## Facts

- Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. (EPE) filed a use-based application to register a trademark for use on cotton fabric.
- The application did not submit a specific portrait or graphic depiction on the drawing page.
- Instead, the drawing page used words stating the mark was “the likeness and image of Elvis Presley.”
- EPE’s description asserted the claimed mark covered the likeness in all possible presentations, without limitation as to age, dress, or pose.
- The examining attorney refused registration because (1) the drawing was not a substantially exact representation of the mark and (2) the application effectively sought registration of multiple marks in a single application.
- EPE appealed the final refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in an ex parte proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether an application claiming a personality’s likeness in all possible ages, attire, and poses satisfies the requirement that the drawing be a substantially exact representation of the mark as used on the goods.
2. Whether claiming all possible visual depictions of a likeness constitutes an impermissible attempt to register more than one mark in a single application.

## Decision

- The TTAB affirmed the examining attorney’s refusal to register.
- The Board held the application did not seek registration of a single, definite mark, but instead encompassed multiple legally distinct visual marks.
- The Board held the application failed the drawing requirement because a broad verbal claim to “the likeness and image” in unlimited presentations is not a substantially exact representation of any one mark as used.

## Legal Principles

- A trademark application must present only one mark; an attempt to cover multiple materially different depictions or executions of a design violates the one-mark-per-application rule.
- The drawing must be a substantially exact representation of the mark; a non-specific, open-ended description of a variable device does not satisfy this requirement.
- Device marks must be identifiable and fixed enough to permit examination for conflict, provide clear public notice of what is claimed, and support predictable enforcement boundaries.

## Conclusion

The TTAB upheld refusal because EPE’s application claimed an unlimited range of Elvis Presley depictions rather than a single, definite design, and the application’s verbal “drawing” could not serve as a substantially exact representation of the mark sought to be registered.


In re Elvis Presley Enters., Inc., 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1632 (T.T.A.B. 1999)