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 | 08.21.26

FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement....