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 | 3 min read | 01.13.26

Colorado Judge Quashes DOJ Gender-Related Care Subpoena

On January 5, 2026, District of Colorado Magistrate Judge Cyrus Chung issued a recommendation that the district court grant a motion to quash a Department of Justice (DOJ) administrative subpoena that sought records about the provision of gender-related care by Children’s Hospital Colorado (Children’s) in In re: Department of Justice Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-030, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 1:25-mc-00063. The court concluded that the DOJ had failed to carry its “light” burden, noting that no other courts that had considered the more than 20 similar subpoenas issued by DOJ had ruled in the DOJ’s favor.  ...