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 | 03.24.26
California Considering A Massive Expansion of Its Antitrust Laws
Legislative efforts to significantly expand California’s antitrust laws are working their way through the state legislature. The most comprehensive overhaul is Assembly Bill 1776 — the Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, on March 23, 2026. AB 1776 is modeled closely after draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) in December. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to AB 1776 because of its potentially dramatic impact, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation and increased compliance costs.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.23.26
