a name for a variety of plant when applying for a PVP certificate, and that requirement is a clear indication “that the name of the varietal is in the nature of a generic term.” Pennington appealed, arguing that a blanket refusal to register varietal names is improper because it does not take into consideration the test for genericness, the Supreme Court's holding in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. , 532 U.S. 23 (2001), and is against public policy.

The Court affirms the TTAB's holding, stating “[H]aving designated the term “Rebel” as the varietal name for grass seed and having failed to associate any additional word with the Rebel grass seed that would indicate the seed's source, Applicant here is prohibited from acquiring trademark protection for the generic and only name of that variety of grass seed.”

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights