## Facts

- A broadcaster operating a Boston radio station sought registration of a sound service mark for radio broadcasting services.
- The proposed mark was a time-signaling sequence of bell tones modeled on the traditional maritime “ship’s bell” watch sequence over four-hour cycles.
- The applicant submitted a recording and a written description of the bell pattern as used on-air to mark time.
- The examining attorney refused registration, concluding the bell sequence merely conveyed the time using a traditional signal and did not function to identify source.
- The applicant appealed the refusal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether a sound can qualify as a registrable service mark under the Lanham Act even though it is not visually or graphically depicted.
2. Whether a bell sequence based on a familiar, traditional time signal is inherently distinctive for broadcasting services or instead requires proof of acquired distinctiveness.
3. Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence that listeners associate the bell sequence with a single source.

## Decision

- The Board held that sound marks are, in principle, registrable if used to create an association in listeners’ minds between the sound and a single source.
- The Board distinguished “unique” or “distinctive” sounds from “commonplace” sounds familiar from other contexts.
- The Board classified the ship’s-bell time sequence as a familiar, traditional sound and therefore not inherently distinctive in this setting.
- Because the applicant did not submit evidence that listeners recognized the bell sequence as identifying the applicant’s services, the Board affirmed the refusal to register on the Principal Register.

## Legal Principles

- A mark is not limited to visual or graphic form; sound may serve as a trademark or service mark when it functions as a source identifier.
- Sound marks fall into two general evidentiary categories:
  - Unique or unusual sounds may be inherently distinctive and registrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness if they function as marks.
  - Familiar or “commonplace” sounds (including functional or informational signals) require evidence that relevant consumers associate the sound with a single source.
- For a familiar sound adapted to a new commercial context, registrability on the Principal Register depends on proof of acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning), such as marketplace recognition among listeners.

## Conclusion

The Board confirmed that sound can function as a registrable service mark, but it affirmed refusal where the claimed sound was a traditional time-signal bell sequence and the applicant failed to prove that listeners had come to associate the sound with the applicant as the source of broadcasting services.


In re Gen. Elec. Broad. Co., 199 U.S.P.Q. 560 (T.T.A.B. 1978)